Namutree

I am willing to grant outright that they boost the economy. The issue is, "Does the boost justify the cost"? I asked for a citation of the German government running a surplus, as that seems to be what you claimed (perhaps I misunderstood you). It is also worth noting that refugees are not needed for increased government spending and consumption (which is claimed to be the source of the economy boost).

Ah, the joy of religious belief. Sometimes I wish I had more faith. Wut? That's not a matter of faith. That infrastructure is a good long term investment and that the private sector builds things cheaper and better than the public sector are both very grounded in reality. So you're saying that the refugees are SO helpful to the German economy simply by their very presence they boosted the economy so much the (likely) drastic increase in government spending to take care of them didn't matter? The German government actually ran a surplus? Could I get a citation? Also, if this is true; holy crap Germany is good with money.

Government spending on infrastructure is actually a good long-term economic investment though (not that private infrastructure wouldn't be better, but that's a different topic). Massive spending on consumption has little-to-no long term benefits, and all government spending has long term consequences. I'm not gonna say that refugees are the devil, but the "economy grew because the government is splurging to take care of them" argument is poor proof to the contrary. This is especially true if you bring up that the government COULD have spent all that money exclusively on Germans; which would have been much better for them. All the growth and none of the turmoil.

You have a morbid sense of humor.

Maybe I'm an odd one, but I don't see the big deal. People get killed all the time in Chicago and elsewhere. Why is this, where no one died and the suspects got caught, such a point of interest? EDIT: Regarding the supposed, BLMKidnapping, as some are calling it.

I'm not interested in expanding our nuclear capability either, but this is still far more reasonable than the F-35.

Merry Christmas!!!

Are you really comparing something like salmonella or e-coli, which can put you in the hospital immediately, to fast food? Look, I hate fast food. I haven't stepped foot in a McDonalds in about 20 years. But it is regulated and I'm glad it is. Are you arguing for stiffer regulations that make the food healthier? Are you arguing for less regulations so they can lower costs and cut corners? What is your point here? You can buy stuff and go sell sandwiches on the side of the road in the US by the way. You can do it until you get reported, at which point you will get fined and shut down. Or you can go get a permit, which is not exactly a king's ransom, demonstrate some sense of food safety, and sell food on the side of the road, depending on the property rights. Woe are we, with so many rules. Speaking of which; I just got back from a McDonalds. My friend payed so how could I say no? At any rate; I just got the side salad, apple slices, and a water. McDonalds is fine; it's people who are the problem.

That man knew what the biggest problem with horse carriages was: The horse. So, most likely his vision was that of a carriage without horses, which is essentially where we came from. This is actually a perfect example of why utopian thinking helps: the idea of the perfect horse carriage (one without a horse) has driven engineers to come up with that perfect carriage, and they did so because they had a vision. It seems you missed the point, and a horse carriage without a horse isn't a horse carriage.

I can't think of a classical liberal society that has ever become a failed state. Maybe the issue isn't that strict adherence to ideology tanked certain societies, but rather said societies had adopted a poor ideology. At any rate; even ideologies have their limits. "Utopia" as I understand it is meant to be a perfect society, but "society" to me is just a means to an end that will become obsolete. My preferred end-game isn't a society at all. If society is still a thing; then people still have a long way to go in terms of development. Being concerned about a "Perfect Society" in the future, is like a man in the 19th century worrying about the creation "perfect" horse carriage in the 21st century.

I changed my profile pic. I dare say it's even more lovely than Hoggish Greedly.

Oh, it's happening...

As individuals we strive to be different, often conflicting things.

And you don't think that the mindset where "everyone is fundamentally the same, ie. deep down exactly like me, and anybody who differs from me must do so because they're defective in their divergence from the One True Human Being" is borderline sociopathic in its solipsism at the very least shows a strong and rather unsavory authoritarian streak? He's not suggesting they need to be corrected. Only giving his opinion on how it happens. He may believe that any cure is worse than the disease. Meshugger doesn't seem to me to be a person who likes to resolve conflict with force. That particular knife cuts both ways; since open homosexuality is - much like any form of easily discerned divergence from the default - censured by society, how do you know that the very same people who'd be "straight" in such a scenario wouldn't display heterosexual behavior only for fear of negative consequences? I'm slightly confused by the question. Rephrase it so a dumber person could follow it. Are you asking, "How do I know there are straight people engaging in LGBT behavour?" or am I just being dumb?

Man, I have to use this video a lot in response to you, don't I? It's almost sad how easy it is to hit a nerve with you. I'm afraid your projecting yourself onto others. You're rationalizing how people like you (hetero-sexual) could desire to engage in 'different' kinds of sexual patterns without external material motivations. For some one who is implied (by others) to be a fascist from time-to-time you have an awfully egalitarian<-(not the correct use of the term, but best I could come up with) mindset regarding other people. But anyhow, what do you mean by external material motivations? Get a media job for being gay. Enjoy attention from your progressive friends for being LGBT and moving up the progressive stack. Enjoy the benefits of a homosexual benefactor. These would be people who are engaging in LGBT behavior, but only due to outside influence. Take away the job, progressive stack, and boyfriend cash; they'd be straight, or "normal".

I'm afraid your projecting yourself onto others. You're rationalizing how people like you (hetero-sexual) could desire to engage in 'different' kinds of sexual patterns without external material motivations. For some one who is implied (by others) to be a fascist from time-to-time you have an awfully egalitarian<-(not the correct use of the term, but best I could come up with) mindset regarding other people. How on earth does implying that homo- and transsexual people are mentally underdeveloped and burdened by various complexes betray an "egalitarian" mindset...? It was the wrong word I admit. What I mean is that he thinks people are fundamentally the same. Thus he comes up with scenarios where some one like HIM (everyone is like him you see) would behave in such ways, and projects that onto others. He thus considers them to be somewhat defective because they are defective versions of himself. Meshugger: How would I be like that? Maybe if I made myself my inner waifu. The difference between my perception of him vs me is that I think that LGBT are so absolutely different from myself that I cannot even hope to fathom why they are the way they are. Thus trying to guess seems to me a complete shot in the dark.

This is more of a thought exercise if I'm not mistaken.

I see that people who write those hateful comments always refer to refugees in general. That includes women, children and family men, who actually respect our laws instead of committing crimes. But that generalization makes less smart people think that refugees in general are the problem. Drive them all out or kill them all, and we can be save again. The problem is, that our government isn't able to put our laws through. Punish the people who break those laws, and every innocent person can be happy. But that doesn't happen. Because our government, and there's the irony, is afraid to be called racist again, if they're too rough to the refugees and other immigrants. Rather let them get away with nearly everything, so other countries can't blame us for abusing foreingers. That's where the hate comes from. Yes, our government is very sensitive when it comes to dealing with immigrant criminals. It's always been like that. The problem has only worsened with all these refugees around. People are tired of that attitude. But instead of concentrating their hate on the culprit, the government, many turn against the refugees. Including the innocent ones. And that's what I don't like at all. Very reasonable sentiment. Sadly, I can only see all of this going in a very bad direction. How bad it will be depends on how long this gets stretched out. Solutions that come sooner will be more pleasant than those that come later.

I'm afraid your projecting yourself onto others. You're rationalizing how people like you (hetero-sexual) could desire to engage in 'different' kinds of sexual patterns without external material motivations. For some one who is implied (by others) to be a fascist from time-to-time you have an awfully egalitarian<-(not the correct use of the term, but best I could come up with) mindset regarding other people. EDIT: And yes, I do understand your basic thesis. See the beginning of this episode of Lloynd in Space; I believe it conveys the baseline for your waifu theory: https://youtu.be/jABsC4dFLbs Skip the intro to 1:00

It's reasonable to expect that people who've had a collective responsibility to embrace and care for a collective of people at their own collective expense will collectivize responsibility of the actions of members of the incoming collective of people. Such is the nature of collectivism. Collectivism is all-or-nothing; you can't be choosy when collectivism applies. I'm not an expert on Germany, but I'd be willing to bet $1,000,000 that the hate speech isn't the reason any asylums are burning. While it's possible you know something about this I don't; I strongly suspect you're concluding that the reaction to the problem is the cause of the problem. Interestingly enough; this is the better solution to the hate speech than the censorship. Solve the problem, and the hate will go away. It seems you learned the wrong lesson. The common denominator for senseless state mass-murders is, government dominated discourse + hardship. Germany is actually somewhat recreating those conditions.

With the way things are going; Kanye West might become our first dictator.

Utopia is a stupid concept, and if you want one you are misguided.

I said that Europe needs more truck control. WHEN WILL THEY LEARN!!!???

They can try to stump Trump if they want, but we all know it can't be done.

Isn't this the CIA job? I thought that the CIA director would place his resignation letter alongside with the report. In any other Country there would be a sh*tstorm if the main intelligence agency issued a report that they let the foreign country to interfere in election. Imagine what Putin would do to the FIS director after such a fiasco. The CIA's main job is to suck and be a waste of money. The whole thing should be disbanded.