Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Vive la France

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by radcentr View Post

    The "yes" is a clear message that the people don't like what they believe they are seeing. They exaggerate the number of muslims in their country, so what they believe is different than what they "see".
    No, they are seeing what they are seeing. If what they are seeing gives them the impression that there are more Muslims in their country than there really are that is not surprising. People who don't fit in tend to stand out. These people tend to stand out in disturbing ways - their attitude towards women and their dislike of western culture in general. Also the radicals among them can be counted on to carry out horrific attacks on innocent people. None of this is likely to make people want to keep bringing more and more of them into their country.

    ?


    • #47
      People aren't seeing what is happening with accuracy. It's a common human failure, likely many refugee muslims also look at their host countries as corrupt. As people work and carry on with other activities, most will re-think some of their first impressions. They won't stay in their home countries if it means certain death, they can't reform whatever radical group or gov't. is in charge, so what do you think they will do? They will flee, because there is no safe place within their country or with a muslim neighbor.

      Europe is the obvious choice, and there are few alternatives for Europeans that are humane, when dealing with refugees. Best to make the objective a positive one for all parties involved. Receive the refugees, some will return to their home countries after it calms down, some will stay and contribute to their adopted country. Some will not adapt to the rules of a secular republic, either because they are criminals or religious fanatics. Most can be sorted out, and isolated from everyone else. For all the complaints about bad neighborhoods, that is how the law handled misfits before. Every reason to believe they can handle it the same way, assuming the refugee crisis is limited.

      ?


      • #48
        Originally posted by Brexx View Post

        If you don't want to accept the reality of the no-go zones there isn't much else to be said about them.

        I didn't make a claim. I posted the results of a survey.

        With elections there are many issues at play so the results do not reflect public opinion on any one single issue. I think when you ask people if they want to halt all immigration from Muslim countries and you get 55% saying "yes" it is a pretty clear message that people don't like what they are seeing.

        Since I dont live in an alternative reality, but on the border with France, since I have friends, family and sometimes work projects in France, since I speak French since childhood ( probably better than English), I happen not to rely on some guy posting something on Youtube, or some obscure "research institute" posting a link to a "tits and soccer" tabloid as supposed evidence, but can see with my own eyes.
        Since you obviously cant be bothered to check links out :
        The so-called "ZUS" ( zones urbaine sensitive) is a list that the french governement has been running and updating for the last twenty years or so. For a neighborhood beeing included on the list means to become the target of urban regeneration programs ( what that means in practice, can differ, based on the needs of the place). Points typically taken into account are income levels and affordability of housing, crime, employment or the lack of it, environmental problems, density of schools, hospitals etc.etc. NOT religion. Whoever tells you that, lies. The french state does not keep records of individuals faith and there is not a single statistic in the entire country of France based on that entire neighborhoods could be classified as "Muslim" ( or something else). But that is obviously where the spin comes in.
        There are zones that have been taken off the list, because quality of life has improved and there are new ones that have been added. And others have stayed on that list because they are still troubled. The general idea is to document and monitor a continous urban improvement process, successes and failures.
        The "ZUS" next to me has a catholic cathedral, several churches, a synagogue AND one or two mosques, one or two museums, a thriving arts scene AND a bunch of excellent and affordable international eating places SOME of whom serve arabic cuisine. It has considerable problems with drugs, petty crime such as pickpocketing and illegal prostitution, yet no, it is not remarkably dangerous for visitors as long as you apply some basic common sense, such as not to leave your stuff unattended, resist "invites" by "girls" to follow them in dark backyards, dont forget to lock your car and things like that.
        Also quarters with high student populations have occasionally ended up on the ZUS list also without demonstratable muslim communities ( because students are obviously classified as having low income). The historic Marais quarter in Paris, a tourism hotspot and the center of Frances jewish community is on the ZUS list, which means that it is earmarked for urban renewal, since its bucolic old houses and streets are crumbling and mass tourism creates issues of its own, not that someone was trying to enforce Sharia there. The number of Muslims living in ZUS is hard to independently verify, yet most analysts would go with a number around 25 %.

        I think Fox officially dropping the claim should be good enough for those with an at least rudimentary interest in facts. And more links are above anyway :


        https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/w...nd-france.html


        Quote : / Now this applies especially to discussions of so-called no-go zones, areas where non-Muslims allegedly are not allowed in and police supposedly wont go, Ms. Banderas continued. To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country and no credible information to support the assertion that there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion.
        Last edited by Voland; 08-29-2017, 05:03 AM.

        ?


