I think it's the mass of information that circles around the world every second. If you want to be heard you need to be loud and you need to be radical. Nobody will hear a polite, reasonable voice when at the same time there is a dozen shouting meaningless phrases like "cut spending" or "tax the rich" and insults around on full volume.
Search
Search results: 540 found, showing up to 50
thanks, didn't know that. yet this makes it even weirder that the US can keep the best grades while for example ireland is downgraded although they are supported by money from the EU.Jay wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki?search=debt+per+capitamr.hrundi wrote:
just as it doesn't seem political at all that several european countries get downgraded at least once a week (or so it seems) while having not more debt than the US.Macbeth wrote:
Well, we did get downgraded Kmar. Just not by Moody's.
Chinese agency downgrades U.S. credit rating
That doesn't doesn't seem political at all. /sarcasm
Look at the two columns on the right.
just as it doesn't seem political at all that several european countries get downgraded at least once a week (or so it seems) while having not more debt than the US.Macbeth wrote:
Well, we did get downgraded Kmar. Just not by Moody's.
Chinese agency downgrades U.S. credit rating
That doesn't doesn't seem political at all. /sarcasm
anybody?mr.hrundi wrote:
I have a question related to the OP:
As far as I am informed it seems that the approach to the debt problem is the following: Obama will raise the debt ceiling pretty much by himself using his veto while the Republican party will vote against it. This way the US will have more time.
I mostly get my information from German news sources (I'm not studying politics, so I don't have too much time to read through different news sources). What my sources say is that no one really knows how to solve the problems properly. The GOP seems to be blocking most suggestions because their primary target is to make the Obama administration look bad in public.
With voting against raising the debt ceiling all results (which will probably be bad) are Obama's fault, meaning that his chances to get reelected are getting smaller and smaller.
Now (finally) to my question: is it a viewpoint that's only represented in Europe that all the GOP seems to do is to try and prevent the Democrats from winning any elections in the next few years or is this opinion represented in the American media and public as well?
I have a question related to the OP:
As far as I am informed it seems that the approach to the debt problem is the following: Obama will raise the debt ceiling pretty much by himself using his veto while the Republican party will vote against it. This way the US will have more time.
I mostly get my information from German news sources (I'm not studying politics, so I don't have too much time to read through different news sources). What my sources say is that no one really knows how to solve the problems properly. The GOP seems to be blocking most suggestions because their primary target is to make the Obama administration look bad in public.
With voting against raising the debt ceiling all results (which will probably be bad) are Obama's fault, meaning that his chances to get reelected are getting smaller and smaller.
Now (finally) to my question: is it a viewpoint that's only represented in Europe that all the GOP seems to do is to try and prevent the Democrats from winning any elections in the next few years or is this opinion represented in the American media and public as well?
As far as I am informed it seems that the approach to the debt problem is the following: Obama will raise the debt ceiling pretty much by himself using his veto while the Republican party will vote against it. This way the US will have more time.
I mostly get my information from German news sources (I'm not studying politics, so I don't have too much time to read through different news sources). What my sources say is that no one really knows how to solve the problems properly. The GOP seems to be blocking most suggestions because their primary target is to make the Obama administration look bad in public.
With voting against raising the debt ceiling all results (which will probably be bad) are Obama's fault, meaning that his chances to get reelected are getting smaller and smaller.
Now (finally) to my question: is it a viewpoint that's only represented in Europe that all the GOP seems to do is to try and prevent the Democrats from winning any elections in the next few years or is this opinion represented in the American media and public as well?
It's true that there is no easy solution. It's only that from my (european) perspective it seems like that everybody knows that there is real trouble ahead but that nobody knows how to deal with it. The only thing every party or political organization seems to care about right now is to make it look like that it's the other's side fault, only to get elected in the next election, when the whole crap will start over again, only with the protagonists switched.Jay wrote:
Compromise in this case means kicking the debt can down the road... again, instead of dealing with the issues. Raising the debt ceiling and passing a budget is the easy path. The consequences will be felt long after the current administration is out of office. Our government needs to be fixed and its spending reigned in. This showdown is 30 years in the making. Your own country is well down this path already. Your economy looks strong now but your debt sits at 80% of GDP. That's unsustainable.mr.hrundi wrote:
to the OP
Today I read an article in a German newspaper. It said that the major problem at the moment aren't the different opinions between Democrats and Republicans, but the different opinions within the GOP. Apparently there is a guy called Eric Cantor who is quite close to the Tea Party Movement who only wants to get publicity for his side without really thinking about the real problems.
