REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Liberals aren't racist, no indeed...

POSTED BY: PIRATENEWS
UPDATED: Sunday, February 26, 2017 12:57
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8161
PAGE 3 of 3

Monday, June 7, 2010 5:42 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Oh, and Citizen? Good to see you around here again!

:)

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 7, 2010 6:15 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mike

You have the order backwards, read the thread you're posting on, the accusation was made that the Nazis were right wing, an absurdity that isn't even worth the time to argue. Sad to see you join the ranks of the misinformed, though thanks for the heads up, I see the left has been editing wikipedia again.

Seriously, does anything the nazis ever did seem even in the least bit right wing, or rit as ipad likes to change right to?

Limited govt, individualism, free market, conservation of anything, the environment, cultural values, opposition to social engineering and government takeover.

Oh, I'll accept bush as a Nazi, no real issue, you might remember back when it mattered that absolutely everyone in the right, including auraptor and others who support bush, agreed that bush was not conservative. But of course the brand name republican doesn't make you conservative. hoover was a socialist. Similarly democrat doesn't make you a liberal.

Sure, there are fascists in the republican party, and also the democratic party, we call them neocons and neolibs, both, I will point out, are themselves admitted socialists.

But that wasn't the question, it was at the time, which were they, and what ideals do they represent.

From your own post

Quote:

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[15] They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.[15] In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.[16][17] They advocate the creation of a single-party state.[18] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[19] They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[20]


I'll also remind you this which we all agreed to, found in wikipedia, and several other sources, from a primary source promoting socialism, I forget which now, but it's a good definition, and the one we were using:

Socialism, a system of social engineering promoting the collective over the individual, favoring cooperation rather than competition

How you failed to see that when posting it I don't know. As for the fascism being behind Nazi Germany, it's not a theory, it's well know. Mussolini himself went to Germany to set it up, the Nazis were quite taken with the idea, and promoted it in Spain.

So what you really have is a throw away line from a biased wikipedia editor who might have come from this forum. The last place I saw the assertion was the first, which was huffing ton post circa maybe 2004.

Id be the first to admit that there are pathetic conservatives out there, and even in here, but the Nazis are not one of them. But the reality that the national socialists were socialists through and through seems to have alluded people here. As I said before, objectively, they were even the worst socialist government ever. They managed to kill 15% of their kwn population, Ive seen lots of socialist regimes do worse, as I pointed out, one of them managed to pull it off as we were discussing the merits of socialism on this forum, while bush was busy sucking, The Congo's Kabila was busy sucking more. Oh, and Mugabe, and Mbeki. Ironically, if you look at africa, the party that seems to be doing the most for the people is Al Qaeda. Now they're pretty right wing;)

I'm afraid that liberals just can't let go. No liberal can ever have been bad, and no one bad can ever have been a liberal. More than that, all bad people they have ever hated have to be conservatives, in the face of all reason and evidence

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 7, 2010 6:25 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

I'm afraid that liberals just can't let go. No liberal can ever have been bad, and no one bad can ever have been a liberal. More than that, all bad people they have ever hated have to be conservatives, in the face of all reason and evidence



But what you DON'T see, CAN'T see, it seems, is that you're making exactly the same argument, mirrored. You seem to not be able to let it go - no conservative can ever have been bad, and no one bad can ever have been conservative. And it seems that everyone you've ever hated has to have been socialist, in the face of all reason and evidence.

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 7, 2010 6:28 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I'm sure someone addressed this earlier, but I don't have time to scroll up thru all the dreck to see if there are a few nuggets in there.

"They created abortion"

John, Byte, DT... what are you... brain dead????? Abortion has been around for millenia, ya nitwits.
Quote:

In fact, the earliest recorded reference to abortion is by a Chinese Emperor in 2737 BC However, early Christianity was resolutely opposed to abortion, which was common in ancient Greece and Rome.
And before abortion, there was infanticide.

And, OOC, did anyone actually figure out whether or not it was TRUE that there are more PP offices in black neighborhoods (per capita) than in equally poor white neighborhoods? Did anyone do a comparison on the rate of abortions among blacks, whites, and others? Or. more importantly, the comparative total fertility rates? (HINT: It's about the same for blacks and whites, with blacks being statistically insignificantly higher, and hispanics being far higher). So if the idea of birth control and abortion is all about creating a pure race, it seems to be working backwards.

You guys found the recognized one of the best series on TV! Being Browncoats, I thought you all would be smarter than to swallow whatever swill happens to be chucked in your direction without at least giving it the sniff test first! How disappointing! It would be nice of you actually knew something about a topic before you posted about it. That would be too much to ask, I guess, seeing as paranoid rantings are so much more topic-worthy!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 7, 2010 6:33 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh, and another little reverse gem:
Quote:

So, again, the government has no right, no need, and no cause, in getting involved in social issues. Thats up to the society to judge, determine, and implement.
Hmmm.... a group of people who get together, determine, judge and implement solutions to social problems. Sounds suspiciously like government to me!
hee hee hee

Well, anyway, I can see this thread has been taken over by the lunatic fringe, and since talking with lunatics is waste of time, I'm outta here.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 7, 2010 7:07 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mike

From your own wikipedia entry citation

Quote:

This article may contain improper references to self-published sources.


It turns out that the one source is an opinion from a professor who is considered to be way outside the mainstream on the topic.
Quote:


Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]


I guess there's been a citation was on this.
Quote:

The Nazis sought to distinguish and separate themselves from conservative nationalist competitors such as the German National People's Party (DNVP) by officially denouncing conservatism, and attacking conservative nationalists


Quote:

Nazism promoted an economic “third position”; a managed economy that was neither capitalist nor communist.[19][20]

Someone else recently touted his structure as the third way, Tony Blair.

I believe this is inaccurate
Quote:


The term Nazi derives from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party, NSDAP).[21] Members of the Nazi Party identified themselves as Nationalsozialisten (National Socialists), rarely as Nazis. The German term Nazi parallels the analogous political term Sozi, an abbreviation for a member of the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (Social Democratic Party of Germany).[22][23] In 1933, when Adolf Hitler assumed power of the German government, usage of the term Nazi diminished in Germany, although Austrian anti-Nazis used it as an insult.[23]


While commonly acceptedits not actually true. The word Nazi is yiddish slang, derogatory, and possibly, ironically, derivative of Ashkenazi, as the Ashkenazim were of the lower "ghetto" class, at any rate, it appears in print as a derogatory term meaning asshole or parasite decease before the formation of the NSDAP, and first appears in reference to the national socialists by a Sephardic reporter escaping germany, and letter by another Sephardic writer before being used, IIRC, There are no instances of members of the NSDAP referring to themselves as "Nazis."

