Anti-Immigrant Vlaams Belang Becomes the Biggest Party in Flanders, Helped by Jewish - Page 2
Europa Maxima
15-10-2006, 18:49
What do you mean with "perchance"?
Perchance = maybe, more or less.
If they are a coalition, and the VB is larger than either party individually, the article is again correct.
Is the CD&V/NVA a coalition perchance?
yes
Europa Maxima
15-10-2006, 18:51
yes
Well, then:
If they are a coalition, and the VB is larger than either party individually, the article is again correct.
Haken Rider
15-10-2006, 19:07
Well, than they aren't "the biggest electoral force", are they?
Besides, NVA is a very minor party. Also the leftish-center in divided between three big parties with commen views, while Vlaams Belang has a monopoly on the right. That's why they may have many votes, yet aren't supported by the large majority of people in Flanders.
Europa Maxima
15-10-2006, 21:34
Well, than they aren't "the biggest electoral force", are they?
By definition, if a party is the largest in a nation, it is the biggest electoral force, coalitions aside.
Puppet nr 784512
15-10-2006, 22:51
If you check this map of Flanders, you'll see VB is only the biggest party in about 5 municipalities (Aalst, Lier, Boom, Stabroek, Borsbeek), while over half of Flanders is CD&V.
Also, in these municipal elections, the CD&V often goes on it's own, not in cartel with the N-VA. In my community for example, the N-VA went as a seperate party, and ended up with only 3% of the votes.
http://www.vrtnieuws.net/html/includes/vlaanderen/overzicht/index.shtml
Greater Trostia
16-10-2006, 04:59
Read what I posted, carefully. The functionalists offer a lot more evidence for their claims.
What has evidence got to do with whether there is a consensus? All you are doing is saying you believe one side.
The synthesis view also seems to suggest the Holocaust was never part of the main scheme.
Ian Kershaw is one of the leading experts on Hitler. The functionalists and synthesists offer much more substantial evidence and arguments than the functionalists. On that basis, I go by what they say.
That doesn't equate to being an action somehow forced by pure economic considerations. Or several million actions. Again, the way you are arguing seems aimed at relieving the perpetrators of the holocaust of some of their guilt. I wonder why.
Europa Maxima
16-10-2006, 12:45
What has evidence got to do with whether there is a consensus? All you are doing is saying you believe one side.
And again, I used the words leading historians. If you're looking for an overall consensus, you're unlikely to find it - the most you will find is the synthesis view which again states that the Holocaust wasn't part of the original plan.
That doesn't equate to being an action somehow forced by pure economic considerations.
Then read the works of the relevant historians, and see what they have to say. Many make mention of economic considerations. I know because I've had to study them.
Or several million actions. Again, the way you are arguing seems aimed at relieving the perpetrators of the holocaust of some of their guilt. I wonder why.
You know, jumping at conclusions doesn't really make you seem any more intelligent than you are. I said that the Holocaust was not part of the original plan, and that deportations were. The fact that they actually committed the crime means they're already guilty, no?
a)4 IQ points are not that big of a deal
Now, I may be wrong, since it was a while ago, but I seem to recall I said something to that effect about how the differences in IQ have no influence in practice and was attacked for it by you.