<strong>No offense, but it sounds likes there is some pretty screwed up politics in some European countries right now. Ultra Left vs Ultra Right, assasination, blatant slandering, and missinformation campaings to the media.
Not that we are perfect either, but we have never had all those things going at the same time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You´re dead right there mate. I don´t pull punches when I criticize the U.S, because I think it´s justified, but something so undemocratic I would not see possible. It´s not 1963 anymore.
I don´t know if this was covered in your respective countries but the Dutch government recently stepped down.
The reason for this was that our Prime Minister was held responsible for the failing of our military in Srebrenica in Bosnia. It also turned out that evidence of what happened there had been hidden and destroyed.
With the Prime Minister the entire cabinet stepped down. Two of the main candidates to become the next Prime Minister of the Netherlands were ministers in that cabinet.
What a joke that would be. They´re too incompetent to be a minister so in turn we make them the leader of our country. Only in the Netherlands people.
Yes, these people lying to the nation and hiding things from the tax payers should lead our country. Not a guy whose thoughts are, at most, controversial.
<strong>No offense, but it sounds likes there is some pretty screwed up politics in some European countries right now. Ultra Left vs Ultra Right, assasination, blatant slandering, and missinformation campaings to the media.
Not that we are perfect either, but we have never had all those things going at the same time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right. Instead we have a game of which party can be as centrist as possible without alienating their radical constituents (labor unions, big business, the psycho christian right) that fund their campaigns. At least we have some form for campaign finance reform for next election.
It is definitely is a sad day for Democracy. Hopefully there will be other candidates that are allowed to speak their mind and gain significant public support. In that respect, you guys are way ahead of us in the US.
Our system is ridiculously corrupt. Hell, the national debates are controlled by the two major parties. The debates are vital to getting the attention of the public. However, you need 15% in the previous election in order to gain entrance to the debates. Well, to gain 15%, you need massive public exposure. To get massive public exposure you need either a wad of cash (like Perot) or a national forum to express their views. Wait, I know a national forum where they can express their views. It's called the debates. Oh wait, they can't participate because they don't have enough public support yet.
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
You're right. Instead we have a game of which party can be as centrist as possible without alienating their radical constituents (labor unions, big business, the psycho christian right) that fund their campaigns. At least we have some form for campaign finance reform for next election.
It is definitely is a sad day for Democracy. Hopefully there will be other candidates that are allowed to speak their mind and gain significant public support. In that respect, you guys are way ahead of us in the US.
Our system is ridiculously corrupt. Hell, the national debates are controlled by the two major parties. The debates are vital to getting the attention of the public. However, you need 15% in the previous election in order to gain entrance to the debates. Well, to gain 15%, you need massive public exposure. To get massive public exposure you need either a wad of cash (like Perot) or a national forum to express their views. Wait, I know a national forum where they can express their views. It's called the debates. Oh wait, they can't participate because they don't have enough public support yet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Our 2 party system is one thing I don't like about US politics.If anything the Dem and Rep parties should be divided into multiple interest parties similar to the Green and Libertarian parties we have now. People should do research into who they vote for instead of looking for the little R or D next to their name.
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
You're right. Instead we have a game of which party can be as centrist as possible without alienating their radical constituents (labor unions, big business, the psycho christian right) that fund their campaigns. At least we have some form for campaign finance reform for next election.
It is definitely is a sad day for Democracy. Hopefully there will be other candidates that are allowed to speak their mind and gain significant public support. In that respect, you guys are way ahead of us in the US.
Our system is ridiculously corrupt. Hell, the national debates are controlled by the two major parties. The debates are vital to getting the attention of the public. However, you need 15% in the previous election in order to gain entrance to the debates. Well, to gain 15%, you need massive public exposure. To get massive public exposure you need either a wad of cash (like Perot) or a national forum to express their views. Wait, I know a national forum where they can express their views. It's called the debates. Oh wait, they can't participate because they don't have enough public support yet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for this post , i have learned something about US today.
[quote]It only happened just a few hours ago, and I'm sure americans wouldn't really appriciate jokes just a few hours after your recent tragedy, 9/11.<hr></blockquote>
1 man killed by someone from his own country.
3000 people killed by foreign terrorists.
Yeah, I'm seeing the connection.
And it WAS "peaceful" leftists that killed him. Just like our "Christian" abortion-doctor killers we had a few years back. Idiots with a political cause, what's wrong with me pointing that out?
"A Dutch environmental campaigner accused of murdering populist anti-immigration politician Pim Fortuyn has appeared in court and will be held for at least another 10 days."
also of interest...
"The suspect is also reported to be an animal rights activist. He is believed to have acted alone and did not have a gun licence."
[edit]
Note that the word is in quotation marks. The quotation marks are there for a reason, think about it.
