Since you love your country, you're not just a Nazi but a Fascist as well. After all, the libs say that nationalism is fascism because fascists were nationalists. Right? ROFLMAO.
Since you love your country, you're not just a Nazi but a Fascist as well. After all, the libs say
What many don't understand is there is a huge difference between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism means you love your country and out of that love for country you call into question any wrong doings both from foreign AND DOMESTIC threats including if need be question one's government for wrong doings for the sake of protecting your country. Nationalism is a corruption of patriotism in which loyalty to country is so obsessive that you blindly obey your government and the establishment and persecute those who question your country's actions. In others words you can love your country without being a douche about it.
What many don't understand is there is a huge difference between patriotism and nationalism. Patriot
I quite agree with you. Unfortunately, some people in power in this country imply that being Patriotic and loving your country is a bad thing, especially when you disagree with what they decree is the correct way of thinking. By "loving your country" I'm not saying that you believe your country can do no wrong, there's no such thing as a perfect country; I'm saying that you can't think of any other country you'd rather live in.
I quite agree with you. Unfortunately, some people in power in this country imply that being Patrio
The quality of families leads to the quality of the nation. Kids do best with two parents, mother and father. Single parenthood shouldn't be incentivised or encouraged.
I'm all for a legal process whereby an immigrant can become a citizen, but it should be difficult and take several years.
The quality of families leads to the quality of the nation. Kids do best with two parents, mother an
Gay people are a very small minority, so the values that are most conducive to human wellbeing overall are going to be pertaining to straight people. We know for a fact how important the family unit is to healthy societies. That doesn't mean gay people shouldn't have rights, or can't pursue monogamous relationships, adopt children etc etc. There is nothing to reconcile. I don't place gay and straight people on opposing sides, where one side must be proven "right" and the other must lose everything.
Gay people are a very small minority, so the values that are most conducive to human wellbeing overa
If you think the law should apply equally to all, how can you reconcile that with the belief that things should only be given to citizens? Because such a policy would require a law, a law which would say that one group gets treated differently.
If you think the law should apply equally to all, how can you reconcile that with the belief that th
If you think the law should apply equally to all, how can you reconcile that with the belief that things should only be given to citizens? silly notion to me.. i humbly do think that many services and benefits should only be offered free, only to actual citizens.. otherwise, for example free healthcare, could be misused harshly by "health tourists" who are suffering from detrimental or lethal illness, inconvenience etc.. and their only reason to come in to the country in the first place is to have a "medical emergency" while being there, and getting in the free healthcare system, getting highly expensive treatments for free they have not chipped in to with taxes etc.. things required from actual citizens.. same goes with social services like giving people money for food, housing and such. sure it is a "nice" and "humane" way to think that every person on this planet is equal and that anyone coming through countrys borders automatically have same rights for theses services as actual citizens do.
Refugees , just for example.. depending on how one defines what a refugee is..according to U.N. "Refugees are people who have fled war, violence, conflict or persecution and have crossed an international border to find safety in another country. someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” in broadest sense that definition could be applied in to a quarter (or more) population of africa. And the sad truth is, no matter how nice and humane it would be for europe or any single country to help them survive, the economy,food production or health services of whole of europe could not handle influx of hundreds of millions of people flowing in.. that would collapse european economies as a whole, so we can't help everyone in need.. and if we just help "some"... well..
If we take only those who can get access to illegal smuggling rings and such, then we are basically taking in the "richest" and well of middle class portions of africans, and leave the poorest to fend for themselves.. basically leaving those who need the aid the most , out of it.. and we are playing favoritism, taking in only those who can afford to pay thousands of euros for the trip... and even at this moment, when the influx of refugees is only in few million people, europe is not handling it well, and tentcamps etc.. have arisen in major european cities. the strain on the economies from the refugees we already have is getting quite heavy.. and is in the long run unsustainable.
We in europe kinda have to face some really harsh truths, that it is sadly not our responsibility to help, nurture, doctor and feed the rest of the world, or to solve every war and conflict that is going on. best we can do is try to offer help locally and support on site refugee camps and such, and not taking unnecessary refugees inside europe.. since we can't take them all, it would be extremely unfair to just take in the richest who can afford the journey, .. that is fully counter intuitive and goes against the purpose of said refugee programs.
i fully support things like, nordic european wellfare systems that keep the people off streets and fed, but i don't think those benefits should extend to any non citizen who is capable of crossing borders. To me, that is just common sense, not racism. in the long run, europe has to be able to take care of its own well enough, and keep up the economies and systems that are in place, so that europe stays in well enough shape that it is able to give help around the globe to those in actual need.
and what comes to the original question. national laws only apply to the citizens of the nation and people visiting that nation, like tourists. and even then it is mostly criminal law. wellfare laws were not ment to be applied to non citizens to begin with, it is not their intention.
If you think the law should apply equally to all, how can you reconcile that with the belief that th
I see your values are the same as mine, no honest English citizen would see things any differently... Such a shame too many see socialism as some kind of cure-all to the global woes and yet those who have lived under such have known nothing but woe...
I see your values are the same as mine, no honest English citizen would see things any differently..
