Såpeboksen - Når du har noe du vil si

[snartenkt]

De ønsker tydeligvis assimileringspolitikk, men dette bryter da mot internasjonale menneskerettigheter?

De ønsker ingen assimileringspolitikk (ihvertfall hvis du tenker på at innvandre skal bli tvunget til å miste sin kultur). Sverigedemokratene er egentlig ikke så ekstreme, men i Sverige er du per definisjon rasist om du ønsker å begrense innvandringen, spesielt om du ønsker å begrense den med 90% som SD ønsker. Men en slik politikk er ikke i nærheten av å være rasistisk, det er bare Sverige som er et veldig ekstremt land. Er Japan, Sør-Korea, New Zealand, Danmark og masse andre land rasistiske?

 

Dette er hovedpunktene til SD.

* En restriktiv invandringspolitik

* En utökad flyktinghjälp i krisområdenas närhet

* Ett stärkande av den svenska kulturen

* En öppen svenskhet med krav på invandrares anpassning och assimilering till det svenska samhället

* Ökat stöd till de invandrare som frivilligt önskar återvända till sina hemländer

Sitat fra sidene deres:

 

"En återgång till den assimileringspolitik som gällde fram till mitten av 1970-talet"

Og? Er politikken de hadde på 1970-tallet så mye å skamme seg over. Førte de rasististisk politikk på 1970-tallet.

Er ikke en assimileringspolitikk et brudd på menneskerettighetene?

[Kaarerekanraadi]

Menneskerettighetsbegrepet er dratt ut for vidt. Det har blitt meningsløst.

[Coa]

Ganske trist å se reportasjer som dette. At mennesker som kommer i håp om en bedre fremtid blir behandlet som dyr, er rett og slett forferdelig. Greit nok at Hellas avslår såpass mange asylsøknader som de gjør, men man trenger vel ikke å behandle dem så stygt? Forståelig at de har sprengt all kapasiteten på diverse asylmottak, men likevel.

 

Reagerer også på hovedoverskriften i artikkelen. På selve hovedsiden er overskriften ” Se rasismen som sjokkerer verden”, på selve artikkelen heter det ” Se asyl-rasismen som sjokkerer verden”. For det første, når ble det rasistisk å behandle asylsøkere dårlig? Dette har da absolutt ingenting med rase å gjøre, men hvordan de aktuelle asylsøkerne oppfører seg. Som det ble opplyst om i videoen reagerer grekerne på det de oppfatter som bråkete, møkkete og kriminelle personer som har slått seg ned midt i parken deres. For det andre, så vidt jeg vet er ikke asylsøkere en rase. Da blir det tullete å si ” Se asyl-rasismen som sjokkerer verden”. Så om jeg behandler en asylsøker dårlig er jeg plutselig en asylrasist? Tror en viss journalist må lære seg hva rasisme er og ikke er.

[Simon Aldra]

The tea party is mostly about collective anger and frustration towards government. It will fall apart once they start promoting specific policies. They are too diverse a group and too individualistic to hold it together

That's indeed possible, but I've seen enough in politics to never write off a political movement. Most protest movements end up in the bin of history, but you really never know.

 

Today's 20 somethings grew up in a different era than their parents and have been taught to accept diversity and were exposed to much diversity since birth. THey also have seen the rapid decline of mainstream established churches and are not exposed to religion as much as their parents. This has made them much more accepting of social issues and differences.

Even so, I'm not sure. It's a strong point, and I don't really opose it, but I still think it'll take more time than ten years. The people who are 50 and 60 today will be 60 and 70 in ten years, and still be able to be active in politics, especially senators and members of the house tend to sit for a long time once they get going, not to mention that the average age of those elected into congress isn't exactly 30. I guess that's what I'm getting at.

 

Old habits are hard to break but this attitude has to do with an historical aversion to powerful governments. From the very beginning america represented escape from central authority, a chance to live outside of government and social codes. Immigrants were fiercely independent and romanticised the notion of self reliance.

While that is true, it also represented liberty and democracy. To use someone's political beliefs against him in a setting like this is, after all, quite undemocratic. It's also very inaccurate. Being a communist means different things to different people. Being a communist may mean that you support totalitarian regimes, but generally speaking, most modern communists are pacifists who spend most of their time on social reform, liberalising it, and providing services to people.

 

I won't even defend the question about nazism in the form. Even so, there is a difference. While you can be a communist without being a stalinist. With nazism, though, you don't get that fractionism and differing of opinions.

 

More importantly, if it's legal to be a communist in the United States, it's a disgrace to make it a requirement for entry into the United States not being a communist. It's a double standard that's as archaic as the idea that the government shouldn't build bleeding roads.

 

A simple example between our two cultures is the use of the word "cowboy". Norwegians rarely use the term to connote brave, self reliant, respectful gentlemen that americans use. Instead norwegians use it as a term of derision used to describe out of control, greedy bastards. Cowboys violate rules of conformity and jante law so firmly held by noregians.

It think you're presenting a picture that's, honestly, quite limited as to how reality is. The draw to the cowboy culture is quite strong in Norway, it has been for ages, and it still is. Some of the most popular music in Norway, as a genre, is country, home grown or from Nashville. It's not a part of fine culture, but then again, neither is most Norwegians.

 

One thing I think is more interesting is how the word "liberal" is used in the states. The definition of liberal seem to be "socialist". To hear people talk of "liberals raising taxes", is like hearing people say "the Legalize Marihuana League wants to make marihuana illegal". It just doesn't make sense.

 

Voters in both our nations want politicians who are like the people they represent. The real reason americans are religious is likely first of all because the founders of early america came to escape religious intolerance from europe. They wanted to have the freedom to worship as they pleased. It can be said that since the church was a strong and sometimes oppressive authority in europe, europeans wanted freedom from religion, whereas americans wanted freedom TO worship in their own way. In this way church and religion got a bad name in europe and a good name in america.

I think it's a good analasys. I still think it's ironic. However, the problem is that church and state is in no way seperated from government in the US. And it does put the brakes on progress from time to time.

 

The other issue not often understood is that european state churches were monopolistic and were considered a duty whereas american churches competed for its congregations and evolved with the changing populace. This is still evident today as old established churches that came from europe like lutherans (germany and scandinavia),episcopalians (church of england), presbyterians (scotland) and catholicism have seen rapid decline similar to their european congregations but new more flexible mega churches have risen in their place.

 

Still, atheism is on the rise and the best statistics I have read show that only 25 percent of americans are steady churchgoers.

I highly doubt that it's only 25 percent, but as for the future, we'll just have to see, I guess.

 

As far as politicians go, americans like their presidents to have a faith because they think it is and indication of someone attempting to have good morals. They also recognize that christianity in america is wildly diverse, with both liberal and conservative sects. Too often norwegians only see religion as intolerant and conservative. The interesting thing is that it almost doesnt matter what religion that is. Romney, who is a mormon has a realistic shot at being president.

Religion has become a dirty word in Norway. But I think that's largely because it's been seen as an obstacle to progress in too many issues.

 

The most disappointing aspect of norwegians I have talked to and debated is the inability to see the legitimacy of conservatism, they seem to view it like facism, there cannot be any legitimate form of it that isn't tragically unfair. Educated americans see the differences of liberalism and conservatism more in the light of different approaches designed to solve problems in different ways. Sure, there are idiots on both sides but true conservatism is a legitimate ideology that just selects differnt premises than their liberal counterpart.

All ideologies are legitimate in my book. I've got no problem with conservatism, in a lot of areas, I'm conservative myself. But the one thing I've never been able to tolerate, is conservatism that serves no purpose. It shouldn't limit people's freedom, and it shouldn't really be obstructive. If it is, it's a problem. If not, I've got no problem with it.

[jjkoggan]

 

That's indeed possible, but I've seen enough in politics to never write off a political movement. Most protest movements end up in the bin of history, but you really never know.

 

It serves an important purpose and shows that democracy in america is still alive and well, even if it falls apart later.

 

Even so, I'm not sure. It's a strong point, and I don't really opose it, but I still think it'll take more time than ten years. The people who are 50 and 60 today will be 60 and 70 in ten years, and still be able to be active in politics, especially senators and members of the house tend to sit for a long time once they get going, not to mention that the average age of those elected into congress isn't exactly 30. I guess that's what I'm getting at.

 

Helt enig.

While that is true, it also represented liberty and democracy. To use someone's political beliefs against him in a setting like this is, after all, quite undemocratic. It's also very inaccurate. Being a communist means different things to different people. Being a communist may mean that you support totalitarian regimes, but generally speaking, most modern communists are pacifists who spend most of their time on social reform, liberalising it, and providing services to people.

 

I suspect this is a remnant of Mccarthyism that hasn't been looked at. Still, a sovereign state has the right to be undemocratic and selective in who they accept as citizens, though I think it sends mixed signals to immigrants.

 

 

 

 

 

It think you're presenting a picture that's, honestly, quite limited as to how reality is. The draw to the cowboy culture is quite strong in Norway, it has been for ages, and it still is. Some of the most popular music in Norway, as a genre, is country, home grown or from Nashville. It's not a part of fine culture, but then again, neither is most Norwegians.

 

Cowboys are part of american identity and a source of pride even though the hollywood version is a myth. THis is why they almost never would conceive of using it in a derogatory manner.

 

Norwegians, like other europeans often have a love-hate relationship to american culture. They don't respect it but love it nevertheless. They think it is vulgar, destructive and unsophisticated but still emulate it and buy it. The words McDonalds and cowboys are often use to show what is wrong with america at the same time there are more Mcdonalds hamburgers sold in europe than in the USA today and cowboy music and movies are popular. To americans it can seem like ignorant hypocrisy, to whine about culture while consuming it.

 

When was the last time the word "cowboy" was used to describe Bush in a positive light?\

 

One thing I think is more interesting is how the word "liberal" is used in the states. The definition of liberal seem to be "socialist". To hear people talk of "liberals raising taxes", is like hearing people say "the Legalize Marihuana League wants to make marihuana illegal". It just doesn't make sense.

 

Liberalism in the USA refers to social justice, to "liberate" the slaves of capitalism. To do this government intervention is required. Libertarianism refers to freedom from government intervention and is the opposite.

 

 

I think it's a good analasys. I still think it's ironic. However, the problem is that church and state is in no way seperated from government in the US. And it does put the brakes on progress from time to time.

If you mean that religious values are reflected in our politicians and laws then yes, such is the way of democracy. The civil rights movement could not have existed were it not for religious values for social justice and the strength of the black churches. Dr. Martin Luther King was also "Reverend King". Otherwise, the intersection of church and state is very limited, especially because an all out war would begin if one religious sect held official status over another.

.

 

I highly doubt that it's only 25 percent, but as for the future, we'll just have to see, I guess.

 

I can show you the data that when americans are asked if they go to church regularly the number is close to 40 percent. When they are actually counted the number is closed to 25%. Still affection and respect for religion is high.

 

Religion has become a dirty word in Norway. But I think that's largely because it's been seen as an obstacle to progress in too many issues.

 

This depends on your definition of "progress" and what approach you think is best. If it weren't for religion in america the civil rights movement nor americas great tradition of charity would likely not be as strong.

 

All ideologies are legitimate in my book. I've got no problem with conservatism, in a lot of areas, I'm conservative myself. But the one thing I've never been able to tolerate, is conservatism that serves no purpose. It shouldn't limit people's freedom, and it shouldn't really be obstructive. If it is, it's a problem. If not, I've got no problem with it.

A lot of it depends on whether you believe government can solve social problems or not. Scandinavia has shown that in a homogeneous population with a more collectivist culture it works quite well because is requires trust and collaboration. In a more heterogeneous culture where trust and collaboration is weak it is less likely liberalism would work well. Were 3 million ethnic norwegians supporting 1 million muslims who they viewed as lazy assholes, the concept of social justice might erode. Early stages of this has already begun in sweden.

Endret 7. oktober 2010 av jjkoggan

[Gjest Slettet+9817324]

UFOer eksisterer.....grunnen til at dem ikke vil vise seg offentlig kan vere saa enkelt at dem ikke vil at det skal oppstaa panikk og/eller vold mot dem , de er nok sky oxo.

Endret 7. oktober 2010 av Slettet+9817324

[b-real]

Noen som trenger en forklaring på hva UFO står for igjen?

[Spenol]

jkoggan,

 

Jeg venter spent på argumentene for at MSNBC er sammenlignbar med Fox.

 

It is not as popular but it tries just as hard to project political opinion. It tries to emulate Fox.

Hva med å svare på argumentene mine?

 

If you can't see that both FOX and MSNBC employ political pundits who attempt not to illuminate issues with balanced journalism but rather distort and selectively choose information to promote political agendas then you haven't watched them. Each side demonises the other. You can argue that one is better than the other at political propaganda but not that they both don't spew propaganda intended to persuade.

Hvorfor unnlater du å diskutere det som mest av alt skiller Fox fra ekte nyhetskanaler, nemlig at Fox er den eneste som arrangerer, promoterer og finansierer politiske protestbevegelser (Tea Parties) mot regjeringen?

 

 

Og hvorfor nevner du ingenting om at Fox ikke har en eneste Demokrat/liberal som programleder?

 

Du nevner heller ingenting om at Fox driver med utstrakt bruk av dirty tricks som bildemanipulering av motstandere, redigering av Wikipedia og mange andre propagandatriks. En av klassikerne er å "komme i skade for" å fremstille kriminelle/skandaleomsuste Republikaner som Demokrater, som de gjorde med både Mark Foley og Mark Sandford:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/24/fox-news-identifies-sanfo_n_220377.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/10/04/oreilly-factor-labels-_e_30927.html

 

Kan du nevne noen andre amerikanske nyhetskanaler som har donert 1 million dollar til GOP?

[Spenol]

A lot of it depends on whether you believe government can solve social problems or not. Scandinavia has shown that in a homogeneous population with a more collectivist culture it works quite well because is requires trust and collaboration. In a more heterogeneous culture where trust and collaboration is weak it is less likely liberalism would work well. Were 3 million ethnic norwegians supporting 1 million muslims who they viewed as lazy assholes, the concept of social justice might erode. Early stages of this has already begun in sweden.

 

Dette har du faktisk helt rett i. Den skandinaviske velferdsmodellen vil til slutt ikke tåle en stadig voksende befolkningsdel som ikke gir noe tilbake til systemet.

[jjkoggan]

 

 

Kan du nevne noen andre amerikanske nyhetskanaler som har donert 1 million dollar til GOP?

 

 

 

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics

 

And Fox doesn't have it's top managers on Obamas advisory board. Jeffery Immelt is on Obamas economic advisory board. Just look him up.

 

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-Democrats-got-88-percent-of-TV-network-employee-campaign-contributions-101668063.html#ixzz11iBbIdfF

Endret 7. oktober 2010 av jjkoggan

[Spenol]

 

 

Kan du nevne noen andre amerikanske nyhetskanaler som har donert 1 million dollar til GOP?

 

 

 

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics

 

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-Democrats-got-88-percent-of-TV-network-employee-campaign-contributions-101668063.html#ixzz11iBbIdfF

 

Koggan please...

 

Dette kan ikke engang sammenlignes. Jeg snakker om én pengegave fra News Corporation, som selskap, gitt på en og samme tid til GOP.

 

Saken du snakker om dreier seg om 1160 forskjellige personer i mange forskjellige selskaper, som PERSONLIG har gitt penger til Obama-kampanjen.

 

Registrerer at du igjen hopper over de viktigste punktene i argumentasjonen min.

[jjkoggan]

 

 

Kan du nevne noen andre amerikanske nyhetskanaler som har donert 1 million dollar til GOP?

 

 

 

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics

 

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-Democrats-got-88-percent-of-TV-network-employee-campaign-contributions-101668063.html#ixzz11iBbIdfF

 

Koggan please...

 

Dette kan ikke engang sammenlignes. Jeg snakker om én pengegave fra News Corporation, som selskap, gitt på en og samme tid til GOP.

 

Saken du snakker om dreier seg om 1160 forskjellige personer i mange forskjellige selskaper, som PERSONLIG har gitt penger til Obama-kampanjen.

 

Registrerer at du igjen hopper over de viktigste punktene i argumentasjonen min.

 

No, just ask Jeffrey Immelt CEO over GE/NBC why he is on Obama's advisory board. Furthermore having 88 percent of media employees on your side has to only be a good thing and rivals the million dollar FOX contribution.

[snartenkt]

Menneskerettighetsbegrepet er dratt ut for vidt. Det har blitt meningsløst.

Hva mener du? Er det ikke en menneskerett å beholde egen kultur, religion, osv.?

[Spenol]

 

 

Kan du nevne noen andre amerikanske nyhetskanaler som har donert 1 million dollar til GOP?

 

 

 

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics

 

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-Democrats-got-88-percent-of-TV-network-employee-campaign-contributions-101668063.html#ixzz11iBbIdfF

 

Koggan please...

 

Dette kan ikke engang sammenlignes. Jeg snakker om én pengegave fra News Corporation, som selskap, gitt på en og samme tid til GOP.

 

Saken du snakker om dreier seg om 1160 forskjellige personer i mange forskjellige selskaper, som PERSONLIG har gitt penger til Obama-kampanjen.

 

Registrerer at du igjen hopper over de viktigste punktene i argumentasjonen min.

 

No, just ask Jeffrey Immelt CEO over GE/NBC why he is on Obama's advisory board. Furthermore having 88 percent of media employees on your side has to only be a good thing and rivals the million dollar FOX contribution.

Du synes ikke dette blir for intellektuelt uærlig? Du vet like godt som meg at ingen av de andre nyhetskanalene har donert penger til kun ett av partiene, og heller ikke en slik størrelsesorden.

 

Jeffrey Immelt har for øvrig ingenting med NBC eller MSNBC å gjøre. Han er CEO i General Electric, som tilfeldigvis eier disse to kanalene.

 

Men jeg spør enda en gang: Hvorfor svarer du ikke på andre argumentene?

[Spenol]

Bare ut av ren nyskjerrighet; hvor står du selv politisk, jjkoggan? Og hvem stemte du på ved forrige presidentvalg?

[Spenol]

Jeg fant nettopp ut at Fox også har gitt 1 million dollar en annen GOP-tilknyttet gruppe, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42989.html

[jjkoggan]

 

Jeffrey Immelt har for øvrig ingenting med NBC eller MSNBC å gjøre. Han er CEO i General Electric, som tilfeldigvis eier disse to kanalene.

 

 

 

GE eier MSNBC og Immelt er CEO. At du mener han har ingenting er gjøre med det han eier og har makten synes jeg er ganske naivt og sneversynt. Er det slik at Murdoch ikke har noe å gjøre med FOX NEWS fordi han eier så mye annet?

 

Hva vil du jeg svare på, at FN er verre enn MSNBC? Det har du rett i. Likevel spiller MSNBC sin rolle også, men som sagt ikke er så flink som FN:

[Spenol]

 

Jeffrey Immelt har for øvrig ingenting med NBC eller MSNBC å gjøre. Han er CEO i General Electric, som tilfeldigvis eier disse to kanalene.

 

 

 

GE eier MSNBC og Immelt er CEO. At du mener han har ingenting er gjøre med det han eier og har makten synes jeg er ganske naivt og sneversynt. Er det slik at Murdoch ikke har noe å gjøre med FOX NEWS fordi han eier så mye annet?

 

Hva vil du jeg svare på, at FN er verre enn MSNBC? Det har du rett i. Likevel spiller MSNBC sin rolle også, men som sagt ikke er så flink som FN:

Jeg vil bare at du slutter å sidestille Fox med legitime nyhetskanaler som MSNBC, av den grunn at de ikke er sammenlignbare. Det er fake fairness.

 

MSNBC har overvekt av reportere med åpen liberal bias (selv i forhold til CNN og ABC), men der stopper likhetene. FNC er en 24-timers reklamekampanje for Det republikanske partiet, som arrangerer og finansierer Tea Parties og andre anti-Obama rallies (eksempelvis "Restoring Honor"-tullet til Glenn Beck), og gir enorme pengesummer til GOP - både i form av cash og i form av gratisreklame for politiske kandidater fra GOP. Ikke bare det, men presidentkandidater (og andre toppolitikere) fra GOP har sine egne show på kanalen (f.eks. Mike Huckabee Show)! Republikanske politikere som Newt Gingrich og Sarah Palin blir intervjuet nesten daglig på kanalen, til tross for at de ikke har noen politiske verv eller noen form for reell makt!

[jjkoggan]

 

Jeffrey Immelt har for øvrig ingenting med NBC eller MSNBC å gjøre. Han er CEO i General Electric, som tilfeldigvis eier disse to kanalene.

 

 

 

GE eier MSNBC og Immelt er CEO. At du mener han har ingenting er gjøre med det han eier og har makten synes jeg er ganske naivt og sneversynt. Er det slik at Murdoch ikke har noe å gjøre med FOX NEWS fordi han eier så mye annet?

 

Hva vil du jeg svare på, at FN er verre enn MSNBC? Det har du rett i. Likevel spiller MSNBC sin rolle også, men som sagt ikke er så flink som FN:

Jeg vil bare at du slutter å sidestille Fox med legitime nyhetskanaler som MSNBC, av den grunn at de ikke er sammenlignbare. Det er fake fairness.

 

MSNBC har overvekt av reportere med åpen liberal bias (selv i forhold til CNN og ABC), men der stopper likhetene. FNC er en 24-timers reklamekampanje for Det republikanske partiet, som arrangerer og finansierer Tea Parties og andre anti-Obama rallies (eksempelvis "Restoring Honor"-tullet til Glenn Beck), og gir enorme pengesummer til GOP - både i form av cash og i form av gratisreklame for politiske kandidater fra GOP. Ikke bare det, men presidentkandidater (og andre toppolitikere) fra GOP har sine egne show på kanalen (f.eks. Mike Huckabee Show)! Republikanske politikere som Newt Gingrich og Sarah Palin blir intervjuet nesten daglig på kanalen, til tross for at de ikke har noen politiske verv eller noen form for reell makt!

 

 

Nesten alle media i USA har liberal bias unntatt FNC i forhold til politiske sentrum i USA. Jeg ser ikke problemet med politisk underholdning så lenge folk vet det og ALLE vet det om FNC idag. Ønsker man ekte journalisme så finnes det mange andre kanaler med god journalisme.

[Kaarerekanraadi]

Jeg lo og lo da jeg så denne videoen av Obama. Presidentemblemet på talerstolen løsner og faller ned.

 

Snakk om dårlig omen!

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8xITielJ4s