Let's go to Europe!!! - Page 8

On February 22 2016 20:29 Santafairy wrote: inside the liberal mind: -Migrants commit violence, sexual violence, theft, thuggery, systematic sexual abuse of children -Islamists torture, murder, and mass-murder people worldwide "I'm not saying I condone it, but I understand where they're coming from, I'd be angry too because of <imperialist colonialism oppression> and insulting cartoons, it's basically white people's fault they're just fighting back." -Someone dumps dead pigs in response to their country importing welfare migrants that they never asked for "So intolerant."

yeah these guys with the flags probably just all like to shave their heads for better hygiene
darn those liberals, they're everywhere

white supremacists are just as bad as militant Islam!

germans commit sexual assault too they're just as bad as "syrians!"

sometimes people get the flu and die it's just as bad as cancer! we still need to have a multidiseased body! don't be medicist!

I dont feel llike reading too much but did Mortensen suggest that women shouldnt vote?

you should read it and watch the vids, it's an excellent study on how not to argue
Santafairy gets a trophy for supporting character, he even invents your character traits in order to do an ad hominem along with his straw man standard stuff

On February 23 2016 08:54 Baalim wrote: I dont feel llike reading too much but did Mortensen suggest that women shouldnt vote?

i think so, yes.

On February 23 2016 11:48 nolan wrote: Show nested quote + On February 23 2016 08:54 Baalim wrote: I dont feel llike reading too much but did Mortensen suggest that women shouldnt vote? i think so, yes.

Democracy is mob rule at this point. I do think women are more likely to support the popular ideology especially if it is the 'moral one'. I think they should vote but in this current climate I don't trust anyone to vote they inevitably vote for less liberty and more laws as we have seen with speech laws. If the population votes to incarcerate people for saying something wrong then there is something wrong with democracy.

One of the many weird positions of the left is that they claim to be evolutionists but when it comes to humans all of a sudden they are idealists. Men have always been the providers hunting, risk taking, war etc. of course there are differences between men and women when the roles have been so different. Most of the men today are also leftists but you can find exceptions once in a while. In my anecdotal experience I can't think of any exceptions to the women.

People will vote based on soundbites and popularity contests the entire thing is a circus. The media is overwhelmingly biased and constantly appealing to emotion. The education system has become very one sided they should provide different methodology, choice of authors and interpretation of the text but not today the professors have been impregnated with freudo marxism. On top of all of this the politicians are working for their own interests the whole thing is rotten to the core.

Majority of people will support the popular ideology; hence the word "popular", wether you a male or female.

On February 23 2016 18:30 uiCk wrote: Majority of people will support the popular ideology; hence the word "popular", wether you a male or female.

The question of whether men or women, old or young, rich or poor, are more or less likely to be political bandwagoners, is not contained within or answered by the meaning of the word "popular."

EU is considering to create refugee camps in south-Europe to gather all the refugees there.

Sounds like a really good idea imo, much better than letting everyone just go wherever they want (meaning Norway / Sweden / Germany / Austria / Calais).
That would in the long run lead into total chaos imo.

lul bruh
gl building refugee camps here. in Greece,Serbia and Romania or anywhere on the Balkans for that matter

At this point probably Romania s the only one with the resources to do it properly, every other nation will fail miserably at it and will do no change, might inflict more harm tbh

There is not enough migrants to create any chaos long term(for europe as an entity) this is only a short term problem with very little long-term (economic) ramifications. (The only one would be long term economic growth, since the migrants are mostly hungry to consume, especially if they are economic migrants)
Of course the world is in a global recession at the moment, so short term shocks will be felt much more intensely throught the economy as a whole (economically, which usually manifests itself politicall too)

On February 23 2016 22:04 Spitfiree wrote: lul bruh gl building refugee camps here. in Greece,Serbia and Romania or anywhere on the Balkans for that matter At this point probably Romania s the only one with the resources to do it properly, every other nation will fail miserably at it and will do no change, might inflict more harm tbh

Putting refugees in refugee camps will be more harmful than giving them an apartment, a check, and free rein in Europe with nothing to do... got it.

On February 23 2016 22:43 uiCk wrote: There is not enough migrants to create any chaos long term(for europe as an entity) this is only a short term problem with very little long-term (economic) ramifications. (The only one would be long term economic growth, since the migrants are mostly hungry to consume, especially if they are economic migrants) Of course the world is in a global recession at the moment, so short term shocks will be felt much more intensely throught the economy as a whole (economically, which usually manifests itself politicall too)

The EU has so far imported one Slovenia worth of migrants in the span of... two years? This is "not enough" to cause problems, okay. Or what weaseling are you doing, you're saying it might hurt Germany and Sweden but not "Europe" because if Greece has taught us anything, one country's problems don't affect the union as a whole. Long term economic growth, that's a riot. The only money they have to spend is the welfare they get from their generous host countries. They lower GDP per capita. And when Syria is stable in the future, shouldn't they be going back? Although I guess that won't apply to the 30%+ that aren't Syrians...

