Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Annie, May 29, 2005.
So freedom to choose our own destinies is somehow more radical then slaughtering people whose political views differ than yours? We all know what became of the French Revolution's "Social contract" It was the first European effort in mass murder and genocide and ended with Napolean conquoring Europe. Yeah, French revolution was a great success.
It amazes me that these elites seem to think that they know better than every individual person what is good for them. If you are so confident in your views then let the people know them and let them decide what they want. We already know what happens to people when their rights are oppressed and when government has power to inform them "what the public interest is" We end up in mass genocide.
I am totally glad Europe hasn't simply been rolling over into the EU. If the people don't support it, then the elites shouldnt have the power to force it on them. that and I get the feeling if the EU ever did reach its full potential in "uniting" europe, it would be incredibly oppressive and we'd have to go liberate it again. which is quite annoying honestly.
As I read parts of Steyn's article , I couldn't help but think of the "real" Hillary Clinton (not the phony one she's trying to pull on us as Senator Hillary Clinton). She would fit right in among those European socialist elites.
Here's another good article from Bill Kristol on this topic.
A New Europe?
By William Kristol
June 6, 2005 issue of The Weekly Standard
IN THE FACE OF AN arrogant, out-of-touch, debate-stifling old regime, a whiff of democracy can be liberating. And not just in the Middle East.
Whatever the outcome of the French referendum on the European Union's constitution on Sunday, May 29, and the Dutch vote on Wednesday, June 1, it is already clear (as we go to press Friday, before the votes) that the public debate over the referenda, and the real possibility of a "No" vote, could prove to have been a liberating experience for Europeans.
Leave aside the dubious merits of the constitution itself. The Economist, normally pro-European and somewhat pro-establishment, has called for rejection of the constitution because "the central thrust of the document is towards more centralization," which it correctly thinks a bad idea. But the debate hasn't hinged on questions of E.U. governance. It has turned on something more fundamental--a collapse of confidence in the political and media establishment in France and the Netherlands, and in Western Europe altogether.
It's hard for Americans to appreciate just how out-of-touch the establishment (and it really is a single establishment) of Paris, Berlin, the Hague, and Brussels is. Its arrogance is almost beyond belief.
for full article
Tell that to the religious right wing-nuts in this country.
Why? The people have decided that they agree with us. Hence why we were voted into office. It's the left that is trying to impose its will on society. There wouldn't be such a controversy over judges otherwise.
Separate names with a comma.