American Democracy in serious danger

Any topic that doesn't fit elsewhere.
User avatar
Stats87
Limited Issue
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:39 pm
Location: Vancouver
Contact:

Post by Stats87 »

Goliath wrote:Actually, I don't think The-Iceflash's message was all that bad. He may have worded it a bit clumsy, but in essence an appeal to decency in discourse is very welcome, especially in American politics. I do object to his wish that we appease the nutty part of the spectrum (the Tea Party) just to keep the peace. But trying to get back to a normal tone in the political discourse is not a bad thing. That's why Jon Stewart's 'Rally to restore sanity' got 250.000 people to the National Mall. That rally was targeted toward the 80% of Americans who don't feel represented by the extreme people and voices we see in Congress and on the cable channels.

I mean, who really believes that Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Ed Schultz are a good representation of all Americans? Or that Alan Grayson and Rand Paul stand for the common political views of most citizens? Yes, there are certainly enough people who support those extremists (hence the ratings and voting results), but it's hardly a majority.

I was glad to see some of the better politicians keep on to their seats, like Barbara Boxer, but was also upset that such a good Senator like Russ Feingold got defeated.
Totally agree.

As a Canadian, Russ Feingold always struck me as one of the truly good ones. I've liked him since the first time I saw him interviewed.

Tsk tsk Wisconsin.
User avatar
The_Iceflash
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1809
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:56 am
Location: USA

Post by The_Iceflash »

Lazario wrote:
The_Iceflash wrote:What you guys think about the Tea Party is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
Think? Glenn Beck is an idiot and Sarah Palin is a wholly worthless individual. Based on that alone, I know any party that would have them, let alone hold them up as media heroes, is seriously messed up from the start!
Still irrelevant to my point about tact.
The_Iceflash wrote:Being outspoken and opinionated is not a good trait.
Did you mean to say that? Am I reading that correctly? Look that over now, please. And fix it if that's not what you meant to say. Because otherwise, you believe we should all be impressionable to the point of inaction and should keep everything to ourselves. They invented something called speech for a reason. Nobody with any common sense discourages us from telling others what we think. What we should be doing is making sure the more greedy, hateful people actually do put some thought into the opinions they express. But you're betraying your own belief right now- doing something you've just told us you believe is wrong: sharing your opinion.
Opinionated: holding obstinately to one's own opinions
Outspoken: uttered or expressed with frankness or without reserve
One can share and discuss their opinions and not be be opinionated and outspoken, hence the point about tact.

The_Iceflash wrote:Making obnoxious comments toward others isn't a good thing and it doesn't make for a good environment. Politics and Religion are two things people are very passionate about because for many it defines who they are. Being tactful there to me is more important than anywhere else. Most people are going to shrug off remarks about a favorite movie or character. When remarks are made toward issues involving Politics and Religion people take that personally. As a result, we should be more sensitive to that.
But it simply isn't likely to happen. And the fact is- the Political "Right" started this years ago and polluted the entire nature of discourse. The Left learned that the only way to be heard through this was to shout and shock. The same way their opponents made a name for themselves.
Perhaps not but can't one hope. Unfortunately though, being heard through shout and shock don't exactly show them (or anyone for that matter) in the best light.
Should we change all that? You lean more toward the Right than the Left yourself, if I'm not mistaken- don't you? That's why I personally find it a little hard to listen to this coming from someone who might not have tried to figure out how this mess started. You just want to tell us how we should fix it? Too little, too late now. I quote the great Karen Walker: "grab a bottle, hunker down, and pray for daylight!"
I'm a moderate so yes that means I'm not far left and that also means I'm not far right. (Even though moderate translates into far right for many of you) That doesn't make my point about tact any less valid. Attempting to lump me with the right isn't fair. I don't like the extremists any more than you do. Hence why I'm a moderate.
User avatar
The_Iceflash
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1809
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:56 am
Location: USA

Post by The_Iceflash »

Goliath wrote:Actually, I don't think The-Iceflash's message was all that bad. He may have worded it a bit clumsy, but in essence an appeal to decency in discourse is very welcome, especially in American politics. I do object to his wish that we appease the nutty part of the spectrum (the Tea Party) just to keep the peace. But trying to get back to a normal tone in the political discourse is not a bad thing. That's why Jon Stewart's 'Rally to restore sanity' got 250.000 people to the National Mall. That rally was targeted toward the 80% of Americans who don't feel represented by the extreme people and voices we see in Congress and on the cable channels.

I mean, who really believes that Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Ed Schultz are a good representation of all Americans? Or that Alan Grayson and Rand Paul stand for the common political views of most citizens? Yes, there are certainly enough people who support those extremists (hence the ratings and voting results), but it's hardly a majority.

I was glad to see some of the better politicians keep on to their seats, like Barbara Boxer, but was also upset that such a good Senator like Russ Feingold got defeated.
:clap: :clap:

I agree. I'm glad you see my point. :lol:

Though I wasn't suggesting anyone appease the Tea Party. I apologize for using a bad example (especially one so many have passionate views about). I should have used a better example. All this one did was get everyone off on a tangent about the Tea Party when that was clearly not where I was going with that. :)
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

Goliath should go live in America since he's more interest and concern about America than Netherlands Image
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
User avatar
Sotiris
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 21069
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
Gender: Male
Location: Fantasyland

Post by Sotiris »

Super Aurora wrote:Goliath should go live in America since he's more interest and concern about America than Netherlands Image
U.S politics are international politics, and like it or not, they affect and have an impact on every country and not just American citizens.
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

sotiris2006 wrote:
Super Aurora wrote:Goliath should go live in America since he's more interest and concern about America than Netherlands Image
U.S politics are international politics, and like it or not, they affect and have an impact on every country and not just American citizens.
that's true also. but same can said for any superpower country
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
User avatar
Sotiris
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 21069
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
Gender: Male
Location: Fantasyland

Post by Sotiris »

Super Aurora wrote:that's true also. but same can said for any superpower country
The U.S. is currently the #1 most powerful and influential country in the world :wink:

http://socyberty.com/issues/worlds-most ... countries/
http://top-10-list.org/2010/03/08/ten-m ... countries/
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Goliath
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Goliath »

Super Aurora wrote:Goliath should go live in America since he's more interest and concern about America than Netherlands Image
You don't even know *half* how much I worry about the hard-rightwing government just installed in The Netherlands; a minority government that can only exist because it gets parliamentary backing from a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-islam, anti-everything Tea Partyesque party. :( :x


Back on-topic: yesterday I made an appeal for sanity on both sides of the political aisle, backing The-Iceflash's post. Today, I'm feeling different again. I am that way: whenever I get new input and hear new points of view (though it's not really 'new', but I'm reminded once again), I change sides. I guess I'm not as stubborn as my UD image may lead you to believe...

Anyway, the point I wanted to make: when you think about it, both sides are not equally nutty and loud. Maybe it's just a false equivalency to always say both sides are equals. It can be a false balance, where there isn't any balance at all. Watch the video below from 7:28 and tell me what you think. Is the 'left' really as nutty as the right? I believe they're not.

EDIT: And because the video will soon be taken down, I'm adding a transcript below.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/8DJrz ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/8DJrz ... 1&hl=nl_NL" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>


TRANSCRIPT (from 7:28 )

And finally, New Rule, if you're going to have a rally where hundreds of thousands of people show up, you might as well go ahead and make it about something. With all due respect to my friends Jon and Stephen, it seems to me that if you truly wanted to come down on the side of restoring sanity and reason, you'd side with the sane and the reasonable, and not try to pretend that the insanity is equally distributed in both parties.

Keith Olbermann is right, when he says he's not the equivalent of Glenn Beck. One reports facts, the other one is very close to playing with his poop.

And the big mistake of modern media has been this notion of balance for balance's sake, that the left is just as violent and cruel as the right, that unions are just as powerful as corporations, that reverse racism is just as damaging as racism. There's a difference between a mad man, and a madman.

Now, getting over 200,000 people to come to a liberal rally is a great achievement, and gave me hope. And what I really loved about it was that it was twice the size of the Glenn Beck crowd on the Mall in August! Although it weighed the same.

But the message of the rally, as I heard it, was that if the media would just stop giving voice to the crazies on both sides, then maybe we could restore sanity. It was all non-partisan, and urged cooperation with the moderates on the other side, forgetting that Obama tried that, and found out there are no moderates on the other side.

When Jon announced his rally, he said that the national conversation is dominated by people on the right who believe Obama's a socialist, and people on the left who believe 9/11 was an inside job. But I can't name any Democratic leaders who think 9/11 was an inside job. But Republican leaders who think Obama's a socialist? All of them! McCain, Boehner, Cantor, Palin, all of them! It's now official Republican dogma, like tax cuts pay for themselves, and gay men just haven't met the right woman.

As another example of both sides using overheated rhetoric, Jon cited the right equating Obama with Hitler, and the left calling Bush a war criminal. Except thinking Obama is like Hitler is utterly unfounded, but thinking Bush is a war criminal? That's the opinion of General Anthony Taguba, who headed the Army's investigation into Abu Ghraib.

You see, Republicans keep staking out a position that is further and further right, and then demand Democrats meet them in the middle, which is now not the middle anymore. That's the reason health care reform is so watered down; it's Bob Dole's old plan from 1994. Same thing with cap-and-trade; it was the first President Bush's plan to deal with carbon emissions. Now the Republican plan for climate change is to claim it's a hoax.

But it's not. I know that because I've lived in L.A. since '83, and there's been a change in the city: I can see it now. All of us who live out here have had that experience. Oh look, there's a mountain there! Government, led by liberal Democrats, passed laws which changed the air I breathe for the better. OK, I'm for them! And not for the party that is, as we speak, plotting to abolish the EPA. And I don't need to pretend that both sides have a point here. And I don't care what left or right commentators say about it; I only care what climate scientists say about it.

Two opposing sides don't necessarily have two compelling arguments. Martin Luther King spoke on that Mall in the capitol, and he didn't say, "Remember folks, those Southern sheriffs with the fire hoses and the German shepherds, they have a point too!" No, he said, "I have a dream, they have a nightmare!" This isn't Team Edward and Team Jacob. Liberals, like the ones on that field, must stand up and be counted, and not pretend that we're as mean or greedy or short-sighted or just plain batshit as they are. And if that's too polarizing for you, and you still want to reach across the aisle and hold hands and sing with someone on the right, try church!
Last edited by Goliath on Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

sotiris2006 wrote:
Super Aurora wrote:that's true also. but same can said for any superpower country
The U.S. is currently the #1 most powerful and influential country in the world :wink:

http://socyberty.com/issues/worlds-most ... countries/
http://top-10-list.org/2010/03/08/ten-m ... countries/
The top 4 listed there is exactly what I expect of now, and also expect China to reach #2 or 1 in few years. I'm not kidding.





and Goliath, wow that's surprising. Though I never hear you say much about them only few times.
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
User avatar
Goliath
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Goliath »

Super Aurora wrote:and Goliath, wow that's surprising. Though I never hear you say much about them only few times.
Well, what can I say? You're all familiar with American politics, so I can discuss them here. But if I brought up Dutch politics, who would know anything about it? Would it mean anything to anybody? I think not.
User avatar
Duckburger
Special Edition
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:23 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Duckburger »

On the topic of Dutch politics. I certainly don't agree with everything that the right-wing party you're talking about in particular says or does, but they do make a good point about the immigration laws. It costs the government yearly about 7 billion euros -most of the immigrants heavily rely on social security and other unemployment benefits- which results in high tax increases, effectively screwing over the Middle Class people (then again, the Middle Class is screwed over regardless it seems). And Islam... I mean really? Generally I'm all for freedom of religion, but Islam in particular is a very backwards religion -a lot of people who immigrated from Muslim countries refuse to accomodate to Western society. The much preferred term 'melting pot' doesn't really work with Islam when the laws within the Muslim countries they came from require you to be killed if you want to leave the religion in question. Kind of sets people apart. I'm not a fan of any religion to be completely honest, but Islam is a little too radical for my taste (Catholicism in a same sort of way too, but that's for a different topic). Then there's the fact that all religions are steadily decreasing in Europe, except Islam (thanks to the exceptionally high number of immigrants each year), which I don't see as a good thing -I'd prefer it if all religions were decreasing, not just the Western ones. Again, I don't agree with most of Wilders' policies, but those two things I tend to agree with. But I'm sure most of the things he promised pre-election will not happen anyway, to much dismay of many of his voters (I didn't vote for him btw). He can talk the talk, but the other parties won't let him walk the walk, which -I guess- in the long run is a good thing.

I also recently read that he wants to ban people from having double nationalities. Where would that leave people from Morocco, who are forced to keep their Moroccan nationality? Maybe you know more about this.
User avatar
Goliath
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Goliath »

Duckburger wrote:On the topic of Dutch politics. I certainly don't agree with everything that the right-wing party you're talking about in particular says or does, but they do make a good point about the immigration laws.
I don't agree. They act like there's something called 'mass-immigration' and make it seem like hundreds of thousands of immigrants get into the country every year. In fact, immigration has been cut in half over the past 10 years, and of those immigrants coming to Holland, only half of them get a permit to stay here. A very small percentage of them come from so-called 'islamic countries' like Turkey or Morocco, the ones the Freedom Party (PVV) wants to keep out. The person responsible for cutting these figures in half is the leader of the Labour Party, the same one who gets the scorn of the Freedom Party for the so-called 'mass-immigration'.
Duckburger wrote:It costs the government yearly about 7 billion euros -most of the immigrants heavily rely on social security and other unemployment benefits- which results in high tax increases, effectively screwing over the Middle Class people (then again, the Middle Class is screwed over regardless it seems).
That's not entirely true. That number comes from a report the Freedom Party had ordered done by some institution themselves. I wouldn't call that an impartial report. The president of that institution has said in the Dutch press that he thought the Freedom Party had explained the research results in a misleading way. The immigrants don't rely heavily on social security; they justv rely on them more than 'native Dutch people'. But that doesn't mean the overwhelming majority of immigrants have jobs and pay their taxes, too.

The way the debate is framed in The Netherlands these days, it seems like immigrants come here to profit from our social security, and that they 'steal' benefits away from 'us'. You seem to be going along with that. I'm sorry, but I won't fall for that age-old 'divide and conquer'-strategy of the Freedom Party. To say immigrants are the reason our taxes go up is ridiculous. In The Netherlands, we pay a very reasonable amount of taxes, compared to the rest of Europe. We don't pay extraordinaryly much, like the Freedom Party would have us believe. The reason why taxes go up for the middle class, is because the right-wing parties in charge want to lower the taxes for big business again, and don't want to raise taxes on homeowners owning a house worth more than €500,000, like the left-wing parties want.

Blaming immigrants, a socially weak and underprivilidged and discriminated group, is silly.
Duckburger wrote:And Islam... I mean really? Generally I'm all for freedom of religion, but Islam in particular is a very backwards religion -a lot of people who immigrated from Muslim countries refuse to accomodate to Western society.
All religions are stupid, I would say. To single out one religion and take away the rights of a minority based on their religion (which is what the Freedom Party wants to do) is discriminatory. Either you treat all religions equally and give them all the same rights, or you forbid them all certain things. But you can;t single out one religion just because that furthers your political agenda which counts on the fear of the easily manipulated 'native Dutch' citizens.
Duckburger wrote:The much preferred term 'melting pot' doesn't really work with Islam when the laws within the Muslim countries they came from require you to be killed if you want to leave the religion in question. Kind of sets people apart. I'm not a fan of any religion to be completely honest, but Islam is a little too radical for my taste (Catholicism in a same sort of way too, but that's for a different topic).
I'm the first to criticize religions for that kind of crazy and dangerous habits and I'm not going to deny that this exists in a small portion of the 'islamic community'. But you're talking about "the muslim countries they came from", whereas the people the Freedom Party are adressing often don't even "come from" those countries. Their grandparents do! But the generation of today was born and bred in The Netherlands, yet they're still being treated as foreigners. "You're guests here", one of the Party's members (Mr Brinkman) said in a meeting with Moroccan youth who were born and raised in this country. So is the Freedom Party's criticism really about Islam as a religion? I would be okay with that, but I believe that's what they're hiding behind.

Because if you want to battle islamic extremism, terrorism etc., why would you propose policies that would negatively affect modern, westernized muslims, like the Freedom Party does? They propose banning the Qu'ran; no new mosques; no headscarves allowed in public buildings; no islamic schools. All the rights Christians and Jews and all other groups have in The Netherlands, they want to take that away from Muslims. How's that gonna help integration? It won't. Again, it's discriminatory.
Duckburger wrote:Then there's the fact that all religions are steadily decreasing in Europe, except Islam (thanks to the exceptionally high number of immigrants each year), which I don't see as a good thing -I'd prefer it if all religions were decreasing, not just the Western ones.
Again, wrong on both points. Studies done in The Netherlands have shown that the so-called 'Third generation' (grandparents born in muslim countries) are far less likely to go to the mosque. They are far less interested in religion. They are becoming rapidly secular, studies show. And I already explained how there is no such thing as a "exceptionally high number of immigrants". Like I said, the numbers have veen decreasing for the past 10 years. The Netherlands has the second-toughest immigration policy in Europe, next to Denmark.
Duckburger wrote:Again, I don't agree with most of Wilders' policies, but those two things I tend to agree with.
Geert Wilders is the leader, and officially the only member, of the Freedom Party. (It's not really a party because it doesn't allow any members, so it has no internal democracy, like all other parties.) And yes, it seems very, very, very much like you *do* agree with his policies. Because above, you have showed you have fallen for all his demagoguery and half-truths. I'm sorry if I put it a bit harsh, but you know me... Tell me it isn't true.
Duckburger wrote:But I'm sure most of the things he promised pre-election will not happen anyway, to much dismay of many of his voters (I didn't vote for him btw). He can talk the talk, but the other parties won't let him walk the walk, which -I guess- in the long run is a good thing.
But the two parties whi form the government (conservative-liberals and christian-democrats) have legitimized his policies and ideas by using his parliamentary support to form a government.
Duckburger wrote:I also recently read that he wants to ban people from having double nationalities. Where would that leave people from Morocco, who are forced to keep their Moroccan nationality? Maybe you know more about this.
It can't be done. Take our future Queen Máxima, who's from Argentina. People from Argentina can't give up their Argentine nationalty. You really think the cabinet is going to force her to give up her royal title because she can't get rid of her Argentine passport? :lol:
User avatar
Duckburger
Special Edition
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:23 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Duckburger »

You make excellent points. And I do admit that I haven't kept up with politics as much as I should/want to. It does seem that I agree with a lot Wilders has said, you're absolutely right. I assume that it's mostly because of the misrepresentation of muslims on the news that I and probably many others feel this way. It's hard not to get influenced by what he says when he puts it in a sugarcoated "we're going to return the country to its old glory" kind of fashion, at least... I think I heard him say a lot of that stuff. But one thing I have noticed is that he gets a lot of support from the US, no wonder the percentage of muslims is decreasing in the US, they're really gunning for them over there (Bill O'Reilly was fired up over the mosque on Ground Zero too from what I could gather).

But I would never, ever vote for someone like Wilders. Especially not since he compared the Kuran to Mein Kampf. That was seriously messed up, and he wonders why people want to kill him. From there on out I knew that Wilders was not going to do us any good. It's mostly my inner disdain for religion that pushes me a little bit towards his views (putting my apparant incorrect views on immigration aside :lol: ), but I honestly thought that Islam was still the fastest growing religion in Europe. In a way you could say that for the same reason I would never vote for the ChristenUnie, who I believe are also complete whackjobs.
User avatar
Goliath
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Goliath »

Duckburger wrote:You make excellent points. And I do admit that I haven't kept up with politics as much as I should/want to. It does seem that I agree with a lot Wilders has said, you're absolutely right.
Reading back, it seems like I was a bit too harsh. It's not like Mr Wilders doesn't have ideas that I agree with. His program for the elderly and preservation of social security are points I absolutely agree with. So it's not strange people get attracted to this. But my point is that you don't have to vote for the Freedom Party for that agenda. Their paragraph on social security was taken right from the Socialist Party, who have been advocating it for 20 years. Mr Wilders comes out of the free-market party VVD, which is opposed to most social benefits. So I believe he has used that paragraph to make his program broader and more appealing to a lot of people, but he doesn't really believe in it.
Duckburger wrote:I assume that it's mostly because of the misrepresentation of muslims on the news that I and probably many others feel this way. It's hard not to get influenced by what he says when he puts it in a sugarcoated "we're going to return the country to its old glory" kind of fashion, at least... I think I heard him say a lot of that stuff.
Yes, what Mr Wilders does, is taking legitimate criticism of Islam, and legitimate concerns of people who live in impoverished areas where the crime rate is high, and turn that into something unreal and unrealistic. For example: it is true that a small group of muslims harrass women and homosexuals, because their religion says men and women are unequal and homosexuality is a sin. Nobody is denying that. But what Mr Wilders does, is turning that problem (which has to be solved pragmatically) into a much larger, non-existing problem, like "islamization of The Netherlands/Europe", calling immigrants "colonists". Or he takes the issue of high crime rates among young Moroccans (which is true) but then blames that on Islam. But Islam doesn't make people go into crime. Yet he has lead many people to believe this connection.
Duckburger wrote:But one thing I have noticed is that he gets a lot of support from the US, no wonder the percentage of muslims is decreasing in the US, they're really gunning for them over there (Bill O'Reilly was fired up over the mosque on Ground Zero too from what I could gather).
He gets support from the US from people like Pamela Gellar, who wrote a book about how president Obama is a secret muslim from Kenya who wants to impose sharia law on America. Mr Wilders recommended her books as "a shocking and insightful revelation". It's remarkable to notice how he has brought typically Republican rhetoric and policies into Dutch politics. The Freedom Party's vocabulary of "liberal media", "liberal elite" and "liberal judges" is directly copied from the US Republicans.
Duckburger wrote:But I would never, ever vote for someone like Wilders. Especially not since he compared the Kuran to Mein Kampf. That was seriously messed up, and he wonders why people want to kill him. From there on out I knew that Wilders was not going to do us any good.
Well, I agree that comment was in bad taste, like many of his comments. (Like his proposal to tax the head scarve.) But I'm certain you agree with me that no comment ever warrants death threats. The one thing I agree on with Mr Wilders, is that he should be able to say what he wants without being threatened. If people have a problem with him, they can go to court (which they did), but you can't make death threats.
Duckburger wrote:It's mostly my inner disdain for religion that pushes me a little bit towards his views (putting my apparant incorrect views on immigration aside :lol: ), but I honestly thought that Islam was still the fastest growing religion in Europe. In a way you could say that for the same reason I would never vote for the ChristenUnie, who I believe are also complete whackjobs.
I completely understand that feeling. I believe it were my strong anti-religion comments that are partially responsible for the closing of the 'What is your religion'-thread on this forum. I just wish Mr Wilders has kept to criticizing Islam, instead of making proposals to discriminate against muslims. Had he done that, and had he been less radical, he wouldn't have gained so much hate from the left. Islam is indeed growing in Europe, when you compare numbers from 50 years ago to now, because immigrants have come here in large numbers (mostly because we needed the work force). At the same time, Christianity has been on the decline in all countries. So in recent decades, Islam has been on the rise, but recent studies have shown they become secular rapidly. Such studies have been done by Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau (www.scp.nl) and Centraal Bureau Statistiek (www.cbs.nl).

Most people in Holland think immigration has grown over the last decade, I think. It's a matter of perception, and "perception is reality", like an old political saying goes. Just like it's a common myth that it was the leftist parties who were mostly responsible for the 'mass-immigration', when the opposite is true. Like American Democrats, Dutch leftist don't dare to fight back. They don't dispute this and therefore, keep the myths alive. They're afraid of being perceived as 'out of touch', so they keep their mouths shut.

Anyway, it was nice to have a political debate with a fellow Dutchie --in English. I hope it made some sense to our American friends. I also hope I didn't come off as too dominant or harsh, but... that's our national trait: being loud and outspoken. :wink:
User avatar
The_Iceflash
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1809
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:56 am
Location: USA

Post by The_Iceflash »

Goliath wrote:
Duckburger wrote:It's mostly my inner disdain for religion that pushes me a little bit towards his views (putting my apparant incorrect views on immigration aside :lol: ), but I honestly thought that Islam was still the fastest growing religion in Europe. In a way you could say that for the same reason I would never vote for the ChristenUnie, who I believe are also complete whackjobs.
I completely understand that feeling. I believe it were my strong anti-religion comments that are partially responsible for the closing of the 'What is your religion'-thread on this forum.
Which is a shame for the thread seeing as it shouldn't have been an anti-religious platform to begin with. It was a place to say what your religious or non-religious beliefs were. It was not a place for one to go on an anti-religious rant. That was probably as instance where tact should have been used. No one should have to justify their religious beliefs to anyone nor should they have to defend it. One can't judge all religious people or groups the same way. It is an ignorant thing to do.
User avatar
Disney's Divinity
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 16239
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
Gender: Male

Post by Disney's Divinity »

Well, to be fair, there were certain others who were just as outspoken on the religious side (and not just directed at Goliath either), who also attempted to turn the thread into a sermon.

But, yeah, I'm totally out on the politics of other countries. Which isn't a good thing, I know. I'm really not invested into the politics of my own country--it just always seems like the people don't have any real control over what happens or who the candidates are. (Though it might just be that 8 years under Bush has made me apathetic). Half the politicians lie while campaigning, and the other half don't seem to try hard enough once they are elected. It's all about the paycheck, that's all.

And, @ sotiris, I wouldn't have guessed the U.S. was still the most powerful/influential. I was under the impression that most of the other countries either hated us, thought we were stupid, or just made fun of us. And I thought the war would've had an impact on our army's power, etc. (I suppose if the U.S. ever fell down from number one, everybody would blame it on gays in the military and "the gay agenda." :roll: :lol: )
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Taylor Swift ~ ~ "The Fate of Ophelia"
Taylor Swift ~ "Eldest Daughter"
Taylor Swift ~ "CANCELLED!"
User avatar
Sotiris
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 21069
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
Gender: Male
Location: Fantasyland

Post by Sotiris »

Disney's Divinity wrote:And, @sotiris, I wouldn't have guessed the U.S. was still the most powerful/influential. I was under the impression that most of the other countries either hated us, thought we were stupid, or just made fun of us.
Being hated is the price you have to pay for being powerful. :wink:
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Goliath
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Goliath »

Disney's Divinity wrote:But, yeah, I'm totally out on the politics of other countries. Which isn't a good thing, I know. I'm really not invested into the politics of my own country--it just always seems like the people don't have any real control over what happens or who the candidates are. (Though it might just be that 8 years under Bush has made me apathetic). Half the politicians lie while campaigning, and the other half don't seem to try hard enough once they are elected. It's all about the paycheck, that's all.
Even though you say you're not invested in your country's politics, I would say you made a pretty good assessment of the current state of politics. People have very few control over the people in Congress and the White House. One of the reasons is the two party system and the 'winner takes all' principle, in which large amounts of voterd don't get a representation, because the votes of the 'loser' all go immediately to the 'winner'. That's why there's no viable third party. A third party in the 'winner takes all' system would simply sipphon votes away from either the Democrats or Republicans. That's why there are such things as 'safe Republican states' or 'safe Democratic states'.

Another reason is indeed the paycheck. I've read on several occassions that the average Congressperson spends half of his/her time getting in enough donations for their campaigns for re-election. Not only does this sipphon away time they could spend on actually representing the voters, but it's also a form of legalized bribary. Candidates need ridiculous amounts of money. What's spend in a presidential election on both sides would be enough to feed an entire African country for a year! (Well, that's hyperbolic, but still...) Of course, corporations who donate to politicians (which the Supreme Court has recently ruled doesn't have to have any limitations anymore!) will want to see something back for their money. That's why most laws never negatively affect big business, but do hurt the middle and working class.
Disney's Divinity wrote:And, @ sotiris, I wouldn't have guessed the U.S. was still the most powerful/influential. I was under the impression that most of the other countries either hated us, thought we were stupid, or just made fun of us.
The reason for this is simple: military power. There's a lot of talk about the military being overstretched from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but don't forget that the US still spends more on its military *than all other countries in the world combined*. Some 51% of the annual budget goes to Defense. And don't forget you have military bases in almost every country in the world. There's no other country in the world that does this. If you closed all those bases and brought all those soldiers home, and if you cut the Defense budget in half, the US would *still* have the most powerful military in the world, but you could also give every US citizens health care and a college education.

You know how all politicians say social security and health care have to be cut, because they run up the deficit? That's bullshit. Yes, health care costs twice as much in the US than in other Western countries (with twice as bad results), but it's not what keeps the deficit at a record-high of a few hundred trillion dollars.
The_Iceflash wrote:Which is a shame for the thread seeing as it shouldn't have been an anti-religious platform to begin with. It was a place to say what your religious or non-religious beliefs were. It was not a place for one to go on an anti-religious rant. That was probably as instance where tact should have been used. No one should have to justify their religious beliefs to anyone nor should they have to defend it. One can't judge all religious people or groups the same way. It is an ignorant thing to do.
That's true. However, I said it *may* have been 'partially' my fault. As I remember it, there were some very strict religious people in there as well, and they got their warnings, too. Like I said before, tact is all fine and dandy with me, but I'll call bullshit when I see it. And no, that doesn't mean I'll insult all Christians. Why should I? You want to believe that, that's fine with me.

But when people start claiming 'scientists' have found Noah's Arc; or when they post a video of an ordinary guy telling he had died, went to hell, and then came back to life again as 'proof' that heaven and hell exist... I'm going to call that batshit. And I'm not going to apologize for it. Because there's opinion, there's religion... and then there's batshit. And yes, I think I can be the judge of that. :P

But that is all OFF-TOPIC here and belongs in pap64's thread about forum etiquette.
dvdjunkie
Signature Collection
Posts: 5613
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:05 am
Location: Wichita, Kansas

Post by dvdjunkie »

Two things I never get involved in discussing in public are Religion and Politics.

From what I have been reading here, most of you seem to have a clear head about what is going on in Washington, but then there are the "idiots" who think that "change" is gonna come if you just wait for it.

If you saw President Obama on 60 Minutes last night you will see the image of a man who just doesn't get it. With all the Democrats getting voted out of their seats, he is still talking about compromise, and believe me, it isn't going to happen.

Those so-called "Bush tax-cuts" are not the end of the world, but if they don't get extended, all of us, I don't care how old you are or what part of the country you live in, will be affected very negatively. And then all the whining will start.

Those of you who call yourself Conservatives should look at the whole picture, and those who claim they are Conservative Democrats should quit lying to themselves, because there has never been and never will be a Conservative Democrat, only Liberals who enjoy spending other people's money with nothing to show for it.

I will not argue with anyone, anytme, anywhere, about Politics or Religion.

:)
The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
MagicMirror
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by MagicMirror »

The principle of smaller, less hands-on government appeals to me very much - since it seems to advocate independent freedom and responsibility, working in and benefiting from the Free Market rather than expecting the government to do anything for you - and there do seem to be moderate Tea Party voters (though it may sound rather a contradiction in terms) who support them on this basis.
What is distressing to me about the Tea Party is the emphasis on religion (though there are a lot of Christians in America, it never has been and never should be a 'Christian country', or indeed have any kind of state religion) and the racist element of the movement, fringes or not. In my opinion the Republican Party in America has long been a joke and will continue to be a joke unless it manages to become a halfway coherent whole (and the Tea Party don't seem the sort to compromise). Thankfully as it is, I think Obama's actually in a good position - just let the Republicans collapse from within.

It's interesting to see the differing perceptions of government in America and here in the United Kingdom, and how massively both blow things out of proportion. Obama's health care plan seems to make many in America think he's some kind of hardcore Marxist and seem to have led to a new Red Scare. In the U.K. David Cameron's cuts on public services seem to have led most to assume that he flogs the homeless in between dining on the disabled with a side order of newborn babies.
Image
Post Reply