It wasn´t the word peaceful that made me react. It was the rest of the sentence:
[quote]And it WAS leftists that killed him. <hr></blockquote>
First: Enviromentalist != leftwinged. Its common knowledge that there is a correlation between being left winged and being interested in the enviroment. But it really doesn´t have to be so. I know a lot of lefties that doesn´t give a damn about the enviroment and see all talk about enviroment as a way for the capital to keep the working class down. And a lot of enviromentalists isn´t leftwinged. Parts of the national- conservatives here in Europe is VERY occupied with the enviroment. We really don´t know anything about his political preferences and even if he is leftwinged he most likely acted because he is an enviromentalist (or alternatively because he s crasy)
Second: As your quotes say he propably acted alone so why "leftiES"? By saying that you make it sound like it was a whole moment that killed him.
1) Associated an environmental activist and animal rights activist that killed a far-right politician and leftist philosophy. He's a lefty, sorry if that hurts you in some way, but unless there's a new trend of killing your own representatives that you share beliefs with you haven't thought this through properly.
2) My use of pluralization. (Of course, when this happens on the other side it's "wacko Christians" not "random freak") again:
So he was a lefty and he is only one person. Congratulations on finally grasping the obvious.
1) Associated an environmental activist and animal rights activist that killed a far-right politician and leftist philosophy. He's a lefty, sorry if that hurts you in some way, but unless there's a new trend of killing your own representatives that you share beliefs with you haven't thought this through properly.
2) My use of pluralization. (Of course, when this happens on the other side it's "wacko Christians" not "random freak") again:
So he was a lefty and he is only one person. Congratulations on finally grasping the obvious.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup. The lefties did it. Now if only someone would do the same to all the stupid whacko christians...
1) Associated an environmental activist and animal rights activist that killed a far-right politician and leftist philosophy. He's a lefty, sorry if that hurts you in some way, but unless there's a new trend of killing your own representatives that you share beliefs with you haven't thought this through properly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No sorry. You are wrong. Thats the thing everybody is puzzled about at the moment. He had no connection to the left whatsoever. It is speculated that he may have reacted on some very specific statements by Fortuyn about legalizing hunt, mink farming or something. His only political interest was the enviroment according to the press. Caring fanaticly about the enviroment doesn´t make you left winged. Left winged has something to do with socialism, at least here in europe, and all you have to do is to look at how the east european countries treated the enviroment before 89´ to see that there is no logical connection.
[quote]<strong>2) My use of pluralization. (Of course, when this happens on the other side it's "wacko Christians" not "random freak") again: </strong><hr></blockquote>
I NEVER put people under one hat and label everybody for what individuals do. I dare to find any comment from me where I do that. Look through endless posts about Israel/Palestine and you will find nothing but me putting blame on specific people or limited group. I have more than one time said that most Israelis aren´t as black and white as Mika. And you will never see me arguing that because of the higher rates of shootings in US "all americans are gunslinging idiots". Thats also the reason why I haven´t posted in the "USA Isolationism?" thread.
Go read Norbert Elias "The Established and the Outsiders" why this is so importent in a argument.
No sorry. You are wrong. Thats the thing everybody is puzzled about at the moment. He had no connection to the left whatsoever.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, he sure wasn't from the right. He wasn't just described as an environmentalist but also as an animal rights activist. The animal rights people are from the left.
he wasn't right nor left, this guy (as newspapers say) has never showed interest in politics. he didn't talk about Fortuyn at work nor anywhere else. he's probably just a fool and wants/ needs attention.
So you guys finally got a Ted Kaczynski, eh? Good for you.
I never meant to imply that all leftists killed Pim Fortuyn. I don't think that's logistically possible.
Although it's not as if the wacko environmentalists and wacko animal-rights activists have historically been above harming humans to make their voices heard, it's not odd at all that I associated this man with leftist politics. It seems that even your folk are "puzzled" (to use your word).
You'll also note my classification of leftist ("peaceful") from the beginning.
(Further note: "peaceful" with a wink means: not peaceful)
Although it's not as if the wacko environmentalists and wacko animal-rights activists have historically been above harming humans to make their voices heard, it's not odd at all that I associated this man with leftist politics. It seems that even your folk are "puzzled" (to use your word).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The reason why this is strange is not because he is an enviromentalist that apparently isn´t part of the left but because he killed a right winged and apparently isn´t part of the left. If a left winged politician was killed I would automaticly think it was a (cracy) rightwinged that did it and vica versa. But thats not the case here and thats the puzzling thing here.
I really don´t get you today. You are being quite unlogic in this and the "\tEuropean Protectionism" thread. I know that you aren´t stupid so I really don´t understand you <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>So you guys finally got a Ted Kaczynski, eh? Good for you.</strong><hr></blockquote>If you had to classify, the unabomber would probably be left-wing, too. At least, he's not right-wing.
Comments
<strong>No offense, but it sounds likes there is some pretty screwed up politics in some European countries right now. Ultra Left vs Ultra Right, assasination, blatant slandering, and missinformation campaings to the media.
Not that we are perfect either, but we have never had all those things going at the same time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You´re dead right there mate. I don´t pull punches when I criticize the U.S, because I think it´s justified, but something so undemocratic I would not see possible. It´s not 1963 anymore.
I don´t know if this was covered in your respective countries but the Dutch government recently stepped down.
The reason for this was that our Prime Minister was held responsible for the failing of our military in Srebrenica in Bosnia. It also turned out that evidence of what happened there had been hidden and destroyed.
With the Prime Minister the entire cabinet stepped down. Two of the main candidates to become the next Prime Minister of the Netherlands were ministers in that cabinet.
What a joke that would be. They´re too incompetent to be a minister so in turn we make them the leader of our country. Only in the Netherlands people.
Yes, these people lying to the nation and hiding things from the tax payers should lead our country. Not a guy whose thoughts are, at most, controversial.
<strong>No offense, but it sounds likes there is some pretty screwed up politics in some European countries right now. Ultra Left vs Ultra Right, assasination, blatant slandering, and missinformation campaings to the media.
Not that we are perfect either, but we have never had all those things going at the same time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right. Instead we have a game of which party can be as centrist as possible without alienating their radical constituents (labor unions, big business, the psycho christian right) that fund their campaigns. At least we have some form for campaign finance reform for next election.
It is definitely is a sad day for Democracy. Hopefully there will be other candidates that are allowed to speak their mind and gain significant public support. In that respect, you guys are way ahead of us in the US.
Our system is ridiculously corrupt. Hell, the national debates are controlled by the two major parties. The debates are vital to getting the attention of the public. However, you need 15% in the previous election in order to gain entrance to the debates. Well, to gain 15%, you need massive public exposure. To get massive public exposure you need either a wad of cash (like Perot) or a national forum to express their views. Wait, I know a national forum where they can express their views. It's called the debates. Oh wait, they can't participate because they don't have enough public support yet.
<strong>
You're right. Instead we have a game of which party can be as centrist as possible without alienating their radical constituents (labor unions, big business, the psycho christian right) that fund their campaigns. At least we have some form for campaign finance reform for next election.
It is definitely is a sad day for Democracy. Hopefully there will be other candidates that are allowed to speak their mind and gain significant public support. In that respect, you guys are way ahead of us in the US.
Our system is ridiculously corrupt. Hell, the national debates are controlled by the two major parties. The debates are vital to getting the attention of the public. However, you need 15% in the previous election in order to gain entrance to the debates. Well, to gain 15%, you need massive public exposure. To get massive public exposure you need either a wad of cash (like Perot) or a national forum to express their views. Wait, I know a national forum where they can express their views. It's called the debates. Oh wait, they can't participate because they don't have enough public support yet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Very thoughtful, well laid out, and presented.
<strong>
You're right. Instead we have a game of which party can be as centrist as possible without alienating their radical constituents (labor unions, big business, the psycho christian right) that fund their campaigns. At least we have some form for campaign finance reform for next election.
It is definitely is a sad day for Democracy. Hopefully there will be other candidates that are allowed to speak their mind and gain significant public support. In that respect, you guys are way ahead of us in the US.
Our system is ridiculously corrupt. Hell, the national debates are controlled by the two major parties. The debates are vital to getting the attention of the public. However, you need 15% in the previous election in order to gain entrance to the debates. Well, to gain 15%, you need massive public exposure. To get massive public exposure you need either a wad of cash (like Perot) or a national forum to express their views. Wait, I know a national forum where they can express their views. It's called the debates. Oh wait, they can't participate because they don't have enough public support yet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for this post , i have learned something about US today.
1 man killed by someone from his own country.
3000 people killed by foreign terrorists.
Yeah, I'm seeing the connection.
And it WAS "peaceful" leftists that killed him. Just like our "Christian" abortion-doctor killers we had a few years back. Idiots with a political cause, what's wrong with me pointing that out?
I am sorry for Mr. Fortuyn's family.
<strong>
And it WAS "peaceful" leftists that killed him. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No it wasn´t.
<strong>No it wasn´t.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting, the Dutch government seems to disagree with you. (<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1974000/1974453.stm"; target="_blank">clicky</a>)
"A Dutch environmental campaigner accused of murdering populist anti-immigration politician Pim Fortuyn has appeared in court and will be held for at least another 10 days."
also of interest...
"The suspect is also reported to be an animal rights activist. He is believed to have acted alone and did not have a gun licence."
[edit]
Note that the word is in quotation marks. The quotation marks are there for a reason, think about it.
[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
[quote]And it WAS leftists that killed him. <hr></blockquote>
First: Enviromentalist != leftwinged. Its common knowledge that there is a correlation between being left winged and being interested in the enviroment. But it really doesn´t have to be so. I know a lot of lefties that doesn´t give a damn about the enviroment and see all talk about enviroment as a way for the capital to keep the working class down. And a lot of enviromentalists isn´t leftwinged. Parts of the national- conservatives here in Europe is VERY occupied with the enviroment. We really don´t know anything about his political preferences and even if he is leftwinged he most likely acted because he is an enviromentalist (or alternatively because he s crasy)
Second: As your quotes say he propably acted alone so why "leftiES"? By saying that you make it sound like it was a whole moment that killed him.
1) Associated an environmental activist and animal rights activist that killed a far-right politician and leftist philosophy. He's a lefty, sorry if that hurts you in some way, but unless there's a new trend of killing your own representatives that you share beliefs with you haven't thought this through properly.
2) My use of pluralization.
So he was a lefty and he is only one person. Congratulations on finally grasping the obvious.
<strong>So your two problems are that I:
1) Associated an environmental activist and animal rights activist that killed a far-right politician and leftist philosophy. He's a lefty, sorry if that hurts you in some way, but unless there's a new trend of killing your own representatives that you share beliefs with you haven't thought this through properly.
2) My use of pluralization.
So he was a lefty and he is only one person. Congratulations on finally grasping the obvious.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup. The lefties did it. Now if only someone would do the same to all the stupid whacko christians...
<strong>So your two problems are that I:
1) Associated an environmental activist and animal rights activist that killed a far-right politician and leftist philosophy. He's a lefty, sorry if that hurts you in some way, but unless there's a new trend of killing your own representatives that you share beliefs with you haven't thought this through properly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No sorry. You are wrong. Thats the thing everybody is puzzled about at the moment. He had no connection to the left whatsoever. It is speculated that he may have reacted on some very specific statements by Fortuyn about legalizing hunt, mink farming or something. His only political interest was the enviroment according to the press. Caring fanaticly about the enviroment doesn´t make you left winged. Left winged has something to do with socialism, at least here in europe, and all you have to do is to look at how the east european countries treated the enviroment before 89´ to see that there is no logical connection.
[quote]<strong>2) My use of pluralization.
I NEVER put people under one hat and label everybody for what individuals do. I dare to find any comment from me where I do that. Look through endless posts about Israel/Palestine and you will find nothing but me putting blame on specific people or limited group. I have more than one time said that most Israelis aren´t as black and white as Mika. And you will never see me arguing that because of the higher rates of shootings in US "all americans are gunslinging idiots". Thats also the reason why I haven´t posted in the "USA Isolationism?" thread.
Go read Norbert Elias "The Established and the Outsiders" why this is so importent in a argument.
<strong>
No sorry. You are wrong. Thats the thing everybody is puzzled about at the moment. He had no connection to the left whatsoever.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, he sure wasn't from the right. He wasn't just described as an environmentalist but also as an animal rights activist. The animal rights people are from the left.
[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
it's too easy to blame a group
I never meant to imply that all leftists killed Pim Fortuyn. I don't think that's logistically possible.
Although it's not as if the wacko environmentalists and wacko animal-rights activists have historically been above harming humans to make their voices heard, it's not odd at all that I associated this man with leftist politics. It seems that even your folk are "puzzled" (to use your word).
You'll also note my classification of leftist ("peaceful") from the beginning.
(Further note: "peaceful" with a wink means: not peaceful)
<strong>
Although it's not as if the wacko environmentalists and wacko animal-rights activists have historically been above harming humans to make their voices heard, it's not odd at all that I associated this man with leftist politics. It seems that even your folk are "puzzled" (to use your word).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The reason why this is strange is not because he is an enviromentalist that apparently isn´t part of the left but because he killed a right winged and apparently isn´t part of the left. If a left winged politician was killed I would automaticly think it was a (cracy) rightwinged that did it and vica versa. But thats not the case here and thats the puzzling thing here.
I really don´t get you today. You are being quite unlogic in this and the "\tEuropean Protectionism" thread. I know that you aren´t stupid so I really don´t understand you <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>So you guys finally got a Ted Kaczynski, eh? Good for you.</strong><hr></blockquote>If you had to classify, the unabomber would probably be left-wing, too. At least, he's not right-wing.
<strong>If you had to classify, the unabomber would probably be left-wing, too. At least, he's not right-wing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not really. Ted was very anti-technology. That is usually more of a right wing christian phenomenon.