Oh man, I'm pretty sure I heard that ringing slap all the way here across the ocean in Spain

So... what's up with Spain and the problems with its banking system?

Polock, a band from Valencia in Spain. I think you'll like this one more than me.

>> ^Crooksandliars:

Leading demands for a revised strategy, French Socialist Francois Hollande, a reader of Krugman, tops President Nicolas Sarkozy in the polls with the warning that putting debt-cutting over expansion is “bringing desperation to people.” Elsewhere, Greeks are turning to anti-austerity parties, recession-wracked Spain and Italy are relaxing deficit targets, the Dutch government is splintering and European Central Bank President Mario Draghi is calling for a “growth compact.”
.


This attitude strikes me as totally bogus. We think the European voters are voting on macro-economic policy? They're throwing out governments because they're unhappy, and they're installing people who promise them higher spending because they like having the government that spends money on them. Italy and Spain aren't revising their deficit targets because of some new found economic enlightenment, they simply lack the willpower or competence to live within their means.

Maybe stimulative policies are better than austerity. I'm not an economist, so I don't know. What I do know is that voters and politicians haven't stopped being short-sighted.

EEEEK! Remind me not to fly to Bilbao Spain =oO

I few up in Spain, eating this candy without a second thought. Its a wee tad better than Jolly Ranchers, but to be honest, its still just hard candy.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'smart car, park, parralel' to 'smart car, park, parallel, spain' - edited by xxovercastxx

hispanic literally means "of or relating to spain", dude. you can call a person from spain hispanic.

that's right, this is a reply to a 3 year old post.

I'm interested if Gorillaman thinks that George W. Bush was a fascist as well.

In fact, by your definition GM every American president has been fascist even before fascism existed.

Without common referents language fails to be useful. You can be arguing about something based upon significant differences in definition without knowing it. So, while GM has failed to address the dictionary definition on the basis that it does not show enough effort I will now present a definition of fascism that is accepted amoung historians and political scientists alike. With this Gorillaman can amend has he sees fit but must acknowledge the consequences of agreeing upon a universalisable definition insofar as they apply to anyone else who is or has been in a position akin to the POTUS.

Fascism.
The Fascist party was formed in Italy in the wake of World War 1. It was an ultra-right radical political ideal defined by its emphasis on social unity, nationalism (regardless of race in its initial incarnation) and authoritarian leadership. It was characterised by its violent and brutal oppression of opposition parties and voices of dissent and its anti-liberal, anti-communist and anti-intellectualism. Nazism is fascistic but not fascist. Franco's Spain was more in line with fascism. It is often debated in academic literature whether it is useful to even use the term fascist outside of the Fascist party of Italy of the interwar period.

There you go Gorillaman. You now have a definition of fascism from a bonafide political science grad student. Now please indicate how this applies to Obama and, out of interest, how it does or does not apply to the last 3 presidents of the U.S.A. or any leader in a liberal-democratic nation.

Edit:
P.S. Dictionary definitions are used very frequently in scholarly writing. Wikipedia is another matter.

^ Auger8

In 2009, Portugal's Decriminalized drugs which Showed a Positive Result 5 years after for deaths from overdoses and the rate of HIV cases. The theory however was to start focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users which would decrease the number of deaths and infections. (& i have not heard Paul make this his standpoint). "Now instead of being put into prison, addicts are going to treatment centers and they're learning how to control their drug usage or getting off drugs entirely," report author Glenn Greenwald said.

Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts—defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use—are brought before what's known as a "Dissuasion Commission," an administrative body created by the 2001 law.

Drug legalization removes all criminal penalties for producing, selling and using drugs; no country has tried it. In contrast, decriminalization, as practiced in Portugal, eliminates jail time for drug users but maintains criminal penalties for dealers. Spain and Italy have also decriminalized personal use of drugs and Mexico's president has proposed doing the same. there is a difference between the two & legalisation of all drugs was not what was done here.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/05/153
9230/us-threatens-spain-for-not-implementing-sopa-like-law
Looks like the administration is already treating it like it passed


Un-fucking believable crap... Then, U.S. citizens wonder why people hate the United States or indirectly them.

By the way, US officials have been pushing legislature similar to SOPA on other states for quite some time now. Latest example: Spain

Solomont’s threat was that should Spain not pass the Sinde Law (described by some as the Spanish SOPA) then the country would be degraded further and placed on the Priority Watch List. This serious step would mean that Spain was in breach of trade agreements and could be subjected to a range of “retaliatory actions”.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/05/1539230/us-threatens-spain-for-not-implementing-sopa-like-law

Looks like the administration is already treating it like it passed

The Mayflower and the people aboard her were a deeply religious sect of people that did indeed flee to the colonies to practice their religion. I fully understand that.

What you, and most cherry-picking christians fail to acknowledge is that the Mayflower crew was not the first nor the second or even the third permanent settlement in the new world. Jamestown, roughly 20 years prior was established without pretense of religion by wealthy Europeans hoping to find gold. The were ill-equipped and not manual laborers so to speak and that's why the first Jamestown settlement was in dire straights. A second crew arrived and began growing tobacco, which, at the time, the sale of tobacco seeds was outlawed outside of Spain. John Rolfe acquired some and thus established the first functional, economically viable colony at Jamestown a full six years before the Mayflower even sailed from England.

Economy, money and enterprise is what established America, not some freedom from religious persecution as, again, Americans have been force fed for years.

You're right, the first wave of settlers weren't strongly committed Christians, although one of the first things they did upon arriving was join the Rev. Robert Hunt in a communion service. However everything else is the complete opposite of what you said. Indeed, John Rolfe was the first to establish the colony, but what you've left out is that he was a deeply committed Christian! He is the one who converted Pocahontas to Christianity and took her as a bride. He had a Christian purpose for Jamestown such as to "advance the Honor of God, and to propagate his Gospel." He also said:

"no small hope by piety, clemency, courtesy and civil demeanor to convert and bring to the knowledge and true worship of Jesus Christ 1000s of poor wretched and misbelieving people: on whose faces a good Christian cannot look, without sorrow, pity and commiseration; seeing they bear the Image of our heavenly Creator, and we and they come from one and the same mold. . ."

So yes, Christianity was there at the outset, and it continued to be the prevailing influence in shaping this country.

I am not discounting what the pilgrims did at Plymouth. They did amazing things, especially with the Indians. I just want to clear that Plymouth was not what founded the colonies. They were not the first and were one of many.

If you won't listen to me, listen to the library of congress:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html


>> ^Hive13

@shinyblurry:

The Mayflower and the people aboard her were a deeply religious sect of people that did indeed flee to the colonies to practice their religion. I fully understand that.

What you, and most cherry-picking christians fail to acknowledge is that the Mayflower crew was not the first nor the second or even the third permanent settlement in the new world. Jamestown, roughly 20 years prior was established without pretense of religion by wealthy Europeans hoping to find gold. The were ill-equipped and not manual laborers so to speak and that's why the first Jamestown settlement was in dire straights. A second crew arrived and began growing tobacco, which, at the time, the sale of tobacco seeds was outlawed outside of Spain. John Rolfe acquired some and thus established the first functional, economically viable colony at Jamestown a full six years before the Mayflower even sailed from England.

Economy, money and enterprise is what established America, not some freedom from religious persecution as, again, Americans have been force fed for years.

I am not discounting what the pilgrims did at Plymouth. They did amazing things, especially with the Indians. I just want to clear that Plymouth was not what founded the colonies. They were not the first and were one of many.