Reply With QuoteYou are still showing your ignorance about Europe. 'Sweden or Denmark or Norway...' are not good examples of the situation here, as they haven't taken as many asylum seekers as other countries. More than 10 years ago after re-unification, there was a major influx of Turkish immigrants into Germany. There was uproar about this at the time, as Germany had to absorb some 400,000 immigrants in just under five years, more than their fare share in my view. There were growing numbers of isolated racists attacks, and many of the Hostels housing them were firebombed by Neo Nazis - It probably still happens now. An almost similar situation is going on in the UK, because some Eastern Europeans are exploiting the lax security measures (if there are any at all) at France's end of the Euro Tunnel, and they're entering the UK claiming asylum after deliberatly destroying their passports and I.D. The French who were turning a blind eye to the escapes of asylum seekers at their centre in Sangatte, had to eventually close the place down after mounting political pressure from UK M.P.sOriginally Written by Kimeesha
About two years ago in Dover, which is in the South Coast of England, people were protesting because an asylum centre housing 1,200 immigrants was due to open there. This all culminated in quite a few attacks - on both sides - and one serious disturbance. I can't understand why they should all be dumped into the inner cities where people like me live. It makes more sense to spread them around the country. Believe me, I am not one of the pro-immigration lobbyists you mention, because some of them are abusing the system and committing crime...Quite a few are not though, they are genuine.
BTW, do you really want to work in a Hotel cleaning rooms for a living? Or do any lowly paid work? I'm honest enough to say that I don't.
At the time, they were not held in such high affectionate esteem as you think they were. I won't repeat some of the names that they were called back then. Also you shouldn't have to give up your heritage because you emigrate. Do Americans abroad do this?The immigrants that you speak of that built our land hundreds of years ago were an entirely different breed. These were people that did not hold onto their old heritage, but embraced a new heritage, they were glad to be Americans. It was this nationalism that allowed the U.S. to be built the way it is today. But the manufacturing that became the U.S. claim to wealth and power is now all going overseas. So for people who immigrate here now, those jobs are gone. There is nothing for them.
The loss of industry and manufacturing to cheaper workers abroad is down to greedy companies like Nike, would much rather pay someone $10 per week to make sports shoes in the far east, than pay an American a decent wage to do it. Then the have the nerve to charge $200 for a shoe, and wonder why it doesn't sell. I can recall seeing the founder of Nike on TV saying that US workers don't want to make his products, that's why they're manfuctured elsewhere (Guess!). :roll: 'Yeah yeah yeah.' I thought.
Damn well serves ya right. If your President is prepared to lie to his electorate. :lol: :lol: :lol: It wasn't the last time it happened either.As far as the U.S. interfering with other countries preventing them from advancing proves your ignorance. If you know your history, your probably aware of the fierce neutrality laws that were in place in our great nation after World War I--this forbid the U.S. from interfering with anything foreign, war or otherwise. We were a giant Switzerland committed to isolationism. Any attempt to break this law would guarantee an impeachment of the president. Through a very calculating plan, FDR devised a way to appeal to the populous by inviting the beloved King and Queen of England to our great land. The purpose was to generate sympathy for the great attack Hitler was planning for Britain. The plan did not work--the U.S., was not at all swayed. So FDR then deliberately lied about attacks from German U-boats onto British and American vessels (which were taunting German vessels relentlessly to get them to attack). It was only after Pearl Harbor that we were forced into this war, thus leading allied Europe to victory. This was the mess that started the U.S. as the worlds police officer, that the tax payers are forced to pay for.
You are being economical with the truth. In late May of 1940, FDR agreed to transfer twenty torpedo boats to the British without informing Congress. When Navy Secretary Charles Edison objected, Roosevelt told him: "Forget it and do what I told you to do."
My knowledge of history, reminds me that Roosvelt didn't do this out of the kindness of his heart. It was after repeated calls for assistance from among others Winston Churchill. And there was a more selfish reason. The US benifitted from the war more than any other country did after it ended, as they were still in the grip of a depression when it began. The deal FDR offered to Churchill was for American destroyers to be given to Britain in exchange for Britain's leasing property in the West Indies and Canada — for ninety-nine years — for American military bases. Churchill replied that such an agreement would be a threat to British sovereignty. But Roosevelt insisted that this was the only way that he could evade Congress and the neutrality acts. With destroyers-for-bases, he could argue, after the fact, that he was acting in the interests of national security by providing a more secure defense of the U.S. When reporters asked him if congressional approval was required, he replied: "It is all over; it is all done." When the reporters asked him for details about the agreement, Roosevelt answered that it involved "all kinds of things that nobody here would understand, so I won't mention them. It is a fait accompli ; it is done this way." An uproar resulted among the noninterventionists. Senator Arthur Vandenberg called Roosevelt's deal "the most arbitrary and dictatorial action ever taken by any President in the history of the United States." Congressman George Tinkham said, "There is no difference between his [FDR's] action from either Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin." The door was opened for every president after FDR to use the same executive power to rationalise and justify the sending of American troops to Korea, the Middle East, Vietnam, Somalia, and Haiti. Mr Roosevelt did his utmost to circumvent the neutrality laws.
Try telling the people who live in parts of the West Indies like the Bahamas, which is basically owned by white Americans, if they can advance unhindered.
I'll retract my comment about this forum becoming a low down place. Because actually, you cannot just dance your way through life as much as some here would love to, and pretend that there are no real problems or issues that you should deal with head on. I'm looking forward to a reply.
Re: The worst movie ever produced regarding a disco theme?
I can't believe that a hip Manhattan disco (which 'the club' is supposed to be, although it doesn't look very hip to me!:icon_confused:) in the early 80s would be playing 70s disco such as 'Shame' & 'Le Freak'. I remember the early-mid 80s as being fiercely contemporary & always up to the minute with trends; the concept of 'retro' nights didn't seem to come about 'til the end of the 80s onwards. & I've never seen a disco setting in a film have less atmosphere; even the disco in 'The Stud' had more atmosphere!
:icon_eek: :icon_confused: 
Bookmarks