BF2S Forums DAST Chat

FEOS wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Yeah the pope is more of a national leader than a religious leader anyway. o wait never mind

plus, in terms of equality you would have to let every religious leader speak in front of the parliament

btw, that's the reason they didn't let the dalai lama speak there

Not every church leader is also the head of a recognized state. Like the dalai lama, for example. The head of a religious movement--and some would say a political figure--but not a head of state.

Vatican City is an independent, recognized, nation-state. And the Pope is the head of it.

There is a difference.

And nobody has been Germany's enemy for over 60 years...that's just bollocks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_see

Although it is often referred to by the term "the Vatican", the Holy See is not the same entity as the Vatican City State, which came into existence only in 1929, while the Holy See, the episcopal see of Rome, dates back to early Christian times. Ambassadors are officially accredited not to the Vatican City State but to "the Holy See", and papal representatives to states and international organizations are recognized as representing the Holy See, not the Vatican City State.

Pope is the head of state of the holy see. Even though he's definitely a lot more of a religious leader than a political one, the holy see is a recognize state and the pope is the head of it.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

plus, in terms of equality you would have to let every religious leader speak in front of the parliament

btw, that's the reason they didn't let the dalai lama speak there

Not every church leader is also the head of a recognized state. Like the dalai lama, for example. The head of a religious movement--and some would say a political figure--but not a head of state.

Vatican City is an independent, recognized, nation-state. And the Pope is the head of it.

There is a difference.

And nobody has been Germany's enemy for over 60 years...that's just bollocks.

*former enemies

religious leaders in general shouldn't be allowed to speak in the reichstag

and only very few heads of state should be allowed to hold a speech there (like i said, as an act of reconciliation, like the israeli or russian heads of state)

so, for both reasons the pope shouldn't be allowed to

Both reasons are bollocks, for the reasons stated.

Six decades (plus) have passed. Reconciliation happened a long time ago.

He's more than a religious figure. He's a head of state...which, btw, was neutral during ww2, IIRC, further nullifying the reconciliation argument.

They just don't want the Pope to give a speech there, and they're stretching for rationale other than "we just don't want him to." It's quite transparent.

Meh. Not my country. Just pointing out the inconsistency in their argument. Personally couldn't care less.

So ONLY acts of reconciliation are permitted for a foreign head of state to address the bundestag? Really?

Shouldn't it be the other way around, since Germany was the aggressor? Again, that rationale makes no sense.

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So ONLY acts of reconciliation are permitted for a foreign head of state to address the bundestag? Really?

yes

Again, seems it should be the other way around, since Germany was the aggressor...why would the aggressor (and defeated party) limit other heads of state from speaking before it's legislative body unless it's an "act of reconciliation" (forgiveness?) on their part? That's a pretty unwarranted nose-in-the-air attitude, tbh. It would seem that the FIRST time a German head of state were to speak in another country, post-war, it would be before that nation's legislative body in an "act of reconciliation." And then it's done. The head of state can address the Bundestag/Congress/Parliament, if they so desire. It's rare, but not unheard of.

In today's issue of strange statistics

The results are surprising. Marcotte's study found that after people attempt suicide and fail, their incomes increase by an average of 20.6 percent compared to peers who seriously contemplate suicide but never make an attempt. In fact, the more serious the attempt, the larger the boost—"hard-suicide" attempts, in which luck is the only reason the attempts fail, are associated with a 36.3 percent increase in income. (The presence of nonattempters as a control group suggests the suicide effort is the root cause of the boost.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2090424

thanks to burnzz it seems, who also got a vacation

Just got a linkedin network request from an Iranian Technology R+D Technology Manager I used to work for.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

god save us all

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ … ingtonpost

Recession nr.2 inbound.

It didn't look like they deserved that macing.

Beduin wrote:

occupy wallStreet? wtf is that all about?

dirty hippies want to change the way the world works.

Well when you are just standing around and all of a sudden someone comes and maces you it seems like a big deal

Macbeth wrote:

Well when you are just standing around and all of a sudden someone comes and maces you it seems like a big deal

Not exactly just 'standing around' if they provoked the police into fencing them in...