View Full Version : Which polital party deserve our support?
Greenapple968
16-10-11, 21:12
I can't choose between Labour or the Green party. :(
Personally I wouldn't go for either :whi:
Well, being a Tory, of course I'm gonna say the Conservatives. So far I don't think they've done much wrong given the mess they inherited from Labour.
Labour, well, they're the one party who don't deserve support. They drove the country into the ground financially and have proven that they don't have a plan for the economy. It's all well and good saying "create jobs" but we as a country simply can't afford it.
Certainly not republicans. Those that swing voted their way in have been nothing short of impeding progress without offering help or support for getting out of this crisis.
I am not really fond of any political party...no single party (at least here in the US) represtents everything that I believe in. It seems like both sides are more interested in their continued political careers than in actually doing some good for the country. Many of them also do not seem to even respect the US Constitution anymore. I am just tired of the whole thing right now.
"poli" - many
"tics" - blood-sucking insects
Well, being a Tory, of course I'm gonna say the Conservatives. So far I don't think they've done much wrong given the mess they inherited from Labour.
Labour, well, they're the one party who don't deserve support. They drove the country into the ground financially and have proven that they don't have a plan for the economy. It's all well and good saying "create jobs" but we as a country simply can't afford it.
I'd suggest the Lib Dems have had a helping hand in not getting much wrong. ;) :p
Seriously though, I have no idea. I'm tempted to stick to my convictions with the Lib Dems but its shaky, given the concessions they made as a coalition. Any Lib Dem support would say something similar I imagine.
The (german) pirate party. No joke either. Yes, those guys are only just starting, a lot of their ideas are crazy and they keep making more or less huge mistakes. But they are the only ones who are really re-thinking what the relationship between the government and the citizens should be, how politics should be done and so on. Even if they fail horribly, other parties will be forced to adapt for their own agendas (just like how all parties these days include ideas from the eco side), and I think the world or at least this country really needs that. This country being Germany, of course.
In terms of british parties, I don't have the slightest idea. As far as I can tell, all parties support high-speed rail, so yay for them, I guess. None of them have really come out to support buying the best, cheapest trains instead of only the most british ones. As someone who lives in the country where those best, cheapest trains are coming from, I find that a bit annoying. If there was a party that was really pro european integration (and had any real support), that would be my bet, because I think that even though there are problems, european integration can work and make everyone's life easier. But I think with the current mindset in all of europe, but in particular in the UK, towards the EU, there won't be much support for anything like that.
In terms of US parties, I'm not really happy with either option, but if I had to choose, I'd definitely go democrats. Mainly because in comparison, they stand for a route that is more similar to Europe (e.g. health care, more environment protection, less silly moral bans), and I really like the way things are done in most of Europe.
In terms of the town council for my hometown of Goslar, Germany, I'd say all of them are more or less the same, but I am not a big fan of the Bürgerliste (citizen's list). Most of the times it seems as if that guy is just there to say "no" to absolutely everything. That does not solve the massive structural problems of the entire region (Goslar being a bit more lucky than, say, Bad Harzburg or Clausthal-Zellerfeld) one bit. Yes, I do think it is a bit of a problem that the council members are all too well established and too well connected to make the drastic decisions the town needs, but let's face it, Mr. Wehrmann is not the answer. Especially since he recently separated from the rest of the party. I wonder what that other guy is doing now.
And when it comes to Italy, anyone other than Berlusconi and his supporters.
I'd suggest the Lib Dems have had a helping hand in not getting much wrong. ;) :p
Seriously though, I have no idea. I'm tempted to stick to my convictions with the Lib Dems but its shaky, given the concessions they made as a coalition. Any Lib Dem support would say something similar I imagine.Oh yeah, they've been a good shield. :tmb: :p Amazing how a lot of students probably hate them more than the Conservatives now.
If there was a party that was really pro european integration (and had any real support), that would be my bet, because I think that even though there are problems, european integration can work and make everyone's life easier.No, just no.
No, just no.
Sorry Mad Tony, but is the only(direction) way for Europe.
Later or sooner we will take that road. Just only find the correct moment and some corrects leaders.
I'm a fan of the Galactic Empire Party myself. Gotta love having a fleet of pie slices.
No, just no.
As you may have noticed, I'm not you. :D
Ward Dragon
16-10-11, 23:18
When I saw the thread title I was thinking US so I was tempted to say neither party :p Also I realize that things are done a bit differently in other countries, but here in the US even within the same party different candidates can have significantly different policies on certain issues, so at least for me I don't support any party but rather I try to see which candidate has the best policies overall.
For the UK I would imagine that you can take a similar stance. Try to define which issues are the most important for you and then see which candidate (or which party) has the policies that you most agree with for your most important issues. You can always change your mind and support another candidate (or party) later on if different issues become more important to you :)
Sorry Mad Tony, but is the only(direction) way for Europe.
Later or sooner we will take that road. Just only find the correct moment and some corrects leaders.No it's not, not at all. What makes you think a United States of Europe is the only way forward?
Ward Dragon
17-10-11, 00:34
No it's not, not at all. What makes you think a United States of Europe is the only way forward?
Because in the global arena you'll be stronger united behind the same goals than you are fighting against each other. With all the stuff going on in the world, sooner or later Europe will need to solidify their leadership in order to protect all the European nations' interests against the interests of other countries like China. I'm not saying it should happen, but I think it will happen.
Because in the global arena you'll be stronger united behind the same goals than you are fighting against each other. With all the stuff going on in the world, sooner or later Europe will need to solidify their leadership in order to protect all the European nations' interests against the interests of other countries like China. I'm not saying it should happen, but I think it will happen.European nations don't all have the same goals anyway. All that would happen is is that France and Germany's goals would become the EUSSR's goals. Look at the UK. We haven't been a superpower for over half a century. We're fine being the regional/great power that we are now. We'd rather be that than something more powerful under a European flag. The drawbacks of a fully integrated Europe far outweigh the benefits, at least for the UK. If mainland Europe wants to fuse itself together and give up their freedoms and independence then that's their choice.
Also, I don't like how you portray it as a choice between either fighting each or completely integrating with each other. You don't need a United States of Europe for European nations to not be at war with each other.
No it's not, not at all. What makes you think a United States of Europe is the only way forward?
Because we live in a round planet. And what happens elsewhere in the world affects me.
We can not go to a breakdown of each particular area or region. That is, we can go to a fragmentation of each area, but later or sooner, we must think and act as the conscience or global state.
It is true that every current state, every region has its own identifying characteristics, because each area has an environment, a different geography, but the future is full of bridges and tunnels and highways that inevitably, we will be even more united.
Look at China. Its great wall has also fallen.
Also, I don't like how you portray it as a choice between either fighting each or completely integrating with each other. You don't need a United States of Europe for European nations to not be at war with each other.
Fighting can be more than just war. There are also economic aspects, for example when countries try to outmaneuver each other in foreign markets (both selling products and buying resources). Fighting can also happen through monetary politics (see the US vs. China right now), through tariffs (see the US vs. the EU when it comes to chicken and vans), through selective discrimination of people or companies from the other countries (see France in general) and so on. True, nobody gets killed in that kind of a fight, and it's easily possible to have both a conflict like that and a friendly relationship otherwise. But at the end of the day, these economic fights still do not help anybody.
Because we live in a round planet. And what happens elsewhere in the world affects me.
We can not go to a breakdown of each particular area or region. That is, we can go to a fragmentation of each area, but later or sooner, we must think and act as the conscience or global state.
It is true that every current state, every region has its own identifying characteristics, because each area has an environment, a different geography, but the future is full of bridges and tunnels and highways that inevitably, we will be even more united.
Look at China. Its great wall has also fallen.That's all true but that doesn't mean European countries need to give up their sovereignty and freedoms to a united Europe.
