|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 02 2015 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2015 03:07 Silvanel wrote:
Well PiS is doing precisly what they promised and precisly what majority of people want them to do (at least in regards of foreign policy). Democracy at its finest. Democracy also entails certain values, including minority protection, human rights, due process and so on. If the "will of the people" where the only democratic indicator Russia would be more democratic than the United States. Democracy isn't equivalent to "the people are pleased with the dear leader".
Thats were You are wrong. You are confusing Humanitarian/Western values with "proper" democracy. They are not the same thing, same with regards to "due process and some other judical 'rights' " which traces its orgins to ancient Rome. And sure Democracy isnt equivalent to "people pleased with its leader, that way benevolent tyran could be called democratic", but noone is saying that.
But wary not, its a common mistake, dont feel bad about Yourself many people use democracy as a shorthand for something else. Even wiki mentions that:
"
The term "democracy" is sometimes used as shorthand for liberal democracy, which is a variant of representative democracy that may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government.[citation needed] Roger Scruton argues that democracy alone cannot provide personal and political freedom unless the institutions of civil society are also present.[13]
"
|
No, he is using Democracy in a right way. The way democracy is used in modern and common parlance as opposed to political science categorization. It'll be like to argue that USA or UK isn't a democracy as everyone understands it because one is a presidential republic and the other is a constitutional monarchy. They both are in the words of Nyxisto, democracies which as "Democracy also entails certain values, including minority protection, human rights, due process and so on" which is what democracy entails in its modern form and understanding.
|
On December 02 2015 19:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
No, he is using Democracy in a right way. The way democracy is used in modern and common parlance as opposed to political science categorization. It'll be like to argue that USA or UK isn't a democracy as everyone understands it because one is a presidential republic and the other is a constitutional monarchy. They both are in the words of Nyxisto, democracies which as "Democracy also entails certain values, including minority protection, human rights, due process and so on" which is what democracy entails in its modern form and understanding.
It is also the way the term is usually used (as a regime type) in political science. The use Silvanel is referring to is notably discussed in political theory/philosophy.
|
On December 02 2015 10:38 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2015 08:25 WhiteDog wrote:
So basically you nitpick what is actually okay with your own narrative in various studies that all have different models, disregarding everything that goes against your vision [...] No, I don't. Show nested quote +On December 02 2015 08:25 WhiteDog wrote:
[...] or even the fact that even the paper you link basically argue that it gives no actual clue on the relationship between migration and wages since it is highly hypothetical and based on hypothesis that anybody could discuss. Show nested quote +[kwizach] Reference to what WhiteDog is talking about: On December 02 2015 07:18 WhiteDog wrote:And here is what is written in the conclusion of the paper you linked : Those estimates are partial in that they assume a constant supply of all other groups and of physical capital and therefore are not informative of the actual overall effects of immigration on wages Thank god, we now know for sure the effect of immigration on wages. No, it doesn't. First of all, since using google is apparently very hard for you, you actually quoted a 2006 working paper version of the article, instead of the updated and revised article that was published in 2012 and that I referred to (how one can be so incompetent at even such basic tasks is beyond me). Second, the sentence you quoted and which mentioned assuming "a constant supply of all other groups and of physical capital" actually referred to other studies in the literature which made that assumption and not to the study itself, which precisely adopted a different approach. In other words, you skimmed the article, didn't understand it, looked for a sentence that would allow you to object superficially, and utterly -- and comically -- failed by picking the worst possible sentence to support your point, but the perfect sentence to underline that you had no clue of what you were quoting. Thanks for the good laugh, you're doing an amazing job of defeating yourself (talk about wrongly nitpicking to support your narrative -- what a priceless way to broadcast your hypocrisy). Show nested quote +On December 02 2015 08:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Okay you actually convinced me, I'll vote François Hollande in 2017.... Hahahauhauhauhauh I'm not sure how this discussion was supposed to be about the 2017 elections -- in case you need it spelled out for you, it was about exposing your inaccurate claims about the links between immigration and unemployment & wages, which I've done repeatedly. Your claims just happen to go hand-in-hand with the right/far-right's rhetoric about immigrants "taking our jobz" -- sorry reality is a little more complex and doesn't agree with your simplistic fear-mongering.
