Ten Great Things About the Japanese

[giblets]

The OP is pretty much devoid of anything funny.

[Heraclitus]

Thank you for saying the same thing again in a more verbose way. "lol blacks in other countries are more likely to commit crimes so it's a FACT that most of the drug dealers in France are black even if I can't present any evidence that this is the case".

t seems awfully suspect to me to assume that the ones that don't keep stats are obviously enough exempt from this general trend to convict people who argue they aren't to fines and prison sentences.

I could be wrong, however you against dismiss the idea that you could be wrong with your unlikely inference, in fact you don't seem to mind people being jailed for thinking that it might be wrong. Or do you think the journalist had a right to say what he did?

100% of the drug-dealers I encountered when I spent a lot of time in France 15-20 years ago were white.

So I guess if I posted a video of Black French thugs or drug dealers or no go zones or "youth riots" this would add anything to my point?



I guess I win now? Don't be silly anecdotal evidence has no useful place in this debate....

[Heraclitus]

The OP is pretty much devoid of anything funny.

If you think that's unfunny try this very rassist and very (un?)funny blog.



A few sample titles:

-Mobs Are All-Black; Tribune: We Won’t Report Race Until All Blacks Are in Mobs
-Feminists are illogical and not worth debating
-From Norway with (Nonconsensual) Love

Orders of maginitude more unPC and "hatefull" that Taki's moderate paleoconservatism

[Al B. Sure!]

Stop saying paleoconservatism like it's a good thing.

[giblets]

I could be wrong, however you against dismiss the idea that you could be wrong with your unlikely inference, in fact you don't seem to mind people being jailed for thinking that it might be wrong. Or do you think the journalist had a right to say what he did?

What do you mean by "my unlikely inference"? I don't claim to know whether blacks in France are more likely to be drug dealers or not. Calling his opinion or hunch a "fact" greatly overstated the amount of evidence he had for his claims and was a lie. Doesn't exactly display journalistic integrity.

[giblets]

If you think that's unfunny try this very rassist and very (un?)funny blog.



A few sample titles:


Orders of maginitude more unPC and "hatefull" that Taki's moderate paleoconservatism

Still unfunny... all they do is say stuff they think will shock people.

[Al B. Sure!]

Oh my god.

Unamusement Park
Chicago Is Under Attack by Packs of Wild Blacks

Recent posts:

Recent Posts
Tribune: “Black” Is to “Criminal” As “Muslim” Is to “Terrorist”
Mobs Are All-Black; Tribune: We Won’t Report Race Until All Blacks Are in Mobs
Re-Updated Flyer: Black People Are More Criminal Than White People
Black Mobs Attack White People; Tribune Editor: Race Is Not a Factor
Chicago Under Attack by Packs of Wild Blacks; Tribune: You’re Racist for Noticing

[DaShi]

I could be wrong, however you against dismiss the idea that you could be wrong with your unlikely inference, in fact you don't seem to mind people being jailed for thinking that it might be wrong. Or do you think the journalist had a right to say what he did?




So I guess if I posted a video of Black French thugs or drug dealers or no go zones or "youth riots" this would add anything to my point?



I guess I win now? Don't be silly anecdotal evidence has no useful place in this debate....

You don't win at anything.

[Heraclitus]

Stop saying paleoconservatism like it's a good thing.

Compared to the Neocons and the religious right they are downright common sense guys.

[C0ckney]

well i'm pleased to see that you agree with the rest of the points i've made in this thread which just leaves this...

In Switzerland, which has been presented to me as a beacon of direct democracy on this forum several times, they have multiple referendums on the same issue on a regular basis. I'll concede that their political system makes it easier to organize referendums generally, but if your point is that a "no" means the end of the story I have to conclude they are in fact worse than the EU when it comes to the whole democracy thing

you think the two situations are equivalent, really? i find that hard to believe. as you yourself say, the political systems are very different and in switzerland the political culture means that they have a lot of referendums on a variety of issues. in EU countries the tendency is that countries only have referendums on constitutional changes, and even then, rarely. granted there are one or two exceptions, like the divorce referendum in malta, but really bebro, what you wrote is a worthless piece of equivocation.

the real point is that the people were asked to vote and gave a verdict on the EU constitution. the politicians completely ignored it. they made some cosmetic changes and then pushed it through without a vote or in ireland's case, made them vote again until they got the 'right' answer.

i think that in a democratic society, when changes are made to way people are governed, the members of the that society should be consulted and asked to approve the changes. politicians should explain the changes to the population, they should work to convince the people that what they propose is good and gain their support for changes. if they are unable to do this, then they should first look at themselves and their ideas, because if they cannot convince the electorate about their ideas, then maybe it's the ideas that are at fault. that's not what happened with the european constitution. the people were ignored, abused and bullied. we have been treated with contempt by our politicians. ultimately this undermines the legitimacy of the EU and all european politicians.

[BeBMan]

well i'm pleased to see that you agree with the rest of the points i've made in this thread which just leaves this...



you think the two situations are equivalent, really? i find that hard to believe. as you yourself say, the political systems are very different and in switzerland the political culture means that they have a lot of referendums on a variety of issues. in EU countries the tendency is that countries only have referendums on constitutional changes, and even then, rarely. granted there are one or two exceptions, like the divorce referendum in malta, but really bebro, what you wrote is a worthless piece of equivocation.

the real point is that the people were asked to vote and gave a verdict on the EU constitution. the politicians completely ignored it. they made some cosmetic changes and then pushed it through without a vote or in ireland's case, made them vote again until they got the 'right' answer.

i think that in a democratic society, when changes are made to way people are governed, the members of the that society should be consulted and asked to approve the changes. politicians should explain the changes to the population, they should work to convince the people that what they propose is good and gain their support for changes. if they are unable to do this, then they should first look at themselves and their ideas, because if they cannot convince the electorate about their ideas, then maybe it's the ideas that are at fault. that's not what happened with the european constitution. the people were ignored, abused and bullied. we have been treated with contempt by our politicians. ultimately this undermines the legitimacy of the EU and all european politicians.

Sigh...it is getting kinda boring. Look, I already indicated one could say it was not right to hold another vote. But what you still fail to see is that the second vote is at the end of the day a decision by the voters as well. You go on and on how the EU acted undemocratic, and how the people should be respected and whatnot, but at the same time you don't seem to have a prob to attribute a souvereign decision made by Irish voters only to propaganda, abuse or whatever in that line when you don't like the result either. The whole propaganda narrative is in the end nothing more than glorified assumptions, unless you pretend to know the individual reasons of Irish voters when they made their crosses. Doesn't that strike you as somehow problematic?

[Cort Haus]

Bebro, I posted two articles with considerable details on the kind of threats and blackmail involved. Vote how we want or your country gets it.

Of course, when someone makes a decision with a gun pointed to their head we have to respect their decision.

[BeBMan]

Bebro, I posted two articles with considerable details on the kind of threats and blackmail involved. Vote how we want or your country gets it.

Of course, when someone makes a decision with a gun pointed to their head we have to respect their decision.

I admit I skimmed the articles only because I'm a lazy bastard. What I got was that they described what was said before the vote by Eu officials etc. But this is one thing - it is another to say this was the primary reason for the result. I could easily assume a main reason was that they got concessions (abortion) before the second vote or that they just re-considered the pros and cons, or that they were all drunk.

[giblets]

What exactly was the gun pointed toward Ireland's head? "Approve the new constitution we're offering or we won't bail you out of the financial trouble you got yourselves in"?

[Cort Haus]

Yes. The two should not be linked.