Fighting can be more than just war. There are also economic aspects, for example when countries try to outmaneuver each other in foreign markets (both selling products and buying resources). Fighting can also happen through monetary politics (see the US vs. China right now), through tariffs (see the US vs. the EU when it comes to chicken and vans), through selective discrimination of people or companies from the other countries (see France in general) and so on. True, nobody gets killed in that kind of a fight, and it's easily possible to have both a conflict like that and a friendly relationship otherwise. But at the end of the day, these economic fights still do not help anybody.You don't need an integrated Europe to stop this. The ironic thing about a united Europe is that it would just become another trading bloc, so instead of European nations "fighting" each other, the EU will just end up "fighting" countries outside the continent.
That's all true but that doesn't mean European countries need to give up their sovereignty and freedoms to a united Europe.
This is not to give up its sovereignty, but be aware that if we do not think together, we have no solution.
This is not to give up its sovereignty, but be aware that if we do not think together, we have no solution.I don't really know what you're trying to say, but the more integrated Europe becomes the more sovereignty is lost on a national level.
I don't really know what you're trying to say, but the more integrated Europe becomes the more sovereignty is lost on a national level.
What am I trying to say?
We can not continue as we continue.
We buy and sell anywhere in the world. But the value of things is different at each point in the world. This is unsustainable for much longer. Unless you want business as usual. F.e.
And? that's a problem? Losing national authority, I mean.
The problem is that some of leaders we have are not worth a damn.
I do not care if someone govern me from in front of my home or in Australia. What I want is that that person do it well. I do not care if that person is from China, Swedish or a moon citizen.
What am I trying to say?
We can not continue as we continue.
We buy and sell anywhere in the world. But the value of things is different at each point in the world. This is unsustainable for much longer. Unless you want business as usual. F.e.
And? that's a problem? Losing national authority, I mean.
The problem is that some of leaders we have are not worth a damn.
I do not care if someone govern me from in front of my home or in Australia. What I want is that that person do it well. I do not care if that person is from China, Swedish or a moon citizen.So what you're arguing for is a world government?
A world government is inevitable ultimately.
!Lara Croft!
17-10-11, 10:44
Labour, well, they're the one party who don't deserve support. They drove the country into the ground financially and have proven that they don't have a plan for the economy. It's all well and good saying "create jobs" but we as a country simply can't afford it.
The Labour party over here in new zealand did exactly the same thing..
That's all true but that doesn't mean European countries need to give up their sovereignty and freedoms to a united Europe.
You keep saying "Give up", as if those things were then gone forever and darkness would rein. I prefer to say that we should pool these things.
You don't need an integrated Europe to stop this. The ironic thing about a united Europe is that it would just become another trading bloc, so instead of European nations "fighting" each other, the EU will just end up "fighting" countries outside the continent.
We already do that "fighting" of other countries. Remember the whole dispute between Boeing and Airbus, for example, with all the lawsuits, industrial espionage, the KC767 project and that stuff? This is actually happening. And an important point here: Europe only gets to play in this league because of cooperation. No single european country would be able to build planes that can compete with the american industry. But together, we manage to be a real problem for Boeing.
This is business, of course, not political. And there are examples of international cooperations that didn't work out so well. But given the high value of these industries, there is a lot of political pressure behind that as well.
You keep saying "Give up", as if those things were then gone forever and darkness would rein. I prefer to say that we should pool these things.Call it what you want, it still doesn't change the fact that European countries are losing their sovereignty and freedoms to Brussels. I'm just glad we never signed up to the Euro.
We already do that "fighting" of other countries. Remember the whole dispute between Boeing and Airbus, for example, with all the lawsuits, industrial espionage, the KC767 project and that stuff? This is actually happening. And an important point here: Europe only gets to play in this league because of cooperation. No single european country would be able to build planes that can compete with the american industry. But together, we manage to be a real problem for Boeing.
This is business, of course, not political. And there are examples of international cooperations that didn't work out so well. But given the high value of these industries, there is a lot of political pressure behind that as well.I thought the whole point of a business was to make a profit? I couldn't care less about "challenging the Americans". In fact, as an experienced plane traveler, I prefer Boeing.
That said, I have nothing against Airbus as it doesn't infringe on national sovereignty in any way. So tell me, why exactly do we need a United States of Europe to have big European corporations?
