Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[scriver]

Sweden has been closing some of it's nuclear reactors "for maintenance" over winter for some years now.

In other Swedish news, today marks one year since the attack on a peaceful anti-racism march by militant neonazis. With immaculate timing the vice-Speaker of the Rikstag - of the we're-totally-not-racist-guise Sweden Party - made a declaration in an opinion piece that Jews, Sami, and Tornedal-Finns don't count as Swedish.

Sami don't count as locals? There's nothing worse than a neonazi who hates the natives, they even lose the "we're the original race" argument then. The evidence suggests that those people are direct descendents of ice-age populations circa 10,000BC, so they clearly predate Indo-Europeans in Sweden.

To any sane man, they count as Swedes. To this guy, no. How that makes logical sense without immediately turning 90% of the Swedish populace into non-Swedes is unknown.

[Loud Whispers]

In this case it means that you welcome the people that can benefit a country while driving off those that can't, so you will leave the source country with the weeded out people, which you can't consider to be fair.

As has been said before prospecting immigrants are not forced to leave for the holy lands and green pastures of majestic Britain resplendent in classy mentlegen and immaculate chavs of the barest ratings. It is entirely of their free will to leave their home for a new one. If Britain has the fortune of being such a nice place to live in that it is coveted by many it should have the sense to make sure it stays in such a condition.
Fairness in terms of discrimination would either to be to open the borders completely and allow everyone through, or to close the borders completely and allow no one through.
Both are shit ideas that do not benefit Britain. Either you close off all opportunities for foreigners who can benefit your nation or you needlessly create and shoulder the burdens of an immigrant underclass whose woes their fatherland can't be bothered to address.
Britain itself is struggling to cope with its own housing, education, transport, pensions, the NHS, energy and so on because our population is increasing because we have borders more porous than Swiss cheese. Britain is a wealthy nation that benefits less and less from its own wealth because its infrastructure is strained more and more.
Britain already has a stack of problems so why should it be seeking the problems of others before it's even fixed its own? Fairness in terms of justness would be to keep the borders open for those who wish to and can contribute to Britain and exclude those who do not. Those who wish to enter Britain who can benefit Britain will not be going to Britain because BRITANNIA VULT, they are going there for their own reasons. Maybe they don't like their nation's political climate, maybe it's undergoing mass unemployment or there's just not good prospects where they are. These people would not be benefiting anyone by doing nothing in their original homeland; if they could benefit their homeland and be rewarded for it they would not be leaving for Britain in the first place.

Well because you thought I meant that you hate Eastern Europeans I decided to generalise my point and drop the Eastern Europe part, although I guess my point stands only for 'source country poorer than destination country'
I never said that it just served as a lively example for mocking you.

If you want to mock me I don't mind, but can you actually try? Sarcasm is just lazy. Heh, 'Lord' & 'wise' Whispers kicking out 'the trash of Europe' from Britain into 'the Eastern Wastelands' for 'the glory of the West.'

It's pretty hard to accidentally say all that unless you're a square root spaghetti on the wall m8

[lorb]

Here is two things:

Migration accounts for 60% of UK population growth and migrants are for the most part young(er) people. Scotland even would have a declining population without migration. Without them the UK would be in a dire place in regards to financing pensions. Source

Benefiting from them should not be the only reason to grant people a place to live in your country. There is people who are fleeing from war and torture or because they are persecuted in their home country for political reasons or because they belong to the wrong minority. It's morally wrong to deny those people asylum and on top of that it actually is a human right.

[WarRoot]

In this case it means that you welcome the people that can benefit a country while driving off those that can't, so you will leave the source country with the weeded out people, which you can't consider to be fair.

As has been said before prospecting immigrants are not forced to leave for the holy lands and green pastures of majestic Britain resplendent in classy mentlegen and immaculate chavs of the barest ratings. It is entirely of their free will to leave their home for a new one. If Britain has the fortune of being such a nice place to live in that it is coveted by many it should have the sense to make sure it stays in such a condition.
Fairness in terms of discrimination would either to be to open the borders completely and allow everyone through, or to close the borders completely and allow no one through.
Both are shit ideas that do not benefit Britain. Either you close off all opportunities for foreigners who can benefit your nation or you needlessly create and shoulder the burdens of an immigrant underclass whose woes their fatherland can't be bothered to address.
Britain itself is struggling to cope with its own housing, education, transport, pensions, the NHS, energy and so on because our population is increasing because we have borders more porous than Swiss cheese. Britain is a wealthy nation that benefits less and less from its own wealth because its infrastructure is strained more and more.
Britain already has a stack of problems so why should it be seeking the problems of others before it's even fixed its own? Fairness in terms of justness would be to keep the borders open for those who wish to and can contribute to Britain and exclude those who do not. Those who wish to enter Britain who can benefit Britain will not be going to Britain because BRITANNIA VULT, they are going there for their own reasons. Maybe they don't like their nation's political climate, maybe it's undergoing mass unemployment or there's just not good prospects where they are. These people would not be benefiting anyone by doing nothing in their original homeland; if they could benefit their homeland and be rewarded for it they would not be leaving for Britain in the first place.

1) You are missing the point. Yes, prospecting immigrants are going to Britain to benefit. What about the source country who invested resources in these people? For example Norway does it more fairly, they sponsor our health education with money, so you can at least say they are paying for the influx of doctors.
2) Every country has it's problems and they will never fix all of them so this excuse can be used for eternity. I still say that if they are willing to take the talents they should take the problems too, otherwise the relation between the two countries is parasitic and the source country's answer would be to build down their social infrastructure and adopt an 'iron curtain' stance.
3) These people wouldn't be doing nothing but they would work for less money than what richer countries can pay for their skills. The people who won't be doing anything at home are the ones you want to keep outside of Britain, knowing that they won't be doing anything there either.

If you want to mock me I don't mind, but can you actually try? Sarcasm is just lazy. Heh, 'Lord' & 'wise' Whispers kicking out 'the trash of Europe' from Britain into 'the Eastern Wastelands' for 'the glory of the West.'

What can I say? I'm lazy and I don't know you well enough to justify the effort.

It's pretty hard to accidentally say all that unless you're a square root spaghetti on the wall m8

Sorry the power of quotes failed me and I missed a full stop.
Semi-fixed:

When did Eastern Europe become Britain's sole source of immigrants?

I never said that it just served as a lively example for mocking you.

[BlindKitty]

I just noticed that Russian currency has been getting cheaper yesterday... Up to a point of hitting 130 RUB/$ in some money exchange places. How do you feel about that, our local Russians? Because news here are more than a little biased...

[da_nang]

PC master race

Personal computer or political correctness?

[LordSlowpoke]

130 rubbards for a dollop? git dat currency maysevenohone

then run to the bank and speculate that shit

[Sergarr]

I just noticed that Russian currency has been getting cheaper yesterday... Up to a point of hitting 130 RUB/$ in some money exchange places. How do you feel about that, our local Russians? Because news here are more than a little biased...

http://www.investing.com/currencies/usd-rub

They're not even close to that number.

[Darvi]

PC master race

Personal computer or political correctness?

Pop Corn.

[Loud Whispers]

PC master race

Personal computer or political correctness?

Political computer personal correctness?

Migration accounts for 60% of UK population growth and migrants are for the most part young(er) people. Scotland even would have a declining population without migration. Without them the UK would be in a dire place in regards to financing pensions. Source

Fairness in terms of discrimination would either to be to open the borders completely and allow everyone through, or to close the borders completely and allow no one through.
Both are shit ideas that do not benefit Britain.

Benefiting from them should not be the only reason to grant people a place to live in your country. There is people who are fleeing from war and torture or because they are persecuted in their home country for political reasons or because they belong to the wrong minority. It's morally wrong to deny those people asylum and on top of that it actually is a human right.

It's funny, before I hit my post I deleted a sentence about how the borders should be open for the skilled, young education-seekers, the ambitious and have some room for refugees. Asylum's different from immigration though, just to mention. I don't think anyone opposes the right of asylum (except Cameron, but he's a nonce) unless they're a yobbo or they have particular issue in which Britain runs the asylum process, but that's a criticism of the system not the ideal.

1) You are missing the point. Yes, prospecting immigrants are going to Britain to benefit. What about the source country who invested resources in these people? For example Norway does it more fairly, they sponsor our health education with money, so you can at least say they are paying for the influx of doctors.

As has been said before prospecting immigrants are not forced to leave for the holy lands and green pastures of majestic Britain resplendent in classy mentlegen and immaculate chavs of the barest ratings. It is entirely of their free will to leave their home for a new one.
Those who wish to enter Britain who can benefit Britain will not be going to Britain because BRITANNIA VULT, they are going there for their own reasons. Maybe they don't like their nation's political climate, maybe it's undergoing mass unemployment or there's just not good prospects where they are. These people would not be benefiting anyone by doing nothing in their original homeland; if they could benefit their homeland and be rewarded for it they would not be leaving for Britain in the first place.
They're people, not commodities to be traded between nations. If Britain can offer opportunities that are not available in such a person's fatherland then they're all the better for it; nothing is stopping them from returning to their original homeland with the skills and money they gained from working in Britain.

2) Every country has it's problems and they will never fix all of them so this excuse can be used for eternity. I still say that if they are willing to take the talents they should take the problems too, otherwise the relation between the two countries is parasitic and the source country's answer would be to build down their social infrastructure and adopt an 'iron curtain' stance.
3) These people wouldn't be doing nothing but they would work for less money than what richer countries can pay for their skills. The people who won't be doing anything at home are the ones you want to keep outside of Britain, knowing that they won't be doing anything there either.

Every country has an infinite number of problems waiting for them in the future but that's no excuse for expecting the ones in the present to go away by adding more. How bizarre.
The source country's answer is to increase social infrastructure thereby increasing the standard of living for its people and help them get higher education or job skills. If they go iron curtain and willingly give themselves more problems on the hope that they can shovel their woes onto wealthier nations then they should bloody well be replaced by a saner government.
I also love that rationale.
Britain employing skilled workers from abroad:

• Parasitism.

Britain paying for another country's expenses:

• Fair.

U wot

What can I say? I'm lazy and I don't know you well enough to justify the effort.

Fair enough.

[BlindKitty]

I just noticed that Russian currency has been getting cheaper yesterday... Up to a point of hitting 130 RUB/$ in some money exchange places. How do you feel about that, our local Russians? Because news here are more than a little biased...

http://www.investing.com/currencies/usd-rub

They're not even close to that number.

Yeah, it was not about official rate (which is much lower, I'm sure) but about the real rates in money exchange places. Especially near the border, from what I gather. But the sources are not really reliable, so I guess someone was... Overestimating stuff. Still it doesn't look good.

[Owlbread]

-Hang on, this should really go in Russia watch.-

[Sheb]

Pretty terrible article in my opinion. Let me just point a few things out.

Meanwhile, the White House has to make it plain to the Saudis that sabotaging the global economy is in nobody’s interests.

So cheaper oil is "sabotaging the global economy".

Europe needs to stop the Americans playing John Wayne in the Baltic – no-one seriously thinks Russia is going to invade Sweden. It needs to defuse Russian paranoia by offering new security guarantees, including an end to the expansion of Nato eastwards.

Strawman. No one think Russia is going to invade Sweden. But we have 3 weaks NATO states on Russia's borders that were part of the USSR. Also, "end of the eastward NATO expansion" just mean refusing to accept Ukraine and Georgia. If we refuse to let them in, how are they going to be protected from Russian invasion? A better step IMO would be to strengthen the purely defensive character of NATO by not using it for foreign adventures.

[Owlbread]

So cheaper oil is "sabotaging the global economy".

Considering what it might do to to the Scottish economy (dropping oil prices haven't been off the news since the referendum) I think we can safely say all the big oil producers are shitting themselves about the Saudis.

Strawman. No one think Russia is going to invade Sweden. But we have 3 weaks NATO states on Russia's borders that were part of the USSR.

This much I agree with - but there's no ethnic Russian minority big enough for Putin to exploit. In Latvia there is,  certainly - but it's hard to see a situation where Russia would actually invade a member of NATO.

Also, "end of the eastward NATO expansion" just mean refusing to accept Ukraine and Georgia. If we refuse to let them in, how are they going to be protected from Russian invasion? A better step IMO would be to strengthen the purely defensive character of NATO by not using it for foreign adventures.

Or, simply scrap NATO and replace it with something more inclusive and defensive. NATO is in many respects part of the problem. We need a defensive agreement with Ukraine + Georgia but NATO may not be the answer.

I would advocate a kind of non-nato defensive pact brokered by the EU for Ukraine and Georgia and Moldova and other post-Soviet states that would be protected in the event of Russian aggression, but there would be no mechanism within the agreement for us to go to war with Russia in an offensive fashion.

[LordSlowpoke]

Or, simply scrap NATO and replace it with something more inclusive and defensive. NATO is in many respects part of the problem. We need a defensive agreement with Ukraine + Georgia but NATO may not be the answer.

I would advocate a kind of non-nato defensive pact brokered by the EU for Ukraine and Georgia and Moldova and other post-Soviet states that would be protected in the event of Russian aggression, but there would be no mechanism within the agreement for us to go to war with Russia in an offensive fashion.

this a thousandfold

hell, if we could somehow drag russia into the treaty that'd be just fantastic

how can you be afraid of the pact if you're in the pact yourself, after all