Like many others I feel mainstream media has been desperate to get their ratings up by exaggerating stories. The latest drama on Trumps 'last night in Sweden' statement for example. The media calls this statement fake, yet if you do a bit of research you'll find Sweden has massive immigration issues and something did indeed happen that night. Its frustrating how many people fall for these exaggerated/fake stories. Whats your take on this issue?

 

A video by Paul Watson uncovering the truth about Sweden's immigration issues: 

 

I'm not sure what else it's going to take for people to realize that these migrants are harmful. It doesn't take a massive research project in order to see it. But then somehow we're the bigots for not wanting to allow these people into our country, it's amazing to me.  As more people are exposed to the propaganda of the left, the right will continue to be successful and gain more support. Only a matter of time before Trump is in his second term, but it is what it is I suppose.

 

 

 

Their country, they're free to do whatever they like. Godspeed to them!

Edited March 1, 20179 yr by TheDivineHustle

18 hours ago, S0berDrunk said:

Like many others I feel mainstream media has been desperate to get their ratings up by exaggerating stories. The latest drama on Trumps 'last night in Sweden' statement for example. The media calls this statement fake, yet if you do a bit of research you'll find Sweden has massive immigration issues and something did indeed happen that night. Its frustrating how many people fall for these exaggerated/fake stories. Whats your take on this issue?

The only fake news I heard that day was Trump saying a terrorist attack happened in Sweden when it did not. Sweden having immigration problems is a whole different subject. Either Trump should know how to organize his speeches so we understand them properly, or he should learn how not to believe every fake news he overhears. Either way, definitely not the "mainstream media" 's fault for him being stupid (once more).

 

What's mainstream media anyway? Medias having a lot of visibility on the newspapers racks/on the internet? What should we do then, believe smaller medias, bloggers? Independent journalists? Their views won't be any less directed towards a specific opinion. They will be even more so due to a lack of editorial line. There's no "mainstream media", there's just the media. Sometimes they overreact, sometimes they don't, that's how it is and that's how it always has been. It's up to the reader to make his own opinion about things.

2 hours ago, Hystery said:

The only fake news I heard that day was Trump saying a terrorist attack happened in Sweden when it did not. Sweden having immigration problems is a whole different subject. Either Trump should know how to organize his speeches so we understand them properly, or he should learn how not to believe every fake news he overhears. Either way, definitely not the "mainstream media" 's fault for him being stupid (once more).

 

What's mainstream media anyway? Medias having a lot of visibility on the newspapers racks/on the internet? What should we do then, believe smaller medias, bloggers? Independent journalists? Their views won't be any less directed towards a specific opinion. They will be even more so due to a lack of editorial line. There's no "mainstream media", there's just the media. Sometimes they overreact, sometimes they don't, that's how it is and that's how it always has been. It's up to the reader to make his own opinion about things.

Their was an attack in Sweden, it wasnt massive but a few people we´re killed. The migrant problem adds to the attack, immigration has caused Sweden to have slums. I suggest you watch the video I linked, it has some hard evidence. There is a mainstream media, its the media companies everybody sees, the companies that influence half the planet.

16 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I'm not sure what else it's going to take for people to realize that these migrants are harmful. It doesn't take a massive research project in order to see it. But then somehow we're the bigots for not wanting to allow these people into our country, it's amazing to me.  As more people are exposed to the propaganda of the left, the right will continue to be successful and gain more support. Only a matter of time before Trump is in his second term, but it is what it is I suppose.

 

 

 

Their country, they're free to do whatever they like. Godspeed to them!

People in Europe are very left-winged. Not a bad thing, but it gets dangerous when we just accept immigrants in our society. There is hard evidence that alot of them are not fit in our western society. Yet so many just deny the facts.

2 hours ago, S0berDrunk said:

Their was an attack in Sweden, it wasnt massive but a few people we´re killed. The migrant problem adds to the attack, immigration has caused Sweden to have slums. I suggest you watch the video I linked, it has some hard evidence.

I did watch the video. But I also watched and read many other articles. Including this one: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/donald-trump-terror-attack-claim-sweden-neo-nazis-refugee-centre-florida-rally-a7588516.html

 

Terrorism =/= immigration. The US is a country that was built on immigration. Does it make it a terrorist state? Doubt so. Those matters can be correlated in some exclusive situations, but are otherwise completely unrelated subjects that need to be dealt with accordingly. Saying that immigration creates terrorism is a very narrow-minded point of view that leads to dangerous situations, like that attack on a muslim praying center in Canada not so long ago.

 

2 hours ago, S0berDrunk said:

There is a mainstream media, its the media companies everybody sees, the companies that influence half the planet.

That's exactly what I explained above. According to you, there's the mainstream media, that are the ones with the most visibility. Alright, that's your opinion about it. Let's take it for granted. What do we do then? Not believe them and instead believe the conspiracy theories of a couple of fake news websites or random dudes on Youtube that manipulate facts to create "alternative facts" to match their version of reality? Doubt that's a solution. Do we turn towards smaller medias? They also have an editorial line that makes their news being oriented in such a way that it reflects the position of the media on the matters they report on. There's no ideal solution if your typical behavior is to just believe what people say without double checking it, be it "mainstream medias" or smaller ones. The only ideal solution is for people to take what they see on TV or read in newspapers/websites with a grain of salt (or ten) and make their own research on the matter to build their own opinion, independently of the media that reported it. People need to be emancipated from newsfeeds, that's all. And that includes a certain president who cannot for the life of himself make himself being relevant without spreading fake news and "alternative facts".

 

2 hours ago, S0berDrunk said:

People in Europe are very left-winged. Not a bad thing, but it gets dangerous when we just accept immigrants in our society. There is hard evidence that alot of them are not fit in our western society. Yet so many just deny the facts.

Wrong. See, that's why I heavily dislike when US citizens decide to judge what happens in Europe. They know nothing about it. UK? Right/far-right. Germany? Center-right. France? Center-right (yes they are called socialists, but their politics is center-right, name doesn't mean everything). Greece? Supposedly left, applies center-right reforms from the EU. Hungary? Right-wing. I could keep going for most countries. And that's without talking about the wave of nationalists raising in every country of the EU (the anti-EU, nationalist, xenophobic party in France is now first in the polls with 26+% at 60 days from the elections). Europe is NOT very left-winged. Claiming the contrary is being ignorant on the subject and on the EU politics. There's no hard evidence that "a lot of them are not fit in our western society". Many of them are assimilated just fine. There's no fact denied.

Edited March 2, 20179 yr by Hystery

8 minutes ago, Hystery said:

I did watch the video. But I also watched and read many other articles. Including this one: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/donald-trump-terror-attack-claim-sweden-neo-nazis-refugee-centre-florida-rally-a7588516.html

 

Terrorism =/= immigration. The US is a country that was built on immigration. Does it make it a terrorist state? Doubt so. Those matters can be correlated in some exclusive situations, but are otherwise completely unrelated subjects that need to be dealt with accordingly. Saying that immigration creates terrorism is a very narrow-minded point of view that leads to dangerous situations, like that attack on a muslim praying center in Canada not so long ago.

 

That's exactly what I explained above. According to you, there's the mainstream media, that are the ones with the most visibility. Alright, that's your opinion about it. Let's take it for granted. What do we do then? Not believe them and instead believe the conspiracy theories of a couple of fake news websites or random dudes on Youtube that manipulate facts to create "alternative facts" to match their version of reality? Doubt that's a solution. Do we turn towards smaller medias? They also have an editorial line that makes their news being oriented in such a way that it reflects the position of the media on the matters they report on. There's no ideal solution if your typical behavior is to just believe what people say without double checking it, be it "mainstream medias" or smaller ones. The only ideal solution is for people to take what they see on TV or read in newspapers/websites with a grain of salt (or ten) and make their own research on the matter to build their own opinion, independently of the media that reported it. People need to be emancipated from newsfeeds, that's all. And that includes a certain president who cannot for the life of himself make himself being relevant without spreading fake news and "alternative facts".

 

Wrong. See, that's why I heavily dislike when US citizens decide to judge what happens in Europe. They know nothing about it. UK? Right/far-right. Germany? Center-right. France? Center-right (yes they are called socialists, but their politics is center-right, name doesn't mean everything). Greece? Supposedly left, applies center-right reforms from the EU. Hungary? Right-wing. I could keep going for most countries. And that's without talking about the wave of nationalists raising in every country of the EU (the anti-EU, nationalist, xenophobic party in France is now first in the polls with 26+% at 60 days from the elections). Europe is NOT very left-winged. Claiming the contrary is being ignorant on the subject and on the EU politics. There's no hard evidence that "a lot of them are not fit in our western society". Many of them are assimilated just fine. There's no fact denied.

Yes the US was build on immigration, but its not comparible to this situation. When the country was settled the people mostly came from Europe and thus they all had the same general believes. But thats the past, now its a different story. These people that come from the Middle East or Africa have very different general believes. These believes dont fit in with western society, some adapt but alot dont thats the issue. Look at France and Sweden, you cant deny immigration has caused destabilisation. For me personally the biggest deal is the influx of "fake refugees." These people pretend to be a refugee to get taken care of by our government.

 

What Im trying to say is that we should not auto agree with whatever the media tells us. 

 

Im from Europe and whilests we have right-winged parties that are growing we are still very left-orientated. What I mean by this is that my country's right is the US's left. Being a liberal is considered right-winged in my country (might just be for the Netherlands, in that case I cant counter.)

On 3/2/2017 at 1:15 PM, Hystery said:

 

Terrorism =/= immigration. The US is a country that was built on immigration. Does it make it a terrorist state? Doubt so. Those matters can be correlated in some exclusive situations, but are otherwise completely unrelated subjects that need to be dealt with accordingly. Saying that immigration creates terrorism is a very narrow-minded point of view that leads to dangerous situations, like that attack on a muslim praying center in Canada not so long ago.

There's a lack in thought in this statement. Although immigration does not equal terrorism automatically, that does not mean that immigration cannot be correlated with an increase in terrorism. The US is a country built on immigration yes, almost completely from Christian European countries. A largely homogenous society is bound to lack problems with terrorism when terrorism is based on the use of violence to obtain ideological and/or political goals. However, countering your statement saying that terrorism in the case we are referring to does not create terrorism is a very narrow-minded point of view that leads to dangerous situations, like the attacks in Paris, Brussels, Nice, Berlin, and many other smaller acts throughout the continent.

On the note of Canada, the attack you refer to, actually was a Quebecois separatist. In other words, they got sick of the immigration and relocation programs of the Canadian government, and acted out in direct response to that to obtain sovereignty in Quebec. It has very little to do with the thoughts we are talking about, it in and of itself this is the very definition of terrorism.

On 3/2/2017 at 1:15 PM, Hystery said:

That's exactly what I explained above. According to you, there's the mainstream media, that are the ones with the most visibility. Alright, that's your opinion about it. Let's take it for granted. What do we do then? Not believe them and instead believe the conspiracy theories of a couple of fake news websites or random dudes on Youtube that manipulate facts to create "alternative facts" to match their version of reality? Doubt that's a solution. Do we turn towards smaller medias? They also have an editorial line that makes their news being oriented in such a way that it reflects the position of the media on the matters they report on. There's no ideal solution if your typical behavior is to just believe what people say without double checking it, be it "mainstream medias" or smaller ones. The only ideal solution is for people to take what they see on TV or read in newspapers/websites with a grain of salt (or ten) and make their own research on the matter to build their own opinion, independently of the media that reported it. People need to be emancipated from newsfeeds, that's all. And that includes a certain president who cannot for the life of himself make himself being relevant without spreading fake news and "alternative facts".

The fact that you dismiss every other news source that isn't from 6 major companies in the US is very naive. All of these companies have the sole goal of profit, this includes clicks, and can even include the political establishment as Wikileaks has shown with the collusion (both for bribes and to benefit Turner's political goals) between CNN and the Clinton Campaign for example.

Again, dismissing smaller news companies and websites as only having conspiracy theories, and "alternative facts" is a laughable statement, a broad oversimplification and frankly just isn't true. Does it happen; absolutely, but to say it's most of these outlets is an absurd statement.

