JanYpe

Do you really believe that the needs of industry over-ride the will of the people. The general belief here is to have the MINIMUM of legislation, not lots of overbearing rules for every subject.quote> Setting basic standards is not overbearing. Replacing impenetrable forests of national rules with a single standard is not overbearing. This IS the minimum of legislation you need to have an honest common market, you can't have nations just buggering about on their own because it will lead to needless barriers. They are not just the needs of the industry, and itt is not the will of the bloody people to be supplied with goods that are more expensive and of a lesser quality!

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote Originally posted by: JanYpe It should also be noted that one of the EU main goals is to simplify and harmonise business. The EU regulations concerning bananas ( (EC) 2257/94) and cucumbers ((EEC) No 1677/88)) are not because they have to control everything, but because Europe should have one standard in the entire union - not 15 as when adopted or 27 today. Furthermore, the judicial integration via the Brussels I regulation and Lugano convention means that doing business or being a consumer throughout the EU/EEA is greatly simplified as one knows exactly how to expect a judicial process to proceed.quote> Like we had problems before with how curved a banana was. Fact is you see them in the shop and you either like what you see and buy, or don't as the case may be. It's because of things like this that the EEC is a laughingstock. quote> No. The laughing stock here is the public that eats up the nonsense about the EU that is presented as news by cretinous journalists. The ones who squawk about those dirty foreign types having the gall to even mention crooked fruit. You built an empire on bent bananas and by god you'll defend those curves!quote> "Dirty" your word not mine. I dislike the EU as it is I don't dislike individual europeans. You shouldn't make this a case of personal insults. quote> Sorry, I wasn't accusing you of anything. What I was saying is that that is the underlying attitude of distrust that the so called "eurosceptic" parties tend to prey on. Poor journalism and inept politicians mean that even someone who wants to be well-informed has to claw his way past misrepresentations and dishonest reporting, and past short-sighted or simply unclear politicians. If EU elections weren't hampered so much by this, and weren't used merely as an expression of dissatisfaction with national politics, these parties that present no vision and no solutions beyond "leaving Europe" would be dead in the water. The British are proud of their history, the former Empire, the Commonwealth and multi-cultural Britain. Also on this 65th anniversary lets not forget the stand against Hitler and the Nazis and the liberation of Europe.quote> Quite, so I think it's hardly appropriate to strive for division at a time when we should be recognizing the past value of cooperation in the face of great wrongs, and realizing that in the future we will continue to need each other in the face of a world where nations of a European size will face more and more challenges. There is no reason why both our own national history (the British are hardly the only ones with history after all) and our shared history can't both be appreciated. I'll repeat myself for those who didn't understand first time. You don't need legislation to know when fruit is ripe, you go by looks, smell, touch and common sense. Medicines are clearly different in that you cannot tell by looking, smelling, or touching. As for refrigerators, if they don't do what's expected or stated there is the Trade Descriptions Act. Also I didn't bring up bananas I just responded so get it right.quote> The bananas don't matter, you as a single consumer don't matter. You already mentioned the Trade Descriptions Act yourself; European regulations simply expand national acts like that to make sure everyone is working to the same standard. Regulation follows from the need of the industries. You can look, smell and touch and decide on what fruit to buy, but you are not the only buyer and it is the production side that matters. If you want an honest common market, you have to make sure that a producer in Britain, or Italy, or wherever, doesn't face unfair competition from dodgy producers and doesn't have to juggle with differing national standards. I know it looks ridiculous to read about things like cucumber regulation in the papers, ripped out of context, but they are nothing national governments didn't already do and they are in the interest of fair trade between member countries. Originally posted by: SkiGeek Originally posted by: Boggy1 Blergh..the BNP got their first seat. That party needs to be destroyed.quote> You mean this BNP? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party quote> The very same. Lovely fellows. It's especially hilarious to follow the link from that wikipedia page to their 'Excalibur' webshop, where they sell everything from to "norse" books and jewellery. (perverted pre-Christian and early-Christian European history and mythology forms a hefty part of nazi and neonazi ideology.)

Apparantly he's almost completely blind and largely deaf. Still, tough old bird.

It should also be noted that one of the EU main goals is to simplify and harmonise business. The EU regulations concerning bananas ( (EC) 2257/94) and cucumbers ((EEC) No 1677/88)) are not because they have to control everything, but because Europe should have one standard in the entire union - not 15 as when adopted or 27 today. Furthermore, the judicial integration via the Brussels I regulation and Lugano convention means that doing business or being a consumer throughout the EU/EEA is greatly simplified as one knows exactly how to expect a judicial process to proceed.quote> Like we had problems before with how curved a banana was. Fact is you see them in the shop and you either like what you see and buy, or don't as the case may be. It's because of things like this that the EEC is a laughingstock. quote> No. The laughing stock here is the public that eats up the nonsense about the EU that is presented as news by cretinous journalists. The ones who squawk about those dirty foreign types having the gall to even mention crooked fruit. You built an empire on bent bananas and by god you'll defend those curves! Meanwhile in the real world, the standards concerning the size and quality fruit and produce are entirely in the interest of both producers and consumers. With the defined classification and tolerances you will always know what you are getting, so that you as a consumer are protected from crooks and the producers are safe from unfair trade practices. Go ahead, google the EC and EEC numbers Krbe quoted, read what it actually says and stop acting as if this tabloid faff about curved bananas has any relation to reality. You don't need a standard for natural things, nature has been around for years and predates the EEC. quote> By that reasoning you could dismiss anything from refrigerators to medicine. :edit: Thanks to Aontan for linking this video, EU myths: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_-jx5xTutU.

Originally posted by: Ntq$310 Now I feel sorry for the Netherlands... quote> No need for that. What doesn't get said when people have a little moan about how much they're paying to the EU is how much the EU is also earning them. Direct payments go into developing areas that lag behind the rest.They are not a reward for being a lovely member, nor part of the gravy train. It is flat out absurd to act as if the direct benefits per capita represent the full economic picture. Countries that receive less, objectively need less because they are ahead already. The EU's economic integration and shared development have been responsible for a massive growth in prosperity, perhaps most of all in the open Dutch economy. "British people work long hours and southern Europeans have siestas then say they are poor and we should pay them." Oh yes, those great cornerstones of "scepticism": prejudice and misinformation, how we do love them. Originally posted by: SkiGeek When I think of the European Union, it does seem somewhat analogous to a "United States of Europe" since that is the model that I'm used to. The colonies were separate and joined to become one nation. The European countries have been separate and joined to become whatever the European Union is. Major difference, of course, is that the colonies were fairly new and European countries have had their own identities for centuries. Then there is that "whatever the European Union is" part of the equation. I don't claim to understand the nuances of what it is and what it wants to be.quote> It's a far cry from a "United States of Europe" (the dreaded "superstate", to use a kneejerk buzzword). All the nations are still very much there, and very much separate. The EU is a supranational entity, in which the member states have come to a set of agreements that make, among other things, the common market, the free movement of goods, services and people possible, and that have been agreed on in the common interest of the member states. The agreements translate to policy that gets made by the separate members for their own country, and it is possible for countries to opt-out of certain agreements, like the United Kingdom has done in opting out of the common currency. What's this about an unelected commission with guaranteed 50 year positions? What is the function of this commission?quote> There are no guaranteed 50 year positions. The European Commission developed out of the initial authority that was set up when the EU formed back in the 50's. The lack of a constitution or serious founding document means its government grew in a bit of an awkward, not clearly defined way. As a result the Commission forms the executive branch of the union, but is not directly elected. Beside managing the common policy and basically representing the EU on the international stage, it proposes bills. These are voted on in the European Parliament, which today's elections in the UK and Netherlands were for. The Commission consists of 27 members, one of whom acts as a chairman, and the government of each member state appoints a member of the Commission. A new commission is set up every 5 years, after the parliament election, and the new parliament has to approve the new commission. Apart from this are the council of ministers, and council of heads of state, where representatives from the member states confer and have a say in the political direction of the union. On top of that the member states have the right to veto a lot of what gets decided. It's all a little convoluted to say the least. Reform is needed but gets blocked because of poor proposals (the rejected constitution), poor presentation, idiotic media and general voter apathy. The European Parliament can't propose bills on its own for example, and there needs to be a more direct relation to the Commission in order to create more transparency in the decision making process and to establish a more direct democratic foundation and oversight of the commission, instead of through politicking between elected national governments. In the United States of America, there is still an ongoing debate about what should happen at the state level and what should happen at the federal level. I suspect that the debate in Europe will continue about what should happen at the national level and what should happen at the EU level. quote> You suspect correctly, figuring this out could take a while yet. Originally posted by: TheQuiltedLlama Further more I am not having a go at the people of any country or the National Governments of any country, I am having ago at politicans and the political system that imposes the rules of others on me when I don't want those rules. If you want them for yourself fine, but don't impose them on me.quote> We vote for the European Parliament, the European Parliament approves the legislation. No one is imposing anything on us. You may as well argue that the UK Government is imposing its laws on you, and you want your house to leave the UK. quote>

Good read.

If you actually have the morals to agree with late abortions then in my eyes you are scumquote> As opposed to those lovely people who react to a boldfaced murder with a "". Gosh, where would we be without good godly people to form society's moral basis.

Originally posted by: Duke87 Apparently whoever made that image is not aware of the (obvious) physics of how light and shadows work. There's no way a single light source can create two crossing shadows. quote> ...I want to believe.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus Before anyone jumps on the legalization bandwagon, I have some advice: Live in an area overrun with meth. See the incredible destructive power of that drug, the childhoods destroyed by addicted parents. Work with the homeless, as I have done, and listen to the stories they tell of how a promising future can be annihilated. The more you know about what it is and what it does, the less likely you are to support anything like legalization of it. It makes crack look like baby aspirin.quote> Yes, it is a horrid drug. Yes, it does disrupt families and child development (assuming the addict has a family). Yes, it does, at least metaphorically, destroy lives. However, I maintain that a person haa the right to destroy their lives if they wish to do so.quote> Only when it is only themselves they are destroying. Their right to destroy their lives does not include the lives to actively harm their dependents and surrounding environment. While throwing every addict into jail is not going to solve anything, completely legalizing all drugs certainly won't either. And one would have to be a complete fool to consider someone in an addicted state of sound mind and capable of rationally exercising their rights. Decriminalizing pot is one thing, legalization of drugs in general is another thing entirely. To legalize heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamines is pure foolishness. It's a cowardly way of attempting to turn a blind eye to the ghastly societal side-effects of these drugs.quote> Have you bothered to consider that it is the government's duty to protect rights of individual citizens, rather than focusing on "protecting" or "saving" a nebulous, abstract construct called "society"?quote> What a load. By the same reasoning you could justify anything from driving dangerously to rape and murder as a right of individual citizens that needs to be protected. It is the government's duty to protect the rights of all its individual citizens, which means that it is within that duty to stop individuals from infringing the rights of others and to discourage behaviour that is objectively likely to infringe those rights. If you had bothered to consider that the use of hard drugs, meth, heroine etc, is connected to criminal activity, to name just one negative factor, you would have discovered that this is not about the rights of individual citizens but is indeed about the societal impact of individual actions.

That's a pretty nice looking railway.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus Good. We don't want him here anyway. I couldn't give a rabbit's thistle about his freedom of speech or rights.quote> In all probability, you would give a rabbit's thistle (what ever that is) if it was your rights that were being infringed upon. To borrow a saying from your sig, "Its a primitive human impulse that evolution hasn't quite corrected yet...".quote> Oh right, because they have such an obligation to defend the rights of your lunatics as well as their own. Theorizing on rights is all well and good, but at the end of the day he and every other citizen in practice is free to believe that not every oxygen wasting, rhetoric spewing jackass requires defending to the death.

Great update, I love the 190AD picture.

Originally posted by: Jezus53 Originally posted by: Retep Molinari Originally posted by: Barbarossa Originally posted by: Jezus53 Cart, horse. Nobody's claiming that Christian is a subgroup of Catholic, it's the other way around. quote> The other way around? How so? How is Catholism a subgroup of Christianity? If you see the history of the Christian church, you would see that Christianity, if any, would be the subgroup. But that is not the point.quote> they mean that in a very literal way because they are not Christians.quote> I reiterate: How does one make the claim that a group of people who worships Christ as their savior is not Christian "in a literal way"? quote> Let me make this simple. They are Catholic not Christian just as how Christians are not Catholic.quote> These comments are inane (not a typo). Catholics are Christian, Christians are not necessarily Catholic. Get it together, man. Barbarossa quote> I second that. To add, Christian is the "mother group" which can be split between Catholics and Protestants (including methodists, baptisis, mormons, lutherians, calvinists, etc) quote> *face palm* This is why arguing on the internet sucks. Look, when I say Christian I mean Protestants in your terms and I will start using that term to try and clear things up. Also, the first statement I said is from a historical view point, the second one is the view point of other people. If you are trying to catch me contradicting myself then you failed. If you want my personal opinion on this then here it is, it's a huge waste of time and should never be brought up. I could care less if you are Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Satanist, whatever. As long as you respect my view then I'll respect yours. I am only speaking on behalf of the other side. There is my view and I am done trying to defend the other side. Good day. quote> You can *face palm* all you want, but they're not the ones using the wrong terms dude. Saying "Christian" when you mean "Protestant" is implying it is the only Christianity and that Catholicism is completely seperate from it. No one cares how much any of you favour your own flavour of god, but all we're saying is that it doesn't make objective sense to apply that favoritism when it comes to definitions.

Nicely done.

Well that's silly.

Originally posted by: Duke87 Originally posted by: Jezus53 First joke of the thread, and I like it.quote> It has your seal of approval, then? quote> I see the humour in this thread is getting clubbed to death already.

Originally posted by: manticorefan I didn't know they kept out animal rights activists as well. Sounds like a fair trade to me. It's a tempest in a teapot. The authorities have just played into Savage's hands, and it'll help his ratings coming in May 'sweeps' month, which boosts his billing rate for advertising. [sarcasm] You mean there's a monetary aspect to this story? Who knew?[/sarcasm] How embarrasing for the UK, even though they are within their rights. How conveniently lucrative for Savage. I'm just sure it's been his lifelong dream to visit London, and this is causing him no end of emotional distress. quote> You pretty much hit the nail on the head here. I can see the point of such a list, to keep extremists of any stripe out of their country, but the publication just reeks of a PR move. It was the same with the Dutch MP earlier this year: their (incompetent) home secretary got to kick someone accused of hate speech out, ie. took a firm stand on something without the risk of offending anyone in her own country, and the MP, Wilders, got to fly to Britain on a plane full of journalists, had some lovely pictures of himself taken as he was escorted off Heathrow, and then got to fly back to collect his five seat gain in the opinion polls. Very little of actual substance was going on at any stage. For all the chest beating about free speech and babble about totalitarianism, very little is going on now.

That sucks, didn´t figure he was that old though. ...Captain Chaos will of course live on forever. Dun dun DUNNN!

Originally posted by: your_adress_here Originally posted by: sam Originally posted by: Jumpthefence If he was aiming for the bus, how did he end up hitting the monument? Did he hit the accelerator too late? Or was it another car problem? Why didn't he turn into the bus? Maybe it was just a timing problem. A major timing problem. And why was the car prettymuch totaled before it even crashed? There are too many questions, but the guy's dead now. We'll just leave it to the examiners.quote> The news here reports he had cannabis in his system (although no alcohol). And yes, he'd hit other things before he got to the monument. Cause of death appeared to be massive brain damage. quote> Oh great, this is just what we need. Everybody is going to be blaming the cannabis for his actions. THC stays in your system for about a month, so there is no knowing if he was high or not, either. Which I doubt highly he was. quote> I don't know how it gets reported in the rest of the world, but what you said is also what was in the offical report here: that there were traces of cannabis found, but that these can remain visible for several weeks after use.

Two ways: 1. On a post by the person you want to PM, click the envelope symbol in the top right of their post to bring up the popup PM screen. 2. At the top of your screen, where you can see your username and icon, click 'Messages'. This brings up your message center. Below the row of message center buttons is a search field that says "Send private message to: enter username" and a button 'Send'. Entering the username you want to PM and clicking 'send' brings up the popup PM screen.

Originally posted by: Jumpthefence If he was aiming for the bus, how did he end up hitting the monument? Did he hit the accelerator too late? Or was it another car problem? Why didn't he turn into the bus? Maybe it was just a timing problem. A major timing problem. And why was the car prettymuch totaled before it even crashed? There are too many questions, but the guy's dead now. We'll just leave it to the examiners.quote> He hit barriers and people at a considerable speed, which was why the car was as damaged as it was before hitting the monument. Either his own actions or steering problems meant he didn't he the bus, though if he had hit the bus it probably wouldn't have had much effect. Some overviews of the scene, courtesy of wikipedia and RTL news: quote> And apparantly some German sect disturbed a number of church and remembrance services this sunday, claiming it was all god's punishment.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus Article 1 section 8 says that Congress can "To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" never says it has to be tied to anything tangible at all.quote> Well, I would say the constitutional requirement for a gold-based currency is tenuous at best, since the Congress has the power to "coin money" (which can be extended to bills), and to regulate the value of those coins. Nowadays, they coin the coins and print the bills, but they have no value attached to them! However, although there is no constitutional requirement for a commodity backing to the dollar, it is desirable, and should be enacted. Also as we all know, there were NO money problems back when the US had a gold standard. none at all [/sarcasm]quote> Aside from a plot to corner the gold market in the 1870's (which wasn't much of a success), there were little problems with the dollar. As proof, here is a chart of the value of the dollar from 1666 to 1912 (the Fed came in 1913): You can see that it took over 150 years for prices to double. Now let's look at 1913 to present: There couldn't be more difference between the two. And with the stable one: gold-backed currency, no Fed. The exponentially increasing one: fiat currency, with Fed. There is also a correlated acceleration in the 1970's because of the absence of any gold backing at all. There has also been unstopping inflation every year since the 1960's, and with Bernanke's plans, that curve is going to get more steep.quote> You're correct in identifying the inflation. The way this is presented, however, is not that great. Yes, it has been unstopping since the 1960's, but under most theories a small percentage of inflation is acceptable (IIRC <3%) and can be advantageous (IIRC <2%). I agree that floating currencies look unsettling, and that a system like Bretton Woods at the very least looks more stable. Even so, it's not a currency based on nothing and without value, unless you'd call it nothing(apart from the entirety of the US economy). But that's opinion. Here's the objective problems with your proof; It's a fun graph, but what are the sources? Right now you could have copied it off the back of a box of cornflakes for all anyone can tell. How was the inflation defined here? Assuming it's (estimated) purchasing power, what kind of index was used? And keep in mind that bare numbers don't show everything. I don't think I have to say that you can't simply compare the pre-industrial, small scale colonial society of 1666 with the modern society of 1970 and onward, with all its bells and whistles, and then point at the end of the gold standard as if that's all that has changed about the economy.

Originally posted by: Jezus53 Originally posted by: grbac80 Originally posted by: Jezus53 Originally posted by: grbac80 The Malta-flagged, German-owned MV Patriot quote> Yea Malta! Oh wait, it was captured. No, not Malta! Just a thought, but why don't they just go around it out side of the range of those boats? I'm pretty sure those boats can't go that far off coast if they're only small boats. Plus, I'm pretty sure they aren't just floating out there waiting for a ship to come by, thye probably search for them of the coast. So why not take a big circle around the coast? Just stay out of sight? And why don't we just get out of Iraq and go their? They need us more than Iraq does. Just some thoughts. quote> Malta-flagged, means that the ship is registered in Malta and bears its flag. Apparently these boats have a range of 500-600 miles of the coast and going outside of their range is imposoble when passing the Bab el Mandeb strait and going to Asia from there because the distance from somalia to yemen is like 200 miles. But whoever can, they do take a wide circle from the coast of Somalia. We did when we were passing those waters. Nobody knows how they get that far from coast but they probably have some supply network for those boats, from fishing boats for example. Iraq have oil, Somalia doesn't. That's one reason why nobody bothered until now. Well there still no real action even now. But Somalia apparently has large quantities of uranium, it will become Iraq in the future.quote> I know, it just sucks that Malta had to get caught up in this. What did they ever do to deserve this!...besides kick the Turks butts in the 1500s, that was out of defense, they had to do it!quote> It really has nothing to do with Malta. The ship might fly the Maltese flag, but it's under German ownership. The flag of Malta is one that often gets used as a flag of convenience.

Welp, those are your choices. Either download it from the EA store, or get the box set. Since they're both $20, you're probably better off with the box set. Unless you wanted it for free, in which case I'll remind you: 5. Prohibited Actions. It is strictly and expressly prohibited to post or upload: a. Anything relating to the pirating, or copying, of any software game title;quote>