What's the story with American Women?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Each country has it's own government with it's own Constitution. No laws enacted by the EU can circumvent that.

LOL, actually....where there is a conflict between EU laws and local (read: NATIONAL) laws then EU laws supercede them.

Not if a EU law violates a nation's Constitution.

Intergovernmentalism and supranationalism

A basic tension exists within the European Union between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism. Intergovernmentalism is a method of decision making in international organisations where power is possessed by the member states and decisions are made by unanimity. Independent appointees of the governments or elected representatives have solely advisory or implementational functions. Intergovernmentalism is used by most international organisations today.

An alternative method of decision making in international organisations is supranationalism. In supranationalism power is held by independent appointed officials or by representatives elected by the legislatures or people of the member states. Member state governments still have power, but they must share this power with other actors. Furthermore, decisions are made by majority votes, hence it is possible for a member state to be forced by the other member states to implement a decision against its will.

Some forces in European Union politics favour the intergovernmental approach, while others favour the supranational path. Supporters of supranationalism argue that it allows integration to proceed at a faster pace than would otherwise be possible. Where decisions must be made by governments acting unanimously, decisions can take years to make, if they are ever made. Supporters of intergovernmentalism argue that supra-nationalism is a threat to national sovereignty, and to democracy, claiming that only national governments can possess the necessary democratic legitimacy. Intergovernmentalism is being favoured by more eurosceptic nations such as the United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden; while more integrationist nations such as the Benelux countries, France, Germany, and Italy have tended to prefer the supranational approach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Unio...tutional_Treaty

[homesick_american 1]

Each country has it's own government with it's own Constitution. No laws enacted by the EU can circumvent that.

LOL, actually....where there is a conflict between EU laws and local (read: NATIONAL) laws then EU laws supercede them.

Not if a EU law violates a nation's Constitution.

The UK doesn't have a constitution, dearie. Plus, there's what the EU says it will do and then there's what it actually does: overturns rulings by high courts in sovereign nations, imposes new laws on nations that didn't want them, issues ridiculous and overly protectionist rulings mandating what products can be called, and they want to control and regulate every aspect of our lives.

I mean, it's easy enough for you to defend it. After all, you don't LIVE HERE.

[GaryC 7]

Steve, as someone that has a strong distrust of a strong government already are you willing to risk giving the US even more power? If they made a American style union you know the USA would dominate it. Not only would the US have control over it's own country they would eventually dominate the rest of the countries. The chances of an American continent dictator would be a very real thing if some disaster would occur requiring some sort of emergency action. I don't like the idea of an EU for the same reason. To much power in one government body. You can keep the idea of a world government. Thats not for me!

[diadromous mermaid 36]

I ppoint you all to those crash and burn posts where the foreign woman came here and 'became Americanized' because she started making her own choices...LOL THE NERVE, EH?

As I said before, it takes TWO people to choose to keep a marriage vibrant and alive, whereas it only takes ONE to choose to let it crash and burn...

She can make whatever choices she wants, it's her life, and now I have mine, completely apart from her, which was my choice to make after watching her make "her own choice" that her "new life in America" was more important to her than the married relationship, ostensibly with the man she claimed she "loved" and wanted to be with forever. Amazing how she made a different choice once she came to America. As I said, her choice to make...

As I told the USCIS "she claimed she loved me, wanted husband, home, family and children" and then "changed her mind" (aka made a different "choice") once she arrived in America. The USCIS officer felt that these kinds of "choices" could be possibly construed as FRAUDULENT immigration, I might add.

It will also be their "choice" to choose to investigate her activities when she files for lifting of conditions along with a waiver and the divorce decree.

You might just want to keep that in mind before you start pointing to "all of those" posts, kindly, and finding them so wonderfully "funny".

ha ha ha, indeed...

-- Dan

I wasn't specifically referring to YOURS Dan, as there are many who find themselves in the same exact situation.

But since you brought it up: I suggest you reread your thread....before you have the same unrealistic expectations and make the same mistakes again. No, I don't condone lying or sneaking around....and fyi, that's not an 'American trait'....but getting a job and making friends, and VALUING an opinion of a friend from her homeland is NOT a bad thing. Seems like you just expected her to sit at home and churn out babies...

Without completely derailing this thread, I'll tell you more about it in your own if I ever get the time to write summat out...but helping a woman find her own wings to fly is not something that's against a partnership....imo, it's what any supportive spouse does. When I moved to the UK, I was shocked at how different it was...silly me, I guess, but I felt like I stuck out like SUCH a sore thumb. I moved to an area where I was literally THE ONLY AMERICAN there...and anytime I said anything, everyone made a big hoo ha. So I would tell D 'hey ask this...ask that' until one day he sat me down and said 'this is your home too, Lisa...you cannot be afraid to get stuck in'

So I did...and boy was I glad. I made my own friends, went out on my own, learned the public transport system & became independant. And it was all thanks to my man who didn't want me to be this quivering mass of codependence. he didn't keep in a cage with my wings clipped...he helped me learn to fly

*cue Bette Middler*

Gosh! There are a lot of gross generalisations being bandied in this thread! LisaD, I think that the essence of what PurrSuede is saying is that he and his ex-wife gelled because they both appeared to have the same values of family, home, marriage etc. but that once here, and after possibly being exposed to the American life his wife's values changed. I'd imagine it is most difficult to be forced to contemplate whether those "values" that his ex-wife expressed as compatible in the beginning were genuine, or simply a hook in order to gain access to the means to gain entry to the USA. I don't believe anyone here can begin to comprehend the volume of feelings that conjures up.... unless they've been through it, that is ...

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Why is that?

As a European, I think it's the best thing that could have happened to Europe.

The byzantine bureaucracy, the stifling loss of sovereignty since countries are required to follow European laws and are not allowed to pass certain laws (such as bringing back the death penalty, for example). The euro is a joke and to me all EU expansion represents is cheap labor for wealthy western European nations.

The EU was created to compete with the United States but it seems like some western European countries (France, Germany) did better on their own and haven't done very well at all since joining the EU. EU-wide unemployment rates are abysmal and to be honest, it's all just a little too 1984 for me.

Hate it. It's nothing but a big fat waste of time.

The EU has been good for most countries involved, including Germany and France, because it has allowed both nations to stay competitive in the global market. Most European nations are too small to have national economies. For poorer nations, like Ireland, Spain, and Portugal, joining the European Union meant getting out of the economic swamps they were in. Even Britain has profited from the EU; in contrast to 35 years ago, before they joined up, their economy is flourishing and it is in part due to the open market. And while the current phase looks like things are getting worse, within a few years the Eastern European countries will have caught up with the rest.

I'm also not sure if I agree on the cheap-labor point, but I can see why you thinkk that. Yet, the new members were contributing illegal labor to the EU before joining up, which depressed wages much more than currently when Eastern Europeans can work in the EU legally. It is up to individual states to pass laws that guarantee living wages, which most fail to do, but that is not the EUs fault.

The Euro is actually a very strong currency and much more stable than the dollar. I know there's a huge sentiment in England against the Euro, but that has more with a nationalist fear than with reality. Giving up the pound, while most likely better for the British economy, is seen as a threat to British identity, and that''s where the real problem lies. Yet, for the countries of Southern Europe, as well as Ireland and France, joining the currency union means finally having a stable currency.

The bureaucracy, while massive, is also relatively efficient. Part of the problem is that all documents relating to EU-affairs need to be made accessible in several languages as the EU refuses to agree on a language of affairs. Logically, the EU language should be German (spoked by the largest chunk of EU-people, but you can probably imagine that that is not a solution that appeals to either England or France, and for good reason even though it would severely cut down on the bureaucracy in Brussels.

Finally, EU-laws are based on consensus which means member countries can block laws going against their own laws and constitution before they are made laws. Once a EU-law is approved it has received approval by each nation, meaning that any complaiints against them by member nations are futile and pointless. Furthermore, and this is particular to Britain because of the absence of a constitution, the EU allows citizens to file against their governments in case of civil rights violations. And since Britain joined the EU, many Britons have profited from their provision.

And let's not forget that the EU is one reason why Western European nations for the first time in centuries have not spent large amounts of time fighting each other on battlefields. Germany and France are a prime example...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why is that?

As a European, I think it's the best thing that could have happened to Europe.

The byzantine bureaucracy, the stifling loss of sovereignty since countries are required to follow European laws and are not allowed to pass certain laws (such as bringing back the death penalty, for example). The euro is a joke and to me all EU expansion represents is cheap labor for wealthy western European nations.

The EU was created to compete with the United States but it seems like some western European countries (France, Germany) did better on their own and haven't done very well at all since joining the EU. EU-wide unemployment rates are abysmal and to be honest, it's all just a little too 1984 for me.

Hate it. It's nothing but a big fat waste of time.

The EU has been good for most countries involved, including Germany and France, because it has allowed both nations to stay competitive in the global market. Most European nations are too small to have national economies. For poorer nations, like Ireland, Spain, and Portugal, joining the European Union meant getting out of the economic swamps they were in. Even Britain has profited from the EU; in contrast to 35 years ago, before they joined up, their economy is flourishing and it is in part due to the open market. And while the current phase looks like things are getting worse, within a few years the Eastern European countries will have caught up with the rest.

I'm also not sure if I agree on the cheap-labor point, but I can see why you thinkk that. Yet, the new members were contributing illegal labor to the EU before joining up, which depressed wages much more than currently when Eastern Europeans can work in the EU legally. It is up to individual states to pass laws that guarantee living wages, which most fail to do, but that is not the EUs fault.

The Euro is actually a very strong currency and much more stable than the dollar. I know there's a huge sentiment in England against the Euro, but that has more with a nationalist fear than with reality. Giving up the pound, while most likely better for the British economy, is seen as a threat to British identity, and that''s where the real problem lies. Yet, for the countries of Southern Europe, as well as Ireland and France, joining the currency union means finally having a stable currency.

The bureaucracy, while massive, is also relatively efficient. Part of the problem is that all documents relating to EU-affairs need to be made accessible in several languages as the EU refuses to agree on a language of affairs. Logically, the EU language should be German (spoked by the largest chunk of EU-people, but you can probably imagine that that is not a solution that appeals to either England or France, and for good reason even though it would severely cut down on the bureaucracy in Brussels.

Finally, EU-laws are based on consensus which means member countries can block laws going against their own laws and constitution before they are made laws. Once a EU-law is approved it has received approval by each nation, meaning that any complaiints against them by member nations are futile and pointless. Furthermore, and this is particular to Britain because of the absence of a constitution, the EU allows citizens to file against their governments in case of civil rights violations. And since Britain joined the EU, many Britons have profited from their provision.

And let's not forget that the EU is one reason why Western European nations for the first time in centuries have not spent large amounts of time fighting each other on battlefields. Germany and France are a prime example...

Each country has it's own government with it's own Constitution. No laws enacted by the EU can circumvent that.

LOL, actually....where there is a conflict between EU laws and local (read: NATIONAL) laws then EU laws supercede them.

Not if a EU law violates a nation's Constitution.

The UK doesn't have a constitution, dearie. Plus, there's what the EU says it will do and then there's what it actually does: overturns rulings by high courts in sovereign nations, imposes new laws on nations that didn't want them, issues ridiculous and overly protectionist rulings mandating what products can be called, and they want to control and regulate every aspect of our lives.

I mean, it's easy enough for you to defend it. After all, you don't LIVE HERE.

So living there makes your opinion more qualified?

[PlatyPius 5]

What exactly is wrong with american women?

and native americans are still americans

if i have ancestry with the mi'qmaq tribe in nova scotia does that make me native canadian?

If you have *ancestry* with any tribe, then no. I would say you are a Canadian. Technically, you could be a "native Canadian" though, since you were born there. If your parents, on the other hand, were mi'qmaq; then you would be mi'qmaq.

What I was pointing out is that the tribes of United States have their own governments, their own way of doing things, and they were here first. My personal experience is with the Arapaho and the Shoshone. Many find the term "Native American" insulting. In essence, they are being named after their conquerer.

Imagine that America (US) was attacked and conquered by Elbonia; a bloody, cruel nation, utterly different from ourselves in all cultural matters. Would you happily begin calling yourself an Elbonian, or would you call yourself an American still?

So what should we call them now? First it was Indians, then Native Americans...what's the inoffensive collective term du jour?

Call them what they are: Cherokee, Shoshone, Creek, Navaho, etc. Or, as mentioned elsewhere, many prefer "Indian" if you really must lump them all into one broad catagory. ("Indian", of the American variety, is the same as saying "European" - it doesn't really tell you anything)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steve, as someone that has a strong distrust of a strong government already are you willing to risk giving the US even more power? If they made a American style union you know the USA would dominate it. Not only would the US have control over it's own country they would eventually dominate the rest of the countries. The chances of an American continent dictator would be a very real thing if some disaster would occur requiring some sort of emergency action. I don't like the idea of an EU for the same reason. To much power in one government body. You can keep the idea of a world government. Thats not for me!

The EU is still a representational government, not a dictatorship. As fishkoepfin points out, the countries with the weaker economies will benefit in the long run. We already have NAFTA and we've made trade agreements with South America. As I said earlier, this is more about economic power - we can set in place provisions that would secure our democratic process.

[PlatyPius 5]

What exactly is wrong with american women?

and native americans are still americans

if i have ancestry with the mi'qmaq tribe in nova scotia does that make me native canadian?

If you have *ancestry* with any tribe, then no. I would say you are a Canadian. Technically, you could be a "native Canadian" though, since you were born there. If your parents, on the other hand, were mi'qmaq; then you would be mi'qmaq.

What I was pointing out is that the tribes of United States have their own governments, their own way of doing things, and they were here first. My personal experience is with the Arapaho and the Shoshone. Many find the term "Native American" insulting. In essence, they are being named after their conquerer.

Imagine that America (US) was attacked and conquered by Elbonia; a bloody, cruel nation, utterly different from ourselves in all cultural matters. Would you happily begin calling yourself an Elbonian, or would you call yourself an American still?

So what should we call them now? First it was Indians, then Native Americans...what's the inoffensive collective term du jour?

I just could't help it, I had to jump in here on a technicality.

America is not just the United states, Canada is part of America so if one is a native of that area they technically speaking are Native Americans. South America...is also America...soooo....well the whole idea of putting a fence at the southern border to protect America is well humorous

I tried to inform the Minutemen of this but they are still wanting to put a fence around America...kinda defeats their purpose I would say

I mentioned earlier that I was referring to "America" as the US. And if people from The US aren't Americans, then what term would you prefer? This debate has been fought before. There is no other term for a citizen of the US than "American" or "US Citizen". I don't know many Canadians who would call themselves Americans because they live in North America. Since my country is the only one with "America" in its name, we are "Americans". Other people from North and South America are called whatever their country is called.

[homesick_american 1]

So living there makes your opinion more qualified?

You have to ask?

I mentioned earlier that I was referring to "America" as the US. And if people from The US aren't Americans, then what term would you prefer? This debate has been fought before. There is no other term for a citizen of the US than "American" or "US Citizen". I don't know many Canadians who would call themselves Americans because they live in North America. Since my country is the only one with "America" in its name, we are "Americans". Other people from North and South America are called whatever their country is called.

I think we're called 'Americans' because 'United Statesian' sounds stupid.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So living there makes your opinion more qualified?

You have to ask?

Hmmmm...that's interesting. I'll have to remember that when you state your opinion about the U.S. then, since you're currently not living here.

[homesick_american 1]

So living there makes your opinion more qualified?

You have to ask?

Hmmmm...that's interesting. I'll have to remember that when you state your opinion about the U.S. then, since you're currently not living here.

A swing and a miss; it doesn't work that way. I've kept up with US current events and you cannot wipe out 25 years of residency in the blink of an eye. I've lived both in the US and abroad. Most people haven't.

But hey, think whatever the hell you want. Being wrong hasn't ever stopped you before, why should it now?

[GaryC 7]

The EU is still a representational government, not a dictatorship. As fishkoepfin points out, the countries with the weaker economies will benefit in the long run. We already have NAFTA and we've made trade agreements with South America. As I said earlier, this is more about economic power - we can set in place provisions that would secure our democratic process.

So you would give up the USA's sovereignty and put your trust in a conglomerate government? You are a very trusting person then. I wouldn't give anyone power over us! I even think the UN should be disbanded for the same reason. :runs:

[PlatyPius 5]

So living there makes your opinion more qualified?

You have to ask?

It's Steve. Of course he does. He won't be happy until there's one government running the entire world, and lazy people will get just as much money as people who actually work for a living.

I mentioned earlier that I was referring to "America" as the US. And if people from The US aren't Americans, then what term would you prefer? This debate has been fought before. There is no other term for a citizen of the US than "American" or "US Citizen". I don't know many Canadians who would call themselves Americans because they live in North America. Since my country is the only one with "America" in its name, we are "Americans". Other people from North and South America are called whatever their country is called.

I think we're called 'Americans' because 'United Statesian' sounds stupid.

It does. This was the point I made when this topic came up at ModernWiccan. What the hell else are you going to call people who live in the USA if not Americans?

[homesick_american 1]

So living there makes your opinion more qualified?

You have to ask?

It's Steve. Of course he does. He won't be happy until there's one government running the entire world, and lazy people will get just as much money as people who actually work for a living.

Yeah, that's the impression I get from his/her/its posts. It's easy to be pro-socialist and pro-EU when you don't actually have to put up with it. Reminds me of those neo-liberal college kids who think they have all the answers to the world's problems. "If only people would just get along and let the government take care of them." Hippies.

It does. This was the point I made when this topic came up at ModernWiccan. What the hell else are you going to call people who live in the USA if not Americans?

Exactly. I'm tired of all these PC apologists and appeasers. We are AMERICANS. That's what we're called. Get over it.