The General Politics Thread

C_Chulainn

cry of the banshee wrote
Cú Chulainn wrote
My mention of Scandinavia was as an example of Europe crisis NOT being due to socialism.Neoliberalism is effectively a different theoretical approach to liberalism, hence the different name.
Same logic applies to Euro countries; Paris, has what, 3 million people alone?It's still apples and oranges.Scandinavia is tiny, homogenous and doesn't have a military (to speak of).

Really? How is it apples and oranges? As far as size, there are many countries far smaller than Scandinavian ones in Europe who have suffered from austerity. Homogeneous? Actually, Scandinavian countries have pretty high levels of immigration, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are part of the EU and Norway is part of Schengen, so no border controls. Doesn't have a military? Tell that to the Finns.

This is beside the point- Tehom said that the crisis in Europe happened because socialism is unsustainable. Europe prior to the financial crisis, in crisis stricken countries, most definitely did NOT have socialist governments. The rise of socialist movements (France, Catalonia, Scotland, Basques) is as a reaction to austerity. Except the Greeks, they're putting neo-nazis in power.

traptunderice

RelentlessOblivion wrote
a fairer comparison may be Australia to the US (yes I know our nations populations differ by hundreds of millions but economically we are similar) we have all but recovered from the GFC down here, or had before our government did a couple of extremely stupid things, which saw the Australian dollar exceed <a class="postlink" href="thehttp://metalreviews.com/phpBB2/index.php">thehttp://metalreviews.com/phpBB2/index.php</a> us dollar and make serious ground on the sterling and euro, now however thanks to an enormous carbon tax with no refunds for companies who actually take steps to reduce their cabon footprint or begin a process of transfer into "clean" energy and a "super tax" on our chief industry of mining our economy has gone to shit, or is rapidly heading that way anyway, because it is rapidly becoming impossible to sustain these big businesses with the taxes involved, using mining as the example they are taxed for using carbon at a rate which increases every month, then they are charged between fifty and sixty percent of the profits from the sale of minerals extracted through mining, it's as if the government is actually trying to eradicate mining in Australia leaving us with no significant national export

Sounds like you need more people willing to pull themselves up by their boot straps and start designing energies that aren't reliant on carbon.

traptunderice

cry of the banshee wrote
traptunderice wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
Calling Obama fiscally conservative is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and really there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with anybody that would make such a claim.
Fiscally conservative isn't the issue. No politician these days is trying to cut spending. Whether it be war-mongering Republicans or clunky healthcare proposals by democrats. Oh, and before the Ron Paul bit, that guy double charges his expenses. Fucking corrupt bastard. The problem with Obama for is that he is ideologically conservative. He isn't the socialist folks claim he is; his actions contradict it in every way as he fucks over workers and bolsters capitalism.
No he isn't a "socialist", per se, he is a statist.Well, we'll never know whether or not Dr. Paul would have made a difference, now, will we?Things are going to get rough, and likely we will be in another war in the ME. Good job America.Off topic, but interesting nonetheless; have you heard about some of the southern states petitioning for secession? they are getting signatures.

A statist? I'll accept that. Whatever that implies.

As for Ron Paul: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/09/12/ron-paul-one-of-the-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report-finds">http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin ... port-finds</a>

We would've gone to war in the ME if Romney was in office too.

Secession won't happen. Silliness. Why would secession be justified when no one tried doing that during Bush? I don't see what is so radical that Obama is doing that hasn't been done before. No one discussed seceding as Carter or Hoover fucked shit up. Is an awful healthcare plan all that scary?

traptunderice

Cú Chulainn wrote
Tehom said that the crisis in Europe happened because socialism is unsustainable. Europe prior to the financial crisis, in crisis stricken countries, most definitely did NOT have socialist governments. The rise of socialist movements (France, Catalonia, Scotland, Basques) is as a reaction to austerity. Except the Greeks, they're putting neo-nazis in power.

+1. Talking about speaking about something you don't know about, Europe has moved to the center right for the last fifteen years the way I understand it e.g., Sarkozy, Mitterand and co.

cry_of_the_banshee

Cú Chulainn wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
Cú Chulainn wrote
My mention of Scandinavia was as an example of Europe crisis NOT being due to socialism.Neoliberalism is effectively a different theoretical approach to liberalism, hence the different name.
Same logic applies to Euro countries; Paris, has what, 3 million people alone?It's still apples and oranges.Scandinavia is tiny, homogenous and doesn't have a military (to speak of).
Really? How is it apples and oranges? As far as size, there are many countries far smaller than Scandinavian ones in Europe who have suffered from austerity. Homogeneous? Actually, Scandinavian countries have pretty high levels of immigration, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are part of the EU and Norway is part of Schengen, so no border controls. Doesn't have a military? Tell that to the Finns.This is beside the point- Tehom said that the crisis in Europe happened because socialism is unsustainable. Europe prior to the financial crisis, in crisis stricken countries, most definitely did NOT have socialist governments. The rise of socialist movements (France, Catalonia, Scotland, Basques) is as a reaction to austerity. Except the Greeks, they're putting neo-nazis in power.

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces</a>[quote]Active personnel 34,700 (ranked 79th )[/quote]:lol:Anyway, onward:<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden#Immigration">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... mmigration</a>

As of 2011, Statistics Sweden reported that around 19.6% or 1.858.000 inhabitants of Sweden had foreign background, defined as born abroad or born in Sweden by two parents born abroad.[9][edit] DemographicsAccording to Eurostat, in 2010, there were 1.33 million foreign-born residents in Sweden, corresponding to 14.3% of the total population. Of these, 859 000 (9.2%) were born outside the EU and 477 000 (5.1%) were born in another EU Member State.[10][11] The largest groups were:1. Finland (166,723)2. Former Yugoslavia (155,166)3. Iraq (125,499)4. Iran (63,828)5. Poland (49,518)6. Germany (48,442)7. Denmark (44,951)8. Turkey (43,909)9. Norway (43,058)10. Somalia (40,165)

80% Swede and the next largets group are Finns... (BTW, Finland isn't part of Scandinavia, just saying)next<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Denmark#Demographic_statistics">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... statistics</a>

According to 2012 figures from Statistics Denmark, 89.6% of Denmark’s population of over 5,580,516 was of Danish

Of these 590 000[6] immigrants and their descendants:200 000 (34%)[7] have a Western background (Norway, Germany, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UK, Poland and Iceland; definition: Nordic countries, EU countries, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Switzerland, Vatican State, Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand.).390 000 (66%)[8] have a non-Western background (Turkey, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, Iran and Thailand; all other countries).

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Norway#Ethnicity">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... #Ethnicity</a>

As of 2012, an official study shows that 86.2%[4] of the total population are ethnic Norwegians and more than 660 000 individuals (13.2%)[4] are migrants and their descendants; numbering 110 000 second generation migrants born in Norway.Of these 660 000 immigrants and their descendants:335 000 (51%)[4] have a Western (Australia, North America, elsewhere in Europe)325 000 (49%)[4] have a non-Western background (Turkey, Morocco, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, Iran).

Yeah, how silly of me to state that those countrys are homogenous and have no military to speak of.

cry_of_the_banshee

traptunderice wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
traptunderice wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
Calling Obama fiscally conservative is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and really there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with anybody that would make such a claim.
Fiscally conservative isn't the issue. No politician these days is trying to cut spending. Whether it be war-mongering Republicans or clunky healthcare proposals by democrats. Oh, and before the Ron Paul bit, that guy double charges his expenses. Fucking corrupt bastard. The problem with Obama for is that he is ideologically conservative. He isn't the socialist folks claim he is; his actions contradict it in every way as he fucks over workers and bolsters capitalism.
No he isn't a "socialist", per se, he is a statist.Well, we'll never know whether or not Dr. Paul would have made a difference, now, will we?Things are going to get rough, and likely we will be in another war in the ME. Good job America.Off topic, but interesting nonetheless; have you heard about some of the southern states petitioning for secession? they are getting signatures.
A statist? I'll accept that. Whatever that implies.As for Ron Paul: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/09/12/ron-paul-one-of-the-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report-finds">http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin ... port-finds</a>We would've gone to war in the ME if Romney was in office too.Secession won't happen. Silliness. Why would secession be justified when no one tried doing that during Bush? I don't see what is so radical that Obama is doing that hasn't been done before. No one discussed seceding as Carter or Hoover fucked shit up. Is an awful healthcare plan all that scary?

Who cares about Romney? You think I support that clown?
As for secession: I'm not saying it will happen, but who knows with this country? revolution, violent revolution at that is in our blood. Could be an interesting four years.

Double-billed his flights? :lol:

Yeah, ok, he's obviously worse than Hitler.

