Lost Data

[DuncanONeil]

But don't you remember that the current Speaker promised us the "most ethical Congress ever" when she took up the gavel. And the President promised an end to business as usual in Washington and his administration would be the most transparent ever?

I guess that is why the bills presented are over 2000 pages and multiple versions, so they can be transparent. And that is the same reason the bills are crafted out of the view of the public (and the minority as well). Then there all the time limits, usually less time than it would take to read the bill, for passage.

Wow, sounds familiar. Methinks it is EXACTLY what we're going through right now with the American government!

[MMI]

I don’t know what country you come from MMI, but if it is GB then you had better get up to speed. Of a pole by [you gov] a few months ago there was a 65% of the British population wishing to leave the European community all together. Europeans are greedy and manipulative, they have forced their laws on the British population through back door dealings, and there is not an ounce of decency in the European parliament. As for these other countries that are backing the Brits and The Americans in Afghanistan, where the fuck are they. Spain; I think had a train blown up and they pulled half their troops out for fear of reprisals, now that says it all. The others that you mention are just a token force, there but not seen, probably still in the dug outs. I am not stupid so don’t take me for a fool, the Afghan’s have been invaded by the British Twice, the Russians once, they are a nation of fighters that have been fighting between tribes since time began. And when this force of two real nations UK and USA leave they will still be fighting.

I at no time inferred that the Brits loved the war, and of course they don’t, and neither do they like their loved ones being sent home in body bags. The truth is, until Afghanistan is free of alkida; there will always be BRIT/AMERICAN forces there. As for the troops not wanting to be there or their families saying the same, I would like to point out that I was in the UK special forces, and spent over two years getting shot at, nail bombed and Molotov cocktailed by the very same people we were protecting in Northern Ireland. My family and I and all my comrades never wanted to be there either, so please don’t belly ache to me about useless battles, and how we should not be there.

When it comes to kicking ass the Europeans are never there, the three main words in their dictionary is Capitulate, surrender, and retreat. If you look at my avatar you will see United Kingdom, and it means that I am proud of where I come from.

Regards Ian

I'm perectly happy to accept your assurance that you're neither stupid nor a fool. I didn't know I'd treated you as one, but if you feel I have ... well, let's leave it there, shall we?

Nor did I challenge your assertion that 65% of Brits want to leave Europe, I simply pointed out that you did not speak for them all, because many want to leave for reasons that are not bigoted, racist or xenophobic, but for reasons based on economic or political principles. So rather than telling me to get up to speed, I suggest you slow down enough to build up the words in your mind as your finger passes over the letters, and take a moment to understand them.

As for NI, that has nothing to do with what we were talking about, so don't accuse ME of bellyaching: someone else is doing that! However, as a member of the armed forces, it would be intersting to hear your views as to why the people whom the British Army went into Ulster to protect - the Catholic minority - turned against them so violently within months. What did the Army do so wrong?

30 years of occupation, and then withdrawn without achieving peace, in order to give peace a chance. Do I now hear cries of Tiocfaidh ár lá coming accross the Irish Sea?

Finally, you have no monopoly over Britannia: she represents all of England (not the United Kingdom, but England), and "all of England" includes people with different attitudes from yours. I could use her as my avater too. In fact, I quite fancy being blown by an Italian goddess.

[IAN 2411]

Your question about NI is a very good one and i wish to hell i could answer it, but the truth is the trouble started with King Billy. The prods were the occupying loyalist force, and the Catholic Minority saw the british army as part and parcel of the problem. It was every soldiers nightmare, because in parts of Belfast we could not even trust the prods. I personly hated the place because everyone was your freind, and everyone was your enemy. I had two tours over there and i wouldn't go back there for a free holiday.

You are correct, and i was a little fast with that reply, i know it is no excuse but i was a little tired. There are as you say a lot of soldiers from Europe in Afghanistan but most are not at the sharp end, and it is not in their contract to be at the sharp end. I know that sounds daft but i read that on the WWW dictionary, Afghanistan 2002-today. Then there is of course poor old Britania, well the Euro MPs have pulled so many plugs on GB that she is sinking into the sea and at a very fast rate. Europe is not about politics it is i think all about power. I have to admit that at the moment that the USA sneezes and the rest of the world catches cold, but Europe want a United States of Europe to match America, but if it ever happens it will be minus the UK, the people would not alow it.

[denuseri]

Nice exchange you two, lol I looved it!

Oh btw, "classically" speaking FYI:

Fall of Rome...476 AD

Fall of Constantinople...1453 AD

[MMI]

I stand corrected, den. The City of Rome fell when you said it did.

What I was alluding to, however, was the Frankish sacking of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade, and by "Rome" I really meant the Western Church. My point was that it would be a disaster if two supposed allies - Europe and the USA - turned against each other like Constantinople and the Western Crusaders did.

[IAN 2411]

Something you ought to think of MMI is the fact that Europe is already trying to be a power against the USA. It is because of their own stupid laws that no Country in Europ can deal direct with America, and they hate it because the UK and America have this special reationship and alience with each other. Americas foothold into Europe is Via the UK, and at the moment it goes both ways. Europe are at bitter battles with the UK about us dealing openly with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, parts of Africa, the Falklands and several other countries that are in our Comanwealth., but there is Damn all they can do about it. The euro parliment keep coming back and telling the UK that it is an unfair advantage, but because it is written in our own constution, there is damn all they can do with it. Start messing with our Comanwealth countries, and Europe will have their ass kicked, and big time by the British people. Europe made their own shacles in their bid to be the greedy, now they have to live with them, and tough shit. I might be wrong, so i say this as i look over my shoulder, to see if [denuseri] is standing ready to pounce with her encyclopedia mind. Britain give Europe something like £45 million every week, more than 80% of the other countries give, and we have to beg to get a handout from them. We are paying so that an Italian dairy farmer can live like the rest of the farmers in the UK, it is madness on a big scale, but i have a feeling that things will change after the elections next year when we get rid of Dictator Brown and the rest of his idiots. Bloody hell he is a scotsman for Gods sake, he should be up in Scotland in their own parliment, not down here messing the English about. I can feel denu about so i will say into the nothingness casualy, just as if i was talking to myself, i wonder when the British Empire started to fall to pieces.

Regards ian

[MMI]

I have no problem with the idea of a federal Europe. Remember the USA is a federation of states, and it has done very nicely as a result. Canada and Australia, too. So why resist the idea in Europe?

It is no more practical now for Britain to leave the EU than it would be for Texas to leave the USA, and if it came to a choice between the EU and the Commonwealth, it is obvious which way the country would have to go ... but here's a thought ... why not offer special relationships with the EU to all Commonwealth nations - or even membership!

After all, the EU is really only a rich man's club, and to admit third world nations (as well as Canada, Australia, and the rest of the wealthier Commonwealth countries - assuming they wanted to) would actually do something constructive to tackle world poverty, as well as creating a counterbalance to USA and China.

[DuncanONeil]

In reality, short of giving everyone the exact same amount of money, it is impossible to eliminate poverty.

I have no problem with the idea of a federal Europe. Remember the USA is a federation of states, and it has done very nicely as a result. Canada and Australia, too. So why resist the idea in Europe?

It is no more practical now for Britain to leave the EU than it would be for Texas to leave the USA, and if it came to a choice between the EU and the Commonwealth, it is obvious which way the country would have to go ... but here's a thought ... why not offer special relationships with the EU to all Commonwealth nations - or even membership!

After all, the EU is really only a rich man's club, and to admit third world nations (as well as Canada, Australia, and the rest of the wealthier Commonwealth countries - assuming they wanted to) would actually do something constructive to tackle world poverty, as well as creating a counterbalance to USA and China.

[denuseri]

Hey I am not an encyclopedia I am a real live girl! lol

I just happen to be a history student is all.

Whats ironic is many of the EU's growing pains are things the USA has allready went through a long time ago. Of course it took a Civil War before we finally solidified true Federal control over the individual states. Lets hope Eruope avoids that one!

As for Europe and Great Brittan being allied with the USA, lets face it people, after litterally saving europe twice (once in WW2 and once in the subsequent cold war against the Soviets after)(you all sure dont have to speak german or russian now do ya?) a certian degree of cooporation is natural for continued economic posterity as well as security. Furthermore its perfectly natural that our relationship is going to be closer with the one parent country that wasnt on the other side or remained neutral and still kept its sovernity as an ally from the get go.

Its really no different than our relationships with Taiwan and Japan VS the rest of Asia in some ways, but seriously, does anyone think the USA will ever stand against Brittan over another country so long as Brittan stands with us?

[DuncanONeil]

Hey I am not an encyclopedia I am a real live girl! lol

I just happen to be a history student is all.

Whats ironic is many of the EU's growing pains are things the USA has allready went through a long time ago. Of course it took a Civil War before we finally solidified true Federal control over the individual states. Lets hope Eruope avoids that one!

Actually the Federal Government has no right to exercise control over the States. The powers of the Feds is strictly limited, something the Feds have forgotten, or choose to ignore. All other powers remain in the perview of the States.

As for Europe and Great Brittan being allied with the USA, lets face it people, after litterally saving europe twice (once in WW2 and once in the subsequent cold war against the Soviets after)(you all sure dont have to speak german or russian now do ya?) a certian degree of cooporation is natural for continued economic posterity as well as security. Furthermore its perfectly natural that our relationship is going to be closer with the one parent country that wasnt on the other side or remained neutral and still kept its sovernity as an ally from the get go.

Having included the Cold War then that count would have to be three. You forgot to include WW1

Its really no different than our relationships with Taiwan and Japan VS the rest of Asia in some ways, but seriously, does anyone think the USA will ever stand against Brittan over another country so long as Brittan stands with us?

[skp2bear]

Just to set the record straight. Unlike the rest of the states, with the possible exception of Hawaii under tribal rule, Texas was an independant free-standing republic complete with foreign ambassadors before joining the United States. Thus our entry pact is different making it much easier return to our status as a free-standing republic. Had it not been for the Battle of San Jacinto fought right here in Harris County, here we won
our own independence from Mexico the United States would be smaller by 1/3.

[Thorne]

Just to set the record straight. Unlike the rest of the states, with the possible exception of Hawaii under tribal rule, Texas was an independant free-standing republic complete with foreign ambassadors before joining the United States. Thus our entry pact is different making it much easier return to our status as a free-standing republic. Had it not been for the Battle of San Jacinto fought right here in Harris County, here we won
our own independence from Mexico the United States would be smaller by 1/3.

While it's true that Texas may have the legal right to secede, it's doubtful they would have the economic stability to survive such an act. Especially when the religious nuts who are trying to destroy the Texas Board of Education get the power to push the state back into the dark ages. Without the power of the US Constitution to keep them in check I have no doubt they would manage to virtually destroy the education system in Texas within one year of secession.

And good riddance to 'em!

[DuncanONeil]

You mean the US educational system has not yet been destroyed?

While it's true that Texas may have the legal right to secede, it's doubtful they would have the economic stability to survive such an act. Especially when the religious nuts who are trying to destroy the Texas Board of Education get the power to push the state back into the dark ages. Without the power of the US Constitution to keep them in check I have no doubt they would manage to virtually destroy the education system in Texas within one year of secession.

And good riddance to 'em!

[Bren122]

There is an essential divide at the heart of the European ideal (Germany v France v Britain) that would make it unlikely that Europe will ever be a true Federation like the US or Australia.

At the moment the only countries that count are Britain, France and Germany. No other nation has the same political, military and economic strength of these three. No other nation in Europe has the capacity to challenge them for leadership- and they have no compelling interest to see either of their rivals elevated to a position of authority. Put quite simply there are more reasons for maintaining the current arrangement which allows independent action.

[IAN 2411]

There is an essential divide at the heart of the European ideal (Germany v France v Britain) that would make it unlikely that Europe will ever be a true Federation like the US or Australia.

At the moment the only countries that count are Britain, France and Germany. No other nation has the same political, military and economic strength of these three. No other nation in Europe has the capacity to challenge them for leadership- and they have no compelling interest to see either of their rivals elevated to a position of authority. Put quite simply there are more reasons for maintaining the current arrangement which allows independent action.

You have a very good point Bren and i am not against what you are saying, but i also believe that at some point things will have to change. At the moment America is dictating without saying a word, and one reason is that their President is the most powerful man in the western world. America is rich, it is powerful on sea, air and land, and the cobination of France, Germany and GB does not get even close. For these three countries that are always bickering at each other to come together, there would have to be a world wide crisis; but even then i think that it would be a coalition of Premiers. One such event would be that the ballance has been tipped towards the United States so much that Europe would be in fear of them. I know this sounds harsh and unreal but shit happens in life, there would then be teritoriel battening down of the hatches. I am not talking about war i am talking about European fear of powerful nations, and that is why Europe has been picking at the British powers for the last twenty years. Russia would not get involved unles they feared a Mongolian/Chinese and asian invasion, and it too would look to Europe, because Russia might be a big country but it still vulnerable from the south. This might not happen in my life time, and it might not happen in yours, but I think that it is the next process in world order. There will be no named federation, there will be only The Americas, Europe as one, and asia, and after all this has been achieved there will still be uncertainty and fear, it is human nature to be untrusting.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

... For [France, Germany and GB] that are always bickering at each other to come together, there would have to be a world wide crisis; but even then i think that it would be a coalition of Premiers ...

The question then is, what happens after the crisis passes? Will the three Premiers go their separate ways, or will the most influential/powerful of them want to stay in charge?

[DuncanONeil]

So was California! And the right retained by Texas is the right to subdivide into, I believe, a total of five smaller states.

Just to set the record straight. Unlike the rest of the states, with the possible exception of Hawaii under tribal rule, Texas was an independant free-standing republic complete with foreign ambassadors before joining the United States. Thus our entry pact is different making it much easier return to our status as a free-standing republic. Had it not been for the Battle of San Jacinto fought right here in Harris County, here we won
our own independence from Mexico the United States would be smaller by 1/3.

[skp2bear]

I strongly disagree with you Thorne. Even the army-navy game has a prayer before it. also the doctrine of evolution has been proven to be fals in many instances. presenting both views as equals should be taught as both are correct. The theory of evolutions says we all came from a single cell. That does not contradict religious view except for the few literalists who forget that three different creation stories are told in the first three chapters of Genesis. What the authors are trying to say is that a supreme being started everything. How else can you explain where that first cell came from or even the right elements and conditions necessary to produce it

[Thorne]

the doctrine of evolution has been proven to be fals in many instances.

That's misleading. Evolution is a fact. We know it happens.We see it all around us. There is no debate among mainstream scientists about this. The MECHANISMS of evolution are still being debated. Some have shown to be weak, others grow stronger. But these are simply our attempts at understanding a fact, just like gravity.

presenting both views as equals should be taught as both are correct.

If you mean evolution and creationism, then no, they are not both correct. They are mutually exclusive.

What the authors are trying to say is that a supreme being started everything.

If you want to believe that a supernatural being started it all by creating the universe and allowing life to evolve, that's all well and good, but you have to have evidence before you can present it as science. Otherwise it's faith, and has no place in the science classroom.

How else can you explain where that first cell came from or even the right elements and conditions necessary to produce it

Science has shown that living cells can be produced by chemical reactions under the proper conditions. It has been shown that the entire universe can be explained, logically and consistently, without benefit of supernatural intervention, from approximately one millisecond (maybe less) after the Big Bang.

What we cannot explain (yet) is what happened before and at the precise moment of the Big Bang. What caused it? Where did the matter come from? Many other questions. If you wish to postulate a god of some kind initiating it, that's fine. There's no one to say you are wrong. But without evidence, you cannot claim you are right. You can only have faith.

[DuncanONeil]

I take exception to the statement that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive!!!!

As to that millisecond after the bang, That still leaves an awful lot of time unaccounted for.

That's misleading. Evolution is a fact. We know it happens.We see it all around us. There is no debate among mainstream scientists about this. The MECHANISMS of evolution are still being debated. Some have shown to be weak, others grow stronger. But these are simply our attempts at understanding a fact, just like gravity.

If you mean evolution and creationism, then no, they are not both correct. They are mutually exclusive.


If you want to believe that a supernatural being started it all by creating the universe and allowing life to evolve, that's all well and good, but you have to have evidence before you can present it as science. Otherwise it's faith, and has no place in the science classroom.


Science has shown that living cells can be produced by chemical reactions under the proper conditions. It has been shown that the entire universe can be explained, logically and consistently, without benefit of supernatural intervention, from approximately one millisecond (maybe less) after the Big Bang.

What we cannot explain (yet) is what happened before and at the precise moment of the Big Bang. What caused it? Where did the matter come from? Many other questions. If you wish to postulate a god of some kind initiating it, that's fine. There's no one to say you are wrong. But without evidence, you cannot claim you are right. You can only have faith.

[Thorne]

I take exception to the statement that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive!!!!
As to that millisecond after the bang, That still leaves an awful lot of time unaccounted for.

I said creationism, not creation, but your point is noted. I should have said "Biblical" Creation, or Genesis. It's quite possible that some kind of being began creation in that millisecond of time. As soon as you provide the evidence for it I'll be happy to adjust my belief system.

Just don't expect me to kneel down and sing his or her or its praises.

[DuncanONeil]

I said creationism, not creation, but your point is noted. I should have said "Biblical" Creation, or Genesis. It's quite possible that some kind of being began creation in that millisecond of time. As soon as you provide the evidence for it I'll be happy to adjust my belief system.

Just don't expect me to kneel down and sing his or her or its praises.

I still see no difference in the terms. Nor do I see any dicotomy in believing in both. For me the fact that you admit a possibility is actually sufficient.
Should there be a creator, even considering the Bible, we would have no concept of what a day constitutes for said being. Nor when they were satisfied with their work.

[denuseri]

I did not forget WW1 Duncan, any historian will tell you its way way to arguable as to weather our late involvment actually saved Eroupe, in the same way at all as WW2. In WW1 we came over a day late and a dollar short with a shovel to "help", in WW2 we came over with a bulldozer.

Any student of the Federalist Papers (which btw is the handbook for constitutional interpetation for the high court) can tell you that the Federal Governemnet must and will hold dominion over that of the states if it wished for the country as a whole to survive. With Homeland Security in full swing, that dominions grip just got a little tighter.

Go ask the Civil War buffs about "State's Rights" lol.

[denuseri]

Precisely my point MMI.

So is that in Europes future?

Or are we looking at one big government for all?

[MMI]

It could quite possibly be the outcome of a federal Europe.

Currently there is a procedure for leaving the EU, but it's never been used (except by colonies upon gaining independence, such as Greenland). Upon federation, that procedure will become as unlikely to be used as Texas is to leave USA.

[denuseri]

So its politics as ussual then huh?

That figues, the only thing thats changed over here is which asshole is in charge lol.

[MMI]

What bren says may be true, but isn't it ironic that the origins of the EU lie in an attempt to prevent any further rise of extreme nationalism after WW2, and the Coal and Steel Community was said to be the first step in the federalisation of Europe.

However, I do believe that, eventually federalisation will come about, despite our differences. After all, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are a union of 4 countries which still consider themselves distinct form each other, have separate legal systems, administrations and culture - some would say that the English have more in common with Americans than with Scots or Irish, and the Scots might find greater kinship with Canadians or Australians than with the English or Welsh. Germany is itself a federation of German principalities and dukedoms, and Italy was formed from a number of independent city states and kingdoms, each of which retains its own identity still. So why not all of Europe eventually?

I'm sure someone, some day, will manage to accumulate enough power to himself to govern Europe as its President, rather than the weak form of presidency it currently has. I personally believe there is more to gain from federalisation than there is to lose.

[MMI]

I don't know about you Thorne, but I can't see ultra violet light, nor infra-red ...

... and it was the biblical God I was referring to.

If the Big Bang was caused by some other uncreated instigator, it does not fit the usual understanding of a god, which, most of all, requires to be praised, lauded and worshipped. One would have thought that any Supreme Being worth His salt would know He was pretty damned good without having to be told.

[steelish]

If the Big Bang was caused by some other uncreated instigator, it does not fit the usual understanding of a god, which, most of all, requires to be praised, lauded and worshipped. One would have thought that any Supreme Being worth His salt would know He was pretty damned good without having to be told.

God does not REQUIRE praise, laudation, or worship. People are the ones who believe that. My belief is that God requires each one of us to live as purely good as we can with our thoughts and actions towards our fellow man. God wants us to emulate his goodness as much as each of us are capable of doing. I do not believe we need to attend church and throw money in the coffers to be believers. God is all around us and within us. Some people simply choose to denounce him, rather than have a quiet and unabiding faith in him.

[Thorne]

God does not REQUIRE praise, laudation, or worship. People are the ones who believe that. My belief is that God requires each one of us to live as purely good as we can with our thoughts and actions towards our fellow man. God wants us to emulate his goodness as much as each of us are capable of doing. I do not believe we need to attend church and throw money in the coffers to be believers. God is all around us and within us. Some people simply choose to denounce him, rather than have a quiet and unabiding faith in him.

I must say that your version of God is much more tolerant than the traditional version. In fact, it's completely at odds with the biblical version of Yahweh/Jehovah. Throughout the Old Testament God smites those who fail to worship or praise him, and even some of those who do.

As for denouncing, I have no wish to do that to those who believe in gods of any kind. I will denounce those who try to force others, through legislation or threat of bodily harm or any other means, to abide by their beliefs.