It said in the article that normally dems and reps would find a solution every side could live with, but this is prevented by these ultra-conservatives. Can anybody confirm whether that article is right or not?
I for one can't understand that the budget ceiling hasn't been raised long ago. Obviously it isn't the problems solution, but neither cuts in social programs nor taxing the rich are. Yet, the negative effects if nothing is done are in my opinion far greater.
Here in Europe we currently also have problems with some states (Greece, Portugal, Ireland etc.) but there seems to be a broad consensus over all moderate parties on the fact that they must help (they don't know how to do it though). I don't have the feeling that any group wants to use the situation for its own advantage.
to the OP
Today I read an article in a German newspaper. It said that the major problem at the moment aren't the different opinions between Democrats and Republicans, but the different opinions within the GOP. Apparently there is a guy called Eric Cantor who is quite close to the Tea Party Movement who only wants to get publicity for his side without really thinking about the real problems.
It said in the article that normally dems and reps would find a solution every side could live with, but this is prevented by these ultra-conservatives. Can anybody confirm whether that article is right or not?
I for one can't understand that the budget ceiling hasn't been raised long ago. Obviously it isn't the problems solution, but neither cuts in social programs nor taxing the rich are. Yet, the negative effects if nothing is done are in my opinion far greater.
Today I read an article in a German newspaper. It said that the major problem at the moment aren't the different opinions between Democrats and Republicans, but the different opinions within the GOP. Apparently there is a guy called Eric Cantor who is quite close to the Tea Party Movement who only wants to get publicity for his side without really thinking about the real problems.
It said in the article that normally dems and reps would find a solution every side could live with, but this is prevented by these ultra-conservatives. Can anybody confirm whether that article is right or not?
I for one can't understand that the budget ceiling hasn't been raised long ago. Obviously it isn't the problems solution, but neither cuts in social programs nor taxing the rich are. Yet, the negative effects if nothing is done are in my opinion far greater.
what about 'the preferences pright' then?
you mean austria is more like bavaria. you should get the preferences right.CapnNismo wrote:
Bavaria is more like Austria than Bavaria is German. Culturally, architecturally, etc.13urnzz wrote:
not according to the map.
how would solar panels installed on the rooftops of already existing buildings take up any more space? a huge windpark the size of a nuclear power plant takes up as much space as a power plant. efficency might be a problem, but this is (or at least I hope it is) only a matter of time.Jay wrote:
Why do people keep saying this? Where do you get your source material for your opinion? Decentralizing is much less efficient. Little boutique power plants dotting the landscape does nothing more than take up more space and require more infrastructure to be built. It doesn't make any sense. You're talking about using 50-100 times the space for the same result. It makes no sense.mr.hrundi wrote:
I think the winner would be a de-centralized energy system, with lots of small energy producing devices. a start would be solar panels on many private buildings, wind turbines in suitable spots, geothermal power generators where they work and so on. In other words: everybody produces a little bit of energy and puts it in a regionwide network.Jay wrote:
It's an issue, but everything has environmental issues. Nuclear has nuclear waste as well as heat, coal has it's waste and also releases heat into the local water supply (and the filters have to go somewhere too). Gas is similar to coal except without the solid material waste. Wind doesn't work all the time and kills birds/bats/insects while creating noise pollution. Solar requires heavy metals in manufacturing and doesn't work at night or in the winter. Both wind and solar require caustic batteries.
So... pick your poison. Personally, natural gas fired plants seem like the clear winner to me.
The factor I see working against this are the big companies. a de-centralized energy system would take away most of their profits.