Because in the global arena you'll be stronger united behind the same goals than you are fighting against each other. With all the stuff going on in the world, sooner or later Europe will need to solidify their leadership in order to protect all the European nations' interests against the interests of other countries like China. I'm not saying it should happen, but I think it will happen.We are simply too different for it to happen. British even despise the thought of being called European and just blindly ignore the facts :p Every country in European Continent is simply too different for United States of Europe to work.
As for EU? Well they can go screw themselves and think of better ideas. Free borders, same currency and being able to work and live in any other EU country is bliss, but they have some idiotic regulations that make me wanna bitch slap quite a few of the leaders.
As for my political stand? Whatever... too many parties give speeches and promises that they never end up living up to. The one thing they are good at are taxing the population too much, still having health insurance and public schools that you have to pay for and end up giving the tax payers money to Greece or some other country in trouble. Pfft.
Finally, someone who sees my point. The differences between individual European nations are far great than the differences between individual US states.
Wahah, and that happens rarely :p We usually never agree on anything.
But my ideal party would be open minded when it comes to same sex related stuff, other religions and other issues of the kind. But they also need to realize different ways to tax people and how to use the tax money. The Netherlands have almost the same tax rate as Finland, yet the tax money is just.. I have no idea where it goes. Finland has universal healthcare, free school all the way to university/college (apart from private schools obviously) and you don't need to pay for your ID cards or anything. Yet here all of the above is paid and the support you get from the government is minimal. Obviously there would need to be regulations on what you can get and they should always try to give you a program to get you back to work, but things are just so old fashioned in the politics here..
Ah well. I think I'm pretty much in the middle when it comes to politics. I see the good and bad on both sides. I don't want to live in a socialistic country, but I don't want full on capitalism either.
Wahah, and that happens rarely :p We usually never agree on anything.You know people are always saying this. I'm starting to think people agree with me more than they realize. :p
You know people are always saying this. I'm starting to think people agree with me more than they realize. :p
The problem is: The topics where everyone agrees tend to be over really, really quick.
Ward Dragon
17-10-11, 22:33
Finally, someone who sees my point. The differences between individual European nations are far great than the differences between individual US states.
Less than two hundred years ago, in the states we were killing each other in the bloodiest war in our history and lost far more people than we did in any foreign war. A few hundred years from now, Europe's difference won't matter either.
patriots88888
17-10-11, 22:43
When I saw the thread title I was thinking US so I was tempted to say neither party :p Also I realize that things are done a bit differently in other countries, but here in the US even within the same party different candidates can have significantly different policies on certain issues, so at least for me I don't support any party but rather I try to see which candidate has the best policies overall.
This, oh so this! I can't understand why so many are still so hellbent on voting party when considering that all the parties are so diversified and divided within themselves... there aren't any that represent any well defined ideals/beliefs, not conclusively anyways.
Less than two hundred years ago, in the states we were killing each other in the bloodiest war in our history and lost far more people than we did in any foreign war. A few hundred years from now, Europe's difference won't matter either.That's irrelevant. The US states were never that different, where as European nations are.
Ward Dragon
18-10-11, 21:09
This, oh so this! I can't understand why so many are still so hellbent on voting party when considering that all the parties are so diversified and divided within themselves... there aren't any that represent any well defined ideals/beliefs, not conclusively anyways.
Exactly!
That's irrelevant. The US states were never that different, where as European nations are.
From my perspective, the European countries are a lot more similar to each other than say Massachusetts compared to Georgia. Politically there's much less variation in Europe compared to the US. You're all on roughly the same page for most hot-button issues.
The most significant difference in Europe is the language barrier, although I'd guess that there are more English speakers in non-English European countries compared to non-English speakers in the US :p All of the foreign TRF members who learned English as a second language are much better at writing English than most of the people I've met here in the US :p
From my perspective, the European countries are a lot more similar to each other than say Massachusetts compared to Georgia. Politically there's much less variation in Europe compared to the US. You're all on roughly the same page for most hot-button issues.
