Here comes Belgium
-
After murdering Fortyn, lynching of Buttiglione and van Kroes, and contributing to the murder of van Gogh, here's latest leftie initiative from Europe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3994867.stm[^] ...this is from the same people that allow socialist and communist party. Tomaž
Are you claiming Vlaams Blok isn't racist and xenophobic?
Fold With Us! "Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms - Groucho Marx, 1890 - 1977"
-
Are you claiming Vlaams Blok isn't racist and xenophobic?
Fold With Us! "Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms - Groucho Marx, 1890 - 1977"
No. I'm claiming that constitutional backdoors that allow excluding political parties from the democratic process in combination with arbitrary interpretation of label "racist" is bigger danger to democracy and freedom then the extreme parties themselves. What the stupids did was 1) used court to supress secessionist policies under label "racism" and 2) increased support for the Vlaams Blok instead. If we ever have extreme right again in Europe I'm sure the lefties will accuse those that protected freedom of speech of doing it - when in fact they're doing it themselves by such utterly stupid decisions. I guess goverment interventions on the political market are equally disastrous as goverment interventions on the market of goods. They don't work and the power to do it is a constant threat if exploited. Tomaž
-
I am ducth (as most problems on your list are) YOU ARE INSULTING!!!:mad::mad: please do not try to make our problems into statments for your completely insane vision on the world. :mad::mad::mad: Move to a country that is right for you (I cannot think of one I guess you will have to build your own) disallowing the Vlaams Blok is a good Idea they should also disallow the AEL there (an arabic extremistic party that states every murdered american soldier in Irak is ok). Please go to the Hague now, there is a small fight going on please get involved X| Rutger
Respecting copyright laws I wonder if I can I use the text of your message to reply to next Dutch that has an opinion on president Bush, Iraq or the United States? I would offer you fair compensation but I think it is going to be used so often that I will not be able to afford it. Tomaz
-
Ah, but again you show your more simplistic side. When I talk about Communism and Socialism I'm talking about the concepts and precepts of such, not how these systems were implemented. Your major problem is that you don't know the difference between a political system and ideology, and an implemented system or ideology, such as in the USSR and China. You're making wild and sweeping claims about things you don't understand, and have little to no knowledge of, based on your right-skewed bias. At the very least the fact that you don't know enough history that there is a correlation between suffering/crisis in the working classes and communism and also suffering/crisis in the middle classes and fascism shows your incredible ignorance. I could further this by pointing out your denial that Fascism and Nazi-ism are in fact not the same, (no, they're not), is almost ludicrous. To clarify, when I talk about Communism and Socialism I'm not talking about Russian or Chinese implementation of these systems because (to put it plainly for you) I do not believe it possible for a truly communist or socialist state to exist, the leaders want more (power, money etc.) and are in the position to grant themselves that. Human nature is selfish, not selfless and true socialism and communism could only exist in a truly selfless society. Russia and China have realistically been no more than dictatorships which extol the virtues of socialism that are needed for the leaderships of the controlling parties to perpetuate and maintain their position of power. If you want to compare the Nazi party in 1940's Germany with the Communist party in 1940's Russia that's fine, but don't carry on making spurious and tenuous links in your own mind that simply don't tie up in the real world. Either that or you should put your tin-foil hat back on, I think the microwaves are affecting yur brain... Rhys A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk I have a workstation... Vampireware /n/, a project, capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it, which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless refuses to die.
Rhys, I know communism and socialism very well, I lived in these systems. At the end, when everything was collapsing, a popular saying was: "The system is good. It's the people who are bad." That little saying says everything about the dreamers who dream of scientific Marxism. Every Marxist experiment ever conducted brought same results. And therefore for me Soviet Russia is communism. There is no and never was another communism. This might be simplification. But it needs no apology. Tomaž
-
No. I'm claiming that constitutional backdoors that allow excluding political parties from the democratic process in combination with arbitrary interpretation of label "racist" is bigger danger to democracy and freedom then the extreme parties themselves. What the stupids did was 1) used court to supress secessionist policies under label "racism" and 2) increased support for the Vlaams Blok instead. If we ever have extreme right again in Europe I'm sure the lefties will accuse those that protected freedom of speech of doing it - when in fact they're doing it themselves by such utterly stupid decisions. I guess goverment interventions on the political market are equally disastrous as goverment interventions on the market of goods. They don't work and the power to do it is a constant threat if exploited. Tomaž
I strongly disagree. It's a good thing racist and xenophobic parties can be rejected from the democratic process. If such a thing was implemented in 1933, there would have been less problems. Germany, Belgium, France (all friends of yours) have such laws since the end of WW2, and I don't remember any of the 3 became dictatorships since. Tomaž Štih wrote: political market :laugh::laugh::laugh: Tomaž Štih wrote: goverment interventions In a democracy, it isn't the government who decides for the laws, but the parliaments, the elected representation of the people.
Fold With Us! "Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms - Groucho Marx, 1890 - 1977"
-
Rhys, I know communism and socialism very well, I lived in these systems. At the end, when everything was collapsing, a popular saying was: "The system is good. It's the people who are bad." That little saying says everything about the dreamers who dream of scientific Marxism. Every Marxist experiment ever conducted brought same results. And therefore for me Soviet Russia is communism. There is no and never was another communism. This might be simplification. But it needs no apology. Tomaž
Tomaž Štih wrote: Rhys, I know communism and socialism very well, I lived in these systems. At the end, when everything was collapsing, a popular saying was: "The system is good. It's the people who are bad." That little saying says everything about the dreamers who dream of scientific Marxism. Every Marxist experiment ever conducted brought same results. And therefore for me Soviet Russia is communism. There is no and never was another communism. This might be simplification. But it needs no apology. See my previous post I do not believe it possible for a truly communist or socialist state to exist, the leaders want more (power, money etc.) and are in the position to grant themselves that. Human nature is selfish, not selfless and true socialism and communism could only exist in a truly selfless society. Russia and China have realistically been no more than dictatorships which extol the virtues of socialism that are needed for the leaderships of the controlling parties to perpetuate and maintain their position of power. Sorry Tomaz but Communism and Socialism are and never have been the same. Soviet Russia != Communism Whether you like it or not is not my problem, neither is whether you believe it or not. I do however think it's fairly sad and pathetic that you go around spouting your opinion based on your subjective experience as fact. Europe isn't run by a Socialist elite (which technically can't exist, and if one does it cannot be socialist so it really doesn't :wtf: :eek: ). Mainland Europe however does tend to lean to the left as the last step to the right led to the murder of more than a million jews in the Nazi concentration camps. Also, generally speaking, the political right is more exclusive than inclusive and since the forming of the Common Market policies and EU, the mainland European countries have been forced into being more inclusive which under normal circumstances will prevent gravitation toward the right of the political spectrum. Your comparison is between fascism and the Soviet Communist party of post-WW2 thru' the cold war period, (if I followed that correctly) not Facsism and Socialism. You've got to remember that just because someone names themselves something, it doesn't make them that thing. Rhys A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk I have a workstation... Vampireware /n/, a project, capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assi
-
No. I'm claiming that constitutional backdoors that allow excluding political parties from the democratic process in combination with arbitrary interpretation of label "racist" is bigger danger to democracy and freedom then the extreme parties themselves. What the stupids did was 1) used court to supress secessionist policies under label "racism" and 2) increased support for the Vlaams Blok instead. If we ever have extreme right again in Europe I'm sure the lefties will accuse those that protected freedom of speech of doing it - when in fact they're doing it themselves by such utterly stupid decisions. I guess goverment interventions on the political market are equally disastrous as goverment interventions on the market of goods. They don't work and the power to do it is a constant threat if exploited. Tomaž
-
Respecting copyright laws I wonder if I can I use the text of your message to reply to next Dutch that has an opinion on president Bush, Iraq or the United States? I would offer you fair compensation but I think it is going to be used so often that I will not be able to afford it. Tomaz
Tomaž Štih wrote: reply to next Dutch that has an opinion on president Bush, Iraq or the United States? Err Just wondering but if he's not allowed to offer opinions because he's Dutch what gives you the right to offer opinions? pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
-
Fascism was started by a renegade socialist and main editor of mainstream socialist newspaper Avanti, Benito Mussolini in Italy. Ideologically it was a socialist movement, but one that endorsed state corporativism. In Germany national socialism was another flavour of socialism that replaced "the capitalist" with "the jew" (hence - national). Hitler's party NSDAP was continuation of the German Workers Party. National socialistm and fascism are two different philosophies with the same core - they are both derivates of socialism. Another socialism (soviet type) was born in 1917 in Russia. Here are some good links for you to explain why people hated each other so much. http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/marx_hitler.htm[^] http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/marx_hitler2.htm[^] People hated each other because they were brainwashed into beliving that social differences between people are bad and that they're being exploited. They simply went to seek for the big bad exploiter and found it - Soviets in intellectuals, owners and managers, Hitler in jews. And, p.s., Hitler and Mussolini were in favour of collectivism, big goverment, high tax, and lotsa regulation. Not something you would seek on the right these days. Rhys666 wrote: Tomaz you really are a fool I'm not. You just don't know history while being deply convinced that you do. Tomaž
Tomaž Štih wrote: Hitler and Mussolini were in favour of collectivism Not in the industrial area, at least for Germany. The german economy wasn't collectivized after 1933, on the contrary. Who financed Hitler if it isn't the German conservatives, and the bosses of the different Konzerns? And von Papen and Hindenburg were communist also, I suppose?
Fold With Us! "Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms - Groucho Marx, 1890 - 1977"
-
Tomaž Štih wrote: "World War II was caused by freedom of speech." I don't know about that, but World War 1 was just a big family argument -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit! Phoenix Paint - back from DPaint's ashes!
benjymous wrote: World War 1 was just a big family argument Agreed.
Fold With Us! "Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms - Groucho Marx, 1890 - 1977"
-
jan larsen wrote: You still didn't get the point, it' actually quite easy to understand, but I guess I can try again: Belgium offers money and airtime to political parties under certain criterias, one criteria being not to spread racism. ...for arbitrary definitions of racism, apparently apropriate to stigmatize popular right wing political party that is about to win elections and whoose racism is defined as "being against immigration policies". jan larsen wrote: The concerned party spreads racism, so they violates the criteria above. Result: No funding, and no airtime. ...for arbitrary definitions of racism. And of course, funding and airtime are available to socialist parties. This nicely symbolises euro socialist democracy. You have: 1. state funding of political parties, 2. state funding of media and 3. limitation of freedom of speech (apparently no 1st amendment here) by discrimination. That is excellent. Socialists will sponsor their own political parties via the state and promote it via state media and exclude competition from funds and televisions. And that's all good and well. How come I don't understand such simple logic. The problem is I do understand it. jan larsen wrote: But they never say that other historical experiences, such as Soviet Russia or Khmer Rouge (or recently) red brigades could be a reason for banning socialists and communists Do you think that communism shoul be banned on those reasons? No. I'm strongly against banning anyone. I'm just saying that banning anyone's freedom of speech based on his ideology is simply wrong. jan larsen wrote: Is there something wrong about distributing wealth Speaking against the rich is in essence equal to speaking against immigrants. Rich are just another minority group. Tomaž
Tomaž Štih wrote: for arbitrary definitions of racism, apparently apropriate to stigmatize popular right wing political party that is about to win elections and whoose racism is defined as "being against immigration policies". You still haven't got a clue: Vlaams blok[^] Sorry to ruin a good discussion with facts. Tomaž Štih wrote: No. I'm strongly against banning anyone. I'm just saying that banning anyone's freedom of speech based on his ideology is simply wrong. [sigh!], they can speak all they want, they can march the street with banners, they can buy airtime on the radio and TV, they can buy commercials in the newspapers. But they will not get PAID to vent their criminal ideas. Tomaž Štih wrote: Speaking against the rich is in essence equal to speaking against immigrants. Rich are just another minority group What kind of response is that to: "Is there something wrong about distributing wealth "?, I just don't get it? Anyway: Tomaž Štih wrote:Rich are just another minority group :omg::doh: "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
jan larsen wrote: So, all of a sudden your for state funding? In Belgium they have 1. state funding of political parties, 2. state media that provides air time. Thus if you're banning one political party from this process you are discriminating. Of course, state sponsoring is wrong. But if there is something even more wrong then it is the state only sponsoring the socialists. jan larsen wrote: Nothing wrong with being a socialist or a communist, but the court has found that the party is racist. ...for arbitrary values of "racist" (and we know how fast socislists are with this label). Apparently this label is apropriate to exclude a political opponent of the left using such laws insteda of elections. This is simply wrong. On the other side communists and socialists talk about the rich in exactly the same way racists talk about other races. But that is considered their freedom of speech. And it is. The problem is that everyone should be free to speak as they want. Unfortunately, Belgium don't know something like the 1st amendment. Instead they have some sort of "socialist democracy" where good socialist thingies and left political correctness are above the rights of man. And of course, from such system one can't expect anything better then what happened. jan larsen wrote: Apparently the Belgium state donates money and air time on the stateowned tv channel(s) to parties that lives up to certain criterias. The party in question didn't live up to those criteria, so no funding for them. Excellent. The state will sponsor socialists but not the opposition, based on socialist laws, conflicting with such shining examples of democracy and freedom as 1st amednment. How fair. Now there's a country for ami dems to emigrate to. They'd probably ban Republicans (of course, using the taxpayers money to do so). Tomaz
Tomaž Štih wrote: Unfortunately, Belgium don't know something like the 1st amendment. Art. 10 in the Belgian constitution. There are no class distinctions in the State. Belgians are equal before the law; they are the only ones eligible for civil and military service, but for the exceptions that could be made by law for special cases. Again, sorry to ruin an interesting argument with facts... Tomaž Štih wrote: On the other side communists and socialists talk about the rich in exactly the same way racists talk about other races. No they don't. Tomaž Štih wrote: Excellent. The state will sponsor socialists but not the opposition, based on socialist laws, conflicting with such shining examples of democracy and freedom as 1st amednment. Let's pretend you didn't continue to broadcast the level of your ignorance, and get to the point: The state will, and have as you could have read from the article done so, sponsor the opposition. As long as the opposition isn't in conflict with the law. Tomaž Štih wrote: How fair. Now there's a country for ami dems to emigrate to. And as long as the Vlaam Blok isn't leading the government, they actually could! "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Tomaž Štih wrote: reply to next Dutch that has an opinion on president Bush, Iraq or the United States? Err Just wondering but if he's not allowed to offer opinions because he's Dutch what gives you the right to offer opinions? pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
[schyy!], don't wake him, he dreaming that he's living in the United States of Wonderland. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus