# Europe and freedom, not getting it...



## billc (Feb 7, 2012)

Here is an article about the lack of freedom of thought over on the continent.  Apparently, as many have discovered, freedom of thought, and association hasn't quite caught on over there, never a good thing.  You would think that whole, world war 2 and cold war thing would have been a lesson in the need for individual freedom from government control.  Hmmm...maybe they will get it in the next century...

http://bigpeace.com/pschweizer/2012...urtain-rising-dictatorships-on-the-continent/



> You wouldn&#8217;t know it by looking at trends in Europe,  where tyranny is on the rise.  It&#8217;s not in the direct form of Soviet gulags, military parades or police beatings on the street.  But it comes instead packaged in laws and intimidation by the left.  _There are some things you just shouldn&#8217;t say in Europe_.  And if you do?  You might get prosecuted,  or even murdered. Don&#8217;t believe me?  Consider some developments in different corners of Europe.





> In several European countries,  as Bruce Bawer powerfully points out in the Wall Street Journal today (subscription required),  it is against the law to raise questions about the teachings of Islam.   He writes:  &#8221;Criticizing Islam is now a punishable offense in several European countries.  In the past few months alone, a Danish court fined writer Lars Hedegaard for talking about Islam&#8217;s treatment of women in his own home,  and activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was found guilty of lecturing about Muhammad&#8217;s marital history in what an Austrian court considered an inappropriate tone.&#8221; Bawer has a powerful new short book available on Kindle out on the subject.  He appropriately titles it: &#8220;The New Quislings:  How the International Left Used the Oslo Masssacre to Silence Debate About Islam&#8221;  I urge you to get a copy.





> In Italy,  as Walter Olson writes at cato-at-liberty.org,  Labor Professor Pietro Ichino, who challenges the power of Italian labor unions,  fears for his life and has lived under armed escort for the past ten years.  He drives around in an armored car and has two plainclothes policemen always nearby because people on the left want to murder him for his views. This is not paranoia:  as Olson points out,  two other labor law professors,  Massimo D&#8217;Antona and Mario Biagi,  who held the same views,  have been murdered.



Remember, the solution to speech you don't like is more speech that you do like, not prohibiting others from speaking their minds.  That is just a little lesson from your younger cousins across the pond...

Here is the link to the article on the murder of people opposed to Italian unions...

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/labor-law-professors-defy-death-threats-in-italy/



> In 1999 and 2002 leftist gunmen associated with the Red Brigades murdered two other reformist labor law professors, Massimo D&#8217;Antona and Mario Biagi. (Details here.) Prof. Biagi, a well-known figure nationally, was shot as he arrived at his Bologna home and dismounted his bicycle.



I guess he should have looked a little harder for the union label...



> Like his slain colleague Biagi, Ichino started out as a man of the Left &#8212; a Communist parliamentarian, in fact &#8212; who became convinced that the state-enforced equivalent of lifetime job security actually worked against the interests of ordinary young workers, who were increasingly frozen out from being offered jobs in the first place.



Wow, that is just crazy thinking, no wonder they want to shoot him...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2012)

The USA has a different notion about freedom and rights than most of the world.  I prefer the US version, but I note that many countries support a person's right not to be offended, and freedom of speech is often severely restricted for many reasons and issues.  In Germany, one may not distribute pro-Nazi literature, and people have been sent to prison for publicly denying the Holocaust.  I can't agree with their take on human rights or freedoms, but they have a different view of things than we do.


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2012)

As usual, the world according to billi....over simplified and 3rd hand....

Unlike the US, the hardcore Islamists are only a short _walk_ away in Europe, and gosh, do I dare say? In Italy there is such a thing as the mafia. They ain't calling it that, but yeah, it's there. 

Oh, and the precursor of WWII has taught Europe that not all speech is to be free. 

As for the Soviets/Russians, well, they always did things differently....

What else is there? 

Ah, billi linked some stuff. Good for him.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 7, 2012)

Just curious billcihak, what do you do with all this freedom you have in the US? What do you, specifically you, do that we can't do here in Canada or in Europe?
Just curious is all.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2012)

Ken Morgan said:


> Just curious billcihak, what do you do with all this freedom you have in the US? What do you, specifically you, do that we can't do here in Canada or in Europe?
> Just curious is all.



Most of us do very little with our freedoms.  But that's not really the point.  No one ever died of having too much freedom.  Plenty have died of having too little of it.


----------



## billc (Feb 7, 2012)

Well Ken, I could write a book about why islamic terrorism is dangerous, can you do the same and not get pulled into court like Mark Steyn?  At this point, our unions aren't actually murdering people who don't belong to them.  I own firearms, a couple of pistols, we are still in Illinois so I cannot carry them legally...yet.


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Most of us do very little with our freedoms.  But that's not really the point.  No one ever died of having too much freedom.  Plenty have died of having too little of it.



Ah, no. Plenty of people do die from having too much freedom.

However, strangely enough, with greater discipline comes greater freedom. 
While under a seemingly stiff corset of rules there is enough room for everybody to speak out.


----------



## billc (Feb 7, 2012)

Were you reading from 1930's German history there Granfire?:angel:


----------



## Omar B (Feb 7, 2012)




----------



## billc (Feb 7, 2012)

I think I will, and I'll have another portion please...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean's_magazine



> *Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine* were filed in December 2007 by Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress with theCanadian Human Rights Commission, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Ontario Human Rights Commission. _Maclean's_ magazine was accused of publishing eighteen Islamophobic articles between January 2005 and July 2007. The articles in question included a column by Mark Steyntitled "The Future Belongs to Islam".[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]
> The Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal heard the complaint in June 2008 and issued a ruling on October 10, 2008 dismissing the complaint. The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the federal complaint on June 26, 2008 without referring the matter to a tribunal.[SUP][3][/SUP]



Now the point to this wikipedia link is the fact that he was dragged into court over a magazine article.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2012)

granfire said:


> Ah, no. Plenty of people do die from having too much freedom.



Example?



> However, strangely enough, with greater discipline comes greater freedom.
> While under a seemingly stiff corset of rules there is enough room for everybody to speak out.



In many European countries, today, if you write a book stating that the Holocaust never happened, you go to prison.  Explain to me the room for everyone to speak out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Prosecutions_and_convictions

One could say that it's just as well that such things are illegal to say; because after all, they stir up strong emotions and they are not true.  Same argument people make when they try to make religion illegal.


----------



## billc (Feb 7, 2012)

I read a book about this once, it had something to do with books, and firemen, but they were starting fires, not putting them out, and books were dangerous because they caused people to feel bad...


And for my fans out there...

*Re: Europe and freedom, not getting it...*



>



Get it, I copy and pasted your copy and pasted...


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 7, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Well Ken, I could write a book about why islamic terrorism is dangerous, can you do the same and not get pulled into court like Mark Steyn? At this point, our unions aren't actually murdering people who don't belong to them. I own firearms, a couple of pistols, we are still in Illinois so I cannot carry them legally...yet.



Nothing there I can't do. What else?


----------



## billc (Feb 7, 2012)

If I lived across the border in Indiana I could carry a pistol for self-defense, and if I did write that book, I wouldn't be dragged before a tribunal, you might be though.

Here are some laws from canada...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada



> *Hate speech laws in Canada* include provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada, provisions in the Human Rights Act and in other federal legislation, and statutory provisions in each of Canada's ten provinces and three territories. The Criminal Code prohibits "hate propaganda." The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on various grounds, and forbids the posting of hateful or contemptuous messages on the Internet. Legislation in the provinces and territories prohibits discrimination on the same grounds as Canada's Human Rights Act in matters of provincial or territorial concern such as employment and accommodation.


----------



## Omar B (Feb 7, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I read a book about this once, it had something to do with books, and firemen, but they were starting fires, not putting them out, and books were dangerous because they caused people to feel bad...
> 
> 
> And for my fans out there...
> ...



Cool, maybe you'll get usw all newspaper subscriptions for a gift.  Ya know, the actual source.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 7, 2012)

billcihak said:


> If I lived across the border in Indiana I could carry a pistol for self-defense, and if I did write that book, I wouldn't be dragged before a tribunal, you might be though.
> 
> Here are some laws from canada...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada



Nope not for the subject you brought up, sorry. 
Seriously you have not told me anything, anything that you are doing today, that i can not not do here. 
Freedom mean ****, unless you are will to take advantage of it and mould a life and society you want.
Curious have you spent much time in Canada?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2012)

Ken Morgan said:


> Freedom mean ****, unless you are will to take advantage of it and mould a life and society you want.



I disagree.  Freedom is like air; more is better.  It doesn't mean you have to breathe it all or have it taken from you.  Freedom is not about what you choose to do, it's about what you can choose to do.


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Example?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Have billi dig it up for you.

Yes it is illegal in many countries (many, really? Aside from Austria?) to say the holocaust never happened.
Well, for starters the perpetrators meticulously documented all of it, to almost the last gold crown they stole from the dead bodies.
And usually the utterance of such premise is part of a larger evil, commonly referred to as 'Volksverhetzung' 
Which is a kin to yelling fire in a packed movie house. it falls under hate speech and a few other acts that are no longer allowed since in the 1930s somebody took the liberty -  freedom - to bend and abuse the rules. 
it spits on the mass graves of about 6 million Jews, 5 million assorted, Sinty/Roma, homosexuals, 20 million Russians, a few million Brits and Americans, Poles...and what have you. It is documented in word and sound as well as moving and still photography. 

So proclaiming it never happened, you are either too dumb to be allowed in public or up to evil - forget 'no good'.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2012)

granfire said:


> Have billi dig it up for you.
> 
> Yes it is illegal in many countries (many, really? Aside from Austria?) to say the holocaust never happened.



Yes, read the link.



> So proclaiming it never happened, you are either too dumb to be allowed in public or up to evil - forget 'no good'.



Think about what you're saying.

It's hard to have a discussion when you're just playing games.


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, read the link.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Playing games?

Come over to my house for a week and we can see how much gamesmanship is left after a day.

No, no games. The History of Europe is nothing to play games with. No matter _what _billi thinks he read in whatever book or fish wrap. 
There are just a few things that are. Like the misconception that saying whatever pops into your head, however asinine is a right. 
It is not. It is a lofty ideal a handful of wealthy white men put on paper, at a time when Katherine the Great was considered progressive. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism
It is a privilege that has been bought with rivers of blood. 

And it has been forefitted under mountains of corpses.

So, again: If you truly believe the Holocaust never happened, you are a tart. That is a generic you, not you personally.
If you don't really believe it and still spout it, you are obviously out to hurt, either feelings or people. 

However, if somebody who probably has never crossed a state line - like billi - thinks he has the answers to all things that ail the world....
billi, at best, should be considered a 'spoon': set on stiring things up, not in a good way. 
If he were ever to be dropped of in a foreign country, he'd have a massive culture shock I am not sure he could survive. 
Or he'd find himself surrounded by people who have similar trains of thought: those evil communist Neo Nazis. Bummer, eh.


Currently there are to many blind folks here trying to discuss the merit of color. 
Not having much time for that right now, as there is such thing as REAL LIFE that encroaches on me from time to time and engages my thinking power. Dealing with Highschool, I have no time for Kindergarden.


I sure hope billi is just trolling with the manure he links to all the time, because otherwise, heaven help this world....

Y'all know where to leave the negative rep.
TTFN


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 7, 2012)

So who is the authority on whats allowed to be said?  100 years ago things said today would have been too extream.  And extream speech is not always bad.  Without free speech we would have never had civil rights marches.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2012)

granfire said:


> Playing games?
> 
> Come over to my house for a week and we can see how much gamesmanship is left after a day.
> 
> ...



It's a right here in the USA, and I'm glad it is.  But this is what I was saying; the US values freedom of speech differently than Europe.  You've just proven it.



> So, again: If you truly believe the Holocaust never happened, you are a tart. That is a generic you, not you personally.
> If you don't really believe it and still spout it, you are obviously out to hurt, either feelings or people.



You're really missing the point.  I have to presume it is intentional.  Yes, anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened is a moron.  However, in the USA, one is free to be a moron and to say things which reflect their stupidity.  In many nations of Europe, it's a crime and you can be put in jail for spouting your crackpot jackassery.  You argue that's a good thing; very well.  But FREEDOM OF SPEECH it is NOT.

You cannot admit that some speech cannot be spoken because it is untrue and still claim freedom of speech.  The two are mutually exclusive.



> Y'all know where to leave the negative rep.
> TTFN



I think you're getting way too wrapped up in this.

The point was, and is, that under the US concept of freedom of speech, a person's right to their opinion and to speak that opinion is not predicated on it being true.  A person who hates black people can say it.  He can write about it, make websites about it, he can wear white robes and dance around shouting about how bad black people are.  And people who think he's wrong can do and say the opposite.  That is freedom, to us.

Your 'freedom' would deny the person who is 'wrong' or 'evil' from speaking or writing about their beliefs.  If that's what you want in your nation, that's your business.  But please don't call it freedom; it isn't.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall in her biography of Voltaire, said: _"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."_  That is the essence of freedom of speech to us here in the USA.  Your point of view is that there are some things so horrible, so soaked in blood, that they cannot be said by anyone.  Again, if that's your opinion, so be it. But it is not freedom.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So who is the authority on whats allowed to be said?  100 years ago things said today would have been too extream.  And extream speech is not always bad.  Without free speech we would have never had civil rights marches.



I have said this before.  Rights are never defined in the middle.  They are defined at the edges.  Only the Larry Flynts of the world can draw us to the point of knowing what is and is not obscene.  Only the 'Piss Christs' can take us to the edge of what is freedom of expression.  Only Henry Miller.  Only McCarthy. Only the civil rights marches.  Only the Woolworth's lunch counter. Only the KKK wanting to march down the main street of Skokie, Illinois.  Not average everyday citizens going about their business.

Freedom is messy stuff and it hurts people's feelings a lot.  The one thing that freedom requires the most from everyone is that they turn their heads if they do not like what they see, so long as what offends them is a constitutional right.   Unlike Europe, the USA has never stated that anyone has the right not to be offended.


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So who is the authority on whats allowed to be said?  100 years ago things said today would have been too extream.  And extream speech is not always bad.  Without free speech we would have never had civil rights marches.



without freedom of speech you would also have missed out on the burning crosses. So what is your point?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2012)

I'd be interested to know which unions in which European countries are killing people as Bili alleges. 

Holocaust denial...so you go to prison for saying the Shoah never happened, actually no you don't. You have to do a bit more than that. It is illegal in two countries, Austria and Germany for reasons that should be fairly obvious. You will be charged and taken to court, fined most likely and reviled by proper thinking people if found guilty. If you spout Shoah denial and race hatred inciting violence against people and you are found guilty you will most likely go to prison. 

You have to understand that Holocaust deniers aren't just saying it never happened but are doing so to cause racial hatred and incite violence. The right wing groups who spout hatred of non Aryans are looking to bring back the Nazi era. They'd like nothing better than rivers of blood running through the streets. Americans can criticise as much as they like but while they get mad at any perceived slur on their country some feel they can sling as much mud as they like at us, without their having the slightest inkling of an idea of Europe's history or even what it's like now. 

As we have gay marriages and gay people in the armed forces as well as our own Court of Human Rights perhaps some looking at what freedoms we do have, and there are some you don't have is called for.
http://www.happierabroad.com/ebook/Page31a.htm

Jeremy Rifkin, author of _The European Dream_, sums up the difference between the idea of "freedom" in Europe vs. America, explaining why the European concept is more evolved and progressive:

(Pages 13 &#8211; 14)
"The American and European dreams are, at their core, about two diametrically opposed ideas of freedom and security.  Americans hold a negative definition of what it means to be free and, thus, secure.  For us, freedom has long been associated with autonomy.  If one is autonomous, he or she is not dependent on others or vulnerable to circumstances outside of his or her control.  To be autonomous, one needs to be propertied.  The more wealth one amasses, the more independent one is in the world.  One is free by becoming self-reliant and an island unto oneself.  With wealth comes exclusivity, and with exclusivity comes security.

The new European Dream, however, is based on a different set of assumptions about what constitutes freedom and security.  *For Europeans, freedom is not found in autonomy but in embeddedness.  To be free is to have access to a myriad of interdependent relationships with others.*  The more communities one has access to, the more options and choices one has for living a full and meaningful life.  With relationships comes inclusivity, and with inclusivity comes security."


----------



## Jenna (Feb 8, 2012)

When a nation is persuaded / coerced into giving sovereignty to the requirements of continental economic union instead of the interests of its citizens then yes, freedom is eroded.

Europe as a monolithic entity is, to say the least, not pleased when member nations break rank and assert that they have every right to govern theirselves and not be dictated centrally.  

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/german-plan-savings-czar-finds-taker-15476408#.TzI5t-Q_hlM (on Greece not accepting German financial overseeing "czar")

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/14/eu-treaty-cameron-sarkozy-row (on French / German annoyance over David Cameron's veto)

The desire for an oligarchic Europe is absolutely an infringement upon the individual self-governing right of nations and by inference upon the individual citizen therein.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

granfire said:


> without freedom of speech you would also have missed out on the burning crosses. So what is your point?



The point is that's the beauty of it.  The burning crosses were the motivation for change.  Would there have been a civil rights movement without freedom of speech?   Maybe but it would have been alot more bloody and would have taken alot longer.  Its because of speeches that got the message out that changed the country.  You have to take the bad if you want the good.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 8, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Holocaust denial...so you go to prison for saying the Shoah never happened, actually no you don't. You have to do a bit more than that. It is illegal in two countries, Austria and Germany for reasons
> You have to understand that Holocaust deniers aren't just saying it never happened but are doing so to cause racial hatred and incite violence. The right wing groups who spout hatred of non Aryans are looking to bring back the Nazi era. They'd like nothing better than rivers of blood running through the streets. Americans can criticise as much as they like but while they get mad at any perceived slur on their country some feel they can sling as much mud as they like at us, without their having the slightest inkling of an idea of Europe's history or even what it's like now.



All you are doing is explaining (as if I did not understand) WHY Holocaust Denial is illegal in parts of Europe.  I get it.  My point is that regardless of your reasons for it, it is a restriction on freedom of speech.  All rights have limits; you can't yell fire in a crowded theater in the USA, either.  But we do not draw the lines where you do.

Again, this seems to be a point lost, so I'll try once more.  I am not arguing that you are right or wrong to imprison people who deny the Holocaust (or whatever).  I am saying it is not freedom of speech.  Argue that it is or is not freedom of speech, but please quit telling me why you do what you do.  I totally get that part.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All you are doing is explaining (as if I did not understand) WHY Holocaust Denial is illegal in parts of Europe. I get it. My point is that regardless of your reasons for it, it is a restriction on freedom of speech. All rights have limits; you can't yell fire in a crowded theater in the USA, either. But we do not draw the lines where you do.
> 
> Again, this seems to be a point lost, so I'll try once more. I am not arguing that you are right or wrong to imprison people who deny the Holocaust (or whatever). I am saying it is not freedom of speech. Argue that it is or is not freedom of speech, but please quit telling me why you do what you do. I totally get that part.



Actually I was answering Bili, again, who always gets things **** about face. He was making statements that are incorrect, I wasn't answering your point at all so don't get ratty with me. He totally doesn't get why we do what we do and conctantly choses to misinterpret what happens outside his borders. Why you think that post was directed at you I don't know but it wasn't. If it's a restriction on speech what the hell has it got to do with anyone else? If I or anyone else posts up that something is a restriction of speech in America I'd get certain of the posters ranting at me, I'd get neg reps saying how anti American I am. I get neg rep for daring to post on something in the American politics bit as it is.

Holocaust denial is a restriction of speech? well who do you think actually cares after the years of horror, and I don't just mean the war, that Europe went through. We have people here intent on another Holocaust, intent of destroying millions of people if they can and you're worrying about Holocaust denial thousands of miles away from you? There's 50 countries in Europe, a couple of countries have Holocaust denial as a criminal offence yet 'Europe' denies free speech?


Jenna, Europe is as cranky and as indiviudal as it's ever been, much of the EU trying to stop countries doing things is a myth made up by politicians.
http://www.the-eu-and-me.org.uk/eu-myths


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 8, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> There's 50 countries in Europe, a couple of countries have Holocaust denial as a criminal offence yet 'Europe' denies free speech?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

Care to rethink that?  I count 17 countries that ban it.  And the entire EU supports a 3-year prison term for denying genocide.



> As a result a compromise has been reached within the EU and while the EU has not prohibited Holocaust denial outright, a *maximum term of three years in jail is optionally available to all member nations* for "denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."[49][50]



I think I'll let my statement stand.  Europe does not have freedom of speech in the way that the US thinks of freedom of speech.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
> 
> Care to rethink that? I count 17 countries that ban it. And the entire EU supports a 3-year prison term for denying genocide.
> 
> ...





No, there are 50 countries in Europe you are thinking of the European Community which is a political entity not Europe. In the EU and in Europe we still decide what we do in our countries despite what Americans think. We don't think of as ourselves as superior as your post shows you to think you are, the article I posted a link to is correct, we go our way while you think everyone wants to be you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 8, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> No, there are 50 countries in Europe you are thinking of the European Community which is a political entity not Europe. In the EU and in Europe we still decide what we do in our countries despite what Americans think. We don't think of as ourselves as superior as your post shows you to think you are, the article I posted a link to is correct, we go our way while you think everyone wants to be you.



I have stated repeatedly in this thread that I accept that our notions of freedom are different, and come from different backgrounds and experiences.  However, I assert, and I believe I have proven, that if you deny freedom of speech based on such content, you are 'less free' than another nation that does not.  That's not really something that can be argued; it's a fact.  It doesn't make the US superior.  I was raised here and value our freedoms as we have them; which is only natural.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have stated repeatedly in this thread that I accept that our notions of freedom are different, and come from different backgrounds and experiences. However, I assert, and I believe I have proven, that if you deny freedom of speech based on such content, you are 'less free' than another nation that does not. That's not really something that can be argued; it's a fact. It doesn't make the US superior. I was raised here and value our freedoms as we have them; which is only natural.




As I clicked onto this thread the thread above was title 'Army silences Army Padres' so yes you have far more freedom of speech than we do, not. What I think many don't understand is that America is one country, when you say Europe you are talking about 50 countries all different, all with their own customs, all with their own laws which if they belong to the EU they may sign up to agree on certain things but doesn't mean they do actually put them into practice. You can't compare that many countries with one, yours.
Bill you may not be saying your country is superior but the tone of the OP certainly is, I'm still waiting to find out from him which countries unions are busy killing people as he stated, perhaps you can't understand the frustration we here feel when such broad sweeping and incorrect statements are made by people like him. We don't point out flaws that we think we see in your system, and point the finger saying oh look how much better we are. 

Holocaust denial may be a criminal offence but the procedures follow legal lines ... arrest, evidence submitted to court and juries deciding guilt or innocence, there's recourse to the European Courts of Justice, you get your day in court to say what you wish, it's left to the people ie the jury to decide. If the people didn't want this law there would be protests and believe me the people of Europe can certainly protest, make your OWS look like a kindergarten outing, they don't, rightly or wrongly in your eyes that's the will of the people apart from the racist, right wing murdering bastards and frankly we don't care about them other than to want to see them shrivel and die out as their predecessors did. Complete freedom of speech is something no one has whatever you think.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> As I clicked onto this thread the thread above was title 'Army silences Army Padres' so yes you have far more freedom of speech than we do, not. .



Well the Military has always had restrictions on its freedoms.  

Other then that I have no dog in this fight.  I think Freedom of speech is a good thing but Ive never lived in Europe so I dont know how the laws work there.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Well the Military has always had restrictions on its freedoms.
> 
> Other then that I have no dog in this fight. I think Freedom of speech is a good thing but Ive never lived in Europe so I dont know how the laws work there.



However someone, an American, thought it unusual enough to post up here for discussion. 

Europe has vastly different cultures, different laws, even the EU can't make them into one identical homogenous mass.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 8, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
> 
> Care to rethink that?  I count 17 countries that ban it.  And the entire EU supports a 3-year prison term for denying genocide.
> 
> ...




Has to do with the fact that Europe went through the horrors of what that kind of speech can do.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 8, 2012)

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking


> 1- Hong Kong
> 6- Canada
> 10- US
> 14-UK



http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm


> 1-Finland
> 8-Canada
> 13-UK
> 15-US



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World
Ranks US, Canada and UK about the same

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices#Current_assessments
Ranks Canada ahead of both the US and UK who are cited as having 'problems'.


So, the rank/opinion varies with cited source.
I feel pretty free. I expect that in either Canada or the UK I'd feel about the same. Most of what I do is legal in all 3 countries, and the little bit that's iffy is modifyable to comply with local statute. Are there 'problems'? Sure. But the citizens of those countries can deal with them. I can stay home and avoid them.  Hell, I can own a sword in the US. Not true in Australia.  So Oz is off my list of places to immigrate to, though I might visit sometime.


----------



## billc (Feb 8, 2012)

That would be Italy Tez, 



> In Italy, as Walter Olson writes at cato-at-liberty.org, Labor Professor Pietro Ichino, who challenges the power of Italian labor unions, fears for his life and has lived under armed escort for the past ten years. He drives around in an armored car and has two plainclothes policemen always nearby because people on the left want to murder him for his views. This is not paranoia: as Olson points out, two other labor law professors, Massimo D&#8217;Antona and Mario Biagi, who held the same views, have been murdered.




Now true, the actual shooters were lefties from the red brigade, but the guys were obviously sympathetic to Italian labor unions.


----------



## David43515 (Feb 8, 2012)

granfire said:


> Ah, no. Plenty of people do die from having too much freedom.
> 
> However, strangely enough, with greater discipline comes greater freedom.
> While under a seemingly stiff corset of rules there is enough room for everybody to speak out.



That sounds like a line straight out of "1984". Just reading it and realizing that you might be serious gives me the chills. By limiting speech, you limit thoughts by labeling them as unacceptable. Muzzling an idiot denying that the holacost or the moon landings took place, is no different than muzzling Galileo for saying the Earth revolves around the sun or Darwin for presenting the theory of evolution. Free speech is like the internet, there`s a lot of garbage but it`s by wading through it that we find the gems.Even free speech from a racist can inspire a discussion that brings about more equality.

Want to know one thing you can`t do in Europe that you can do in the US? I`ll give you two. You can build a mosque with a mineret in the US but it`s forbidden by law in Switzerland. You can wear a burkha in public the US but not in France. Freedom means no one can tell me *I have to do these things*, it doesn`t mean my govt telling me *I`m not allowed to.
*


----------



## David43515 (Feb 8, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> Has to do with the fact that Europe went through the horrors of what that kind of speech can do.



No, speech didn`t do anything. Ideas didn`t do anything. Thoughts didn`t do anything. People did, because they chose to. Blaming it on something they heard is like a rapist blaming his act on having a few drinks before hand or on the length of his victim`s skirt. It`s a sad excuse, nothing more.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 8, 2012)

David43515 said:


> No, speech didn`t do anything. Ideas didn`t do anything. Thoughts didn`t do anything. People did, because they chose to. Blaming it on something they heard is like a rapist blaming his act on having a few drinks before hand or on the length of his victim`s skirt. It`s a sad excuse, nothing more.



So Germans just woke up one fine morning and just decided to exterminate the Jews? Are you trying to contend that Hitler's, &#1497;&#1513;"&#1493;, rethoric had nothing to do with it? Thoughts and speech certainly did it.


----------



## billc (Feb 8, 2012)

The horrors that Europe went through at the hands of the various socialist movements from 1917 onwards, had one thing in common, they all silenced speech against the government.  Allowing the nut jobs to speak out in public let's them vent their stupid ideas, and keeps a good part of them from being forced underground where you can't see them.  Another thing, we let the nut jobs speak here, they get to vent and the rest of the country gets to see how stupid their ideas are, and then they move on with their lives.  Seeing national socialists sitting out in public surrounded by more people who are protesting them tends to put a krimp in their popularity.

By limiting speech you don't like, you are simply planting the first seed of the next problem down the road.  

Why do I talk about Europe so much?  Mainly because there are a lot of politicians on the left here in the states who love all of the things Europe does.   They love the national healthcare, the government transportation system, the surveillance cameras, and the limits on free speech.  They love the gun control.  They love the high taxes on everything and especially on gas.  The real problem for me is that these lefty politicians want to bring all that stuff over here.  You even have supreme court justices who believe they should look at European laws to justify their unconstitutional decisions here.  That is why I post a lot about what I see wrong with Europe, I don't want it to get traction here.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2012)

Bili what you spout is complete and utter bollocks mate. You are making a reach when you say the unions are killing people, the terrorists are communists not socialist and yes there is a big difference.


However you are speaking the truth when you say your country lets the nutjobs vent so everyone can see how stupid they are, well done on demonstrating that.



You see things in such a simple way it proves you don't actually have any idea what European history or it's current situation is really like. You post merely so you can prove how superior yo think America is to the rest of us. How do you know what the laws are in 50 odd countries, you have no idea what the gun laws are in Andorra, or the unions policies in San Merino, or how Iceland legislates, you don't know what the people in the Ukraine have a as health policy. Do you know who is in control in the Isle of Man or Cyprus or Moldova? How can you say you know what is wrong in Europe? that's just nonsense. You are merely spouting right wing propaganda and trying to make what you think fit in other countries. Do you know how many countries are consevative or socialist, how many are constitutional monarachies or outright monachies? The Vatican is a state in Europe do you imagine they are socialist and left wing? My dear chap your ignorance of Eruopean affairs is obvious and you're lauding of averything American is so loud you are giving Americans a bad name for lack of tolerance, bigotry and sheer ignorance, rant away but don't expect to be taken seriously.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2012)

David43515 said:


> No, speech didn`t do anything. Ideas didn`t do anything. Thoughts didn`t do anything. People did, because they chose to. Blaming it on something they heard is like a rapist blaming his act on having a few drinks before hand or on the length of his victim`s skirt. It`s a sad excuse, nothing more.




You really need to research into the rise of the Nazis if you think this. Why do you think the people 'chose' to? 
http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/nazirise.htm

_"The German Workers' Party 
	

, the forerunner of the Nazi Party, espoused a *right-wing ideology*, like many similar groups of demobilized soldiers. Adolf Hitler joined this small political party in 1919 and *rose to leadership through his emotional and captivating speeches*. He encouraged national pride, militarism, and a commitment to the Volk 
	

 and a racially "pure" Germany. Hitler condemned the Jews, exploiting antisemitic feelings that had prevailed in Europe for centuries. He changed the name of the party to the National Socialist German Workers' Party, called for short, the Nazi Party (or NSDAP)
	

. By the end of 1920, the Nazi Party had about 3,000 members. A year later Hitler became its official leader, or Führer." 
_


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Yes hitler was evil and gave great speeches.  He did bad things.
martin luther king jr also gave great speeches and did great things.  You must take the good with the bad.  You can't silence one without the other.  You can only hope people are smart enough to see the difference.  But as shown throughout history you can't legislate intelligence


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2012)

My spelling isn't that good after a long night shift lol, I can see the spelling errors and it's too late to edit. Oh well never mind. 

My point is still the same...how can you criticise 'European politics' when there is no such thing, how can you say there's things wrong with or compare American politics to something that doesn't exist? It's as nonsensical as me saying I won't go to Amercia because I don't like American weather, you'd go 'what?'

Politics in Europe is as diverse as it's cultures and there are many even in individual countries. there's the Sami in the north of Scandinavia, the Basques in the Pyrenees, the Provencal, Normans, Bretons in France, the Turkish Cypriots, the Maltese, Serbs, Monegasques, Roma, Latvians, Germans, Swiss, Greeks, Montenigrans, Icelanders, etc etc etc. Each has it's concerns and it's politics, we have political views from the extreme right to the extreme left and everything in between and then some. We have countries with healthcare and those where you have to pay insurance as in America, we have countries that are conservative and those that are liberal, we have socialist countries and probably the most conservative country in the world..the Vatican.. We have countries that are so poor they can afford very little in the way of anything and others that are very rich and have a very high standard of living. Some countries are very religious like Malta others like Cyprus are divided and have two governments. There is such a variety of poiltical viewpoints, governments and ways of running a country that it's incorrect to  use the words 'European politics' as if it were all the same everywhere. 

If we are going with healthcare though perhaps our system isn't the worst and comparison to yours are actually favourable for the UK as one of six European countries that do better than the US. The other countries that do better than the US being Canada, Austraila and Japan.

_"Direct comparisons of health statistics across nations are complex. The Commonwealth Fund, in its annual survey, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall", compares the performance of the health care systems in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the U.S. Its 2007 study found that, although the U.S. system is the most expensive, it consistently underperforms compared to the other countries.[SUP][16][/SUP] A major difference between the U.S. and the other countries in the study is that the U.S. is the only country without universal health care. The OECD also collects comparative statistics, and has published brief country profiles"

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_systems


----------



## K-man (Feb 9, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Hell, I can own a sword in the US. Not true in Australia.  So Oz is off my list of places to immigrate to, though I might visit sometime.


We're probably a bit far away for you to understand how Australia works  .  We can have swords here if we want to. You just need to have a permit.  I have lots of friends who practice Iaido and they have live blades.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

K-man said:


> We're probably a bit far away for you to understand how Australia works  .  We can have swords here if we want to. You just need to have a permit.  I have lots of friends who practice Iaido and they have live blades.



I was under the impression they were outlawed totally. Sorry for the misrepresentation.


----------



## David43515 (Feb 9, 2012)

I would never claim to be an expert on European culture, politics, laws, or it`s economy. I have a hard enough time trying to keep up with what`s going on in one country, let alone such a diverse collection of other countries. But I have to agree with Bill Mattocks when he said that we have very different ideas of what "freedom" means. And even though none of the nations in Europe share all the same laws, from our point of view they are deffinately less "free" than the US. And the fact that most of the europeans I`ve met don`t seem to notice that always boggles my mind. I don`t mean to say the American model is the only way, I just mean that the differences often seem VERY pronounced to me.

I think it may be because the US is such a vast area. I see it here in Japan and I think I see the same thing in many european countries. Because the population density is high most people are taught to maintain a social harmony, to "get along" because there`s no where else to go. So everyone is encouraged to maintain a stable society. For the majority of history orders and authority trickled down from above, from the nobility to the common man. In the US however, there was always a frontier to go to. Most of our ancestors had left their homelands behind when they came to North America. And since there were always new opportunities somewhere else, they didn`t feel the need to conform to their neighbors expectations. They knew that they could move on to somewhere new because they`d already done it before. Also, when we formed the republic after the revolution we strived for a new type of government where authority came from the common man up to the ruling class. (Yes, you can argue that it never happened. But the ideal filled American thought and literature for decades and shaped how we think about governemt and it`s role in our lives.) So our laws are set up in such a way that to protect my own right to say and do what I want, I agree not to limit my neighbor`s right to do the same no matter how offensive I may find it so long as no one is hurt. Earlier I cited the example of the recent law passed in France banning the wearing of burkhas and facial veils in public. The way I understand the law it says no one is allowed to wear them even if they want to. To an American point of view this is restricting. The same law written from an American point of view (for want of a better term) would simply say that no one can make you wear one if you don`t wish to. It may seem like a small difference, but to us it`s a very significant one.
This has just been me rambling about my own opinion, and I may be full of crap. Remember the price of admission and take it for what it`s worth.


----------



## David43515 (Feb 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> You really need to research into the rise of the Nazis if you think this. Why do you think the people 'chose' to?
> http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/nazirise.htm



I appreciate your point, and I agree with you to an extent. But your own quote said that Hitler played on feelings and ideas that had been prevelant in Europe for centuries. Hitler probably didn`t go on the road encouraging pogams in Czarist Russia, and I doubt he gave speeches in the Ukraine that encouraged so many of them to turn their Jewish neighbors over to the SS. He did however stiffle people who spoke out against him. When we think of ideas being cencored and books being burned, of people disappearing in the night because they were overheard saying the wrong thing, the Nazis are one of the first images that come to mind.
When you look at the image of the lone man standing in front of a Chinese tank in Tienamin Square refusing to move because he believed in democracy for China, do you doubt that he was raised on propaganda from the communist government? I`m sure he was, but he chose to act differently. A missionary can preach his religion for days on end, it doesn`t mean the people listening will all suddenly believe. And a neo-nazi can preach hate and violence until he`s blue in the face but it wouldn`t make me believe anyone is inferior to me because of their race or ancestry. Those are choices we all make individually. I`m sure Otto Schindler who rescued so many Jews at the end of WWII heard all those same speeches, and he was even in a position that allowed him to reap huge profits from the labor of Jews in intenment camps. He was vested in the system and was a part of it, but he made a choice to distance himself from it in the end. Sometimes we choose the easy path and sometime we choose the hard one, but it always comes down to choice.  I respect you Tez, and I always enjoy reading your opinions because you`re a straight shooter, but this time we`ll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 9, 2012)

David43515 said:


> I think it may be because the US is such a vast area. I see it here in Japan and I think I see the same thing in many european countries. Because the population density is high most people are taught to maintain a social harmony, to "get along" because there`s no where else to go. So everyone is encouraged to maintain a stable society. For the majority of history orders and authority trickled down from above, from the nobility to the common man. In the US however, there was always a frontier to go to. Most of our ancestors had left their homelands behind when they came to North America. And since there were always new opportunities somewhere else, they didn`t feel the need to conform to their neighbors expectations. They knew that they could move on to somewhere new because they`d already done it before. Also, when we formed the republic after the revolution we strived for a new type of government where authority came from the common man up to the ruling class. (Yes, you can argue that it never happened. But the ideal filled American thought and literature for decades and shaped how we think about governemt and it`s role in our lives.) So our laws are set up in such a way that to protect my own right to say and do what I want, I agree not to limit my neighbor`s right to do the same no matter how offensive I may find it so long as no one is hurt. Earlier I cited the example of the recent law passed in France banning the wearing of burkhas and facial veils in public. The way I understand the law it says no one is allowed to wear them even if they want to. To an American point of view this is restricting. The same law written from an American point of view (for want of a better term) would simply say that no one can make you wear one if you don`t wish to. It may seem like a small difference, but to us it`s a very significant one.
> This has just been me rambling about my own opinion, and I may be full of crap. Remember the price of admission and take it for what it`s worth.



I think you may have a solid point here.  The way that the US was established has greatly influenced our collective thought process and laws.  In some ways that is good and some ways that is not so good.  Many of the countries in Europe understand intimately the price of not being able to live peacably with thier nieghbor.  Is it any suprise they would have laws addressing that?  I think that sometimes we should learn from European countries and thier experiences.  Instead many want to automatically dismiss anything European, from goods to thoughts, in favor of blind devotion to the US.  Devotion is to country is not a bad thing in itself, but blind devotion to anything to the point of not learning from history and experience is short sighted to say the least.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 10, 2012)

David43515 said:


> I appreciate your point, and I agree with you to an extent. But your own quote said that Hitler played on feelings and ideas that had been prevelant in Europe for centuries. Hitler probably didn`t go on the road encouraging pogams in Czarist Russia, and I doubt he gave speeches in the Ukraine that encouraged so many of them to turn their Jewish neighbors over to the SS. He did however stiffle people who spoke out against him. When we think of ideas being cencored and books being burned, of people disappearing in the night because they were overheard saying the wrong thing, the Nazis are one of the first images that come to mind.
> When you look at the image of the lone man standing in front of a Chinese tank in Tienamin Square refusing to move because he believed in democracy for China, do you doubt that he was raised on propaganda from the communist government? I`m sure he was, but he chose to act differently. A missionary can preach his religion for days on end, it doesn`t mean the people listening will all suddenly believe. And a neo-nazi can preach hate and violence until he`s blue in the face but it wouldn`t make me believe anyone is inferior to me because of their race or ancestry. Those are choices we all make individually. I`m sure Otto Schindler who rescued so many Jews at the end of WWII heard all those same speeches, and he was even in a position that allowed him to reap huge profits from the labor of Jews in intenment camps. He was vested in the system and was a part of it, but he made a choice to distance himself from it in the end. Sometimes we choose the easy path and sometime we choose the hard one, but it always comes down to choice. I respect you Tez, and I always enjoy reading your opinions because you`re a straight shooter, but this time we`ll have to agree to disagree.




I have no problem with disagreeing with you! Discussion and different points of view are the lifeblood of society if they aren't to stagnate.

I can't agree with Bilcihak's premise though that he can compare 'Europeans' to Americans, it comes off as sounding superior and self congratulatory as well as being completely wrong.

Americans I've found are up front and far more vocal than most people, I think you are still finding your feet as a country but I don't think comparing yourself to Europe is the way to go. I don't think either that you are quite as free as you think nor is Europe as 'unfree' as you think, no one gets to the heart of a country and it's citizens by just meeting it's citizens or going there on holiday. There's far more going on in a country than you will discern from reading what your own press says. 
Everyone tends to think of their country as 'best', America is differnt not 'best, telling people from other countries that the American way is the only way, that it's the only free country isn't the way to make friends, it shows a huge lack of understanding and literally makes enemies of people who needn't be. You say you have free speech enshrined in law but you also have the PC brigade who will ensure that a lot of what you want to say can't be said, you can shout that you have rights but there's a lot you can't say, some of it will be offensive I'm sure and 'shouldn't' be siad but you can't boast you have free speech if you can't use certain words/phrases or express thoughts. The television companies won't have it so it's not government censorship, it's censorship by the media. Americans often quote that they might not like what you say but will defend your right to say it, sounds good but your media, your academic institutions and your legislature won't let people say what they want. We had a Hollywood actress on television the other day who laughed when the word 'cervical' was used on a news item, she told the interviewer that wouldn't have been allowed on most American television channels. A small example maybe but certainly not freedom of speech.

You value free speech but also don't have it as completely as you think you do. Probably better for Bili to address himself to that rather than compare America to Europe or anywhere else for that matter. 

. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...mas-America-Whatever-you-say-say-nothing.html

The author of this is the Telegraph's American editor who has also been inAfghan with the Welsh Guards and written a book about them.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 10, 2012)

A wonderful series of posts above, my fellow forumites - I bow in appreciation but look a little glum as you're covered pretty much the ground I would've gone to :lol:


----------



## billc (Feb 10, 2012)

And who forms he PC brigades Tez?  Who has instilled speech codes on college campuses here in the states?  Who throws glitter on people they disagree with and who throws pies on speakers at college campuses?  Who wants fox news taken off the air?  Who wants to censor the internet?  The answer to those questions will look more like Europe than the U.S. and I have to say, that is one of the reasons I bring up these points about Europe.  People in the States need to get a glimpse of the different approach to freedom and liberty in the different countries.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 10, 2012)

billcihak said:


> And who forms he PC brigades Tez? Who has instilled speech codes on college campuses here in the states? Who throws glitter on people they disagree with and who throws pies on speakers at college campuses? Who wants fox news taken off the air? Who wants to censor the internet? The answer to those questions will look more like Europe than the U.S. and I have to say, that is one of the reasons I bring up these points about Europe. People in the States need to get a glimpse of the different approach to freedom and liberty in the different countries.



Wow the points made about Europe being totally different countries went right over your head didn't it? You are still talking of Europe as if it were one country.
What on earth are you accusing Europeans of now? You must live in a veritable fantasy world as you don't take anything on board that doesn't fit with your view of the world. 
Are you trying to say that the American people have no mind or will of their own that everything is imported from Europe? How very, very silly. Your problems are your own mate, look to yourselves or rather look to your right wing cronies.
So you look to Europe, and see what? countries so conservative they make America look communist, countries that are still communist, countries that are mildy conservative, countries that are conservative/liberal, some are socialist, some are religious, how can you look at all the countries in Europe and just see one thing? Incredible and somewhat disturbing.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 10, 2012)

Sigh....
Canada is the worlds best country. End of discussion, end of thread....


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 10, 2012)

Well you certainly had some stunningly beautiful women in Calgary when I visited .  Walked into Joey Tomatoes restaurant to be greeted by a glorious red head in a silk gown, with equally lovely blondes and brunettes at her back ... forgot what I went in for :faints:


----------



## granfire (Feb 10, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Well you certainly had some stunningly beautiful women in Calgary when I visited .  Walked into Joey Tomatoes restaurant to be greeted by a glorious red head in a silk gown, with equally lovely blondes and brunettes at her back ... forgot what I went in for :faints:



:lfao:


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 10, 2012)

Ken Morgan said:


> Sigh....
> Canada is the worlds best country. End of discussion, end of thread....



No way and american bacon is way better then that canadian ham you try to pass off as bacon too


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 10, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> No way and american bacon is way better then that canadian ham you try to pass off as bacon too



Now that's something I can't comment on, totally no knowledge of either!


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 10, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Now that's something I can't comment on, totally no knowledge of either!



I feel so bad for you


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 10, 2012)

Bacon and Beer MMMMMMMM


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 11, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I feel so bad for you



LOL, you don't need to, a Jewish diet includes so many good things to eat we don't miss pork, actually it probably contains too many good things!


