Aardvark

It's funny:-p . And then it happens:eek: Well, probably not in the USA, but it is happening in Europe.

It's simple really. Imagine if NAFTA was given the right to make laws that overrode the US supreme court and overode the US constitution and overode the Senate and Congress and the President. Imagine if the leaders of NAFTA were not elected but chosen by a vote between the Mexican President, Canadian Prime Minister and the US President. How would you feel if the Mexican and Canadian leaders decided that they didn't like the US having its own currency and so 'voted' to abolish it and replace it with a 'Nafta Peso'? Seriously, how would you feel about that?

You appear to be confused. Being people does not make them the same people. I have a common need for food and water as does a Malaysian. Does that mean that my country and Malaysia should merge? Calling the EU a supra national project is perfectly accurate. Perhaps you need to check a dictionary? The EU can claim to be about all those things if it wants. That doesn't make it true or mean that it is the most effective way of promoting those things. On the evidence the EU doesn't do a good job on those matters. I was refering to the Civil war (obviously). Whether you look at Americas colonial or post colonial history, people were choosing to leave their countries to go to a new place, whether called a colony or a repubic. It was a place with a distinctive identity that people wanted to be a part of. Quite the opposite of Europe. Didn't write that, didn't imply that. Didn't do so. Are you misreading my post or being deliberately mendacious? Yes you did. An argument you have repeatedly made without actually providing any evidence for how the EU will met these needs in any sort of superior fashion. Yet more wasteful duplication and inefficency. With no apparent effect on international crime, which you stated the EU would provide protection against. You honestly believe that people would change their identities because of an EU administrative decision? A series of brutal military invasions and mass population re settlements of the type now called ethnic cleansing had a lot to do with that, not an arbitary change in administrative boundaries. Several centuries of Union, a shared language, shared history and culture, and Britain still has difficulty reconciling its different constituent parts. Perhaps you've noticed this fuss about devolution and the unresolved debates? And you think that dragging people together with none of those close links, with none of the shared history, family ties and culture will work? Yugoslavia. Ireland. USSR. Austo-Hungarian Empire. People don't accept any such thing. Any evidence to back your claim up? There is a truck load of historical evidence that peoples identities and allegencies don't get changed by fiat. How are you going to refute that? You've just repeatedly defended it and pointed out that you approve of its aims. The Commision reappointed itself after being sacked. What part of that is hard to understand? And yet it didn't. The facts contradict your own argument. Who have almost no real authority or power, as opposed to the unelected commissoners. A sacked commission reappoints itself. And that is your idea of democracy? Such as? The EU 'Parliament' doesn't even get to scrutinise most EU legislation, let alone veto it. So laws applicable to me in my country are decided by foreign heads of state. The German and the French presidents decide something and i have to obey. Where is the democracy? Oh wait, their isn't. Being free to join the EU doesn't mak it democratic. You look like you're missing the point spectacularly. How off the point can you get? The fact that Britain, as a democratic country has joined the EU does not make the EU democratic. Your logic makes no sense. Really? By the EUs OWN RULES, if the EU were to apply to join itself it would be rejected as being insufficently democratic. Understand that? The EU itself admits that it is not democratic. Shall i repeat that? The EU itself admits that it is not democratic. Understand yet? So no voter gets a say, instead its old fashioned patronage. (which doesn't count as democracy) Again, do you know what the word 'patronage' means? Not much to do with democracy i'm afraid. Hooray, a vote on a toothless assembly that doesn't make the decisions. No. It is not democratic because it is not accountable. The only elections are to a powerless 'Parliament' which doesn't make the decisions, frame the legislation or make the rules. All the UK ministers are directly elected by their constituents. If the people get upset then they are out at the next election. Just ask Michael Portillo. That is democracy. When do we get a vote on your 'democratic' Commisionners? Never? Really? How democratic:rolleyes: And when did did the House of Commons get to vote on that matter? Never? The EU just decided to grant itself those powers. How democratic, in a Chinese sort of way. That doesn't make the EU democratic. The people elected a government (by democracy!) that then seeks to bind the nation to an undemocratic organisation. Living in a democracy i am free to point out the problem with this and the fact that the U is not democratic. No, he can't. EU law overrules UK law whether Blair likes it or not. Except that choice has been taken away. The fact that the UK as a democracy is a member of the EU doesn't make the EU democratic. There is no apparent logic in your argument. The EU isn't a democracy, so it isn't even a question of an imperfect system in comparision with an ideal. The EU is seeking to make major constitutional changes that directly effect hundreds of millions of people. If it can't get any mandate that it shouldn't. Simple. Like Cuba? It's coming across as naivety. And then you get the opportunity to vote for or against them at regular elections. Unlike the EU. And then you get to vote on whether to renew his mandate, unlike the EU. It's just a shame that i do understand your point and ralise that it is muddle headed and mistaken Your basic point is that the UK is democratic and has freely choosen to be part of the EU, therefore the EU is democratic. That is wrong. The UK can be democratic and democratically choose to join an undemocratic organisation. I haven't insisted on any such thing. I've simply pointed out that the EU is an undemocratic organisation. Old but true. No. Simply not democratic. Failing such as not being a democratic organistation, yes. Non-democratic? Yes. A complete red herring on your part. Incidentaly, according to your logic, Hitler and the Nazi regime was democratic. Hitler was elected democratically to set up a totalitarian state. According to what you have argued that makes the 3rd Reich a democratic organisation. It matters a great deal whether people feel divided. You don't appear to understand the difference between the concept of 'people' as a general description of multiple humans, and 'a people' as a discrete unit of humans bound by common loyalties. Without 'a people' it is not possible to have a democracy. And there is no such thing as 'a European people'. Without common loyalities there is no European democracy. The EU is a bureaucratic oligarchy. Love it or loath it. It isn't democratic.

If he loses a vote on his position as Prime minister he is out. Not if he loses a vote on cat food regulation. Obviously.

Common needs doesn't make a people. Mexicans and Tibetans have common needs and are people, but they are not the same 'people'. We aren't looking at co operation between nations, but at the establishment of a supra national state. Exactly my point. Exactly my point. The differences between New Yorkers and Californians is trumped by nationality. That's my point which you appear to be conceding by mistake. We aren't talking about co-operation, but the establishment of a supra national state. Economics trumps nationality? A rather naive view which has been knocked down time and time again as all throughout history people have put nationality before economic self interest. America is an awful parallel. All the settlers went to America with the express intention of becoming Americans and intergrating into America and American culture, and even then it took a bloody civil war to unite the nation. Europe is completely different, the populations of Europe have not moved their with the intention of becoming 'Europeans' or participating in a 'European Dream'. And there is no general recognition of any benefits from 'uniting'. And these common things can be provided by the nations without any need for interference from the EU. In what way does the EU provide 'efficent protection from international crime'? For instance? And the EU doesn't have a habit of leaving 'local' rule to nations, it has a habit of grabbing power and micro managing as much as possible. I was disappointed too. A stupid and insulting proposal. Agreed. No. The idea that the people of Southampton are going to feel that thy are the compatriots of the people of Le Havre because of an artifical EU administrative decision is wrong. Peoples identities aren't ended by diktat. To mount a futile attack on peoples identities which is bound to alienate them from the very institution you appear to admire do much? Underhanded and sneaky pretty well sums up a lot about the EUs operations. Hope springs eternal:rolleyes: Nope, corruption and incompetence, them the sacked commisionners are back in their old jobs, to apparently investigate themselves for several months:eek: , then forming a new commision, with no reference to the European Parliament (democratic:rolleyes: ) which still contained members of the old commission. And those 'sacked' commisioners leave with full pension rights and a remarkably generous pay off. That is not democracy doing its job, more like a Chinse communist party politburo reshuffle. If Blair loses a vote in the UK parliament he is out. That day. Not in six months time. Compare that with the EU 'Parliament' Your opinion seems remarkably unencumbered by reference to reality. The commisioners were sacked and promptly reappointed themselves for six months. How is that democratic or accountable? If the US President is empeached he is out, no reappointing himself. My local MEPs have no say on the matter. How is that democratic? Well done for spectacularly missing the point. It isn't a question of whether its a good idea to make it a CRIMINAL offence to sell a pound of butter, but the fact that it is a undemocratic diktat from unaaccountable commisioners over whom i have no influence as a citizen and voter. It's the lack of democracy that is problematic here. Whether making me a criminal for buying a pint is a good idea or not should be a matter for my democratically elected government, not a Supra National organistation issuing directives without any democratic mandate or accountability. No, if you can't do it with the blessing of the people, then don't. New Labour, elected by the people. That's democracy. A democratic nation with regular elections. The fact that an undemocratic and unaccountable organisation does it, makes it 'more' democratic? And perhaps Peace is War and Hate is Love and Hunger is Prosperity. Or perhaps not. Yet another undemocratic attempt to bulldoze huge changes onto people without bothering to get their consent. Democratic? Not bothering to get the peoples permission? Your idea of democracy is rather odd:confused: It is a lot more than a 'loose amalgamation of states' Have you ever heard the principle of 'ever closer union'? Such as? And why not bother to get the peoples consent? Giving democracy a try, you don't always get the answers you want, but that's what it's about. No. The disagreement is absolutely fundamental. The nation state is the essential building block of democracy. Without the nation state you don't get democracy. The antion state is the demos. It is the demos that makes democracy. Very basis principle.

My opinion is that there may be a French people and an Italian people and a Polish people and a Swedish people, but not a European people. Europe is inhabited by peoples (plural). It seems clear that the EUs opinion is wrong. Come on you know better than that;) There may be differences between the people of Northern France and Southern France and between New Yorkers and Californians, but they do share strong bonds of common culture, much much stronger than that between a Laplander and a Lustitanian. In a crunch a farmer from Cumbria and a stockbroker from London have a lot more in common than either would have with their exact counterparts in France. You can't wish away national bonds, they are amazingly resilient and powerful. Workers of the world haven't united precisely becausee of that. That assumes that there is an entity known as 'the people'. Europe is inhabited by many different peoples. Anyway, even if Europe was inhabited by one united people it is still seriously undemocratic. When the Europan Parliament voted to expel the Commisioners for gross incompetence the commisioners resigned and then reappointed themselves. And, according to the EUs OWN rules, if the EU was a country applying for membership to itself, it would be denied for being undemocratic! Oh the delicious irony! Except it isn't delicious, it means that i'm ruled by an unaccountable bureaucracy that makes laws that i have to obey, but have no say on their making. . viz, the outlawing of any mention of imperial measurements such as pounds and ounces. It will be a CRIMINAL offence to sell a slab of butter that has packaging that mentions how much it weighs in ounces. When did the electorate get asked about that? Who do i vote for, or write to to stop that? Who gives a damn about the poor bloody public? Seriously, i've known several European civil servants and politicans, privately, they are quite open. They think the public is too stupid to know what is in its own interests and must be led by a self selecting elite. These people despise the public and equate democracy with 'popularism' (whatever that is). The EU has a profound anti democratic ethos, for example, when the people of France votd against a new constitution for the EU instead of accepting the will of the people the reaction is to reintroduce the constitution on the sly. Have a 'mini' constitution, don't bother getting voter approval this time, and then expand on it at leisure. Nice one. Nationalism is the basis of peoples identity, therefore it is the basis for a 'demos'. We might decry it, but is is a fact, nationalism is how most people define and identify themselves.

Unfortunately, as you are no doubt aware, humans are not rational creatures. Most opinions are formed on the basis of emotion and reason is only then used to create false rationalisations. Any good pyschologist or advertiser will be able to explain how most decisions people make are not made on the basis of any rational thought process at all. To summarise. People are irrational and will normally only use reason in defence of preconceived prejudice. It's rotten but there's not much to be done. Anyway, glad that the problems you eluded to have been dealt with, from personal experience i can sympathise and add that justice and reason don't always prevail.

Th Schengen pact simply covers the right to move betwen countries without a passport, to which Britain, (thank God) is not a signatory. The right to live and work anywhere in the EU is covered by the single market treaty to which Britain is a signatory. Incidentally a multinational democracy is an oxymoron. Democracy means rule of the people (very simplified;) ). A multinational state has many peoples. There is no one 'Demos' to be represented by a democracy. Nationalism is an essential for democracy. No nationalism means no Demos means no democracy, so i stand proud as a 'Staunch Nationalist':-p

He did answer that question by pointing out that any vaccination using the mecury can be equally validly studied. There is no need to gather information on all vaccinations. Perhaps you could now try and answer some of the points and questions Mokele has raised? Your point is obscured by poor grammar. Incidentally, are you aware of the theory that Autism is genetic?

He's old enough to get married and have children. Finding your girlfriend cheating on you is an approriate occasion to drink. Infact, it's a normal adult response. Nothing immature there. He said he was walking, and i doubt she was doing much driving:rolleyes: He's 19. That makes him a biologically mature adult. It also means he's old enough to get married, have children, get a job, join the army and go to war. Yet you have a problem with him drinking:confused: You have very weird priorities. On what basis do you make that comment? How can you possibly infer that the problems they've been having are caused by alcohol? Remember, in vino veritas. Nonsense. People who love each other get into all sorts of situations where cheating is possible. they still go to parties and clubs and the stationary cupboard. It's just that in those situations they choose not to cheat. It seems like you are the one who is immature and has very odd twisted concepts of behaviour, not Callipygous. Or perhaps you're just a troll who thinks it's funny to mock someone at such a difficult time? Not pleasant, not intelligent.

From what you've posted, the advice i can offer is to walk away and don't look back. It's hard, trust me i know, you're desperate for there to be some way to work things out, for things to be back the way you thought they were. The brutal truth is, they aren't going to go back to the way they were. It's a poisonous relationship and the only way you are going to start to recover and for that pain to heal is to break it up and go, sever all contact, no emails, texts or chats over coffee. In time you will feel better, you will get over this, no matter how much it doesn't seem that way now. The important thing is to walk away, the trust that has gone can't come back, don't torture yourself hoping it will. I know how you are feeling and i also know that you WILL get over it. Stay strong and remind yourself that she's the one not good enough for you, you do deserve better. You are the good one here.

All nations are basd on some common ties of identity, in the case of Israeli, ones of common Jewish culture. Unless you accept that all nations are offensive by the act of their very existence then there is nothing offensive about Israel.

Yes, Japan does that. People who are racially of Japanese origin have an automatic claim on citizenship on the theory that Japan is the home of the Japanese people. Actually, it is more a matter of religion and culture. Jewish Negroes from Africa are as entitled to, and receive, citizenship and the robust protection of the Israeli state, as more 'traditionally' racially Jewish Jews. Their is no bar or impediment on the basis of race. Not so, the law of return is based on a persons relationship to the Jewish religion and culture. Black, brown, yellow or white, Jews from all corners of the world and of all races are accepted into Israel under that law. Negroes from Africa, Asiatics from the highlands of Burma and whites from Europe all have passed the tests. It is a test of sharing a common culture not of race.

Point accepted, Reibus's post is somewhat confused and self contradictory in my opinion, but he does state that certain causes and treatments for chronic conditions are being flatly denied which is more than just making a difficult financial choice. He then states that he has found people, presumably outside 'mainstream' medicine who, for a fee, will provide erstwhile secret treatments. I think Reibus is in danger of slipping into a whole host of the delusions so apparent in the internet, secret cures for cancer suppressed by drug companies, secret conspiracies......

About as racist as Japan limiting citizenship to people of Japanese origin. Is Japan a racist state? It seems perfectly reasonable that a Jewish state should give preference in migration to Jewish people. Considering the large number of Arab Israeli citizens i fail to see how it is skewed? False analogy. It would be similiar if the USA has special rules for people applying for citizenship who already have some particular link to the USA such as family relations. All nations exist for the benefit of their people, Iceland for the benefit of Icelanders, Japan to look for the interests of the Japanese and the USA for US citizens and their kith and kin. By definition all nations are exclusionary, that does not make them racist.

That is not what Reibu claimed or what i was refering to. Reibu stated that the causes of such conditions as Autism and multiple sclerosis are known but 'mainstream' medicine with not 'acknowledge' them and denies the existence of treatments. That is a completely irrelevant sidetrack. We are not prefering to the cost of treatments, we are refering to treatments being kept secret. In the case of the NHS a completely open decision was made on whether to fund different treatments, agree or disagree with the decisions, there was never any attempt hide or deny th existence of such treatments. We are not discussing difficult cost benefit decisions, but Reibus's belief that certain treatments are being kept secret.

That does not alter the fact that there are lots of Muslims in Isral who are full Israeli citizens with full civil rights, including forming political parties and being elected to the Knesset.

I'm happy for you, i hope that continues. Be careful about being drawn into conspiracy theory paranoia here. Even the phrase 'mainstream medicine' is pretty meaningless. If that was true then countries that don't rely on medical insurance and medical cards (whatever they are?) would have no incentive to cover up this matter. Why hasn't Italy or Sweden or Cuba or Saudi Arabia recognised these reasons? Are you refering to the theory that some vaccinations may trigger autism? If you are then you should know that this theory is definitely not proven and that if it were true then the vaccine manufacturers would not be able to cover it up. The theory that autism is genetic looks more promising. There are lots of people willing to offer hope to the desperate, to people desperate to believe. There are a lot of charlatans out there. The idea that 'mainstream medicine' would cover up treatments for Multiple Sclerosis or anyother chronic conditions is fantastic. It flys in the face of reason. Even if an organisation did have the motive and ability to repress a treatment in one country, it could not do so everywhere. Afterall, what power do US pharmaceutical companies have in Cuba or France or Japan or Brazil? The idea of medical coverups for the profit of some undefined groups is simply fantasy.

Not true. Not true Such as? Actually, that was about tax, not gun control. I don't want to refight the war of independence, but lets keep the facts straight and not just regurgitate myths and distortions.

It would be seen to cover the airforce on two main grounds. Firstly the intent of the clause is clear. It was designed to cover military personel, the fact that the clause predates the existence of the airforce will not allow the airforces exclusion. Secondly, the mention of covering 'the militia' can be used as a catch all to include anyone bearing arms in the defence of the nation. Interesting question of semantics but no judge is going to allow that loop hole.

There are lots of Arab Muslims in Israel who have full citizenship and civil rights. There are lots of Arab Muslims who stand for election and get elected.

When i watch the tv i see half a dozen religious channels preaching their creeds. Yet to see an atheist one. On the news i see mullahs and priests and bishops pronouncing, denouncing and pontificating. Where are these 'vocal' atheists? Perhaps you are prefering to the rather lonely Richard Dawkins? On the contrary, everyone knows that God is an Englishman:-p

I'm not sure about that. The teacher apparently recommended calcium supplements as an aid to the immune system, i've never heard of any evidence that calcium is useful in that way. Sure, if a diet is deficent then a top up would be reasonable but te teacher was talking about the immune system. It sounds like some disinformation being spread, if people are going to be taking supplements then they should have the correct information to base their choices on. Anyway, for optimum immune function the evidence for vitamin C convinces me.

I can't understand why your teacher would recommend calcium for the immune system. It is not a nutrient associated with immune function, but taking 1200mg supplements on top of your normal diet sounds like bad advice. Overdosing on calcium is not a good thing. On the other hand, it's not practically possible to overdose on vitamin C as it is water soluble, if the body has too much it simply excretes it out. There is a substantial body of evidence that vitamin C does contribute to the effective functioning of the immune system and that high levels doees reduce the duration of infections. This link to the Pauling Linus institute is a serious site of research on the health implications of different nutrients. http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/ Personally, i swear by 1000mg of Vitamin C each day and a capsule of cod liver oil.

No, the people of Iraq are not Persians like the Iranians. The Iraqis are Arabs, whilst the Iranians are Persians, a completely different racial and cultural group. The two countries are seperated by more than three thousand years of history as well as race, language religion and culture. President Hussein had nothing to do with keeping them seperate, they already were. If the two countries can normalise relations to the degree that their can be some cooperation in cross border trade and the like then that is fine, but the Iraqi government will remain suspicious of Iranian motives and meddling. The US could do well out of this, some cooperation with Iran would help limit the straightforward malicous meddling that Iran has so far indulged in. Instead the meddling would be more limited and Iran would find itself with more of a stake in a stable Iraq. Potentially a win win scenario for the USA.