I just love how you can continue arguing even when I basically proved you that nothing you linked contredict any of my points (since most studies actually acknowledge the negative effect of migrants in the short run, both on unemployment and wages) and I also pointed out that your arguments are flawed in many occasion (like the fact that you cannot understand the effect of migration on the labor market if you don't take into account the institutions of the labor market, like the piece I linked suggest a few pages ago). But continue on please, like you do everytime.
And, so yeah, I used a 2006 paper... And ? It's the same model. Do you even understand what a model is ? Did you read the paper you linked and saw the math that account for at least half of what is written ? I reckon people like you are not very interested in the condition of production of the "truth" they like to defend. It's telling that in the article you link, the effect of migration on wages are called "simulations", and not actual empirical data (because they are datas that comes from the US - meaning they are irrelevant for Europe - datas thare are afterwards distorted by a model who happens to have the some hypothesis, that we oftentime see in neoclassical models).
And how do I resort to fear mongering ? Just because I'm not stupid, and accept the complexity of a phenomena, does not mean I resort to fear mongering. In your novlangue, saying that immigration have no negative impact on unemployment and wage everywhere and always (which is basically like saying migrant, as they arrive, will instantly be able not only to work but to create the job they will take) is showing that the "reality is a little more complex" lol....
I consider that migration wave in europe should be heavily managed by the public force, through global and universal investment in housing and education for exempl. Just because I'm not, like you, a liberal that believe the market will instantly resolve all problem, does not mean I resort to fear mongering.
But why do I even try, I'm talking to someone who argue that Fourest is an intellectual...
|
On December 02 2015 20:47 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2015 10:38 kwizach wrote:On December 02 2015 08:25 WhiteDog wrote:
So basically you nitpick what is actually okay with your own narrative in various studies that all have different models, disregarding everything that goes against your vision [...] No, I don't. On December 02 2015 08:25 WhiteDog wrote:
[...] or even the fact that even the paper you link basically argue that it gives no actual clue on the relationship between migration and wages since it is highly hypothetical and based on hypothesis that anybody could discuss. [kwizach] Reference to what WhiteDog is talking about: On December 02 2015 07:18 WhiteDog wrote:And here is what is written in the conclusion of the paper you linked : Those estimates are partial in that they assume a constant supply of all other groups and of physical capital and therefore are not informative of the actual overall effects of immigration on wages Thank god, we now know for sure the effect of immigration on wages. No, it doesn't. First of all, since using google is apparently very hard for you, you actually quoted a 2006 working paper version of the article, instead of the updated and revised article that was published in 2012 and that I referred to (how one can be so incompetent at even such basic tasks is beyond me). Second, the sentence you quoted and which mentioned assuming "a constant supply of all other groups and of physical capital" actually referred to other studies in the literature which made that assumption and not to the study itself, which precisely adopted a different approach. In other words, you skimmed the article, didn't understand it, looked for a sentence that would allow you to object superficially, and utterly -- and comically -- failed by picking the worst possible sentence to support your point, but the perfect sentence to underline that you had no clue of what you were quoting. Thanks for the good laugh, you're doing an amazing job of defeating yourself (talk about wrongly nitpicking to support your narrative -- what a priceless way to broadcast your hypocrisy). On December 02 2015 08:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Okay you actually convinced me, I'll vote François Hollande in 2017.... Hahahauhauhauhauh I'm not sure how this discussion was supposed to be about the 2017 elections -- in case you need it spelled out for you, it was about exposing your inaccurate claims about the links between immigration and unemployment & wages, which I've done repeatedly. Your claims just happen to go hand-in-hand with the right/far-right's rhetoric about immigrants "taking our jobz" -- sorry reality is a little more complex and doesn't agree with your simplistic fear-mongering. I just love how you can continue arguing even when I basically proved you that nothing you linked contredict any of my points (since most studies actually acknowledge the negative effect of migrants in the short run, both on unemployment and wages) and I also pointed out that your arguments are flawed in many occasion (like the fact that you cannot understand the effect of migration on the labor market if you don't take into account the institutions of the labor market, like the piece I linked suggest a few pages ago). But continue on please, like you do everytime.
You didn't "prove anything" -- you've been railing about the impact of immigration on unemployment and wages throughout the thread, and I provided evidence to show that the impact tended to be rather positive on the middle- and long-terms, and that effects were minimal and could go one way or the other (positive or negative) on the short-term. There is not necessarily a negative effect, even on the short-term, but there can indeed be one, and when that is the case it often corresponds to an negative impact on other low-skilled immigrants who arrived recently instead of the native population. In other words, the situation is exactly as I described it in my first post, and your simplistic narrative on the impact of immigration on the labor market completely obfuscates the positive aspects of immigration (including for natives) and exaggerates the negative effects.
On December 02 2015 20:47 WhiteDog wrote:
And, so yeah, I used a 2006 paper... And ? It's the same model. Do you even understand what a model is ? Did you read the paper you linked and saw the math that account for at least half of what is written ? I reckon people like you are not very interested in the condition of production of the "truth" they like to defend. It's telling that in the article you link, the effect of migration on wages are called "simulations", and not actual empirical data (because they are datas that comes from the US - meaning they are irrelevant for Europe - datas thare are afterwards distorted by a model who happens to have the some hypothesis, that we oftentime see in neoclassical models).
I know it's the same model, so what? Your argument so far has been "well, uh, they have this model, and, uh, lots of maths, so, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man". What is there to reply? You have absolutely nothing to stand on. In your frenzy to find something to object to everything I say, you probably did not even notice that I was citing this particular paper not in reference to my broader point but to illustrate the fact that just-arrived low-skilled immigrants tend to compete more directly on the labor market with other recently arrived low-skilled immigrants than with natives, something which is relatively often found in the literature and documented in plenty of national cases. You want other papers dealing specifically with European cases to illustrate that point? How about Marco Manacorda et al. (2012), "The impact of immigration on the structure of immigration on the structure of wages: theory and evidence from Britain", Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 120–151? Or Francesco D'Amuri (2010), "The labor market impact of immigration in Western Germany in the 1990s", European Economic Review, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 550-570? All you're doing is desperately latching onto any possible quote or word in the articles to find something to object to in the most superficial way, because you're utterly incapable of having a mature debate and accepting that I may have presented you with some valid research (using different approaches, by the way) which undermines some of the very negative depictions of the impact of immigration you've put forward throughout the thread.
I'm not surprised that you therefore just tried to sweep under the rug what I highlighted in my previous post: that the quote you had taken from the 2006 working paper (which, again, was not the one I was referencing -- the sentence isn't even in the article I quoted), and that you used to try to discredit the paper, actually referred to other studies and not to what was done in the paper itself! This really showed how desperate and utterly dishonest you have been in trying to find something to object to, since you apparently didn't even read the following sentence or skimmed it too fast: you had no interest in understanding what was presented to you, only in finding a quote to discredit the article. The hypocrisy in accusing me of "nitpicking to support my narrative" when you've been caught red-handed in doing exactly that is just too funny. Again, thanks for the laugh.
On December 02 2015 20:47 WhiteDog wrote:
And how do I resort to fear mongering ? Just because I'm not stupid, and accept the complexity of a phenomena, does not mean I resort to fear mongering.
You don't "accept the complexity of a phenomena". You've been repeating throughout the thread a simplistic and caricaturally negative narrative on the effects of immigration on the labor market, with zero depth or nuance. If you had actually bothered to explore the nuance of the possible positive and negative effects of immigration on unemployment and wages, and mentioned the different trends in terms of impact for the short-, middle- and long-terms, like I did, then it would have been justified to say you were interested in the complexity of the phenomena. Instead, you've done the opposite and pushed your simplistic narrative, fear mongering about the impact of immigration.
On December 02 2015 20:47 WhiteDog wrote:
In your novlangue, saying that immigration have no negative impact on unemployment and wage everywhere and always (which is basically like saying migrant, as they arrive, will instantly be able not only to work but to create the job they will take) is showing that the "reality is a little more complex" lol....
How do you expect to be taken seriously when you're blatantly lying and distorting my position, and everyone can simply read my previous posts and verify this? I have not defended any of the ideas that you just mentioned. I said that immigration tends to have a mixed (and minimal) impact on the short-term, sometimes negative (in particular in the case of low-skilled immigrants competing with previously arrived low-skilled immigrants), sometimes non-existent and sometimes positive, and tends to have a more positive impact on the middle- and long-terms (with exceptions, as is always the case). It is so transparent that you are building strawmen and caricaturing my points that I don't even know why you bother. You know you're not being honest, I know you're not being honest, and anyone who's paid attention to this discussion knows I did not present the fully optimistic view that you just described. It's like you're not even trying to appear intellectually honest.
On December 02 2015 20:47 WhiteDog wrote:
I consider that migration wave in europe should be heavily managed by the public force, through global and universal investment in housing and education for exempl. Just because I'm not, like you, a liberal that believe the market will instantly resolve all problem, does not mean I resort to fear mongering.
You're too funny, trying to paint me as someone who believes "the market will instantly resolve all problems" -- anyone who knows me on these boards knows that's so far from the truth it'd be like calling Wegandi a deep believer in statism. You just have nothing of substance to reply to me, and your personal attacks are so feeble and desperate it's like I'm witnessing your meltdown. I don't know if it's more funny or sad (probably still more funny).
|
The governments of Slovakia and Hungary just put in a lawsuit against european quotas regarding the distribution of refugees over Europe at the European Court of Justice.
Interesting is that the quota only included 120.000 refugees, meaning that it is made to distribute only ~10% of the refugees who arrived in Europe this year. A political smoke grenade so to say to create the impression that the political sphere actually would be able to tackle the problem of distribution and they even fail at that.
Kudos for the eastern euros to refuse to get taken hostage by Merkel for her failures and continuing breach of law.
Will be interesting to see, I hope eastern euros hold
|
On December 04 2015 01:26 AngryMag wrote:
The governments of Slovakia and Hungary just put in a lawsuit against european quotas regarding the distribution of refugees over Europe at the European Court of Justice.
Interesting is that the quota only included 120.000 refugees, meaning that it is made to distribute only ~10% of the refugees who arrived in Europe this year. A political smoke grenade so to say to create the impression that the political sphere actually would be able to tackle the problem of distribution and they even fail at that.
Kudos for the eastern euros to refuse to get taken hostage by Merkel for her failures and continuing breach of law.
Will be interesting to see, I hope eastern euros hold
You hope that a xenophobic, authoritative, populist leader such as Orban "holds"?
The debate on refugees is both interesting and depressing. It is absolutely proven that Europe would benefit economically from more immigration, it is also a necessity due to our alarming demographic evolution. European women simply do not make enough babies, and our continent will be aging dramatically with nasty consequences in the next decades. Of course the huge influx of refugees is a big challenge, but we are one the richest area on the planet with immense ressources, and it is nothing we can't handle.
And far more important, we have a duty towards human beings fleeing death and destruction, who are dying by the thousands in the hope of a better life. We are doing VERY little compared to countries such as Lebanon, who by itself is welcoming more refugees than the whole of Europe. I don't understand how people can ask for those people to keep dying in the Mediteranean or at the hands of ISIL and Assad without fucking blushing. It's just shameful.
But biggotry and fear are strong in those uncertain times, and people are more ready to take the side of a pseudo fascist leader such as Orban than holding to the humanistic values of openness and humanism which are the one thing that we could really proud of.
I think also that it is hugely ironic to hear the far right talking about our identity being threatened by all those brown people. Our identity is threatened indeed, certainly not by some poor Syrians and Pakistanese, but by those fear monging people themselves. If we do have an identity that we need to protect, it is an identity of enlightenment, of democracy and of human rights. That is what Europe is or should be, that is what it brought to the world, and that what makes me sometimes proud to be part of it. It's not when I meet my neighbour who is a very nice muslim electrician, that I feel I am not at home. It's when I hear that almost 30% of French people believe in a greasy fascist such as Marine Le Pen, or when a country like Hungary is ran by someone as despicable as Orban.
|
|
|
On December 04 2015 01:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 01:26 AngryMag wrote:
The governments of Slovakia and Hungary just put in a lawsuit against european quotas regarding the distribution of refugees over Europe at the European Court of Justice.
Interesting is that the quota only included 120.000 refugees, meaning that it is made to distribute only ~10% of the refugees who arrived in Europe this year. A political smoke grenade so to say to create the impression that the political sphere actually would be able to tackle the problem of distribution and they even fail at that.
Kudos for the eastern euros to refuse to get taken hostage by Merkel for her failures and continuing breach of law.
Will be interesting to see, I hope eastern euros hold You hope that a xenophobic, authoritative, populist leader such as Orban "holds"? The debate on refugees is both interesting and depressing. It is absolutely proven that Europe would benefit economically from more immigration, it is also a necessity due to our alarming demographic evolution. Of course the huge influx is a big challenge, but we are one the richest area on the planet with immense ressources, and it is nothing we can't handle. And far more important, we have a duty towards human beings fleeing death and destruction, who are dying by the thousands in the hope of a better life. We are doing VERY little compared to countries such as Lebanon, who by itself is welcoming more refugees than the whole of Europe. But biggotry and fear are strong in those uncertain times, and people are more ready to take the side of a pseudo fascist leader such as Orban than holding to the humanistic values of openness and humanism which are the one thing that we could really proud of. I think also that it is hugely ironic to hear the far right talking about our identity being threatened by all those brown people. Our identity is threatened indeed, certainly not by some poor Syrians and Pakistanese, but by those fear monging people themselves. If we do have an identity that we need to protect, it is an identity of enlightenment, of democracy and of human rights. That is what Europe is or should be, that is what it brought to the world, and that what makes me sometimes proud to be part of it. It's not when I meet my neighbour who is a very nice muslim electrician, that I feel I am not at home. It's when I hear that almost 30% of French people believe in a greasy fascist such as Marine Le Pen, or when a country like Hungary is ran by someone as despicable as Orban.
You are mixing up the themes of wanted immigration and economic refugees to dilute the question we are talking about. Further you equate eastern euro with Orban which is dishonest, too. Their are more countries against the current wave of unregistered refugees (again not immigration) for example Slovakia, Poland or basically any eastern european countries, all with democratically elected governments, of course you pick Orban as example, the only dodgy one and extrapolate from there.
I won't even argue your points as the underlying assumptions ala xenophobic, authoritarian plus the definitions (refugees, immigration) are either dishonest or are being used to dilute the question we are actually talking about.
|
Quote instead of edit sry
|
On December 04 2015 01:54 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 01:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2015 01:26 AngryMag wrote:
The governments of Slovakia and Hungary just put in a lawsuit against european quotas regarding the distribution of refugees over Europe at the European Court of Justice.
Interesting is that the quota only included 120.000 refugees, meaning that it is made to distribute only ~10% of the refugees who arrived in Europe this year. A political smoke grenade so to say to create the impression that the political sphere actually would be able to tackle the problem of distribution and they even fail at that.
Kudos for the eastern euros to refuse to get taken hostage by Merkel for her failures and continuing breach of law.
Will be interesting to see, I hope eastern euros hold You hope that a xenophobic, authoritative, populist leader such as Orban "holds"? The debate on refugees is both interesting and depressing. It is absolutely proven that Europe would benefit economically from more immigration, it is also a necessity due to our alarming demographic evolution. Of course the huge influx is a big challenge, but we are one the richest area on the planet with immense ressources, and it is nothing we can't handle. And far more important, we have a duty towards human beings fleeing death and destruction, who are dying by the thousands in the hope of a better life. We are doing VERY little compared to countries such as Lebanon, who by itself is welcoming more refugees than the whole of Europe. But biggotry and fear are strong in those uncertain times, and people are more ready to take the side of a pseudo fascist leader such as Orban than holding to the humanistic values of openness and humanism which are the one thing that we could really proud of. I think also that it is hugely ironic to hear the far right talking about our identity being threatened by all those brown people. Our identity is threatened indeed, certainly not by some poor Syrians and Pakistanese, but by those fear monging people themselves. If we do have an identity that we need to protect, it is an identity of enlightenment, of democracy and of human rights. That is what Europe is or should be, that is what it brought to the world, and that what makes me sometimes proud to be part of it. It's not when I meet my neighbour who is a very nice muslim electrician, that I feel I am not at home. It's when I hear that almost 30% of French people believe in a greasy fascist such as Marine Le Pen, or when a country like Hungary is ran by someone as despicable as Orban. You are mixing up the themes of wanted immigration and economic refugees to dilute the question we are talking about. Further you equate eastern euro with Orban which is dishonest, too. Their are more countries against the current wave of unregistered refugees (again not immigration) for example Slovakia, Poland or basically any eastern european countries, all with democratically elected governments, of course you pick Orban as example, the only dodgy one and extrapolate from there. I won't even argue your points as the underlying assumptions ala xenophobic, authoritarian plus the definitions (refugees, immigration) are either dishonest ore a being used to dilute the question we are actually talking about.
Accepted refugees are immigrants, it seems to me. Aren't they? If we have a demographic crisis, I don't se ehow a Syrian refugee will do less good to help than a Corean immigrant. Now a lot of those Syrians are well educated, had jobs, speak often several language. And even if they didn't? Let them die?
And we do have a responsibility, according to the Geneva convention, to grant people fleeing war and dangerous situation asylum. That's just human decency.
Thing is, you didn't answer anything at all, which makes me think you are the one who tries to dilute the discussion. I am talking about a human necessity, about decency and compassion, about people dying by the hundred thousands, about a moral crisis. I think that's what that debate is about.
I don't equate Estern Europe with Orban. You judged relevant to say how Hungary was doing the right thing and hoping it would "hold". I say that taking Hungary as an example is quite revelatory of the state of things these days. And it's not only Orban that is sliding to the far right. Half of Europe is already there. The Polish Law and Justice Party and Szydlo, since you bring up Poland, is equally xenophobic, displays equal biggotry. What would have been far right rethoric twenty years ago has infected even left wing governments all across the Union, and populist parties are doing scores that are just staggering.
Which brings me to my point. Those people are threatening our identity, and stealing us what make us strong, depriving us from what we have to offer the world.
|
On December 04 2015 02:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 01:54 AngryMag wrote:On December 04 2015 01:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2015 01:26 AngryMag wrote:
The governments of Slovakia and Hungary just put in a lawsuit against european quotas regarding the distribution of refugees over Europe at the European Court of Justice.
Interesting is that the quota only included 120.000 refugees, meaning that it is made to distribute only ~10% of the refugees who arrived in Europe this year. A political smoke grenade so to say to create the impression that the political sphere actually would be able to tackle the problem of distribution and they even fail at that.
Kudos for the eastern euros to refuse to get taken hostage by Merkel for her failures and continuing breach of law.
Will be interesting to see, I hope eastern euros hold You hope that a xenophobic, authoritative, populist leader such as Orban "holds"? The debate on refugees is both interesting and depressing. It is absolutely proven that Europe would benefit economically from more immigration, it is also a necessity due to our alarming demographic evolution. Of course the huge influx is a big challenge, but we are one the richest area on the planet with immense ressources, and it is nothing we can't handle. And far more important, we have a duty towards human beings fleeing death and destruction, who are dying by the thousands in the hope of a better life. We are doing VERY little compared to countries such as Lebanon, who by itself is welcoming more refugees than the whole of Europe. But biggotry and fear are strong in those uncertain times, and people are more ready to take the side of a pseudo fascist leader such as Orban than holding to the humanistic values of openness and humanism which are the one thing that we could really proud of. I think also that it is hugely ironic to hear the far right talking about our identity being threatened by all those brown people. Our identity is threatened indeed, certainly not by some poor Syrians and Pakistanese, but by those fear monging people themselves. If we do have an identity that we need to protect, it is an identity of enlightenment, of democracy and of human rights. That is what Europe is or should be, that is what it brought to the world, and that what makes me sometimes proud to be part of it. It's not when I meet my neighbour who is a very nice muslim electrician, that I feel I am not at home. It's when I hear that almost 30% of French people believe in a greasy fascist such as Marine Le Pen, or when a country like Hungary is ran by someone as despicable as Orban. You are mixing up the themes of wanted immigration and economic refugees to dilute the question we are talking about. Further you equate eastern euro with Orban which is dishonest, too. Their are more countries against the current wave of unregistered refugees (again not immigration) for example Slovakia, Poland or basically any eastern european countries, all with democratically elected governments, of course you pick Orban as example, the only dodgy one and extrapolate from there. I won't even argue your points as the underlying assumptions ala xenophobic, authoritarian plus the definitions (refugees, immigration) are either dishonest ore a being used to dilute the question we are actually talking about. Accepted refugees are immigrants, it seems to me. Aren't they? A lot of those Syrians are well educated, had jobs, speak often several language. And even if they didn't? Let them die? And we do have a responsibility, according to the Geneva convention, to grant people fleeing war and dangerous situation asylum. That's just human decency. Thing is, you didn't answer anything at all, which makes me think you are the one who tries to dilute the discussion. I am talking about a human necessity, about decency and compassion, about people dying by the hundred thousands, about a moral crisis. I think that's what that debate is about. I don't equate Estern Europe with Orban. You judged relevant to say how Hungary was doing the right thing and hoping it would "hold". I say that taking Hungary as an example is quite revelatory of the state of things these days. And it's not only Orban that is sliding to the far right. Half of Europe is already there. The Polish Law and Justice Party and Szydlo, since you bring up Poland, is equally xenophobic, displays equal biggotry. What would have been far right rethoric twenty years ago has infected even left wing governments all across the Union, and populist parties are doing scores that are just staggering.