"Economic migrant" means they just want to go from someplace poor to someplace rich. It doesn't mean they have special things to contribute to the economy. They've cost Germany tens of billions of euros so far - if you saw my post a couple pages ago. How long until Sweden is projected to become a third world country? 2030? Is that short-term or long-term, would you say?

Where did i single out germany or sweden. Need glasses bro?

Where is the proof for correlation between high migration and lower GDP , long term ? Has Germany or any other mature EU state been "crushed" by poor broke ass eastern euros after they opened the borders with them? Maybe take a look at some economic graphs from last 20 years and show me this negative growth these states had to go trhough.... And these mature states will prosper , and grow for years to come , unless.. Economic meltdowns, which need greater cataclyst then the migration of a few mil people (you know, like fact world economy is fighting a global collapse of oil and other materials that have wiped out trillions, those kind of cataclysts ).

What do you think they collect a check, stay all day in bed? Welfare checks , as much as they are -EV in terms of stimulating consumption, still creates consumption and buisnesses run on consumption! Woa big suprise there.
And also, do you know what is an asylum seeker? You think these people are all getting german citizenship? Its temporary fool; big chunk will go back to their homes/families, the majority of the rest will want to achive economic wealth; aka work hard/study to get apropriate certification for given careers, and some will wander the streets, get free checks, commit crimes, populate prisons , et.. like anywhere else in the world.

Until you show me a germany with negative growth, correlating to the migration "costs , your "numbers" are usless. I'm not here to teach you macro economics, can do that on your own.

pardon my messy post, was all written on my phone.
Also i am a econimc migrant myself, so obviously find it odd that for some reason its seen as something negative.

On February 24 2016 02:40 uiCk wrote: Where did i single out germany or sweden. Need glasses bro?

I mentioned them specifically because, as you apparently aren't aware, they are taking the bulk of migrants in the recent crisis, doorknob. You tried to weasel your way out saying nothing will happen to "Europe." That may be true - if Europe is lucky. But something is probably going to happen to Germany. Something is assuredly happening in Sweden.

On February 24 2016 02:40 uiCk wrote: Where is the proof for correlation between high migration and lower GDP , long term ? Has Germany or any other mature EU state been "crushed" by poor broke ass eastern euros after they opened the borders with them? Maybe take a look at some economic graphs from last 20 years and show me this negative growth these states had to go trhough.... And these mature states will prosper , and grow for years to come , unless.. Economic meltdowns, which need greater cataclyst then the migration of a few mil people (you know, like fact world economy is fighting a global collapse of oil and other materials that have wiped out trillions, those kind of cataclysts ).

I love how you say "a few mil people" like it's a pittance. Do a basic thought experiment. Ask yourself if importing a million people a year into a country with 80 million in it is sustainable. A million is a huge amount of people. There aren't a million minutes in a year. That's why I posted earlier that so far the EU has taken in the equivalent of Slovenia. It may be hard to internalize 2 million people as an amount, but you ought to be able to understand if you measure by how many Slovenias. On another note, try asking Greece whether one country's problems don't affect the rest of the EU.

On February 24 2016 02:40 uiCk wrote: What do you think they collect a check, stay all day in bed? Welfare checks , as much as they are -EV in terms of stimulating consumption, still creates consumption and buisnesses run on consumption! Woa big suprise there.

What do you think, there's new jobs magically available to them? That they master English/German/Swedish overnight? That they all diligently work to assimilate to a completely different country and culture? I'm probably the fishiest here and you're the one telling me on a poker forum that something that's -EV is still good because it creates value. Are you trying to fool me or fool yourself?

On February 24 2016 02:40 uiCk wrote: And also, do you know what is an asylum seeker? You think these people are all getting german citizenship? Its temporary fool; big chunk will go back to their homes/families, the majority of the rest will want to achive economic wealth; aka work hard/study to get apropriate certification for given careers, and some will wander the streets, get free checks, commit crimes, populate prisons , et.. like anywhere else in the world.

So a big chunk of them are going to go back to their homes, where they will contribute to the long-term growth of Germany...?

No, no, no. You don't get it. It's not that there are bad apples everywhere. That's nonsense. That's like saying a DC-8 is just as safe as a 777 because they both experience crashes. It should actually embarrass you to make such a mistake. It's not that there are bad apples in mass migration, but no bad apples in Germany. It's that there is a significantly higher rate of bad apples among Muslims in general (Look at any statistic about who commits rape in Scandinavia) and mass migrants specifically (where was mass sexual assault before in Germany?). And it's important to consider that alarming factor in the question of whether countries should be inviting and subsidizing these people in the first place.

If you were honest, you would accept reality, and argue your case from it, instead of making up this imaginary dimension of guilt where native Germans are "just as bad" as people from the third world. I don't know why reason doesn't penetrate people on this issue.

On February 24 2016 02:40 uiCk wrote: Until you show me a germany with negative growth, correlating to the migration "costs , your "numbers" are usless. I'm not here to teach you macro economics, can do that on your own.

Hundreds of billions of euros over the course of years being spent dismissed as "numbers." Wouldn't want pesky things like math interfering with mulculturalism.

All that would need to be shown is a drop in the rate of "growth" (in whatever metric or indicator) to show that something is fucking up more than it's helping. What you also aren't grasping, apparently, about the economy is that money spent by the government doesn't just come out of thin air.

There is nothing wrong with "economic migration." Immigration is a part of the world. What's a problem is massive, unsustainable, crippling migration that's handled almost as incompetently as possible to top it off. Oh and done completely uncritically. It's the simplest thing that nobody can answer - why. No explanation of why it's a good thing, or no reason why it should be necessary even though it's a bad thing. The only truth is that it is - or at least was - politically expedient for people in power, the ruling class.

On February 23 2016 16:59 Mortensen8 wrote: Show nested quote + On February 23 2016 11:48 nolan wrote:   On February 23 2016 08:54 Baalim wrote: I dont feel llike reading too much but did Mortensen suggest that women shouldnt vote? i think so, yes. Democracy is mob rule at this point. I do think women are more likely to support the popular ideology especially if it is the 'moral one'. I think they should vote but in this current climate I don't trust anyone to vote they inevitably vote for less liberty and more laws as we have seen with speech laws. If the population votes to incarcerate people for saying something wrong then there is something wrong with democracy. One of the many weird positions of the left is that they claim to be evolutionists but when it comes to humans all of a sudden they are idealists. Men have always been the providers hunting, risk taking, war etc. of course there are differences between men and women when the roles have been so different. Most of the men today are also leftists but you can find exceptions once in a while. In my anecdotal experience I can't think of any exceptions to the women. People will vote based on soundbites and popularity contests the entire thing is a circus. The media is overwhelmingly biased and constantly appealing to emotion. The education system has become very one sided they should provide different methodology, choice of authors and interpretation of the text but not today the professors have been impregnated with freudo marxism. On top of all of this the politicians are working for their own interests the whole thing is rotten to the core.

you say women should vote but then go on and on about why they shouldnt....


btw if you havent seen conservative women who alight with the right you should watch some videos of Dunald Trump supporters, lots of crazy chicks there.

On February 24 2016 08:15 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On February 24 2016 02:40 uiCk wrote: Where did i single out germany or sweden. Need glasses bro? I mentioned them specifically because, as you apparently aren't aware, they are taking the bulk of migrants in the recent crisis, doorknob. You tried to weasel your way out saying nothing will happen to "Europe." That may be true - if Europe is lucky. But something is probably going to happen to Germany. Something is assuredly happening in Sweden.   On February 24 2016 02:40 uiCk wrote: Where is the proof for correlation between high migration and lower GDP , long term ? Has Germany or any other mature EU state been "crushed" by poor broke ass eastern euros after they opened the borders with them? Maybe take a look at some economic graphs from last 20 years and show me this negative growth these states had to go trhough.... And these mature states will prosper , and grow for years to come , unless.. Economic meltdowns, which need greater cataclyst then the migration of a few mil people (you know, like fact world economy is fighting a global collapse of oil and other materials that have wiped out trillions, those kind of cataclysts ). I love how you say "a few mil people" like it's a pittance. Do a basic thought experiment. Ask yourself if importing a million people a year into a country with 80 million in it is sustainable. A million is a huge amount of people. There aren't a million minutes in a year. That's why I posted earlier that so far the EU has taken in the equivalent of Slovenia. It may be hard to internalize 2 million people as an amount, but you ought to be able to understand if you measure by how many Slovenias. On another note, try asking Greece whether one country's problems don't affect the rest of the EU.   On February 24 2016 02:40 uiCk wrote: What do you think they collect a check, stay all day in bed? Welfare checks , as much as they are -EV in terms of stimulating consumption, still creates consumption and buisnesses run on consumption! Woa big suprise there. What do you think, there's new jobs magically available to them? That they master English/German/Swedish overnight? That they all diligently work to assimilate to a completely different country and culture? I'm probably the fishiest here and you're the one telling me on a poker forum that something that's -EV is still good because it creates value. Are you trying to fool me or fool yourself?   On February 24 2016 02:40 uiCk wrote: And also, do you know what is an asylum seeker? You think these people are all getting german citizenship? Its temporary fool; big chunk will go back to their homes/families, the majority of the rest will want to achive economic wealth; aka work hard/study to get apropriate certification for given careers, and some will wander the streets, get free checks, commit crimes, populate prisons , et.. like anywhere else in the world. So a big chunk of them are going to go back to their homes, where they will contribute to the long-term growth of Germany...? No, no, no. You don't get it. It's not that there are bad apples everywhere. That's nonsense. That's like saying a DC-8 is just as safe as a 777 because they both experience crashes. It should actually embarrass you to make such a mistake. It's not that there are bad apples in mass migration, but no bad apples in Germany. It's that there is a significantly higher rate of bad apples among Muslims in general (Look at any statistic about who commits rape in Scandinavia) and mass migrants specifically (where was mass sexual assault before in Germany?). And it's important to consider that alarming factor in the question of whether countries should be inviting and subsidizing these people in the first place. If you were honest, you would accept reality, and argue your case from it, instead of making up this imaginary dimension of guilt where native Germans are "just as bad" as people from the third world. I don't know why reason doesn't penetrate people on this issue.   On February 24 2016 02:40 uiCk wrote: Until you show me a germany with negative growth, correlating to the migration "costs , your "numbers" are usless. I'm not here to teach you macro economics, can do that on your own. Hundreds of billions of euros over the course of years being spent dismissed as "numbers." Wouldn't want pesky things like math interfering with mulculturalism. All that would need to be shown is a drop in the rate of "growth" (in whatever metric or indicator) to show that something is fucking up more than it's helping. What you also aren't grasping, apparently, about the economy is that money spent by the government doesn't just come out of thin air. There is nothing wrong with "economic migration." Immigration is a part of the world. What's a problem is massive, unsustainable, crippling migration that's handled almost as incompetently as possible to top it off. Oh and done completely uncritically. It's the simplest thing that nobody can answer - why. No explanation of why it's a good thing, or no reason why it should be necessary even though it's a bad thing. The only truth is that it is - or at least was - politically expedient for people in power, the ruling class.

Nope, all your counter arguments are absurd and pushed to the extreme. History is my proof, as mass migration is part of human and economic history.

The reality is people live in the short term, and are uncabble of having a long term perspective. Macro wise there are reql problems in the real.worls, like rising inequality (concentrating wealth pockets, rising instead of decreasing), shift in environmental impacts, the global financial structure and deteriorating economic structurrs of non-mature countries. For example Jordan & Lebanon who are taking in the VAST majority of migrants that is actually having a real macro impact resulting in a real negative growth.
Anyways keep up the fear and very limited understanding of macro shifts, seems to be doing wonders.
peeeaaaceee.

On February 23 2016 22:04 Spitfiree wrote: lul bruh gl building refugee camps here. in Greece,Serbia and Romania or anywhere on the Balkans for that matter At this point probably Romania s the only one with the resources to do it properly, every other nation will fail miserably at it and will do no change, might inflict more harm tbh

Turkey and South Europe. I Guess mainly turkey..

On February 24 2016 12:50 uiCk wrote: Nope

Thank you for offering this well-reasoned factual analysis.

On February 24 2016 12:50 uiCk wrote: The reality is people live in the short term, and are uncabble of having a long term perspective. Macro wise there are reql problems in the real.worls, like rising inequality (concentrating wealth pockets, rising instead of decreasing), shift in environmental impacts, the global financial structure and deteriorating economic structurrs of non-mature countries. For example Jordan & Lebanon who are taking in the VAST majority of migrants that is actually having a real macro impact resulting in a real negative growth. Anyways keep up the fear and very limited understanding of macro shifts, seems to be doing wonders. peeeaaaceee.

Jordan and Lebanon are not taking in the "vast majority of migrants."At this point you must be talking about Syrians specifically, which is a narrower situation than what's actually happening (as 30%+ of welfare migrants to Europe aren't Syrian). Lebanon and Jordan just happen to be tiny countries, and until about 10 years ago Lebanon was itself occupied by Syria.

And you just missed your opportunity to explain why there is any reason at all that these people should be allowed to move to Europe en masse.

There doesnt need to be a reason, every human being is allowed to seek asylum wherever they please per international law.