        • #49
          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

          Macron is not terribly popular right now. The French might wish they had elected Le Pen


          Macrons approval rating currently is, depending which source you use, between 40 and 45 %. What were Trumps latest numbers again ?
          It was furthermore completely clear that the dream numbers from after his election wouldnt last. Because :

          a) Many who voted for him tactically to prevent Le Pen ( that they considered the greater evil) will have switched back to their normal party preferences (Socialists, Conservatives etc.).

          b) Macron goes to work with an ambitious reform program that cannot be everybodys taste and that will require unpopular measures. Inevitably.

          Yet Macron is not a leader that always has an eye on polls. He has repeatedly stated that he was elected for a full term and that he wants to be judged on that term. Not every week. And his majority is comfortable enough to allow him that.
          So what ? The US/UK press has also made considerable efforts to claim Merkel was a dead woman walking only to discover that no, actually she is on the road to election victory again.
          Might be an issue with short-termism vs. long-termism in our cultures.
          As far as Le Pen is concerned : Keep telling yourself that. Le Pen has not even been able to pass the treshold to form her own parliamentary group in the election to the french parliament (she won eight seats, when she would have needed fifteen). That is actually a quite powerful statement from the voter.
          Le Pen is lucky if she doesnt go to prison over the finance fraud charges against her and if her party doesnt kick her overboard and replaces her f.e. with her younger and more telegenic niece Marion. The presidency ? Thats over for her.



          ?


          • #50
            Originally posted by radcentr View Post
            People aren't seeing what is happening with accuracy. It's a common human failure, likely many refugee muslims also look at their host countries as corrupt. As people work and carry on with other activities, most will re-think some of their first impressions. They won't stay in their home countries if it means certain death, they can't reform whatever radical group or gov't. is in charge, so what do you think they will do? They will flee, because there is no safe place within their country or with a muslim neighbor.

            Europe is the obvious choice, and there are few alternatives for Europeans that are humane, when dealing with refugees. Best to make the objective a positive one for all parties involved. Receive the refugees, some will return to their home countries after it calms down, some will stay and contribute to their adopted country. Some will not adapt to the rules of a secular republic, either because they are criminals or religious fanatics. Most can be sorted out, and isolated from everyone else. For all the complaints about bad neighborhoods, that is how the law handled misfits before. Every reason to believe they can handle it the same way, assuming the refugee crisis is limited.
            Most Muslims in Europe are not refugees fleeing from certain death. They are economic migrants from places like Africa and Turkey or second generation of such people.
            They don't integrate well because not enough pressure is put on them to do so. The idea of "multiculturalism" has been a big factor in this - the idea that people from different cultural backgrounds can live happily side by side. This doesn't work, especially when it comes to Muslims. Their culture is too different and too incompatible with western culture. In 2010 Angela Merkel declared multiculturalism to be an "utter failure", and called on the immigrants to do more to fit in.

            ?


            • #51
              Originally posted by Voland View Post


              Since I dont live in an alternative reality, but on the border with France, since I have friends, family and sometimes work projects in France, since I speak French since childhood ( probably better than English), I happen not to rely on some guy posting something on Youtube, or some obscure "research institute" posting a link to a "tits and soccer" tabloid as supposed evidence, but can see with my own eyes.
              Since you obviously cant be bothered to check links out :
              The so-called "ZUS" ( zones urbaine sensitive) is a list that the french governement has been running and updating for the last twenty years or so. For a neighborhood beeing included on the list means to become the target of urban regeneration programs ( what that means in practice, can differ, based on the needs of the place). Points typically taken into account are income levels and affordability of housing, crime, employment or the lack of it, environmental problems, density of schools, hospitals etc.etc. NOT religion. Whoever tells you that, lies. The french state does not keep records of individuals faith and there is not a single statistic in the entire country of France based on that entire neighborhoods could be classified as "Muslim" ( or something else). But that is obviously where the spin comes in.
              There are zones that have been taken off the list, because quality of life has improved and there are new ones that have been added. And others have stayed on that list because they are still troubled. The general idea is to document and monitor a continous urban improvement process, successes and failures.
              The "ZUS" next to me has a catholic cathedral, several churches, a synagogue AND one or two mosques, one or two museums, a thriving arts scene AND a bunch of excellent and affordable international eating places SOME of whom serve arabic cuisine. It has considerable problems with drugs, petty crime such as pickpocketing and illegal prostitution, yet no, it is not remarkably dangerous for visitors as long as you apply some basic common sense, such as not to leave your stuff unattended, resist "invites" by "girls" to follow them in dark backyards, dont forget to lock your car and things like that.
              Also quarters with high student populations have occasionally ended up on the ZUS list also without demonstratable muslim communities ( because students are obviously classified as having low income). The historic Marais quarter in Paris, a tourism hotspot and the center of Frances jewish community is on the ZUS list, which means that it is earmarked for urban renewal, since its bucolic old houses and streets are crumbling and mass tourism creates issues of its own, not that someone was trying to enforce Sharia there. The number of Muslims living in ZUS is hard to independently verify, yet most analysts would go with a number around 25 %.

              I think Fox officially dropping the claim should be good enough for those with an at least rudimentary interest in facts. And more links are above anyway :


              https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/w...nd-france.html


              Quote : / Now this applies especially to discussions of so-called no-go zones, areas where non-Muslims allegedly are not allowed in and police supposedly wont go, Ms. Banderas continued. To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country and no credible information to support the assertion that there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion.
              There are reports from many sources about these so called no-go zones, which probably should just be called "don't-go zones" especially for women. Some of these reports are couched in more politically correct language than others, but they all describe the same thing - areas where women are made to feel extremely unwelcome, uncomfortable, intimidated, and unsafe. Some people don't want to use the word Muslim, but women are being made to feel this way by migrants from a culture that excludes women from public places for the most part. We all know what culture that is.

              Do you deny that these areas exist?

              ?


              • #52
                Originally posted by Brexx View Post
                There are reports from many sources about these so called no-go zones, which probably should just be called "don't-go zones" especially for women. Some of these reports are couched in more politically correct language than others, but they all describe the same thing - areas where women are made to feel extremely unwelcome, uncomfortable, intimidated, and unsafe. Some people don't want to use the word Muslim, but women are being made to feel this way by migrants from a culture that excludes women from public places for the most part. We all know what culture that is.

                Do you deny that these areas exist?
                Easy enough to deny that they exist.

                To those who do, I would suggest that they take some time and travel with their wives & daughters too these areas. Prove to themselves that they don't exist. Prove to the world they don't.

                Document it so everyone can see that these "zones" don't actually exist.

                This would be a valuable service to everyone.

                It would prove that Muslims CAN immigrate, assimilate and become valuable actors of the new country they've become a part of.

                ?


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                  Easy enough to deny that they exist.

                  To those who do, I would suggest that they take some time and travel with their wives & daughters too these areas. Prove to themselves that they don't exist. Prove to the world they don't.

                  Document it so everyone can see that these "zones" don't actually exist.

                  This would be a valuable service to everyone.

                  It would prove that Muslims CAN immigrate, assimilate and become valuable actors of the new country they've become a part of.
                  More specifically, undercover police work in all ZUS neighborhoods in question would give the world a better idea of who is hassling women, and how bad the problem is. Until then, we will deal with people who generalize to one extreme or another. Basically, it requires ignoring those who depend on stereotyping without enough evidence, and pushing for better police work to get more accurate data. Statements like, "All muslims are bad and cannot adapt" is as useless as "All muslims are good and adapt well to the secular republic".

                  ?


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    More specifically, undercover police work in all ZUS neighborhoods in question would give the world a better idea of who is hassling women, and how bad the problem is. Until then, we will deal with people who generalize to one extreme or another. Basically, it requires ignoring those who depend on stereotyping without enough evidence, and pushing for better police work to get more accurate data. Statements like, "All muslims are bad and cannot adapt" is as useless as "All muslims are good and adapt well to the secular republic".
                    As if America hasn't enough of it's own problems ?

                    Now we need to utilize police resources to somehow separate out the good from the bad ? ... when none of this was even necessary ... until we decided we needed to allow so many of them into our country under fantasies of "tolerance" and "diversity." We were told they would come to America and become Americans... a lot of them don't do that !

                    No, instead they come here and despise Americans. Want to change America into an Islamic nation - it is what they're taught to do - make "infidels" submit to Islam. Convert or ....

                    ?


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                      In 2010 Angela Merkel declared multiculturalism to be an "utter failure", and called on the immigrants to do more to fit in.
                      And you continue to reproduce soundbites that you evidently dont understand ( but well, Angela Merkel was speaking German ). She has called "Multikulti" unworkable in a campaign speech. "Multikulti" (german) is a type of "hands off/laissez faire" approach to integration that german righties like to accuse german lefties of supporting. ( Yes, Merkel is from the right/conservative)
                      Yet :

                      a) "Multikulti" has never been german governement policy. Neverever.

                      b) except for 1998-2005 Merkels party was in governement anyway. Since 1982.

                      c) Merkel was adressing political adversaries on their alleged ideas beeing misguided, not immigrants. Some american correspondent may have given the story a little spin to fit into american discourses on immigration.

                      Merkel is the chancellor of the refugee crisis after all. She has always categorically rejected any attempt to milk anti-foreigner/anti-muslim/ anti-immigration sentiment for electoral purposes, unmistakably. When in late 2015 Neonazis were rioting in a town in Saxony that was supposed to house a refugee shelter, along with Swastikas and Hitler salutes ( Heidenau) a few days later Merkel was speaking on the town square. She called the rioters ( and those that had clapped hands) "a national disgrace" and "scum" ( "The" people ? Not you"). In the locals faces.
                      That is NOT seen as a contradiction here to enforce an idea of integration that sounds pretty tough for american ears. To be fair, the law in question is not new, it is rather a package of long existing policies bundled in one law. Yet someone making smart-ass comments about Merkel and immigration should be aware of that. Not to appear completely ignorant. :



                      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...on-courses-und


                      Under the new laws, language and integration courses will be compulsory and asylum-seekers who do not attend will lose access to government benefits they need to stay in the country legally.

                      The requirements for refugees to be granted indefinite leave to remain have also been tightened. In future, those who wish to apply for permanent residence will have to show proficiency in the German language and prove they can earn a livelihood........


                      The new law gives the authorities the power to assign asylum-seekers a compulsory place of residence for their first three years in the country, in a measure designed to prevent the ghettoisation of major cities.

                      The requirements for those refugees who wish to stay on in Germany long-term have also been tightened. They can apply for permanent residency after five years, but will have to show a command of the German language and the ability to earn a livelihood.

                      Those who fail to meet this requirement will be allowed stay on a temporary basis only as long as the situation in their home country remains too dangerous to return.

                      There is a three-year fast track process for those with exceptional German language skills.





                      Last edited by Voland; 08-30-2017, 01:33 AM.

                      ?


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                        There are reports from many sources about these so called no-go zones, which probably should just be called "don't-go zones" especially for women. Some of these reports are couched in more politically correct language than others, but they all describe the same thing - areas where women are made to feel extremely unwelcome, uncomfortable, intimidated, and unsafe. Some people don't want to use the word Muslim, but women are being made to feel this way by migrants from a culture that excludes women from public places for the most part. We all know what culture that is.

                        Do you deny that these areas exist?


                        Ive outlined clear enough what the ZUS are, and what they are not, including sources that you can check out or leave it. And since even Fox News, that hardly has a soft spot for France ( or Islam) has clearly stated that "no credible information" exists to back up that assertion that says more about the quality of these "sources" than I could.
                        But obviously : You are welcome to demonstrate your supreme knowledge of France. Go ahead. But be aware that this would be like me lecturing you on guncrime in the US. Secure command of the facts : Highly advisable.

                        ?


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by radcentr View Post

                          More specifically, undercover police work in all ZUS neighborhoods in question would give the world a better idea of who is hassling women, and how bad the problem is. Until then, we will deal with people who generalize to one extreme or another.

                          There is plenty of media coverage of that---but its in French ​ Yet providing nuanced information about boring police work in shabby quarters that are not so different from shabby quarters elsewhere in the western world, including the US, generates far less clicks on the Internet than painting gloomy "no-go zone" dystopias obviously. And then most Americans are strictly monolingual and know little or nothing about life in France anyway. Which is why using a distorted image of France as a projection screen for things that one wants or doesnt want for the US works. Am I too far off the mark ?
                          I was actually once living in a ZUS, when I studied in France for a while ( in Dijon/Burgundy, a fabulous city by the way). The house had already seen its best days, and it was in hearing distance from the central station, but the rent was cheap and I could get to university and everywhere by bike. On the ground floor there was a moroccan kebab, that often became my refuge when I had forgotten to do my shopping. The other tenants in the 19th century house were from all over the world, Tunisia, Algeria, Cambodia, Senegal, also from the french Caribean and Polynesia, with a bunch of french and european students thrown in the mix. Everyone was working or studying something and while not everyone was in close contact with each other, noone was completely keeping to him/herself and the general climate was harmonious. People used to greet each other and chat, sometimes also to have a barbecue or to go out for a beer.Yes, from my balcony I could more than once witness police running after someone. Homeless were sometimes sleeping in the housefloor and addicts were begging on the street. Every now and then someone torched a bunch of cars and there was also a huge mosque not far that was crowded on Fridays. On the other hand there were plenty of artists and their ateliers in the area (due to the cheap rents), there was street music on every corner, and there were plenty of small, specialized shops that sold everything from guitar strings till arabic spices, so not all bad. It was still not exactly a dream neighborhood where one stays that can afford better, for me it was ok for a while because I spent my days at university anyway. But it was not a ghetto, noone ever threatened, robbed or attacked me, and noone ever made me feel unwelcome. I use to visit the moroccan guy when Im in Dijon even after a quite a couple of years and they did a lot in the meantime to upgrade the quarters quality of life that means it may not actually be a ZUS anymore.



