Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

Page By Category

Forum - Iceland says no, again.

Tags: FAIL THREAD IS FAIL, BORING THREAD IS BORING, iceland, dead vikings, icelandic, Bjork sucks, Iceland is a poor man's Norway, "I wish I were Denmark", not a single fuck was given this day, Mums gone to iceland [ Add Tags ]

[ Return to General Discussion | Reply to Topic ]
BrentonPosted: Apr 11, 2011 - 18:22
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original
#1 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Real RoxettePosted: Apr 11, 2011 - 18:44
(0)
 

There ARE more sluts in public schools. Shut up and let me explain.

Level: 8
CS Original

If not for Sigur Rós and Björk, no one would give a shit about Iceland. 319,000 people on a tiny nearly-frozen island, I'm not sure what so many young people think Iceland is a great place. If I had a nickel for every young, white kid who said they were learning Icelandic, I could probably pay down Iceland's debt.

Ertu lykta hvað ég feta í?

#2 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
BrentonPosted: Apr 11, 2011 - 19:06
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

HAHA HILARIOUS...NOT. I wrote a three-paragraph rambling response to that and decided to delete it. Not entertaining such childishness.

I suppose if we were to take a few "great" things about Iceland. I don't know; virtually unspoiled wilderness, fierce Independence streak, a really old parliament, and then just things like the music scene itself (which extends far beyond Bjork and Siguar Ros) ...

#3 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
MuertosPosted: Apr 11, 2011 - 19:20
(0)
 

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original

Brenton, at one time weren't you trying to sell the Icelandic parliament on supporting the Zeitgeist cult, or am I misremembering that?

#4 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Real RoxettePosted: Apr 11, 2011 - 19:24
(0)
 

There ARE more sluts in public schools. Shut up and let me explain.

Level: 8
CS Original

Did I manage to target you in that demographic? You're one of those people aren't you? lol I bet my Icelandic is better than yours, and I don't even like that country, let alone worship it as a model for anything other than techno, amphetamines, and in-breeding.

#5 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
BrentonPosted: Apr 11, 2011 - 19:28
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

Muertos, not really. Became friends with an elected Icelandic politician (still in Parliament) who dialogued on that sort of thing as a friend. Still friends with her.

Not quite Roxette. I do like both of those musicians, but, I never came to "like" Iceland because of either of them. The first piece of Icelandic "art" I ever liked was the satirical artist Ágústa Eva Erlendsdóttir's character 'Silvia Night'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcgYP65KfrA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCdPzgZUoYc

I suppose if I had to give her context, she's probably the Icelandic equivalent of what Sacha Baron Cohen would do if he created a morphed 'Britney-Madonna Celebrity American Culture' type character.

Far from the stereotype of what people stereotypically think of as Icelandic.

Your Icelandic may be better than mine, but I don't think that really means anything. I intend to study Icelandic History, Language and Culture at the Uni of Iceland later this decade.

#6 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Real RoxettePosted: Apr 11, 2011 - 19:32
(0)
 

There ARE more sluts in public schools. Shut up and let me explain.

Level: 8
CS Original

200 years of being slightly "independent" from Denmark doesn't make you "fiercely" anything, especially when you spent something like 700 years not independent at all. Again, who cares? There's twice as many people in the city I live in, than in that entire country. I don't consider Tomsk to be fiercely anything, other than cold.

I blame my father for knowing any Icelandic at all, even if I'm not good at it; I probably speak like a 7 year old would. A pox on his house!

#7 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
BrentonPosted: Apr 11, 2011 - 19:35
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

200 years of being slightly "independent" from Denmark doesn't make you "fiercely" anything, especially when you spent something like 700 years not independent at all. Again, who cares? There's twice as many people in the city I live in, than in that entire country. I don't consider Tomsk to be fiercely anything, other than cold.

Well, I live in a city with 5 million people ... so? For a small nation that was always more likely to be a colony, it's a pretty big deal. It's not really about whether other people "care", either. This is a really weird mentality. It's like as if it's only okay for something to be highly regarded in your mind if enough of the people from the 'right' demographic like it. Then it's okay to regard it highly? Weird.

#8 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Real RoxettePosted: Apr 11, 2011 - 19:39
(0)
 

There ARE more sluts in public schools. Shut up and let me explain.

Level: 8
CS Original

I never mentioned anything that should be regarded highly. If anything, we should colonize Antarctica.

#9 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
BrentonPosted: Apr 11, 2011 - 19:45
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

You've been hinting at that mentality though because you're talking about the country in a way that says 'well, it has very little to celebrate about it' by saying that people only give a shit about a small part of it's music scene and otherwise it's a backward and internationally irrelevant nation. That is what your mindset implies, that Iceland ought not be regarded much at all.

I guess what I'm trying to emphasise is that it's unfair to stereotype any nation by it's icons alone. That's like the stereotyping of Australia as racist because it's had "iconic" (in the sense that people talk about them regularly) policies in the past such as 'White Australia Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy), despite the fact that it would struggle to get a single vote in favour were a similar policy tabled in Parliament now. We're stereotyped on that sort of thing, but in fairness, it's an unfair and inaccurate stereotype.

#10 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Apr 11, 2011 - 20:11
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

How about this: I only care about my own country and I don't care who gets butthurt about it.

#11 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
domokatoPosted: Apr 11, 2011 - 20:28
(0)
 

Level: 4
CS Original

Iceland has one of the highest rates of belief in evolution and rejection of creationism.

It's also completely powered on geothermal and hydroelectric.

It also has a very low Gini coefficient (= equal wealth distribution).

I just went there last month. You can check out the pictures on my facebook

#12 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
BrentonPosted: Apr 11, 2011 - 20:37
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

I'm an "Internationalist". I care about a lot of countries.

It's also completely powered on geothermal and hydroelectric.

Almost. They're gonna be oil dependent until around 2030-2050. The best economies of this century will be the most ecologically secure ones.

#13 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Apr 11, 2011 - 20:58
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

"The best economies of this century will be the most ecologically secure ones."

You pulled that out of your ass and you know it Brenton.

#14 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Burger KingPosted: Apr 11, 2011 - 22:01
(0)
 

I can't stop posting pictures of poop, what the fuck is wrong with me?

Level: 5
CS Original

Whats "ecologically" mean? Seriously Anybody got a dictionary?

What is IceLand? Why should I care about it? Does it having anything to do with the U.S.?

#15 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
BrentonPosted: Apr 11, 2011 - 22:42
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

"The best economies of this century will be the most ecologically secure ones."

You pulled that out of your ass and you know it Brenton.

Well, out of my own opinion, yes, but there are many economists that agree - and many of them well regarded. But I mean let's take a singular issue - the countries that deal with climate change now rather than in 20 years will (it is argued) be in a far better economic position than nations that don't because as time goes on it will be more expensive to deal with it.

Bill, to over-simplify an ecologically secure economy would be one that doesn't risk massive losses due to environmental problems and it could go as far as an economy making money off of it's regional strengths in a way that can be sustained. But I'm not an economist, and more than happy to highlight that - what I personally say about economics holds no weight. But then again we are only on an internet forum.

#16 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Real RoxettePosted: Apr 11, 2011 - 23:21
(0)
 

There ARE more sluts in public schools. Shut up and let me explain.

Level: 8
CS Original

Iceland has one of the highest rates of belief in evolution and rejection of creationism.

So did the Soviet Union.

It's also completely powered on geothermal and hydroelectric.

Geothermal increases earthquakes, it's not perfection, and hydroelectric can hurt wild life and ruin low lying villages (see China).

It also has a very low Gini coefficient (= equal wealth distribution).

Again so did the Soviet Union.

I just went there last month. You can check out the pictures on my facebook

Braggart!

See, I can be a fancy-pants negative Nancy too.

#17 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Evil ElvisPosted: Apr 12, 2011 - 03:45
(0)
 

STFU!

Level: 1
CS Original

This is what will happen, Iceland will get slapped on the wrists and be told to rethink their actions wisely or else. Same thing happened when Ireland (yes, Ireland, not Iceland) voted NO on the EU referendum - Germany and France said fine, pay us back what we invested in your infrastructure- Ireland voted YES less than a year later.

#18 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
BrentonPosted: Apr 12, 2011 - 04:02
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

The difference between countries like Ireland or Germany is that the people are sovereign in Iceland, not the parliament. (Correct me if in Germany the people -are- sovereign, because I know it's the case in some European countries). In Iceland's case this means that any time the Parliament ("the Althingi") passes legislation the people do not like they are able to petition the President to not provide assent to the Bill and it is his/her constitutional obligation to listen to those demands.

In reality they're still paying back more than the initial sum anyway. Iceland's economy is faring much better than expected and as a result the Landsbanki (read: Icesave owner) assetts are worth more than enough to pay it back. Icelanders have just rejected paying interest on private debt, essentially. I really don't need to repeat that in this discussion because it's all in that interview I posted, but anyway, I think it's a very inspiring/interesting situation.

#19 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Evil ElvisPosted: Apr 12, 2011 - 04:14
(0)
 

STFU!

Level: 1
CS Original

It's the case in every country in the civilized world, you don't like something you gather signatures (percentages needed vary from country to country), present them to the parliament and the parliament orders a referendum.

Iceland will pay everything they are told to pay, fair or not they are not in position to play with these guys.

#20 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
BrentonPosted: Apr 12, 2011 - 04:20
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

The difference between Iceland and other parts of the world where people get signatures for things, when on an issue of policy in Iceland it's the responsibility of the President to periodically refer laws for vote by the country through referendum.

I find it kind of weird that you say they're "not in a position" to reject to pay interest on what they will be returning... that comes across as a very CT-like statement. What will force Iceland to pay more than they already will be ( http://forseti.is/media/PDF/2011_04_10_Statement1.pdf )?

#21 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Evil ElvisPosted: Apr 12, 2011 - 04:24
(0)
 

STFU!

Level: 1
CS Original

It is not a difference, just a different shade.

Nothing CT about it, Iceland wants to play with the big boys in the EU, if they wanna join they will abide rules - logical and other. Same thing happened with a lot of countries before they joined the union, older member states pressed their own personal agendas and made newbies give.

#22 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
BrentonPosted: Apr 12, 2011 - 04:33
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

It is a difference because it's constitutionally guaranteed, whereas in countries like my own Governments do not -have- to react to the demands of the public because Parliament is sovereign and we are not, we get to react in voting intention polls between elections and with an election every three years or so. Icelanders can react to stop Parliament from doing something at any time with the security of knowing that if the public is against something it will generally not happen. That's the difference.

Icelanders would probably be more than happy not to join the EU. That proposal has lost popularity as Iceland's economy has begun regaining strength. And even still, it has never been a proposal with majority public support and if taken to a referendum would probably fail. The threat that the British and the Dutch are making to Icelanders that 'we will block your entry in the EU' isn't concerning to a majority, seriously.

#23 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Evil ElvisPosted: Apr 12, 2011 - 04:37
(0)
 

STFU!

Level: 1
CS Original

I am not so sure, Ireland was pressed during their highest economic growth which was significantly higher that Iceland's.

#24 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
BrentonPosted: Apr 12, 2011 - 04:41
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

This has nothing to do with wealth, though. I mean what are the British and Dutch going to do? Invade fishing zones and steal stocks? LOL.

#25 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Evil ElvisPosted: Apr 12, 2011 - 04:46
(0)
 

STFU!

Level: 1
CS Original

You're young, right? Surely I don't have to explain the benefits of free market, nor the barriers to entry if you chose to stay on the outside. UK alone can buy out Iceland in less than 10 years but what are they gonna do with that depressive island.

#26 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
BrentonPosted: Apr 12, 2011 - 04:58
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

It's really.. not that easy just to "buy" a country.

#27 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Evil ElvisPosted: Apr 12, 2011 - 05:01
(0)
 

STFU!

Level: 1
CS Original

Oh yes it is, US did it in Egypt years ago and now Italy and France are doing it in Lybia.

#28 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EzPosted: Apr 12, 2011 - 05:08
(0)
 

Level: 3
CS Original

Well Italy and France are simply intervening in Libya, currently it isn't even certain that (if) a new government forms that it will be friendly with them. It could turn out to be similar to the assistance given to the Afghani resistance against the Soviets. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" basically.

#29 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Evil ElvisPosted: Apr 12, 2011 - 05:10
(0)
 

STFU!

Level: 1
CS Original

France already secured gas exploitation rights with the rebels and the attacks on Colonel's forces started the day after. Nothing wrong with that of course, just business and a risky one at that.

#30 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]