dutch government has fallen (again)

[scrtmstr]

I think people just say they agree with him but when it comes down to it... they will be too affraid to vote on him. Wilders will be the next Pim Fortuyn... someone is going to snap one of these days and kill him... and I for one won't mourn him.

It will be more like Theo van Gogh, when Geertje will be killed.

Anyway, I'm not allowed to vote, but if I could i would vote for PVDA or D66, something in that direction. the PVV has some good ideas, and I also think Wilders has some good ideas, but he's going to far sometimes, like with that movie.

 

[DCG]

that movie just sucked, but there was a point in it.

 

[Satangel]

Been there, done that.
Belgium's government has fallen last year too, you'll hardly notice it

 

[Midna]

I'm afraid that Wilders wil get many votes, but the only things he's yelling are:
1 fuck Muslims
2 fuck Europe

Morron

That's kind of ironic, moron.

 

[Overlord Nadrian]

Finally, it's your turn

Belgium still doesn't have a proper government yet -_-

 

[Maikel Steneker]

I'm afraid that Wilders wil get many votes, but the only things he's yelling are:
1 fuck Muslims
2 fuck Europe

Morron
That's really not true. I don't agree with a lot of things that Wilders say, but I do hope he'll get a lot of votes. The reason for that is simple: what he does is show people that there are problems which won't be solved if political parties like the ones in the current (previous if you will) government continue doing stupid things. Yes, Wilders does have some pretty extreme opinions about Islam. But one thing you mustn't forget is that he doesn't hate Muslims or any racial group. At all. He just doesn't agree with them and wants people to see why. If he ever becomes prime minister (which I highly doubt), it's not like he will discriminate against any group, including Muslim people. He just thinks that the western, Christian culture is superiour. And what's wrong with that? If he didn't think that, he would be a Muslim too.

PVV: right-wing morons who think any problem can be solved with throwing out Muslims (they're not duct-tape, they don't solve everything)
Do your research. They don't want to throw out anyone, in the most extreme case they don't want to get any new muslims in the country.

VVD: We play like dis: Rich people shouldn't have to pay more taxes than the people with average/below-average incomes, because rich people should stay rich and we don't care if the poor get worse

Again, do your research. Only a few years ago, Mark Rutte (political leader of VVD) said that he agreed that richer people should pay more taxes. One thing he is very passionate about is raising taxes. He does not want to raise them, because it will negatively affect the economy, which is exactly what we don't need in times like these. It might be absolutely necessary in the future, but only after every other possibility has been carefully examined. For example, parties like PvdA insist on spending money on the prevention of global warming. Well, climate changes are very important and should not be ignored, but it's no use wasting money on programmes that simply do not work. Also, a lot of our taxes go to African countries. Of course, these need our help because they're not as fortunate as we are. But is it really smart to just give the money to rich, important people in those countries without knowing what they'll do with it? I think not, and we need right-wing parties to ask these questions.
QUOTE(fateastray @ Feb 20 2010, 05:07 PM)

CDA: Yeah, look at the past week. What a bunch of douchebags.

I agree. Still, they're not entirely at fault. Wouter Bos (political leader of PvdA) has a point about them making a promise to their voters about the war in Afghanistan, but it's irresponsible of him to be so vague to the NAVO. Also, he has committed himself to working with CDA and CU. He can't just decide something without them agreeing. In this particular case, PvdA might have won a lot of voters, but they also have been very childish. At least CDA made some sacrifices before so the government wouldn't fall in a time where political instability can affect the economy so much.

 

[TrolleyDave]

I'm afraid that Wilders wil get many votes, but the only things he's yelling are:
1 fuck Muslims
2 fuck Europe

Morron

He's coming over to Britain soon for a speech in the House of Commons about Fitna. He's whipped up the EDL into a frenzy who are gonna hold a demonstration to show support for his anti-Islamic views.

 

[Kwartel]

I'm afraid that Wilders wil get many votes, but the only things he's yelling are:
1 fuck Muslims
2 fuck Europe

Morron

He's coming over to Britain soon for a speech in the House of Commons about Fitna. He's whipped up the EDL into a frenzy who are gonna hold a demonstration to show support for his anti-Islamic views.

The first time he couldn't enter the country... Go Britain!

 

[TrolleyDave]

I'm afraid that Wilders wil get many votes, but the only things he's yelling are:
1 fuck Muslims
2 fuck Europe

Morron

He's coming over to Britain soon for a speech in the House of Commons about Fitna. He's whipped up the EDL into a frenzy who are gonna hold a demonstration to show support for his anti-Islamic views.

The first time he couldn't enter the country... Go Britain!

This his appeal to lift the ban. I'm hoping the ban is kept in place.

 

[Maikel Steneker]

This his appeal to lift the ban. I'm hoping the ban is kept in place.

Why? For arguments sake, let's assume he hates all Muslims and wants to ban the Islam and Koran. I can see why you wouldn't like him, but there's no reason to ban him from a country in my opinion. It's not like he's trying to kill people or take their freedom.

In the Netherlands there recently was a Muslim who told a journalist that we should kill all Jews. According to your logic, we should ban him from our country. It may be me, but that seems like a really wrong thing to do. Even if it's insulting or discriminating, I feel everyone should be able to express their opinion. After all, you can't stop people from thinking something, so this would only make it clearer what someone thinks, wants and can do wrong.

 

[Overlord Nadrian]

This his appeal to lift the ban. I'm hoping the ban is kept in place.

Why? For arguments sake, let's assume he hates all Muslims and wants to ban the Islam and Koran. I can see why you wouldn't like him, but there's no reason to ban him from a country in my opinion. It's not like he's trying to kill people or take their freedom.

In the Netherlands there recently was a Muslim who told a journalist that we should kill all Jews. According to your logic, we should ban him from our country. It may be me, but that seems like a really wrong thing to do. Even if it's insulting or discriminating, I feel everyone should be able to express their opinion. After all, you can't stop people from thinking something, so this would only make it clearer what someone thinks, wants and can do wrong.

Maybe not ban him from the country, but at least punish him in some kind of way, maybe send him to a psychiatrist? I don't know, even freedom of speech (lolBase) should have a limit somewhere.

 

[TrolleyDave]

Why?

Because in this country there are a group of around 15,000 right-wingers (with a very high percentage of ex and current football hooligans) who idolise him and call him the "ultimate patriot" for speaking out against Islam. They use the film Fitna as grounds for committing racist attacks, promoting anti-Muslim propaganda and smashing up city centres across the UK around once a month under the guise of "peacefully protesting against Islam and Sharia Law in the UK". When the right-wing group are kept under reasonable control then I wouldn't give a toss if he was allowed back in the country. At the moment all it would take is for him to say the wrong thing and the group would then go on a rampage through Britain attacking Muslims and destroying Mosques. Hell, if he just said "I agree with your stance" they would use that as an excuse to step up the violence.

For arguments sake, let's assume he hates all Muslims and wants to ban the Islam and Koran. I can see why you wouldn't like him, but there's no reason to ban him from a country in my opinion. It's not like he's trying to kill people or take their freedom.

No, he's not. The right-wing group currently campaigning in the UK are "inspired" by his words and using them as the ultimate statement on why Muslims should be kicked out of the country, all Mosques torn down and no new one's built and the Qu'ran and Islam banned. I've also seen plenty of calls for the killing of Muslims from the more extreme ones. He may not be calling for these things, but their is a mass group in this country calling for those things and using Wilders words as justification for why it should be done and he is not condemning it. With power comes responsibility.

In the Netherlands there recently was a Muslim who told a journalist that we should kill all Jews. According to your logic, we should ban him from our country.

No, but he should be punished for inciting racial hatred and violence just the same as anyone else would.

QUOTE

It may be me, but that seems like a really wrong thing to do. Even if it's insulting or discriminating, I feel everyone should be able to express their opinion. After all, you can't stop people from thinking something, so this would only make it clearer what someone thinks, wants and can do wrong.

I'm a firm believer in free speech. Even though I hate the BNP and the EDL I still defend their right to speak, it's just the words they say and the propaganda they push should be based on study, truth and it should be balanced. It's up to decent and intelligent people to speak out against it and point out the lies or un-researched/mis-informed statements when free speech is abused. Free speech like power comes with responsibility. And freedom of speech isn't freedom to lie and insult, it's a very different thing.