No they are not. A refugee is a person who gets granted a right of residence until the conflict in the country from which he fled is over. An immigrant is a person who at first gets granted a limited and after a "testing period" a permanent right of residence in the host country with the possibility of a citizenship in this country along the road.
Difference is refugee=limited time in the host country, immigrant= permanent. Law specifically makes that difference and it is there for a reason.
My first post used eastern euros specifically I quote "Will be interesting to see, I hope eastern euros hold". And yes you equated Orban with eastern euros in your first post. Your initial post mentioned Orban three times, the term eastern euro is not found in your initial post.
And you don't make any points, you are arguing emotionally, speaking of compassion, decency. It may be hard to accept for you, but this is not making a point and not offering a practical solution. You being opposed to the governments in Poland or other countries in eastern Europe doesn't take anything away from their democratic legitimacy, whether you like it or not (dodgy Orban excluded).
The recent rise of right wing movements (which wasn't there let's say 10 years ago) has much to do with the political system lacking any acceptable answers which are demanded by the public. This rise will stop if governments find solutions which are accepted by public majorities, if governments find no solutions the people will continue to look for alternatives.
Holding emotional pleas doesn't seem to cut it anymore in eastern Europe, practical solutions need to be found which are acceptable for all parties involved or the right wing will continue to grow.
|
Oh and because you mention Syria and the people dying. You are right, the conflict is fucking disgusting and the west like usually played a part in it. But also all the local players like the Saudis, the Turks, iran and the Syrians themselves
I am equally disgusted that the west gets drawn into the conflict more and more, we'll see western soldiers dying for Syria down there soon, while hundredthousands of syrian males in fighting age are fleeing from the country. I am far from happy with that.
|
The sad truth is that ISIS is still alive because many groups in the world have a different idea of how they want Syria to develop after the conflict is over, and they're all willing to drag out the fight while they decide.
|
On December 04 2015 01:26 AngryMag wrote:
The governments of Slovakia and Hungary just put in a lawsuit against european quotas regarding the distribution of refugees over Europe at the European Court of Justice.
Interesting is that the quota only included 120.000 refugees, meaning that it is made to distribute only ~10% of the refugees who arrived in Europe this year. A political smoke grenade so to say to create the impression that the political sphere actually would be able to tackle the problem of distribution and they even fail at that.
Kudos for the eastern euros to refuse to get taken hostage by Merkel for her failures and continuing breach of law.
Will be interesting to see, I hope eastern euros hold
It's not really that hard for them to hold, actually. As soon as the migrants have "settled in" they will make use of the free movement of people-principle and go to Germany anyway. The quota is absolutely useless due to the fact that the migrants/refugees/whatever you want to call them do not want to stay in Eastern our Southern Europe. They want to head north. Who can blame them anyway? There are hundreds of thousands of Southern and Eastern Europeans who do the exact same thing because the economic prospects in their own countries are often terrible.
|
Netherlands22104 Posts
On December 04 2015 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
The sad truth is that ISIS is still alive because many groups in the world have a different idea of how they want Syria to develop after the conflict is over, and they're all willing to drag out the fight while they decide.
Even if everyone combined and wages a proper war you wouldn't get rid of ISIS. you don't destroy something like that with bombs and soldiers. They just go underground amid the people and wait until the west has left again. We say it in Afghanistan and Iraq. Syria would be no different.
|
On December 04 2015 04:20 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 01:26 AngryMag wrote:
The governments of Slovakia and Hungary just put in a lawsuit against european quotas regarding the distribution of refugees over Europe at the European Court of Justice.
Interesting is that the quota only included 120.000 refugees, meaning that it is made to distribute only ~10% of the refugees who arrived in Europe this year. A political smoke grenade so to say to create the impression that the political sphere actually would be able to tackle the problem of distribution and they even fail at that.
Kudos for the eastern euros to refuse to get taken hostage by Merkel for her failures and continuing breach of law.
Will be interesting to see, I hope eastern euros hold It's not really that hard for them to hold, actually. As soon as the migrants have "settled in" they will make use of the free movement of people-principle and go to Germany anyway. The quota is absolutely useless due to the fact that the migrants/refugees/whatever you want to call them do not want to stay in Eastern our Southern Europe. They want to head north. Who can blame them anyway? There are hundreds of thousands of Southern and Eastern Europeans who do the exact same thing because the economic prospects in their own countries are often terrible.
