HA the leftist party's are 100% loyal lapdogs of the crown, even the communists put on their best suits when they are summoned. Only the PVV says she should stick to cutting ribbons and wearing funny hats, or better, just go away.
Printable View
HA the leftist party's are 100% loyal lapdogs of the crown, even the communists put on their best suits when they are summoned. Only the PVV says she should stick to cutting ribbons and wearing funny hats, or better, just go away.
Long Live the Republic!
God save the queen nobody else is going to do it. Looks like she seriously overplayed her hand. The coalition that pleases her majesty has failed, two choices for her, new elections where Wilders will become the biggest party, or just about the whole parlement in a coalition against him, and then everything will be swept away the next one. People are seriously angry. And yeah my fellow Dutchie orgahs I know you aren't, but one out of 3 is considering voting Wilders now.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
edit hotdamn that royal shellslut does it again
Why is the PVV even called the Freedom Party, it very much wants to restrict all forms of freedom (drugs, freedom of conscience etc.).
Anyway, no party wants to form a coalition with the PVV, they do not have any competent candidates for ministers except Wilders. Wilders is the only member of his party and all the PVV members of parliament are just yes-sheep with no own opinion, which Wilders made sure of, recalling the LPF disaster of 8 years earlier. Then Wilders' economic policies are more left than the Labour's, and Labour couldn't even agree with the liberals, what makes you think Wilders can.
If a right-wing cabinet happens (which is unlikely), Wilders will betray all of his voters by dumping his economic and social policies and just go on muslim-hunt, which the Christian-Democrats wouldn't want.
I still hope for a SP-GL(/D'66)-PvdA-CDA cabinet, in which the SP will do the Ministry of Defense.
Also Frag, just stop crying, the queen isn't left. The first informer was a right-wing liberal, the second was a very moderate social-democrat and the third is a christian-democrat (who is still being prosecuted because he slapped a lady on the butt years ago). The queen doesn't stop your right-wing cabinet from happening, the Christian-Democrats and Wilders to a certain degree does.
lol@muslimhunt boy do they got you, that would cost him a considerable amount of his voters, the secular muslims who know exactly what he's talking about, and didn't come here to find it here as well.
PVV is anti establishment, bilderbea and her loyal lapdogs are the establishment. Simple as that. Can't win this, but by all means keep trying, when you are slowly sinking into a swamp it's best to not move too much, good luck not getting that.
I didn't mean it literally, like the lynchings in the South of the US. What will be left of his policies when he drops his social and economic policies? Exactly, the part where he hates on (radical) muslims and 'the Morrocan/Turkish/ youth' will make him a single-issue party. Even if he would want to remove or curtail the queen, there would still be a pro-monarchy CDA which would never allow it. And even if the CDA would turn anti-monarchy overnight, he would still need 66% percent of the parliament to remove the part that says you can't remove the queen, then he would need a referendum which will most likely fail since most dutch are pro-monarchy, and even if that magically succeeds the queen could dissolve parliament with all consequenses. I believe that scenario happened more than once in history, with not-so-nice consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
And btw, what's with all those right-wing nuts who keep saying Netherlands will be ruined and that the Netherlands is sick, we're still in the top 10 of best countries to live in and the top 10 of the most democratic country etc etc. The mass-immigration which is 'destroying the Netherlands' amounts to 8150 immigrants each year, which is 0.05% of the population. The argument that the Netherlands is full is moot as well, since more people leave than come in.
Nothing is going to happen whatever promise he breaks, he's our crowbar. Fortuyn was 10 times the man Wilders will ever be, but it's what we got and it will have to do.
On the muslim stuff he pretty much nails it here (sorry in Dutch).
http://www.nrc.nl/opinie/article2584468.ece
I hope Wilders will somehow get in the government, that's the quickest way to get rid of him. I don't bother, I don't own a car so I won't be hit with an oil embargo.
You mean some inconveniences for Royal Shell, does that frighten you as well? Her majesty is shareholder, it's really a business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Uhm yeah, I guess that the oil industry really is a business. I hope for your Wilders that there is enough oil in Israel. What cabinet would you like to see and how do you see this realised?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
lol there we have it, Israel huh, such a hindrance for that desired harmony. But we don't really care for that grouphug. Where did you get that oil-embargo argument from ooooooph economy, sounds like barefooted idealism just doesn't cut it anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
You do know where the oil comes from huh? I give you one hint, it's not from Geertland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
And then again, what cabinet do you prefer and how do you see it realised?
