Take a hint...take a hike.
Well i am not sure how long your duration will be here at free republic since you state that you are a leftist dutchman....
Not that I or any other personal here have a problem with that. but when you post information that you know will inflame certian segments, use a little common sense, you will get a spirted reaction from the posters, and if the Moderators decide to pull the post that is there perview, Mr. Robinson pays for the bandwidith and if he does not want to have you post on this site it is his right to remove it.
If you want to have a web site were all you post can be read for postierity or humor which ever. Go buy a server and a domain name and have fun.
Hopefully this little tutorial in post to different websites has helped. enjoy troll.
Take a hint...take a hike.
Here's a suggestion -- try going to DU and posting something complementary about President Bush. Be sure, when you make such a post, that you use "no swearing, no personal insults." Just suggest that he has been a good President and that he deserves to be re-elected.
Note, when you make your post over there, that "other posters here viciously attacked and insulted" Bush, and that "their posts remain."
My guess is that not only will your post be deleted by the vicious little fascists over at DU, but they will "tombstone" you.
Please don't lecture anyone here about "free speech" and all the rest. This website is far, far more tolerant of people with differing points of view than websites like DU with their loony left-wing politboro.
I think you are missing a letter in your temporary UserID.
It should read "The A-H Formerly Known As The Liberal Dutchman"
Scared??? no way... we're DOOOMED
DOOMED I tell you!!
jeez meek, the trolls are going to keep us on our toes till election huh
"Speech" is not entirely free anywhere. There are consequences to what you say. Libel or slander can get you fines or worse.
I don't know, of course, but I suspect that your ideology could be included among those criticized in the article below.
Hammer and Crescent (from the New Humanist, which is published out of London), http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/volume119issue1_more.php?id=498_0_25_0_C
by Amanda Day Jan 05, 04
A potential electoral force is emerging from the anti–war movement. But why is a supposedly ‘progressive’ grouping making room for
religious conservatives, asks Amanda Day?
When millions marched against the war last year, the New York Times announced the birth of a new superpower: world opinion. In Britain in particular, the contrast between popular sentiment on the streets and the actions of a supposedly left–wing government led to speculation that Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’ had found its match, not in the fusty Conservatives or upstart Liberal Democrats, but in voters disillusioned by mainstream parties and prepared to stand up and say so.
Though it failed in its objective, the alliances formed within the Stop The War Coalition still exist, and, if certain groups have their way, may become a force in this year’s European elections. A new grouping centred around the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), as well as representation from Islamic groups such as the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), is hoping to mobilise new young voters at the ballot box.
Directing its election efforts at an amorphous mass, i.e. all those who didn’t agree with Tony Blair’s decision to go to war against Iraq, this unlikely communion of socialists and Islamists has already engendered charges of being homophobic, anti–Islamic, anti–Semitic, anti–women’s rights and anti–democratic. And it’s barely twelve months old.
The most influential party in this group is the SWP, whose leading member John Rees has been a key figure in both the anti-war movement and the Socialist Alliance, an electoral coalition that has increasingly become a vehicle for the SWP.
One former Alliance press officer expressed her alarm at the SWP’s ‘hijacking of the Stop The War Coalition: “Having run the Alliance into the ground,” she says, “the SWP is now threatening to do the same to the fragmented anti-war movement.”
The SWP’s history with the Alliance is not a pretty one. Many Alliance members quickly became disillusioned with the SWP’s authoritarianism, exemplified in the purging of non–SWP members from executives and diminished communication between leadership and ordinary members. The SWP’s links with the Muslim Association of Britain will also give cause for concern for many of those who marched against the war over the past twelve months, and who want to see political changes as a result. Very few are likely to be keen admirers of the SWP’s extreme left agenda, or indeed of Islam’s inherent conservatism. While they may have marched alongside hardline Islamic groups over Iraq, their sympathies with them are unlikely to extend to calls for an Islamic Caliphate of Great Britain.