The most significant difference in Europe is the language barrier, although I'd guess that there are more English speakers in non-English European countries compared to non-English speakers in the US :p All of the foreign TRF members who learned English as a second language are much better at writing English than most of the people I've met here in the US :pI don't know how to say this, but you're very very wrong. :p European countries have so many differences and legacies. It's a fact that individual European nations are more diverse and different than individual US states (that's not to say US states aren't diverse though). Politically, you couldn't be farther from the truth. If anything Europe is more divided in that respect than the US, and understandably so given all these differences. Which issues are your referring to anyway?
patriots88888
18-10-11, 21:23
The most significant difference in Europe is the language barrier, although I'd guess that there are more English speakers in non-English European countries compared to non-English speakers in the US :p All of the foreign TRF members who learned English as a second language are much better at writing English than most of the people I've met here in the US :p
Not to go OT but I've always wondered why that is. Do you suppose it's as simple as laziness (and taking it for granted), or is it something deeper; a reflection upon our school systems? Or perhaps the internet is to blame (all the rampant internet speak which we see on a daily basis)? Although that last one would apply to everyone and not just Americans if that were the reason. Maybe a new thread is in order (Why is there such poor literacy in America)?
Ward Dragon
18-10-11, 22:39
I don't know how to say this, but you're very very wrong. :p European countries have so many differences and legacies. It's a fact that individual European nations are more diverse and different than individual US states (that's not to say US states aren't diverse though). Politically, you couldn't be farther from the truth. If anything Europe is more divided in that respect than the US, and understandably so given all these differences. Which issues are your referring to anyway?
Is there a European nation which doesn't have strong government entitlement programs? (Health care, university funding, welfare, etc.) I've gotten the impression that all of the European countries are fairly close to each other in the same general area of the "free market vs. government control" spectrum.
Also, as far as social issues go, there seems to be much more personal freedom on a lot of issues that are illegal or heavily regulated in the US (alcohol, drugs, abortion, gay marriage, etc.).
Not to go OT but I've always wondered why that is. Do you suppose it's as simple as laziness (and taking it for granted), or is it something deeper; a reflection upon our school systems? Or perhaps the internet is to blame (all the rampant internet speak which we see on a daily basis)? Although that last one would apply to everyone and not just Americans if that were the reason. Maybe a new thread is in order (Why is there such poor literacy in America)?
The American school system is terrible (especially in the areas where the students need the most help). A lot of the regulations are crippling to actually teaching a class. For example, the inclusion policy. Legally, special ed. children have to be placed in the "least restrictive environment" which sounds nice on paper.
However in reality it means having a classroom of 24 students (the legal limit is 12 special ed. students per 1 teacher, so they put a co-teacher if there are a lot of special ed. students in the class). 24 isn't that bad if the students behave and pay attention, but guaranteed a fair number of them have ADHD, are emotionally disturbed, or have some other issue which causes them to be very disruptive to the rest of the class.
No matter how good the teacher is, it's not possible for the students to learn too much when half the class time is spent trying to keep the students in their seats and paying attention (and of course, if a few students with something like ADHD spontaneously get up and run around the room, most of the other students will do it too just because they saw it happen).
And good luck trying to get any kind of administrative support in dealing with troublemakers. In most schools, the administrators will blame the teacher for not being able to control the classroom if the teacher writes up too many students for misbehaving. The students know this, which gives them all the power because they know they can completely ignore the teacher and it will be the teacher who gets in trouble if the teacher complains about it.
On a side note, if a foreign person does not understand English then why would they post on an English forum? :p So TRF attracts foreigners who speak English well enough to understand the threads and reply to them. I just wanted to say that because I did make a slightly slanted comparison before when I was joking. The TRF members are exceptional ^_^
patriots88888
18-10-11, 22:55
And good luck trying to get any kind of administrative support in dealing with troublemakers. In most schools, the administrators will blame the teacher for not being able to control the classroom if the teacher writes up too many students for misbehaving. The students know this, which gives them all the power because they know they can completely ignore the teacher and it will be the teacher who gets in trouble if the teacher complains about it.
