Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Sat Nov 01, 2014 12:30 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 166 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:42 pm
Posts: 814
Location: Boston, mASSHOLEchusetts, USA
BBP wrote:
BatchainPartIV wrote:
Because the promise was so different from the subsequent legal realities that the unpopular moves made by the Dutch government would have been uniform across the Continent and no legal challenges to international exception would be possible. You'd have essentially what we have in the US: total, complete corporate rule and uniform de-regulatory law and without the right of any individual nation's laws to challenge any of its amendments. If you read the 18 stated goals for Europe's future it smells of all sweetness and light which ought to let you know right away that that's only the packaging and not the contents nor the subsequent legalities resulting from it would hold legal force uniformly, far beyond those of The Netherlands.

And many do give a big, fat rat's ass about "globalization" because it does narrow down the number of decision-makers for larger and larger areas of the world and without regard to the specifics only those intimately familiar with their own specific regions can accurately assess, not alleged "experts" or appointed "experts" to evaluate.

--Bat


The unpopular moves by the Dutch government have led to a slower economic recovery, a towering unemployment among the higher-educated and the not-so-young-but-below-50s, increase of age and racial discrimination, decrease of foreign students coming to The Netherlands, the death of refugees being sent to their "safe" home country, horrific "throwing out" of refugees that have lived here for more than 5 years, radical changes in college education leading to an organisatory madness, the changes in public health-care leading to much higher contributions, the privatisation of energy companies leading to unnecessarily high gas/electricity/water bills...
The only reason the inflation isn't huge in Holland is the "War of the Supermarkets", which started when the biggest supermarket chain decided to radically lower prices, causing others to follow, and causing many mini-markets to disappear. It also resulted in small stocks: there's no buying romanesco, kiwi jelly or English mustard now.
What could the European constitution do that's possibly worse?

I've said the following twice now, and I'll do it a third time since you didn't seem to have read it:

The European Constitution is essentially A SUMMARY OF EARLIER DECISIONS. There's nothing in it that wasn't already regulated before.

Legal uniformity would be as impossible as it is in the States. I don't know much about the US and laws, but I do know that some things are illegal in some states, but not in others.
There's a big difference in the legislation between, say, Netherlands and Belgium. For instance, Belgium has a jury system, NL hasn't. There's absolutely no unifying the two systems, they're way too different. How wuld you unify 35 of these? Besides, a uniform legislation was never the goal of Europe, it would mean the demise of gay marriage, the euthanasia laws in NL and Belgium, possibly the abortion laws, the Dutch soft drug legalisation etc.

And what do you mean by "globalisation"? You're quite business-oriented in your argumentation, a bit melancholical even. It seems to me you consider it a disastrous scenario, rather than something that's happening and causing the world to be a little bit smaller every day. Thanks to globalisation, I'm able to talk to you. If it weren't for the Internet, which is a bigger gateway to a unified culture than any legislation, I wouldn't be talking to any of the wonderful people on this site. Europe is currently a long way from the USA when it comes to corporate control, and I don't think the Constitution would have taken the EU any step closer to the disastrous environment you're telling us about.
Quote:
I've said the following twice now, and I'll do it a third time since you didn't seem to have read it:

The European Constitution is essentially A SUMMARY OF EARLIER DECISIONS. There's nothing in it that wasn't already regulated before.

Legal uniformity would be as impossible as it is in the States. I don't know much about the US and laws, but I do know that some things are illegal in some states, but not in others.
There's a big difference in the legislation between, say, Netherlands and Belgium. For instance, Belgium has a jury system, NL hasn't. There's absolutely no unifying the two systems, they're way too different. How wuld you unify 35 of these? Besides, a uniform legislation was never the goal of Europe, it would mean the demise of gay marriage, the euthanasia laws in NL and Belgium, possibly the abortion laws, the Dutch soft drug legalisation etc.

And what do you mean by "globalisation"? You're quite business-oriented in your argumentation, a bit melancholical even. It seems to me you consider it a disastrous scenario, rather than something that's happening and causing the world to be a little bit smaller every day. Thanks to globalisation, I'm able to talk to you. If it weren't for the Internet, which is a bigger gateway to a unified culture than any legislation, I wouldn't be talking to any of the wonderful people on this site. Europe is currently a long way from the USA when it comes to corporate control, and I don't think the Constitution would have taken the EU any step closer to the disastrous environment you're telling us about.
I've said the following twice now, and I'll do it a third time since you didn't seem to have read it:

The European Constitution is essentially A SUMMARY OF EARLIER DECISIONS. There's nothing in it that wasn't already regulated before.

Legal uniformity would be as impossible as it is in the States. I don't know much about the US and laws, but I do know that some things are illegal in some states, but not in others.
There's a big difference in the legislation between, say, Netherlands and Belgium. For instance, Belgium has a jury system, NL hasn't. There's absolutely no unifying the two systems, they're way too different. How wuld you unify 35 of these? Besides, a uniform legislation was never the goal of Europe, it would mean the demise of gay marriage, the euthanasia laws in NL and Belgium, possibly the abortion laws, the Dutch soft drug legalisation etc.

And what do you mean by "globalisation"? You're quite business-oriented in your argumentation, a bit melancholical even. It seems to me you consider it a disastrous scenario, rather than something that's happening and causing the world to be a little bit smaller every day. Thanks to globalisation, I'm able to talk to you. If it weren't for the Internet, which is a bigger gateway to a unified culture than any legislation, I wouldn't be talking to any of the wonderful people on this site. Europe is currently a long way from the USA when it comes to corporate control, and I don't think the Constitution would have taken the EU any step closer to the disastrous environment you're telling us about.[/quote] It really is simple and and I cannot understand why you think I've failed to read some part or any part at all of anything you've stated. "The Internet" is a lie. It is what global telecommunications systems have expanded into given the advances in digital technology during the 1980s. The original "ARPANET" was a scrapped piece of junk by the set up by the US Military in 1969 when they realized that it was a useless US-only network as vulnerable as the strings of hanging copper phone wire that had been around for nearly a century. What we still refer to as "The Internet" is better described as "The World Wide Web" -- telecommunications companies implementing the digital technology as it became available and profitable. The original "Internet" doesn't even constitute a skeletal fraction of it as "The World Wide Web" is only what the old telephone companies have become.

Back to globalization. No, the aims of a European Constitution would not be to alter the tradtional legal systems of individual European nations and their traditional functions, it would be to lay the groundwork for a uniformity of de-regulation strictly for purposes of not having to obey whatever individual existing national laws restricted corporate ownnership and regulation on the basis that those laws were in conflict with the basic guarantees in the European Constituton.
And of course I'm presnting my arguments in "business-oriented" terms because it's exactly who owns what that determines who gets jobs, which schools attract more students, what is taught and how many supermarkets can be owned in any given area. I don't think having a "melancholic" or "dark view" of any of this is quite so far beyond justification. If a "E.C." actually did mean no change then who would waste time formulating it and trying to get Europeans to want to have it? Well, the WTO was no small influence in drafting it. Remember the furious rioting in places as distant as Genoa and Seattle when they convened there? A whole lot of people didn't like the fact that so few had so much say in what their lives were going to be like and they let it be known but to those inside they never heard a thing. And the US Constitution is nothing but a historical relic with no special relevance to anything anymore and its death knell was sounded by the Bush Administration once "9/11" happened and the Dictatorship of the President was firmly established. His current approval rating is down to 35% but he would be re-elected tomorrow if a race were run.

--Bat (More later but I'm fading fast here.)[/quote]

_________________
Image<--Photo ArtWerk by Debutante Daisy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 3:45 am
Posts: 9596
Location: EINDHOVEN
BatchainPartIV wrote:
It really is simple and and I cannot understand why you think I've failed to read some part or any part at all of anything you've stated. "The Internet" is a lie. It is what global telecommunications systems have expanded into given the advances in digital technology during the 1980s. The original "ARPANET" was a scrapped piece of junk by the set up by the US Military in 1969 when they realized that it was a useless US-only network as vulnerable as the strings of hanging copper phone wire that had been around for nearly a century. What we still refer to as "The Internet" is better described as "The World Wide Web" -- telecommunications companies implementing the digital technology as it became available and profitable. The original "Internet" doesn't even constitute a skeletal fraction of it as "The World Wide Web" is only what the old telephone companies have become.

Back to globalization. No, the aims of a European Constitution would not be to alter the tradtional legal systems of individual European nations and their traditional functions, it would be to lay the groundwork for a uniformity of de-regulation strictly for purposes of not having to obey whatever individual existing national laws restricted corporate ownnership and regulation on the basis that those laws were in conflict with the basic guarantees in the European Constituton.
And of course I'm presnting my arguments in "business-oriented" terms because it's exactly who owns what that determines who gets jobs, which schools attract more students, what is taught and how many supermarkets can be owned in any given area. I don't think having a "melancholic" or "dark view" of any of this is quite so far beyond justification. If a "E.C." actually did mean no change then who would waste time formulating it and trying to get Europeans to want to have it? Well, the WTO was no small influence in drafting it. Remember the furious rioting in places as distant as Genoa and Seattle when they convened there? A whole lot of people didn't like the fact that so few had so much say in what their lives were going to be like and they let it be known but to those inside they never heard a thing. And the US Constitution is nothing but a historical relic with no special relevance to anything anymore and its death knell was sounded by the Bush Administration once "9/11" happened and the Dictatorship of the President was firmly established. His current approval rating is down to 35% but he would be re-elected tomorrow if a race were run.

--Bat (More later but I'm fading fast here.)


Very few have much to say about what's going on in any so-called democracy, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The main problem with Europe and legislation, is that the only voting the people get to do, is for the parliament. The European Parliament has no power, all it can do is advice. That's a very good reason for anyone calling himself intellectual to get pissed off.
One very good reason to put all earlier statements and decisions involving Europe into one, is because it's easier. There's no need to wrestle through all the different pacts and agreements of eg Rome and Maastricht, which will be a big time-saver.

Is the constitution still a relic? Whenever someone wants to tighten the weapon legislation, the NRA waves with it, saying everyone has the rights to have arms because it's in the book. (Tie that to Iran). Same story for freedom-of-speech activists.
PS For 6 years I've been a member of impeachbush.org. Once upon a time I was an avid contributor to bushandcheneyjokes.com, but that site mysteriously disappeared.

_________________
Image
Join the PackardGoose forum! Send me a PM!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:42 pm
Posts: 814
Location: Boston, mASSHOLEchusetts, USA
Mr_Green_Genes wrote:
BatchainPartIV wrote:
That's not the same as locking youself in a garage and inhaling lethal amounts of carbon monoxide -- but you are still inhaling some amount! Certainly it's higher levels in industrial areas than far out in the sticks somewhere - but neither contains enough to kill you as does a closed-in garage where it is concentrated enough to do so.


Well, not quite: Carbon Monoxide has a particularity that is when it binds itself to haemoglobins (the molecules that makes our blood looks red and that is responsoble to carry Oxygen/Carbon Dioxyde to/from our cells) it dosen't come out and makes that site unavailable to a O2 or CO2 molecule... SO it is just like you have less blood to oxygenate your body, and that is bad... You accumulate free radicals and your body ages more quickly... SO it kills you slowly. Only when new red cells are formed you have more available haemoglobin to do its job...
Yes, I do understand the function of carboyxyhemoglobin but while were at it we can catelog several hundred other things that are slowly killing us but never escape the knowledge that we're all going to grow old and die if we turned to dust piles and blew away.

--Bat

_________________
Image<--Photo ArtWerk by Debutante Daisy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:42 pm
Posts: 814
Location: Boston, mASSHOLEchusetts, USA
BBP wrote:
BatchainPartIV wrote:
It really is simple and and I cannot understand why you think I've failed to read some part or any part at all of anything you've stated. "The Internet" is a lie. It is what global telecommunications systems have expanded into given the advances in digital technology during the 1980s. The original "ARPANET" was a scrapped piece of junk by the set up by the US Military in 1969 when they realized that it was a useless US-only network as vulnerable as the strings of hanging copper phone wire that had been around for nearly a century. What we still refer to as "The Internet" is better described as "The World Wide Web" -- telecommunications companies implementing the digital technology as it became available and profitable. The original "Internet" doesn't even constitute a skeletal fraction of it as "The World Wide Web" is only what the old telephone companies have become.

Back to globalization. No, the aims of a European Constitution would not be to alter the tradtional legal systems of individual European nations and their traditional functions, it would be to lay the groundwork for a uniformity of de-regulation strictly for purposes of not having to obey whatever individual existing national laws restricted corporate ownnership and regulation on the basis that those laws were in conflict with the basic guarantees in the European Constituton.
And of course I'm presnting my arguments in "business-oriented" terms because it's exactly who owns what that determines who gets jobs, which schools attract more students, what is taught and how many supermarkets can be owned in any given area. I don't think having a "melancholic" or "dark view" of any of this is quite so far beyond justification. If a "E.C." actually did mean no change then who would waste time formulating it and trying to get Europeans to want to have it? Well, the WTO was no small influence in drafting it. Remember the furious rioting in places as distant as Genoa and Seattle when they convened there? A whole lot of people didn't like the fact that so few had so much say in what their lives were going to be like and they let it be known but to those inside they never heard a thing. And the US Constitution is nothing but a historical relic with no special relevance to anything anymore and its death knell was sounded by the Bush Administration once "9/11" happened and the Dictatorship of the President was firmly established. His current approval rating is down to 35% but he would be re-elected tomorrow if a race were run.

--Bat (More later but I'm fading fast here.)


Very few have much to say about what's going on in any so-called democracy, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The main problem with Europe and legislation, is that the only voting the people get to do, is for the parliament. The European Parliament has no power, all it can do is advice. That's a very good reason for anyone calling himself intellectual to get pissed off.
One very good reason to put all earlier statements and decisions involving Europe into one, is because it's easier. There's no need to wrestle through all the different pacts and agreements of eg Rome and Maastricht, which will be a big time-saver.

Is the constitution still a relic? Whenever someone wants to tighten the weapon legislation, the NRA waves with it, saying everyone has the rights to have arms because it's in the book. (Tie that to Iran). Same story for freedom-of-speech activists.
PS For 6 years I've been a member of impeachbush.org. Once upon a time I was an avid contributor to bushandcheneyjokes.com, but that site mysteriously disappeared.
I'm still no advocate of time saving for the simple reason that the harder it is to change something the better it is for the majority. If the last 50 years of pacts prove one is in conflict with another there is no easy way to resolve it fast. If you have a Constitution to short-cut international agreements by either elimination or modification you do end up with what is left of the US Constitution: An incomprehensibly huge number of US Supreme Court decisions that render the Constitution itself nothing more than a historic relic.

A major legal tragedy occurred during the early Reagan years: A simultaneous destruction of all firearms control and the declaration of a "War on Drugs". Within a very short time the "inner cities" were flooded with firearms and the price of illegal drugs went sky-high. Well, you can't fight a "War" without a well-armed enemy and military-grade firearms were in major demand to protect the more profitable illegal drug sales business. No automatic or semi-automatic firearms just bubble up from the sewers just as heroin and cocaine don't either. But it's been one hell of a "War" ever since.

--Bat

_________________
Image<--Photo ArtWerk by Debutante Daisy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 3:45 am
Posts: 9596
Location: EINDHOVEN
BatchainPartIV wrote:
BBP wrote:
BatchainPartIV wrote:
It really is simple and and I cannot understand why you think I've failed to read some part or any part at all of anything you've stated. "The Internet" is a lie. It is what global telecommunications systems have expanded into given the advances in digital technology during the 1980s. The original "ARPANET" was a scrapped piece of junk by the set up by the US Military in 1969 when they realized that it was a useless US-only network as vulnerable as the strings of hanging copper phone wire that had been around for nearly a century. What we still refer to as "The Internet" is better described as "The World Wide Web" -- telecommunications companies implementing the digital technology as it became available and profitable. The original "Internet" doesn't even constitute a skeletal fraction of it as "The World Wide Web" is only what the old telephone companies have become.

Back to globalization. No, the aims of a European Constitution would not be to alter the tradtional legal systems of individual European nations and their traditional functions, it would be to lay the groundwork for a uniformity of de-regulation strictly for purposes of not having to obey whatever individual existing national laws restricted corporate ownnership and regulation on the basis that those laws were in conflict with the basic guarantees in the European Constituton.
And of course I'm presnting my arguments in "business-oriented" terms because it's exactly who owns what that determines who gets jobs, which schools attract more students, what is taught and how many supermarkets can be owned in any given area. I don't think having a "melancholic" or "dark view" of any of this is quite so far beyond justification. If a "E.C." actually did mean no change then who would waste time formulating it and trying to get Europeans to want to have it? Well, the WTO was no small influence in drafting it. Remember the furious rioting in places as distant as Genoa and Seattle when they convened there? A whole lot of people didn't like the fact that so few had so much say in what their lives were going to be like and they let it be known but to those inside they never heard a thing. And the US Constitution is nothing but a historical relic with no special relevance to anything anymore and its death knell was sounded by the Bush Administration once "9/11" happened and the Dictatorship of the President was firmly established. His current approval rating is down to 35% but he would be re-elected tomorrow if a race were run.

--Bat (More later but I'm fading fast here.)


Very few have much to say about what's going on in any so-called democracy, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The main problem with Europe and legislation, is that the only voting the people get to do, is for the parliament. The European Parliament has no power, all it can do is advice. That's a very good reason for anyone calling himself intellectual to get pissed off.
One very good reason to put all earlier statements and decisions involving Europe into one, is because it's easier. There's no need to wrestle through all the different pacts and agreements of eg Rome and Maastricht, which will be a big time-saver.

Is the constitution still a relic? Whenever someone wants to tighten the weapon legislation, the NRA waves with it, saying everyone has the rights to have arms because it's in the book. (Tie that to Iran). Same story for freedom-of-speech activists.
PS For 6 years I've been a member of impeachbush.org. Once upon a time I was an avid contributor to bushandcheneyjokes.com, but that site mysteriously disappeared.
I'm still no advocate of time saving for the simple reason that the harder it is to change something the better it is for the majority. If the last 50 years of pacts prove one is in conflict with another there is no easy way to resolve it fast. If you have a Constitution to short-cut international agreements by either elimination or modification you do end up with what is left of the US Constitution: An incomprehensibly huge number of US Supreme Court decisions that render the Constitution itself nothing more than a historic relic.

A major legal tragedy occurred during the early Reagan years: A simultaneous destruction of all firearms control and the declaration of a "War on Drugs". Within a very short time the "inner cities" were flooded with firearms and the price of illegal drugs went sky-high. Well, you can't fight a "War" without a well-armed enemy and military-grade firearms were in major demand to protect the more profitable illegal drug sales business. No automatic or semi-automatic firearms just bubble up from the sewers just as heroin and cocaine don't either. But it's been one hell of a "War" ever since.

--Bat


Sorry for my late reaction, had my birthday party yesterday and I was just too exhausted to react afterwards.

Time saving may be more important than you make it sound. Think for instance about the Italian legal system, where it takes years to reach a simple sounding verdict. In The Netherlands, it takes 2 months to get any form of payment, which can mean disaster if you've resigned and need dole, but don't have the financial buffer to last for the two months.
The purchasing power in NL has decreased drastically over the past few years, leading to strong economic problems, a vast increase of poverty stores and eating houses etc. The Dutch government wants to save its skin by alleviating the stress and create an extra payment, but that won't come until 2008 at best. But poor people need to eat as well, between now and 2008. So a bit of time saving would be very convenient indeed.
In NL, if you go to high-school when you're 18 or over, you get a payment. Some $50 monthly. I went to the type of high school that prepares for college, and takes 6 years to complete. When I turned 18, I was still in high school. But I turned 18 in April, and by the time it was June, I had passed my exams and received my diploma. So I got zilch. A minor annoyance of course, but I did feel slightly discriminated, since people born in October 82 would have been in the same class as me, yet have received 6 months of payment.

The European constitution is not really a constitution. It's a treaty that has content reminiscent of that of a constitution. You should bear that in mind when you try to compare it to an existing constitution.
The major changes of the constitution are:
-a different system regarding new legislation, which is necessary because of the addition of 10 countries to the EU. Bit tough to explain it, I'll try if you want me to
-it allows countries to leave the union
-citizens can cause new legislation if they can find a million votes from different countries in favor of it
-basic rights (like human rights) are included in the treaty
Of course, the constitution can be changed, something that doesn't seem to happen to the US constitution which is why it may be some sort of relic.

_________________
Image
Join the PackardGoose forum! Send me a PM!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:42 pm
Posts: 814
Location: Boston, mASSHOLEchusetts, USA
BBP wrote:
BatchainPartIV wrote:
BBP wrote:
BatchainPartIV wrote:
It really is simple and and I cannot understand why you think I've failed to read some part or any part at all of anything you've stated. "The Internet" is a lie. It is what global telecommunications systems have expanded into given the advances in digital technology during the 1980s. The original "ARPANET" was a scrapped piece of junk by the set up by the US Military in 1969 when they realized that it was a useless US-only network as vulnerable as the strings of hanging copper phone wire that had been around for nearly a century. What we still refer to as "The Internet" is better described as "The World Wide Web" -- telecommunications companies implementing the digital technology as it became available and profitable. The original "Internet" doesn't even constitute a skeletal fraction of it as "The World Wide Web" is only what the old telephone companies have become.

Back to globalization. No, the aims of a European Constitution would not be to alter the tradtional legal systems of individual European nations and their traditional functions, it would be to lay the groundwork for a uniformity of de-regulation strictly for purposes of not having to obey whatever individual existing national laws restricted corporate ownnership and regulation on the basis that those laws were in conflict with the basic guarantees in the European Constituton.
And of course I'm presnting my arguments in "business-oriented" terms because it's exactly who owns what that determines who gets jobs, which schools attract more students, what is taught and how many supermarkets can be owned in any given area. I don't think having a "melancholic" or "dark view" of any of this is quite so far beyond justification. If a "E.C." actually did mean no change then who would waste time formulating it and trying to get Europeans to want to have it? Well, the WTO was no small influence in drafting it. Remember the furious rioting in places as distant as Genoa and Seattle when they convened there? A whole lot of people didn't like the fact that so few had so much say in what their lives were going to be like and they let it be known but to those inside they never heard a thing. And the US Constitution is nothing but a historical relic with no special relevance to anything anymore and its death knell was sounded by the Bush Administration once "9/11" happened and the Dictatorship of the President was firmly established. His current approval rating is down to 35% but he would be re-elected tomorrow if a race were run.

--Bat (More later but I'm fading fast here.)


Very few have much to say about what's going on in any so-called democracy, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The main problem with Europe and legislation, is that the only voting the people get to do, is for the parliament. The European Parliament has no power, all it can do is advice. That's a very good reason for anyone calling himself intellectual to get pissed off.
One very good reason to put all earlier statements and decisions involving Europe into one, is because it's easier. There's no need to wrestle through all the different pacts and agreements of eg Rome and Maastricht, which will be a big time-saver.

Is the constitution still a relic? Whenever someone wants to tighten the weapon legislation, the NRA waves with it, saying everyone has the rights to have arms because it's in the book. (Tie that to Iran). Same story for freedom-of-speech activists.
PS For 6 years I've been a member of impeachbush.org. Once upon a time I was an avid contributor to bushandcheneyjokes.com, but that site mysteriously disappeared.
I'm still no advocate of time saving for the simple reason that the harder it is to change something the better it is for the majority. If the last 50 years of pacts prove one is in conflict with another there is no easy way to resolve it fast. If you have a Constitution to short-cut international agreements by either elimination or modification you do end up with what is left of the US Constitution: An incomprehensibly huge number of US Supreme Court decisions that render the Constitution itself nothing more than a historic relic.

A major legal tragedy occurred during the early Reagan years: A simultaneous destruction of all firearms control and the declaration of a "War on Drugs". Within a very short time the "inner cities" were flooded with firearms and the price of illegal drugs went sky-high. Well, you can't fight a "War" without a well-armed enemy and military-grade firearms were in major demand to protect the more profitable illegal drug sales business. No automatic or semi-automatic firearms just bubble up from the sewers just as heroin and cocaine don't either. But it's been one hell of a "War" ever since.

--Bat


Sorry for my late reaction, had my birthday party yesterday and I was just too exhausted to react afterwards.

Time saving may be more important than you make it sound. Think for instance about the Italian legal system, where it takes years to reach a simple sounding verdict. In The Netherlands, it takes 2 months to get any form of payment, which can mean disaster if you've resigned and need dole, but don't have the financial buffer to last for the two months.
The purchasing power in NL has decreased drastically over the past few years, leading to strong economic problems, a vast increase of poverty stores and eating houses etc. The Dutch government wants to save its skin by alleviating the stress and create an extra payment, but that won't come until 2008 at best. But poor people need to eat as well, between now and 2008. So a bit of time saving would be very convenient indeed.
In NL, if you go to high-school when you're 18 or over, you get a payment. Some $50 monthly. I went to the type of high school that prepares for college, and takes 6 years to complete. When I turned 18, I was still in high school. But I turned 18 in April, and by the time it was June, I had passed my exams and received my diploma. So I got zilch. A minor annoyance of course, but I did feel slightly discriminated, since people born in October 82 would have been in the same class as me, yet have received 6 months of payment.

The European constitution is not really a constitution. It's a treaty that has content reminiscent of that of a constitution. You should bear that in mind when you try to compare it to an existing constitution.
The major changes of the constitution are:
-a different system regarding new legislation, which is necessary because of the addition of 10 countries to the EU. Bit tough to explain it, I'll try if you want me to
-it allows countries to leave the union
-citizens can cause new legislation if they can find a million votes from different countries in favor of it
-basic rights (like human rights) are included in the treaty
Of course, the constitution can be changed, something that doesn't seem to happen to the US constitution which is why it may be some sort of relic.
Happy Birthday Partying, Bonny! :)
Well, that still sounds typical of any Constitution and no doubt Constitutional Lawyers found it most desirable.
However, the fact that the US has a constitution that's more like a relic than a legally binding document is not that it hasn't changed in over 200 years but because it not only has changed and courts have interpreted and reinterpreted it to mean so many entirely different things. It's the fact of having it that makes it seem more like a historic artifact than a legal document.
Laws change dramatically and if the US Supreme Court upholds the laws that change as Constitutionally Sound then those law remain legally enforceable.

--Bat [/b]

_________________
Image<--Photo ArtWerk by Debutante Daisy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 3:45 am
Posts: 9596
Location: EINDHOVEN
The reason why the European Constitution is not a constitution, is simply that there's no European state.
Well, you know more about US law than me, but whenever I see some movie (that takes place in the US) on limitation of freedom of speech or equality problems (or for that matter, the Simpson episode where Homer licks off the part of the Constitution that forbids cruel and unusual punishment) the Constitution appears to have some sacred position. Perhaps that distorts my view.

PS My party was great, thank you! The pics will be done on Tuesday, hope I can show them to you!

_________________
Image
Join the PackardGoose forum! Send me a PM!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:55 pm
Posts: 29
HoranceCornsnaps wrote:
I vaugely remember FZ was speaking in Wash DC at<br>a women's rally of sorts. It may have been 1988...not sure.<br>Anyways, FZ goes on a rant about "women should be<br>at home making sure dinner is on the table" or something similar along those lines.  ::)<br> One of the few times, I was really embarrased at what<br>FZ said.<br> Anyone know or remember the exact quote?


he most likely joking or deliberately trying to insult women who had pissed him off.

In one of the TDTOSA cds zappa says women have always been the smarter sex since th beginning of time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:38 pm
Posts: 321
Who assigned these book reports people are writing? Am I the only one who's sick of endless quotes bracketed by endless text?

Sorry, Frank no doubt said some stupid things, but thought these questions might be more important.

So flame away, basement Dostoevsky's! Maybe toss in a bunch of uninspired profanity to prove no one's taken your rights to free speech.

Less is more, boys and girls.

FO


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 10:40 am
Posts: 2543
Foreshortened Cornflakes wrote:
Who assigned these book reports people are writing? Am I the only one who's sick of endless quotes bracketed by endless text?

Sorry, Frank no doubt said some stupid things, but thought these questions might be more important.

So flame away, basement Dostoevsky's! Maybe toss in a bunch of uninspired profanity to prove no one's taken your rights to free speech.

Less is more, boys and girls.

FO


More to the point... Who gives a shit?

_________________
Download my music here.

Stream my music here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:16 pm
Posts: 1037
Location: Various woods
Studebaker wrote:
"Drop out of school before your mind rots from exposure to our mediocre educational system. Forget about the senior prom and go to the libary and educate yourself if you’ve got any guts. Some of you like pep rallies and plastic robots who tell you what to read” --


Zappa's said plenty of dumb things, but this is true. Everyone should drop out.

_________________
www.freewebs.com/simonking - an unacknowledged literary prodigy
simonking1.blogspot.com - an angry recluse's written outpourings


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:16 pm
Posts: 1037
Location: Various woods
BBP wrote:
bugler wrote:
I disagree with the premise that pot has 10x the amount of carcinogens that tobacco has.

I personally am allergic to tobacco smoke. I recently moved out of an apartment because the the bulding was falling apart and the smoke from the chain smoker living below me was coming thru into mine. I was choking, coughing, sick for a week. I guess it was from the cyanide and formaldihyde (that's right folks, the same shit used in the gas chamber) that is in second hand tobacco smoke. (This has indeed been proven).

On the other hand I have smoke pot every day for 35 years and not one problem. No memory loss, no DUI stops, no loss of sexual desire, no smelly clothing and no cancer. In fact, THERE HAS NOT BEEN 1 DOCUMENTED CASE EVER SUGGESTING ANY ONE PERSON CONTRACTED CANCER FROM MARIJUANA OR DIED FROM USING IT.

Studies done to prove otherwise are unreliable because the pot smokers being tested were often also tobacco smokers.

And so the moral of the story is this: Frank did say some stupid things in his life. And his take on tobacco was just that: plain stupid. Now he's dead. Do the math: Tobacco=death. Pot = happiness.

TIME TO MAKE POT LEGAL, MAKE ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO ILLEGAL AND WE WILL ALL BE BETTER OFF!!


That's how I felt until I learnt pot can cause schizophrenia.
I know a few people who suffer from this disease, including close family members. It has caused a lot of pain on them, and on their close relations.
Schizophrenia is NOT thinking you're two people. It's a brain disorder that causes psychosis, delusions, poverty of speech, hallucinations, inappropriate or nonpresent emotion, lack of motivation. Schizophrenia has not been cured yet, usually medication is anti-psychotic.

Schizophrenia is horrible. It is a serious handicap, there's no remedy for it. You don't usually die directly of it, it's a matter of learning to live with being an outcast in the cases around me.
Let's not make pot legal. Seriously. There's enough schizophrenics already.


But do you think that the legalization of pot would increase or decrease its use? It would stay the same. Having it ilegal is worse coz people get arrested and all sorts of nasty stuff happens coz of it - people get arrested.

And your opinion is only altered coz of personal aquaintances/experiences.

_________________
www.freewebs.com/simonking - an unacknowledged literary prodigy
simonking1.blogspot.com - an angry recluse's written outpourings


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 10:40 am
Posts: 2543
Legalisation would decrease use, most people get into weed because it's hip and cool to break the law, like underage drinking etc. And also, once it is legalised I'm guessing it will cost more and as a result, even less people buying. Sure there'll still be underground dealers but most of these will become registered dealers to sell less for more in order to compensate for the decrease in buyers. I don't know whether legalisation is a good thing or not, I don't do drugs apart from caffiene so I'm indifferent on the matter.

_________________
Download my music here.

Stream my music here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:16 pm
Posts: 1037
Location: Various woods
^ I agree.

Studebaker wrote:
I agree, it is hard to gather conclusive evidence of the effects of smoking on health because there are so many other influential factors, like genetic make-up. Indeed, some people do smoke their entire life and get to be a 100 years old. However, I don't think you can easily generalize those personal experiences. William S. Burroughs was a heavy drug user for almost his entire life and still lived to be 83 years old, but I don't suppose a drug addiction is harmless because of that one example.<br><br>Anyway, like I said: I think everyone should decide for themselves. I do detest people sueing the tobacco industry for something that eventually was their own choice. <br><br>Image


Burroughs, wayyy back in his first book 'Junky', said that constant use of heroin prolongs life expectany. He studied medicine in Harvard, and he smoked cigarettes too....

Anyway, if you do drugs, chances are you are a dumb dickhead that should stop. Unless you're a well-read folk like Burroughs that draws from his drug-induced fantasies to create powerful art, I'd sat you're licenced to do so; but chances are you fucking well aren't. Die.

_________________
www.freewebs.com/simonking - an unacknowledged literary prodigy
simonking1.blogspot.com - an angry recluse's written outpourings


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:38 pm
Posts: 321
Hit 'em straight!

No wait, wrong thread...

Fu


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 3:45 am
Posts: 9596
Location: EINDHOVEN
pigs03 wrote:
But do you think that the legalization of pot would increase or decrease its use? It would stay the same. Having it ilegal is worse coz people get arrested and all sorts of nasty stuff happens coz of it - people get arrested.

And your opinion is only altered coz of personal aquaintances/experiences.


Yep: and since my experiences have changed since that debate you reacted to which happened more than a year ago (don't worry: average musicology discussion reply takes 7 years, so you're still quick compared to my colleagues):
I've now seen what horrible scenes and problems soft drugs can cause. And I wish that drugs were forbidden, along with alcohol and tobacco. But that is completely unrealistic. So the more open Dutch stance is preferable to me. It will get rid of the people who smoke for kicks. But it paves a way for finding addicts. And soft drugs are mentally addicting.
Well pigs, nasty stuff happens. You can arrest a pot smoker and give him some problems, or you can let him stay home and give problems to his girlfriend. It's police brutality that goes wrong.
And yes, my opinion is more based on what I see then on what I read, because I don't easily believe what I read, but I believe what I see.

_________________
Image
Join the PackardGoose forum! Send me a PM!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 166 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group