The SWP certainly fancies its chances at exploiting anti–war feeling. At an SA conference in May, it claimed that the occupation of Iraq “has created the biggest potential audience for a new left alternative for generations.” It then stated that in order to “rise to the opportunities presented” it needed “a new and more determined approach.”
Soon after, it elaborated: “We cannot answer this crisis of representation on our own. The development of the Socialist Alliance is one stage in the development of an alternative. We would like to see a new or broader–based initiative built out of current and unfolding political events...or at least a relaunch of the idea behind the SA.” This included involving “those in the Muslim community who have been radicalised...religious belief should not be a barrier to being part of such a project.”
It’s not the first time the SA has attempted to court religious communities in order to make electoral gains. Sue Blackwell, a former member from Birmingham, recalls: “The first time the issue arose for me was in 2000, not in connection with an Islamic group but with the Council of Sikh Gurudwaras. The SWP seemed to have latched onto a particular Sikh chap when he got involved in local protests and meetings, and persuaded him to stand as a council candidate for the Socialist Alliance.”
“To my knowledge he had never been a member of a socialist party and had only recently got involved in politics. I had heard that he was being put forward by the Council of Sikh Gurudwaras. I took the opportunity to raise the issue in principle of how the SA should relate to religious organisations. I was told that my contribution was a racist one. When asked if I would raise the same question if a Catholic priest had been standing, I said: ‘Yes, I would want to know his views on abortion because no way would I accept an anti–abortion candidate as an SA candidate.’ For me this was a basic issue of principle; for the SWP, it was ‘sectarian’.”
The party’s blind tendency to regard any challenge to a member of an ethnic minority as ‘racist’ or ‘sectarian’ has continued ever since. The SWP’s current poster–girl, Birmingham Stop the War chair Salma Yaqoob, is consistently defended from any criticism by cries of ‘Islamophobia’. Yaqoob, a Muslim psychotherapist who, legend has it, became politically active after being spat at in the street in the aftermath of 9/11, has the full support from the SWP, keen to hitch their wagon to her media–friendly, and perhaps more importantly, Muslim–friendly hijab wearing image. Yaqoob herself has admitted that she was elected Chair of Birmingham Stop the War Coalition at her second ever political meeting.
This perceived fast–tracking of names to the top of the list has raised a few eyebrows among other leftist groups. Alliance members, particularly in Birmingham, have felt marginalized, especially since it emerged that an executive member of the SWP was in discussions with Birmingham Central Mosque. Former Alliance members claim that the SWP replaced proven socialists in Birmingham with its own apparatchiks, hastily recruited to the Socialist Alliance in order to pack out meetings. Those purged included fire–fighter Steve Godward, the respected Birmingham SA chair, and long–time campaigner Rumy Hasan, who says now: “I think what happened was the SWP got very excited by the presence of Muslims at marches and meetings. The election of a councillor in Preston, with the backing of the local imam, also went to their head. What seems to be happening now is that they hide the atheism at the core of leftist politics in order to pursue a blatant get–rich–quick electoral scheme.”
Across the country Muslim groups have been granted great concessions by a supposedly secular movement in return for electoral support. Some Stop the War meetings had gender–segregated seating, (reportedly for Asian women only) while Muslim holy men have been allowed to conduct prayers and invoke Allah on what are supposed to be secular platforms.
At the SWP’s Marxism 2003 conference one former Alliance member claimed that women’s rights and gay rights were described by the secretary of the Stop the War Coalition as a ‘shibboleth’ which couldn’t be allowed to get in way of unity with Muslim groups.
Other far–left parties long thought moribund have also seized the chance to commandeer peace movements. In September, Communist Party of Britain member Kate Hudson took the CND chairmanship by one vote. Ms Hudson is keen for a closer working relationship with Stop the War Coalition and Muslim Association of Britain. A further 12 of CND’s 15 new national executive positions share these views.
Meanwhile, another, more high–profile grouping has begun to set out it’s electoral stall.
