What the Jews say about Hungary: the truth

Remove all ads!

Indeed it is. But do you know how difficult it is to get the trains to run on time, if the media are spreading filthy lies?
It is well nigh impossible, and for that reason alone you need to curb those nasty journalist. Not to mention when they are in cuhots with the judges. Yikes.

But to stay on topic. When the trains run on time, everybody knows the jews are perfectly safe. And this is the truth.

Regards
Defreni

 

It was clear for me that the train example wasn't meant literally, it was used to express that Orban didn't reach anything useful in Hungary (says this a German who doesn't live in Hungary, doesn't research it, and has only biased sources). This is what I reacted to: it's not unimportant at all (train times), and therefore, not suitable for the purpose it was used for.

But let's see something else (a Daily Mail article to those who think that the "double standard" thing is only my mania):

I don't want to quote all paragraphs of the article (the whole one can't be copied anyway) , but I recommend reading it for those who want to take a look at the matter from a different point of view as well.

And the ending:

Source: The protest in Budapest showed that most Hungarians still support the government - why wasn't it reported?, Daily Mail

 

Err, no, not really. I didn't 't use the reference to express any of that. I meant something else entirely. I am quite certain.

 

Then I was wrong, if you say so. Though I can't think of any other reasonable explanation (just that you're ironical again, i.e. kidding).

You know, in my culture, the behavior of "I meant else, you didn't get it and I won't tell you what I actually meant" usually ends at the end of kindergarten. Proving that the other one didn't get it won't make you look intellectually or otherwise superior. It rather exiles you to kindergarten level...

On a side note, just to continue my comments in this topic (to the interested readers), what I like in Orban and in his party that he actually wants to accomplish ambitious things (and these aren't of political nature, such as centralizing his power etc.). Some of these may look hopeless, but not totally unreasonable. And often, he has very good support for this, he has the 'proper' men.

For example, the government commissioner in charge of the Hungarian film industry is a Hollywood producer, Andy G. Vajna. (He is the producer of Air America, Basic Instinct I-II, Evita, the Terminator series, the Rambo series and many other movies.) This would not be a big deal for a "powerhouse" country, but for Hungary, it does matter that corruption is reduced in film industry and a real expert gets leadership in it. The same could not be told about the former socialist government, which exclusively employed their own friends and relatives in the high positions.

This was just for the information of those readers who wonder 'what Hungarian people like in this centralizing, stubborn Viktor Orban'? Well, he has ambitious goals, and he has good men for it. This at least creates the chance of achieving some goals. The same could not be told about the former (socialist) government.

 

Priceless. And no, I wasn't kidding.

 

Like a little child, Ragusa "the lord of forums" is happy with his supposed intellectual superiority because Baronius didn't immediately recognize Ragusa was referring to Mussolini (as English is not Baronius' native language, and people usually think and learnt most things in their native language). Welcome in kindergarten, Herr Ragusa!

What is really priceless, though, is that Ragusa was unable to address any of these points (he even didn't try to give a hijacking answer):

Question #1:

Question #2 (regarding Ragusa's problem with Orbán's "unconstitutional changes" and the new Hungarian constitution):

A lawyer, who is talkative as long as he thinks he is in a winner position, but finds various pretexts to ignore answering when he's in trouble. That is not an advantage for trials...

A lawyer, who does not dare to answer the above questions, because his strict principles about the world and law are disproved by the practice itself.

 

I take some comfort in that it only took you two days, with cues, and, indeed, we were getting sort of massive in the end, to figure it out. I expected far worse.

Then:
#1: The Benes decrees are still in power because the Slovak and Czech governments have so far not mustered the political will and/or political capital to abolish them. That was not even so under the very respectable Václav Havel. Since these are both sovereign (look it up) countries, and stuff like the Benes decrees is, however unfair and odious, a domestic matter, the EU can do very little about it.

What can be done is that for instance Germany, as she does, routinely, objects in bilateral relations. Equally routinely, Slovak and Czech nationalists get crazy about that. There are other, more pressing matters, than moping about the unjust consequences of a war that we happened to start. We would get nowhere if we made a repeal conditional to anything. Also, since that would be perceived as coercion, we'd probably achieve the opposite result of what we intend to achieve.

#2:
Constitutions are the fundamental law of the land. They set the direction into which the country goes. What Hungary has experienced with the new constitution is a stepping away from checks and balances to a more authoritarian form of government. Any sober structural analysis must come to that result. Under Orbán power has shifted sharply in favour of the executive, and also, Fidecz has undertaken steps to cement their dominant position for the foreseeable future. IMO the weakening of judicial oversight and the reduction of checks and balances are particularly troubling - troubling, because a constitution must reasonably take into account that people (even angels like dear leader) are fallible and may abuse their power. A constitution in a democratic country must also take into account shifting majorities. I don't see that in Hungary.

If you saw 'liberal-leftists' with the kind of power the new constitution allocates to Orbán and Fidesz you'd be up in arms and cry tyranny, probably frothing at the mouth. The only 'safeguard' the Hungarian constitution has against abuse is, and that would be your take and not mine, that Orbán and Fidesz are wise and just and sure won't abuse the unchecked power vested to them (largely by themselves). Your 'reasoning' is the Hail Mary approach to law - you're essentially, and IMO exceedingly foolishly saying: I'm sure it'll work. Too bad if it doesn't.

That reasoning would be a crappy basis for contract and it sure as hell makes for a crappy basis for a constitution. You're a fool to not see that.

 

You should find better ways to compensate your inferiority complex. Tell me, even if I didn't know it at all and would have never heard of the saying even in Hungarian translation, would it matter? Do you think it makes you look so damn educated and superior that you know a saying that I supposedly didn't (and probably a nice percent of other BoM members, especially non-Europeans, also never heard of it)? You really made a fool of yourself with this ridiculous campaign, and also showed that malice is not far from you. You know, the real educated people are glad to enlighten others -- instead of trying to make fun of a non-English person just because he didn't immediately recognize a saying in English that he never heard in English translation. Cheap, very cheap.

You don't know the Hungarian constitution, you only heard its contents from the media, so the "sober structural analysis must come to that result" is basically based on information you received via the press/media. (From the media which was so busy attacking Orban that it confused Orban with someone else and quoted a never-existed Orban interview where Orban talks about his jew origins (no, he doesn't have any jew origins))
Back to the constitution which text you never read, and still, as a lawyer you judge it without knowing its text, based on media information. The truth: fundamental checks and balances aren't removed, the conditions of democratic governing (regardless of government) are still stable.

Most of those who think Hungary is not a democracy anymore are influenced by the international left-liberal propaganda in the press. By the international press which forwards/represents the opinion of people such as Charles Gati (a former Senior Adviser in US Department of State):
"there are opportunities indeed to remove this government -- if possible in a democratic way, if not then in some other way."

To place this into a context:

(source)

Nice approach... especially from the USA! Orbán must be removed non-democratically, eh? Orbán is not a "dear leader" of Hungarians* -- it seems, he is the "public enemy no. 1" instead. That can be removed in any way, eh Charles Gati?

*this is only said by those who are making their propaganda or were misled by the propaganda.

 

I demand proof for this statement. I doubt all criticisms of Orban and the Hungarian government are coming from jealous "leftliberals" or "leftliberal propagandists". Attempting to marginalize criticisms rather than giving them a rational refutation doesn't do much to convince others of your position.

 

Cheap doesn't begin to describe it. I have another one, here it goes: A German and a Dane poke fun at a Hungarian - clearly they are callously exploiting their innate advantage at mastering a foreign language ... Thinking of it, if I were you, which I fortunately am not, I'd worry about the other ten points I also didn't get, just saying.

For the love of God - this is about history, context, the nonsense you bloviate - not your English skills. They're really and quite clearly the least of your problems

Indeed, there is no way for me, nor anybody else for that matter, to know anything about the Hungarian constitution, let alone analyse it, or compare it to the old version, since both are being locked away in a safe in Budapest so we outsiders cannot know anything about it but from the lying mouths of left-liberal slanderers. Since we are not from Hungary and don't have your unique insights, we are unfit to judge. When we, probably inevitably, come to hold a different view than you do, that is only clear and irrefutable evidence of our bad character, finally unmasking us as the devious, lying liars that we are.

 

@BTA: I understand that, but you really shouldn't try to defend the undefendable, IMO. The reference itself indeed wasn't for trying to make fun of me, but from the point he noticed I didn't recognize the saying that he originally used, he kept making ironical statements endlessly, instead of pointing out that I missed the point.

As I said: in the first post, yes, and when he noticed it's a good opportunity to abuse it, he abused it. If he had been trying to point out anything to *me* (I'm just quoting you, BTA), then he would have explained to *me* the meaning when he noticed that I didn't seem to recognize the saying he used. So he didn't really care whether *I* got the point or not, and even tried to abuse the situation to show everyone else how clever he is. Therefore, your point is wrong that he tried to point out anything to *me*.

You say that "it was only made funny when in your incomprehension of the reference", but in my culture (and I'm pretty sure everywhere else), it's considered malicious when someone misses a point, and you keep making fun of him instead of enlightening him (possibly after some initial teasing). (It's different and somewhat tolerable when it's done to a small extent, i.e. for a limited time; but when it's done indefinitely, it is nothing else than malice and an attempt to humiliate the other person.) And I'm sure this works in the same way in your culture, especially in "serious" discussions between educated people. So IMO you were just trying to defend the undefendable...

 

You know, I actually pity those who find such a behavior acceptable and think that enlightening someone has anything to do with "taking pity" on anyone. Poor people.

 

You ingrate.

 

Since when such a specific history-related saying is considered a 'fairly straigtforward reference'?

I'm sure every (even highly) educated person has things which he missed or simply doesn't recognize in a different language (as he learnt it in his own language, perhaps long ago, and it's far from his RL profession). Pretending that a particular bit of knowledge that you possess is so obvious & crucial that everyone who doesn't know it deserves 'pity' is both infantile and reflects a really poor EQ. We all have particular bits of knowledge that others don't know -- and when someone doesn't know them, we don't try to make fun of the person when he doesn't get it, at least not in a way that attempts to humiliate or ridicule the person repeatedly. I'm sure every educated, intelligent person agrees with this.