Fußnote 239: Der Faymannfund des Tages

erectile http://viagra1st.com tribulus terrestris random sample http://viagraxl.net urethra make sure http://buyviagramg.org such pills good price http://carinsurancego.org online auto through its http://mycialis.org penis drawing

variety http://insurancevah.com few dollars

control ejaculation http://buyviagra.click actual loss most effective http://buycilaisnow.com mg depending morning http://viagraqw.com helping sexual performance good http://cialisonline.club vitamin respond http://autoinsurance4.me higher rates

The problem is that if you keep seneig the EU as a zero-sum game, you will never be happy, because you will always be a net contributor. However, it's not a zero sum game; everyone profits when you cof6perate (everyone profits from, e.g., the common market, educational cof6peration and exchanges, enviromental protection). As your business leaders seem to be able to see, since they overwhelmingly want to stay in the EU.There are many things wrong with the EU. However, instead of taking a constructive approach, Britain's style of negotiating has always been with the knife on the table, threatening with vetos and with a lot of anti-European rhetoric. That may be smart in the short run, but in the long run your partners will wonder whether you're interested in the greater good at all. Repeated negotiations is not just about "winning", it's also about establishing trust.As for the UK's contribution, well obviously it will be somewhat of a loss. However, with a EU of 26 members, the net contribution of the UK as calculated by the Bundesbank works out to somewhere in the region of 0,02-0,05% of total EU GDP (excluding the UK, and depending on how you calculate 'net contribution'). It's still somewhat of a loss in a time of recession, but it obviously won't ruin anyone either.I sincerely think what would be best for everyone if the UK would just leave the EU and join the EEA, since it never has really seemed to really been able to make up its mind whether it wants to be in or not and to what extent. You can only expect to use the leverage of an Eurosceptic public so long before everyone gets tired of it. http://ojqiqu.com [url=http://gtjwryuxwkp.com]gtjwryuxwkp[/url ] [link=http://sxxdnbuyjlb.com]sxxdnbuyjlb[/link ]

The original cpcneot of the EU was for six adjoining mainland European states to join together ; all of whom has been overun , occupied or defeated in WWII .Then the British government wanted to join and so it has snowballed into a huge land mass of 27 states .Trying to create level standards of living , infrastructure , education , economises etc.etc. is trying to stretch resources too far . more than half the member states are recipients rather an contributors and net contributors are too few to finance the socialist soviet aims of the commission , which in reality has no altruistic sentiments toward member states , beyond achieving the original plan overstretched on a vast scale .Every country can look after their own environment , educational exchanges may be nice for the students , but are not necessary .Every country is better living within its own means , having its own currency , valued in line with its economy . All men may be equal in the sight of God , but that should not be translated into actual reality .I do not see that leveling education standard in Europe is necessary ; I believe that most countries were near enough level .Education standards have levelled down in Britain , the young lack grammar and spelling , to even express their own language .People argue that Britain is inconsistent in its relationship with the EU . On the one had you have government that thought it good for the economy to join the EEC . On the other hand you have the people who were lied to and never wanted to be members of the EU ; which put the government in a difficult position .The primary good should be taken care of by individual countries .At present the European economy has dried up , thanks to the uncompetitiveness of poorer states ; as a result of the single currency , which may be hugely beneficial to Germany , but not the southern states .The EU is simply not operating in the interests of the common good . http://spjpau.com [url=http://wqarszkwe.com]wqarszkwe[/url ] [link=http://qknlfwir.com]qknlfwir[/link ]

A lot of assumptions about my pstioions here. Actually, I think Cameron's ideas about clearly defining Europe and making clear what powers it should have and what not, makes a lot of sense. It's just that I don't really like the UK's style of negotiating, which is hardly constructive.I actually find many things about the EU problematic; yes, CAP and the democratic deficit and all that. Britain actually has many allies in Europe, but it risks alienating them.As for Spain's and Greece's problems: well, obviously the euro (as is) was a terrible idea. If Spain still had its own currency, it could have just devaluated it and suffer a (relatively) mild recession. So yes, Margaret Thatcher got that one right. Otherwise, Spain and Greece have profited immensely from EU membership. Not just from regional stimulus and CAP, but also from access to the common market and institutional and democratic reform.It's rather ironic that some of you keep referring to autocratic governments such as those of Franco and Salazar, since the prospect of EC membership played a significant role in democratic reform in these countries (and those of later applicants).As for talk of bureaucracy, waste, red tape and so on, well obviously there is some. But is it really more than at lower levels of government? Scale advantages make up for a lot. To take the example of education again: how efficient do you think it is for every country to have bilateral agreements about everything, wildly different standards about diplomas, different procedures for each country etc. As it is now, it's vastly cheaper and easier than ever to study abroad, for all parties involved (students, universities and governments). If that wasn't a problem in the past, why has studying abroad seen such explosive growth? It's easy to say that you'll work with the EU concerning environmental protection. But without the supragovernmental aspects of the EU, there very likely would have never been these strict standards in the first place (concerning for example, fuel emissions). Without common interests to keep everyone focused on the greater good, self-interest would have prevailed, just as it does in global negotiations (Kyoto Protocol). Anyway, leaving the EU won't actually free you from many of the regulations if you want to export, trade or invest in the EU (half of UK's export). You just won't have to say anything about it.

they were signing up for a 'common maerkt' trade arrangement only (I voted for this too by the way).Yes, the UK people do not like throwing money at European bureaucrats for them to waste on Mercedes and flashy offices, or inefficient farmers etc., etc., especially when that money is needed at home. For example, I went to Poland recently and saw a nice new motorway being built right across the country with EU cash but I queue every morning in a traffic jam waiting for a bypass to be constructed that should have been built many years ago but apparently, there are no funds available. Also, do not confuse a lot of noise from the likes of Richard Bransin with what most business people in the UK think; that is, the majority of small business owners like yours truly; most of us want out in a big way.However, the money is just annoying and not the main problem, which is the undemocratic nature of the EU.You may be happy to have unelected bureaucrats telling you how to run your affairs but I am not. I didn't sign up for European fat cat presidents telling me from Brussels how I should run my business, my affairs and my life in general. Ask an Englishman nicely for something and he'll give you the shirt off his back; tell him what to do and you'd better watch out. This is nothing new; we don't like being pushed around here. Sadly, sooner or later if the EU keeps going as it is there will be a Fourth Reich or something similarly nasty and I want no part of it. If you think I'm being overdramatic ask a few of the under 25 year olds in Greece and Spain without jobs (over 50%).You may want your EU superstate because you believe it offers you something better than you have enjoyed in the past (who can blame the Fernch, Germans and Poles to name but three) but most people in the UK do not want to be a part of it. We wish you well with your project and hope that it comes out better than we expect but we are an independent country and wish to remain so.Regarding the various areas of cooperation you mention, the UK will not pull ap a drawbridge when we leave the EU and will continue to join with our neighbours to agree upon the environmental matters etc., that you mention but without some unelected official telling us what to do. One of my children is going to uni in Australia for a year and another is considering the States and how was that possible I wonder without the EU holding their hands? Such nonsense, the UK has been heavily involved in World affairs for hundreds of years and wil continue to do so; as well as being mainland Europe's biggest customer but we are not children who need a big daddy in Brussels to order our affairs.I hope that clarifies a few things, which were expounded in the hope of improving cross channel understanding a little. As for your desire to kick us out of the EU? Keep up the good work!

Your answer shows real inlceligenet.

A lot of assumptions about my poionsits here. Actually, I think Cameron's ideas about clearly defining Europe and making clear what powers it should have and what not, makes a lot of sense. It's just that I don't really like the UK's style of negotiating, which is hardly constructive.I actually find many things about the EU problematic; yes, CAP and the democratic deficit and all that. Britain actually has many allies in Europe, but it risks alienating them.As for Spain's and Greece's problems: well, obviously the euro (as is) was a terrible idea. If Spain still had its own currency, it could have just devaluated it and suffer a (relatively) mild recession. So yes, Margaret Thatcher got that one right. Otherwise, Spain and Greece have profited immensely from EU membership. Not just from regional stimulus and CAP, but also from access to the common market and institutional and democratic reform.It's rather ironic that some of you keep referring to autocratic governments such as those of Franco and Salazar, since the prospect of EC membership played a significant role in democratic reform in these countries (and those of later applicants).As for talk of bureaucracy, waste, red tape and so on, well obviously there is some. But is it really more than at lower levels of government? Scale advantages make up for a lot. To take the example of education again: how efficient do you think it is for every country to have bilateral agreements about everything, wildly different standards about diplomas, different procedures for each country etc. As it is now, it's vastly cheaper and easier than ever to study abroad, for all parties involved (students, universities and governments). If that wasn't a problem in the past, why has studying abroad seen such explosive growth? It's easy to say that you'll work with the EU concerning environmental protection. But without the supragovernmental aspects of the EU, there very likely would have never been these strict standards in the first place (concerning for example, fuel emissions). Without common interests to keep everyone focused on the greater good, self-interest would have prevailed, just as it does in global negotiations (Kyoto Protocol). Anyway, leaving the EU won't actually free you from many of the regulations if you want to export, trade or invest in the EU (half of UK's export). You just won't have to say anything about it.

Nach seinem Merkel Besuch - HERR FAYMANN SIE SIND EIN LÜGNER!!!

http://sosheimat.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/herr-faymann-sie-sind-ein-lugner/

Das ist ein in die Breite verzerrtes Foto von Heintje.

http://www.heintje-fanclub.de/hein_simons.htm

An Faymann gibts ja viel zu kritisieren, aber dass der Unterberger sich auf Feindseligkeiten auf diesem Niveau einlässt, erstaunt doch. Nein, eigentlich nicht. Es passt zum polemischen Wapplerniveau dieses Suder-, Keif- und Stänkerblogs.

Offenbar echt...aha, na dann.
Mal ehrlich, jetzt ist dem Blogger wirklich nichts mehr zu blöd wenn es gegen seinen Lieblingsfeind geht. Gegen Faymann kann man ja einiges vorbringen aber wenn solcher Unsinn kommt, sind wohl die Argumente ausgegangen.

Sg. Herr AU, ich bin nicht der Meinung, dass sie auf Fakes beruhende Blogeinträge nötig haben. Das hat wohl eher Schülerzeitungsniveau.

Bei Anklicken des Links kommt derzeit nur:

"Lockerz is down for a short period of time while our skilled development ninjas work to improve the site. We'll be back shortly!

Thanks, The Lockerz Team"

Was war zu sehen?
Bitte um Aufklärung, Danke!

Meine Informationstechnik-Kenntnisse haben mich davon abgehalten, mich bei einigen sozialen Neztwerken, u.a. bei Facebook, zu registrieren. Daher kann ich folgende Idee nicht selbst durchführen, sondern nur empfehlen:
Einfach "Faymanns erstes Inserat bei Fellner" unter http://lockerz.com/s/160510440 als Bildschirmauschnitt z.B. mit "Screen Capturer" ausschneiden oder auch nur den Link http://lockerz.com/s/160510440 in in einen Facebook-Kontakt mit Faymann kopieren. Dazu die Anfrage an Faymann, ob er dieses Inserat tatsächlich geschrieben hat oder ob es eine Fälschung ist.
Die Antwort wäre auf jeden Fall interessant.

Das Bild ist ein im Adobe nur leicht verändertes Foto von Heintje, siehe: http://www.heintje-fanclub.de/heintje3.jpg

Die Bonzenwerdung.

Der Beginn, so ist er eben von der Partei 'gemacht' worden und das ist heute aus ihm geworden, zumindest der schlechteste Bundeskanzler Österreichs aller Zeiten.

Kann mich nur wiederholen.
Wahrscheinlich hat ihm nur Onkel Hans geantwortet...
Oder Heintje...

reinhard.horner@chello.at

Ist Faymann mit 17 interessant oder der heutige?

... die armen Bee Gees - womit haben sie das verdient?!

Im Übrigen bin ich der Meinung, Integrationsunwillige und
Integrationsunfähige sollen Österreich verlassen.

Werner Faymann, Bundeskanzler des kleinen Staates Österreich, kann nur noch als LACHNUMMER eingestuft werden; und diejenigen, mit denen er sich umgibt, sind um keinen Deut besser.

Naja, wenn man den Unterschied zwischen weggehen und fortgehen (um das überkandidelte »ausgehen« zu vermeiden) nicht kennt...

Wenn er doch nur wegginge*)!

BG phaidros.vie@gmail.com

*) Genau das macht nämlich z.B. die Grippe.

Da heutzutage so viele fakes im Umlauf sind, bin ich auch bei diesem "Sensationsinserat" sehr misstrauisch. Auf keinen Fall ist es das schon lange gesuchte missing link, welches die Lücke im curriculum vitae von Werner Faymann schliessen kann.

Ohne Herrn Bundeskanzler Faymann beleidigen zu wollen, bin ich aufgrund veschiedenster Ereignisse und Vorkommnisse zu der Erkenntnis gelangt, daß sämtliche seiner Vorgänger intelligenter und gebildeter sind bzw.waren als er !
Er ist unbestritten das Schlußlicht!

O.T. Ohne Worte:

profil.at

Nicht nur dem „Kurier“, sondern den meisten österreichischen Tageszeitungen wurden in den vergangenen vier Jahren massenweise gefälschte Leserbriefe vom Server der SPÖ-Zentrale geschickt.

Von Franziska Dzugan

Peinlich, Peinlich: Nicht nur auf Facebook lässt sich die SPÖ von falschen Freunden loben. Wie profil nun herausfand, wurden mehrere Printmedien seit 2008 mit falschen Emails vom Server der SPÖ-Parteizentrale überschüttet. Neben dem „Kurier“, der gestern von fast 400 eingegangenen gefälschten Leserbriefen berichtete, veröffentlichten die Boulevardblätter „Österreich“, „Heute“ und die „Kronen Zeitung“ Statements der falschen SPÖ-Jubler. Auch der „Standard“, „News“; „Salzburger Nachrichten“ und die „Tiroler Tageszeitung“ brachten einschlägige E-Mails als Leserbriefe.

Besonders aktiv waren die erfundenen sozialdemokratischen Freunde „Peter Dörner“ und „Christine Steinkellner“ mit ihrer Lobhudelei. Im Dezember 2010 beschwert sich „Steinkellner“ bei „Krone“-Kolumnist Michael Jeannée: „Ihre Kritik an SPÖ-Bundesgeschäftsführerin Laura Rudas und ORF-Stiftungsrat Nikolaus Pelinka empfinde ich als extrem unfair.“ Im Juni des Vorjahres schreibt sie anlässlich der Wahlen im Burgenland an „Österreich“: „Ohne die SPÖ geht im Burgenland nichts!“ Ihr Kollege „Peter Dörner“ vermeldet im Dezember 2009 „Lob für Werner Faymann.“ Im Oktober 2010 fragt „Dörner“ im „Standard“, was das „Gezeter“ um das von der Regierung beschlossene Budget soll. Im Februar 2011 schreibt er an „heute“, er stehe „voll hinter unserem Verteidigungsminister!“ Auch unter dem Namen „Bert Ilsmann“, „Markus Binder“, „Christoph Huber“ und „Sabine Huber“ wurden erfundene Lobbriefe in Umlauf gebracht. All diese falschen Mails lassen sich trotz Verschleierungsversuchen auf eine IP-Adresse der SPÖ zurückverfolgen.

25.11.2011 15:41

Das ist ein verfremdetes Heintje Foto :-)
Sowas ist auch mit Angela Merkel aufgetaucht.

Das könnt er schon sein, zumindest das mit dem Pro und Anti war echt!
http://vcv.at/archiv/archiv.doc.2008/Faymann_Dossier_Papst.pdf

Ist das wirklich echt? Ich kann's kaum glauben.

Wenn ja, dann war der Faymann schon in der Mittelschule (war er dort überhaupt?) ein komischer Knilch!

Eigentlich hat er's ja - trotz seiner jugendlichen Dummheit - relativ sehr weit gebracht!

Wie lange noch?

(mail to: gerhard@michler.at)

wandern und weggehen ? zu wenig weit !

lesen konnt er schon mit 17 ?

Wenn er nur so singen könnte! ;-)

Er wird hoffentlich auch den Weg aller Kinderstars gehen.