egothemaster

WE MUST REACT, and ASSERT THE PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM. Even at the cost of resorting to strong measures. I’ll tell you… Churchill is one of my heroes, for what he represented and did in the fight against Nazism. For too long Hitler (what is now Islamic fundamentalism) did as he pleased… in the end, he was finally stopped by people like Churchill, who STRONGLY OPPOSED SYSTEMATIC AGGRESSION. This is what Europe and the entire West must do now… not tolerate and give more and more space to the fundamentalists…! WE MUST WAKE UP, BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.

1. So you’re telling me that we cannot expect (albeit more than legitimate) civil protests? Basically, you’re saying that the institutional and private representatives of the West in Islamic countries cannot expect to be respected. You’re telling me that Western embassies abroad are worthless, given that it’s impossible to establish a relationship based on the respect of freedom and democracy with those peoples because they are not yet mature... So, you’re telling me that, at this state of affairs, there is no so-called moderate Islam, but only fundamentalism, not merely the expression of a few extremists, but of ENTIRE PEOPLES... Well, I know that it is impossible to dialogue with a fundamentalist, and we have seen proof of that right here, with strangler. So what does this mean? One thing only: it’s not fair towards our foundational values (DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM) and towards those that are (or rather, "should be") at the basis of rightful relations between states, to "drop our pants" in the face of a fundamentalist attitude that does not conceive respect for others and bases its entire thought on hatred.

Sorry, but I will have to postpone my response until tomorrow because I HAVE TO WORK!!!! Saludos!

Actually, it was me who was supposed to finish, so go ahead. I'm waiting.

7. Instead, it would be a first form of economic and political defense (as well as a kind of "sanctioning" action) against an economy based on exploitation and the TOTAL LACK OF WORKERS' RIGHTS (the fine example of communist ideology…), which engages in UNSPORTSMANLIKE COMPETITION, against every principle of market regulation (something so dear to the Left… and right) and human rights.
Now I'm going to eat. Later, I'll return to the concept of Padania and the right to self-determination of peoples.

5. Borghezio is a character I personally despise. The thing is, he talks a lot and does nothing. Those who contest him, however, go so far as to try to prevent him from speaking (against every democratic principle) and to hit him, as happened that time on the train. The difference seems to me to be BLATANT. In any case, Borghezio only harms the League, because he, like the "sisnistroidi," distorts the true and only political message of the League.
6. Racist statements towards homosexuals (which indeed come from some members of the League... the usual ones...) do not please me at all and find my TOTAL DISSENT AND CONDEMNATION. However, the discussion about Pacs is quite different. The League believes it is wrong to place the natural family (the primary nucleus of society, as stated in the Italian Constitution) on the same level as de facto couples, as it is unjust for those who do not marry to have the same rights as married people but not the same responsibilities. In fact, the marriage contract is a form of guarantee for the weaker of the two spouses in case of separation or divorce, and especially for the CHILDREN (hence the "rights of children"), because it makes parents responsible, leading them to face, through certain obligations (support...), the difficulties that arise with separation. De facto couples do not enter into any binding contract, thus they only demand freedom of action without taking their own responsibilities.

4. Sofri has been sentenced in any order and level of justice. Why should he deserve clemency? Right-wing and left-wing terrorists do not deserve any mercy, as they are the worst kind of criminals. Is he ill? He is receiving treatment like any other citizen, and he is under house arrest, so he is not in prison. It is not clear what more one could want. The fact is that the only motivation given for clemency is merely political and biased. Certainly not out of a sense of justice, which demands certainty of punishment. Castelli exercises his right/duty as Minister of Justice, as provided by the Republican Constitution. Do you only refer to the Constitution when it suits you?
3. The law on legitimate defense is more than just, as it allows individuals to defend themselves and their property against a violent threat. Because that is what the law says. Those who practice it their own way are lawbreakers. Those who say (of course from the Left) that with this law one can shoot anyone are irresponsible, because they lead people to believe that it can indeed be done. Therefore, the attitude of the Left is shameful, as it always distorts reality for political purposes.

1. Calderoli made a provocation against the European RESIGNED MUTISM in the face of the extremist Islamic madness leading to disorder, destruction, violence, and killings as a reaction to the publication (months and months before the outbreak of the case) of some cartoons. How is it possible that Europe has not protested STRONGLY, EVEN WITH SANCTIONS, in the face of the aforementioned reaction, fully supported by governments? Calderoli was wrong to act in that way as a minister, and rightly he was made to resign. But the principle is more than valid. In any case: cannot demanding equal sensitivity mean that one cannot expect a civil protest? And why not? Can we only expect a violent protest? Then we are really in a bad place...!
2. Here I partially agree with you. I consider proportional representation the fairest system because it effectively represents the many facets of the Italian and European socio-political system (excluding the Anglo-Saxon world). But a preference is needed. Therefore, the problem is not "giving a little more opportunity to the Center-Right" (because I consider proportional representation fairer than majority rule), but the fact that it is the parties that decide who will sit in Parliament and who will not. And this is unacceptable.

Thank goodness there are still some people who see the violent for what they really are... the only ones who should TRULY BE ASHAMED. Is it possible that only two of us think this way in here?

While I do not share almost any of the "reasons not to vote for Lega," to which I may respond in the coming days, at least this time I was not insulted (although I am still referred to as a racist because I am a supporter of the party). Nevertheless, once again the only reason I have written so far has been misconstrued. I wanted to talk not about the ideas of Lega or of Tizio or Caio, but only about why a supporter of Lega should feel ashamed of holding certain views, instead of being considered for what he is: someone with ideas that may be agreeable or not, but who deserves respect, given that we live in a democracy, and that the Lega (unlike the NoGlobal, Naziskin, Centri Sociali, Disobbedienti Giottini, and the like) has NEVER perpetrated violence or violated the rules of legality and freedom. But since you do not want to understand... I don't even know why I continue to write here...