Also, to say that anything that certain president says is fake is a laughable statement. Are there things that he has said that are

 seemingly unsubstantiated, absolutely, however to say that that's the only way he can make himself relevant is simply untrue.

On 3/2/2017 at 1:15 PM, Hystery said:

See, that's why I heavily dislike when US citizens decide to judge what happens in Europe. They know nothing about it.

Okay, what makes you think you know anything about US politics? I hate it when Europeans think they know American politics, and when you decide to judge what happens in America. They, and by extension you, know nothing about it.

 

Also, if you took a look at S0berDrunk's country, he's Dutch, not from the US.

On 3/2/2017 at 1:15 PM, Hystery said:

UK? Right/far-right. Germany? Center-right. France? Center-right (yes they are called socialists, but their politics is center-right, name doesn't mean everything). Greece? Supposedly left, applies center-right reforms from the EU. Hungary? Right-wing. I could keep going for most countries

The UK is now right wing, in practice, it's government has previously acted more left wing, especially on immigration. This could be because of the EU, but regardless has still occurred. Germany has a "center right" government, but still in practice acts like a left wing government with aspects of an authoritarian right wing government (or vice versa depending on how you view it). I don't need to point to the numerous policies that are anti men, anti white, and pro unvetted immigration from high risk countries. I can't comment on Greece because I don't know enough on their government to comment. I also can't comment on Hungaries government, as I don't know the specifics. France though, is basically in practice authoritarian right with many aspects cherry picked from socialism, very similar to Germany, but not with as many lax immigration policies.

 

On 3/2/2017 at 1:15 PM, Hystery said:

And that's without talking about the wave of nationalists raising in every country of the EU (the anti-EU, nationalist, xenophobic party in France is now first in the polls with 26+% at 60 days from the elections).

If anything, they're more left wing. They simply want to lessen the oppression by their governments on their liberty. The government refusing to listen on how the mass immigration (without any vetting) from countries that are ideologically polar opposite is just fueling this fire. The only thing they have that is moving further right is immigration, and nationalism. The rest is all moving to center right, and right libertarian policies. Frankly, I'm excited for a return to classical liberalism worldwide.

Also, by the way, by using "xenophobic" out of proper usage you are contributing to that word losing it's proper meaning. Calling the reasonable tightening a country's borders from mass immigration from these countries that has caused nothing but problems xenophobic, is exactly why your ideology is losing.

On 3/2/2017 at 1:15 PM, Hystery said:

Europe is NOT very left-winged.

In practice it seems like it, but on second looks, it's actually authoritarian right with elements of authoritarian left. 

 

On 3/2/2017 at 1:15 PM, Hystery said:

There's no hard evidence that "a lot of them are not fit in our western society". Many of them are assimilated just fine.

Actually, these statistics in Germany from just 2014 says otherwise. This is from before the mass immigration from Northern Africa and the Middle East to Europe nevermind after.

 

I'll make a list for you for the top 10 countries in each crime in 2014 (before the mass immigration from these areas) in Germany. From left to right, furthest left being 1, furthest right being 10.

Murder: Lebanon, Tunisia, Algeria, Afghanistan, Albania, Iraq, Somalia, Morocco, Iran, Russia

Manslaughter: Algeria, Tunisia, Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Morocco, Iran, Albania

Child abuse: Pakistan, Somalia, Tunisia, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Albania, Serbia , USA

Sexual Assaults/Rape: Algeria, Tunisia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq, NIgeria, Albania, Eritrea

And the list goes on

 

Don't forget the Sharia patrols throughout Europe. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38056243

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3480676/Father-hospitalised-Sharia-patrol-Austria-told-stop-threatening-wife-daughter-not-properly-dressed-fears-rise-no-areas-Vienna.html

However, it should be noted that Sharia patrols have been around for a few years prior to this whole ordeal.

 

However, you use the word assimilate very loosely, there are many different examples that prove you wrong that I haven't brought up. I won't bring them up yet, I have no need to, and it's almost 2 AM here anyways.

Edited March 3, 20179 yr by crkinnh
Grammar Corrections

8 hours ago, crkinnh said:

There's a lack of thought in this statement. 

Not only a lack of thought, but a lack of evidence and a clear lack of conducted research. 

 

Nailed it brother. Nothing more I can add you've hit every point. 

Edited March 3, 20179 yr by TheDivineHustle

16 hours ago, crkinnh said:

There's a lack in thought in this statement. Although immigration does not equal terrorism automatically, that does not mean that immigration cannot be correlated with an increase in terrorism. The US is a country built on immigration yes, almost completely from Christian European countries. A largely homogenous society is bound to lack problems with terrorism when terrorism is based on the use of violence to obtain ideological and/or political goals. However, countering your statement saying that terrorism in the case we are referring to does not create terrorism is a very narrow-minded point of view that leads to dangerous situations, like the attacks in Paris, Brussels, Nice, Berlin, and many other smaller acts throughout the continent.

On the note of Canada, the attack you refer to, actually was a Quebecois separatist. In other words, they got sick of the immigration and relocation programs of the Canadian government, and acted out in direct response to that to obtain sovereignty in Quebec. It has very little to do with the thoughts we are talking about, it in and of itself this is the very definition of terrorism.

The fact that you dismiss every other news source that isn't from 6 major companies in the US is very naive. All of these companies have the sole goal of profit, this includes clicks, and can even include the political establishment as Wikileaks has shown with the collusion (both for bribes and to benefit Turner's political goals) between CNN and the Clinton Campaign for example.

Again, dismissing smaller news companies and websites as only having conspiracy theories, and "alternative facts" is a laughable statement, a broad oversimplification and frankly just isn't true. Does it happen; absolutely, but to say it's most of these outlets is an absurd statement.

Also, to say that anything that certain president says is fake is a laughable statement. Are there things that he has said that are

 seemingly unsubstantiated, absolutely, however to say that that's the only way he can make himself relevant is simply untrue.

Okay, what makes you think you know anything about US politics? I hate it when Europeans think they know American politics, and when you decide to judge what happens in America. They, and by extension you, know nothing about it.

 

Also, if you took a look at S0berDrunk's country, he's Dutch, not from the US.

The UK is now right wing, in practice, it's government has previously acted more left wing, especially on immigration. This could be because of the EU, but regardless has still occurred. Germany has a "center right" government, but still in practice acts like a left wing government with aspects of an authoritarian right wing government (or vice versa depending on how you view it). I don't need to point to the numerous policies that are anti men, anti white, and pro unvetted immigration from high risk countries. I can't comment on Greece because I don't know enough on their government to comment. I also can't comment on Hungaries government, as I don't know the specifics. France though, is basically in practice authoritarian right with many aspects cherry picked from socialism, very similar to Germany, but not with as many lax immigration policies.

 

If anything, they're more left wing. They simply want to lessen the oppression by their governments on their liberty. The government refusing to listen on how the mass immigration (without any vetting) from countries that are ideologically polar opposite is just fueling this fire. The only thing they have that is moving further right is immigration, and nationalism. The rest is all moving to center right, and right libertarian policies. Frankly, I'm excited for a return to classical liberalism worldwide.

Also, by the way, by using "xenophobic" out of proper usage you are contributing to that word losing it's proper meaning. Calling the reasonable tightening a country's borders from mass immigration from these countries that has caused nothing but problems xenophobic, is exactly why your ideology is losing.

In practice it seems like it, but on second looks, it's actually authoritarian right with elements of authoritarian left. 

 

Actually, these statistics in Germany from just 2014 says otherwise. This is from before the mass immigration from Northern Africa and the Middle East to Europe nevermind after.

 

I'll make a list for you for the top 10 countries in each crime in 2014 (before the mass immigration from these areas) in Germany. From left to right, furthest left being 1, furthest right being 10.

Murder: Lebanon, Tunisia, Algeria, Afghanistan, Albania, Iraq, Somalia, Morocco, Iran, Russia

Manslaughter: Algeria, Tunisia, Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Morocco, Iran, Albania

Child abuse: Pakistan, Somalia, Tunisia, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Albania, Serbia , USA

Sexual Assaults/Rape: Algeria, Tunisia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq, NIgeria, Albania, Eritrea

And the list goes on

 

Don't forget the Sharia patrols throughout Europe. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38056243

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3480676/Father-hospitalised-Sharia-patrol-Austria-told-stop-threatening-wife-daughter-not-properly-dressed-fears-rise-no-areas-Vienna.html

However, it should be noted that Sharia patrols have been around for a few years prior to this whole ordeal.

 

However, you use the word assimilate very loosely, there are many different examples that prove you wrong that I haven't brought up. I won't bring them up yet, I have no need to, and it's almost 2 AM here anyways.

Great comment! Im not the greatest at explaining political stand points in English, but this is exactly what I ment.

Well,

Wilders for President.

And Le Pen, Höfner etc.

We do have a huge immigration problem in Europe.

And delete the NATO!

Every country for itself.

Just my opinion.

But if you say something like this in my country, especially in the media you will get teared up.

I don't trust the media at all.

I think they are propaganda Instruments of the government and are used to control thr peoples mind.

That's the reason i don't watch TV anymore.

5 hours ago, Schecter004 said:

Well,

Wilders for President.

And Le Pen, Höfner etc.

We do have a huge immigration problem in Europe.

And delete the NATO!

Every country for itself.

Just my opinion.

But if you say something like this in my country, especially in the media you will get teared up.

I don't trust the media at all.

I think they are propaganda Instruments of the government and are used to control thr peoples mind.

That's the reason i don't watch TV anymore.

Haha no context. I can agree with most of these, I think the NATO is very important for Europe. If we remove it Turkey and Russia have too much power. I can somewhat agree with having these people for prime minister or president. I do think Wilders, Le Pen and Hofner dont have a very solid plan. The media is getting a bit out of control esspecially in the US.

6 hours ago, Schecter004 said:

And delete the NATO!

I can't agree with this. The military is my specialty, and doing this would be literal suicide in Europe. The whole point of the common defense (or defence in british english) is to ward off any aggressors through combined superior force. Now, the problem with NATO currently is that countries like Germany out of all irony for example are getting a free ride and in the process severely neglecting their military. We need to enforce the minimum 2% GDP to military budget required by NATO for NATO members.

 

I don't believe Russia should be scapegoated, and threatened by us as much as they are. I don't even believe that Russia is completely to blame for Crimea, however we still must maintain NATO because they can become too aggressive in the region (including Europe) and across the pond again (as they are becoming due to being surrounded by us, and us attempting to eliminate their nuclear deterrence through the THAAD). It's also a very big asset in the war against terror.

NATO is a crucial reason the world is as safe as it is currently, and why we still aren't in another world war yet. To get rid of this is detrimental to all of Europe, and even Russia itself ironically.

Edited March 4, 20179 yr by crkinnh
Added more details

1 minute ago, crkinnh said:

I can't agree with this. The military is my specialty, and doing this would be literal suicide in Europe. The whole point of the common defense (or defence in british english) is to ward off any aggressors through combined superior force. Now, the problem with NATO currently is that countries like Germany out of all irony for example are getting a free ride and in the process severely neglecting their military. We need to enforce the minimum 2% GDP to military budget required by NATO for NATO members.

 

I don't believe Russia should be scapegoated, and threatened by us as much as they are. I don't even believe that Russia is completely to blame for Crimea, however we still must maintain NATO because they can become too aggressive in the region (including Europe) and across the pond again. It's also a very big asset in the war against terror.

NATO is a crucial reason the world is as safe as it is currently, and why we still aren't in another world war yet. To get rid of this is detrimental to all of Europe, and even Russia itself ironically.

I agree, its esspecially important now that Turkey is changing to more of a dictatorship. My country doesnt spend 2% on defence and our infantry is pathetic, some soldier havent even shot real bullets in 2 years (exercises include them saying pang instead of using bb's or ammo), soldiers also share fucking helmets. We do on the other hand have a good navy and air force is decent, our commandos are actually one of the best in the world (due to using the most superior gear gather from around NATO.) But its crucial we spend more cause this is just unfair to other countries.

Just now, S0berDrunk said:

I agree, its esspecially important now that Turkey is changing to more of a dictatorship. My country doesnt spend 2% on defence and our infantry is pathetic, some soldier havent even shot real bullets in 2 years (exercises include them saying pang instead of using bb's or ammo), soldiers also share fucking helmets. We do on the other hand have a good navy and air force is decent, our commandos are actually one of the best in the world (due to using the most superior gear gather from around NATO.) But its crucial we spend more cause this is just unfair to other countries.

That's insane that they haven't shot anything in over 2 years, ammo doesn't even cost much for governments. Even I can afford ammo, in fact I have 500 rounds on my desk right now. Point is that it's usually not expensive for governments because of bulk purchasing and contracting.

If you want my opinion the best way the Netherlands can contribute is through their air force and navy currently, the budget should come back up to 2%, but if it's necessary should be gradually increased incrementally. You should improve your infantry gradually as well, but it's a waste to attempt to do it overnight because of snags logistically.

 

Basically, you guys contribute fine as is due to your geographical location, however you should bring the budget up incrementally to improve the regular army.

I'm probably just echoing you, but that's just how I feel about it.

2 minutes ago, crkinnh said:

That's insane that they haven't shot anything in over 2 years, ammo doesn't even cost much for governments. Even I can afford ammo, in fact I have 500 rounds on my desk right now. Point is that it's usually not expensive for governments because of bulk purchasing and contracting.

If you want my opinion the best way the Netherlands can contribute is through their air force and navy currently, the budget should come back up to 2%, but if it's necessary should be gradually increased incrementally. You should improve your infantry gradually as well, but it's a waste to attempt to do it overnight because of snags logistically.

 

Basically, you guys contribute fine as is due to your geographical location, however you should bring the budget up incrementally to improve the regular army.

I'm probably just echoing you, but that's just how I feel about it.

Requirements are requirements, we have to follow them, yet more budget cuts accure. We're selling tanks to Germany so that they can restore them and then lease them back to us. Yep we made that a thing, leasing god damn tanks. A TV show host also was able to enter a military base and jack a car without anyone stopping him. Our infantry is just a camoflaged SWAT team at this point.

Just now, S0berDrunk said:

Requirements are requirements, we have to follow them, yet more budget cuts accure. We're selling tanks to Germany so that they can restore them and then lease them back to us. Yep we made that a thing, leasing god damn tanks. A TV show host also was able to enter a military base and jack a car without anyone stopping him. Our infantry is just a camoflaged SWAT team at this point.

Oh absolutely, I never said that requirements shouldn't be followed (I agree they should), but you guys definitely have more to worry about financially with the whole migrant ordeal. Therefore a gradual increase should be allowed at this point as you straighten that out.

However, we both also agree that your army is lacking very severely, and absolutely should be improved.

Just now, crkinnh said:

Oh absolutely, I never said that requirements shouldn't be followed (I agree they should), but you guys definitely have more to worry about financially with the whole migrant ordeal. Therefore a gradual increase should be allowed at this point as you straighten that out.

However, we both also agree that your army is lacking very severely, and absolutely should be improved.

I know you agree with me, I just stated it haha. Yeah we're pretty much on the same page haha.

And now the media is onto us. I'm a Sociology student, and I understand the meanings of sensationalism, gate-keeping to get sales and all that, and my faith in the news, a tool I've grown up around, is starting to drop.

LCPDFR/LSPDFR is NOT  a mod used to kill police officers, it is used to ROLE-PLAY. Now I bet the Australian government is going to ban GTA altogether at this rate, especially after that sexual harassment of women in-game accusation.

3 hours ago, Hullian111 said:

And now the media is onto us. I'm a Sociology student, and I understand the meanings of sensationalism, gate-keeping to get sales and all that, and my faith in the news, a tool I've grown up around, is starting to drop.

LCPDFR/LSPDFR is NOT  a mod used to kill police officers, it is used to ROLE-PLAY. Now I bet the Australian government is going to ban GTA altogether at this rate, especially after that sexual harassment of women in-game accusation.

Fuck me, thats a thing now?

30 minutes ago, S0berDrunk said:

Fuck me, thats a thing now?

The admins made a post about it. I would link, but I'm out right now, so I can't.