Do yourself a favor and ignore what the greens say about energy. They're a bunch of morons without any scientific background. And yes, 'environmental science' is a fake science. They don't even have to take calculus or physics here
I don't know if you'd consider geography as an environmental science, but I can tell you that I do quite a lot of physics there.
I think the winner would be a de-centralized energy system, with lots of small energy producing devices. a start would be solar panels on many private buildings, wind turbines in suitable spots, geothermal power generators where they work and so on. In other words: everybody produces a little bit of energy and puts it in a regionwide network.Jay wrote:
It's an issue, but everything has environmental issues. Nuclear has nuclear waste as well as heat, coal has it's waste and also releases heat into the local water supply (and the filters have to go somewhere too). Gas is similar to coal except without the solid material waste. Wind doesn't work all the time and kills birds/bats/insects while creating noise pollution. Solar requires heavy metals in manufacturing and doesn't work at night or in the winter. Both wind and solar require caustic batteries.
So... pick your poison. Personally, natural gas fired plants seem like the clear winner to me.
The factor I see working against this are the big companies. a de-centralized energy system would take away most of their profits.
all well in that case, but some of the tested power plants here in germany wouldn't even withstand the impact of a cessna, let alone something of the size of a 747. Improving the walls to make them plane-proof would cost as much as building a new one.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM
As much as I hate to respont to you with facts, cause I know quite well that brains isn't your strongest point, maybe someone else is interested: one of the threats for power plants that has been researced, is plane crashes. these can, in an really unfortunate event, happen by chance (noone though an earthquake that strong could ever hit japan), or they can happen quite intentionally, as should be known since 2001. The outcome is the same.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Meh, my guess is they've played the Chernobyl part of CoD4 too many times or they're afraid a tsunami and earthquake will come cripple their plants since the Japanese got pretty screwed.Stimey wrote:
Why are people so tinfoil hat about nuclear power?
Isn't Germany pretty free of natural disasters? It's not like they get hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes. or flooding.
Paranoid Nazis
the biggest problem with nuclear power is that no one knows what to do with the nuclear fuel rods once they cant be used in power plants anymore. the half life of the stuff is longer than any reasonable guesses about political frames. it plays in geological timescales in which it still is dangerous.
while the energy is cheap and on the first view less harmful than fossil fuels, we as the current generation leave unimaginable amounts of radioactive stuff for thousands of future generations without having the slightest idea how to make it less dangerous. this is what I think most Germans don't like about nuclear power. At least I do.
Of course burning more fossil fuels can't be the solution to the threat of power shortage. Yet, with 10 or 11 more years to study and develop ways of getting power from renewable sources, I see a good chance of turning off all nuclear plants without any problems.
while the energy is cheap and on the first view less harmful than fossil fuels, we as the current generation leave unimaginable amounts of radioactive stuff for thousands of future generations without having the slightest idea how to make it less dangerous. this is what I think most Germans don't like about nuclear power. At least I do.
Of course burning more fossil fuels can't be the solution to the threat of power shortage. Yet, with 10 or 11 more years to study and develop ways of getting power from renewable sources, I see a good chance of turning off all nuclear plants without any problems.
I didn't read through all the pages, but am I the only one who thinks that it's strange that the western world is in uproar when muslims celebrate when western soldiers are killed by islamists, yet it's perfectly normal that western people celebrate when an islamist is killed by western soldiers?
I, for one, am quite happy that they can't launch today. I wouldn't have been able to watch it, so now I have a second chance.
I can't believe nobody said Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory yet. Awesome soundtrack, written by Amon Tobin.
I didn't read through the whole thread, but has it occured to you, that this discussion is pointless without the input of women? After all, they are the ones who have to go through the process of either giving birth to a child or the process of an abortion.
eleven bravo on page one wrote:
the vagina belongs to men anyways.
this is already confirmed according to thisFloppY_ wrote:
I HOPE it gets 64player support
I guess I don't need to tell you that I don't think that is a positive development. Both, random killings of many people and killing of weaker people are crimes and I'd rather see them not happening.
The thing is that I do not think that less availability of guns generally increase the crimes against children. There could well be an average in every country of that. Yet in societies, where guns are readily available, there are not only crimes against children, but also crimes against stronger or equally strong people, because it is more probable to be successful in commiting these.
