NationStates Jolt Archive

Any Europeans like Bush :confused:

Lol, this should be interesting...

I sure there must be some... but I think he's universally loathed by everyone I know.

Your asking for it now
>.>
<.<

We don't care if you like Bush. You're all a bunch of heathens. Or so I'm told....

Tony Blair.

Um...

That's about it.

Tony Blair.

Um...

That's about it.
How true :D

Yes there are Europeans who like Bush. Last time I checked, 13% of France supported Bush, 17% of Germany, 11% of Ireland. That is all I know. I dont know about the other countries.

Im sure England must be pretty favorable of Bush, seeing as they have Tony Blair in office.

My cousin lives in Amsterdam.......and she thinks 'Dubya' is funny.
Is that close enough?
Does funny mean like?

No.....I don't think so either.

Yes there are Europeans who like Bush. Last time I checked, 13% of France supported Bush, 17% of Germany, 11% of Ireland. That is all I know. I dont know about the other countries.

Im sure England must be pretty favorable of Bush, seeing as they have Tony Blair in office.
Except Blair is increasingly unpopular. No, the Brits most definitely do not like Bush, especially the ones here.

Tony Blair.

Um...

That's about it.

Ba-Zing!

I know only a few Europeans, but all of them dislike Bush.

Yes there are Europeans who like Bush. Last time I checked, 13% of France supported Bush, 17% of Germany, 11% of Ireland. That is all I know. I dont know about the other countries.

Im sure England must be pretty favorable of Bush, seeing as they have Tony Blair in office.

*tuts* I think not. Tony Blair has gone out on a wing supporting Bush, he wont be in office again because of it amoungst other things.

Yes there are Europeans who like Bush. Last time I checked, 13% of France supported Bush, 17% of Germany, 11% of Ireland. That is all I know. I dont know about the other countries.

Im sure England must be pretty favorable of Bush, seeing as they have Tony Blair in office.
England isn't very favorable of Tony Blair anymore. When I was in London two years ago, the British approval of the war was around 20%. I don't think it's gotten better, and I doubt their approval of Bush is noticeably higher.

*tuts* I think not. Tony Blair has gone out on a wing supporting Bush, he wont be in office again because of it amoungst other things.
Lib Dems! Go Charles Kennedy! Sorry, I know next to nothing about British politcs.

Im sure England must be pretty favorable of Bush, seeing as they have Tony Blair in office.

Never - the vast, vast majority either hate Bush or think of him as little more than a source for amusement. Even right wingers take the piss out of him. My Philosophy teacher, who is a staunch conservative, said he would vote for Bush if he lived in America but only because he said that Kerry was an even worse option. He said something along the lines of 'Oh, yes, there is no doubt that Bush is a complete cretin, but Kerry's policies about not letting jobs leave America scare me.'

Lib Dems! Go Charles Kennedy! Sorry, I know next to nothing about British politcs.

Lol! I'm actually very tempted to go along with the Lib Dems actually....shame I'm not of voting age yet >.<

I'm slightly tempted by Lib Dems, but although the Tories are in the pits right now, by voting Lib Dem you are still helping the Tories. What you have to keep telling yourself is that Tony Blair won't be the leader of Labour forever, thank god, and it may go back to it's more socialist roots.

bush is the new Hitler....is that enough?

The only Europeans who support Bush are snooty conservative journalists and greedy, corrupt politicians.

The only Europeans who support Bush are snooty conservative journalists and greedy, corrupt politicians.

*puppy dog eyes* You mean to tell me, my darling Tony Blair is...*gulp* corrupt?!?
Never! I refuse to belive, my faith in the man has never waverd before now and never will!


(sarcasm for our less educated readers)

The only Europeans who support Bush are snooty conservative journalists and greedy, corrupt politicians.

Oh yeah, I was in the pub the other day and for lack of anything else to read picked up The Sun. In 'Little John's' page, he was defending Bush and couldn't seem to see the difference between accusing Bush of being a crazy fundamentalist christian and saying that ALL muslims were crazy and fundamentalist. Made me laugh :)

Never - the vast, vast majority either hate Bush or think of him as little more than a source for amusement. Even right wingers take the piss out of him. My Philosophy teacher, who is a staunch conservative, said he would vote for Bush if he lived in America but only because he said that Kerry was an even worse option. He said something along the lines of 'Oh, yes, there is no doubt that Bush is a complete cretin, but Kerry's policies about not letting jobs leave America scare me.'
Because (the teacher) she wants jobs in America overseas?

Because (the teacher) she wants jobs in America overseas?
Kerry never even SAID he would ban outsourcing!

Yes there are Europeans who like Bush. Last time I checked, 13% of France supported Bush, 17% of Germany, 11% of Ireland. That is all I know. I dont know about the other countries.

Im sure England must be pretty favorable of Bush, seeing as they have Tony Blair in office.

In Dubya' words, "You forgot Poland!" I once saw a poll of European nations that had Bush as more favorable than John Kerry, with something like 31% of Poles supporting Bush. I am too pressed for time to find the source, as I am at work right now.

Europeans? I would think they would prefer clean-shaven.

Because (the teacher) she wants jobs in America overseas?

I think he just is against any country protecting it's jobs, like I say he's a conservative and probably very pro capitalist. Though he is a compassionate conservative and always stressed the Conservative idea of 'nobless oblige' - that the 'nobility' have an obligation to help the poor, which seems to have disappeared from modern conservatism.

Kerry never even SAID he would ban outsourcing!
Exactly but Kerry did want to reward companies that chose to build in America and not overseas. Or was it tax more companies that have links to overseas.
Either way he didn't like us losing jobs. But he was not going to ban it.

Exactly but Kerry did want to reward companies that chose to build in America and not overseas. Or was it tax more companies that have links to overseas.
Either way he didn't like us losing jobs. But he was not going to ban it.
Why did the teacher WANT outsourcing of jobs? Does she just hate America?

Never - the vast, vast majority either hate Bush or think of him as little more than a source for amusement. Even right wingers take the piss out of him. My Philosophy teacher, who is a staunch conservative, said he would vote for Bush if he lived in America but only because he said that Kerry was an even worse option. He said something along the lines of 'Oh, yes, there is no doubt that Bush is a complete cretin, but Kerry's policies about not letting jobs leave America scare me.'
You have a wise philosophy prof.

I think he just is against any country protecting it's jobs, like I say he's a conservative and probably very pro capitalist. Though he is a compassionate conservative and always stressed the Conservative idea of 'nobless oblige' - that the 'nobility' have an obligation to help the poor, which seems to have disappeared from modern conservatism.
The point is that it's a MORAL obligation, not a LEGAL one.

Hey, any brits out there. I heard that a nazi-ish linked political party is gaining in parliment because the labor party is falling out of favor is this true?
also secondly when're you guys gonna give up ireland ( Humor )

The point is that it's a MORAL obligation, not a LEGAL one.

Of course, but the majority of conservatives I have heard seem to suggest that the poor deserve what they get and that any help for them is just 'subsidising their laziness!'

The BNP (British National Party) and UKIP (UK Independence Party) have gained popularity, but only because Tories are such an unattractive voting option now. BNP want to 'send back' any immigrants to their country of origin (Which is stupid, because Britain is what it is because of immigration), and disassociate themselves from both Europe and the US. UKIP basically are a one policy party - they don't want to be involved with Europe but I believe they wouldn't mind Britain being subserviant to America.

Bush is an American and Kerry is an American so I really can't be bother to distinguish between the two. From what I saw, there wasn't much difference in their policies anyway.

HOWEVER
I think Bush is good for world morality.

Heres my reasoning:

1) America leads the world culturally - I might hate it but alas it is a fact.

2) Therefore if American culture is decadent and immoral other cultures tend to try and emulate that. I'm British and over the last 30 years society has decayed because of American cultural influences.

3) Bush won because fact many religious people voted for him - they liked his stance on moral issues (homosexuality etc)

4) Bush will now have to pander to this key religious group in order to ensure their future votes for the Republicans. This means he will be introducing some moral legislation to keep them happy.

5) Now if America becomes a more moral and religious society then many other cultures may follow suit for the reasons stated in points 1/2.

6) Therefore morality will be restored as a main stay of culture. With morality comes more patriotism.

Of course, but the majority of conservatives I have heard seem to suggest that the poor deserve what they get and that any help for them is just 'subsidising their laziness!'
If you look at most right wing/conservative blogs they almost all have multiple posts on the tsunami and quite a few links to various charities that you can give donations too. The reverse is true of most lefty blogs.

Hey, any brits out there. I heard that a nazi-ish linked political party is gaining in parliment because the labor party is falling out of favor is this true?
also secondly when're you guys gonna give up ireland ( Humor )
Uh, you mean the British National Party? They only have one seat, I think. Help me out, Brits! Ignorant American here!

From what I saw, there wasn't much difference in their policies anyway.

Did you bother to really do any research? They agreed on practically none of the major issues!

Uh, you mean the British National Party? They only have one seat, I think. Help me out, Brits! Ignorant American here!

Ignorant of British Politics indeed guidance from any british here would be helpful, especially since i'm completely lacking on the whole parliment thing. So seriously, enlighten me please? because i do wish to know.

If you look at most right wing/conservative blogs they almost all have multiple posts on the tsunami and quite a few links to various charities that you can give donations too. The reverse is true of most lefty blogs.

I hardly believe that left wing people are less charitable than right wing people. I've often seen quotes from right wing newspapers such as The Telegraph going on about how all homeless are scum who you shouldn't help, which you don't get in The Guardian.

Hey, any brits out there. I heard that a nazi-ish linked political party is gaining in parliment because the labor party is falling out of favor is this true?
also secondly when're you guys gonna give up ireland ( Humor )

1) The British Nationalist Party (BNP) and the National Front (NF) are our two extreme right wing parties. The BNP is the political one that works the strings behind the scene and tend to urge some degree of moderation (at least publicly). The NF are the ones who are highly racist and arent ashamed to be so. They have come up with charming ditties such as "there ain't no black in the Union Jack" and responsible for most race riots.
The rumours are absurd. The BNP have no MPs (and the NF certainly dont) - the BNP has only made advances in two Northern cities where a small minority of their councillors got elected. These cities by chance were where the worst race riots of the new millenium occured.
What you are referring to is a current revolution in British politics. Many voters are now put off by the main parties and are increasingly voting for parties such as the UK Independece Party (anti Europe), the Greens (environmentalists) and others. The BNP have profited slightly from this but it is UKIP who has got the most, recently coming 3rd (beating the Official Opposition, the Conservatives) in a by-election.

2) We'll leave Northern Ireland when the people there want us to leave. However a large majority have voted in free, open democratic elections to remain British. Thats why Ian Paisley's extreme Unionist party won the last election.

Well that does explain alot, i was reading somewhere but i forgot where about british Political parties. I oddly saw Sinn Fein on one of the lists, is this just mis-information or would the Sinn Fein being on the list just be the lumping of british politics and that of Northern Irelands together? Also can someone still enlighten me on how parliment works? Been trying to understand but every theory i thought of was wrong, i need actual British information here.

I hardly believe that left wing people are less charitable than right wing people. I've often seen quotes from right wing newspapers such as The Telegraph going on about how all homeless are scum who you shouldn't help, which you don't get in The Guardian.
Hey, not a Brit here. And most of the blogs I surf are American. Besides which, after much thought, I have decided that 99.999% of people with even a modicum of power/influence are assholes.

Hey, not a Brit here. And most of the blogs I surf are American.

Ahh, my apologies. I always get confused when Americans use the term 'lefty' as it always reminds me of this British right wing comedian called Jim Davidson who is always slagging off 'lefties'. As such, when I think of that term I always think of him and by extension British right wingers O.o

Uh, you mean the British National Party? They only have one seat, I think. Help me out, Brits! Ignorant American here!

The British National Party are a bunch of nazi thugs and criminals who admire Hitler. Fortunately they do not have any seats in the British parliament and also recently failed to win any seats in the European parliament. The only seats they have are a few in local councils and for example, in the 2003 local elections they only won 13 seats out of around 10,000.

Well that does explain alot, i was reading somewhere but i forgot where about british Political parties. I oddly saw Sinn Fein on one of the lists, is this just mis-information or would the Sinn Fein being on the list just be the lumping of british politics and that of Northern Irelands together?
What I don't get is how Sinn Fein is allowed to run candidates in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. They're different countries.

Down south here the "Shinners" have been doing quite well, unfortunately.

The British National Party are a bunch of nazi thugs and criminals who admire Hitler. Fortunately they do not have any seats in the British Parliament and also recently failed to win any seats in the European parliament. The only seats they have are a few in local councils and for example, in the 2003 local elections they won 13 seats out of around 10,000.

Heh, it's funny when they claim to not be racist when they blatantly are. Like the pamphlet I got through my door before, with a picture of a kid with a quotation 'My dad's not racist!' then an explaination on the back about how the BNP respect other cultures...they just don't want any of them 'ruining' ours.

England isn't very favorable of Tony Blair anymore. When I was in London two years ago, the British approval of the war was around 20%. I don't think it's gotten better, and I doubt their approval of Bush is noticeably higher.



i'd like to remind you that the BBC very very rarely shows the good sides of the war. CNN alike for the first 6 months would only report on the damage we've done and US soldiers killed. Venture onto Fox News and u'll see footage of the new schools being built, the expansion of the Iraqi aiprorts and the new jobs being dispursed. US is making it possible for the Iraqi to feed thier children. Biased news is nothing new, but a wide scale of news organizations is, click around a bit more on the TV and u'll see all sides

Well that does explain alot, i was reading somewhere but i forgot where about british Political parties. I oddly saw Sinn Fein on one of the lists, is this just mis-information or would the Sinn Fein being on the list just be the lumping of british politics and that of Northern Irelands together? Also can someone still enlighten me on how parliment works? Been trying to understand but every theory i thought of was wrong, i need actual British information here.

You can be English and vote for Scottish Nationalist Party if there is a candidate standing in your constituency. Or you could be a Scot voting for Plaid Cymuru, the Welsh nationalist party.

Northern Ireland used to send its MPs to the House of Commons but then many of republican MPs protested at having to take an oath of loyalty to the Queen. So they stopped coming.

Parliament is divided into two Houses: the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Commons is the main, representative body where all the elected MPs sit. MPs are elected by their constituents - which ever party has the most MPs gains the majority in the Commons. The party with the majority will be allowed to form a government who will usually sit in the House of Commons. The party that came second forms Her Majesties Official Opposition. The other opposition parties sit with the Official Opposition but are not granted the same powers (the leader of the Opposition is, for example, allowed to ask 7 questions in Prime Ministers Question Time but the other opposition leaders will only ever get two at maximum). Legislation is put before the Commons usually by the government but independent MPs can propose legislation as well. It then goes through several stages:

1) The First Reading: an informal vote done by "Ayes" or "Neighs". Usually just introduces the title of the Bill and the main principles.

2) The Second Reading: the main principles of the Bill are dicussed by the Commons. Once again an informal vote takes place but usually a more formal written vote will happen as well.

3) The Committee Stage: an inter party committee goes over the Bill in detail and debates the sections. Will sometimes make alterations, additions or subtractions.

4) The Third Reading: The adjustments made in the Committee are reviewed and voted upon.

5) The House of Lords does the entire process again (more on them later)

6) The Queen gives her assent (hasnt been refused since 1707)

The Bill then becomes an Act of Parliment and therefore law.

The House of Lords has been a constitutional issue for nearly a century. The people who sit in it are unelected peers. Some are hereditary nobles, some are Bishops, some are senior judges (the House of Lords is also the highest appeal court in England and Wales) and some are former politicans who have been granted a title because of their services (Baroness Thatcher for example). As you may note none of these are elected.
They used to have the power to refuse legislation completely but that was revoked in 1911 by the Parliament Act. Now if they refuse a Bill, the Bill will be delayed for a year and then reintroduced. If it once again rejected, then the House of Commons will use the Parliament Act to make the Bill into law. However the Parliament Act is rarely used: the government don't like conflict with the Lords and usually either a)change the Bill to suit the Lord's demands or b)quietly abadon the ideas. Recently Tony Blair has began a new reform of the House of Lords, disposing of all hereditary peers and replacing them with 'People's Peers'. Unsuprisingly the Lords rejected the reform and the idea has been quietly shelved.

Any more you want to know?

[NOTE: The other way to control the Lords is to create more places in the House and shove loads of your own supporters in their. That's been done by about every government since it was first done in 1911. However usually they are a lot more partizan in the Lords because they cant lose their seats. That means they often disobey party commands and just vote for what they believe in.]

Russians seem to like him. And they, coincidentally, have terrorist problems. I wonder if there's a connection?

I think the people of Eastern Europe like Bush a little bit more than the Western Europeans. For example, Poalnd and Ukraine.

Whoa, For some reason i suddenly find that form of Government alot cooler. THough it sounds a tad boring to most other people i know it'd be interesting to have be in something like parliment. Thanks for explaining it to me though i only read have your post i'm going to finish reading maybe look some stuff up. Thanks again :) Now i can know what the hell is going on when they show stuff on TV.

A lot more goes on in the Commons.

Each Minister has to have question time.

Also there are a lot of debates over general policy (e.g. war in Iraq). They tend to be the best debates.

So can the queen overturn anything she wishes in parliment or is she more of just a figurehead?

Russians seem to like him. And they, coincidentally, have terrorist problems. I wonder if there's a connection?

first of all... you're obviously in idiot

secondly, it's easy for europeans not to like him when they don't have to worry about what he stands for like we americans do. for example the taxes, education, etc. And it's very easy for your average european to say "oh we don't like bush because of iraq" when that's the only thing they probably even know about in terms of his issues and policies within the nation so i respectfully tell them to bug off. if they don't like it here because of him then they can stay in europe.

Any European who actually likes Bush scares me more than all the Europeans who hate him. If they are exposed to all the propaganda and reject even a part of it, then they must be crazy. And most of them are.

Russians seem to like him. And they, coincidentally, have terrorist problems. I wonder if there's a connection?
Israelis do too - also constantly under terrorist threat...

Israelis do too - also constantly under terrorist threat...

That's funny, Putin was tearing the US a new one over support for Chechnia just last week, and the Israelis feel Bush is pressuring them to give up territory and are suspicious of his close ties with Saudi Arabia, (they sponsor terrorism in Israel).

Tony Blair.

Um...

That's about it.

You forgot Poland.

Israelis do too - also constantly under terrorist threat...
Only right-wing Israelis. My father's Israeli and he HATES Bush. Speak for yourself.

You forgot Poland.


Well Poland's anybody's bitch.

Russians seem to like him. And they, coincidentally, have terrorist problems. I wonder if there's a connection?
Really? I though that because King Vladimir I and most of Russia opposed the Iraq war that they would hate him.

Well Poland's anybody's bitch.
Do you not get the reference?

Only right-wing Israelis. My father's Israeli and he HATES Bush. Speak for yourself.
Your father obviously dosen't represent the views of most Israelis
http://www.cpod.ubc.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=4623

George W. Bush (R) 50%

John Kerry (D) 24%

Either / Neither/ Unsure 26%


Russia was 52% to 48% in favor of Bush. Other links of the same thing :
http://www.detnews.com/2004/nation/0410/16/nation-305558.htm
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/04/10/16/wir_image001.cfm
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/politics/9924336.htm?1c
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=170853

Your father obviously dosen't represent the views of most Israelis
http://www.cpod.ubc.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=4623

George W. Bush (R) 50%

John Kerry (D) 24%

Either / Neither/ Unsure 26%


Russia was 52% to 48% in favor of Bush. Other links of the same thing :
http://www.detnews.com/2004/nation/0410/16/nation-305558.htm
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/04/10/16/wir_image001.cfm
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/politics/9924336.htm?1c
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=170853
I stand corrected on Israel. On Russia, however, a four-point lead over Kerry should be very disappointng for Bush, because Kerry has publicly criticized Russia and its aid to Iran's nuclear program.

Though he is a compassionate conservative and always stressed the Conservative idea of 'nobless oblige'

I don't normally comment on spelling, but what you just wrote would refer to the obligation of people who don't have nobs. ;)

first of all... you're obviously in idiot

secondly, it's easy for europeans not to like him when they don't have to worry about what he stands for like we americans do. for example the taxes, education, etc. And it's very easy for your average european to say "oh we don't like bush because of iraq" when that's the only thing they probably even know about in terms of his issues and policies within the nation so i respectfully tell them to bug off. if they don't like it here because of him then they can stay in europe.

The problem is that when we are concerned about national policy of Bush, with which Europeans also dissagree quite often, we're told it ain't our business and should buzz off. So what do you people want exactly? That we understand America or not? It's not like our opinion will affect national policy, so why tell us off? And it's not like we have to know your national policy anyway and that's why we focus on Iraq or Guantanamo Bay. Should we understand China's national policy before we can tell them 'hands off from Taiwan'? We, and protesters all over the world, demonstrate for what we think is right. Maybe we think the same of gay-marriage, maybe we hate you for it. Does that matter when we demonstrate Bush's lack of danger sense and irresponsibility?

Actually, I think we know more about him than we want to know. Heck, I might even know things the average American doesn't know about. A bigger problem is probably that Americans don't know who and what people are protesting them. If you call Europeans assholes for opposing a president "who can do no wrong" but meanwhile can't point out Luxembourg on the map where the mentioned protest takes place, your arguments fall like grass before the lawnmower.

Speaking of Topography, (difficult word alert!) I bet I could beat Bush at it anytime. If he could tell where to find Iryan Yaya, Kola and Curacao without consulting a globe or atlas, then I'd take that back. Mind you, you'll probably not find the first one even with atlasses.

So can the queen overturn anything she wishes in parliment or is she more of just a figurehead?

The Queen could reject Acts, but The House of Commons would take away her Queendom. She has the power to slow it down, if she wants to stop being the Queen. Its sort of the same for The House of Lords, if they keep rejecting what the Commons have accepted then The Commons have the power to say "it doesnt matter what you 'lords' say, because we were elected and have more power." and so the Act will get past the lords. So nobody really has any power apart from The House of Commons.

Russians seem to like him. And they, coincidentally, have terrorist problems. I wonder if there's a connection?
You got it right. Bush has shown that it's ok to use preemptive force against "terrorists" and Putin loves it.

I'm a European, I don't like Bush - because of his utter naievety when it comes to The War on Terror.

And it's very easy for your average european to say "oh we don't like bush because of iraq" when that's the only thing they probably even know about in terms of his issues and policies within the nation so i respectfully tell them to bug off.

Yes, perhaps you're right. However, I do know one thing about his issues within the nation - this issue being that he is bankrupting America. So it also seems easy for the average America to say "Oh, we don't like Bush because of both the War on Terror and the fact that he's bankrupting us", surely?

Bush is an American and Kerry is an American so I really can't be bother to distinguish between the two. From what I saw, there wasn't much difference in their policies anyway.

HOWEVER
I think Bush is good for world morality.

Heres my reasoning:

1) America leads the world culturally - I might hate it but alas it is a fact.

2) Therefore if American culture is decadent and immoral other cultures tend to try and emulate that. I'm British and over the last 30 years society has decayed because of American cultural influences.

3) Bush won because fact many religious people voted for him - they liked his stance on moral issues (homosexuality etc)

4) Bush will now have to pander to this key religious group in order to ensure their future votes for the Republicans. This means he will be introducing some moral legislation to keep them happy.

5) Now if America becomes a more moral and religious society then many other cultures may follow suit for the reasons stated in points 1/2.

6) Therefore morality will be restored as a main stay of culture. With morality comes more patriotism.

Bush/America good for world morality?

surely the american culture of greed and everyone for themselves (as represented by the 80's yuppy trends in culture) has done nothing but bad things for the way people treat the world and each other. Also, when has a politician ever lived up to election promises? remember tony blair. education education education? failed failed failed i say. Also is right wing religious morality a good thing to feed all people. what you call 'moral legisation' might not be appreciated by a lot of people. (especially the gay guys who want to marry, or women who want/need abortions) also - we are politically affected by the legislation drawn up in america but that is hardly well represented in their cultural output, which (as we are constantly reminded) is based in ideals of free seech etc so i doubt georgy's religius fervour will touch it much anyway. they will continue to put out shitty films and bad music and british youth will continue to buy it and buy into i, securing our place next to america as the world opens up to swallow the infidels. we're all going to hades

Obviously, the French love bush, hey they don't even shave thier armpits!

Any Europeans like Bush :confused:

I never found one, and im surrounded by europeans..

Im sure England must be pretty favorable of Bush, seeing as they have Tony Blair in office.
Oh, dear. No, generally speaking we're not. Blair is in because the alternatives are either even worse, or not taken seriously.

As an aside, England is part of the UK. The country is the UK, not England. I don't know how many times this has to be emphasised before people pay attention...

Am I the first one? :confused: :confused:

I'm European (Flemish/belgian to be precise) and I'd take Bush over Kerry any day. (but then again, I'd take just about any Libertarian over Bush any minute)

Any Europeans like Bush :confused:

I haven't met one (I live in the England btw)

As an aside, England is part of the UK. The country is the UK, not England. I don't know how many times this has to be emphasised before people pay attention...

No, the county is England, Scotlands also a country, and so is Northern Ireland. The UK is a sort of coalition of countries. Im not sure about Northern Ireland actually.

There sure are, no doubt, but I don't know any... don't wish I did, actually...

No, the county is England, Scotlands also a country, and so is Northern Ireland. The UK is a sort of coalition of countries.

So England has Tony Blair in office now o_O? And I didn't even realise we'd gotten our own parliament.

No, the county is England, Scotlands also a country, and so is Northern Ireland. The UK is a sort of coalition of countries.
I disagree. Anyway, the point is that people always refer to England when they actually mean the UK.

Honestly, the UK is never really explained in US schools. Sometimes it's England; sometimes it's Great Britain; sometimes it's the United Kingdom. Your average US citizen really doesn't know the difference, and it's hard to blame him. I think that most of the time when Americans say 'England' they're referring to England. Scotland, Ireland, and Wales all seem like very different places and that they don't really fit together with England as one country. At least, they don't seem to fit any more than, say, Hawaii or Alaska do with the US (or the urban centers, apparently).

Hmm. It's really bad that US schooling is so inconsistent. Ah, well.

/hijack

The rumours are absurd. The BNP have no MPs (and the NF certainly dont)

cos the NF aren't a political party, they are an independent organisation. the two organisations have members in common, as well as a common outlook regarding policing and immigration. Also, though the BNP do not hold any seats in parliament, they do control at least one council and in some places have support of up to 14% of the vote (see: last general election) which is as much support as le pen had in the french elections of 2001.

secondly, it's easy for europeans not to like him when they don't have to worry about what he stands for like we americans do. for example the taxes, education, etc. And it's very easy for your average european to say "oh we don't like bush because of iraq" when that's the only thing they probably even know about in terms of his issues and policies within the nation so i respectfully tell them to bug off. if they don't like it here because of him then they can stay in europe.[/COLOR]
I think Iraq is a good enough reason for a European not to like Bush. Do anti-Bushites also have to disagree with all his domestic policies. I don't agree with his moralist rule in America, but it's a minor reason why I'm against him. I am primarily against the neocon foreign policy.

Am I the first one? :confused: :confused:

I'm European (Flemish/belgian to be precise) and I'd take Bush over Kerry any day. (but then again, I'd take just about any Libertarian over Bush any minute)
You're a capitalist libertarian? Funny, I think Bush is even more of a statist than Kerry is. Look at his policy. He's far from traditionally conservative.

Scotland, Ireland, and Wales all seem like very different places and that they don't really fit together with England as one country.
In my experience, Wales (except for parts of the north) is almost exactly like England.

first of all... you're obviously in idiot

secondly, it's easy for europeans not to like him when they don't have to worry about what he stands for like we americans do. for example the taxes, education, etc. And it's very easy for your average european to say "oh we don't like bush because of iraq" when that's the only thing they probably even know about in terms of his issues and policies within the nation so i respectfully tell them to bug off. if they don't like it here because of him then they can stay in europe.

If you apply this logic to other situations, then it becomes impossible to criticise the leader of any nation if you are not a citizen of that nation. Hitler brought Germany out of the depression, maybe other countries were wrong to go to war with Germany, because they didn't take that into consideration.

(I am not one of those people who seriously compares GW to Hitler, it was your logic I was commenting on)

Yes there are Europeans who like Bush. Last time I checked, 13% of France supported Bush, 17% of Germany, 11% of Ireland. That is all I know. I dont know about the other countries.

Im sure England must be pretty favorable of Bush, seeing as they have Tony Blair in office.

Blair was elected before Bush was president, and he (quite rightly) kept his distance from him until 9/11, when it became necessary for them to overcome their differences (and look how far they did so.)

I think here in the United Kingdom (more to it than Enland...) around the same percentage of people (or slightly more) as in Germany support Bush. I'm not among them.

You're a capitalist libertarian? Funny, I think Bush is even more of a statist than Kerry is. Look at his policy. He's far from traditionally conservative.


Well, Bush is far from a traditional conservative, you're right about that. But Kerry does seem like a traditional liberal.

And call it plain old superstition, but I just don't trust them democraps, especially not when they have Hilary -gasp- Clinton in their party. :eek: ;)

Kerry is more socially liberal, Bush more economically liberal. A true libertarian would not place economic libertarianism above social libertarianism, I would think. I get the impression that many self-professed libertarians are much more concerned with economic freedoms, which is disappointing.

Kerry is more socially liberal, Bush more economically liberal. A true libertarian would not place economic libertarianism above social libertarianism, I would think. I get the impression that many self-professed libertarians are much more concerned with economic freedoms, which is disappointing.
Not me, though I sure wouldn't mind if the US government stopped giving billions of dollars to companies like McDonalds, General Electric, and Intel. My biggest reason to be Libertarian is because of their foreign policy. It's the only party that doesn't seem to want to get us all killed.

No, the county is England, Scotlands also a country, and so is Northern Ireland. The UK is a sort of coalition of countries. Im not sure about Northern Ireland actually.

No, it isn't a county, and it isn't a country either. England doesn't have it's own Parliament, and hasn't since 1536, when Elizabeth I passed the Act of Uniformity. England also hasn't got a head of state or a separate legal system from Wales and NI (why do people always leave out Wales?).

Scotland might be a country, not sure - it's tricky. The UK is a country, its a unitary state with one supreme parliament, what more do you want?

No, it isn't a county, and it isn't a country either. England doesn't have it's own Parliament, and hasn't since 1536, when Elizabeth I passed the Act of Uniformity. England also hasn't got a head of state or a separate legal system from Wales and NI (why do people always leave out Wales?).


Actually Wales does have its own head of state, the Prince of Wales. The heads of state of the three constituent countries of the UK are:

England: Queen Elizabeth II of England
Scotland: Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland
Wales: Prince Charles III of Wales

Northern Ireland is a dependent territory.
In addition in the Channel Islands the head of state is Duchess Elizabeth of Normandy. I know, the UK is a pretty fucked up country, all in all.

I don't know buit the question sounds like the begining of a bad joke about Macedonians!

So England has Tony Blair in office now o_O? And I didn't even realise we'd gotten our own parliament.

Well Scotland has a nice new Parliment, don't know whether the parliment in Northern Ireland is functioning or not, not sure about Wales, but of course England still more or less runs the show doesn't it?

Actually Wales does have its own head of state, the Prince of Wales. The heads of state of the three constituent countries of the UK are:

England: Queen Elizabeth II of England
Scotland: Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland
Wales: Prince Charles III of Wales

Northern Ireland is a dependent territory.
In addition in the Channel Islands the head of state is Duchess Elizabeth of Normandy. I know, the UK is a pretty fucked up country, all in all.

I never realised that the country I lived in is so complicated.

I'm British, (English) and I love Bush........bwahhahaha only joking. I detest Bush, I think that he lets religion intefere with politics far too much and religion and politics should never mix. Sure, show tolerance to religions, but you can't forbid something because the Church says so, we might as well go back to when the Catholic church ruled Europe more or less.

I also don't like the war on terror, it sounds like much more of a cliche and seems far too personal to Bush.

I could go on, but I don't want to exceed the characters I can write in my post :p

...With morality comes more patriotism.
I dont think so

Tony Blair.

Um...

That's about it.

don't forget poland

Wales was conqueored in the 1200s (I think) by the English but in reality there was no great change. Most of southern and eastern Wales was already highly anglosised. A great deal of what is today known as 'Welsh culture' comes from isolated mountain villages that were in a minority long, long before the English invasion. Most people in the East and South spoke English, had English relations and were descended from the English/the Romans. The two have been since virtually indistinguishable - both share the same Parliament, the same legal system and the same language and this has been the way for over 800 years. For all essential purposes, Wales has become more of a region than a country. In terms of attitude and history, it strongly resembles Cornwall.

Scotland was a seperate country until the Act of Union. However it had merged with England when James VI of Scotland became James I of England. Once again much of southern Scotland was highly Anglosised. Many of their traditions were the same as those of their English cousins. However in the north, the Highland clans had their own culture and it is this culture that has been dubbed the 'Scottish culture'. Once again the Highland clans were always a minority many many years before any English union came about. The Highland culture is far more alien to most Scots than English traditions. However even after the union of 1603, Scotland was still independent, ruled by its own Parliament. It was like the dual monarchy of Austria - Hungary: two seperate governments united by a single monarchy. The Scots showed this independence greatly in the Civil War and the time just preceeding it. However by the 1700s, Scotland could no longer compete with England. England's Empire was going from strength to strength whiel Scotland's New Caledonia in Panama was a complete failure. With the Panama expedition was tied nearly all of Scotland's free capital. When the project sunk, Scotland's economy was pretty much sunk to. Also the Hanoverian monarchy rapidly proved to irremovable and so the Stuarts were rendered defunct. It was no longer a viable option to remain seperate from England so the Scottish Parliament passed the Act of Union and the two Parliaments were analgamated. However the Scots were allowed to keep their own legal system and the Calvinist religion.

Ireland was 'conquerored' in the 1300s but in reality only the east was midly pacified. Catholic English were made land owners in Dublin. However after the Reformation in the 1530s, it was decided to convert Ireland to Protestantism. So many English Protestants were granted land in the North and East of Ireland and many of the orginal Catholic English were deprived of their lands. However this colonial project only created bitterness and so the Catholic religion stubbornly resisted. However Ireland kept its own Parliament and did so until 1800. In 1801 the Act of Union was passed and so Ireland became part of Britain. Out of all the home nations, Ireland is the only one who can claim to really have an inbuilt Celtic culture as the English always were a minority in most of Ireland and as such did very little to effect Irish culture. Ireland was granted home rule in 1912 and finally released in 1949.

Northern Ireland is however quite different. Since the Protestant settlement of the 1600s, the North was predominately English and predominately Protestant. As such many in the North feared Irish Home Rule because that would mean they were being governed by Catholics who would have formed the majority in a united Irish Parliament. Once Home Rule was obtained in 1912, there was nearly civil war in Ireland as the Protestant North loathed the prospect of being governed by the Catholic South. The First World War intervened but after that there was violent trouble in Northern Ireland. When Ireland became free in 1949, Northern Ireland remained British. This is still the will of the majority of its people today: in recent elections they elected a Unionist party and most choose to have British passports. It is odd that Northern Ireland fights to remain British while Scotland fights not to be British.

England has always been the dominate force of the Union - politically, military, economically and socially. Its language and religion have become the norm throughout the British Isles. However England has very little culture of its own left. England has never possessed a popular mythology nor does it have a national dress. Much of its culture became intertwined with the Protestant religion. That was then mixed with other elements of the union to produce the British culture. So England has become indistinguishable from Britain.

I cannot understand the Scottish and Welsh desire for independence. It seems to be like petty minded individualism. Why do they seek seperation when as members of the Union they have achieved so much? Together in the union, England, Scotland, Wales and Irelandcrafted the biggest empire the world has ever seen. It was never an English empire - it was always the British empire for it was built by the unique union. Welsh, Scots and Irish men have sat along side the English in Parliament for many, many years and together they have brought unequalled prosperity and liberty. Now Britain is at a low point and people seek to abadon the union. But I ask what good will that do? Divided, we will become a petty group of nations too busy with infighting and competition to deal with outside problems. Each economy will be weakened by the loss of the Union - how would an independent Wales be able to cope with international competition? How could an independent Scotland cope economically when it could not do in the 1700s? The nations of the union must not abadon each other in this dark and frigid hour. Together they must stand and together they are capable of anything. Together they built an Empire that streched the world and together they can rebuild that same prosperity. I fall back on the oldest maxim:

Together we stand: divided we fall.

Wales was conqueored in the 1200s (I think) by the English but in reality there was no great change. Most of southern and eastern Wales was already highly anglosised. A great deal of what is today known as 'Welsh culture' comes from isolated mountain villages that were in a minority long, long before the English invasion. Most people in the East and South spoke English, had English relations and were descended from the English/the Romans. The two have been since virtually indistinguishable - both share the same Parliament, the same legal system and the same language and this has been the way for over 800 years. For all essential purposes, Wales has become more of a region than a country. In terms of attitude and history, it strongly resembles Cornwall.

Scotland was a seperate country until the Act of Union. However it had merged with England when James VI of Scotland became James I of England. Once again much of southern Scotland was highly Anglosised. Many of their traditions were the same as those of their English cousins. However in the north, the Highland clans had their own culture and it is this culture that has been dubbed the 'Scottish culture'. Once again the Highland clans were always a minority many many years before any English union came about. The Highland culture is far more alien to most Scots than English traditions. However even after the union of 1603, Scotland was still independent, ruled by its own Parliament. It was like the dual monarchy of Austria - Hungary: two seperate governments united by a single monarchy. The Scots showed this independence greatly in the Civil War and the time just preceeding it. However by the 1700s, Scotland could no longer compete with England. England's Empire was going from strength to strength whiel Scotland's New Caledonia in Panama was a complete failure. With the Panama expedition was tied nearly all of Scotland's free capital. When the project sunk, Scotland's economy was pretty much sunk to. Also the Hanoverian monarchy rapidly proved to irremovable and so the Stuarts were rendered defunct. It was no longer a viable option to remain seperate from England so the Scottish Parliament passed the Act of Union and the two Parliaments were analgamated. However the Scots were allowed to keep their own legal system and the Calvinist religion.

Ireland was 'conquerored' in the 1300s but in reality only the east was midly pacified. Catholic English were made land owners in Dublin. However after the Reformation in the 1530s, it was decided to convert Ireland to Protestantism. So many English Protestants were granted land in the North and East of Ireland and many of the orginal Catholic English were deprived of their lands. However this colonial project only created bitterness and so the Catholic religion stubbornly resisted. However Ireland kept its own Parliament and did so until 1800. In 1801 the Act of Union was passed and so Ireland became part of Britain. Out of all the home nations, Ireland is the only one who can claim to really have an inbuilt Celtic culture as the English always were a minority in most of Ireland and as such did very little to effect Irish culture. Ireland was granted home rule in 1912 and finally released in 1949.

Northern Ireland is however quite different. Since the Protestant settlement of the 1600s, the North was predominately English and predominately Protestant. As such many in the North feared Irish Home Rule because that would mean they were being governed by Catholics who would have formed the majority in a united Irish Parliament. Once Home Rule was obtained in 1912, there was nearly civil war in Ireland as the Protestant North loathed the prospect of being governed by the Catholic South. The First World War intervened but after that there was violent trouble in Northern Ireland. When Ireland became free in 1949, Northern Ireland remained British. This is still the will of the majority of its people today: in recent elections they elected a Unionist party and most choose to have British passports. It is odd that Northern Ireland fights to remain British while Scotland fights not to be British.

England has always been the dominate force of the Union - politically, military, economically and socially. Its language and religion have become the norm throughout the British Isles. However England has very little culture of its own left. England has never possessed a popular mythology nor does it have a national dress. Much of its culture became intertwined with the Protestant religion. That was then mixed with other elements of the union to produce the British culture. So England has become indistinguishable from Britain.

I cannot understand the Scottish and Welsh desire for independence. It seems to be like petty minded individualism. Why do they seek seperation when as members of the Union they have achieved so much? Together in the union, England, Scotland, Wales and Irelandcrafted the biggest empire the world has ever seen. It was never an English empire - it was always the British empire for it was built by the unique union. Welsh, Scots and Irish men have sat along side the English in Parliament for many, many years and together they have brought unequalled prosperity and liberty. Now Britain is at a low point and people seek to abadon the union. But I ask what good will that do? Divided, we will become a petty group of nations too busy with infighting and competition to deal with outside problems. Each economy will be weakened by the loss of the Union - how would an independent Wales be able to cope with international competition? How could an independent Scotland cope economically when it could not do in the 1700s? The nations of the union must not abadon each other in this dark and frigid hour. Together they must stand and together they are capable of anything. Together they built an Empire that streched the world and together they can rebuild that same prosperity. I fall back on the oldest maxim:

Together we stand: divided we fall.
You forgot Poland.

Anyone who likes Bush should be shot for a distinct lack of morality and a fundemantally flawed grasp of politics. Therefore, Europeans with much more intelligence, less body fat, and more left-leaning states (therefore more politically aware) realise that Bush is a dribbling idiot who should be assasinated. Or maybe that last bit is just me. Anywho, 80% of the world bar America wanted Kerry to win the election. And the same 80% were horrified and shocked when stupid America voted in George 'monkey-boy-do-as-his-father-did-anger-the-east-help-the-rich-get-richer' Bush.

People all around Europe are laughing at America, yet are scared that such a complete arse could be the President of the largest, and most war-mongering power in the world.

And why the hell anyone cares whether or not Wales likes to be in the UK is another matter. I would think that surely, since the Welsh are an entirely different race, they have a different culture, they are socially and economically different from England and indeed the rest of the UK, they would have good reason to want Wales to be independant. Oh, and they're another country too.

Anyone who likes Bush should be shot for a distinct lack of morality and a fundemantally flawed grasp of politics. Therefore, Europeans with much more intelligence, less body fat, and more left-leaning states (therefore more politically aware) realise that Bush is a dribbling idiot who should be assasinated. Or maybe that last bit is just me. Anywho, 80% of the world bar America wanted Kerry to win the election. And the same 80% were horrified and shocked when stupid America voted in George 'monkey-boy-do-as-his-father-did-anger-the-east-help-the-rich-get-richer' Bush.
.

:D Yeah.

Anyone who likes Bush should be shot for a distinct lack of morality and a fundemantally flawed grasp of politics. Therefore, Europeans with much more intelligence, less body fat, and more left-leaning states (therefore more politically aware) realise that Bush is a dribbling idiot who should be assasinated. Or maybe that last bit is just me. Anywho, 80% of the world bar America wanted Kerry to win the election. And the same 80% were horrified and shocked when stupid America voted in George 'monkey-boy-do-as-his-father-did-anger-the-east-help-the-rich-get-richer' Bush
Actually depending on the country (but I think even on average) Europeans are more likely to be overweight or obese than Americans.

Actually depending on the country (but I think even on average) Europeans are more likely to be overweight or obese than Americans.

Please explain.

Please explain.
http://www.obesityhelp.com/main-info-statistics.php
Those are the American statistics : About 30% of adult Americans are obese.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/06/23/uk.obesity/
Here are some European ones : Greece has 70% of its overweight women and 68% of its overweight men being obese, in Germany 71% of adult overweight men are obese, in the UK obesity affects 60% of the people.

Edit : Here for more...
http://weightlossinternational.com/newsletter/obesity-in-america-statistics.html
65% are overweight in America.

Edit : Read it wrong. Fixing now. Less than half of America's overweight people are obese.

http://www.obesityhelp.com/main-info-statistics.php
Those are the American statistics : About 30% of adult Americans.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/06/23/uk.obesity/
Here are some European ones : Greece has 70% of its women and 68% of its men overweight or obese, in Germany 71% of adult men are obese, in the UK obesity affects 60% of the people.
:) Thankees

Anyone who likes Bush should be shot for a distinct lack of morality and a fundemantally flawed grasp of politics. Therefore, Europeans with much more intelligence, less body fat, and more left-leaning states (therefore more politically aware) realise that Bush is a dribbling idiot who should be assasinated. Or maybe that last bit is just me. Anywho, 80% of the world bar America wanted Kerry to win the election. And the same 80% were horrified and shocked when stupid America voted in George 'monkey-boy-do-as-his-father-did-anger-the-east-help-the-rich-get-richer' Bush.

People all around Europe are laughing at America, yet are scared that such a complete arse could be the President of the largest, and most war-mongering power in the world.

And why the hell anyone cares whether or not Wales likes to be in the UK is another matter. I would think that surely, since the Welsh are an entirely different race, they have a different culture, they are socially and economically different from England and indeed the rest of the UK, they would have good reason to want Wales to be independant. Oh, and they're another country too.


Ignorance is the downfall of political opinions.

If Scotland is highly Anglicised, how does one account for Scots dialect? It is damn near uninteligiable to someone English, let alone people who have not ever been exposed. It's not a sort of slang, it's a different dialect of English. As far as the Welsh go, they not only are NOT English, genetically their closest relatives are the Basque people, and it is only linguistically and culturally that the Welsh who are truely Cymru are in fact Celtic. The Basque people are fairly unique linguistically, their language is related to no other language on Earth.
Actually at one time Highland Scots and properly Gaelic Irish were more numerous than English people. There were a few hundred years of a policy which in modern terms would be described as 'ethnic purgation'. People were killed and thrown into big holes in the ground, just like in the Balkans back in the 1990s. My personal theory is had England and the rest of the British Isles remained Catholic the culture of the Irish, Scots and Welsh would not have survived in the truncated form it did. Religion would have been a unifying factor. What happened instead was that the British Empire worked really well, a clever combination of accomadations and sending people off to conquer for 'Blighty' unified the people so loot and tolerance worked everywhere but most of Ireland.Probably nothing could have pacified Ireland. Especially once England became Protestant, and most of Ireland did not. Still I know for a fact the Catholic Church did not back the Irish in the way that the same Church was later to back Poland against Soviet style Communism.

Anyone who likes Bush should be shot for a distinct lack of morality and a fundemantally flawed grasp of politics.
So true...


http://www.obesityhelp.com/main-info-statistics.php
Those are the American statistics : About 30% of adult Americans are obese.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/06/23/uk.obesity/
Here are some European ones : Greece has 70% of its overweight women and 68% of its overweight men being obese, in Germany 71% of adult overweight men are obese, in the UK obesity affects 60% of the people.

Edit : Here for more...
http://weightlossinternational.com/newsletter/obesity-in-america-statistics.html
65% are overweight in America.

Edit : Read it wrong. Fixing now. Less than half of America's overweight people are obese.
This is only the overweight people however, I'm pretty sure that the percentage of the population that is considered 'overweight' in the US is larger then the percentage in most other countries.


Bush won mostly because of a few reasons:
1. abortion policies - I wasn't following the election very closely, but I've heard that this was one of the major deciding issues... and that's fucking pathetic.
2. christians are a majority in the US
3. politically ignorant citizens (such as farmers) don't care what is going on around the world, and only want someone who will claim to protect them (which is brought on by the arrogance of Bush)

Actually Wales does have its own head of state, the Prince of Wales. The heads of state of the three constituent countries of the UK are:

England: Queen Elizabeth II of England
Scotland: Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland
Wales: Prince Charles III of Wales

Northern Ireland is a dependent territory.
In addition in the Channel Islands the head of state is Duchess Elizabeth of Normandy. I know, the UK is a pretty fucked up country, all in all.

Actually the Queen is the Head of State for England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Australia and Canada. So by all your peoples 'rules' Australia and Canada are part of the UK as well. Wales isn't a country.

Actually the Queen is the Head of State for England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Australia and Canada. So by all your peoples 'rules' Australia and Canada are part of the UK as well. Wales isn't a country.

No, Australia and Canada are not part of the UK and I never suggested anything to say they were. In fact according to my 'rules' they are indeed separate entitities because they have separate heads of state (for example Queen Elizabeth of Canada). Many nations within the Commonwealth have the same person as head of state, Queen Elizabeth, but the position is distinct. Which is why Wales, Scotland and England (who all have different heads of state, though in the case of Scotland and England occupied by the same person) are different countries, united in one country, the United Kingdom, under Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. So technically she's her own boss. Yeah, like I said, it's complicated. It is all set down in law, however, if you can be bothered to look it up.

Anyway, here's a list of the Queen's position in independent states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Titles_and_Honours_of_Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom

Also from Wikepedia is an explanation of the position of the Queen in Scotland:

At her succession, the title Elizabeth II caused some controversy in Scotland, where there has never been an Elizabeth I (although there had been no similar controversy at the times of William IV and Edward VII, whose numbering was similarly inappropriate). In a rare act of sabotage in Scotland, new Royal Mail post boxes bearing the initials E.R.II were blown up. As a result, post boxes in Scotland now bear only a crown and no royal initials. A legal case, MacCormick v. Lord Advocate (1953 SC 396), was taken to contest the right of the Queen to style herself Elizabeth II within Scotland, arguing that to do so would be a breach of the Act of Union 1707. The case was lost on the grounds that the pursuers had no title to sue the Crown, and also that the numbering of monarchs was part of the royal prerogative and not governed by the Act of Union. There are also two other matters of controversy, which are much less publicised. Firstly, the argument that the monarch was addressed as Your Grace, rather Majesty, in pre-Union Scotland and secondly, that the preferred title had been King/Queen of Scots rather than of Scotland (although this was by no means unknown).

And there's an explanation of the position of the Prince of Wales here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Wales

Oh, and though I mentioned the HoS of the Channel Islands I forgot the Isle of Man where the HoS is Elizabeth, Lord of Man. Despite what I suggested earlier neither of these areas are part of the UK but are crown dependencies.

3. politically ignorant citizens (such as farmers) don't care what is going on around the world, and only want someone who will claim to protect them (which is brought on by the arrogance of Bush)

Farmers are politically ignorant? Haha, I think the ignorant one is you. Have you ever owned a farm? I guess you never had to deal with USDA rules and regulations, tax laws, farm subsidies, government crop regualtion. As farmers we always have to deal with politicians. Most farmers are keenly aware of the world around them as their farms are being wagered every year. Sure they want someone to protect their families, but they want politicians who will be benefitual to farmers in general. Heck, some of the grains I grew went to help feed the former USSR, and I wasn't very pleased at our politicians feeding our enemy.

Try not to stereotype farmers and other rural dwellers as backwoods rednecks, who are clueless when it comes to the world. I'm sure if you are a city slicker, you wouldn't know the first thing about farm life.

No, it isn't a county, and it isn't a country either. England doesn't have it's own Parliament, and hasn't since 1536, when Elizabeth I passed the Act of Uniformity. England also hasn't got a head of state or a separate legal system from Wales and NI (why do people always leave out Wales?).

Scotland might be a country, not sure - it's tricky. The UK is a country, its a unitary state with one supreme parliament, what more do you want?

Perhaps you mean the Act of Union, where the Principality of Wales and the rest of Wales were joined together and became completely controlled by Henry III. And Wales was divided into Shires/Counties like England, plus Wales was granted seats in the House of Parliament. Whats that got to do with the UK not being a Country? If you look it up in any Atlas with a list of all countries, then look up United Kingdom, then you'll see that England is a Constituent Country of the UK and so is Scotland, whereas Wales is a Princitpality and NI is a Constituent Region.

I didnt mean to quote you actually Stripe Lovers, dont know why I did it really.

Perhaps you mean the Act of Union, where the Principality of Wales and the rest of Wales were joined together and became completely controlled by Henry III. And Wales was divided into Shires/Counties like England, plus Wales was granted seats in the House of Parliament. Whats that got to do with the UK not being a Country? If you look it up in any Atlas with a list of all countries, then look up United Kingdom, then you'll see that England is a Constituent Country of the UK and so is Scotland, whereas Wales is a Princitpality and NI is a Constituent Region.

I didnt mean to quote you actually Stripe Lovers, dont know why I did it really.

Yeah, but a Principality is a country (Monaco would be another example) where the head of state is a prince/princess. As New British Glory pointed out, part of the agreement of Wales joining England would be that they would have their own separate prince as ruler, they just got screwed and got the son of the king (aka the Duke of Cornwall).

A bit of trivia for everyone, Wales also used to issue its own banknotes. Here's an example:

http://www.kcshop.com/foreigncurrency/images/F2055.jpg

Another piece of trivia: there are 11 different pound sterling notes (as in printed by different banks) circulating in the UK, Isle of Man and Channel Islands today.



God, I really, really, need to get on with some work.

Yeah, but a Principality is a country (Monaco would be another example) where the head of state is a prince/princess. As New British Glory pointed out, part of the agreement of Wales joining England would be that they would have their own separate prince as ruler, they just got screwed and got the son of the king (aka the Duke of Cornwall).

A bit of trivia for everyone, Wales also used to issue its own banknotes. Here's an example:

http://www.kcshop.com/foreigncurrency/images/F2055.jpg

Another piece of trivia: there are 11 different pound sterling notes (as in printed by different banks) circulating in the UK, Isle of Man and Channel Islands today.



God, I really, really, need to get on with some work.

So your saying that Wales is a seperate Country, so are you argueing that the UK is a country or several? I really dont see why people think that England isnt a country and that the UK is. It confuses me.

I am European. And I like Bush.

So your saying that Wales is a seperate Country, so are you argueing that the UK is a country or several? I really dont see why people think that England isnt a country and that the UK is. It confuses me.

I'm saying the UK is a country comprised of 3 countries and one dependent territory. It is, in effect, a country of countries. It's not too complicated, although the details are a little involved.

The United Arab Emirates is the only other example of a country of countries I'm familiar with, but at least there is another example.

The problem is that when we are concerned about national policy of Bush, with which Europeans also dissagree quite often, we're told it ain't our business and should buzz off. So what do you people want exactly? That we understand America or not? It's not like our opinion will affect national policy, so why tell us off? And it's not like we have to know your national policy anyway and that's why we focus on Iraq or Guantanamo Bay. Should we understand China's national policy before we can tell them 'hands off from Taiwan'? We, and protesters all over the world, demonstrate for what we think is right. Maybe we think the same of gay-marriage, maybe we hate you for it. Does that matter when we demonstrate Bush's lack of danger sense and irresponsibility?

Actually, I think we know more about him than we want to know. Heck, I might even know things the average American doesn't know about. A bigger problem is probably that Americans don't know who and what people are protesting them. If you call Europeans assholes for opposing a president "who can do no wrong" but meanwhile can't point out Luxembourg on the map where the mentioned protest takes place, your arguments fall like grass before the lawnmower.

Speaking of Topography, (difficult word alert!) I bet I could beat Bush at it anytime. If he could tell where to find Iryan Yaya, Kola and Curacao without consulting a globe or atlas, then I'd take that back. Mind you, you'll probably not find the first one even with atlasses.

Ya! Fluffles for you! :fluffle:

I don't like Bush. I disagree with his politics. However, I realise he's here and there's nothing we can do about it. I'm less angry at Bush for what he does and more angry at Blair for following him all the time. I'm not too bothered about what the US does. Even if our government tried to influence things it wouldn't change what the US does in the slightest bit. All I want is for the UK to declare neutrality in American conflicts, along with taking a far less assertive foreign policy in general.

Go to this page: http://www.ubersite.com/m/55659 .

I am British, before the war a nationwide poll was taken and 96% voted against a war without a U.N. resolution. Then we went to war :rolleyes: .
Most Brits see Bush as the sole reason for the war and I have yet to find anyone who says they like him with a straight face. Blair will be re-elected but only as there is no real threat to the labour parties support. You need to know a lot about British politics to understand that. :(

I'm saying the UK is a country comprised of 3 countries and one dependent territory. It is, in effect, a country of countries. It's not too complicated, although the details are a little involved.

The United Arab Emirates is the only other example of a country of countries I'm familiar with, but at least there is another example.

Ill agree with that, for now. Its funny that Ive lived in UAE and the UK both halves of my life.

Go to this page: http://www.ubersite.com/m/55659 .

Erm, why?

No, more Americans are overweight than Brits, this is a widely known fact. And 60% of Brits are not obese, I live here and 6 out of 10 people are not hugely fat, no matter what CNN says. Hell, they're almost as reliable an information source as Fox News.

Wales is a country. What the hell else is it, a minute village residing West of Bristol?

Yeh British politics is pretty odd at the moment. After godknows how many years of Tory control we all voted in Blair and the Labour party only to watch them destory the NHS, give the priveleged more and more assistance in ripping off everyone else, give the corporations a helping hand and then wage two wars that went against public opinion. Whilst in America the second largest public protest was against Coke changing their recipe, the London street were swamped by anti-war protesters on Blair's doorstep (well, he was in Glasgow at the time but I'm sure he heard about it) and yet he stil insisted on a bogus war without UN resolution. This really isnt a Labour government.

Europeans dislike Bush because he's stupid. He can't speak properly, he doesn't make sense, he has an IQ of less than 100, he has ruined any chance the world has of global peace, has managed to drag out pathetic excuse of a prime minister into a war so he can send his corporations into Iraq to "rebuild" the country, get it into massive debt, make money out of said debt, then nick its oil all in the name of liberation. How can Bush give a shit about human life when as Texas governer he managed to send more people to their death than any before him? In America the average wage for the working classes is falling, not rising, and yet the fat middle-aged white guys still get richer by screwing over the poor. Bush has loosened anti-corporation laws than limit monopolies, mergers, abuse of position, appalling treatment of the developing world in manufacture (Nike etc paying people in China, Indonesia etc less a day than the amount needed to buy three meals of minimum nutrition) and has directed money into a military that is already unnecesarily huge.

Perhaps most of all, Europeans don't tend to like Bush because he's right-wing and out of touch. He has no compassion, and doesn't understand that European countries actually prefer higher taxes in order to keep their population above the poverty line. He has continually ruined any attempt to monitor the world's polution levels, and frequently abuses basic human rights. He destroys civil liberties under the name of a "war on terrorism" that he himself caused, as well as the Republicans funded, that will never have an end because there is no one enemy. Terrorists can't be invaded, or killed, because more spring up in protest. Therefore, it's an excuse to make America shitter for the Americans indefinately. Europeans feel sorry for the people of the US, who we generally like, because they are made to fear anyone who's different because their government wants them to.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

No, more Americans are overweight than Brits, this is a widely known fact. And 60% of Brits are not obese, I live here and 6 out of 10 people are not hugely fat, no matter what CNN says. Hell, they're almost as reliable an information source as Fox News.

Wales is a country. What the hell else is it, a minute village residing West of Bristol?

Yeh British politics is pretty odd at the moment. After godknows how many years of Tory control we all voted in Blair and the Labour party only to watch them destory the NHS, give the priveleged more and more assistance in ripping off everyone else, give the corporations a helping hand and then wage two wars that went against public opinion. Whilst in America the second largest public protest was against Coke changing their recipe, the London street were swamped by anti-war protesters on Blair's doorstep (well, he was in Glasgow at the time but I'm sure he heard about it) and yet he stil insisted on a bogus war without UN resolution. This really isnt a Labour government.

Europeans dislike Bush because he's stupid. He can't speak properly, he doesn't make sense, he has an IQ of less than 100, he has ruined any chance the world has of global peace, has managed to drag out pathetic excuse of a prime minister into a war so he can send his corporations into Iraq to "rebuild" the country, get it into massive debt, make money out of said debt, then nick its oil all in the name of liberation. How can Bush give a shit about human life when as Texas governer he managed to send more people to their death than any before him? In America the average wage for the working classes is falling, not rising, and yet the fat middle-aged white guys still get richer by screwing over the poor. Bush has loosened anti-corporation laws than limit monopolies, mergers, abuse of position, appalling treatment of the developing world in manufacture (Nike etc paying people in China, Indonesia etc less a day than the amount needed to buy three meals of minimum nutrition) and has directed money into a military that is already unnecesarily huge.

Perhaps most of all, Europeans don't tend to like Bush because he's right-wing and out of touch. He has no compassion, and doesn't understand that European countries actually prefer higher taxes in order to keep their population above the poverty line. He has continually ruined any attempt to monitor the world's polution levels, and frequently abuses basic human rights. He destroys civil liberties under the name of a "war on terrorism" that he himself caused, as well as the Republicans funded, that will never have an end because there is no one enemy. Terrorists can't be invaded, or killed, because more spring up in protest. Therefore, it's an excuse to make America shitter for the Americans indefinately. Europeans feel sorry for the people of the US, who we generally like, because they are made to fear anyone who's different because their government wants them to.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

Singing Hallelujah. Amen

The only Europeans who like Bush (that I know of) are usually right wing conservative nuts from VB, our far right wing closet racist party.


Bush is an American and Kerry is an American so I really can't be bother to distinguish between the two. From what I saw, there wasn't much difference in their policies anyway.

HOWEVER
I think Bush is good for world morality.

Heres my reasoning:

1) America leads the world culturally - I might hate it but alas it is a fact.

2) Therefore if American culture is decadent and immoral other cultures tend to try and emulate that. I'm British and over the last 30 years society has decayed because of American cultural influences.

3) Bush won because fact many religious people voted for him - they liked his stance on moral issues (homosexuality etc)

4) Bush will now have to pander to this key religious group in order to ensure their future votes for the Republicans. This means he will be introducing some moral legislation to keep them happy.

5) Now if America becomes a more moral and religious society then many other cultures may follow suit for the reasons stated in points 1/2.

6) Therefore morality will be restored as a main stay of culture. With morality comes more patriotism.

We don't need narrow right wing christian fundamentalism having any influence on secular institutions, and certainly not on those of other countries. Patriotism is overrated anyway. Real patriotism should include criticising your country to make it a better place.


Am I the first one? :confused:

I'm European (Flemish/belgian to be precise) and I'd take Bush over Kerry any day. (but then again, I'd take just about any Libertarian over Bush any minute)
Economically libertarian only, but quite authoritarian in civil matters. Not very libertarian at all.

(I am also Flemish btw, and I have some moderate libertarian ideals)

Yes there are Europeans who like Bush. Last time I checked, 13% of France supported Bush, 17% of Germany, 11% of Ireland. That is all I know. I dont know about the other countries.

Im sure England must be pretty favorable of Bush, seeing as they have Tony Blair in office.Well, that isn't entirely correct. I mean, we have Bush himself in office :headbang: , and yet most of the country (the intelligent portion I like to say) can't stand his white texas...*fill in whatever statement you wish*...racisist prejudice backside. *nods*

...And with patriot morality comes a breakaway country that allows voting by all people, including women, and marriage to the person you love, and research on stemcells that come from the umbilical cord to help save lives...etc. Honestly, I hate to say it but I agree with my old history teacher who said, about two weeks back, "This is the closest we have come since the Civil War to a breaking of the nation :mp5: , nearly in half. And doing so would fuck everyone else up because the Liberal states have the largest cities and the schools and jobs and corporations that go with that :( , while the Conservative states have all of our damn food! :eek: " (yes, that is an exact quote. I wrote it down just after he said it...)

This is all untrue. Your logic deteriorates when you state that the religious opinion has such a hold over Bush's politics. I think you'll find that as well as the Republican party being virtually owned by massive corporation CEO's, it is those in constant fear of terrorism that vote Bush. True, religion plays a massive part in Bush's ideology, but then again it does in Blair's. He's as good as a Roman Catholic, and uses morality to fund nearly all his controversial decisions. The most pressure that Bush comes under is from corporations, not religion. Here's my list.

1. Bush gets elected on the promise of Laissez-Faire economics and maintaining the American ideal.
2. Bush does this, and subsequently ruins the American economy which is bound to fluctuate as it always does with right-wing politics. This is evidenced by him getting Gordon Brown to help out.
3. Uses war to move the American attention away from the disasterous home situation.
4. Passes pro-patriotism and religious laws in order to "bring Americans together in a time of distress". It's been done by regimes all over the world for centuries.
5. America becomes more right-wing/patriotic/xenophobic.
6. Corporations given more freedom - begin to dictate culture that then isn't rejected by our neo-Thatcherite government.

And so it continues. American's have always been susceptible to right-wing propaganda, and this is why it remains culturally and socially behind Europe. It has no healthcare system in place, for example.

2. Bush does this, and subsequently ruins the American economy which is bound to fluctuate as it always does with right-wing politics. This is evidenced by him getting Gordon Brown to help out.
The American economy is hitting on all cylinders now.

The American economy is hitting on all cylinders now.


No it's not. Have you any idea how weak the dollar is? Do you know how low the wages of the American working classes is? Why the hell would a patriotic American government ask an English lefty to help out with the economy if it wasn't struggling? Who told you it was firing on all cylinders, Fox News?

No it's not. Have you any idea how weak the dollar is? Do you know how low the wages of the American working classes is? Why the hell would a patriotic American government ask an English lefty to help out with the economy if it wasn't struggling? Who told you it was firing on all cylinders, Fox News?
Republicans think the dollar is too strong actually. So They are cheering that are money is becoming worthless slowly.

And call it plain old superstition, but I just don't trust them democraps, especially not when they have Hilary -gasp- Clinton in their party. :eek: ;)
I don't trust either party. They're both heavily statist. The only decent US parties are the Libertarians and Greens.

But even the Democraps (!) have the advantage of not being filled with neo-cons.

Kerry is more socially liberal, Bush more economically liberal. A true libertarian would not place economic libertarianism above social libertarianism, I would think. I get the impression that many self-professed libertarians are much more concerned with economic freedoms, which is disappointing.
I don't consider Bush to be an economic liberal. Remember the steel tariffs his adminstration imposed? And then there is the well-documented corporate welfare. I don't think these fit into a free-market ideology.

Not that Kerry would be much different in these areas, I'm just pointing out that Bush is no economic liberal.

About Libertarians: I notice how those of them on this forum who are more concerned with economic freedoms supported Bush while those more concerned with personal freedoms supported Not Bush. (I say this because very few vocally supported Kerry, but I noticed that Superpower07 and others like him criticised Bush much more than Kerry.)

Anyone who likes Bush should be shot for a distinct lack of morality and a fundemantally flawed grasp of politics. Therefore, Europeans with much more intelligence, less body fat, and more left-leaning states (therefore more politically aware) realise that Bush is a dribbling idiot who should be assasinated.
Well at least you're giving your objective analysis. :rolleyes:

No it's not. Have you any idea how weak the dollar is? Do you know how low the wages of the American working classes is? Why the hell would a patriotic American government ask an English lefty to help out with the economy if it wasn't struggling? Who told you it was firing on all cylinders, Fox News?
So much ignorance mashed into one post.

Maybe if you a.) Stop being ignorant and b.) Learn about economics, you'd understand more.

Start with your first point. A weak dollar is in America's case no indicator of how good or bad the economy is doing. Currency strength is in general a fairly bad indicator. Take, for example the Euro. European growth is very sluggish at the moment, yet it has maintained its international currency strength. The American economy, however, is expanding faster than the Eurozone's, but the dollar is sliding.

Take this study to help you :
http://www.economist.com/images/20030906/CUS978.gif
Albeit this information is somewhat outdated. Minimum wage, however, isn't a really accurate gauge of the economy, either. Wages in China are very, very low, but their economy is continually expanding faster than most, if not all, other nations in the world.

I don't know why George Bush would ask Gordon Brown to help out with the economy. In fact, this is the first I've heard it. It would help if you had a link or something so I can see what actually happened.

And no, I don't get all my news from FOX. But, as in my signature, Larry Kudlow pointed out the statistics :

In the six quarters after Bush’s tax cuts, real GDP expanded at a 4.6 percent annual rate, much faster than the 2.5 percent pace of the six earlier recovery quarters. Consumer spending jumped from 2.8 percent to 3.9 percent. Business investment in new plant and equipment surged to 13.4 percent from only 1 percent before the tax cuts. Personal income jumped to a 5 percent growth rate, nearly double the earlier speed of 2.6 percent. The average employment gain (combining both surveys) was 2.4 million compared with virtually no gain before the tax cuts.

Corporate profits, without which businesses cannot create jobs, now stand at a record $1.118 trillion — 56 percent above their recession trough, 25 percent above the prior recovery peak of the late ’90s, and at a near-record 9.5 percent of GDP. Broad stock market averages have jumped 60 percent from their lows. Home ownership is at an all-time high, as are existing home sales. U.S. household wealth stands at a record $51 trillion.


Now I know you might want America to be hurting economically, or perhaps your just plain uninformed, but there are the statistics. Just for comparison, the Eurozone and America :

Eurozone America
GDP 2004 +1.8% +4.4%
Unemployment 8.9% 5.4%

Europeans who like Bush
The convention could be held in a phonebooth

http://www.economist.com/images/20030906/CUS978.gif
What the fuck? That is the most useless, pointless graph I've ever seen. For that to have any kind of meaning, the price of goods and services would have to be the same throughout the countries mentioned, which it should be fairly obvious, they are not.

Being in England right now as an citizen of the United States, I must say that all the people I have talked to have a strong dislike of the American President, as do I.

Bush won mostly because of a few reasons:
1. abortion policies - I wasn't following the election very closely, but I've heard that this was one of the major deciding issues... and that's fucking pathetic.
Actually, it was an even more pathetic non-issue than that - gay marriage.

The Republican Christians went to the polls to hurt gay people.

Heck, some of the grains I grew went to help feed the former USSR, and I wasn't very pleased at our politicians feeding our enemy.

You even consider the former USSR to be "your enemy"?

Also, did you consider the ordinary people of the USSR to be your enemies, or just its government? I think that feeding starving Russians is a hell of a lot more moral than letting them die because THEY'RE THE ENEMY!!!

I am European. And I like Bush.
Funny, I thought you were American. Where do you live?

U.S. household wealth stands at a record $51 trillion.

But that's obvious. That's not an inflation adjusted figure. As such, at almost any time in history except immediately after a major recession, the household wealth is gonna be at a record high.

But that's obvious. That's not an inflation adjusted figure. As such, at almost any time in history except immediately after a major recession, the household wealth is gonna be at a record high.
Surely if the American economy was "ruined" you'd agree that it would not be at a record high, inflation adjusted or not. The word "ruined", to myself at least, would indicate a major recession.

I'm European. I'm a socialist (which in my country is nothing like what the American idea about socialism seems to be (Which is what I would call soviet dictatorship) And I don't like Bush. Now why don't I like Bush? I'll tell you why...

Simple fact is... I'm opposed to just about everything Bush does! Be it social, economic or otherwise. I disagree with his economic point of view and wether or not he inherited or created the recession. I feel he so far failed to do anything about it. (If he manages to do this after all, by the end of his term, I'll hand him grudging respect for that, and though it won't make me LIKE him. I'll stop disliking him as much as I do now. But if the dollar heads the way of the peso under his leadership, I wouldn't be surprised either to be honest. And though I admit the US as a nation COULD learn the lesson in humility that'd give them, I sure as hell wouldn't wish that upon its people.)

In addition I am disgusted by Bush' homophobia. And I have no use for his brand of christianity. If you are going to be a christian, then adhered to good christian values such as loving thine neighbor, not judging lest ye be judged, turning the other cheek, feeding the hungry, clothing the poor and doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
Yes, so the bible has some anti-gay statements. It also calls for death for adultery, mutilations and stoning as punishment and it condones slavery and seeing women as second class citizens. Christians aren't clamouring for all that either, now are they?

In addition I think Bush is a divider, despite his claims to the contrary. Honestly... Conservatives and Liberals and the smaller groups such as Greens, Libertarians, Socialists etc. May disagree on many things, but I am sure all of us can agree that the country should prosper so that its citizens can have normal happy lives. As I see it, the right has folks fighting over moral scraps whilst it spends insane fortunes into military actions.

And whilst I understood the Afghanistan war, and won't hold that against Bush. (Even though I think he failed that one by not capturing Bin Laden) I simply can't accept a head of the state who ignores the UN. Even if I don't think the UN is all that (They failed to handle Darfur for one.) I don't think the way of changing that is by plain ignoring it and going into a war just like that under those circumstances. Honestly, I won't miss Saddam, but really the way it all went down is just plain wrong. Not to mention that whole thing about the soldiers who are sent there being poorly equipped.

Still you know.. maybe if the US wants the terrorism to stop. Maybe they should stop their oil corporations from acting like robber barons and their military from blocking goods such as medicines into enemy countries. I don't condone the terrorists methods at all. But I don't condone the way US corporations (Although honestly, western business in general) treats the rest of the world as though we where still in the colonial age. I don't think the US and co, should give into terrorist demands, but they could start treating the people of the middle east a bit better. Rather then backing up opressive dictators that'll bend over for bussiness interests.

All in all... I don't like Bush, I don't like what he does, I don't like the crowd around him. I don't like the way his party is ever slipping from moderate to more and more hard-line right wing. And honestly, I just can't see why he won the elections! I don't solely blame Bush for all thats wrong in the world. And honestly, though I love my country I have quite an axe to grind with my own Holland. But still.. I don't like Bush.

So Kerry didn't have all that charisma... But Kerry offered healthcare! Why the hell would people vote against healthcare? Its nuts... I also don't get why so many Americans often seem to think the rest of the world looks up to them and envies them. I think the living standard here in Holland is higher then it is in the US, especially if you aren't to well off. Even though whe are having our problems here. And frankly the rest of the world mainly seems to consider the US to be pompous and overbearing at best and downright evil at worst. Not great and glorious... Just powerful and menacing.

Now I personally don't hate the US, I think its a beautiful country, been there twice. And its people as I have experienced them are polite and hospitable. But I do think that some Americans lack the common sense that is building a safety net for the populace, so that people who have it tough don't spiral into misery, poverty and possibly crime.

Actually its because I love the US that I am so pissed off at it sometimes. It should be a better country then it is right now. And I hope that it will be one day. I also hope it will 'reunite' with Europe eventually. As an autonomous nation mind you, but in a closer union. After all... Lots of people think there will be a world union one day, and the EU seems to be the precursor of that, if you ask me.

But as long as the US remains a country where the likes of Bush can still be elected... I fear the gap shall remain to large.

And I really can't say I can see Bush's supporters as anything but misguided. Kerry wasn't a saint, but it would have been better had he been elected.

Simple fact is... I'm opposed to just about everything Bush does! Be it social, economic or otherwise. I disagree with his economic point of view and wether or not he inherited or created the recession. I feel he so far failed to do anything about it. (If he manages to do this after all, by the end of his term, I'll hand him grudging respect for that, and though it won't make me LIKE him. I'll stop disliking him as much as I do now. But if the dollar heads the way of the peso under his leadership, I wouldn't be surprised either to be honest. And though I admit the US as a nation COULD learn the lesson in humility that'd give them, I sure as hell wouldn't wish that upon its people.)

So did you just ignore the economic news in the last year and a half?

*tuts* I think not. Tony Blair has gone out on a wing supporting Bush, he wont be in office again because of it amoungst other things.

People said that Bush wasn't going to get re-elected and he did! Never say never!

bush is the new Hitler....is that enough?

How?

i'd like to remind you that the BBC very very rarely shows the good sides of the war. CNN alike for the first 6 months would only report on the damage we've done and US soldiers killed. Venture onto Fox News and u'll see footage of the new schools being built, the expansion of the Iraqi aiprorts and the new jobs being dispursed. US is making it possible for the Iraqi to feed thier children. Biased news is nothing new, but a wide scale of news organizations is, click around a bit more on the TV and u'll see all sides

Well done! Your right about your post! To bad people don't believe Fox News here and always look at the negatives of things and not the positive. Keep up the good work.

The Queen could reject Acts, but The House of Commons would take away her Queendom. She has the power to slow it down, if she wants to stop being the Queen. Its sort of the same for The House of Lords, if they keep rejecting what the Commons have accepted then The Commons have the power to say "it doesnt matter what you 'lords' say, because we were elected and have more power." and so the Act will get past the lords. So nobody really has any power apart from The House of Commons.

The Queen can also disolve the Parliment if she wants too! Don't forget that!

The only Europeans who like Bush (that I know of) are usually right wing conservative nuts from VB, our far right wing closet racist party.

Although I'm still thinking whether to give them my vote again (only two things are making me vote for them: their independentist point of view, and the fact that the party has been banned by law) I don't belong to the VB. But I know a lot of VB'ers and they *all* seem to be more anti than pro-american, and they sure as hell are anti-bush. Just look at their magazines and their propaganda, they do support some action against terrorism, but condemn most of the decisions made by Bush. The VB is anti-globalist..


[Bush is] Economically libertarian only, but quite authoritarian in civil matters. Not very libertarian at all.

I never said Bush was a libertarian. But in my opinion, it's better to have the more economically libertarian president with a more authoritarian view on personal freedoms (as these can be expanded via a more liberal opposition) than a statist pseudo-socialist who'll fuck up the economy and create some more Euroweenie-inspired mess.

(I am also Flemish btw, and I have some moderate libertarian ideals)

Nice to know there are more Flemish libertarians (even if moderate :)) out there, I don't seem to see many around my university (Red Tobbackgrad Leuven :))

If you apply this logic to other situations, then it becomes impossible to criticise the leader of any nation if you are not a citizen of that nation. Hitler brought Germany out of the oppression, maybe other countries were wrong to go to war with Germany, because they didn't take that into consideration.

(I am not one of those people who seriously compares GW to Hitler, it was your logic I was commenting on)

Did you forget Hitler's invasion of Poland? Russia? Luxemburgh? Netherlands? Belgium? France?

Did you forget out about the Holocaust?

Hitler bringing Germanyout of oppression? Give me a break ok! No, he may have brought them out of a Depression but then he waged war against all of Europe.

So did you just ignore the economic news in the last year and a half?

According to the economic news over here the dollars course has never been so terrible.

According to the economic news over here the dollars course has never been so terrible.
Explain to me how the weakness of the dollar means the American economy is in the dumps.

Wait, you can't.

I'm from the UK and I know only one person who likes Bush, well I say likes Bush, she doesn't really like him she just said if she had to chose between Bush and a trianed monkey she'd chose Bush. Everyone else I know would have chosen the trained monkey .
Anyway got a book of George W Bush quotes for Xmas so I thought I'd share one of my faves
"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." august 30 2000

Actually the Queen is the Head of State for England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Australia and Canada. So by all your peoples 'rules' Australia and Canada are part of the UK as well. Wales isn't a country.

Don't forget the Commonwealth of Nations that are somewhat attached to the British Empire.

No it's not. Have you any idea how weak the dollar is? Do you know how low the wages of the American working classes is? Why the hell would a patriotic American government ask an English lefty to help out with the economy if it wasn't struggling? Who told you it was firing on all cylinders, Fox News?

Actually all networks are saying it!

Explain to me how the weakness of the dollar means the American economy is in the dumps.

Wait, you can't.


Wow, mature one aren't you?

Actually an increasingly weak dollar will roughly mean that American products are worth less. Whilst this doesn't neccesarily mean impending economic doom. (As I said, if you cared to notice, I'd grudgingly respect Bush more if he DOES manage to improve the current economic problems. I simply doubt his capacity.) It could have very grave consequences indeed, and its definitly not a good sign.

The US has a huge national debt, thats growing very rapidly right now. If bussiness outside the US decide that with the current chain of events their interests are at risk if they continue to invest into the US, the US will suffer a major economic backlash from it.

But hey, if you want to stick your head in the sand... Maybe it'll work out this time, but if it doesn't, or it does but comes back to bite you in the butt later on anyway, don't say nobody warned you.

So did you just ignore the economic news in the last year and a half?

I think most people have! Its amazing how much people say the US Economy is in the toilet but all the economic news says otherwise.

According to the economic news over here the dollars course has never been so terrible.

And yet our economy is growing at a fast clip. Care to explain?

Wow, mature one aren't you?

Actually an increasingly weak dollar will roughly mean that American products are worth less. Whilst this doesn't neccesarily mean impending economic doom. (As I said, if you cared to notice, I'd grudgingly respect Bush more if he DOES manage to improve the current economic problems. I simply doubt his capacity.) It could have very grave consequences indeed, and its definitly not a good sign.

The US has a huge national debt, thats growing very rapidly right now. If bussiness outside the US decide that with the current chain of events their interests are at risk if they continue to invest into the US, the US will suffer a major economic backlash from it.

But hey, if you want to stick your head in the sand... Maybe it'll work out this time, but if it doesn't, or it does but comes back to bite you in the butt later on anyway, don't say nobody warned you.
Exactly. And increasingly weak dollar means American products are worth less abroad - boosting exports. Personally, I don't think thats a bad thing. Moreover, while its a possibility its very unlikely that companies will withdraw en masse from the United States. There's simply too much to be had in the largest market of rich consumers in the world.

Wow, mature one aren't you?

I consider him more mature than you.

Actually an increasingly weak dollar will roughly mean that American products are worth less. Whilst this doesn't neccesarily mean impending economic doom. (As I said, if you cared to notice, I'd grudgingly respect Bush more if he DOES manage to improve the current economic problems. I simply doubt his capacity.) It could have very grave consequences indeed, and its definitly not a good sign.

Then why is our economy growing at its fastest clip since the REAGAN administration?

The US has a huge national debt, thats growing very rapidly right now. If bussiness outside the US decide that with the current chain of events their interests are at risk if they continue to invest into the US, the US will suffer a major economic backlash from it.

The debt has nothing to do with Economic Growth. If you had an econ class, you would understand that.

But hey, if you want to stick your head in the sand... Maybe it'll work out this time, but if it doesn't, or it does but comes back to bite you in the butt later on anyway, don't say nobody warned you.

I'll trust the news that I am seeing and what I am seeing is a growing economy. Sorry if you can't understand or see that.

Surely if the American economy was "ruined" you'd agree that it would not be at a record high, inflation adjusted or not. The word "ruined", to myself at least, would indicate a major recession.
Yeah, but see now you've just twisted the whole thing around. Just because after a recession you wouldn't be at an all time high doesn't mean that if you're at an all time high, there hasn't been a recession.

I'm making no judgements here on the actual state of affairs, I'm just trying to point out that your logic is pretty bad.

Explain to me how the weakness of the dollar means the American economy is in the dumps.

Wait, you can't.
Sorry, hang on, are you saying that the value of the dollar has no bearing on the economic strength of America?

Yeah, but see now you've just twisted the whole thing around. Just because after a recession you wouldn't be at an all time high doesn't mean that if you're at an all time high, there hasn't been a recession.

I'm making no judgements here on the actual state of affairs, I'm just trying to point out that your logic is pretty bad.
Right. It would indicate that we're not in a recession right now. As far as I can tell, that (or something like it) is what the original poster who I responed to was insinuating.

Sorry, hang on, are you saying that the value of the dollar has no bearing on the economic strength of America?
No. I'm saying that looking at the strength of a currency alone, you cannot make a statement on the economic conditions of that country in almost every case, barring hyperinflation.

Exactly. And increasingly weak dollar means American products are worth less abroad - boosting exports.
But by the same token, it increases the cost of importing things.

Personally, I don't think thats a bad thing. Moreover, while its a possibility its very unlikely that companies will withdraw en masse from the United States. There's simply too much to be had in the largest market of rich consumers in the world.
Yeah, but with free trade going the way it is, it gets very easy to produce things cheaply in other countries and then bring them into the largest market of rich consumers in the world.

But by the same token, it increases the cost of importing things.

Yeah, but with free trade going the way it is, it gets very easy to produce things cheaply in other countries and then bring them into the largest market of rich consumers in the world.
Well then I'm sure you see what happens when you put these two statements together...

Right. It would indicate that we're not in a recession right now. As far as I can tell, that (or something like it) is what the original poster who I responed to was insinuating.
No, I'm sorry, but the logic doesn't flow. If you say "If A is true then effect B is observed" it doesn't necessarily follow that if B is observed, then A must be true, as B could have an alternative cause. You can't use what I said to make your point indepentdant of other evidence.

Well then I'm sure you see what happens when you put these two statements together...
But theres no money in America anymore.

But theres no money in America anymore.

BULLCRAP!!!!

I think most people have! Its amazing how much people say the US Economy is in the toilet but all the economic news says otherwise.

The Economist would beg to differ...

THE dollar has been the leading international currency for as long as most people can remember. But its dominant role can no longer be taken for granted. If America keeps on spending and borrowing at its present pace, the dollar will eventually lose its mighty status in international finance. And that would hurt: the privilege of being able to print the world's reserve currency, a privilege which is now at risk, allows America to borrow cheaply, and thus to spend much more than it earns, on far better terms than are available to others. Imagine you could write cheques that were accepted as payment but never cashed. That is what it amounts to. If you had been granted that ability, you might take care to hang on to it. America is taking no such care, and may come to regret it.

Full story: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3446249

The Economist would beg to differ...



Full story: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3446249

Now show me figures!

I looked at the quarterly figures and you know what they say? The economy is growing. Now provide proof that our economy is not growing.

Besides, that is talking about the dollar and its not exactly sound proof that the economy is in the toilet. Do you have actual proof that it is?

No, I'm sorry, but the logic doesn't flow. If you say "If A is true then effect B is observed" it doesn't necessarily follow that if B is observed, then A must be true, as B could have an alternative cause. You can't use what I said to make your point indepentdant of other evidence.
Right. But thats not what I'm trying to do. Surely you know modus tollens :
If A then B
~B
Therefore, ~A

That is what I'm trying to do.
A : If we are in a recession, total household income will not be at a high.
B : Household income is at a high.
Therefore, we are not in a recession.

Now show me figures!

I looked at the quarterly figures and you know what they say? The economy is growing. Now provide proof that our economy is not growing.

Besides, that is talking about the dollar and its not exactly sound proof that the economy is in the toilet. Do you have actual proof that it is?

Woah, woah, woah, slow down skippy. You said all the economic news was positive, I posted a highly reputable economic news source that stated otherwise. I was correcting an exaggeration, not making any concrete points. Hell, I'm no economist, I'm just a pedant.

BULLCRAP!!!!
No, I'm saying under the circumstances he described, if those two things happened together, then there would be a significant reduction in industry in America (as its heading abroad) and a corresponding decline in overall wealth, which means that, while imports are cheaper, no-one is earning any money to buy them.

No. I'm saying that looking at the strength of a currency alone, you cannot make a statement on the economic conditions of that country in almost every case, barring hyperinflation.
But you made a statement about the economic conditions in the country:

Exactly. And increasingly weak dollar means American products are worth less abroad - boosting exports. Personally, I don't think thats a bad thing. Moreover, while its a possibility its very unlikely that companies will withdraw en masse from the United States. There's simply too much to be had in the largest market of rich consumers in the world.

Right. But thats not what I'm trying to do. Surely you know modus tollens :
If A then B
~B
Therefore, ~A

That is what I'm trying to do.
A : If we are in a recession, total household income will not be at a high.
B : Household income is at a high.
Therefore, we are not in a recession.
But that wasn't what I said.

A: Household income will be at a high except in times of recession
B: Household income is at a high.

But this doesn't prove anything, as it doesn't logically preclude the circumstance where we would be in a recession but household incomes would still be at a high. There is no term that says that recessions will always reduce household income.

Right. But thats not what I'm trying to do. Surely you know modus tollens :
If A then B
~B
Therefore, ~A

That is what I'm trying to do.
A : If we are in a recession, total household income will not be at a high.
B : Household income is at a high.
Therefore, we are not in a recession.

Actually it should be:

A: We are in a recession
B: Household income will not be at a high

If A then B

Household income is at a high (ie not B)

Therefore we are not in a recession (not A)

A matter of formatting, though; the logic is perfectly sound. I told you I was a pedant.

But you made a statement about the economic conditions in the country:
What I meant was that you cannot say "The economy is booming because the currency is getting stronger" or "The economy is very weak because the currency has stayed at the same strength for too long" - which is what people are trying to do. It would have been better if I had been more specific, saying that you could make statements about certain facets of the economy, such as trade, but the overall economic situation cannot be adequately judged by currency alone.

Woah, woah, woah, slow down skippy. You said all the economic news was positive, I posted a highly reputable economic news source that stated otherwise. I was correcting an exaggeration, not making any concrete points. Hell, I'm no economist, I'm just a pedant.

I'm not an economist either but everywhere I look is nothing but good news!

What I meant was that you cannot say "The economy is booming because the currency is getting stronger" or "The economy is very weak because the currency has stayed at the same strength for too long" - which is what people are trying to do. It would have been better if I had been more specific, saying that you could make statements about certain facets of the economy, such as trade, but the overall economic situation cannot be adequately judged by currency alone.
The overall state of the economy would be based on all the individual facets though. Therefore, if an indicator can tell you something about an individual facet, it can tell you something (although a less significant something) about the whole economy. In addition, that facet would have an effect on other facets, so you can learn something about them as well, giving a further piece of the puzzle.

I don't disagree that the statement he made was too sweeping, but saying that it tells you nothing is too sweeping also.

The Republican Christians went to the polls to hurt gay people.


You even consider the former USSR to be "your enemy"?

Also, did you consider the ordinary people of the USSR to be your enemies, or just its government? I think that feeding starving Russians is a hell of a lot more moral than letting them die because THEY'RE THE ENEMY!!!




Republicans went to the polls to hurt gay people? No not all of us. Many of us voted the way we did because Kerry was not worthy of our votes. He sold us out years ago and he would have done it again.

Yes the former USSR was our enemy at the time. Sure the people of the USSR were not all bad, but when we give food to them (before we take care of our own hungry first) it helps support their regime. The USSR was the evil empire. I would have much rather made sure my fellow Vietnam Vets who were homeless and hungry were fed and taken care of before our enemy. But that's just me.

The Queen can also disolve the Parliment if she wants too! Don't forget that!

No way in hell would the Queen be able to disolve Parliament. She'd be put in jail. If capital punishment was still legal, she'd be beheaded.

Well, Bush is far from a traditional conservative, you're right about that. But Kerry does seem like a traditional liberal.
@#$!$%!$@ BULLSHIT. They are traditional only if you count the years since FDR. If you go back to the revolution they are not traditional by any means of the word.

No way in hell would the Queen be able to disolve Parliament. She'd be put in jail. If capital punishment was still legal, she'd be beheaded.

Actually not true at all. All the rights given by parliment was given to them by the Monarch. The Monarch opens parliment and she can very well not open it if she so chooses. It has happened before but then a revolt took place. Of course this also took place during the colonization of America and all of the British Empire's troubles caused them to look at themselves which left America pretty much alone during that period of time.

The monarchy can very well disolve the Parliment because it is within her power to do so. If you have proof that states otherwise, please provide it.

Europeans do not like Bush because they are socially left while he is socially right. They believe the entire world would be ruled under a European Union... "I mean, world union". And they would have us all live just like the UN wants: Corruption deciet and lies. The "few" who support Bush are sane, thank God for that.

Actually not true at all. All the rights given by parliment was given to them by the Monarch. The Monarch opens parliment and she can very well not open it if she so chooses. It has happened before but then a revolt took place. Of course this also took place during the colonization of America and all of the British Empire's troubles caused them to look at themselves which left America pretty much alone during that period of time.

The monarchy can very well disolve the Parliment because it is within her power to do so. If you have proof that states otherwise, please provide it.

You are, ofcourse, completely right. What I meant to say was that 'No way in hell would the Queen disolve Parliament' The truth of it would be that there would be riots in the streets and eventually the Queen being taken out of power by International efforts as well as riots. The Beheading and jail part was simply over-exaggeration.

You are, ofcourse, completely right. What I meant to say was that 'No way in hell would the Queen disolve Parliament' The truth of it would be that there would be riots in the streets and eventually the Queen being taken out of power by International efforts as well as riots. The Beheading and jail part was simply over-exaggeration.

Problem is, its the law in England that she can. Therefor, it doesn't matter what the international people say. Unless there's a UN resolution saying that we can use force, I doubt there will be anything they can do, and we know that there won't be because nations will veto it.

As for rioting, I'm sure there will be but then the police would get called out and if it gets to bad, martial law.

Problem is, its the law in England that she can. Therefor, it doesn't matter what the international people say. Unless there's a UN resolution saying that we can use force, I doubt there will be anything they can do, and we know that there won't be because nations will veto it.

As for rioting, I'm sure there will be but then the police would get called out and if it gets to bad, martial law.

Yes then UN and the EU would impose sanctions upon the UK, encouraging her to put Parliament back together. As it would contrivene the EU convention on Human Rights.

Yes then UN and the EU would impose sanctions upon the UK, encouraging her to put Parliament back together. As it would contrivene the EU convention on Human Rights.

But can the EU really do anything within the borders of England since it would be an internal affair?

But can the EU really do anything within the borders of England since it would be an internal affair?

Not really, but this situation is so improbable that the EU havent considered how it would I dare say.

Not really, but this situation is so improbable that the EU havent considered how it would I dare say.

Not surprising! LOL!!

Are you surprised that I knew this?

Not surprising! LOL!!

Are you surprised that I knew this?

Lol, yeah, Id be surprised if someone didn't know this!

Lol, yeah, Id be surprised if someone didn't know this!

Most americans probably doesn't but after reading books and studying history is how I learned of this!

Most americans probably doesn't but after reading books and studying history is how I learned of this!

I was wondering whether you were originally from America or not. But I suppose British Politics isnt important anywhere except Britain. Unless you're interested.

I was wondering whether you were originally from America or not. But I suppose British Politics isnt important anywhere except Britain. Unless you're interested.

I'm not really interested in British Politics but since Britian is part of American History, I try to learn all I can.

He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

I'm not really interested in British Politics but since Britian is part of American History, I try to learn all I can.

He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

Well you have to be interested in something to learn voluntarily.

Did you forget Hitler's invasion of Poland? Russia? Luxemburgh? Netherlands? Belgium? France?

Did you forget out about the Holocaust?

Hitler bringing Germanyout of oppression? Give me a break ok! No, he may have brought them out of a Depression but then he waged war against all of Europe.

I meant to say Depression! I've edited it now.

and I didn't forget about the terrible things Nazi germany did. Perhaps the use of Hitler as an examplewas a bit of a stretch, but the point I was trying to make, was that criticism of what the US is doing in Iraq does not have to take GW Bush's domestic policies into consideration, as they are irrelevant.

I did make it very clear that it was the logic of the argument I was opposing, and I was not attempting to compare Hitler and GW Bush directly. did you forget about me writing that?

What I hate about European politics is that you'll never find a decent party that will oppose Bush. The greens and pacifists are too small, the socialist get a lot of flack for overspending and I hate going overboard with it as well. Liberals are sometimes more willing to take a stand against America, the EU and globalization but are bad for your social insurance. Christian-democrats and conservatives are just bad news overall, the former not even having a clear idealogy. And the farther right parties are scary. Existing parties have to reform, a lot of them would benefit from being anti-Bush and moderating their agendas.

And for goodness sake, Labour, kick out Tony Blair! I'm just some foreigner without British voting right but that guy is killing his own party! They'd be better of with someone who actually believed in Social-Democracy. Just look at what he does! He blames ex-hippies for Britain losing its innocence, while that sounds awfully like he's perseuing the agendas of Bush and Balkenende. Incidentally, Labour draws lots of its support from that generation and their offspring as well. I say, kick that conservative spy out and get a better man in charge! Or a better pig, there'd still be improvement.

Oh, and as for those politicians who cave in to Bush's demand:

Italy: Berlusconi is a jerk
Spain: Why do you think the conservatives lost the election?
Netherlands: Weak leadership
Belgium: Econimical pressure from the USA
Poland: Idem Ditto, but Germany limited the damage by pressuring them in the EU
UK: Needs this explaining? Blair's screwing the Labour Party

All of Europe seems to have picked up the bad habit of politically experimenting at a totally inconvenient time all of a sudden.

We don't need narrow right wing christian fundamentalism having any influence on secular institutions, and certainly not on those of other countries. Patriotism is overrated anyway. Real patriotism should include criticising your country to make it a better place.

Since when was morality considered a Christian attribute? Surely you be an athesist and be moral as well?

Surely you be an athesist and be moral as well?
well why the hell would you bother?

This is all untrue. Your logic deteriorates when you state that the religious opinion has such a hold over Bush's politics. I think you'll find that as well as the Republican party being virtually owned by massive corporation CEO's, it is those in constant fear of terrorism that vote Bush. True, religion plays a massive part in Bush's ideology, but then again it does in Blair's. He's as good as a Roman Catholic, and uses morality to fund nearly all his controversial decisions.

Umm in what country are you living in? Blair might be a Roman Catholic but there is no massive Christian movement in this country anymore. In America however there is one that is just reawkening after the moral decadence of the 60s, 70s and 80s. Blair's idealogy is not backed by Roman Catholic ideals: the vast amount of his legislative projects are aimed to go direclty between left and right. Catholicism or Christanity has had very little to do with British politics since the Second World War. That was so in America until the recent election.

well why the hell would you bother?

Because morality is totally diseperate from religion. Morality is doing what is right and wrong - religion may have some basis in that but religion is far more to with spirtuality that is loosely based on morality.

What I hate about European politics is that you'll never find a decent party that will oppose Bush. The greens and pacifists are too small, the socialist get a lot of flack for overspending and I hate going overboard with it as well. Liberals are sometimes more willing to take a stand against America, the EU and globalization but are bad for your social insurance. Christian-democrats and conservatives are just bad news overall, the former not even having a clear idealogy. And the farther right parties are scary. Existing parties have to reform, a lot of them would benefit from being anti-Bush and moderating their agendas.

And for goodness sake, Labour, kick out Tony Blair! I'm just some foreigner without British voting right but that guy is killing his own party! They'd be better of with someone who actually believed in Social-Democracy. Just look at what he does! He blames ex-hippies for Britain losing its innocence, while that sounds awfully like he's perseuing the agendas of Bush and Balkenende. Incidentally, Labour draws lots of its support from that generation and their offspring as well. I say, kick that conservative spy out and get a better man in charge! Or a better pig, there'd still be improvement.

Oh, and as for those politicians who cave in to Bush's demand:

Italy: Berlusconi is a jerk
Spain: Why do you think the conservatives lost the election?
Netherlands: Weak leadership
Belgium: Econimical pressure from the USA
Poland: Idem Ditto, but Germany limited the damage by pressuring them in the EU
UK: Needs this explaining? Blair's screwing the Labour Party

All of Europe seems to have picked up the bad habit of politically experimenting at a totally inconvenient time all of a sudden.

The only reason the Labour Party are in power is because Blair portrayed them as a right wing party. Thats the only reason former Conservative voters voted for him: because he claimed to be a fresher, newer version of the Tories and has always pandered to right wing preferences in his manifestos. As soon as Blair is gone and a socialist leader is appointed, then the Tories will be able to reclaim most of their middle class voters. So I agree with you: Blair should go. But I only agree, because when Blair does go, the Tories have a decent chance of returning to office.

Oh and I am British and hold British citzenship so I think a little more about British politics than you.

Well you have to be interested in something to learn voluntarily.

True! British history fascinated me so I dabbled in it some in my studying of American History! Amazing what you can come across when studying 2 nations (I know they weren't then but you know what I mean) during the same time period.

And for goodness sake, Labour, kick out Tony Blair! I'm just some foreigner without British voting right but that guy is killing his own party! They'd be better of with someone who actually believed in Social-Democracy. Just look at what he does! He blames ex-hippies for Britain losing its innocence, while that sounds awfully like he's perseuing the agendas of Bush and Balkenende. Incidentally, Labour draws lots of its support from that generation and their offspring as well. I say, kick that conservative spy out and get a better man in charge! Or a better pig, there'd still be improvement.

Its amazingly hard and long and difficult to get Tony Blair out of leadership, we'd might aswell wait for him to die or Labour not getting voted in again. If he were any sort of man then he would quit the job when Labour gets voted in again. Buuut hes too greedy for that, it would be too much bother for him to move out of number 11.

Its amazingly hard and long and difficult to get Tony Blair out of leadership, we'd might aswell wait for him to die or Labour not getting voted in again. If he were any sort of man then he would quit the job when Labour gets voted in again. Buuut hes too greedy for that, it would be too much bother for him to move out of number 11.

I thought it was number 10?

I thought it was number 10?

Nah he moved in to Number 11 because hes got a bigger family than past Prime Ministers. Number 10 is smaller.

Nah he moved in to Number 11 because hes got a bigger family than past Prime Ministers. Number 10 is smaller.

Ok because on TV they keep saying number 10! That was why I was asking.

Ok because on TV they keep saying number 10! That was why I was asking.

They say that because its tradition sort of, probably. Gordon Brown lives in Number 10, the person who I think should be Prime Minister interestingly enough.

Although I'm still thinking whether to give them my vote again (only two things are making me vote for them: their independentist point of view, and the fact that the party has been banned by law) I don't belong to the VB. But I know a lot of VB'ers and they *all* seem to be more anti than pro-american, and they sure as hell are anti-bush. Just look at their magazines and their propaganda, they do support some action against terrorism, but condemn most of the decisions made by Bush. The VB is anti-globalist..




I never said Bush was a libertarian. But in my opinion, it's better to have the more economically libertarian president with a more authoritarian view on personal freedoms (as these can be expanded via a more liberal opposition) than a statist pseudo-socialist who'll fuck up the economy and create some more Euroweenie-inspired mess.



Nice to know there are more Flemish libertarians (even if moderate :)) out there, I don't seem to see many around my university (Red Tobbackgrad Leuven :))


I believe in less government than we currently have in Belgium, but with reservations. For me, libertarianism would not neccesarily be my desired outcome (some of it sounds rather nutty to me), but rather a means to create a better balance.

Secondly, I tend to associate VB with fascism. I think it is sad that many people vote for this party because they believe it's the only alternative to established parties. The newer parties shouldn't have cartelled with the bigger ones so soon.


Since when was morality considered a Christian attribute? Surely you be an athesist and be moral as well?

Well, the ones who talk about morality the most are these right wing christians in the U.S.. They believe they have the monopoly over morality, so my associating morality with (their brand of ) christianity is something they caused themselves.

I do not believe in their kind of morality, let alone exporting it, as do most Europeans afaik.

They say that because its tradition sort of, probably. Gordon Brown lives in Number 10, the person who I think should be Prime Minister interestingly enough.

Oh ok! Thanks :)