That's terrible! No wonder. :/
Then the administrators need to sit in the classroom and observe first hand what is going on... the only solution I can think of at this time. [stating the obvious, I know] Is there anything which would prevent that from happening? Or are they simply being willfully blase about it all (turning a deaf ear and blind eye, so to speak)?
Ward Dragon
18-10-11, 23:07
That's terrible! No wonder. :/
Then the administrators need to sit in the classroom and observe first hand what is going on... the only solution I can think of at this time. [stating the obvious, I know] Is there anything which would prevent that from happening? Or are they simply being willfully blase about it all (turning a deaf ear and blind eye, so to speak)?
Some administrators are very good (I'm currently working as a secretary at a vocational high school and the administrators here are very involved and help take care of problems).
However, for the schools with bad administrators, I'm sure they know what's going on and they just don't care. When I was student teaching, there was one day where I was trying to do the lesson and the students were hyperactive bouncing off the walls, constantly leaving their seats and talking over me, meanwhile the special ed. co-teacher was sitting on the heater by the window not doing anything. Actually that was pretty much every day, but that particular day the principal happened to walk in to observe me.
Afterwards I got called down to her office and she blamed me for everything, including the special ed. co-teacher not doing anything. She accused me of intentionally leaving the co-teacher out as if I thought I was better than her and didn't want to include her in the lesson, so obviously it must have been my fault that the co-teacher didn't want to help me control the class. The principal didn't want to hear my side of the story (which is that I had repeatedly asked the co-teacher for help but she just ignored me because she was too busy helping one of her students cheat on his assignments).
And of course the principal had seen how the students acted and said it was normal and if I can't handle it I shouldn't be a teacher. She was right on that part at least. If that's how ****ed up the public school system is, then I don't want anything to do with it. That's pretty much why I support vouchers so that parents have the opportunity to pull their children out of hellholes like that and put them into a decent school where they will be safe and can actually learn something.
Is there a European nation which doesn't have strong government entitlement programs? (Health care, university funding, welfare, etc.) I've gotten the impression that all of the European countries are fairly close to each other in the same general area of the "free market vs. government control" spectrum.
Also, as far as social issues go, there seems to be much more personal freedom on a lot of issues that are illegal or heavily regulated in the US (alcohol, drugs, abortion, gay marriage, etc.).It really does depend on the nation. I'll give you health care and "strong" government entitlement programs (although that really does depend on your definition of strong and which country we're talking about). With university funding however there are vast differences. Even in the UK tuition fees are now £9,000 a year for England where as in Scotland they are "free". Some European countries completely subsidize university education, others don't. With regards to free market vs government control, that again depends on the country. Fortunately we're quite free market here in the UK where as a lot of mainland European countries have more regulation.
Once again, social issues depend on the country. Here in the UK there are quite strict drug laws, where as in the Netherlands they're really liberal. Same goes for a lot of social issues actually. In short, there are loads more differences between individual European nations than you think. If you were to put all the western democracies on a sliding scale I'd say you'd have Scandinavian countries on one end, followed by countries like France and Germany, a pretty big gap, then the UK and then another gap and then the US.
Perhaps an integration of mainland Europe could work if that is what they wish, but Britain must definitely keep out of any European federation. Europeans love to call us "Europhobic", but in actual fact, we just have our own way of doing things.
patriots88888
18-10-11, 23:18
Some administrators are very good (I'm currently working as a secretary at a vocational high school and the administrators here are very involved and help take care of problems).
However, for the schools with bad administrators, I'm sure they know what's going on and they just don't care. When I was student teaching, there was one day where I was trying to do the lesson and the students were hyperactive bouncing off the walls, constantly leaving their seats and talking over me, meanwhile the special ed. co-teacher was sitting on the heater by the window not doing anything. Actually that was pretty much every day, but that particular day the principal happened to walk in to observe me.
Afterwards I got called down to her office and she blamed me for everything, including the special ed. co-teacher not doing anything. She accused me of intentionally leaving the co-teacher out as if I thought I was better than her and didn't want to include her in the lesson, so obviously it must have been my fault that the co-teacher didn't want to help me control the class. The principal didn't want to hear my side of the story (which is that I had repeatedly asked the co-teacher for help but she just ignored me because she was too busy helping one of her students cheat on his assignments).
