Posted on 05/13/2002 11:57:12 AM PDT by July 4th
|
|
|
Projected seats |
|
31 Christian Democrats
28 Pim Fortuyn's List
25 Labour
25 Liberals
15 Greens
|
|
Nipo poll |
|
|
With only two days left before Wednesday's general election, Pim Fortuyn's List has overtaken Labour to take second place with 18.5% of the votes, according to the survey by the Nipo research bureau.
A poll by another organisation, Nova, on 3 May put him on 12.4% support, while a Nipo survey on 1 May gave him 17%.
The new poll - the first since Mr Fortuyn's death - puts him only two percentage points behind the leaders, the right-wing Christian Democrats, whose support registers at 20.5%.
Wim Kok's Labour party has been beaten into third
|
Support for Mr Fortuyn's party was registered at 18.5%, which would give it 28 of the country's 150 seats.
The Labour Party of outgoing Prime Minister Wim Kok has slid to 16.5%, the poll suggests - dramatically lower than the 29% it achieved in the 1998 election.
If the poll is accurate, it would mean Labour losing nearly half its 45 seats.
|
|
 The sympathy vote will generate extra support - the problem is that no-one knows if they are able to offer suitable people for the
 |
|
|
|
Kees Lunshof
|
All election campaigning was stopped after Mr Fortuyn's murder, but BBC correspondents said it had been thought that his party could benefit from a sympathy vote.
Dutch political commentators told BBC News Online that Mr Fortuyn's party was very likely to be in the new Dutch cabinet, if the poll predictions were accurate.
His party could get as many as four or five seats in the 12-member cabinet, said Kees Lunshof of De Telegraaf newspaper.
The Netherlands was shocked at Pim Fortuyn's murder
|
"The sympathy vote will generate extra support," he told BBC News Online.
"The problem is that no-one knows if they are able to offer suitable people for the job - it's such a new party."
And Frank Poortuyes, of De Volkskrant newspaper, said the left was "taking a hammering" partly because some voters held it responsible for demonising Mr Fortuyn, thereby playing a role in his murder.
The margin of error of the opinion poll is 1.8% for the big parties.
More than 2,100 people were interviewed, fewer than the usual sample of 3,000, as polling was also suspended temporarily after Mr Fortuyn's death.
 |
|||||
|
A complete ban would mean that people such as my next door neighbor's friend, the Shah of Iran's son, would be prevented from escaping from their oppressors (in theory). Likewise, the King of Afghanistan would be prevented from coming back here. NATO allies from Turkey would be prevented by that ban, as would be Iraqi's opposed to Saddam Hussein.
I couldn't support a complete ban.
Jordan's King Hussein and Afghanistan's new interim leader are both proving themselves to be civilized, contributing members of society, also. Mushariff of Pakistan seems to be playing ball, as well. Further, Bangladeshi's seem presently opposed to radical Islam.
The last time I checked, Salman Rushdie was a Muslim, too...
Okay, I spoke too rashly.
How about a near-complete ban?
Yes it is.
After all, Wonder Bread builds bones TWELVE WAYS, where the others do not.
Ooohh. Like I haven't been guilty of that before!
"It occurs to me that there is little difference between unbriddled immigration and full-on invasion."I would qualify your definition of "immigration" as unassimilated immigration. But there's more going on than the mere facilitation of immigration by Western "leaders," who seek only to pump more warm bodies into their economies. The "Pursuit of Happiness" used to mean the honoring of G_d, Home and Family." It has been cheapened by, among other things, liberal social engineering to mean "the pursuit of pleasure and entertainment." In a nutshell, people who see the end goal as pleasure ain't gonna have enough crying, puking, needful babies to replace themselves. And this is exactly what's happening. Massive, facilitated, unassimilated immigration is the end game, and we've already lost. A population that doesn't replace itself will, sooner or later, be replaced involuntarily via simple attrition. If there are no longer enough young, strong, patriotic men to defend it, it's no longer ours. Europe hasn't maintained replacement birthrates in decades - America is right behind them. Look where they're making all the babies, then look who's coming to dinner. Bend over and fire up the barby, cuz' we're havin' flamin' shishkebobs tonight.
"One way to respect his legacy and defy the violence that felled him is to follow his example and keep stating what we know to be true."
But it only works if you add Cheez-Whiz... ;-)
My first impulse was to harken back to the turn of the 20th century to the Irish and Italians and Eastern Europeans coming through Ellis Island. But it's now the turn of the 21st century, and immigrants from the ME, especially Islamics, have openly stated that they want to assimilate America, not be assimilated by her. The invasion analogy referring to "unassimilated immigration" was Pat Buchanan's I believe. Normally I'm loathe to quote him because I believe he's a self promoting crypto-fascist. But a government that invites 20 Mohammed Attas across its borders is no better than a government that would allow armed enemy invasion forces to camp out on the Mall in Washington "just to be friendly."
There's no practical difference between a country having an insufficient birthrate to replace its population and a country that can't field an army to defend itself. Both are doomed to be overrun and assimilated sooner or later.
My first impulse was to harken back to the turn of the 20th century to the Irish and Italians and Eastern Europeans coming through Ellis Island. But it's now the turn of the 21st century, and immigrants from the ME, especially Islamics, have openly stated that they want to assimilate America, not be assimilated by her. The invasion analogy referring to "unassimilated immigration" was Pat Buchanan's I believe. Normally I'm loathe to quote him because I believe he's a self promoting crypto-fascist. But a government that invites 20 Mohammed Attas across its borders is no better than a government that would allow armed enemy invasion forces to camp out on the Mall in Washington "just to be friendly."
There's no practical difference between a country having an insufficient birthrate to replace its population and a country that can't field an army to defend itself. Both are doomed to be overrun and assimilated sooner or later.
G'nite DO.
A certain level of immigration from countries that have people who can be assimilated into our culture is good if the birthrate is too low. Overly rapid immigration isn't good and when the government interferes with assimilation it's also not good.
If they really believe in the Koran and believe Islamic law should apply to everyone, then they are definitely incompatible with the US and they cannot believe in Sharia law and the US Constitution at the same time. Muslims aren't supposed to live among the infidels or in infidel nations anyhow so they shouldn't mind living in their Islamic paradises instead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
