|
|
On September 11 2012 05:32 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:26 HunterX11 wrote:On September 11 2012 05:15 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 04:56 Tula wrote:On September 11 2012 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2012 03:23 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 02:54 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 02:42 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2012 02:27 NonCorporeal wrote:
Wow KwarK, what a rant, wow. With all due respect, I think that using the recent election of right-wing (EU defition) parties across Europe as an example of how Europe is moving towards American capitalism is ridiculous. There have been "conservative" (EU definition) elected in Europe before, and they haven't done anything meaningful to end the welfare state; and likewise, neither have the parties that have recently been elected in UK, Germany, Italy, and other EU countries. By that same definition, one could argue that they are also moving towards socialism again, with the Socialist Party forming a government in France and winning the presidential election a few months ago, with part of their platform claling for over 70% income tax.
These so-called "right-wing" parties in Europe are so far-left by normal standards, that they haven't done anything to end the welfare state, they haven't done anything to promote gun rights, they haven't done anything to stop multiculturalism, and they haven't done anything to re-instate freedom of speech and other freedoms that Europeans have lost under socialism. The people of Europe may very well want to move towards American-style capitalism and freedom, but they apparently have no outlet to make that happen, since the people they repeatedly elect into office are nowhere near radical enough to return capitalism to the people of Europe; possibly because politicians and bureaucrats often benefit from having a socialist welfare state and a big government.
Also, America is rapidly moving towards Europe, despite the fact that European leaders and politicians have been trying to warn America not to go down their path for at least a decade now. We've seen America moving further and further towards a big government welfare state and a nanny state that will strip people of their freedom and of their 'pursuit of happiness' (right to keep the fruits of their labor). There are factions in this country, mostly Democrats who want nothing more than to create a socialist welfare state, to nationalize healthcare, to nationalize various industries (we already nationalized the auto industry, and recently Obama said that he wants to nationalize "all other industries" as well), we've seen the lefties pushing towards more draconian gun control laws, we've seen the lefties trying to ban "fatty foods," we've seen the lefties pushing their multicultural agenda, and we've seen the lefties pushing a European-style "North American Union," and we've seen the lefties repeatedly side with Palestine instead of Israel.
Edit: Sorry, double posted on mistake.
It just baffles me how can anyone honestly say with a straight face that the American left isn't trying to turn America into Europe 2.0? "far-left by normal standards" Are you serious? By the standards of pretty much every single liberal democracy in the world America is far, far right. The fact that you're like "we're normal, it's all the other countries who are all abnormal" just shows the depths of ignorance enjoyed by those who still believe in American exceptionalism. You also in no way refuted the fact that Europe used to be socialist and that any claim that they're heading towards socialism based upon the legacy of socialist policies is factually untrue. Okay, imagine you saw a guy swimming in the sea, then loudly say "I don't want to swim anymore", then get out of the water, then say "I'm now no longer going to swim" and then walk away from the beach with wet hair. Would you conclude from this that because water is wet and he is wet he is clearly going for a swim or would you instead look at the direction he was walking in and conclude that he's perhaps just gone for a swim. I know it's a fairly silly example but I just cannot understand how to make the idiocy of what you're saying any clearer to you. I have outlined the history of socialism in the UK to you and explained that we have in fact already been socialist and that all of our major parties have rejected socialism openly and that the new consensus is far, far to the right of the previous consensus in the 50s and 60s. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. The things that you are saying are not the things that are true. This is not an opinion or something that you can argue. These are things that you can look up. I know you heard on whatever right wing fear media you subscribe to that the rest of the world is falling to the forces of socialism but it's factually incorrect. Not true. Wrong. Read a book for once. Do some independent research. Open your damn eyes. Where is the evidence that Europe is moving away from socialism towards the free-market? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument seems to be based on "we're not as socialist as we used to be, so clearly we love capitalism now." If you're going to claim that someone's argument is factually untrue, then you should at least provide legitimate reasons as to you feel that way. Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted. You seem confused. You made a claim about things changing, getting more socialist and less capitalist. For it to be the case that "we're not as socialist as we used to be" just is for it to be the case that we're "moving away from socialism and toward a free market" (unless of course they were going even further left, which they aren't). Whether or not anyone "loves capitalism now" has nothing to do with it. A change is a change. You claimed, based on nothing, that the change was in one direction. Kwark pointed out that it's been in the other. Be glad you've learned something today. Ah, here's the thread at its worst: not seeing the forest for the trees. Noncorporeal is exactly right in that democrats are pushing the US to be more like Europe in terms of government policy. I don't even think that this is fairly debatable. He's also right in pointing out that Europe is having a lot of difficulty managing its more socialist/liberal policies. That's the "forest." With regards to whether Europe is becoming more socialist or more capitalist, that's a rather difficult question to answer. You have to consider time frames and you also have to consider each country on an individual basis. I don't think anyone can argue that France is on a decidedly socialist trend (and quite frankly, I can't wait for this little experiment to blow up spectacularly in their faces). Regardless, this issue would be the "trees." Bottom line: stick to the larger point rather than giving Noncorporeal a shitty time about the more irrelevant stuff. What you're doing is inane. EDIT: And to be clear, this applies to the half-dozen other posters who have jumped on Noncorporeal. To be very clear as well, Noncorporeal is about as wrong as he could possibly be and the ignorance reflected in his posts so far (as well as his staggering ability to ignore counterpoints or demands for sources) is pissing people off quite badly. Now to be even more precise, by the ludicrous standard of "gun-control" or "right to bear arms" (both things which are culturally VERY different in Europe) we do not have ANY division among our parties, so everyone including the most radically right parties must be socialists! Do you realise how silly that sounds? Not a single party in Austria is advocating looser gun control. There is no demand for it. Considering your previously well defined Republican bias, I'll ignore your statement about Obamas intentions, wether he truly wants that or not, is not something I'm willing to judge, but implying that Europe is moving towards socialism shows hilarious ignorance at best if it isn't a cheap troll. Regarding Freedom of speech, we (as in Austria and Germany) have by consensus restricted ourselves in regards to Nazis and Neo-Nazis, that might be an infringement of this article, but considering what happened half a century ago, I can happily live with that restriction. As a point of note, when your personal Freedom of speech infringes on hate-crimes and racism (as was the case with Herr Küssler) you should be facing trial in any democracy. Looks like you were wrong about Austria. Freedom isn't a "cultural" thing, gun rights are a fundamental right that all free humans have, our rights come from nature, not from the government. An important aspect of democracy is the protection of minority rights, that includes people who have unpopular opinions. What is a "hate crime?" Seriously, why should "hate crimes" even exist? If you're doing something that is already illegal, then why do you need to make it a "hate crime?" If someone slits a black person's throat, why should it matter if said person did it because he was black or not? Why should that have any impact whatsoever on the law? The additional criminal component of a hate crime is not simply hatred itself, but the chilling effect it has on the freedom of members of a minority group. An important aspect of democracy is the protection of minority rights. So you think the government should punish people based on the reasons they committed the crime? That doesn't seem like a very "fair" way to run a judicial system, everyone is supposed to be viewed equally under the law; just because a victim is a minority, doesn't mean they somehow deserve greater compensation for the crime committed (or that the alleged perpetrator desrves more punishment). One could argue that every crime, committed against a minority or not, has a chilling effect on the community.
Hate crimes extend to whites and I'm not sure if serious or not but a basic tenant of law is to punish based on the reason they commit the crime.
As to your other proclamation Europe is not moving to the right that can be debated by the power of Angela Merkel, the election of Mario Monti, Antonis Samaras and David Cameron.
|
On September 11 2012 05:34 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:13 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 05:12 Doublemint wrote:On September 11 2012 05:05 NonCorporeal wrote:
If Europe is so right-wing, why do several European countries have communist parties in their parliaments?
Belarus
Communist Party of Belarus - 8 Lower House Seats
Czech Republic
Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia - 2 Upper House Seats - 26 Lower House Seats - 4 EU Seats
France
French Communist Party - 20 Upper House Seats - 10 Lower House Seats - 2 EU Seats
Communist Party of Réunion - 1 Lower House Seat
Germany
Die Linke - 76 Lower House Seats - 178 State Seats - 8 EU Seats
German Communist Party - 1 State Seat
Greece
Communist Party of Greece - 12 Seats - 2 EU Seats
Kazakhstan
Communist People's Party of Kazakhstan - 7 Lower House Seats
Luxembourg
The Left - 1 Seat
Moldova
Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova - 39 Seats
Portugal
Portuguese Communist Party - 14 Seats - 2 EU Seats
Russia
Communist Party of Russia - 92 Lower House Seats
San Marino
United Left - 5 Seats
South Ossetia
Communist Party of South Ossetia - 8 Seats
Spain
United Left - 2 Upper House Seats - 11 Lower House Seats - 1 EU Seat
Transnistria
Pridnestrovie Communist Party - 1 Seat
Ukraine
Communist Party of Ukraine - 27 Seats Yes our dear European Comrades from Russia,Transnistria,Kazakhstan,Belarus,Ukraine and Moldova, South Ossetia. Now it's no denying it anymore I guess... I did a double take when I read your post. He really did include Kazakhstan. Wow. Kazakhstan is arguably a European country, is it not? Depending on what you consider the borders of Europe to be.
Kazakhstan has a small percentage of its land on the east-west borderline of Europe. That does not mean it makes any sense to use it as an example when trying to assess cultural trends in Europe; it doesn't.
edit; And, as solidbebe pointed out, you were pretty explicit earlier about which portion of European countries you were considering. Kazakhstan falls outside of this group even more clearly.
|
On September 11 2012 05:34 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:13 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 05:12 Doublemint wrote:On September 11 2012 05:05 NonCorporeal wrote:
If Europe is so right-wing, why do several European countries have communist parties in their parliaments?
Belarus
Communist Party of Belarus - 8 Lower House Seats
Czech Republic
Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia - 2 Upper House Seats - 26 Lower House Seats - 4 EU Seats
France
French Communist Party - 20 Upper House Seats - 10 Lower House Seats - 2 EU Seats
Communist Party of Réunion - 1 Lower House Seat
Germany
Die Linke - 76 Lower House Seats - 178 State Seats - 8 EU Seats
German Communist Party - 1 State Seat
Greece
Communist Party of Greece - 12 Seats - 2 EU Seats
Kazakhstan
Communist People's Party of Kazakhstan - 7 Lower House Seats
Luxembourg
The Left - 1 Seat
Moldova
Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova - 39 Seats
Portugal
Portuguese Communist Party - 14 Seats - 2 EU Seats
Russia
Communist Party of Russia - 92 Lower House Seats
San Marino
United Left - 5 Seats
South Ossetia
Communist Party of South Ossetia - 8 Seats
Spain
United Left - 2 Upper House Seats - 11 Lower House Seats - 1 EU Seat
Transnistria
Pridnestrovie Communist Party - 1 Seat
Ukraine
Communist Party of Ukraine - 27 Seats Yes our dear European Comrades from Russia,Transnistria,Kazakhstan,Belarus,Ukraine and Moldova, South Ossetia. Now it's no denying it anymore I guess... I did a double take when I read your post. He really did include Kazakhstan. Wow. Kazakhstan is arguably a European country, is it not? Depending on what you consider the borders of Europe to be.
You dont get to consider the borders of europe, either the country is part of the EU or it isn't. Simple as that.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
NonCorporeal has broken rule #4 time and time again. Why is he still allowed to continue this nonsense? -_- He has the whole thread up in arms proving him wrong yet his American-centrism blinds him.
|
On September 11 2012 05:34 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:13 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 05:12 Doublemint wrote:On September 11 2012 05:05 NonCorporeal wrote:
If Europe is so right-wing, why do several European countries have communist parties in their parliaments?
Belarus
Communist Party of Belarus - 8 Lower House Seats
Czech Republic
Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia - 2 Upper House Seats - 26 Lower House Seats - 4 EU Seats
France
French Communist Party - 20 Upper House Seats - 10 Lower House Seats - 2 EU Seats
Communist Party of Réunion - 1 Lower House Seat
Germany
Die Linke - 76 Lower House Seats - 178 State Seats - 8 EU Seats
German Communist Party - 1 State Seat
Greece
Communist Party of Greece - 12 Seats - 2 EU Seats
Kazakhstan
Communist People's Party of Kazakhstan - 7 Lower House Seats
Luxembourg
The Left - 1 Seat
Moldova
Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova - 39 Seats
Portugal
Portuguese Communist Party - 14 Seats - 2 EU Seats
Russia
Communist Party of Russia - 92 Lower House Seats
San Marino
United Left - 5 Seats
South Ossetia
Communist Party of South Ossetia - 8 Seats
Spain
United Left - 2 Upper House Seats - 11 Lower House Seats - 1 EU Seat
Transnistria
Pridnestrovie Communist Party - 1 Seat
Ukraine
Communist Party of Ukraine - 27 Seats Yes our dear European Comrades from Russia,Transnistria,Kazakhstan,Belarus,Ukraine and Moldova, South Ossetia. Now it's no denying it anymore I guess... I did a double take when I read your post. He really did include Kazakhstan. Wow. Kazakhstan is arguably a European country, is it not? Depending on what you consider the borders of Europe to be.
What....borders are you applying? What map are you using? The UEFA qualifying groups? Just so you know they put Australia in Asia for that one 
Also Solidbebe, membership in the EU is not a pre-requisite to being considered part of Europe. That would exclude countries like Norway, Switzerland and ex-Soviet states 
|
On September 11 2012 05:31 Gben592 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:27 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:23 karpo wrote:On September 11 2012 05:18 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:08 Tula wrote:
Because most of us have multiple parties to represent all the different political leanings and directions within a country?
Considering how many seats they had 20 years ago and how many they have now I still have a very hard time seeing any "moving towards socialism" direction. Why don't you compare our conservative numbers, or simply the total number of seats to that?
You've had 10 different people from the EU in here, who said something along the lines of you are wrong, accept it and move on. Your "EU conservatives" aren't conservative, they're social democrats (socialists) who don't represent free market values. Because if someone agrees with you that automatically makes you right, regardless of the facts? If Europe is moving further to the right, then why have recent elections in Europe shown a re-election of left-wing parties, such as in France? Our swedish right wing politicians have promoted private schools, a lowered support for union driven welfare, they've outsourced pharmacies to private businesses, and they've made tax cuts. You just have a very skewed image of what makes someone a conservative, EVERY politician and party in the world beside the US republican party is socialist if you go by your fox news standard. I just love how you European lefties love to accuse anyone who supports capitalism of "being a Fox News slave." As another poster in this thread said, most economies in first world countries are mixed; but some are far more socialist than others (for instance EU countries are more socialist than America). Sorry, whats wrong with being left wing again?!? And yes, your right that most countries in europe are more left than america... but thats because america is WAY far right... + Europe isn't one massive country you know, lotta seperate countries that do different things.
Nothing, you're entiteld to your opinion. You keep saying that America is "far-right," because we support capitalism. If you actually look at history though, America was a country founded on the ideas of freedom and capitalism. You Europeans were so inspired by America's ideas that you began adopting them in your own countries (French Revolution). Eventually Europe started moving further and further to the left, while America (more or less) stayed on the path of classical liberalism (freedom and capitalism). Thus would it not be correct to say that you have moved further to the left, as opposed to America moving further to the right? If anything, America has moved further to the left as well, with things like Social Security, Obamacare, Medicare, Food Stamps, and other such programs.
|
On September 11 2012 05:18 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:08 Tula wrote:
Because most of us have multiple parties to represent all the different political leanings and directions within a country?
Considering how many seats they had 20 years ago and how many they have now I still have a very hard time seeing any "moving towards socialism" direction. Why don't you compare our conservative numbers, or simply the total number of seats to that?
You've had 10 different people from the EU in here, who said something along the lines of you are wrong, accept it and move on. Your "EU conservatives" aren't conservative, they're social democrats (socialists). Because if someone agrees with you that automatically makes you right, regardless of the facts? If Europe is moving further to the right, then why have recent elections in Europe shown a re-election of left-wing parties, such as in France?
You are aware that there are many factors playing into that why someone gets elected, and picking only the parts that fit your little revisionist history lesson will not do.
Our conservatives stand for values promoted by the Catholic church, empowers individuals before "collective bargaining" and trade unions, and wants to lower taxes by cutting spending and social programs.
Sound familiar so far?
What they can achieve however is very limited because of proportional representation, they are forced into coalitions and therefore compromise. If they don't nothing gets done and the country hurts.
Sound familiar so far?
//edit: I should add forced into coalitions when they don't get at least a simple majority, otherwise every law they are proposing will be overruled in parliament.
|
On September 11 2012 05:15 NonCorporeal wrote:
An important aspect of democracy is the protection of minority rights, that includes people who have unpopular opinions. What is a "hate crime?" Seriously, why should "hate crimes" even exist? If you're doing something that is already illegal, then why do you need to make it a "hate crime?" If someone slits a black person's throat, why should it matter if said person did it because he was black or not? Why should that have any impact whatsoever on the law?
Not that long ago, particularly in certain parts of the country, a white person could slit a black person's throat in broad daylight in front of witnesses and no state court would ever convict them. So the federal government made it a federal crime to kill/assault/etc someone on the basis of their race (or other protected attributes) so that they could step in and ensure a fair trial.
Tying hate crimes to longer sentences is a more recent thing. This is more objectionable, although I don't see it as any different than the practice of taking the criminal's motivations into account in general, or other circumstances that may be taken into account during sentencing. ie, why should it matter if somebody kills for money vs killing out of anger?
|
On September 11 2012 05:33 Sanctimonius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:15 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 04:56 Tula wrote:On September 11 2012 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2012 03:23 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 02:54 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 02:42 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2012 02:27 NonCorporeal wrote:
Wow KwarK, what a rant, wow. With all due respect, I think that using the recent election of right-wing (EU defition) parties across Europe as an example of how Europe is moving towards American capitalism is ridiculous. There have been "conservative" (EU definition) elected in Europe before, and they haven't done anything meaningful to end the welfare state; and likewise, neither have the parties that have recently been elected in UK, Germany, Italy, and other EU countries. By that same definition, one could argue that they are also moving towards socialism again, with the Socialist Party forming a government in France and winning the presidential election a few months ago, with part of their platform claling for over 70% income tax.
These so-called "right-wing" parties in Europe are so far-left by normal standards, that they haven't done anything to end the welfare state, they haven't done anything to promote gun rights, they haven't done anything to stop multiculturalism, and they haven't done anything to re-instate freedom of speech and other freedoms that Europeans have lost under socialism. The people of Europe may very well want to move towards American-style capitalism and freedom, but they apparently have no outlet to make that happen, since the people they repeatedly elect into office are nowhere near radical enough to return capitalism to the people of Europe; possibly because politicians and bureaucrats often benefit from having a socialist welfare state and a big government.
Also, America is rapidly moving towards Europe, despite the fact that European leaders and politicians have been trying to warn America not to go down their path for at least a decade now. We've seen America moving further and further towards a big government welfare state and a nanny state that will strip people of their freedom and of their 'pursuit of happiness' (right to keep the fruits of their labor). There are factions in this country, mostly Democrats who want nothing more than to create a socialist welfare state, to nationalize healthcare, to nationalize various industries (we already nationalized the auto industry, and recently Obama said that he wants to nationalize "all other industries" as well), we've seen the lefties pushing towards more draconian gun control laws, we've seen the lefties trying to ban "fatty foods," we've seen the lefties pushing their multicultural agenda, and we've seen the lefties pushing a European-style "North American Union," and we've seen the lefties repeatedly side with Palestine instead of Israel.
Edit: Sorry, double posted on mistake.
