Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
It's eary, I've got not much time (cos now I must go to do a job people says italians doesn't want to do anymore), so by the moment I founded only italian newspaper.
This is "La Repubblica", a newspaper owned by De Benedetti (#1 PD card).
Milano, la proposta della Lega "Carrozze metro solo per milanesi" [Milan, the Lega proposal: metro wagons reserved for milaneses]
"La mia proposta sarà valida fra dieci anni se la sicurezza nei trasporti pubblici meneghini non cambierà". E poi ha precisato: "I posti saranno riservati ai milanesi sì, ma di qualsiasi razza e colore. Chi mi critica non ha mai preso certe linee a rischio. Lo faccia, e cambierà idea".
["My proposal will eventualy came 10 years from now if the safety in Milan's pubblic transport won't change." Then he specified "places should be reserved for milaneses of any races and colour. Who criticize me never went on some unsafe lines. Do it, and then he'll change his mind"]
La Stampa [another Lega-skeptic newspaper]
"Sui bus posti riservati ai milanesi" [on buses reserved seats fo milaneses]
Carrozze metro riservate alle donne «di qualsiasi età» e posti riservati «ai milanesi per bene di qualunque razza e colore». È quello che «fra dieci anni saremo costretti a chiedere», afferma Matteo Salvini, se la situazione sicurezza sui trasporti pubblici meneghini continua così.
[Metro/wagon reserved for women of any age and reserved seats for "milaneses of any races and colour". This is what "in 10 years we'll be forced to ask", said Salvini, if the safety on Milan's public transport won't change.]
As you see, title are "a little" different. Salvini never proposed to restore apartheid or something like that.
This is "La Repubblica", a newspaper owned by De Benedetti (#1 PD card).
Milano, la proposta della Lega "Carrozze metro solo per milanesi" [Milan, the Lega proposal: metro wagons reserved for milaneses]
"La mia proposta sarà valida fra dieci anni se la sicurezza nei trasporti pubblici meneghini non cambierà". E poi ha precisato: "I posti saranno riservati ai milanesi sì, ma di qualsiasi razza e colore. Chi mi critica non ha mai preso certe linee a rischio. Lo faccia, e cambierà idea".
["My proposal will eventualy came 10 years from now if the safety in Milan's pubblic transport won't change." Then he specified "places should be reserved for milaneses of any races and colour. Who criticize me never went on some unsafe lines. Do it, and then he'll change his mind"]
La Stampa [another Lega-skeptic newspaper]
"Sui bus posti riservati ai milanesi" [on buses reserved seats fo milaneses]
Carrozze metro riservate alle donne «di qualsiasi età» e posti riservati «ai milanesi per bene di qualunque razza e colore». È quello che «fra dieci anni saremo costretti a chiedere», afferma Matteo Salvini, se la situazione sicurezza sui trasporti pubblici meneghini continua così.
[Metro/wagon reserved for women of any age and reserved seats for "milaneses of any races and colour". This is what "in 10 years we'll be forced to ask", said Salvini, if the safety on Milan's public transport won't change.]
As you see, title are "a little" different. Salvini never proposed to restore apartheid or something like that.
Personally I know a few about jobbik (but I know Le Pen and Salvini rejected alliance with them, like they rejected alliance with many other far right moviments like Golden Dawn, Ataka, and so on).
But does they said "every gypsi are criminals" or "there are a lot of criminals toward gypsies"?
This make a lot of difference.
But I repeat: I don't know jobbik so I'm not defending 'em.
But does they said "every gypsi are criminals" or "there are a lot of criminals toward gypsies"?
This make a lot of difference.
But I repeat: I don't know jobbik so I'm not defending 'em.
They don't say it like that. If they would say every Gyspi is a criminal, they would be fined or even banned. That's why you won't catch a far rightist party saying 100% obvious Nazi stuff, because such parties would be illegal.
What they keep talking about are "Gypsi-crimes". They say some crimes like burglary, pickpocketing, attacking people in groups are typically "Gypsi-crimes".
Sometimes when they're accused of being racist, they say that they consider Hungarians, who also commit these crimes Gypsies too. And they just want normal Gypsies to have normal jobs. But if they're not racist, why do they call it Gypsi-crimes? Also if there's a scandal about a crime, probably committed by Gypsies, their paramilitary units move into the village, intimidating everyone in the Gypsi neighbourhood.
But I don't think Western European far-rightists refuse an alliance with Jobbik, because they're more "civilized" or something. They just don't have common enemies. Jobbik is against Jews and Gypsies (of course only against the bad ones - about 99,9% according to it's supporters), parties like Lega Nord are against Muslims and Africans. I've never heard that Jobbik would say anything against them. As a matter of fact, they support "Free Palestine", and would like closer ties with Iran for example.
On the other hand I'm not sure about Lega Nord, but as I know, most Western-European far-rightists prefer Israel, which is a potential ally against Muslims. Jobbik would never accept this, they're against Israel.
To simplify it, it's hatred against Muslims and Africans vs hatred against Jews and Gypsies. Different for them, all the same for me.
What they keep talking about are "Gypsi-crimes". They say some crimes like burglary, pickpocketing, attacking people in groups are typically "Gypsi-crimes".
Sometimes when they're accused of being racist, they say that they consider Hungarians, who also commit these crimes Gypsies too. And they just want normal Gypsies to have normal jobs. But if they're not racist, why do they call it Gypsi-crimes? Also if there's a scandal about a crime, probably committed by Gypsies, their paramilitary units move into the village, intimidating everyone in the Gypsi neighbourhood.
But I don't think Western European far-rightists refuse an alliance with Jobbik, because they're more "civilized" or something. They just don't have common enemies. Jobbik is against Jews and Gypsies (of course only against the bad ones - about 99,9% according to it's supporters), parties like Lega Nord are against Muslims and Africans. I've never heard that Jobbik would say anything against them. As a matter of fact, they support "Free Palestine", and would like closer ties with Iran for example.
On the other hand I'm not sure about Lega Nord, but as I know, most Western-European far-rightists prefer Israel, which is a potential ally against Muslims. Jobbik would never accept this, they're against Israel.
To simplify it, it's hatred against Muslims and Africans vs hatred against Jews and Gypsies. Different for them, all the same for me.
I also agree with that remark. But I think I agree with Levitate in everything else in this discussion :P
The positions of Le Pen, Lega Nord, etc, are questionable (like ev eryone else's, I suppose), but one must ask oneself why are they so embarrassed to call themselves what they are. Somehow, I can understand the existence of a Communist Party, but I would find such party very suspicious if they insist on refusing the term "extreme-left", and sustain it by showing that they have a very rich guy in their list :P
I agree.
Le Pen, Salvini..
mybe they are not racist, but their parties surely are.
The problem comes from the betrayal of the left side to workers.
That electoral position against euro is refused by the left side, so people that need to state their position against the euro has no alternatives.
I think euro (not Europe, not european union, but the currency itself) is a cage where democracy lacks, workers must be impoverished, and it will lead to a real war soon.
I need to try everything to stop it.
So, reluctantly, I'll end to vote those racists, (sometimes) stupids.
that's democracy.
when those moderates of right and left, will lose their consensus they will need to face reality.
Last point.
I believe in democracy, I thik democracy is under attack in the whole world.
The attack is:
-an ideolgical one : "I don't belive democracy, because.."
-a political one (as Barroso said) "The EU is an antidote to democratic governments"
-an economical attack (where people are jobless they are more manoeuvrable and blackmailed)
I think that is an HUGE error to surrender to this attack. Democracy is an hard imperfect way, but still the only good one.
The positions of Le Pen, Lega Nord, etc, are questionable (like ev eryone else's, I suppose), but one must ask oneself why are they so embarrassed to call themselves what they are. Somehow, I can understand the existence of a Communist Party, but I would find such party very suspicious if they insist on refusing the term "extreme-left", and sustain it by showing that they have a very rich guy in their list :P
I agree.
Le Pen, Salvini..
mybe they are not racist, but their parties surely are.
The problem comes from the betrayal of the left side to workers.
That electoral position against euro is refused by the left side, so people that need to state their position against the euro has no alternatives.
I think euro (not Europe, not european union, but the currency itself) is a cage where democracy lacks, workers must be impoverished, and it will lead to a real war soon.
I need to try everything to stop it.
So, reluctantly, I'll end to vote those racists, (sometimes) stupids.
that's democracy.
when those moderates of right and left, will lose their consensus they will need to face reality.
Last point.
I believe in democracy, I thik democracy is under attack in the whole world.
The attack is:
-an ideolgical one : "I don't belive democracy, because.."
-a political one (as Barroso said) "The EU is an antidote to democratic governments"
-an economical attack (where people are jobless they are more manoeuvrable and blackmailed)
I think that is an HUGE error to surrender to this attack. Democracy is an hard imperfect way, but still the only good one.
I read something about EU election, parties and our candidates and the result is that now I am much more confused and I dont know who I will vote for :-(
It would be much easier be a sheep and vote without thinking :-DD
It would be much easier be a sheep and vote without thinking :-DD
I need to try everything to stop it.
So, reluctantly, I'll end to vote those racists, (sometimes) stupids.
that's democracy.
when those moderates of right and left, will lose their consensus they will need to face reality.
Could have been said by a German in the Weimarer Republik 1930.
So, reluctantly, I'll end to vote those racists, (sometimes) stupids.
that's democracy.
when those moderates of right and left, will lose their consensus they will need to face reality.
Could have been said by a German in the Weimarer Republik 1930.
Not every comparison with the thirties is a reductio ad hitlerum.
Reductio ad Hitlerum is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.
I don't see your point. Should we not look at the past and draw parallels just because it has something remotely to do with Hitler?
Answer me honestly, don't you think that these words could have been spoken by a German around 1930?
I don't see your point. Should we not look at the past and draw parallels just because it has something remotely to do with Hitler?
Answer me honestly, don't you think that these words could have been spoken by a German around 1930?
to both.
If I want to discuss a fallacy in an argument I won't compare it to a support to Nazism.
Why not?
Because it's something strongly marked in a negative way. So it's very hard to discuss about it with a in a critical but not religious way.
But, lets get in topic:
I know that voting those parties hides a risk.
I will not pretend that they are innocuous
Still the comparizon with Nazism is something different, there are no real racism (no racial laws fe), there are a different kind a grade of nationalism, there are a different democratic behaviour.
But the greater difference I see is in their alternatives. the alternatives are worst.
they call themselves them "PD" (democratic party) or "forza Italia" or "Tsipras list" or M5S (5 stars movement) but they are fascists and paternalistic parties that want me to get poor..
people that doens't WANT to admit the euro currency is antidemocratic for its nature or that use false solution to fool me.
So? So I need to vote who are against it. Do I have a choice? no.
I also know european parliament is the house of nothing.
No real decisions are taken there.
I will never vote Lega Nord at political election in Italy, but there, where no damages, nor benefits can be done..
Last note:
Im not satisfied yet.
I can't be represented by some sort of sub.human racist witha green flag (green is the lega nord colour!)
so I looked on their list to find out WHO to vote personally.
I find out they have some "indipendent" candidates (not registered in their party)
This candidates are the ones that teached them the problem of euro (they are mainly economists, economic politician scholars).
I'll give my preferences directly to one of them I trust.
I think that is the most I can do, and the better!
But still I will remember the betrayal of the left side to their people.
These traitors and collaborationists must be damned
If I want to discuss a fallacy in an argument I won't compare it to a support to Nazism.
Why not?
Because it's something strongly marked in a negative way. So it's very hard to discuss about it with a in a critical but not religious way.
But, lets get in topic:
I know that voting those parties hides a risk.
I will not pretend that they are innocuous
Still the comparizon with Nazism is something different, there are no real racism (no racial laws fe), there are a different kind a grade of nationalism, there are a different democratic behaviour.
But the greater difference I see is in their alternatives. the alternatives are worst.
they call themselves them "PD" (democratic party) or "forza Italia" or "Tsipras list" or M5S (5 stars movement) but they are fascists and paternalistic parties that want me to get poor..
people that doens't WANT to admit the euro currency is antidemocratic for its nature or that use false solution to fool me.
So? So I need to vote who are against it. Do I have a choice? no.
I also know european parliament is the house of nothing.
No real decisions are taken there.
I will never vote Lega Nord at political election in Italy, but there, where no damages, nor benefits can be done..
Last note:
Im not satisfied yet.
I can't be represented by some sort of sub.human racist witha green flag (green is the lega nord colour!)
so I looked on their list to find out WHO to vote personally.
I find out they have some "indipendent" candidates (not registered in their party)
This candidates are the ones that teached them the problem of euro (they are mainly economists, economic politician scholars).
I'll give my preferences directly to one of them I trust.
I think that is the most I can do, and the better!
But still I will remember the betrayal of the left side to their people.
These traitors and collaborationists must be damned
I think that is the most I can do, and the better!
No, it's not. You are voting, and therefore, you are confirming that you agree with the political system in the European Union. You are giving the European Union and the Eurozone the legitimacy they don't deserve.
It has nothing to do with 'taking a rebel position' like some claimed. It's about not accepting the system as it is. It is impossible to change it from within. You don't need to be or have people in the parliament. You can change the players, but you can't change the game.
(editado)
No, it's not. You are voting, and therefore, you are confirming that you agree with the political system in the European Union. You are giving the European Union and the Eurozone the legitimacy they don't deserve.
It has nothing to do with 'taking a rebel position' like some claimed. It's about not accepting the system as it is. It is impossible to change it from within. You don't need to be or have people in the parliament. You can change the players, but you can't change the game.
(editado)
No, it's not. You are voting, and therefore, you are confirming that you agree with the political system in the European Union. You are giving the European Union and the Eurozone the legitimacy they don't deserve.
Where is written that voting means to legitimate.
ANd if I vote someone that wants to broke that system and close it?
don't mess democracy with legitimation.
It has nothing to do with 'taking a rebel position' like some claimed. It's about not accepting the system as it is. It is impossible to change it from within. You don't need to be or have people in the parliament. You can change the players, but you can't change the game.
I'm a democratic.
I believe in democracy.
for me you are wrong. the only thing I can say about it is:
"You have not an alternative to be a democratic citizen ... or better... you maybe have one,
to be a subject to a democratic system!"
..make your choice..
(editado)
(editado)
Where is written that voting means to legitimate.
ANd if I vote someone that wants to broke that system and close it?
don't mess democracy with legitimation.
It has nothing to do with 'taking a rebel position' like some claimed. It's about not accepting the system as it is. It is impossible to change it from within. You don't need to be or have people in the parliament. You can change the players, but you can't change the game.
I'm a democratic.
I believe in democracy.
for me you are wrong. the only thing I can say about it is:
"You have not an alternative to be a democratic citizen ... or better... you maybe have one,
to be a subject to a democratic system!"
..make your choice..
(editado)
(editado)
I want to be a little more clear about Lega Nord.
I respect every opinion, but when we read news we always must care about the "spin" the media is forcing.
For exemple, when we title "Salvini wants immigrants separated in public transport", we're lying just a little bit, but we're forcing a big spin suggesting he want's to restore apartheid.
Calderoli never directly said Kyenge is a monkey, and his words without the contest where have been said suggested it was a racial issue. Meanwhile, nobody get scandalized when they call him a pig (it started way before the "orangutan incident"), or when they call Berlusconi a dwarf,...
Then, there are facts.
Facts tells the 2 most immigrant-friendly towns in Italy are Verona and Treviso, two towns which always elected mayors from Lega Nord. Facts tells that the first black mayor in italian history is from Lega Nord. Facts tells that when Roberto Maroni was minister of the interior, he strongly reduced the illegal immigration, and now (just few weeks after the crime of illegal immigration has been canceled) the problem just exploded again.
There have been in past some exaggerations and even some racist statement? I certainly can't denie it. But some isolated events shouldn't change the matter of fact, that Lega never brought racists issues.
Unless you consider being against illegal immigration is racist, but then we should consider every country in the world racist...
____________________
Or at least, this is my opinion...
I don't pretend to own the truth or to impose my opinions, but if I have been able to make someone think over it, then I'm happy :)
I respect every opinion, but when we read news we always must care about the "spin" the media is forcing.
For exemple, when we title "Salvini wants immigrants separated in public transport", we're lying just a little bit, but we're forcing a big spin suggesting he want's to restore apartheid.
Calderoli never directly said Kyenge is a monkey, and his words without the contest where have been said suggested it was a racial issue. Meanwhile, nobody get scandalized when they call him a pig (it started way before the "orangutan incident"), or when they call Berlusconi a dwarf,...
Then, there are facts.
Facts tells the 2 most immigrant-friendly towns in Italy are Verona and Treviso, two towns which always elected mayors from Lega Nord. Facts tells that the first black mayor in italian history is from Lega Nord. Facts tells that when Roberto Maroni was minister of the interior, he strongly reduced the illegal immigration, and now (just few weeks after the crime of illegal immigration has been canceled) the problem just exploded again.
There have been in past some exaggerations and even some racist statement? I certainly can't denie it. But some isolated events shouldn't change the matter of fact, that Lega never brought racists issues.
Unless you consider being against illegal immigration is racist, but then we should consider every country in the world racist...
____________________
Or at least, this is my opinion...
I don't pretend to own the truth or to impose my opinions, but if I have been able to make someone think over it, then I'm happy :)
Where is written that voting means to legitimate.
ANd if I vote someone that wants to broke that system and close it?
Where? Nowhere. It doesn't change the fact that it's true. Even if you vote for 'change', you only change the players. Not the game. Those people you vote on, they might promise that they will change the system, but once they're in, they are depending on the system. So why would they want to change it?
I'm a democratic.
I believe in democracy.
for me you are wrong. the only thing I can say about it is:
"You have not an alternative to be a democratic citizen ... or better... you maybe have one,
to be a subject to a democratic system!"
I'm not a democrat. Democracy cannot bring the necessary change. A part of the population must be encouraged to stop this, and to say: "Under these rules, we no longer play." Civil disobedience is needed, and in such an amount that it cannot be ignored. If you get 20% of the population who say 'no more', who refuse to pay taxes, who refuse to cooperate in any way with the government, what will they do? The government hasn't got the capability to force them all. Then they will have to listen. Now, they're not interesting in listening to you.
Thát is what we need. We need to block the government and the current democratic system in order to obtain liberty. Real liberty. Not the conditional freedom we are allowed to have from the state.
Edit: And some people say that I'm a revolutionary. If the above described situation is a revolution, then yes, I am a revolutionary. I know what I don't want: living as a slave in Europe. I hope we did not tore down kings, princes, dictators, the nazis, the communists, in order to have a different 'democratic' kind of slavery. Did we?
(editado)
ANd if I vote someone that wants to broke that system and close it?
Where? Nowhere. It doesn't change the fact that it's true. Even if you vote for 'change', you only change the players. Not the game. Those people you vote on, they might promise that they will change the system, but once they're in, they are depending on the system. So why would they want to change it?
I'm a democratic.
I believe in democracy.
for me you are wrong. the only thing I can say about it is:
"You have not an alternative to be a democratic citizen ... or better... you maybe have one,
to be a subject to a democratic system!"
I'm not a democrat. Democracy cannot bring the necessary change. A part of the population must be encouraged to stop this, and to say: "Under these rules, we no longer play." Civil disobedience is needed, and in such an amount that it cannot be ignored. If you get 20% of the population who say 'no more', who refuse to pay taxes, who refuse to cooperate in any way with the government, what will they do? The government hasn't got the capability to force them all. Then they will have to listen. Now, they're not interesting in listening to you.
Thát is what we need. We need to block the government and the current democratic system in order to obtain liberty. Real liberty. Not the conditional freedom we are allowed to have from the state.
Edit: And some people say that I'm a revolutionary. If the above described situation is a revolution, then yes, I am a revolutionary. I know what I don't want: living as a slave in Europe. I hope we did not tore down kings, princes, dictators, the nazis, the communists, in order to have a different 'democratic' kind of slavery. Did we?
(editado)
I disagree about everything.
I disagree about the fact that voting is giving a legitimation. In fact you didn't give a real argument about it.
I disagree about democracy and the change you need.
I don't need it. I don't want it.
But moreover, I don't believe it could be better without goverment (that is the REASON why we have confortable lifes and security and welfare, imho)
Liberty is a mith, I don't want to be freer that this, I don't need it and I think freedom itself means nothing.
I disagree about the fact that voting is giving a legitimation. In fact you didn't give a real argument about it.
I disagree about democracy and the change you need.
I don't need it. I don't want it.
But moreover, I don't believe it could be better without goverment (that is the REASON why we have confortable lifes and security and welfare, imho)
Liberty is a mith, I don't want to be freer that this, I don't need it and I think freedom itself means nothing.
I still think voting anti-EU, anti-Euro, or both, in Euro elections makes no sense. I would understand voting this in Italian elections, as national governments decide about all these things. Is not in European Parliament's power to decide whether it exists itself, nor whether the currency union exists. You'll end up with a bunch of Nigel Farages giving colorful speeches without actually doing any MP work.
I think it would make more sense to vote the people who better represent your views on the matters that are decided by the European Parliament, and then vote anti-Euro for those institutions that can actually end it (namely, the Italian government).
Now, you said yourself you wouldn't want it for Italian government. But you are actually voting for them to rule over Italy, just in those matters delegated by national governments to EU, excluding monetary policy or the Comission's competences.
Basically, you're voting Lega Nord to make competition and anti-monopoly policy because you dislike Euro... :P
I think it would make more sense to vote the people who better represent your views on the matters that are decided by the European Parliament, and then vote anti-Euro for those institutions that can actually end it (namely, the Italian government).
Now, you said yourself you wouldn't want it for Italian government. But you are actually voting for them to rule over Italy, just in those matters delegated by national governments to EU, excluding monetary policy or the Comission's competences.
Basically, you're voting Lega Nord to make competition and anti-monopoly policy because you dislike Euro... :P