s0crates

Isn't it? What do you think the masses are fussing about? Well I had no say in this vote, but I do admit my ignorance. I'm trying to educate myself. Hopefully you can help. You're right to say it is not mere complexity that makes something Kafkaesque, although bewildering complexity is part of it, it also involves themes of alienation, powerlessness, and absurdity. Is that not an apt description of, for example, the plight of the English fishermen in the following video? https://youtu.be/n_6rb4wWbwE Is the EU a confederation, a federation, or sui generis? It's not my understanding that the EU governs by consensus. Some laws require consensus, but others only require a simple majority. (I've seen the claim that the important laws require a consensus, though no description of what "important" might mean in that sentence). I'm also not sure why you chose 1996 as an example. I saw a study that determined that Britain was on the losing side of EU votes more than any other country (12% of the time) from 2009-2015. Is that so? If it is, how does that square with the notion that "the system essentially ensures that EU only acts when all 28 member states are basically in agreement"? Depends who you ask. For example, an American small businessman filing his taxes might reasonably describe the experience as absurd, bewildering, alienating, and needlessly complicated. 1. I take it you're comparing the Council of the EU to the US Senate, although I think it's a bit of a false analogy. US Senators are directly elected, and it's my understanding that these ministers are not. Despite my best efforts to find out, I still don't know how the ministers are selected. You say that is up to the member countries, but that really doesn't answer my question specifically. 2. I've no complaints about how this branch of the EU government is elected. It's the one branch of the EU that seems democratic to me. The comparison to the US House of Representatives is not perfect though, as the European Parliament is not as powerful. For example, they do not have the ability to initiate legislation. 4. This is the one that really makes my head spin. Here's my understanding of the process of selecting the European Commission : a. European Council proposes a President "taking account" of popular elections, whatever that means. b. European Parliament votes yes or no on that proposal, simple majority rules. c. The President then chooses the other 27 members of the Commission based on the nominations from the Council. d. The Parliament then gets to vote yes or no to the entire group of 28, again simple majority rule. I guess you could say that this is a somewhat democratic process since the popular vote is "taken into account" by the Council and the Parliament has the chance to vote against the nomination, although it seems to me like a far cry from a truly democratic process, since neither the Parliament nor the people get any real say in the nomination of the President or selection of the 28. Also I don't think calling the Commission "a type of Cabinet" is exactly right. It seems that this branch has the most power. They are the only body with the power of legislative initiative (they make the laws) and enforcement. Some commentators have said that the Commission might be more accurately referred to as "the European Government." Anyway I fully admit I don't know much about EU government (as I've said repeatedly), so I welcome any corrections if you see something I've misunderstood.

Well I was responding to the charge that I'm a "populist." I freely admit I am so inclined. I saw an article yesterday where a Brexiter was interviewed. "If you're rich you vote stay, if you're poor you vote leave," she said. That sort of stuck with me. It's emblematic of something stirring in the masses of people. People are starting to get the sense that they are being screwed, and they're right. They're not always right about who they think is screwing them, and they don't always pick the best representatives of their interests, but maybe they're doing the best they can with the power they don't have. As far how democratic or undemocratic the EU is, I'll be the first to admit my understanding of how the Kafkaesque EU government works is very limited, so I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong on that point. Though I would like to hear an explanation as to where I've gone wrong. My understanding is that the EU consists of 7 decision making bodies: 1. The Council of the EU (legislature). 2. The European Parliament (legislature). 3. The European Council (executive). 4. The European Commission (executive). 5. The Court of Justice of the European Union (judiciary). 6. The European Central Bank (central bank). 7. European Court of Auditors Of these governing bodies, only the European Parliament is directly elected by European citizens. So it doesn't sound to me like the people have much power in the equation, and if the people lack power, then that's undemocratic by definition.

If the charge is that I believe democracy is our best hope, then I admit I am guilty. I know the danger of democracy of course, the stupidity of the mob, but I also know of no better way to check the power of the few than with the voice of the many. I'm reminded of a passage from a favorite English author: 'If there is hope,’ wrote Winston, ‘it lies in the proles.’ If there was hope, it MUST lie in the proles, because only there in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 per cent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated. The Party could not be overthrown from within. Its enemies, if it had any enemies, had no way of coming together or even of identifying one another. . . But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it? And yet ——!

I knew I couldn't be the only left leaning person who felt this way: I know my history, so I'm deeply uncomfortable finding myself on the side of right wing European nationalists. Nonetheless I cannot help but think the lady has a point. Democracy matters.

Again my understanding of this is quite limited, so I welcome any corrections, but I don't think there is really such a thing as "President of the EU." Each branch of the EU government has its own president, so they have at least these four "presidents": 1. President of the European Council 2. President of the European Commission 3. President of the European Parliament 4. President of the Council of the European Union. My understanding is that the European Parliament is the only elected body, and their power is quite limited. The executive role is mainly filled by the European Commission. It seems you're right that European citizens did have a vote on President of the Comission for the first time in 2014, although apparently the rules stipulate that said votes only need to be "taken into account." To be honest, it is awfully unclear to me how the Kafkaesque EU government works. I have a hard time blaming Brits who want out of the bureaucratic nightmare, but I'm not very confident in my opinion here. I'm open to being corrected by people who understand this mess better than I.

Is that so? Honest question. It doesn't sound to me like the EU gives member states representation the way our federal government gives individual states representation. My understanding is that the EU consists of these 7 institutions: European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the European Court of Auditors. The legislature consists of The Council of the EU and The European Parliament (with budgetary oversight provided by the Court of Auditors). The executive role is filled by the the European Commission and European Council. The judiciary is the Court of Justice of the EU. The European Central Bank is a bit like the Fed. Of these institutions, only the European Parliament is democratically elected. So it would be a bit like US citizens only being able to elect members to the House of Representatives (only with the House having even less power), but having no say in the Presidency or Senate. That's my limited understanding anyway. Admittedly I don't know much about this, so I'd welcome any corrections.

Found on Twitter: "Brexit could be followed by Grexit, Departugal, Italeave, Czechout, Oustria, Finish, Slovakout, Latervia, Byegium. Only Remania will stay"

Yeah just noticed that myself, thanks though. The difference is the people of Texas have representation in the federal government.

I cannot believe I'm agreeing with conservatives (again), but it sounds like the EU is totally undemocratic. Hard to blame the Brits for insisting on their sovereignty.

However you feel about gun control, this is a good argument: “I think that’s kind of a fundamental line for a lot of Republicans, and I would hope for a lot of Americans,” Cornyn said. “Any time you’re denying an American citizen their constitutional rights, it ought to be with evidence, the burden ought to be on the government, and it ought to come from a court.” I would like to see the same line of reasoning applied to things like the Patriot Act and NSA spying.

Oh I see. I think I gave DCF156 a more charitable reading than you, but I understand why you attributed the aforementioned nonsense to him. His response to Burgold was a bit muddled. So I guess that's one person who said something like that, but who was "the second vote"?

As far as I can tell, nobody said that the due process clause meant "you can take his car keys but not his gun" except you. I certainly didn't say that. All I said is that the state cannot take your rights or property without due process, and one of those rights is the right to bear arms. We could quibble about what "due process" involves or what your "rights" are, but I think we'll agree that your rights include those laid out in the bill of rights, and due process involves a fair and speedy trial in which you are charged with a crime, hear the evidence against you, and have the opportunity to defend yourself. I don't think your analogy between taking a drunk driver's car keys and taking a bad guy's gun is exact, mainly because a constitutional right to travel is implied at best, whereas a constitutional right to bear arms is stated quite explicitly, nonetheless it is a close enough analogy for my purposes here. Regarding your analogy, I would say something like this: 1. We have enacted laws against drunk driving for the safety of the public. If you break those laws, we will charge you with drunk driving, take your car, arrest you, and put you on trial. If you are convicted, then you can lose your license, your car, etc. If you are acquitted, then we have to give you your car and freedom back. 2. We have enacted laws against armed robbery for the safety of the public. If you break those laws, we will charge you with the crime, take your gun, arrest you, and put you on trial. If you are convicted, then you can lose your right to to bear arms, your gun, your freedom, etc. If you are acquitted, then we have to give you your gun and freedom back. The way I understand it, the state must charge you with a crime and convict you in order for you to be deprived of your rights and property. Of course you may be temporarily deprived of your rights and property while you await trial, but only if you are charged with a crime first. It seems that gun control advocates would like to take people's guns without charging them with any crime (unless you have to be charged with a crime to get on the "no fly" list, which is not my understanding). That seems to be the force of the objection from gun rights advocates, and I don't think it is altogether unreasonable. Sticking with your analogy, this would be a bit like the police taking your keys and drivers license because they think you might be a drunk driver in the future. Anyway this has turned into a long post, and I'm not overly committed to either side of this debate, but I wanted to reply to the nonsense you twice attributed to me. I didn't say anything like you seem to think I said. I'd also like to add that I've generally found you to be one of the better posters in this thread. This debate is difficult because we have to weigh individual rights against the general welfare, and you usually seem to appreciate that difficulty. So hopefully you won't take this as a total disagreement, my intention is more to set the record straight.

Well it does say "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." I imagine he's thinking that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is part of "liberty."

This video has been posted and discussed before. No doubt cops have very dangerous and difficult jobs, and sometimes they have to make life or death decisions in a split second, but as others have pointed out, the video is irrelevant to many of the cases being discussed in this thread.

There may also be something about putting on the badge that makes people act in ways they wouldn't ordinarily. For example, consider the Stanford prison experiment, which showed that merely being named a prison guard had profound psychological effects.

I appreciate all the feedback guys, thank you! I'm still hoping somebody can explain this PSLF business to me though . . .

Thanks. The interest rate is the same, just the term is different. The longer you take to pay, the more interest you pay. I see what you mean about taking option 2 for flexibility, but it looks like I'm allowed to switch payment plans whenever I want anyway, so it's somewhat of a moot point.

Thanks for your response. I think your basic point is right. I have read that info about PSLF through. It sounds like I should qualify, I am a full-time state employee working in education. If I do qualify, then my cheapest options are either the 25-year plan or income-based plan. I'd rather be sure I will qualify so I don't pile up interest for 10 years and find out I don't. My concerns are: 1. Will it matter that I'm on 9 1/2 month renewable contracts? That is, will the 2 1/2 months a year prevent me from qualifying? 2. Although I have every hope of remaining in my current job for the next 10 years, and I seem to have a fair amount of job security right now (we're offering 15-20 sections of the classes I teach every semester, and my bosses like me), nothing is guaranteed in higher education these days. There is no such thing as tenure anymore. What if I lose my job between now and then? 3. The government might change the laws between now and then. What are the odds of that, and how might it effect me? It seems like my best bet is to go for the lowest payment and apply for PSLF in 9-10 years to have the balance forgiven, but it also feels like a bit of a gamble. I'd like to have some kind of assurances that I would qualify. Who could I call for more information? Maybe Dept of Ed?

Update on my situation! My loan has a new servicer (nelnet), and I'm officially back in good standing. My next payment is due in May, and I have to choose a repayment option before then. My current balance is $38k. Here are my options: 1. Standard repayment. $490/mo. for 10 yrs. (about $55k total). 2. Extended repayment. $290/mo. for 25 yrs. (about $85k total). 3. Income-based repayment. (Don't know how much, but probably lower per month and even more interest). 4. Graduated repayment. (Forget it). I'm strongly leaning towards option #1. I can afford it, and if circumstances change, then I can switch plans at any time. I'd rather get it paid as soon as possible and pay less. One thing makes me hesitate though: I may qualify for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF). If you're in a full-time public service job for 10 years, and you make 10 years worth of payments, then you can apply to have the balance of the loan forgiven at the end of those 10 years. If I qualify, then it may be best to go for the lowest possible payments for 10 years and try to get the balance forgiven. The "if I qualify" question is tricky though. I am a full-time public community college teacher, which ought to qualify, but my contract is a renewable 9.5 month contract. Will that count? It's hard to say, because they aren't even making the application available until October 2017. Also there is no guarantee that my circumstances don't change in 10 years. It seems like a bit of a gamble to rely on that. Any advice? Anybody know the details of the PSLF? Here's a link on PSLF: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/public-service

I agree with Larry and Predicto. Peaceful resolution is preferable if at all possible. When you contrast this situation with Waco or Ruby Ridge, you have to think this has been handled better.

Really?

The whole thing is puzzling. These guys obviously believe very strongly in something, it's just hard to tell what.

Yeah I've seen some of this sovereign citizen stuff. I get the general "the Constitution says I can do whatever I want" attitude. It's the specifics that puzzle me. Some of it I kind of understand, like I saw a guy who insisted he did not need a drivers license or plates because he had a constitutional right to travel, and he was able to give several SCOTUS rulings to support that. I wouldn't try that stunt, but at least that kind of makes sense. I even get the open carry guys, the 2nd amendment does say they have the right. Not that I support it, but I can at least follow the logic. It's all this admiralty law, yellow frilled flag, persons as corporate legal fictions, your name in caps means something different, you are an unwitting slave and subject to the Queen stuff that I cannot make heads or tails of. I mean there must be some rationale behind it, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is.

Thats hysterical, but I really do wish somebody could explain to me what she's talking about.

Can somebody explain to me what this means? http://www.rightsidenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/AVR095-openlettertosheriffward.pdf I'm a little surprised to learn about my being subject to the Queen, hoping for some clarification.