Bacchus

Whatever about it really? A nation under god...lol, if it makes them feel better...why not? We (in Québec) had a period in the 50' which had basically the same sett of mind toward religion...God was everywhere, under every rugs, etc... we ended up so paranoid that we stopped believing in the "trust"... the god-fearing french-canadian began smoking weed, getting laid and they enjoyed life now yea, yeaa...Jesus walks with me, he's my pusher

wow, ain't it very unilateral thinking! ok, i'm not an economist...whereas some looks to be or are studying it. but: I know that a by-product of right-sided liberalism is poverty and exploitation of the masses. Maquilladoras aren't exactly a job and yea people go there to work because they're thrown out of their arable land by promotors with "lawful" papers saying they own the land. Peasants are exploiting ancestral lands, they do not have papers. End of story, promotors ask for law enforcement, bribe gvnmt officials and boom the farmer end up working in some backward Nike factory. Sure, they go there to work. but let's have a reality check here: We (industrialized, capitalised nation) are pushing this way of life on 2/3 of the world. Back when Adam Smith was writing An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (which was in what...? 1776?) there was no such thing as a factory (ok, there was or was beginning to have factorial (spelling) chains), no m!@#$%^&* production technologies, and no m!@#$%^&* data managing system. There was a slight will to "reingeneer" (spell.) the workspaces and technics used by employees to produce whatever they were producing. When industrialization begun, new ways to augment production were found; steam engine, electricity, etc. The effect of that was a bigger production, surplus were made, money was travelling (which is good), etc. then unemployement hit an all-time high. For every machine, 10 employees were losing their jobs, which !@#$%^&*ociated salary became cheaper and cheaper. The agriculture, which represented if i'm not mistaken 85% of USA work force, developped (a while later) new ways of collecting vegetables, wheat, etc. In less than 10 years 60% employees lost their jobs. Most of them were afro-americans or latino-americans. Since segregationism was still an issue, most of them hadn't received an adequate education which would have allowed them to work as technician, mecanician, etc. So they ended up in the cities slums looking for slave-wage jobs...or they were looking for rich caucasian americans...who knows. The american economy dwindled (see crash) and Workers began !@#$%^&*ociating in union (yea, yea). As workers were winning more advantages (better salary, condition, less work hour per week...see fordism), the work force began a slow migration toward the service industry. A whole new setts of jobs were created (which is very good). Surplus were allowing export and affordable prices, jobs were good...everything was going as planned. Then someone invented the computer. A whole set of jobs were lost again as the computing machines were doing better then say...a human mind. As always, the real question is this: Why would a company pay 40k a year to have 5 Joe Blow with a degrees in finance when all they need is 100k accountant verifying the books integrity? Simple calcutions can be given to a 15k tech with knowledge in the appropriate accounting software. The company just saved 85k, which it will reinject either as profit or in investment. now 3 people need a new job. Multiply that by a whole world, and boom! in 50years...we're -*BAD WORD*-ed! Or...we find a way to adapt capitalism to somekind of a social ingeneering; which Sun System ceo, *enter his name here*, calls *picture grin here*; !@#$%^&*tytainment (spelling). Which basically is a way of saying that big company (representing 5% of the world riches and owning 51% of the world savings) must find ways to "manipulate" the unworking masses in organizing themselves in cooperative kinda...living from crumbs at the fringes of the rich and glamorous society...which by then will be more or less 1/4 (on a family of 4, only one will make a living) of the world population. Occident included. So, I think rampant capitalism and free markets are errors which should be avoided. Mind you, not destroyed...checked, quite thoroughly. There are ways, long term ways, to avoid social degenerescence, political enthropy and such...if only folks could stop thinking that there's only one this is gonna work... Finance and accounting, reingeneering, stock market, etc...those are part of a language, this only work because of consensus but there are ways to adapt the system; Tobin tax is an exemple, so is a salary limit (usually fixed at 40 x minimum wage i think), etc. my 2..errm...4 cents

it's not the EU per see which is discussed, but the effects of an "economical federalism" on the participating nation-state... mmh, juicy, isn't it

Ail, i'm not sure it's intended as an "opinion"text but as an informative one. It's critically and theoretically sound. It's critical tool, you can fathom whatever opinion you want after reading it. The point was to present how globalization was affecting nation-state sovereignty over their domestic policies (via their economical power), thus ensuring that this nation-state gov. can still represent it's people voice (in a democracy). And off course individual nation-states will control their internal affairs but they will do so according to the EU "cons!@#$%^&*ution" which presents a very large number of pre-requisite ensuring the EU members an economical standard, thus the necessary stability for the EU (and EURO) to survive the onslaught of world economy. As such, nation-states are effectively forfeiting some if not all their sovereignty to a bigger body.

Nice post there LW! I already knew that globalization was a threat to a nation-state integrity but it was a partial diagnostic... I still need to process your post a little but it has enlightened me on the different forces at work (economic one) and where they were having influences in domestic policies/economics. I'll write more comments later, I need to write it down before posting it gj.

so basically, you're saying that if the Ottoman have had their religion and state separate enough, they would have been more fit to survive? I mean, there wouldn't have had any problem with laws, legal and civil rights, etc, if the state heads had built a senate and wrote a cons!@#$%^&*ution granting it powers over those issues. then the forefathers could have proposed this Big Book and everyone would have voted on it et voila! I think that if the state is strong enough, it doesn't need religion. religion have this knack for creating injustice and discrimination (like so many other things). and a culture can be quite colorful and mixed and still be call "national" or an iden!@#$%^&*y. Isn't it the case in say..New-York? or in the US as a whole? In occident in general? Why would we need half a theocracy to run a country? I can't think of anything aside from more power, spiritual and temporal. that's what Philippe Le Bel (France king in 1300), he wanted a french pope...for a little while there was 2 popes, anyway...He wnated both powers. power over the mind and power over the land. then the hundred years war begun... Too much power in the same place isn't good. That's why there's cons!@#$%^&*utions written; to split the power so that abuse can be contained. Hence a legifering body (spelling) and an executive one. President, Prime minister, higher court of law, senate, congress, etc.

I don't like being coerced into submission. I'd feel like an hyppocrit if i were pledging to god, or any other divinity. Although it's part of an heritage and as such should not be forgotten, i'd say that religion shouldn't be a part of a public eduction system in a country supposedly democratic.

weel, it's still worth more than your on posts, no?

mmh, although me and MM are having an argument, plz note that we're holding on tracks, even minimally

ok, about the nazi thing...i won't explain it to you. but since you need a draft, i was refering to you because of your: and the ethnic bashing more or less present in your posts.2)they do not surrender at the firat sign of trouble. They respected an international agreement not to participate in an illegal war. whereas US took unilateral action. Wether or not it was a good thing should be discussed elsewhere. 3)lol, i'm not american but I know for a fact that your borders aren't "open" for everyone. And i didn't say: americans are xenophobic. I said YOU are xenophobic, or so did you sound in your post about french culture. I'm working with the public a lot. Americans and French alike are border paranoid. They both lack basic respect and/or politness. But usually, they're quite ok and reasonable. 4) yea. ok. no need to brag about that. it's a known fact. And Euro isn't failing. 4a)ok 4b)whatever 5)As you pointed out, i'm hailing from french canada (Québec that is)...I didn't know that NATFA was abbreviate of ALENA...i suppose you haven't heard of that one, eh? son, there's more than one language on this planet... 6)yea, you'd learn some french. 7)I'd agree with that if it wasn't naive. History have shown that complete liberalism doesn't work. ... Yea, i heard about Menendez, Simpson and all... that's precisely to avoid such incident that guns should be regulated. My bottom line is this: Am I willing to balance my life and, if fate allows, that of my family on the responsible use of guns or would i feel much more secure if there was no guns whatsoever? i say no guns. Off course, we could be butchered by a madman with a knife or such. But come to think of it, i prefer defending myself from a knife than from a gun.

ok, we've now succeeded in turning this quite lively thread in a flame war. 1) where on earth did i mentioned being a nazi? you're the one doing cultural bashing right now. [edit] 1a) do your homework mate, we have almost the same ethnic proportion as you...heck, Toronto's chinese quarter is one of the biggest in both americas. Vancouver is half asian, etc. 2) what about being french? At least they don't go all around whining about being victims or playing World Police like some re-*BAD WORD*-ed bully. 3)being french is uncultured? based on what? this argument is so devoid of meaning and so full of xenophobiac nonsense...i'd say you're the one being "uncultured"...what kind of word is that anyway? is there something like "unculture" in the english vocabulary? 4)oh, you can pay for whatever pleasure you want..btw, did you notice that US dollar and Canadian dollar aren't the same currency? off course our ASSS are cheaper to you...US cash is worth more! Anyway, you're sex life isn't in my list of interests. plz, spare me this chapter of your life. 5)What's NATFA? What about business? our countries economy are so merged with each other that splitting would hurt US and Canada a good lot more than say...about anything you might or could figure judging by your more than evident "unculture". 6)at least we're both agreeing on the fact that Bush is a loose cannon...some people get married on less, so i guess we might have a chance at some peace. 7) plz notice that my first post was only about how i felt about guns. Why did you jumped on me in the first place? Back on track: The causes for needing self-protection (what kind of a syntax is that, well...sue me if i sux at syntax) are imo originating from social causes; poverty, unemployement, education, etc. Causes from which the usual governments are backing out from. The more wild the capitalism, the split the social classes...and then lower classes people become envious and angry, etc. violence, bla bla bla...you all know the drill i'm pretty sure. my point is that a governement should back community works and social causes. Salary should be sufficient to avoid law enforcement or low level clerk corruption. Health should be universal, education should be available to all at least on a technical level. Fiscal laws should reflect the social reality...thus big company shoudl pay more then say, a poor family. etc. Crime rate would be lowered, guns would become somewhat obsolete, and everyone would be less stressed out. don't tell me it's utopia, it's been tested and mother approved in more than one country.

hhaha, and ì'm the one being refered to as a nazi! laff, you're a -*BAD WORD*-ing joke man Anyway, you're point being? Whatever floats your boats buddy. No wonder you like our red lights, our ASSS are cheaper, heh? All in all, and statistically speaking, canadian crime rate is still WAY under yours...and firearms are regulated and most are prohibited. yea, i'm a Michael Moore fan, and Bush is a moronic loose cannon.

wow, go ez on me man! i live in Canada. As it is, firearms are regulated in almost all occidental country apart from US. calm down, there's isn't evil nmies and terrorists on those forums. oh by the way: get a life. I think the question isn't if one could have a gun for self-defense but why do you feel that you need to defend yourself? do you live in such a dangerous neiborghood that you'll feel better protected by having a gun? wow, freakin' far west heh partner! why don' ye go do they cow?

Why would you need a gun anyway? I live in a country where no one apart from law enforcement have a gun... What's the amendment number already? anyway, i'm against it...