What do you think pays oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
And all the right needs is the inherent certainty of the left screwing up in just about every neighbourhood that had to function as their social testlab
Tell that to Cuba, I mean who cares about a boycott when you have money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I'm afraid this is incorrect. In all European countries, there is a tendency to downplay immigration numbers, to work the stats. 'We are talking really small numbers anyway, a handful, why are you persecuting them'. Yet anybody who has ever visited an old age home and a kindergarten in Western Europe can see the enormity of the demographic change that's sweeping over Western Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
The Netherlands, the most densely populated country in the Western world, has massive immigration. Astonishingly, the Netherlands has an annual immigration larger than Australia, which is the size of the whole of Europe and which runs a deliberate mass immigration policy. Because of the recession, Australia has reduced its immigration target to 115000.
The Netherlands: not 8150 immigrants, but 146.378. Or, twenty times as much as you've been led to believe. Or 1% of the population, per year. ~:eek:
The Netherlands has these immigration numbers not because the population wants it, or as the result of a carefully deliberated policy to attract immigrants to develop the country, but simply because anybody who raises quastions about is deemed a fascist. Call it lingering trauma of the war. (Which incidentally also has the result that it is mostly fascists who object)
Net immigration is 61021. These numbers don't tell the whole story. A fair bit of that one percent are simply Dutch people migrating to and fro Belgium or Germany. Net immigration from non-developed countries is 32670. I would assume that there is a net emigration of native Dutch, especially the highly educated. Whereas for migration to and fro developing countries, this is reversed, with an emphasis on highly educated people remigrating, and lower educated staying. In the current climate, an educated Muslim does not feel at home anymore in the current hostile situation, whereas the uneducated realise the Dutch welfare state will still be preferable to life back home. The third world is rapidly developing, the difference with the West for a great many places is not in living standard, but in income inequality. The upper middle class, the top 15%, in Brazil or the Phillipines enjoy a living standard rivalled only by the very wealthiest in Western Europe. This is a major concern for all West European welfare states: there is a large emigration of the educated, and a large immigration of the uneducated, both natives and non-natives. Combine it with crumbling solidarity, and here is Fragony's revenge: Europe's migration policy will destroy social-democracy. (Which is a shame, because social-democracy is the most civilised society the world has ever produced.)
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publi...DR=T&STB=G5,G1
For fun / exaspiration, Australia's immigration policy.
The Ozzies work out how many of which skills they need, and then simply set a quota. 'The list will now comprise mainly health and medical, engineering and IT professions': http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/medi...09/ce09030.htm. :wall:
@Louis: A note of sanity, at last! But also look at how much those numbers vary. That net immigration of 60K in 2009 versus one of 10K in 2006.
As far as migration of educated Dutch people goes, a sort of popular “destination” is Norway/Sweden both actively advertise work & life in those countries. Increasingly China and India try and attract students, too.
Louis mia muca nothing wrong with your eyes. But no reason to get all to pessimistic, once the idiots stop catering the loonies we will be just fine.
Isn't Australia the country where they burned some Asian students alive not too long ago? Not really the ideal place for immigrants to go.
Fine...fine. That depends a good deal of what one considers fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The demographic replacement is still gaining traction. Even if all immigration were to stop today, in much of Western Europe the demographic transition would still caryy on for decades. Owing to different age pyramids and number of children. Even moreso than immigration numbers, demographic make-up of newborns is a good indicator of the future population. When a third of newborns are non-Europeans, then, disregarding immigration or birthrate per woman, in eighty years time a third of the population will be non-European. Or rather populations will be mixed. 'Mixed-race' is the fastest growing ethnicity in France.
One immigrant of childbearing age ought to be tripled for demographic effect. If a population of three X, spread out over three generations, accept a newcomer Y of childbearing age, the effect will not be that one quarter of the population will be Y, but half will be. Population X will be one grandparent, one parent, and one child. Y will have a child, then become a grandparent, and population Y will eventually consist of three persons too. X and Y will be equal in size in two generations time. Should Y have double, or triple, the birthrate of X, then the demographic effect will be more pronounced still.
Let's assume that country H accepts 30000 immigrants of childbearing age. Assume that it takes these immigrants two generations to go from a third world birthrate to a first world one. The first generation will have four children, the second three, and from the third generation it will have the birthrate of the hostcountry, two. And disregarding migration or intermarriage.
This group of 30k will then have 60k offspring. This second generation will have 90k offspring. This third generation will have 90k offspring, as will subsequent generations. When the fifth generation is born and the third are the grandparents, the population will have settled at 270k, at which it will stay. This process takes five generations, well over a century.
That is in a nutshell what is happening. The demographic effect of allowing in 32760 immigrants from developing countries is a permanent population of some 300k. (That is, assuming birthrates do settle at the level of the host country after the second generation...)
Can I be Rocharch?
edit, found english translation of an open letter of Wilders to the muslims he wrote last week, which pretty much sums up how I feel about it as well. Link isn't kosher so I copied the text.
Muslims free yourselves and you can do anything
Without Islam Arabs, Iranians, Indians and Indonesians have an enormous potential.