Maybe not ban him from the country, but at least punish him in some kind of way, maybe send him to a psychiatrist? I don't know, even freedom of speech (lolBase) should have a limit somewhere.

Your last statement is spot on Nate!

 

[Maikel Steneker]

Because in this country there are a group of around 15,000 right-wingers (with a very high percentage of ex and current football hooligans) who idolise him and call him the "ultimate patriot" for speaking out against Islam. They use the film Fitna as grounds for committing racist attacks, promoting anti-Muslim propaganda and smashing up city centres across the UK around once a month under the guise of "peacefully protesting against Islam and Sharia Law in the UK". When the right-wing group are kept under reasonable control then I wouldn't give a toss if he was allowed back in the country. At the moment all it would take is for him to say the wrong thing and the group would then go on a rampage through Britain attacking Muslims and destroying Mosques. Hell, if he just said "I agree with your stance" they would use that as an excuse to step up the violence.
I understand why you'd want to ban him now, but I still don't agree. The first reason for that is that Wilders won't say anything like "I agree with your stance". He doesn't. You might not think so, but Wilders is someone who wants to solve things by democratic means and absolutely not through violence. I regret to say that I don't really know anything about the situation in England, but I don't see why these people would choose Wilders as their so-called prophet. People like Theo van Gogh or Ayaan Hirsi Ali were for more extremist than Wilders is.

The right-wing group currently campaigning in the UK are "inspired" by his words and using them as the ultimate statement on why Muslims should be kicked out of the country, all Mosques torn down and no new one's built and the Qu'ran and Islam banned. I've also seen plenty of calls for the killing of Muslims from the more extreme ones. He may not be calling for these things, but their is a mass group in this country calling for those things and using Wilders words as justification for why it should be done and he is not condemning it. With power comes responsibility.
You're right. Wilders should know exactly what things that he says can do. This is actually pretty ironic: the one thing Wilders warns about (namely how the Quran can be interpreted to killing everyone who's not a Muslim) is happening with his own words.

I'm a firm believer in free speech. Even though I hate the BNP and the EDL I still defend their right to speak, it's just the words they say and the propaganda they push should be based on study, truth and it should be balanced. It's up to decent and intelligent people to speak out against it and point out the lies or un-researched/mis-informed statements when free speech is abused. Free speech like power comes with responsibility. And freedom of speech isn't freedom to lie and insult, it's a very different thing.
This is, again, something I do not agree with. There are multiple reasons for that.

I see it this way: suppose that I have some extremist opinion that is based on false information and would insult a lot of people. The way I see it, I might as well express that opinion. That way, people will know what I think and they won't be surprised. It also allows decent and intelligent people (and judging by what you say here, you're probably pretty intelligent and decent) to point out the factual errors in what I'm saying. Of course, there will be some stupid people that use my opinion to do wrong thing, but you probably can't avoid that. At least, you can win over the intelligent people that might agree with my wrong opinion. If it's truly wrong, they will see that.
QUOTE(TrolleyDave @ Feb 21 2010, 08:51 PM) QUOTE(Hoverlord Nadrian @ Feb 21 2010, 07:29 PM)

Maybe not ban him from the country, but at least punish him in some kind of way, maybe send him to a psychiatrist? I don't know, even freedom of speech (lolBase) should have a limit somewhere.

Your last statement is spot on Nate!

Like I said earlier, I don't agree. I'll freely admit that that might be because I'm still quite young. At the age of 18, you probably haven't seen enough of the world to make a judgement. If you ask me, freedom of speech should be limited only when it's about directly encouraging people to kill or otherwise attack people. If there's another limit, for example that you may not insult people, who will be the one to judge if you're being critical or insulting?

This is especially important when taking the viewpoint of someone like Wilders. Whether he's right or not, he believes he's warning the world (or at least the Netherlands) for a group of people who are going to completely destroy the Western civilization. Keeping him silent will, at least to him and the ones who agree with him, just make us look like we want it to happen and will encourage them to become violent and extremist.