will the US military power dominate the world

Oooh, magically cheap insurance, I want some of that!

Jarg
"Franck" wrote in message
...
An example

I pay 30$/month for ALL medical assitance (hospital, medecin, drug,
glasses,
teeth......). a big party is paid directly bythe french state, the rest by
my medical insurance

you could pay more or less depends of your insurance or the company where
you work. but this a good example. For my US collegue it's not very
expensive vs the same assitance in US country
--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

In article ,
(Marcus Andersson) wrote:

yeah... this is probably the clearest example for Europeans of the
low standard of living for Americans... you simply cannot live
without a car...
You are forced to sit in your home without being able to go anywhere.

Wow. Talk about odd perceptions...

Unless you want to make yourself the trouble of bringing your car with
you, that is.

Not a horrible problem for almost anyone. When "taking your car with
you" is about a third of the cost of doing the same in Europe, it's a
much different situation.

The flip side of that coin is "Europeans have to wait for public
transportation all of the time, and can hardly afford to take their cars
anywhere."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
(Marcus Andersson) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
om...
"Franck" wrote:

Jealousy of what ?? of American way of life !!! let me laugh

Better pay, more freedom, less government...

Manwhile, in the EU, less of the first two and more of the third.

uhm... the EU does have far too much government... but not nearly as
much as the US...

What an odd claim.

The US, at all levels (Federal plus local) employs about eight million
people in the government (add in the military, which would add another
couple of million). Ten million government employees, for a nation of
300 million or so. About one out of thirty people working for the
government, at one level or another.

For comparison, the UK employs about 5 million in their government, for
a population of 60 million. About one out of twelve. And they're not
as burdened as Sweden, which is even further down the "State hires
everyone" road.

In the EU (unlike the US) you don't have to make a written application
in three copies plus pay and administrative fee before getting
permission to go to your toilet, for instance.

Very funny. False, but funny.

At least that example isn't *that* far from the truth when it comes to
the situaiton in the US.

Except that it's false...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
a. is it OK for someone to donate a few pounds to a politician?

Yes.

b. is it OK for someone to donate a few million pounds to a
politician?

Yes.

c. is it OK for someone to donate a few million pounds to a
politician, and then subsequently for the politician to pass laws
that make the donor richer?

Yes, assuming the laws are consistant with the politicans
stated political beliefs.

d. does the answer to (b) make any difference if the money comes
from a business (where not all the shareholders necessarily agree
with the donation) rather than an individual?

No.

e. do the answers to (a) and (b) differ if the donation is to a
group of politicians, such as a party, rather than an individual?

No.

f. what about when businesses donate to politicians through a
go-between fund in an (apparent) attempt to disguise what they are
doing?

Acceptable.

g. what about when a politician, say a cabinet minister, makes
decisions that favour a company, and then after the politician
retires the company gives him a well-paid consultancy or
non-executive directorship?

Acceptable.

h. should companies that donate to politicians be obliged to state
so on the packaging of their prodcuts, so consumers can choose
to buy or not buy them if they wish to?

No.


Gee, ain't freedom a bitch?

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
If Europe was as dispersed and involved the same routine travel
distances as much of the US seemed to... but it doesn't.

So you choose not to travel. This could be for personal reasons, or it could
be fuel prices.

It's largely due to a much smaller country

If its the former, than high fuel prices don't impact your
quality of life, but if its the latter, than they do.

The former. I think there's a mutual incomprehension between many
North Americans and Europeans about the relative densities of their
countries, and the different viewpoints that suggests. It's not _just_
cheaper fuel that pushes North Americans into huge, lazy-engined
roadsters: it's the frequent necessity for much more travel.

To give an anecdotal example, a friend of mine spent a year in the US
working near Chicago: an hour each way on the freeway was 'routine
commuting' there. Here, it would be 'serious travel - do you really
like that job so much?' Not money so much as time.

I'm not sure if its the size of our country or weather American just like to
travel our nation by car, but many (high percentage) would feel paying
$4.00US/gallon of gas was a severe negative impact on their quality of life.

It certainly would, given current consumption and no adjustment
period, and it would never escape significant impact anyway.

--
Paul (overseas)

On 20 Oct 2003 23:56:00 -0700, (Marcus
Andersson) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message om...
In article , "IO"
wrote:

BUFDRVR wrote:
EU standard of life is at less equal of the USA one.

After having recently spent 10 days in western Europe, I'll disagree
using one example; fuel prices. The cost of both gas and diesel in
Germany, France, Luxemburg and Belgium was *3-4 times higher*

Fuel price=TAXES= social assistance=better standard of life

Except that doesn't really follow. All that really means is that the
European governments have more of your money.

Europeans car uses less fuel than american ones. Medium european car
engine=1400cc medium usa car engine=2000 cc= a lot of more fuel.
Europeans do less kilometers per year than an americans.

So they have a lower standard of living when it comes to personal
transportation.


yeah... this is probably the clearest example for Europeans of the
low standard of living for Americans... you simply cannot live
without a car...
You are forced to sit in your home without being able to go anywhere.
Unless you want to make yourself the trouble of bringing your car with
you, that is.

What in the world are you babbling about? Except for those of us who
choose to live in rural areas we have access to public transport that
easily meets or exceeds European standards.

Al Minyard

On 21 Oct 2003 15:06:53 +0100, (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN)
wrote:

In article ,
Greg Hennessy nntp wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:46:28 -0500, Alan Minyard
wrote:

I have a *very* average Ford Taurus station-wagon, and it has a 3
Liter engine. Quite safe and comfortable.

I know of one european country where the annual tax (I believe you call it
car tags in your neck of the woods) on a car with a 3 Litre engine would be
round 1500 USD.

OTOH the car tax in .uk on my car and its 3-litre engine is zero (0).
Pre-'73 and thus tax-exempt

OT, I know..

Having seen pictures of your car, someone should pay you to drive it
:-))))

Al Minyard

yeah... this is probably the clearest example for Europeans of the
low standard of living for Americans... you simply cannot live
without a car...
You are forced to sit in your home without being able to go anywhere.
Unless you want to make yourself the trouble of bringing your car with
you, that is.

Wow, talk about cultural ignorance! For nearly every American, having their own
transportation is a benifit, not a burden. I drove two hours last weekend to
visit my sister in college. I *loved* the drive! The scenary was beautiful, I
cranked up my car stereo, bought a 20 oz. soda (which eventually caused me to
stop on my trip) and relaxed. It was me, my 8 cylinder car and a fairly open
highway. I didn't have to make multiple stops (one to redeposit my soda),
didn't have to sit next to a guy smoking one cigarette after another while
listening to a screeming 2 year old. Even if I had the option of public
transportation, I would have driven. Your ignorance of Americans, our passions
and our way of life is glaring.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:48:08 +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:58:48 +0100, ess (phil hunt)
wrote:


I vehemently disagree, privacy is a fundamental human right.

If I do something illegal, do I have a fundamental human right for
others not to find out?

That's a logical fallacy.

What is?

What about if I do something that's not illegal, but which many
people would be concerned about if they knew it? Do they have a
right to know?

If its none of their damned business they have *no* right to know, no
matter how 'concerned' these interfering busybodies may be.

Ah, but how do you decide who has a "right" to know?

No, I don't know it; AFAICT that's what you meant. To clarify, let
me ask you:

[Snip another false dilemma]

It's not a dilemma, it's a genuine attempt to find out what you
think on the subject. Evidently you don't want to tell me; possibly
you don't want to have to work out what your opinions actually
entail.

You cannot claim that campaign contributions are morally equivalent to the
corrupt taking of bribes and overt attempts to destroy evidence and any
attempt at investigation of it.

Maybe I can, and maybe I can't -- I can think of lots of arguments
both ways; but that's rather beside the point since I wasn't
claiming such a thing in the first place.

BTW, *you* can't claim that the rainfall in Manchester is less
than that in London.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:55:27 -0400, John Keeney wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...

c. is it OK for someone to donate a few million pounds to a
politician, and then subsequently for the politician to pass laws
that make the donor richer?

Yes, assuming the laws are consistant with the politicans
stated political beliefs.

What if the politician changed his stated beliefs after winning an
election?

Gee, ain't freedom a bitch?

I can't answer that question, unless you tell me what you mean by
freedom.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).