More evidence that nazism was left wing

by Tommy Monk Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:25 am

First topic message reminder :

"...Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight..."

Joseph Goebbels

lol!

by Original Quill Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:26 pm

Related, but still the overriding question in the US: if government disinvolvement is the goal for RW'rs, why the involvement in a woman's decision about her own body--ie, why oppose abortion?

It seems hypocritical, to say the least. I believe that conservatives are not really opposed to government involvement, it's just what it becomes involved in. Hence, the large war machine, ready to step in at a moment's notice.

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:34 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thorin wrote:Of course the above can be no where found in this link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_socialism

I quoted from the link...

Yes, you did. It's there for all to see - in the link.

by Guest Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

I quoted from the link...

Yes, you did. It's there for all to see - in the link.

You mean how he was selective over what he posted from the link

Never mind, its beyond your understanding

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:57 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Andy is an idiot... clearly!!!

He thinks that by correctly defining the far left aspect of Nazism/fascism and by explaining that it was rooted in socialism, means that I am supportive of it!!!

What a twat!!!

I'm puzzled by that too.

by Guest Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:59 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Andy is an idiot... clearly!!!

He thinks that by correctly defining the far left aspect of Nazism/fascism and by explaining that it was rooted in socialism, means that I am supportive of it!!!

What a twat!!!

I'm puzzled by that too.

Okay lets put this to the test.

Do you back Tommy's View that Nazism is left wing?

by Andy Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:12 pm

Thor, it's like talking to the residents of a happy, clappy day care centre.
Lots of moon faces smiling cheerfully, but who knows what is going on behind the eyes?

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:13 pm

I'm just wondering why people find the idea so abhorrent. It's not as if lefties never do anything wrong. Look at Communist regimes.

by Guest Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:14 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm just wondering why people find the idea so abhorrent. It's not as if lefties never do anything wrong. Look at Communist regimes.

Yes people are well aware of the crimes of Mao, Stalin etc

But the point is do you believe Nazism was left wing as Tommy believes?

by Andy Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:17 pm

Empirical evidence, from university lecturers, to professors and learned historians ALL say Nazis were /are far right eing.
All but our resident genius.

He IS wrong.
But will not admit it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

Read down to Political position.

Clear as a bell.

Unless you are a bell-end.

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:21 pm

Angry Andy wrote:Empirical evidence, from university lecturers, to professors and learned historians ALL say Nazis were /are far right eing.
All but our resident genius.

He IS wrong.
But will not admit it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

Read down to Political position.

Clear as a bell.

Unless you are a bell-end.

This bit's interesting though.

Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities ...

by Guest Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:22 pm

Was Hitler a Socialist? Was Hitler a Left-Winger? Was Hitler a Liberal?

The idea that “Hitler was a left-wing socialist liberal” is a myth. Hitler was a Fascist. Fascism has some socialist roots, but it is a unique right-wing authoritarian and nationalist ideology separate from socialism or liberalism. This is true for Hitler’s Nazism (especially its later 1940’s form) and fascism in general (although each fascist ideology has unique planks that should be discussed separately).[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Bottomline: Hitler’s National Socialism can be thought of as fascism, a right-wing “evolution of socialism” focused on social hierarchy, authority, and the state. It was socialist in the way a despotic military state might be, in that it was a collectivist, organized, hierarchical, not democratic, exclusive, aggressive, authoritative, and tyrannical (what we might call right-wing socialism or right-wing “nationalist” populism). It was pretty far from anything considered “left-wing socialist” then or now, but it was even further from being “liberal” (and I think this confuses some liberty-minded citizens who can’t look past the NAZI’s collectivist nature to see that it was generally right-wing). Still, we may reasonably consider some fascist planks “to the left” of specific planks of other ideologies. After-all, fascism was collectivist to some extent, and Hitler’s National Socialism did offer planks like free healthcare for nationals (learn more about how left-wing and right-wing can be used as comparative terms issue-by-issue).

Key arguments against Hitler as a “left-wing socialist liberal”: Hitler was opposed to all the other socialist, liberal, democratic, and/or left parties of the Weimar Republic including the Capitalist Democratic Socialists (SPD and DDP) and the Communist Socialists (KPD). Furthermore, Hitler and his NAZIs ended up murdering and jailing the Socialist / Liberal / Left (for a NAZI at least) Wing of their party, the Strasserists, on the Night of Long Knives (Hitler led the far-right Nationalist Wing of the NAZI party and “purged” the “left-wing” of the party). Today when we say “liberal, left-wing, and socialist” in America we imagine someone like Bernie Sanders, but Bernie is a Social Democrat (like a mix between SPD and DDP). Bernie is more like the type of social liberal that the NAZIs “purged”, and pretty far from even a Strasserist.

For more reading: See Mussolini and Hitler Were Fascists and Fascism and Communism are different. Each article explains how the collectivist right-wing fascism of Hitler and Mussolini were different than the collectivist left-wing egalitarianism of Marx and the liberty-minded liberalism of the West. See also the NAZI’s early 1920’s “Strasserist Socialist” platform (which shows the party’s early fascist ideology and socialist roots), Mussolini’s 1932 Doctrine of Fascism (which explains fascism well), all the other socialist and left parties of the Weimar Republic including the German Democratic Party, the Social Democratic Party, and the Communist Party (which by contrast show how absurd it is to consider Hitler a left-wing socialist liberal; he even jailed and murdered the German socialists and liberals of the other parties in practice), and Hitler’s Mein Kampf (in which he explains his disdain for Marxism, Capitalism, Liberalism, and Democracy).

by Guest Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:24 pm

Specific Reasons Why Hitler Was not Left-wing, Socialist, or Liberal

With all those general truths in mind, the main problems with using the terms left-wing and socialist to describe Hitler’s fascism are:

[list="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family:"]
[*]Hitler was opposed to all the other socialist and left parties of the Weimar Republic including the Capitalist Democratic Socialists and the Communist Socialists. Hitler’s Mein Kampf is all about how he hates socialists, liberals, democrats, Communists, the upper-class, the establishment, and both capitalist and Marxist Jews (so he wasn’t those types of left-wing or socialist by his own admission; even in the 1920’s, nearly twenty years before his in-action government during WWII).

[*]Hitler and his NAZIs ended up murdering and jailing the Socialist Wing of their party (the Strasserists) on the Night of Long Knives (Hitler led the further-right Nationalist Wing of the NAZI party and “purged” the “left-wing” of their party).

[*]Hitler and his NAZIs didn’t implement many “socialist” planks in-practice, more-so they implemented fascism (which again, especially for the National Socialists, has socialist roots). In other words, they implemented authoritarian statist collectivist policy and xenophobic, totalitarian, and militant policy (both of which are collectivist; but certainly not “left-wing socialist” like a social democrat or even Marxist Communist). Although the NAZI’s early 1920’s “Strasserist Socialist” platform (which Hitler mentions in his Mein Kampf without ever really touting the socialist planks) embraced a good deal of socialism for the German worker (including purely left-wing socialist policy), the 1930’s and 1940’s NAZI government in-practice was essentially just fascist with a few right-wing “militant” socialist planks. After Hitler’s Nationalist wing took over the party, they implemented very little socialist policy and simply embraced a few socialist planks to create an authoritarian, militaristic, despotic, and tyrannical state.

[*]With fascism, the state and nation is everything and their is social hierarchy, with Communism and socialism international equality and classlessness is everything. Both are an “evolution of socialism” as Mussolini (who inspired Hitler) says regarding fascism (and as Marx himself denoted in his work regarding Communism). So it is true that National Socialism is not unrelated to socialism, it is just a very different type of socialism, it is a right-wing evolution of socialism, a response to Communism that is focused on Nationalism, called National Socialism, which is a type of fascism (especially after Strasser in the 1930’s). See the differences between Communism and Fascism.

[*]Hitler had an exclusive and xenophobic ideology that is far-right in terms of its prejudice. Militant socialism for an in-group in support of the state is fascism. The word fascist itself describes the evolution of socialism that Hitler embraced.

[*]Hitler rejected Marx’s ideas of economy, class, globalism, and equality, so even to what degree a National Socialist is socialist, it is truly about social hierarchy in service to the “folk state” more than anything a left-wing socialist (either a liberal one or a Marxist one) would ever want or do on-paper (despotic in-action Communist movements aside, of which history has shown us many).

[/list]
Given the above points and the rest made below, Hitler is well described by terms like fascist, despot, totalitarian, and tyrant first and foremost, and by other qualifiers like right-wing and socialist second.

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:25 pm

Hitler was against any party which provided any kind of competition, and which he perceived as being influenced by Jews.

by Guest Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:25 pm

Proof Hitler was a Right-Wing Fascist Includes… his Own Work

The simplest proof of the above is Hitler’s own Mein Kampf and Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism, as Mussolini inspired Hitler’s fascism, and both texts specifically explain how their ideologies are Nationalist, Imperialist, Militaristic, “Right,” Authoritarian, anti-Liberal, anti-Elite, anti-intellectual, anti-Communist, anti-Capitalist, and anti-Socialist (anti-Marxist, anti-Democratic Socialist, and anti-Christian-Socialist). See Political views of Adolf Hitler (Hitler was obsessively anti-Semitic, Mussolini was more purely Nationalist and less xenophobic than Hitler, both were fascists; see more on the differences and similarities of Mussolini and Hitler here).

In other words, not only does history show these fascist movements were generally right-wing, anti-liberal, and anti-socialist in practice, Hitler and Mussolini’s own works confirm it enthusiastically and in great detail on paper.

Furthermore, Hitler and his NAZIs, and Mussolini and his National Fascist Party and later Republican Fascist Party, became less-and-less socialist over time as their parties moved “to the right” and purged their respective nations of their left-wing allies and opposition.

In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated. – Excerpt Hitler’s Mein Kampf
Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism… We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ” right “, a Fascist century…. If liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government… Fascism desires the State to be strong and organic, based on broad foundations of popular [populist] support… Activism: that is to say nationalism, futurism, fascism… Never before have the peoples thirsted for authority, direction, order, as they do now. – Excerpts from Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism

by Guest Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:27 pm

Authoritarian like Mussolini and the Other WWII Fascists

Most of what people cite to attempt to show Hitler was “left-wing” or “a socialist” comes from the NAZI’s early 1920’s platform, which was written before Hitler rose to power in the party’s Nationalist wing! Simply, the nationalists were in a party with some socialists (Strasserists) at one point, but that doesn’t make the nationalist fascism left, liberal, or socialist. Fascism is right-wing (authoritative and small group focused) ideology.
Consider some main aspects of fascism are:

Anti-specific religions (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
Pro-racial separation (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
Anti-civil rights for minorities (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
Anti-establishment (left-wing, against the elite; but right-wing, against the protections of the state; and right-wing, in practice the NAZIs became despotic tyrants who used the full power of the state)
Anti-homosexual (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
Anti-abortion (right-wing, authoritative)
Anti-intellectual (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
Anti-immigration (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
Pro-social programs for their “nationals” AKA their in-group (left-wing, for social programs for a collective; right-wing exclusively focused on a small group).
Pro-nativist worker (left-wing, for social programs for a collective; right-wing exclusively focused on a small group).
Anti-Capitalism on paper (left-wing, against capitalism and toward socialism for the in-group on paper; right-wing, were capitalists with a strict hierarchy in practice.)

In short, just based on general reason, not much about the NAZI’s fascism is left-wing (not much liberty and/or equality going on here). Sure, on paper in the 1920’s they were to the left of a Monarchy with the help of the Strasserists). But the militant WWII era (Sep 1, 1939 – Sep 2, 1945) NAZI fascism is mostly right-wing, despite its quasi-socialist roots.