I'm only mentioning this because, wikipedia is not infallible.

Nazis being morons:
Quote:

Nazis claimed that Bismarck was unable to complete German national unification due to Jewish infiltration of the German parliament

See, Bismark was *funded* by Jews, so if it weren't for Jews, he wouldn't have had a unification program to interfere *with.*
Quote:

Usually supported by the far right (military, business, Church), fascism is historically anti-communist, anti-conservative and anti-parliamentary.

A sentence edited so many times by the right and left that it not only lacks meaning, but lacks a political slant, or has too many of them.

At this point I'd say that it's impossible to get anything useful out of it. The article is laced with opinion on both sides, and unfortunately is also factually inaccurate alk over the place. And I'm not talking about winning the argument anymore, I'm actually worried more that this piece exposes flaws in data by democracy.


ETA

Your not even reading the thread your postage on. I just gave you several right wingers on a stick

Also, everyone vie ever called a socialist is someone who called ghemseves a socialist, I have never claimed someone was a stealth socialist. Furthermore, I have posted more praise for good socialists on this board than the socialists themselvesthey seem to spend most of their time defending bad ones. Just a couple days ago, however, I sung the praises of George Galloway and Bernie Sanders right here.

I've now officially wasted too much time. Why write stuff that people pretty clearly don't even read?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 7, 2010 7:13 PM

DREAMTROVE


Sig

I thought the statistics posted here were pretty indicative, it's about two to one, the aborting of black babies ore capita.

Also, planned parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, so her stated positions that she wanted to exterminate the black race have to be considered relevent here.

Just like with any other genocide, if there was an intent to commit genocide, and a result, then the whole thing has to be looked at as a genocidal program.

I don't think what was at stake here was the procedure of abortion, but the common practice of abortion.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 7, 2010 7:42 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, as I said, if the whole concept is to reduce the "undesirable" birth rate, the program is not working as the total fertility rates of Asians (in America) is about 1.8, whites is about 2, blacks about 2.1, and hispanics about 2.9. So if this were TRULY an intentional eugenics program... one designed to create a white society... "someone" would have put on the brakes a couple of decades ago as the program is not only NOT meeting its goals, it's actively running in reverse!

The whole argument of "black genocide" has so many holes in it that I would expect Browncoats... who I assume are smarter than the average bear... to find a few of the show-stoppers (or at least ask a few questions about the basic statistics, for god's sake!) instead of just going along with sheer lunacy!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 7, 2010 7:46 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Preserving this for posterity. That was a pretty warped view of the right. My point earlier was that no one in the real world agrees with this position. I suspect the rewriting of history is happening on this board right now.


Extreme right. I think you are missing the word 'extreme'. I don't support the extreme left, but I recognise where it exists on the political continuum.


Quote:

Oh, and Magon, just in case you missed it, there was absolutely nothing right wing in the argument you just put forth.

If the right is racist, then why were the major civil right achievements historically made by the right?

If the right is warlike, why have almost all wars been initiated by the left, and the bloodiest ones overwhelmingly left-on-left?

If the right is so nationalistic, then why is it always left wing governments who nationalize everything?

If the police state is a right wing concept, then how come libertarian individualism is a right concept, almost all police states have been set up by left wing parties and the police seem to always align themselves with the left wing party?



Again, you miss the idea of a continuum and the concept of the word 'extreme'. If you check with one of my earlier posts, I put up a political spectrum grid. I'll post it again, if you like so that you can be clear where things stand.

On the grid, communism and facism are both listed as authoritarian, even though they are on different ends of the right/left ideology.

You'll see the same applies to anarchy and libertarianism.

The political spectrum is more complex that you appear to understand.

The features that I described are of fascism. Any definition you care to check will back that up and most of the world defines fascism as extreme right wing. You appear to find that offensive because you define yourself as on the right, but it would be the same as me being defensive about communism, which I don't support just because I am on the left, well possibly in America I would be defined as left.

Quote:

I think your projecting on to the right a lot of boogeymen rather than looking at us as people who have real beliefs, values, and an idea of the best way to run a government, which I believe is minimalist, not fascist.

No, I am trying to describe things as they are. I am describing the extreme end of the right winged spectrum which can be authoritarian, militaristic, racist et al.

Quote:

I believe we had this conversation a lot ealier, and on this side of the aisle we conceded pinochet as a right wing dictator, but really it's not a common phenomenon at all. I think almost always it's a structure that has the word socialist actually in the name.

I don't understand this sentence.

Quote:

What boggles my mind is that after a couple hundred million deaths were still debating whether or not socialism is a good form of government, it seems to me that if it kills everyone, then no, it's not.

You are confusing socialism, which is a feature of the governing many peaceful countries to the extreme of communism under the likes of Stalin et al. I am perfectly willing to accept that at the extreme of the left there are a whole host of characteritics that I find abhorrent, I'm not sure why you feel the need to be defensive about the extremism of the right, which clearly does not reflect your views which are on the right.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 7, 2010 8:05 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Here's another, simpler way of looking at it.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 7, 2010 9:01 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I believe this is inaccurate
Quote:


The term Nazi derives from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party, NSDAP).[21] Members of the Nazi Party identified themselves as Nationalsozialisten (National Socialists), rarely as Nazis. The German term Nazi parallels the analogous political term Sozi, an abbreviation for a member of the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (Social Democratic Party of Germany).[22][23] In 1933, when Adolf Hitler assumed power of the German government, usage of the term Nazi diminished in Germany, although Austrian anti-Nazis used it as an insult.[23]


While commonly acceptedits not actually true. The word Nazi is yiddish slang, derogatory, and possibly, ironically, derivative of Ashkenazi, as the Ashkenazim were of the lower "ghetto" class, at any rate, it appears in print as a derogatory term meaning asshole or parasite decease before the formation of the NSDAP, and first appears in reference to the national socialists by a Sephardic reporter escaping germany, and letter by another Sephardic writer before being used, IIRC, There are no instances of members of the NSDAP referring to themselves as "Nazis."

I'm only mentioning this because, wikipedia is not infallible.



Where does it appear in print before the formation of the Nazi party? What is your source for this claim?

Because I think the Nazi/Sozi connection is pretty solid and in keeping with the political culture of the time. Plus, non-Jewish Germans used the term widely and I doubt it was because they were all versant in yiddish slang.

I can buy that both words existed independently of each other, but the fact that Germans had a habit of shortening Sozialisten to Sozi and applied the same habit to Nationalsozialisten as Nazis is too obvious to just dismiss.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 7, 2010 10:34 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

That said, sorry for the rant guys. I wanted to clarify a point on Junkers. Junkers were not a political party, they were much more like the tea party, and not hat dissimilar ideologically. 56% of Germans allied themselves with the junkers, and around 40% with the Nazis. When the propaganda campaign first started in the 20s, anti semitism was virtually non-existent, polling around 2%. after successfully blaming the Jews for wwi, the German defeat in wwi, the economic crisis and the international hostility towards Germany, it hit a peak of around 50%. with roughly 80% of those voting Nazi, anyone can crunch the numbers and see that yes, there must have been some anti Semitic Junkers, but also, that it must have been a slim minority.

As for junker businesses supporting the NSDAP, junker businesses were confiscated, so it really doesn't imply anything.




Where are you getting this information??

Junker, as a term, describes a certain demographic: male landowners, mainly Prussian, often with aristocratic background. It has its roots in medieval German, "Junger Herr", young lord.

Politically, this demographic tended toward very conservative monarchism, as they had Extremely Close Ties to the Prussian military and was consequently fond of the Kaiser.

Not all Junker had the same political views but the tendency was there. They were not generally supporters of the Nazis and did not share all of their views but both the Nazi party and the Junker demographic shared a rejection of democracy and Junker generally voted for anti-democratic parties like DNVP.

They were not some tea party movement, that's an insult to the Tea Party and its values.

It may be that a very few landowners had property confiscated, but the vast majority were fine and lost their property after the war when socialism took hold.

As for anti-semitism constituting a slim minority.. I find that unlikely. Anti-semitic thought was wide-spread in Germany and for Junker to be exempt from that.. why? Where do you get that 2% and 80% figure from?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 7, 2010 11:24 PM

FREMDFIRMA



I'm a bit shocked, Magons.

I was biting my tongue, watching Byte get crazy eddied for daring to suggest without actually saying it in so many words that politics is a circle instead of a line - NONE of them want to admit this, cause they all wanna pretend to be all the way on one side and "the other guy" all the way on the other, without seeing as they mutually recoil from some things, they push towards each other on other things, like magnets on a track, and far be it for any of em to admit any concurrence or similarity with the ideologies they're flaming no matter how bloody obvious they are.

And I was sorely, SORELY tempted to post my own homerolled version of that and watch as the flamethrowers come out - I had cobbled it together previously to explain a point to Wulf, so it's a more than a bit oversimplified, but still.



See that little space in the top left there ?
Democrats.
top right ?
Republicans.

Both charging north as hard and fast as they can.

Socialistic Fascisms happen too, Sparta was one, and that moron Plato was shilling for one from the get no matter what he wanted to call it, and all of it based in "better men" and "divine right of kings" and the lameass bullshit that people need to be controlled (and BY those "better men", who happen to be oh-so-generously offering to do it..) "for their own good", uh huh, yeah right.

Fuck em all, no matter what you CALL it, no matter how you spin it, any point on that circle, any point on Magons square, can be dangerous - you can have a benevolent monarchy, an evil democracy, it's not the specific structure itself so much as how it's executed, by force or consent, and even so what is the SOURCE of that force - people.

What would Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, and all the rest of them really have without a bunch of damn fools eagerly slobbering all over their boots just begging for a pat on the head and orders to go do violence unto people who were not them ?

Nothin, not a goddamn thing, just a loud mouth and a bad attitude.

They're sick, twisted, sure - but no matter how much a monster they are, they're just one person, just one voice, one set of hands... till the jackboot lickers coalesce around them and the blood starts spilling, so to me, those who would take orders from such a creature, knowingly, intentionally, and with reasonable full knowledge of the purposes implied and admitted... they're the real monsters.

In fact, they fall below my minimum definition of "human" and as such my beliefs have certain encouragements at that point which I find myself in a moral struggle with all too damned often these days.

If you could have prevented the holocaust, not by whacking old adolph, but by killing 20,000 jackboot lickers, WOULD YOU DO IT ?

I don't mean the ignorant, deluded or unaware, I am talking about the gleeful participants who knew damn well what the agenda was and supported it fully, rah-rah-sis-boom-bah... would you, could you, kill them before it came to fruition, if you KNEW that checking your hand in mercy would condemn ten times that many, at least ?

I couldn't - and you know what, I feel ASHAMED of that, ever more so every time I see some brownshirt in todays america longing for it with all his little heart, begging and praying for a chance of official sanction to murder (insert enemy of the week) and be lauded for giving in to evil, instead of punished for it.

And I look down and my already stained hands and I feel shame for my mercy, because I know what bitter harvest sowing it will reap.

Rah rah rah, sis boom bah... tick, tick, tick.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 2:12 AM

DREAMTROVE


Frem,

I really agree, I was trying to deflect the accusation that Nazis were a right wing party. This underscores a common left wing assertion that the right would create Nazi Germany if put in power. I suspect any of or NWO political groups would create Nazi Germany if given enough power, and they wouldn't care what kind of ideology they had to espouse to get such power.

I posted the politics is a circle many times over the years, the strangest part of that circle to me is not that authoritarianism is a form of center, or that democrats and republicans are really the same thing, it's that if you go all the way right, say Ron Paul, to all the way kept, say Ralph Nader, you basically end up with the same position.


Magons,

Regardless of how the Nazis were elected and who supported and opposed them, I agree with Frem that they were centrist. This is why I keep saying just disown them, don't try to push them on us. Sure, authoritarian lunatics get elected on both sides, look at Bush and Blair. Power doesn't have a side, other than itself.

Also, your right about Junkers, I was just being lazy, I meant the junker following. But yes, technically Junkers are the funders of the what we call the junker movement, and they were formerly monarchists. They were also conservatives. My fathers family were Junkers, they were pretty rich. They were also powerful people within the german political right wing, they favored austrian economics like Ron Paul, and a more laissez faire govt, non interventionist, and they opposed the war. They were slaughtered, but not all of them were killed for being jewish, some of them were just killed for being Junkers, their land confiscated, and their money used for the Nazi war machine, so the rest of them could be tortured to death in Treblinka.

Now you see why I object to the Nazis being pegged as the junker right.


ETA: instead of trying to throw Nazis at each other, how about we talk about what we actually *do* support. That might be a more productive discussion.

Obviously, no one supports the Nazis, not even pirate news.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 2:25 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I believe this is inaccurate
Quote:


The term Nazi derives from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party, NSDAP).[21] Members of the Nazi Party identified themselves as Nationalsozialisten (National Socialists), rarely as Nazis. The German term Nazi parallels the analogous political term Sozi, an abbreviation for a member of the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (Social Democratic Party of Germany).[22][23] In 1933, when Adolf Hitler assumed power of the German government, usage of the term Nazi diminished in Germany, although Austrian anti-Nazis used it as an insult.[23]


While commonly acceptedits not actually true. The word Nazi is yiddish slang, derogatory, and possibly, ironically, derivative of Ashkenazi, as the Ashkenazim were of the lower "ghetto" class, at any rate, it appears in print as a derogatory term meaning asshole or parasite decease before the formation of the NSDAP, and first appears in reference to the national socialists by a Sephardic reporter escaping germany, and letter by another Sephardic writer before being used, IIRC, There are no instances of members of the NSDAP referring to themselves as "Nazis."

I'm only mentioning this because, wikipedia is not infallible.



Where does it appear in print before the formation of the Nazi party? What is your source for this claim?

Because I think the Nazi/Sozi connection is pretty solid and in keeping with the political culture of the time. Plus, non-Jewish Germans used the term widely and I doubt it was because they were all versant in yiddish slang.

I can buy that both words existed independently of each other, but the fact that Germans had a habit of shortening Sozialisten to Sozi and applied the same habit to Nationalsozialisten as Nazis is too obvious to just dismiss.



Agreed. Dreamtrove's claim is once again rewriting history for his/her own strange reasons. Every thing I have ever read or heard supports the shortened version.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 2:37 AM

DREAMTROVE


Frem,

The jackboots will always be with you, they're the corner of society that needs to bully and to feel that they're doing good, and so are willing to be convinced by anyone who will tell them it's okay to continue.

Whacking Adolph would have done it. Goerring was a Nazi, but he wasn't nearly the whack job that his boss was, and would have listened to reason. Since I'm virtually certain that's how the whole problem was solved anyway, we could have done it at the beginning rather than the end and saved million of lives.

Think to the future on this one: the new jackboots are flying robots, cameras, proximity mines, soon the PTB will need no actual jackboots in order to continue running their police state.

I think the correct strategy is to support the more moderate faction within everyone, and misdirect any overzealous agenda monkey into some path that does the least damage while letting everyone else get on with life.

The radical agenda is like a stream, a single stone placed in the place will turn the stream away, and will alter it's course, preventing the otherwise inevitable scene when the river is raging down towards the village below, and no number of stones will be able to stop it.

But in order to support any change within a group, you have to support the group first. Who would listen to someone who just opposed their existence? Take Israel for example. Who do you think would have more chance of effectuating change in Israel, someone who addresses them as
Pirate News has? or as Mincing Beast?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 2:44 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Frem,

I really agree, I was trying to deflect the accusation that Nazis were a right wing party. This underscores a common left wing assertion that the right would create Nazi Germany if put in power. I suspect any of or NWO political groups would create Nazi Germany if given enough power, and they wouldn't care what kind of ideology they had to espouse to get such power.


A lot like the right's assertion that any government intervention will result in a state resembling soviet russia. Both are strawman arguments and have nothing to do with the discussion of whether something is left or right winged.


Quote:

Regardless of how the Nazis were elected and who supported and opposed them, I agree with Frem that they were centrist.

Firstly, I don't believe said Frem that they were centrist, and secondly, they were not. A centrist government has moderate views, neither particularly left nor right, and does not operate with a hate filled, super nationialistic, militaristic, racist agenda. The Nazis were extreme, and people knew what they stood for. They were troubled, difficult times in Germany where such extremist views had popular appeal.

Quote:

This is why I keep saying just disown them, don't try to push them on us.

I'm not owning or disowning them, and neither should you unless you happen to support Nazi ideology. Do you?


Quote:

ETA: instead of trying to throw Nazis at each other, how about we talk about what we actually *do* support. That might be a more productive discussion.

It's hard to have a reasonable discussion when someone is rewriting history. In your view, only the left is to blame as you clearly stated in one of your posts, for all the ills of the world, whereas the right only wants freedom and liberty.

The political spectrum I posted showed that authoritarianism exists in both the political spectrum, and I think that is what you have difficulty in accepting, is that YOUR views, and mine for that matter, turn ugly when they become extreme.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 3:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


DT makes very loose associations.... sometimes brilliant, often not.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 3:22 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Oh hell, ANY belief becomes monstrous when it comes to the point of preferring force over consent.

I've met some, albeit rare, psychotic militant-moderates in my day, and I'm pretty sure you don't need that much imagination to realize I know some damn dangerous nutter anarchists too.

I don't play Left to Right though, look at Sparta, or Platos would-be "republic", you got three layers to em, at the top the whole super-authoritarian lunacy, and just below that, controlled by them "The State" which then controls, or tries to, every aspect of the lives of the poor proles and peons, the best example of that currently would be North Korea, you wanna be honest about it.

I dunno that you'd actually call it Fascism or Socialism, but whatever you *call* it, that same model has existed at least in theory as long as governments have, and so has the force vs consent argument - America was supposed to be a consent-model, but that monster Lincoln did for that, and it's gone the other way ever since, I do not for an instant believe he would find the modern day Neocon-infected GOP unrecognizable, in fact his Federalist ass would find it *more* recognizable than say, Eisenhowers administration, and he'd be complimenting them on how well they were carrying forth the agenda, as would Hamilton, for that matter - remember those Federalist asshats didn't truly wanna throw down the whole royalty/better men concept so much as replace it - with themselves, and the how of it, well that's been clear since the Alien and Sedition acts, their very first attempt to get something like the Patriot act shoved in as the excuse.