They need to be EU citizens for the movement thing though.
I would laugh frantically if the EU blackmails the eastern euros into accepting the quota and the eastern euros would just dish out eu passports in return. Economic refugees will of course go to that system which grants the most money, which should be Sweden, Germany and GB. GB is not delusional enough and Sweden changed course recently. Germany's idiocy knows no bounds. I'll hope that Bavaria secedes and takes southern Germany with them lol.
Let the Prussians deal with their own idiocy.
Germany will use that to reduce social standards btw. They already probed around a bit. First they said reduce "minimum wage for refugees" and recently they came out with the plan to delete refugees out of the labor market statistics. None of that happened. They'll do it again in 5 years..
I'll bet my car and my left nut that our social standards will be lowered significantly within the next 15 years and the reason used for that will be "we cannot pay for all that immigrants in the social services". The irony is that all our SJW are working towards the abolishment of social standards they pretend to love so much.
|
On December 04 2015 04:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
The sad truth is that ISIS is still alive because many groups in the world have a different idea of how they want Syria to develop after the conflict is over, and they're all willing to drag out the fight while they decide. Even if everyone combined and wages a proper war you wouldn't get rid of ISIS. you don't destroy something like that with bombs and soldiers. They just go underground amid the people and wait until the west has left again. We say it in Afghanistan and Iraq. Syria would be no different.
Military invasion on the part of Western nations wouldn't stop ISIS, that much is true. But unified support of one strong leading party would do that, whether it is Assad or some other successor that is more desirable. It seems to be the most reliable method for keeping MidEast populations in line over the past 50 years.
A strong local military dedicated to rooting out terrorism in its home country would stop the organization within its own country. The real problem is that we don't have that in the nations where the US created a poorly thought out power vacuum because we didn't like a leader who maintained stability.
|
On December 04 2015 04:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
The sad truth is that ISIS is still alive because many groups in the world have a different idea of how they want Syria to develop after the conflict is over, and they're all willing to drag out the fight while they decide. Even if everyone combined and wages a proper war you wouldn't get rid of ISIS. you don't destroy something like that with bombs and soldiers. They just go underground amid the people and wait until the west has left again. We say it in Afghanistan and Iraq. Syria would be no different.
Well, actually we managed root out Nazism and Fascism using bombs and soldiers, but that was before anyone really cared about how civilian casualties. Back then we bombed Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to kingdom come, nowadays even a single civilian casualty is enough to get people's panties in a bunch.
The uncomfortable fact is, however, that you cannot fight a war and avoid civilian casualties, especially not if you are fighting an enemy that takes no qualms in using civilians as human shields.
Another uncomfortable truth is that you cannot expect a region that has been tribal since pretty much the dawn of time to accept and be able to handle democratic rule. It is not going to happen. They've got neither the will, nor the restraint, nor the bureaucratic clout to achieve that. Germany and Japan had a long-standing history of bureaucratic competence and obedience to authority, which is largely why the nation-building efforts over there were huge successes. In a region such as the middle east, where obedience is to the family and clan (or tribe) first and foremost and not to a state, that's a bit more difficult. The few conquerors that did manage to somewhat control that area were smart enough to let them govern their regions the way they were used to, as long as they paid tribute to the conquerors. Then again, those conquerors cared very little for "human rights", and as such did not have a tendency to want to superimpose their value system over an already existing and conflicting value system due to a misguided sense of moral superiority (in other words, they didn't really care how their vassals treated their population).
|
On December 04 2015 04:43 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 04:25 Gorsameth wrote:On December 04 2015 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
The sad truth is that ISIS is still alive because many groups in the world have a different idea of how they want Syria to develop after the conflict is over, and they're all willing to drag out the fight while they decide. Even if everyone combined and wages a proper war you wouldn't get rid of ISIS. you don't destroy something like that with bombs and soldiers. They just go underground amid the people and wait until the west has left again. We say it in Afghanistan and Iraq. Syria would be no different. Well, actually we managed root out Nazism and Fascism using bombs and soldiers, but that was before anyone really cared about how civilian casualties. Back then we bombed Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to kingdom come, nowadays even a single civilian casualty is enough to get people's panties in a bunch.
Neither Nazism nor fascism is gone. Only Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Imperial Japan.
Both ideologies live on in the world, especially in East Europe, and they could very well make another comeback if the circumstances lead to a society that is more likely to support overt racism on the scale that was seen in Nazi Germany.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