----------



## granfire (Feb 11, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> LOL, you don't need to, a Jewish diet includes so many good things to eat we don't miss pork, actually it probably contains too many good things!



If you don't know what you are missing, how could you possibly miss it?



I am craving latkes. Got any cooking?


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 11, 2012)

granfire said:


> If you don't know what you are missing, how could you possibly miss it?
> 
> 
> 
> I am craving latkes. Got any cooking?



I know what I'm missing. Don't miss it. And Canadian bacon is far superior than the strips of fat that Americans seem so fond of.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 11, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> I know what I'm missing. Don't miss it. And Canadian bacon is far superior than the strips of fat that Americans seem so fond of.




I would have tried but the smell put me off, ugh. I was watching a farming programme the other day and here a lot of farmers rear pigs outside either in fields and woods, there's also a lot of old breeds some of which are rare. Breeds like 'Gloucester Old Spot' (that's pronounced Gloster btw), and Tamworths (ginger pigs), Berkshires ( PG Wodehouses famous Blandings pigs) the piglets are sweet and by all accounts the bacon, hams and pork that come from the old breeds that are naturally reared is delicious. I imagine it would taste better than factory farmed animals.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 11, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> I know what I'm missing. Don't miss it. And Canadian bacon is far superior than the strips of fat that Americans seem so fond of.



Oh you are so close to a Neg rep point for that comment.  This means war verkill::knight2:


----------



## granfire (Feb 11, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I would have tried but the smell put me off, ugh. I was watching a farming programme the other day and here a lot of farmers rear pigs outside either in fields and woods, there's also a lot of old breeds some of which are rare. Breeds like 'Gloucester Old Spot' (that's pronounced Gloster btw), and Tamworths (ginger pigs), Berkshires ( PG Wodehouses famous Blandings pigs) the piglets are sweet and by all accounts the bacon, hams and pork that come from the old breeds that are naturally reared is delicious. I imagine it would taste better than factory farmed animals.



What are you? A treehugger?!

(yes, small farm food tastes better)


----------



## billc (Feb 11, 2012)

Actually, Penn and Teller, I don't know if you know them or not, did a show on organic foods.  They did a taste test that was really funny.  Everyone believed they could tell the organic foods, and bragged about how good they tasted...only to find out they had picked the factory produced foods.

This clip is of the taste test portion of the show, the second clip may be the whole piece...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_IoNQHMFLk&feature=related






Careful, there may be some nudity in this clip, the guys like to objectify women on each show...



Steve, this is Penn and Teller from Youtube, I think even you can watch this...


----------



## elder999 (Feb 11, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Actually, Penn and Teller, I don't know if you know them or not, did a show on organic foods. They did a taste test that was really funny. Everyone believed they could tell the organic foods, and bragged about how good they tasted...only to find out they had picked the factory produced foods.



"Taste" is subjective.

Ferinstance: I had a history teacher, Harry Kursh.You'd have loved him, billi-he was a socialist-capitalist, author of "The Franchise Boom," and a bunch of other stuff-woulda driven ya nuts!

Anyway, Mr. Kirsh had two really good stories. He was a Depression brat, and, when he was a kid, "tomato soup" was watered ketchup heated up. He related how when he first had *real* tomato soup, he hated it. He was also stationed in Alaska, where he had to get used to drinking powdered milk. His daughter lived on a kibbutz (and went back to Israel to stay) where she got used to drinking goat milk, and his wife could only drink skim milk. So they had three different kinds of milk in their house-all of which, presumably, "tasted good."

Try a tomato from my garden, though, and one of those picked when they're green, ripened in a nitrogen atmosphere monstrosities, and tell me the "factory food" tastes better.....:lol:


----------



## elder999 (Feb 12, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I would have tried but *the smell put me off,* ugh.




Apropos of my last post, then:






:lol:




Tez3 said:


> I was watching a farming programme the other day and here a lot of farmers rear pigs outside either in fields and woods, there's also a lot of old breeds some of which are rare. Breeds like 'Gloucester Old Spot' (that's pronounced Gloster btw), and Tamworths (ginger pigs), Berkshires ( PG Wodehouses famous Blandings pigs) the piglets are sweet and by all accounts the bacon, hams and pork that come from the old breeds that are naturally reared is delicious. I imagine it would taste better than factory farmed animals.



Indeed. I raise a couple of breeds of heirloom poultry-when I serve people some Australorp, there are always comments about how tasty it is. Part of that's my cooking, of course, but the other reason is that they taste like chicken is _supposed to taste_.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 12, 2012)

I agree with BillC {slaps self and then faints } that there is a certain degree of tosh surrounding the non-factory farmed food industry.  Part of taste is expectation after all (e.g. my wine always tastes better out of my extremely expensive Jaguar lead-crystal glasses).  Part of it is 'education' too, as Elder said, if your first experiences with food are with 'bad' produce then you'l learn that that is how they are 'supposed' to taste.

But there is also a certain of truth in 'properly' grown/raised produce tasting better.  The tomato example that Elder gave is perhaps the most striking I can think of - the ones our neighbour gives us straight out of his greenhouse are absolutely divine compared to the tasteless red bags-of-water that you buy from the supermarket.  When it comes to free-range meats, the taste difference might be less obvious, tho' still there, but there is also the satisfaction that the creature that gave it's life for my dinner actually had a life; a pleasant one rather than the torture that a lot of factory-raised animals have to endure.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 12, 2012)

It's probably obvious but what an animal eats is going to affect how it tastes, also how it's killed, it's no good rearing up free range animals if they are stressed when they are killed, the hormones flooding in ruin the taste so the humanity has to last to the end and is practical as well as well meaning. Corn fed chickens are going to taste different from the normal chicken food eating ones, wild game such as duck and venison taste different from the domestically reared ones. In Wales there sheep raised on salt flats by the sea their meat is naturally more salty. Different breeds give different tastes as well. 
One reason to eat organic food as opposed to factory farmed ones is the additives that the latter are given, growth hormones, antibiotics etc that the organically and field fed animals don't need. Animals reared in such close proximity to each other need more medication than those bred outside and naturally. 

Organic free range eggs are miles better than the factory ones which have thick shells through feeding them more calcium, makes the eggs last longer they reckon. The free range organic ones are wonderful and I find there's less I have to throw away because of blood spots, they seem hardly to occur in the 'natural' ones as opposed to the farmed ones. they are also much fresher having only been laid the same week I buy them as opposed to up to 28 days in the supermarket.

I wonder though if the people who say they can't tell the difference between non factory farmed food and factory stuff  have actually tried real non factory farmed? I say this because the supermarkets are very good at bamboozling customers with things like 'farm fresh' and 'barn raised' as well as other labels, also a lot of food is irradiated to make it last longer so even if it started as organic etc the supermarkets will ruin it.


----------



## MariaK (Feb 12, 2012)

I would say it's a very risky topic to discuss - which country has more freedom. Coming from Russia (not Soviet Union that collapsed more than 20 years ago), I always had an impression that Americans have more freedom. When I came to the USA I was advised (behind closed doors) by University professors not to discuss certain topics in American classroom (e.g. in American studies program - that Alaska belonged to Russian Empire). I never had this experience in Russia - you can discuss any topics in history there without being afraid of prosecusion. I was specifically trained in critical history in Russia - where you will evaluate, for example, atrocities that were conducted by communist regimes create in my country, and how it affected the development of the poitical, social etc. system in the country.

Another example - I had to pass an exam here in the USA to be able to conduct research with human subjects (in the area of speech and hearing sciences). I had to learn about medical experiments on people  conducted without their agreement by the US government and medical organizations in 1970-80s. Now, how the country where freedom seems to be a cornerstone of politics etc. allowed for such atrocities to take place? Other questions: Why Americans have no freedomn to have free medical service? Why is there death sentence in the country - and freedom to life is not guaranteed like in Europe? I think it's a very interesting but really hard topic to discuss - for every example you would find a counterexample and as we all are a "product" of our own societies and political systems - we will probably never understand the other side to full extent.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 12, 2012)

What country has the most laws?
US

What country has the most prisoners?
US

Funny that huh?



> A U.S. Justice  Department report released on November 30 showed that a record 7 million  people -- or one in every 32 American adults -- were behind bars, on  probation or on parole at the end of last year. Of the total, 2.2  million were in prison or jail.
> According to the International Centre for Prison Studies at King's  College in London, more people are behind bars in the United States than  in any other country. China ranks second with 1.5 million prisoners,  followed by Russia with 870,000.
> The U.S. incarceration rate of 737 per 100,000 people in the  highest, followed by 611 in Russia and 547 for St. Kitts and Nevis. In  contrast, the incarceration rates in many Western industrial nations  range around 100 per 100,000 people.
> Groups advocating reform of U.S. sentencing laws seized on the  latest U.S. prison population figures showing admissions of inmates have  been rising even faster than the numbers of prisoners who have been  released.
> ...


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1209-01.htm


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 12, 2012)

Sounds like good police work here.  Higher caliber of officers.




Bob Hubbard said:


> What country has the most laws?
> US
> 
> What country has the most prisoners?
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 12, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Sounds like good police work here. Higher caliber of officers.



Really? Bob's already posted that you have more laws to break so more things to arrest and charge people with.


----------



## billc (Feb 12, 2012)

> I would say it's a very risky topic to discuss - which country has more freedom. Coming from Russia (not Soviet Union that collapsed more than 20 years ago), I always had an impression that Americans have more freedom. When I came to the USA I was advised (behind closed doors) by University professors not to discuss certain topics in American classroom (e.g. in American studies program - that Alaska belonged to Russian Empire). I never had this experience in Russia - you can discuss any topics in history there without being afraid of prosecusion. I was specifically trained in critical history in Russia - where you will evaluate, for example, atrocities that were conducted by communist regimes create in my country, and how it affected the development of the poitical, social etc. system in the country.
> 
> Another example - I had to pass an exam here in the USA to be able to conduct research with human subjects (in the area of speech and hearing sciences). I had to learn about medical experiments on people  conducted without their agreement by the US government and medical organizations in 1970-80s. Now, how the country where freedom seems to be a cornerstone of politics etc. allowed for such atrocities to take place? Other questions: Why Americans have no freedomn to have free medical service? Why is there death sentence in the country - and freedom to life is not guaranteed like in Europe? I think it's a very interesting but really hard topic to discuss - for every example you would find a counterexample and as we all are a "product" of our own societies and political systems - we will probably never understand the other side to full extent.



You wo't be prosecuted for discussing things...yet, but the University history department is the home of left wing academics.  Political correctness, the attempt to get people to censor their own speech originated on left wing college campuses.  If you can silence people on certain subjects, you can control how those subjects are taught.

Research on human subjects even in a country like America is why a free people need to be constantly watching their government.  It is another reason why you don't want the government in control of your healthcare.  The infamous tuskeegee experiments, where men with syphilis were not given medicine, but placebos so the government could track the spread of the disease, is just one reason to keep the government out of the healthcare system, it gives them too much power to do bad things when bad people get in charge.

Health care is never free so you can't have free healthcare. You may pay for your healthcare in your taxes, or you may pay when you recieve a service, but you do pay.  Americans who are fighting obamacare are fighting it because they know, from over 200 years of experience, that the government can't be given any more power over citizens than absolutely necessary, just look at tuskeegee, and that government healthcare will deliver an inferior system of medicine, at a more expensive price, and that it will consume the nations income as it sky rockets out of control.  Look at the Veteran's administration hospitals in the United States to see what government healthcare will become.

The death penalty is in the states as far as I am concerned for justice, punishment and prevention of more crimes.  It is not right that when you take a life you can spend the rest of yours in jail.  You recieve the ultimate punishment for taking the life or lives of others, and by executing murderers, you keep them from killing again.  Innocent life should be revered, not murderers.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 12, 2012)

Same link


> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]  Ryan King, a  policy analyst at The Sentencing Project, a group advocating sentencing  reform, said the United States has a more punitive criminal justice  system than other countries.
> 
> 
> "We send more people to prison, for more different offences, for longer periods of time than anybody else," he said.
> ...



One site mentioned that Miami-Dade county alone averages 40,000 dropped cases a year due to shoddy police work....leading one person to wonder if IQ's higher than 70 were ineligible to be cops there. Good police work means you get the right guy and get the evidence to put them away. Not get the first person you find and pull stuff outta your *** to take them in.



Also, interesting to note that in the US, execution by firing squad is still an option (Utah), electric chair (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.), as well as lethal injection and gas (34 US states, plus the US military and federal government)
Sources:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty
http://brainz.org/13-most-brutal-and-inhumane-judicial-punishments-still-used-today/

Looking at who else has such penalties and punishments, it's interesting to see who's on that list.  Other fortresses of freedom such as Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc.


Then there is the so called "Constitution-Free Zone"
http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone
100 miles of the US border, it's a potential "papers please!" stop and detain area.


Now, all that said, I feel pretty free. I haven't been stopped recently, in fact my last stop was last August at a Revenue-Enhancement stop in Texas (read speed trap). Before that it's been years since I had my last 'official' run in with cops. Most of the time I run into them at martial arts camps and seminars.  My border crossings have been a bit longer, mostly more questions, 1 random vehicle search, nothing major. Flyings more of a pain so I don't do that, my position on the TSA is pretty well posted here so no need to rehash.

From a business POV, it's a pain in the ***. Lots of regulations, lots of paperwork, and it's often confusing trying to comply with things that even the government can't keep straight. I sometimes think the maze of regs is just make work so lawyers don't have to flip burgers for income. 

My photos and art aren't run by some government board for approval, I can move to where ever I want in the country as long as I can afford it, I don't need anyone's permission to go out, or travel, and I can obtain various means of self defense as I like as long as I can comply with a small amount of regulations and fees.  It's not perfect, but it's not as bad as some think either.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 12, 2012)

billcihak said:


> You wo't be prosecuted for discussing things...yet, but the University history department is the home of left wing academics. Political correctness, the attempt to get people to censor their own speech originated on left wing college campuses. If you can silence people on certain subjects, you can control how those subjects are taught.
> 
> Research on human subjects even in a country like America is why a free people need to be constantly watching their government. It is another reason why you don't want the government in control of your healthcare. The infamous tuskeegee experiments, where men with syphilis were not given medicine, but placebos so the government could track the spread of the disease, is just one reason to keep the government out of the healthcare system, it gives them too much power to do bad things when bad people get in charge.
> 
> ...




ROFLMAO at explaining to someone who used to live in the USSR/Russia what is left wing. Oh my, that's a good un and of course it's the 'left wing' that want to stop evolution being taught isn't it?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 12, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Really? Bob's already posted that you have more laws to break so more things to arrest and charge people with.



Yes really and im not bias either lol


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 12, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes really and im not bias either lol




Ah the joy of self delusion  


On Bili's self righteous statement on the death penalty, so you are saying that you mustn't kill others because it's wrong but if you do the state will kill you, some lesson. if 'government' healthcare is so bad why is America so far down the list of good healthcare providers ( I did post the link in a previous post) and why is your life expectancy shorter than ours and the infant mortality rate higher?


----------



## billc (Feb 12, 2012)

The myth of infant mortality rates...

http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/myths-facts/infant-mortality-and-premature-birth/



> *Myth:* The U.S. infant mortality rate is higher than that of other countries
> *Fact:* The U.S. infant mortality rate is not higher; the rates of Canada and many European countries are artificially low, due to more restrictive definitions of live birth. There also are variations in the willingness of nations to save very low birth weight and gestation babies.
> The ethnic heterogeneity of the U.S. works against it because different ethnic and cultural groups may have widely different risk factors and genetic predispositions.
> Definitions of a live birth, and therefore which babies are counted in the infant mortality statistics very considerably. The U.S. uses the full WHO definition, while Germany omits one of the four criteria. The U.K. defines a still birth a child which has issued forth from its mother after the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy and which did not at any time after being completely expelled from its mother breathe or show any other signs of life.[SUP]1[/SUP]
> This leaves what constitutes a sign of life open and places those born before 24 weeks in a gray area. Canada uses the complete WHO definition but struggles with tens of thousands of missing birth records and increasing numbers of mothers sent to the U.S. for care.[SUP]2[/SUP] France requires a medical certificate [that] attests that the child was born alive and viable for baby who died soon after birth to be counted, which may be difficult to obtain.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 12, 2012)

Bob shoddy police work Is far from the top reasons cases are dropped.  The #1top reason cases get dropped is because a victim or witness does not show up.  The state then has no evidence and case is dropped.  Second reason at least where I work is time.  Courts are so over crowded that in are courts they will drop all misdemenors on an over crowded day as long as the person arrested has no record and there is no victim.  Mainly drug cases, traffic arrests, public nuances stuff like peeing in public in alleys and such even if the officer objects.  Are cases dropped for poor police work sure but why would I want to do hours of paperwork for no reason so most cops I know do try to do it right.  Alot is beyond our control.


----------



## billc (Feb 12, 2012)

And on healthcare...

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-3105523.html


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 12, 2012)

billcihak said:


> The myth of infant mortality rates...
> 
> http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/myths-facts/infant-mortality-and-premature-birth/




LOL, that will be an unbiased, independant study would it? No, didn't think so. You're aving a Steffi Graf mate.


----------



## billc (Feb 12, 2012)

and on healthcare,  try bringing in 20 million illegal aliens from poverty stricken 3rd world countries and put them into your healthcare system and see what that does to you mortality rates.

And from the link above:


> Still, there's one part of this argument that hasn't been quite so easy to
> rebut. It's the suggestion that countries with universal health insurance lag in
> one crucial area of care: "high-end" treatment. As the argument goes, all of
> those general statistics comparing national health care performance are
> ...


----------



## billc (Feb 12, 2012)

From American thinker on health care and Europe:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_cost_of_free_government_he_1.html



> [FONT=times new roman,times]_Is Government-Run Health Care Better? _Proponents of government-run health care argue that Americans will receive better care despite the foregoing. Their main argument has been that despite paying more for health care the United States trails other countries in infant mortality and average life expectancy. [/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=times new roman,times]However, neither is a good measure of the quality of a country's health care system. Each depends more on genetic makeup, personal lifestyle (including diet and physical activity), education, and environment than available health care. For example, in their book _The Business of Health_, Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider found that if it weren't for our high rate of deaths from homicides and car accidents Americans would have the highest life expectancy. [/FONT]





> Proponents of government-run health care like to point out that countries with such a system spend a smaller percentage of their gross domestic product on health care than the United States. What they don't like to mention is how those savings are achieved. For example:
> 
> _Patients Lose the Right To Decide What Treatment They'll Receive. _Instead, patients receive whatever care politicians and bureaucratic number crunchers decide is "cost effective."
> 
> ...


----------



## billc (Feb 12, 2012)

American thinker, another source for the truth about infant mortality rates...



> Infant mortality statistics are difficult to compare because other countries don't count as live births infants below a certain weight or gestational age. June E. O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill found that Canada's infant mortality would be higher than ours if Canadians had as many low-weight births (the U.S. has almost three times as many teen mothers, who tend to give birth to lower-weight infants).



also...



> [FONT=times new roman,times]A better measure of a country's health care is how well it actually treats patients. The CONCORD study published in 2008 found that the five-year survival rate for cancer (adjusted for other causes of death) is much higher in the United States than in Europe (e.g., 91.9% vs. 57.1% for prostate cancer, 83.9% vs. 73% for breast cancer, 60.1% vs. 46.8% for men with colon cancer, and 60.1 vs. 48.4% for women with colon cancer). The United Kingdom, which has had government-run health care since 1948, has survival rates lower than those for Europe as a whole.[/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=times new roman,times]Proponents of government-run health care argue that more preventive care will be provided. However, a 2007 Commonwealth Fund report comparing the U.S., Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom found that the U.S. was #1 in preventive care. Eighty-five percent of U.S. women age 25-64 reported that they had a Pap test in the past two years (compared to 58% in the United Kingdom); 84% of U.S. women age 50-64 reported that they had a mammogram in the past two years (compared to 63% in the United Kingdom).[/FONT]


----------



## billc (Feb 12, 2012)

Hmmm...on cancer and the kingdom...



> The United Kingdom, which has had government-run health care since 1948, has survival rates lower than those for Europe as a whole.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 12, 2012)

Drifting back into the health care debate.  Lets focus on the 'freedom' debate k?

Thanks.


----------



## Scott T (Feb 12, 2012)

Jenna said:


> ]When a nation is persuaded / coerced into giving sovereignty to the requirements of continental economic union instead of the interests of its citizens then yes, freedom is eroded.
> [/B]
> Europe as a monolithic entity is, to say the least, not pleased when member nations break rank and assert that they have every right to govern theirselves and not be dictated centrally.
> 
> ...


Oddly enough, the bolded above also describes Canadian/American relations, and our freedoms -- most notably our right to privacy -- have been eroded as a result of events that happened over a decade ago as well as economic concerns.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 12, 2012)

Politics is a game Europeans have been playing for centuries longer than the Americans, the politics played out in the EU is far better than the politics that used to be played out on the battlefields. A lot of things are made up about the EU, our politicians take delight in trying to convince us that they are fighting hard against a Europe that is trying to take us over, they come back with all these 'victories' and scare stories about how Europe wants to take us over, actually it doesn't and one of the 'victories' they saved us from was having more workers rights, the Uk vetoed and cut some of the rights the EU gives workers. Don't believe all you read and hear about the EU and how we are going to be one big country, that's politicians scare tactics, there's not a country in the EU that would give up it's sovereign statehood for that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 12, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Politics is a game Europeans have been playing for centuries longer than the Americans, the politics played out in the EU is far better than the politics that used to be played out on the battlefields. A lot of things are made up about the EU, our politicians take delight in trying to convince us that they are fighting hard against a Europe that is trying to take us over, they come back with all these 'victories' and scare stories about how Europe wants to take us over, actually it doesn't and one of the 'victories' they saved us from was having more workers rights, the Uk vetoed and cut some of the rights the EU gives workers. Don't believe all you read and hear about the EU and how we are going to be one big country, that's politicians scare tactics, there's not a country in the EU that would give up it's sovereign statehood for that.



And yet, in the US, most citizens think a 'state' is just a political border like a big giant city.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 13, 2012)

A state is what you come home in after being on a pub crawl!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 13, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> A state is what you come home in after being on a pub crawl!



I thought that was a vomit, blood n piss drenched blanket, given to you by a nice EMT who couldn't locate your pants?


----------



## MariaK (Feb 15, 2012)

billcihak said:


> You wo't be prosecuted for discussing things...yet, but the University history department is the home of left wing academics. Political correctness, the attempt to get people to censor their own speech originated on left wing college campuses. If you can silence people on certain subjects, you can control how those subjects are taught.QUOTE]
> 
> Guys, I got confused - coming from Russia I always thought that "left" means being non-conservative etc. here in the USA. As far as I understand the tenure system originated so that professors would not get fired expressing free speech. So I always found "left wing" professors here are more interested in hearing different opinions on different topics in comparison to conservative people out of campus (I live in Indiana ).
> 
> ...


----------



## billc (Feb 15, 2012)

The left wing professors use the tenure system to protect themselves, they don't extend that to professors who are conservative.  The "Free speech," movement in the 1960's was used to ensure that left leaning professors could openly discuss their ideas without fear of reprisals from the administration.  Once they gained positions of power, on the boards that granted tenure, for example, they used their power to silence opinions that disagreed with them.   America is a religous country and abortion goes against the tenets of christianity in particular, and other religions in some ways similiarly.  Abortion is seen as ending a human life, or murdering an innocent human being.  That is why abortion is so opposed here in the states.

Here is a video that discusses "political correctness."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 15, 2012)

[h=1]Press Freedom Violations on the Rise, Watchdog Says[/h] A media watchdog recorded more than 500 press  freedom violations over the past year in southeast and central Europe,  an increase over 2010 figures.






[h=1]European Court of Human Rights: violation of freedom of expression in case Heinisch v. Germany[/h]  					 											
http://human-rights-convention.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/cour2.jpgIn  the Chamber judgment on 21 July, in the case Heinisch v. Germany, the  European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a  violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European  Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the dismissal of a  geriatric nurse after having brought a criminal complaint against her  employer alleging deficiencies in the care provided.







2 stories.  Europe has problems.  Good luck wearing a burka in France.  Don't remind the Germans about that little spat in the 1940's.  Britain has 6 cameras on every street corner.  Turkey has more violations of rights than Carter has liver spots.  

Spend some time on Google, and you'll find lots of violations in Europe.

Meanwhile the US is sicking legions of rights violating cops on protesters and cameramen with little regard to that little "Constitution" thing, while seeking to disarm it's population while deeming breathing to be a taxable act.

Everyone thinks their system of screwing people is freer and less violative than anyone elses system of rights sodomy. *shrug*

Have I missed anything?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 16, 2012)

And how do you know there are these many violations of human rights? Answer..because we have the freedom to complain about them, investigate them and stop the people doing them. We have a Court of Human Rights where one can take your allegations of violations in human rights and where you will be heard and judgement given , judgments moreover that find in the peoples favour not the governments or organisations. 
However saying 'Europe' has problems is again seeing it as one country instead of the 50 there actually are.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 16, 2012)

You are wasting your breath trying to explain, Tez. 

Americans, particularly right wing ones, are always right, because they are 'free' and noone else is and God tells them so.

We just have to get used to it and should be grateful they talk to us at all :bows abjectly before the awesomeness:.

Oh wait ... say what ... but how? You mean that there are only 400 million of them and they consume 80% of the worlds resources to have a quarter of their population live in poverty? That cannot be so!?

Perhaps it is the case that there is more than one solution to the problem of keeping a population fed, watered and healthy and the wise thing to do is to take the aspects that work for the social good and discard the ones that don't?

Disclaimer: Some statistics may have been harmed in the making of this post :lol:.

EDIT:  On rereading I thought I'd better just say to please note that the preamble, whilst it may contain germs of truth to be digested, was meant lightly.  It is the last paragraph which is the important one.


----------



## granfire (Feb 16, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> You are wasting your breath trying to explain, Tez.
> 
> Americans, particularly right wing ones, are always right, because they are 'free' and noone else is and God tells them so.
> 
> ...





You are BAD!!!
:lol:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 16, 2012)

I quit.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 16, 2012)

Me too .


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 16, 2012)

I'm on nights and Thursday nights are a big 'going out getting bladdered and hopefully laid' night so I'm going to be busy lol ( working not drinking and I'm married so none of the other either lol)


----------



## K-man (Feb 16, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Americans, *particularly* *right* *wing* *ones*, are always right, because they are 'free' and noone else is and God tells them so.


Are there any others?  I thought it was just right or further right! Mmmm.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 16, 2012)

:chuckles:  Ahh, hoist on my own linguistic petard it would appear .  Tho', to be fair to myself, I have only ever described the political parties in America that way, not the voters themselves.


----------



## David43515 (Feb 16, 2012)

K-man said:


> Are there any others? I thought it was just right or further right! Mmmm.



Well, we do have the OWS crowd. But I suppose you could say that they`re SO right wing that they`ve gone round the bend only to pop up on the left.


----------