So you got a trifecta of factors that occur, the hardcore authoritarian top-end, the would be royalty and kings, and just below them the apparatus of "The State", and all the merry jackboot lickers, and then below that, the rest of us.

As for bollixing the works, it's simple, in order to have a ready and steady supply of jackboot lickers, you have to create them - Alice Miller, bless her soul, pointed out the disastrous social models and despicable parenting that lead to having so much troops who'd march to that tune back when Adolf banged the drum, and there *ARE* folks here who set about deliberately fostering that kind of social environment and mostly succeeded.

Children aren't born like that, you really have to mess them up for it to happen, and so a lot of my work in trashing the hellcamps, trying to reform our educational system, refine our law enforcement into something other than a militarized bully training ground - there's reasons for that beyond my hatred for those who would crush the humanity out of humans, those are the supply lines of the jackboot lickers they will NEED to enforce their agendas, which all come to the same thing once you strip off the politics and details of the mechanics of it.

There's also ways of infecting the mindset of all but the most rabid of em, simply by using echo-questions which jam up their mental workings by acting as a GOSUB statement and kicking in that extra little loop where they become unable to actually, firmly *believe* in what they're doing - many of the folks screaming the loudest, trying to convince us that it's all one side or the others fault....

It's not us they're trying to convince anymore, it's themselves - and they can't, cause every time they do, that question pops up, and they can't answer it, leading to the screaming fit, temporary dissappearance and return pattern, as they try to reconcile mutually contradictory believes in light of an unignorable mental "bridge" that links them, in defiance of the normal no-compare, plug-n-play "thinking" RWAs use instead of critical thought.

In short, cutting their supply lines and poisoning the wells on them.

Once folks have willingly, slobberingly, reduced themselves to a mental black box with easy push buttons on it - once they have deliberately surrendered all that really makes em human, do they still qualify as such ?

Hard question, one I don't have an answer for - but I *do* know that once they do that, anyone who knows the right buttons to push can make them dance to whatever tune they wish - ANYONE, no matter who's side they're really on.

That's the edge, right there.

-Frem


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 3:27 AM

AGENTROUKA


DT,

I still find it questionable to phrase it that your ancestors were killed because "because they were Junkers".

Junker were not a persecuted group. At all.

If they opposed the war, they were a minority political wing within the Junker demographic and within the German population in general and it would have been those political views that were dangerous to them, not their social status and heritage as Junkers. This would also explain why their property was confiscated. If they engaged in politics opposing Hitler, this was pretty much the guaranteed outcome. Being Junker would have been extremely secondary to that.

I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but I honestly think this is very wrong information you have.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 3:58 AM

BYTEMITE


Sig: The "abortion created by planned parenthood" thing was already discussed. We know it existed before. What we meant was planned parenthood merely modernized it.

We also moved past racism to social darwinism as the possible goal.

Birth rate in the black and latino communities is probably high for the same reason the birth rate in third world countries is high: to counter-act a high death rate from poverty and poverty related violence.

I note also that birth rate is a slightly different animal than the breakdown in numbers of planned parenthood clinics by neighborhood. Nor is it even the same thing as the abortion rate.

Which, BTW, you and Niki are right, it's highest in middle class white women at 55%. Which itself doesn't rule out Social Darwinism, since the middle class is not the upper class elite. And, of course, white people compose about 80% of the U.S. population.

You seem to think that the only thing I do is come here to assert bullshit. I come here to discuss IDEAS. Ideas are malleable and to be adjusted based on the information at hand.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 3:59 AM

DREAMTROVE


Just tracking back to see where this went off course, which I think is instructive. First off, me and Mike were having a civil discussion with no hostility or blame in it, which contained the following exchange:

Quote:

Mike:
Hitler ran on the left, but didn't govern from the left.


Quote:

Me:
He certainly didn't run from the right. I don't think fascism and dictatorship actually have a side. But no, i never called the fuhrer a democrat.



And everything went on. But then someone i don't know decided to blame the right for the Nazis, and many on the left jumped on that particular bandwagon. It's an old psych trick: once one person demonstrates that it's okay, people without thinking just join in.

This brings me back to an earlier thread where I was talking about working for the democrats, which I did for two years before going third party.

Here's the recurrent scene from within the democratic party:

1) someone makes a fairly reasonable suggestion. This person is usually coming from the far left, and are themselves typically a green, occasionally a socialist, but seldom a mainstream democrat.

2) the center dems oppose the notion. Ironically, these people are the closest to republican that the party has, in basically everyones eyes but their own.

3) said authoritarian centrists then play up fear of the GOP. Relatively normal people from the political spectrum are drummed up as evil, being connected to evil, and are given imagined or exaggerated agendas.

4) the fear and hate goes on the rise, and the masses, being all of one side, thought different factions, build into man unchecked fervor in which everyone agrees that Newt Gingrich and Arlen Specter are hitler and Stalin, and must be destroyed at all times.

5) the same people who started this nonsense then swoop in with a solution which involves doing something authoritarian like pulling out all the humans from the voting process, blocking republicans from the polls or running a malicious smear campaign,


This is why to my shame, I allowed myself to get into it, because I thought that I saw the same sort of thing unfolding here, not that I thought a radical authoritarian ahenda was about to be promoted, but that i saw the like minded bandwagon rolling along, unchecked by reality. Or at least by a differing opinion.

With no voice from the right, the group could have concluded that Nazis were indeed the inevitable result of Ron Paul, or something equally absurd.

Not that the republican party is any different.

I still hold that the Nazis said and did what they had to in order to get elected, just as bush did, and many other politicians who had no real convictions of their own, outside of, well, you know, the criminal sort.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 4:10 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Oh, citizen, welcome back, good to see you.


Thank you, and you
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Citizen, sorry, I should have clarified, Americans misuse the word liberal, as we do football, and in the sense that liberal means austrian economics and libertarian policies, the Nazis were not it. I do historical research for the head of your own British head of history, so I can tell you from that dept, that there is virtually no one, none that I've met, who thinks that the Nazis were right wing, this is a liberal fantasy with no basis in fact.