Leading lights of the left, such as Guardian columnist George Monbiot, Salma Yaqoob, John Rees of the SWP, ‘awkward squad’ union leader Bob Crow and MP George Galloway, recently exiled from the Labour party, are planning a movement to contest the European parliament elections next summer. Mr Galloway has said he ‘suspects’ the conservative MAB will affiliate to the new group, provisionally named ‘Unity’. This unity, apparently, does not stretch to women and the gay community. Some SA members allege that this new electoral platform would be “limited in its commitment to women’s rights”, with no mention of gay rights, in a bid to placate influential Muslim Groups such as the MAB.
For its part, the MAB was established in the UK 1997 “to fill in the gap in the terms of Islamic dawah work where the call for a comprehensive Islam that encompasses all aspects of life is lacking.” The MAB “tries to implement this through wisdom and good preaching.”
Not very progressive is probably the mildest way to describe the MAB. But then, the same can probably be said for political groups which throw their ideals overboard in order to capitalise on the mass anti–war movement.
Anti–war feeling in this country ran so high last February that two million people marched against the war in London. Since then, the only alternative those people have had to demonstrate their disquiet has been more marches and at some point the opportunity to vote for a catch–all Unity candidate at European Parliament elections. Amorphous mass or not, it remains to be seen whether they will fall for the dubious charms of a ‘left wing’ party that promises all to everyone. They’ve marched down this road before.
Additional reporting by Julie–Ann Davies and Pádraig Reidy
Third time I've asked university boy, what percentage of your paycheck do you get to keep on payday?
Welocme aboard, FR always has room for the HATE AMERICA, UN LOVING, BLAME AMERICA FIRST crowd, commonly known around here as "LEFTISTS".
Perhaps in exchange for eliminating fascist speech codes in left wing controlled universities or biased newscasts from the alphabet networks, you could be accorded "guest troll" status at FR. But that's up to the management of FR. This is not a First Amendment regulated forum. When you venture into a private website that's out of the reach of the government, plutocrats, and the DNC media lackeys, you cry because your propaganda isn't given monopoly status.
Welcome to the world that most of us have inhabited since the 1960s at the hands of the left wing media merchants. Your side consistently stifles dissent or buries the truth if it differs from the neo-communist (neo-com) party line.
The dirty little secret is that your side regularly abuses the First Amendment on FCC regulated broadcast "news" media. So spare us your pious pronouncements on having an honest discussion. Neo-Coms have no concept of what an honest intellectual discussion is.
As an aside, you also probably believe that private business concerns like the Aladdin Hotel or Slim Fast should subsidize the irrational rantings of left wing soap box orators. Let me correct you and your Hollywood Marxist brothers and sisters in arms. No one has to pay or tolerate anyone's aberrant political views on their turf so long as there's no violence or no government franchise, license or money involved. The good news is that if you can get a permit from the city, then you can set-up a soapbox on the street corner and rant away.
When the people are outraged that paid for the tickets, and the venue becomes a free for all because of things she said on and off stage (as in the press), it is my opinion that for the safety of all of those concerned that the encitor be removed from the premises.
NUFF SAID!
Ops4 God Bless America!
I didn't see your post but please know that unlike DU (democraticunderground) we encourage and welcome different opinions and love to debate them. DU is a site that only wants mind numbed robots spewing the same anti american, anti PRESIDENT BUSH talking points. But not here, there are many many people that don't agree with the President on many things and they are free to voice it as long as it is with class and clean language.
Well dont post on DU, I got booted for saying that we should think for ourselves rather than let the media or the DNC do it..
I would like a detailed response to my post #335. Or are you scared?
Not many years ago, if you expressed your political views in Holland you would have been killed or sent to a concentration camp. The Nazi's overran Holland in 1940 just because it was in the way and they wanted it for themselves. Holland and the Dutch people did nothing to warrant this. That, unfortunately is the way of despots and tyrants, and WWII did not end their reign on Earth.
It was the British and Americans who fought for your Freedom. Dutchmen died too, but they never would have loosened the binds of the Nazis on their own.
For the next 50 years, a vast military power, the Soviet Union, stood not far from your borders eager to do again to Holland what the Germans did earlier. This would have happened had it not been for the USA. I served in the USAF for 22 of those 50 years as part of the armada that was opposed to the Soviets. While you and your countrymen used your taxes to ensure a very nice social system, the USA spent an enormous amount of her wealth (read taxes) on defense; not only of herself, but all of Western Europe and indeed the World. Therefore, spare me from hearing about how much better your social system is. Had the USA turned from you like we turned from Europe in the 1920s, we could have had a much better system. I will grant that the lessons of Isolationism on our part was that if you turn away the trouble would just catch up again, so we stayed in our own self interest. Still, we spent 100's of billions of $$$ over the years ensuring Dutchmen could join the Green party.
However, having said all that, as I said when I started the despots and tyrants are always with us. Today they take the form of radical, fundamentalist Islam. They care as little for the Dutch as the Nazis or Soviets did. In fact, even less. Because according to them, unless you are a fellow Muslim, you are an infidel who God has cursed, and the Jihadists are commanded to convert or slay you.
And once again, the only thing that stands between your freedom and this fate is the USA.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq was no friend of fundamentalist Islam, but he was a useful ally to those such as Bin Laden that saw the USA as the impediment to their plans of conquest. For 12 long years he had been under UN sanctions and a ceasefire agreement with the USA over weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Now I cannot say why we haven't yet found these WMD, but we know for sure that he had them at one time. Like my President, I feared these weapons falling into the hands of fundamentalist Islam and Bin Laden and his hordes. Face it, the continued pressure from the UN against Iraq HAD failed. The next level was the "dire consequences" that the UN had PROMISED him. The die was cast and he is gone. The world is a better place for it.
Oh, and spare me the stories of Cheney and Rumsfeld giving arms to Saddam in the 1980s. Check the facts. About 0.5 percent of all the military arms the Iraqis had came from the USA. 99 percent of his weaponry came from from Europe!!! Soviet Russia, France, and Germany being his main supplier, along with an increasing supply, toward the end, from North Korea.
It's laughable how you Europeans sneer at Cheney and Haliburton when almost all of the Islamic and African dictators keep armed from mostly your dear manufacturers from Europe!!!!! Like Jesus warning us to not to show concern for the speck in someones eye when you have a LOG in your own. Where is your outrage for France and Russia, who arm far more dictators and tyrants than the USA? Even now, they are supplying nuclear technology to Iran. Iran!!!! You Europeans, not us, are the ones selling your enemy the rope to hang you with. For it will be far more easier for Iran to strike Europe with nuclear missiles than the USA.
You should fear a Kerry election. He will abandon the War against Terrorism (WAT) and in the end, this will lead to more attacks and more innocents will die. He has publicly stated the WAT is overblown hype. He thinks that most of the violent jihadists can be hunted down and brought to trial, not as a matter of war but as a matter of law enforcement. This is exactly what Bill Clinton did in the 1990s and led directly to September 11th, Bali, and Spain.
Anyway, I hope you fare well. I have been to your lovely country and found the Dutch to be a very hospitable, beautiful people. I only hope if you get your way, and Bush is gone after November, that you meet God peaceably when the sword of Islam shines over your land.
Yes. I'm typing this under my bed, in the fetal postition, hangin' on to my blankie like there's no tomorrow.
I'm sorry I'm so late getting here. There's nothing for me to do but mop up.
You objected to the mocking you got. But not only was it exactly what you personally deserved, it is what people like you all deserve. I have never met an intellectually honest and rigorous leftist. You love slogans, and recoil from honest debate. And I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you personally have exhausted my patience. Just like everyone else had already been exhausted by earlier trolls, you have exhausted my patience. From now on, I will not honestly attempt to engage people like you. I will mock you. It is your fault. From now on, every time I mock a troll, it will be your personal fault. You have directly caused that which you objected to.
Kinda ironic how the law of unintended consequences always kicks commies in the groin, ain't it?