Paris Is Burning Over Climate Change Taxes -- Is America Next?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

31 minutes ago, Rodent said:

I would upvote those videos over and over. The point wasn't whether Trump is a monster. the point was that people forget that past presidents had similar stances on illegal aliens. That is an important point to make.    A

Beyond that, you can make whatever point you would like about how those philosophies are or were enforced. But we should at least agree that the past two presidents were not happy about illegal aliens flooding our Southern border. (or at least that's what they said publicly).   B

But Trump is often portrayed as a President who wants to enforce immigration laws, like that is somehow a new philosophy. it's not. I don't think Tom said anything about Clinton or Obama being socialists, although their handout-on-the-dole social programs come pretty close. 

You can absolutely feel free to be a Trump hater.  But he is the president, at least for now.  C

 

And I thought at this point I had given up on this thread.  

But since it is you, Rodi, I feel that great sucking-in sound from the Southern Border, dragging me back....

Let' s move over to Mr. Clinton.  He could talk a good story, but that was why they called him "Slick WIllie." The reality is that he did basically nothing on the score of immigration, either  documented or not.  He would make some public speeches, but the Administration did not treat it as an administrative priority.  And the reason, I suspect, is that Clinton recognized that the topic was a quagmire and enforcement, outside of Haitians arriving as boat people in Florida, was going to be a big mess, and one thing for sure with Mr. Clinton, he was not going to start taking principled stances, that was outside his approach to both life and politics. Principles are for people who demand purity, and that was not his long suit. 

Along comes Mr. Obama  and he actually unleashes ICE as a deportation machine.  The motives remain unclear.  Intellectually, he knew perfectly well that the USA was a nation with a declining population, that internally the fecundity rate was below the break-even point. The USA could easily absorb the migrants and needed the labor force.  In certain sectors the USA profited handsomely from the migrants, specifically in areas such as the potato crop harvest in Alabama and the apple harvest in Washington State.  Obama left those sectors alone, those crops did not rot, but he did have his men raid meat packinghouses and sewing contractors, scoop up the ones that slipped in, and send them home. That was all done administratively.

Trump brings a whole new dynamic to the matter.  He now goes after "everyone" including refugees and has militarized both the Northern and Southern borders.  He cares not, and the Administration's approach is to take even a bona-fide refugee family and place them into a detention camp, basically a jail, until the administrators get around to "processing" and they come before an administrative law judge to rule on the refugee application - which is invariably turned down.  the migrant is on his own, speaks little or no English, has no clue about the arcane provisions of the Administrative Code, and gets the turf.  That is a stacked deck, of course, and intended that way, because Trump cares not one whit about the US Signature on various Treaties regarding just about everything, including in this instance the Treaty on the handling of Refugees.  Hey, who cares?  Somebody else signed that Treaty, it was another Senate that ratified it, not the one he has, so ignore it.  Rule of Law is not exactly the Donald's strong suit. 

So the next issue, inside "A", is whether the conduct of Federal Agents under Donald's direction defines his character as a Monster.  Examining his policies, which his hired agents are happy to carry out, infants and toddlers are taken from the parents, and placed in separate jails.  The Agents do not create a paper trail, the parents are deported, and in effect the US Government becomes this international child-kidnapping machine.  If you are filled with racial animosity and all manner of ethnic and national prejudices, you can rationalize that that is a good thing, because the grotesque cruelty being meted out by the Federal Agents will get back to the villagers in Guatemala and then the next batch will not depart for the USA.  I am not even going to express an opinion on that issue any more as it is clear that the posters here have decided that it is a price that these migrants must pay, to discourage others. 

As to "B", let's remember that the decision of previous Administrations to ignore border-crossers who stayed out of criminal behavior. The ignoring part was rather crass self-interest; the USA has this huge shortage of agricultural workers, termed "stoop labor," for harvesting crops such as lettuce and asparagus, which are not amenable to machinery pulled behind tractors, as wheat is. Mr. Obama in particular did not come from, and had no contact with, any agriculture, and had zero appreciation as to how these workers were interwoven into the fabric of rural America and its food-production chains.  That said, he did not rip children from parents and make them orphans, to be kept in cages while the parents were being deported. That is now a qualitative (and quantitative) up-notching, and is both cruel and intended to be cruel.  