RelentlessOblivion

it's difficult for people to research non-carbon based energy when the government has just eradicated any funding for this meaning any and all research into the field must now be entirely self funded, that's the problem when you cut funds to something then tax people for relying on the alternative because they have no other option how does that make sence?

traptunderice

cry of the banshee wrote
traptunderice wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
traptunderice wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
Calling Obama fiscally conservative is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and really there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with anybody that would make such a claim.
Fiscally conservative isn't the issue. No politician these days is trying to cut spending. Whether it be war-mongering Republicans or clunky healthcare proposals by democrats. Oh, and before the Ron Paul bit, that guy double charges his expenses. Fucking corrupt bastard. The problem with Obama for is that he is ideologically conservative. He isn't the socialist folks claim he is; his actions contradict it in every way as he fucks over workers and bolsters capitalism.
No he isn't a "socialist", per se, he is a statist.Well, we'll never know whether or not Dr. Paul would have made a difference, now, will we?Things are going to get rough, and likely we will be in another war in the ME. Good job America.Off topic, but interesting nonetheless; have you heard about some of the southern states petitioning for secession? they are getting signatures.
A statist? I'll accept that. Whatever that implies.As for Ron Paul: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/09/12/ron-paul-one-of-the-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report-finds">http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin ... port-finds</a>We would've gone to war in the ME if Romney was in office too.Secession won't happen. Silliness. Why would secession be justified when no one tried doing that during Bush? I don't see what is so radical that Obama is doing that hasn't been done before. No one discussed seceding as Carter or Hoover fucked shit up. Is an awful healthcare plan all that scary?
Who cares about Romney? You think I support that clown?As for secession: I'm not saying it will happen, but who knows with this country? revolution, violent revolution at that is in our blood. Could be an interesting four years.Double-billed his flights? :lol:Yeah, ok, he's obviously worse than Hitler.

I wasn't implying that you support Romney. I'm saying the re-election of Obama has nothing to do with us entering into the Middle East once again. I doubt there was a legitimate candidate in this entire season that would do something differently in terms of foreign policy. They're all the same, fucking hacks.

Double-billing expenses isn't evil, but for a supposed man of principle it's fucking crooked. If he wants a smaller deficit, why is he charging the govt for his flights when they are already paid elsewhere? All I'm saying is that he isn't the saint he is made out to be.

Lambaste as you see fit: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.good.is/posts/a-liberal-s-letter-to-conservatives-why-democrats-need-us-more-than-ever/">www.good.is/posts/a-liberal-s-letter-to ... than-ever/</a>

cry_of_the_banshee

traptunderice wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
traptunderice wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
traptunderice wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
Calling Obama fiscally conservative is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and really there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with anybody that would make such a claim.
Fiscally conservative isn't the issue. No politician these days is trying to cut spending. Whether it be war-mongering Republicans or clunky healthcare proposals by democrats. Oh, and before the Ron Paul bit, that guy double charges his expenses. Fucking corrupt bastard. The problem with Obama for is that he is ideologically conservative. He isn't the socialist folks claim he is; his actions contradict it in every way as he fucks over workers and bolsters capitalism.
No he isn't a "socialist", per se, he is a statist.Well, we'll never know whether or not Dr. Paul would have made a difference, now, will we?Things are going to get rough, and likely we will be in another war in the ME. Good job America.Off topic, but interesting nonetheless; have you heard about some of the southern states petitioning for secession? they are getting signatures.
A statist? I'll accept that. Whatever that implies.As for Ron Paul: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/09/12/ron-paul-one-of-the-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report-finds">http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin ... port-finds</a>We would've gone to war in the ME if Romney was in office too.Secession won't happen. Silliness. Why would secession be justified when no one tried doing that during Bush? I don't see what is so radical that Obama is doing that hasn't been done before. No one discussed seceding as Carter or Hoover fucked shit up. Is an awful healthcare plan all that scary?
Who cares about Romney? You think I support that clown?As for secession: I'm not saying it will happen, but who knows with this country? revolution, violent revolution at that is in our blood. Could be an interesting four years.Double-billed his flights? :lol:Yeah, ok, he's obviously worse than Hitler.
I wasn't implying that you support Romney. I'm saying the re-election of Obama has nothing to do with us entering into the Middle East once again. I doubt there was a legitimate candidate in this entire season that would do something differently in terms of foreign policy. They're all the same, fucking hacks.Double-billing expenses isn't evil, but for a supposed man of principle it's fucking crooked. If he wants a smaller deficit, why is he charging the govt for his flights when they are already paid elsewhere? All I'm saying is that he isn't the saint he is made out to be.Lambaste as you see fit: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.good.is/posts/a-liberal-s-letter-to-conservatives-why-democrats-need-us-more-than-ever/">www.good.is/posts/a-liberal-s-letter-to ... than-ever/</a>

I'm not saying the man is a saint or perfect or anything like that and it is a bit of a black eye, but the two ring circus that is American politics needs to be broken. Anyway, he's not in the picture so there isn't much sense in talking about him, now is there?

I think I'll pass on the reading material, though; not really interested in any more liberal views, so thanks, but no thanks.

traptunderice

cry of the banshee wrote
traptunderice wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
traptunderice wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
traptunderice wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
Calling Obama fiscally conservative is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and really there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with anybody that would make such a claim.
Fiscally conservative isn't the issue. No politician these days is trying to cut spending. Whether it be war-mongering Republicans or clunky healthcare proposals by democrats. Oh, and before the Ron Paul bit, that guy double charges his expenses. Fucking corrupt bastard. The problem with Obama for is that he is ideologically conservative. He isn't the socialist folks claim he is; his actions contradict it in every way as he fucks over workers and bolsters capitalism.
No he isn't a "socialist", per se, he is a statist.Well, we'll never know whether or not Dr. Paul would have made a difference, now, will we?Things are going to get rough, and likely we will be in another war in the ME. Good job America.Off topic, but interesting nonetheless; have you heard about some of the southern states petitioning for secession? they are getting signatures.
A statist? I'll accept that. Whatever that implies.As for Ron Paul: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/09/12/ron-paul-one-of-the-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report-finds">http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin ... port-finds</a>We would've gone to war in the ME if Romney was in office too.Secession won't happen. Silliness. Why would secession be justified when no one tried doing that during Bush? I don't see what is so radical that Obama is doing that hasn't been done before. No one discussed seceding as Carter or Hoover fucked shit up. Is an awful healthcare plan all that scary?
Who cares about Romney? You think I support that clown?As for secession: I'm not saying it will happen, but who knows with this country? revolution, violent revolution at that is in our blood. Could be an interesting four years.Double-billed his flights? :lol:Yeah, ok, he's obviously worse than Hitler.
I wasn't implying that you support Romney. I'm saying the re-election of Obama has nothing to do with us entering into the Middle East once again. I doubt there was a legitimate candidate in this entire season that would do something differently in terms of foreign policy. They're all the same, fucking hacks.Double-billing expenses isn't evil, but for a supposed man of principle it's fucking crooked. If he wants a smaller deficit, why is he charging the govt for his flights when they are already paid elsewhere? All I'm saying is that he isn't the saint he is made out to be.Lambaste as you see fit: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.good.is/posts/a-liberal-s-letter-to-conservatives-why-democrats-need-us-more-than-ever/">www.good.is/posts/a-liberal-s-letter-to ... than-ever/</a>
I'm not saying the man is a saint or perfect or anything like that and it is a bit of a black eye, but the two ring circus that is American politics needs to be broken. Anyway, he's not in the picture so there isn't much sense in talking about him, now is there?I think I'll pass on the reading material, though; not really interested in any more liberal views, so thanks, but no thanks.

Long story short: stop being crazy fundamentalists and start being traditional conservatives once again. Put a plug in the abortion whackos and start discussing smaller govt, responsible markets and fiscal conservatism. Nothing groundbreaking, but it has caused some hubbub elsewhere. Social conservatism is a dead-end and the Democrats didn't win last week as much as social conservatism lost.

cry_of_the_banshee

traptunderice wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
traptunderice wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
traptunderice wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
traptunderice wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
Calling Obama fiscally conservative is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and really there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with anybody that would make such a claim.
Fiscally conservative isn't the issue. No politician these days is trying to cut spending. Whether it be war-mongering Republicans or clunky healthcare proposals by democrats. Oh, and before the Ron Paul bit, that guy double charges his expenses. Fucking corrupt bastard. The problem with Obama for is that he is ideologically conservative. He isn't the socialist folks claim he is; his actions contradict it in every way as he fucks over workers and bolsters capitalism.
No he isn't a "socialist", per se, he is a statist.Well, we'll never know whether or not Dr. Paul would have made a difference, now, will we?Things are going to get rough, and likely we will be in another war in the ME. Good job America.Off topic, but interesting nonetheless; have you heard about some of the southern states petitioning for secession? they are getting signatures.
A statist? I'll accept that. Whatever that implies.As for Ron Paul: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/09/12/ron-paul-one-of-the-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report-finds">http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin ... port-finds</a>We would've gone to war in the ME if Romney was in office too.Secession won't happen. Silliness. Why would secession be justified when no one tried doing that during Bush? I don't see what is so radical that Obama is doing that hasn't been done before. No one discussed seceding as Carter or Hoover fucked shit up. Is an awful healthcare plan all that scary?
Who cares about Romney? You think I support that clown?As for secession: I'm not saying it will happen, but who knows with this country? revolution, violent revolution at that is in our blood. Could be an interesting four years.Double-billed his flights? :lol:Yeah, ok, he's obviously worse than Hitler.
I wasn't implying that you support Romney. I'm saying the re-election of Obama has nothing to do with us entering into the Middle East once again. I doubt there was a legitimate candidate in this entire season that would do something differently in terms of foreign policy. They're all the same, fucking hacks.Double-billing expenses isn't evil, but for a supposed man of principle it's fucking crooked. If he wants a smaller deficit, why is he charging the govt for his flights when they are already paid elsewhere? All I'm saying is that he isn't the saint he is made out to be.Lambaste as you see fit: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.good.is/posts/a-liberal-s-letter-to-conservatives-why-democrats-need-us-more-than-ever/">www.good.is/posts/a-liberal-s-letter-to ... than-ever/</a>
I'm not saying the man is a saint or perfect or anything like that and it is a bit of a black eye, but the two ring circus that is American politics needs to be broken. Anyway, he's not in the picture so there isn't much sense in talking about him, now is there?I think I'll pass on the reading material, though; not really interested in any more liberal views, so thanks, but no thanks.
Long story short: stop being crazy fundamentalists and start being traditional conservatives once again. Put a plug in the abortion whackos and start discussing smaller govt, responsible markets and fiscal conservatism. Nothing groundbreaking, but it has caused some hubbub elsewhere. Social conservatism is a dead-end and the Democrats didn't win last week as much as social conservatism lost.

Yeah, but the whole system is rotten to the core.
I find my views most closely related to Goldwater's. He'd never make it past the primaries today.
It's depressing.

cry_of_the_banshee

RelentlessOblivion wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
Looks like the new guys have their heads on straight.Frig: nobody gets rich from starting at the bottom...:lol:read a little bit of history. Jesus, their are tons of people that have done just that. google self made men, for god sakes.Calling Obama fiscally conservative is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and really there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with anybody that would make such a claim.those tax breaks? They were the Bush tax breaks Zero extended under political presssure; they are about end and taxes are going up next year; not to mention Obamacare.Fiscally conservative... :lol:
do I count as one of these new people with their heads on straight? because it seems for the most part my observations on similarities between your discussion of the US and my knowledge of Australia are being ignored completelyalso regarding taxation, in Australia we have income thresholds which dictate taxes, so people earning less then the minimum threshold do not get taxed on their earnings, that's set out so that basically if you're earning minimum wage you won't be taxed, with each earning threshold the taxation percentage increases so that high income earners pay the bulk of taxes, I imagine this is the way it works in the US?

I missed this, but yes; you seem to be of similar beliefs as myself, being big government isn't the answer; in fact it is the problem.
The problem isn't that we are taxed too little, it is the government has a spending problem. Not to mention it seems to be borderline incompetent, what with overlap, redundancy, waste, etc.
Of course the corruption doesn't help matters, either.

Karmakosmonaut

Cú Chulainn wrote
The American dream is a lie, it always has been.

And what about the Scottish dream?

cry_of_the_banshee

:lol:

C_Chulainn

cry of the banshee wrote
Cú Chulainn wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
Cú Chulainn wrote
My mention of Scandinavia was as an example of Europe crisis NOT being due to socialism.Neoliberalism is effectively a different theoretical approach to liberalism, hence the different name.
Same logic applies to Euro countries; Paris, has what, 3 million people alone?It's still apples and oranges.Scandinavia is tiny, homogenous and doesn't have a military (to speak of).
Really? How is it apples and oranges? As far as size, there are many countries far smaller than Scandinavian ones in Europe who have suffered from austerity. Homogeneous? Actually, Scandinavian countries have pretty high levels of immigration, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are part of the EU and Norway is part of Schengen, so no border controls. Doesn't have a military? Tell that to the Finns.This is beside the point- Tehom said that the crisis in Europe happened because socialism is unsustainable. Europe prior to the financial crisis, in crisis stricken countries, most definitely did NOT have socialist governments. The rise of socialist movements (France, Catalonia, Scotland, Basques) is as a reaction to austerity. Except the Greeks, they're putting neo-nazis in power.
<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces</a>[quote]Active personnel 34,700 (ranked 79th )

:lol:Anyway, onward:<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden#Immigration">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... mmigration</a>

As of 2011, Statistics Sweden reported that around 19.6% or 1.858.000 inhabitants of Sweden had foreign background, defined as born abroad or born in Sweden by two parents born abroad.[9][edit] DemographicsAccording to Eurostat, in 2010, there were 1.33 million foreign-born residents in Sweden, corresponding to 14.3% of the total population. Of these, 859 000 (9.2%) were born outside the EU and 477 000 (5.1%) were born in another EU Member State.[10][11] The largest groups were:1. Finland (166,723)2. Former Yugoslavia (155,166)3. Iraq (125,499)4. Iran (63,828)5. Poland (49,518)6. Germany (48,442)7. Denmark (44,951)8. Turkey (43,909)9. Norway (43,058)10. Somalia (40,165)

According to 2012 figures from Statistics Denmark, 89.6% of Denmark’s population of over 5,580,516 was of Danish

Of these 590 000[6] immigrants and their descendants:200 000 (34%)[7] have a Western background (Norway, Germany, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UK, Poland and Iceland; definition: Nordic countries, EU countries, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Switzerland, Vatican State, Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand.).390 000 (66%)[8] have a non-Western background (Turkey, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, Iran and Thailand; all other countries).

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Norway#Ethnicity">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... #Ethnicity</a>

As of 2012, an official study shows that 86.2%[4] of the total population are ethnic Norwegians and more than 660 000 individuals (13.2%)[4] are migrants and their descendants; numbering 110 000 second generation migrants born in Norway.Of these 660 000 immigrants and their descendants:335 000 (51%)[4] have a Western (Australia, North America, elsewhere in Europe)325 000 (49%)[4] have a non-Western background (Turkey, Morocco, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, Iran).

and finally<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iceland">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iceland</a>[quote]Ethnic groups93% Icelandic, 7.0% other[/quote]Yeah, how silly of me to state that those countrys are homogenous and have no military to speak of.[/quote]

The Finns had that many soldiers and a lot of volunteers when they beat back the Russians in the 1930s. Besides, why do modern nations even need big armies?

As for Scandinavian immigration, careful, "residency" doesn't cover all of it. You've got to account for refugees, political asylum seekers, the lot. Iceland is obviously an anomalous case, homogeneous is something northern Europe is not.

C_Chulainn

Karmakosmonaut wrote
Cú Chulainn wrote
The American dream is a lie, it always has been.
And what about the Scottish dream?

Tell me what you mean and I'll be happy to explain.

cry_of_the_banshee

I just posted modern day facts.
I think that is all that needs to be said on this, this is obviously a waste of time.

Good day to you, sir.

Karmakosmonaut

By saying Scandinavia, did you mean for example that vaunted city of Stockholm with its magnificent ghettoes, where the beautiful maidens have to dye their golden hairs brown or black in order not to risk too big a chance of being raped by those wonderfully enriching African or Middle Eastern types?

Or did you mean a few countries that either put a lid on immigration too late or are still run by multiculturalist left-wing dimwits too much in love with their new electorate to see the problems they're causing day by day in practically all the major cities in Europe?

cry_of_the_banshee

Karmakosmonaut wrote
By saying Scandinavia, did you mean for example that vaunted city of Stockholm with its magnificent ghettoes, where the beautiful maidens have to dye their golden hairs brown or black in order not to risk too big a chance of being raped by those wonderfully enriching African or Middle Eastern types?Or did you mean a few countries that either put a lid on immigration too late or are still run by multiculturalist left-wing dimwits too much in love with their new electorate to see the problems they're causing day by day in practically all the major cities in Europe?

Yeah I heard it's getting bad there, but they are still (for now) pretty homogenous; it will only get worse as more and more third-worlders flood in, though.
It's a shame, really.

Karmakosmonaut

A massive shame. On the other hand, Norway and Denmark are keeping the lid fairly shut. It's a bit sad to see the leftie boys on the forum praising the socialist policies (retirement funds and healthcare) of those countries so much, when they're basically limiting those benefits to those who earned it plus a select few newcomers who immigrated to work, not to be worked for. But not that sad, really.

« Previous Page Next Page »