Thanks to the more sane forms of democracy in Europe those countries are very likely to not be taken over by right-wing lunatics. The German ministry of the interior stated that crimes haven't spiked, and that refugees behave (on average) as lawfully as Germans. The claims about Sweden are just that - claims, and not backed up by official statistics. The refugees are a net positive to the economy, as they work and pay taxes. Hell, even if every single refugee in Germany didn't pay taxes, they would still pay for themselves as subsequent generations will pay taxes. So even in the worst case scenario it won't spell the end of Germany, or even put an unworkable amount of pressure on it.
Please stop parroting these debunked claims - it's only making you look scared and uninformed.
You are speaking for yourself. Many people enjoy the technology, and the person driving the car is merely there because it it unavoidable, not because it is a core part of the spectacle. F1 fans are not all Nascar fans.
Seeing as the refugees are on average as law-abiding as Germans, there's no real problem to speak of. Of course if you refuse to look at scale and cherry-pick some events you could spin it any way you wanted, but that's incredibly transparent and only lapped up by those wanting to lap it up.
Because measures like this save money. It costs money to scrape them off the road and treat them. It costs money when traffic is snared up because of a collision. It also costs when public transport is delayed because of someone getting mashed on the road. Sure, it denies the Dutch the chance to gloat at someone being hurt, but it's safer and cheaper for everyone.
A song denigrating someone because of what they are is different to one denigrating someone because of who they are. Especially if the former has to resort to dated, racist language... I can't believe you need this spelled out for you.
You sound scared and hateful. It must be a horrible life. If your points had any merit I'd debate them, but you are proffering fantasy, not fact. It's common behaviour of those defending nazis.
The Syrian migrants entered the EU as they were fleeing a warzone. They were taken up by the local governments, and redistributed according to the rules all the countries agreed to. There is lots of work available in the EU. There are no ghettos, and the migrants commit less crime than natives, per capita. So apart from your entire argument being false, it's a great argument! It certainly sounds like a real argument, anyway...
Britain will trade with the EU, but at an increased cost to now. Usually adding extra costs to something that business didn't ask for is a bad idea. Britain's world standing took a hit after the result, and A50 hasn't been invoked yet, so we can look forward to another hit then. The trade deals you refer to can only be started in earnest after Britain has left the EU (and especially the deal with the EU), and take years to finalise. This is not helped by Britain lacking negotiators. Also the trade deals will wait until Britain's left the EU so the other parties can use the weakened position of Britain to their advantage.
Nothing you have said is positive when viewed in the big picture. If you zoom in, your arguments look really good. Unfortunately the world isn't zoomed in, and is currently laughing at Britain shooting itself in the foot for no apparent reason.
1. As long as Britain has trade deals it will not have total sovereignty.
2. Non-EU immigration was *always* under the complete control of Westminster, and EU immigration could have been drastically limited, but Westminster refused to do so every single time it could have
So your argument is factually incorrect. Do you want to try again to explain how leaving the world's largest trading bloc just off its shores is a good idea?
So two demonstrated, vaguely-defined groups of people have been shown to be a danger to nature. One of the groups is more civilised than the other (by some definition), showing that one of the side-effects of this definition of civilisation is possibly an increase in danger to nature.
Some countries have public transport that leads from trains to your destination... Witchcraft, I tell you! It cannot be done! Also, how fast are you driving where a 200MPH train is slower than your car?:)
You are using average population density as your metric, when you really shouldn't. The vast majority of Americans live in the metro areas you are talking about. Also, Europeans don't stop at their borders like you seem to be hinting - they drive all over the continent. It's a lovely excuse, though:)
Great Britain is a geographic term, the United Kingdom is a political term. Britain is synonymous with the latter, which doesn't help matters. So it doesn't matter what country or countries exist on the large island, it's name is Great Britain. Northern Ireland being in the UK or not can not affect the name of the large island:)
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks to the more sane forms of democracy in Europe those countries are very likely to not be taken over by right-wing lunatics. The German ministry of the interior stated that crimes haven't spiked, and that refugees behave (on average) as lawfully as Germans. The claims about Sweden are just that - claims, and not backed up by official statistics. The refugees are a net positive to the economy, as they work and pay taxes. Hell, even if every single refugee in Germany didn't pay taxes, they would still pay for themselves as subsequent generations will pay taxes. So even in the worst case scenario it won't spell the end of Germany, or even put an unworkable amount of pressure on it.
Please stop parroting these debunked claims - it's only making you look scared and uninformed.
You are speaking for yourself. Many people enjoy the technology, and the person driving the car is merely there because it it unavoidable, not because it is a core part of the spectacle. F1 fans are not all Nascar fans.
Seeing as the refugees are on average as law-abiding as Germans, there's no real problem to speak of. Of course if you refuse to look at scale and cherry-pick some events you could spin it any way you wanted, but that's incredibly transparent and only lapped up by those wanting to lap it up.
That's the best you could do? :)
Because measures like this save money. It costs money to scrape them off the road and treat them. It costs money when traffic is snared up because of a collision. It also costs when public transport is delayed because of someone getting mashed on the road. Sure, it denies the Dutch the chance to gloat at someone being hurt, but it's safer and cheaper for everyone.
EU citizenship is not offered to anyone with no papers. Please stop lying. Your entire argument is based on nonsense.
No, this is just poor journalism. Fake news is where the entire story is nonsense.
How can you claim that's a fact when there is no evidence for it? Convenience of argument?
The reform mentioned did not make things worse.
Was that supposed to be a serious response? Ha! You're lost.
A song denigrating someone because of what they are is different to one denigrating someone because of who they are. Especially if the former has to resort to dated, racist language... I can't believe you need this spelled out for you.
Because if it doesn't go "vrroooom! vrooooom!" it's not a real car, apparently.
You are confusing "functioning government" and "broken government". Adding more government to a broken one can indeed help.
You are assuming "climate change" and "the climate changes" mean the same thing. That is not the case, and would explain your confusion...
You sound scared and hateful. It must be a horrible life. If your points had any merit I'd debate them, but you are proffering fantasy, not fact. It's common behaviour of those defending nazis.
The Syrian migrants entered the EU as they were fleeing a warzone. They were taken up by the local governments, and redistributed according to the rules all the countries agreed to. There is lots of work available in the EU. There are no ghettos, and the migrants commit less crime than natives, per capita. So apart from your entire argument being false, it's a great argument! It certainly sounds like a real argument, anyway...
Britain will trade with the EU, but at an increased cost to now. Usually adding extra costs to something that business didn't ask for is a bad idea. Britain's world standing took a hit after the result, and A50 hasn't been invoked yet, so we can look forward to another hit then. The trade deals you refer to can only be started in earnest after Britain has left the EU (and especially the deal with the EU), and take years to finalise. This is not helped by Britain lacking negotiators. Also the trade deals will wait until Britain's left the EU so the other parties can use the weakened position of Britain to their advantage.
Nothing you have said is positive when viewed in the big picture. If you zoom in, your arguments look really good. Unfortunately the world isn't zoomed in, and is currently laughing at Britain shooting itself in the foot for no apparent reason.
1. As long as Britain has trade deals it will not have total sovereignty.
2. Non-EU immigration was *always* under the complete control of Westminster, and EU immigration could have been drastically limited, but Westminster refused to do so every single time it could have
So your argument is factually incorrect. Do you want to try again to explain how leaving the world's largest trading bloc just off its shores is a good idea?
Great Britain is an island and not a nation, so the correct term would be "England, Scotland and Wales", but not necessarily in that order...
Try this:
So two demonstrated, vaguely-defined groups of people have been shown to be a danger to nature. One of the groups is more civilised than the other (by some definition), showing that one of the side-effects of this definition of civilisation is possibly an increase in danger to nature.
No, it means "person of the forest".
You are confusing the belief with the believers. That's what racists do.
Some countries have public transport that leads from trains to your destination... Witchcraft, I tell you! It cannot be done! Also, how fast are you driving where a 200MPH train is slower than your car? :)
You are using average population density as your metric, when you really shouldn't. The vast majority of Americans live in the metro areas you are talking about. Also, Europeans don't stop at their borders like you seem to be hinting - they drive all over the continent. It's a lovely excuse, though :)
Great Britain is a geographic term, the United Kingdom is a political term. Britain is synonymous with the latter, which doesn't help matters. So it doesn't matter what country or countries exist on the large island, it's name is Great Britain. Northern Ireland being in the UK or not can not affect the name of the large island :)