We're on our way to Britain: A year from now up to 29m Bulgarians and Romanians will have the right
461 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;39008502]Would you be opposed to a really great political party? Not necessarily Bulgarian - But one which could bring in a lot of their own money, their own knowledge and expertise, and make the country a great deal better off in 5-10 years time?[/QUOTE]
No. Right now, the political parties here are a joke. The three main parties - affectionally known as the Holy Trinity and famous by their nicknames - The Blues, The Commies and The Turks are a complete joke. Everyone is trying to steal the most they can while they are in power. The only reason we have a really stable economy is that
a) The EU regulates us more than lets say Greece, because we only "recently" joined
b) Our politicians are greedy as hell, but also smart. They only steal as much as it won't be too suspicious. You should've seen things after '90 (fall of communist regime).
c) Despite all of their flaws, they still care for the good of the [I]country[/I] (not that I'm not saying people), because they understand that a country that is bankrupt can't be stolen of off. That's why we're stable... And out people poor and unhappy.
[editline]28th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=dass;39008605]I like how FP wants to be moraly right and labels everyone who doesn't wants people from other countries on their own a racist, but never think of the problems that come up in the process.
"X town has trouble with Y. They really are a handful."
"You genocidial racist asshole! You want to gas them all!"[/QUOTE]
What I find most ironic is how people are so quick to jump on the racism card about certain problems in our countries, for example gypsies, but when the problems are on [I]their[/I] doorstep, they're the first ones to speak out against them.
[QUOTE=Stopper;39008671]What I find most ironic is how people are so quick to jump on the racism card about certain problems in our countries, for example gypsies, but when the problems are on [I]their[/I] doorstep, they're the first ones to speak out against them.[/QUOTE]
nah I actually disagree, people tend to be pretty consistent in their views even when the contradictions are staring them in the face
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39008637]show me one [I]power[/I] that hasn't committed genocide
(ie a power that was around during the colonial era)[/QUOTE]
almost everyone commited genocide during the 1500-1950(and before too), but that doesn't make it right, thats your justification? cause people did back then, then there is no issue with doing it again?
joke's on you England, I already moved here a year ago :v:
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39008591]"Improvement", getting poison dropped on you is an improvement, getting sent to gas chambers are also an improvement
holy shit you're really are a fascist
show me one colonial power that did not commit genocide.[/QUOTE]
Show me any ruling party who didn't commit genocide over 100 years ago.
Show me one country that after having colonialism removed and become independent, has improved even slightly?
South Africa has steadily become more and more shit for the last 30 years or so and nothing has improved there. Violent crime, poverty and lawlessness is at an all-time high and on the rise, despite it now being 'independent' and 'free from oppressive colonial rule'. It is economically failing. Having visited it for months at a time for the last 20 years, I can guarantee you that this is the case.
I imagine the same is true for most African counties that once fell under European rule.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39008691]almost everyone commited genocide during the 1500-1950, that doesn't make it right, thats your justification? cause people did back then, then there is no issue with doing it again?[/QUOTE]
no you dolt, I'm saying that the presence of genocides committed during they hey-day of colonialism cannot be used to indicate that colonialism is a bad thing per se, because it happened regardless of whether the country had colonies or not.
As a Romanian studying in the UK, I can only be happy that this country will finally allow me to work and reside without having to provide tons of paperwork (which I've only just done recently). Basically, if you want to work as a student, you have to prove you have enough money to reside, and that you have insurance, and that your stay in the country is temporary. Which is fair enough, but it kind of defeats the point of getting a job and trying to establish yourself in the UK in the first place.
Of course, this is coming from an honest, good person with no harmful intentions who can speak the language better than a good lot of the natives (and also not dead broke, I can afford a half-decent lifestyle), which cannot be said for most of the gypsies in Romania.
The mean comments are uncalled for, but I can kind of understand where they're coming from. My home country is awful, I have no intention of going back. But my guess is all that some of the gypsies want is a fresh start in a country that doesn't discriminate them - I myself wanted to go abroad since there are no opportunities in the field that I want to profess in, and English is the only foreign language that I can speak fluently. Obviously, claiming benefits for ridiculous reasons is not fair, but you have to start somewhere, especially considering the difficult and lengthy process of getting a working permit.
Like someone previously said (except about a different country), if you have any questions about Romania, feel free.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;39008720]Show me one country that after having colonialism removed and become independent, has improved even slightly?[/QUOTE]
well actually I wouldn't go that far. the obvious counterexamples are australia, new zealand, canada, USA, etc
the actual clincher is strong stable government which colonialism does provide. once the region stops being a colony, its success or failure depends on the government left behind. in the case of the successful ones given above, there was a strong and stable government. in the tinpot african countries and to a lesser extent latin america, there wasn't.
[QUOTE=Keyblockor;39007380]Olympic boxer Bobby George stands on an icy street in the Bulgarian shanty town where he grew up.
A cruel wind whips his dark hair as snow falls on the chaotic rows of shacks which are home to 50,000 of the European Union’s poorest inhabitants.
Plunging his freezing hands into his thin leather jacket, he says despairingly: ‘There is nothing for my gipsy people here.
I have no fucking idea but I can't stop laughing.[/QUOTE]
[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKIx0CmAZM8[/MEDIA]
[QUOTE=overdark;39008740]As a Romanian studying in the UK, I can only be happy that this country will finally allow me to work and reside without having to provide tons of paperwork (which I've only just done recently). Basically, if you want to work as a student, you have to prove you have enough money to reside, and that you have insurance, and that your stay in the country is temporary. Which is fair enough, but it kind of defeats the point of getting a job and trying to establish yourself in the UK in the first place.
Of course, this is coming from an honest, good person with no harmful intentions who can speak the language better than a good lot of the natives (and also not dead broke, I can afford a half-decent lifestyle), which cannot be said for most of the gypsies in Romania.
The mean comments are uncalled for, but I can kind of understand where they're coming from. My home country is awful, I have no intention of going back. But my guess is all that some of the gypsies is a fresh start in a country that doesn't discriminate them. Claiming benefits for ridiculous reasons is not fair, obviously, but you have to start somewhere, especially considering the difficult and lengthy process of getting a working permit.
Like someone previously said (except about a different coutnry), if you have any questions about Romania, feel free.[/QUOTE]
Hi there (I'm that guy with the different country) - I was wondering if Romania had the same problem as we do with the child benefits - here, it's not uncommon to see a gypsy family with 5-6 children, because the country offers a substantial benefit for all children under the age of 2. Which of course means that once a child is past it's "useful" years, it's usually either left to it's own devices, taught how to rob, like the article said and other not-so-nice things.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;39008720]South Africa has steadily become more and more shit for the last 30 years or so and nothing has improved there. Violent crime, poverty and lawlessness is at an all-time high and on the rise, despite it now being 'independent' and 'free from oppressive colonial rule'. It is economically failing. Having visited it for months at a time for the last 20 years, I can guarantee you that this is the case.[/quote]
actually it seems that south africa is on a slow, punctuated recovery
[img]http://www.boxofficefootball.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/south_africa_crime-rate.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=dass;39008605]I like how FP wants to be moraly right and labels everyone who doesn't wants people from other countries on their own a racist, but never think of the problems that come up in the process.
"X town has trouble with Y. They really are a handful."
"You genocidial racist asshole! You want to gas them all!"[/QUOTE]
you directly stated that all gypsies should be hunted down and murdered. I'm p. sure that makes you a "genocidial racist asshole"
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39008755]well actually I wouldn't go that far. the obvious counterexamples are australia, new zealand, canada, USA, etc
the actual clincher is strong stable government which colonialism does provide. once the region stops being a colony, its success or failure depends on the government left behind. in the case of the successful ones given above, there was a strong and stable government. in the tinpot african countries and to a lesser extent latin america, there wasn't.[/QUOTE]
Basically this. Countries which were only exploited for their riches have been left in shambles, while the ones which were used as new colonist grounds have prospered.
[QUOTE=Stopper;39008785]Hi there (I'm that guy with the different country) - I was wondering if Romania had the same problem as we do with the child benefits - here, it's not uncommon to see a gypsy family with 5-6 children, because the country offers a substantial benefit for all children under the age of 2. Which of course means that once a child is past it's "useful" years, it's usually either left to it's own devices, taught how to rob, like the article said and other not-so-nice things.[/QUOTE]
Yep, it's the same. Coincidentally, it's mostly the gypsies who do that since they can't afford anything. Some also intentionally cripple their children to claim benefits for disabled people.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;39008720]Show me any ruling party who didn't commit genocide over 100 years ago.
Show me one country that after having colonialism removed and become independent, has improved even slightly?
South Africa has steadily become more and more shit for the last 30 years or so and nothing has improved there. Violent crime, poverty and lawlessness is at an all-time high and on the rise, despite it now being 'independent' and 'free from oppressive colonial rule'. It is economically failing. Having visited it for months at a time for the last 20 years, I can guarantee you that this is the case.
I imagine the same is true for most African counties that once fell under European rule.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39008730]no you dolt, I'm saying that the presence of genocides committed during they hey-day of colonialism cannot be used to indicate that colonialism is a bad thing per se, because it happened regardless of whether the country had colonies or not.[/QUOTE]
what you're both saying eers waaay too close to white man burden, because obviously the rest of the world needs the mighty europeans to tell them how to rule themselves lol.
nevermind the fact that europeans crushed entire empires in africa, then started to claim they were incapable of ruling themselves.
nevermind the constant corruption supported by europeans, the puppet dictators that were installed by the US and europe throughout the world, the murders of actual progressive thinkers and leaders, but you're right, colonialism, fascism, imperalism, its all fine and dandy.
also, the british BURNED most of the records of war crimes they commited, precisely cause they feared it would fall on the hands of the now independent nations after the british empire crumbled.
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/18/britain-destroyed-records-colonial-crimes[/url]
Also, there seems to be a giant misconception about gypsies, especially in the article.
Gypsies are given a fair chance as everyone - education is free here. EVERY child is free to go to school. Most gypsies don't do that. I don't know what their reasoning is, but they don't. They're illiterate and they refuse to fix that. Then, they wonder why they can't get a job! In this economy, where even people with a real sound education struggle!
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39008835]what you're both saying eers waaay too close to white man burden, because obviously the rest of the world needs the mighty europeans to tell them how to rule themselves lol.[/quote]
well no not really I don't think there's anything particularly special about europeans. if Zheng He had beaten Columbus to the punch then I think the chinese would have done a good job of it too.
[quote]nevermind the fact that europeans crushed entire empires in africa, then started to claim they were incapable of ruling themselves.[/quote]
but I just showed you statistics indicating that they indeed were bad at ruling themselves. empires in africa were an exception rather than the rule even before the europeans came. if it wasn't for the whole human sacrifice thing I would even disagree with the spanish annexation of the aztec empire since they actually did a pretty good job of keeping law and order.
[quote]nevermind the constant corruption supported by europeans, the puppet dictators that were installed by the US and europe throughout the world, the murders of actual progressive thinkers and leaders, but you're right, colonialism, fascism, imperalism, its all fine and dandy.[/quote]
but I don't support that kind of pseudo-imperialism. I support actual proper imperialism where land is actually annexed into the empire and run properly.
[quote]also, the british BURNED most of the records of war crimes they commited, precisely cause they feared it would fall on the hands of the now independent nations after the british empire crumbled.[/quote]
i'm not saying that the british empire didn't commit a lot of atrocities, I'm saying that on net it was an improvement over the precolonial situation. a bunch of deaths happening all at once in one place staggers the mind and sets emotions running but if you actually compare it to the constant attrition of small-scale tribal warfare and genocide that had been going on for millenia and would have continued nonstop into the future then I think it's a reasonable tradeoff.
[QUOTE=Stopper;39008873]Also, there seems to be a giant misconception about gypsies, especially in the article.
Gypsies are given a fair chance as everyone - education is free here. EVERY child is free to go to school. Most gypsies don't do that. I don't know what their reasoning is, but they don't. They're illiterate and they refuse to fix that. Then, they wonder why they can't get a job! In this economy, where even people with real sound education struggle![/QUOTE]
i've seen news of gypsies that ACTUALLY wanted to enroll in school in france, but were refused, cause the french goverment is making it increasling hard for gypsy children to get education, through i'm not sure if such thing is happening in britain, through i don't think it is, personally i believe parents should be obliged by law to allow their children to go to school.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39008952]i've seen news of gypsies that ACTUALLY wanted to enroll in school in france, but were refused, cause the french goverment is making it increasling hard for gypsy children to get education, through i'm not sure if such thing is happening in britain, through i don't think it is, personally i believe parents should be obliged by law to allow their children to go to school.[/QUOTE]
The trouble is that such laws are incredibly hard to enforce, which is why they don't work.
It's actually [I]mandatory[/I] for a child to finish 8th grade education here! But how can the government enforce that?
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39008952]i've seen news of gypsies that ACTUALLY wanted to enroll in school in france, but were refused, cause the french goverment is making it increasling hard for gypsy children to get education, through i'm not sure if such thing is happening in britain, through i don't think it is, personally i believe parents should be obliged by law to allow their children to go to school.[/QUOTE]
In Romania, the first 10 years of education are compulsory, although oddly enough it doesn't seem to apply to everyone..
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39008755]well actually I wouldn't go that far. the obvious counterexamples are australia, new zealand, canada, USA, etc
the actual clincher is strong stable government which colonialism does provide. once the region stops being a colony, its success or failure depends on the government left behind. in the case of the successful ones given above, there was a strong and stable government. in the tinpot african countries and to a lesser extent latin america, there wasn't.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but the colonialists didn't run away from these countries, giving them back to the natives and saying sorry for taking them over.
They declared themselves independent from the place they came from and continued living in and ruling them.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39008787]actually it seems that south africa is on a slow, punctuated recovery
[img]http://www.boxofficefootball.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/south_africa_crime-rate.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
Probably because everyone is dying of AIDS.
[img]http://www.aids.org.za/sites/default/files/gr-aids.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;39009016]Yeah but the colonialists didn't run away from these countries, giving them back to the natives and saying sorry for taking them over.
They declared themselves independent from the place they came from and continued living in and ruling them.[/quote]
yeah that's kind of my point
[quote]Probably because everyone is dying of AIDS.
[img]http://www.aids.org.za/sites/default/files/gr-aids.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
erm no the statistics I gave are per 100,000 people, an increase in the prevalence of AIDS wouldn't affect that.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39008943]well no not really I don't think there's anything particularly special about europeans. if Zheng He had beaten Columbus to the punch then I think the chinese would have done a good job of it too.
but I just showed you statistics indicating that they indeed were bad at ruling themselves. empires in africa were an exception rather than the rule even before the europeans came. if it wasn't for the whole human sacrifice thing I would even disagree with the spanish annexation of the aztec empire since they actually did a pretty good job of keeping law and order.
but I don't support that kind of pseudo-imperialism. I support actual proper imperialism where land is actually annexed into the empire and run properly.
i'm not saying that the british empire didn't commit a lot of atrocities, I'm saying that on net it was an improvement over the precolonial situation. a bunch of deaths happening all at once in one place staggers the mind and sets emotions running but if you actually compare it to the constant attrition of small-scale tribal warfare and genocide that had been going on for millenia and would have continued nonstop into the future then I think it's a reasonable tradeoff.[/QUOTE]
you see thats the problem right there, an actual GOOD empire doesn't need to annex anyone, see for instance the mughal empire under akbar the great, one of the few relatively decent emperors in history
you seem to trust humans far too much, history has proven that empires are a bad idea, like churchil said, Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
if you get a good ruler under an empire, you could have a golden age, but you get a bad ruler, and its all hell, (do know that i'm not using the conventional idea of what an empire is, the US for instance could be technically be considered to be an empire).
it also fosters the idea that certain groups are better than others(see every case of racism in history), seriously ideally an empire would the best and most efficient form of goverment, but humans can't be trusted.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39009039]erm no the statistics I gave are per 100,000 people, an increase in the prevalence of AIDS wouldn't affect that.[/QUOTE]
If you read more about the prevalance of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_in_South_Africa]Sexual violence in South Africa[/url] you'll find that it's a much bigger issue than your graph made out.
[I]More than one third of girls have experienced sexual violence before the age of 18.[/I]
[I]Raping lesbians (a practice referred to as corrective rape) is believed to convert them to heterosexuality.[/I]
[I]"Among children, a survey by CIET found 60% of both boys and girls, aged 10 to 19 years old, thought it was not violent to force sex upon someone they knew, while around 11% of boys and 4% of girls admitted to forcing someone else to have sex with them.[21] The study also found that 12.7% of the students believed in the virgin cleansing myth."[/I] (The Virgin cleansing myth says that if you have AIDS and have sex with a virgin, your AIDS will be cured).
[I]In a related survey conducted among 1,500 school children in the Johannesburg township of Soweto, a quarter of all the boys interviewed said that 'jackrolling', a term for gang rape, was fun.[/I]
If you're committing violent assaults and/or murders, you're probably raping as well.
Rape & AIDS = decrease in crime (due to death from AIDS).
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39009153]you see thats the problem right there, an actual GOOD empire doesn't need to annex anyone, see for instance the mughal empire under akbar the great, one of the few relatively decent emperors in history
you seem to trust humans far too much, history has proven that empires are a bad idea, like churchil said, Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
if you get a good ruler under an empire, you could have a golden age, but you get a bad ruler, and its all hell, (do know that i'm not using the conventional idea of what an empire is, the US for instance could be technically be considered to be an empire).
it also fosters the idea that certain groups are better than others(see every case of racism in history), seriously ideally an empire would the best and most efficient form of goverment, but humans can't be trusted.[/QUOTE]
Striking the nail on the head.
The way I see it is this: The UK is made up of two small islands. It has 63,181,775 people living in its borders. It has its own culture, its own people, and its own sovereignty. Immigrants should be welcomed. Immigrants should have rights as well. However, immigrants have responsibilities too. They need to be aware of British culture, customs, laws, and very importantly, talk enough English to get by. Immigrants should not expect special treatment just for bring immigrants. They should try to find work, educate themselves, and just work to the benefit of their new country, not leech the system. I would expect this of any immigrant to any country, because one day I would like to be an immigrant somewhere. I don't think it is "racist" or discriminatory to think this.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39009153]you see thats the problem right there, an actual GOOD empire doesn't need to annex anyone[/quote]
what this is totally contradictory
[quote]you seem to [B]trust humans far too much[/B], history has proven that empires are a bad idea, like churchil said, [B]Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.[/B][/quote]
contradiction
[quote]if you get a good ruler under an empire, you could have a golden age, but you get a bad ruler, and its all hell[/quote]
which is why you remove this design flaw by running the empire like a corporation
[quote]it also fosters the idea that certain groups are better than others[/QUOTE]
small price to pay
im happy to see the race baiting of the Daily Mail is as strong as ever
[quote]There are 500 million people in Europe.
Atleast 600 million illegal immigrants from European countries live in Britain for our benefits. (That everyone scrounges)
Ban this filth
If only Diana was alive.[/quote]
this basically
[QUOTE=Riller;39007575]Solution: All brittons move to Romania.[/QUOTE]
But that's where Dracula lives, I don't want to live with Dracula
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39009265]what this is totally contradictory
contradiction
which is why you remove this design flaw by running the empire like a corporation
small price to pay[/QUOTE]
an empire doesn't need to conquer endlessly, althrough it conquered other nations/peoples in the past, an empire doesn't need to continuously afterwards, it depends on the ruler.
how is that a contradiction? churchill's phrase as so far been continuously proven by history
corporations have been proven to be untrustworthy as well, see dutch india companies.
racism is not a small price to pay.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.