This exclusive in-group nativist, nationalist, xenophobic, and at times militant ideology is what we call in modern language “right-wing,” and it is not an ideology of liberty and equality, it is an ideology of authority and inequality, it is not liberalism.

by Eilzel Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:45 am

Eilzel wrote:Tommy. A couple of questions related to the topic. I understand you define (wrongly imo) LW as 'big state and govt intervention'. But...

1) What do you think are the concerns unpinning LW politics? By which I mean, what do you think is the overarching reason LW politics often involves a larger government and high regulation and taxes?

2) Why do you actually care so much about trying to portray Nazism as LW? Do you honestly think people like me or Ben have any kind of image of a future which is akin to that of the Nazis.

I'm more interested in your answer to question 1 but if you could answer both honestly that would be great.

Still interested in your answers here tommy.

by Ben Reilly Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:34 am

Eilzel wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Tommy. A couple of questions related to the topic. I understand you define (wrongly imo) LW as 'big state and govt intervention'. But...

1) What do you think are the concerns unpinning LW politics? By which I mean, what do you think is the overarching reason LW politics often involves a larger government and high regulation and taxes?

2) Why do you actually care so much about trying to portray Nazism as LW? Do you honestly think people like me or Ben have any kind of image of a future which is akin to that of the Nazis.

I'm more interested in your answer to question 1 but if you could answer both honestly that would be great.

Still interested in your answers here tommy.

I'd love to hear them too, but we're both asking in the slim hope that Tommy started this thread to have an actual debate.

by Andy Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:56 am

Tommy started it as a party political broadcast.

by 'Wolfie Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:40 pm

.

EIGHT pages of this lunacy already !!!!

Looks like Tommy and Ragg's are determined to set a new record for how long they can drag out their idiotic ramblings...
Before their heads implode under the vacuums created by their collective stupidity. bom

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:20 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:.
EIGHT pages of this lunacy already !!!!

Looks like Tommy and Ragg's are determined to set a new record for how long they can drag out their idiotic ramblings...
Before their heads implode under the vacuums created by their collective stupidity.

Eight pages which you read, and couldn't think of a single intelligent thing to say. Razz

by Tommy Monk Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:47 am

Thorin wrote:
Was Hitler a Socialist? Was Hitler a Left-Winger? Was Hitler a Liberal?

The idea that “Hitler was a left-wing socialist liberal” is a myth. Hitler was a Fascist.Fascism has some socialist roots, but it is a unique right-wing authoritarian and nationalist ideology separate from socialism or liberalism. This is true for Hitler’s Nazism (especially its later 1940’s form) and fascism in general (although each fascist ideology has unique planks that should be discussed separately).[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Bottomline: Hitler’s National Socialism can be thought of as fascism, a right-wing “evolution of socialism” focused on social hierarchy, authority, and the state. It was socialist in the way a despotic military state might be, in that it was a collectivist, organized, hierarchical, not democratic, exclusive, aggressive, authoritative, and tyrannical (what we might call right-wing socialism or right-wing “nationalist” populism). It was pretty far from anything considered “left-wing socialist” then or now, but it was even further from being “liberal” (and I think this confuses some liberty-minded citizens who can’t look past the NAZI’s collectivist nature to see that it was generally right-wing). Still, we may reasonably consider some fascist planks “to the left” of specific planks of other ideologies. After-all, fascism was collectivist to some extent, and Hitler’s National Socialism did offer planks like free healthcare for nationals (learn more about how left-wing and right-wing can be used as comparative terms issue-by-issue).

Oh dear...!

lol!

by Guest Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:08 am

Oh dear indeed for poor Tommy unable to read again it seems

More evidence that nazism was left wing - Page 8 3489511464

by Tommy Monk Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:47 am

Eilzel wrote:Tommy. A couple of questions related to the topic. I understand you define (wrongly imo) LW as 'big state and govt intervention'. But...

1) What do you think are the concerns unpinning LW politics? By which I mean, what do you think is the overarching reason LW politics often involves a larger government and high regulation and taxes?

2) Why do you actually care so much about trying to portray Nazism as LW? Do you honestly think people like me or Ben have any kind of image of a future which is akin to that of the Nazis.

I'm more interested in your answer to question 1 but if you could answer both honestly that would be great.

Les... I've got to laugh...!!!

Laughing

You start off telling me how wrong it is to say that left wing = big state/govt and big state control/interference etc... then you go on to ask me why it is that left wing govts are inevitably all those things that you previously said were not defining characteristics of left wing govts...!!!

lol!

Then onto question 2... with the inevitable big state/govt and big state control... coupled with the lefties belief that they know best... and the only way that is acceptable/permissible is their way... and where anyone who dares to voice an opposing view or question the 'leftie way' are shouted down and vilified as SIXHIRB etc as well as facing violence...

And its inevitable that a leftie big state big govt big state control system will need to enforce their control/agenda/rules onto everyone... and this will always inevitably be by force!!!

by Guest Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:52 am

Sorry can anyone translate what Tommy posted ha ha ha ha

That has to be the biggest load of gibberish to date with also failing to actually answer Eilzel's questions

lol!

by Eilzel Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:57 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Tommy. A couple of questions related to the topic. I understand you define (wrongly imo) LW as 'big state and govt intervention'. But...

1) What do you think are the concerns unpinning LW politics? By which I mean, what do you think is the overarching reason LW politics often involves a larger government and high regulation and taxes?

2) Why do you actually care so much about trying to portray Nazism as LW? Do you honestly think people like me or Ben have any kind of image of a future which is akin to that of the Nazis.

I'm more interested in your answer to question 1 but if you could answer both honestly that would be great.

Les... I've got to laugh...!!!

You start off telling me how wrong it is to say that left wing = big state/govt and big state control/interference etc... then you go on to ask me why it is that left wing govts are inevitably all those things that you previously said were not defining characteristics of left wing govts...!!!

Then onto question 2... with the inevitable big state/govt and big state control... coupled with the lefties belief that they know best... and the only way that is acceptable/permissible is their way... and where anyone who dares to voice an opposing view or question the 'leftie way' are shouted down and vilified as SIXHIRB etc as well as facing violence...

And its inevitable that a leftie big state big govt big state control system will need to enforce their control/agenda/rules onto everyone... and this will always inevitably be by force!!!

I didn't define LW as those things. Come on you aren't that stupid. Don't prove Ben right about you.

I'll ask again-

1. WHY do you think LW govts tend to have a lot of regulation and high taxes.

2. How would my vision of the future reflect that of Nazi Germany?

by 'Wolfie Sun Apr 30, 2017 9:49 am

Tommy and Raggamuffin definitely have much, too much spare time on their hands !!!

They each could have probably written a 500_page novel in the time that they must have spent posting their incessant drivel on here..

by Raggamuffin Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:24 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy and Raggamuffin definitely have much, too much spare time on their hands !!!

They each could have probably written a 500_page novel in the time that they must have spent posting their incessant drivel on here..

I haven't even posted on this thread for a while. I might do though as it's been resurrected. If you don't like what I say, don't read it. Cool

You seem to have too much spare time on your hands as all you do is post rants about other posters. That's all you've done on this thread. Try doing some reading or something - anything to improve your mind and get rid of the bitterness.

by Raggamuffin Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:29 am

What about the claim that Hitler and the Nazis were anti-capitalism? Capitalism is largely seen as a "right wing" thing is it not?

by Tommy Monk Mon May 01, 2017 2:15 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Les... I've got to laugh...!!!

You start off telling me how wrong it is to say that left wing = big state/govt and big state control/interference etc... then you go on to ask me why it is that left wing govts are inevitably all those things that you previously said were not defining characteristics of left wing govts...!!!

Then onto question 2... with the inevitable big state/govt and big state control... coupled with the lefties belief that they know best... and the only way that is acceptable/permissible is their way... and where anyone who dares to voice an opposing view or question the 'leftie way' are shouted down and vilified as SIXHIRB etc as well as facing violence...

And its inevitable that a leftie big state big govt big state control system will need to enforce their control/agenda/rules onto everyone... and this will always inevitably be by force!!!

I didn't define LW as those things. Come on you aren't that stupid. Don't prove Ben right about you.

I'll ask again-

1. WHY do you think LW govts tend to have a lot of regulation and high taxes.

2. How would my vision of the future reflect that of Nazi Germany?

No... I defined it as big state big govt and big state control/interference... you said it wasn't... then you said it was in your question 2...

lol!

by Eilzel Mon May 01, 2017 2:53 pm

No. I didn't. Troll. Point out exactly how I defined it as such, without twisting, or stop lying.

And if you can answer my questions then do it.

Cause right now your failure to do so speaks volumes.

by Andy Mon May 01, 2017 3:18 pm

When mods agree that Tommy is a forum troll, then is the day to tell him to shut up or stop him from posting crap.
We have been saying he is trolling for years.
Is what he does.

by 'Wolfie Mon May 01, 2017 3:22 pm

Tommy, Raggamuffin...
And their collective backers/cheer squad..

Collectively, we should be referring to that gang as 'The Troll Squad'.

by nicko Mon May 01, 2017 3:24 pm

I have to ask, who, after all this time gives a rats ass anyway?

by Andy Mon May 01, 2017 3:25 pm

Clearly the monkey does, which is why he relentlessly regurgitates his bile and ludicrous conspiracy theories.

by nicko Mon May 01, 2017 4:05 pm

And why you keep answering him?

by Eilzel Mon May 01, 2017 4:33 pm

nicko wrote:I have to ask, who, after all this time gives a rats ass anyway?

Tommy apparently Wink

by nicko Mon May 01, 2017 5:36 pm

Eilzel, to settle an argument, is it compulsory where you are to wear a Crash Helmet?

by Fred Moletrousers Mon May 01, 2017 6:03 pm

Eilzel wrote:No. I didn't. Troll. Point out exactly how I defined it as such, without twisting, or stop lying.

And if you can answer my questions then do it.

Cause right now your failure to do so speaks volumes.

Lez, I always had you down as one of the fairest and most even-handed of posters in this and other forums, but I really do take issue with you and people such as Andy over your contention that Tommy Monk is a forum Troll.

Out of his last 10 posts, nine could be considered legitimate contributions to the prevailing debate while one was abusive, albeit mild by comparison with the abuse posted by others.

The fact that you may disagree with him does not mean that what he posts is not relevant.

WhoseYourWolfie, on the other hand has, out of his last 10 posts, made one apparently legitimate contribution to a debate and nine abusive and offensive posts against other members - all of whom, significantly, might be considered as being on the Right of politics.

I am certainly not claiming any sort of angelic innocence or purity on my part - I may be Christian but I take a very unChristian attitude towards the principle of turning the other cheek - but trolling involves stalking individual members, frequently without provocation or for any real reason, and deliberately attempting to disrupt discussion.

And on that basis it is pretty clear in my mind at least just who is the real Troll here.

by Andy Mon May 01, 2017 6:08 pm

Says the sanctimonious snob who spins yarns with his bestest chums, Stormee, Allakaka and Blackie on the flopped site.
Tom is posting crap to provoke , not to promote debate.

by Tommy Monk Mon May 01, 2017 9:55 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

I didn't define LW as those things. Come on you aren't that stupid. Don't prove Ben right about you.

I'll ask again-

1. WHY do you think LW govts tend to have a lot of regulation and high taxes.

2. How would my vision of the future reflect that of Nazi Germany?

No... I defined it as big state big govt and big state control/interference... you said it wasn't... then you said it was in your question 2...

Sorry... I meant in question 1... typo error by me before...

You said not big state etc... then in your question you said it was a usual thing for left govts to be big state...!

by eddie Mon May 01, 2017 10:06 pm

Angry Andy wrote:Says the sanctimonious snob who spins yarns with his bestest chums, Stormee, Allakaka and Blackie on the flopped site.
Tom is posting crap to provoke , not to promote debate.

Do you realise that you are accusing Tommy of posting the same thing day in, day out, whilst posting the same thing day in, day out yourself? You see that don't you - that's not a question.

The difference is, he posts about topics, you post about him.

by Tommy Monk Mon May 01, 2017 10:08 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Eilzel wrote:No. I didn't. Troll. Point out exactly how I defined it as such, without twisting, or stop lying.

And if you can answer my questions then do it.

Cause right now your failure to do so speaks volumes.

Lez, I always had you down as one of the fairest and most even-handed of posters in this and other forums, but I really do take issue with you and people such as Andy over your contention that Tommy Monk is a forum Troll.

Out of his last 10 posts, nine could be considered legitimate contributions to the prevailing debate while one was abusive, albeit mild by comparison with the abuse posted by others.

The fact that you may disagree with him does not mean that what he posts is not relevant.

WhoseYourWolfie, on the other hand has, out of his last 10 posts, made one apparently legitimate contribution to a debate and nine abusive and offensive posts against other members - all of whom, significantly, might be considered as being on the Right of politics.

I am certainly not claiming any sort of angelic innocence or purity on my part - I may be Christian but I take a very unChristian attitude towards the principle of turning the other cheek - but trolling involves stalking individual members, frequently without provocation or for any real reason, and deliberately attempting to disrupt discussion.

And on that basis it is pretty clear in my mind at least just who is the real Troll here.

Thanks moley!

by Tommy Monk Mon May 01, 2017 10:15 pm

eddie wrote:
Angry Andy wrote:Says the sanctimonious snob who spins yarns with his bestest chums, Stormee, Allakaka and Blackie on the flopped site.
Tom is posting crap to provoke , not to promote debate.

Do you realise that you are accusing Tommy of posting the same thing day in, day out, whilst posting the same thing day in, day out yourself? You see that don't you - that's not a question.

The difference is, he posts about topics, you post about him.

Thanks Eddie!

by Tommy Monk Mon May 01, 2017 10:30 pm

Original Quill wrote:Related, but still the overriding question in the US: if government disinvolvement is the goal for RW'rs, why the involvement in a woman's decision about her own body--ie, why oppose abortion?

It seems hypocritical, to say the least. I believe that conservatives are not really opposed to government involvement, it's just what it becomes involved in. Hence, the large war machine, ready to step in at a moment's notice.

Abortion was legal under the nazis...

by eddie Mon May 01, 2017 10:43 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
eddie wrote:
Angry Andy wrote:Says the sanctimonious snob who spins yarns with his bestest chums, Stormee, Allakaka and Blackie on the flopped site.
Tom is posting crap to provoke , not to promote debate.

Do you realise that you are accusing Tommy of posting the same thing day in, day out, whilst posting the same thing day in, day out yourself? You see that don't you - that's not a question.

The difference is, he posts about topics, you post about him.

Thanks Eddie!

No problem. I can see why and how you irritate people but I think you're a pretty good poster and rarely stoop to calling people names nor do you ever really get involved in arguments. You certainly don't make long-winded posts about other people and their faults....

I know that riles people.
But that says more about them than it does you.

by Fred Moletrousers Mon May 01, 2017 10:52 pm

Angry Andy wrote:Says the sanctimonious snob who spins yarns with his bestest chums, Stormee, Allakaka and Blackie on the flopped site.
Tom is posting crap to provoke , not to promote debate.

Since the beginning of March I have posted single responses to posts by Major (I can only assume that he and Stormee are the same person) just seven times; twice in a discussion on bizarre insults including Shakespeare's favourite insults, once on fly-tipping where I stated what the current law is; twice in a thread on his wedding anniversary, once to congratulate him and once about game shooting; once on Australians in a discussion that only a two brain-celled moron like you might describe as having been racist, and once about Jeremy Corbyn,

I haven't "spun any yarns" with Allakaka; indeed I have not exchanged a single post with him during all that time.

Oh, and "I haven't spun any yarns" with Blackie either; again, not a single post so far as I can see.

I have, however, exchanged comments on a number of occasions with that well known swivel-eyed, knuckle-dragging racist Tory extremist, er, Fatbob.

Not one of my posts has been racist, homophobic, sexist, fattist or gingerist, you'll no doubt be terribly disappointed to learn; in fact I have never posted in overtly racist or homophobic threads in Flap...other than to oppose them.

Perhaps you would like to produce all the other conspiratorial posts and "yarns" spun with my "bestest chums" to prove your point, since it is known that you lurk in that forum hoping that you might be able to dig up some dirt on posters who are contributing members of both Flap and Newsfix...something which, frankly, makes you resemble some pondlife creature from the dirty mac brigade.

Or is cowardice as well and lying and smearmongering among your many less than pleasant characteristics?

by Guest Mon May 01, 2017 10:54 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Eilzel wrote:No. I didn't. Troll. Point out exactly how I defined it as such, without twisting, or stop lying.

And if you can answer my questions then do it.

Cause right now your failure to do so speaks volumes.

Lez, I always had you down as one of the fairest and most even-handed of posters in this and other forums, but I really do take issue with you and people such as Andy over your contention that Tommy Monk is a forum Troll.

Out of his last 10 posts, nine could be considered legitimate contributions to the prevailing debate while one was abusive, albeit mild by comparison with the abuse posted by others.

The fact that you may disagree with him does not mean that what he posts is not relevant.

How is revisionist history that is false a valid contribution? When as seen its not based on any evidence but politically motivated?

Any claim to say its relevant would mean you agree Nazism was Far left wing?

So do you believe Nazism was Far Left?

Sorry but falsified claims are never relevant, especially when they are politically motivated and not based on facts.

by Tommy Monk Mon May 01, 2017 11:01 pm

eddie wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Thanks Eddie!

No problem. I can see why and how you irritate people but I think you're a pretty good poster and rarely stoop to calling people names nor do you ever really get involved in arguments. You certainly don't make long-winded posts about other people and their faults....

I know that riles people.
But that says more about them than it does you.

I speak the truth...

by Guest Mon May 01, 2017 11:07 pm

Eilzel wrote:No. I didn't. Troll. Point out exactly how I defined it as such, without twisting, or stop lying.

And if you can answer my questions then do it.

Cause right now your failure to do so speaks volumes.

He has failed to answer many points here and the whole thread was designed simple for piss take

That is evident by using a single quote as if to back a false claim and then adding a lol after

by Fred Moletrousers Mon May 01, 2017 11:30 pm

Thorin wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Lez, I always had you down as one of the fairest and most even-handed of posters in this and other forums, but I really do take issue with you and people such as Andy over your contention that Tommy Monk is a forum Troll.

Out of his last 10 posts, nine could be considered legitimate contributions to the prevailing debate while one was abusive, albeit mild by comparison with the abuse posted by others.

The fact that you may disagree with him does not mean that what he posts is not relevant.

How is revisionist history that is false a valid contribution? When as seen its not based on any evidence but politically motivated?

Any claim to say its relevant would mean you agree Nazism was Far left wing?

So do you believe Nazism was Far Left?

Sorry but falsified claims are never relevant, especially when they are politically motivated and not based on facts.

Do you mean "never relevant" when motivated by political considerations with which you disagree and based on facts which you consider to be false?

You clearly considered the thread and Tommy's contributions to it both valid and relevant in the context of open debate, otherwise you would hardly have spent such an obvious amount of time on researching the material which you used to further your own argument opposing the premise.

That being so, your acceptance of its validity and relevance must obviously mean - by your own definition - that you yourself agree that Nazism was far Left wing.

Whether I believe it or not is immaterial; had the subject captured my interest I would have taken part in the debate. My interest is centred more on what I consider to be unfair and flawed accusations that Tommy is a Troll.

(For the record, and before you start squealing "cop out" - no, I don't believe it.)

by Sponsored content