I initially read the thread title as "Fox News attacks the Neanderthals...." and thought, it is always a bad idea to negatively portray your customers.
Lol... good one. And, after talking with many Conservatives IRL, I tend to agree.
I get the same feeling when I talk to Liberals.
whoa, so having leanings in a political direction means that you can not run a rational argument?
To me what was said simply showed that not only is FOX news not a NEWS service they are comfortable lying and support an erosion of science, fact and education.
In this case the defense for saying Hollands socially liberal policies are causing the country to turn into a cesspool of drugs and violence for which the evidence shows that America is worse. Was to say that a relative amount (a percentage) can not be compared for two populations, one which is larger than another.
When someone on a news service says that a relative amount (a percentage) can not be compared for two populations, one which is larger than another you have someone who does not care that they are lying. They simply target the poorly educated and the ignorant.
Now i don't care if this person is a liberal, communist, fascist, anarchist, Christian, high school teacher, parent or associated with any group at all, it is simply pandering to an ignorant audience and has no illusions about supporting an agenda with critical thought.
and yet...
every liberal loves to compare the us to netherlands as an example of how it "should be" in the US...this is why he did a segment on that topic.
Do you see why we have a problem with this entire argument?
several on here that jumped on fox either don't watch o'shannity or don't watch fox....that particular show is all about pointing out illogical liberal thinking. and he does it with a very insulting flare (I wonder if that is why his show is so popular?)
libs want the right to use a small nation as an example of how the "us has failed," but they don't want to hear ANYTHING contrary when people try and show that you just can't "do it that way...like they do in X country" for example.
You mean like how conservatives points at other nations and use that as an argument against healthcare? I suppose its okay to use other countries as an example when conservatives think it's in their favor, right?
"About pointing out illogical liberal thinking?" Is this a bad joke? Fox News attacks a country and yet when presented with the facts that the Netherlands liberal drug policy is doing significantly better than the US's conservative drug policy he suddenly says "I don't even care about what happpens over there". That's illogical.
Calling another country a cesspool of corruption and an Anarchy when that particular country is doing significantly better than your own on that given subject is hypocrisy, a concept you of all people should be well aware of.
Fox News attacked no one. O'Reilly is a talk show host, not Fox News.
I initially read the thread title as "Fox News attacks the Neanderthals...." and thought, it is always a bad idea to negatively portray your customers.
Lol... good one. And, after talking with many Conservatives IRL, I tend to agree.
I get the same feeling when I talk to Liberals.
whoa, so having leanings in a political direction means that you can not run a rational argument?
To me what was said simply showed that not only is FOX news not a NEWS service they are comfortable lying and support an erosion of science, fact and education.
In this case the defense for saying Hollands socially liberal policies are causing the country to turn into a cesspool of drugs and violence for which the evidence shows that America is worse. Was to say that a relative amount (a percentage) can not be compared for two populations, one which is larger than another.
When someone on a news service says that a relative amount (a percentage) can not be compared for two populations, one which is larger than another you have someone who does not care that they are lying. They simply target the poorly educated and the ignorant.
Now i don't care if this person is a liberal, communist, fascist, anarchist, Christian, high school teacher, parent or associated with any group at all, it is simply pandering to an ignorant audience and has no illusions about supporting an agenda with critical thought.
and yet...
every liberal loves to compare the us to netherlands as an example of how it "should be" in the US...this is why he did a segment on that topic.
Do you see why we have a problem with this entire argument?
several on here that jumped on fox either don't watch o'shannity or don't watch fox....that particular show is all about pointing out illogical liberal thinking. and he does it with a very insulting flare (I wonder if that is why his show is so popular?)
libs want the right to use a small nation as an example of how the "us has failed," but they don't want to hear ANYTHING contrary when people try and show that you just can't "do it that way...like they do in X country" for example.
You mean like how conservatives points at other nations and use that as an argument against healthcare? I suppose its okay to use other countries as an example when conservatives think it's in their favor, right?
"About pointing out illogical liberal thinking?" Is this a bad joke? Fox News attacks a country and yet when presented with the facts that the Netherlands liberal drug policy is doing significantly better than the US's conservative drug policy he suddenly says "I don't even care about what happpens over there". That's illogical.
Calling another country a cesspool of corruption and an Anarchy when that particular country is doing significantly better than your own on that given subject is hypocrisy, a concept you of all people should be well aware of.
Fox News attacked no one. O'Reilly is a talk show host, not Fox News.
But O'Reilly is part of Fox News, hence the little "Fox News" cube at the bottom left of the screen.
Also slightly off - topic, what happened to all of your stars? I lost one and a half for no reason i'm aware of, but you lost all of them.
Fox News attacked no one. O'Reilly is a talk show host, not Fox News.
Is O'Reilly's show live? Otherwise FOX News is in complete control of all content from his talk show.
To answer, his show is considered "live to tape" which means they tape it just prior to going on air, and if something comes up they'll go live with it.
This is similar to how a reporter in a news room creates his "package" for the newscast that is going on air in ten minutes.
some reporters use a "liveshot" to begin their story, and then cut to the package "tape" and come back to liveshot others do the entire package on tape and just hand it over to the producers.
it's funny when a reporter can't get their package completed BEFORE the newscast begins, because all kinds of panic ensues behind the scenes....
It reminds me of the famed "F$%K IT! we'll do it live!" tyrade from Bill back in the day....I can't tell you how many times a news talent lost their cool back when i worked at a tv station seconds before their face popped on the screen and they suddenly have a big smile acting like life is grand to the outside world.....the news director at the station I worked at one time made the director WALK OUT of the building in the middle of a newscast once she was such a Bitch....talk about fireworks hahahaha...one time she threw a pen at the prompter operator...on air talents are very egominded because the ten to 15 ppl that make the show work on air is all about making THEM look good....one person in that chain blows it and they are the ones looking blankly at the camera like they don't have a clue.
It seems that Fox News isn't terribly excited about the Netherlands. It should come as no surprise that a news channel with a conservative target audience has attacked one of the most liberal countries multiple times. They have accused of the Netherlands having no moral standards, being immoral and suggested its tolerance will lead it to Anarchy and its downfal, even though the Netherlands is, according to the 2008 index, the 4th most democratic country in the world.
One could easily argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing.
It's also fairly interesting that you consider the Netherlands to be one of the most liberal countries, when it actually is not. The country has been undergoing a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years. If you want a shining example of liberalism, then any Scandinavian country will probably do.
It seems that Fox News isn't terribly excited about the Netherlands. It should come as no surprise that a news channel with a conservative target audience has attacked one of the most liberal countries multiple times. They have accused of the Netherlands having no moral standards, being immoral and suggested its tolerance will lead it to Anarchy and its downfal, even though the Netherlands is, according to the 2008 index, the 4th most democratic country in the world.
One could easily argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing.
It's also fairly interesting that you consider the Netherlands to be one of the most liberal countries, when it actually is not. The country has been undergoing a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years. If you want a shining example of liberalism, then any Scandinavian country will probably do.
It hasn't been going a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years, i'm not really sure where you got that view from. Scandinavia is 3 countries. even if all of those would be more liberal than the Netherlands, it would still be one of the most liberal countries in the world.
Why would it be easily to argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing? The most democratic countries are also the one who are on top of the Human Development Index.
In fact, 7 out of 10 of the top 10 countries on the Human Development Index are also in the top 10 of Most democratic countries.
The ones that aren't in the top 10 most democratic countries are Canada, the 11th most democratic country, Ireland which is the 12th most democratic country and Japan, which is the only country that doesn't score as high on the Democracy index.
Calling another country a cesspool of corruption and an Anarchy when that particular country is doing significantly better than your own on that given subject is hypocrisy, a concept you of all people should be well aware of.
You mean Netherlands I assume, which has a per capita tulip score higher than any other country.
I initially read the thread title as "Fox News attacks the Neanderthals...." and thought, it is always a bad idea to negatively portray your customers.
Lol... good one. And, after talking with many Conservatives IRL, I tend to agree.
I get the same feeling when I talk to Liberals.
whoa, so having leanings in a political direction means that you can not run a rational argument?
To me what was said simply showed that not only is FOX news not a NEWS service they are comfortable lying and support an erosion of science, fact and education.
In this case the defense for saying Hollands socially liberal policies are causing the country to turn into a cesspool of drugs and violence for which the evidence shows that America is worse. Was to say that a relative amount (a percentage) can not be compared for two populations, one which is larger than another.
When someone on a news service says that a relative amount (a percentage) can not be compared for two populations, one which is larger than another you have someone who does not care that they are lying. They simply target the poorly educated and the ignorant.
Now i don't care if this person is a liberal, communist, fascist, anarchist, Christian, high school teacher, parent or associated with any group at all, it is simply pandering to an ignorant audience and has no illusions about supporting an agenda with critical thought.
and yet...
every liberal loves to compare the us to netherlands as an example of how it "should be" in the US...this is why he did a segment on that topic.
Do you see why we have a problem with this entire argument?
several on here that jumped on fox either don't watch o'shannity or don't watch fox....that particular show is all about pointing out illogical liberal thinking. and he does it with a very insulting flare (I wonder if that is why his show is so popular?)
libs want the right to use a small nation as an example of how the "us has failed," but they don't want to hear ANYTHING contrary when people try and show that you just can't "do it that way...like they do in X country" for example.
You mean like how conservatives points at other nations and use that as an argument against healthcare? I suppose its okay to use other countries as an example when conservatives think it's in their favor, right?
"About pointing out illogical liberal thinking?" Is this a bad joke? Fox News attacks a country and yet when presented with the facts that the Netherlands liberal drug policy is doing significantly better than the US's conservative drug policy he suddenly says "I don't even care about what happpens over there". That's illogical.
Calling another country a cesspool of corruption and an Anarchy when that particular country is doing significantly better than your own on that given subject is hypocrisy, a concept you of all people should be well aware of.
Fox News attacked no one. O'Reilly is a talk show host, not Fox News.
But O'Reilly is part of Fox News, hence the little "Fox News" cube at the bottom left of the screen.
Also slightly off - topic, what happened to all of your stars? I lost one and a half for no reason i'm aware of, but you lost all of them.
yeah, I have no freaking idea lol. I guess one of my interchanges with someone got deleted wholesale, and I lost a star for every post or two.
I understand what your'r saying Fox News, but O'Reilly's idoocy is pretty much his own, just as hannity's cheerleading is his own as well. On Fox, the commentators are whatever they want to be -- Fox has no more central 'agenda" than MSNBC does -- matthews is matthews, Olbermann is all Olbermann.
Oh, the slant on the network is there, I agree, and they mostly hire people on their own slant -- with each station grabbing a few from the other side or sides -- but the talk show business is separate from the news business. Even on an individual show, a good newsman always knows how to put his commentator hat on.
Britt Hume was a guy like that. Anchored the Washington desk straight, and then occasionally appeared as a pundit.
He did the same years ago when he covered the White house for ABC under Bush I. on Sundays he'd be seen on This week with David Brinkley.
Anyway these are people and each has their own ways of doing things, and if O'Reilly attacks you O'Reilly attacks you. he is being his own idiot there being paid to make RATINGS, and MONEY, not push some "Fox Agenda."
Now seeing something like that on O'Reilly who cares? the man is ridiculous. If Megyn kelly or Shepherd Smith, AS NEWS, that'd be Fox News attacking you.
I understand why you say "Fox News" but it seems to me you are attacking a network, a certain business arrangement, as if it is something it is not. Go after the dope who said the stupid things, not the news network. Isn't it better to respond to the PERSON who wronged you rather than make it look like you are USING this attack to smear an ORGANIZATION?
Just a few thoughts in the name of the truth, accuracy, and being fair and balanced.
It seems that Fox News isn't terribly excited about the Netherlands. It should come as no surprise that a news channel with a conservative target audience has attacked one of the most liberal countries multiple times. They have accused of the Netherlands having no moral standards, being immoral and suggested its tolerance will lead it to Anarchy and its downfal, even though the Netherlands is, according to the 2008 index, the 4th most democratic country in the world.
One could easily argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing.
It's also fairly interesting that you consider the Netherlands to be one of the most liberal countries, when it actually is not. The country has been undergoing a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years. If you want a shining example of liberalism, then any Scandinavian country will probably do.
It hasn't been going a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years, i'm not really sure where you got that view from. Scandinavia is 3 countries. even if all of those would be more liberal than the Netherlands, it would still be one of the most liberal countries in the world.
Why would it be easily to argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing? The most democratic countries are also the one who are on top of the Human Development Index.
In fact, 7 out of 10 of the top 10 countries on the Human Development Index are also in the top 10 of Most democratic countries.
The ones that aren't in the top 10 most democratic countries are Canada, the 11th most democratic country, Ireland which is the 12th most democratic country and Japan, which is the only country that doesn't score as high on the Democracy index.
Well, I'm pretty sure the CDA and PVV make up a very large portion of the lower and upper houses of the Dutch legislature. The CDA alone is the most influential party in the Netherlands - it holds the most seats and is considered to be a center-right political party. The PVV is considerably smaller but is much more right-leaning. The CDA came back in full force in Dutch politics after 2002 with the PVV and LPF to form a coalition. Seems like a pretty big shift when compared to their election results back in 1994. So I'm not really sure why you want to instigate a misleading fact, the Netherlands is not nearly as liberal as you may think.
And as far as democracy goes, do not replace democracy with political stability. The HDI would be more affected by political stability, and not the fact that the country is a democracy. China is a great example of this. Its HDI has been improving greatly over the past few decades, and would you consider that country to be a complete democracy? I didn't think so. South American countries also have pretty high HDIs, and many of those countries are not ostensibly democratic. In contrast, there are many African countries with democratic systems put into place that completely fail at the HDI - they may possess a democratic government, but the stability is just not there.
It seems that Fox News isn't terribly excited about the Netherlands. It should come as no surprise that a news channel with a conservative target audience has attacked one of the most liberal countries multiple times. They have accused of the Netherlands having no moral standards, being immoral and suggested its tolerance will lead it to Anarchy and its downfal, even though the Netherlands is, according to the 2008 index, the 4th most democratic country in the world.
One could easily argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing.
It's also fairly interesting that you consider the Netherlands to be one of the most liberal countries, when it actually is not. The country has been undergoing a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years. If you want a shining example of liberalism, then any Scandinavian country will probably do.
It hasn't been going a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years, i'm not really sure where you got that view from. Scandinavia is 3 countries. even if all of those would be more liberal than the Netherlands, it would still be one of the most liberal countries in the world.
Why would it be easily to argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing? The most democratic countries are also the one who are on top of the Human Development Index.
In fact, 7 out of 10 of the top 10 countries on the Human Development Index are also in the top 10 of Most democratic countries.
The ones that aren't in the top 10 most democratic countries are Canada, the 11th most democratic country, Ireland which is the 12th most democratic country and Japan, which is the only country that doesn't score as high on the Democracy index.
Well, I'm pretty sure the CDA and PVV make up a very large portion of the lower and upper houses of the Dutch legislature. The CDA alone is the most influential party in the Netherlands - it holds the most seats and is considered to be a center-right political party. The PVV is considerably smaller but is much more right-leaning. The CDA came back in full force in Dutch politics after 2002 with the PVV and LPF to form a coalition. Seems like a pretty big shift when compared to their election results back in 1994. So I'm not really sure why you want to instigate a misleading fact, the Netherlands is not nearly as liberal as you may think.
And as far as democracy goes, do not replace democracy with political stability. The HDI would be more affected by political stability, and not the fact that the country is a democracy. China is a great example of this. Its HDI has been improving greatly over the past few decades, and would you consider that country to be a complete democracy? I didn't think so. South American countries also have pretty high HDIs, and many of those countries are not ostensibly democratic. In contrast, there are many African countries with democratic systems put into place that completely fail at the HDI - they may possess a democratic government, but the stability is just not there.
Try to be a little more openminded about this.
How do you know all this stuff? The PVV, actually, doesn't make up a very large portion of the lower and upper houses as of yet, but you're dead on when you say there is a lot of support for the party from both those with lower education and those with advanced degrees at prestigious universities, and anything in between. That said, the PvdA and other social-democratic parties are still very large as well. That said, so is the VVD, the classical liberal ('real' liberal, in the true sense of the word, so right-winged) party - pretty significant. However, while the CDA is indeed the largest party overall, even in the current polls, don't forget that for what is called a center-right Christian party here, they're still rather liberal by US standards, and even very moderate and restrained about issues you'd normally expect Christian parties to make a big deal off.
But the real question remains - how are you so knowledgable about the Dutch political parties? A political science student or graduate, perhaps? Or friends and/or family over here?
It seems that Fox News isn't terribly excited about the Netherlands. It should come as no surprise that a news channel with a conservative target audience has attacked one of the most liberal countries multiple times. They have accused of the Netherlands having no moral standards, being immoral and suggested its tolerance will lead it to Anarchy and its downfal, even though the Netherlands is, according to the 2008 index, the 4th most democratic country in the world.
One could easily argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing.
It's also fairly interesting that you consider the Netherlands to be one of the most liberal countries, when it actually is not. The country has been undergoing a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years. If you want a shining example of liberalism, then any Scandinavian country will probably do.
It hasn't been going a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years, i'm not really sure where you got that view from. Scandinavia is 3 countries. even if all of those would be more liberal than the Netherlands, it would still be one of the most liberal countries in the world.
Why would it be easily to argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing? The most democratic countries are also the one who are on top of the Human Development Index.
In fact, 7 out of 10 of the top 10 countries on the Human Development Index are also in the top 10 of Most democratic countries.
The ones that aren't in the top 10 most democratic countries are Canada, the 11th most democratic country, Ireland which is the 12th most democratic country and Japan, which is the only country that doesn't score as high on the Democracy index.
Well, I'm pretty sure the CDA and PVV make up a very large portion of the lower and upper houses of the Dutch legislature. The CDA alone is the most influential party in the Netherlands - it holds the most seats and is considered to be a center-right political party. The PVV is considerably smaller but is much more right-leaning. The CDA came back in full force in Dutch politics after 2002 with the PVV and LPF to form a coalition. Seems like a pretty big shift when compared to their election results back in 1994. So I'm not really sure why you want to instigate a misleading fact, the Netherlands is not nearly as liberal as you may think.
And as far as democracy goes, do not replace democracy with political stability. The HDI would be more affected by political stability, and not the fact that the country is a democracy. China is a great example of this. Its HDI has been improving greatly over the past few decades, and would you consider that country to be a complete democracy? I didn't think so. South American countries also have pretty high HDIs, and many of those countries are not ostensibly democratic. In contrast, there are many African countries with democratic systems put into place that completely fail at the HDI - they may possess a democratic government, but the stability is just not there.
Try to be a little more openminded about this.
CDA certainly does make up a very large portion, the PVV however does not. It currently has 9 seats in the 2nd chamber if i'm not mistaken and no seats in the first chamber.
If I recall correctly, the CDA formed a coalition with LPF and VVD in 2002. The PVV didnt exist untill 2006.
It fell and in 2003 they formed a new coalition with the VVD and D66
I think you're confusing the actual results of elections with the current polls. The PVV comes out strong in the polls, but if the last years taught us anything it shows that doesn't mean much.
The LPF was really big holding over 20 seats. That party is now dead.
Rita Verdonk's party also held a large amount of seats according to the polls. I believe she now only holds 1 and is pretty much finished.
It remains to be seen if the PVV is really going to last and stand the test of time.
Also, you seem to think right wing = conservative and left wing = liberal.
Just because a party is considered right wing here doesn't mean they aren't liberal. the VVD, for instance can be considered right but is also a liberal party.
About democracy, I notice that you were unable to mention why being the most democratic nation is a bad thing. Not very surprsing as the most democratic countries are also some of the best countries to live in according to the HDI.
While democracy ofcourse isn't the only reason a country does not well nor is it a guarentee a country will do well, I doubt it's a coincidence the best countries on the HDI are also the most democratic countries.
It seems that Fox News isn't terribly excited about the Netherlands. It should come as no surprise that a news channel with a conservative target audience has attacked one of the most liberal countries multiple times. They have accused of the Netherlands having no moral standards, being immoral and suggested its tolerance will lead it to Anarchy and its downfal, even though the Netherlands is, according to the 2008 index, the 4th most democratic country in the world.
One could easily argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing.
It's also fairly interesting that you consider the Netherlands to be one of the most liberal countries, when it actually is not. The country has been undergoing a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years. If you want a shining example of liberalism, then any Scandinavian country will probably do.
It hasn't been going a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years, i'm not really sure where you got that view from. Scandinavia is 3 countries. even if all of those would be more liberal than the Netherlands, it would still be one of the most liberal countries in the world.
Why would it be easily to argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing? The most democratic countries are also the one who are on top of the Human Development Index.
In fact, 7 out of 10 of the top 10 countries on the Human Development Index are also in the top 10 of Most democratic countries.
The ones that aren't in the top 10 most democratic countries are Canada, the 11th most democratic country, Ireland which is the 12th most democratic country and Japan, which is the only country that doesn't score as high on the Democracy index.
Well, I'm pretty sure the CDA and PVV make up a very large portion of the lower and upper houses of the Dutch legislature. The CDA alone is the most influential party in the Netherlands - it holds the most seats and is considered to be a center-right political party. The PVV is considerably smaller but is much more right-leaning. The CDA came back in full force in Dutch politics after 2002 with the PVV and LPF to form a coalition. Seems like a pretty big shift when compared to their election results back in 1994. So I'm not really sure why you want to instigate a misleading fact, the Netherlands is not nearly as liberal as you may think.
And as far as democracy goes, do not replace democracy with political stability. The HDI would be more affected by political stability, and not the fact that the country is a democracy. China is a great example of this. Its HDI has been improving greatly over the past few decades, and would you consider that country to be a complete democracy? I didn't think so. South American countries also have pretty high HDIs, and many of those countries are not ostensibly democratic. In contrast, there are many African countries with democratic systems put into place that completely fail at the HDI - they may possess a democratic government, but the stability is just not there.
Try to be a little more openminded about this.
How do you know all this stuff? The PVV, actually, doesn't make up a very large portion of the lower and upper houses as of yet, but you're dead on when you say there is a lot of support for the party from both those with lower education and those with advanced degrees at prestigious universities, and anything in between. That said, the PvdA and other social-democratic parties are still very large as well. That said, so is the VVD, the classical liberal ('real' liberal, in the true sense of the word, so right-winged) party - pretty significant. However, while the CDA is indeed the largest party overall, even in the current polls, don't forget that for what is called a center-right Christian party here, they're still rather liberal by US standards, and even very moderate and restrained about issues you'd normally expect Christian parties to make a big deal off.
But the real question remains - how are you so knowledgable about the Dutch political parties? A political science student or graduate, perhaps? Or friends and/or family over here?
Actually, only 2 percent of the PVV voters have a university degree. The 'HBO' group (comparable to college) in the US is bigger, but still quite a bit below the national average. So by and large, PVV voters have a lower education then other parties.
Some thing people are also missing is that D66 has made big gains as well with an estimated 10% votes in current polls (up from 2% at the last elections). D66 is, with green left, the most social liberal party in the netherlands though financially they're more in the center.
It seems that Fox News isn't terribly excited about the Netherlands. It should come as no surprise that a news channel with a conservative target audience has attacked one of the most liberal countries multiple times. They have accused of the Netherlands having no moral standards, being immoral and suggested its tolerance will lead it to Anarchy and its downfal, even though the Netherlands is, according to the 2008 index, the 4th most democratic country in the world.
One could easily argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing.
It's also fairly interesting that you consider the Netherlands to be one of the most liberal countries, when it actually is not. The country has been undergoing a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years. If you want a shining example of liberalism, then any Scandinavian country will probably do.
It hasn't been going a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years, i'm not really sure where you got that view from. Scandinavia is 3 countries. even if all of those would be more liberal than the Netherlands, it would still be one of the most liberal countries in the world.
Why would it be easily to argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing? The most democratic countries are also the one who are on top of the Human Development Index.
In fact, 7 out of 10 of the top 10 countries on the Human Development Index are also in the top 10 of Most democratic countries.
The ones that aren't in the top 10 most democratic countries are Canada, the 11th most democratic country, Ireland which is the 12th most democratic country and Japan, which is the only country that doesn't score as high on the Democracy index.
Well, I'm pretty sure the CDA and PVV make up a very large portion of the lower and upper houses of the Dutch legislature. The CDA alone is the most influential party in the Netherlands - it holds the most seats and is considered to be a center-right political party. The PVV is considerably smaller but is much more right-leaning. The CDA came back in full force in Dutch politics after 2002 with the PVV and LPF to form a coalition. Seems like a pretty big shift when compared to their election results back in 1994. So I'm not really sure why you want to instigate a misleading fact, the Netherlands is not nearly as liberal as you may think.
And as far as democracy goes, do not replace democracy with political stability. The HDI would be more affected by political stability, and not the fact that the country is a democracy. China is a great example of this. Its HDI has been improving greatly over the past few decades, and would you consider that country to be a complete democracy? I didn't think so. South American countries also have pretty high HDIs, and many of those countries are not ostensibly democratic. In contrast, there are many African countries with democratic systems put into place that completely fail at the HDI - they may possess a democratic government, but the stability is just not there.
Try to be a little more openminded about this.
How do you know all this stuff? The PVV, actually, doesn't make up a very large portion of the lower and upper houses as of yet, but you're dead on when you say there is a lot of support for the party from both those with lower education and those with advanced degrees at prestigious universities, and anything in between. That said, the PvdA and other social-democratic parties are still very large as well. That said, so is the VVD, the classical liberal ('real' liberal, in the true sense of the word, so right-winged) party - pretty significant. However, while the CDA is indeed the largest party overall, even in the current polls, don't forget that for what is called a center-right Christian party here, they're still rather liberal by US standards, and even very moderate and restrained about issues you'd normally expect Christian parties to make a big deal off.
But the real question remains - how are you so knowledgable about the Dutch political parties? A political science student or graduate, perhaps? Or friends and/or family over here?
Actually, only 2 percent of the PVV voters have a university degree. The 'HBO' group (comparable to college) in the US is bigger, but still quite a bit below the national average. So by and large, PVV voters have a lower education then other parties.
Some thing people are also missing is that D66 has made big gains as well with an estimated 10% votes in current polls (up from 2% at the last elections). D66 is, with green left, the most social liberal party in the netherlands though financially they're more in the center.
While one could argue that 'stats do not lie', these are slightly outdated, and even in may this year news came out that more and more higher educated people are voting for him. Given the largest issue (critics could say only one) the party is most outspoken about, it is no wonder that higher educated people, who have less contact with Morrocan youth, are less inclined to vote for PVV and attribute whatever problems people have with that particular subgroup as 'irrational xenophobia of the plebian mass', to put it bluntly.
That said, the poll is outdated, and even in May and July there were reports stating that the amount of higher educated people voting for the PVV is increasing steadily. Personally, I've spoken PhD students, doctors and professors at the university of Leiden and the university of Amsterdam (especially the former, the UvA is a traditionally a left university) who were at least very aware of the problem. Most however, indeed, take the safer ground and vote for VVD.
Comments
I get the same feeling when I talk to Liberals.
whoa, so having leanings in a political direction means that you can not run a rational argument?
To me what was said simply showed that not only is FOX news not a NEWS service they are comfortable lying and support an erosion of science, fact and education.
In this case the defense for saying Hollands socially liberal policies are causing the country to turn into a cesspool of drugs and violence for which the evidence shows that America is worse. Was to say that a relative amount (a percentage) can not be compared for two populations, one which is larger than another.
When someone on a news service says that a relative amount (a percentage) can not be compared for two populations, one which is larger than another you have someone who does not care that they are lying. They simply target the poorly educated and the ignorant.
Now i don't care if this person is a liberal, communist, fascist, anarchist, Christian, high school teacher, parent or associated with any group at all, it is simply pandering to an ignorant audience and has no illusions about supporting an agenda with critical thought.
and yet...
every liberal loves to compare the us to netherlands as an example of how it "should be" in the US...this is why he did a segment on that topic.
Do you see why we have a problem with this entire argument?
several on here that jumped on fox either don't watch o'shannity or don't watch fox....that particular show is all about pointing out illogical liberal thinking. and he does it with a very insulting flare (I wonder if that is why his show is so popular?)
libs want the right to use a small nation as an example of how the "us has failed," but they don't want to hear ANYTHING contrary when people try and show that you just can't "do it that way...like they do in X country" for example.
You mean like how conservatives points at other nations and use that as an argument against healthcare? I suppose its okay to use other countries as an example when conservatives think it's in their favor, right?
"About pointing out illogical liberal thinking?" Is this a bad joke? Fox News attacks a country and yet when presented with the facts that the Netherlands liberal drug policy is doing significantly better than the US's conservative drug policy he suddenly says "I don't even care about what happpens over there". That's illogical.
Calling another country a cesspool of corruption and an Anarchy when that particular country is doing significantly better than your own on that given subject is hypocrisy, a concept you of all people should be well aware of.
Fox News attacked no one. O'Reilly is a talk show host, not Fox News.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I get the same feeling when I talk to Liberals.
whoa, so having leanings in a political direction means that you can not run a rational argument?
To me what was said simply showed that not only is FOX news not a NEWS service they are comfortable lying and support an erosion of science, fact and education.
In this case the defense for saying Hollands socially liberal policies are causing the country to turn into a cesspool of drugs and violence for which the evidence shows that America is worse. Was to say that a relative amount (a percentage) can not be compared for two populations, one which is larger than another.
When someone on a news service says that a relative amount (a percentage) can not be compared for two populations, one which is larger than another you have someone who does not care that they are lying. They simply target the poorly educated and the ignorant.
Now i don't care if this person is a liberal, communist, fascist, anarchist, Christian, high school teacher, parent or associated with any group at all, it is simply pandering to an ignorant audience and has no illusions about supporting an agenda with critical thought.
and yet...
every liberal loves to compare the us to netherlands as an example of how it "should be" in the US...this is why he did a segment on that topic.
Do you see why we have a problem with this entire argument?
several on here that jumped on fox either don't watch o'shannity or don't watch fox....that particular show is all about pointing out illogical liberal thinking. and he does it with a very insulting flare (I wonder if that is why his show is so popular?)
libs want the right to use a small nation as an example of how the "us has failed," but they don't want to hear ANYTHING contrary when people try and show that you just can't "do it that way...like they do in X country" for example.
You mean like how conservatives points at other nations and use that as an argument against healthcare? I suppose its okay to use other countries as an example when conservatives think it's in their favor, right?
"About pointing out illogical liberal thinking?" Is this a bad joke? Fox News attacks a country and yet when presented with the facts that the Netherlands liberal drug policy is doing significantly better than the US's conservative drug policy he suddenly says "I don't even care about what happpens over there". That's illogical.
Calling another country a cesspool of corruption and an Anarchy when that particular country is doing significantly better than your own on that given subject is hypocrisy, a concept you of all people should be well aware of.
Fox News attacked no one. O'Reilly is a talk show host, not Fox News.
But O'Reilly is part of Fox News, hence the little "Fox News" cube at the bottom left of the screen.
Also slightly off - topic, what happened to all of your stars? I lost one and a half for no reason i'm aware of, but you lost all of them.
Is O'Reilly's show live? Otherwise FOX News is in complete control of all content from his talk show.
Is O'Reilly's show live? Otherwise FOX News is in complete control of all content from his talk show.
To answer, his show is considered "live to tape" which means they tape it just prior to going on air, and if something comes up they'll go live with it.
This is similar to how a reporter in a news room creates his "package" for the newscast that is going on air in ten minutes.
some reporters use a "liveshot" to begin their story, and then cut to the package "tape" and come back to liveshot others do the entire package on tape and just hand it over to the producers.
it's funny when a reporter can't get their package completed BEFORE the newscast begins, because all kinds of panic ensues behind the scenes....
It reminds me of the famed "F$%K IT! we'll do it live!" tyrade from Bill back in the day....I can't tell you how many times a news talent lost their cool back when i worked at a tv station seconds before their face popped on the screen and they suddenly have a big smile acting like life is grand to the outside world.....the news director at the station I worked at one time made the director WALK OUT of the building in the middle of a newscast once she was such a Bitch....talk about fireworks hahahaha...one time she threw a pen at the prompter operator...on air talents are very egominded because the ten to 15 ppl that make the show work on air is all about making THEM look good....one person in that chain blows it and they are the ones looking blankly at the camera like they don't have a clue.
One could easily argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing.
It's also fairly interesting that you consider the Netherlands to be one of the most liberal countries, when it actually is not. The country has been undergoing a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years. If you want a shining example of liberalism, then any Scandinavian country will probably do.
One could easily argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing.
It's also fairly interesting that you consider the Netherlands to be one of the most liberal countries, when it actually is not. The country has been undergoing a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years. If you want a shining example of liberalism, then any Scandinavian country will probably do.
It hasn't been going a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years, i'm not really sure where you got that view from. Scandinavia is 3 countries. even if all of those would be more liberal than the Netherlands, it would still be one of the most liberal countries in the world.
Why would it be easily to argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing? The most democratic countries are also the one who are on top of the Human Development Index.
In fact, 7 out of 10 of the top 10 countries on the Human Development Index are also in the top 10 of Most democratic countries.
The ones that aren't in the top 10 most democratic countries are Canada, the 11th most democratic country, Ireland which is the 12th most democratic country and Japan, which is the only country that doesn't score as high on the Democracy index.
You mean Netherlands I assume, which has a per capita tulip score higher than any other country.
I get the same feeling when I talk to Liberals.
whoa, so having leanings in a political direction means that you can not run a rational argument?
To me what was said simply showed that not only is FOX news not a NEWS service they are comfortable lying and support an erosion of science, fact and education.
In this case the defense for saying Hollands socially liberal policies are causing the country to turn into a cesspool of drugs and violence for which the evidence shows that America is worse. Was to say that a relative amount (a percentage) can not be compared for two populations, one which is larger than another.
When someone on a news service says that a relative amount (a percentage) can not be compared for two populations, one which is larger than another you have someone who does not care that they are lying. They simply target the poorly educated and the ignorant.
Now i don't care if this person is a liberal, communist, fascist, anarchist, Christian, high school teacher, parent or associated with any group at all, it is simply pandering to an ignorant audience and has no illusions about supporting an agenda with critical thought.
and yet...
every liberal loves to compare the us to netherlands as an example of how it "should be" in the US...this is why he did a segment on that topic.
Do you see why we have a problem with this entire argument?
several on here that jumped on fox either don't watch o'shannity or don't watch fox....that particular show is all about pointing out illogical liberal thinking. and he does it with a very insulting flare (I wonder if that is why his show is so popular?)
libs want the right to use a small nation as an example of how the "us has failed," but they don't want to hear ANYTHING contrary when people try and show that you just can't "do it that way...like they do in X country" for example.
You mean like how conservatives points at other nations and use that as an argument against healthcare? I suppose its okay to use other countries as an example when conservatives think it's in their favor, right?
"About pointing out illogical liberal thinking?" Is this a bad joke? Fox News attacks a country and yet when presented with the facts that the Netherlands liberal drug policy is doing significantly better than the US's conservative drug policy he suddenly says "I don't even care about what happpens over there". That's illogical.
Calling another country a cesspool of corruption and an Anarchy when that particular country is doing significantly better than your own on that given subject is hypocrisy, a concept you of all people should be well aware of.
Fox News attacked no one. O'Reilly is a talk show host, not Fox News.
But O'Reilly is part of Fox News, hence the little "Fox News" cube at the bottom left of the screen.
Also slightly off - topic, what happened to all of your stars? I lost one and a half for no reason i'm aware of, but you lost all of them.
yeah, I have no freaking idea lol. I guess one of my interchanges with someone got deleted wholesale, and I lost a star for every post or two.
I understand what your'r saying Fox News, but O'Reilly's idoocy is pretty much his own, just as hannity's cheerleading is his own as well. On Fox, the commentators are whatever they want to be -- Fox has no more central 'agenda" than MSNBC does -- matthews is matthews, Olbermann is all Olbermann.
Oh, the slant on the network is there, I agree, and they mostly hire people on their own slant -- with each station grabbing a few from the other side or sides -- but the talk show business is separate from the news business. Even on an individual show, a good newsman always knows how to put his commentator hat on.
Britt Hume was a guy like that. Anchored the Washington desk straight, and then occasionally appeared as a pundit.
He did the same years ago when he covered the White house for ABC under Bush I. on Sundays he'd be seen on This week with David Brinkley.
Anyway these are people and each has their own ways of doing things, and if O'Reilly attacks you O'Reilly attacks you. he is being his own idiot there being paid to make RATINGS, and MONEY, not push some "Fox Agenda."
Now seeing something like that on O'Reilly who cares? the man is ridiculous. If Megyn kelly or Shepherd Smith, AS NEWS, that'd be Fox News attacking you.
I understand why you say "Fox News" but it seems to me you are attacking a network, a certain business arrangement, as if it is something it is not. Go after the dope who said the stupid things, not the news network. Isn't it better to respond to the PERSON who wronged you rather than make it look like you are USING this attack to smear an ORGANIZATION?
Just a few thoughts in the name of the truth, accuracy, and being fair and balanced.
fishermage.blogspot.com
One could easily argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing.
It's also fairly interesting that you consider the Netherlands to be one of the most liberal countries, when it actually is not. The country has been undergoing a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years. If you want a shining example of liberalism, then any Scandinavian country will probably do.
It hasn't been going a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years, i'm not really sure where you got that view from. Scandinavia is 3 countries. even if all of those would be more liberal than the Netherlands, it would still be one of the most liberal countries in the world.
Why would it be easily to argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing? The most democratic countries are also the one who are on top of the Human Development Index.
In fact, 7 out of 10 of the top 10 countries on the Human Development Index are also in the top 10 of Most democratic countries.
The ones that aren't in the top 10 most democratic countries are Canada, the 11th most democratic country, Ireland which is the 12th most democratic country and Japan, which is the only country that doesn't score as high on the Democracy index.
Well, I'm pretty sure the CDA and PVV make up a very large portion of the lower and upper houses of the Dutch legislature. The CDA alone is the most influential party in the Netherlands - it holds the most seats and is considered to be a center-right political party. The PVV is considerably smaller but is much more right-leaning. The CDA came back in full force in Dutch politics after 2002 with the PVV and LPF to form a coalition. Seems like a pretty big shift when compared to their election results back in 1994. So I'm not really sure why you want to instigate a misleading fact, the Netherlands is not nearly as liberal as you may think.
And as far as democracy goes, do not replace democracy with political stability. The HDI would be more affected by political stability, and not the fact that the country is a democracy. China is a great example of this. Its HDI has been improving greatly over the past few decades, and would you consider that country to be a complete democracy? I didn't think so. South American countries also have pretty high HDIs, and many of those countries are not ostensibly democratic. In contrast, there are many African countries with democratic systems put into place that completely fail at the HDI - they may possess a democratic government, but the stability is just not there.
Try to be a little more openminded about this.
One could easily argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing.
It's also fairly interesting that you consider the Netherlands to be one of the most liberal countries, when it actually is not. The country has been undergoing a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years. If you want a shining example of liberalism, then any Scandinavian country will probably do.
It hasn't been going a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years, i'm not really sure where you got that view from. Scandinavia is 3 countries. even if all of those would be more liberal than the Netherlands, it would still be one of the most liberal countries in the world.
Why would it be easily to argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing? The most democratic countries are also the one who are on top of the Human Development Index.
In fact, 7 out of 10 of the top 10 countries on the Human Development Index are also in the top 10 of Most democratic countries.
The ones that aren't in the top 10 most democratic countries are Canada, the 11th most democratic country, Ireland which is the 12th most democratic country and Japan, which is the only country that doesn't score as high on the Democracy index.
Well, I'm pretty sure the CDA and PVV make up a very large portion of the lower and upper houses of the Dutch legislature. The CDA alone is the most influential party in the Netherlands - it holds the most seats and is considered to be a center-right political party. The PVV is considerably smaller but is much more right-leaning. The CDA came back in full force in Dutch politics after 2002 with the PVV and LPF to form a coalition. Seems like a pretty big shift when compared to their election results back in 1994. So I'm not really sure why you want to instigate a misleading fact, the Netherlands is not nearly as liberal as you may think.
And as far as democracy goes, do not replace democracy with political stability. The HDI would be more affected by political stability, and not the fact that the country is a democracy. China is a great example of this. Its HDI has been improving greatly over the past few decades, and would you consider that country to be a complete democracy? I didn't think so. South American countries also have pretty high HDIs, and many of those countries are not ostensibly democratic. In contrast, there are many African countries with democratic systems put into place that completely fail at the HDI - they may possess a democratic government, but the stability is just not there.
Try to be a little more openminded about this.
How do you know all this stuff? The PVV, actually, doesn't make up a very large portion of the lower and upper houses as of yet, but you're dead on when you say there is a lot of support for the party from both those with lower education and those with advanced degrees at prestigious universities, and anything in between. That said, the PvdA and other social-democratic parties are still very large as well. That said, so is the VVD, the classical liberal ('real' liberal, in the true sense of the word, so right-winged) party - pretty significant. However, while the CDA is indeed the largest party overall, even in the current polls, don't forget that for what is called a center-right Christian party here, they're still rather liberal by US standards, and even very moderate and restrained about issues you'd normally expect Christian parties to make a big deal off.
But the real question remains - how are you so knowledgable about the Dutch political parties? A political science student or graduate, perhaps? Or friends and/or family over here?
One could easily argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing.
It's also fairly interesting that you consider the Netherlands to be one of the most liberal countries, when it actually is not. The country has been undergoing a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years. If you want a shining example of liberalism, then any Scandinavian country will probably do.
It hasn't been going a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years, i'm not really sure where you got that view from. Scandinavia is 3 countries. even if all of those would be more liberal than the Netherlands, it would still be one of the most liberal countries in the world.
Why would it be easily to argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing? The most democratic countries are also the one who are on top of the Human Development Index.
In fact, 7 out of 10 of the top 10 countries on the Human Development Index are also in the top 10 of Most democratic countries.
The ones that aren't in the top 10 most democratic countries are Canada, the 11th most democratic country, Ireland which is the 12th most democratic country and Japan, which is the only country that doesn't score as high on the Democracy index.
Well, I'm pretty sure the CDA and PVV make up a very large portion of the lower and upper houses of the Dutch legislature. The CDA alone is the most influential party in the Netherlands - it holds the most seats and is considered to be a center-right political party. The PVV is considerably smaller but is much more right-leaning. The CDA came back in full force in Dutch politics after 2002 with the PVV and LPF to form a coalition. Seems like a pretty big shift when compared to their election results back in 1994. So I'm not really sure why you want to instigate a misleading fact, the Netherlands is not nearly as liberal as you may think.
And as far as democracy goes, do not replace democracy with political stability. The HDI would be more affected by political stability, and not the fact that the country is a democracy. China is a great example of this. Its HDI has been improving greatly over the past few decades, and would you consider that country to be a complete democracy? I didn't think so. South American countries also have pretty high HDIs, and many of those countries are not ostensibly democratic. In contrast, there are many African countries with democratic systems put into place that completely fail at the HDI - they may possess a democratic government, but the stability is just not there.
Try to be a little more openminded about this.
CDA certainly does make up a very large portion, the PVV however does not. It currently has 9 seats in the 2nd chamber if i'm not mistaken and no seats in the first chamber.
If I recall correctly, the CDA formed a coalition with LPF and VVD in 2002. The PVV didnt exist untill 2006.
It fell and in 2003 they formed a new coalition with the VVD and D66
I think you're confusing the actual results of elections with the current polls. The PVV comes out strong in the polls, but if the last years taught us anything it shows that doesn't mean much.
The LPF was really big holding over 20 seats. That party is now dead.
Rita Verdonk's party also held a large amount of seats according to the polls. I believe she now only holds 1 and is pretty much finished.
It remains to be seen if the PVV is really going to last and stand the test of time.
Also, you seem to think right wing = conservative and left wing = liberal.
Just because a party is considered right wing here doesn't mean they aren't liberal. the VVD, for instance can be considered right but is also a liberal party.
About democracy, I notice that you were unable to mention why being the most democratic nation is a bad thing. Not very surprsing as the most democratic countries are also some of the best countries to live in according to the HDI.
While democracy ofcourse isn't the only reason a country does not well nor is it a guarentee a country will do well, I doubt it's a coincidence the best countries on the HDI are also the most democratic countries.
One could easily argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing.
It's also fairly interesting that you consider the Netherlands to be one of the most liberal countries, when it actually is not. The country has been undergoing a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years. If you want a shining example of liberalism, then any Scandinavian country will probably do.
It hasn't been going a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years, i'm not really sure where you got that view from. Scandinavia is 3 countries. even if all of those would be more liberal than the Netherlands, it would still be one of the most liberal countries in the world.
Why would it be easily to argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing? The most democratic countries are also the one who are on top of the Human Development Index.
In fact, 7 out of 10 of the top 10 countries on the Human Development Index are also in the top 10 of Most democratic countries.
The ones that aren't in the top 10 most democratic countries are Canada, the 11th most democratic country, Ireland which is the 12th most democratic country and Japan, which is the only country that doesn't score as high on the Democracy index.
Well, I'm pretty sure the CDA and PVV make up a very large portion of the lower and upper houses of the Dutch legislature. The CDA alone is the most influential party in the Netherlands - it holds the most seats and is considered to be a center-right political party. The PVV is considerably smaller but is much more right-leaning. The CDA came back in full force in Dutch politics after 2002 with the PVV and LPF to form a coalition. Seems like a pretty big shift when compared to their election results back in 1994. So I'm not really sure why you want to instigate a misleading fact, the Netherlands is not nearly as liberal as you may think.
And as far as democracy goes, do not replace democracy with political stability. The HDI would be more affected by political stability, and not the fact that the country is a democracy. China is a great example of this. Its HDI has been improving greatly over the past few decades, and would you consider that country to be a complete democracy? I didn't think so. South American countries also have pretty high HDIs, and many of those countries are not ostensibly democratic. In contrast, there are many African countries with democratic systems put into place that completely fail at the HDI - they may possess a democratic government, but the stability is just not there.
Try to be a little more openminded about this.
How do you know all this stuff? The PVV, actually, doesn't make up a very large portion of the lower and upper houses as of yet, but you're dead on when you say there is a lot of support for the party from both those with lower education and those with advanced degrees at prestigious universities, and anything in between. That said, the PvdA and other social-democratic parties are still very large as well. That said, so is the VVD, the classical liberal ('real' liberal, in the true sense of the word, so right-winged) party - pretty significant. However, while the CDA is indeed the largest party overall, even in the current polls, don't forget that for what is called a center-right Christian party here, they're still rather liberal by US standards, and even very moderate and restrained about issues you'd normally expect Christian parties to make a big deal off.
But the real question remains - how are you so knowledgable about the Dutch political parties? A political science student or graduate, perhaps? Or friends and/or family over here?
Actually, only 2 percent of the PVV voters have a university degree. The 'HBO' group (comparable to college) in the US is bigger, but still quite a bit below the national average. So by and large, PVV voters have a lower education then other parties.
Some thing people are also missing is that D66 has made big gains as well with an estimated 10% votes in current polls (up from 2% at the last elections). D66 is, with green left, the most social liberal party in the netherlands though financially they're more in the center.
One could easily argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing.
It's also fairly interesting that you consider the Netherlands to be one of the most liberal countries, when it actually is not. The country has been undergoing a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years. If you want a shining example of liberalism, then any Scandinavian country will probably do.
It hasn't been going a very conservative shift in its politics over the past years, i'm not really sure where you got that view from. Scandinavia is 3 countries. even if all of those would be more liberal than the Netherlands, it would still be one of the most liberal countries in the world.
Why would it be easily to argue that being the most democratic country in the world is a bad thing? The most democratic countries are also the one who are on top of the Human Development Index.
In fact, 7 out of 10 of the top 10 countries on the Human Development Index are also in the top 10 of Most democratic countries.
The ones that aren't in the top 10 most democratic countries are Canada, the 11th most democratic country, Ireland which is the 12th most democratic country and Japan, which is the only country that doesn't score as high on the Democracy index.
Well, I'm pretty sure the CDA and PVV make up a very large portion of the lower and upper houses of the Dutch legislature. The CDA alone is the most influential party in the Netherlands - it holds the most seats and is considered to be a center-right political party. The PVV is considerably smaller but is much more right-leaning. The CDA came back in full force in Dutch politics after 2002 with the PVV and LPF to form a coalition. Seems like a pretty big shift when compared to their election results back in 1994. So I'm not really sure why you want to instigate a misleading fact, the Netherlands is not nearly as liberal as you may think.
And as far as democracy goes, do not replace democracy with political stability. The HDI would be more affected by political stability, and not the fact that the country is a democracy. China is a great example of this. Its HDI has been improving greatly over the past few decades, and would you consider that country to be a complete democracy? I didn't think so. South American countries also have pretty high HDIs, and many of those countries are not ostensibly democratic. In contrast, there are many African countries with democratic systems put into place that completely fail at the HDI - they may possess a democratic government, but the stability is just not there.
Try to be a little more openminded about this.
How do you know all this stuff? The PVV, actually, doesn't make up a very large portion of the lower and upper houses as of yet, but you're dead on when you say there is a lot of support for the party from both those with lower education and those with advanced degrees at prestigious universities, and anything in between. That said, the PvdA and other social-democratic parties are still very large as well. That said, so is the VVD, the classical liberal ('real' liberal, in the true sense of the word, so right-winged) party - pretty significant. However, while the CDA is indeed the largest party overall, even in the current polls, don't forget that for what is called a center-right Christian party here, they're still rather liberal by US standards, and even very moderate and restrained about issues you'd normally expect Christian parties to make a big deal off.
But the real question remains - how are you so knowledgable about the Dutch political parties? A political science student or graduate, perhaps? Or friends and/or family over here?
Actually, only 2 percent of the PVV voters have a university degree. The 'HBO' group (comparable to college) in the US is bigger, but still quite a bit below the national average. So by and large, PVV voters have a lower education then other parties.
Some thing people are also missing is that D66 has made big gains as well with an estimated 10% votes in current polls (up from 2% at the last elections). D66 is, with green left, the most social liberal party in the netherlands though financially they're more in the center.
While one could argue that 'stats do not lie', these are slightly outdated, and even in may this year news came out that more and more higher educated people are voting for him. Given the largest issue (critics could say only one) the party is most outspoken about, it is no wonder that higher educated people, who have less contact with Morrocan youth, are less inclined to vote for PVV and attribute whatever problems people have with that particular subgroup as 'irrational xenophobia of the plebian mass', to put it bluntly.
That said, the poll is outdated, and even in May and July there were reports stating that the amount of higher educated people voting for the PVV is increasing steadily. Personally, I've spoken PhD students, doctors and professors at the university of Leiden and the university of Amsterdam (especially the former, the UvA is a traditionally a left university) who were at least very aware of the problem. Most however, indeed, take the safer ground and vote for VVD.