Politically motivated culprits will only in the rarest cases kill a random child just because they can't get to the person they really want to harm. So no, describing them as a "more desirable target" is in my opinion not true.
The thing is that I do not think that less availability of guns generally increase the crimes against children. There could well be an average in every country of that. Yet in societies, where guns are readily available, there are not only crimes against children, but also crimes against stronger or equally strong people, because it is more probable to be successful in commiting these.
Politically motivated culprits will only in the rarest cases kill a random child just because they can't get to the person they really want to harm. So no, describing them as a "more desirable target" is in my opinion not true.
I wasn't primarily searching for a reason for the killings, but for a reason for the hostile rethoric. I was merely naming the rethoric as one possible influence for the killings.
Treatment for mentally ill people surely can prevent killings. The problem is that most of the culprits have never been suspicious before and are therefore not covered by psychological help.
I woudn't call the american health care system worse than others in this aspect. In Germany there are crimes by mentally ill people as well, yet most of them are rape of killing of children. This actually might have to do with the availability of guns. When guns are at hand, everybody can be the victim. If you only have a knife, the person will search for someone weaker.
Treatment for mentally ill people surely can prevent killings. The problem is that most of the culprits have never been suspicious before and are therefore not covered by psychological help.
I woudn't call the american health care system worse than others in this aspect. In Germany there are crimes by mentally ill people as well, yet most of them are rape of killing of children. This actually might have to do with the availability of guns. When guns are at hand, everybody can be the victim. If you only have a knife, the person will search for someone weaker.
As someone from another country who's never been to the US and only knows the country from what other people say, here some thoughts:
There is violent rhetoric on every side of the political spectrum. In my opinion there are two reasons for that:
- someone needs to be loud and extreme to be heard in a country that produces masses and masses of opinions and news every single day. Low, reasonable voices won't be heard in a medial system that's based on profit.
- The second has to do with gun laws (I can already hear you sigh). When a community has access to guns all the time, it will get involved with them in their spare time (not necessarily bad, all I shot were air guns, but it was fun). From this, words like 'reload' and 'aim' will automatically be inserted in the vocabulary.
I do think that the daily use of these words will also influence someone's actions (especially people that have mental problems) and can, in my opinion, lead to the recent increase in random killings done by mentally unstable persons.
There is violent rhetoric on every side of the political spectrum. In my opinion there are two reasons for that:
- someone needs to be loud and extreme to be heard in a country that produces masses and masses of opinions and news every single day. Low, reasonable voices won't be heard in a medial system that's based on profit.
- The second has to do with gun laws (I can already hear you sigh). When a community has access to guns all the time, it will get involved with them in their spare time (not necessarily bad, all I shot were air guns, but it was fun). From this, words like 'reload' and 'aim' will automatically be inserted in the vocabulary.
I do think that the daily use of these words will also influence someone's actions (especially people that have mental problems) and can, in my opinion, lead to the recent increase in random killings done by mentally unstable persons.
.
.
.
.
<----
never been banned, never had the feeling I needed a new name.
.
.
.
<----
never been banned, never had the feeling I needed a new name.
Well, there's nothing else they can do. To make laws, they need a president from their party. They don't have one, so all they can do is block the president's politics. And blocking the health care reform is what they were elected for by many people. If they woudn't do it, their voters would get angry and they can't risk that, even if it costs money and doesn't change anything.
Oh, and Stingray, I think trying to work for your conviction and not for being reelected is a positive thing and something politics need.
Oh, and Stingray, I think trying to work for your conviction and not for being reelected is a positive thing and something politics need.
The US went quite well for about 2 centuries with their exceptionalism. They were best in many political and economical aspects (from a capitalistic and democratic point of view), and everyone knew that.
Times change and slowly but surely other nations realize that they might be just as good, or, in a while even better. To keep their status, the US would have to go with the times and accept criticism. Many don't want that and use isolationalism as an escape route. A few years ago, there was no need for that, now that other countries become competition, some hide. They think it will just go on like it was forever.
In short, because I'm thinking faster than I can type: Exceptionalism worked, but itdoesnt anymore. It's time for a different attitude.
A german president once said: 'A patriot loves his country, a nationalist hates other countries.'
Times change and slowly but surely other nations realize that they might be just as good, or, in a while even better. To keep their status, the US would have to go with the times and accept criticism. Many don't want that and use isolationalism as an escape route. A few years ago, there was no need for that, now that other countries become competition, some hide. They think it will just go on like it was forever.
In short, because I'm thinking faster than I can type: Exceptionalism worked, but itdoesnt anymore. It's time for a different attitude.
A german president once said: 'A patriot loves his country, a nationalist hates other countries.'
My guess is that it's the timeframe. There seems to be a general swing to the right or conservative part of the political spectrum in many parts of the US because of frustration with the democratic government. If the referendums were held 2 years ago, the outcome might have been different.
okay they did. but most of the "old repubs" were willing to talk. And it doesn't matter that they aren't a party, as long as enough stubborn mules sit in the congress, no politics will be made.
Maybe, but the current president is a democrat, so they have to talk with the democrats to make politics.11 Bravo wrote:
ya but the tea party went after repubs also....
I don't want to defend them, Obama's programme was in parts just as populistic. But so far I always had the impression that democrats as well as reublicans were willing to talk with the other party to make politics. The Tea Party sounds more like "they suck, we don't talk with them".11 Bravo wrote:
and 2 years ago the dems with the "change" slogans and all that other stuff? your post makes no sense
This really seems to be the most normal thing in the mid-term elections: People expect things to become better within two years, it doesn't happen, they get angry and vote for the other party. This is not really a bad thing, a healty Democracy needs a healty opposition.
But this time, as an observer from another country, I really think things will be different, the main problem being the hardcore conservatives. I only watched a few TV-spots, and real substance never was an issue in any of those (democrats and republicans likewise). No one ever said what they wanted, they only said what the other does wrong, and even more, personal insults. It's like watching wrestling without the fake beating.
The problem with the new right wing is in my opinion, that their political program so far only consisted of populistic catchphrases. Things like "restore honour" or "claim America back" may make you win an election, but it isn't politics. With their taking over the congress, their attitude will decide on the fate of America for a long time. There are 2 options: The first is, they convert the anger that drove them into a political program and work with the democrats. All they can do now is stop new laws but afaik they can't make their own.
The second option they have is a complete blockade of politics for at least 2 years. This will really damage the US for a long time. It's true that the creation of jobs lastly depends on the economy, but politics have to set the frame. This is done by laws and in the current situation, new laws are required. If the conservative block each and every law, America comes to a standstill.
What I can't understand is that some of you say that politics should have focused on gay rights instead of health care. Gay rights is populistic, and it can decide or influence elections, but it isn't even near to the roots of any problems the US have. Health care isn't the root either, but at least it's on the same tree. When will people finally understand that politics isn't about winning elections but about improving the life of the citizens?
But this time, as an observer from another country, I really think things will be different, the main problem being the hardcore conservatives. I only watched a few TV-spots, and real substance never was an issue in any of those (democrats and republicans likewise). No one ever said what they wanted, they only said what the other does wrong, and even more, personal insults. It's like watching wrestling without the fake beating.
The problem with the new right wing is in my opinion, that their political program so far only consisted of populistic catchphrases. Things like "restore honour" or "claim America back" may make you win an election, but it isn't politics. With their taking over the congress, their attitude will decide on the fate of America for a long time. There are 2 options: The first is, they convert the anger that drove them into a political program and work with the democrats. All they can do now is stop new laws but afaik they can't make their own.
The second option they have is a complete blockade of politics for at least 2 years. This will really damage the US for a long time. It's true that the creation of jobs lastly depends on the economy, but politics have to set the frame. This is done by laws and in the current situation, new laws are required. If the conservative block each and every law, America comes to a standstill.
What I can't understand is that some of you say that politics should have focused on gay rights instead of health care. Gay rights is populistic, and it can decide or influence elections, but it isn't even near to the roots of any problems the US have. Health care isn't the root either, but at least it's on the same tree. When will people finally understand that politics isn't about winning elections but about improving the life of the citizens?
Hi, my name is devil's advocate. I just came here to ask why this happened only a few days before an election?
Germany does need immigration to support the social system and the economy, but accepting the language of immigrants as an official language would blow the whole thing out of proportion. Yes, there are many Turks in Germany, but those who don't try to integrate are only a part of them. Many are integrated, speak german, have a good education and a good job. The rest is a minority. A problematic minority, but a minority. It would be like having Chinese as official language in the US because of the Chinese immigrants.Turquoise wrote:
Wouldn't it be more likely that Germany will eventually operate as a bilingual nation? I know Germans generally already know multiple languages through schooling and trade but it looks like immigration from Turkey is pretty significant for Germany's overall population growth.mr.hrundi wrote:
When the discussion goes on for another few months there will probably be some legislation passed. It will do neither good nor bad, but it will appease the masses. Integration is the real key, and it's being done. Not so much on the political level but more on a regional, sociological level. The Turkish president told immigrants in Germany to learn german and follow German laws, which is a step in the right direction.Turquoise wrote:
Do you think immigration reform is likely to occur in Germany, or do you think they'll take an approach that encourages more assimilation by immigrants?
Politics won't play a major part in this. Immigrants will eventually realize that they can only live a good life here if they respect the German society, especially with the current problems of the social system (aging population).
When the discussion goes on for another few months there will probably be some legislation passed. It will do neither good nor bad, but it will appease the masses. Integration is the real key, and it's being done. Not so much on the political level but more on a regional, sociological level. The Turkish president told immigrants in Germany to learn german and follow German laws, which is a step in the right direction.Turquoise wrote:
Do you think immigration reform is likely to occur in Germany, or do you think they'll take an approach that encourages more assimilation by immigrants?mr.hrundi wrote:
I feel the same, there aren't any real diffences if you view it on a reasonable level. Looking at the extremist views there might be, but thankfully were far from implementing those in politics.Turquoise wrote:
What would you say are the most prominent differences in Christian ethics and Islamic ethics as manifested in German life?
The reason I ask is because I don't see that much of a difference between the ethics of either.
That Germany may be based more on christianity though is easily explained: when the thought of Germany was first founded there weren't enough Muslims here to really make a diffence.
Using islam as a scapegoat just makes the discussion more popular. It's easier to understand. There are enough immigrants from Russia who have the same problems as Turks for example - they aren't muslim though.
Politics won't play a major part in this. Immigrants will eventually realize that they can only live a good life here if they respect the German society, especially with the current problems of the social system (aging population).
Naw, I like it here better. But you can have the stupid girls. They seem to imitate American reality TV anyways, so they might fit just fine.Macbeth wrote:
You're being irrational. You guy should just leave Germany and move to the U.S., and bring lots and lots of German girls.mr.hrundi wrote:
First - you guys are way to fast for me. By the time I typed one post there's 5 more to respond to...JohnG@lt wrote:
Funny, I see the same thing whenever statists pop up on the left too...
Second - without any source to back it up I'd say that about 50% like that Christianity-remarks. As I said above, that has nothing to do with the power of religion, but with ethics. Yet, as it's used by politicians here at the moment, it's there to polarize. That old pro or contra game.
With several millon muslims Islam sure is a part of Germany and we can still be a nation based on christian ethics. I like christian ethics and I haven't prayed since kindergarten.
There are 2 reasons why the whole discussion is somewhat useless: as soon as there's another problem that can be used to polarize, no one will talk about this one anymore, and until the next general election, 80% of the voters will have forgotten about it. It's just like in every ohter democracy.
Sexy sexy German girls.
I feel the same, there aren't any real diffences if you view it on a reasonable level. Looking at the extremist views there might be, but thankfully were far from implementing those in politics.Turquoise wrote:
What would you say are the most prominent differences in Christian ethics and Islamic ethics as manifested in German life?mr.hrundi wrote:
First - you guys are way to fast for me. By the time I typed one post there's 5 more to respond to...
Second - without any source to back it up I'd say that about 50% like that Christianity-remarks. As I said above, that has nothing to do with the power of religion, but with ethics. Yet, as it's used by politicians here at the moment, it's there to polarize. That old pro or contra game.
With several millon muslims Islam sure is a part of Germany and we can still be a nation based on christian ethics. I like christian ethics and I haven't prayed since kindergarten.
The reason I ask is because I don't see that much of a difference between the ethics of either.
That Germany may be based more on christianity though is easily explained: when the thought of Germany was first founded there weren't enough Muslims here to really make a diffence.
Using islam as a scapegoat just makes the discussion more popular. It's easier to understand. There are enough immigrants from Russia who have the same problems as Turks for example - they aren't muslim though.
I see we have two Americans talking - religion plays a completely different role in the states. That holding the hand on the bible and knowing which politician goes to which church and how often - all that is completely irrelevant in Germany. Religion is personal life. It has nothing to do with real politics.Turquoise wrote:
The current extremely high rate of incarceration in America would seem to defy that assumption completely.JohnG@lt wrote:
Why? It's useful for keeping the sheep in line. You need less jails when people fear hell.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if you'll notice, I break from social democracy when it comes to religion. I believe religion in and of itself is part of what keeps a social democracy from functioning properly. This applies to both majority religions and minority ones.
Ideally, a social democracy functions best in a thoroughly secular and rational society. To reach this point, religion must dwindle in significance.
First - you guys are way to fast for me. By the time I typed one post there's 5 more to respond to...JohnG@lt wrote:
Funny, I see the same thing whenever statists pop up on the left too...Turquoise wrote:
Well, maybe it's just the American context I'm using here, but it seems like whenever that phrase is used in rhetoric here, it's usually accompanied by restricting people's personal rights.JohnG@lt wrote:
Why? Most German people still consider themselves to be Lutheran or Catholic...
Second - without any source to back it up I'd say that about 50% like that Christianity-remarks. As I said above, that has nothing to do with the power of religion, but with ethics. Yet, as it's used by politicians here at the moment, it's there to polarize. That old pro or contra game.
With several millon muslims Islam sure is a part of Germany and we can still be a nation based on christian ethics. I like christian ethics and I haven't prayed since kindergarten.
There are 2 reasons why the whole discussion is somewhat useless: as soon as there's another problem that can be used to polarize, no one will talk about this one anymore, and until the next general election, 80% of the voters will have forgotten about it. It's just like in every ohter democracy.
In Germany gay marriage is more or less legal. Gay couples can live together, take the same name and so on. What's discussed sometimes is if they should get tax breaks like normal marriages do. Yet over the last few years, this discussion hasn't been on the scedule. Apaarently most people are happy wiht how it is. In fact the current German foreign minister is gay and only recently married his partner.
What the userbase thinks might be something different, but there are neither radical pro nor anti gay groups (that have political power).
What the userbase thinks might be something different, but there are neither radical pro nor anti gay groups (that have political power).
This is coming in a time when three of the four major parties in Germany are losing votes. Since the left part of the political spectrum ist covered by the green party, the conservatives are trying to get new voters from the right wing.
The president of germany recently said that Islam by now is a part of Germany. This resulted in uproar, especially coming from the right wing. They saw an opportunity to get votes by basically saying "islam is bad". Ironically they claim Germany is based on christian and jewish traditions, which is weird, because until a few decades ago Jews were systematically killed here.
What I agree with is that multiculturalism has indeed failed. Yet, this has to do with the meaning of the word here in Germany. The goal was to have people of all cultures living together peacefully, sharing the country. It came different: Many immigrants didn't see a reason to communicate or interfere with people of other cultures - they had all they wanted in their part of town. No need to speak German, no need to change anything else. The problem that came from this is that now the children of these immigrants have no chance to get out of this, which leads to unemployment, poverty and no education. These young people are easily picked on by right wingers, and it's always easier to talk against a given than to change what made it.
On the christian part of the party's name: it was founded quite some time ago in the 18th century if I'm not mistaken. Religion did play a major part then. No one really today thinks the church should have more influence, it's more used to describe the ethical orientation.
The president of germany recently said that Islam by now is a part of Germany. This resulted in uproar, especially coming from the right wing. They saw an opportunity to get votes by basically saying "islam is bad". Ironically they claim Germany is based on christian and jewish traditions, which is weird, because until a few decades ago Jews were systematically killed here.
What I agree with is that multiculturalism has indeed failed. Yet, this has to do with the meaning of the word here in Germany. The goal was to have people of all cultures living together peacefully, sharing the country. It came different: Many immigrants didn't see a reason to communicate or interfere with people of other cultures - they had all they wanted in their part of town. No need to speak German, no need to change anything else. The problem that came from this is that now the children of these immigrants have no chance to get out of this, which leads to unemployment, poverty and no education. These young people are easily picked on by right wingers, and it's always easier to talk against a given than to change what made it.
On the christian part of the party's name: it was founded quite some time ago in the 18th century if I'm not mistaken. Religion did play a major part then. No one really today thinks the church should have more influence, it's more used to describe the ethical orientation.
I've heard there are more bikes than people in the Netherlands.
with the current ability of humans to kill other humans we'd be even faster in wiping ourselves out of existence. Overpopulation is already a problem, conflicts would arise over habitable land. these will be fought with more and more brutality, until one decides to launch a nuke. Then it's over, but it would probably be the best for the whole universe in terms of evolution....
to uni it's 15 minutes by bike or half an hour by bus. To work it depends on where they send me, can be all over Germany.
after 2 regular goals not given in the last 2 matches no one deserved this goal more than the US-boys. well done!
Edit: possible England- Germany next match if we win tonight. nice!
Edit: possible England- Germany next match if we win tonight. nice!
Yet, the US troops won't leave. Reason: they would love to have military bases near the Chinese border.FEOS wrote:
If Korea were to reunite, there would no longer be any need for US troops in Korea.mr.hrundi wrote:
Germany needed the USSR to fail to unite. China won't fail. What China doesn't fear is a united Korea, but US-troops right at their border.rdx-fx wrote:
There is a pretty good template for NK being absorbed by SK.
West Germany managed to absorb East Germany.
And NK going away wouldn't really lessen China's global influence.
China - ancient country, nuclear power, economic and manufacturing power .. really doesn't need a drama-prone backwaters pisshole as an 'ally'.
different almost every day. sometimes like alcohol, sometimes like smoke. Today like sex.
Germany needed the USSR to fail to unite. China won't fail. What China doesn't fear is a united Korea, but US-troops right at their border.rdx-fx wrote:
There is a pretty good template for NK being absorbed by SK.
West Germany managed to absorb East Germany.
And NK going away wouldn't really lessen China's global influence.
China - ancient country, nuclear power, economic and manufacturing power .. really doesn't need a drama-prone backwaters pisshole as an 'ally'.
Aren't the rockets used by hamas short-range, unguided, "let's hope it hits something and doesn't fall to the ground without exploding" rockets that only fly a few hundred meters? How can you even detect them and shoot them down in the short time they take to reach their target? Will they develop something like in Command & Conquer Tiberian Sun, these carpets that spit blue flames to destroy missiles?
Some of this has to do with different ways of how "a good life" for society should be reached. Americans think that everybody should do this by his own means, by creating a very open economic structure in which everybody can reach his goals. Hence the bigger growth in economy. Europeans think that not everybody has the ability to reach this "good life" by own strength, so actions have to be taken to help these people. These actions cost money that can't be invested then into economy, therefore the growth is lower.
Thinking that the Euro will fail is probably wrong. Now it may seem that it lost in value (about 0.10$), but seen on a scale since its introduction, it's still going strong (started at 0.96 $, is now at 1.24$)
Thinking that the Euro will fail is probably wrong. Now it may seem that it lost in value (about 0.10$), but seen on a scale since its introduction, it's still going strong (started at 0.96 $, is now at 1.24$)
there's a thread for this? okay. here I am.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
1337 days at the time of posting
Spoiler (highlight to read):
1337 days at the time of posting
[nerd]I've been here for 1337 days, lolzors[/nerd]