America did not go Nazi, nor Marxist.

Why did Intelligent, Educated European Country's (yes more than one) go NAZI? How many million's of children were murdered?

Why did Some European Country's , and supported by European Educated Person's, become Marxist? How many million's of children were murdered?

America understands the vile/evil/murderous nature of the above. Why didn't Europe?

Talking with hindsight is easy. Of course you understand Fascism and Marxism are evil, after you know about the things they are responsible for. The issue is whether you understand the nature of these things at a moment where you have to choose for it.

The choice's America made over the past 100 years, may not have been the greatest. But Europe made those choice's, and chose Tsar Putin for its Energy.

Understanding nothing's perfect, and you just visited Earth from another Planet: Which Thought/Culture would you choose?

What has our choice of energy supplier got to do with anything? What has that got to do with understanding and recognizing Fascism or Marxism and the evils that come attached to them?

And if I were an alien, which kind of thinking I'd pick? I suppose the thinking that allows for seeing the most grey. Then again, you are asking me to look at something from an alien perspective, which is impossible.

if the whole planet Earth were one Country , would that better ?

my own opinion is yes :)

or maybe I am Wrong ?

what do you think ?

You will always find one that wants to upset the applecart and want more than everyone else.

---

Sorry for asking an interesting question.

OK. Let me simplify.

How many Extremely Stupid (and of course Worse) Mistakes can a Continent make over the past 100 years, and still feel it has any moral, or intellectual authority, to lecture other's how to do better?

I am not justifying America. I just can't understand why Europe thinks it is better.

Because Europe is not one country and the mistakes made by some countries are not the mistakes made by all the other countries. On top of that, the same could be said about you. You are lecturing me about the supposed greatness of American thinking when America has made similar incredibly stupid mistakes (and unlike Europe, America IS a single nation) and most of those mistakes are of a much more recent nature as well.

if the whole planet Earth were one Country , would that better ?

my own opinion is yes :)

or maybe I am Wrong ?

what do you think ?

No, it would not be so great for a variety of reasons.

First of all, turning the whole planet under one single government requires and implies homogenization of cultures and society on the planet. The more countries you have, the more diverse societies and cultures there are, as each country retains its unique history and outlook on life. Say you were to create a world wide single government democracy, imagine what radical change the vast majority of the planet would have to undergo and how in many cases that would require an extreme alteration of local cultural practices.

Second, the technical difficulties of effectively administrating an entire world with 7+ billion people will also result in an significant loss of efficiency. To put it bluntly, having a whole bunch of separate and smaller units of government is better than having one single super large one.

But as it stands, it is likely that a single political entity will eventually emerge. Globalization will make it so.

To put it bluntly, having a whole bunch of separate and smaller units of government is better than having one single super large one.

Man oh Man, I think you don't realise what you post sometimes. So asides from your USA bashing and contempt for them, just WHY are you standing up and defending the European Parliament?

---

Man oh Man, I think you don't realise what you post sometimes. So asides from your USA bashing and contempt for them, just WHY are you standing up and defending the European Parliament?

I do not bash the USA. At best, I try to correct some of their (imo) flawed views on Europe.

And to clarify for you, I think the EU has not reached the point where having one single government is less effective than having a bunch of smaller ones. For one, because the countries in the EU have a fairly similar culture. Second, because the EU is not a government, rather a supranational organization that deals with a number of specific policy areas, and third because while its turning into a fairly large block, it has not yet overstretched. Overstretching may occur at some point, but for now I think it still has enough room left for at least the Balkans and possibly Ukraine.

In my opinion, the world would work best if a number of countries united in blocks so in the end you would only deal with a number of big blocks. And yes, I know that the blocks I am about to suggest are fairly unrealistic. There would be the EU. Then the US and Canada could form a union. All the middle American countries could form a political union. All the South American countries could also form one. Then have the Middle East form one political union. North Africa could form a union. Then maybe divide sub saharan Africa into 3 political unions. Russia could form, together with some middle Asian countries a political union again. South East Asia could form a political union. Then have China and India remain independent as they are to big to join any unions. Also Australia and New Zealand could form one. There, world divided in technically feasible unions.

LOL, way behind the times. That was discussed on these threads over five years ago.

Since then, the world's got scarier!

---

LOL, way behind the times. That was discussed on these threads over five years ago.

Since then, the world's got scarier!

Oh well, it is hardly an original idea. And even 5 years ago this idea was more of a theoretical thought experiment than something serious.

LOL, way behind the times. That was discussed on these threads over five years ago.

Since then, the world's got scarier!

Oh well, it is hardly an original idea. And even 5 years ago this idea was more of a theoretical thought experiment than something serious.

Thanks for the compliment! Never thought I was that serious lol.

With that though, how long before one of the major unions caused a ruckus with another over resources a la Russian Gas and Europe as it stands now?

---

Thanks for the compliment! Never thought I was that serious lol.

With that though, how long before one of the major unions caused a ruckus with another over resources a la Russian Gas and Europe as it stands now?

Lol, well, credit where credit is due :P

And I don't know. The bigger the unions, the more likely that they already have a lot of resources themselves. Only very rare resources might be problematic. But because of the size of each union and the fact that they consist of several independent nations, its not unlikely that diplomatic solutions are sought first before resorting to violence. And its probably easier to make deals this way. 2 actors are easier to deal with than 40 actors.

If they're prima donna's then......

---

Clyde, if THE US is not a single nation then explain to me why it only has one seat at the UN, the same number as the UK, which as every one knows is not one nation, but is least four....

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Clyde, if THE US is not a single nation then explain to me why it only has one seat at the UN, the same number as the UK, which as every one knows is not one nation, but is least four....

The US is one nation comprised of 50 states. The last time it was tried to have two seperate nations there was a big todoo. We call it the civil war. And its effects are still being felt.

And why are we having a damn debate about the US Vs Europe in this thread anyway. I see enough of this crap in other threads. WHY in a US election thread?

---

[/quote]

Old James

@Clyde, just because the US has a federal system (which is what gives the states their autonomy) doesn't mean you are not one nation. You've got a federal government which does do a bit more than just foreign policy. Its even in your pledge of allegiance, which from what I hear, is what schools start with every day.

Let the EU try to have every school in Europe start out with pledging to the European flag and proclaiming the EU is one nation. See how quick the person that proposes it gets politically crucified.

Killery in '16. When yOu Must Have Death fO yOur Cause. Vote Killery.

Yeah, been lOOkin' fO a betta name fO Billery and nOw I.D. has provided 'it'. yOu Da Man!

Huckabee in '16. Reasoned and Fair Minded. Vote Huck and keep yOUr Bucks.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

My personal feeling is the USA is doomed..the Owner Class is cashing it out.
Save yourselves.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

Sounds like he wants to dissolve the United States and replace it with some Anarcho-syndicalist system.

They are pretty much Ayn Randian Objectivists. See "Atlas Shrugged"
(and imho sociopaths, many, many sociopaths)

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

Have you looked at our recently re-elected president? (What DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE NOW president elect Hillary Clinton will be our next president, but not because of her agenda.)

I didn't say that America has not been making any progress in the fight against racism. But just because you elected one black president doesn't mean racism is now no longer a problem. Again, refer to the links I posted about this. Minorities are still overly represented in the prison system, more often receive punishments compared to white people for the same crime, and the punishments they get are generally harsher than what white people would get for the same crime, and minorities still have a harder time getting jobs.

Have you looked at the make up of our supreme court?

Thats great but again, it doesn't mean racism is no longer a big problem. It just means its less of a big problem than before.

Five of our governors are women, 4 of whom are attacked viciously and regularly by our LIBERAL PRESS. Is the LIBERAL PRESS sexist?

That means 10% of the states have female governors while women make up roughly 50% of the population. If anything that only shows that women still have a long way to go. Also, the press attacking female governors is only sexist if they are attacking them on the fact that they are women. Does that happen? Are they accusing those governors of being bad governors because they are females?

Meanwhile, cue in Fox news complaining about Hillary Clinton, making comments about her age and speculating on the problems that being a female and president would bring. Not to mention the amount of idiots I've heard saying that female presidents are bad because they might bomb a country when they are on their period or something idiotic like that.

Deluding? Massive problem? What "group think" are you a part of?

Sadly I don't even need to ask what 'group think' you are part of.

Мишель:

In response to both you and Guy (whose post you quoted has been edited), I don't think that Hillary Clinton would be a good choice.

Witness this news story:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/4/state-dept-misplaced-6b-under-hillary-clinton-ig-r/?page=all#pagebreak

Original Source material (report from the Office of Inspector General):
http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/224580.pdf

US$6 Billion worth of contractual funny business, including one contract (for a value of $52 Million) awarded to a company owned by the spouse of the person handling the contract.

Regardless of any personal involvement in these matters, Ms. Clinton was the head of the US State Department during most all of the 6-year time frame covered. Corruption or incompetence, it doesn't matter. The 'buck stops' at her (unless, or course, you want it to go higher and stop at HER boss.