ok because now I believe your confusion I will explain. I assume you get the Hogan's Heroes reference. but you may not get that when an American says Schnell! hes play acting sgt Schultz in a somewhat self deprecating manner, in that his only reference with the german language is a tv show. its also a comedy so its a light hearted way of saying hurry up. plus he was a Natzi (sigh, filter) so im also mocking the lefts characterization of trump supporters. all kinds of double meaning, sarcasm and bazinga in there that sok wont find amusing because he hears it all the time at work or something. Capiche?
ragic thought he was being funny when he implied about 9 million culture-specific things in one ambiguous sentence, and came away both snooty and unrepentant par for the course as for the actual thread, ohmin was curious about someone who, i assume, is on the fringe of the dutch right wing (which is a bit of a simplification). dj, i believe, popped in to say that candidates should be judged on policy, which is fair and all if policy is going to be their whole job. it isn't, but that's beside the point i guess.
I just meant I actually have no idea what any of the references mean Probably because immigrant AND HERE I THOUGHT I HAD ASSIMILATED
1. non native English speakers 2. liberals 3. egg heads its the trifecta of humorless. i guess ill have to learn to enjoy your confusion
I think it's more because you're young AND an immigrant. Whereas I have fewer excuses for not getting that the reference was specific (I did not immediately). Feel free to watch this (reportedly very good, never watched it myself) TV series if/when you have the time: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058812/ Anyway... Anyone else have personal opinions on the case against Wilders from a legal standpoint? Or that he was acquitted for (IMO worse) when it was against religion but there being a seeming double standard for national/racial bigotry rather than religious bigotry?
all I have to say about Ragic's ''joke' @Sokolov you did get 'work sets you free' right? I guess, as long as it is talk religion not being as easy to identify as racial heritage. the judge for the first trial did state that Wilders was on the edge of what is allowed by laws. don't remember if these are EU laws or Dutch. PVV is gaining votes for the same reason Trump and other anti-EU parties are in europe. fears over immigration and dissatisfaction with the EU. neverming that the EU has made all of us incredibly prosperous and before it we had war every other decade. bound to repeat it and all that jazz. anyways here: https://www.government.nl/documents...tution-of-the-kingdom-of-the-netherlands-2008 I like article 21, 26 is funny:
Technically, people should be free to ridicule or even demonise a philosophy or system of thought. But in this case it is a bit murky about how it's being used - even though he talks about how awful Islam is -- does he mean how awful muslims are? Does he mean how awful brown people are? Personally I think you need to stick with the technical definition of hate crime, but also be aware what is going on and be ready for when he crosses the line - which seems exactly what happened
As a desert redneck, I am confuzzled by the chain of events in r/t the tv show references. I never watched Hogan's Heroes. @badgerale If Wilders spoke out against "Islam", I would take him at his word. A significant portion of muslims are light skinned, so I am uncertain why you mentioned "brown" people. What line did Wilders cross? When someone speaks out against my church, I never blame it on racism. And I almost never think it is a "hate crime." Honestly perplexed as to why stating a strong difference of opinion in public is considered more dangerous than bullying people into silence. Frequent disagreements between good human beings about politics is normal and healthy. @Geressen Please enlighten as to the incredible prosperity for all humans in Europe, thanks to the EU.
Geert is a pretty cool guy. eh doesnt want his country overrun by 'slims and doesnt afraid of lawsuits
so long as we understand that due to the typically at least bifurcated western governments, if something goes wrong it's due to the other party's contribution and if something goes right it's because of my party's contribution. strict monarchies and similar sorts of controlled govt are much simpler in that respect, if you see something isn't working then it has to be a problem with the monarchy. it'll be interesting to see a fully red US govt in the next 2 to 4 years (interesting also in that regardless of how well or poorly trump and the trumpettes do, the loudest votes always seem to be the ones for change- complacent citizens are, somewhat understandably, less energetic about the whole process) this is one of those older memes, probably stemmed from some rando on /b years ago. think originally it was about master chief