And of course the principal had seen how the students acted and said it was normal and if I can't handle it I shouldn't be a teacher. She was right on that part at least. If that's how ****ed up the public school system is, then I don't want anything to do with it. That's pretty much why I support vouchers so that parents have the opportunity to pull their children out of hellholes like that and put them into a decent school where they will be safe and can actually learn something.
Wowza! I had no idea that it was actually that bad. I take it not all the students in each class are special ed? Why can't they have better (or even complete) seperation of those students from those who are not? If I recall correctly, when I was in school, we had exclusive special ed classes for those students who needed that extra special attention. The situation you were in hardly seems fair at all and I fail to see how the administrators and those in authority would expect their teachers to make an impossible situation like that work.
My only other solution is not a favorable one (as far as the troublemakers who are not special ed are concerned)... bring back corporal punishment.
Is there a European nation which doesn't have strong government entitlement programs? (Health care, university funding, welfare, etc.) I've gotten the impression that all of the European countries are fairly close to each other in the same general area of the "free market vs. government control" spectrum.
Also, as far as social issues go, there seems to be much more personal freedom on a lot of issues that are illegal or heavily regulated in the US (alcohol, drugs, abortion, gay marriage, etc.).
That is true, but perhaps too simple. Those are the big issues in the US; we have other ones. Right now, the question how to solve the Euro crisis is a big issue where Germany has very different opinions from France, for example. In foreign politics, I can't recall a time where the EU agreed on something more substantial than "peace is good, in general".
On social issues, there is not much debate on the european level. In fact, there hardly is any debate about anything on the european level at all; anything that happens is people at a national level discussing how stupid those idiots in Brussels are. This is a problem in its own right. Now, many of the issues that you in the US are fighting over have been solved here, that's true, but it still is very hard to get an abortion in Ireland, and Malta legalized divorces only about a month ago. Religion still plays an important role in the mediterranean area, but is quickly fading out of sight north of the Alps (with exceptions in particular for Poland and Ireland). When it comes to fighting terror, the UK use an almost paranoid approach, while other countries are much more relaxed. There is a wide variety on how the entitlement programs are being built and how much they should do - german governments have cut a lot, while scandinavian countries tend to have very extensive programs and very high taxes to pay for this all. Oh, and we can't agree on what side of the road to drive on and how fast at most.
As for the language barrier, don't underestimate that. The people you interact with online have a certain selection bias. Sure, you can get by with english most of the time, but finding someone who doesn't understand it is always very easy. And given that most europeans don't understand german either and that my french really, really sucks, vacations can get quite interesting once you leave the area where all the tourists hang out… By the way, generally speaking, people in smaller countries speak better english than those in larger countries; in large part because movies don't get dubbed to dutch or finnish or the like, just subtitled.
A "United States of Europe", as Winston Churchill said, is not going to be easy at all. It will take a lot of work, time, and opposition from people like Mad Tony – and those people aren't crazy idiots; there are a lot of problems with european unification as it is implemented today. Personally, I think it is nevertheless a good idea and probably necessary in the future. But it's maybe not as easy as you make it out to be.
Ward Dragon
18-10-11, 23:41
Wowza! I had no idea that it was actually that bad. I take it not all the students in each class are special ed? Why can't they have better (or even complete) seperation of those students from those who are not? If I recall correctly, when I was in school, we had exclusive special ed classes for those students who needed that extra special attention. The situation you were in hardly seems fair at all and I fail to see how the administrators and those in authority would expect their teachers to make an impossible situation like that work.
My only other solution is not a favorable one (as far as the troublemakers who are not special ed are concerned)... bring back corporal punishment.
Thanks to "No Child Left Behind" all public schools are legally required to include special ed. students in the general classes unless the students are impaired enough to need constant attention (like help going to bathroom), or unless the students are extremely dangerous.
On social issues, there is not much debate on the european level. In fact, there hardly is any debate about anything on the european level at all; anything that happens is people at a national level discussing how stupid those idiots in Brussels are.