Islam makes Muslims un free and fatalistic answers Geert Wilders to the request of the international debate site muslims.debate.com.
I first visited an Islamic country in 1982. I was 18 years old and travelled with a Dutch friend from the Israeli Eilat to the Egyptian Red Sea beach Sharm al- Sheikh. We were two students with backpacks and had almost no money. We slept on the beach and found hospitality by Egyptians who spontaneously invited us to tea. I remember very clearly my first impression of Egypt: I was overwhelmed by the friendliness and helpfulness of the people.
I also remember my second strong impression of Egypt: I noticed how afraid the nice and friendly people were. While we were in Sharm al- Sheikh president Mubarak came coincidentally for a visit. I remember the fear which suddenly flooded the city when it was announced that Mubarak unexpectedly would come for a visit; Ik can still see the convoy of black cars on the day of his visit and still feel the almost visceral conciousness of the fear as a cold chill on an intensely hot summer day.
Mubarak was not regarded as the worst Islamic tyrant. I am curious as to how the Saudis feel if their king is in the city, how the Libyans feel if Gaddafi announces his arrival and how the Iraqis must have felt when Saddam Hussein was in the area. A few years later I read in the Koran how the 7th century Arabs felt in the presence of Mohammad, who as various verses describe "wrought terror into their hearts". (soera 8:12,8:60,33:26, 59:12).
I went with my friend from Sharm al -Sheik to Cairo. My friend and I were surprised that the poor and filthy Egypt could be a neighbor of Israel which was so clean. The explanation of the Arabs with whom we spoke over their poverty, was that this situation had nothing to do with them : according to them they were the victims of a worldwide conspiracy of the ‘imperialists' and ‘zionists' aimed at keeping the Muslims subservient. I did not find the explanation convincing. According to my intuition it had to do with the different cultures of Israel and Egypt.
In the last years of the nineteenth century Winston Churchill was a soldier and correspondent in British India (now Pakistan) and Sudan and that enabled him to dissect the problem with Islam with amazing clarity.
Next to the obsessive fanaticism… is the horribly fatalistic apathy", he wrote. The results can be seen in many countries . Where the followers of the prophet rule or live exist careless customs, sloppy farming areas, slow methods of trade and an uncertain property distribution. Individual Muslims can show shining qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the societal development of it's followers. And Churchill concluded: There does not exist a stronger backward power in the world".
There are people who say that I hate the Muslims. I do not hate the Muslims. It makes me sad that Islam has been robbed of it's dignity.What Islam does to Muslims is to see in how they treat their daughters. On March 11 2002 fifteen Saudi school girls died when they attempted to flee their burning school in Mecca. The keys were in the position of a male guard who refused to open the door for the ‘immodestly' dressed girls. (without face veils and abayas) who tried to save their young lives. The Saudi police pushed them back into the burning building. Agents of the Muttawa the ‘Committee for promotion of virtue and the prevention of sins" as the police in Saudi -Arabia are called also hit passersby and firemen who tried to help the girls. ‘It is sinful to go near them' the bystanders were warned by police. It is also a crime.
Girls are not valued in Islam. A father who gets a daughter is according to the Koran" his face black so troubled is he" (soera 43:15). The incident in Mecca did bring many angry reactions. Islam in inhumane, but Muslims are people and therefore able to love- the powerful force which Mohammed despised. The humanity took over by the fathers in Mecca who were furious over the death of their daughters, but also the firemen resisted when the Muttawa pushed the girls back in, and by the journalists of the Saudi paper was for the first time in Saudi history criticism leveled on the feared and powerful "Committee for the promotion of virtue and the prevention of sins".
But Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. In contrast most Muslims also in Western countries go to the mosque and listen to shocking verses from the Koran and disturbing sermons without rebelling against them.
I myself am an agnostic. But Christians and Jews believe that God has made man in his image. By looking at themselves as free rational beings who are capable of love they believe they can learn to know him. They can also have disagreements as the Jews have done throughout their whole history.
In contrast the Koran posits that "there is nothing like Allah"(soera 16:74,42,11) . He has absolutely nothing with us in common. It is absurd to claim that Allah has made man in his image. Also there is no personal relationship between man and Allah, who we must serve by means of total obedience to Mohammad as leader of the Islamic state (soera 3:31,4:80,24:62,48:10,57:28). And history has shown that Mohammed was surely not a prophet of love and mercy, but a mass murderer, a tyrant and a pedofile. The Muslims could not have chosen a more lamentable role model.
Without individual freedom it is not surprising that the idea of man as one who acts responsibly is not very developed in Islam. Muslims are often fatalistic. Perhaps- and let us hope- that it is only a few radicals who take the call in the Koran seriously to wage jihad against the unbelievers. That is the ‘horribly fatalistic apathy' which Churchill meant.
