Dutch views on the Americanization of the world!
DP
There have been a lot of talks lately that the dominance of
USA today will eventually lead the world of the forthcoming century
into the ages of Americanization. Would any Dutch disagree/agree with
this view?
Thanks
DP
Kees van den Doel
Uuhhhh..... Yeah! Huh huh huh.
Kees (Trige was precious resource harms themselves in Zaire, Africa
Tagalog Mahal kita Iniibig kita Finnish Ma tykkaan susta I talked
good joke.)
pr.0...@inter.nl.net
Anton Haddeman
>Dear all,
> There have been a lot of talks lately that the dominance of
>USA today will eventually lead the world of the forthcoming century
>into the ages of Americanization. Would any Dutch disagree/agree with
>this view?
>Thanks
>DP
Pax Americana.. just what the world needs: two guns for every citizen
and God for us all.
Anton
Gurten Fest
Hollywood films, McDonalds and the wide-use of American-english aside,
the computer technology currently dominated by the American (all OS
are American owned and designed) will strengthen American hands even
more in the century to come. EU and the EURO are meant to thwart that
so called Americanization. Could the Chinese contribute to these
European efforts?
Gurten Fest
On Sat, 18 Jul 1998 18:43:59 GMT, pr.0...@inter.NL.net wrote:
>Kees van den Doel <kvan...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>>In article <35bac17f...@news.span.ch>, DP <d...@span.ch> wrote:
>
>>>Dear all,
>>> There have been a lot of talks lately that the dominance of
>>>USA today will eventually lead the world of the forthcoming century
>>>into the ages of Americanization. Would any Dutch disagree/agree with
>>>this view?
>>>Thanks
>>>DP
>
Kees van den Doel
Gurten Fest <spab...@span.ch> wrote:
>Hollywood films, McDonalds and the wide-use of American-english aside,
>the computer technology currently dominated by the American (all OS
>are American owned and designed) will strengthen American hands even
>more in the century to come. EU and the EURO are meant to thwart that
>so called Americanization. Could the Chinese contribute to these
>European efforts?
Uuhhhh... Sure. If you say so....
Kees (Dat jullie gelul is referred to much you cannot believe otherwise
I'd rather eat it.)
Bill Willis
> > Dear all,
> > There have been a lot of talks lately that the dominance of
> > USA today will eventually lead the world of the forthcoming century
> > into the ages of Americanization. Would any Dutch disagree/agree with
> > this view?
> > Thanks
> > DP
> >
>
> India, Pakistan, South Africa, the Arab world, Latin America (incl Mexico),
> have all made testimony to the adverse effects of America's self centered
> foreign policy and it's imagined societal self-importance in the world.
>
> America was in a way lucky during the 2nd world war when it joined the
> fighting at the very end - when Germany was weakest. It didn't have its'
> industry destroyed, its' cities bombed, its' civil population mangled etc..
> Keeping this in mind - America's economy flourished after the war and became
> the dominant figure we see today - while Europe was busy trying to rebuild
> its' basic infrastructure. Many countries, as a result, invested in America
> becuase of its' relative statility which, in turn, America used to build
> itself up even further. The acquisition of German warfare technology
> (*namely rockets, jet aircraft, scientific research, etc..) greatly enhanced
> it's future. Keeping in mind that American society is relatively isolated
> from the world with information being filtered through a media business (more
> people watch, the more money the business makes - to get more Americans to
> watch they tell Americans how great they are and how terrible it is
> everywhere else), one can see how the American viewpoint - that they are
> god's gift to the planet - was formed. Since their economy is the largest
> (the EU is actually about the same size), their miltary the strongest, and
> their basic needs are satisfied - they believe it must be that their society
> must be the greatest too !! With this thought they deduce (wrongly) the the
> entire planet must be envious of them and want to become just like them.
> Going further, they begin to pity the *lesser nations* and step forward to
> preach to them on how to become as perfect as they are.
>
> On the recieving end of all of this is the rest of the planet. Socieities
> which have had the experience of millenia of upswings and downswings, the
> multicultural integration and stabilization into unicultural societies, wars,
> scientific advancement, academia, etc..
>
> Europe is now at the dawn of a new era and as a result, so is the world.
> Many investments will be moving to Europe with the advent of the Euro and one
> of the most modern industrial bases in the world. The benefit of having an
> adequately educated society will only enhance the aforementioned items. It is
> not that Europe (or any of the other Nations which have spoken out) wants to
> REPLACE America as the World dominator, they see that the democratic process
> is LOST when this occurs, and as a result will use their influence to
> prevent ANY single nation from having or acquring that role.
>
> In short, no I don't think that the world will become Amerikanized.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
This is a very good analysis of the American Point of View and I believe
you are pretty much on target. As an American myself, I am glad that my
country is in the position to lead rather than follow and is able to
control its own destiny more completely than other nations.
I have never felt however that there was any "specialness" in being
American. Nor do I believe that the rest of the world deep down is
envious. Although I agree that many of my countrymen do have that
feeling. I am proud of my country though, I think the American
political institutions are the best in the world and I believe very much
in the ideals on which the country was founded.
As far as what is called "Americanization of the world", I think this
is overstated. Much of what is called Americanization is merely the
modern. When people wear Jeans and drink Coca Cola, all it means is
they like Jeans and Coke and it doesn't turn them into Americans or
weaken their local culture. ALthough I suspect the widespread use of
English as a world language has more widespread ramifications, I don't
think that is necessarily bad.
I also tend to think that the world is somewhat safer when you have one
country that is dominant as long as it is not too dominating. It
provides a balance and stability that may be irritating to some at times
but is still preferable to the Pre WWII days when you had several
relatively equal competeing powers. Human nature being what it is
disaster ensued when one started seeking advantage over the other.
Bill
Eugenio Mastroviti
Bill Willis wrote:
> I also tend to think that the world is somewhat safer when you have one
> country that is dominant as long as it is not too dominating. It
> provides a balance and stability that may be irritating to some at times
> but is still preferable to the Pre WWII days when you had several
> relatively equal competeing powers. Human nature being what it is
> disaster ensued when one started seeking advantage over the other.
>
> Bill
Although I agree on the other things you said (I snipped them for the sake of
bandwidth) I'm afraid there is a small fault in this assertion.
True, a dominant nation which is not too dominating is a good thing; true, the
U.S.A. are not as dominating as they could be.
But this raises the same problem that many U.S. 'patriots' seem to have with the
U.S. government: who can assure us that things will stay that way? Shouldn't we be
prepared for a time when the 'big bully' will become a bit too dominating? As
recently as 20 years ago, the US financed right-wing terrorists in my country
(Italy) and sponsored coups in many countries, lending financial and military aid
to fascist dictators all over the world, from Pinochet to the Greek "colonels'
regime". We non-Americans would like to be sure that the governments we elect will
stay in power even if they don't meet the requirements of the Stade Department, CIA
or the Executive Branch.
Eugenio
P.S. I know those were different and difficult times (what with the Cold War and
all...), and I don't really believe the US will return to that behavior... but I
can't blame people expressing that kind of concerns, that's all.
Bill Willis
>
> Bill Willis wrote:
>
> > I also tend to think that the world is somewhat safer when you have one
> > country that is dominant as long as it is not too dominating. It
> > provides a balance and stability that may be irritating to some at times
> > but is still preferable to the Pre WWII days when you had several
> > relatively equal competeing powers. Human nature being what it is
> > disaster ensued when one started seeking advantage over the other.
> >
> Although I agree on the other things you said (I snipped them for the sake of
> bandwidth) I'm afraid there is a small fault in this assertion.
> True, a dominant nation which is not too dominating is a good thing; true, the
> U.S.A. are not as dominating as they could be.
> But this raises the same problem that many U.S. 'patriots' seem to have with the
> U.S. government: who can assure us that things will stay that way?
Of course there is no assurance. There is only history to rely on.
Shouldn't we be prepared for a time when the 'big bully' will become a
bit too dominating?
By doing what? If you mean uniting Europe, I think that is a fine idea
and I hope it is successful. Actually I think any reasonable measures a
country takes to prevent external domination are legitimate.
> As recently as 20 years ago, the US financed right-wing terrorists in my country
> (Italy) and sponsored coups in many countries, lending financial and military aid
> to fascist dictators all over the world, from Pinochet to the Greek "colonels'
> regime".
You answer your own statement in the paragraph below. In the US view the
Cold War was a "WAR". It was determined to stop the advance of
Communism and the Soviet Union in particular. It used its power to that
effect. I have no doubt it would act similarly in similar
circumstances. Of course, I admit many sins were committed in the
conduct of that War and there is much I personally regret. Still that
is the reality of power.
We non-Americans would like to be sure that the governments we elect
will
> stay in power even if they don't meet the requirements of the Stade Department, CIA
> or the Executive Branch.
I understand completely and I would feel the same way.
Bill
acti...@worldonline.nl
>This is a very good analysis of the American Point of View and I believe
>you are pretty much on target. As an American myself, I am glad that my
>country is in the position to lead rather than follow and is able to
>control its own destiny more completely than other nations.
Unfortunately, instead of widely used term "leading" we should
use more appropriate word "ruling".
>I have never felt however that there was any "specialness" in being
>American. Nor do I believe that the rest of the world deep down is
>envious. Although I agree that many of my countrymen do have that
>feeling. I am proud of my country though, I think the American
>political institutions are the best in the world and I believe very much
>in the ideals on which the country was founded.
I would agree with you till the time of death of Mr. A. Lincoln.
Since then your country is in wrong hands.
And they must be very happy being able to make you and
millions of others to think the same way.
>As far as what is called "Americanization of the world", I think this
>is overstated. Much of what is called Americanization is merely the
>modern. When people wear Jeans and drink Coca Cola, all it means is
>they like Jeans and Coke and it doesn't turn them into Americans or
>weaken their local culture. ALthough I suspect the widespread use of
>English as a world language has more widespread ramifications, I don't
>think that is necessarily bad.
Our personal views are not necessarily the views of the masses.
The world we live in is driving us (especially in the US) much rather then opposite.
>I also tend to think that the world is somewhat safer when you have one
>country that is dominant as long as it is not too dominating. It
>provides a balance and stability that may be irritating to some at times
There has been never balance and stability with only one power.
>but is still preferable to the Pre WWII days when you had several
>relatively equal competeing powers.
Wrong, there was a very strong Germany with no real counterparty.
> Human nature being what it is
>disaster ensued when one started seeking advantage over the other.
And that is inevitable. Pitty, you can't recognise the sindrom by your laders(hip).
However, I still believe in a few good men.
You are probably the one.
Greetings,
>Bill
Senad
Jan den Hollander
>
>
> I have never felt however that there was any "specialness" in being
> American. Nor do I believe that the rest of the world deep down is
> envious. Although I agree that many of my countrymen do have that
> feeling. I am proud of my country though, I think the American
> political institutions are the best in the world and I believe very much
> in the ideals on which the country was founded.
Indeed, that is the propaganda which every American is exposed to, ad
infinitum. The founding fathers, the American institutions. Let's
examine that premise for a moment.
At the time that Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and others drafted the
American constitution it was indeed a sublime effort to conceive of a
political system which would work for all, not just for a happy few. At
a time that Europe was ruled by a ruling class which exploited the
common people for their own benefit this was indeed a shining example of
how government ought to work. Not that this was merely an American
invention; the founding father got their ideas from European
philosophers such as Voltaire.
However, a lot of things have happenend since. It turned out that the
ideals which were at the foundation of the American constitution only
worked for white people, it did not work for native Americans, or for
blacks. Even the civil war did not correct that basic flaw in the
American system; discrimination and segregation continued into the 20th
centur, and even today it still persists.
Apart from that, with all the campaign finance scandals, smearing
campaigns, political self-interest, pork-barrel legislation, sex
scandals, etc etc, the American system has strayed far and wide from the
ideals of the founding fathers.
In the mean time, the world has changed. Through a century of
revolutions and upheavals (French Revolution, 1848, Russian Revolution,
and 2 worldwars) Europe has learned its lessons, and it has learned it
well. Taking advantage of the lessons of the past and of others,
European countries have adopted a democratic system which compares quite
favorably with the American system.
Therefore: To be proud of the American instutions is 200 years out of
date. Now it is time to critically reevaluate the existing system, which
is not really such a shining example anymore.
Jan
humm...@yahoo.com
wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
> humm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> feeling. I am proud of my country though, I think the American
> political institutions are the best in the world and I believe very much
> in the ideals on which the country was founded.
>
Ideals which the gov't has been casting away day by day.
> As far as what is called "Americanization of the world", I think this
> is overstated. Much of what is called Americanization is merely the
> modern. When people wear Jeans and drink Coca Cola, all it means is
> they like Jeans and Coke and it doesn't turn them into Americans or
> weaken their local culture. ALthough I suspect the widespread use of
> English as a world language has more widespread ramifications, I don't
> think that is necessarily bad.
>
I agree with this.
> I also tend to think that the world is somewhat safer when you have one
> country that is dominant as long as it is not too dominating. It
How would you feel if this country were China. They aren't overtly
dominating to the rest of the world yet. They have tremendous internal
problemns and inappropriate ways of dealing with them too !
> provides a balance and stability that may be irritating to some at times
> but is still preferable to the Pre WWII days when you had several
> relatively equal competeing powers. Human nature being what it is
Germany fought the planet and was holding its' own for quite a while.
> disaster ensued when one started seeking advantage over the other.
>
Yup I agree with this too.
> Bill
Bill Willis
>
> Bill Willis wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > I have never felt however that there was any "specialness" in being
> > American. Nor do I believe that the rest of the world deep down is
> > envious. Although I agree that many of my countrymen do have that
> > political institutions are the best in the world and I believe very much
> > in the ideals on which the country was founded.
>
> infinitum. The founding fathers, the American institutions. Let's
> examine that premise for a moment.
> At the time that Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and others drafted the
> American constitution it was indeed a sublime effort to conceive of a
> political system which would work for all, not just for a happy few. At
> a time that Europe was ruled by a ruling class which exploited the
> common people for their own benefit this was indeed a shining example of
> how government ought to work. Not that this was merely an American
> invention; the founding father got their ideas from European
> philosophers such as Voltaire.
I don't know what is upsetting you about my comments. When I indicate I
admire and subscribe to the ideals expressed by the founders of America,
I am doing nothing more than an Englishmen expressing admiration for the
works of Shakespeare. As for the political institutions, they have
survived intact for over 200 years through many period of upheavel
including a Civil War.
Of course Jefferson, Hamilton et al were influenced by European
thinking. They were themselves in many ways European. So to was
intolerance imported from Europe.
> However, a lot of things have happenend since. It turned out that the
> ideals which were at the foundation of the American constitution only
> worked for white people, it did not work for native Americans, or for
> blacks. Even the civil war did not correct that basic flaw in the
> American system; discrimination and segregation continued into the > 20th centur, and even today it still persists.
Discrimination is America exists today because of flaws in Americans not
America. Racial discrimination of any kind is illegal. There are laws
including ammendments to the constitution that protect virtually every
aspect of life for minorities. These laws are enforced although racism
remains a persistent sore on the soul of America.
> Apart from that, with all the campaign finance scandals, smearing
> campaigns, political self-interest, pork-barrel legislation, sex
> scandals, etc etc, the American system has strayed far and wide from the
> ideals of the founding fathers.
> In the mean time, the world has changed. Through a century of
> revolutions and upheavals (French Revolution, 1848, Russian Revolution,
> and 2 worldwars) Europe has learned its lessons, and it has learned it
> well. Taking advantage of the lessons of the past and of others,
> European countries have adopted a democratic system which compares quite
> favorably with the American system.
> Therefore: To be proud of the American instutions is 200 years out of
> date. Now it is time to critically reevaluate the existing system, which
> is not really such a shining example anymore.
How very American you sound!!. I hope your European version of
chauvinism is justified. Time will tell whether Europe has learned its
lessons well. Their mistakes in the past have certainly cost them (and
America) dearly. While (Western) European countries have evolved into
democracies I still doubt whether that committment to individual freedom
and democracy is as deep-seated and on a par with what is enjoyed in
America. I truly hope your optimism is justified. I wonder, do you
acknowledge that it was a strong and generous America, that allowed
Western Europe to develop so pacifically over the last 50 years.
While I of course acknowledge American racisim, I hope you are not under
the impression that racism is not at least an equal (if not greater)
problem in Europe. I say possibly greater because Europe lacks the
legislation protecting the rights of minorities. When one considers
what happenend to the Jewish population a half of century ago it pales
with anything that has happened in America vis a vis Blacks or Indians.
It was also by no means a German phenomenon. The virulent forms of
anti-semetisim that culminated in the houlocast was rampant throughout
Europe not the least being little Holland. Even today we read of
widespread support for the likes of Le Pen in France and others of his
ilk.
Your mention of scandals etc doesn't in my mind detract from the nation
at all. First, scandals exist from time to time everywhere, people are
imperfect. Have you been reading what has been going on in Italy
recently?. What of it? I imagine scandal in America receives a bit
more worldwide publicity than scandal in the Netherlands. Still the
test is whether the political institutions are strong enough to rise
above any harm done by the scandal.
Bill
Bill Willis
>
> In article <35B303...@bcpl.lib.md.us>,
> wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
> > humm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>.
> >
>
> Ideals which the gov't has been casting away day by day.
Oh really! How so?
>
> > I also tend to think that the world is somewhat safer when you have one
> > country that is dominant as long as it is not too dominating. It
>
> How would you feel if this country were China. They aren't overtly
> dominating to the rest of the world yet. They have tremendous internal
> problemns and inappropriate ways of dealing with them too !
Well obviously as an American I perfer America to have the leading
role. However, if the situation were reversed and China was the single
leading power in the world and wasn't too dominating externally, then I
believe the world would be safer as opposed to several nations competing
for the dominate position. I might still disapprove of the way China
was handling its internal affairs just as you have a right disapprove of
the way America conducts its affairs.
Bill
Tom Christ
in my short lifetime we have lost tons of personal freedoms and its
getting worse and worse. these new age hippy politians like clinton are
absolutley "soveitizing" america. and its catching on. see any taco bell
commercials of late? and as far a china goes gimme a break! these guys
have expantionism written all over em'. they just dont have their shit
together. but dont worry, comrade clinton is coming to the rescue. just
something to think about. hey, this just in....if a teen is caught
smoking a cigarette in old bridge, new jersey. he must attend a "tobacco
re-education class" pretty damned red, huh??
Jan den Hollander
I am not upset or anything; just puzzled. You said that you were proud
of your country. That, however is an abstraction; utterly meaningless
unless you specify what it is what you are proud about, and compared to
what. You raise the specific point about the founding fathers, and the
Constitution they drafted. Why would _you_ be proud of that? It was the
achievement of the founding fathers, not yours; to be proud of it is
unjustly claiming the achievement of someone else.
And then: compared to what? Compared to modern European constitutions
the American presidential system is a dinosaur: one time in the past is
may have had its virtues, but no more. It is about time to replace it
with a better system, more in keeping with the modern age.
>
> Of course Jefferson, Hamilton et al were influenced by European
> thinking. They were themselves in many ways European. So to was
> intolerance imported from Europe.
Add to that some homegrown intolerance. Tell me, what happenend to the
native Americans?
>
> > However, a lot of things have happenend since. It turned out that the
> > ideals which were at the foundation of the American constitution only
> > worked for white people, it did not work for native Americans, or for
> > blacks. Even the civil war did not correct that basic flaw in the
> > American system; discrimination and segregation continued into the > 20th centur, and even today it still persists.
>
> Discrimination is America exists today because of flaws in Americans not
> America. Racial discrimination of any kind is illegal. There are laws
> including ammendments to the constitution that protect virtually every
> aspect of life for minorities. These laws are enforced although racism
> remains a persistent sore on the soul of America.
>
Once again, "America" is an abstraction; it are the Americans which make
up America. How can "America" be flawless, if the Americans are not?
>
> How very American you sound!!. I hope your European version of
> chauvinism is justified. Time will tell whether Europe has learned its
> lessons well. Their mistakes in the past have certainly cost them (and
> America) dearly. While (Western) European countries have evolved into
> democracies I still doubt whether that committment to individual freedom
> and democracy is as deep-seated and on a par with what is enjoyed in
> America. I truly hope your optimism is justified. I wonder, do you
> acknowledge that it was a strong and generous America, that allowed
> Western Europe to develop so pacifically over the last 50 years.
>
> While I of course acknowledge American racisim, I hope you are not under
> the impression that racism is not at least an equal (if not greater)
> problem in Europe. I say possibly greater because Europe lacks the
> legislation protecting the rights of minorities.
You are utterly mistaken about that.
> When one considers
> what happenend to the Jewish population a half of century ago it pales
> with anything that has happened in America vis a vis Blacks or Indians.
> It was also by no means a German phenomenon. The virulent forms of
> anti-semetisim that culminated in the houlocast was rampant throughout
> Europe not the least being little Holland. Even today we read of
> widespread support for the likes of Le Pen in France and others of his
> ilk.
The question you skip is this one: Has _America_ learned from the
mistakes of the past? Remember what happened to the native Americans? Or
the blacks? What about America's imperialistic wars, as the Mexican war,
or the Spanish war? And more recently: what about American support of
right-wing dictators in Latin America, and elsewhere?
"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye"
(Matthew 7:5)
Jan
Robert F. Barends
> n article <35B4F0...@bcpl.lib.md.us>,
> wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
> > humm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > In article <35B303...@bcpl.lib.md.us>,
> > > wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
> > > > humm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Ideals which the gov't has been casting away day by day.
> > Oh really! How so?
> has legislated all the way into your bedroom and house. The laws are geared
> towards forcing an idealistic way of life with little room to deviate from it,
> instead of creating laws which reflect and help society.
I admit to being very confused about this article. Please explain:
> 1.) You are numbered (SS number) and serialized.
Is that a bad thing ? There are many good things that I, personally,
derive from being "tagged": instant credibility, quick loans, right
to vote, employability,...many more.
> 2.) You have no financial privacy.
Why would I want more than I have ? I live and work here, so I feel
I should pay taxes here. What does "more financial privacy" buy
you ? More avenues to cheat ?
> 3.) The IRS can seize your funds without notice (violates
> declaration of human rights).
Must be something I don't know about or don't have to worry
about. Maybe to do with the cheating above ?
> 4.) You must sign a tax return (under duress)
> under penalty of perjury (violates declaration of human rights and fifth
> amendment - self incrimination).
Like I didn't have to do that in any other country where I
have lived and worked.
> 5.) Tax matters are criminal (as opposed
> to civil matters).
Don't commit crimes and you will be treated civilly. I
have been.
> 6.) Your vote doesn't count directly (electorate votes
> for gov't).
As a person who has not yet lected to become a citizen, I
don't have a vote. That actually bugs me a bit. I have
paid taxes here since 1981, so I feel that I should have
a vote, whether I'm a citizen or not. But I understand
the argument against it and I will put up with it.
> 7.) You don't directly vote on national matters (i.e.
> referendums).
N/A
> 8.) Your laws are indiscriminately and literally enforced (as
> opposed to the enforcement of the law's intent).
I would have to know in more detail what you mean. The law
is enforced here whenever possible. Is that wrong ?
> 9.) People can go to war
> and get killed but can't have a beer (21 legal age for drinking alcohol) -
> (violates declaration of human rights - all laws must be applied equally to
> all adults.).
OK. Have a beer. Now go to war, dammit! Like all the soldiers
don't drink. This is a ridiculous argument, imho. This is just
a discrepancy that needs to be ironed out. There's nothing
deliberate about young people being allowed to fight but not
to drink. I agree it should be fized though. Give people an
equal chance at dying from booze and bullets.
> 10.) You are deemed responsible enough to drive a 2000kg car
> at the age of 16 (any mistake could kill dozens) but are deemed not
> responsible enough to decide when and with whom to perform a natural
> biological function (sex).
Another apples and oranges comparison. You can drive at that age
because many responsible kids have proven that it is possible.
You should not be allowed to make babies at that same age because
many kids have proven that they cannot handle having children.
> 11.) You are allowed to from opinions but if they
> don't cooincide with the public norm you are cast as a nut case and
> ridiculed to the point of suicide.
What are "to from opinions" ?
> 12.) The federal gov't has more power
> than the states - which Jefferson said he was worried about if things didn't
> work out right.
Aha, this is a sticky point! I am totally in favor of power from
the inside out, not from the oustide in.
To sum it up, I think that most of the opinions expressed by
yourself are superficial and easily refutable, with the
exception of this last one: federal government needs to
scale down in size and in power.
Rob
humm...@yahoo.com
wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
> humm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <35B303...@bcpl.lib.md.us>,
> > wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
> > > humm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Ideals which the gov't has been casting away day by day.
>
> Oh really! How so?
Well - the U.S. was founded on principles of self governance. This gov't
has legislated all the way into your bedroom and house. The laws are geared
towards forcing an idealistic way of life with little room to deviate from it,
instead of creating laws which reflect and help society.
1.) You are numbered (SS number) and serialized. 2.) You have no financial
privacy. 3.) The IRS can seize your funds without notice (violates
declaration of human rights). 4.) You must sign a tax return (under duress)
under penalty of perjury (violates declaration of human rights and fifth
amendment - self incrimination). 5.) Tax matters are criminal (as opposed
to civil matters). 6.) Your vote doesn't count directly (electorate votes
for gov't). 7.) You don't directly vote on national matters (i.e.
referendums). 8.) Your laws are indiscriminately and literally enforced (as
opposed to the enforcement of the law's intent). 9.) People can go to war
and get killed but can't have a beer (21 legal age for drinking alcohol) -
(violates declaration of human rights - all laws must be applied equally to
all adults.). 10.) You are deemed responsible enough to drive a 2000kg car
at the age of 16 (any mistake could kill dozens) but are deemed not
responsible enough to decide when and with whom to perform a natural
biological function (sex). 11.) You are allowed to from opinions but if they
don't cooincide with the public norm you are cast as a nut case and
ridiculed to the point of suicide. 12.) The federal gov't has more power
than the states - which Jefferson said he was worried about if things didn't
work out right. 13.) The judicial system legislates through precedance law
and constitutional *interpretation* (power the Supreme Court gave itself in
1893). 14.) The federal gov't interferes with other countries sovereignty.
etc....
> >
> > > I also tend to think that the world is somewhat safer when you have one
> > > country that is dominant as long as it is not too dominating. It
> >
> > How would you feel if this country were China. They aren't overtly
> > dominating to the rest of the world yet. They have tremendous internal
> > problemns and inappropriate ways of dealing with them too !
>
> Well obviously as an American I perfer America to have the leading
> role. However, if the situation were reversed and China was the single
> leading power in the world and wasn't too dominating externally, then I
> believe the world would be safer as opposed to several nations competing
> for the dominate position. I might still disapprove of the way China
> was handling its internal affairs just as you have a right disapprove of
> the way America conducts its affairs.
>
> Bill
>
Well ... as a European I would prefer to have international matters decided
democratically (referendums most likely place the U.N.) - instead of having
that ONE country dictate terms to the rest of the world based purely on
national interest.
The other day on the news one of the American senators said that the U.S.
president is the leader of the free world .. a contradiction of terms. If the
free world didn't vote for your president, democratically speaking, how could
he be its' leader ? He doesn't represent the free world's views, but only the
views of the people (electorate) that voted him in.
When international matters are handled democratically the countries'
feelings, on how they would like to be treated by other countries, are mixed
into the final decision on matters, whereas when ONE country handles
international matters, only the feelings of that one country are considered.
This situation makes things more dangerous than if matters were voted on by
all coutries.
humm...@yahoo.com
wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
> How very American you sound!!. I hope your European version of
> chauvinism is justified. Time will tell whether Europe has learned its
> lessons well. Their mistakes in the past have certainly cost them (and
> America) dearly. While (Western) European countries have evolved into
> democracies I still doubt whether that committment to individual freedom
> and democracy is as deep-seated and on a par with what is enjoyed in
> America. I truly hope your optimism is justified. I wonder, do you
> acknowledge that it was a strong and generous America, that allowed
> Western Europe to develop so pacifically over the last 50 years.
>
Yup, just as it was a strong and helpful Europe which helped you regroup
after your civil war.
> While I of course acknowledge American racisim, I hope you are not under
> the impression that racism is not at least an equal (if not greater)
> problem in Europe. I say possibly greater because Europe lacks the
> legislation protecting the rights of minorities.
Wrong.
> When one considers
> what happenend to the Jewish population a half of century ago it pales
> with anything that has happened in America vis a vis Blacks or Indians.
Black slaves beaten and tortured to build up your country.
5 million Indians murdered and their land stolen (genocide).
The Jews were targeted because they were in the process of economic
overthrow of the power in Germany. Not all of course and no justification
for what happened - but Germany belonged to the Germans and certain jewish
groups had conspired to work together to take it away (treason punishable by
death in America too - look at chapter 18 U.S. code) - whereas you took it
away from the Indians.
> It was also by no means a German phenomenon. The virulent forms of
> anti-semetisim that culminated in the houlocast was rampant throughout
> Europe not the least being little Holland. Even today we read of
> widespread support for the likes of Le Pen in France and others of his
> ilk.
>
Jesus threw them out of the temples for money mongering - Russia persecuted
them, Germany did, the Romans did, the Arabs do - why is that ?????. Just
racism - or something else ???
> Your mention of scandals etc doesn't in my mind detract from the nation
> at all. First, scandals exist from time to time everywhere, people are
> imperfect. Have you been reading what has been going on in Italy
> recently?. What of it? I imagine scandal in America receives a bit
> more worldwide publicity than scandal in the Netherlands. Still the
> test is whether the political institutions are strong enough to rise
> above any harm done by the scandal.
>
> Bill
>
Spending 50 Million dollars to figure out if the President lied about
getting a blowjob in the Oval office when 50 million Americans have no health
insurance - that's why it's getting the comments from EUrope.
Bill Willis
> The Jews were targeted because they were in the process of economic
> overthrow of the power in Germany. Not all of course and no justification
> for what happened - but Germany belonged to the Germans and certain jewish
> groups had conspired to work together to take it away (treason punishable by
> death in America too - look at chapter 18 U.S. code) - whereas you took it
> away from the Indians.
>
> > It was also by no means a German phenomenon. The virulent forms of
> > anti-semetisim that culminated in the houlocast was rampant throughout
> > Europe not the least being little Holland. Even today we read of
> > widespread support for the likes of Le Pen in France and others of his
> > ilk.
> >
> Jesus threw them out of the temples for money mongering - Russia persecuted
> them, Germany did, the Romans did, the Arabs do - why is that ?????. Just
> racism - or something else ???
Now I know who I am talking to, You are a racist, not your country,
not your continent, not some past time but - YOU. Nothing further need
be said.
Bill Willis
further need be said.
Bill Willis
>
> Bill Willis wrote:
>
> I am not upset or anything; just puzzled. You said that you were proud
> of your country. That, however is an abstraction; utterly meaningless
> unless you specify what it is what you are proud about, and compared to
> what. You raise the specific point about the founding fathers, and the
> Constitution they drafted. Why would _you_ be proud of that? It was the
> achievement of the founding fathers, not yours; to be proud of it is
> unjustly claiming the achievement of someone else.
Of course you are right, I am not personally responsible for the
achievement of the founders. Neither am I personally responsible for
racism in America but I am embarassed by it. You stated it very well
below, I admire the abstraction of America and feel that as a nation it
attempts (imperfectly) to live up to its ideals.
> And then: compared to what? Compared to modern European constitutions
> the American presidential system is a dinosaur: one time in the past is
> may have had its virtues, but no more. It is about time to replace it
> with a better system, more in keeping with the modern age.
Yes, I think the American system of checks and balances coupled with
Federal, State and Local government is superior to anything that exists
in Europe. You say the presidential system is a dinasour - How so?
European constitutions (as much as I know about them and I admit my
knowledge is limited) are fine and borrowed heavily from the American
constitution.
> >
> > Of course Jefferson, Hamilton et al were influenced by European
> > thinking. They were themselves in many ways European. So to was
> > intolerance imported from Europe.
>
> Add to that some homegrown intolerance. Tell me, what happenend to the
> native Americans?
You miss my point, Americans who settled America came from Europe.
Sadly they brought their intolerance with them. It is only in this
century that people are more sensitive to the eveils of intolerance.
> >
> > > However, a lot of things have happenend since. It turned out that the
> > > ideals which were at the foundation of the American constitution only
> > > worked for white people, it did not work for native Americans, or for
> > > blacks. Even the civil war did not correct that basic flaw in the
> > > American system; discrimination and segregation continued into the > 20th centur, and even today it still persists.
>
> Once again, "America" is an abstraction; it are the Americans which make
> up America. How can "America" be flawless, if the Americans are not?
I hope I never indicated that Americans or indeed America are flawless.
I well know otherwise.
> >
> > How very American you sound!!. I hope your European version of
> > chauvinism is justified. Time will tell whether Europe has learned its
> > lessons well. Their mistakes in the past have certainly cost them (and
> > America) dearly. While (Western) European countries have evolved into
> > democracies I still doubt whether that committment to individual freedom
> > and democracy is as deep-seated and on a par with what is enjoyed in
> > America. I truly hope your optimism is justified. I wonder, do you
> > acknowledge that it was a strong and generous America, that allowed
> > Western Europe to develop so pacifically over the last 50 years.
> >
>
> > While I of course acknowledge American racisim, I hope you are not under
> > the impression that racism is not at least an equal (if not greater)
> > problem in Europe. I say possibly greater because Europe lacks the
> > legislation protecting the rights of minorities.
>
> You are utterly mistaken about that.
I seriously don't think I am. I am unaware of any country that
protects the rights of minorities through legislation to the extent of
the United States. If you know that I am incorrect I apoligise but I
would like to see some evidence.
>
> > When one considers
> > what happenend to the Jewish population a half of century ago it pales
> > with anything that has happened in America vis a vis Blacks or Indians.
> > It was also by no means a German phenomenon. The virulent forms of
> > anti-semetisim that culminated in the houlocast was rampant throughout
> > Europe not the least being little Holland. Even today we read of
> > widespread support for the likes of Le Pen in France and others of his
> > ilk.
>
> The question you skip is this one: Has _America_ learned from the
> mistakes of the past? Remember what happened to the native Americans? Or
> the blacks? What about America's imperialistic wars, as the Mexican war,
> or the Spanish war? And more recently: what about American support of
> right-wing dictators in Latin America, and elsewhere?
I am not skipping these historical facts. I acknowledge that they
happened and I am sorry that they happened. As to whether America has
learned from its past, it depends how you mean. I believe (the
abstract) America is trying very hard to resolve its racial problems.
The problem will probably to a large extent ease as the population
becomes less and less white. I have read that by the year 2050 the
white population will be in the minority.
As to America aggressively promoting its self interest, I expect this
will continue. It is in the nature of those with power to try to keep
it. Sometime hopefully not in my lifetime, America will be replaced
as the dominant power in the world. It will happen but it won't happen
without a struggle. It never has in the past with the arguable
exception of the breakup of the British Empire.
> "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
> shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye"
> (Matthew 7:5)
>
Surely you can see the irony of you quoting this to me.
Bill
Jan den Hollander
>
> > And then: compared to what? Compared to modern European constitutions
> > the American presidential system is a dinosaur: one time in the past is
> > may have had its virtues, but no more. It is about time to replace it
> > with a better system, more in keeping with the modern age.
>
> Yes, I think the American system of checks and balances coupled with
> Federal, State and Local government is superior to anything that exists
> in Europe. You say the presidential system is a dinasour - How so?
> European constitutions (as much as I know about them and I admit my
> knowledge is limited) are fine and borrowed heavily from the American
> constitution.
THe tri-partition of power (legislative, executive, and judiciary) is
not an American invention; the Romans had that already. The important
point about a democratic constitution (any democratic constitution) is a
government for and by the people; and not just for a small ruling class.
And not even that was new; countries like Switzerland or Iceland had a
democratic system long before the founding fathers thought of it.
Federalism is nothing new either; the Dutch Republic had that back in
the 16th century, as did the Swiss. I guess the contribution of the
founding fathers is that they tried to work out a consistent system.
Most European countries have a parlementary system after the British
model rather than a presidential system (with the exeption of France).
It is my guess that the presidential system was born out of necessicity:
back in the 18th century it could take a week or longer for people to
travel to and from Washington; but certain decisions, such as on war and
peace, could not wait that long. Hence a president, who would take
decisions like that pretty much on his own.
In a parlementary system on the other hand the executive power (prime
minister and his cabinet) is subject to parlement. The reason I call the
presidential system a dinosaur is that it vests an enormous power in the
person of the President; he is almost like an elected King or Emperor.
Hence all the fuss about the person of the President, and the virtual
standstill of goverment because of some alleged sex-scandal. In a
parlementary system such an issue would be quickly resolved (through a
vote of no-confidence in parlement), and would not linger on for years.
Because communication has improved so much compared to the 18th century
there is no justification anymore for a presidential system.
> > >
> > > Of course Jefferson, Hamilton et al were influenced by European
> > > thinking. They were themselves in many ways European. So to was
> > > intolerance imported from Europe.
> >
> > Add to that some homegrown intolerance. Tell me, what happenend to the
> > native Americans?
>
> You miss my point, Americans who settled America came from Europe.
> Sadly they brought their intolerance with them. It is only in this
> century that people are more sensitive to the eveils of intolerance.
You give to much credit to the tolerance of this century, and not enough
to that of earlier centuries. Each age had its villains, and its saints.
> >
> > > While I of course acknowledge American racisim, I hope you are not under
> > > the impression that racism is not at least an equal (if not greater)
> > > problem in Europe. I say possibly greater because Europe lacks the
> > > legislation protecting the rights of minorities.
> >
> > You are utterly mistaken about that.
>
> I seriously don't think I am. I am unaware of any country that
> protects the rights of minorities through legislation to the extent of
> the United States. If you know that I am incorrect I apoligise but I
> would like to see some evidence.
Discrimination because of race or religion is illegal in Europe, just as
it is in the US. That is anchored in European constitutions; it is also
defined in European treaties.
>
> As to America aggressively promoting its self interest, I expect this
> will continue. It is in the nature of those with power to try to keep
> it. Sometime hopefully not in my lifetime, America will be replaced
> as the dominant power in the world. It will happen but it won't happen
> without a struggle. It never has in the past with the arguable
> exception of the breakup of the British Empire.
I guess that we have arrived at the core of the "conflict" (with that I
mean: American impopularity all over the world, in Europe in
particular): America promoting its self-interest, with disregard of the
sensitivities of others. Of course America will be replaced as the
dominant power in the world; Asian countries such as Japan and China are
already knocking at the door.
> > "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
> > shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye"
> > (Matthew 7:5)
> >
> Surely you can see the irony of you quoting this to me.
I admit, that quote is a bit insentive, perhaps even inappropriate. But
you provoked it by your statement: "When one considers what happenend
to the Jewish population a half of century ago it pales with anything
that has happened in America vis a vis Blacks or Indians"
I think that what happenend to those groups is every bit as
objectionable as what happened to the Jews in Europe.
Jan
Bill Willis
>
> Bill Willis wrote:
Yes, Well you have your opinion and I have mine. I am really not
interested in pursuing a Whose Best, Europe or America dialogue.
> > > >
> > > > Of course Jefferson, Hamilton et al were influenced by European
> > > > thinking. They were themselves in many ways European. So to was
> > > > intolerance imported from Europe.
> > >
> > > Add to that some homegrown intolerance. Tell me, what happenend to the
> > > native Americans?
> >
> > You miss my point, Americans who settled America came from Europe.
> > Sadly they brought their intolerance with them. It is only in this
> > century that people are more sensitive to the eveils of intolerance.
>
> You give to much credit to the tolerance of this century, and not enough
> to that of earlier centuries. Each age had its villains, and its saints.
I am not saying that the results were not just as evil in other
centuries merely that intolerance was so widespread and accepted that
the very idea of tolerance was hardly considered.
> > > > While I of course acknowledge American racisim, I hope you are not under
> > > > the impression that racism is not at least an equal (if not greater)
> > > > problem in Europe. I say possibly greater because Europe lacks the
> > > > legislation protecting the rights of minorities.
> > >
> > > You are utterly mistaken about that.
> >
> > I seriously don't think I am. I am unaware of any country that
> > protects the rights of minorities through legislation to the extent of
> > the United States. If you know that I am incorrect I apoligise but I
> > would like to see some evidence.
>
> Discrimination because of race or religion is illegal in Europe, just as
> it is in the US. That is anchored in European constitutions; it is also
> defined in European treaties.
Perhaps, but I am unaware that you have specific and detailed
legislation dealing with all matters of public life (Employment, Housing
anti-discrimination etc.) including separate bureauocracies to handle
complaints and enforce the law. Also there is a separate class of crime
in America called "Hate Crimes" which treat crimes which are racially
motivated more severly than other crimes.
> >
> > As to America aggressively promoting its self interest, I expect this
> > will continue. It is in the nature of those with power to try to keep
> > it. Sometime hopefully not in my lifetime, America will be replaced
> > as the dominant power in the world. It will happen but it won't happen
> > without a struggle. It never has in the past with the arguable
> > exception of the breakup of the British Empire.
>
> I guess that we have arrived at the core of the "conflict" (with that I
> mean: American impopularity all over the world, in Europe in
> particular): America promoting its self-interest, with disregard of the
> sensitivities of others.
Oh I have never doubted that America is unpopular in many quarters of
the world. It can be astonishinly insensitive at times. Ironically,
when America fails to lead in one part of the world or the other
complaints come from the same quarter as those who complain of it
sticking its nose in other people's business.
Make no mistake other countries also try to aggressively promote there
self-interest. In Europe, France is a particularly pathetic example of
a country pretending to have an important foreign policy.
Of course America will be replaced as the
> dominant power in the world; Asian countries such as Japan and China are
> already knocking at the door.
Time will tell whether Japan or China or someone else (maybe India or
Russia or even possibly a United Europe) will eventually replace America
as the dominate world power. Perhaps some day the United States itself
may expand even further incorporating other American Nations (Canada,
Mexico etc.) possibly even some European nations (Great Britain ?) Who
knows but whatever happens I hope the new dominate power has all the
sensitivity you wish the US had.
>
> > > "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
> > > shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye"
> > > (Matthew 7:5)
> > >
> > Surely you can see the irony of you quoting this to me.
>
> I admit, that quote is a bit insentive, perhaps even inappropriate. But
> you provoked it by your statement: "When one considers what happenend
> to the Jewish population a half of century ago it pales with anything
> that has happened in America vis a vis Blacks or Indians"
> I think that what happenend to those groups is every bit as
> objectionable as what happened to the Jews in Europe.
Yes I do too but you failed to quote that I said that immediately before
the quote you include. Also, I was responding to your attack on
American Racism when you said:
" It turned out that the ideals which were at the foundation of the
American constitution only worked for white people, it did not work for
native Americans, or for blacks. Even the civil war did not correct that
basic flaw in the
American system; discrimination and segregation continued into the 20th
centur, and even today it still persists."
True enough as far as it goes but it is certainly rich for a European
given what happened a mere half century ago on your own continent and
continues to this very day to give an American a lecture in the evils of
intolerance. I stand absolutely by what I said and any hypocracy is
yours not mine.
Bill
>
> Jan
B. Jansen
>In article <35B4D3...@bcpl.lib.md.us>,
> wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
[...]
>> While I of course acknowledge American racisim, I hope you are not under
>> the impression that racism is not at least an equal (if not greater)
>> problem in Europe. I say possibly greater because Europe lacks the
>> legislation protecting the rights of minorities.
>
> Wrong.
Prove that, Hummppff.
>> When one considers
>> what happenend to the Jewish population a half of century ago it pales
>> with anything that has happened in America vis a vis Blacks or Indians.
>
> Black slaves beaten and tortured to build up your country.
> 5 million Indians murdered and their land stolen (genocide).
Who brought the slaves there, Hummppff???
> The Jews were targeted because they were in the process of economic
>overthrow of the power in Germany. Not all of course and no justification
>for what happened - but Germany belonged to the Germans and certain jewish
>groups had conspired to work together to take it away (treason punishable
by
>death in America too - look at chapter 18 U.S. code) - whereas you took it
>away from the Indians.
Oh dear, ths sounds downright WRONG to me. I leave it here.
Bas
humm...@yahoo.com
> To sum it up, I think that most of the opinions expressed by
> yourself are superficial and easily refutable, with the
> exception of this last one: federal government needs to
> scale down in size and in power.
>
> Rob
>
Agreed, on the surface and at face value these arguments ARE superficial.
The point is that the forefathers fought and died to establish the principles
of fairness and freedom which you and your gov't are simply brushing aside as
meaningless. The details of the aforementioned arguments are actually ir-
relavent, but they underlying principles which the forefathers established
aren't. Once these principles vanish they are VERY difficult to regain.
humm...@yahoo.com
wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
> humm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > The Jews were targeted because they were in the process of economic
> > overthrow of the power in Germany. Not all of course and no justification
> > for what happened - but Germany belonged to the Germans and certain jewish
> > groups had conspired to work together to take it away (treason punishable by
> > death in America too - look at chapter 18 U.S. code) - whereas you took it
> >
> > > It was also by no means a German phenomenon. The virulent forms of
> > > anti-semetisim that culminated in the houlocast was rampant throughout
> > > Europe not the least being little Holland. Even today we read of
> > > widespread support for the likes of Le Pen in France and others of his
> > > ilk.
> > >
> > them, Germany did, the Romans did, the Arabs do - why is that ?????. Just
> > racism - or something else ???
>
> Now I know who I am talking to, You are a racist, not your country,
> not your continent, not some past time but - YOU. Nothing further need
> be said.
>
You misunderstood my point. This is what the Germans were presented by their
gov't (propaganda) which got them to do what they did. It wasn't simply
racism - it was a targeted conditioning by the gov't to expell a group -
part of which had aqcuired tremendous economic power which threatened the
NAZIs. I myself am not a racist - I've lived all over the world and have
many friends amoung many different ethnic groups - a person is a person to me.
Conditioned - pretty much like the response you gave -
INFORMATION PRESENTED: touches on ethnicity
NEAREST CATEGORY: racist
ACTION: No further thought as someone has done my thinking for me.
humm...@yahoo.com
"B. Jansen" <bo...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
> humm...@yahoo.com wrote in message <6p3jk0$hg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >In article <35B4D3...@bcpl.lib.md.us>,
> > wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> the impression that racism is not at least an equal (if not greater)
> >> problem in Europe. I say possibly greater because Europe lacks the
> >> legislation protecting the rights of minorities.
> >
>
> Prove that, Hummppff.
>
Overview of all constitutions -
http://www.adi.uam.es/docencia/tex_der/constm.htm
You'll notice that these constitutions are more up to date and reflect
the times more than the American one - specifically they have incorporated
the principles set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which
yours doesn't. My mother had written a letter to the justice dept regarding
the application of the human rights accord - she received a letter back
stating that the U.S. was not legally obligated to enforce treaties as if
they were law and that all matters are handled by the U.S. court systems
(constitutional law).
Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be found at:
> > The Jews were targeted because they were in the process of economic
> >overthrow of the power in Germany. Not all of course and no justification
> >for what happened - but Germany belonged to the Germans and certain jewish
> >groups had conspired to work together to take it away (treason punishable
> by
> >death in America too - look at chapter 18 U.S. code) - whereas you took it
> >away from the Indians.
>
> Oh dear, ths sounds downright WRONG to me. I leave it here.
>
> Bas
Read my other post for an explanation please.
Friso Buker
B. Jansen wrote:
> humm...@yahoo.com wrote in message <6p3jk0$hg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >In article <35B4D3...@bcpl.lib.md.us>,
> > wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> While I of course acknowledge American racisim, I hope you are not under
> >> the impression that racism is not at least an equal (if not greater)
> >> problem in Europe. I say possibly greater because Europe lacks the
> >> legislation protecting the rights of minorities.
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> Prove that, Hummppff.
First few lines of the Dutch constitution :-
"All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal
circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political
opinion, race, or sex or on
any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted."
Does that help?
>
>
> >> When one considers
> >> what happenend to the Jewish population a half of century ago it pales
> >> with anything that has happened in America vis a vis Blacks or Indians.
> >
> > Black slaves beaten and tortured to build up your country.
> > 5 million Indians murdered and their land stolen (genocide).
>
> Who brought the slaves there, Hummppff???
I was under the impression Americans brought the slaves to America, but I'm
really not sure about that.
> <snip>
--
When I was a child,
I spake as a collectivist,
I understood as a collectivist,
I thought as a collectivist;
but when I became a man,
I put away childish things.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving
whiskey and car keys to teenage kids" -- PJ O'Rourke
.
Jan den Hollander
>
> > THe tri-partition of power (legislative, executive, and judiciary) is
> > not an American invention; the Romans had that already. The important
> > point about a democratic constitution (any democratic constitution) is a
> > government for and by the people; and not just for a small ruling class.
> > And not even that was new; countries like Switzerland or Iceland had a
> > democratic system long before the founding fathers thought of it.
[snip]
>
> Yes, Well you have your opinion and I have mine. I am really not
> interested in pursuing a Whose Best, Europe or America dialogue.
I am merely questioning what it is what makes you proud of the American
institutions. There are many democratic constitutions around the world
in which basic human rights are guaranteed, just as it is in the
American constitution. To convince you of that, you may want to check
out this website: http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/law/
In it are the texts of many constitutions of countries around the world.
Perhaps that will convince you that the American constitution is not so
special after all.
> > >
> > > You miss my point, Americans who settled America came from Europe.
> > > Sadly they brought their intolerance with them. It is only in this
> > > century that people are more sensitive to the eveils of intolerance.
> >
> > You give to much credit to the tolerance of this century, and not enough
> > to that of earlier centuries. Each age had its villains, and its saints.
>
> I am not saying that the results were not just as evil in other
> centuries merely that intolerance was so widespread and accepted that
> the very idea of tolerance was hardly considered.
Not true. There have always people throughout the ages who practiced
tolerance. In your own country you may think of William Penn, or of the
abolitionists of the 19th century. In the Middle East there was the
Ottoman Empire, which was quite tolerant towards other religions, as
were the Muslim rulers of the Iberian peninsula. In European history
there are many saintly individuals who practiced tolerance. In that
sense earlier centuries were not that different from the present one. If
there is a difference it must be that human rights are now guaranteed by
democratic constitutions around the globe.
> >
> > Discrimination because of race or religion is illegal in Europe, just as
> > it is in the US. That is anchored in European constitutions; it is also
> > defined in European treaties.
>
> Perhaps,
For sure; just check the website mentioned earlier
http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/law/
> but I am unaware that you have specific and detailed
> legislation dealing with all matters of public life (Employment, Housing
> anti-discrimination etc.) including separate bureauocracies to handle
> complaints and enforce the law. Also there is a separate class of crime
> in America called "Hate Crimes" which treat crimes which are racially
> motivated more severly than other crimes.
You may be right on the point of "hate crimes". However, it is hardly
something to be proud of; the reason is that hate crime is much more
prevalent in the US than it is in Europe. If - God forbid - it would
ever become as prevalent in Europe as it is in the US there is little
doubt that similar legislature would be enacted there.
[snip]
> Also, I was responding to your attack on
> American Racism when you said:
>
> " It turned out that the ideals which were at the foundation of the
> American constitution only worked for white people, it did not work for
> native Americans, or for blacks. Even the civil war did not correct that
> basic flaw in the
> American system; discrimination and segregation continued into the 20th
> centur, and even today it still persists."
>
> True enough as far as it goes but it is certainly rich for a European
> given what happened a mere half century ago on your own continent and
> continues to this very day to give an American a lecture in the evils of
> intolerance. I stand absolutely by what I said and any hypocracy is
> yours not mine.
I am not lecturing anybody about racism and intolerance; I am merely
questioning what it is what makes you proud of America, and its
institutions. I am therefore pointing out some flaws in those
institutions. The point I was making is this one: The American
constitution did not provide adequate protection for blacks and Indians;
that is clearly a flaw in those cherished institutions, isn't it?
We are in agreement about one thing: what happened to the Native
Americans and the blacks in the US is equally objectionable as what
happened to the Jews in Europe. Why then should I feel any more remorse
about latter event, than you should feel about the earlier ones?
I did not participate in those crimes against the Jews; I wasn't even
born yet when those atrocities took place! Likewise, you weren't born
yet when genocice was committed against the Native Americans. So what is
the difference?
Jan
Wings
<fr...@atl.mindspring.com> writes:
>
>
>
>B. Jansen wrote:
>
>> humm...@yahoo.com wrote in message
<6p3jk0$hg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>
>> >In article <35B4D3...@bcpl.lib.md.us>,
>> > wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
not under
>> >> the impression that racism is not at least an equal (if not
greater)
>> >> problem in Europe. I say possibly greater because Europe lacks
the
>> >> legislation protecting the rights of minorities.
>> >
>>
>> Prove that, Hummppff.
>
>First few lines of the Dutch constitution :-
>
>"All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal
>circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief,
political
>opinion, race, or sex or on
>any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted."
>
Holland on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or
sex or on any other grounds?
Martina
>
>>
>>
>> >> When one considers
>> >> what happenend to the Jewish population a half of century ago it
pales
>> >> with anything that has happened in America vis a vis Blacks or
Indians.
>> >
Friso Buker
Wings wrote:
> In <35B630E5...@atl.mindspring.com> Friso Buker
> <fr...@atl.mindspring.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >
> >B. Jansen wrote:
> >
> >> humm...@yahoo.com wrote in message
> <6p3jk0$hg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >>
> >> >In article <35B4D3...@bcpl.lib.md.us>,
> >> > wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >> While I of course acknowledge American racisim, I hope you are
> not under
> >> >> the impression that racism is not at least an equal (if not
> greater)
> >> >> problem in Europe. I say possibly greater because Europe lacks
> the
> >> >> legislation protecting the rights of minorities.
> >> >
> >> > Wrong.
> >>
> >> Prove that, Hummppff.
> >
> >First few lines of the Dutch constitution :-
> >
> >"All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal
> >circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief,
> political
> >opinion, race, or sex or on
> >any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted."
> >
> Whoopdeedoo. Does that mean that no discrimination takes place in
> Holland on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or
> sex or on any other grounds?
Of course it does. And it does in the US as well, despite the equivalent
lines in YOUR constitution. Do you say "Whoopdeedoo" when you hear quotes
from the founding fathers?
>
>
> Martina
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >> When one considers
> >> >> what happenend to the Jewish population a half of century ago it
> pales
> >> >> with anything that has happened in America vis a vis Blacks or
> Indians.
> >> >
> >> > Black slaves beaten and tortured to build up your country.
> >> > 5 million Indians murdered and their land stolen (genocide).
> >>
> >> Who brought the slaves there, Hummppff???
> >
> >I was under the impression Americans brought the slaves to America,
> but I'm
> >really not sure about that.
> >
> >> <snip>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >When I was a child,
> >I spake as a collectivist,
> >I understood as a collectivist,
> >I thought as a collectivist;
> >but when I became a man,
> >I put away childish things.
> >
> >
> >"Giving money and power to government is like giving
> >whiskey and car keys to teenage kids" -- PJ O'Rourke
> >.
> >
> >
--
Giving money and power to government is like giving
whiskey and car keys to teenagers
-- PJ O'Rourke
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal
sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism
is the equal sharing of miseries.
-- Winston Churchill
The function of socialism is to raise suffering to a
higher level.
-- Norman Mailer
When I was a child,
I spoke as a socialist,
I understood as a socialist,
I thought as a socialist;
but when I became a man,
I put away all that shit
and got a FUCKING LIFE !!!!!
-- Part Corinthians, Part Me
Wings
>> >First few lines of the Dutch constitution :-
>> >
>> >"All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal
>> >circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief,
>> political
>> >opinion, race, or sex or on
>> >any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted."
>> >
>> Whoopdeedoo. Does that mean that no discrimination takes place in
>> Holland on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race,
or
>> sex or on any other grounds?
>
>Of course it does. And it does in the US as well, despite the
equivalent
>lines in YOUR constitution. Do you say "Whoopdeedoo" when you hear
quotes
>from the founding fathers?
I say Whoopdeedoo when I encounter yet another Dutchman who likes to
criticize all the bad things in the US. You should start cleaning your
own house first. Holland isn't any better, you know.
Martina
>
>>
>>
>> Martina
Jan den Hollander
>
> > >
> >> >First few lines of the Dutch constitution :-
> >> >
> >> >"All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal
> >> >circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief,
> >> political
> >> >opinion, race, or sex or on
> >> >any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted."
> >> >
> >> Whoopdeedoo. Does that mean that no discrimination takes place in
> >> Holland on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race,
> or
> >> sex or on any other grounds?
> >
> >Of course it does. And it does in the US as well, despite the
> equivalent
> >lines in YOUR constitution. Do you say "Whoopdeedoo" when you hear
> quotes
> >from the founding fathers?
>
> I say Whoopdeedoo when I encounter yet another Dutchman who likes to
> criticize all the bad things in the US. You should start cleaning your
> own house first. Holland isn't any better, you know.
>
I wonder why it is that Americans (and their friends) react so
hypersensitive when you try to counter this narrow minded idea that they
are the only civilized country, the fountainhead of all democracy and
tolerance in the world?
Jan
B. Jansen
Where did any of the people you're aiming at say that the US is the "only
civilized country, the foutainhead of all democracy and tolerance in the
World"???
I think you would like them to say that, but they haven't.
Bas
B. Jansen
>In article <6p4us3$kq4$1...@barba.uci.kun.nl>,
> "B. Jansen" <bo...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>> humm...@yahoo.com wrote in message <6p3jk0$hg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>
>> >In article <35B4D3...@bcpl.lib.md.us>,
>> > wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> While I of course acknowledge American racisim, I hope you are not
under
>> >> the impression that racism is not at least an equal (if not greater)
>> >> problem in Europe. I say possibly greater because Europe lacks the
>> >> legislation protecting the rights of minorities.
>> >
>> > Wrong.
>>
>> Prove that, Hummppff.
>>
> Overview of all constitutions -
> http://www.adi.uam.es/docencia/tex_der/constm.htm
>
> You'll notice that these constitutions are more up to date and reflect
>the times more than the American one - specifically they have incorporated
>the principles set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which
>yours doesn't. My mother had written a letter to the justice dept
regarding
>the application of the human rights accord - she received a letter back
>stating that the U.S. was not legally obligated to enforce treaties as if
>they were law and that all matters are handled by the U.S. court systems
>(constitutional law).
First of all, one can argue whether the American constitution "reflect the
times" less than the others. Second, having the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights incorporated in a constitution does not guarantee that there's
no racism.... I believe that that is what Bill was hinting at.
To my knowlegde the US Constitution does say that that we're all equal.
To me, the answer of the US Justice Department to your mom seems all right;
I can't have problems with that.
By the way, the US Constitution is not mine, as I live in the Netherlands.
[...]
>> > The Jews were targeted because they were in the process of economic
>> >overthrow of the power in Germany. Not all of course and no
justification
>> >for what happened - but Germany belonged to the Germans and certain
jewish
>> >groups had conspired to work together to take it away (treason
punishable
>> by
>> >death in America too - look at chapter 18 U.S. code) - whereas you took
it
>> >away from the Indians.
>>
>> Oh dear, ths sounds downright WRONG to me. I leave it here.
>>
>> Bas
>
> Read my other post for an explanation please.
Well, better be careful the next time you post something. Besides, I think
you're still wrong.
Bas
Friso Buker
Wings wrote:
> > >
> >> >First few lines of the Dutch constitution :-
> >> >
> >> >"All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal
> >> >circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief,
> >> political
> >> >opinion, race, or sex or on
> >> >any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted."
> >> >
> >> Whoopdeedoo. Does that mean that no discrimination takes place in
> >> Holland on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race,
> or
> >> sex or on any other grounds?
> >
> >Of course it does. And it does in the US as well, despite the
> equivalent
> >lines in YOUR constitution. Do you say "Whoopdeedoo" when you hear
> quotes
> >from the founding fathers?
>
> I say Whoopdeedoo when I encounter yet another Dutchman who likes to
> criticize all the bad things in the US. You should start cleaning your
> own house first. Holland isn't any better, you know.
When did I ever criticize all the bad things in the US? I've been living in
the US for the past 2.5 years and I'm loving it. The people & places are
wonderful here. I also love it when I go back to my residence in the UK,
and I also love it when I go to visit my family in the Netherlands. You
guys have got an amazing country. There's good and bad in EVERY nation.
The original issue that I replied to was to do with racism, as well as
legislation to defend the rights of minorities. Bill Willis (I think)
stated that he was not aware of legislation that protected minorities in
Europe. I stated that we DO have legislation that is on par with laws in
the US, and I showed him the first few lines in our constitution to prove
this. That's all.
But while you're in such a touchy mood, as far as us needing to clean our
own house, I think the fact that we haven't had any Surinamers dragged
behind a pickup truck driven by a couple of good ol' boys while his body
gets torn to shreds on the road (or variations thereof) recently only goes
to show that our "house cleaning" efforts are coming along quite nicely
(albeit nowhere near completion). The same goes for the fact that we don't
put people in jail for 50+ years when all they do is grow a marijuana plant
for personal consumption, and we also don't have regional legislation that
criminalizes the homosexual act between consenting adults in the privacy of
their own homes. AFAIK, you do. This is not a criticism; it's just the way
it is.
Have a nice day.......
<snip>
Jan den Hollander
>
> >
> >I wonder why it is that Americans (and their friends) react so
> >hypersensitive when you try to counter this narrow minded idea that they
> >are the only civilized country, the fountainhead of all democracy and
> >tolerance in the world?
>
> Where did any of the people you're aiming at say that the US is the "only
> civilized country, the foutainhead of all democracy and tolerance in the
> World"???
> I think you would like them to say that, but they haven't.
>
OK BeeJay, just a sample of what has been said in this thread. By the
way, still in that hellhole near the German border? Any plans as yet to
return to civilization this side of the Atlantic?
Jsn
"I am proud of my country though, I think the American
political institutions are the best in the world and I believe very much
in the ideals on which the country was founded."
"I also tend to think that the world is somewhat safer when you have one
country that is dominant as long as it is not too dominating. It
provides a balance and stability that may be irritating to some at times
but is still preferable to the Pre WWII days when you had several
relatively equal competeing powers."
"I wonder, do you
acknowledge that it was a strong and generous America, that allowed
Western Europe to develop so pacifically over the last 50 years."
"Well obviously as an American I perfer America to have the leading
role."
Jan den Hollander
>
> The U.S. constitution says that all MEN are created equal !
>
Of course! You haven't noticed the difference between male and female as
yet?
Jan
an...@my-dejanews.com
"B. Jansen" <bo...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>
> First of all, one can argue whether the American constitution "reflect the
> times" less than the others. Second, having the Universal Declaration of
> Human Rights incorporated in a constitution does not guarantee that there's
> no racism.... I believe that that is what Bill was hinting at.
> To my knowlegde the US Constitution does say that that we're all equal.
> To me, the answer of the US Justice Department to your mom seems all right;
> I can't have problems with that.
> By the way, the US Constitution is not mine, as I live in the Netherlands.
>
The U.S. constitution says that all MEN are created equal !
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Wings
<hol...@uab.edu> writes:
>
>Wings wrote:
>>
>> > >
>> >> >First few lines of the Dutch constitution :-
>> >> >
>> >> >"All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in
equal
>> >> >circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion,
belief,
>> >> political
>> >> >opinion, race, or sex or on
>> >> >any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted."
>> >> >
>> >> Whoopdeedoo. Does that mean that no discrimination takes place in
>> >> Holland on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion,
race,
>> or
>> >> sex or on any other grounds?
>> >
>> >Of course it does. And it does in the US as well, despite the
>> equivalent
>> >lines in YOUR constitution. Do you say "Whoopdeedoo" when you hear
>> quotes
>> >from the founding fathers?
>>
>> I say Whoopdeedoo when I encounter yet another Dutchman who likes to
>> criticize all the bad things in the US. You should start cleaning
your
>> own house first. Holland isn't any better, you know.
>>
>
>hypersensitive when you try to counter this narrow minded idea that
they
>are the only civilized country, the fountainhead of all democracy and
>tolerance in the world?
Who says we think we are the only civilized country, the "fountainhead"
of all democracy and tolerance in the world? I can think of a few other
countries, and with me most Americans. Are we hypersensitive? Nah, more
like ticked off at the generalities such as in your last statement. It
must be rather fashionable to bash America in this newsgroup..... but
most people that do that have either never been here, or been here for
a short time only and think that gives 'em the right to make statements
such as your last one. Unless you have lived here for an extended
period of time (and I mean beyond at least 12 months) you are not
qualified to form an educated opinion about American society. I don't
give a shit what you read in the paper and watch on tv. Besides, you
managed to evade my remark about Dutch society. We ought to start a
discussion about what all is wrong with THAT for a change.
Martina
>
>Jan
Wings
<bo...@unforgettable.com> writes:
>
>Jan den Hollander wrote in message
<6p7e7a$a...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>
"only
>civilized country, the foutainhead of all democracy and tolerance in
the
>World"???
>I think you would like them to say that, but they haven't.
Amen. Thank you, Bas.
Martina
>
>Bas
>
>
Wings
>
> The U.S. constitution says that all MEN are created equal !
We moeten jou maar even naar een cursus Engels sturen, dan.
Martina
Wings
I agree. You don't put people in jail for smoking a joint or even
growing a pot plant. And you haven't dragged a black man behind a
pickup truck. That's great. And I mean that. What I am very concerned
about is. for instance, that recent child pornography issue that came
up while I was in Haarlem. In fact, I was walking by that Cube Software
joint in Zandvoort at De Favauge Plein and was wondering why it looked
so deserted and lo and behold, what do you know, the very next day i'm
reading in the Haarlems Dagblad that it was the cover for some ungodly
worldwide child pornography business. So don't start telling me what a
fucked up society we have in the US when you don't have your own house
in order. It's real easy to criticize all the stuff in the U.S. if you
guys were perfect yourself, but you aren't. That's all I'm trying to
say.
You have a nice day too!! :-)
Martina
B. Jansen
>B. Jansen wrote:
>>
>
>> >
>> >I wonder why it is that Americans (and their friends) react so
>> >hypersensitive when you try to counter this narrow minded idea that they
>> >are the only civilized country, the fountainhead of all democracy and
>> >tolerance in the world?
>>
>> Where did any of the people you're aiming at say that the US is the "only
>> civilized country, the foutainhead of all democracy and tolerance in the
>> World"???
>> I think you would like them to say that, but they haven't.
>>
>
>OK BeeJay, just a sample of what has been said in this thread. By the
>way, still in that hellhole near the German border? Any plans as yet to
>return to civilization this side of the Atlantic?
Yes, twice. Just stepped into a pile of dogshit, thank-you-very-much...
>"I am proud of my country though, I think the American
>political institutions are the best in the world and I believe very much
>in the ideals on which the country was founded."
Well Jan, it doensn't exactly say that America is the fountainhead etc. or
"the one and only". It's not the way I read it. What's wrong with being
proud of your own country?
>"I also tend to think that the world is somewhat safer when you have one
>country that is dominant as long as it is not too dominating. It
>provides a balance and stability that may be irritating to some at times
>but is still preferable to the Pre WWII days when you had several
>relatively equal competeing powers."
This phrase does not refer to that fountainhead thing... Or I must have this
read differently.
>"I wonder, do you
>acknowledge that it was a strong and generous America, that allowed
>Western Europe to develop so pacifically over the last 50 years."
In a way, Bill is right here. I think.
>"Well obviously as an American I perfer America to have the leading
>role."
I can understand that. What bugs me a little here is that you seem to
question the fact that Bill is proud of his country (which is perfectly fine
with me, by the way), but that you do not acknowledge the fact that Bill
also expressed his concern about several huge problems in America.
Furthermore, and that really bugs me, samples from previous posts may seem
very convincing, but one should realize that these samples may be out of
context...
Bas
B. Jansen
>In <6p7e7a$a...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> Jan den Hollander
><hol...@uab.edu> writes:
>>
>>Wings wrote:
>>>
>>> > >
>>> >> >First few lines of the Dutch constitution :-
>>> >> >
>>> >> >"All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in
>equal
>>> >> >circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion,
>belief,
>>> >> political
>>> >> >opinion, race, or sex or on
>>> >> >any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted."
>>> >> >
>>> >> Whoopdeedoo. Does that mean that no discrimination takes place in
>>> >> Holland on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion,
>race,
>>> or
>>> >> sex or on any other grounds?
>>> >
>>> >Of course it does. And it does in the US as well, despite the
>>> equivalent
>>> >lines in YOUR constitution. Do you say "Whoopdeedoo" when you hear
>>> quotes
>>> >from the founding fathers?
>>>
>>> I say Whoopdeedoo when I encounter yet another Dutchman who likes to
>>> criticize all the bad things in the US. You should start cleaning
>your
>>> own house first. Holland isn't any better, you know.
>>>
>>
>>I wonder why it is that Americans (and their friends) react so
>>hypersensitive when you try to counter this narrow minded idea that
>they
>>are the only civilized country, the fountainhead of all democracy and
>>tolerance in the world?
>
>Who says we think we are the only civilized country, the "fountainhead"
>of all democracy and tolerance in the world? I can think of a few other
>countries, and with me most Americans. Are we hypersensitive? Nah, more
>like ticked off at the generalities such as in your last statement. It
>must be rather fashionable to bash America in this newsgroup..... but
>most people that do that have either never been here, or been here for
>a short time only and think that gives 'em the right to make statements
>such as your last one. Unless you have lived here for an extended
>period of time (and I mean beyond at least 12 months) you are not
>qualified to form an educated opinion about American society. I don't
>give a shit what you read in the paper and watch on tv. Besides, you
>managed to evade my remark about Dutch society. We ought to start a
>discussion about what all is wrong with THAT for a change.
Whoooo Martina, take it easy, buy an Apple ;) I believe Jan has lived in the
US for an extended period of time.
More specifically in Birmingham, Alabama though, so I would not take his
opinion for granted :)))))))))))))))
With regard to a discussion about the Dutch society, well... My experience
is that that is an invitation for the mentally lesser gifted to start
America-bashing, especially when you, as an American, start such a
discussion. Which, on the other hand tells you more than enough about the
Dutch mentality, calvinist pricks 'n cunts as they are.
Errr, I'll leave it here, sit back and wait for the flames to come.
Bas
>Martina
>
>>
>>Jan
>
Friso Buker
Wings wrote:
Point 1 : I never said that Holland didn't have problems, and it's fairly
fucking hypocrticial of you to point out a disgusting crime that the US
experiences as well.
Point 2 : Like I said before, I was not criticising the US. I was just
pointing out that, despite laws, every nation has its law breakers.
Point 3 : I am well aware that we are not perfect. But, then again, we are
doing the best that we can, and we are making slow but steady progress. Are
you?
The National Folk Hero of the Net
> In <6p7qfq$mcg$1...@barba.uci.kun.nl>, bo...@unforgettable.com wrote:
> >
> > First of all, one can argue whether the American constitution "reflect the
> > times" less than the others. Second, having the Universal Declaration of
> > Human Rights incorporated in a constitution does not guarantee that there's
> > no racism.... I believe that that is what Bill was hinting at.
>
No, that's the U.S. Declaration of Independence. But I admit that many
Americans can't hear any criticism without trying to return it. I think
we get stiff necks from watching too much T.V. National pride is as
loud a nuisance as ever.
But I'll match Vermont Cheddar against Old Reserve Gouda any day!
(And what's this about big fat honking Hollanders? We Americans are
far more likely to be fat than the Dutch! Our drivers honk more too.)
-:-
"Patriotism is the religion of hell."
--James Branch Cabell
--
Col. G. L. Sicherman
work: sich...@lucent.com
home: col...@mail.monmouth.com
an...@my-dejanews.com
"B. Jansen" <bo...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>
> First of all, one can argue whether the American constitution "reflect the
> times" less than the others. Second, having the Universal Declaration of
> Human Rights incorporated in a constitution does not guarantee that there's
> no racism.... I believe that that is what Bill was hinting at.
The saem could be said for any law - why have laws at all then ?
> To my knowlegde the US Constitution does say that that we're all equal.
> To me, the answer of the US Justice Department to your mom seems all right;
> I can't have problems with that.
> By the way, the US Constitution is not mine, as I live in the Netherlands.
>
Wait - you don't see anything wrong with a counrty who preaches human
rights to the rest of the world and is willing to condemn those countries
at the drop of a hat, but doesn't find it neccessary to apply those same
principles to itself ?? Iran handles its' issues in its' courts, so does
china etc.... The U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva has literaly
thousands of Human rights complaints coming from people in Amerika.
Leesa C. Rasp
B. Jansen <bo...@unforgettable.com> wrote in article
<6p7qfq$mcg$1...@barba.uci.kun.nl>...
> humm...@yahoo.com wrote in message <6p5bpo$943$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >In article <6p4us3$kq4$1...@barba.uci.kun.nl>,
> First of all, one can argue whether the American constitution "reflect
the
> times" less than the others. Second, having the Universal Declaration of
> Human Rights incorporated in a constitution does not guarantee that
there's
> no racism.... I believe that that is what Bill was hinting at.
> To my knowlegde the US Constitution does say that that we're all equal.
> To me, the answer of the US Justice Department to your mom seems all
right;
> I can't have problems with that.
> By the way, the US Constitution is not mine, as I live in the
Netherlands.
>
>
As a citizen of the US, I believe that our Constitution is in need of some
amount of modernization. However, it has been modernized to some extent
(the Amendments). The letter was right--no state is legally obligated to
enforce treaties as law, and certainly no state is obligated to incorporate
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into their constitutions--many
have not. (See China for an example). However, the US Constitution does
not say that everyone is created equal, it says, "...that all MEN are
created equal...". This was why there was such an uproar about the ERA
(Equal Rights Amendment), which was a large issue in the '70s. The ERA
attempted to incorporate women formally into the Constitution. To this
day, this amendment has not passed. So, I definitely agree that we are in
need of an update...however, it is a complicated process, and Amendments
are extremely difficult to pass, so I don't see it happening anytime soon.
> [...]
>
> >> > The Jews were targeted because they were in the process of economic
> >> >overthrow of the power in Germany. Not all of course and no
> justification
> >> >for what happened - but Germany belonged to the Germans and certain
> jewish
> >> >groups had conspired to work together to take it away (treason
> punishable
> >> by
> >> >death in America too - look at chapter 18 U.S. code) - whereas you
took
> it
> >> >away from the Indians.
> >>
> >> Oh dear, ths sounds downright WRONG to me. I leave it here.
> >>
> >> Bas
> >
> > Read my other post for an explanation please.
>
> Well, better be careful the next time you post something. Besides, I
think
> you're still wrong.
>
>
> Bas
>
In my lifetime of living in the US, I have yet to see someone executed for
treason. And yes, we did wrong the Native Americans in many ways. So did
the French explorers, and the Spanish explorers, etc. This does not
justify the treatment they received, but I think that the Native Americans
would have been dominated by any of the cultures that were trying to found
"the new world." However, I must vehemently disagree with your statement
about the Jews in Nazi Germany being targeted because they were in the
process of economically overthrowing the German government. I think that
is a pretty racist statement... However, on the whole, I do agree with
your opinions on the Constitution of the US. I think the process of change
may be a bit more complex than you perceive, though...
Leesa
an...@my-dejanews.com
"Leesa C. Rasp" <lcr...@pacestl.com> wrote:
>
>
> B. Jansen <bo...@unforgettable.com> wrote in article
> <6p7qfq$mcg$1...@barba.uci.kun.nl>...
>
> amount of modernization. However, it has been modernized to some extent
> (the Amendments). The letter was right--no state is legally obligated to
> enforce treaties as law, and certainly no state is obligated to incorporate
> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into their constitutions--many
> have not. (See China for an example). However, the US Constitution does
> not say that everyone is created equal, it says, "...that all MEN are
> created equal...". This was why there was such an uproar about the ERA
> (Equal Rights Amendment), which was a large issue in the '70s. The ERA
> attempted to incorporate women formally into the Constitution. To this
> day, this amendment has not passed. So, I definitely agree that we are in
> need of an update...however, it is a complicated process, and Amendments
> are extremely difficult to pass, so I don't see it happening anytime soon.
>
I beleive - coreect me if I'm wrong - that the amendments cannot OVERTURN
existing constitutional law - they can only add to it. To actually change the
constitution a referendum by the people is required - is this true ??
> > [...]
> >
> > >> > The Jews were targeted because they were in the process of economic
> > >> >overthrow of the power in Germany. Not all of course and no
> > justification
> > >> >for what happened - but Germany belonged to the Germans and certain
> > jewish
> > >> >groups had conspired to work together to take it away (treason
> > punishable
> > >> by
> > >> >death in America too - look at chapter 18 U.S. code) - whereas you
> took
> > it
> > >> >away from the Indians.
> > >>
> > >> Oh dear, ths sounds downright WRONG to me. I leave it here.
> > >>
> > >> Bas
> > >
> > > Read my other post for an explanation please.
> >
> > Well, better be careful the next time you post something. Besides, I
> think
> > you're still wrong.
> >
> >
> > Bas
> >
> In my lifetime of living in the US, I have yet to see someone executed for
> treason. And yes, we did wrong the Native Americans in many ways. So did
The Rosenbergs - 1952 I believe - for selling the U.S.'s nuclear secrets
to the Soviets.
> the French explorers, and the Spanish explorers, etc. This does not
> justify the treatment they received, but I think that the Native Americans
> would have been dominated by any of the cultures that were trying to found
> "the new world." However, I must vehemently disagree with your statement
> about the Jews in Nazi Germany being targeted because they were in the
> process of economically overthrowing the German government. I think that
> is a pretty racist statement... However, on the whole, I do agree with
SOOrry, Soorry, Soorry - my wording didn't really get my point accross -
This is what the German people were MADE to believe by their Gov'ts
propaganda to expell a group which didn't conform to the NAZI's ideal view of
how Germany and Germans should be. My mother went through the war in Germany
and she told me that the German people were told by the Gov't that the Jews
had taken over 80% of the economy to further the building of a Zion. They
were made to believe that the poor economic situation in Germany was due to
this - this is what led up to the Reichskristallnacht (After a Jew killed a
German Ambasador in Paris.) when most Jewish owned stores were demolished.
I don't know if this is true or not - it really doesn't matter because what
was done had no and will never have any justification whatsoever - but I do
know that this is what the German people were made to believe and what the
NAZI's used to further their genocide of the Jews.
> your opinions on the Constitution of the US. I think the process of change
> may be a bit more complex than you perceive, though...
>
> Leesa
>
I think you're right - the problem I have is that the American gov't
preaches Human Rights to such places as China - yet is unwilling to take the
steps needed to ensure that its' system complys with those rights - pure
hypocracy in my view --- there should be a law against it.
an...@my-dejanews.com
mj...@ix.netcom.com(Wings) wrote:
> Who says we think we are the only civilized country, the "fountainhead"
> of all democracy and tolerance in the world? I can think of a few other
> countries, and with me most Americans. Are we hypersensitive? Nah, more
> like ticked off at the generalities such as in your last statement. It
> must be rather fashionable to bash America in this newsgroup..... but
> most people that do that have either never been here, or been here for
> a short time only and think that gives 'em the right to make statements
> such as your last one. Unless you have lived here for an extended
> period of time (and I mean beyond at least 12 months) you are not
> qualified to form an educated opinion about American society. I don't
> give a shit what you read in the paper and watch on tv. Besides, you
> managed to evade my remark about Dutch society. We ought to start a
> discussion about what all is wrong with THAT for a change.
>
>
I lived Amerhicka for 12 years - I'll confirm that compared to Europe it's
not even close to the quality of life one has in Europe - no contest.
an...@my-dejanews.com
mj...@ix.netcom.com(Wings) wrote:
> I agree. You don't put people in jail for smoking a joint or even
> growing a pot plant. And you haven't dragged a black man behind a
> pickup truck. That's great. And I mean that. What I am very concerned
> about is. for instance, that recent child pornography issue that came
> up while I was in Haarlem. In fact, I was walking by that Cube Software
> joint in Zandvoort at De Favauge Plein and was wondering why it looked
> so deserted and lo and behold, what do you know, the very next day i'm
> reading in the Haarlems Dagblad that it was the cover for some ungodly
> worldwide child pornography business. So don't start telling me what a
> fucked up society we have in the US when you don't have your own house
> in order. It's real easy to criticize all the stuff in the U.S. if you
> guys were perfect yourself, but you aren't. That's all I'm trying to
> say.
Just the other day I read that in FLorida a man was incarcerated for making
over five hundred child pornography videos at his home. That issue is not
unique to any place in the world just as places aren't immune to that kind of
filth.
The issue of this thread was - I believe - is Amerikan culture so great that
the entire planet has to bow down to it - my answer is NO.
Wings
>Point 1 : I never said that Holland didn't have problems, and it's
fairly
>fucking hypocrticial of you to point out a disgusting crime that the
US
>experiences as well.
I'm hypocrytical because I'm pointing out a disgusting crime that the
US experiences as well? Let me tell you, the child pornography case
made the Houston Chronicle with a rather sizable article. That in
itself is remarkable, because hardly anything out of Holland makes the
Houston Chronicle at all. We adopted Americans have to put up with a
lot of America bashing in this newsgroup, just a few days ago someone
mentioned something about a blackman being dragged behind a pickup
truck, kids carry guns in school and shoot other kids, etc. etc. but
when WE point out something that is disgusting in YOUR country, then WE
are hypocrytical? Pllleeeeaaaaase. You guys have the monopoly on child
pornography for a while. And child pornography is WAY high on MY list
of despicable crimes. There is so much fucking wrong with that there's
little to compare it to.
>Point 2 : Like I said before, I was not criticising the US. I was just
>pointing out that, despite laws, every nation has its law breakers.
Yeah. And big nations have more law breakers than small nations. And
when those big nations have a big press, that gets even more coverage.
>
>Point 3 : I am well aware that we are not perfect. But, then again, we
are
>doing the best that we can, and we are making slow but steady
progress. Are
>you?
Yes. That is a rather stupid question.
Martina
Wings
>>
>
> I lived Amerhicka for 12 years - I'll confirm that compared to
Europe it's
>not even close to the quality of life one has in Europe - no contest.
Your opinion. I completely disagree.
Martina
Wings
> The issue of this thread was - I believe - is Amerikan culture so
great that
>the entire planet has to bow down to it - my answer is NO.
I don't say that American culture is so great that the entire planet
has to bow down to it, and most Americans I know don't say that either.
As far as I'm concerned you don't have to bow down to anything. How you
want to live your life is your business.
Friso Buker
Wings wrote:
> >>
> >
> > I lived Amerhicka for 12 years - I'll confirm that compared to
> Europe it's
> >not even close to the quality of life one has in Europe - no contest.
>
> Your opinion. I completely disagree.
I have some objections to that statement as well.
>
>
> Martina
>
> >
> >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion
> ==-----
> >http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member
> Forum
--
Friso Buker
>
Look, I didn't start out to bash your nation, and I'm kicking myself for
getting into it. That wasn't the point of me contributing to this thread.
I'll quit while I'm even.
an...@my-dejanews.com
mj...@ix.netcom.com (Wings) wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > I lived Amerhicka for 12 years - I'll confirm that compared to
> Europe it's
> >not even close to the quality of life one has in Europe - no contest.
>
> Your opinion. I completely disagree.
>
35 hoour work weeks, 5 weeks of personal paid vacation, complete health
care, 1 year maternity leave, clean safe environment, rational laws and
rational enforcement of those laws, tax money spent on the well being and
stability of society (instead of power mongering schemes by your gov't),
more personal freedoms, youth allowed to develope normally (instead of some
hidden bible swinging adgenda), one of the best education system in the
world, 90+% savings to cover national debts (U.S. is around 2%), less guns -
less violance - less crime, financial privacy, and true CULTURE.
Yes, in my opsinion this is better.
an...@my-dejanews.com
mj...@ix.netcom.com (Wings) wrote:
>
> > The issue of this thread was - I believe - is Amerikan culture so
> great that
> >the entire planet has to bow down to it - my answer is NO.
>
> I don't say that American culture is so great that the entire planet
> has to bow down to it, and most Americans I know don't say that either.
>
> As far as I'm concerned you don't have to bow down to anything. How you
> want to live your life is your business.
>
> Martina
>
OK - then why is the American gov't - supposedly a representative of the
American people - forcing its' views and ways of dealing with society on the
rest of the world - including its' allies ???
Bill Willis
>
> Jan den Hollander wrote in message <6p8sa0$6...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> >B. Jansen wrote:
> >> Where did any of the people you're aiming at say that the US is the "only
> >> civilized country, the foutainhead of all democracy and tolerance in the
> >> World"???
> >> I think you would like them to say that, but they haven't.
> >
> >OK BeeJay, just a sample of what has been said in this thread.
> >"I am proud of my country though, I think the American
> >political institutions are the best in the world and I believe very much
> >in the ideals on which the country was founded."
>
> Well Jan, it doensn't exactly say that America is the fountainhead etc. or
> "the one and only". It's not the way I read it. What's wrong with being
> proud of your own country?
You read correctly. I was not saying that America was the one and only.
>
> >"I also tend to think that the world is somewhat safer when you have one
> >country that is dominant as long as it is not too dominating. It
> >provides a balance and stability that may be irritating to some at times
> >but is still preferable to the Pre WWII days when you had several
> >relatively equal competeing powers."
>
> This phrase does not refer to that fountainhead thing... Or I must have this
> read differently.
Again you read correctly. I was giving my view. Others may disagree
and that is fine but surely it is at least an arguable view.
> >"I wonder, do you
> >acknowledge that it was a strong and generous America, that allowed
> >Western Europe to develop so pacifically over the last 50 years."
>
> In a way, Bill is right here. I think.
> >"Well obviously as an American I perfer America to have the leading
> >role."
>
> I can understand that. What bugs me a little here is that you seem to
> question the fact that Bill is proud of his country (which is perfectly fine
> with me, by the way), but that you do not acknowledge the fact that Bill
> also expressed his concern about several huge problems in America.
> Furthermore, and that really bugs me, samples from previous posts may seem
> very convincing, but one should realize that these samples may be out of
> context...
Exactly so, The above was a lame attempt by selectively quoting to
pretend that my views were something that they are not. Even so, I do
not back away from what was quoted, I meant it as far as it goes.
Bill
B. Jansen
>In my lifetime of living in the US, I have yet to see someone executed for
>treason. And yes, we did wrong the Native Americans in many ways. So did
>the French explorers, and the Spanish explorers, etc. This does not
>justify the treatment they received, but I think that the Native Americans
>would have been dominated by any of the cultures that were trying to found
>"the new world." However, I must vehemently disagree with your statement
>about the Jews in Nazi Germany being targeted because they were in the
>process of economically overthrowing the German government. I think that
>is a pretty racist statement... However, on the whole, I do agree with
>your opinions on the Constitution of the US. I think the process of change
>may be a bit more complex than you perceive, though...
Leesa, the statement about Jews in Nazi Germany was NOT mine, whereas you
were replying to one of my posts!!!
Bas
>Leesa
Bill Willis
>
> In article <01bdb743$3de74360$1301010a@lcr>,
> "Leesa C. Rasp" <lcr...@pacestl.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > B. Jansen <bo...@unforgettable.com> wrote in article
> > <6p7qfq$mcg$1...@barba.uci.kun.nl>...
> existing constitutional law - they can only add to it. To actually change the
> constitution a referendum by the people is required - is this true ??
I believe this is incorrect and the constitution can be modified in any
way including repealing any part of it. One of the amendments made the
use of alcohol unconstitutional and a few years later another amendment
repealed it. Likewise the American constitutional "right to bear arms"
could be amended constitutionally.
Bill
Wings
>
>In article <6pbi2i$l...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>,
> mj...@ix.netcom.com (Wings) wrote:
>>
>> > The issue of this thread was - I believe - is Amerikan culture so
>> great that
>> >the entire planet has to bow down to it - my answer is NO.
>>
>> I don't say that American culture is so great that the entire planet
>> has to bow down to it, and most Americans I know don't say that
either.
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned you don't have to bow down to anything. How
you
>> want to live your life is your business.
>>
>> Martina
>>
>
> OK - then why is the American gov't - supposedly a representative of
the
>American people - forcing its' views and ways of dealing with society
on the
>rest of the world - including its' allies ???
It's not.
Martina
Wings
>
>In article <6pbhtv$p...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
> mj...@ix.netcom.com (Wings) wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> > I lived Amerhicka for 12 years - I'll confirm that compared to
>> Europe it's
>> >not even close to the quality of life one has in Europe - no
contest.
>>
>> Your opinion. I completely disagree.
>>
>> Martina
>
> 35 hoour work weeks, 5 weeks of personal paid vacation, complete
health
>care, 1 year maternity leave, clean safe environment, rational laws
and
>rational enforcement of those laws, tax money spent on the well being
and
>stability of society (instead of power mongering schemes by your
gov't),
>more personal freedoms, youth allowed to develope normally (instead
of some
>hidden bible swinging adgenda), one of the best education system in
the
>world, 90+% savings to cover national debts (U.S. is around 2%), less
guns -
>less violance - less crime, financial privacy, and true CULTURE.
Oh yeah. Culture, let's not forget CULTURE.....
Your shorter workweek & more vacation, yeah I agree. Your clean safe
environment, hmmmm...... it's really, REALLY crowded..... safe, well I
walked through some streets in Haarlem that I should have stayed away
from. I felt anything but safe. Rational laws..... and rational
enforcement, well that depends on how you look at it. I heard, while in
Holland, about some guy trying like hell to get his case in court, but
for some reason he hadn't succeeded in 10 years. So we'll throw that
argument out the window for a while. Tax money spent on the wellbeing
and stability of society..... rather vague expression, but the tax rate
that you guys have to pay is utterly ridiculous. You have to pay it
because there's an awfully large segment of the population that refuses
to work for whatever reason. You take care of all these people, but
it's really at your expense while they don't want get off their duff to
do anything. You guys encourage that. I prefer our system. More
personal freedoms? No. You can't paint your house in a color that
deviates from the rest of the street, you can't add a room, you can't
chop a tree if it's in your way without a national referendum and a
parliamentary debate. Throw that one out of the window too. Youth
allowed to develop normally and then something about the bible.....
what a joke. I saw quite a few deviates. Also met some adults in
Holland that as youths were allowed to develop normally and can't do
much of anything. One of the best education systems in the world, yeah
that is if you have access to it. While I was in Holland there was this
brilliant student that had to go into the lottery to study medicine,
and she had lost three years in a row. It was in the paper in Holland
as she was quoted to be one of the best students ever. What a waste of
a brilliant brain. I'll agree with your comment about the national
debt, however I don't know if the percentages are true, but I'll let
you slide on that. Less guns, yes, less violence, I don't know about
that..... just add the child pornography issue to that, that alone
makes you sick to your stomach...... Financial privacy? What on earth
are you talking about? I do with my money what I want..... as long as I
report the interest on my tax return every year..... do you mean
"zwartwerken" or something? That's illegal in Holland as far as I know.
However tons of people do it to get ahead since they can't do it any
other way. TRUE CULTURE???? Ha ha I don't think you yourself even
understand what you are saying there..... But you know, I don't want to
end the discussion here..... when we are talking about culture, can we
talk about how rude people are? In Holland they don't think anything
about elbowing you out of the way in a store in order to get helped
first, they cut in front of you while you are waiting for a parking
space so you are left holding the bag, and my favorite of all time was
last week in Haarlem. We were sitting on a terrace enjoying a beer and
so I paid the waitress and gave her a tip, although we had to wait
longer for our beer than I thought was necessary. But what the hell,
the girl waits on tables and so I give her a generous tip. I don't get
a thank you, which would have been polite, but hey, what the hell. I'm
sitting on the terrace enjoying my beer and if she doesn't thank me
then I'm not going to let it ruin my day. However, after ten minutes
she reappears and tells me we have to settle the bill..... yeah
right..... I started to say, what about the tip I just gave you, you
ditz..... but she recognized her stupidity and left.....
Waiters in restaurants are arrogant and think they are doing you a
favor by serving you..... you don't get seconds, and everything takes
forever..... rudeness prevails everywhere and people are impatient and
impolite. Culture? My foot.
Have a nice day!
Martina
> Yes, in my opsinion this is better.
>
dbf
here for 4 months and you summed up things very well.
There's a lot of nice things here too, but it's nowhere near the utopian
society its inhabitants make it out to be......nor is America....*sigh*
--
remove SPAMSUX from email address when replying :-))
Bill Willis
>
> In article <6pbi2i$l...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>,
> mj...@ix.netcom.com (Wings) wrote:
> >
>
> OK - then why is the American gov't - supposedly a representative of the
> American people - forcing its' views and ways of dealing with society on the
> rest of the world - including its' allies ???
How is America "forcing its' views and ways of dealing with society on
the rest of the world - including its' allies" ?
Bill
antony quintal
> How is America "forcing its' views and ways of dealing with society on
> the rest of the world - including its' allies" ?
>
we could start w/ our 'war' on drugs.... but that would be too easy.
today i read this one:
"america's congress is currently deliberating a law to impose sanctions
on countries that mistreat their religious minorities, with the Middle
East as one of the intended targets." [The Economist - July 18th-24th]
or how about that IMF? ;) [of course our house of representatives has
been refusing to pay its share...]
respectx
antony
Bill Willis
>
> Bill Willis wrote:
>
> >
As you may have noticed, I was travelling the last few days and didn't
have the time to answer fully your latest posting. The brick135 post
was mine I was using a borrowed computer. At the risk of beating a dead
horse I have a few additional comments regarding what you wrote.
> > > THe tri-partition of power (legislative, executive, and judiciary) is
> > > not an American invention; the Romans had that already. The important
> > > point about a democratic constitution (any democratic constitution) is a
> > > government for and by the people; and not just for a small ruling class.
> > > And not even that was new; countries like Switzerland or Iceland had a
> > > democratic system long before the founding fathers thought of it.
>
>
> I am merely questioning what it is what makes you proud of the American
> institutions. There are many democratic constitutions around the world
> in which basic human rights are guaranteed, just as it is in the
> American constitution. To convince you of that, you may want to check
> out this website: http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/law/
> In it are the texts of many constitutions of countries around the world.
> Perhaps that will convince you that the American constitution is not so
> special after all.
First, Up to now I have merely said that I am proud of the American
Constitution and the American form of Government which in my view has
stood the test of time and lasted for over 200 years. This has provided
a political system that has lasted through a horrendous Civil War, a
great Economic Depression in the 1930s, and a scandal (Watergate) that
severly tested the strength of the Constitution and Political
institutions. Through all of this, there has never been an election
canceled, and each government in turn peacefully ceded power to the
incoming government. This internal stability and political
sophistication has allowed American to evolve into the pre-eminent
nation that it is today. I would also point out that America is
probably the most multi-cultural nation the world has ever seen. This
diversity itself often strains the fabric of government, still the
American Constitution and Political Institutions have been strong enough
so far to cope.
I really wasn't commenting on the quality of other nations constitutions
because for the most part I don't know that much about them. However,
being curious I clicked onto the websight that you provided. It appears
to contain constitutional info on virtually every nation in the world.
I just checked for a few minutes the Netherlands constitution and I
must say that I was not impressed.
I note that the constitution just dates from the 1980's. Also as an
example, one clause of the Dutch constitution specifically gives
everyone the right to leave the country unless Parliament says
otherwise. This seems to me as no right at all, It is saying
Parliament is supreme and it can revoke the right at will. Also, I
noticed a clause prohibiting government interference with the content of
Radio and TV, this is fine and I would support it, However don't you
think the American guarantee of Freedom of the Press (which is naturally
extended to include Radio and TV and includes the internet and any other
media which may someday be invented) is a far more elegant approach to
the freedom issue. So, no from the little I have seen, I don't think
the Dutch have much to teach America about writing Constitutions.
Also, it is not just Constitutions that are the important aspects of
good and stable government. The Political Institutions themselves
should be sound. I would just like to give a couple of examples in
Europe which seem to me to point out certain defects in European
political life.
First, I have already mentioned the general point that most of the
Western European political structures have been only created since the
Post WWII era. Also, many European nations have a very short history of
democratic government (Germany, Spain, Portugal and Italy come
immediately to mind. It is arguable as to what will happen in the next
time of crisis.
A few specifics:
Italy - Italy has seen an absurd succession of governments. Its party
structure is too fragmented.
Germany - History shows how easily Germany abandoned democracy in a time
of economic crisis in the 1930's. Their entire history of democracy
only dates from a few years in the post WWI and Post WWII. The German
constitution and government was heavily influenced by America.
France - It is already on the 5th Republic, plus a couple of lapses
back into monarchy. To say nothing of a shameful history (by a good
portion, but certainly not all) of collaboration with to the German
occupiers. They were by no means alone in this regard.
Spain & Portugal. The most recent democracies having each been ruled by
facist dictators for many years. Are these nations committed to
democracy, I hope so Time will tell.
Switzerland - An example of a nation that despite democracy and sound
political institutions, cynically through its immoral banking laws and
pseudo neutrality grasps for itself advantage at the expense of less
fortunate nations and people throughout the world.
Great Britain - No written constitution whatsoever. High level of
government secrecy, no freedom of information Act, House of Lords which
IMO is a ridiculous institution, With all real power resting in the
House of Commons the country is virtually an elected dictatorship. That
said I also think that Britain has been as well governed as the USA. If
the British are content with their peculiar institutions I have no
complaint.
Perhaps this will give you some better understanding of why I am proud
of the American Political institutions.
Bill
Anzuelo los Mosas
>In <6pda74$p08$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> an...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>>
>>In article <6pbhtv$p...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
>> mj...@ix.netcom.com (Wings) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >I lived Amerhicka for 12 years - I'll confirm that compared to
>>> >Europe it's not even close to the quality of life one has in
>>> >Europe - no contest.
>>>
>>> Your opinion. I completely disagree.
>>
>>35 hoour work weeks, 5 weeks of personal paid vacation, complete
>>health care, 1 year maternity leave, clean safe environment, rational
>>laws and rational enforcement of those laws, tax money spent on the
>>well being and stability of society (instead of power mongering
>>schemes by your gov't), more personal freedoms, youth allowed to
>>develope normally (instead of some hidden bible swinging adgenda),
>>one of the best education system in the world, 90+% savings to cover
>>national debts (U.S. is around 2%), less guns - less violance -
>>less crime, financial privacy, and true CULTURE.
>Oh yeah. Culture, let's not forget CULTURE.....
>Your shorter workweek & more vacation, yeah I agree. Your clean safe
>environment, hmmmm...... it's really, REALLY crowded.....
Not more so than New York or Los Angeles. You could have visited
Friesland, Groningen, Drente and Flevoland. Those provinces, about a
third of the country, can hardly be called "crowded".
> safe, well I
>walked through some streets in Haarlem that I should have stayed away
>from. I felt anything but safe. Rational laws..... and rational
>enforcement, well that depends on how you look at it. I heard, while in
>Holland, about some guy trying like hell to get his case in court, but
>for some reason he hadn't succeeded in 10 years.
You mean to say law suits in the US don't take years? Get real! The US
has the largest fraction of (lawyers)/(inhabitants) in the world. You
sue people into absurdity.
> So we'll throw that
>argument out the window for a while. Tax money spent on the wellbeing
>and stability of society..... rather vague expression, but the tax rate
>that you guys have to pay is utterly ridiculous.
Is it? Why don't I have a problem with it then? As long as I think my
tax money is well spend I won't complain. And it is not you who is to
judge whether my tax rate is "utterly ridiculous". You don't pay it,
I do.
> You have to pay it
>because there's an awfully large segment of the population that refuses
>to work for whatever reason.
That's utter bull shit. The fraction (working people)/(inhabitants) is
higher in NL than it is in the US. And where did you get the notion
those "umemployed" refuse to work for "whatever reason"? Weren't you
talking about US bashing somewhere in a posting? You're just now
bashing the Netherlands....
> You take care of all these people, but
>it's really at your expense while they don't want get off their duff to
>do anything.
Once again: that's utter bull shit. Can you give me some hard numbers?
Or are you just trying to conceal the fact that in the US, after a few
months or years of unemployment, people are just "dumped" and not
mentioned in the unemployment numbers anymore?
> You guys encourage that.
Utter bull shit. You obviously haven't lived from an "uitkering" here
in NL. I have for some years, and it's no fun.
> I prefer our system.
Ok. But don't whine when I say I prefer ours.
> More
>personal freedoms? No. You can't paint your house in a color that
>deviates from the rest of the street, you can't add a room, you can't
>chop a tree if it's in your way without a national referendum and a
>parliamentary debate.
Utter bull shit. Even if the local legislation says you can't paint
your house pink, you can. And you can add rooms, you can chop trees,
and you can even cook a meal. You obviously don't know anything about
the Netherlands.
> Throw that one out of the window too. Youth
>allowed to develop normally and then something about the bible.....
>what a joke. I saw quite a few deviates. Also met some adults in
>Holland that as youths were allowed to develop normally and can't do
>much of anything. One of the best education systems in the world, yeah
>that is if you have access to it.
You're talking about the US, no doubt.....
> While I was in Holland there was this
>brilliant student that had to go into the lottery to study medicine,
>and she had lost three years in a row.
.... Aha! One of the few exceptions to the rule, and of course some
Netherlands bashing fungus exploits it....
> It was in the paper in Holland
>as she was quoted to be one of the best students ever. What a waste of
>a brilliant brain.
I agree. But why do you draw conclusions from this one example? Do you
mean to to say that in the US everybody can study whatever and wherever
he/she wants? I know for fact that this is not true. As a matter of
fact I know it is much easier to study "whatever" in NL than in the US.
> I'll agree with your comment about the national
>debt, however I don't know if the percentages are true, but I'll let
>you slide on that. Less guns, yes, less violence, I don't know about
>that..... just add the child pornography issue to that, that alone
>makes you sick to your stomach......
Yes, me too. But you are insinuating that the Netherlands is a paradise
for child pornography, and that is pure humbug and utter nonsence. I
won't even react.
> Financial privacy? What on earth
>are you talking about? I do with my money what I want..... as long as I
>report the interest on my tax return every year..... do you mean
>"zwartwerken" or something? That's illegal in Holland as far as I know.
>However tons of people do it to get ahead since they can't do it any
>other way.
Can you provide me with some figures? It would be helpfull. Or is this
just another example of "Netherlands bashing"?
> TRUE CULTURE???? Ha ha I don't think you yourself even
>understand what you are saying there..... But you know, I don't want to
>end the discussion here..... when we are talking about culture, can we
>talk about how rude people are? In Holland they don't think anything
>about elbowing you out of the way in a store in order to get helped
>first,
Why do I, as a Dutch native, never notice that behaviour? I have to
admit I sometimes "plough" my way through a supermarket when people
block the way, but I nicely queue up when necessery. And so does
everyone else, except for some dehydrated females (and I *mean*
females), sometimes....
> they cut in front of you while you are waiting for a parking
>space so you are left holding the bag, and my favorite of all time was
>last week in Haarlem. We were sitting on a terrace enjoying a beer and
>so I paid the waitress and gave her a tip, although we had to wait
>longer for our beer than I thought was necessary. But what the hell,
>the girl waits on tables and so I give her a generous tip. I don't get
>a thank you, which would have been polite, but hey, what the hell. I'm
>sitting on the terrace enjoying my beer and if she doesn't thank me
>then I'm not going to let it ruin my day. However, after ten minutes
>she reappears and tells me we have to settle the bill..... yeah
>right..... I started to say, what about the tip I just gave you, you
>ditz..... but she recognized her stupidity and left.....
We're a civilized country. The waitress doesn't need your tips to
survive. Actually tipping is very uncommon. It can even be very
denigrating. You've been away a long time, haven't you?
>Waiters in restaurants are arrogant and think they are doing you a
>favor by serving you..... you don't get seconds, and everything takes
>forever..... rudeness prevails everywhere and people are impatient and
>impolite.
Typical American bull shit. We don't do in slaves here anymore...
> Culture? My foot.
>Have a nice day!
Yeah, sure...
>Martina
Anzuelo
Mario98765
to imitate us?
>HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Dutch views on the Americanization of the world!
Mario98765
>rest of the world - including its' allies ??
Could you give us an example of what you are talking about?
Wings
>> Culture? My foot.
>>Have a nice day!
Hell, if it wasn't Anzuelo. Get your brain checked, Anzuelo. The Dutch
people here in the US have had to put up with countless bashings on our
country of choice for a long time. For once I post one here to refute
some of this what you call utter bullshit and look how upset you get!
Your reaction kind of confirmed to me that you can dole it out, you
just can't take it.
Have a nice day, everyone, except you, Anzuelo.
Martina
>
>Yeah, sure...
>
>>Martina
>
>Anzuelo
>
Anzuelo los Mosas
>Hell, if it wasn't Anzuelo. Get your brain checked, Anzuelo. The Dutch
>people here in the US have had to put up with countless bashings on our
>country of choice for a long time.
Lezen is blijkbaar niet je beste kwaliteit. Vertel me maar waar ik met
America bashing bezig was....
Is dit echt het beste antwoord wat je kan geven op een serieuze
bijdrage? Best hoor, maar het zegt veel... over jou.....
> For once I post one here to refute
>some of this what you call utter bullshit and look how upset you get!
Read it once again. I wasn't upset. *You* are though....
>Your reaction kind of confirmed to me that you can dole it out, you
>just can't take it.
Oh. You really don't have a clue...
>Have a nice day, everyone, except you, Anzuelo.
Yeah, sure. Two weeks NL, and you've seen it all....
Rol om, en verbrand lekker op de kooltjes van de bbq,
Anzuelo
acti...@worldonline.nl
<snip>
>In my lifetime of living in the US, I have yet to see someone executed for
>treason.
<snip>
They usually do it behind the scenes.
With free media you should see a lot more.
E.g. look at:
http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/pegasus.htm
>Leesa
Bill Willis
>
> Bill Willis wrote:
> > How is America "forcing its' views and ways of dealing with society on
> > the rest of the world - including its' allies" ?
> >
>
> we could start w/ our 'war' on drugs.... but that would be too easy.
This isn't an answer to my question. What is it specifically that
America is doing with war on drugs that is "forcing its" views on the
resto of the world esspecially its allies? Certainly America has the
right (indeed) obligation to protect its society from the drug meance.
>
> today i read this one:
>
> "america's congress is currently deliberating a law to impose sanctions
> on countries that mistreat their religious minorities, with the Middle
> East as one of the intended targets." [The Economist - July 18th-24th]
I am not famialiar with these deliberations and on the face of it I feel
that the US would be mistaken to take such action especially if it is
broadbased and not specific. Still the imposition of economic (I assume
any sanctions would be economic) sanctions is not "forcing its view"
America has the right to trade (or not to trade) with other nations in
the world as it sees fit. Other nations also have the same right.
> or how about that IMF? ;) [of course our house of representatives has
> been refusing to pay its share...]
I don't see how non payment of dues is "forcing its view". Any
organization where America is not living up to its committments is free
and probably should after fair warning expel.
Bill
Robert F. Barends
>
>>Your shorter workweek & more vacation, yeah I agree. Your clean safe
>>environment, hmmmm...... it's really, REALLY crowded.....
>Not more so than New York or Los Angeles. You could have visited
>Friesland, Groningen, Drente and Flevoland. Those provinces, about a
>third of the country, can hardly be called "crowded".
A lot lesser percentage of this country is crowded. Don't ask me
for "hard numbers" (just play with yourself). This is my correct
perception.
>>I heard, while in
>>Holland, about some guy trying like hell to get his case in court, but
>>for some reason he hadn't succeeded in 10 years.
>You mean to say law suits in the US don't take years? Get real! The US
>has the largest fraction of (lawyers)/(inhabitants) in the world. You
>sue people into absurdity.
You (probably deliberatly) misread Martina's statement: it was
impossible to get a case to court for 10 years. Typical Dutch
moodmongering!
>>So we'll throw that
>>argument out the window for a while. Tax money spent on the wellbeing
>>and stability of society..... rather vague expression, but the tax rate
>>that you guys have to pay is utterly ridiculous.
>Is it? Why don't I have a problem with it then?
It is possible to get used to torture on a regular basis.
>As long as I think my
>tax money is well spend I won't complain.
Indoctrination is even easier to get used to than torture.
>And it is not you who is to
>judge whether my tax rate is "utterly ridiculous". You don't pay it,
>I do.
Aw, come on...we can't have opinions anymore about that which
doesn't directly affect us ?? I will remind you of this one
for a long time to come.
>>You have to pay it
>>because there's an awfully large segment of the population that refuses
>>to work for whatever reason.
>That's utter bull shit. The fraction (working people)/(inhabitants) is
>higher in NL than it is in the US.
We have a published less than 4% unemployment here. What is yours ?
>And where did you get the notion
>those "umemployed" refuse to work for "whatever reason"?
Conversations with relatives, friends, people I met on the net,
all of whom live in NL. Stories in newspapers, stories on TV
news when I am in NL (3-4 times per year).
>Weren't you
>talking about US bashing somewhere in a posting? You're just now
>bashing the Netherlands....
Suits you right, you bashtard....
>>You take care of all these people, but
>>it's really at your expense while they don't want get off their duff to
>>do anything.
>>Once again: that's utter bull shit.
Could you please stop slinging crap around ? Can't you state your
OPINION without excremental prefaces ?
>Can you give me some hard numbers?
>Or are you just trying to conceal the fact that in the US, after a few
>months or years of unemployment, people are just "dumped" and not
>mentioned in the unemployment numbers anymore?
You and your "hard numbers". People are not dumped here. They
get retrained, find another job (because the job market is a
lot better than in NL), get further help from their community
through United Way or any of a number of other unselfish programs,or,
yeah, they die of a drug overdose.
>>You guys encourage that.
>Utter bull shit.
Anzuelo, your usage of the word shit is not lending your arguments
any additional strength.
>You obviously haven't lived from an "uitkering" here
>in NL. I have for some years, and it's no fun.
Now why did a well-educated dude like yourself have to be
living off an "uitkering" for years ? Something wrong with
the system maybe ? Letting you study whatever the fuck you
want, even when it is known that there is no demand for
your choice of study ? I call that criminal.
>>I prefer our system.
>Ok. But don't whine when I say I prefer ours.
Anzuelo, after all, you're just a moodmongering, dogmatic
(emphasis on "dog") asshole like the Yeti: Martina did
not whine. She merely stated her opinion about NL. If
you cannot stomach that, get off usenet, eikel!!
>>More
>>personal freedoms? No. You can't paint your house in a color that
>>deviates from the rest of the street, you can't add a room, you can't
>>chop a tree if it's in your way without a national referendum and a
>>parliamentary debate.
>Utter bull shit.
There you go again, you litte sweatgland. Speak facts and
reasons and keep your petty judgements to yourself.
>Even if the local legislation says you can't paint
>your house pink, you can.
Yeah, but you would be breaking the law and the law, when it
finds time to do so, would be catching up with you.
>And you can add rooms, you can chop trees,
>and you can even cook a meal. You obviously don't know anything about
>the Netherlands.
You're obviously painting a rosier picture than exists IRL.
When something is forbidden and you can do it anyway by breaking
the law, you have demonstrated:
1. That the laws in your country are not to your liking.
2. That you have no respect for the lawas in your country.
Nice going, Anzuelo van der Maas.
>>Throw that one out of the window too. Youth
>>allowed to develop normally and then something about the bible.....
>>what a joke. I saw quite a few deviates. Also met some adults in
>>Holland that as youths were allowed to develop normally and can't do
>>much of anything. One of the best education systems in the world, yeah
>>that is if you have access to it.
>You're talking about the US, no doubt.....
Platitudes. LULLIGE DOODDOENER! Wist jij dat we hier publieke en
prive universiteiten hebben ? Het een is stukken goedkoper dan het
ander. En er zijn meer beurzen beschikbaar voor het een dan voor
het ander. Hoe vervelend je dat ook moge voorkomen: in vrijwel
iedere universiteitsstad zijn er genoeg banen voor studenten om
hun collegegeld te betalen. Goed, dan duurt het wat langer om je
graad te halen, maar je bent in ieder geval niet zo wereldvreemd
als in NL wanneer je van school komt.
>> While I was in Holland there was this
>>brilliant student that had to go into the lottery to study medicine,
>>and she had lost three years in a row.
>.... Aha! One of the few exceptions to the rule, and of course some
>Netherlands bashing fungus exploits it....
Are you calling Martina a "fungus" ? Boy, you have sunk low. And the
lottery is for everyone, isn't it ? It is not an exception to "the
rule".
>>It was in the paper in Holland
>>as she was quoted to be one of the best students ever. What a waste of
>>a brilliant brain.
>I agree. But why do you draw conclusions from this one example?
You, and some other fans (= fanatics) seem to draw conclusions
from every example of USA badness you can dig up.
>Do you
>mean to to say that in the US everybody can study whatever and wherever
>he/she wants? I know for fact that this is not true.
Your knowledge is faulty. You have to pay tuition, but then you can
study whatever whenever you want. Hey, this is a capitalist society.
We have rules too.
>As a matter of
>fact I know it is much easier to study "whatever" in NL than in the US.
Yep. It's easier. That's why your grades don't transfer equally
to US degreed programs.
[ child pornography... I'll let that one slide ]
>>Financial privacy? What on earth
>>are you talking about? I do with my money what I want..... as long as I
>>report the interest on my tax return every year..... do you mean
>>"zwartwerken" or something? That's illegal in Holland as far as I know.
>>However tons of people do it to get ahead since they can't do it any
>>other way.
>Can you provide me with some figures? It would be helpfull. Or is this
>just another example of "Netherlands bashing"?
Figures about "zwart werken" ? What a ridiculous request ! Anzuelo,
if those figures were available in NL the government would crack
down so hard that people like you would be flabbergasted for years.
Or wouldn't they if they knew...Well, that would say something
about corruption, wouldn't it...?
>>TRUE CULTURE???? Ha ha I don't think you yourself even
>>understand what you are saying there..... But you know, I don't want to
>>end the discussion here..... when we are talking about culture, can we
>>talk about how rude people are? In Holland they don't think anything
>>about elbowing you out of the way in a store in order to get helped
>>first,
>Why do I, as a Dutch native, never notice that behaviour? I have to
>admit I sometimes "plough" my way through a supermarket when people
>block the way,
Why do those rude-asses block the way ? Why can't you ask them to
unblock the way ? Why do you ever have to resort to "ploughing" ?
>but I nicely queue up when necessery. And so does
>everyone else, except for some dehydrated females (and I *mean*
>females), sometimes....
This is in here for provocational purposes, I take it ? Won't
work, van der Maas.
>>after ten minutes
>>she reappears and tells me we have to settle the bill..... yeah
>>right..... I started to say, what about the tip I just gave you, you
>>ditz..... but she recognized her stupidity and left.....
>We're a civilized country. The waitress doesn't need your tips to
>survive. Actually tipping is very uncommon. It can even be very
>denigrating. You've been away a long time, haven't you?
You are ignoring the statement, eikel: the waitress was obviously
trying to bully her way into "settling the bill" twice. Your
diatribe about tips is irrelevant. So is the fact that NL is
the only country in the world where tips for wait personnel are
formally discouraged without giving this initiative widespread
publicity. A gross oversight. And, in any case, since the rule
came about, rude wait personnel appear to be de rigeur.
>>Waiters in restaurants are arrogant and think they are doing you a
>>favor by serving you..... you don't get seconds, and everything takes
>>forever..... rudeness prevails everywhere and people are impatient and
>>impolite.
>Typical American bull shit. We don't do in slaves here anymore...
Big difference between slaves and wait personnel. Big difference
between slaves and service personnel of all kinds. You are
blinded by the principle that everyone is equal and that this
principle must be enforced at all times and under all
circumstances. Got news for you, idiot: that may be the goal,
but it is not reality yet. I will help contribute to the goal.
You are distracting from it with your dogmatisms.
>>Culture? My foot.
>>Have a nice day!
>Yeah, sure...
I'm surprised you're not saying "Total and utter bullshit".
>>Martina
>Anzuelo
Rob
Anzuelo los Mosas
>>Wings schreef op 25-Jul-98:
>>
>>>Your shorter workweek & more vacation, yeah I agree. Your clean safe
>>>environment, hmmmm...... it's really, REALLY crowded.....
>>Not more so than New York or Los Angeles. You could have visited
>>Friesland, Groningen, Drente and Flevoland. Those provinces, about a
>>third of the country, can hardly be called "crowded".
>A lot lesser percentage of this country is crowded. Don't ask me
>for "hard numbers" (just play with yourself). This is my correct
>perception.
>>>I heard, while in
>>>Holland, about some guy trying like hell to get his case in court, but
>>>for some reason he hadn't succeeded in 10 years.
>>You mean to say law suits in the US don't take years? Get real! The US
>>has the largest fraction of (lawyers)/(inhabitants) in the world. You
>>sue people into absurdity.
>You (probably deliberatly) misread Martina's statement: it was
>impossible to get a case to court for 10 years. Typical Dutch
>moodmongering!
Everything and everyone has to go to court, he? Typical US thinking.
>>>So we'll throw that
>>>argument out the window for a while. Tax money spent on the wellbeing
>>>and stability of society..... rather vague expression, but the tax rate
>>>that you guys have to pay is utterly ridiculous.
>>Is it? Why don't I have a problem with it then?
>It is possible to get used to torture on a regular basis.
What torture?
>>As long as I think my
>>tax money is well spend I won't complain.
>Indoctrination is even easier to get used to than torture.
What indoctrination?
>>And it is not you who is to
>>judge whether my tax rate is "utterly ridiculous". You don't pay it,
>>I do.
>Aw, come on...we can't have opinions anymore about that which
>doesn't directly affect us ?? I will remind you of this one
>for a long time to come.
Please do. Also notice that I didn't say a word about taxes (or the
lack thereof) in the US. "Utterly rediculous" is a judgement in this
context, and it is not yours or anyone elses from outside NL to make.
>>>You have to pay it
>>>because there's an awfully large segment of the population that refuses
>>>to work for whatever reason.
>>That's utter bull shit. The fraction (working people)/(inhabitants) is
>>higher in NL than it is in the US.
>We have a published less than 4% unemployment here. What is yours ?
Don't know. 250.000 or something. But that 4% of yours is completely
meaningless. You don't count the people you leave in the gutter. There
is no better way of lying than use statistics. Either in the US of A
or in NL.
>>And where did you get the notion
>>those "umemployed" refuse to work for "whatever reason"?
>Conversations with relatives, friends, people I met on the net,
>all of whom live in NL. Stories in newspapers, stories on TV
>news when I am in NL (3-4 times per year).
All unemployed I assume? Pure stemmingmakerij, to use your own words.
>>Weren't you
>>talking about US bashing somewhere in a posting? You're just now
>>bashing the Netherlands....
>Suits you right, you bashtard....
Sorry? You can't bash the US, but it is ok to bash NL? And I even
didn't bash the US... You must have reading problems...
>>>You take care of all these people, but
>>>it's really at your expense while they don't want get off their duff to
>>>do anything.
>>>Once again: that's utter bull shit.
>Could you please stop slinging crap around ? Can't you state your
>OPINION without excremental prefaces ?
Got a problem with bulls? They're nice animals, you know...
>>Can you give me some hard numbers?
>>Or are you just trying to conceal the fact that in the US, after a few
>>months or years of unemployment, people are just "dumped" and not
>>mentioned in the unemployment numbers anymore?
>You and your "hard numbers". People are not dumped here.
They aren't? Then why is the great US of A much like a third world
country for so many people?
> They
>get retrained, find another job (because the job market is a
>lot better than in NL),
Is it? Could you provide me with some hard numbers?
> get further help from their community
>through United Way or any of a number of other unselfish programs,or,
>yeah, they die of a drug overdose.
And you're accusing me of being indoctrinated.....
>>>You guys encourage that.
>>Utter bull shit.
>Anzuelo, your usage of the word shit is not lending your arguments
>any additional strength.
It does give the value of the words I reacted to though...
>>You obviously haven't lived from an "uitkering" here
>>in NL. I have for some years, and it's no fun.
>Now why did a well-educated dude like yourself have to be
>living off an "uitkering" for years ?
I said for *some* years, not years. It's nothing special, even in the
holy US of A people can lose their jobs...
> Something wrong with
>the system maybe ? Letting you study whatever the fuck you
>want, even when it is known that there is no demand for
>your choice of study ? I call that criminal.
Excuse me? No demand for fysicists and/or envirenmental specialists?
I must be living in a different world.....
But you nicely point out the reason why that clever girl Martina
mentioned has some difficulty in starting her medical career... You
can't study whatever you want, you know. The "studentenstops" are
based on demand.
>>>I prefer our system.
>>Ok. But don't whine when I say I prefer ours.
>Anzuelo, after all, you're just a moodmongering, dogmatic
>(emphasis on "dog") asshole like the Yeti: Martina did
>not whine. She merely stated her opinion about NL.
Then read her post again. You're wrong. Lul aan een touwtje.
> If you cannot stomach that, get off usenet, eikel!!
My stomach is ok, viagrasyndroom!
>>>More
>>>personal freedoms? No. You can't paint your house in a color that
>>>deviates from the rest of the street, you can't add a room, you can't
>>>chop a tree if it's in your way without a national referendum and a
>>>parliamentary debate.
>>Utter bull shit.
>There you go again, you litte sweatgland. Speak facts and
>reasons and keep your petty judgements to yourself.
Talking to yourself now, are you? I was talking facts actually. Just
a few weeks ago some five trees died in a garden of an acquaintance
of mine... No paperwork, no national referendum. It hasn't even been
discussed in parliament as yet.
>>Even if the local legislation says you can't paint
>>your house pink, you can.
>Yeah, but you would be breaking the law and the law, when it
>finds time to do so, would be catching up with you.
Then, in my experience, the law doesn't have much time....
>>And you can add rooms, you can chop trees,
>>and you can even cook a meal. You obviously don't know anything about
>>the Netherlands.
>You're obviously painting a rosier picture than exists IRL.
Obviously? Please explain.
>When something is forbidden and you can do it anyway by breaking
>the law, you have demonstrated:
>1. That the laws in your country are not to your liking.
>2. That you have no respect for the lawas in your country.
Forbidden? Laws? Aren't you just a peeny little bit prejudiced about
laws here in NL? I didn't say it was against "the law". Quite the
opposite really...
>
>Nice going, Anzuelo van der Maas.
Mazen. Thanks.
>>>Throw that one out of the window too. Youth
>>>allowed to develop normally and then something about the bible.....
>>>what a joke. I saw quite a few deviates. Also met some adults in
>>>Holland that as youths were allowed to develop normally and can't do
>>>much of anything. One of the best education systems in the world, yeah
>>>that is if you have access to it.
>>You're talking about the US, no doubt.....
>Platitudes. LULLIGE DOODDOENER! Wist jij dat we hier publieke en
>prive universiteiten hebben ?
Ja, en? Dacht je dat jullie daarin uniek waren? Die hebben we hier ook
hoor. Waarom weet je zo weinig van NL als je hier 3-4 keer per jaar
komt?
> Het een is stukken goedkoper dan het
>ander. En er zijn meer beurzen beschikbaar voor het een dan voor
>het ander. Hoe vervelend je dat ook moge voorkomen: in vrijwel
>iedere universiteitsstad zijn er genoeg banen voor studenten om
>hun collegegeld te betalen. Goed, dan duurt het wat langer om je
>graad te halen, maar je bent in ieder geval niet zo wereldvreemd
>als in NL wanneer je van school komt.
Al weer lang weg zeker? Studenten hebben hier tegenwoordig ook
meestal een bijbaantje.
>>> While I was in Holland there was this
>>>brilliant student that had to go into the lottery to study medicine,
>>>and she had lost three years in a row.
>>.... Aha! One of the few exceptions to the rule, and of course some
>>Netherlands bashing fungus exploits it....
>Are you calling Martina a "fungus" ? Boy, you have sunk low. And the
>lottery is for everyone, isn't it ? It is not an exception to "the
>rule".
It's not a lottery. Grades *do* influence your chance of being accepted.
She's had tough luck for some years, that's all.
>>>It was in the paper in Holland
>>>as she was quoted to be one of the best students ever. What a waste of
>>>a brilliant brain.
>>I agree. But why do you draw conclusions from this one example?
>You, and some other fans (= fanatics) seem to draw conclusions
>from every example of USA badness you can dig up.
Name one. I'm not a "US basher" and neither a fanatic, and you know it.
>>Do you
>>mean to to say that in the US everybody can study whatever and wherever
>>he/she wants? I know for fact that this is not true.
>Your knowledge is faulty.
No.
> You have to pay tuition, but then you can
>study whatever whenever you want. Hey, this is a capitalist society.
>We have rules too.
Precisely.
>>As a matter of
>>fact I know it is much easier to study "whatever" in NL than in the US.
>Yep. It's easier. That's why your grades don't transfer equally
>to US degreed programs.
Aha! That's probably why so many Dutch academics can find a job in
the US so easily...
>[ child pornography... I'll let that one slide ]
>>>Financial privacy? What on earth
>>>are you talking about? I do with my money what I want..... as long as I
>>>report the interest on my tax return every year..... do you mean
>>>"zwartwerken" or something? That's illegal in Holland as far as I know.
>>>However tons of people do it to get ahead since they can't do it any
>>>other way.
>>Can you provide me with some figures? It would be helpfull. Or is this
>>just another example of "Netherlands bashing"?
>Figures about "zwart werken" ? What a ridiculous request ! Anzuelo,
>if those figures were available in NL the government would crack
>down so hard that people like you would be flabbergasted for years.
Evidence? I'm not saying "zwart werken" doesn't occur. But it's not
"tons of people". Neither is it the problem you make of it.
>Or wouldn't they if they knew...Well, that would say something
>about corruption, wouldn't it...?
What has "zwart werken" got to do with corruption? You've lost me...
>>>TRUE CULTURE???? Ha ha I don't think you yourself even
>>>understand what you are saying there..... But you know, I don't want to
>>>end the discussion here..... when we are talking about culture, can we
>>>talk about how rude people are? In Holland they don't think anything
>>>about elbowing you out of the way in a store in order to get helped
>>>first,
>>Why do I, as a Dutch native, never notice that behaviour? I have to
>>admit I sometimes "plough" my way through a supermarket when people
>>block the way,
>Why do those rude-asses block the way ? Why can't you ask them to
>unblock the way ? Why do you ever have to resort to "ploughing" ?
Good question! It's mostly due to inattention though, not rude
behaviour.
>>but I nicely queue up when necessery. And so does
>>everyone else, except for some dehydrated females (and I *mean*
>>females), sometimes....
>This is in here for provocational purposes, I take it ? Won't
>work, van der Maas.
Mazen. No, it wasn't. In my experience people trying to get in line
first are nearly always woman aged 50+. I can't help it, it's just
plain fact.
>>>after ten minutes
>>>she reappears and tells me we have to settle the bill..... yeah
>>>right..... I started to say, what about the tip I just gave you, you
>>>ditz..... but she recognized her stupidity and left.....
>>We're a civilized country. The waitress doesn't need your tips to
>>survive. Actually tipping is very uncommon. It can even be very
>>denigrating. You've been away a long time, haven't you?
>You are ignoring the statement, eikel: the waitress was obviously
>trying to bully her way into "settling the bill" twice.
Yeah, I read that. I also read that this "mistake" shouldn't have
been made because there was a tip involved. It doesn't work that way
around here. Like it or not, kittelaar.
> Your
>diatribe about tips is irrelevant. So is the fact that NL is
>the only country in the world where tips for wait personnel are
>formally discouraged without giving this initiative widespread
>publicity.
You're wrong at that. I could easily name a few other countries.
> A gross oversight. And, in any case, since the rule
>came about, rude wait personnel appear to be de rigeur.
Yeah. Rude customers don't exist, do they?
>>>Waiters in restaurants are arrogant and think they are doing you a
>>>favor by serving you..... you don't get seconds, and everything takes
>>>forever..... rudeness prevails everywhere and people are impatient and
>>>impolite.
>>Typical American bull shit. We don't do in slaves here anymore...
>Big difference between slaves and wait personnel. Big difference
>between slaves and service personnel of all kinds.
Indeed! So don't treat them as slaves!
> You are
>blinded by the principle that everyone is equal and that this
>principle must be enforced at all times and under all
>circumstances.
Am I? I assume you can back this up? I am not aware that I ever
posted, or even stated, something like the above.
> Got news for you, idiot: that may be the goal,
>but it is not reality yet. I will help contribute to the goal.
>You are distracting from it with your dogmatisms.
The real dogmatist is you, not me, you dork.
>>>Culture? My foot.
>>>Have a nice day!
>>Yeah, sure...
>I'm surprised you're not saying "Total and utter bullshit".
You forgot the space between the l and s.
Anzuelo
Jan den Hollander
>
> Jan den Hollander wrote in message <6p8sa0$6...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> >
> >way, still in that hellhole near the German border? Any plans as yet to
> >return to civilization this side of the Atlantic?
>
> Yes, twice. Just stepped into a pile of dogshit, thank-you-very-much...
Dogshit? Are you referring to the swamp at the other side of the
Atlantic?
>
>
> I can understand that. What bugs me a little here is that you seem to
> question the fact that Bill is proud of his country (which is perfectly fine
> with me, by the way), but that you do not acknowledge the fact that Bill
> also expressed his concern about several huge problems in America.
Talking about balance: I have tried to maintain some kind of balance
when referring to problems, no matter at which side of the Atlantic it
occurs (just read my first post in this thread). But if someone says
somthing like this:
"True enough as far as it goes but it is certainly rich for a European
given what happened a mere half century ago on your own continent and
continues to this very day to give an American a lecture in the evils of
intolerance. I stand absolutely by what I said and any hypocracy is
yours not mine.",
and that after a very balanced representation from me, then I feel that
that is entirely inappropriate.
> Furthermore, and that really bugs me, samples from previous posts may seem
> very convincing, but one should realize that these samples may be out of
> context...
You asked for it, didn't you? So don't blame me.
What bugs me is that someone who refers to his own country as "that
swamp", or "pile of dogshit" is so understanding when somebody else
expresses such a lobsided view of different country. You know, if any
Dutchman would dare to say things like "proud of the Netherlands, etc
etc" in this forum he would be absolutely ridiculed. So explain to me
why it is that if someone else says things like that about the US that
it is perfectly allright with you?
Jan
Jan den Hollander
>
> In <6p7e7a$a...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> Jan den Hollander
> <hol...@uab.edu> writes:
> >
> >Wings wrote:
> >>
> >> > >
> >> >> >First few lines of the Dutch constitution :-
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in
> equal
> >> >> >circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion,
> belief,
> >> >> political
> >> >> >opinion, race, or sex or on
> >> >> >any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted."
> >> >> >
> >> >> Whoopdeedoo. Does that mean that no discrimination takes place in
> >> >> Holland on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion,
> race,
> >> or
> >> >> sex or on any other grounds?
> >> >
> >> >Of course it does. And it does in the US as well, despite the
> >> equivalent
> >> >lines in YOUR constitution. Do you say "Whoopdeedoo" when you hear
> >> quotes
> >> >from the founding fathers?
> >>
> >> I say Whoopdeedoo when I encounter yet another Dutchman who likes to
> >> criticize all the bad things in the US. You should start cleaning
> your
> >> own house first. Holland isn't any better, you know.
> >>
> >
> >I wonder why it is that Americans (and their friends) react so
> >hypersensitive when you try to counter this narrow minded idea that
> they
> >are the only civilized country, the fountainhead of all democracy and
> >tolerance in the world?
>
> Who says we think we are the only civilized country, the "fountainhead"
> of all democracy and tolerance in the world? I can think of a few other
> countries, and with me most Americans. Are we hypersensitive? Nah, more
> like ticked off at the generalities such as in your last statement. It
> must be rather fashionable to bash America in this newsgroup.....
Yes, you are hypersensitive; you just confirmed it. You are reacting as
if you aren't over your puppy love for America as yet.
> but
> most people that do that have either never been here, or been here for
> a short time only and think that gives 'em the right to make statements
> such as your last one. Unless you have lived here for an extended
> period of time (and I mean beyond at least 12 months) you are not
> qualified to form an educated opinion about American society.
13 years; is that long enough?
> I don't
> give a shit what you read in the paper and watch on tv. Besides, you
> managed to evade my remark about Dutch society. We ought to start a
> discussion about what all is wrong with THAT for a change.
I have the feeling that you are reacting to someone else's posts, not
mine. I have expressed a very balanced view about problems at either
side of the ocean; just read my first post in this thread.
Talking about a balanced view:
In all the years I have been here the Netherlands has been in the news
about 10 times, give or take some. Typical subjects:
- prostitution, with shots of the the red light district in Amsterdam
- Drugs
- child pornography
- inauguration of Queen Beatrix
- soccerhooligans
- burning of the home of a Turkish family in the Hague
- The flower auction in Aalsmeer, with some shots of windmills and
bulbfields (and clogs? I don't remember)
- Presidents Bush and Clinton's visits
Hardly a balanced view, is it? But that is the picture that the average
US citizen gets of the Netherlands.
Jan
B. Jansen
>B. Jansen wrote:
>>
>> Jan den Hollander wrote in message
<6p8sa0$6...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>>
>> >
>> >OK BeeJay, just a sample of what has been said in this thread. By the
>> >way, still in that hellhole near the German border? Any plans as yet to
>> >return to civilization this side of the Atlantic?
>>
>> Yes, twice. Just stepped into a pile of dogshit, thank-you-very-much...
>
>Dogshit? Are you referring to the swamp at the other side of the
>Atlantic?
Nope, I was referring to a REAL pile of dog shit, as in "shit under my
shoes". Although I understand what you try to imply here, I did not have the
intention to insult the fragile Dutch ego.
>> I can understand that. What bugs me a little here is that you seem to
>> question the fact that Bill is proud of his country (which is perfectly
fine
>> with me, by the way), but that you do not acknowledge the fact that Bill
>> also expressed his concern about several huge problems in America.
>
>Talking about balance: I have tried to maintain some kind of balance
>when referring to problems, no matter at which side of the Atlantic it
>occurs (just read my first post in this thread). But if someone says
>somthing like this:
>"True enough as far as it goes but it is certainly rich for a European
>given what happened a mere half century ago on your own continent and
>continues to this very day to give an American a lecture in the evils of
>intolerance. I stand absolutely by what I said and any hypocracy is
>yours not mine.",
>and that after a very balanced representation from me, then I feel that
>that is entirely inappropriate.
O dear, you sound irritated here. You find your own representation balanced,
whereas I do not think that that's the case. To select quotes and pin
someone down on these quotes, and these quotes only.... well, says it all.
It was definitely not my intention to piss you off, by the way.
>> Furthermore, and that really bugs me, samples from previous posts may
seem
>> very convincing, but one should realize that these samples may be out of
>> context...
>
>You asked for it, didn't you? So don't blame me.
I didn't exactly ask for quotes... But I will not blame you.
>What bugs me is that someone who refers to his own country as "that
>swamp", or "pile of dogshit" is so understanding when somebody else
>expresses such a lobsided view of different country. You know, if any
>Dutchman would dare to say things like "proud of the Netherlands, etc
>etc" in this forum he would be absolutely ridiculed. So explain to me
>why it is that if someone else says things like that about the US that
>it is perfectly allright with you?
Look who's pissing acid here!
Note: to my knowledge I have never referred to the Netherlands as "a pile of
dog shit". And I see more truth than harm in "that swamp".
Let me tell you one thing: I truly don't mind a Dutchman being proud of
his/her country, but I and others reserve the right to question his/her
pride when it appears that this pride is merely based on a feeling of moral
superiority that is totally out of line. This is a sensitive issue to some
(Dutchmen), as it seems that it is an irritating Dutch habit to criticize or
worse, try to correct others, and it is generally not accepted when someone
else (Dutch or not) doesn't share the critisism.
I only ridicule people when I think that they have ridiculous opinions,
based on ridiculous "facts". It is perfectly fine with me that Bill is proud
of his country, as he has also acknowledged some of the huge problems in the
US; you failed to quote him on that, wiseguy. Funny to see that you find
your "representation" so damn balanced in this discussion...
Bas (look who's balanced...)
Bas
Robert F. Barends
says...
>
> I have the feeling that you are reacting to someone else's posts, not
> mine.
Then why are you reacting to Martina's posts as if she is
somehow mistreating you(r articles) ?
> I have expressed a very balanced view about problems at either
> side of the ocean; just read my first post in this thread.
Post it again if you think it was a worthwhile article or
don't re-post it if it wasn't. Don't try to make us do
the work.
> Talking about a balanced view:
> In all the years I have been here the Netherlands has been in the news
> about 10 times, give or take some. Typical subjects:
> - prostitution, with shots of the the red light district in Amsterdam
> - Drugs
> - child pornography
> - inauguration of Queen Beatrix
> - soccerhooligans
> - burning of the home of a Turkish family in the Hague
> - The flower auction in Aalsmeer, with some shots of windmills and
> bulbfields (and clogs? I don't remember)
> - Presidents Bush and Clinton's visits
> Hardly a balanced view, is it? But that is the picture that the average
> US citizen gets of the Netherlands.
Do you think the picture that the average Dutch citizen gets of
the USA is a lot more balanced ?
> Jan
What the hell are you arguing about anyway ? The world is a
screwed up place and NL and the USA are each contributing
their fair share. Then there are personal preferences. I, for
one, would rather live in the USA than in NL. Whatever anyone
else wants to do is their business. Zo.
Rob
antony quintal
>
> This isn't an answer to my question. What is it specifically that
> America is doing with war on drugs that is "forcing its" views on the
> resto of the world esspecially its allies? Certainly America has the
> right (indeed) obligation to protect its society from the drug meance.
>
i think the fact that we 'certify' other nations, linking economic aid
to how well they battle drugs is highly invasive. especially considering
that we in america are one of the largest drug consumers (if not the
largest - i don't know off the top of my head).
as for 'forcing its' views, i can say that some countries have
successfully implemented a less 'war' like approach. but the us
government refuses to acknowledge anything but 'war', and instead forces
its views upon other sovereign nations. [this doesn't even address the
issue that our drug policies/views are not effective, but are in fact
highly destructive]
> any sanctions would be economic) sanctions is not "forcing its view"
> America has the right to trade (or not to trade) with other nations in
> the world as it sees fit. Other nations also have the same right.
>
it seems pretty clear that economic sanctions from the largest economy
in the world is a destructive, forceful action.
> > or how about that IMF? ;)
> I don't see how non payment of dues is "forcing its view".
well congress is trying to link abortion issues w/ IMF funding. this
seems outrageous to me considering that many other countries are facing
debilitating population explosions. [non payment is an ironic
afterthought]
respectx
antony
Bill Willis
>
> B. Jansen wrote:
> >
> > Jan den Hollander wrote in message <6p8sa0$6...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> > What bugs me a little here is that you seem to
> > question the fact that Bill is proud of his country (which is perfectly fine
> > with me, by the way), but that you do not acknowledge the fact that Bill
> > also expressed his concern about several huge problems in America.
>
> Talking about balance: I have tried to maintain some kind of balance
> when referring to problems, no matter at which side of the Atlantic it
> occurs (just read my first post in this thread).
>
Sorry, but I don't think a re-reading of your original post will show
you to be quite as objective as you think you are.
> What bugs me is that someone who refers to his own country as {snip - a comment that was mis interpreted) is so understanding when somebody else
> expresses such a lobsided view of different country. You know, if any
> Dutchman would dare to say things like "proud of the Netherlands, etc
> etc" in this forum he would be absolutely ridiculed.
Is that what is bothering you so much about my remarks? Be assured,
that there exists in America those who are so cynical that react in much
the same way. If the Dutch who contribute to this forum would react so
cynically to a fellow Dutchman who expressed pride in his country, well
too bad for them but again I think even here you are incorrect.
Bill Willis
>
> Bill Willis wrote:
Certainly America has the
> > right (indeed) obligation to protect its society from the drug meance.
> >
>
> i think the fact that we 'certify' other nations, linking economic aid
> to how well they battle drugs is highly invasive. especially considering
> that we in america are one of the largest drug consumers (if not the
> largest - i don't know off the top of my head).
>
> as for 'forcing its' views, i can say that some countries have
> successfully implemented a less 'war' like approach. but the us
> government refuses to acknowledge anything but 'war', and instead forces
> its views upon other sovereign nations. [this doesn't even address the
> issue that our drug policies/views are not effective, but are in fact
> highly destructive]
I don't know about you but I oppose providing economic assistance to any
nation who is unwilling to help America deal with its drug problem.
Assistance is a two way street.
>
> > any sanctions would be economic) sanctions is not "forcing its view"
> > America has the right to trade (or not to trade) with other nations in
> > the world as it sees fit. Other nations also have the same right.
> >
>
> it seems pretty clear that economic sanctions from the largest economy
> in the world is a destructive, forceful action.
Maybe that is how it seem to you but to me it seems a case of America
promoting its own self interests. When I can be convinced that other
nations are prepared to set aside their own self interest, then I will
consider supporting America taming down its own self promotion.
>
> > > or how about that IMF? ;)
> > I don't see how non payment of dues is "forcing its view".
>
> well congress is trying to link abortion issues w/ IMF funding. this
> seems outrageous to me considering that many other countries are facing
> debilitating population explosions. [non payment is an ironic
> afterthought]
I agree with you that this is a mistake. Still the IMF and other
organizations are in no way obligated or "forced" to go along with the
American view.
Bill
Joseph E. Nemec
Jan den Hollander wrote:
> And then: compared to what? Compared to modern European constitutions
> the American presidential system is a dinosaur: one time in the past is
> may have had its virtues, but no more. It is about time to replace it
> with a better system, more in keeping with the modern age.
What utter nonsense. Most European countries have barely had
50 years of uninterrupted democracy, and that thanks in large
part to the Americans.
Give us a call when you've got 222 years of peaceful transfers
of power under your belt. Until then, shut up.
> > Of course Jefferson, Hamilton et al were influenced by European
> > thinking. They were themselves in many ways European. So to was
> > intolerance imported from Europe.
>
> Add to that some homegrown intolerance. Tell me, what happenend to the
> native Americans?
Hmm, well the ones in New York City were killed and displaced by theDutch.
Next question?
>
>
> > While I of course acknowledge American racisim, I hope you are not under
> > the impression that racism is not at least an equal (if not greater)
> > problem in Europe. I say possibly greater because Europe lacks the
> > legislation protecting the rights of minorities.
>
> You are utterly mistaken about that.
Oh, really? Then tell me, why is reading a foreign-language newspaperprobable cause for a search in France? Why is it that
children of
Turkish parents born in Germany, who grow up in Germany, go to
German schools, speak German, and for all intents and purposes are
German are not granted German citizenship? Why is it that of the
8 million foreigners in Germany, half of them were born in the country?
>
antony quintal
[snip]
> promoting its own self interests.
[snip]
well you asked for specific examples. and these are the most recent ones
that came to mind. certainly there are no quick and easy solutions, but
it's pretty clear how policies like these can and will create alot of
resentment throughout the world.
our american system, philosophy, and zeitgeist is all about 'promoting
its own self interests'. right down to the person on the streets. if you
ask me, it's not pretty.
antony
antony quintal
> is can an amendment overturn the basic principles layed out in the original
> constitution without a referendum by the people ?
this page shows the us constitution and how specific amendments have
altered it
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
here's info on the amendment process:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
antony
antony quintal
> There's a lot of nice things here too, but it's nowhere near the utopian
> society its inhabitants make it out to be......
could you elaborate? (i'm intending to go to amsterdam in oct to see if
it would be a good place to live).
groeten
antony
an...@my-dejanews.com
mj...@ix.netcom.com (Wings) wrote:
> >>
> >
> > OK - then why is the American gov't - supposedly a representative of
> the
> on the
> >rest of the world - including its' allies ???
>
> It's not.
>
> Martina
>
Come on you can't be that naive.
an...@my-dejanews.com
wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
> I believe this is incorrect and the constitution can be modified in any
> way including repealing any part of it. One of the amendments made the
> use of alcohol unconstitutional and a few years later another amendment
> repealed it. Likewise the American constitutional "right to bear arms"
> could be amended constitutionally.
>
> Bill
>
Yeah, but those 2 items were amendments in the first place. The qeustion
is can an amendment overturn the basic principles layed out in the original
constitution without a referendum by the people ?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Wings
>
>In article <6pdhc5$r...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>,
> mj...@ix.netcom.com (Wings) wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> > OK - then why is the American gov't - supposedly a representative
of
>> the
>> >American people - forcing its' views and ways of dealing with
society
>> on the
>> >rest of the world - including its' allies ???
>>
>> It's not.
>>
>> Martina
>>
>
> Come on you can't be that naive.
Listen. You guys are completely free to have your own views and you
don't need the American government to tell you anything. You live in a
free country, don't you?
Martina
an...@my-dejanews.com
Wouldn't want to.
> Your shorter workweek & more vacation, yeah I agree. Your clean safe
> environment, hmmmm...... it's really, REALLY crowded..... safe, well I
> walked through some streets in Haarlem that I should have stayed away
> enforcement, well that depends on how you look at it. I heard, while in
> Holland, about some guy trying like hell to get his case in court, but
> for some reason he hadn't succeeded in 10 years. So we'll throw that
What was the case about. You do realize that people here don't use
the court system to cover up for people's lack of common sense as is
prevelant in the U.S. (Old lady - $3 Million for spilling hot coffee in lap -
duh).
> argument out the window for a while. Tax money spent on the wellbeing
> and stability of society..... rather vague expression, but the tax rate
> that you guys have to pay is utterly ridiculous. You have to pay it
Average salary Sweden - 45 %
Covers: Health care, good education, retirement, unemployment, maternity
leave...
Average salary U.S. - Federal - 25%
State(Ny) - 8%
SS + med - 7.65% (Self em[ployed - 15.3%)
Unemployment - 1.5%
-------
42.15 49.8%
Covers: retirement not befitting a dog, old age health care (it has been
good in the past if you reach that age), public education (will he
come home unharmed today ?), Israel's national health insurance
system.
> because there's an awfully large segment of the population that refuses
> to work for whatever reason. You take care of all these people, but
> it's really at your expense while they don't want get off their duff to
That is not a fact.
> do anything. You guys encourage that. I prefer our system. More
Yeah, sounds great - work yourself to death so you can claim to be part
of the greatest country in the universe.
> Youth
> allowed to develop normally and then something about the bible.....
> what a joke. I saw quite a few deviates. Also met some adults in
Deviates - I guess they wouldn't win any prizes in one of your national
bible swinging competitions would they (I heard it's all in the wrist) ?
> yeah
> that is if you have access to it. While I was in Holland there was this
And EVERYONE in America can buy their children an adequate basic education
in private schools ?
> brilliant student that had to go into the lottery to study medicine,
> and she had lost three years in a row. It was in the paper in Holland
> as she was quoted to be one of the best students ever. What a waste of
> a brilliant brain. I'll agree with your comment about the national
Yeah that doesn't sound too good does it ? I've never heard of the lottery
thing - is it because of overcrowding ?
> debt, however I don't know if the percentages are true, but I'll let
> you slide on that. Less guns, yes, less violence, I don't know about
> that..... just add the child pornography issue to that, that alone
Yup that's a bad one everyone is trying to remove from the face of the earth
Jeffory Dahmer ATE his victims in the U.S. - that makes me sick to the
stomach.
> makes you sick to your stomach...... Financial privacy? What on earth
> are you talking about? I do with my money what I want..... as long as I
> report the interest on my tax return every year..... do you mean
IRS abuse cases:
http://www.neo-tech.com/irs-class-action/1.html#list
Tell me how far you read through this before you get sick - OK ?
an...@my-dejanews.com
wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
> Jan den Hollander wrote:
> >
> > Bill Willis wrote:
> First, Up to now I have merely said that I am proud of the American
> Constitution and the American form of Government which in my view has
> stood the test of time and lasted for over 200 years. This has provided
The Roman empire lasted a little longer. 200 Years is not a test of time.
> sophistication has allowed American to evolve into the pre-eminent
> nation that it is today. I would also point out that America is
> probably the most multi-cultural nation the world has ever seen. Thi
> diversity itself often strains the fabric of government, still the
> American Constitution and Political Institutions have been strong enough
> so far to cope.
>
<Yaaaawwwwnnn>
> I really wasn't commenting on the quality of other nations constitutions
> because for the most part I don't know that much about them. However,
> being curious I clicked onto the websight that you provided. It appears
> to contain constitutional info on virtually every nation in the world.
> I just checked for a few minutes the Netherlands constitution and I
> must say that I was not impressed.
>
> I note that the constitution just dates from the 1980's. Also as an
> example, one clause of the Dutch constitution specifically gives
> everyone the right to leave the country unless Parliament says
> otherwise. This seems to me as no right at all, It is saying
> Parliament is supreme and it can revoke the right at will. Also, I
> noticed a clause prohibiting government interference with the content of
> Radio and TV, this is fine and I would support it, However don't you
> think the American guarantee of Freedom of the Press (which is naturally
> extended to include Radio and TV and includes the internet and any other
> media which may someday be invented) is a far more elegant approach to
> the freedom issue. So, no from the little I have seen, I don't think
Seen any reports on the beneficial effects of taking marijuana ?
Can you burn a flag in protest ?
Can you walk down the street naked without getting arrested (expression of
the joy of life) ?
Can you express your love to a 16 year old if she is willing ?
Can you express an opinion that is contrary to the public opinion without
being treated like an outcast ?
> the Dutch have much to teach America about writing Constitutions.
>
> Also, it is not just Constitutions that are the important aspects of
> good and stable government. The Political Institutions themselves
> should be sound. I would just like to give a couple of examples in
> Europe which seem to me to point out certain defects in European
> political life.
>
> First, I have already mentioned the general point that most of the
> Western European political structures have been only created since the
> Post WWII era. Also, many European nations have a very short history of
> democratic government (Germany, Spain, Portugal and Italy come
> immediately to mind. It is arguable as to what will happen in the next
> time of crisis.
> Switzerland - An example of a nation that despite democracy and sound
> political institutions, cynically through its immoral banking laws and
> pseudo neutrality grasps for itself advantage at the expense of less
> fortunate nations and people throughout the world.
>
This is a conditioned response. The Swiss confederacy was established in
1284 - hows that for a test of time. Immoral banking laws - isn't that
hypocracy. The Swiss believe in personal privacy - a person's finances are
the most private matter imaginable - the information that is contained in
your banking history includes private communications with the bank, where you
go, what you do, what you buy (privacy is guaranteed by the Declaration of
Human Rights) and you critisize them for exercizing rights. I couldn;t
imagine living in a place where, at the drop of a hat, your whole life story
a button push away from gov't snooping - sounds aweful. And I suppose you
think the Swiss should have confronted the Germans head on - how would that
benefitted the Swiss people ? Isn't it the job of every gov't to watch out
for its' people first ?
> Perhaps this will give you some better understanding of why I am proud
> of the American Political institutions.
>
I'm going to save this one and read it when your overextended (loan ridden)
economy crashes this year !
Bill Willis
>
> In article <35BA30...@bcpl.lib.md.us>,
> wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
>
> Yeah, but those 2 items were amendments in the first place. The qeustion
> is can an amendment overturn the basic principles layed out in the original
> constitution without a referendum by the people ?
As far as I know the American constitution can be Amended (or indeed
repealed) by securing a 2/3 or 3/4 (I forget the exact fraction) vote in
Congress plus a similar ratification by individual State Legislatures.
I am unaware of the need for a direct referendum but even if it is
required, the basic priciples could be amended or repealed.
The point is that the people of the United States own their government
and their constitution and these exist only to serve the people. If and
when Americans feel it is no longer relevant it could be replaced. The
beauty of the American Constitution is that it is timeless and has
needed very little change even though the United States has changed
greatly. As the saying goes: If it ain't broke don't fix it.
I think it a great mistake to tinker too much with the fundamental
American institutions. For example,a few years ago George Bush in a
rush of patriotism during a campaign wanted an ammendment to the
Constitution banning disrespect of the flag. It was felt that this
couldn't be simply legislated as it would be unconstitutional as a
violation of freedom of speech. Happily this ridiculous ammendment went
nowhere and freedom of speech was not weakened.
Bill
Bill
T.J. Nijweide
: What utter nonsense. Most European countries have barely had
: 50 years of uninterrupted democracy, and that thanks in large
: part to the Americans.
: Give us a call when you've got 222 years of peaceful transfers
: of power under your belt. Until then, shut up.
I can't talk about other European nations, but I can tell you some
things about the Netherlands.
We have had 350 years op mostly peaceful power transfers under our belt
with a few interuptions:
- From 1795 (occupation started 1810) till 1813 we had some problems with
frenchmen thinking they owned us.
- In 1830 the belgians separated from us because they thought we don't
own them.
- From 1940-1945 the germans thought they owned all of europe. Our thanks
for your help to become independent again. (As most Americans probably
thank us for our help to become independent from the english. :)
- The second half of this century our colonies became independent,
obtained equal rights, or special status. (Indonesia, Surinam, Antilles)
We haven't been a democracy for 350 years, but we have had a government
supported by a large part of the population for most of that period.
Changes in the form of government have been mostly peaceful. (We didn't
kill any kings when we went from a monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.)
Our constitution dates from the end of the last century (and not 1980
as some poster thought), but we weren't lawless before that. We had
laws before that (based on roman laws, which in turn were based on greek
laws, the inventors of democracy), and even the king had to abide by
them.
To be short, we've been a rather stable country for longer than you
can imagine (except for invasions by foreign nations, we're not that
large as you are, and the misguided notion that we can own other
nations, which was considered proper at the time but a mistake after
the fact.)
Tob
--
======-------- Tobias J. Nijweide MESA Consulting B.V.
=======--------- ph. (+31)-15-2510733 P.O. Box 9
=======--------- tob...@mesa.nl 2270 AA Voorburg
__==== www.mesa.nl ---__U_n_i_x____I_n_t_e_r_n_e_t__ The Netherlands ____
Bill Willis
>
> In article <35BA74...@bcpl.lib.md.us>,
> wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
> >
> Seen any reports on the beneficial effects of taking marijuana ?
Yes, just last Sunday as a matter of fact on a television program
called 60 minutes.
> Can you burn a flag in protest ?
Yes.
> Can you walk down the street naked without getting arrested (expression of
> the joy of life) ?
No, I probably would get arrested. I would be infrinnging on
someone elses right to pursuit of happiness.
> Can you express your love to a 16 year old if she is willing ?
If you mean sexually, the answer is no we consider 16 year olds to be
children and thus needing protectio
n.
> Can you express an opinion that is contrary to the public opinion without
> being treated like an outcast ?
Absolutely
BTW, Are you seriously suggesting that these are the freedoms that you
value the most in the Netherlands? Except for the last one, the others
are either incidental and flow from other freedoms or a mistaken freedom
(sexual love by an adult with a 16 year old). This is just my opinion,
if you don't agree - fine, good luck and God bless.
> > Switzerland - An example of a nation that despite democracy and sound
> > political institutions, cynically through its immoral banking laws and
> > pseudo neutrality grasps for itself advantage at the expense of less
> > fortunate nations and people throughout the world.
> >
>
> This is a conditioned response. The Swiss confederacy was established in
> 1284 - hows that for a test of time.
I agree it is a remarkable record. I stated in my response that the
Swiss have sound political institutions.
Immoral banking laws - isn't that
> hypocracy. The Swiss believe in personal privacy - a person's finances are
> the most private matter imaginable - the information that is contained in
> your banking history includes private communications with the bank, where you
> go, what you do, what you buy (privacy is guaranteed by the Declaration of
> Human Rights) and you critisize them for exercizing rights.
I don't give a damn what the Swiss do regarding their own personal and
internal banking. However, when they set up a banking system where the
secrecy laws are aimed at attracting deposits by international tax
dodgers, mafia, drug smugglers,former Nazi's, dictators engaged in
raping the scarce resources of their own country then I criticize.
Every reform (and there haven't been many) of their banking laws is made
most grudgingly and only at the behest of intense international
pressure.
> And I suppose you
> think the Swiss should have confronted the Germans head on - how would that
> benefitted the Swiss people ? Isn't it the job of every gov't to watch out
> for its' people first ?
Not at all. They did the right thing in not confronting the Nazis but
they did the wrong thing when they started cooperating with them in any
way. And boy did they cooperate - well beyond the requirements of a
neutral.
> >
> I'm going to save this one and read it when your overextended (loan ridden)
> economy crashes this year !
>
You may be right, the American economy may well crash this year or
next. What of it? Economies have cycles, it is not the American
economy that makes it great. If the economy does crash (and I wouldn't
take any pleasure in it if I were you because there will be severe
ramifications in the Netherlands) the Political Institutions in America
are strong enough to weather the storm.
Bill
Christoph Nahr
<ash_hou...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Give us a call when you've got 222 years of peaceful transfers
>of power under your belt. Until then, shut up.
Ho ho, you might want to ask someone to lend you a history book and
look up "Civil War". Hint: it was less than 140 years ago.
>Oh, really? Then tell me, why is reading a foreign-language newspaper
>probable cause for a search in France?
You know, you really should extend your knowledge of France beyond the
Vichy era.
>Why is it that children of
>Turkish parents born in Germany, who grow up in Germany, go to
>German schools, speak German, and for all intents and purposes are
>German are not granted German citizenship?
Because, and only if, they don't request it. Under current law they
have the right to assume German citizenship when coming of age.
>Why is it that of the
>8 million foreigners in Germany, half of them were born in the country?
Because German law doesn't automatically make everyone a German who is
born here. But they are offered the choice to become German, and the
number of Turks (as the most numerous group) who take advantage of
this offer this is rapidly rising.
--
Chris Nahr (cn...@hal.net, replace hal with ibm to reply by e-mail)
Please don't e-mail me if you post! PGP key at wwwkeys.ch.pgp.net
Cyc...@my-dejanews.com
No offense, but don't you guys get tired of bashing each others countries
over petty inconsequential statistics?
I think you'll find that the U.S. and Holland are a lot more alike than
differrent. Talk about making someone sick to their stomach, what is this, a
competition on who can be more of a snob?
In article <6ph6u9$d2i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
an...@my-dejanews.com
wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
>
> Yes, just last Sunday as a matter of fact on a television program
> called 60 minutes.
>
>
I thought the flag burning amendment had passed - sorry - but that they were
even considering that...
>
> > Can you walk down the street naked without getting arrested (expression of
> > the joy of life) ?
>
> No, I probably would get arrested. I would be infrinnging on
> someone elses right to pursuit of happiness.
>
Probably because the naked human body is only considered to be sexual in
nature in America.
>
> > Can you express your love to a 16 year old if she is willing ?
>
> If you mean sexually, the answer is no we consider 16 year olds to be
> children and thus needing protectio
> n.
Read the dictionary description of a child. 1.) A person between infancy
and ten years of age. 2.) A person between infancy and youth. I consider 16
to be a young adult. The reason you believe that 16 is inappropriate is
because most of the media comes out of California were the legal age for
consent is 18. Age of consent in America ranges from state to state (12 in
Delaware to 21 in Oklahoma). In fact if you look at chapter 18 U.S. code
(Federal Criminal Code) the legal age for consent is defined to be 16 years
of age !
The 16 year old thing I put in here was to evoke a typical American
conditioned response to show how your media influences you.
This influence caused by the media in turn causes people to raise their
kids to act like children until they're 18 (21?). This in turn doesn't
allow youth to develope normally but rather in a forced pre-conceived manner.
Sex with an American 16 year old is in actuality (as a result) inappropriate
whereas sex with a European 16 year old is ok - because she has been rasied
to make a mature descision at that age.
My original point was that youth aren't allowed to develope naturally but
rather are forced to live by some bible swinging adgenda.
This is one of the views that you impose on other societies.
>
> > > Switzerland - An example of a nation that despite democracy and sound
> > > political institutions, cynically through its immoral banking laws and
> > > pseudo neutrality grasps for itself advantage at the expense of less
> > > fortunate nations and people throughout the world.
> > >
> >
> > This is a conditioned response. The Swiss confederacy was established in
> > 1284 - hows that for a test of time.
>
> I agree it is a remarkable record. I stated in my response that the
> Swiss have sound political institutions.
>
> Immoral banking laws - isn't that
> > hypocracy. The Swiss believe in personal privacy - a person's finances are
> > the most private matter imaginable - the information that is contained in
> > your banking history includes private communications with the bank, where
you
> > go, what you do, what you buy (privacy is guaranteed by the Declaration of
> > Human Rights) and you critisize them for exercizing rights.
>
> I don't give a damn what the Swiss do regarding their own personal and
> internal banking. However, when they set up a banking system where the
> secrecy laws are aimed at attracting deposits by international tax
> dodgers, mafia, drug smugglers,former Nazi's, dictators engaged in
> raping the scarce resources of their own country then I criticize.
> Every reform (and there haven't been many) of their banking laws is made
> most grudgingly and only at the behest of intense international
> pressure.
>
No, this is wrong. Mafia, drug money, former Nazi's, stolen funds by
dictators etc... are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law when
discovered. Taxes aren't a crime in Switzerland - they are expressly civil
matters apllied equally to inhabitants and foreigners. Is it Switzerland's
job to enforce your oppressive tax laws ? No - just as it isn't Switzerland's
job to enforce muslims women's arab head dress laws.
In a free society one has to reallize that some of the people are going to
abuse these freedoms. The gov't must set reasonable laws and reasonable
methods for enforcing those laws. In Switzerland (and elsewhere in Europe)
the law's enforcement does not trample on or make a mockery of peoples basic
rights - to pursue the enforcement of the law by violating everyone's rights
is NOT acceptable as it appears to be in America. If the gov't found some
drugs in a person's house and then said that people cannot have the right to
privacy at home because some people use that to sheild the fact that they
have drugs at home - that wouldn't be right would it. My privacy is VERY
important to me. It gives me control over my life. I would not tolerate it
any other way.
> > And I suppose you
> > think the Swiss should have confronted the Germans head on - how would that
> > benefitted the Swiss people ? Isn't it the job of every gov't to watch out
> > for its' people first ?
>
> Not at all. They did the right thing in not confronting the Nazis but
> they did the wrong thing when they started cooperating with them in any
> way. And boy did they cooperate - well beyond the requirements of a
> neutral.
> > >
This is the definition of being Neutral - read it and tell be if the Swiss
didn't follow the priciples set out by the treaty of Vienna -
A Neutral nation will treat all foreign countries equally.
Switzerland treated the allies and Germany the same (Switzerland actually
helped many Jews and gave them sanctuary - something which violated its'
neutrality status).