Total Posts:123|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sarkozy's popularity

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 2:21:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://www.independent.co.uk...

Sarkozy gets a boost from his anti-illegal alien stance. He may be ducking the other issues that would bring him down by backing an emotionally charged issue like crimes of "foreign origin".
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 10:10:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sarkozy and his crony Francois Fillion are two class acts. Both pull off some of the most idiotic and repressive legislation imaginable, end up with some pretty big scandals (especially Sarkozy), then attempt to try and get the already PO'd French population back on their side with Republican-esque pandering to these kinds of issues.

But it shan't save them, I think. Their only saving grace is that the Socialists can barely get their act together.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 11:09:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 10:10:31 AM, Volkov wrote:
Sarkozy and his crony Francois Fillion are two class acts. Both pull off some of the most idiotic and repressive legislation imaginable, end up with some pretty big scandals (especially Sarkozy), then attempt to try and get the already PO'd French population back on their side with Republican-esque pandering to these kinds of issues.

But it shan't save them, I think. Their only saving grace is that the Socialists can barely get their act together.

I was just waiting for you. Any recent polls from that dubious source you use?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 1:15:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 11:09:13 AM, innomen wrote:
I was just waiting for you. Any recent polls from that dubious source you use?

Haha, not for Angus Reid, no.

However,the fact that he's lost so much control over the regional governments, has had to deal with quite a few resignations and cabinet issues and some disunity within the Presidential Majority, tells me that he's not exactly on his way up.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 1:24:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 1:15:54 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/9/2010 11:09:13 AM, innomen wrote:
I was just waiting for you. Any recent polls from that dubious source you use?

Haha, not for Angus Reid, no.

However,the fact that he's lost so much control over the regional governments, has had to deal with quite a few resignations and cabinet issues and some disunity within the Presidential Majority, tells me that he's not exactly on his way up.

He's a politician, and well, they're French. They tend to be a little fickle, and this issue, and the way he is using nationalism can give him all he needs.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 1:28:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 1:24:59 PM, innomen wrote:
He's a politician, and well, they're French. They tend to be a little fickle, and this issue, and the way he is using nationalism can give him all he needs.

It can, but only because of the sad state of the Socialists. If they present an effective front, pounding on Sarkozy's character and legislation that a good portion of the French simply do not support, then pandering to nationalism will not save him.

However, that's asking for quite a lot. Sarkozy, and Fillon, can coast by simply on the stupidity of the Socialists.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 1:32:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 1:28:18 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/9/2010 1:24:59 PM, innomen wrote:
He's a politician, and well, they're French. They tend to be a little fickle, and this issue, and the way he is using nationalism can give him all he needs.

It can, but only because of the sad state of the Socialists. If they present an effective front, pounding on Sarkozy's character and legislation that a good portion of the French simply do not support, then pandering to nationalism will not save him.

However, that's asking for quite a lot. Sarkozy, and Fillon, can coast by simply on the stupidity of the Socialists.

And the power of nationalism in the French. Don't think that doesn't count, because their brand of nationalism isn't like yours or even mine. French nationalism (which borders on a fairly entrenched xenophobia) is deeply rooted. Sarkozy is good at being a politician. You would know more about the current state of the socialists than i, so thanks for that little bit of info.
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 11:47:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sarkozy is a WHOLE LOT more popular than he is often presented as being in the gutter press and the policies he is now engaging are also being taken up across all the "old" Common Market countries, especially Holland, Belgium, Germany and now increasingly England.

It's now being realised that being nationalist is NOT a bad thing, it can actually be a very GOOD thing.

Where it not that here in the UK we have such a singularly dreadful system for electing members of parliament the last General Election would have seen the British National Party with 12 seats under true proportional representation and probably a whole lot more if people saw that a BNP vote would not be a wasted vote as it is at present.

Now I'm no fan of the BNP but the number of people who do support them is growing because the BNP "say" what so many people THINK.

Sarkozy and the policies he promotes are the emerging European policies. Even NATO is being questioned as to if it is still a "good for Europe" thing, in the "old" Common Market" states more so than in the new, but the sentiment is there and is growing. It's time for change and change there is going to be.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2010 9:06:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm surprised Sarkozy takes a hard line on immigration given that he his father was Hungarian and his mother was of French Catholic and Greek Jewish origin.

What he's basically saying is "I'm alright Jack, pull up the ladder".

So typical of right-wing politicians, be they in the UK, Europe or America.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2010 12:07:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/10/2010 9:06:57 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
I'm surprised Sarkozy takes a hard line on immigration given that he his father was Hungarian and his mother was of French Catholic and Greek Jewish origin.

What he's basically saying is "I'm alright Jack, pull up the ladder".

So typical of right-wing politicians, be they in the UK, Europe or America.

I'm not surprised in the least. He's a Frenchman who loves his country, is proud of it, is patriotic, and unlike far too many politicians in the past is doing his best to protect it.

It's time that patriotism and national pride were recognised as not principles to avoid.

Being patriotic and having pride in ones nation isn't racist, it's a decent way to live.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2010 12:09:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/11/2010 12:07:42 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:
At 8/10/2010 9:06:57 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
I'm surprised Sarkozy takes a hard line on immigration given that he his father was Hungarian and his mother was of French Catholic and Greek Jewish origin.

What he's basically saying is "I'm alright Jack, pull up the ladder".

So typical of right-wing politicians, be they in the UK, Europe or America.

I'm not surprised in the least. He's a Frenchman who loves his country, is proud of it, is patriotic, and unlike far too many politicians in the past is doing his best to protect it.

It's time that patriotism and national pride were recognised as not principles to avoid.

Being patriotic and having pride in ones nation isn't racist, it's a decent way to live.

I personally can't stand patriotism/nationalism. It's one of the biggest factors in creating conflict.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2010 6:07:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/11/2010 12:07:42 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:
Being patriotic and having pride in ones nation isn't racist, it's a decent way to live.

Dude, there's a big difference between loving and caring for your country, and telling off immigrants that because they're not you, they're them, and they represent a threat to you.
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 2:06:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/11/2010 6:07:16 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/11/2010 12:07:42 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:
Being patriotic and having pride in ones nation isn't racist, it's a decent way to live.

Dude, there's a big difference between loving and caring for your country, and telling off immigrants that because they're not you, they're them, and they represent a threat to you.

1) I am not a "Dude" If you do wish to personalise a reply then Dr. Konig would be acceptable. Dude is not.

2) When immigrants do represent a threat to us and our country and our way of life then we should take very strong action against such people.

Our governments should put the people of the countries that they govern first, middle, and last.

We don't want immigrants, especially in the Western European countries.

We don't want them, we don't need them, and we should do everything in our power to get rid of them unless they have some skill that is desperately needed, absolutely integrate in every way with the society and culture of the country they have been permitted to enter and even then the Gastarbeiter principle that Germany used to operate should be reinstated across the EU and I suggest the US as well.

Even then there should be a period of probation, say ten years as a starting figure, and on top of that an immigrant tax .

It is disgusting that people can enter a country and take full advantage of the existing infrastructure that we and our predecessors have paid to create without paying additional taxation for what has been paid for in the past by the indigenous population of that country.

What's more because their presence results in a faster growth of infrastructure than would be needed by organic population growth they should pay extra for that.

The idea that people should move freely between unaffiliated countries is fundamentally wrong. Free movement even between member states within a federation should be managed and subject to control.

We should also operate mandatory expulsion of them and their families along with rescinding of any grants of citizenship in the event of their being involved in anything other than occasional trivial crime
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 3:07:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I used to live in Norfolk – the sleepy, rural county in Eastern England where Zeitgeist lives - and I've never encountered more naked hostility towards, and irrational fear of, foreigners than there.

Ironically, very few immigrants are drawn to Norfolk because it is an economically deprived, socially backward, partly-drained swamp; largely populated by clod-hopping, turnip-munching, inbred half-wits.

Furthermore, there are very few employment opportunities to attract people there unless they are willing to accept very low-paid jobs on farms or in poultry processing factories.

In contrast to the attitude of the average Norfolk yokel, here in London - where fewer than half the population were born in Britain - acceptance of different nationalities and cultures is the norm – indeed, overt expressions of xenophobic nationalism are rightly considered to be highly anti-social.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 3:39:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 3:07:40 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
I used to live in Norfolk – the sleepy, rural county in Eastern England where Zeitgeist lives - and I've never encountered more naked hostility towards, and irrational fear of, foreigners than there.

You should get out more! Especially into Middle England where the PROUD English live.

Ironically, very few immigrants are drawn to Norfolk because it is an economically deprived, socially backward, partly-drained swamp; largely populated by clod-hopping, turnip-munching, inbred half-wits.

It's changed considerably, especially over the last twenty years we've lived here.

Furthermore, there are very few employment opportunities to attract people there unless they are willing to accept very low-paid jobs on farms or in poultry processing factories.

That's certainly changed. Especially in high tech industries with some very leading edge work taking place in genetic engineering of crops and advanced technologies and methods of agriculture.

In contrast to the attitude of the average Norfolk yokel, here in London - where fewer than half the population were born in Britain - acceptance of different nationalities and cultures is the norm – indeed, overt expressions of xenophobic nationalism are rightly considered to be highly anti-social.

So it's wrong to be patriotic? To be proud of your race, nationality, culture, history?

Then that makes me and a great many more wrong. It's a wrong that I am perfectly comfortable with as I'm in a rapidly increasing number of people equally wrong.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 4:04:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 2:06:15 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:

2) When immigrants do represent a threat to us and our country and our way of life then we should take very strong action against such people.

Immigrants don't represent a threat to your way of life. Most are hard-workers, have a family and mortgage, and are, y'know, human beings.


Our governments should put the people of the countries that they govern first, middle, and last.

Obviously.


We don't want immigrants, especially in the Western European countries.

Right, because those jobs will just fill themselves, especially the ones natives don't want.


We don't want them, we don't need them, and we should do everything in our power to get rid of them unless they have some skill that is desperately needed, absolutely integrate in every way with the society and culture of the country they have been permitted to enter and even then the Gastarbeiter principle that Germany used to operate should be reinstated across the EU and I suggest the US as well.

We do, or at least did, need them to fill job placements, specially in England and France durign the post-WW2 boom. There were lots of job placements, and immigrants field them. Economy > Culture.

As for integration, you have to be close-minded not to see the positives of every culture.



Even then there should be a period of probation, say ten years as a starting figure, and on top of that an immigrant tax .

Lol. Immigrant tax means immigrants don't want in, and economy doesn't do that well. Again, economy > Culture.


It is disgusting that people can enter a country and take full advantage of the existing infrastructure that we and our predecessors have paid to create without paying additional taxation for what has been paid for in the past by the indigenous population of that country.

Right, because England wasn't founded on the basis of a foreign Norman population.


What's more because their presence results in a faster growth of infrastructure than would be needed by organic population growth they should pay extra for that.

I immigrate to a country and become a citizen. I'm a citizen, not some special creature feeding for your system. If I have a job I and have citizenship I have every right to use roads as you do.


The idea that people should move freely between unaffiliated countries is fundamentally wrong. Free movement even between member states within a federation should be managed and subject to control.

Because the Schengen agreement has meant the fundamental collapse of every signatory. The only reason Ireland and England didn't sign it was Northern Ireland.



We should also operate mandatory expulsion of them and their families along with rescinding of any grants of citizenship in the event of their being involved in anything other than occasional trivial crime

Agree with that.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 4:09:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 3:39:09 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:

So it's wrong to be patriotic? To be proud of your race, nationality, culture, history?

Well it is when you live in a country that has very little culture or history, and the history it has involves being cruel and taking over the land of the indigenous population. Besides, nationalism/patriotism just creates conflict anyway so, yes. I'm very much against. There's really very little to be proud of in my country.
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 4:32:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 4:04:18 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Immigrants don't represent a threat to your way of life. Most are hard-workers, have a family and mortgage, and are, y'know, human beings.

Immigrants DO represent a threat to our way of life, in fact not just a threat, they are damaging it.

There are two reasons. In the case of Mohammedans because they will not integrate and are establishing colonies with an ethos and an ideology that runs counter to our own.

In the case of immigrants in general, because our economy is primarily domestic service industry based that is only kept going by continued increased borrowing every additional person represents additional debt to be taken on.

It's the same in the US as is clear but is being masked by the worlds greatest Ponzi scam being run by Obama and his abuse of The Fed by having it buy government debt.

Immigrants and jobs … Right, because those jobs will just fill themselves, especially the ones natives don't want.

What we need is workfare, a compunction on the indigenous population to take up the work that at present they can get away with not doing. We don't need immigrants, we need the lazy "won't work" brigade to be forced to work …. Or no cash handouts.

We do, or at least did, need them to fill job placements, specially in England and France durign the post-WW2 boom. There were lots of job placements, and immigrants field them. Economy > Culture.

For one thing that was sixty years ago and things have radically changed, for another those people who immigrated to the UK wanted to integrate, the situation has changed dramatically with the majority of immigrants simply wanting to access our standard of living, a thing that we can't afford as it is.

As for integration, you have to be close-minded not to see the positives of every culture.

There are some cultures that have no positives.

Lol. Immigrant tax means immigrants don't want in, and economy doesn't do that well. Again, economy > Culture.

One objective would be do dissuade immigrants from coming here. And an economy based on ever increasing debt is an economy that is profoundly wrong.

Right, because England wasn't founded on the basis of a foreign Norman population.

Correct. It wasn't.

England evolved over a number of years before becoming stable and established in form and ethos. THAT is what we should be defending, admittedly allowing continued evolution but evolution in a positive way, not devolving to the savagery and candidly medieval horrors that so many immigrants bring with them and want us to respect and assimilate.

I immigrate to a country and become a citizen. I'm a citizen, not some special creature feeding for your system. If I have a job I and have citizenship I have every right to use roads as you do.

But you should pay an additional charge because you are coming and using things that are ours and that we have paid for in the past.

Because the Schengen agreement has meant the fundamental collapse of every signatory. The only reason Ireland and England didn't sign it was Northern Ireland.

The vast majority of Schengen nations defend themselves by adopting a less that user friendly relationship with immigrants. As for our not signing up to it, that has nothing to do with our part of Ireland and everything to do with our crazy overgenerous to the point of insanity Welfare State.
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 4:33:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 4:09:52 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/12/2010 3:39:09 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:

So it's wrong to be patriotic? To be proud of your race, nationality, culture, history?

Well it is when you live in a country that has very little culture or history, and the history it has involves being cruel and taking over the land of the indigenous population. Besides, nationalism/patriotism just creates conflict anyway so, yes. I'm very much against. There's really very little to be proud of in my country.

And there is a huge amount in mine.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 5:12:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 4:32:44 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:
At 8/12/2010 4:04:18 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Immigrants don't represent a threat to your way of life. Most are hard-workers, have a family and mortgage, and are, y'know, human beings.

Immigrants DO represent a threat to our way of life, in fact not just a threat, they are damaging it.

Continue.


There are two reasons. In the case of Mohammedans because they will not integrate and are establishing colonies with an ethos and an ideology that runs counter to our own.

Oh you're one of these "Islam's setting up colonies!!!" people? You're not factoring the fact a lot of Muslims are moderates, and a lot more will become moderates. Also, "At the 2001 census, there were 1,536,015 Muslims in England and Wales, forming 3% of the population." - http://en.wikipedia.org...


In the case of immigrants in general, because our economy is primarily domestic service industry based that is only kept going by continued increased borrowing every additional person represents additional debt to be taken on.

Most of the UK's economy is service based, not production based.
"The UK service sector, however, has grown substantially, and now makes up about 73% of GDP." - http://en.wikipedia.org...

The service industry requires people to often do repetitive tasks on low wages, that a lot of UK people aren't willing to take. And if the industry was based on continuous borrowing, it would have collapsed by now. If business' don't get profits they collapse.


It's the same in the US as is clear but is being masked by the worlds greatest Ponzi scam being run by Obama and his abuse of The Fed by having it buy government debt.

Explain.


Immigrants and jobs … Right, because those jobs will just fill themselves, especially the ones natives don't want.

What we need is workfare, a compunction on the indigenous population to take up the work that at present they can get away with not doing. We don't need immigrants, we need the lazy "won't work" brigade to be forced to work …. Or no cash handouts.

Agreed, but as it stands they don't want these jobs, which is why immigration was, and still is, necessary.


We do, or at least did, need them to fill job placements, specially in England and France durign the post-WW2 boom. There were lots of job placements, and immigrants field them. Economy > Culture.

For one thing that was sixty years ago and things have radically changed, for another those people who immigrated to the UK wanted to integrate, the situation has changed dramatically with the majority of immigrants simply wanting to access our standard of living, a thing that we can't afford as it is.

The standard living you built by invading and colonising other nations, and then attribute it solely to the fruit of Englishmens labour, and deny them any access to it whatsoever?


As for integration, you have to be close-minded not to see the positives of every culture.

There are some cultures that have no positives.

Such as?


Lol. Immigrant tax means immigrants don't want in, and economy doesn't do that well. Again, economy > Culture.

One objective would be do dissuade immigrants from coming here. And an economy based on ever increasing debt is an economy that is profoundly wrong.

It's Keynesian debt-spending, and in general it works.


Right, because England wasn't founded on the basis of a foreign Norman population.

Correct. It wasn't.

Learn some history http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Normans were foreigners to England who left a considerable impact on English culture.


England evolved over a number of years before becoming stable and established in form and ethos. THAT is what we should be defending, admittedly allowing continued evolution but evolution in a positive way, not devolving to the savagery and candidly medieval horrors that so many immigrants bring with them and want us to respect and assimilate.

I'm guessing your referring specifically to Middle-easterners? I disagree with pretty much every part of Sharia law, but I don't think the English culture is 100% in every aspect when they're compared.


I immigrate to a country and become a citizen. I'm a citizen, not some special creature feeding for your system. If I have a job I and have citizenship I have every right to use roads as you do.

But you should pay an additional charge because you are coming and using things that are ours and that we have paid for in the past.

I'm paying taxes the second I get a job. Under that logic every generations should be taxed more heavily than the last because they're using things that previous generations built.


Because the Schengen agreement has meant the fundamental collapse of every signatory. The only reason Ireland and England didn't sign it was Northern Ireland.

The vast majority of Schengen nations defend themselves by adopting a less that user friendly relationship with immigrants. As for our not signing up to it, that has nothing to do with our part of Ireland and everything to do with our crazy overgenerous to the point of insanity Welfare State.

Unlike the Schengen nations, England has a large colonial history, which gives it its immigration problem.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 5:13:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 2:06:15 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:
At 8/11/2010 6:07:16 AM, Volkov wrote:
Dude, there's a big difference between loving and caring for your country, and telling off immigrants that because they're not you, they're them, and they represent a threat to you.

1) I am not a "Dude" If you do wish to personalise a reply then Dr. Konig would be acceptable. Dude is not.

Dude is not an insult Doc, you can untwist your knickers.

2) When immigrants do represent a threat to us and our country and our way of life then we should take very strong action against such people.

What kind of action? Murder? Deportation? Splitting up families?

Our governments should put the people of the countries that they govern first, middle, and last.

Immigrants and people of the country are not mutually exclusive terms. Many immigrants become contributing citizens.

We don't want immigrants, especially in the Western European countries.
We don't want them, we don't need them, and we should do everything in our power to get rid of them

You speak for the whole of Western Europe?

It is disgusting that people can enter a country and take full advantage of the existing infrastructure that we and our predecessors have paid to create without paying additional taxation for what has been paid for in the past by the indigenous population of that country.

We (the UK) are a mongrel breed of immigrants ourselves. Where do your ancestors come from?

The idea that people should move freely between unaffiliated countries is fundamentally wrong.

Fundamental to what principle? I thought you liked to travel.
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 8:14:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Immigrants DO represent a threat to our way of life, in fact not just a threat, they are damaging it.
Continue

Our economy is domestic service biased. That means that every additional head results in cost that is not matched by export gain. That means the amount of money that is having to be borrowed by the public and the private sectors increases with every head that is added to our population. Those borrowings will have to be serviced and repaid. That will impact on our standard of living.

Putting aside the need to stretch the definition of the word culture to what in my opinion is beyond breaking point a multicultural society is by its very nature unstable as some cultures – no, let's call a spade a spade, some nationalities are more dominant than others. Our nationality has decided that tolerance should be a key component of our make up.

We face nationalities that are actually encouraged NOT to integrate and take on board the values of the host nation and that are now increasingly calling the tune.

Oh you're one of these "Islam's setting up colonies!!!" people?

Oh yes, I certainly am.

You're not factoring the fact a lot of Muslims are moderates, and a lot more will become moderates.

There is no such thing as "moderate islam", also we are now seeing increasing diligence in the Mohammedan population in the UK and Western Europe.

Also, "At the 2001 census, there were 1,536,015 Muslims in England and Wales, forming 3% of the population."

The problem is that it is not a homogeneous distribution. There are colonies where one could easily be in a Middle Eastern country and these colonies are self sealing and refuse to integrate beyond the financial and they're forming links between each other.

Most of the UK's economy is service based, not production based.
"The UK service sector, however, has grown substantially, and now makes up about 73% of GDP."

With an abysmal balance of trade and a total dependence on ever increasing loans an increasing GDP is precisely what the UK and most Western nations, the US included, do NOT want.

The GDP is the metric that shows financial activity. If most of what is being bought in terms of material goods are being imported and every service sector job opens up yet more sales opportunities then right now a falling GDP would be a good indicator.

Living within our means, and taking more and more bodies into our countries to create an increasing GDP is lunatic.

The service industry requires people to often do repetitive tasks on low wages, that a lot of UK people aren't willing to take. And if the industry was based on continuous borrowing, it would have collapsed by now. If business' don't get profits they collapse.

The service industry is based on continued borrowing by the government to prop up employment and hand outs, and by the private sector in order to sell goods and services.

It's the same in the US as is clear but is being masked by the worlds greatest Ponzi scam being run by Obama and his abuse of The Fed by having it buy government debt.

Explain

The Fed is printing money to buy US government bonds. Investors are buying government bonds at a price way out of kilter because of The Fed's involvement.

What's more the US economy is increasingly sinking into yet further depths of insolvency, a thing that QE and now QE2 is hiding.

In effect the Obama administration more than any other is riding on the back of a tiger.

What we need is workfare, a compunction on the indigenous population to take up the work that at present they can get away with not doing. We don't need immigrants, we need the lazy "won't work" brigade to be forced to work …. Or no cash handouts.

Agreed, but as it stands they don't want these jobs, which is why immigration was, and still is, necessary.

No. What was and is more than ever necessary is for those who can work should work And if they refuse to work then no handouts.

None. Nada. Zilch.

Let THEM emigrate and predate off some schmuck country that will pander to them.

For one thing that was sixty years ago and things have radically changed, for another those people who immigrated to the UK wanted to integrate, the situation has changed dramatically with the majority of immigrants simply wanting to access our standard of living, a thing that we can't afford as it is.

The standard living you built by invading and colonising other nations, and then attribute it solely to the fruit of Englishmens labour, and deny them any access to it whatsoever?

The standard of living that I refer to is the standard of living "won" by socialists and union blackmail that has for years been funded by ever increasing levels of debt.

We shouldn't have it, hopefully DC will push even harder than did Margaret Thatcher to bring the standard of living to that which we can rightly expect based on our efforts. Why should we have a bad situation made worse by parasites we neither need or want?

There are some cultures that have no positives.

Such as?

Most African and most Middle East for starters. Also most Balkan and anything to do with Turkey.

One objective would be do dissuade immigrants from coming here. And an economy based on ever increasing debt is an economy that is profoundly wrong.

It's Keynesian debt-spending, and in general it works.

Not when the fundamentals are wrong and getting worse as they are because as much as anything of Globalisation.

Right, because England wasn't founded on the basis of a foreign Norman population.

Correct. It wasn't.

Learn some history http://en.wikipedia.org......

The Normans were foreigners to England who left a considerable impact on English culture.

I repeat England evolved over a number of years before becoming stable and established in form and ethos. It is that England that is under attack and is desperately at risk.

I'm guessing your referring specifically to Middle-easterners? I disagree with pretty much every part of Sharia law, but I don't think the English culture is 100% in every aspect when they're compared.

In the case of the Middle East and beyond it isn't just about Shar'ia, it's about the whole nine yards of Islam. It is the antithesis to our world and should be resisted at each and every opportunity.

But you should pay an additional charge because you are coming and using things that are ours and that we have paid for in the past.

I'm paying taxes the second I get a job. Under that logic every generations should be taxed more heavily than the last because they're using things that previous generations built.

Not at all. As a native Englishman / German / Dutchman whatever the infrastructure in my country was built by and for people of my nationality.

People without that inherited right should pay additional taxes for the privilege to have access to our national resources. What I would agree with is that such an immigrant tax should be phased out over maybe three generations of immigrants.

The vast majority of Schengen nations defend themselves by adopting a less that user friendly relationship with immigrants. As for our not signing up to it, that has nothing to do with our part of Ireland and everything to do with our crazy overgenerous to the point of insanity Welfare State.

Unlike the Schengen nations, England has a large colonial history, which gives it its immigration problem.

It's got nothing to do with our colonial past beyond making it easier for the rats to get at the corn and everything to do with how much corn we give them.
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 8:27:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 5:13:55 AM, feverish wrote:

1) I am not a "Dude" If you do wish to personalise a reply then Dr. Konig would be acceptable. Dude is not.

Dude is not an insult Doc, you can untwist your knickers.
LOL! Knickers duly untwisted!
2) When immigrants do represent a threat to us and our country and our way of life then we should take very strong action against such people.

What kind of action? Murder? Deportation? Splitting up families?

I would have no problem in splitting families and I would have no problem with deportation of all illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers. For that matter I really do think out definition of what represents good cause to grant asylum should be very seriously tightened up.

For that matter in view of the ridiculous numbers we have taken into our small and overcrowded Island, a nation that is in desperate economic trouble, I absolutely believe we should now refuse any and all asylum requests no matter how good the basis of the request.

Our governments should put the people of the countries that they govern first, middle, and last.

Immigrants and people of the country are not mutually exclusive terms. Many immigrants become contributing citizens.
Not when the economy of a nation is in the dreadful mess that ours is in. We need immigrants like fish need bicycles.
We don't want immigrants, especially in the Western European countries.
We don't want them, we don't need them, and we should do everything in our power to get rid of them

You speak for the whole of Western Europe?

I probably speak for the majority of Middle England and the equivalent groups in Germany, Holland, France, Austria, Switzerland, in fact all of Western Europe nations.
It is disgusting that people can enter a country and take full advantage of the existing infrastructure that we and our predecessors have paid to create without paying additional taxation for what has been paid for in the past by the indigenous population of that country.

We (the UK) are a mongrel breed of immigrants ourselves. Where do your ancestors come from?
No, we became stabilised in the nineteenth century and possibly before that as much as anything because immigrants immigrated to Britain to become British. Since the 70's increasingly immigrants have come to the UK for what they can get and not to become a part of the UK. During the dreadful years of New Labour and the unasked for unwanted and utterly disastrous failed Multi-Cultural experiment things became orders of magnitude worse.
The idea that people should move freely between unaffiliated countries is fundamentally wrong.

Fundamental to what principle?

To the principle of nationality and protecting all aspects of a nation.

I thought you liked to travel.

Travel for vacation, education, business is one thing. Travel to move home is another thing altogether.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 10:56:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 8:14:35 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:

There is no such thing as "moderate islam", also we are now seeing increasing diligence in the Mohammedan population in the UK and Western Europe.

This literally made me lol. Too bad you haven't met me and many others. :(

This is almost hall of shame worthy, just almost...
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 10:59:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 4:33:29 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:
At 8/12/2010 4:09:52 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/12/2010 3:39:09 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:

So it's wrong to be patriotic? To be proud of your race, nationality, culture, history?

Well it is when you live in a country that has very little culture or history, and the history it has involves being cruel and taking over the land of the indigenous population. Besides, nationalism/patriotism just creates conflict anyway so, yes. I'm very much against. There's really very little to be proud of in my country.

And there is a huge amount in mine.

And it seems you're being discriminatory in the process with your whole "kick out all foreigners" attitude. That's exactly the BNP's rhetoric. I noticed that you're Jewish so you should understand about prejudice and such. Don't make it happen again.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 3:15:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 8:14:35 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:

There are some cultures that have no positives.
Most African and most Middle East for starters. Also most Balkan and anything to do with Turkey.

You claim you're not racist but you expose yourself here as bigoted and xenophobic in the extreme. Not to mention ignorant. You are dismissing the cultures of entire countries and continents as having zero positive value, with no reasoning given.

Saying nothing culturally positive came out of the Middle East, you are describing your own religion as well as the basis of decimal mathematics as having "no positives". As for Africa, have you ever heard of Egypt? African rhythms also dominate contemporary music, from rock to pop to soul, ever since the jazz era.
What have you got against Turks?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 3:19:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 3:15:20 PM, feverish wrote:
At 8/12/2010 8:14:35 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:

There are some cultures that have no positives.
Most African and most Middle East for starters. Also most Balkan and anything to do with Turkey.

You claim you're not racist but you expose yourself here as bigoted and xenophobic in the extreme. Not to mention ignorant. You are dismissing the cultures of entire countries and continents as having zero positive value, with no reasoning given.

Saying nothing culturally positive came out of the Middle East, you are describing your own religion as well as the basis of decimal mathematics as having "no positives". As for Africa, have you ever heard of Egypt? African rhythms also dominate contemporary music, from rock to pop to soul, ever since the jazz era.
What have you got against Turks?

This. Well said.

Zeitgeist's racism and bigotry literally makes me cringe. So much culture came from the middle east and africa. Persia is a perfect example.
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2010 12:33:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've lumped a couple of comments from other respondents under this one reply.

This literally made me lol. Too bad you haven't met me and many others. :(

Too bad you don't yet know what is expected of you as a Mohammedan.

And it seems you're being discriminatory in the process with your whole "kick out all foreigners" attitude. That's exactly the BNP's rhetoric. I noticed that you're Jewish so you should understand about prejudice and such. Don't make it happen again.

It's not a case of kick out all foreigners, it's a case of admit those who we need and who are wiling to integrate with us in our land and our customs and way of life.

My family background and our experiences show that failing to integrate creates prejudice against immigrants. The BNP? I don't care for the BNP but I will say that what they headline is the opinion of a great many people who do put their country first, just as any reasonable person would put his family first.

It is to the shame of our politicians that they do not support the "Britain first" and "Britain for the British" stance that the BNP do and apart from the stupid ideology driven loony-left it is only out of political desire to get as many votes from the illegitimate and immigrant sector that they do not.

You claim you're not racist but you expose yourself here as bigoted and xenophobic in the extreme. Not to mention ignorant. You are dismissing the cultures of entire countries and continents as having zero positive value, with no reasoning given.

The reason is obvious. We are far more advanced technically, morally, and socially than those countries that I named.

Saying nothing culturally positive came out of the Middle East, you are describing your own religion as well as the basis of decimal mathematics as having "no positives". As for Africa, have you ever heard of Egypt?

Heard of Egypt, and more to the point been there. A dirty place inhabited for the most part by dirty undisciplined people and best described as a modern day bedlam. Dishonesty abounds and is a thing that is almost admired.

African rhythms also dominate contemporary music, from rock to pop to soul, ever since the jazz era.

Personally I find "African" music singularly unmusical. As for the rest, a matter of taste and none of it in the same category of technical excellence of classical European music.

Take Bach or Beethoven or Mozart, replace the traditional instruments with modern instruments, re-arrange the music to match the modern instruments, and what results is true music not some dreadful mind numbing cacophony. There are exceptions in the case of Modern music but these are few and far between and not a single one in my opinion that has any roots in African or for that matter Latin American stuff that would result from giving a kindergarten class a selection of drums and penny whistles.

What have you got against Turks?

Turkey? A very great deal from it's predominant "religion" to its total disregard for Western values. Examining the way that it is still responding to addressing the Armenian genocide illustrates a very great deal about the place and its people. Then there's the Kurdish issue. And the use of chemical weapons that is now emerging.

Zeitgeist's racism and bigotry literally makes me cringe. So much culture came from the middle east and africa. Persia is a perfect example.

What "culture" came from the Middle Eats or Persia? And in any case what "culture" came from the Middle Eats or Persia in the last hundred years, because what we are needing to deal with is what is happening today, not what may have taken place in the past.

Am I racist? Certainly in the modern day meaning of the word I am and I see absolutory nothing wrong with stating the truth that all races and all societies are NOT equal.

Bigotry? There comes a point where experience and knowledge results in a degree of certainty that would take a whole lot of proof to the contrary to change. That isn't bigotry, that's wisdom.