The writer Aldous Huxley, who lived in North Africa in the twenties of the last century noted the following: God is directly responsible for everything. You come by the local hospital. ‘ Are the doctors good?" ‘In our country', answered the Arab in a tone of Solomon ' we say that the doctors are of no use'. If Allah wants somebody to die, then he dies. If not, then he gets better'. For the Arab it appeared to be the highest human wisdom.[…] They have all fallen backwards- except for those who have been educated according to Western methods – in pre scientific fatalism, with a lack of curiosity and the apathy which accompanies it."
Islam takes away Muslims freedom. That is a pity, because free people are capable of great things as history has shown. The Arabs, Turks, Iranians, Indians and Indonesian people have enormous potential. If they were not prisoners of Islam, if they can free themselves of the yoke of Islam, if they no longer take Mohammed as role model and can wrest themselves free from the devilish Koran, then they will be capable of great things, not only of benefit to them but the whole world.
As Dutch, European and Western Politician my first responsibility is to the Dutch people, the Europeans and the West. But because we will all benefit if Muslims are freed from Islam I support with all my heart Muslims who love freedom. My message to them is clear: fatalism is not an option; ‘inshallah'is a curse; submission is a disgrace. Free yourself. It is on you.
Not that I'm aware of. This could be what you are referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
And Louis, we aren't reducing our immigration intake due to the recession, we are reducing it due to the fact that there is an election coming up and Australians just don't like immigrants.
Implying Australians aren't all (criminal) immigrants, with the exception of Aboriginals.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
PS: According to an Australian who moved to the Netherlands, Aboriginals drink petroleum, is this (partially) true? Or was he just joking?
Heard that from an ozzy relative as well but she said spiritus, the very poor apparently also do that in Russia, supposedly causes many a death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
edit MUHA best elections ever, Beatrix van Amsberg has never been this openly criticised. Some nerve she has, but she made it too obvious. Even on the tradionally 100% loyal left her obvious meddling leaves a sour taste. Good. Her idiot of a son and that gold-digging juntawhore of his got a great time ahead of him when mommy is buried next to her SS-serving father and he has to take the crown.
Meanwhile it has become clear why the CDA didn't want to talk with the PVV, their left flank is kneedeep in the billions of euro's that go to the leftist hobby's that the PVV wants to cut.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Petrol sniffing is generally the worst petroleum-intake that occurs and it is generally quite common in rural areas where there are large Aboriginal populations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
But yeah... not entirely relevant here.
Muhahaha old :daisy: with your retard of a son and his juntawhore and your 100% loyal leftist lapdogs, you lose. There's going to be tears in hobbyland, good luck paying your houses in 100% white neighbourhoods you useless awareness-gits.
Edit and lol@Joppiefloppie you talitubbie
http://www.nu.nl/sevensheaven/1000103/popup.html
Disclaimer, if you aren't Dutch this post makes no sense. If you are, well it still doesn't make any sense but MUHA up yours duely
Stop right there! It's only negotiations, Paars III had 4 weeks of negotiations after it failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
But I'll explain it for the non-Dutch:
Three right-wing parties: CDA (Christian right), VVD (Economic Liberals) and the PVV (Geert Wilders) have had secret meetings for 5 days where they discussed if negotiations could be succesful, these negotiations have partially failed. Wilders (PVV) wants to outlaw the Qur'an and tax veils and punish ethnic minorities more severely than whites, this to the discontent of the Christian-Right who is pro-freedom of Religion and against discrimination. So it has been agreed to that the CDA (Christian-Right) and the VVD (Economic Liberals) will form a cabinet together, but those two parties only have 52 seats in Parliament. The parliament counts 150 seats so the cabinet is in the minority, which is rare for the Netherlands. The last (and only) minority cabinet in the Netherlands (Colijn V) fell after 30 days, so that's not a very good omen. Because of this shortage of seats the PVV will help the cabinet on some major points. This is a very dangerous position to be in because Wilders could force some of his anti-Islam positions or if the cabinet denies it, let it fall, which will make the country leaderless in the economic crisis.
lol Skull the ban on the Qu'ran and tax on headscarves only exists to be dropped to supposedly not lose face. It isn't constitutionally possible to actually do it, it's a trap and they walked right into. Nasty? Absolutely, but all that is done is depending on stupidity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Stupidity? More the greed for power from the CDA and Rutte's ambition to become prime-minister at all costs. I read an article where many PVV electors said the ban on the Qur'an should be the main point of the next cabinet.
Got you there I guess, it's not possible it would need a change of the consitution and that takes 2 parlements, 50% aproval is needed at first, and 70% of the next parlement before it can even be even legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Got you there! Laws are not required to be tested to the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia