Luckily legal. Today radio woke me with good news: the Constitutional Court revoked the decision of the Supreme Court Bildu may stand for election. Rabies
sectors of the extreme right and raging uninformed sectors are created Bildu mantra is ETA, Bildu is ETA. Showing that repeating a lie a thousand times just becoming practical truth. But it does not make it true.
Bildu is not ETA. In fact, whether it is ever Bildu HB. Indeed, the "target" politician many potential voters compared with HB and derivatives, but also includes many or joke would have voted to that training.
The resolution of the TC, who will rave to rave is the best thing that could happen to this country as a step forward and away from a dangerous dynamic that threatened to turn politics into a bipartisan Orwellian. Because, let's be serious. Ban a political party is an attack on a right as fundamental as that of political participation. Not to mention when you delete the right one for what he has done next door, or what they "could do."
Can you imagine that one day the police planted at home and say "you is arrested for the murder he has committed his neighbor? Or "have you this fine and 7 points lower card, which we are confident that once you take a car to get drunk and drive to 135 opposite the curries? "Luckily, Minority Report is just a movie.
Unfortunately, yes it is possible there are members of Bildu point, and conjecture, which are favorable to a particular terrorist organization, and they might want to use a hypothetical subjunctive public office for illegal actions. It is also true that the villain could be submitted to a competition to judge, and take advantage of the same. Despite what I have not been contested to a law that prohibits those who have been given political party. The situation would be absurd but the example is not.
Well I say. Would not it be correct if you are confident / suspicion that, 10 or 375 people in a group are criminals, take measures against these individuals rather than against the entire group? Is not it absurd that "yes but no"? Is that "as some of the inhabitants of Fuenteovejuna have killed the commander and punish all a bit"?
Nothing much better, as some seem to prefer a law that says "if you do not meet the conditions can not play, but if you turn either." That is the banana party law in force.
I'm happy, and despite many false bark that the Constitutional Court has legalized ETA, the reality is that a legitimate option may stand for election. And for better or for worse, the polls give him what he deserves.
sectors of the extreme right and raging uninformed sectors are created Bildu mantra is ETA, Bildu is ETA. Showing that repeating a lie a thousand times just becoming practical truth. But it does not make it true.
Bildu is not ETA. In fact, whether it is ever Bildu HB. Indeed, the "target" politician many potential voters compared with HB and derivatives, but also includes many or joke would have voted to that training.
The resolution of the TC, who will rave to rave is the best thing that could happen to this country as a step forward and away from a dangerous dynamic that threatened to turn politics into a bipartisan Orwellian. Because, let's be serious. Ban a political party is an attack on a right as fundamental as that of political participation. Not to mention when you delete the right one for what he has done next door, or what they "could do."
Can you imagine that one day the police planted at home and say "you is arrested for the murder he has committed his neighbor? Or "have you this fine and 7 points lower card, which we are confident that once you take a car to get drunk and drive to 135 opposite the curries? "Luckily, Minority Report is just a movie.
Unfortunately, yes it is possible there are members of Bildu point, and conjecture, which are favorable to a particular terrorist organization, and they might want to use a hypothetical subjunctive public office for illegal actions. It is also true that the villain could be submitted to a competition to judge, and take advantage of the same. Despite what I have not been contested to a law that prohibits those who have been given political party. The situation would be absurd but the example is not.
Well I say. Would not it be correct if you are confident / suspicion that, 10 or 375 people in a group are criminals, take measures against these individuals rather than against the entire group? Is not it absurd that "yes but no"? Is that "as some of the inhabitants of Fuenteovejuna have killed the commander and punish all a bit"?
Nothing much better, as some seem to prefer a law that says "if you do not meet the conditions can not play, but if you turn either." That is the banana party law in force.
I'm happy, and despite many false bark that the Constitutional Court has legalized ETA, the reality is that a legitimate option may stand for election. And for better or for worse, the polls give him what he deserves.
0 comments:
Post a Comment