Hungary's Orbán blackmailed the EU - and it worked.

[Rostos vilmoskörte]

You'd be shocked by Budapest, and Hungary is very Budapest-centric (it's visible it was a Imperial capital of much larger country). City is filled with corruption, decadence and immorality. It is main destination for western European stag parties with include tons of alcohol and hedonism. Along with Prague it is centre of European porn industry, hence it's nickname "Budasex". City is like a decayed Paris, with dangerous hoods in some parts, filled with Gypsies, half breeds and all kinds of lumpen. Budapest has biggest homeless problem in central Europe ever since Gyurcsany closed down many madhouses and threw them on the streets. They sleep on metro stations and are often intoxicated or half-dead. It is a depraved sight. Sex is everywhere, tons of nightclubs, brothels, perversions of every kind, nightlife and decadence of that city are legendary. It reminds of Weimar Era Berlin and Berlin party addicts are massively migrating to Budapest now. There is entertainment available of every kind, and city has a vibe of dark, magnificent metropolis that is in decay but bustling with immorality and lifestyles of all kinds.

Don't get me wrong, city is very safe for western standards. Some parts of it are total shitholes though. City is so large thus much of it's once ultra luxurious and imperial Austro-Hungarian architecture is rotting down because to keep city of such size perfect everywhere requires lot of money.

Hungarian Police is violent and vicious, good old east block school and you don't wanna mess with them. First time in my life when I saw Police patroling the streets with long weapons was in Budapest. I saw them beating up and harassing homeless who weighed 50kg. During bloody carnage of 2006 riots, my ex was viciously beaten and later arrested by Hungarian Police who broke his nose. City is overall edgy and violent, and politically heavily left leaning. Budapesters are typical decadent cosmopolitans on average. These facts don't prevent ocassional gatherings of real nazis and their gangs, including biker gangs who are unlike in rest of Europe not an uncommon sight in the country.

Rest of Hungary is quite quiet and orderly, and electrorate conservative and nationalist, and many rural Hungarians harbour huge dislike for Budapest.

Soros is born Budapester btw, and one of many nicknames of the city is "Judapest" because of its huge Jewish population. It also houses largest Chinese community in central Europe that is really visible and Orban tried to open Chinese University in the city. Since I moved out I didn't follow HU news that much so no idea did it ever open.

Hungary is not what is seems.

Haha i remember when i went to Budapest one time by car instead of using the train, i did the mistake of listning to my wife on where to drive at one point, she told me to go in the lane to the left of us when we were in a traffic jam, i said its the opposite lane but she was so sure it wasnt, but after 10 meters i saw the arrows in the lane pointing towards us, 1 second after i saw police lights in the mirror.
I was so frustrated, i just rolled down the window while the police came up on our side and i just looked straight forward and my wife told them we were from Sweden and doesn't know the roads, i could tell one of them were pissed as fuck even though i didn't understand that much hungarian at the time.
But eventually they let us go since we were in the middle of the road blocking oncoming traffic.

[Blondie]

Budapest has biggest homeless problem in central Europe ever since Gyurcsany closed down many madhouses and threw them on the streets. They sleep on metro stations and are often intoxicated or half-dead.

It was Gábor Demszky, the legendary liberal ex major. He created the ruin bars, he just let these buildings to be ruins The homeless problem is really huge, Demszky's successor was István Tarlós, he banned hobos from the streets, especially from tourist places, maybe this is what you saw. Tarlós was conservative, but he supported this "Budapest = party place" idea. Under his rule, the number of party/sex tourist increased as well and the City got tons of money from it.

Sex is everywhere, tons of nightclubs, brothels, perversions of every kind, nightlife and decadence of that city are legendary. It reminds of Weimar Era Berlin and Berlin party addicts are massively migrating to Budapest now. There is entertainment available of every kind, and city has a vibe of dark, magnificent metropolis that is in decay but bustling with immorality and lifestyles of all kinds.

For example the animal sex is not crime in Hungary, so you can do it. Or the Margaret Island is located in the middle of city and its favourite place of public sex lovers. Once i have been there with friends (not for this reason) and i have seen a couple who had sex, they were just 100-120 meter away from us lol

Don't get me wrong, city is very safe for western standards. Some parts of it are total shitholes though. City is so large thus much of it's once ultra luxurious and imperial Austro-Hungarian architecture is rotting down because to keep city of such size perfect everywhere requires lot of money.

I think München is safer than Budapest. There is a huge contrast bezween the modernized downtown and the ruined suburbs areas like Újpest or Kispest. On the left side there are beautiful medieval but modernized castles and mansions in Buda, on the right side just poor ghettos in many part of Pest.

Hungarian Police is violent and vicious, good old east block school and you don't wanna mess with them.

I think the hungarian police is less violent now that it was before 2010, but still more violent than german police.

Rest of Hungary is quite quiet and orderly, and electrorate conservative and nationalist, and many rural Hungarians harbour huge dislike for Budapest.

Yes and budapesters dont like rural folk as well, especially they dislike east and north hungarians

[Vulvokov]

It was Gábor Demszky, the legendary liberal ex major. He created the ruin bars, he just let these buildings to be ruins The homeless problem is really huge, Demszky's successor was István Tarlós, he banned hobos from the streets, especially from tourist places, maybe this is what you saw. Tarlós was conservative, but he supported this "Budapest = party place" idea. Under his rule, the number of party/sex tourist increased as well and the City got tons of money from it.



For example the animal sex is not crime in Hungary, so you can do it. Or the Margaret Island is located in the middle of city and its favourite place of public sex lovers. Once i have been there with friends (not for this reason) and i have seen a couple who had sex, they were just 100-120 meter away from us lol



I think München is safer than Budapest. There is a huge contrast bezween the modernized downtown and the ruined suburbs areas like Újpest or Kispest. On the left side there are beautiful medieval but modernized castles and mansions in Buda, on the right side just poor ghettos in many part of Pest.



I think the hungarian police is less violent now that it was before 2010, but still more violent than german police.



Yes and budapesters dont like rural folk as well, especially they dislike east and north hungarians

North-East Hungarians you mean. I dislike them too.

[Rostos vilmoskörte]

Yes and budapesters dont like rural folk as well, especially they dislike east and north hungarians

Why?
I never saw any sign of this (northern huns)

[rothaer]

(...)

(...)

Regardless of the questions

(a) to what degree there at all is or will be a climate change (scientists can hardly predict the wheather for more than 10 days as we all know) and
(b) to what extent that is human-made

the very important question (c) if the assumed climate change at the bottom line is advantagous or disadvantagous and in particular for whom is not dealt with. It's banal that this question will yield very different answers for different countries. It completely lacked a discussion where advantages and disadvantages were compared.

Spoiler!

F. i. a global warming would notably extend the arable land in Canada, Scaninavia and Russia. A higher CO2 concentration will yield a better plant growth and thus harvests all around the globe. A global warming would spare immense enegry resources for heating in Europe and other places all around the world. Total desert countries like Saudi Arabia would naturally welcome whatever change as the current climate is already the worst case scenario. The connection of warming and draught as it is uncritically applied is in no way an automatism. At the equator, the warmest region, it is well known that there is no drought around the globe, but tropical rainforest. (Higher temperatures causes more evaporation from the Seas.)

But this is a logical priority question before deciding to at all want to take any action against such a climate change.

The fact that politicians around the world enthusiastically long before such things are determined wanted to take very complex and costly actions against it, ultimately unveils the anti climate change policy as a hoax. Admittedly the hoax is stupid only for the commoners, not for the respective rulers all around. Because the applicable or not applicable climate change is (mis)used for elevating the power that administrations all around the world have as it gives them an accepted excuse for mingeling in into the freedom of individuals and prescribe and thus dominant - i. e. having power - even more.

Does nobody note that we had resembling instrumentalised doomsday scenarios past?

- overpopulation of the planet with coming mass starvings (1960s).
- the end of oil reserves within 30 year (1970s).
- Waldsterben (forest and arable land dying due to pollution) (1980s).
- the ozone depletion and the coming cosmic destruction due to that (the hole later by natural influences became almost as big as the record and nobody cared) (1990s)

People are gullible. If they feel to be in the mainstream they essentially stop thinking.

[Your Old Comrade]

- overpopulation of the planet with coming mass starvings (1960s).
- the end of oil reserves within 30 year (1970s).
- Waldsterben (forest and arable land dying due to pollution) (1980s).
- the ozone depletion and the coming cosmic destruction due to that (today the hole is bigger than ever and nobody cares) (1990s)

People are gullible. If they feel to be in the mainstream they essentially stop thinking.

1. Followed by the so-called One Child Policy in China and similar methods in India and the Green Revolution or Third Agricultural Revolution of the 1970s/ subsequent, smaller, Second Green Revolution of the early to mid 1980s.
2. Followed by redesigning engines so they'd run more efficiently and new oil sources in the U.S, Canada and the North Sea (also 1970s)
3. Followed by laws curbing air pollution (1980s/1990s)
4. Follows by the Montreal Protocol and the phase out of several gases. It reached its largest size in 2000 and has been shrinking since.

Without each answer, the above scenario would have come to pass, it shows that technological improvements do the trick. But the problem lies not with us. It lies with China and India.

[rothaer]

1. Followed by the socalled Green Revolution or Second Agricultural Revolution of the 1970s
2. Followed by redesigning engines so they'd run more efficiently and new oil sources in the U.S, Canada and the North Sea (also 1970s)
3. Followed by laws curbing air pollution (1980s/1990s)
4. Follows by the Montreal Protocol and the phase out of several gases.

Without each answer, the above scenario would have come to pass, it shows that chnological improvements do the trick. But the problem lies not with us. It lies with China and India.

Absolutely not.

Examples for just two of the scenarios:

- New oil reserves were detected all the time anyhow.
- Regarding the ozon topic there was kind of celebrated in 2012 and 2014 the success of the measures. In the year 2015 there was detected that the ozone hole was the biggest ever since the record year of 2006.

Spoiler!

Nach Auswertungen der Messungen aus dem Jahre 2012 wurde am Südpol zum ersten Mal von einer Umkehrung des Ozon-Trends gesprochen: Laut der Leitung des meteorologischen Observatoriums der Forschungsstation Neumayer III sei die Hauptursache dieser Trendumkehrung der Erfolg des weltweiten Verbots von FCKW.[8]

Im September 2014 veröffentlichte die Welt-Organisation für Meteorologie (WMO) einen Bericht: Das Ozonloch werde spätestens im Jahr 2050 kein Thema mehr sein, wenn der Trend anhielte, den die Forschung seit Jahren beobachte.[9]

Im Herbst 2015 teilte das Deutsche Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) mit, nach den jüngsten Daten sei das Ozonloch über der Antarktis (Südpol) ca. 2,5 Mio. Quadratkilometer größer als im Vorjahr und erreiche mit etwa 26 Mio. Quadratkilometern (mehr als die Fläche Nordamerikas) die größte Ausdehnung seit dem Rekordjahr 2006 (ca. 27 Mio. km²).[10][11]

That was not much commented on publicly (surprise). It was found out that there are a lot of natural fluctuations (surprise). And it was not of a big deal anymore (surprise).

I don't state that there were not achieved any good things. There was. The oil crisis elevated the efficiency of engines, the ozon crisis lowered the amount of damaging gases, a bigger ask for food led to an improvement of agricultural techniques, and a reduction of pollution led to cleaner air.

I state that there was repeatedly promoted and exaggeratedly hyped a global doomesday scenario by politicians in order to expand their power. The factual things were just useful vehicles for that. In the context of reducing the air pollution you got an excuse to collect more (car) taxes and force people to buy specific new cars although their old ones would still have done 10 years more. As for the environmental pollution and its consequences it would have been sufficient to buy a clean car when you need a new car. Maybe even the environmental pollution became bigger by producing new cars, that would not yet have been needed. But by exaggerating doomesday scenarios they could do this.

Reducing the pollution is absolutely a good thing. But you need no doomesday scenario nor an exaggeration for fixing the problem. But it gives you the opportunity to push whatever other agenda, here creating benefits for the automobile industry at expense of the commoners and tax payers.

Now, when all was as clean as it could be, the legitimacy for ongoing such things became lost. But they had already get used to this wonderful thing to transfer additional money from the commoners and tax payers to their lobbyist buddies. After a clean burning gives just H2O and CO2 and after it's hard to motivate H2O to be bad they eventually invented an ingenious solution why CO2 should be bad. Thanks god!

[Blondie]

Why?
I never saw any sign of this (northern huns)

Because they are poor with high crime rate.

[Your Old Comrade]

Absolutely not.

Examples for just two of the scenarios:

- New oil reserves were detected all the time anyhow.
- Regarding the ozon topic there was kind of celebrated in 2012 and 2014 the success of the measures. In the year 2015 there was detected that the ozone hole was the biggest ever since the record year of 2006.

Spoiler!

Nach Auswertungen der Messungen aus dem Jahre 2012 wurde am Südpol zum ersten Mal von einer Umkehrung des Ozon-Trends gesprochen: Laut der Leitung des meteorologischen Observatoriums der Forschungsstation Neumayer III sei die Hauptursache dieser Trendumkehrung der Erfolg des weltweiten Verbots von FCKW.[8]

Im September 2014 veröffentlichte die Welt-Organisation für Meteorologie (WMO) einen Bericht: Das Ozonloch werde spätestens im Jahr 2050 kein Thema mehr sein, wenn der Trend anhielte, den die Forschung seit Jahren beobachte.[9]

Im Herbst 2015 teilte das Deutsche Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) mit, nach den jüngsten Daten sei das Ozonloch über der Antarktis (Südpol) ca. 2,5 Mio. Quadratkilometer größer als im Vorjahr und erreiche mit etwa 26 Mio. Quadratkilometern (mehr als die Fläche Nordamerikas) die größte Ausdehnung seit dem Rekordjahr 2006 (ca. 27 Mio. km²).[10][11]

That was not much commented on publicly (surprise). It was found out that there are a lot of natural fluctuations (surprise). And it was not of a big deal anymore (surprise).

I don't state that there were not achieved any good things. The oil crisis elevated the efficiency of engines, the ozon crisis lowered the amount of damaging gases, a bigger ask for food led to an imptovement of agricultural techniques, and a reduction of pollution led to cleaner air.

I state that there was repeatedly promoted and exaggeratedly hyped a global doomesday scenario by politicians in order to expand their power. The factual things were just useful vehicles for that. In the context of reducing the air pollution you got an excuse to collect more (car) taxes and force people to buy specific new cars although their old ones would still have done 10 years more. As for the environmental pollution and its consequences it would have been sufficient to buy a clean car when you need a new car. Maybe even the environmental pollution became bigger by producing new cars, that would yet have been needed. But by exaggerating doomesday scenarios they could do this.

Reducing the pollution is absolutely a good thing. But you need no doomesday scenario nor an exaggeration for fixing the problem. But it gives you the opportunity to push whatever other agenda, here creating benefits for the automobile industry at expense of the commoners and tax payers.

Now, when all was as clean as it could be, the legimacy for ongoing such things became lost. But they had already get used to this wonderful thing to steer the money of the commoners and tax payers to their lobbyist buddies. After a clean burning gives just H2O and CO2 and after it's hard to motivate H2O to be bad they eventually invented an ingenious solution why CO2 should be bad. Thanks god!

I agree. There is a lot of corruption involved, of course,and many of the tax measures taken back then should have been abandoned years ago (the "kwartje van Kok" comes to mind. A measure dating back to 1991 to close the budget), it was also a financial boon for the industry to make people buy new cars instead of merely replacing the engines and exhausts. The phasing out of leaded petrol in Europe also proved beneficial to public health and, in fact, there are theories that it even lowered crime levels (lead impacts the brain) and in the U.S, leaded petrol is still in common use and their motorways cut right through bad neighbourhoods which only worsen the situation.

But in the case of Scenario 1: agriculture is now vastly more productive than it was in 1965, following rationalisations during the 1960s and 1970s, this definetely helped a lot and prevented hunger in the third world. Particularly in China, India and Africa where up to the 1980s, famine was a regular occurence.

Now do I think we in Western Europe need extreme measures and idiotic policies like we currently see here ? No. We already did our part during the 1970s and 1980s, some can even be reversed (the nitrogen debate comes to mind). There is little more that can be done except for opting for more nuclear energy, doubling the electricity network, electrifying and doubling public transportation and wind farms at sea. If real steps have to be taken, then it's by China and India.

[rothaer]

1. Followed by the so-called One Child Policy in China and similar methods in India and the Green Revolution or Third Agricultural Revolution of the 1970s/ subsequent, smaller, Second Green Revolution of the early to mid 1980s.
2. Followed by redesigning engines so they'd run more efficiently and new oil sources in the U.S, Canada and the North Sea (also 1970s)
3. Followed by laws curbing air pollution (1980s/1990s)
4. Follows by the Montreal Protocol and the phase out of several gases. It reached its largest size in 2000 and has been shrinking since.

Btw. I admit all these four past topics to have contained a legit problem (except maybe the oil thing but they didn't expect so much more existent oil and gas - paradoxically this did not lead to happyness and according to today's agenda these resources producing CO2 shall better not be used. So if we don't have them it's a doomesday scenario and if we have them it's a domesday scenario as well. ).

The global warming domesday scenario is the first one without any problem at the bottom line. However, it has not yet been determined and it's also not tried to do because in worst case this beloved political power vehicle could get lost.