It is done...Dutch right wing governement collapses

[germanos]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Taking the train from Delft CS to Amsterdam Slotedijk is no option for me. I have to travel 15 minutes by bike to get at Delft CS, than I have to step over on Den Haag HS and on Amsterdam CS again, and after that I hvae to walk another 5 minutes.

wow, just two minutes in and then this.

If you drive like that with public transport, I can only say you are a complete.......
I am positively sure that every half hour there is a direct train from Delft to Sloterdijk.
15 minutes before and after there is another train to Leiden, which will allow you to switch trains, and get the train to Sloterdijk.

In both instances, you will get there in, ummm let me guess... 45 minutes. Tell me, how long does it take by car?

You may like public transport or not, but do not tell bloody lies

[Saint Marcus]

Pim Fortuyn talked about parkplaces outside the city with metro's who bring the people into the city within minutes. that will do a lot.

what if the city grows?

[germanos]

Oops, it took a while

originally posted by GermanosI don't see why you bother to stick your head in the noose for the SGP though.

Why do you stand up for the SGP and the CU, when you do try to persuade your friends to stop voting for either of these parties and vote for the CDA instead?


All other quotes by Cybershy.

So does the CDA! They have much principles!

versus

Pragmatism is very important for a governamental party. I think it's more important than principles.

But take adoption by gay-couples, it involves a child as well. I think it's against nature that two fathers or two mothers have a baby. It seems to be better for a child to be raised by a hetero couple. Of course there's some nuance in the "better two fathers than no father at all" discussion, which is indeed not simplistic to be answered.

Nature has very little to do with this matter. What matters most is wether the child is wanted. I would hate the situation where a child will be raised by either an orphanage or a hetero couple that will just take care of the kid to prevent it from falling in the "unnatural' situation of being raised by two homosexuals.
Secondly, since mankind is a social animal, children do get raised by many people: parents, neighbours, aunts and uncles, reachers, playmates, grandparents, you name it. There are bound to be homosexuals in their social environment anyway. You would give the child a bad sign if you were to prohibit contact with them then. And if you would agree contact with homosexuals is not bad for the child, I don't see why homosexuals raising a child would be more harmfull.

It's just unfortunately that they never understood the bible

and

That we have a different opinion on this doesn't make me a . Your opinion might be "Everybody can get their own truth out of the bible" and mine is "There's one truth in the bible". It's not as if yours is the default opinion, or the only right one, because it's very obvious that you don't concider my opinion to be one of those "true opinions" about the bible.

Don't talk about what I might think. I will tell you what I think, and if I don't, you can ask. :doitnow:

Your first quote is exactly that of which you accuse ME in the second quote.
I'll have to credit you that you beautifully rephrased my sarcastic "good argument" with:
" It's not as if yours is the default opinion, or the only right one."

Since we are discussing politics here, and not religion, let alone the Bible, I'll save my ammo for a "one truth in holy scriptures " thread. It's unlikely I will join such a thread though.

CU is greener than GL.

and

Laat nu uitgerekend de ChristenUnie - de samenvoeging van de twee kleine maar stevig christelijke partijen GPV en RPF - een van de groenste verkiezingsprogramma's hebben.

The dutch quote doesn't support your first claim. It says the CU is one of the greenest parties. From the other dutch quote you posted, it might well mean that #1 and #2 are GL and SP, while CU comes third.

Energy, food and related topics: later

[Robert]

Germanos: In both instances, you will get there in, ummm let me guess... 45 minutes. Tell me, how long does it take by car?

My wife travels every day to Sloterdijk by train. (She works in the Elsevier building) it takes her 1 hour and 15 minutes. (Including traveling to the station, and from the station to her office)

Even *if* it would last as long as by car (1 hour) I would prefer taking the car, because it's much more comfortable, I can listen to music, I have a good seat. My wife has to stand much, has to 'step over' (at least to the metro), she needs to use the bike.

You may like public transport or not, but do not tell bloody lies

I don't lie it, if I'm not completely wrong, it's because I don't know it exactly. I'm sorry if it's wrong.

Saint Marcus: what if the city grows?

That doesn't matter, the highway will still go to the parkplace, and from that point you can travel easily further. Of course it would be smart to not build houses near the parkplaces

germanos: Why do you stand up for the SGP and the CU, when you do try to persuade your friends to stop voting for either of these parties and vote for the CDA instead?

Easy example:
a friend makes an essay, the teacher thinks it's word a E, I think it's worth a B, while I think my essay is worth an A. I'll talk into my teacher that he should give my friend a B, but I tell my friend he'd better had done it the way I did.

CyberShy: So does the CDA! They have much principles!

versus:

CyberShy: Pragmatism is very important for a governamental party. I think it's more important than principles.

That doesn't conflict with each other, it's good to have principles, but you must be pragmatic to reign the country. Of course as much as possible based on your principles, but if only 60% of your principles will be excecuted if you participate in the governament, and 20% if you do not participate, it's the pragmatic right choise to be a part of the governament.

If you think your principles are more important than pragmatism you say "I will only take place into the governament if 100% of my principles will be executed"

This will mostly result in a party like GL, an only very few of your principles will be executed.

Nature has very little to do with this matter. What matters most is wether the child is wanted. I would hate the situation where a child will be raised by either an orphanage or a hetero couple that will just take care of the kid to prevent it from falling in the "unnatural' situation of being raised by two homosexuals.

that's true.
I totally agree on that.
I prefer two homosexual parents above no parents at all as well. I think I even prefer that above only one parent. But I think that the most ideal situation is that an orphan will be adopted by a hetero couple.

Secondly, since mankind is a social animal, children do get raised by many people: parents, neighbours, aunts and uncles, reachers, playmates, grandparents, you name it. There are bound to be homosexuals in their social environment anyway. You would give the child a bad sign if you were to prohibit contact with them then. And if you would agree contact with homosexuals is not bad for the child, I don't see why homosexuals raising a child would be more harmfull.

I think the ideal home situation is the place where you have a father and a mother. If you believe in evolution, natural selection has made it so that children grow up in families with a father and a mother. We're differnt on that than most animals.

I'm not talking about children shouldn't contact gay people, they should know about their existance, and they should know that they should be respecte equal. But I hope that every child will have a home with a father and a mother.

I prefer two homosexuals above 2 fighting hetero's.
I prefer two homosexuals above a divorced couple.
But most ideal in my opinion is a father and a mother.

Pherhaps we agree on this?
Than I agree to disagree on that issue if homosexual couples for that matter can adopt or not.

Your first quote is exactly that of which you accuse ME in the second quote.

No, it's just that *In my opinion* they misunderstood the bible. They have the right to do that, I will not sue them or kill them. But I'm sad that they do not understand it the way it was meant in my opinion.

Like I'm sad that you're not a christian. I wish you were one. But I respect you equal, and I completely agree that it's your right to have another opinion.

I hope you will respect my opinion on that as well, and not on it.

The dutch quote doesn't support your first claim. It says the CU is one of the greenest parties. From the other dutch quote you posted, it might well mean that #1 and #2 are GL and SP, while CU comes third.

Usually this means that the party talked about is the greenst. If you compare it with the other quote, in which the CU green-program is praised more than the GL program, I think you can conclude that milieu defense does appreciate the CU program than the GL program.

Of course it will always be an issue of discussion on which of the two is the greenst. It's just that I know that there are greenish people who prefer CU above GL. I met them on dutch politics fora. Of course it is a case of opinion.

Anyway, it's a fact that CU is a very green party, at least one of the greenst

[Dr Strangelove]

OK, her's a compromise. Gay couples in the Netherlands should be allowed to adopt children, but only Muslim children. In deference to the child's heritage they would be required to raise the child in the faith of his or her heritage. This would probably mean accompaying the child to mosque.

[germanos]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Even *if* it would last as long as by car (1 hour) I would prefer taking the car, because it's much more comfortable, I can listen to music, I have a good seat. My wife has to stand much, has to 'step over' (at least to the metro), she needs to use the bike.

Now THAT is a reason to travel by car, and I can respect you for that. But it is really silly you first have to try complaining about the supposedly bad connections public transport has.
It is really cheap to first say public transport sucks, while in fact you would still travel by car for other reasons.
It is allready a well estabvlished fact that for the very reason you post here people will stick in their cars, no matter how well public transport is organised. For the very same reason many people prefer to travel ALONE in their cars, they just want to spend some time alone, and listen to their own favorite music. That is fine with me, but then stop complaining about the fully blocked roads, created by your fellow singular travelers.
It all ends up to making choices. It is so easy to think society should be made around your own individual wishes.

by GermanosYou may like public transport or not, but do not tell bloody lies

I don't lie it, if I'm not completely wrong, it's because I don't know it exactly. I'm sorry if it's wrong.

My wife travels every day to Sloterdijk by train. (She works in the Elsevier building) it takes her 1 hour and 15 minutes. (Including traveling to the station, and from the station to her office)

Allways willing to help out my neighbours, I did a search for Railway travel for your wife. There is really no need for her to change-over.

And for your information: I am a frequent railway traveler, and I NEVER have to stand, and yes, I do travel the same route your wife takes

[Robert]

But it is really silly you first have to try complaining about the supposedly bad connections public transport has.

That's not what I meant, bad connections, I thought I should have to change in The Hague, but I am apparently wrong. Now do a Delft-Woerden search #doitnow!# that's my current daily route.

But what I mean with changing, is from bike to train, and from train to metro. (that's what she should do, I shouldn't have to use the metro for the Telegraaf building, but I would have to walk 8 minutes)

together with biking / walking / delay it would take 1 hour and 15 minutes to travel from my house to Amsterdam-Telegraaf.

Including rain, wind and all that.

She told me lately that she had to stand the entire traject. I don't know if that's usual. Pherhaps it's not that that's why she told me.

It is really cheap to first say public transport sucks, while in fact you would still travel by car for other reasons.

Well, it's not as if I say that public transport sucks, I think it's a good system. But I like traveling by car more. And I do not complain about ques (files?) besides for the ques that are there because the road is a 'trechter'. (is. 3 to 2 lanes, 4 to 3 lanes)

besides that, it's a choise indeed.

But now imagine that 30% of these 'singular travelers' would indeed take the train...... Do you give it any change that the public transport system can manage that? No way. The train would be the same mess the roads are right now. The train is a virtual alternative, but in reality it's impossible for the car-drivers to change into train-travelers.

[germanos]

CyberShy, you are really impossible to have a discussion with. You keep changing your arguments!

First you complain about Delft-Sloterdijk, and now it turns out not to be in support of your statements you find another route. Silly. And do your own bloody search, it is on www.ns.nl. :doityourself:

But what I mean with changing, is from bike to train, and from train to metro. (that's what she should do, I shouldn't have to use the metro for the Telegraaf building, but I would have to walk 8 minutes)

IIRC, a few posts ago you were in favor of having big carparks where forensic trafic could change to subway/streetcars to move into dense urban area's.

Including rain, wind and all that.

And often:
Sun, fresh air, getting some exersise after you sit all day on your butt at the office. The wonderfull smell of spring, the wonderfull smell of the light freeze in the winter, the fun of walking through the snow,hearing the birds sing...
Gee, God made this planet a hellhole to live in. I hope for you that at where-ever you go they have at least an undergroung carpark. Otherwise you will still be subject to the Elements after you leave your save motorized cocoon
[BIG] [/BIG]

besides that, it's a choise indeed.

Good, we finally agree.

And thus building more roads or not is a choice as well.
Neither more roads nor more Public transport will ever ensure that in the morning a lot of people decide to start traveling, and thus crowds and congestion will arise.
And in the end the people will have to get into the city or industrial area's they work, and the traffic jam will occur their.
I suppose in many cases they are very aware that increasing the capacity of certain stretches of highway will only result in the traffic-jam to occur a few kilometers further on. Wisely, they decide not to waste good money on that.

BTW: there have been studies made on the amount of time spend by people traveling to work, or the time they are willing to spend going to a holiday-spot.
Guess what the outcome was:
In the last century the time spent has been practically the same! They only travel further away.

That is why the continuous roadbuilding has not solved the traffic jams...

[Robert]

CyberShy, you are really impossible to have a discussion with. You keep changing your arguments!

If you read well, you see that's not what I do.
I admitted on a few issues that I was wrong. But explained on some other issues what I exactly meant.

First you complain about Delft-Sloterdijk, and now it turns out not to be in support of your statements you find another route. Silly. And do your own bloody search, it is on www.ns.nl. :doityourself:

Oh no, I my statements for Delft-Sloterdijk are still more or less the same. I do not have to change trains, but it still takes me 1 hour and 15 minutes, including walking and biking.

IIRC, a few posts ago you were in favor of having big carparks where forensic trafic could change to subway/streetcars to move into dense urban area's.

I'm still in favor of that.
I would love it to park my car outside Woerden, and travel the last 2 minutes per metro. (It takes 15 minutes to get into and outside Woerden)

As long as I don't have to walk / bike
It will still be not as comfortable as the car (I do'nt have to change train/ metro in there) but it would be better though.

And often:
Sun, fresh air, getting some exersise after you sit all day on your butt at the office.

I love it to enjoy all of that in my free-time.
So I can pick out the better wetter-types, and I'm not forced to go through the rain.

I hope for you that at where-ever you go they have at least an undergroung carpark. Otherwise you will still be subject to the Elements after you leave your save motorized cocoon

Thanks for your support

And thus building more roads or not is a choice as well.

I say, finish the A4 and the A5, make every road a 4-lane road, and done we are. (or 3-lane, as long as there are no 4-3 / 3-2 lanes switches and all that I have talked about before)

I suppose in many cases they are very aware that increasing the capacity of certain stretches of highway will only result in the traffic-jam to occur a few kilometers further on. Wisely, they decide not to waste good money on that.

that's why they should take away all the botlenecks.
And the cities, that are botlenecks as well should contain those big parkplaces, that can absorb the cars quickly.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by CyberShy
legalising soft drugs is not a leftish / green issue either. They're against.
euthanasia is not a leftish / green issue either. They're against.

You're wrong on both counts, fortunately.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by DeepO
Nuclear plants: What I find so hypocritical about Green governments is that those neighbouring countries that are so against nuclear energy (Germany and the Netherlands) both buy their electricity in other countries

Energy supply has been privatized in The Netherlands. The government doesn't have anything to say about where the electricity is coming from.
Some enlightened energy suppliers, however, make sure that they get their electricity only from 'green' sources, this is heartily supported by GroenLinks.

Only those countries that have large nuclear plants, or those that are willing to forbid all non-public motorised transport will be able to uphold Kyoto.

This is somewhat exaggerated. If private motorised transport would be less polluting (and we have the knowledge to make it non-polluting!) the Kyoto treaty can be met.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
ChristenUnie:

-more supervision on bodemsanering
-fight noise pollution
-strong control of fireworks
-strong control on transport of chemicals and other dangerous materials
-companies should make give information on the "persistentie, bio-accumulatie, toxiciteit" of the products used

These and similar statements are GroenLinks policy, too. The info on the website is not all-inclusive.

[Robert]

Originally posted by CyberShy
legalising soft drugs is not a leftish / green issue either. They're against.
euthanasia is not a leftish / green issue either. They're against.

Originally posted by Ribannah


You're wrong on both counts, fortunately.

You claim that both legalising soft drugs and legalising euthanasia are leftish / green issues?

Nah, they're liberal issues. Pherhaps left parties agree with it, but it's not one of their main issues.

Besides that, why would it be 'unfortunately' if they are not green / leftish issues? Is an issue only 'fortunately' if it 'belongs' to a group? I think the 'fortunately degree' of an issue depends on the content of the issue, and not on the group that's supporting it.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Nah, they're liberal issues.

You said they were against, which is not true.

Further, the position of GroenLinks is for a good deal based on good-old Libertarian ideas ('vrijheid, gelijkheid en broederschap').
Meanwhile the main liberal party in The Netherlands, the VVD, is rather narrow-minded on many issues (just 'vrijheid' ).

[Saint Marcus]

Nah, they're liberal issues.

Not Liberal in the VVD sense, but Progresive.

And if you heard Rosenmuller before the last elections...he called for a "progressive answer to Purple", meaning: he called for a left wing governement. Groenlinks calls itself a progressive party. Progressive on all fronts, inlcuding soft drugs legislation and euthanasia.