JadedWolf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8g-lugXGBQ

Hmmm, nope. Think you're pretty much alone on that one.

Source? You know what. I'll have to admit that I made a mistake here by claiming that the "American Communist Party" said this. My bad. It was a mistake I made while researching the abortion issue in the past. I misread my source, a book called, "Issues: Abortion" which is in a line of books from the 90's that cover a range of political issues from the perspective of various ideologies including Nazi's, KKK groups, Feminists, Democrats, Republicans , and yes, Communists regarding various political issues. While looking for that piece online I've read some of the parties' views of abortion which doesn't jive with what I claimed about them. Found the book and re-read it (the Communist part) just to be sure. It seems that I foolishly interpreted certain lines. When taken into proper context some of their lines have a different meaning than how I took them back then. They are pro-reproduction rights, even in the long term. I completely take back the quoted statement. It seems I should re-evaluate my perception of the American Communist Party... Man, a few years ago I must have been tired or something... I got that 100% wrong. I hate it when I misunderstand something I read! Oh well, we all make mistakes, or at least I do. I can't be SURE everyone makes mistakes. Hey, mistakes happen.

I said that I think banning abortion is socialistic which is not the same as saying it's socialist specifically, but rather that it seems like the kind of thing socialists would be inclined to do. Uhm. Why? I mean... Since socialism is traditionally tied to atheism, why would they ban abortion? Abortion is usually banned on religious grounds. Does not compute. -Sigh- Let me guess, you're going to bring up the nazi's again, aren't you? Go ahead and check out South America to see how "atheist" the socialist are there. Though I wouldn't trust non-religious socialists to be a vanguard of reproductive rights considering the American Communist Party (not a highly religious bunch) has stated before that taking collective control over women's reproduction was a long-term goal. I can't say what Marxists parties are like abroad, but the one's here in the US are real douches. But why does it strike me as socialistic specifically? Because I tend to view socialism as a system of collective control over society; some keep it purely economical, but many if not most don't and demand collective control over well... everything. I do consider it suggesting that personal property belongs to everyone if everyone has a say over what a woman does with her own body. The fact that in South America socialism goes hand in hand with religion is really quite remarkable, and would probably make Marx scratch his head in confusion. Still, should there be a hypothetical South American socialist regime that bans abortion, then I would wager that would be more easily explained by their religious, rather than their socialist roots. For the record, I am not saying I don't think socialist regimes would never ban abortion, I am just saying that I don't think it's very specifically inherent to socialism.

I said that I think banning abortion is socialistic which is not the same as saying it's socialist specifically, but rather that it seems like the kind of thing socialists would be inclined to do. Uhm. Why? I mean... Since socialism is traditionally tied to atheism, why would they ban abortion? Abortion is usually banned on religious grounds. Does not compute. -Sigh- Let me guess, you're going to bring up the nazi's again, aren't you?

Grim Dawn. Great game for what it is. But someone there seems to be stuck in a certain phase most people leave behind after toddler stage. And yes, that skill really is called "throw feces". >_>

I thought this was an interesting map:

In German it's Köln. In English it's Cologne. I had thought you were using Dutch. And in Dutch it is Keulen. Not that any body cared. :D

Okay, let me just step back here, and apologize, because it seems that my ego is getting in the way and I am muddling up the discussion while trying to "be right" about something. Let me just say that, no, I don't blame the European Commission in this since obviously they are the ones coming up with this idea, so in that respect, if you see the E.U. as the European Commission, then no, I am not mad at the E.U. In this particular case I am obviously mad at the ministers who voted against it. Let me try to rephrase what I was trying to say in original post. I am actually sympathetic to a united Europe, but what I see is that the forces that create this Europe focus too much on companies and too little on its actual citizens. That is all, really.

No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying the E.U. really messed up on this, and that the outcome is very unfortunate. It's easy to equate this to National vs. European, but it's impossible to do that because the national governments are an integral part of the E.U. through the various bodies that make up the E.U. that consist of ministers from the governments. It's more like... European Commission v.s. rest of the E.U. institutions. It's all sorts of complicated.

That complicated framework is often something that actually works against the E.U. in the public eye as well. National governments can easily decide to do something together through the European Council or Council of European Ministers, and then pretend that they didn't actually want to do it, saying "Sorry, the E.U. made us do this." This happened for example here in the Netherlands when our government said that they couldn't do anything about having to make budget cuts because European regulations, while trying not to make people remember that they themselves pushed for those regulations in the Council to start with.

But PUH-LEEZ. All the "EU guys" had passed this, is was only torpedoed when it came to the national governments. There's literally no way that you can say that EU is to blame for this watering-down. See my post above yours. The Council of the European Union is as much a European institution as the European Commission. The E.U. is not just the European commission + the European parliament.

Well, I guess we should just stop democracy here altogether here then, since showing any interest in politics will mean that you're going to ask that they do better. Yup, I'll write to my government right now asking them to cancel the next elections, since they're not needed, since we are doing much better than countries in Africa anyway.

The national ministeries are as much a European institution as the European Commission. When national ministers of a certain department come together, they form what is called the "Council of the European Union." So in essence it's still one E.U. institution overruling the other. And the Council of the European Union is in all things still more important than the E.C. (and certainly more important than the European Parliament.) http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/council-eu/index_en.htm Really, in order of importance it's: 1) European Council (Council consisting of all heads of states) 2) Council of the European Union (Council consisting of national ministers) (Yes, the names are confusing) 3 E.C. 4 E.P.

Wel gefeliciteerd, wel gefeliciteerd, wel ge-fe-li-ci-flapsteert, wel gefeliciteerd.

You mean, trading privacy against privacy like this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/13/mep_trade_data_for_data_protection_govts_pnr_pressure_takes_its_toll/ ?

To be honest, if they really had hired erotic dancers, I think that would really have been unacceptable. But following the links, and looking at the models, I don't think that's the case. Can't say about the Nvidia party - but yeah, if they hired erotic dancers, I could see that being a problem at a work related party. Why it would be problem? So everyone can look at erotic dancers except game developers? LOL Because it's a work related party. I don't care if the erotic dancers are male or female, so it's not an "objectifying women" thing, I just don't think throwing a party with strippers is a smart thing to do if it is work related. For one, it's obviously bad P.R., but even if you ignore that, it's hardly very inclusive. There's bound to be people working at the company who have no desire to be at a party where there's semi-naked people. Now, of course, there are exceptions: if the company in question is, say, Brazzers - then yes, it would be appropriate, but this is NVidia. Of course, you could say: well, don't go to the party then. In answer to that: sure, if you don't want to make promotion in the company, then sure, don't go to the party.

Europe’s telco ministers appear to have done a U-turn over a proposed total removal of mobile phone roaming charges by the end of the year. In 2013, the European Commission proposed a plan - backed by MEPs - to end costly roaming surcharges by the end of 2015. No longer would holidaymakers or business travellers be surprised and horrified by shock bills for calls or data sent and received outside of their home country. This would have been part of the the so-called Telecoms Package, which includes proposals related to net neutrality. But this utopian dream was shattered on Wednesday by the council of national telecoms ministers. According to the draft text on new EU rules for telecom providers seen by your correspondent, national representatives now argue that “a transitional period is needed to allow roaming providers to adapt to wholesale market conditions”. So in short, when the European commission actually suggests something that would make life actually easier for normal inhabitants of the E.U. for a change, national governments are quick to torpedo their efforts. After all, the E.U. was not created to make life easier for its inhabitants! God forbid that the telecom companies might lose out on all that money flowing to their pockets from people who still desire to live in the 21th century even when they are on holiday. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/05/eu_plan_to_ban_roaming_charges_dropped_youll_just_have_to_pay_that_whopping_great_bill_after_your_hols/ To be sure, I am actually far from a frothing at the mouth nationalist, and I would be very much in favour of a united Europe if that would be in the interests of the people living there, but it seems to me that the E.U. is only there for companies and people with money, not for simple citizens.

To be honest, if they really had hired erotic dancers, I think that would really have been unacceptable. But following the links, and looking at the models, I don't think that's the case. Can't say about the Nvidia party - but yeah, if they hired erotic dancers, I could see that being a problem at a work related party.

Danish museum employs tiny mole archeaologists. No, I am not making this up. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31711934

Seems they all have been participating rather a lot in their local equivalent of the Four Days Marches, judging from those cheap medals.

Making it out as if Wilhelm II was really the brain behind Germany's involvement in WW 1 is giving the man too much credit. The man was living in a fantasy world where war was happy happy fun time, sure, but the real power lay with the Oberste Heeresleitung. Wilhelm's addition, to spice the whole thing up, was to bungle up diplomacy at every chance he got. I would even, tongue in cheek, put forward the proposition that had Wilhelm II not existed, then WW 1 would still have happened, but the Germans might have actually won.

Oh, well, that's terrible news. I had no idea he was in such ill health.