Ben No.3

are you actually giving me ammunition by this? Or this proves that this whole discussion is troll attempt?In Germany, we don't shoot people anymore, we find that sort of against human rights. But if you want to, go ahead. But aim carefully. Obviously I'm joking around a bit... Don't know how to stay optimistic otherwise. But my points are valid.

Then again, I'm not educated either... How do I fix the quote?

This is not only extremely offensive, it is also simply wrong. The refugees are mostly from Syria, not turkey. Most German Turks don't give a sh!t about Islam. We have two members of the CDU in parliament that are German Turks. CDU stands for Christliche Demokratische Union, which means Christian democratic union. While they are not really a Christian party (anymore), these members are officially Muslim, which just shows how unimportant religion is by now. And I can think of not a single German Turk whom I know personally or who is a public figure who supports erdogans policies. Sadly, turkey is an important ally due to its geographical location. And I assume by burning cars in Paris you refer to the terrorist attacks. You do realise that te terrorists were born in Belgium? They were EU citizens since birth, not refugees Also, if you want to show me your level of education, I'd recommend you use correct grammar and perhaps fact check your claims that all German Turks are supporters of erdogan, looking to spread Islam and burning cars every other day in Paris 1) I was not the one attacking opposition as uneducated, it was you 2) 5 seconds of google - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36937891 3) as for burning cars - you were the one stating that second or third generation of immigrants will be integrated, I was not talking about terrorist, I was talking about these generations in paris - 10 seconds of googling and skipping half of pages some could consider not reliable - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30653784 man you are really lost, hardly to believe you are not Bruce 3 million German Turks, and a few thousand demonstrators represent them all? If that were true, the few thousand neo Nazis would represent all Germans, so does that apply? Also please read more than the headline, a demonstrator states that the demonstrators are not pro Erdogan but against the coup that the military has attempted in summer. About being uneducated... I was giving a brief explanation about how populism works, not attacking you. And even if I tried, the level of education is mostly determined by government, the single person carries no blame. About Paris... I assume you are aware of the fact that the article you linked shows that there were less cars set on fire?

I am getting lost, what is your point? Why do you want to govern other people who don't wish it? You agree with Merkel that you want refugees illegal immigrants as benefit to your country - yet you try to stuff them into other countries which don't wish them. Whole Germany is walking contradiction in EUMy point is, the refugees need help, and we, as in the entire EU, are in a position that allows us to help. So in my opinion, it is the only right think to do (especially for countries like Germany, France, te Scandinavians, and until recently Britain). Besides, I already pointed out how the EU will gain from the refugees within a few decades. Two or three maybe. Further, I believe that a lack of education regarding the EU and its function as well as its actions leads to people to blame many problems on the EU that are often not directly or even not at all related with the EU. People do not realise anymore how much stability and growth the EU provides, they take it as given. This created a dangerous situation where right winged parties gain more and more support, and Brexit only enhances that further. Why in a situation with many immigrants a strong right wing is not ideal I don't think I need to point out. 4) I must missed that your point where EU gains from refugees, can you point me to it please? All I see is 3 millions of Turks in Germany praising islamisation of Turkey and Erdogan's purges, burning cars on Paris outskirts, immigrants in Calai jumping into trucks5) your view on anyone who don't share your view on EU as uneducated as indoctrination This is not only extremely offensive, it is also simply wrong. The refugees are mostly from Syria, not turkey.Most German Turks don't give a sh!t about Islam. We have two members of the CDU in parliament that are German Turks. CDU stands for Christliche Demokratische Union, which means Christian democratic union. While they are not really a Christian party (anymore), these members are officially Muslim, which just shows how unimportant religion is by now. And I can think of not a single German Turk whom I know personally or who is a public figure who supports erdogans policies. Sadly, turkey is an important ally due to its geographical location. And I assume by burning cars in Paris you refer to the terrorist attacks. You do realise that te terrorists were born in Belgium? They were EU citizens since birth, not refugees Also, if you want to show me your level of education, I'd recommend you use correct grammar and perhaps fact check your claims that all German Turks are supporters of erdogan, looking to spread Islam and burning cars every other day in Paris

Sounds about right, yesWhat point are you trying to make?

I am getting lost, what is your point? Why do you want to govern other people who don't wish it? You agree with Merkel that you want refugees illegal immigrants as benefit to your country - yet you try to stuff them into other countries which don't wish them. Whole Germany is walking contradiction in EUMy point is, the refugees need help, and we, as in the entire EU, are in a position that allows us to help. So in my opinion, it is the only right think to do (especially for countries like Germany, France, te Scandinavians, and until recently Britain). Besides, I already pointed out how the EU will gain from the refugees within a few decades. Two or three maybe. Further, I believe that a lack of education regarding the EU and its function as well as its actions leads to people to blame many problems on the EU that are often not directly or even not at all related with the EU. People do not realise anymore how much stability and growth the EU provides, they take it as given. This created a dangerous situation where right winged parties gain more and more support, and Brexit only enhances that further. Why in a situation with many immigrants a strong right wing is not ideal I don't think I need to point out.

lol communism is NOT anarchy, you clearly are not old enough xD. And by the way why east european states doesnt want EU is precisely because we already had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comecon read it and think as for leading figures... did you ever voted for Junker? did you ever voted for Tusk? Have you ever read Marx? The final stage of communism is an anarchist society without any government. This should be reached through a revolution and a temporary dictate of the proletariat, which Marx refers to as socialism. All real-world "communist" states never got beyond this stage. However, Marx himself admitted his goals were unreachable due to human nature. yeah I am not talking about Marxism, which may sound like nice idea but look where it end in reality. Again you need to work with facts and historical evidence, not with you wet dreamsYou were the one to say communism isn't anarchy. I was not making historical references to communist regimes in the past, I referred to the philosophical idea of communism.Yeah I get feeling that everything you write here is only philosophical idea, I am trying to show you how such ideas end up in reality I'd say the refugees and importance of the European Union as both a political and economic union of common interest as well as its role in peacekeeping is pretty real. As is the EUs state of instability that is not exactly helped by with Brexit

lol communism is NOT anarchy, you clearly are not old enough xD. And by the way why east european states doesnt want EU is precisely because we already had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comecon read it and think as for leading figures... did you ever voted for Junker? did you ever voted for Tusk? Have you ever read Marx? The final stage of communism is an anarchist society without any government. This should be reached through a revolution and a temporary dictate of the proletariat, which Marx refers to as socialism. All real-world "communist" states never got beyond this stage. However, Marx himself admitted his goals were unreachable due to human nature. yeah I am not talking about Marxism, which may sound like nice idea but look where it end in reality. Again you need to work with facts and historical evidence, not with you wet dreams You were the one to say communism isn't anarchy. I was not making historical references to communist regimes in the past, I referred to the philosophical idea of communism.

lol communism is NOT anarchy, you clearly are not old enough xD. And by the way why east european states doesnt want EU is precisely because we already had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comecon read it and think as for leading figures... did you ever voted for Junker? did you ever voted for Tusk? Have you ever read Marx? The final stage of communism is an anarchist society without any government. This should be reached through a revolution and a temporary dictate of the proletariat, which Marx refers to as socialism. All real-world "communist" states never got beyond this stage.Get your philosophy right However, Marx himself admitted his goals were unreachable due to human nature. He himself said his communist vision would need perfect humans to work.

Leviathan, as in the monster? See, while in theory, communism (which is an anarchy) surely is the best system. But it does not work. Any attempt to create a communist country has failed. And that is became humans are exactly that, humans. And everyone seeks advantage over the other. So some form of government needs to be put in place because otherwise chaos arises. And while "democracy is the worst system but the others" (Churchill), our system gives us 1. A system that splits up the power so no single figure can become the most powerful figure and basically be an autocrat 2. A system were the leading figures are not determined by the elite but by everyone. By the way, isn't it "sic semper tyrannis"?

No. You're suggesting it's more peaceful within the EU than say 15 years ago? I don't think so. No I'm saying it's more peaceful BECAUSE of the EU than say, between 1914 and 1945.Based on *what* exactly? Someone asked about your age and you dismissed it as irrelevant if I remember correctly (sorry, at work now, so not enough time to read through the entire thread again). But age matter, because if you are old enough, you'll know that EU is completely irrelevant and impotent when it comes to peacekeeping. What ensured peace in Europe since 1945 and until the recently was the threat of the Warzaw Pact countries and the membership of NATO. While that is true, the EU plays a huge part in peacekeeping in Europe. How you ask? The European coal and steel Union is a great example. Those two goods are critically important to produce weapons, and they are produced as a European good rather than a national one. I am sure you can see how this assures peace. The EU binds its members in a way that makes it hard for a single country to start a war against the others.

Out of interest: would you rather go with kind wayfarer or shieldbarer from a moral perspective?

They'll also fit the undead-theme... Some of them attack with poisons and the like

Yeah, our two countries may not have an ideal history with each other... But Brexit really messes things up. :/

Obviously creating a better Europe would be the best option. Only that is a bit late now, isn't it? What else should tge EU do in your opinion? What, that does not make leaving more attractive than staying?

"MOOOREE!!" -Zahua(it's one of the possible things he'll say when you hit him)

Nice job... Well done... But sadly, I meant that no COUNTRY will gain from punishment, however it may stablise the EU and thus the REFUGEES will gain from it. But I will be more clear next time Why does the EU need to punish countries? Sadly, people don't understand the EU. And because they don't understand it, it seems strange to them, not to be trusted. So anything bad that happens is quickly blamed on it. That's why populism works so well right now. And why help the refugees? Because the EU is rich, and the refugees need help. It is a matter of empathy. Also, we can gain a lot, as I said before.

Nobody gains from punishing Britain. It is not about gain, it is about avoiding futher loss to further countries leaving the EU. Obviously work needs to be done to integrate the refugees. And without Brexit, things would have been a lot simpler. But with it more and more people talk about leaving in more and more countries, so it needs to be shown that leaving is not a good option I am afraid. Life is brutal. In the long run, Britain will hopefully become a valuable trade partner, and everyone will gain from that. But right now further "leaves" need to be avoided. Brexit is besides many other problems also very ill timed

We gain nothing from refugees? They are millions of people willing to work, most of them educated, some even with a degree. A lot speak English. Their children can be send to schools to learn native languages, within one generation the former refugees will have become a efficient part of society. Which is a gain for both the refugees and the EU. Everyone wins and flies of on pink winged unicorns into the rainbow. Hooray!!And as I said, if Britain will not be treated harshly at first, other countries may follow, and especially now, that would be catastrophical for the EU. Besides what is the alternative? Send them back? Send them to turkey? Neither are good...

It is not good or fair, but it is the lesser of two evils. One can sustain itself, the other not. But that's just my opinion

Punish a rich country by simply not giving it AS GOOD deals as other countries because it behaves in a way that has never been dealt with in order to help millions of people that have fled from war? I'd say it sounds pretty okay... Someone has to loose, so who should it be? The refugees or the rich country?

Hardly unexpected is it? We rocked the gravy train, and now Brussels wishes to punish us for that, and send a clear warning to any other member states wanting independence and freedom. It's a sign of things to come I warrant.You will agree with me that having all of the trade advantages of being a EU member while not being a member of the EU isn't particularly fair towards EU members. You cannot make leaving the EU an attractive choice. Besides, that definition of "freedom" is am interesting one... Nobody seeks to conquer Europe. No I don't agree, Europe benefits from trade with as many partners as possible, this is just childish, petty, despotic and proves we were right to exit this institution. It is not the EUs right to punish anyone for leaving a union that no voter has approved. Freedom is a countries right to self govern, and there are many methods to conquer, not just conventional military ones. The EU Union is at a state of risks through the refugee crisis anyway, the Brexit is not really helping it. Yes, obviously it is not fair to go hard on Britain, and under other circumstances of say go ahead and make deals. But right now the Brexit makes voices all across Europe to leave louder, and that just makes the refugee crisis worse. Even worse if more countries leave. The refugees need help, but in order to help efficiently we need a working EU. And Brexit is not exactly making the EU more stable, so right now, it is important to avoid other countries from leaving, so the first few years of Brexit will be though. Obviously later on it can be loosend ...

In my defence: I purposely missed out three points from stat allocation to not include culture or race. I thought that should be up to you.

Hardly unexpected is it? We rocked the gravy train, and now Brussels wishes to punish us for that, and send a clear warning to any other member states wanting independence and freedom. It's a sign of things to come I warrant.You will agree with me that having all of the trade advantages of being a EU member while not being a member of the EU isn't particularly fair towards EU members. You cannot make leaving the EU an attractive choice. Besides, that definition of "freedom" is am interesting one... Nobody seeks to conquer Europe.

What is this related to? What point are you trying to make?Obviously the EU is not gonna treat the UK particularly nice. In my opinion that is a good move, as otherwise it makes leaving the EU to attractive for other countries. But that's just me