|
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 May 27 2016 18:34 Noizhende wrote:
fair enough, but let me say it this way, the ECB is buying up more and more of the government debt, which essentielly means that the Euro-states can spend more without having to fear to ever have to pay back what they owe to the ECB, making government debt less of an issue. Why not let the states invest this in a controlled manner (we have the stability pact), when inflation doesn't seem to be an issue anyway. Am i not right in this?
E.g. put the population of Greece, Italy, Spain back into a position where they can develop their economies themselves with government programs from Euro states with a possibilty to spend, because they are not close to the stability pact limitations, in the countries which need it. (Ofc here you need the political will, and people like Schäuble aren't helping, that's why i hate on him)
Mb we don't have recession in the Eurozone overall, but in the south it's very real, and is gonna destabilize those countries more and more, while the limited measures taken now, and all the so called structural reforms aren't really helping. (even the IMF seems to be agreeing)
Italy has a problem with corruption, an insane amount of red tape and non performing loans in the banking sector. More government expenditure isn't going to help for that. Spain is already growing rapidly and doesn't need doesn't need more. Greece is a bit of a special case where a lot of the issues are more political than anything (from both sides).
Simply funding their deficits and increasing government expenditure isn't fixing any of the core issues these countries are facing.
Source me where the IMF says reforms don't help? One of the reasons Greece wasn't hitting it's targets for budget deficits and the debt become unsustainable according to the IMF is that they didn't implement a lot of the reforms. They admitted to making mistakes but not that reforms don't work.
On May 28 2016 19:14 Noizhende wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 07:47 WhiteDog wrote:E.g. put the population of Greece, Italy, Spain back into a position where they can develop their economies themselves with government programs from Euro states with a possibilty to spend, because they are not close to the stability pact limitations, in the countries which need it. (Ofc here you need the political will, and people like Schäuble aren't helping, that's why i hate on him) Won't work for basic economic reason. You give them EUROs for spending (as a gift or through loans), they will spend them to buy goods (from the north by the way, helping the north) and it will increase inflation in their countries and not in the north : the north will gain competitivity versus them and they won't get out of the crisis. There's three way out of the situation : fiscal redistribution from the north to the south, or an increase of the south competitivity through lower wages / benefit or the end of the euro. you are right, but that's what i meant. You need to take Euros and buy from greek businesses. Example: German state finances building some new infrastructure through a greek private company in greece or somewhere else where it's needed. That's fiscal redistribution in a way. The "giving money so they can buy our products, but never get their domestic economy back up" is going on right now. (example: german arms exports to greece) a global race to the bottom through lowering wages will kill off demand everywhere, so that's a nono. unless on the other hand you take measures towards basic income or a negative tax system to dampen the effect of unemployment, or reduce labour time without reducing income, both at a level equal to productivity increase + desired inflation. generally it's not a good idea to keep competing against each other on the labour market in a monetary union, if you don't have measures to bring countries who lose out in competition back onto their feet.
But QE is already plenty for that kind of redistribution. Germany isn't investing in infrastructure because they're so fixed on balancing the budget. Interest rates on bonds are already incredibly low. Funding their deficits isn't going to give them incentives to change their behaviour. German growth has been supported by consumption for a while now btw, the only area they're lacking is infrastructure investment tbh.
|
Source me where the IMF says reforms don't help? One of the reasons Greece wasn't hitting it's targets for budget deficits and the debt become unsustainable according to the IMF is that they didn't implement a lot of the reforms. They admitted to making mistakes but not that reforms don't work.
Come on, the IMF can't say shit because it's official. But they clearly stated the reform has negative effect on growth overall.
|
Less then a year ago we feared that the EU's insistence on austerity would trigger a second depression and now that things are looking slightly less bleak your saying it all worked fine?
The reforms in all likelihood lengthened the crisis and suppressed recovery.
|
Nobody says that reforms don't work and i agree with you RvB in demanding reforms, also in my country, which has a history of corrupt politicians e.g. Jörg Haider(FPÖ), but the austerity measures don't work as expected. And nobody other than the IMF seems to be pushing towards actual reforms that reduce corruption or overboarding bureaucracy, it's all just cut spending here, cut something here, which is a bit shortsighted imo, since this money is missing somewhere else in the economy afterwards.
With correcting their expectations of growth to a lower level over and over they basically admit that the austerity measures didn't work as expected.
Funnily enough there's a new maybe interesting IMF piece out to all this:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm
last part:
Finding the balance
These findings suggest a need for a more nuanced view of what the neoliberal agenda is likely to be able to achieve. The IMF, which oversees the international monetary system, has been at the forefront of this reconsideration.
For example, its former chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, said in 2010 that “what is needed in many advanced economies is a credible medium-term fiscal consolidation, not a fiscal noose today.” Three years later, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said the institution believed that the U.S. Congress was right to raise the country’s debt ceiling “because the point is not to contract the economy by slashing spending brutally now as recovery is picking up.” And in 2015 the IMF advised that countries in the euro area “with fiscal space should use it to support investment.”
On capital account liberalization, the IMF’s view has also changed—from one that considered capital controls as almost always counterproductive to greater acceptance of controls to deal with the volatility of capital flows. The IMF also recognizes that full capital flow liberalization is not always an appropriate end-goal, and that further liberalization is more beneficial and less risky if countries have reached certain thresholds of financial and institutional development.
Chile’s pioneering experience with neoliberalism received high praise from Nobel laureate Friedman, but many economists have now come around to the more nuanced view expressed by Columbia University professor Joseph Stiglitz (himself a Nobel laureate) that Chile “is an example of a success of combining markets with appropriate regulation” (2002). Stiglitz noted that in the early years of its move to neoliberalism, Chile imposed “controls on the inflows of capital, so they wouldn’t be inundated,” as, for example, the first Asian-crisis country, Thailand, was a decade and a half later. Chile’s experience (the country now eschews capital controls), and that of other countries, suggests that no fixed agenda delivers good outcomes for all countries for all times. Policymakers, and institutions like the IMF that advise them, must be guided not by faith, but by evidence of what has worked.
|
unsignificant and unimportant news ahead. Really I'd put this into a Germany thread but I don't think we have or need one and since the Pegida rise is related to Europe politics might as well put this in here. Just saw on Reuters and I just had to laugh. Only in german but you'll get a tl;dr afterwards:
+ Show Spoiler [Reuters, german] +Rassismus-Vorwurf gegen AfD-Vize wegen Boateng-Bemerkung
AfD-Vize-Chef Alexander Gauland hat sich abschätzig über den dunkelhäutigen deutschen Fußball-Nationalspieler Jérome Boateng geäußert und damit Rassismusvorwürfe auf sich gezogen.
"Die Leute finden ihn als Fußballspieler gut, aber wollen einen Boateng nicht als Nachbarn haben", sagte er der "Frankfurter Allgemeinen Sonntagszeitung" (FAS). Nach harter Kritik an Gauland entschuldigte sich AfD-Chefin Frau Petry "für den Eindruck, der entstanden ist". Gauland verteidigte sich, er habe in einem vertraulichen Hintergrundgespräch mit der Zeitung nur "die Einstellung mancher Menschen beschrieben". Dem widersprach die FAS. "Herr Gauland stufte nur den Teil des Gesprächs, in dem er sich über AfD-Führungspolitiker äußerte, als Hintergrund ein und bat, daraus nicht zu zitieren", heißt es in einer Erklärung der Politikredaktion. Justizminister Heiko Maas nannte Gaulands Äußerung "schlicht rassistisch".
Der Fußball-Weltmeister von 2014 hat eine deutsche Mutter und einen ghanaischen Vater. Vergangene Woche hatten sich bereits Anhänger der fremdenfeindlichen Pegida-Bewegung in sozialen Netzwerken abschätzig über Boateng geäußert. Anlass war eine Aktion des "Kinderschokolade"-Herstellers Ferrero, der anlässlich der Fußball-Europameisterschaft Verpackungen mit Kinderbildern deutscher Nationalspieler bedruckt hatte.
"Herr Gauland kann sich nicht erinnern, ob er diese Äußerung getätigt hat", sagte Petry der "Bild-Zeitung" (Montagausgabe): "Ich entschuldige mich unabhängig davon bei Herrn Boateng für den Eindruck, der entstanden ist." Gauland erklärte am Sonntag: "Ich habe nie, wie die FAS insinuiert, Herrn Boateng beleidigt. Ich kenne ihn nicht und käme daher auch nicht auf die Idee, ihn als Persönlichkeit abzuwerten." Er habe sich in dem Hintergrundgespräch mit der Zeitung "an keiner Stelle über Herrn Boateng geäußert, dessen gelungene Integration und christliches Glaubensbekenntnis mir aus Berichten über ihn bekannt ist", sagte Gauland. Boateng ist in Berlin geboren und aufgewachsen.
BIERHOFF: GAULAND DISKREDITIERT SICH SELBST
"Ich hätte Jerome Boateng sehr viel lieber in der Nachbarschaft als Alexander Gauland", sagte Grünen-Fraktionschefin Katrin Göring-Eckardt der Funke Medien Gruppe. Maas nannte Gaulands Äußerung "niveaulos und inakzeptabel": "Wer so redet wie Gauland, entlarvt sich selbst - und zwar nicht nur als schlechter Nachbar", schrieb er auf Facebook: "Die Aussagen sind schlicht rassistisch und menschenverachtend."
SPD-Chef Sigmar Gabriel sagte, viele empörten sich über Gaulands abfällige Bemerkung als fremdenfeindlich: "Boateng ist aber kein 'Fremder', sondern Deutscher." Das zeige, Gauland sei nicht nur gegen Fremde, sondern auch gegen das Gute an Deutschland: Modernität, Weltoffenheit und Liberalität." Gabriel zog daraus den Schluss: "Gaulands AfD ist auch deutschfeindlich."
Innen- und Sportminister Thomas de Maiziere sagte der "Bild", anders als die AfD setze Boateng mit seinem vielfältigen sozialen Engagement neben dem Platz wichtige Impulse für den Zusammenhalt Deutschlands: "Jeder Deutsche kann sich glücklich schätzen, solche Leute zu haben, als Teamgefährte, deutscher Staatsbürger und als Nachbar", sagte der CDU-Politiker.
Der Präsident des Deutschen Fußballbundes (DFB), Reinhard Grindel, nannte es in der FAS "einfach geschmacklos", die Popularität Boatengs und der Nationalmannschaft "für politische Parolen zu missbrauchen." Millionen Menschen liebten die Elf, "weil sie so ist, wie sie ist". Boateng sei "ein herausragender Spieler und ein wunderbarer Mensch", der sich gesellschaftlich stark engagiere und für viele Jugendliche ein Vorbild sei. Der Manager der Nationalmannschaft, Oliver Bierhoff, sagte der Zeitung: "Es ist ja nicht das erste Mal, dass wir mit solchen Aussagen konfrontiert werden. Sie bedürfen keiner weiteren Kommentierung, die Personen diskreditieren sich von alleine."
de.reuters.com
So long story short, Kinderschokolade, a brand of german chocolate famous for it's cover which features a boy + Show Spoiler [pic] + apparently has a special campaign for the upcomming european soccer championship that has child pictures of the players playing for the german team on them instead.
Among those in particular is one that doesn't quite look "german" to some of those Pegida people + Show Spoiler [picture] +. So outrage online over that and the Pegida vice apparently said something along the lines of "people like him as a footballplayer, but don't want a Boateng as a neighbor"
Riiiight, I can totally see how the media portraying a lot of those people as plain racist is just fabricated to silence them[/sarcasm]
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
That's some pretty good chocolate. But I've never seen any boy on the cover for the Kinder chocolate I've bought in the US (imported from Germany, pretty hard to find but it exists). Maybe their export wrapper is different?
Fringe groups always have some shitty and unfortunate elements to them. That's why they remain fringe elements. They wouldn't ever even get their time of day if people didn't feel like their concerns were being ignored.
|
they might just do that when imported I guess? It's always been with the picture of a kid in Germany for as long as I can remember. And the picture gets updated every so often which also leads to people swinging their cane while angrily yelling "that's not the kid that was on the package back in the days!"
|
On May 29 2016 23:13 Toadesstern wrote:unsignificant and unimportant news ahead. Really I'd put this into a Germany thread but I don't think we have or need one and since the Pegida rise is related to Europe politics might as well put this in here. Just saw on Reuters and I just had to laugh. Only in german but you'll get a tl;dr afterwards: + Show Spoiler [Reuters, german] +Rassismus-Vorwurf gegen AfD-Vize wegen Boateng-Bemerkung
AfD-Vize-Chef Alexander Gauland hat sich abschätzig über den dunkelhäutigen deutschen Fußball-Nationalspieler Jérome Boateng geäußert und damit Rassismusvorwürfe auf sich gezogen.
"Die Leute finden ihn als Fußballspieler gut, aber wollen einen Boateng nicht als Nachbarn haben", sagte er der "Frankfurter Allgemeinen Sonntagszeitung" (FAS). Nach harter Kritik an Gauland entschuldigte sich AfD-Chefin Frau Petry "für den Eindruck, der entstanden ist". Gauland verteidigte sich, er habe in einem vertraulichen Hintergrundgespräch mit der Zeitung nur "die Einstellung mancher Menschen beschrieben". Dem widersprach die FAS. "Herr Gauland stufte nur den Teil des Gesprächs, in dem er sich über AfD-Führungspolitiker äußerte, als Hintergrund ein und bat, daraus nicht zu zitieren", heißt es in einer Erklärung der Politikredaktion. Justizminister Heiko Maas nannte Gaulands Äußerung "schlicht rassistisch".
Der Fußball-Weltmeister von 2014 hat eine deutsche Mutter und einen ghanaischen Vater. Vergangene Woche hatten sich bereits Anhänger der fremdenfeindlichen Pegida-Bewegung in sozialen Netzwerken abschätzig über Boateng geäußert. Anlass war eine Aktion des "Kinderschokolade"-Herstellers Ferrero, der anlässlich der Fußball-Europameisterschaft Verpackungen mit Kinderbildern deutscher Nationalspieler bedruckt hatte.
"Herr Gauland kann sich nicht erinnern, ob er diese Äußerung getätigt hat", sagte Petry der "Bild-Zeitung" (Montagausgabe): "Ich entschuldige mich unabhängig davon bei Herrn Boateng für den Eindruck, der entstanden ist." Gauland erklärte am Sonntag: "Ich habe nie, wie die FAS insinuiert, Herrn Boateng beleidigt. Ich kenne ihn nicht und käme daher auch nicht auf die Idee, ihn als Persönlichkeit abzuwerten." Er habe sich in dem Hintergrundgespräch mit der Zeitung "an keiner Stelle über Herrn Boateng geäußert, dessen gelungene Integration und christliches Glaubensbekenntnis mir aus Berichten über ihn bekannt ist", sagte Gauland. Boateng ist in Berlin geboren und aufgewachsen.
BIERHOFF: GAULAND DISKREDITIERT SICH SELBST
"Ich hätte Jerome Boateng sehr viel lieber in der Nachbarschaft als Alexander Gauland", sagte Grünen-Fraktionschefin Katrin Göring-Eckardt der Funke Medien Gruppe. Maas nannte Gaulands Äußerung "niveaulos und inakzeptabel": "Wer so redet wie Gauland, entlarvt sich selbst - und zwar nicht nur als schlechter Nachbar", schrieb er auf Facebook: "Die Aussagen sind schlicht rassistisch und menschenverachtend."
SPD-Chef Sigmar Gabriel sagte, viele empörten sich über Gaulands abfällige Bemerkung als fremdenfeindlich: "Boateng ist aber kein 'Fremder', sondern Deutscher." Das zeige, Gauland sei nicht nur gegen Fremde, sondern auch gegen das Gute an Deutschland: Modernität, Weltoffenheit und Liberalität." Gabriel zog daraus den Schluss: "Gaulands AfD ist auch deutschfeindlich."
Innen- und Sportminister Thomas de Maiziere sagte der "Bild", anders als die AfD setze Boateng mit seinem vielfältigen sozialen Engagement neben dem Platz wichtige Impulse für den Zusammenhalt Deutschlands: "Jeder Deutsche kann sich glücklich schätzen, solche Leute zu haben, als Teamgefährte, deutscher Staatsbürger und als Nachbar", sagte der CDU-Politiker.
Der Präsident des Deutschen Fußballbundes (DFB), Reinhard Grindel, nannte es in der FAS "einfach geschmacklos", die Popularität Boatengs und der Nationalmannschaft "für politische Parolen zu missbrauchen." Millionen Menschen liebten die Elf, "weil sie so ist, wie sie ist". Boateng sei "ein herausragender Spieler und ein wunderbarer Mensch", der sich gesellschaftlich stark engagiere und für viele Jugendliche ein Vorbild sei. Der Manager der Nationalmannschaft, Oliver Bierhoff, sagte der Zeitung: "Es ist ja nicht das erste Mal, dass wir mit solchen Aussagen konfrontiert werden. Sie bedürfen keiner weiteren Kommentierung, die Personen diskreditieren sich von alleine." So long story short, Kinderschokolade, a brand of german chocolate famous for it's cover which features a boy + Show Spoiler [pic] + apparently has a special campaign for the upcomming european soccer championship that has child pictures of the players playing for the german team on them instead. Among those in particular is one that doesn't quite look "german" to some of those Pegida people + Show Spoiler [picture] +. So outrage online over that and the Pegida vice apparently said something along the lines of "people like him as a footballplayer, but don't want a Boateng as a neighbor"Riiiight, I can totally see how the media portraying a lot of those people as plain racist is just fabricated to silence them[/sarcasm]
Yeah there's racism. Your post tho is exactly the problem I have with modern politics, as what a minority within the minority is somewhat sufficient (understand: it is used by some people) to discard a specific political stance. It is indeed easier to argue that your political opponent is a racist by pointing out what a stupid minority do than actually understanding their point (which means acknowledging that it has "some" value) and coming up with an actual solution.
In France there's a ton of different cover for kinder chocolate, with kids with all the different skin color, eye color, hair color, gender and shit. THANKS TO THIS MAGNIFICIENT DIVERSITY WE ARE ALL HAPPY IN FRANCE AND EVERYBODY IS OKAY, THANK YOU DIVERSITY.
|
I wasn't really trying to talk about the movement as a whole or the people (the base) in there. I have no problem admitting that there's probably a lot of people who feel like they're ignored and thus feel like supporting them without actually being racist.
Doesn't change the fact that the organizations upper rank itself is full of people who disguise themselves as "angry, misunderstood people who want to be heard" while really pushing all kinds of old nazi-slogans on purpose.
Like I said, it's the vice of the the organisation or whatever you'd call it...
And sorry, the campaign isn't even about diversity (I think oO). They took pictures of the people on the national soccer team to hype the European championship and the team. That's just who they happen to be.
|
You know, like always, it is not the populists statement that is so sad, it is the predictable reaction to it...
Because it is so easy to realize his game, but the 'mainstream' will never not fall into this trap.
First he makes a statement, that is a) factually true and b) can be easily interpreted as racist. And then he just sits back to enjoy the press do their thing. At this point it must be a Pavlovian reaction from journalists.
|
yeah, because "I wouldn't want someone who has a german mother, a father from Ghana, who's born in Germany and grew up here as a neighbor" can be interpreted as racist when you single him out like that.
The sad thing for me is that I'm in exactly the same boat. Mother german, Father from Sweden, born in Germany, raised in Germany and all that. Now since it's Sweden and not Ghana I look the part but if someone told me I'm integrated well rather than just consider me german I'd probably hand out weird looks as well. Oh well, maybe it's hitting too close to home for me with that.
|
On May 31 2016 00:42 lord_nibbler wrote:
You know, like always, it is not the populists statement that is so sad, it is the predictable reaction to it...
Because it is so easy to realize his game, but the 'mainstream' will never not fall into this trap.
First he makes a statement, that is a) factually true and b) can be easily interpreted as racist. And then he just sits back to enjoy the press do their thing. At this point it must be a Pavlovian reaction from journalists.
ignoring him didn't do anything either, in fact that criticism is leveled against everybody else just as often. It's also a little dangerous given how far the völkisch ideology reaches into the middle-class apparently.
|
I do not talk about ignoring him!
I talk about the "Oh no, he can't say that." "How dare he make the suggestion that racism is wide spread among us." "It is him, who is the racist." "We must stand together now and mark him as evil, while ignoring our own hypocrisy."
And even the journalist who get that this is all a coded message to his people and a deliberate plot to 'expose the media', can not help themselves and still amp up the story by commenting on the comments (yea, I'm doing it right now as well)...
|
On May 31 2016 02:31 lord_nibbler wrote:
I do not talk about ignoring him!
I talk about the "Oh no, he can't say that." "How dare he make the suggestion that racism is wide spread among us." "It is him, who is the racist." "We must stand together now and mark him as evil, while ignoring our own hypocrisy."
And even the journalist who get that this is all a coded message to his people and a deliberate plot to 'expose the media', can not help themselves and still amp up the story by commenting on the comments (yea, I'm doing it right now as well)...
you do realize that he's basicly talking about being the representative of those people and NOT saying there are people who think so while possibly distancing himself from that thought?
[...]
„Es geht um die Abwehr des kulturell Fremden“
Gauland sagte, unter den AfD-Anhängern gebe es die Sorge, „dass eine uns fremde Religion sehr viel prägender ist als unsere abendländische Tradition“. Und diese große Zahl der Fremden komme nun einmal aus Regionen, in denen vor allem Muslime lebten.
[...]
www.faz.net
that's why he said people (rightfully in his opinion) don't want him as a neighbor
That being said, I just realized that I mixed up Pegida and afd earlier. Pegida were the guys that got pissed online about the campaign, afd obviously being the party that the person in question is the vice-whatever.
|
On May 31 2016 02:50 Toadesstern wrote:
you do realize that he's basically talking about being the representative of those people and NOT saying there are people who think so while possibly distancing himself from that thought? No, he did not. That is part of his game. YOU have to realize that!
His statement, is deliberately formulated that way in order for him to always say, he was talking about 'the general public' and not anyone specific. Yes, we all 'know', what he actually wants to signalize. But the fact of the matter is, that he did not say what every outraged journalist thinks he sad.
You can not twist statements of others because you believe to know how they were meant and still call yourself a democrat. It does not work that way.
He said what he said. The purpose for that statement was for people to make the mental jump, while he himself could stay put.
|
yes, it means exactly that. When he says "the general public is concerned when your neighbor happens to be black" he means " I don't want a damn negro on my lawn", it's dog whistle politics for the guys who vote for him, people have been doing it for decades and it's exactly right to call him out on his bullshit. When Petry said that shooting refugees as a last resort is technically legal she wasn't making an abstract point about self defense or the law or whatever but simply sending a message to the far-right in the country.
This is how speech functions and he knows it as well as everybody else, we don't need to pretend that they don't know what they're implying.
|
No, it does not work this way.
Sure, call him out every time he blows his 'dog whistle' but do not claim you actually heard it.
That is not "calling him out on his bullshit", that is misrepresenting (lying).
On May 31 2016 03:27 Nyxisto wrote:... we don't need to pretend that they don't know what they're implying. The point is, there is nobody who forces you to pretend not to know, except your own intellect. Somehow you seem angry at human language and your own intelligence, because they do not 'allow' you to say what your emotions want to say...
|
On May 31 2016 03:22 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 02:50 Toadesstern wrote:
you do realize that he's basically talking about being the representative of those people and NOT saying there are people who think so while possibly distancing himself from that thought? No, he did not. That is part of his game. YOU have to realize that! His statement, is deliberately formulated that way in order for him to always say, he was talking about 'the general public' and not anyone specific. Yes, we all 'know', what he actually wants to signalize. But the fact of the matter is, that he did not say what every outraged journalist thinks he sad. You can not twist statements of others because you believe to know how they were meant and still call yourself a democrat. It does not work that way. He said what he said. The purpose for that statement was for people to make the mental jump, while he himself could stay put.
read the statement that I linked. He IS talking about being the representative of people who think that way.
|
On May 31 2016 00:42 lord_nibbler wrote:
You know, like always, it is not the populists statement that is so sad, it is the predictable reaction to it...
Because it is so easy to realize his game, but the 'mainstream' will never not fall into this trap.
First he makes a statement, that is a) factually true and b) can be easily interpreted as racist. And then he just sits back to enjoy the press do their thing. At this point it must be a Pavlovian reaction from journalists.
nope, this time he is completely factually wrong.
he talked about the "cultural alien" and then gave boateng as an example. a guy who was born in berlin, raised by his single mother and later, other than his brother kevin-prince who was raised by his father, made a concious decision to play for germany instead of ghana.
he is as german as it gets.
this isnt something similar to petrys statement where only stupid morons got outraged by it (ultima ratio is killing people, no shit, thats what a state of law is all about), this is just plain retarded.
|
On May 31 2016 04:18 hfglgg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 00:42 lord_nibbler wrote:
You know, like always, it is not the populists statement that is so sad, it is the predictable reaction to it...
Because it is so easy to realize his game, but the 'mainstream' will never not fall into this trap.
First he makes a statement, that is a) factually true and b) can be easily interpreted as racist. And then he just sits back to enjoy the press do their thing. At this point it must be a Pavlovian reaction from journalists. nope, this time he is completely factually wrong. he talked about the "cultural alien" and then gave boateng as an example. a guy who was born in berlin, raised by his single mother and later, other than his brother kevin-prince who was raised by his father, made a concious decision to play for germany instead of ghana. he is as german as it gets. this isnt something similar to petrys statement where only stupid morons got outraged by it (ultima ratio is killing people, no shit, thats what a state of law is all about), this is just plain retarded.
Well I agree that its a stupid statement. But the opposite "as German as it gets" is as wrong. Mind you he isnt like his older brother who has a history of violence, drug abuse and jailtime but someone with a big fat ghana tattoo across his arm that refuses to sing the national anthem is an odd choice for "as German as it gets". Most immigrants choose the German national team because of the chances it offers. Not out of love. See Özil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3oskOx2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gof9yCj.jpg)
