Printable View
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
George was also vital tactically to the people who wanted a replacement for the Articles. His status made him a shoe-in to be picked to preside. When they finally got a quorum to begin, GW was selected, recognized one of his fellow Virginians and the "Virginia Plan" was on the table immediately to set the tone (new constitution) for the convention.
Apparently the French President isn't doing too well - given the fact that this has EU impact, can someone elaborate?
Byebye childless Mutti, Merkel is bonjoured, what a disaster that 'woman'
Translation: Merkel steps down as chairwoman of the CDU and does not want to run for reelection in 2021, decisions likely caused by recent losses of the CDU and CSU in state elections.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46020745
yeajyeah, and she wants to spend more time with her family
Perhaps, so who do you think will replace her?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I don't know, probably someone from the CSU or closer to it, immigration HAS become an issue, Germans didn't ask for those 1.6 million hardly screened newcommersQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
As we say in Ukraine, when you leave without saying goodbye, it is a British departure. But when you say goodbye and never leave, it is a Jewish departure. It seems Fragony has bade her farewell but she never left (and won't for quite a time).Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
She better should, she can do no good with just about anyone anymore. Populist right can drink her blood because of her immigration policy, left blame her for the rise of the populist right, her own party blames her for poor election results. She inherited a stable Germany and leaves a devided one. Internationally she made herself impossible as well. Germany has little friends left, Netherlands perhaps but only the government, who aren't very popular either I expect a beating
Sometimes things happen because they were meant to, and no one can change them. The fat 2000s lulled you and you thought that it will last forever. When the times changed (what with the immigrant deluge and depredations of Russia) NOBODY was ready for it and I don't think ANYONE would do better in her place. Or do you have some German politician in mind who would schaff das better? If you do, out with him (her). But even if you do, we can only guess if (s)he might have done better. Big catastrophes can hardly be stemmed by any person. Otherwise we might claim that when Beskar started moderating this site, it was a thriving place teeming with activities and discussions, and now it has petered out to a trickle. So would it be right to blame him for it, or would it be wiser to realize that it was initially game centered and when the game became outdated people just moved to other venues with newer game discussions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
No German politician should have to, according to the Dublin-treaty asylum should be asked in the first European country they set foot on, Merkel just shoved that aside
Wouldn't it have been easy to leave Greece, the Balkans, and the migrants to get figged? Or to close Germany and route the migrants to everywhere but - perhaps toward the Netherlands? The decision to concentrate the migrants in Germany was a calculated strategic compromise to rescue the weakest EU/European countries and avert humanitarian catastrophe - at least temporarily. As the main beneficiary of the EU, there was certainly an element of self-interest by Germany in stabilizing the southern flank, as well as in the attempt to equally distribute the burden throughout the EU via quotas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
You still seem to think Merkel waved a magic wand that materialized thousands of bodies out of thin air. Germany's primary failure was in not pushing harder and sacrificing more in shouldering the burden in order to reform EU-wide policy and give Italy and Greece a long-term solution to inevitably being the first port of entry for migrants from the south.
It ś very simple what should have been done, fortifying Europeś borders, instead Merkel made a birdcall.She is done for, she lost all control. The eastern-european countries do not listen to an ex-stasi, in the north the populist right is growing everywhere, gein wiedergutmachen
On the subject of whether it would have been a good or feasible policy for the EU as a unit to remilitarize and mobilize for the sole purpose of inflicting violence on hundreds of thousands of black and Muslim people we can differ (vehemently), but to say "Merkel made a birdcall" is not reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The reactionaries are elitists, not populists. Better for you to discover this sooner rather than later.
I see the sole purpose of mobilizing in fending off unwanted intruders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Who talks about killing. Australian method, dragging the ships backQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
edit; Asia Bibi, now THAT is someone who deserves to be sheltered. Iranian women (yummie) and leftist students as well, they are actually in danger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
You should have thought of that in 2012, at the latest. If you want to fault European and world leadership for failing to do foreign policy and economic policy properly in the years leading up to the migrant crises (which will last beyond any of our lifetimes), you have no qualms from me. But if your reaction is take it out on the desperate and most affected at the height of the ordeal, think more carefully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Ew. If Iranian women are in danger, are women anywhere else in the Middle East also in danger?
So you support letting a column of Central Americans into the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...on/1843469002/
Well I thought of it, politicians didn't. As for women in the middle-east, yeah, I would be much more lenient for them nut they are kinda trappedQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Not in our lifetime, apres moi le deluge?
Do I support following national and international law on the processing of asylum claims? Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
The situation will continue to degrade in Latin America as violence increases and crops continue to fail (hi climate change!). Hundreds of thousands of Central Americans (population Central America ~ Ukraine) have already migrated to Mexico in the past few years; without serious reform eventually collapse will cascade... It's the same story all over the world. People today flee their homes for the same reason people have since the advent of sedentary living. We are reaping the whirlwind of our policies. A siege mentality is detrimental to both outsiders and insiders.
I hate to say it but you are so dumb. Immigrants simply go to the west because it's easier, they will be provided, and even complain and ravage stores and harass womenQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I know what we hauled in as I do actually help real refugees. Finding knives in your bed, wir schaffen das. Not the rocket-scientists we need. Just go
No. Most people do not want to leave for anywhere. They come to avoid starving or being killed. If you want them to go away you need to make sure where they're going will not see them starved or killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Try to imagine, Fragony, that someone whom you don't like may still be a "real refugee". Your sympathy for someone is not the basis on which the status of refugee is conferred. For example, let's say there's a pro-Nazi German in Poland who's done awful things. Real war criminal, right? But here come the Soviets driving out all the ethnic Germans! Government in the area has collapsed and now he's a private citizen on the run. Boom, refugee. You don't have to like the man, or respect him, or wish him well, but he's a refugee nevertheless. It's possible to believe a whole class of people are inferior, or evil, or unworthy in some sense, and it would still not make them a refugee or not a refugee on that account alone.
Also, if you feel comfortable identifying people who 'deserve' help on the basis of your personal interactions with them, then how can you justify writing off literally all the people whom you've never met and know nothing about? Maybe if you met some more of them, you would get to hear about their knives in the bed.
Most 'refugees' are simply welfare tourists, almost all are young men who should be building up their own countries instead. Human traffickers must be stopped, not aided. NGO's even give the boats back to them. It has become better now but there is still a lot to be improved, Eurpean countries aren't to be held responsible for their breeding. Liking has nothing to do with it, I don't dislike them, but I don't welcome them either they do not belong here. I only care for real refugees and screening is way of. It is getting better though but huge mistakes have been made. I am nota coldhearted person, quite the contrary, I actually enjoy the diversity, but allowing immigration on such a scale is a mistakeQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
And while the claims are being processed (which, given the amount of immigrants and red tape speed, is likely to take months) you are ready to have them camped in your backyard? With no job, no food, no medical care?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Then it would be enough for them to have crossed into Mexico. But they are crusading northwards wishing not abstract safety and food, but American safety and food.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
That is the critical bit that so often seems to be overlooked - one is supposed to seek asylum in the first country which is safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
~:smoking:
In Merkel's case just ignored. It isn't our fault that the childless mutti is barren, who would fuck that anyway. She isn't just stupid she's evil, an ex stasi her codename was Erica, I wonder how many got killed because of herQuote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
This says a lot more about you and where you get your news from than it does about Merkel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Virtually all of that is false, I'm afraid. You have the wrong information. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
How can you tell they are not real refugees? How did you determine the people you helped out were real refugees? Maybe they weren't real refugees? If you say you could personally screen them reliably but the government can't (you trust blogs more than institutions, but do you trust blogs as a substitute for your own eyes and ears?), then it would be irresponsible to reject all others in principle without screening them. Go find some of these "fake refugees" and apply your proficient methods to assign them a firmer designation.
The government should hire more judges and lawyers to process the log.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
The Office of Refugee Resettlement, among other agencies, is equipped to provide services, and can easily be expanded in scope and funding (currently under a billion $) if the government were inclined.
Concentrating the asylees 'in a backyard' would constrain their ability to integrate, find work, and access many services (including legal). They should be dispersed throughout the country on their own recognizance so that they can be assisted by community and civil groups. Currently asylum seekers are required to wait 150 days into the process before being permitted to look for work, which is a disadvantage.
Let's all remember that this is not Andorra we're talking about, but the United States anticipating maybe a couple thousand persons arriving on foot at the border sometime in Winter '19. To fearmonger around this influx would be the basest kind of self-imposed delusion. If we were serious about preparing our countries for the coming influxes of refugees (in the millions), then we would be mobilizing collectively to change our way of life and not raving about Jewish-conspiracy financed jihadi marauders bringing leprosy, smallpox, and miscegenation to White America (literally all charges Trump and the Republicans have advanced to the public).
Anyone who wishes for martial law, for suspension of habeas corpus and other civil rights, and for the military to receive (and follow) illegal orders to massacre noncombatants as a response to news that a modest number of foreigners may eventually arrive at the southern border who are prepared to meticulously comply with border regulations and law of asylum is an enemy of humanity and the United States, plain and simple.
Quote:
Then it would be enough for them to have crossed into Mexico. But they are crusading northwards wishing not abstract safety and food, but American safety and food.
1. No, one need not.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
2. Most of them get discouraged and stay in Mexico anyway, besides all those who aim for Mexico as their final destination. This will of course, given the continuing lack of effective US foreign policy, contribute to Mexico's (ongoing) destabilization.
3. Under what circumstances will (the individual or family leaving due to lack of food or job or personal security) moving to a foreign country with even heavier gang activity, a hostile government that is stingy at the best of times towards even citizens, and no connections on which to rely, substantially improve one's security? Not often. Do you think along the lines of 'those Latin people are all the same, so one country or another shouldn't make a difference to them'?
Do you prefer that she would have demanded the refugees stay in Italy and Greece (mostly Greece at the time)? What if they claimed to be overwhelmed and refused to participate? Should theQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
GermanEU military have closed their borders and advanced to occupy key positions in those countries until they agreed to take full responsibility for all refugees without EU assistance?
As with other things, you have an irrational view of Merkel.
No I don't, the rules are clear. If she is in need of atonement she shouldn't bother others with it. A lot of Germans must have an irrational view of Merkel, she is the first post-ww2 chancelor that is outright hated, others were disliked, but not hated
Your extensive usage of modal verbs shows a wishful thinking, the world as it should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
We are speaking of the things that are. And in this World That Is the immigrant posse will still be camped in your backyard while the officials are warming up to what they should do.
Precedentially-wise, others will follow suit if they see that anyone who just crosses the border (or even forces it) is readily accepted as a wronged poor soul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
:dizzy2: So if I want to see no unwanted intruders in my backyard, I chafe for martial law, am ready to massacre noncombatants (or at least give order to) and eventually an enemy of humanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
And I'm more than sure that meticulously complying with border regulations is the last things the modest foreigners are inclined on. They mean to force their entrance into the US and demand for jobs and food. Ohterwise why is there an order to strenghten the border guards down south?
Trump is also hated, but we don't see you talk about him like you talk about her. One might wonder why that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
And Coca Cola is murdering union reps in Colombia. Sometimes you just use violence to make more money, so what? IF the US don't give a shit about the people south of their border, why should the people from the south give any shits about what people in the US want?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I don't like Trump, just because the always objective notion that I don't like his face. More then enough reasons to hate Merkel though she is a disastrous woman and she cannot even admit her mistakes, she is a dumb eastblock workhorse fueled by passive agression, that look in her eyes, total stupidity or howdareyou brrrrrr
Answer my question about you evaluating the validity of refugee claims. How do you know who is and who isn't a refugee, and if you are able to tell, how can you dismiss a whole group of people without individually evaluating them yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
No, they would not be, and I don't see how you come up with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
The Trump administration's idea is of course concentration camps, but heretofore the practice of leaving them with court appointments on their own recognizance has worked well enough to avoid claimants waiting out on the streets. They are dispersed throughout the country and are fed and sheltered by charity and civil organizations when family, friends, or government subsidies are not available. This system can easily be improved at little cost.
Border crossings are at or around all-time highs despite the open hostility of the Trump administration. Need is what drives emigration, opportunity is what makes destinations. Your implication is that America should be run into the ground so that people would prefer to flee it rather than come to it. Our only options are not to kill ourselves out of spite or to passively wait for the world to collapse; global governance needs reform and immigrant scapegoating is a vile red herring.Quote:
Precedentially-wise, others will follow suit if they see that anyone who just crosses the border (or even forces it) is readily accepted as a wronged poor soul.
No, I'm describing the rhetoric in this country and with whom you are finding common cause, since you don't seem to have more than a superficial knowledge of the situation.Quote:
:dizzy2: So if I want to see no unwanted intruders in my backyard, I chafe for martial law, am ready to massacre noncombatants (or at least give order to) and eventually an enemy of humanity.
You would be wrong. They intend to present themselves at the border for processing, just as the other caravans have done so far. The caravans that have been coming for years, by the way.Quote:
And I'm more than sure that meticulously complying with border regulations is the last things the modest foreigners are inclined on. They mean to force their entrance into the US and demand for jobs and food. Ohterwise why is there an order to strenghten the border guards down south?
You've fallen into a sad bit of illogic. If a fascist demands more troops at the border (skirting illegality under domestic law) in order to control a few civilians yet a thousand miles away (whom he wrongly describes as intruders, invaders, and vermin just as you do) than are in total deployed in Afghanistan, on the eve of a critical election, it is not because he is meeting a genuine threat or has the interests of the country in mind. Don't make me troll you by asking how many ethnic Russians the Ukrainian Nazis have massacred to force Putin to deploy troops to Donetsk-Luhansk.
The Pentagon, thankfully, has acknowledged internally that there is no security threat from a ragtag band of immigrants and have declined orders to assist with enforcement of border law or immigrant detention (which would be illegal, let me say again).
The cost of this deployment, projected in the hundreds of millions, far outweighs any costs of accepting these people.
This is not a serious news story, and it only became one because the media is slavishly devoted to amplifying Trump's vapid provocations.
Why should a country's officials take care of the citizens of other countries?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
So you admit those are immigrants, not refugees?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
1. I would be very much obliged if you quoted me using the words "invaders" and "vermin".Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Or is it just in line with accusing me of demanding martial law and civilian massacres?
2. You have made your bed by voting a fascist in, now lie in it.
When a significant amount of people is jobless and homeless, it won't be long before the security threat pops up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
@Monty @ first quention,
Why aren't they? There haven't been any serious incidents in the Netherlands, but a 'refugee' randomly started cutting throats, other started stabbing, other attacked a group of Israeli tourists. It are small incidents and nobody died, the AIVD(Dutch FBI in a way) prevented something much worse though but that could be bullshit, they had AK's and explosives, I don't know it that is true. But why are they here.
Basic human decency?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Not being full of shit when they claim to be some beacon of humanity and human rights or when they talk about "liberating" other countries? Funny when your president is called the "leader of the free world" and your border is a wall. Since when are walls a symbol of freedom?
Kinda funny, I am just listening a record, 'all in all you are just a brick in the wall'. The security measures we take here are jokingly called Merkel lego, concrete blocks. That isn't really funny it is coldhearted sarcasmQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Basic human decency is a myth: we are prepared to spend far more on a new phone than giving to others. We are for human rights in the sense we are prepared to sign a petition or like a Facebook post but nothing else really. We only invade other countries for selfish goals rather than to help the locals.
America fools, if anyone, themselves. Yes, they are the most powerful militarily and have tended to support a world order that benefits themselves (lately loosing faith in it since they have only most, not all of the power). But a leader? Far from it - bribing and threatening others to be on their side is hardly "leadership".
~:smoking:
Nice try. Refugees are a subset of emigrants. A helpful mnemonic is that asylum seekers are to immigrants as refugees are to emigrants. Of course any given person tends to be both emigrant and immigrant at the same time, unless you consider the "internally displaced".Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I told you that it's Trump and the Republicans who reason this way, and wondering how it is you fall into a parallel groove.Quote:
1. I would be very much obliged if you quoted me using the words "invaders" and "vermin".
Or is it just in line with accusing me of demanding martial law and civilian massacres?
You made your bed by defying Putin's order in Ukraine. :shrug:Quote:
2. You have made your bed by voting a fascist in, now lie in it.
Let's see how the midterms go.
Include a few more indicators and you're on your way to accounting for Bernie Sanders and the resurgence of social democracy.Quote:
When a significant amount of people is jobless and homeless, it won't be long before the security threat pops up.
You said you are a good arbiter of who is and is not a refugee, and the government (nor the "multicultural left") is not a good arbiter. So you met some people, and decided they were refugees. You didn't meet all the rest of the people, yet you have decided that they aren't refugees. Shouldn't you meet them personally before passing judgement if your judgement is especially good? What if for every 'goatherder on the wrong side of the mountain', a hundred have 'knives in the bed'? Wouldn't you want to invest some time and effort before condemning the latter for the sake of the former?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Trump is of a mind that barbed wire "used properly" is a beautiful thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The better question is, why not? Unless there is some critical and pressing reason to reject an individual (an individual mind you, not a whole race, religion, or ethnicity), why should a person have their movements restricted so? Is there a zombie apocalypse going down?
Gil, this ain't the Soviet Union. Thank you very much.
People are decent when it comes to the personal. If you introduce systems and abstractions, they grow colder. Objectively, allowing immigration is one of the easiest ways we have to improve the lives of multitudes. That's easier to swallow if you personally empathize with immigrants. Contesting demonization of immigrants (seriously, to the tune of 'wetback darkie ISIS cartel smallpox lepers here to destroy our way of life!!!') and at least maintaining the current immigration framework in America are one readily available facets of keeping the decency machine running. Are you convinced the improvements of the past century are both impossible and ephemeral? They will be if we don't defy the Trumpian vision of nations locking their citizens in, shutting foreigners out, and riding roughshod over both in the name of "freedom" while the aristocrats pick our bones...Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The American Dream is believing that America can one day become what it has claimed to always have been.
American taxpayers aren't supposed to finance that kind of human decency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Same reasoning isn't a reason to pass on to my mouth the words I didn't use. And parallel lines never cross each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Unlike you, I don't complain. But I thought we were discussing immigration to the US, weren't we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I can't claim the credit for the fact there ain't no Soviet Union. So you thank the wrong person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Who decides what they're supposed to finance? How do you arrive at that conclusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
The inscription on the statue of liberty suggests that you're wrong.
So inscriptions are used instead of laws?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Citizens of a country (via taxes) finance the needs of their own country.
Immigrants pay taxes like everyone else. Even undocumented immigrants who get paid under the table still end up paying sales tax.
Sales tax? Local shops near immigrant centres wouldn agree with that. Food and healthcare is free, it is we who pay that. But there is A LOT just getting stolen, they come in packs so the shopkeeper is helpless. They have little acces to the market because it isn't apreciated here if you come when you please, we Dutch do not care if it rains or have a cough, we just go to work. Having said that, there are also really motivated ones they are more than welcome hereQuote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
So immigrants costing more than they pay in taxes is the foundation of the problem? What would you say if there is plentiful evidence that immigrants pay more in taxes than they take out in state provided services?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
lol they cost 8 billion a year, and that is just in the Neds, what do we get back, nothing. Crime and disrespect. Not say that there is no silver lining some are great, but a lot are not. It angers me that christians and gays have to be scared here, it angers me that women feel unsafe, it angers me that shopkeepers feel unsafe, fuck it all, poor guests. The ones I want here I have enough fingers to count them on, and welcome they are they can use a room, use my bathroom, no pay required as long as I like you. Social code is broken, the Dutch code is to live and let liveQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
If there is evidence from respected institutions that immigrants pay much more taxes than they cost in state services, would you be in favour of them? I'm asking you this question. Don't deflect by saying that they cost a lot and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Yes there are, 80 bllion so far and counting. That is just the Netherlands. It is just dumb. We owe them abdolutily nothing. and as a thanks women get raped. I like women, I want to love them not rape them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I'll ask again: if there is plentiful, indisputable evidence that a group of immigrants pays much more in taxes than they cost in state services, and they do not appreciably cause more problems than other immigrants groups, would you be in favour of them? You're probably talking about another group than I'm referring to. Read my question rather than answer the question of your choosing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I agree that most people are decent when it comes to those that they care about, and this quickly drops the further away they get - since Christmas is a time to shower one's children with expensive gifts, not help people starving elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Immigration to improve the lives of the multitudes is as short term as giving food to someone and saying "problem solved!" First off, the West is struggling with taking on a minute fraction of the potential numbers; those helped are often the ones most able to travel, not the ones most in need. Secondly, the birth rate in these countries means that all the people leaving creates a temporary reduction in population at best. It solves nothing.
People generally are OK with immigrants that assimilate. It is difficult to hate people when you have no idea who they are. Ethnicity, religion and especially culture create divides. And two out of the three can alter to shift to their new reality - and the third decreases with inter-generational breeding.
What were the improvements of the last century? That the USA finally decided to stop treating people of African descent as third class citizens and upgraded them to second class? The limited immigration allowed to the west? Globally, I think it likely that freedom of movement was theoretically better in the British Empire (no need to curtail it - who could afford it?) Improvements have been mainly about freedom of trade, and increasingly the automation of practically everything making things cheaper and more available to all.
Trump is definitely ignorant about most things, and is probably of average intelligence. But he is very aware that his base (as such a term is rarely as well deserved) can be worried about immigrants whilst in many cases being second or third gen themselves and vote for a man who has twice married one. But for them it seems "foreigners" is no way as near as important as skin colour - I imagine there'd be no concern about thousands if not millions of white Western Europeans - as long as they were wealthy - coming over. If having a very limited amount of immigration allows Americans to delude themselves that this is decent, then so be it.
Wealth disparity is increasing rapidly, and movement of people or no isn't going to alter that.
~:smoking:
So those guys from Honduras that are heading for the US have already paid taxes to the IRS?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
I suppose, if you put it like that yesQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
So what do you think of immigration to the UK from within the EU? The relevant government departments say that these intra-EU immigrants pay several billion more in taxes than they take out, various job markets rely heavily on them as UK-born people don't tend to take these jobs (eg. social care), and they don't tend to cause more problems than your average immigrant group. Would it be a good idea to encourage this group, and a bad idea to block it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Why should I have any problems with that, and why do you make it an issueQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Because that is by some distance the most given reason given for Brexit: immigration. If intra-EU immigration is, by your measures, far more beneficial than harmful, does that make that reason less valid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
If the laws are suppsed to reflect a country's culture and art (I count a landmark statue as art) is an expression of that culture, then how do you explain the difference between the culture and the laws? Or has the US simply had a change in culture? Is the statue not representative at all? Is it normal for you to have inscriptions that suggest unlawful behavior on publically funded and maintained landmarks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
You also didn't answer how you arrive at that conclusion, that was the most important question. How does foreign aid figure into your description and why do so many countries accept and care for refugees if that is not what their citizens pay for? Your explanation is insufficient.
The US and the Netherlands probably don't exactly treat immigrants the same way in every aspect. He also said undocumented immigrants, since when do those live in immigrant centres? Or do you mean predominantly immigrant neighborhoods?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The most important thing about the brexit is that the Brits can't be governed from Berlin, they do not like that. The Nerherlands will also probably leave the EU and team up with the UK in the future, Brussel is highly disliked by everyone but those who want to go thereQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Do you have any evidence that "The Nerherlands will also probably leave the EU and team up with the UK in the future"? Or is it part of your general pattern of unsubstantiated BS?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
But back to the previous point. Should the UK remain within the single market? After all, it does not necessitate being part of the EU polity. But it does require acceptance of the four pillars, which the UK leavers object to, with the most important pillar, according to said leavers, being freedom of movement of labour. Are the UK leavers wrong to point to immigration as the biggest problem? After all, according to your metrics, said labour net contributes to the UK, going by the things that you complain about immigrants. Should arguments for Brexit discount intra-EU immigration as a problem? I'd like you to answer this last question, rather than go on your usual unsubstantiated BS rhetoric as you usually do (see the above promise about imminent Nexit for an example).
I'd probably be happier about being ruled from Berlin than Brussels...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It seems Brexit is turning into a side-show compared to the Italian Question (i.e. which idiot let them into the Euro?) and the AfD resurgence.
~:smoking:
Nexit is not imminent, but hiiiiiiighly eusceptic parties (PVV and FvD) are steadily climbing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
For the lols, leader of FvD is a bit of a dandy https://www.ad.nl/show/thierry-baude...ram~a79ce9027/ I find it hilarious really, it isn't excacrly diginified but lololol. Really smart guy who does illy things
bonuspic https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&t...47mmcsW_ySUJM:
All in all, a brexit and a nexit would make us more poweful than the whole EU combined, and we have very good reasons to have a bromance
Once again, I'll ask you about the issue of intra-EU immigration as the primary reason for Brexit. You complained about how immigrants cause trouble and how they cost the state in services. Since intra-EU immigrants do not cause appreciably more trouble than other groups of immigrants within the UK, and they contribute more in taxes than they cost in state services, does this mean that, by your metrics, intra-EU immigration should be invalid as an argument for Brexit? Do you agree with Leavers that intra-EU immigration is the most important reason for Brexit, given the above facts, and your above complaints about immigrants?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
BTW, I don't want your views on Dutch politics; I don't care. I'd like your view on Brexit, given your views above as I've highlighted. Are you going to answer my question on Brexit and immigration?
Not according to ashcroft exit poll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And even then the distant second place was immigration [and] security.
Lots of studies since have concluded even then that much of the angst over immigration was due to a perceived lack of control.
Thanks for not caring we will get alng fine. As for Brexit, brits just dislike meddling, so do weQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Are you going to answer the question about Brexit and immigration? You stated your rules for assessing whether immigrants are harmful or not, and you agreed that my description of an immigrant group does not sound harmful. Yet when I reveal that I'm talking about intra-EU immigrants and Brexit, you refuse to confirm that the Brexit argument against intra-EU immigrants is wrong. Can you confirm how you judge the positive and negative impact of immigrants, as stated in post 204?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
You then agreed that you'd be in favour of the immigrant group I described.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I was describing intra-EU immigrants in the UK. Are you still in favour of this immigrant group? If so, do you think that UK leavers are wrong in prioritising stopping these immigrants? Is the anti-intra-EU immigrant Brexit argument invalid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
They will pay taxes once they get settled in the US and start working.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I didn't offer immigration as a magical solution to a bevy of problems, but as an independently worthwhile practice that has more benefits than costs. The extent to which Western countries have trouble dealing with immigrants is the extent to which (aside from generically, "adjustment pains") Western countries are failing to satisfy the yearnings of natives for their own comfort and stability. Partial aside: it is said that Trump voters in the US and Bolsonaro voters in Brazil were more likely to be higher-income and economically secure. On the other hand, it's only relative because in today's world you can't truly be secure without net worth in the 8-figures. Hence the applicability of the "99%" slogan despite its internal subcategories.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
In speaking about the last century, you sound like one of those especially cynical and bitter old-school Marxists, funnily enough. 'There isn't perfect equality yet! Where's the revolution? It's all shite, isn't it? Curse those do-nothing liberal wastrels.' Life really has got better for billions overall in crucial respects, and we do have the means to continue expanding and even guaranteeing a way of life if we're ambitious. Without assigning valence or causality, we also see the moral baseline has at least changed. Casual violence and callousness are on the downswing, and people of different races and genders are increasingly able to share mindsets.
Less tangibly, in our generation for perhaps the very first time in world history there is a global culture that allows almost any two human beings from almost anywhere to communicate and share symbols and practices on at least a basic level. This has never been possible before. Bigger than Hellenistic culture, broader than the Bible or Quran. If the trend towards national fragmentation, insularization, and overwhelming multiplication of media follows, we may also end up being the last generation to participate in this wonderful moment where 6 people, one from every continent, whether all English-proficient or none, can converse in shared pop culture formulas and tropes. I hope it isn't so.
Are you sure? That's a salient attribute of racism and xenophobia. Group hatred typically allows special exceptions for "the good ones" that an ingroup member may know and like, while reducing the rest to a monolith. That's just the point I was making to Fragony, trying to get him to reconsider all the refugees he has never met and harshly dismisses in light of those he has personally met and befriended.Quote:
It is difficult to hate people when you have no idea who they are.
Heh, how do you pay taxes in a country you're not even in yet? I suppose you could advocate a libertarian-model "entrance fee", but then paid citizenship isn't something I look favorably on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
That was superbly written Monty, I look different at things but that's ok, well done
Law and culture don't fit perfectly. Otherwise there wouldn't be any difference and anything that appeared in culture would acquire the status of a law. Consider the Prohibition (the culture of consuming alcohol vs the law that forbids it). Or prostitution, which is culturally tolerated in many countries, but is illegal in some and legal in others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Incsriptions on monuments are romantic visions from the past, a wishful thinking. Otherwise one wouldn't need any documents for coming and settling in the US. Just the admission of being tempest-tossed, poor and homeless.
Simple logic. If I pay taxes in Country A, they are supposed to improve the life for the citizens of Country A. Of course, the ultimate decision lies with the government of Country A which is apportioned with the authority to direct taxes wherever they think appropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The prohibition didn't hold because the culture was too strong. And the statue of liberty was one of the biggest symbols of the US until recently when it was apparently replaced by images of walls and barbed wire fences. The requirement of documents could indeed be the first indicator of a shift in laws reflecting cultural changes, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
What if the government in country A is not interested in demanding taxes and nothing is improved as a result? Why do so many citizens complain about taxes if they're supposed to improve their lives?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
The culture or the financial considerations?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Do you call the inscription on a monument a document? And changing laws may take longer time than changing culture (see the example of prostitution above).Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
If the government is not intersted in improving the lives of citizens it is likely to be replaced by the one which is (unless it is a totalitarian one which may last indefinitely).Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Perhaps they are not sure the taxes they pay are directed to improvement their lives. And, secondly, people are just fond of complaining. It is especially true about Ukrainians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Nonono, now I got you, it's especially true of Germans!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I have a relative (well, he is my wife's relative) who always complains of low salary, high rent and general shortage of money, and now and then I see him carrying a plazma or a new computer under his arm. Moreover, I hear a lot of people complaining of exorbitant gasoline prices and one simply can't cross a street because of the endless stream of vehicles. Ukrainians are reported to have become much poorer over the last year and at the same time the number of international tourists from Ukraine has increased by 30% over the same period. So no one can beat Ukrainians in the art of complaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Well I think the Dutch have you beaten on the arts of complaining, it is a very fine country but not all complaints are nonsene, a lot are though we are really spoiled life is good here. But we could be better if whe weren't held back and intrused, the EU is holding back our advances in agriculture, fishing and just about everything really. The EU is a burden for a high-tech minded country like the Netherlands, but countries like France who never innovate have a say and they are much more powerful in the EU. We must leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
This leads us tright back to the topic: The future of Europe is complaining about how others claim they were better at complaining. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Well there is plenty to complain about, Juncker is a notorious drunk, his second Timmermans (who speeidly got promoted after the M17 attack) is so fat that he can barely move. Nice of Timmermans that he can speak 6 languages, so do I but nobody asks me anthing. They are useless, the whole EU is an ambarresement to all, what started as a free trade-zone became a political comfort-zone for idiots. I think it is only a matter of time that the Netherlands leaves as well, that is probably wisfful thinking but the EU isn't really liked by anyoneQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Is there any topic Fragony can't turn into an anti-EU rant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Well the topic is about the EU, and like a lot of Dutchies I do not apreciate the EU, not in it's current form and certainly not with the people running it, it is a sick lobbycracyQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
The funny part is that it's both a lobbycracy as well as our best chance to avoid a lobbycracy. Look at all the countries turning right wing, they turn even more to corporate interests than the EU. In Germany, the car industry is officially sanctioned to lie to its customers and arms exports cannot be stopped because of the lobby interests, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
In Poland the far right government loves their home country so much that they want to chop down one of the oldest forests in Europe for short-term profit. Oh and in Austria they started by removing worker protections so the workers can be forced to work longer for their corporate overlords.
I would take these accusations a lot more seriously if the same people didn't usually overlook the far worse lobbying that goes on on a national level.
What does that have to do with me. I do not even know people people who call themselve rightist, my buds are leftist or a apolitical, we talk about. What you discribe is a perverion that shouldn be attributed to anyone but those involved, that is true for more things thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
So, dodging the usual virtue-signalling slogans of eu debate, what do people think of the New Hanseatic League?
Fundamentally, a response to brexit and the loss of the super-sized advocate for a market-liberal driven EU.
Oddly bisecting the usual Franco-German divide of rule of:
1. One is a German driven Europe of rules. It will be business oriented, and Greece will come to be the template of a ‘wide’ Europe with no sense of common solidarity. This fractious stasis will nevertheless require us to integrate to fight for oxygen in a low adaptability / low growth bloc. Member nations might eventually come to engineer out some of the imperfections of Maastricht and Lisbon, but it will be an antagonistic and inward looking bloc.
2. The second is the French/Italian European people. It will result from peripheral Eurozone members choosing to leave monetary union, and accession states simply refusing to join. In doing this, the six founding members will recognise the common solidarity necessary to legitimise a transfer union at the core of Europe. A core able to integrate, a periphery happy to cooperate, this EU would be able to focus on more than zero-sum maneuvering.
In seeking an EU of rules but with some of the elements of solidarity necessary to make the Euro work:
https://spectator.clingendael.org/en...-not-be-enough
Does this fit YOUR vision of how the EU should evolve?