As to "C", I am not a "Trump hater," I have never met the man.  that said, I have been watching him at work and watching his policies unfold, and watching as anybody with any spine leaves that Cabinet, General Mattis being the latest departure, and conclude also that Mr. Trump is unfit for office.  Anybody who is prepared to do what he does to little children is, in my view, unfit. 

It then becomes the responsibility of the American People to remove him. 

[Rodent + 1,424]

13 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

And I thought at this point I had given up on this thread.  

But since it is you, Rodi, I feel that great sucking-in sound from the Southern Border, dragging me back....

Let' s move over to Mr. Clinton.  He could talk a good story, but that was why they called him "Slick WIllie." The reality is that he did basically nothing on the score of immigration, either  documented or not.  He would make some public speeches, but the Administration did not treat it as an administrative priority.  And the reason, I suspect, is that Clinton recognized that the topic was a quagmire and enforcement, outside of Haitians arriving as boat people in Florida, was going to be a big mess, and one thing for sure with Mr. Clinton, he was not going to start taking principled stances, that was outside his approach to both life and politics. Principles are for people who demand purity, and that was not his long suit. 

Along comes Mr. Obama  and he actually unleashes ICE as a deportation machine.  The motives remain unclear.  Intellectually, he knew perfectly well that the USA was a nation with a declining population, that internally the fecundity rate was below the break-even point. The USA could easily absorb the migrants and needed the labor force.  In certain sectors the USA profited handsomely from the migrants, specifically in areas such as the potato crop harvest in Alabama and the apple harvest in Washington State.  Obama left those sectors alone, those crops did not rot, but he did have his men raid meat packinghouses and sewing contractors, scoop up the ones that slipped in, and send them home. That was all done administratively.

Trump brings a whole new dynamic to the matter.  He now goes after "everyone" including refugees and has militarized both the Northern and Southern borders.  He cares not, and the Administration's approach is to take even a bona-fide refugee family and place them into a detention camp, basically a jail, until the administrators get around to "processing" and they come before an administrative law judge to rule on the refugee application - which is invariably turned down.  the migrant is on his own, speaks little or no English, has no clue about the arcane provisions of the Administrative Code, and gets the turf.  That is a stacked deck, of course, and intended that way, because Trump cares not one whit about the US Signature on various Treaties regarding just about everything, including in this instance the Treaty on the handling of Refugees.  Hey, who cares?  Somebody else signed that Treaty, it was another Senate that ratified it, not the one he has, so ignore it.  Rule of Law is not exactly the Donald's strong suit. 

So the next issue, inside "A", is whether the conduct of Federal Agents under Donald's direction defines his character as a Monster.  Examining his policies, which his hired agents are happy to carry out, infants and toddlers are taken from the parents, and placed in separate jails.  The Agents do not create a paper trail, the parents are deported, and in effect the US Government becomes this international child-kidnapping machine.  If you are filled with racial animosity and all manner of ethnic and national prejudices, you can rationalize that that is a good thing, because the grotesque cruelty being meted out by the Federal Agents will get back to the villagers in Guatemala and then the next batch will not depart for the USA.  I am not even going to express an opinion on that issue any more as it is clear that the posters here have decided that it is a price that these migrants must pay, to discourage others. 

As to "B", let's remember that the decision of previous Administrations to ignore border-crossers who stayed out of criminal behavior. The ignoring part was rather crass self-interest; the USA has this huge shortage of agricultural workers, termed "stoop labor," for harvesting crops such as lettuce and asparagus, which are not amenable to machinery pulled behind tractors, as wheat is. Mr. Obama in particular did not come from, and had no contact with, any agriculture, and had zero appreciation as to how these workers were interwoven into the fabric of rural America and its food-production chains.  That said, he did not rip children from parents and make them orphans, to be kept in cages while the parents were being deported. That is now a qualitative (and quantitative) up-notching, and is both cruel and intended to be cruel.  

As to "C", I am not a "Trump hater," I have never met the man.  that said, I have been watching him at work and watching his policies unfold, and watching as anybody with any spine leaves that Cabinet, General Mattis being the latest departure, and conclude also that Mr. Trump is unfit for office.  Anybody who is prepared to do what he does to little children is, in my view, unfit. 

It then becomes the responsibility of the American People to remove him. 

well this American person has no intention of removing him from office. The bottom line is that the United States cannot absorb immigrants who are unwilling to contribute. Immigrants who are willing to contribute have a path to come here albeit a difficult one.

and while you say you are not a trump hater, calling him a monster might lead one to believe that that is precisely how you feel. which of course you are entitled to, but no need to soft-pedal that. 

I agree what you are saying about Clinton and Obama. There public views were not backed up by actions. 

thank you for replying to my post, although we vehemently disagree on this issue, I am always up for a rational debate.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

36 minutes ago, Rodent said:

well this American person has no intention of removing him from office. The bottom line is that the United States cannot absorb immigrants who are unwilling to contribute. Immigrants who are willing to contribute have a path to come here albeit a difficult one.

and while you say you are not a trump hater, calling him a monster might lead one to believe that that is precisely how you feel. which of course you are entitled to, but no need to soft-pedal that. 

I agree what you are saying about Clinton and Obama. There public views were not backed up by actions. 

thank you for replying to my post, although we vehemently disagree on this issue, I am always up for a rational debate.

 

I think anybody who makes a specific policy decision to be as cruel as possible, where the cruelty is the policy, qualifies as a monster.  I think anybody who organizes, as a matter of specific policy, the theft of several thousand children from their parents is a monster.   And in all candor, I rather suspect that, were someone to go steal your daughters away from you so that you would never see them ever again, and not know if they were dead or alive, you too would qualify that person as a monster. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

11 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

By the way, the "yellow jacket" protests have spread to at least 7 or 8 countries so far, including Taiwan.  The entrenched ruling elite are probably not having a very merry Christmas this year.  The "peasants" are awakening, and not too happy.

This inane "carbon tax" to somehow offset CO2 (which all humans exhale) seems to be the straw that kicked the up the storm.  

The ruling classes / United Nations apparently want to tax the human function of exhaling CO2.

What's next, a tax to urinate?

CO2 from your breath is net carbon neutral as your little graphic shows.  Really only fossil carbon emissions are being taxed.

You are already taxed to urinate via your sewage bill and other mechanisms. The polluter should always pay - for too long people got away with dumping the cost of pollution on others.  If an externality can be identified and quantified the expenses should be transferred back to the producer.

[Red + 252]

8 hours ago, jaycee said:

They like order and things done the German way and it works well for them however other nationalities can have a lot of problems adapting to their way off life and values. Bring in a middle eastern culture with their strong non christian religion and different views on how rules should be followed and treating women as second class citizen and you have a recipe for disaster and so it has turned out to be.  This reminded me of how most Cubans see Americans affecting their culture - all bow to the mighty dollar.

The bit about welcoming refugees by the way is because Germans are nice people who want to help and welcome visitors but if you do not conform to the German way off life then you are not welcome, their country their rules. They are now not welcome from what I have seen due to their behavior and bringing disorder to the very ordered German way of life.  This is a claim anyone from any country could make about any migrant group they felt hurt their sensibilities. In reading your posts elsewhere, presenting a cogent case is a foreign concept.

 

[jaycee + 348]

16 minutes ago, Red said:

The bit about welcoming refugees by the way is because Germans are nice people who want to help and welcome visitors but if you do not conform to the German way off life then you are not welcome, their country their rules. They are now not welcome from what I have seen due to their behavior and bringing disorder to the very ordered German way of life.  This is a claim anyone from any country could make about any migrant group they felt hurt their sensibilities. In reading your posts elsewhere, presenting a cogent case is a foreign concept.

The U.K. has had migrants and different cultures for years and the right wing is relatively small in size, in Germany after one large migration the right are now in parliament and affecting government policy. They as a nation are all welcoming but things are now different. There are many countries like Germany and many not what’s your point? I at least have a lot of knowledge having stayed there many times and talked and worked with the locals, you were there on holiday it would appear from your post. Please explain where you think my reasoning is wrong.

[Red + 252]

7 hours ago, Rodent said:

well this American person has no intention of removing him from office. Trump is a source of great amusement, so it is a good thing he puts a smile on the faces of so many around the world.  The bottom line is that the United States cannot absorb immigrants who are unwilling to contribute.  The bottom line for most migrants is that they want to have a better life for themselves and their family, and they do this by contributing.  Immigrants who are willing to contribute have a path to come here albeit a difficult one.  The legal pathway to all "preferred" nations is very difficult - the USA is not Robinson Crusoe.

Our world has never seen more people displaced from their homes/countries through war and violence, or threats thereof, than exists today.  

Except for what Germany did a few years back, the rest of the world has preferred to sit on its hands for the greater part, or indulge in tokenism.  Worse, some countries have spent more on protecting their borders than implementing policies to enhance irregular migrant resettlement.  The reality on displaced persons is that the west does not bear the brunt of displacement, but makes the most noise.  In Jordan for example, around 8% of the population are registered as refugees.  It's difficult to imagine the USA being accepting of a fraction of that number.

[Red + 252]

13 minutes ago, jaycee said:

The U.K. has had migrants and different cultures for years and the right wing is relatively small in size, in Germany after one large migration the right are now in parliament and affecting government policy. They as a nation are all welcoming but things are now different. There are many countries like Germany and many not what’s your point? I at least have a lot of knowledge having stayed there many times and talked and worked with the locals, you were there on holiday it would appear from your post. Please explain where you think my reasoning is wrong.

Get your facts right. The 3 years to 1993 saw over one million asylum seekers in Germany (you might recall a certain event in Iraq precipitating this), while the 3 years to 2017 saw just over 300 more asylum seekers with a widely advertised "open door" policy in place.   To suggest what is happening across Europe is a recent phenomenon does not align with realty.

Things are certainly different now.  The level of hysteria and ignorance has seldom been more pronounced.

[Illurion + 894]

11 hours ago, Rodent said:

The bottom line is that the United States cannot absorb immigrants who are unwilling to contribute. Immigrants who are willing to contribute have a path to come here albeit a difficult one.

I would also add to your statement,  that those who are "unable" to contribute cannot be absorbed too.

Many of the illegal aliens showing up at the border and demanding entrance have no marketable skills and bring entire families,  with the expectation that they will immediately receive taxpayer funding.   Ridiculous.

In what you were replying to,  Jan wrote:   Trump goes after:  "a bona-fide refugee family and place them into a detention camp, basically a jail, until the administrators get around to "processing" and they come before an administrative law judge to rule on the refugee application - which is invariably turned down."

And they should be turned down.

These people are not refugees under the law,  they are illegal aliens who entered our country illegally,  and filed to immigrate to the USA as a refugee.

These people only become REFUGEES,  if we decide they meet the criteria to be deemed a Refugee.   Most are declined because they do not.

With exceptions,  most REFUGEES are people who file for refugee status through our embassies overseas,  usually sponsored by some UN or Charitable organization.

Why should these "line breakers" be allowed to immigrate to the USA in front of other people who have obeyed the rules,  and have been waiting,  some times for YEARS ?

The answer is they shouldn't.

Edited December 25, 2018 by Illurion

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Thanks for your opinions speaking as a former peace officer. I think that there will possibly be bloodshed over magazine size, ammunition purchases and other restrictions in blue states. I was a psychiatric RN MA for twenty years. I dealt with at least one individual who was brought in for evaluation after barricading himself in a house, also with some who had psychiatrists orders to pick up guns. In most cases the orders are reasonable but there is a real possibility of them being abused. 

We had one woman who holed herself up in her own rural home and refused to give up to the County Sheriff deputies. She held out for a week and had public support. I attended a rally for her at the county courthouse. There were snipers on the roof and I was followed part of the way home by a sheriff until he was sure I wasn't headed for the woman's home. I had my German Shepherd looking dog with me which may have made me stand out. This woman was knowledgeable and was able to be shot with bean bag rounds because she padded her jacket with newspapers. She used vaseline against the CS gas and had water in her tub. All of this because two relatives turned her in. 

I predict that violence will become common in blue states that persist in infringing on the Second Amendment. Law enforcement will be ordered to enforce unconstitutional  or questionable laws. There are far more adamant gun owners than officers of the law. What do you think will happen in the long run? 

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 12/23/2018 at 6:53 AM, Jan van Eck said:

Yes, you are.  What you are missing is that folks who see "socialism" as the bogeyman simply cannot abide the fundamental truth that a good chunk of society's overall improvement have come about through what are tagged as "socialist" programs.  Moving past that, you see Tom Kirkman (above) pointing to remarks made by Obama, Clinton, and Schumer, as if they are somehow "socialists.'  Although some argument on that score could be made as to Senator Schumer, to tag Presidents Obama and Clinton as such is just silly.  Both those men are capitalists, and they took huge amounts of campaign money from the capitalist crowd, mostly from bankers on Wall Street.  In the case of Mr. Clinton, you had someone with no scruples who would take money from the Devil himself.  Clinton egregiously disrupted the previous social safety-net  (known derisively as "welfare") by gutting it, in favor of chopping at the deficit and the national debt, all programs advanced by Wall Street.

  It should be carefully remembered that the Clintonista attack on "welfare" removed support underpinnings from the single most vulnerable segment of American society, young single mothers with young children. To Conservatives,  young single mothers represented the worst sort of evil:  women  (although lots were children) reproducing without husbands, or with shallow husbands who left them, and were raising children by themselves, considered anathema.  First, the targets are repugnant because they engaged in sex, which in the Conservative mind is not to be enjoyed, but endured, and second, single women specifically are not to engage in sex, as that is contrary to Evangelical principles of personal restraint.  I am disgusted by the Clintonistas for this as you don't solve social behavioral problems by thundering from the pulpit, and you certainly do nothing to treat social ills by impoverishing yet another class of future adults, perpetuating more social ills  (including raising yet another generation of poor, and inducing criminal conduct, and inducing drug consumption and distribution as an alternative income source).  Plus, let's remember that the Clintons stole from the American people with outrageous gall when they left the White House, taking with them truckloads of US Govt furniture and art works, which is rank criminal conduct that remains both unpunished and undiscussed.  {They eventually paid the Treasury some $136,000 in restitution, which was but a fraction of the value of the stolen items, but better than nothing, I suppose.) 

Getting past Clinton and Obama as Wall Street solicitors for cash, it must be pointed out that, no matter their gross transgressions, that is a long, long way from where the really rotten people who work for Trump, and Trump himself, have gone.  Trump has taken America into a very dark place, where the cruelty of the punishment - for crossing the Southern Border without immigration papers - is the whole idea.  The purpose of the child-separation policy is and was specifically intended to inflict the most possible pain and anguish, so as to discourage others.  The bureaucracy took these small children, who could not speak and could not speak or did not know their own name, did not know where they came from, and knew Mom only as "mama" and dad only as "papa" - and then, horrifically, took them away from the parents without creating any sort of paper trail.  It thus becomes impossible, short of DNA testing and matching, to ever reunite those toddlers and infants with their parents.  There are now thousands of these little kids in US Govt custody, basically in jails, who are never, ever, going to be united with their parents.  They are government-manufactured orphans, even worse than if you shot the parents dead, because they will grow up with the haunting knowledge that they have family out there, somewhere, and zero chance of ever finding them. 

You think, maybe, that those toddlers are going to grow up angry?  That the govt has manufactured a generation of future terrorists who are going to be seething with ideas of revenge?  Well, that sure occurred to me.  Does Trump give a hoot if there is another  Oklahoma Federal Building bombing in our future, as Trump is hatching two thousand new Tim McVeighs?  No chance on that. 

Now, that is the deliberate policy of the Trumpistas.  The cruelty is the policy, it is deliberate, it is manufactured for the purpose of being monstrously cruel, and it is intentional, and is a direct intention of Mr. Trump himself.  I denounce that as the callous cruelty of a monster.  Mr. Kirkman does not much like that result - hey, too bad.  It does not change the raw truth that his man is a monster.  Trump cannot be President;  America is better than that. 

No, America, Europe and the Globalists are closer to fascism than to communism. Communism doesn't work. Fascism and totalitarianism do to some extent. Are they the goal we should strive for? IMO No! America is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy as much of the rest of the world purports to be. You can see the results clearly in Europe. There it is very easy to see the erosion of personal liberties and the dominance of the elites. China pretends to be communist while exhibiting every quality of a fascist state. North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba are closer to communism.

See One World Government AKA Globalism https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k8kNhtZJLuN66TpDuo67WBV1U2JhhZIvAefxeMNK0ls/edit

Edited December 25, 2018 by ronwagn

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 12/23/2018 at 5:10 PM, Jan van Eck said:

Still incorrect.  It is not sanctioned as criminality, because Congress cannot get its act together, and the activity you describe is a violation of administrative Regulations, and not a crime.  Now that is the part that gets the right-wingers into a total frenzy.  They want it a crime.  When the crossers are taken into custody, they are in administrative detention.  That is why they can be held without a court appearance and without an automatic right to counsel: they are not being charged criminally. 

Administrative detention is NOT the same as being considered a criminal. As a Criminal, all the protections of the ill of rights kick in.  Being detained, for an alien  (defined as "everybody else on the planet who is not Merkun,") puts you into an administrative detention facility.  That looks like a jail, talks like a jail, and might as well be a jail, but it is not, not technically, a jail.  In jail, you have lots of rights.  In detention, as a practical matter, you have none, and can be beaten to death, hey no biggie.  Lots of people die inside those detention buildings.  But since they are aliens, it is not considered of any importance.  Welcome the America, the land where the red carpet is always out.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback I am part New Mexican Apache and Spanish among others. The Apaches fought Spanish, Mexicans, and Americanos. I want a border wall and support legal immigration only.

[John Foote + 1,135]

My apologies for breaking the theme of this thread, but Merry Christmas. I long ago split from the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church I was raised in, but not with my version of the core philosophy of Christ. Peace Out. There is room for all of us.

[jaycee + 348]

On 12/24/2018 at 10:47 PM, Red said:

Get your facts right. The 3 years to 1993 saw over one million asylum seekers in Germany (you might recall a certain event in Iraq precipitating this), while the 3 years to 2017 saw just over 300 more asylum seekers with a widely advertised "open door" policy in place.   To suggest what is happening across Europe is a recent phenomenon does not align with realty.

Things are certainly different now.  The level of hysteria and ignorance has seldom been more pronounced.

The 3 years from 1990 to 1993 migration came mainly from the European community plus Yugoslavia, Romania and Turkey. The Turks that came in were not treated well and are still not. I mentioned my Turkish friend earlier, he told me many stories of German racism and how even though he has competed for Germany in wrestling he is still not fully accepted. I have worked in factories there where the graffiti on the toilet walls was totally anti Turkish. The Germans have tolerated migration in the past though as the migrants have generally blended in the problem now is the new ones are not blending well and are causing problems.

Regards the level of hysteria I suggest the rise of the far right in Germany is definitely something to worry about considering their last period of power in the 1930s and 40s and indeed the rise of the right across Europe. I don’t consider this hysteria I see it happening if you don’t then I suggest looking at a few foreign newspapers.

https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-germany-migrants-20181206-story.html

‘Germany is showing signs of fatigue toward refugees after three years of a controversial open-borders policy by Chancellor Angela Merkel that drew more than 1.5 million people from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other troubled nations……

Merkel, who announced in October under political pressure that she would relinquish control of her center-right party this week and not stand for another term as chancellor in 2021, has remained unapologetic about her September 2015 decision despite its having become a political liability. It helped fuel a populist far-right movement known as the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party that has siphoned away support from conservatives…..

Tapping into that vein of anti-immigrant sentiment also found in other EU countries, the AfD won nearly 13% of the vote in the 2017 federal election. In a country that largely scorns far-right movements following the horrors of its Nazi past, support for the AfD has grown to 15%, according to recent opinion polls.’

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

18 hours ago, John Foote said:

My apologies for breaking the theme of this thread, but Merry Christmas. I long ago split from the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church I was raised in, but not with my version of the core philosophy of Christ. Peace Out. There is room for all of us.

And a Merry Christmas to you also, John.  Peace to you and your family and nation. 

[Red + 252]

9 hours ago, jaycee said:

Regards the level of hysteria I suggest the rise of the far right in Germany is definitely something to worry about considering their last period of power in the 1930s and 40s and indeed the rise of the right across Europe. I don’t consider this hysteria I see it happening if you don’t then I suggest looking at a few foreign newspapers.

The far right everywhere is something to worry about, and is nowadays well fuelled by ignorant political xenophobes across the globe who bait a media more accepting of a good headline than a balanced story.  These same xenophobes are also hellbent on power, and remain the least accepting of views that do not match their own.  So nationalism (as you allude to in the German era from the 1930s) is a natural pathway to imperialism.

Xenophobic sentiment is tolerated in nations where "free speech" provides them a voice - here's a UK version by way of example: Free fruitcake at Xmas. 

In Australia we have the One Nation Party, led by a person with an IQ in the high single digits.  On entering federal parliament her maiden speech in 1996 railed against Asians, saying they "have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate."  Over 20 years later she regards the Asians relatively highly, but now it's Muslims that are the problem; that's when it's not black African refugees or Australian aboriginals.

While I would prefer that ignorance did not prevail, it's useful to have their views expressed in parliament as it's a window into a world that I would not otherwise look into.  The fact is that we cannot all be the same, but we should all be able to appreciate that we are all humans alike and each of us deserve at least that respect.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

13 hours ago, jaycee said:

The 3 years from 1990 to 1993 migration came mainly from the European community plus Yugoslavia, Romania and Turkey. The Turks that came in were not treated well and are still not. I mentioned my Turkish friend earlier, he told me many stories of German racism and how even though he has competed for Germany in wrestling he is still not fully accepted. I have worked in factories there where the graffiti on the toilet walls was totally anti Turkish. The Germans have tolerated migration in the past though as the migrants have generally blended in the problem now is the new ones are not blending well and are causing problems.

Regards the level of hysteria I suggest the rise of the far right in Germany is definitely something to worry about considering their last period of power in the 1930s and 40s and indeed the rise of the right across Europe. I don’t consider this hysteria I see it happening if you don’t then I suggest looking at a few foreign newspapers.

https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-germany-migrants-20181206-story.html

‘Germany is showing signs of fatigue toward refugees after three years of a controversial open-borders policy by Chancellor Angela Merkel that drew more than 1.5 million people from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other troubled nations……

Merkel, who announced in October under political pressure that she would relinquish control of her center-right party this week and not stand for another term as chancellor in 2021, has remained unapologetic about her September 2015 decision despite its having become a political liability. It helped fuel a populist far-right movement known as the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party that has siphoned away support from conservatives…..

Tapping into that vein of anti-immigrant sentiment also found in other EU countries, the AfD won nearly 13% of the vote in the

2

Equating the AFD with Nazis is just plain dishonest. Anyone should know better than that. They are against Muslim immigration, which is the general will of the people. That has nothing to do with Nazis. Hitler was fond of Islam and did all he could to ally with them. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world

Edited December 27, 2018 by ronwagn

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

The Globalism vs. Nationalism battle is ongoing.  EU may very well implode.

Merkel: EU States Must Prepare to Hand National Sovereignty over to Brussels

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that European Union (EU) member states must be prepared to transfer powers over to Brussels at a debate on the ‘tensions’ between globalisation and national sovereignty.

“Nation states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty,” Merkel said, speaking at an event organised by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin on Wednesday.

“In an orderly fashion of course,” Merkel said, explaining that — while Germany had given up some of its sovereignty in order to join the EU, national parliaments were in charge of deciding whether to sign up to international treaties.

[Red + 252]

3 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The Globalism vs. Nationalism battle is ongoing.  EU may very well implode.

The heads of Breitbart readers are more likely to implode given the space where a brain normally sits.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The Globalism vs. Nationalism battle is ongoing.  EU may very well implode.

Merkel: EU States Must Prepare to Hand National Sovereignty over to Brussels

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that European Union (EU) member states must be prepared to transfer powers over to Brussels at a debate on the ‘tensions’ between globalisation and national sovereignty.

“Nation states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty,” Merkel said, speaking at an event organised by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin on Wednesday.

“In an orderly fashion of course,” Merkel said, explaining that — while Germany had given up some of its sovereignty in order to join the EU, national parliaments were in charge of deciding whether to sign up to international treaties.

The issue really is Globalism vs. nationalism. Also Islam vs. Secularism and Christianity. Many seculars prefer Islam because it is anti-Christian and pro-totalitarianism. Communist parties are in a sense secular but actually form their own religion of dialectical materialism. They are against all religion and insist it must be totally subordinate to communist beliefs. 

Globalism https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k8kNhtZJLuN66TpDuo67WBV1U2JhhZIvAefxeMNK0ls/edit

 

 

[John Foote + 1,135]

9 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Many seculars prefer Islam because it is anti-Christian and pro-totalitarianism. 

Globalism https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k8kNhtZJLuN66TpDuo67WBV1U2JhhZIvAefxeMNK0ls/edit

No real secular would prefer Islam. 

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all tie to the God Of Abraham. Much of the second Eid is about Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son. Zam Zam water is Old Testament. A lot, and I mean a lot, of the Koran reads like the Old Testament. Some New Testament as well, but it reminds me much more of the Old Testament. Where Christianity and Islam truly separate is the notion of Jesus as God. The Holy Trinity concept doesn't work. Jesus and his teachings are very important in Islam. 

Secularists prefer a logical approach, with faith as a personal choice. 

Many secularists are themselves religious. Liberal Jews for example just about by definition. Many Christians live a logic based approach to life, and don't see the conflict between science and God. A famous Islamic leader in the so called Golden Age of Islam famously said, "The laws of nature are the laws of Allah." 

Marxist communism is clearly atheist and calls out against religion. Which is one of the reason it fails. 

[jaycee + 348]

9 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Equating the AFD with Nazis is just plain dishonest. Anyone should know better than that. They are against Muslim immigration, which is the general will of the people. That has nothing to do with Nazis. Hitler was fond of Islam and did all he could to ally with them. 

I said the far right were in charge in the 30s and 40s in Germany what is wrong with that statement? Are the AfD left wing or right wing, was Hitler left or right wing? Likud is a Jewish party who hate Muslims so they cannot be right wing? Is the Klan a left wing organisation because they we founded on the principle of Negroes being an inferior race and nothing to do with Jews? Which religion or colour is irrelevant it is just an excuse the far right are racist by definition as they always rail against people who are not deemed to be from the homeland who they hate is only a rallying call.

[AlexF + 12]

9 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Merkel: EU States Must Prepare to Hand National Sovereignty over to Brussels

HI Tom ! Tom, please.. You can not refer to this kind of website. You will only find opinion sourrounded by lies and fake news... The main and only purpose is to raise people again each other. I see no value in reading this kind of b... s... And even less value refering to them as an argument or as proof of fact.

Regards

[jaycee + 348]

13 hours ago, Red said:

The far right everywhere is something to worry about, and is nowadays well fuelled by ignorant political xenophobes across the globe who bait a media more accepting of a good headline than a balanced story.  These same xenophobes are also hellbent on power, and remain the least accepting of views that do not match their own.  So nationalism (as you allude to in the German era from the 1930s) is a natural pathway to imperialism.

Xenophobic sentiment is tolerated in nations where "free speech" provides them a voice - here's a UK version by way of example: Free fruitcake at Xmas. 

In Australia we have the One Nation Party, led by a person with an IQ in the high single digits.  On entering federal parliament her maiden speech in 1996 railed against Asians, saying they "have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate."  Over 20 years later she regards the Asians relatively highly, but now it's Muslims that are the problem; that's when it's not black African refugees or Australian aboriginals.

While I would prefer that ignorance did not prevail, it's useful to have their views expressed in parliament as it's a window into a world that I would not otherwise look into.  The fact is that we cannot all be the same, but we should all be able to appreciate that we are all humans alike and each of us deserve at least that respect.

I am not sure what we are arguing about. I am pointing out the rise of the Right in Germany is a worry and caused by migration and you appear to be agreeing. What the locals are against is not important mostly they will rally behind anyone who presses the right buttons in their brain, just like the extreme Left which is on the rise in the UK.Most voters have very little care about anything other than getting more jam today and people who say they can make that happen by doing something will get voted in.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

10 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The Globalism vs. Nationalism battle is ongoing.  EU may very well implode.

Merkel: EU States Must Prepare to Hand National Sovereignty over to Brussels

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that European Union (EU) member states must be prepared to transfer powers over to Brussels at a debate on the ‘tensions’ between globalisation and national sovereignty.

“Nation states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty,” Merkel said, speaking at an event organised by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin on Wednesday.

“In an orderly fashion of course,” Merkel said, explaining that — while Germany had given up some of its sovereignty in order to join the EU, national parliaments were in charge of deciding whether to sign up to international treaties.

I live in Denmark. We have a population of less than 6 mio people. Being a member of the EU is benefit to Denmark. EU have far more power in the world than Denmark alone. In the EU we get a seat at the table. We don't get everything we want, but we get a chance to influence policy. Were it not for the EU we would need to negotiate trade deals etc with countries far bigger than ourselfes. 

Giving away a little soveriegnty is in our best interest. Simple as that. 

I am a pragmatist! 

ps. USA may well implode too, but I don't post loonie articles about that all time.