                          https://www.thelocal.fr/20170223/the...zones-in-paris


                          https://www.thelocal.fr/20170223/fre...snt-so-serious
                          Last edited by Voland; 08-30-2017, 08:20 AM.

                          ?


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Voland View Post

                            And you continue to reproduce soundbites that you evidently dont understand ( but well, Angela Merkel was speaking German ). She has called "Multikulti" unworkable in a campaign speech. "Multikulti" (german) is a type of "hands off/laissez faire" approach to integration that german righties like to accuse german lefties of supporting. ( Yes, Merkel is from the right/conservative)
                            Yet :

                            a) "Multikulti" has never been german governement policy. Neverever.

                            b) except for 1998-2005 Merkels party was in governement anyway. Since 1982.

                            c) Merkel was adressing political adversaries on their alleged ideas beeing misguided, not immigrants. Some american correspondent may have given the story a little spin to fit into american discourses on immigration.

                            Merkel is the chancellor of the refugee crisis after all. She has always categorically rejected any attempt to milk anti-foreigner/anti-muslim/ anti-immigration sentiment for electoral purposes, unmistakably. When in late 2015 Neonazis were rioting in a town in Saxony that was supposed to house a refugee shelter, along with Swastikas and Hitler salutes ( Heidenau) a few days later Merkel was speaking on the town square. She called the rioters ( and those that had clapped hands) "a national disgrace" and "scum" ( "The" people ? Not you"). In the locals faces.
                            That is NOT seen as a contradiction here to enforce an idea of integration that sounds pretty tough for american ears. To be fair, the law in question is not new, it is rather a package of long existing policies bundled in one law. Yet someone making smart-ass comments about Merkel and immigration should be aware of that. Not to appear completely ignorant. :



                            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...on-courses-und


                            Under the new laws, language and integration courses will be compulsory and asylum-seekers who do not attend will lose access to government benefits they need to stay in the country legally.

                            The requirements for refugees to be granted indefinite leave to remain have also been tightened. In future, those who wish to apply for permanent residence will have to show proficiency in the German language and prove they can earn a livelihood........


                            The new law gives the authorities the power to assign asylum-seekers a compulsory place of residence for their first three years in the country, in a measure designed to prevent the ghettoisation of major cities.

                            The requirements for those refugees who wish to stay on in Germany long-term have also been tightened. They can apply for permanent residency after five years, but will have to show a command of the German language and the ability to earn a livelihood.

                            Those who fail to meet this requirement will be allowed stay on a temporary basis only as long as the situation in their home country remains too dangerous to return.

                            There is a three-year fast track process for those with exceptional German language skills.




                            So Merkel followed up her words with action. Good for her. Those new integration laws sound good to me.

                            ?


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                              So Merkel followed up her words with action. Good for her. Those new integration laws sound good to me.


                              As I said, that has pretty much always been the deal for immigrants/refugees that want to become immigrants in Germany. One could argue that Merkel led an overhaul and added some teeth, also increased cooperation, such as between the refugee and the labour agencies, under the impression of the refugee crisis, but generally these policies have been in place long before her.

                              ?


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Voland View Post



                                Ive outlined clear enough what the ZUS are, and what they are not, including sources that you can check out or leave it. And since even Fox News, that hardly has a soft spot for France ( or Islam) has clearly stated that "no credible information" exists to back up that assertion that says more about the quality of these "sources" than I could.
                                But obviously : You are welcome to demonstrate your supreme knowledge of France. Go ahead. But be aware that this would be like me lecturing you on guncrime in the US. Secure command of the facts : Highly advisable.
                                It is amazing how you don't want to acknowledge the problem of severe harassment of women in some areas of Paris. The mayor of Paris has acknowledged it and has promised to do something about it.
                                You keep using Fox News as if their mistakes and apology means none of this actually exists. You can forget about Fox News. There are plenty of sources that report on these areas, and they don't say that these zones are officially designated, and they don't mention religion. They just describe what goes on on the street and it ain't pretty especially for women.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X