 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I see the Swiss apparently voted 57% "nay" on this.
And the entire world seems to want to take a crap on them about it... but
it seems like one of the very few times Europeans have stood up to a demand
from the Islamic populace in a European country, instead of rolling over.
But heck, last night's "Inside Story" on Al-Jazeera was a hoot! (+- 1700 to
1800 GMT)
Could it be because the Islamic population is small compared to the native
Swiss (they can thusly cause less trouble than in, for example, France) and
the Swiss electorate took this into consideration, or could it be that the
Swiss just refuse to realize which way the smoke is blowing in Europe?
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> And the entire world seems to want to take a crap on them about it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plyS8sIUjmQ
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Stefan Viljoen wrote:
>> And the entire world seems to want to take a crap on them about it...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plyS8sIUjmQ
Yep, that's it. I guess the big diff here is that when you prevent a
Christian or a Hindu or a Buddist or Norse pagan from following an aspect of
his religion, in -general- you won't get into real, live-threatening
trouble.
Do that to some more traditional Muslim groupings, and you may very likely
carry your teeth home in your hat.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen <pov### [at] polard com> wrote:
> I see the Swiss apparently voted 57% "nay" on this.
> And the entire world seems to want to take a crap on them about it...
Of course the entire world takes a crap on them about it. It's "racism"
and "intolerance".
Naturally, at the same time prohibiting public display of crucifixes in
Italian schools is not "racism" nor "intolerance" (but in fact, the contrary).
Democracy and freedom of speech are a bad thing because it allows people
to cast the "wrong" votes and express the "wrong" opinions.
And this is not just related to multiculturalism. It's related to everything.
For example, the Irish people voted against the European constitution and
everything that would have followed from that. Of course this was the "wrong"
result, and thus unacceptable. What did they do to fix the problem? Easy:
More "education" and a new election. This time it worked: Now the "right"
vote resulted.
That's a rather efficient (although quite transparent tactic): Keep
organizing new elections until the right answer pops up eventually. This
way the people are fooled into thinking that they actually have a saying
on matters happening to their own country because, after all, they "voted"
for it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen <pov### [at] polardcom> wrote:
> Do that to some more traditional Muslim groupings, and you may very likely
> carry your teeth home in your hat.
And society will consider *you* guilty, not the people who mistreated you.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Democracy and freedom of speech are a bad thing because it allows people
> to cast the "wrong" votes and express the "wrong" opinions.
I was on vacation once, and the tour guide mentioned the country had an
election, but the wrong people won, so they were having another right away.
(This was Switzerland, if I remember, but it might have been a reference to
some other european country that the guide was talking about.)
That seemed very wrong to me, coming from the USA where we have a
constitution saying how often people can get elected and the procedures for
doing so. Indeed, the whole "Supreme Court stole the election for Bush"
nonsense is nonsense for just that reason: they simply said you can't have a
new election because the constitution says everyone has to vote the same day.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> That seemed very wrong to me, coming from the USA where we have a
> constitution saying how often people can get elected and the procedures for
> doing so. Indeed, the whole "Supreme Court stole the election for Bush"
> nonsense is nonsense for just that reason: they simply said you can't have a
> new election because the constitution says everyone has to vote the same day.
What does the constitution say about the situation where two candidates
get the exact same number of votes?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> What does the constitution say about the situation where two candidates
> get the exact same number of votes?
http://www.270towin.com/blog/electoral-college/what-happens-if-there-is-a-tie-in-the-electoral-college
Remember that US citizens don't actually vote for president. They vote for a
group of people called "The electoral college", which in turn votes for the
president. Mostly a left-over from before electronic communications.
In sort, the President gets elected by one part of the legislature and the
VP by the other, if there's a tie.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > That seemed very wrong to me, coming from the USA where we have a
> > constitution saying how often people can get elected and the procedures for
> > doing so. Indeed, the whole "Supreme Court stole the election for Bush"
> > nonsense is nonsense for just that reason: they simply said you can't have a
> > new election because the constitution says everyone has to vote the same day.
>
> What does the constitution say about the situation where two candidates
> get the exact same number of votes?
>
> --
> - Warp
According to the 12th amendment if no person has a majority of the electoral
vote, the House of Representatives will choose the president from the three
candidates with the highest vote.
Isaac
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
http://www.270towin.com/blog/electoral-college/what-happens-if-there-is-a-tie-in-the-electoral-college
So the constitution of the United States says that if the votes tie,
the president is elected by the congress?
Why didn't that happen in 2000?
> Remember that US citizens don't actually vote for president. They vote for a
> group of people called "The electoral college", which in turn votes for the
> president. Mostly a left-over from before electronic communications.
Sounds rather complicated. Especially if it could happen that the person
who people voted to vote for them changes his mind and votes for someone
else.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
