- Cassini-Huygens Mission status report

In message , Neil
Gerace writes

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...

The EU is not comfortable with the outrageous ideas
of freedom, populism, and free market economies.

It appears that whoever decided in the USA to pay farmers not to plant crops
isn't exactly right alongside the idea of a free market either.



OTOH, they are also ready to pay billions to a few thousand cotton
growers, in violation of international trade rules. (And before you all
start grousing, yes I know we've got the same problem here, especially
with tobacco)
--
What have they got to hide? Release the full Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In article ,
Charles Buckley wrote:


You do realise how long it was between the foundation of the
US and the time they started direct elections of the President and
Senate, don't you?

You do realize, don't you, that we don't elect our President directly?
Do a google search on "Electoral College."

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

On 2004-06-06, Herb Schaltegger wrote:
In article ,
Charles Buckley wrote:


You do realise how long it was between the foundation of the
US and the time they started direct elections of the President and
Senate, don't you?

You do realize, don't you, that we don't elect our President directly?
Do a google search on "Electoral College."

I was just about assuming that was part of his point... ;-)

--
-Andrew Gray

Andrew Gray wrote:

On 2004-06-06, Herb Schaltegger wrote:

In article ,
Charles Buckley wrote:


You do realise how long it was between the foundation of the
US and the time they started direct elections of the President and
Senate, don't you?

You do realize, don't you, that we don't elect our President directly?
Do a google search on "Electoral College."


I was just about assuming that was part of his point... ;-)



It was..

Don't elect Presidents directly. Didn't elect senators directly
until they passed the 17th Amendment in 1913.

BTW, I liked the Alice's post..

In article ,
says...

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...
Especially considering that the
ESA member countries have a combined GDP roughly on
par with that of the US.

If the European Union would start acting like a *nation* instead of a mutual
feel-good group, it would stand a decent chance of beating the US
economically. However, this would require massive social engineering and
unprecedented changes in worker production. Not to mention the French
farmers would have to actually *farm* for a living instead of spending their
time vandalizing McDonald's.

I used to work for a consulting firm that was owned by a French
corporation. We had a rally once during which the COO (Chief Operating
Officer) of the parent company came in to speak with us. He very
nastily drug all of us Americans over the coals for not applying
ourselves as well as we needed to in order to make the company more
profitable, while at the same time announcing that the company was going
to stop paying for overtime.

Now, that sounded harsh, but when we found out that every single
EUROPEAN employee of the company was making 20% to 30% more than the
equivalent American employee, got six weeks vacation upon initial hire,
and was expected to perform at a lower level of productivity... well,
that tore it. The parent company was obviously seeing the American
division as the cash cow, the people who would work their asses off to
provide the profits upon which the Europeans could sit back and rest
their lazy fat asses.

From that moment on, the best people at my branch started leaving in
droves. And that happened throughout our area. Several branches
failed. Branch management underwent rapid turnover, and even that
didn't help.

So, yeah -- don't talk to me about Europe.

Doug

Charles Buckley wrote:
You do realise how long it was between the foundation of the
US and the time they started direct elections of the President and
Senate, don't you?

This is a hilarious point for several reasons.
First because the President of the US is not
technically directly elected even today. Second
because America's system of government is far,
far more populist than any in Europe. Some of
the election systems in Europe are so indirect
it makes me wonder if they really should be
called democracies. In any event, the EU
cannot reasonably be called a democratic
institution.

"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...

You do realise how long it was between the foundation of the
US and the time they started direct elections of the President and
Senate, don't you?

The president still isn't directly elected, and women got the vote only
after some other countries had already seen the light.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...
In any event, the EU
cannot reasonably be called a democratic
institution.

Not the EU itself, no. But most of its member countries are.

Neil Gerace wrote:
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...

In any event, the EU
cannot reasonably be called a democratic
institution.


Not the EU itself, no. But most of its member countries are.

Exactly the point.

In article ,
Neil Gerace wrote:
The president still isn't directly elected, and women got the vote only
after some other countries had already seen the light.

To say nothing of when blacks got the vote (in practice, as opposed to in
theory).

Mind you, many European countries as well came to full democracy rather
slowly. Even setting aside the issue of votes for women, things like
property-ownership qualifications were slow to disappear. It took most
of the 19th century, if memory serves, for Britain to enact a series of
reforms that ultimately extended the vote to all adult male citizens.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |