Eastern European Politics Special: the new political party is named exactly like its leader
-
Actually, there are more hints for this theory than against.
There are hints for a theory that opposition votes for government bills, when in reality they vote against them...
you can safely disregard everything I say and call me crazy.
Yeah, I know you would want that. "They call me 'crazy' because I know the truth they are too blind to see',
it's pretty pathetic really.
-
There are hints for a theory that opposition votes for government bills, when in reality they vote against them...
Can you show me some? I'd be very happy to see that.Yeah, I know you would want that. "They call me 'crazy' because I know the truth they are too blind to see',it's pretty pathetic really.
I couldn't care less about if others can see the truth or not, whatever that truth is. My passive-aggressive behavior comes from fact that you don't even read my posts before marking them as complete bullshit. You don't have to agree with me - but ignoring is just rude.
-
Can you show me some? I'd be very happy to see that.
Parliament website with every voting results is just one google search away. But I don't think it will make any difference - all you need is one bill that was passed with opposition consent, to 'prove' that you are right.
And probably not even that much.My passive-aggressive behavior comes from fact that you don't even read my posts before marking them as complete bullshit. You don't have to agree with me - but ignoring is just rude.
You got yourself confused. I read your posts and that's the reason I mark them as bullshit. Maybe you don't read them yourself?
-
Parliament website with every voting results is just one google search away.
Yes, and it shows that when they vote for them, they vote for them - which contradicts your thesis.You got yourself confused. I read your posts and that's the reason I mark them as bullshit.
Oh, sorry then. Usually when someone says that the independent mainstream media prove conspiracy theories false, without specifying what piece of news exactly they have in mind and what particular conspiracy theory it proves wrong, it means they don't even bother to listen to the other side.
-
Yes, and it shows that when they vote for them, they vote for them - which contradicts your thesis.
@MrL just 30 minutes earlier said:
all you need is one bill that was passed with opposition consent, to 'prove' that you are right.
Damn, that was hard to predict.
-
Damn, that was hard to predict.
Just to recap: your thesis was that there are hints for that theory. In other words, it happened at least once, or someone said it happened at least once. It happened never (because your statement makes no sense, but I have much more fun by disproving contradictory statements empirically than logically). To prove your thesis (in contrast with the theory your thesis refers to), it should have happened at least once. So not only your thesis is wrong, but also your explanation why it's wrong, is wrong too.
-
Hmm, no, you didn't understand the conversation. But please do keep trying.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
No, quinceañeras are definitely major parties in the culture(s) that celebrate them.
And yet still a celebration of a minor.
Ah, a major minor party.
-
-
Hmm, no, you didn't understand the conversation. But please do keep trying.
Okay, now I'm lost. What were we talking about? That you claimed conspiracy theories are obviously false?
-
What were we talking about?
It seems like no one knows how Polish dicks of parliament vote.
-
There are hints for a theory that opposition votes for government bills, when in reality they vote against them...
Relevant (at least in the context of U.S. politics):
-
Okay, now I'm lost. What were we talking about? That you claimed conspiracy theories are obviously false?
You claimed that opposition votes in favor of ruling party, minority government would do just fine and (implied) all parties in parliament are the same (or perhaps even one party, masquerading as opponents).
All those claims are false.
Opposition votes according to its current interests. Sometimes for, to show that they are responsible, sometimes
against, to yell that ruling party is awful.
Minority governments struggle hard to stay in power and are generally short lived. That's why every successful 'side switch' organized by opposition is such a big thing in the media, even if it's just a single person.
Parties are not the same, parliament is generally swung to the left, but very far from being homogeneous.As for tales of grand conspiracy that keeps everything on predefined track for 25 years... that's just to stupid to discuss.
-
here (Argentina) Quinceañera refers to a women who is 15 years old. the celebration it's called "Fiesta de Quince"
I suspect this is intentional, and not unique to Polish politics, for that matter.
In Argentina happens too.
@Gaska :iKnowThatFeeling:
-
Opposition votes according to its current interests. Sometimes for, to show that they are responsible, sometimes
against, to yell that ruling party is awful.
In theory.Minority governments struggle hard to stay in power and are generally short lived.
If you consider a coallition a minority government, then we always had minority governments and except for 1991-3 and 2005-7, they always ruled full term. And if you consider a coallition a majority government, then minority government never happened to us (partly because you need 50% of parliamentary votes to approve a minister squad).That's why every successful 'side switch' organized by opposition is such a big thing in the media, even if it's just a single person.
We have side switches quite often, and nothing comes from them.Parties are not the same, parliament is generally swung to the left, but very far from being homogeneous.
Let me give you one example: back in 2006, PiS, who was then the ruling party, negotiated the Treaty of Lisboa, which de facto gave away Polish independence (since the law of European Union has precedence over any local law). PO heavily criticized them for this. In 2007, the tables have turned, PO is ruling party, PiS is opposition, and PiS criticizes PO heavily for accepting the Treaty of Lisboa, which PO sees as a great success.As for tales of grand conspiracy that keeps everything on predefined track for 25 years... that's just to stupid to discuss.
But in '56 it wasn't?
-
In theory.
And in practice they do what exactly?
If you consider a coallition a minority government, then we always had minority governments and except for 1991-3 and 2005-7, they always ruled full term. And if you consider a coallition a majority government, then minority government never happened to us (partly because you need 50% of parliamentary votes to approve a minister squad).
It's pretty well established what a minority government is. A government that doesn't have majority in parliament and so it has to negotiate with opposition every vote.
It's not hard to find examples, wikipedia has three of them, all short lived.We have side switches quite often, and nothing comes from them.
Losing seats is a sign of party loosing its integrity and losing majority means end of government.
Let me give you one example: back in 2006, PiS, who was then the ruling party, negotiated the Treaty of Lisboa, which de facto gave away Polish independence (since the law of European Union has precedence over any local law). PO heavily criticized them for this. In 2007, the tables have turned, PO is ruling party, PiS is opposition, and PiS criticizes PO heavily for accepting the Treaty of Lisboa, which PO sees as a great success.
And? It's an example for what? (apart from that bullshit about giving away independence)
But in '56 it wasn't?
Sorry, lost me there.
-
Congress of New Right
That sounds terrifying for some reason.
-
Does "Congress of Wolves" sound any better?
-
And in practice they do what exactly?
Yell at the government for everything using very general terms that don't mean anything, vote against the ruling party when it's obvious they will lose and when they get to power, they do all the things they previously criticized.And? It's an example for what? (apart from that bullshit about giving away independence)
An example of indifference.Sorry, lost me there.
Back in "communist" (ha, ha) times, everything was planned for decades ahead, and more often than not things were going exactly like planned. What makes you think no one is planning ahead now?
-
Yes. Is that an option? I would totally vote for that.
-
I would totally vote
for keeping @Gaska and @MrL confined to this thread and isolated by huge metal bars with plastic chairs and popcorn behind them.
Seriously guys, if I wanted a flamewar on Polish politics, I'd go to any comment section in any major Polish portal.
-
Maybe you shouldn't read topics with "politics" in the title?
-
This is a flamewar? I thought there was a political party called "congress of wolves".
-
"Congress of Wolves." Just another unrealistic position from the Kama Sutra.
-
-
Yell at the government for everything using very general terms that don't mean anything, vote against the ruling party when it's obvious they will lose and when they get to power, they do all the things they previously criticized.
And it's different than acting according to their current interests how?
vote against the ruling party
I thought you claimed they vote for the ruling party.
An example of indifference.
Not really, it just shows that talking and doing are two different things in politics.
Back in "communist" (ha, ha) times, everything was planned for decades ahead, and more often than not things were going exactly like planned. What makes you think no one is planning ahead now?
That's one of most hilarious glorifications of communism I've ever seen.
Plus conspiracy fumes extending to current times - great stuff!
-
And it's different than acting according to their current interests how?
Assuming the interest of all those parties is the same, it's not. But that means all those parties are effectively the same.I thought you claimed they vote for the ruling party.
In the most crucial things, like that time when they moved half of the money from private retirement funds into national one, everyone votes for.Not really, it just shows that talking and doing are two different things in politics.
The fact that two parties do the same things when one or the other is in power and that they both say the same things when one or the other is in opposition, isn't example of indifference?That's one of most hilarious glorifications of communism I've ever seen.
When did I glorify anything? I see planning on such a grand scale as a negative thing, because it's possible only if people have no freedom.Plus conspiracy fumes extending to current times - great stuff!
I don't believe in peaceful revolutions.
-
Not really, it just shows that talking and doing are two different things in politics.
Which means that you can disregard what they say because only what they do makes a difference.
The fact that two parties do the same things when one or the other is in power and that they both say the same things when one or the other is in opposition, isn't example of indifference?
You could say that's the definition of indifference. It also explains why American politics can be so divisive at times. If people knew they were just voting for one half or other of the same party, they might just stop altogether.
-
If people knew they were just voting for one half or other of the same party, they might just stop altogether.
Meh...there are, of course, plenty of similarities, but people who seriously say they're identical are...I'm not sure...but they're definitely wrong (at least in America).
-
They're not identical. It's really more of a good cop/bad cop scenario (which is the good cop depends on what side of the room you sit on).
-
Unless you had a zillion parties, I don't see how you wouldn't get significant overlaps. I mean...the point here is that they have to have broad enough appeal to capture a large portion of people. And even those people often have sharp disagreements among each other. I've known myself to disagree with my yesterday self, in fact.
-
I've known myself to disagree with my yesterday self, in fact.
Well, he was a jerk...
-
-
-
Might be the key to the discussion.
Yes, that was the context of the discussion between me and @antiquarian. Of course, we also avoided the parliamentary bullshit in America.
-
Assuming the interest of all those parties is the same, it's not.
No, not assuming that.
But that means all those parties are effectively the same.
No, they are not.
In the most crucial things, like that time when they moved half of the money from private retirement funds into national one, everyone votes for.
Like I said, they can argue for years about everything, slander each other in media and use every opportunity to destroy the opponent, yet you will find an example when they voted the same and claim they work together.
The fact that two parties do the same things when one or the other is in power and that they both say the same things when one or the other is in opposition, isn't example of indifference?
No.
When did I glorify anything? I see planning on such a grand scale as a negative thing, because it's possible only if people have no freedom.
Claiming that communism planned for decades and those plans worked is hilariously wrong, and yes, glorifying it.
I don't believe in peaceful revolutions.
Which happen evidently, but you do believe in conspiracy theories, which are load of crap. Amazing.
-
No, not assuming that.
If we assume the opposite, then we have contradiction.No, they are not.
Why are you replying to a conclusion derived from assumption you have just said not to take?Like I said, they can argue for years about everything, slander each other in media and use every opportunity to destroy the opponent, yet you will find an example when they voted the same and claim they work together.
Look - this example is very special. It's the one most important precedence in last few years - the parliament decided that it's okay to nationalize people's private savings.No.
What would be an example of indifference for you, then?Claiming that communism planned for decades and those plans worked is hilariously wrong, and yes, glorifying it.
I said mostly. Yes, they fucked up completely on the grand scale. But they managed to completely destroy the partisans leftover after WW2. They successfully completed the Three Years Pan, the Six Years Plan, and the first Five Years Plan. Until 1980, they managed to keep the country together, despite few big protests spawning during that time. They managed to give secondary education to everyone. They reduced unemplyment to virtually none. That's pretty amazing considering that the economical situation was utter shit. And no, I wouldn't like to live in that country.Which happen evidently, but you do believe in conspiracy theories, which are load of crap. Amazing.
I didn't want to cross that line, but here you have it. The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was also considered a conspiracy theory until 1989. If I googled enough, I would probably find many other examples (I found that the Manhattan Project was secret until late 60s, but that doesn't make much sense to me).
-
also considered a conspiracy theory until 1989
People did laugh at Galileo, but they also laugh at clowns. If everyone is laughing at you the odds are that you are a clown, not a genius.
-
Doesn't mean geniuses don't exist.
Loyal opposition - Wikipedia