Well I do research for the British head of cunning and cunning planning, and he just told me that they were Right Wing and that every expert in the field agrees (especially the cunning ones), and that the Nazi's not being right wing is an American Right Wing fantasy with no basis in fact. QED. :p
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Again, the left is free to disown the Nazis, they are not free to push them off on the right, which is a preposterous idea.


And the Right isn't free to disown them simply because they don't want them. That the Nazi's weren't right-wing is the preposterous and laughable idea.
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

If you go back to the right wing that precedes modern conservatives, meaning the monarchists, then your not talking about the same group of people at all: today's Tories are the former Whigs, the ones who opposed the tories of the 18th c. Most americans don't get this. Tory is a nickname, it comes from the Celtic toreigh, for rebel, which first surfaced I believe it was the Irish who resisted british rule.


The Tory party of the 18th century was the same party as the Tories of today. There was another group also called Tories who were monarchists. The Whig Party formed the beginnings of the Liberal party.
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
As I said, this was not liberal of them, but it wasn't conservative either.


There's more to the left wing than liberal, and more to the right wing than conservative.
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The reality is that the racists are everywhere, and I think that was the point, so saying random tea par tiers are racist, and hence the tea party movement is a racist movement is fallacious, like saying all fruits are bananas.


Yes they are. My point has and is still only one of political ideal. Tell me there's Authoritarians on the left, I'll agree, tell me there are Authoritarian ideals on the left and I'll ask you to name one, because there really isn't.
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
But I generally avoid such arguments because they're pointless. I am only forced to make the "Nazis were left-wing" argument to refute the rather absurd claim that Nazis were right-wing


It's not absurd at all, it's backed by evidence and argument. So far all I've seen to say the Nazis weren't right wing or were left wing is your say so, I'm not convinced.
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If the right is racist, then why were the major civil right achievements historically made by the right?


Because it wasn't the right, it was the left that campaigned and won pretty much every civil right movement around the world.
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

If the right is warlike, why have almost all wars been initiated by the left, and the bloodiest ones overwhelmingly left-on-left?


Because you only acknowledge wars made by the left? Biased Sample?
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If the right is so nationalistic, then why is it always left wing governments who nationalize everything?


Because you're confusing nationalisation with nationalism. They're similar sounding words, but completely unrelated concepts.
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Your people elected David Cameron, good choice, I wish we had a candidate like that to vote for here.
...
I see Cameron has already gotten rid of the national ID card program (a racist police state policy of warmonger Tony Blair, no?)


Point one: Cameron wasn't voted into power; we had a hung parliament after the election. No one gained majority. What we actually have is a coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

What is interesting is how you ignore the other side of the Coalition, the Lib Dems, in order to claim it is Cameron and the Conservatives who scrapped ID cards. You'll actually find that the Conservatives were all for ID cards:
Quote:


Conservative backing for ID cards
The Tories are to back controversial government plans to introduce ID cards.
...
Sources within the Conservative Party told the BBC Michael Howard has always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4093583.stm

The ID card thing was part of the offer to the Lib Dems to form a coalition. It's interesting that you ignore that Labour these days is more centre right than left wing, that the Tories have always been in favour of ID cards (until it became clear it was a vote loser), and that the Lib Dems, forming part of the Government and a left wing party, has always been against ID cards.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 4:33 AM

DREAMTROVE


Rouka,

Call them what you like, the conservatives who opposed the war, supported the conservative Hindenburg ticket, and were killed in the night of long knives. Stopping political opposition wasn't the only goal, taking their land and property was also a goal.

Magons,

Small quibble: think of it not at "more left" and "more right" but rather as "left plus jackboots" and "right plus jackboots." As mike was pointing out in the first post here, the Nazis ran on a left platform, but not far left, there were people to the left of them, like the communists, so it doesn't make them extreme in their leftness.

Byte,

I thought John hammered these statistics out at the beginning of the thread. But yes, I suppose the abortion clinic was the evolution, another example for Mike's evil application of the assemblyline, if looked at from the right.

Signy,

Thanks

Frem,

Absolutely. As I said, I think Steele a step up, but sure, Bush fits this model of money driven federalism perfectly. Of course Lincoln knew damn well that he could have freed the slaves for cheaper than he did, but the war gave him an excuse to exert authority, institute an income tax, repeal habeas corpus, and for his buddies to seize the south and divvy it up amongst themselves.

Funny thing is Lincoln is really the weakpoint in the GOP, and no one ever attacks him, because, surprise, the media state has canonized him effectively. I suspect the actual lincoln would have had serious issues with a black man as either head of the GOP or as president.

But wouldn't becoming the jackboots solve the problem? Or maybe that's what you mean by poisoning the wells.

But again I ask if this is changing in the days of robots. Jay Rockefeller basically railroaded the armed predator system through himself, and if we weed out the bullies and the hate from the system, sure, well be doing everyone a service, but ultimately, wont the PTB just start running the robots themselves? I can see this as the new way in, where you have to go shoot a bunch of Muslim kids in a video game in order to be depraved enough to be acceptable to the establishment. It might even replace John's scenario of child rape as their right of passage


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 4:52 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

The Tory party of the 18th century was the same party as the Tories of today. There was another group also called Tories who were monarchists. The Whig Party formed the beginnings of the Liberal party.


Link me? I felt fairly sure of my history on this id lie to sort it out.

Citizen,

You and I can't have this debate because we disagree about right and left. I think this is a transatlantic rift.

From an american perspective, the LibDems are right wing, not too dissimilar from tea partiers, and Labour is solidly let wing, though I'll grant that I would place "New Labour" as centre-left.

The tories resoundingly won the election, the whole map was blue, but I agree that the lib dems had a strong influence. Of course labour had more or less rigged it to the point where they needed only 33% and the Tories needed 40% in orr to win.

Overall, I like this result better, id rather have a libdem labour coalition than just about anything else.

Still, Cameron is not Howard, all Tories are not of a mind and they never would have gone for a libdem style policy if there weren't a fair number of Tories who supported the position.

As for the wars I choose, I go by casualty count. Frem just mentioned a right wing war though, the american civil war. In the US we never do this but it could very well be viewed as a partisan war, because, after all, the democrats ended up with the presidency of the confederacy, and the republicans with the presidency of the union. Neither one was admirable.


ETA: I actually do work for your head of history, and I recently got this request for information, so if anyone has anything on this, i'd like to gather and do some research on it:

Economic influence peddling during and leading up to WWI

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 5:01 AM

BYTEMITE


I have no idea what the source credibility is for PN's link where he cites the black abortion figures. So I went digging.

A breakdown, from the government (it's the last link):
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_di
vorces/family_planning_abortions.html


I cited specifically from the cdc.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm

The population number came from wikipedia's U.S. demographics page.

Of course, this is government data, so if there's something snoopy going on, it might not be reported. Sig's right about one thing, I should have considered PN's links and sources and dug for the information myself before jumping onto the subject, but it really doesn't dismiss the concerns I have.

PN is surprisingly good at research, as you've commented DT, but it doesn't give him a free pass.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 5:15 AM

BYTEMITE


I propose a psuedo-euclidean hyperboloid graphed opposite the axis of time to represent political alignment.

Cross sections might also be involved.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 5:16 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Link me? I felt fairly sure of my history on this id lie to sort it out.


Quote:

The Conservative Party is descended from the old Tory Party, founded in 1678, and is still often referred to as the Tory Party and its politicians, members, and supporters as "Tories."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_%28UK%29
Quote:

The origins of the Conservative Party lie way back in the seventeenth century. During
the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s, and again in the last two decades of the century,
politicians formed parties in Parliament, first Royalists and Parliamentarians, then (in
more permanent form) Tories and Whigs – the former in broad (but not uncritical)
support of the monarch, the latter dedicated to curtailing his power.
The Tories had their first taste of success during the so-called Exclusion Crisis of
1679-80 when they defeated Whig attempts to exclude the Catholic brother of Charles
II from the line of succession to the throne. The Tories came to be seen above all as the
patriotic party, identified closely with the last Protestant Stuart monarch, Queen Anne,
during the period of Marlborough’s glorious victories over Louis XIV in the first
decade of the eighteenth century. Patriotism is the first, and most deeply rooted,
element of the Party’s character.


http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/A%20Pa
rty%20History.ashx?dl=true

Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

The tories resoundingly won the election, the whole map was blue, but I agree that the lib dems had a strong influence. Of course labour had more or less rigged it to the point where they needed only 33% and the Tories needed 40% in orr to win.


Resoundingly won the election? The British Electoral System uses first past the post, and has done for centuries. It's that system that artificially increases the majority of the majority party, nothing to do at all with anyone rigging anything. The Tories didn't even get 40% of the vote, they got 36% of the vote; also for the record their majority was artificially inflated more than anyone's under our electoral system.

They didn't win the election, no one won the election, it was a hung parliament, no one gained the majority in the house of commons required to form a Government. There is absolutely no way the Tories can be said to have won the election at all, let alone "resoundingly". If they had done, they wouldn't have needed to enter into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Still, Cameron is not Howard, all Tories are not of a mind and they never would have gone for a libdem style policy if there weren't a fair number of Tories who supported the position.


No, but it still puts a nice hefty coffin nail in your argument.
Quote:

I actually do work for your head of history

There isn't a "British head of history". If you're talking about some policy maker in the education department, I'd be interested to hear who that is.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 5:30 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

They didn't win the election, no one won the election, it was a hung parliament, no one gained the majority in the house of commons required to form a Government.


Hooray!

Quote:

If they had done, they wouldn't have needed to enter into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.


HOORAY! Did you all have a big celebration?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 6:07 AM

DREAMTROVE


Citizen, from your own link:
Quote:


The Conservative Party traces its origins to a faction, rooted in the 18th century Whig Party, that coalesced around William Pitt the Younger (Prime Minister of Great Britain 1783-1801 and 1804–1806). Originally known as "Independent Whigs", "Friends of Mr Pitt", or "Pittites", after Pitt's death the term "Tory" came into use. This was an allusion to the Tories, a political grouping that had existed from 1678, but which had no organisational continuity with the Pittite party. From about 1812 on the name "Tory" was commonly used for the newer party.



I thought so, IIRC, the name Tory was in neither case initiated by the party, but rather that parties opposition, as a reference to the Irish rebels in both cases. Not that I care who the tories are descended from, as long as its not the nazis ;)

Past the post? Sorry, I get mine political analysis from Brits I know, labour supporters, but they told me that Blair had gerrymandered Britain. Of course the split ended up favoring Tories, but labour had sort of dismissed the possibility of a lib dem tory coalition, as they had taken the libdems for granted themselves.

Sorry if I butcher your political system when I try to analyze it, don't worry, I'm sure you'll return the favor ;)

Anyway, the map was all one colour, that being blue, made me happen, all those country wankers give Labour the old heavy ho, I felt a sense of bumpkin solidarity, sticking it to the city slickers.

Gave me a laugh too when Brown was trying to hustle up the nationalist and socialist votes into an all but Tory coalition, and refusing to step down until the queen gave him a ring and told him to sod off.

I think that's more or less how it worked.

Oh, the guy I work for is king since retired from any official position, but he still has influence, it was in case someone wanted to contribute to curriculum suggestions, but only limited to the financial angle of WWI, I wasn't looking to get in trouble because someone was angry on an internet forum. I don't represent him, I'm just doing research for him, if you care to throw something in, go ahead, if not, then don't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 10:18 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen, from your own link:
...

I thought so, IIRC, the name Tory was in neither case initiated by the party, but rather that parties opposition, as a reference to the Irish rebels in both cases. Not that I care who the tories are descended from, as long as its not the nazis ;)


Doesn't actually separate the Nazi's from the Right in any case. Can we accept that the Tories of 18th century are the same party that identifies as Tory today?
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Of course the split ended up favoring Tories, but labour had sort of dismissed the possibility of a lib dem tory coalition, as they had taken the libdems for granted themselves.


Actually it was more the other way around, Nick Clegg had ruled out working with Labour.
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Anyway, the map was all one colour, that being blue, made me happen, all those country wankers give Labour the old heavy ho, I felt a sense of bumpkin solidarity, sticking it to the city slickers.


The Tories won 47% of the Constituencies, with 36% of the vote. More than half the map wasn't blue.
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Gave me a laugh too when Brown was trying to hustle up the nationalist and socialist votes into an all but Tory coalition, and refusing to step down until the queen gave him a ring and told him to sod off.


He didn't refuse to step down. He's the incumbent Prime Minister, he stays in his position until there is a government to replace him. The fact is there wasn't a Government to replace him when he went to the Queen and asked her to accept his resignation, and appoint the new Prime Minister. The Queen can't tell anyone to "sod off", if she tried Parliament could have her arrested, the Queen has no real power in the British Government under the British Constitution. Everything the Queen does and says is dictated by the sitting Government.
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Oh, the guy I work for is king since retired from any official position, but he still has influence, it was in case someone wanted to contribute to curriculum suggestions, but only limited to the financial angle of WWI, I wasn't looking to get in trouble because someone was angry on an internet forum. I don't represent him, I'm just doing research for him, if you care to throw something in, go ahead, if not, then don't.


So he's not British then? Regardless, if you're backing your opinion by claiming the "British Head of History" agrees with you, I'm going to ask about that, especially since there is no such position.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 10:41 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
HOORAY! Did you all have a big celebration?


Not really, all it means is that in order to assume power a government had to enter into a coalition of different parties.

Under the Westminster system a Government has to be able to pass two things: The Queens Speech, and the Budget. If a new Government can't push those two things through, a vote of no confidence will be called, which will force a new general election.

At any rate just because a government loses the vote, doesn't actually mean they have to step down. Gordon Brown could have stayed on if he pleased quite legally, of course without a majority in the House of Commons he couldn't have pushed through the Queens Speech or Budget.

Lots of people, rather than celebrating were scared witless, which undoubtedly helped the Tory position, since they were really pushing the "vote for us because a hung parliament will cause the universe to implode, OH NOES!!!!" thing. Imagine that, a Tory party running on fear, whatever next. Anyway, there were lots of people scared witless, and a few of us, who have been campaigning for proportional representation for awhile, who knew a coalition government isn't bad and would probably be much more representative, and effective, than a Conservative incumbent. For the record I was hoping for a Hung Parliament.

Also, as an aside, Left Wing parties won more than 50% of the vote, right wing parties won 36% of the vote, yet we have a right wing Prime Minister. Of Course Cameron is a Tory the way Tony Blair was Labour, i.e. willing to sell out his party's ethics for votes at the drop of a hat; at least with the Tories that's generally a good thing :p. Hopefully the Lib Dems can at least force the Referendum for electoral reform through.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 10:57 AM

BYTEMITE


Oh. That's too bad. Here in America, we kinda just live with a hung government, and considering how badly they fail whenever anything does get passed, I almost prefer it when they can't do anything.

So when I heard "Torie/LibDem coalition," my thought was, haha, the republicans and democrats have to work together on shit now. They're going to chew each others' heads off.

Guess not?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 11:03 AM

BYTEMITE


Oh, BTW, for us Americans.

This doesn't necessarily mean I think one party is worse than the other, but more me just trying to show that the right-wing isn't necessarily about racism and intolerance whenever the issue comes up.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/25/michael
-steele/steele-says-gop-fought-hard-civil-rights-bills-196
/

I really think the modern right wing is best defined as pro-business. You can be racist, super-religious, intolerant, and etc., but if you're not pro-business, you're probably not right wing.

Back when we had kings running around, they were the richest people in their nation, and so back then the right wing supported them. I mean, they were the best source of money for an investment, so of course you'd suck up to them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 11:10 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
So when I heard "Torie/LibDem coalition," my thought was, haha, the republicans and democrats have to work together on shit now. They're going to chew each others' heads off.

Guess not?


That's more or less the case, though Labour is the majority left wing party here (though New Labour is more centre right these days). The Lib Dems might be a better fit for a third party, independents maybe, by their Parliament influence. Of course the Lib Dems got 23% of the vote and 8% of the seats, so it's hardly a perfect analogy.

What the Lib Dems have done is forced certain concessions out of the Tories, hopefully they can stop the tories from doing things like increasing income tax but not capital gains as well.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 12:41 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:


Small quibble: think of it not at "more left" and "more right" but rather as "left plus jackboots" and "right plus jackboots." As mike was pointing out in the first post here, the Nazis ran on a left platform, but not far left, there were people to the left of them, like the communists, so it doesn't make them extreme in their leftness.



Except that you are wrong, dreamtrove and nothing you have said shows one ounce of support of your position. It's clearly a modern American right winged rewriting of history that places the Nazis on the left or anywhere near the left, when all other accounts of history puts them on the right, the far right.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 3:12 PM

DREAMTROVE


Citizen

Obviously a fair amount of that was tongue in cheek. I was aware that Nick had given labour the shove off, but that was in part because of their attitude, and in part because their rather absurd coalition had very little chance of actually controlling parliament. Also, Tories were offering a decent deal. Besides, if you weren't angry as he'll at labour at this point, you must be stone stupid. It's sort of like not getting angry at George W Bush, I think we have a cowpoke of those, but only a couple.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2017 11:38 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


Switch Black and White and White for Black...SALON
http://files.catbox.moe/

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 26, 2017 12:57 PM

REAVERFAN


You have no credibility concerning race. Please don't pretend you do.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
The Hill: Democrats and the lemmings of the left
Thu, December 12, 2024 08:05 - 12 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, December 12, 2024 01:38 - 4931 posts
COUP...TURKEY
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:38 - 40 posts
Dana Loesch Explains Why Generation X Put Trump In The White House
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:21 - 7 posts
Alien Spaceship? Probably Not: CIA Admits it’s Behind (Most) UFO Sightings
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:18 - 27 posts
IRAN: Kamala Harris and Biden's war?
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:34 - 18 posts
Countdown Clock Until Vladimir Putins' Rule Ends
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:32 - 158 posts
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:04 - 251 posts
Who hates Israel?
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:02 - 77 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, December 11, 2024 17:59 - 4839 posts
Jesus christ... Can we outlaw the fuckin' drones already?
Wed, December 11, 2024 17:55 - 3 posts
Turkey as the new Iran
Wed, December 11, 2024 17:42 - 45 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL