You have clearly formed some narrow personal opinions about how the mind, politics and the world works. Sadly, those opinions do not accord with the real world.
For example, there is an infinite variety of opinion towards the EU. Very few take the extreme position of being 100% for or 100% against. Are you one of those extreamists?
And the same applies to just about every other point you raised, or will raise - the world is not black & white but a myriad of shades of gray.
You demanded that we "be honest". Surely honesty is about telling the truth and refering to facts. So far, you have done neither. All you have written is your personal anti-SNS bias.
My position regards this conversation is simple. If you want to accuse SNS members of something and be taken seriously, show us the evidence.
My position regards the current anti-corruption charge lead by Vucic. Carry on the good work.
My position regards corruption in Serbia. It's a way of life and part of the social fabric and will take generations to remove - if that's what is wanted. But you have to start somewhere.
My position regards the SNS's EU stance. Not sure. I suspect they're saying good things just to get Brussels' cash but really prefer to cosy up with Moscow.
I have no idea what on earth your argument is then. So you're in other words telling me I'm talking rubbish, but you say you don't think they are 'whiter than white', make your mind up.
If you honestly believe that they were not truly anti-EU while they were SRS members then you don't have a clue what you are talking about. They were free to leave the party at any time, the fact that they ran an election on those lines and suddenly left is proof of this.
Pragmatic? Jesus Christ what does pragmatism show you on such an issue, there is no mid way in being pro-EU or anti-EU, you are either one or the other. In this climate if anyone is going to jump the fence they will turn against the EU because of what is happening inside the eurozone. Pragmatism is another way of politicians changing their minds to win votes, they have no principles but just go which ever way the wind blows.
Discussing this with you is pretty pointless, it would be different if you had complete faith in these politicians but while you tell me I have no evidence and therefore imply I am completely wrong you also admit you don't think they are whiter than white, so make your mind up. You seem a little confused to be honest, reassess the sitation. Are they corrupt politicians or not? I am asking, are they completely clean or not? I you think they are then fair enough thats your view, if not then I have no idea why you are arguing against me other than to play devils advocate merely for the sake of it.
So, no evidence, just more of your innuendo and biased speculation.
It is not for me or anybody to prove 'innocence'. The burden of proof always falls to the accuser. It's strange how people wanting to be considered to offer intellectual debate, but only offer agenda driven speculation and innuendo, always seem to come up short on that simple concept.
And, to try to answer why the change in EU stance amongst the senior SNS personnel, I offer 3 possibilities.
1. They never were anti-EU whilst in the SRS, but were loyally following Seselj's leadership. A loyalty they are no longer bound to.
2. Whether they personally are for or against the EU, they have chosen to be pragmatic with the electorate. Compare results of SNS v SRS to understand that simple point.
3. Perhaps they are not as pro-EU as you think they are.
PS. Do I believe that Vucic and co are 'whiter than white'. Never. But the best thing that happened in Serbian politics was them casting that fool Seselj aside and the SRS disappearing electorally.
Lets be honest, anyone who can see clearly knows that politics in the former Yugoslavia is ridden with corruption, as is the same with former socialist dictatorships. It is about principle, when all the evidence shows that the EU is in strong decline, we have politicians who used to be so anti-EU now becoming pro-EU. Either they are completely thick or have 'changed their minds' because of some outside persuasion, and when I say persuasion I mean certain offers being given. Then we see these men running the country, after being cheated in the election in 2008 when they held anti-EU views. My point is if men are willing to betray principles once, what says they wont do it again? Why should we presume they are completely trustworthy when they have changed their colours once before? While I admit it is hard to produce empirical evidence to PROVE they are corrupt, maybe one day it will emerge, but in the meantime I ask you, do you have evidence to suggest they are completely innocent from corruption?
You write alot about what could be termed "moral corruption" given what you claim to be their political U-turn. Do you have any evidence whatsoever beyond your mischievous speculation as evidence of any other form of corruption?
Furthermore, has the thought ever crossed your mind that those who formed the SNS may have done so for the simple reason that they, as are the majority of the Serbian public, fed up with Seselj's narrow-minded self-promotion and his use of SRS fund-raising to support his personal legal crusade in the Netherlands?
While I agree with Miskovic's arrest we should be under no illusion that the Serbian government is making a genuine push against corruption, if we are to assume none of the current ministers are corrupt then this is incorrect.
To make it clear I am not an outright SRS supporter (though I agree with some policies), but the move which Nikolic and Vucic took against the SRS shows nothing but corruption. It is no secret that the coup which took place within the SRS was western sponsored, we saw (other than Seselj) the two highest ranking members of the SRS explicitly betray their party. Two politicians who were well known by their militant hostility towards the EU managed to change their views overnight and become some of the EU's best friends in Serbia, then all of a sudden the electoral campaigns of the SNS were flooded with funds and they won the election. Does anyone seriously believe this happened in the absence of corruption? Anyone who thinks so must be hugely delusional.
The point that I am making is that if these two politicians were corrupt enough to undergo the political transformation that they did, and including Dacic whose corruption is undoubtable, then why should anyone be convinced that their push against corruption is genuine? By all means arrest men like Miskovic and punish them, but people must not be fooled by men like Nikolic, Vucic and Dacic.
Lets be honest, anyone who can see clearly knows that politics in the former Yugoslavia is ridden with corruption, as is the same with former socialist dictatorships. It is about principle, when all the evidence shows that the EU is in strong decline, we have politicians who used to be so anti-EU now becoming pro-EU. Either they are completely thick or have 'changed their minds' because of some outside persuasion, and when I say persuasion I mean certain offers being given. Then we see these men running the country, after being cheated in the election in 2008 when they held anti-EU views. My point is if men are willing to betray principles once, what says they wont do it again? Why should we presume they are completely trustworthy when they have changed their colours once before? While I admit it is hard to produce empirical evidence to PROVE they are corrupt, maybe one day it will emerge, but in the meantime I ask you, do you have evidence to suggest they are completely innocent from corruption?
You write alot about what could be termed "moral corruption" given what you claim to be their political U-turn. Do you have any evidence whatsoever beyond your mischievous speculation as evidence of any other form of corruption?
Furthermore, has the thought ever crossed your mind that those who formed the SNS may have done so for the simple reason that they, as are the majority of the Serbian public, fed up with Seselj's narrow-minded self-promotion and his use of SRS fund-raising to support his personal legal crusade in the Netherlands?
I have no idea what on earth your argument is then. So you're in other words telling me I'm talking rubbish, but you say you don't think they are 'whiter than white', make your mind up.
If you honestly believe that they were not truly anti-EU while they were SRS members then you don't have a clue what you are talking about. They were free to leave the party at any time, the fact that they ran an election on those lines and suddenly left is proof of this.
Pragmatic? Jesus Christ what does pragmatism show you on such an issue, there is no mid way in being pro-EU or anti-EU, you are either one or the other. In this climate if anyone is going to jump the fence they will turn against the EU because of what is happening inside the eurozone. Pragmatism is another way of politicians changing their minds to win votes, they have no principles but just go which ever way the wind blows.
Discussing this with you is pretty pointless, it would be different if you had complete faith in these politicians but while you tell me I have no evidence and therefore imply I am completely wrong you also admit you don't think they are whiter than white, so make your mind up. You seem a little confused to be honest, reassess the sitation. Are they corrupt politicians or not? I am asking, are they completely clean or not? I you think they are then fair enough thats your view, if not then I have no idea why you are arguing against me other than to play devils advocate merely for the sake of it.
You have clearly formed some narrow personal opinions about how the mind, politics and the world works. Sadly, those opinions do not accord with the real world.
For example, there is an infinite variety of opinion towards the EU. Very few take the extreme position of being 100% for or 100% against. Are you one of those extreamists?
And the same applies to just about every other point you raised, or will raise - the world is not black & white but a myriad of shades of gray.
You demanded that we "be honest". Surely honesty is about telling the truth and refering to facts. So far, you have done neither. All you have written is your personal anti-SNS bias.
My position regards this conversation is simple. If you want to accuse SNS members of something and be taken seriously, show us the evidence.
My position regards the current anti-corruption charge lead by Vucic. Carry on the good work.
My position regards corruption in Serbia. It's a way of life and part of the social fabric and will take generations to remove - if that's what is wanted. But you have to start somewhere.
My position regards the SNS's EU stance. Not sure. I suspect they're saying good things just to get Brussels' cash but really prefer to cosy up with Moscow.
While I agree with Miskovic's arrest we should be under no illusion that the Serbian government is making a genuine push against corruption, if we are to assume none of the current ministers are corrupt then this is incorrect.
To make it clear I am not an outright SRS supporter (though I agree with some policies), but the move which Nikolic and Vucic took against the SRS shows nothing but corruption. It is no secret that the coup which took place within the SRS was western sponsored, we saw (other than Seselj) the two highest ranking members of the SRS explicitly betray their party. Two politicians who were well known by their militant hostility towards the EU managed to change their views overnight and become some of the EU's best friends in Serbia, then all of a sudden the electoral campaigns of the SNS were flooded with funds and they won the election. Does anyone seriously believe this happened in the absence of corruption? Anyone who thinks so must be hugely delusional.
The point that I am making is that if these two politicians were corrupt enough to undergo the political transformation that they did, and including Dacic whose corruption is undoubtable, then why should anyone be convinced that their push against corruption is genuine? By all means arrest men like Miskovic and punish them, but people must not be fooled by men like Nikolic, Vucic and Dacic.
So, no evidence, just more of your innuendo and biased speculation.
It is not for me or anybody to prove 'innocence'. The burden of proof always falls to the accuser. It's strange how people wanting to be considered to offer intellectual debate, but only offer agenda driven speculation and innuendo, always seem to come up short on that simple concept.
And, to try to answer why the change in EU stance amongst the senior SNS personnel, I offer 3 possibilities.
1. They never were anti-EU whilst in the SRS, but were loyally following Seselj's leadership. A loyalty they are no longer bound to.
2. Whether they personally are for or against the EU, they have chosen to be pragmatic with the electorate. Compare results of SNS v SRS to understand that simple point.
3. Perhaps they are not as pro-EU as you think they are.
PS. Do I believe that Vucic and co are 'whiter than white'. Never. But the best thing that happened in Serbian politics was them casting that fool Seselj aside and the SRS disappearing electorally.
You have clearly formed some narrow personal opinions about how the mind, politics and the world works. Sadly, those opinions do not accord with the real world.
For example, there is an infinite variety of opinion towards the EU. Very few take the extreme position of being 100% for or 100% against. Are you one of those extreamists?
And the same applies to just about every other point you raised, or will raise - the world is not black & white but a myriad of shades of gray.
You demanded that we "be honest". Surely honesty is about telling the truth and refering to facts. So far, you have done neither. All you have written is your personal anti-SNS bias.
My position regards this conversation is simple. If you want to accuse SNS members of something and be taken seriously, show us the evidence.
My position regards the current anti-corruption charge lead by Vucic. Carry on the good work.
My position regards corruption in Serbia. It's a way of life and part of the social fabric and will take generations to remove - if that's what is wanted. But you have to start somewhere.
My position regards the SNS's EU stance. Not sure. I suspect they're saying good things just to get Brussels' cash but really prefer to cosy up with Moscow.
You write alot about what could be termed "moral corruption" given what you claim to be their political U-turn. Do you have any evidence whatsoever beyond your mischievous speculation as evidence of any other form of corruption?
Furthermore, has the thought ever crossed your mind that those who formed the SNS may have done so for the simple reason that they, as are the majority of the Serbian public, fed up with Seselj's narrow-minded self-promotion and his use of SRS fund-raising to support his personal legal crusade in the Netherlands?
So, no evidence, just more of your innuendo and biased speculation.
It is not for me or anybody to prove 'innocence'. The burden of proof always falls to the accuser. It's strange how people wanting to be considered to offer intellectual debate, but only offer agenda driven speculation and innuendo, always seem to come up short on that simple concept.
And, to try to answer why the change in EU stance amongst the senior SNS personnel, I offer 3 possibilities.
1. They never were anti-EU whilst in the SRS, but were loyally following Seselj's leadership. A loyalty they are no longer bound to.
2. Whether they personally are for or against the EU, they have chosen to be pragmatic with the electorate. Compare results of SNS v SRS to understand that simple point.
3. Perhaps they are not as pro-EU as you think they are.
PS. Do I believe that Vucic and co are 'whiter than white'. Never. But the best thing that happened in Serbian politics was them casting that fool Seselj aside and the SRS disappearing electorally.
While I agree with Miskovic's arrest we should be under no illusion that the Serbian government is making a genuine push against corruption, if we are to assume none of the current ministers are corrupt then this is incorrect.
To make it clear I am not an outright SRS supporter (though I agree with some policies), but the move which Nikolic and Vucic took against the SRS shows nothing but corruption. It is no secret that the coup which took place within the SRS was western sponsored, we saw (other than Seselj) the two highest ranking members of the SRS explicitly betray their party. Two politicians who were well known by their militant hostility towards the EU managed to change their views overnight and become some of the EU's best friends in Serbia, then all of a sudden the electoral campaigns of the SNS were flooded with funds and they won the election. Does anyone seriously believe this happened in the absence of corruption? Anyone who thinks so must be hugely delusional.
The point that I am making is that if these two politicians were corrupt enough to undergo the political transformation that they did, and including Dacic whose corruption is undoubtable, then why should anyone be convinced that their push against corruption is genuine? By all means arrest men like Miskovic and punish them, but people must not be fooled by men like Nikolic, Vucic and Dacic.
I have no idea what on earth your argument is then. So you're in other words telling me I'm talking rubbish, but you say you don't think they are 'whiter than white', make your mind up.
If you honestly believe that they were not truly anti-EU while they were SRS members then you don't have a clue what you are talking about. They were free to leave the party at any time, the fact that they ran an election on those lines and suddenly left is proof of this.
Pragmatic? Jesus Christ what does pragmatism show you on such an issue, there is no mid way in being pro-EU or anti-EU, you are either one or the other. In this climate if anyone is going to jump the fence they will turn against the EU because of what is happening inside the eurozone. Pragmatism is another way of politicians changing their minds to win votes, they have no principles but just go which ever way the wind blows.
Discussing this with you is pretty pointless, it would be different if you had complete faith in these politicians but while you tell me I have no evidence and therefore imply I am completely wrong you also admit you don't think they are whiter than white, so make your mind up. You seem a little confused to be honest, reassess the sitation. Are they corrupt politicians or not? I am asking, are they completely clean or not? I you think they are then fair enough thats your view, if not then I have no idea why you are arguing against me other than to play devils advocate merely for the sake of it.
Lets be honest, anyone who can see clearly knows that politics in the former Yugoslavia is ridden with corruption, as is the same with former socialist dictatorships. It is about principle, when all the evidence shows that the EU is in strong decline, we have politicians who used to be so anti-EU now becoming pro-EU. Either they are completely thick or have 'changed their minds' because of some outside persuasion, and when I say persuasion I mean certain offers being given. Then we see these men running the country, after being cheated in the election in 2008 when they held anti-EU views. My point is if men are willing to betray principles once, what says they wont do it again? Why should we presume they are completely trustworthy when they have changed their colours once before? While I admit it is hard to produce empirical evidence to PROVE they are corrupt, maybe one day it will emerge, but in the meantime I ask you, do you have evidence to suggest they are completely innocent from corruption?
IMAGE SOURCE
7 Komentari
Sortiraj po: