Yeah, the Soviet one is also really awesome. Always like the French one, too. And Rule Britannia is also great, although unofficial. But we have motherf'cking John McClane!

(I think the lyrics are part of it, considering they go along the lines of "all humans become brothers" and all that. Yes, we Germans can sing loud and powerful with peaceful lyrics. ;-) )

The music is great, the lyrics are excellent, they just chose the wrong arrangement.

They should have taken this one. :)

About fifty years ago or so, it was actually worth paying attention to. Nowadays... Yeah, it's a joke.

Oh, not this again. The Council of Europe has NOTHING to do with the European Union. The Council of Europe is Europe's human rights watchdog, with its European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

As for everyone pointing out the Balkans, the failure of Member States does not mean that the EU as an organisation failed. The fact that it was quick to offer assistance, development aid and afterwards the possibility of accession has done much to alleviate the troubling and violent atmosphere in the Balkans.

Concerning the Union's predecessors, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community (I didn't mention Euratom for a reason) were responsible for ensuring that preconditions exist that we no longer find it possible to engage in warfare. Need I remind everyone of the economic crisis of 1947? Of course, the dollars the USA sent helped immensely with the current account deficit existing at the time and the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation and the European Payments Union showed how important cooperation in the economic field actually was. Reading the entire Schuman declaration (not just the most quoted piece) shows how precarious the situation was at the time in the minds of leading politicians.

All of this is not to say that the EU and its forerunners never did mistakes or that more could had and could be done today. But as far as Europe itself is concerned, it is much better of thanks to economic integration. Foreign policy on the other hand, was and still remains a purvey of Member States and the EU as an organisation has limited tools at its disposal (mostly economic). For the rest, please, pin the blame on the states, not the EU.

Wow.....

Try to listen to the studio version if you can find it (I unfortunately couldn't), it's actually much better (and has more of Beethoven inside ;) ).

Heck no! Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson or there will be lawsuits!

Isn't Bill Nye the one that said we should remove Galileo, Newton, and countless other scientists from books just because they're Creationists? I don't see how hindering science because of religious intolerance is worthy of a prize.

I don't remember that, though he is anti-creationism, but I'd think he'd know better that they were before Darwin's Theory and they could have been burned at stake or jailed for differing from the Church's ideas (exactly what happened with Galileo).

But Again, I don't remember him stating that.

And also, I was joking a little bit too.

Actually, the Catholic church was split over Galileo. His main opposition came from the academia of the time. That being said, Bill Nye has essentially stated that he wants to ostracize anyone that doesn't support Darwin's dogma... Much like the academia of Galileo's time when he challenged their pseudoscience. In effect, he's now the Anti-Science Guy!

I don't want this to become a Evolution vs Creationism Debate, or whatever, but you made ridiculous claims
1.Darwin's Theory isn't dogma. It has fossilized, DNA, homologous, and vestigial evidence. As well as observation and tests. Look it up.
2. Give me a place where he wants to remove Newton, Galileo, and others from textbooks.

1. I would love to get into such a debate with you; just make the appropriate topic and I'd love to dispel your ignorance on the matter. That being said, it's rather off topic here, and I'm not here to derail this topic, but if you honestly think that fossils or DNA has done anything to help Darwin's dogma- which by scientific definition, is not a theory- then I doubt you've really studied the subject in any sort of depth.
2. You even agreed yourself that he attacked creationists. He has outright said they should be blackballed from science.

Could you please leave this creationist drivel out of this thread? Thanks.

Sorry for having a love for science. And if you noticed, I was the one suggesting we take the discussion to another topic, if the pseudoscience lover thinks he can defend his position.