American dollars is plunging: NO MORE TRAVEL!

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 10:49:37 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

wrote in news
how about freedom of speech? I'm not sure about the netherlands but I
know neither the germans or the french have freedom of speech...

Please have a look at the German and French constitutions one time.

and the british too...

They don't have a constitution, but they're a pretty open-minded bunch most
of the time.

Actually, isn't their official secrets act (or whatever it's called)
pretty nasty?

Coming back to the basic ussue though, one area in which the EU shines
compared with the US is about privacy protection.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 05:13:07 +0000, nobody wrote:


Sjoerd wrote:

But, Americans do enjoy more freedoms than do the Dutch.

Please give me some examples. The only ones I can think of is the
right to own guns and the right to drive a car at 16.

how about freedom of speech? I'm not sure about the netherlands but I
know neither the germans or the french have freedom of speech...

and the british too...

Hmm... "I know," eh?

How? Did you ever try?

(Or do you just like to believe some cliches or propaganda that you were
fed somewhere? Do your homework before putting your foot in your mouth.)

devil writes
They don't have a constitution, but they're a pretty open-minded bunch most
of the time.

Actually, isn't their official secrets act (or whatever it's called)
pretty nasty?

Coming back to the basic ussue though, one area in which the EU shines
compared with the US is about privacy protection.

More info on freedom of information (or the lack of it) in the UK he

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...p?story=477243
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

alohacyberian wrote:

"Sjoerd" wrote in message
...

"alohacyberian" schreef in bericht
...

I don't agree with a lot of what happens either in my country of birth or

in

the United States, but, I hardly think travel newsgroups are the place to
bash countries when those doing the bashing are only trying deflect

attention

away from their own shortcomings and disappointments. There is a lot of
difference between pointing out the shortcomings or things about a

country

that don't appeal to any given person and bashing the country. You've
freqently been guilty of the latter. It's a symptom of ingratitude and

narrow

vision.

And you still haven't answered my question what freedoms Americans have

that

Dutch people don't have. Perhaps because there aren't any?
Sjoerd



If you want to believe that Americans enjoy fewer freedoms than the Dutch,
dearie, be my guest. No matter how many freedoms I list, it's unlikely you'll
stop bashing America and Americans. I often wonder what you think you gain
from spewing your hatred. KM


Actually there is discussion in the US to amend the constitution to make
second class citizens out of gay people. Such thing would be unthinkable
in the Netherlands. So yes, I think Sjoerd has any reason to think that
he enjoys more rights than an American.

OTOH Your refusal to back your bold position that American citizens have
more freedoms than Dutch citizens, doesn't give me much confidence that
your position is anything more than a personal belief that you hold.

Nils

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:11:02 +0000 (UTC),
(Vitaly Shmatikov) wrote:


And it looks like we'll have four more years of Shrub & Co. starting
this November, which means at least four more years of reading your
vicious America-bashing rants, and enjoying the knowlegde that you
are absolutely powerless to change anything.

Sjoerd was bashing America even during Clinton's reign.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:55:44 +0100, Nils Zonneveld
wrote:


Actually there is discussion in the US to amend the constitution to make
second class citizens out of gay people. Such thing would be unthinkable
in the Netherlands. So yes, I think Sjoerd has any reason to think that
he enjoys more rights than an American.

Discussion is meaningless, action counts. The only potential
anti-gay amendment I can think of is a proposal to
constitutionally define marriage as a relationship between a man
and a woman, and I can't imagine how they could possibly word it
to prevent gays from getting all the rights of married couples so
long as the word "married" weren't used.

As to being unthinkable, I would be very surprised to know that
"unthinkable" things are never thought of by anyone in the
Netherlands.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:55:44 +0100, Nils Zonneveld
wrote:



Actually there is discussion in the US to amend the constitution to make
second class citizens out of gay people. Such thing would be unthinkable
in the Netherlands. So yes, I think Sjoerd has any reason to think that
he enjoys more rights than an American.


Discussion is meaningless, action counts. The only potential
anti-gay amendment I can think of is a proposal to
constitutionally define marriage as a relationship between a man
and a woman, and I can't imagine how they could possibly word it
to prevent gays from getting all the rights of married couples so
long as the word "married" weren't used.



This is the wording of a proposal in acordance with a law already in
existance in Nebraska: "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be
valid or recognized in the United States. The uniting of two persons of
the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership or other similar
same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in the United
States".


As to being unthinkable, I would be very surprised to know that
"unthinkable" things are never thought of by anyone in the
Netherlands.


It would be unthinkable that such an discussion would actually be
seriously held by politicians in the Netherlands. Unthinkable as a
figure of speech of course, a figure of speech not that uncommon in the
english language. But I asumed that most readers did see that.

Nils


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:44:38 +0100, Nils Zonneveld
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:55:44 +0100, Nils Zonneveld
wrote:



Actually there is discussion in the US to amend the constitution to make
second class citizens out of gay people. Such thing would be unthinkable
in the Netherlands. So yes, I think Sjoerd has any reason to think that
he enjoys more rights than an American.


Discussion is meaningless, action counts. The only potential
anti-gay amendment I can think of is a proposal to
constitutionally define marriage as a relationship between a man
and a woman, and I can't imagine how they could possibly word it
to prevent gays from getting all the rights of married couples so
long as the word "married" weren't used.



This is the wording of a proposal in acordance with a law already in
existance in Nebraska: "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be
valid or recognized in the United States. The uniting of two persons of
the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership or other
similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized
in the United States".

Sorry, but Nebraska can't tell the rest of the country what to
do.

And so far, I gather, it's only a proposal.


As to being unthinkable, I would be very surprised to know that
"unthinkable" things are never thought of by anyone in the
Netherlands.


It would be unthinkable that such an discussion would actually be
seriously held by politicians in the Netherlands. Unthinkable as a
figure of speech of course, a figure of speech not that uncommon in the
english language. But I asumed that most readers did see that.

Figure of speech or not, it still has denotative value.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

In article ,
Nils Zonneveld wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:55:44 +0100, Nils Zonneveld
wrote:



Actually there is discussion in the US to amend the constitution to make
second class citizens out of gay people. Such thing would be unthinkable
in the Netherlands. So yes, I think Sjoerd has any reason to think that
he enjoys more rights than an American.


Discussion is meaningless, action counts. The only potential
anti-gay amendment I can think of is a proposal to
constitutionally define marriage as a relationship between a man
and a woman, and I can't imagine how they could possibly word it
to prevent gays from getting all the rights of married couples so
long as the word "married" weren't used.



This is the wording of a proposal in acordance with a law already in
existance in Nebraska: "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be
valid or recognized in the United States. The uniting of two persons of
the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership or other similar
same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in the United
States".

This type of law would not pass the congress.

There is growing wide spread support for gay civil unions as long as it
doesn't use the word marriage. My state, as of yesterday, enacted a
civil partners rights.

jay
Fri, Jan 2, 2004







As to being unthinkable, I would be very surprised to know that
"unthinkable" things are never thought of by anyone in the
Netherlands.


It would be unthinkable that such an discussion would actually be
seriously held by politicians in the Netherlands. Unthinkable as a
figure of speech of course, a figure of speech not that uncommon in the
english language. But I asumed that most readers did see that.

Nils


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *


--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

Sjoerd wrote:
Fine. To each his own. But don't make false statements about Americans
having more freedoms than Dutch.

Let them make those statements. Everyone outside the USA knows that they are
false. And because americans generally do not know much about the rest of the
world, you should expect such comments from them because they are told they
are the best, the only ones with freedom and liberty in their constitution,
the only ones with a charter of rights etc etc.

This is where travel will help reduce the total ignorance of americans on the
rest of the world. Unfortunatly, travel works on one individual at a time, not
a whole population. And not all travel gives you an idea of what another
country is really like. If you travel for a short business trip, stay, eat in
a hotel and spend only a few days, and can't watch local TV because you don't
know the local language, then you don't really get a idea of what that country
is really all about.

It takes time, an open mind and language skills to really learn about another
country. And I'd go as far as saying multiple trips so that you can combine
"snapshots" to get an idea of how the country moves/changes.

The USA media is very focused on the USA and its posessions (Iraq for
instance). It covers very little of what goes on in the rest of the world.
They are under the impresison that americans only want domestic covereage,
while americans don't know a world exists outside the USA because their media
doesn't tell them about it.