Just a quick reply, and after that i will respect CC’s wish :)
“Well, i think all “educated” germans know and more or less care about the G8. Out of our history we know / have learnt that you can’t try to live isolated in this world. Therefore we care for what is happening at those summits. The positions on the G8 may be different, but still they care (positively or negatively).”
All “educated Germans?” So, not all educated Americans? If i am “educated” i guess I knew more less than more about the G8.
Then my english is not good enough to deliver the point. The “more or less” stays in context with the “care”, not the “know”. And it’s the “educated” in inverted kommas, means i lack a better word for it. You asked wether i think that all germans know about the G8, so i answered whtat i think. I had no intention to make any comments about americans there.
"understandable? That is my whole point, when saying the “US americans have a talent for provoking ill feelings in me”. I can’t tell how big my talent or the german talent is. It was extremely high in the last century though. "
Yes, killing all of those Jews was ingenious. That is if you want to compare what every action the Germans committed. America invented a lot of things to, though with a lot of help from Germans. But Icannot say that the German or American people are truly better people. The most we can debate is who is socially better…and inventions have nothing to do with it. I msut say this spitefullness against America is dangerous. Read your own writing. “Saber-rattling” culture? Look down at us, for we have an Brutish culture!
Talent not in the sense of invention but in the sense of “not being sensitive”.
Hey ignorant fool. Bush won. Newspapers eventually counted all of the votes in Florida, and because america has an electoral college, Bush would of STILL won. Did your media report that, or i guess you were to busy studying up on the G8 conference. People cannot know everything, so when some Americans don’t know, it isn’t a friggin’ huge tragedy.
Still, AFAIR if you take the total amount of votes cast, then Bush did not win a majority. Your indirect election system might have been great and useful in the time of hosre carriages, but in the times of the internet and telephone, it becomes unfair und injust (sp?).
One thing which I see a lot is leftists saying that the supreme court gave Bush the election. THe electoral system gave Bush the Presidency.
To state it simply, more states wanted Bush to be President. He only really had the tri-state area and the west coast.
Like 40 states voted for Bush.
Not that I love Bush or anything, but he did win.
The reason I wanted him to win was that he may appoint an anti-abortion Supreme court judge. One or two more and we may be able to repeal Roe v. Wade, and eliminate abortion in cases other than life of mother.
Only 10% of Abortions (in U.S.) are even for a medical reason.
One thing which I see a lot is leftists saying that the supreme court gave Bush the election. THe electoral system gave Bush the Presidency.
To state it simply, more states wanted Bush to be President. He only really had the tri-state area and the west coast.
Like 40 states voted for Bush.
Not that I love Bush or anything, but he did win.
The reason I wanted him to win was that he may appoint an anti-abortion Supreme court judge. One or two more and we may be able to repeal Roe v. Wade, and eliminate abortion in cases other than life of mother.
Only 10% of Abortions (in U.S.) are even for a medical reason.
I’m surprised that it is that many.
Also HFW - i think it may be possible for Bush to have had a minority (i.e. fewer than 50% of all votes cast) yet still win the election (votes split between the two smarter, yet equally boring candidates - Nader and Gore).
When that happens here (i.e. the Prime Minister’s party has a “minority” of seats, or less than %50 with more seats than any other single party) - 2 or more parties might force a non-confidence vote, forcing an early election.
Not that you care, but i just threw that in for our Canada-phile Moses
I kind of wanted Nader to win, simply because he would do something.
I hear this assumption on this forum; if you had heard him speak you would change your mind. Gore and Bush got where they are because they do not make waves and are happy to be soft money whores.
“I defend the Good God against the idea of a continuous game of dice.”
-Albert Einstein
“Still, AFAIR if you take the total amount of votes cast, then Bush did not win a majority. Your indirect election system might have been great and useful in the time of hosre carriages, but in the times of the internet and telephone, it becomes unfair und injust (sp?).”
How is that our culture’s fault or Bush’s fault? No one really likes it. No one really gets to updating the system I guess, and at this point it is the least of our worries.
"Also HFW - i think it may be possible for Bush to have had a minority (i.e. fewer than 50% of all votes cast) yet still win the election (votes split between the two smarter, yet equally boring candidates - Nader and Gore). "
I know. Electoral college.
“When that happens here (i.e. the Prime Minister’s party has a “minority” of seats, or less than %50 with more seats than any other single party) - 2 or more parties might force a non-confidence vote, forcing an early election.
Not that you care, but i just threw that in for our Canada-phile Moses”’
I care. Its nice to know how other governments elect their officials.
“Not that you care, but i just threw that in for our Canada-phile Moses”
Well Canada, is a nice place. Unlike here, they actually care about their environment (well… we’ll see if this is still true when we see 300 million Canucks running amok :roll: ) Lose the polar bears, ditch the high prices, and lower the sales tax (i’m serious, everything seems at least twice as expensive in Canada) and you might be going somewhere
BTW: Unlike the another certain country, Canada’s provinces can actually succeed. :wink:
care about the environment. Loggin’ is their biggest business.
Logging shouldn’t be that big of a problem if they replant the trees afterwards. We try to adopt that measure in all of the logging companies in California.
care about the environment. Loggin’ is their biggest business.
well, we do “care” about the environment - prolly more than America, as well as many other nations. We are the home of Greenpeace, afterall. Also there are many “renewable resource” programs in place, and dozens of friends of mine spend their summers working tree-planting for these logging companies, etc.
No no, not logging. Our shame is in Alberta - a province that is working against Kyoto and environmental measures (it’s the Texas of Canada - with the good and the bad), not that Ontario is so great either - much industry near Toronto etc. Also we do waste quite a bit. Nice having all that landfill room.
