|
God it pisses me off so much, seeing poo poo like this. The EU has over 500,000,000 citizens. Most would agree that sending all five million refugees to a single country would be less than ideal (though with a concerted national effort in Germany, France, or the UK, we could probably take them in), but if arrivals were fairly and sensibly distributed we could take in the entire population of loving Syria with barely any trouble.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 04:32 |
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:Easier after a kid killed a migrant worker, though. Especially if the Tories say that the kids could bring their families over after they're granted asylum. Are we to engage in collective punishment now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:This crisis has had the rather unfortunate and unexpected side-effect of swinging practically the whole of Europe to the right. I'd love to know people's thoughts on how to arrest the trend. That's simple. Show a picture of another dead kid but instead put the kid in front of the door at number 10, with a puppy looking over the dead body. People are hypocritical. They go on about how the MIGRANTS are exploiting the system and how their culture intrudes in ours.  But once you show them a dead kid, they all cry and baw how terrible it is to be fleeing from a war-torn country and how indecent humans we are.  For a while, then they go back to being their usual selfs with  "loving MIRGRANTS !!!"Plucky Brit posted:Easier after a kid killed a migrant worker, though. Especially if the Tories say that the kids could bring their families over after they're granted asylum. You could say to only allow women and children. Get's rid of the excuse of "Dirty Arab Raping Men". But then Tories are trying to get rid of women if they don't speak english. But if your a man then it's good. I'm surprised no one has came towards Cameron and accuse of him of this blatant sexism. Especially if you say that women are treated like filth and objects if they get deported in front of him, in national television.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Dealing with the migrant crisis is more than possible with the kind of resources the EU can bring to bear. Unfortunately the very nature of the EU prevents it from bringing those resources to bear, so instead everyone looks for someone to blame. Currently that seems to be Greece, a country that was economically devastated before it had to deal with hundreds of thousands of refugees. It would be farcical if it wasn't so tragic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
jabby posted:Are we to engage in collective punishment now? Reddit and the Europol thread here say yes. Very yes. As to how we stop the shift to the right in response to the crisis: You don't. It's too big. People are, on the whole, stupid. Especially when they start acting as a mob. Which is what the internet has allowed. Giant social networked mobs. Maybe a coalition could have gone in and ousted Bashar but that would have been Iraq all over again. Bashar has plenty of supporters in the capital and it would have spawned yet another insurgency. The uncomfortable truth maybe that if a country wants to poo poo all over itself and gently caress up the world then there is very little to stop it. Luckily most countries don't want to annihilate themselves in a giant civil war and again nothing. But Bashar is a free thinker and decided to give it a try. Nope it turns out loving everything up makes everything hosed up. Better luck next time. Social networks + Media + Isis threats + our own security services stirring the pot = racism. Unless you can change the zeitgeist of 2016 the shift to the right is unstoppable. Better to combat the rise in open fascism that will come because of it and wait for things to naturally stablise. Things WILL calm down. Maybe one day Syria will become a country again but with Russia taking charge I don't have hope for it to be anytime soon. Putin surely wants the EU to squirm. Just keep bashing the fash and let the Europol types cry themselves to sleep at the death of the white man. Regarde Aduck fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:Not helping If your home was on fire, would you stay inside and try to put it out with buckets and tapwater, or call the loving fire brigade and seek refuge at a neighbour's house? Obviously this misses the scale and makes it easy for the argument to wrap back around to "well why can't they pick a different neighbour" but at that point they're obviously reaching for any excuse to be a callous bastard and you can happily tell them so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:As to how we stop the shift to the right in response to the crisis: You don't. It's too big. People are, on the whole, stupid. Especially when they start acting as a mob. Which is what the internet has allowed. Giant social networked mobs. People generally don't like to think of themselves as racist individually, but with social media if one of the herd decides to sound off about brown people then it either emboldens or scares others into agreement. The end result is an echo chamber where everyone knows it's only military-aged men with beards and Korans coming to Europe, because a dozen people told them so, and that's not racist, it's the truth!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:they're obviously reaching for any excuse to be a callous bastard and you can happily tell them so. That's asking for a tut and a murmured, awkward reproach! Political correctness gone mad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
Fans posted:I would love to see the Tories try to argue that we shouldn't accept Refugee children. They already have actually re ones in Europe. Cameron's argument was front page of the Mail yesterday. (I have to pass it on my way to the checkout, I didn't sully my hands). Basically, "it's a slippery slope and it will encourage more to come". The headline was literally something like "Cameron: why we shouldn't take refugee children"
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
Prince John posted:They already have actually re ones in Europe. Cameron's argument was front page of the Mail yesterday. (I have to pass it on my way to the checkout, I didn't sully my hands). All the Tories are singing variations a theme that we will be encouraging filthy foreigners to our land of milk and honey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
Fans posted:I would love to see the Tories try to argue that we shouldn't accept Refugee children. Not phone posting anymore, so I have the horror in full pictorial glory:  Also enjoy the juxtaposition with the white immigrant that we want to keep.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Not phone posting anymore, so I have the horror in full pictorial glory: The top headline thing about househusbands is also horrible, unless the inside article is 'yes of course they can - gently caress off'. One can hope. Edit: Though of course not as horrible at the hating migrant children thing. Just a reminder of the all round horribleness of the Mail. hookerbot 5000 fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
I'd love to be a house husband.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
If they genuinely wanted to help people and also cared about the possibility of encouraging more attempting to cross and drowning at sea, why wouldn't they get some proper boats and ferry them over? pros: you don't have a huge conduit of people into Europe entirely regulated by whoever happens to have a boat, people don't drown at sea cons: daily mail headlines, scary foreigners on White soil
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
^^^ So far as the Tories are concerned, people aren't drowning. Pissflaps posted:I'd love to be a house husband. Pissflaps is sexually aroused by architecture, not his wife.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:The top headline thing about househusbands is also horrible, unless the inside article is 'yes of course they can - gently caress off'. One can hope. I admire your remaining thread of hope, but I'm afraid that was only posed as a question on the front page. The inside title for the article is "You can never fancy a man who becomes a house husband."
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:The top headline thing about househusbands is also horrible, unless the inside article is 'yes of course they can - gently caress off'. One can hope.  turning all our men into little white cuckballs, which is why white women are defenseless against the military-aged ISIS horde sweeping across Europe.The Mail buying into Internet Neoreaction wouldn't surprise me at all, they helped create it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:The amount of time and effort we waste on Pissflaps could be used to oust Dave. Have Pissflaps and Cameron ever been seen in the same place 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I'd love to be a house husband. It should be as normal for a man to take a career break after having children as a woman. like if you decide to have children then discuss the options we both work and pay for childcare, one works and one stays at home there shouldn't be the assumption that it will be the woman and that there is something abnormal or unmanly if it is the man. I honestly think that would have a far greater impact on salary and career equality if whoever you employed had a 50 50 chance of leaving for a career break if they choose to have children regardless of their gender. Though it's a chicken and egg thing I guess - the financial implications will have an effect on who decides to take the career break and as it stands it is more likely to be the woman who is paid less, in part because she's more likely to go off if the family has children.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
Biology got in the way of my wife and I even considering that as our daughter is breast fed, though she was able to have a year's maternity leave rather than taking a career break - and even got a promotion in that time. Though she has dropped a day and would drop another if she could.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Biology got in the way of my wife and I even considering that as our daughter is breast fed, Fairly sure this is why breast pumps were invented
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
Tory council complains to David Cameron over 'unrealistic' budget cutsquote:The Conservative-run East Sussex council has written to the prime minister David Cameron to complain about cuts to its budget, saying they will “significantly reduce the quality of life” for people in the area.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 11:01
|
|
|
But then breast pumps are a pain in the arse. Breastfeeding is tricky. I wholeheartedly support it, am disgusted by criticism of it in social media and the news and it makes me genuinely angry that that criticism puts some women off even trying it (thereby costing them hundreds of pounds and increasing their workload with sterilising and washing bottles). It should be a genuine choice without any pressure. But it does support the whole 'women should be at home with the baby' argument which limits women in their career and financially even when they don't have children.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Fairly sure this is why breast pumps were invented Fairly sure you don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:But then breast pumps are a pain in the arse. Sounds like you're using them wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
quote:The letter continues: “The cuts will significantly reduce the quality of life for many people in East Sussex. Our proposed cuts have to include preventative services which, while offering a short-term saving, will cost the taxpayer more in the medium term.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
No one can accuse my parents of not being ahead of the curve. After Bowie's quickie cremation, they have had me researching it. They can be disposed for @£500. Still more than I was thinking of, I was hoping they die on a Thursday as the bins go out on a Friday
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
Did anyone else see multi-millionaire businessman and UKIP donor Aaron Banks giving an interview to Channel 4 News standing in front of one of his two mansions saying that he's angry about "the establishment" and "elites" and that he feels more comfortable mixing with people from Anglophone countries? Someone ought to tell his Russian wife.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
Seen this doing the rounds on Facebook today, although it's from last year I haven't seen it here yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRBDue9nJYs
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I'd love to be a house husband. You could laze about the house in your PJs all day!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
no_one posted:You could laze about the house in your PJs all day! I could. But if I had to go to the shops I'd get dressed first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
Well, the judicial review for mixed-sex civil partnerships came back, they ruled against. This comes hot on the tail of the BBC showcasing partners who have been screwed over on bereavement benefits because they weren't married, so I hope the second hearing of the ten minute bill in the Commons today shows more positive results.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 11:52
|
|
|
I don't quite get why a non-religious mixed sex couple who wanted to formalise or legally establish their relationship wouldn't just pop into the registrar's office to get married.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
Same. I also don't get why we have civil partnerships at all still when gay marriage is now legal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
It'd provide an option for the 3 million cohabiting couples that want additional security for their relationships without entering into something that has all the historical baggage of marriage and has to be announced and held in public, unlike almost any other contract between two adults. I don't see what the big deal with just removing one line from the Civil Partnerships Act is now that they've already done the expensive bit of making it law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
As homophobes are very quick to point out there's a lot of tradition and baggage associated with the word marriage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:It'd provide an option for the 3 million cohabiting couples that want additional security for their relationships without entering into something that has all the historical baggage of marriage and has to be announced and held in public, unlike almost any other contract between two adults. How is a civil partnership any less 'public' than a marriage?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
Because it can be performed in private, whereas a marriage ceremony has to be open to the public and announced in advance in public.XMNN posted:As homophobes are very quick to point out there's a lot of tradition and baggage associated with the word marriage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Because it can be performed in private, whereas a marriage ceremony has to be open to the public and announced in advance in public. Civil Partnerships also have to be announced in advance in just the same way. quote:The details must be made available for people to see for 28 days before you can register your civil partnership. This is to give an opportunity for objections to be made. And I've never heard of marriages needing to be a public ceremony. It wasn't a requirement when I got married.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 04:32 |
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:I don't quite get why a non-religious mixed sex couple who wanted to formalise or legally establish their relationship wouldn't just pop into the registrar's office to get married. Basically the same people who wrung their hands so hard over gay marriage that they made civil partnerships a thing are now wringing their hands over civil partnerships. It's like they are trapped in a loop where the one situation they can't abide is everyone actually being equal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 12:39
|
|