RIP europe

smelly-bandit wrote:not at all

the WWII refugees were indeed refugees from the european continent - hence they were not being imported from external countries but rather displaced internally

they were culturally, religiously and ethnically compatible with the majority dermographic of european population.

the current crisis involves ISIS terrorist fighters, pakistani criminals,sudanese economic migrants and a scattering of genuine refugees

they are imported from external sources and are ALL culturally religiously and ethincally incompatible with european values and morals.

this glaring fact is being made obvious very quickly in countries that have made the mistake of importing large numbers of these people, and the situation will serve to destablise continental europe

at the least we will have some reprieve from your usual waffling, you lefties are well known for remaining silent when your social experiments go wrong      

smelly-bandit wrote:not at all

the WWII refugees were indeed refugees from the european continent - hence they were not being imported from external countries but rather displaced internally

they were culturally, religiously and ethnically compatible with the majority dermographic of european population.

the current crisis involves ISIS terrorist fighters, pakistani criminals,sudanese economic migrants and a scattering of genuine refugees

they are imported from external sources and are ALL culturally religiously and ethincally incompatible with european values and morals.

this glaring fact is being made obvious very quickly in countries that have made the mistake of importing large numbers of these people, and the situation will serve to destablise continental europe

at the least we will have some reprieve from your usual waffling, you lefties are well known for remaining silent when your social experiments go wrong      

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Like I said all fear based and nothing to actually show this would be a reality.
So thanks for sharing and if you wish to be pessimistic, that is your choice, but I doubt any of your predictions will come to pass.

I agree.  I guess most Europeans haven't experienced the enjoyment of having new peoples, new cultures and new languages among them.  We in America have been welcoming others for centuries, Republicans notwithstanding.

When Vietnamese cooking hit the West Coast, we were treated to a crop of restaurants fusing classic parisienne cooking with traditional asian dishes and the result was wonderful.  The French had taught the Vietnamese in their country, and they brought the fusion over here.  Now they are big, expensive restaurants, but what a wonderful experience.

Contrary to fears, many of these people end up in the up-scale neighborhoods.  They are extremely productive and are soon earning more because they are worth more.  So far from being a threat, they are a real asset.

Agreed. All I am reading is fear based arguments based off no reality or a comparrison to any such events.
The past saw far more refugees at the end of WW2 when many countries were in ruin and yet they all recovered.
Did we see riots?
No
Its all fear based bullshit, tryiny to manipulate people into believing in an unfounded fear.


All I am hearing from Victor is a school might close?
Unlikely with the money being pumped into the education system, this just further proves that views is groundless.
One Nurse being evicted from a set of flats which is far cheaper to use than build new ones.
Is it unfair on the German woman?
Well she does not own the property, so at the end of the day countless people are asked to move.
If she is upset by this, tough shit, as I say she does not own the property.

eddie wrote:Well going by that insensitive logic, the refugees don't own the property either and it was HER HOME!
This is why people get upset - can't you see that?

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Agreed. All I am reading is fear based arguments based off no reality or a comparrison to any such events.
The past saw far more refugees at the end of WW2 when many countries were in ruin and yet they all recovered.
Did we see riots?
No
Its all fear based bullshit, tryiny to manipulate people into believing in an unfounded fear.


All I am hearing from Victor is a school might close?
Unlikely with the money being pumped into the education system, this just further proves that views is groundless.
One Nurse being evicted from a set of flats which is far cheaper to use than build new ones.
Is it unfair on the German woman?
Well she does not own the property, so at the end of the day countless people are asked to move.
If she is upset by this, tough shit, as I say she does not own the property.

Well going by that insensitive logic, the refugees don't own the property either and it was HER HOME!
This is why people get upset - can't you see that?

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:not at all

the WWII refugees were indeed refugees from the european continent - hence they were not being imported from external countries but rather displaced internally

they were culturally, religiously and ethnically compatible with the majority dermographic of european population.

the current crisis involves ISIS terrorist fighters, pakistani criminals,sudanese economic migrants and a scattering of genuine refugees

they are imported from external sources and are ALL culturally religiously and ethincally incompatible with european values and morals.

this glaring fact is being made obvious very quickly in countries that have made the mistake of importing large numbers of these people, and the situation will serve to destablise continental europe

at the least we will have some reprieve from your usual waffling, you lefties are well known for remaining silent when your social experiments go wrong      

Here we go again—it’s us against them.  What is so sacrosanct about European demographics?  Are European values and morals any different than Syrian?  Don't they bleed the same color?  Eat the same foods?  If a few refugees will destabilize an entire continent, then that continent was in trouble already.  

These are people who need a helping hand.  If you are not big enough to reach out to them, we’ll get someone who is up to the job.  You hide under the covers and shiver while we take care of it.

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:

Well going by that insensitive logic, the refugees don't own the property either and it was HER HOME!
This is why people get upset - can't you see that?

The fact is she will get another home, so what is the big deal?
Get upset? She is not going to be made homeless is she?
She does not own the home, so its up to the owners is it not?
Refugees are homeless and are humans just like she is.
They all count and if theis saves money maybe she should stop being so bloody selfish and recognise everyone needs to help
She is the one being insensitive not seeing how this could house many refugees who are in need of a home.

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Agreed. All I am reading is fear based arguments based off no reality or a comparrison to any such events.
The past saw far more refugees at the end of WW2 when many countries were in ruin and yet they all recovered.
Did we see riots?
No
Its all fear based bullshit, tryiny to manipulate people into believing in an unfounded fear.


All I am hearing from Victor is a school might close?
Unlikely with the money being pumped into the education system, this just further proves that views is groundless.
One Nurse being evicted from a set of flats which is far cheaper to use than build new ones.
Is it unfair on the German woman?
Well she does not own the property, so at the end of the day countless people are asked to move.
If she is upset by this, tough shit, as I say she does not own the property.

Well going by that insensitive logic, the refugees don't own the property either and it was HER HOME!
This is why people get upset - can't you see that?

The fact is she will get another home, so what is the big deal?
Get upset? She is not going to be made homeless is she?
She does not own the home, so its up to the owners is it not?
Refugees are homeless and are humans just like she is.
They all count and if theis saves money maybe she should stop being so bloody selfish and recognise everyone needs to help
She is the one being insensitive not seeing how this could house many refugees who are in need of a home.

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


The fact is she will get another home, so what is the big deal?
Get upset? She is not going to be made homeless is she?
She does not own the home, so its up to the owners is it not?
Refugees are homeless and are humans just like she is.
They all count and if theis saves money maybe she should stop being so bloody selfish and recognise everyone needs to help
She is the one being insensitive not seeing how this could house many refugees who are in need of a home.

Well if they're going to rehome her and they have a property available  for her, why didn't they leave her where she was and give this other available property to a refugee family?

Makes no sense didge

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


The fact is she will get another home, so what is the big deal?
Get upset? She is not going to be made homeless is she?
She does not own the home, so its up to the owners is it not?
Refugees are homeless and are humans just like she is.
They all count and if theis saves money maybe she should stop being so bloody selfish and recognise everyone needs to help
She is the one being insensitive not seeing how this could house many refugees who are in need of a home.

Well if they're going to rehome her and they have a property available  for her, why didn't they leave her where she was and give this other available property to a refugee family?

Makes no sense didge

eddie wrote:Glad it isn't just me. Seems like alot of waffle to me

Raggamuffin wrote:Why do the refugees have to be in the same building though? If there are other flats for her to move to, there are other flats for refugees to move into as well.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why do the refugees have to be in the same building though? If there are other flats for her to move to, there are other flats for refugees to move into as well.

Easier to have collatted together, they are then with other families from theirformer country.
That makes sense and a feel of a community to help each other

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why do the refugees have to be in the same building though? If there are other flats for her to move to, there are other flats for refugees to move into as well.

Easier to have collatted together, they are then with other families from theirformer country.
That makes sense and a feel of a community to help each other

eddie wrote:Well if they're going to rehome her and they have a property available for her, why didn't they leave her where she was and give this other available property to a refugee family?

Makes no sense didge

smelly-bandit wrote:good idea walter

lets keep them segregated and allow them to form ghettos, nothing better for community cohesion and integration into the host nation than forming a ghetto based on nationailty  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Easier to have collatted together, they are then with other families from theirformer country.
That makes sense and a feel of a community to help each other

Oh, so suddenly you approve of people having something in common and wanting to associate with each other on the basis of that.

I don't suppose this chap cares about such camaraderie at all. I'm sure that many people will try to profit from this situation one way or another though.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Well if they're going to rehome her and they have a property available for her, why didn't they leave her where she was and give this other available property to a refugee family?

Makes no sense didge

Right question.  You're just looking in the wrong place for the answer.  It was an economic decision, as admitted by the Mayor...it was cheaper. They would have made the same decision in order to house poor people.

How the governments make or save money has no bearing on who will occupy the dwelling.

Raggamuffin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:good idea walter

lets keep them segregated and allow them to form ghettos, nothing better for community cohesion and integration into the host nation than forming a ghetto based on nationailty  

I hope they scribble on his wallpaper - then he'll be sorry he chucked the woman out.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Right question.  You're just looking in the wrong place for the answer.  It was an economic decision, as admitted by the Mayor...it was cheaper. They would have made the same decision in order to house poor people.

How the governments make or save money has no bearing on who will occupy the dwelling.

Still, it doesn't come across as fair to the original tenant Quill, and does nothing to promote racial harmony within the community.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Right question.  You're just looking in the wrong place for the answer.  It was an economic decision, as admitted by the Mayor...it was cheaper. They would have made the same decision in order to house poor people.

How the governments make or save money has no bearing on who will occupy the dwelling.

Still, it doesn't come across as fair to the original tenant Quill, and does nothing to promote racial harmony within the community.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh, so suddenly you approve of people having something in common and wanting to associate with each other on the basis of that.

I don't suppose this chap cares about such camaraderie at all. I'm sure that many people will try to profit from this situation one way or another though.

As a temp measure yes. This is called common sense when people are new to a country.
That is not the same is classing all religious people as a family and those not religious as not your family, but hey you never were that bright or see the danger with that.

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:

Still, it doesn't come across as fair to the original tenant Quill, and does nothing to promote racial harmony within the community.

Er she is a council tennant.
Its not her home, so they have every right to ask her to move and she should be greatfuil of a council home

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:

Still, it doesn't come across as fair to the original tenant Quill, and does nothing to promote racial harmony within the community.

she is white

whatever happens to her is justified becasue americas once made black people slaves

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Right question.  You're just looking in the wrong place for the answer.  It was an economic decision, as admitted by the Mayor...it was cheaper. They would have made the same decision in order to house poor people.

How the governments make or save money has no bearing on who will occupy the dwelling.

Still, it doesn't come across as fair to the original tenant Quill, and does nothing to promote racial harmony within the community.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


As a temp measure yes. This is called common sense when people are new to a country.
That is not the same is classing all religious people as a family and those not religious as not your family, but hey you never were that bright or see the danger with that.

So you don't give a stuff about this woman and her having to move from what's been her home for ages then.

Just as I thought.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you don't give a stuff about this woman and her having to move from what's been her home for ages then.

Just as I thought.

Rags lying again.
She is going to get a home, being as she is a council tennant.
So what harm is done?
Just an inconvience, nothing more, so to claim I do not care is you talking shite as per usual.
She is not being put onto the streets just now asked to move
Blimey the council tennants I know in bthe area move all the time, she may even end up with  a better place but hey ho lets allow the bigots to use this once again to bitch about refugees who are homeless driven from their home by war.

Sigh

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Rags lying again.
She is going to get a home, being as she is a council tennant.
So what harm is done?
Just an inconvience, nothing more, so to claim I do not care is you talking shite as per usual.
She is not being put onto the streets just now asked to move
Blimey the council tennants I know in bthe area move all the time, she may even end up with  a better place but hey ho lets allow the bigots to use this once again to bitch about refugees who are homeless driven from their home by war.

Sigh

You don't give a stuff about her. That's because you think refugees are more important, especially if they're not white refugees ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Rags lying again.
She is going to get a home, being as she is a council tennant.
So what harm is done?
Just an inconvience, nothing more, so to claim I do not care is you talking shite as per usual.
She is not being put onto the streets just now asked to move
Blimey the council tennants I know in bthe area move all the time, she may even end up with  a better place but hey ho lets allow the bigots to use this once again to bitch about refugees who are homeless driven from their home by war.

Sigh

You don't give a stuff about her. That's because you think refugees are more important, especially if they're not white refugees ...

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Right question.  You're just looking in the wrong place for the answer.  It was an economic decision, as admitted by the Mayor...it was cheaper. They would have made the same decision in order to house poor people.

How the governments make or save money has no bearing on who will occupy the dwelling.

Still, it doesn't come across as fair to the original tenant Quill, and does nothing to promote racial harmony within the community.

But it is Capitalism.  You're preaching to the choir; I agree with you.  If they had spent a little more money they could have kept the nurse in her home, and housed the refugees.  The Mayor admitted that he was cutting costs.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't give a stuff about her. That's because you think refugees are more important, especially if they're not white refugees ...

All I read was:

Rant, I am bitter and twisted and do not want people to find safety, because the Christian thing to do is to let them burn at the stake the heretics.


No matter how many times you come out with shite I will show it up for the crap that it is.
She is not homeless.
Refugees are homeless.
Get the picture?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


All I read was:

Rant, I am bitter and twisted and do not want people to find safety, because the Christian thing to do is to let them burn at the stake the heretics.


No matter how many times you come out with shite I will show it up for the crap that it is.
She is not homeless.
Refugees are homeless.
Get the picture?

That's because you're like Quill - you think that non-white people are more important than white people.

She has to find another place, which is proving difficult because she has a dog. I suppose you think she should just have the dog put down or something.

eddie wrote:And didge? Council Homes are considered social housing. You can't just be kicked out of your council property for no good reason (there are contracts!) and its her HOME.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's because you're like Quill - you think that non-white people are more important than white people.

She has to find another place, which is proving difficult because she has a dog. I suppose you think she should just have the dog put down or something.

Yes she should, as she does not own the home.
Again is she going to be made homeless?
No
Is she going to get a new home?
Yes
Are the refugees homeless?
Yes
Are you a complete selfish idiot?
yes

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Yes she should, as she does not own the home.
Again is she going to be made homeless?
No
Is she going to get a new home?
Yes
Are the refugees homeless?
Yes
Are you a complete selfish idiot?
yes

They can live in the place which she could move to - especially as they probably won't have a dog. There's no need to evict her.

Are you a racist moron? Oh yes you are.

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:And didge? Council Homes are considered social housing. You can't just be kicked out of your council property for no good reason (there are contracts!) and its her HOME.

This is Germany this has happened in, not the UK
I said their maybe legal issues with this but the point is what is the big deal in her having to move unless its miles from where she works as a nurse?

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They can live in the place which she could move to - especially as they probably won't have a dog. There's no need to evict her.

Are you a racist moron? Oh yes you are.

Hearsay

Next

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Hearsay

Next

You don't know what hearsay is.

Raggamuffin wrote:I wonder where she stands legally. If she hasn't broken the terms of her tenancy, they have no legal grounds to evict her.

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


This is Germany this has happened in, not the UK
I said their maybe legal issues with this but the point is what is the big deal in her having to move unless its miles from where she works as a nurse?

Some people don't like change and being uprooted and yes, before you say it, I know this has happened to the refugees but that doesnt mean this nurse has to be punished for it?!

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But it is Capitalism.  You're preaching to the choir; I agree with you.  If they had spent a little more money they could have kept the nurse in her home, and housed the refugees.  The Mayor admitted that he was cutting costs.

Exactly.
It's pure bullshit and this is just typical of the type of thing that the media pick up on and people get upset over.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I wonder where she stands legally. If she hasn't broken the terms of her tenancy, they have no legal grounds to evict her.

Well as didge rightly pointed out, this has happened in Germany, not sure if it could/would happen over here?