It just baffles me how can anyone honestly say with a straight face that the American left isn't trying to turn America into Europe 2.0? "far-left by normal standards" Are you serious? By the standards of pretty much every single liberal democracy in the world America is far, far right. The fact that you're like "we're normal, it's all the other countries who are all abnormal" just shows the depths of ignorance enjoyed by those who still believe in American exceptionalism. You also in no way refuted the fact that Europe used to be socialist and that any claim that they're heading towards socialism based upon the legacy of socialist policies is factually untrue. Okay, imagine you saw a guy swimming in the sea, then loudly say "I don't want to swim anymore", then get out of the water, then say "I'm now no longer going to swim" and then walk away from the beach with wet hair. Would you conclude from this that because water is wet and he is wet he is clearly going for a swim or would you instead look at the direction he was walking in and conclude that he's perhaps just gone for a swim. I know it's a fairly silly example but I just cannot understand how to make the idiocy of what you're saying any clearer to you. I have outlined the history of socialism in the UK to you and explained that we have in fact already been socialist and that all of our major parties have rejected socialism openly and that the new consensus is far, far to the right of the previous consensus in the 50s and 60s. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. The things that you are saying are not the things that are true. This is not an opinion or something that you can argue. These are things that you can look up. I know you heard on whatever right wing fear media you subscribe to that the rest of the world is falling to the forces of socialism but it's factually incorrect. Not true. Wrong. Read a book for once. Do some independent research. Open your damn eyes. Where is the evidence that Europe is moving away from socialism towards the free-market? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument seems to be based on "we're not as socialist as we used to be, so clearly we love capitalism now." If you're going to claim that someone's argument is factually untrue, then you should at least provide legitimate reasons as to you feel that way. Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted. You seem confused. You made a claim about things changing, getting more socialist and less capitalist. For it to be the case that "we're not as socialist as we used to be" just is for it to be the case that we're "moving away from socialism and toward a free market" (unless of course they were going even further left, which they aren't). Whether or not anyone "loves capitalism now" has nothing to do with it. A change is a change. You claimed, based on nothing, that the change was in one direction. Kwark pointed out that it's been in the other. Be glad you've learned something today. Ah, here's the thread at its worst: not seeing the forest for the trees. Noncorporeal is exactly right in that democrats are pushing the US to be more like Europe in terms of government policy. I don't even think that this is fairly debatable. He's also right in pointing out that Europe is having a lot of difficulty managing its more socialist/liberal policies. That's the "forest." With regards to whether Europe is becoming more socialist or more capitalist, that's a rather difficult question to answer. You have to consider time frames and you also have to consider each country on an individual basis. I don't think anyone can argue that France is on a decidedly socialist trend (and quite frankly, I can't wait for this little experiment to blow up spectacularly in their faces). Regardless, this issue would be the "trees." Bottom line: stick to the larger point rather than giving Noncorporeal a shitty time about the more irrelevant stuff. What you're doing is inane. EDIT: And to be clear, this applies to the half-dozen other posters who have jumped on Noncorporeal. To be very clear as well, Noncorporeal is about as wrong as he could possibly be and the ignorance reflected in his posts so far (as well as his staggering ability to ignore counterpoints or demands for sources) is pissing people off quite badly. Now to be even more precise, by the ludicrous standard of "gun-control" or "right to bear arms" (both things which are culturally VERY different in Europe) we do not have ANY division among our parties, so everyone including the most radically right parties must be socialists! Do you realise how silly that sounds? Not a single party in Austria is advocating looser gun control. There is no demand for it. Considering your previously well defined Republican bias, I'll ignore your statement about Obamas intentions, wether he truly wants that or not, is not something I'm willing to judge, but implying that Europe is moving towards socialism shows hilarious ignorance at best if it isn't a cheap troll. Regarding Freedom of speech, we (as in Austria and Germany) have by consensus restricted ourselves in regards to Nazis and Neo-Nazis, that might be an infringement of this article, but considering what happened half a century ago, I can happily live with that restriction. As a point of note, when your personal Freedom of speech infringes on hate-crimes and racism (as was the case with Herr Küssler) you should be facing trial in any democracy. Looks like you were wrong about Austria. Freedom isn't a "cultural" thing, gun rights are a fundamental right that all free humans have, our rights come from nature, not from the government.
An important aspect of democracy is the protection of minority rights, that includes people who have unpopular opinions. What is a "hate crime?" Seriously, why should "hate crimes" even exist? If you're doing something that is already illegal, then why do you need to make it a "hate crime?" If someone slits a black person's throat, why should it matter if said person did it because he was black or not? Why should that have any impact whatsoever on the law? I'm sorry, but I can't agree, especially when you live in a country where healthcare isn't considered a basic human right. How is a gun a human right? Perhaps you're talking about force, where libertarians argue the rights of a government to have a monopoly on force, but a gun is not a basic human right. Now, it is a legal right in the US, but other countries seem to be doing fine without that 'right' - lower violent crime, lower gun-related injuries/deaths etc. A hate crime is when someone is attacked verbally or physically because of a trait they possess, such as the colour of their skin, their racial background, their religion. We legislate against this kind of behaviour because in Europe we believe that it should be illegal to attack someone on the basis that you just don't like them. Are you saying the US doesn't legislate against racism, or attacks on religion? Just because we call it different doesn't mean it's a bad thing, surely...?
The right to bear arms is an extension of the right to self-defense and self-preservation. When I say self-defense, I'm not only referring to defense against muggers, rapists, etc. I'm also referring to defense against the government, should it be necessary. Again, you are misinformed on the issue, I suggest you look at Europe's crime rates before they implemented gun control.
Verbally attacked? Why should someone be arrested for "insulting" someone else? Needless to say I don't promote insulting other people, but I don't think someone should go to prison just because they're "insulting" someone. If they are violent towards the person, then yes, I support arresting them. In the eyes of the law, I don't think it should matter why the person attacked the other person, they should be punished regardless of their reasons.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 11 2012 05:37 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:31 Gben592 wrote:On September 11 2012 05:27 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:23 karpo wrote:On September 11 2012 05:18 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:08 Tula wrote:
Because most of us have multiple parties to represent all the different political leanings and directions within a country?
Considering how many seats they had 20 years ago and how many they have now I still have a very hard time seeing any "moving towards socialism" direction. Why don't you compare our conservative numbers, or simply the total number of seats to that?
You've had 10 different people from the EU in here, who said something along the lines of you are wrong, accept it and move on. Your "EU conservatives" aren't conservative, they're social democrats (socialists) who don't represent free market values. Because if someone agrees with you that automatically makes you right, regardless of the facts? If Europe is moving further to the right, then why have recent elections in Europe shown a re-election of left-wing parties, such as in France? Our swedish right wing politicians have promoted private schools, a lowered support for union driven welfare, they've outsourced pharmacies to private businesses, and they've made tax cuts. You just have a very skewed image of what makes someone a conservative, EVERY politician and party in the world beside the US republican party is socialist if you go by your fox news standard. I just love how you European lefties love to accuse anyone who supports capitalism of "being a Fox News slave." As another poster in this thread said, most economies in first world countries are mixed; but some are far more socialist than others (for instance EU countries are more socialist than America). Sorry, whats wrong with being left wing again?!? And yes, your right that most countries in europe are more left than america... but thats because america is WAY far right... + Europe isn't one massive country you know, lotta seperate countries that do different things. Nothing, you're entiteld to your opinion. You keep saying that America is "far-right," because we support capitalism. If you actually look at history though, America was a country founded on the ideas of freedom and capitalism. You Europeans were so inspired by America's ideas that you began adopting them in your own countries (French Revolution). Eventually Europe started moving further and further to the left, while America (more or less) stayed on the path of classical liberalism (freedom and capitalism). Thus would it not be correct to say that you have moved further to the left, as opposed to America moving further to the right? If anything, America has moved further to the left as well, with things like Social Security, Obamacare, Medicare, Food Stamps, and other such programs.
You know, when you're trying to compare yourself to other people, it's best to look at the whole picture and not from yourself on out.
For instance, if you're trying to compare how attractive you are with 10 other people, you don't look at the average-looking person beside you and claim they're a 7/10 because you're not too much uglier than them (even though you're hideous), you use the whole sample to define a median.
America is far-right. It's a fact of the world. You don't just arbitrarily make Republican ideals the basis of the center.
|
On September 11 2012 05:42 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:33 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 11 2012 05:15 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 04:56 Tula wrote:On September 11 2012 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2012 03:23 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 02:54 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 02:42 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2012 02:27 NonCorporeal wrote:
Wow KwarK, what a rant, wow. With all due respect, I think that using the recent election of right-wing (EU defition) parties across Europe as an example of how Europe is moving towards American capitalism is ridiculous. There have been "conservative" (EU definition) elected in Europe before, and they haven't done anything meaningful to end the welfare state; and likewise, neither have the parties that have recently been elected in UK, Germany, Italy, and other EU countries. By that same definition, one could argue that they are also moving towards socialism again, with the Socialist Party forming a government in France and winning the presidential election a few months ago, with part of their platform claling for over 70% income tax.
These so-called "right-wing" parties in Europe are so far-left by normal standards, that they haven't done anything to end the welfare state, they haven't done anything to promote gun rights, they haven't done anything to stop multiculturalism, and they haven't done anything to re-instate freedom of speech and other freedoms that Europeans have lost under socialism. The people of Europe may very well want to move towards American-style capitalism and freedom, but they apparently have no outlet to make that happen, since the people they repeatedly elect into office are nowhere near radical enough to return capitalism to the people of Europe; possibly because politicians and bureaucrats often benefit from having a socialist welfare state and a big government.
Also, America is rapidly moving towards Europe, despite the fact that European leaders and politicians have been trying to warn America not to go down their path for at least a decade now. We've seen America moving further and further towards a big government welfare state and a nanny state that will strip people of their freedom and of their 'pursuit of happiness' (right to keep the fruits of their labor). There are factions in this country, mostly Democrats who want nothing more than to create a socialist welfare state, to nationalize healthcare, to nationalize various industries (we already nationalized the auto industry, and recently Obama said that he wants to nationalize "all other industries" as well), we've seen the lefties pushing towards more draconian gun control laws, we've seen the lefties trying to ban "fatty foods," we've seen the lefties pushing their multicultural agenda, and we've seen the lefties pushing a European-style "North American Union," and we've seen the lefties repeatedly side with Palestine instead of Israel.
Edit: Sorry, double posted on mistake.
It just baffles me how can anyone honestly say with a straight face that the American left isn't trying to turn America into Europe 2.0? "far-left by normal standards" Are you serious? By the standards of pretty much every single liberal democracy in the world America is far, far right. The fact that you're like "we're normal, it's all the other countries who are all abnormal" just shows the depths of ignorance enjoyed by those who still believe in American exceptionalism. You also in no way refuted the fact that Europe used to be socialist and that any claim that they're heading towards socialism based upon the legacy of socialist policies is factually untrue. Okay, imagine you saw a guy swimming in the sea, then loudly say "I don't want to swim anymore", then get out of the water, then say "I'm now no longer going to swim" and then walk away from the beach with wet hair. Would you conclude from this that because water is wet and he is wet he is clearly going for a swim or would you instead look at the direction he was walking in and conclude that he's perhaps just gone for a swim. I know it's a fairly silly example but I just cannot understand how to make the idiocy of what you're saying any clearer to you. I have outlined the history of socialism in the UK to you and explained that we have in fact already been socialist and that all of our major parties have rejected socialism openly and that the new consensus is far, far to the right of the previous consensus in the 50s and 60s. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. The things that you are saying are not the things that are true. This is not an opinion or something that you can argue. These are things that you can look up. I know you heard on whatever right wing fear media you subscribe to that the rest of the world is falling to the forces of socialism but it's factually incorrect. Not true. Wrong. Read a book for once. Do some independent research. Open your damn eyes. Where is the evidence that Europe is moving away from socialism towards the free-market? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument seems to be based on "we're not as socialist as we used to be, so clearly we love capitalism now." If you're going to claim that someone's argument is factually untrue, then you should at least provide legitimate reasons as to you feel that way. Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted. You seem confused. You made a claim about things changing, getting more socialist and less capitalist. For it to be the case that "we're not as socialist as we used to be" just is for it to be the case that we're "moving away from socialism and toward a free market" (unless of course they were going even further left, which they aren't). Whether or not anyone "loves capitalism now" has nothing to do with it. A change is a change. You claimed, based on nothing, that the change was in one direction. Kwark pointed out that it's been in the other. Be glad you've learned something today. Ah, here's the thread at its worst: not seeing the forest for the trees. Noncorporeal is exactly right in that democrats are pushing the US to be more like Europe in terms of government policy. I don't even think that this is fairly debatable. He's also right in pointing out that Europe is having a lot of difficulty managing its more socialist/liberal policies. That's the "forest." With regards to whether Europe is becoming more socialist or more capitalist, that's a rather difficult question to answer. You have to consider time frames and you also have to consider each country on an individual basis. I don't think anyone can argue that France is on a decidedly socialist trend (and quite frankly, I can't wait for this little experiment to blow up spectacularly in their faces). Regardless, this issue would be the "trees." Bottom line: stick to the larger point rather than giving Noncorporeal a shitty time about the more irrelevant stuff. What you're doing is inane. EDIT: And to be clear, this applies to the half-dozen other posters who have jumped on Noncorporeal. To be very clear as well, Noncorporeal is about as wrong as he could possibly be and the ignorance reflected in his posts so far (as well as his staggering ability to ignore counterpoints or demands for sources) is pissing people off quite badly. Now to be even more precise, by the ludicrous standard of "gun-control" or "right to bear arms" (both things which are culturally VERY different in Europe) we do not have ANY division among our parties, so everyone including the most radically right parties must be socialists! Do you realise how silly that sounds? Not a single party in Austria is advocating looser gun control. There is no demand for it. Considering your previously well defined Republican bias, I'll ignore your statement about Obamas intentions, wether he truly wants that or not, is not something I'm willing to judge, but implying that Europe is moving towards socialism shows hilarious ignorance at best if it isn't a cheap troll. Regarding Freedom of speech, we (as in Austria and Germany) have by consensus restricted ourselves in regards to Nazis and Neo-Nazis, that might be an infringement of this article, but considering what happened half a century ago, I can happily live with that restriction. As a point of note, when your personal Freedom of speech infringes on hate-crimes and racism (as was the case with Herr Küssler) you should be facing trial in any democracy. Looks like you were wrong about Austria. Freedom isn't a "cultural" thing, gun rights are a fundamental right that all free humans have, our rights come from nature, not from the government.
An important aspect of democracy is the protection of minority rights, that includes people who have unpopular opinions. What is a "hate crime?" Seriously, why should "hate crimes" even exist? If you're doing something that is already illegal, then why do you need to make it a "hate crime?" If someone slits a black person's throat, why should it matter if said person did it because he was black or not? Why should that have any impact whatsoever on the law? I'm sorry, but I can't agree, especially when you live in a country where healthcare isn't considered a basic human right. How is a gun a human right? Perhaps you're talking about force, where libertarians argue the rights of a government to have a monopoly on force, but a gun is not a basic human right. Now, it is a legal right in the US, but other countries seem to be doing fine without that 'right' - lower violent crime, lower gun-related injuries/deaths etc. A hate crime is when someone is attacked verbally or physically because of a trait they possess, such as the colour of their skin, their racial background, their religion. We legislate against this kind of behaviour because in Europe we believe that it should be illegal to attack someone on the basis that you just don't like them. Are you saying the US doesn't legislate against racism, or attacks on religion? Just because we call it different doesn't mean it's a bad thing, surely...? The right to bear arms is an extension of the right to self-defense and self-preservation. When I say self-defense, I'm not only referring to defense against muggers, rapists, etc. I'm also referring to defense against the government, should it be necessary. Again, you are misinformed on the issue, I suggest you look at Europe's crime rates before they implemented gun control. Verbally attacked? Why should someone be arrested for "insulting" someone else? Needless to say I don't promote insulting other people, but I don't think someone should go to prison just because they're "insulting" someone. If they are violent towards the person, then yes, I support arresting them. In the eyes of the law, I don't think it should matter why the person attacked the other person, they should be punished regardless of their reasons.
Did they intend to kill the other? Did they intend to kidnap the said person during the attack? Was the attack in good faith for self defense? The black and white assertion posts are growing tiring and distracting....
edit; I did not mean black and white in the racial sense xDDD
|
On September 11 2012 05:36 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:34 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:13 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 05:12 Doublemint wrote:On September 11 2012 05:05 NonCorporeal wrote:
If Europe is so right-wing, why do several European countries have communist parties in their parliaments?
Belarus
Communist Party of Belarus - 8 Lower House Seats
Czech Republic
Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia - 2 Upper House Seats - 26 Lower House Seats - 4 EU Seats
France
French Communist Party - 20 Upper House Seats - 10 Lower House Seats - 2 EU Seats
Communist Party of Réunion - 1 Lower House Seat
Germany
Die Linke - 76 Lower House Seats - 178 State Seats - 8 EU Seats
German Communist Party - 1 State Seat
Greece
Communist Party of Greece - 12 Seats - 2 EU Seats
Kazakhstan
Communist People's Party of Kazakhstan - 7 Lower House Seats
Luxembourg
The Left - 1 Seat
Moldova
Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova - 39 Seats
Portugal
Portuguese Communist Party - 14 Seats - 2 EU Seats
Russia
Communist Party of Russia - 92 Lower House Seats
San Marino
United Left - 5 Seats
South Ossetia
Communist Party of South Ossetia - 8 Seats
Spain
United Left - 2 Upper House Seats - 11 Lower House Seats - 1 EU Seat
Transnistria
Pridnestrovie Communist Party - 1 Seat
Ukraine
Communist Party of Ukraine - 27 Seats Yes our dear European Comrades from Russia,Transnistria,Kazakhstan,Belarus,Ukraine and Moldova, South Ossetia. Now it's no denying it anymore I guess... I did a double take when I read your post. He really did include Kazakhstan. Wow. Kazakhstan is arguably a European country, is it not? Depending on what you consider the borders of Europe to be. You dont get to consider the borders of europe, either the country is part of the EU or it isn't. Simple as that.
So all of the non-EU members that are entirely in Europe are now suddenly without a continent because they chose against joining a supranational confederacy?
|
On September 11 2012 05:42 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:33 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 11 2012 05:15 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 04:56 Tula wrote:On September 11 2012 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2012 03:23 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 02:54 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 02:42 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2012 02:27 NonCorporeal wrote:
Wow KwarK, what a rant, wow. With all due respect, I think that using the recent election of right-wing (EU defition) parties across Europe as an example of how Europe is moving towards American capitalism is ridiculous. There have been "conservative" (EU definition) elected in Europe before, and they haven't done anything meaningful to end the welfare state; and likewise, neither have the parties that have recently been elected in UK, Germany, Italy, and other EU countries. By that same definition, one could argue that they are also moving towards socialism again, with the Socialist Party forming a government in France and winning the presidential election a few months ago, with part of their platform claling for over 70% income tax.
These so-called "right-wing" parties in Europe are so far-left by normal standards, that they haven't done anything to end the welfare state, they haven't done anything to promote gun rights, they haven't done anything to stop multiculturalism, and they haven't done anything to re-instate freedom of speech and other freedoms that Europeans have lost under socialism. The people of Europe may very well want to move towards American-style capitalism and freedom, but they apparently have no outlet to make that happen, since the people they repeatedly elect into office are nowhere near radical enough to return capitalism to the people of Europe; possibly because politicians and bureaucrats often benefit from having a socialist welfare state and a big government.
Also, America is rapidly moving towards Europe, despite the fact that European leaders and politicians have been trying to warn America not to go down their path for at least a decade now. We've seen America moving further and further towards a big government welfare state and a nanny state that will strip people of their freedom and of their 'pursuit of happiness' (right to keep the fruits of their labor). There are factions in this country, mostly Democrats who want nothing more than to create a socialist welfare state, to nationalize healthcare, to nationalize various industries (we already nationalized the auto industry, and recently Obama said that he wants to nationalize "all other industries" as well), we've seen the lefties pushing towards more draconian gun control laws, we've seen the lefties trying to ban "fatty foods," we've seen the lefties pushing their multicultural agenda, and we've seen the lefties pushing a European-style "North American Union," and we've seen the lefties repeatedly side with Palestine instead of Israel.
Edit: Sorry, double posted on mistake.
It just baffles me how can anyone honestly say with a straight face that the American left isn't trying to turn America into Europe 2.0? "far-left by normal standards" Are you serious? By the standards of pretty much every single liberal democracy in the world America is far, far right. The fact that you're like "we're normal, it's all the other countries who are all abnormal" just shows the depths of ignorance enjoyed by those who still believe in American exceptionalism. You also in no way refuted the fact that Europe used to be socialist and that any claim that they're heading towards socialism based upon the legacy of socialist policies is factually untrue. Okay, imagine you saw a guy swimming in the sea, then loudly say "I don't want to swim anymore", then get out of the water, then say "I'm now no longer going to swim" and then walk away from the beach with wet hair. Would you conclude from this that because water is wet and he is wet he is clearly going for a swim or would you instead look at the direction he was walking in and conclude that he's perhaps just gone for a swim. I know it's a fairly silly example but I just cannot understand how to make the idiocy of what you're saying any clearer to you. I have outlined the history of socialism in the UK to you and explained that we have in fact already been socialist and that all of our major parties have rejected socialism openly and that the new consensus is far, far to the right of the previous consensus in the 50s and 60s. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. The things that you are saying are not the things that are true. This is not an opinion or something that you can argue. These are things that you can look up. I know you heard on whatever right wing fear media you subscribe to that the rest of the world is falling to the forces of socialism but it's factually incorrect. Not true. Wrong. Read a book for once. Do some independent research. Open your damn eyes. Where is the evidence that Europe is moving away from socialism towards the free-market? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument seems to be based on "we're not as socialist as we used to be, so clearly we love capitalism now." If you're going to claim that someone's argument is factually untrue, then you should at least provide legitimate reasons as to you feel that way. Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted. You seem confused. You made a claim about things changing, getting more socialist and less capitalist. For it to be the case that "we're not as socialist as we used to be" just is for it to be the case that we're "moving away from socialism and toward a free market" (unless of course they were going even further left, which they aren't). Whether or not anyone "loves capitalism now" has nothing to do with it. A change is a change. You claimed, based on nothing, that the change was in one direction. Kwark pointed out that it's been in the other. Be glad you've learned something today. Ah, here's the thread at its worst: not seeing the forest for the trees. Noncorporeal is exactly right in that democrats are pushing the US to be more like Europe in terms of government policy. I don't even think that this is fairly debatable. He's also right in pointing out that Europe is having a lot of difficulty managing its more socialist/liberal policies. That's the "forest." With regards to whether Europe is becoming more socialist or more capitalist, that's a rather difficult question to answer. You have to consider time frames and you also have to consider each country on an individual basis. I don't think anyone can argue that France is on a decidedly socialist trend (and quite frankly, I can't wait for this little experiment to blow up spectacularly in their faces). Regardless, this issue would be the "trees." Bottom line: stick to the larger point rather than giving Noncorporeal a shitty time about the more irrelevant stuff. What you're doing is inane. EDIT: And to be clear, this applies to the half-dozen other posters who have jumped on Noncorporeal. To be very clear as well, Noncorporeal is about as wrong as he could possibly be and the ignorance reflected in his posts so far (as well as his staggering ability to ignore counterpoints or demands for sources) is pissing people off quite badly. Now to be even more precise, by the ludicrous standard of "gun-control" or "right to bear arms" (both things which are culturally VERY different in Europe) we do not have ANY division among our parties, so everyone including the most radically right parties must be socialists! Do you realise how silly that sounds? Not a single party in Austria is advocating looser gun control. There is no demand for it. Considering your previously well defined Republican bias, I'll ignore your statement about Obamas intentions, wether he truly wants that or not, is not something I'm willing to judge, but implying that Europe is moving towards socialism shows hilarious ignorance at best if it isn't a cheap troll. Regarding Freedom of speech, we (as in Austria and Germany) have by consensus restricted ourselves in regards to Nazis and Neo-Nazis, that might be an infringement of this article, but considering what happened half a century ago, I can happily live with that restriction. As a point of note, when your personal Freedom of speech infringes on hate-crimes and racism (as was the case with Herr Küssler) you should be facing trial in any democracy. Looks like you were wrong about Austria. Freedom isn't a "cultural" thing, gun rights are a fundamental right that all free humans have, our rights come from nature, not from the government.
An important aspect of democracy is the protection of minority rights, that includes people who have unpopular opinions. What is a "hate crime?" Seriously, why should "hate crimes" even exist? If you're doing something that is already illegal, then why do you need to make it a "hate crime?" If someone slits a black person's throat, why should it matter if said person did it because he was black or not? Why should that have any impact whatsoever on the law? I'm sorry, but I can't agree, especially when you live in a country where healthcare isn't considered a basic human right. How is a gun a human right? Perhaps you're talking about force, where libertarians argue the rights of a government to have a monopoly on force, but a gun is not a basic human right. Now, it is a legal right in the US, but other countries seem to be doing fine without that 'right' - lower violent crime, lower gun-related injuries/deaths etc. A hate crime is when someone is attacked verbally or physically because of a trait they possess, such as the colour of their skin, their racial background, their religion. We legislate against this kind of behaviour because in Europe we believe that it should be illegal to attack someone on the basis that you just don't like them. Are you saying the US doesn't legislate against racism, or attacks on religion? Just because we call it different doesn't mean it's a bad thing, surely...? The right to bear arms is an extension of the right to self-defense and self-preservation. When I say self-defense, I'm not only referring to defense against muggers, rapists, etc. I'm also referring to defense against the government, should it be necessary. Again, you are misinformed on the issue, I suggest you look at Europe's crime rates before they implemented gun control. Verbally attacked? Why should someone be arrested for "insulting" someone else? Needless to say I don't promote insulting other people, but I don't think someone should go to prison just because they're "insulting" someone. If they are violent towards the person, then yes, I support arresting them. In the eyes of the law, I don't think it should matter why the person attacked the other person, they should be punished regardless of their reasons.
Would you include inciting terrorism as insulting a person? I would, and it is illegal in Europe. Pretty sure it's also illegal in the US. This would be an example of imprisoning a person for their free speech. There are also places in the US that certain things are restricted - try saying you're carrying a bomb in a TSA lounge, I'm willing to be you'll get jail time.
Free speech is a fine thing, but even the US recognises there have to be limits. Europe simply has more limits than the US, sure. But we are of the opinion that why should a person be supported in your country, take advantage of it's benefits and rights when they promote hatred, terrorism or racial violence? These things are restricted.
As for the crime statistics, I'll have to check that out. Maybe you're right on that score. I do wonder if the changes in crime rates are due to changes in crime reporting, though...
|
On September 11 2012 05:47 Sanctimonius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:42 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:33 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 11 2012 05:15 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 04:56 Tula wrote:On September 11 2012 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2012 03:23 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 02:54 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 02:42 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2012 02:27 NonCorporeal wrote:
Wow KwarK, what a rant, wow. With all due respect, I think that using the recent election of right-wing (EU defition) parties across Europe as an example of how Europe is moving towards American capitalism is ridiculous. There have been "conservative" (EU definition) elected in Europe before, and they haven't done anything meaningful to end the welfare state; and likewise, neither have the parties that have recently been elected in UK, Germany, Italy, and other EU countries. By that same definition, one could argue that they are also moving towards socialism again, with the Socialist Party forming a government in France and winning the presidential election a few months ago, with part of their platform claling for over 70% income tax.
These so-called "right-wing" parties in Europe are so far-left by normal standards, that they haven't done anything to end the welfare state, they haven't done anything to promote gun rights, they haven't done anything to stop multiculturalism, and they haven't done anything to re-instate freedom of speech and other freedoms that Europeans have lost under socialism. The people of Europe may very well want to move towards American-style capitalism and freedom, but they apparently have no outlet to make that happen, since the people they repeatedly elect into office are nowhere near radical enough to return capitalism to the people of Europe; possibly because politicians and bureaucrats often benefit from having a socialist welfare state and a big government.
Also, America is rapidly moving towards Europe, despite the fact that European leaders and politicians have been trying to warn America not to go down their path for at least a decade now. We've seen America moving further and further towards a big government welfare state and a nanny state that will strip people of their freedom and of their 'pursuit of happiness' (right to keep the fruits of their labor). There are factions in this country, mostly Democrats who want nothing more than to create a socialist welfare state, to nationalize healthcare, to nationalize various industries (we already nationalized the auto industry, and recently Obama said that he wants to nationalize "all other industries" as well), we've seen the lefties pushing towards more draconian gun control laws, we've seen the lefties trying to ban "fatty foods," we've seen the lefties pushing their multicultural agenda, and we've seen the lefties pushing a European-style "North American Union," and we've seen the lefties repeatedly side with Palestine instead of Israel.
Edit: Sorry, double posted on mistake.
It just baffles me how can anyone honestly say with a straight face that the American left isn't trying to turn America into Europe 2.0? "far-left by normal standards" Are you serious? By the standards of pretty much every single liberal democracy in the world America is far, far right. The fact that you're like "we're normal, it's all the other countries who are all abnormal" just shows the depths of ignorance enjoyed by those who still believe in American exceptionalism. You also in no way refuted the fact that Europe used to be socialist and that any claim that they're heading towards socialism based upon the legacy of socialist policies is factually untrue. Okay, imagine you saw a guy swimming in the sea, then loudly say "I don't want to swim anymore", then get out of the water, then say "I'm now no longer going to swim" and then walk away from the beach with wet hair. Would you conclude from this that because water is wet and he is wet he is clearly going for a swim or would you instead look at the direction he was walking in and conclude that he's perhaps just gone for a swim. I know it's a fairly silly example but I just cannot understand how to make the idiocy of what you're saying any clearer to you. I have outlined the history of socialism in the UK to you and explained that we have in fact already been socialist and that all of our major parties have rejected socialism openly and that the new consensus is far, far to the right of the previous consensus in the 50s and 60s. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. The things that you are saying are not the things that are true. This is not an opinion or something that you can argue. These are things that you can look up. I know you heard on whatever right wing fear media you subscribe to that the rest of the world is falling to the forces of socialism but it's factually incorrect. Not true. Wrong. Read a book for once. Do some independent research. Open your damn eyes. Where is the evidence that Europe is moving away from socialism towards the free-market? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument seems to be based on "we're not as socialist as we used to be, so clearly we love capitalism now." If you're going to claim that someone's argument is factually untrue, then you should at least provide legitimate reasons as to you feel that way. Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted. You seem confused. You made a claim about things changing, getting more socialist and less capitalist. For it to be the case that "we're not as socialist as we used to be" just is for it to be the case that we're "moving away from socialism and toward a free market" (unless of course they were going even further left, which they aren't). Whether or not anyone "loves capitalism now" has nothing to do with it. A change is a change. You claimed, based on nothing, that the change was in one direction. Kwark pointed out that it's been in the other. Be glad you've learned something today. Ah, here's the thread at its worst: not seeing the forest for the trees. Noncorporeal is exactly right in that democrats are pushing the US to be more like Europe in terms of government policy. I don't even think that this is fairly debatable. He's also right in pointing out that Europe is having a lot of difficulty managing its more socialist/liberal policies. That's the "forest." With regards to whether Europe is becoming more socialist or more capitalist, that's a rather difficult question to answer. You have to consider time frames and you also have to consider each country on an individual basis. I don't think anyone can argue that France is on a decidedly socialist trend (and quite frankly, I can't wait for this little experiment to blow up spectacularly in their faces). Regardless, this issue would be the "trees." Bottom line: stick to the larger point rather than giving Noncorporeal a shitty time about the more irrelevant stuff. What you're doing is inane. EDIT: And to be clear, this applies to the half-dozen other posters who have jumped on Noncorporeal. To be very clear as well, Noncorporeal is about as wrong as he could possibly be and the ignorance reflected in his posts so far (as well as his staggering ability to ignore counterpoints or demands for sources) is pissing people off quite badly. Now to be even more precise, by the ludicrous standard of "gun-control" or "right to bear arms" (both things which are culturally VERY different in Europe) we do not have ANY division among our parties, so everyone including the most radically right parties must be socialists! Do you realise how silly that sounds? Not a single party in Austria is advocating looser gun control. There is no demand for it. Considering your previously well defined Republican bias, I'll ignore your statement about Obamas intentions, wether he truly wants that or not, is not something I'm willing to judge, but implying that Europe is moving towards socialism shows hilarious ignorance at best if it isn't a cheap troll. Regarding Freedom of speech, we (as in Austria and Germany) have by consensus restricted ourselves in regards to Nazis and Neo-Nazis, that might be an infringement of this article, but considering what happened half a century ago, I can happily live with that restriction. As a point of note, when your personal Freedom of speech infringes on hate-crimes and racism (as was the case with Herr Küssler) you should be facing trial in any democracy. Looks like you were wrong about Austria. Freedom isn't a "cultural" thing, gun rights are a fundamental right that all free humans have, our rights come from nature, not from the government.
An important aspect of democracy is the protection of minority rights, that includes people who have unpopular opinions. What is a "hate crime?" Seriously, why should "hate crimes" even exist? If you're doing something that is already illegal, then why do you need to make it a "hate crime?" If someone slits a black person's throat, why should it matter if said person did it because he was black or not? Why should that have any impact whatsoever on the law? I'm sorry, but I can't agree, especially when you live in a country where healthcare isn't considered a basic human right. How is a gun a human right? Perhaps you're talking about force, where libertarians argue the rights of a government to have a monopoly on force, but a gun is not a basic human right. Now, it is a legal right in the US, but other countries seem to be doing fine without that 'right' - lower violent crime, lower gun-related injuries/deaths etc. A hate crime is when someone is attacked verbally or physically because of a trait they possess, such as the colour of their skin, their racial background, their religion. We legislate against this kind of behaviour because in Europe we believe that it should be illegal to attack someone on the basis that you just don't like them. Are you saying the US doesn't legislate against racism, or attacks on religion? Just because we call it different doesn't mean it's a bad thing, surely...? The right to bear arms is an extension of the right to self-defense and self-preservation. When I say self-defense, I'm not only referring to defense against muggers, rapists, etc. I'm also referring to defense against the government, should it be necessary. Again, you are misinformed on the issue, I suggest you look at Europe's crime rates before they implemented gun control. Verbally attacked? Why should someone be arrested for "insulting" someone else? Needless to say I don't promote insulting other people, but I don't think someone should go to prison just because they're "insulting" someone. If they are violent towards the person, then yes, I support arresting them. In the eyes of the law, I don't think it should matter why the person attacked the other person, they should be punished regardless of their reasons. Would you include inciting terrorism as insulting a person? I would, and it is illegal in Europe. Pretty sure it's also illegal in the US. This would be an example of imprisoning a person for their free speech. There are also places in the US that certain things are restricted - try saying you're carrying a bomb in a TSA lounge, I'm willing to be you'll get jail time. Free speech is a fine thing, but even the US recognises there have to be limits. Europe simply has more limits than the US, sure. But we are of the opinion that why should a person be supported in your country, take advantage of it's benefits and rights when they promote hatred, terrorism or racial violence? These things are restricted. As for the crime statistics, I'll have to check that out. Maybe you're right on that score. I do wonder if the changes in crime rates are due to changes in crime reporting, though...
You can't compare someone getting arrested for saying that the Nazi occupation of France "wasn't that bad" to someone getting arrested for threatening to blow up an airport. When you threaten someone else, you are violating their rights; merely saying that you don't like Muslims on the other hand, isn't violating anyone else's rights.
|
On September 11 2012 05:46 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:36 solidbebe wrote:On September 11 2012 05:34 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:13 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 05:12 Doublemint wrote:On September 11 2012 05:05 NonCorporeal wrote:
If Europe is so right-wing, why do several European countries have communist parties in their parliaments?
Belarus
Communist Party of Belarus - 8 Lower House Seats
Czech Republic
Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia - 2 Upper House Seats - 26 Lower House Seats - 4 EU Seats
France
French Communist Party - 20 Upper House Seats - 10 Lower House Seats - 2 EU Seats
Communist Party of Réunion - 1 Lower House Seat
Germany
Die Linke - 76 Lower House Seats - 178 State Seats - 8 EU Seats
German Communist Party - 1 State Seat
Greece
Communist Party of Greece - 12 Seats - 2 EU Seats
Kazakhstan
Communist People's Party of Kazakhstan - 7 Lower House Seats
Luxembourg
The Left - 1 Seat
Moldova
Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova - 39 Seats
Portugal
Portuguese Communist Party - 14 Seats - 2 EU Seats
Russia
Communist Party of Russia - 92 Lower House Seats
San Marino
United Left - 5 Seats
South Ossetia
Communist Party of South Ossetia - 8 Seats
Spain
United Left - 2 Upper House Seats - 11 Lower House Seats - 1 EU Seat
Transnistria
Pridnestrovie Communist Party - 1 Seat
Ukraine
Communist Party of Ukraine - 27 Seats Yes our dear European Comrades from Russia,Transnistria,Kazakhstan,Belarus,Ukraine and Moldova, South Ossetia. Now it's no denying it anymore I guess... I did a double take when I read your post. He really did include Kazakhstan. Wow. Kazakhstan is arguably a European country, is it not? Depending on what you consider the borders of Europe to be. You dont get to consider the borders of europe, either the country is part of the EU or it isn't. Simple as that. So all of the non-EU members that are entirely in Europe are now suddenly without a continent because they chose against joining a supranational confederacy?
When were talking politics we arent talking about continental borders, were talking about political borders. And by saying "europe" I would assume youre talking about the EU.
|
On September 11 2012 05:49 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:46 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:36 solidbebe wrote:On September 11 2012 05:34 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:13 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 05:12 Doublemint wrote:On September 11 2012 05:05 NonCorporeal wrote:
If Europe is so right-wing, why do several European countries have communist parties in their parliaments?
Belarus
Communist Party of Belarus - 8 Lower House Seats
Czech Republic
Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia - 2 Upper House Seats - 26 Lower House Seats - 4 EU Seats
France
French Communist Party - 20 Upper House Seats - 10 Lower House Seats - 2 EU Seats
Communist Party of Réunion - 1 Lower House Seat
Germany
Die Linke - 76 Lower House Seats - 178 State Seats - 8 EU Seats
German Communist Party - 1 State Seat
Greece
Communist Party of Greece - 12 Seats - 2 EU Seats
Kazakhstan
Communist People's Party of Kazakhstan - 7 Lower House Seats
Luxembourg
The Left - 1 Seat
Moldova
Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova - 39 Seats
Portugal
Portuguese Communist Party - 14 Seats - 2 EU Seats
Russia
Communist Party of Russia - 92 Lower House Seats
San Marino
United Left - 5 Seats
South Ossetia
Communist Party of South Ossetia - 8 Seats
Spain
United Left - 2 Upper House Seats - 11 Lower House Seats - 1 EU Seat
Transnistria
Pridnestrovie Communist Party - 1 Seat
Ukraine
Communist Party of Ukraine - 27 Seats Yes our dear European Comrades from Russia,Transnistria,Kazakhstan,Belarus,Ukraine and Moldova, South Ossetia. Now it's no denying it anymore I guess... I did a double take when I read your post. He really did include Kazakhstan. Wow. Kazakhstan is arguably a European country, is it not? Depending on what you consider the borders of Europe to be. You dont get to consider the borders of europe, either the country is part of the EU or it isn't. Simple as that. So all of the non-EU members that are entirely in Europe are now suddenly without a continent because they chose against joining a supranational confederacy? When were talking politics we arent talking about continental borders, were talking about political borders. And by saying "europe" I would assume youre talking about the EU.
Europe is also a cultural entity, regardless of the EU; a cultural entity in which many different countries share relatively similar cultural and political ideas, even if they aren't formally part of a confederacy.
|
On September 11 2012 05:48 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:47 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 11 2012 05:42 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:33 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 11 2012 05:15 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 04:56 Tula wrote:On September 11 2012 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2012 03:23 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 02:54 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 02:42 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
"far-left by normal standards"
Are you serious? By the standards of pretty much every single liberal democracy in the world America is far, far right. The fact that you're like "we're normal, it's all the other countries who are all abnormal" just shows the depths of ignorance enjoyed by those who still believe in American exceptionalism.
You also in no way refuted the fact that Europe used to be socialist and that any claim that they're heading towards socialism based upon the legacy of socialist policies is factually untrue. Okay, imagine you saw a guy swimming in the sea, then loudly say "I don't want to swim anymore", then get out of the water, then say "I'm now no longer going to swim" and then walk away from the beach with wet hair. Would you conclude from this that because water is wet and he is wet he is clearly going for a swim or would you instead look at the direction he was walking in and conclude that he's perhaps just gone for a swim.
I know it's a fairly silly example but I just cannot understand how to make the idiocy of what you're saying any clearer to you. I have outlined the history of socialism in the UK to you and explained that we have in fact already been socialist and that all of our major parties have rejected socialism openly and that the new consensus is far, far to the right of the previous consensus in the 50s and 60s.
I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. The things that you are saying are not the things that are true. This is not an opinion or something that you can argue. These are things that you can look up. I know you heard on whatever right wing fear media you subscribe to that the rest of the world is falling to the forces of socialism but it's factually incorrect. Not true. Wrong. Read a book for once. Do some independent research. Open your damn eyes. Where is the evidence that Europe is moving away from socialism towards the free-market? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument seems to be based on "we're not as socialist as we used to be, so clearly we love capitalism now." If you're going to claim that someone's argument is factually untrue, then you should at least provide legitimate reasons as to you feel that way. Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted. You seem confused. You made a claim about things changing, getting more socialist and less capitalist. For it to be the case that "we're not as socialist as we used to be" just is for it to be the case that we're "moving away from socialism and toward a free market" (unless of course they were going even further left, which they aren't). Whether or not anyone "loves capitalism now" has nothing to do with it. A change is a change. You claimed, based on nothing, that the change was in one direction. Kwark pointed out that it's been in the other. Be glad you've learned something today. Ah, here's the thread at its worst: not seeing the forest for the trees. Noncorporeal is exactly right in that democrats are pushing the US to be more like Europe in terms of government policy. I don't even think that this is fairly debatable. He's also right in pointing out that Europe is having a lot of difficulty managing its more socialist/liberal policies. That's the "forest." With regards to whether Europe is becoming more socialist or more capitalist, that's a rather difficult question to answer. You have to consider time frames and you also have to consider each country on an individual basis. I don't think anyone can argue that France is on a decidedly socialist trend (and quite frankly, I can't wait for this little experiment to blow up spectacularly in their faces). Regardless, this issue would be the "trees." Bottom line: stick to the larger point rather than giving Noncorporeal a shitty time about the more irrelevant stuff. What you're doing is inane. EDIT: And to be clear, this applies to the half-dozen other posters who have jumped on Noncorporeal. To be very clear as well, Noncorporeal is about as wrong as he could possibly be and the ignorance reflected in his posts so far (as well as his staggering ability to ignore counterpoints or demands for sources) is pissing people off quite badly. Now to be even more precise, by the ludicrous standard of "gun-control" or "right to bear arms" (both things which are culturally VERY different in Europe) we do not have ANY division among our parties, so everyone including the most radically right parties must be socialists! Do you realise how silly that sounds? Not a single party in Austria is advocating looser gun control. There is no demand for it. Considering your previously well defined Republican bias, I'll ignore your statement about Obamas intentions, wether he truly wants that or not, is not something I'm willing to judge, but implying that Europe is moving towards socialism shows hilarious ignorance at best if it isn't a cheap troll. Regarding Freedom of speech, we (as in Austria and Germany) have by consensus restricted ourselves in regards to Nazis and Neo-Nazis, that might be an infringement of this article, but considering what happened half a century ago, I can happily live with that restriction. As a point of note, when your personal Freedom of speech infringes on hate-crimes and racism (as was the case with Herr Küssler) you should be facing trial in any democracy. Looks like you were wrong about Austria. Freedom isn't a "cultural" thing, gun rights are a fundamental right that all free humans have, our rights come from nature, not from the government.
An important aspect of democracy is the protection of minority rights, that includes people who have unpopular opinions. What is a "hate crime?" Seriously, why should "hate crimes" even exist? If you're doing something that is already illegal, then why do you need to make it a "hate crime?" If someone slits a black person's throat, why should it matter if said person did it because he was black or not? Why should that have any impact whatsoever on the law? I'm sorry, but I can't agree, especially when you live in a country where healthcare isn't considered a basic human right. How is a gun a human right? Perhaps you're talking about force, where libertarians argue the rights of a government to have a monopoly on force, but a gun is not a basic human right. Now, it is a legal right in the US, but other countries seem to be doing fine without that 'right' - lower violent crime, lower gun-related injuries/deaths etc. A hate crime is when someone is attacked verbally or physically because of a trait they possess, such as the colour of their skin, their racial background, their religion. We legislate against this kind of behaviour because in Europe we believe that it should be illegal to attack someone on the basis that you just don't like them. Are you saying the US doesn't legislate against racism, or attacks on religion? Just because we call it different doesn't mean it's a bad thing, surely...? The right to bear arms is an extension of the right to self-defense and self-preservation. When I say self-defense, I'm not only referring to defense against muggers, rapists, etc. I'm also referring to defense against the government, should it be necessary. Again, you are misinformed on the issue, I suggest you look at Europe's crime rates before they implemented gun control. Verbally attacked? Why should someone be arrested for "insulting" someone else? Needless to say I don't promote insulting other people, but I don't think someone should go to prison just because they're "insulting" someone. If they are violent towards the person, then yes, I support arresting them. In the eyes of the law, I don't think it should matter why the person attacked the other person, they should be punished regardless of their reasons. Would you include inciting terrorism as insulting a person? I would, and it is illegal in Europe. Pretty sure it's also illegal in the US. This would be an example of imprisoning a person for their free speech. There are also places in the US that certain things are restricted - try saying you're carrying a bomb in a TSA lounge, I'm willing to be you'll get jail time. Free speech is a fine thing, but even the US recognises there have to be limits. Europe simply has more limits than the US, sure. But we are of the opinion that why should a person be supported in your country, take advantage of it's benefits and rights when they promote hatred, terrorism or racial violence? These things are restricted. As for the crime statistics, I'll have to check that out. Maybe you're right on that score. I do wonder if the changes in crime rates are due to changes in crime reporting, though... You can't compare someone getting arrested for saying that the Nazi occupation of France "wasn't that bad" to someone getting arrested for threatening to blow up an airport. When you threaten someone else, you are violating their rights; merely saying that you don't like Muslims on the other hand, isn't violating anyone else's rights.
We'll have to disagree on that one. Le Pen is the leader of a political party, and Europe has a bit of a problem with Neo-Nazis. Her trying to downplay their occupation of France is tacit acceptance of Neo-Nazi ideals, who glorify not only the Nazis but their aims and politics. Trying to do things like deny the holocaust, show support of the Nazi party or display Nazi insignia/gestures is illegal in Europe, as we are trying to make sure they don't ever have a way back - let's not forget they were democratically elected. Europe legislates against the potential of that happening again. Frankly, Marie Le Pen's comments have the potential to cause a lot more pain, violence and death than claiming to carry a bomb in an airport.
|
On September 11 2012 05:48 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:47 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 11 2012 05:42 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:33 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 11 2012 05:15 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 04:56 Tula wrote:On September 11 2012 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2012 03:23 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 02:54 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 02:42 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
"far-left by normal standards"
Are you serious? By the standards of pretty much every single liberal democracy in the world America is far, far right. The fact that you're like "we're normal, it's all the other countries who are all abnormal" just shows the depths of ignorance enjoyed by those who still believe in American exceptionalism.
You also in no way refuted the fact that Europe used to be socialist and that any claim that they're heading towards socialism based upon the legacy of socialist policies is factually untrue. Okay, imagine you saw a guy swimming in the sea, then loudly say "I don't want to swim anymore", then get out of the water, then say "I'm now no longer going to swim" and then walk away from the beach with wet hair. Would you conclude from this that because water is wet and he is wet he is clearly going for a swim or would you instead look at the direction he was walking in and conclude that he's perhaps just gone for a swim.
I know it's a fairly silly example but I just cannot understand how to make the idiocy of what you're saying any clearer to you. I have outlined the history of socialism in the UK to you and explained that we have in fact already been socialist and that all of our major parties have rejected socialism openly and that the new consensus is far, far to the right of the previous consensus in the 50s and 60s.
I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. The things that you are saying are not the things that are true. This is not an opinion or something that you can argue. These are things that you can look up. I know you heard on whatever right wing fear media you subscribe to that the rest of the world is falling to the forces of socialism but it's factually incorrect. Not true. Wrong. Read a book for once. Do some independent research. Open your damn eyes. Where is the evidence that Europe is moving away from socialism towards the free-market? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument seems to be based on "we're not as socialist as we used to be, so clearly we love capitalism now." If you're going to claim that someone's argument is factually untrue, then you should at least provide legitimate reasons as to you feel that way. Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted. You seem confused. You made a claim about things changing, getting more socialist and less capitalist. For it to be the case that "we're not as socialist as we used to be" just is for it to be the case that we're "moving away from socialism and toward a free market" (unless of course they were going even further left, which they aren't). Whether or not anyone "loves capitalism now" has nothing to do with it. A change is a change. You claimed, based on nothing, that the change was in one direction. Kwark pointed out that it's been in the other. Be glad you've learned something today. Ah, here's the thread at its worst: not seeing the forest for the trees. Noncorporeal is exactly right in that democrats are pushing the US to be more like Europe in terms of government policy. I don't even think that this is fairly debatable. He's also right in pointing out that Europe is having a lot of difficulty managing its more socialist/liberal policies. That's the "forest." With regards to whether Europe is becoming more socialist or more capitalist, that's a rather difficult question to answer. You have to consider time frames and you also have to consider each country on an individual basis. I don't think anyone can argue that France is on a decidedly socialist trend (and quite frankly, I can't wait for this little experiment to blow up spectacularly in their faces). Regardless, this issue would be the "trees." Bottom line: stick to the larger point rather than giving Noncorporeal a shitty time about the more irrelevant stuff. What you're doing is inane. EDIT: And to be clear, this applies to the half-dozen other posters who have jumped on Noncorporeal. To be very clear as well, Noncorporeal is about as wrong as he could possibly be and the ignorance reflected in his posts so far (as well as his staggering ability to ignore counterpoints or demands for sources) is pissing people off quite badly. Now to be even more precise, by the ludicrous standard of "gun-control" or "right to bear arms" (both things which are culturally VERY different in Europe) we do not have ANY division among our parties, so everyone including the most radically right parties must be socialists! Do you realise how silly that sounds? Not a single party in Austria is advocating looser gun control. There is no demand for it. Considering your previously well defined Republican bias, I'll ignore your statement about Obamas intentions, wether he truly wants that or not, is not something I'm willing to judge, but implying that Europe is moving towards socialism shows hilarious ignorance at best if it isn't a cheap troll. Regarding Freedom of speech, we (as in Austria and Germany) have by consensus restricted ourselves in regards to Nazis and Neo-Nazis, that might be an infringement of this article, but considering what happened half a century ago, I can happily live with that restriction. As a point of note, when your personal Freedom of speech infringes on hate-crimes and racism (as was the case with Herr Küssler) you should be facing trial in any democracy. Looks like you were wrong about Austria. Freedom isn't a "cultural" thing, gun rights are a fundamental right that all free humans have, our rights come from nature, not from the government.
An important aspect of democracy is the protection of minority rights, that includes people who have unpopular opinions. What is a "hate crime?" Seriously, why should "hate crimes" even exist? If you're doing something that is already illegal, then why do you need to make it a "hate crime?" If someone slits a black person's throat, why should it matter if said person did it because he was black or not? Why should that have any impact whatsoever on the law? I'm sorry, but I can't agree, especially when you live in a country where healthcare isn't considered a basic human right. How is a gun a human right? Perhaps you're talking about force, where libertarians argue the rights of a government to have a monopoly on force, but a gun is not a basic human right. Now, it is a legal right in the US, but other countries seem to be doing fine without that 'right' - lower violent crime, lower gun-related injuries/deaths etc. A hate crime is when someone is attacked verbally or physically because of a trait they possess, such as the colour of their skin, their racial background, their religion. We legislate against this kind of behaviour because in Europe we believe that it should be illegal to attack someone on the basis that you just don't like them. Are you saying the US doesn't legislate against racism, or attacks on religion? Just because we call it different doesn't mean it's a bad thing, surely...? The right to bear arms is an extension of the right to self-defense and self-preservation. When I say self-defense, I'm not only referring to defense against muggers, rapists, etc. I'm also referring to defense against the government, should it be necessary. Again, you are misinformed on the issue, I suggest you look at Europe's crime rates before they implemented gun control. Verbally attacked? Why should someone be arrested for "insulting" someone else? Needless to say I don't promote insulting other people, but I don't think someone should go to prison just because they're "insulting" someone. If they are violent towards the person, then yes, I support arresting them. In the eyes of the law, I don't think it should matter why the person attacked the other person, they should be punished regardless of their reasons. Would you include inciting terrorism as insulting a person? I would, and it is illegal in Europe. Pretty sure it's also illegal in the US. This would be an example of imprisoning a person for their free speech. There are also places in the US that certain things are restricted - try saying you're carrying a bomb in a TSA lounge, I'm willing to be you'll get jail time. Free speech is a fine thing, but even the US recognises there have to be limits. Europe simply has more limits than the US, sure. But we are of the opinion that why should a person be supported in your country, take advantage of it's benefits and rights when they promote hatred, terrorism or racial violence? These things are restricted. As for the crime statistics, I'll have to check that out. Maybe you're right on that score. I do wonder if the changes in crime rates are due to changes in crime reporting, though... You can't compare someone getting arrested for saying that the Nazi occupation of France "wasn't that bad" to someone getting arrested for threatening to blow up an airport. When you threaten someone else, you are violating their rights; merely saying that you don't like Muslims on the other hand, isn't violating anyone else's rights.
Well I would read your linked article again. Because that was neither his first offence nor was it that harmless as you make it out to be.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102119/Jean-Marie-Le-Pen-given-suspended-jail-term-saying-Nazi-occupation-France-wasn-t-particularly-inhumane.html
Today, the Paris Appeals Court confirmed Mr Le Pen’s sentence, which also included a 10,000 euro fine.
In 2005, Mr Le Pen had told Rivarol magazine that ‘in France, at least, the German Occupation was not especially inhumane, even if there were a few excesses - inevitable in a country of 550,000 square kilometres.’
In fact, thousands died after imprisonment and torture at the hands of the Nazis, including some 70,000 Jews who were deported from cities like Paris to concentration camps.
Mr Le Pen, who has previous convictions for Holocaust denial, was not present for the court ruling.
|
United States42685 Posts
On September 11 2012 05:51 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:49 solidbebe wrote:On September 11 2012 05:46 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:36 solidbebe wrote:On September 11 2012 05:34 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:13 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 05:12 Doublemint wrote:On September 11 2012 05:05 NonCorporeal wrote:
If Europe is so right-wing, why do several European countries have communist parties in their parliaments?
Belarus
Communist Party of Belarus - 8 Lower House Seats
Czech Republic
Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia - 2 Upper House Seats - 26 Lower House Seats - 4 EU Seats
France
French Communist Party - 20 Upper House Seats - 10 Lower House Seats - 2 EU Seats
Communist Party of Réunion - 1 Lower House Seat
Germany
Die Linke - 76 Lower House Seats - 178 State Seats - 8 EU Seats
German Communist Party - 1 State Seat
Greece
Communist Party of Greece - 12 Seats - 2 EU Seats
Kazakhstan
Communist People's Party of Kazakhstan - 7 Lower House Seats
Luxembourg
The Left - 1 Seat
Moldova
Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova - 39 Seats
Portugal
Portuguese Communist Party - 14 Seats - 2 EU Seats
Russia
Communist Party of Russia - 92 Lower House Seats
San Marino
United Left - 5 Seats
South Ossetia
Communist Party of South Ossetia - 8 Seats
Spain
United Left - 2 Upper House Seats - 11 Lower House Seats - 1 EU Seat
Transnistria
Pridnestrovie Communist Party - 1 Seat
Ukraine
Communist Party of Ukraine - 27 Seats Yes our dear European Comrades from Russia,Transnistria,Kazakhstan,Belarus,Ukraine and Moldova, South Ossetia. Now it's no denying it anymore I guess... I did a double take when I read your post. He really did include Kazakhstan. Wow. Kazakhstan is arguably a European country, is it not? Depending on what you consider the borders of Europe to be. You dont get to consider the borders of europe, either the country is part of the EU or it isn't. Simple as that. So all of the non-EU members that are entirely in Europe are now suddenly without a continent because they chose against joining a supranational confederacy? When were talking politics we arent talking about continental borders, were talking about political borders. And by saying "europe" I would assume youre talking about the EU. Europe is also a cultural entity, regardless of the EU; a cultural entity in which many different countries share relatively similar cultural and political ideas, even if they aren't formally part of a confederacy.
And you'd argue the cultural background of Kazakhstan is the same as, Germany for example?
Also on the list of countries which are geographically nowhere near Europe but culturally similar would be Canada. Are they part of Europe?
|
On September 11 2012 05:51 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 05:49 solidbebe wrote:On September 11 2012 05:46 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:36 solidbebe wrote:On September 11 2012 05:34 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:13 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 05:12 Doublemint wrote:On September 11 2012 05:05 NonCorporeal wrote:
If Europe is so right-wing, why do several European countries have communist parties in their parliaments?
Belarus
Communist Party of Belarus - 8 Lower House Seats
Czech Republic
Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia - 2 Upper House Seats - 26 Lower House Seats - 4 EU Seats
France
French Communist Party - 20 Upper House Seats - 10 Lower House Seats - 2 EU Seats
Communist Party of Réunion - 1 Lower House Seat
Germany
Die Linke - 76 Lower House Seats - 178 State Seats - 8 EU Seats
German Communist Party - 1 State Seat
Greece
Communist Party of Greece - 12 Seats - 2 EU Seats
Kazakhstan
Communist People's Party of Kazakhstan - 7 Lower House Seats
Luxembourg
The Left - 1 Seat
Moldova
Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova - 39 Seats
Portugal
Portuguese Communist Party - 14 Seats - 2 EU Seats
Russia
Communist Party of Russia - 92 Lower House Seats
San Marino
United Left - 5 Seats
South Ossetia
Communist Party of South Ossetia - 8 Seats
Spain
United Left - 2 Upper House Seats - 11 Lower House Seats - 1 EU Seat
Transnistria
Pridnestrovie Communist Party - 1 Seat
Ukraine
Communist Party of Ukraine - 27 Seats Yes our dear European Comrades from Russia,Transnistria,Kazakhstan,Belarus,Ukraine and Moldova, South Ossetia. Now it's no denying it anymore I guess... I did a double take when I read your post. He really did include Kazakhstan. Wow. Kazakhstan is arguably a European country, is it not? Depending on what you consider the borders of Europe to be. You dont get to consider the borders of europe, either the country is part of the EU or it isn't. Simple as that. So all of the non-EU members that are entirely in Europe are now suddenly without a continent because they chose against joining a supranational confederacy? When were talking politics we arent talking about continental borders, were talking about political borders. And by saying "europe" I would assume youre talking about the EU. Europe is also a cultural entity, regardless of the EU; a cultural entity in which many different countries share relatively similar cultural and political ideas, even if they aren't formally part of a confederacy.
Have you ever been to Europe? There are a lot of distinguishing characteristics between the countries. Take Germany and Italy for example. I don't think anyone would confuse them for being particularly similar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
