The European Union and the United States of America established diplomatic relations as early as 1953,
The EU exists since 1993. It already existed as the European Economic Community before that point, but I think that doesn't date back as far as 1953 either.
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 Age: 24 Posts: 7593 Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:53 pm Post subject:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Joker wrote:
The European Union and the United States of America established diplomatic relations as early as 1953,
The EU exists since 1993. It already existed as the European Economic Community before that point, but I think that doesn't date back as far as 1953 either.
I found that peace of information on Google I always thought the EU was around longer then that?
The European Union and the United States of America established diplomatic relations as early as 1953,
The EU exists since 1993. It already existed as the European Economic Community before that point, but I think that doesn't date back as far as 1953 either.
I found that peace of information on Google I always thought the EU was around longer then that?
You are probably mixing it up with the UN or something.
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 Age: 24 Posts: 7593 Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:14 pm Post subject:
TM wrote:
Joker wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Joker wrote:
The European Union and the United States of America established diplomatic relations as early as 1953,
The EU exists since 1993. It already existed as the European Economic Community before that point, but I think that doesn't date back as far as 1953 either.
I found that peace of information on Google I always thought the EU was around longer then that?
You are probably mixing it up with the UN or something.
Joined: Aug 27, 2010 Posts: 4638 Location: mid atlantic coast usa
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:57 am Post subject:
Joker wrote:
TM wrote:
Joker wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Joker wrote:
The European Union and the United States of America established diplomatic relations as early as 1953,
The EU exists since 1993. It already existed as the European Economic Community before that point, but I think that doesn't date back as far as 1953 either.
I found that peace of information on Google I always thought the EU was around longer then that?
You are probably mixing it up with the UN or something.
I tend to do that a lot as well
Well.
The main nations of western europe formed something called "the common market" very soon after world war two to jumpstart trade and rebuild from the war and to resist communism. Basically it was a trading club that reduced tarriffs - there was a vague notion of it as a precurser to political union as well.
The common market then evolved into the European Economic Community (in the seventies I believe).
Then that finnally evolved into the European Union in 1993. Each of these incarnations added more political unity to the economic unity.
The USA encouraged the formation of the Common Market back in the dark days of the cold war but had no desire to join it.
Joker is probably thinking of either the United Nations, or of NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) which is a military alliance of nations on both sides of the Atlantic ( the USA, canada and most of western europe and even Turkey) that was originally set up to defend against the USSR but still exist in the post communist world.
There are many different forms of liberal parties in the US as well; too bad most Americans ignore their right to vote for a third party candidate. I don't think Glenn Beck and his peers know what they're talking about when they rant about "them dang libruals". Likewise, it's silly of Michael Moore and his followers to think that they have the exclusive rights to define the word.
Last edited by Kurgan on Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Aug 27, 2010 Posts: 4638 Location: mid atlantic coast usa
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:54 am Post subject:
marshall wrote:
The term "liberal" doesn't have the same meaning in the rest of the world as it does in the US.
Yes.
The OP is asking a meaningless question.
The word "conservative" is used in a similar way on both sides of the atlantic so you could compare "conservatives" on the two continents. But the word "liberal" either isnt used at all or its used in the archaic sense of meaning "pro business" (ie conservative) in other countries.
There are many different forms of liberal parties in the US as well; too bad most Americans ignore their right to vote for a third party candidate.
...
I sometimes think it is a form of brand loyalty that keeps the two-party system in place in the USA. I had a longer online relationship with an American woman, who told me that she couldn't imagine living anywhere outside of the U.S. because she couldn't buy all her favorite food brands in other countries.
I found that very puzzling, because the availability of Hot Pockets® or Cheez-It® crackers would be the very last thing on my mind if I were to contemplate living in another country (which I did a few times in the past). Fresh vegetables, meat and fruits are sold pretty much everywhere on this planet. As for things like bread and dairy products, I haven't bought any brand in the recent decades that I've previously seen in an ad or commercial. Most German supermarkets have their own cheap brands that aren't advertised anywhere.
Anyway, I think that this dependence on branded items might also affect U.S. politics. There are two big brands, red and blue, a donkey logo and an elephant symbol. You rarely ever see anything else in the news or in political debates. The other parties are like obscure no-name brands, plain white cans with "Cola" printed on them in black Helvetica type. People don't drink that kind of thing, and they certainly don't serve it to their guests. What would the Founding Fathers™ think? One either votes for Coke® or for Pepsi®, for the red or the blue bottle, because that's what people grew up with.
There are many different forms of liberal parties in the US as well; too bad most Americans ignore their right to vote for a third party candidate.
...
I sometimes think it is a form of brand loyalty that keeps the two-party system in place in the USA. I had a longer online relationship with an American woman, who told me that she couldn't imagine living anywhere outside of the U.S. because she couldn't buy all her favorite food brands in other countries.
I found that very puzzling, because the availability of Hot Pockets® or Cheez-It® crackers would be the very last thing on my mind if I were to contemplate living in another country (which I did a few times in the past). Fresh vegetables, meat and fruits are sold pretty much everywhere on this planet. As for things like bread and dairy products, I haven't bought any brand in the recent decades that I've previously seen in an ad or commercial. Most German supermarkets have their own cheap brands that aren't advertised anywhere.
Anyway, I think that this dependence on branded items might also affect U.S. politics. There are two big brands, red and blue, a donkey logo and an elephant symbol. You rarely ever see anything else in the news or in political debates. The other parties are like obscure no-name brands, plain white cans with "Cola" printed on them in black Helvetica type. People don't drink that kind of thing, and they certainly don't serve it to their guests. What would the Founding Fathers™ think? One either votes for Coke® or for Pepsi®, for the red or the blue bottle, because that's what people grew up with.
That's part of it, but there is also the fact that people will vote for the one they consider to be the lesser of two evils simply to prevent the other from winning. For example, if I was American I'd want to vote for the Green Party. But, if I thought that the Republicans might win, I might vote for the Democrats simply because they're not as bad.