And in the US, most things are done on the state level while we complain about what idiots are in the federal government :p
A "United States of Europe", as Winston Churchill said, is not going to be easy at all. It will take a lot of work, time, and opposition from people like Mad Tony – and those people aren't crazy idiots; there are a lot of problems with european unification as it is implemented today. Personally, I think it is nevertheless a good idea and probably necessary in the future. But it's maybe not as easy as you make it out to be.
I'm not trying to make it out to be easy, nor do I necessarily think that the current European Union is the way to go. I'm just trying to say that I certainly don't think these differences are insurmountable. I think European unification is inevitable and will happen sooner or later. It's just the way that things are going now. With how easy it is to travel and communicate with other countries, all of these barriers will fall and all countries will become more connected to each other.
patriots88888
18-10-11, 23:59
Thanks to "No Child Left Behind" all public schools are legally required to include special ed. students in the general classes unless the students are impaired enough to need constant attention (like help going to bathroom), or unless the students are extremely dangerous.
What an ironic title considering that it's actually achieving the opposite of what was intended (based on your replies, it appears more and more are being left behind). I can't even begin to understand how 'extra, special attention' would be considered 'leaving students (child) behind'. Just one more example bureaucratic insanity. :/
Not the TorysIt's Tories. ;)
Just wondering though, why the opposition to the Tories? I didn't think British politics got that much coverage in America.
@MT,
Did you see the story on the BBC website Backbenchers calling for a referendum on the UK staying in the EU?
Three choices
1, Keep the status quo
2, Pull out
3, Renegotiate UK's terms and conditions
Never going to happen though as all party leaders will advise their MP's to vote down such a referendum.
So much for being a democracy, matters of UK involvement within the EU are a constitutional matter and as such it is wrong to deny the British people the right to vote on the future of this nation :mad:
Our MP's are cowards and terrified Britain will finally wake up and vote option 2 or 3 :( It's bad enough the UK contributing to the bail out of Republic of Ireland and Greece WTF!
@MT,
Did you see the story on the BBC website Backbenchers calling for a referendum on the UK staying in the EU?
Three choices
1, Keep the status quo
2, Pull out
3, Renegotiate UK's terms and conditions
Never going to happen though as all party leaders will advise their MP's to vote down such a referendum.
So much for being a democracy, matters of UK involvement within the EU are a constitutional matter and as such it is wrong to deny the British people the right to vote on the future of this nation :mad:
Our MP's are cowards and terrified Britain will finally wake up and vote option 2 or 3 :( It's bad enough the UK contributing to the bail out of Republic of Ireland and Greece WTF!If I recall the referendum wouldn't be binding.
I wouldn't say all MPs are cowards, just the front benchers. I have no idea why Cameron is so reluctant to stand up to Brussels.
If I recall the referendum wouldn't be binding.
I wouldn't say all MPs are cowards, just the front benchers. I have no idea why Cameron is so reluctant to stand up to Brussels.
In a word....Coalition, the Liberals have him over a barrel, the Tories conceded way too much to satisfy them, EU standing being one of them :(
Still to be fair the current situation is better than a Labour government that would willingly hand Britain over i suppose >>
:D
In a word....Coalition, the Liberals have him over a barrel, the Tories conceded way too much to satisfy them, EU standing being one of them :(
Still to be fair the current situation is better than a Labour government that would willingly hand Britain over i suppose >>
:DCameron's eagerness to appease the Liberals has annoyed me a bit, although you are of course right about it being better than a Labour government.
Chug a Bug
21-10-11, 16:01
I can't choose between Labour or the Green party. :(
We've got a Green MP here and I can't tell the difference between them and Labour. Neither can she, it seems. Listening to her rattling on on a political debate she seemed to talk about every sub-Labour/socialist/marxist policy agenda imaginable but not once did she actually talk about any Green issues.
But to answer the question, anybody except Labour.
The Green Party is more left-wing than Labour, and since Labour sucks at running as Government, then I can't see the Green Party doing any better ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.