Could new posters be paid to be posting here?

First topic message reminder :

http://rt.com/news/eu-trolls-election-monitoring-348/

It seems the EU has an endless supply of money from its member countries many of whom have citizens suffering severe austerity. It certain has enough to pay for people to be trained so they can visit social media and discussion sites in order to counteract anti EU sentiment.

So will we be seeing some new members who are dedicated to the EU - or whose pay packet depends on being dedicated to the EU.

Also what do people think of a publicly funded body using the funds to pay people to say nice things about it and stop ordinary people saying not nice but true things about it.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:Oh really?  

Well I will make this clear - I did not find it remotely humourous or cheeky or whatever else.

It read like JD has some sort of authority that allows Lurker to make a generalized post about far right wing abuses but does not allow me to ask how that applies to UKIP.

It reads as if fair argument is not going to be allowed and that only opinions that are sanctioned by JD are allowed.  I am pretty sure that I am not going to be the only one thinking that.

So JD have you got authority to tell people how to post?

OMG   


SPINX IT WAS JUST A GOOF AROUND, so please stop trying to pretend to be offended and make  far more of it than it was , I'm not telling anyone to do ffs. ::lightsab:: 

Is it something personal JD? I am not pretending to be offended I am describing how I did not think your post was goofing around and that it left me mildly riled and that your second post stating "you must condemn the those attached to far right parties such as UKIP who do commit serious offences.." left me a damn site more than mildly riled - not offended but aggravated.

As for not telling anyone to do what do you thing "you must" means?

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Well your "naffing around" has had about the same affect on my temper as when some hooligans who throw eggs at peoples houses or drop stones off motorway bridges refer to their behaviour as "naffing around"

...I think your really exaggerating Sphinx, if your temper was set off  by me saying order order, then for your own good perhaps you should not post on forums?..

If like you say , it makes your temper similar to if 'someone were throwing stones at cars from bridges or eggs at houses'..

Dropping stones on cars is a very serious offence as well as highly dangerous Sphinx, can you tell me if saying..order order is a either dangerous or illegal?

Pretending to be a police officer is illegal - and telling people "you must" certainly sounds like giving orders as though someone in authority.

Either you are trying to piss people off or are so socially inept you would skip up to a couple who have just decided to divorce and tell them to give each other a big kiss.

Joy Division wrote:

feelthelove wrote: People, it's Friday Let the fun begin! x

I think it is Sphinx who needs to calm done FTL!..apparently her temper because I said order order, is as bad as it would be if someone was bricking cars or lobbing eggs at houses!...

Never knew I could cause such a temper and destruction from the comfort of my chair!

No I lost my temper because you told me .order, order, you must condemn the those attached to far right parties such as UKIP who do commit serious offences.. then made out you were just larking about.

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

I think it is Sphinx who needs to calm done FTL!..apparently her temper because I said order order, is as bad as it would be if someone was bricking cars or lobbing eggs at houses!...

Never knew I could cause such a temper and destruction from the comfort of my chair!

No I lost my temper because you told me .order, order, you must condemn the those attached to far right parties such as UKIP who do commit serious offences..  then made out you were just larking about.

Yes I did, but you were saying I was barking our orders and something about Lurker too.

Wouldn't you call the EDL and the BNP extreme RW?..They cause trouble, and UKIP are also RW.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No I lost my temper because you told me .order, order, you must condemn the those attached to far right parties such as UKIP who do commit serious offences..  then made out you were just larking about.

Yes I did, but you were saying I was barking our orders and something about Lurker too.

Wouldn't you call the EDL and the BNP extreme RW?..They cause trouble, and UKIP are also RW.

Read back - Lurker made a polite reasonable post about far right and I politely asked him how that related to UKIP and whether similar atrocities were OK when committed by the far left.

At that point you launch in with order order - and I asked what the problem was so you told me I must etc etc.

I would call the EDL and BNP extreme - but not necessarily right wing after all it is the Labour party that keeps picking up ex BNP members and funding their election campaigns so they get elected. As for causing trouble what trouble has UKIP caused?

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:



Yes I did, but you were saying I was barking our orders and something about Lurker too.

Wouldn't you call the EDL and the BNP extreme RW?..They cause trouble, and UKIP are also RW.

Read back - Lurker made a polite reasonable post about far right and I politely asked him how that related to UKIP and whether similar atrocities were OK when committed by the far left.

At that point you launch in with order order - and I asked what the problem was so you told me I must etc etc.

I would call the EDL and BNP extreme - but not necessarily right wing after all it is the Labour party that keeps picking up ex BNP members and funding their election campaigns so they get elected.  As for causing trouble what trouble has UKIP caused?  

Well the Conservatives have had some move on to UKIP haven't they?, I never said UKIP had caused bother, what I did say was that UKIP there RW, they are almost the opposite of Labour are they not?

I wasn't barking out any orders Sphinx.  

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Read back - Lurker made a polite reasonable post about far right and I politely asked him how that related to UKIP and whether similar atrocities were OK when committed by the far left.

At that point you launch in with order order - and I asked what the problem was so you told me I must etc etc.

I would call the EDL and BNP extreme - but not necessarily right wing after all it is the Labour party that keeps picking up ex BNP members and funding their election campaigns so they get elected.  As for causing trouble what trouble has UKIP caused?  

Well the Conservatives have had some move on to UKIP haven't they?, I never said UKIP had caused bother, what I did say was that UKIP there RW, they are almost the opposite of Labour are they not?

I wasn't barking  out any orders Sphinx.  

When someone says to you "you must" - how do you interpret it JD?

Yes some Conservatives have moved to UKIP - but so have an equal number of Labour because UKIP are not necessarily the opposite of Labour especially when you look at the "wing" spectrum. UKIP is now the only party fighting for the rights of the ordinary working person - they are the only ones wanting minimum wage to go untaxed, they are the only ones recognizing what wage compression really means and what its real cause is. They are the only ones looking for a change of the education system to bring in proper practical technical education given equal standing with proper higher education to ensure that all young people leaving school have either practical trade skills or qualifications universities and employers need and want.

The way UKIP is the opposite to Labour is on the spectrum of government size/interference and on that spectrum Labour are right next to the Conservatives and Lib dems. That spectrum is the one that sees lib/lab/con wanting every larger more interfering government - where the government (of whichever party) tells parents what and how to raise their children, what they can and cannot do in their own home, how their lives will be run regardless of whether it is wanted or not. Opposite that stands UKIP who want to return to a government that does what the electorate wants - and that may advise but accepts peoples right to make their own choices - to a small specific function government in a properly restricted sphere.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
Not all Lefties call RWers Nazis. But some do; and I dare say some are. It can be as tedious as those boring oafish RWers who insist on calling all LWers 'loony', 'limp wristed' and worst of all 'comrade' (although I actually take this as a term of endearment), 'communists', and of course the usual haters of free speech, soviet apologists etc etc blah blah blah- you get my point I'm sure- many RWers waffle on about it all the time; then cry about the return fire of being called nazi  

Thanks for explaining that Eilzel.
I see what you're saying, a sort of tit-for-tat name calling.
Although while I can certainly understand the accusations towards the lefties, I am puzzled by their response of calling RWers NAZIs, as the NAZI's were born of left wing ideals and were nationalist socialists themselves.

Predominantly Nationalists though Monk- a staple of RW bigotry. The Nazi's as we know from Germany did some good, and alot bad. The socialist stuff reinvigorated the country; the Nationalist led to the holocaust and WWII...

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

Well the Conservatives have had some move on to UKIP haven't they?, I never said UKIP had caused bother, what I did say was that UKIP there RW, they are almost the opposite of Labour are they not?

I wasn't barking  out any orders Sphinx.  

When someone says to you "you must" - how do you interpret it JD?

Yes some Conservatives have moved to UKIP - but so have an equal number of Labour because UKIP are not necessarily the opposite of Labour especially when you look at the "wing" spectrum.  UKIP is now the only party fighting for the rights of the ordinary working person - they are the only ones wanting minimum wage to go untaxed, they are the only ones recognizing what wage compression really means and what its real cause is.  They are the only ones looking for a change of the education system to bring in proper practical technical education given equal standing with proper higher education to ensure that all young people leaving school have either practical trade skills or qualifications universities and employers need and want.  

The way UKIP is the opposite to Labour is on the spectrum of government size/interference and on that spectrum Labour are right next to the Conservatives and Lib dems.  That spectrum is the one that sees lib/lab/con wanting every larger more interfering government - where the government (of whichever party) tells parents what and how to raise their children, what they can and cannot do in their own home, how their lives will be run regardless of whether it is wanted or not.  Opposite that stands UKIP who want to return to a government that does what the electorate wants - and that may advise but accepts peoples right to make their own choices - to a small specific function government in a properly restricted sphere.

The latter of your post only says to me...UKIP will just leave the vulnerable and poor to their own devices but you have passed it off as 'a UKIP governments who won't tell anyone what to do'...

And just how do you know they will govern as they say they will and follow through with all their policies ?

They have never governed before so why would you just trust a party so much who have never governed , nor even had an elected MP?..

Answer ...because the Tories are not RW enough for you Sphinx, and you would like to see immigrants, benefit claimants etc targeted more.

...I'm entitled to my opinion.  

Wrong again Eilzel, it was a hard line left form of socialism that the NAZIs imposed, with a nationalist twist. A typically left style enormous state owned and controlled system of top down dictatorial rule. but with an emphasis of looking after their own national people first as well as others viewed as supporters of and contributors to the new system, and a similar harshness and brutality dished out to those deemed as non contributory or against the perceived common good, much the same as was happening under the other very similar hard left regime of communism at the time.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

When someone says to you "you must" - how do you interpret it JD?

Yes some Conservatives have moved to UKIP - but so have an equal number of Labour because UKIP are not necessarily the opposite of Labour especially when you look at the "wing" spectrum.  UKIP is now the only party fighting for the rights of the ordinary working person - they are the only ones wanting minimum wage to go untaxed, they are the only ones recognizing what wage compression really means and what its real cause is.  They are the only ones looking for a change of the education system to bring in proper practical technical education given equal standing with proper higher education to ensure that all young people leaving school have either practical trade skills or qualifications universities and employers need and want.  

The way UKIP is the opposite to Labour is on the spectrum of government size/interference and on that spectrum Labour are right next to the Conservatives and Lib dems.  That spectrum is the one that sees lib/lab/con wanting every larger more interfering government - where the government (of whichever party) tells parents what and how to raise their children, what they can and cannot do in their own home, how their lives will be run regardless of whether it is wanted or not.  Opposite that stands UKIP who want to return to a government that does what the electorate wants - and that may advise but accepts peoples right to make their own choices - to a small specific function government in a properly restricted sphere.

The latter of your post only says to me...UKIP will just leave the vulnerable  and  poor to their own devices but you have passed it off as 'a UKIP governments who won't tell anyone what to do'...

And just how do you know they will govern as they say they will and follow through with all their policies ?

They have never governed before so why would you just trust a party so much who have never governed , nor even had an elected MP?..

Answer ...because the Tories are not RW enough for you Sphinx, and you would like to see immigrants, benefit claimants etc targeted more.

...I'm entitled to my opinion.  

Regards the vulnerable and the poor you might want to look up www.staretheridge.co.uk the UKIP disability spokesman.

How do I know they govern how they say and follow through? Well I dont - nobody knows how anyone will for that matter - but their track record for doing things differently in councils and sticking to their promises in councils is solid and evidentery.

Once upon a time Labour had never governed before or had an MP (although they may not be the best example of governing)

UKIP do not target immigrants and benefits claimants JD - as you would know if you actually listened to them. UKIP want controls on immigrants - which is pretty much the position of all people living in the UK including recent immigrants who recognize that the current uncontrolled system cannot continue without causing massive damage. You may be on of the odd few who is in total support of the open door policy but I think I have seen you post elsewhere you are not.

As for benefit claimants - go and read what our disability spokesman has to say about that. As far as fit healthy unemployed go do you have a problem with them being expected to take a job if there is a job available?

Yes you are entitled to your opinion - what you are not entitled to do is tell me mine is not allowed.

Eh?

Did you just say UKIP do not target immigrants sphinx?

I must have missed all the fear mongering they have been spouting on Romanians and Bulgarians in the run up to Christmas, how also Nigel Farage wants only Christian refugees from Syria, basically condemning any children of the other faiths..Again the vast majority of UKIP policies from their own website are centered around immigration and the EU

If that is not targeting immigrants, I do not know what is

PhilDidge wrote:Eh?

Did you just say UKIP do not target immigrants sphinx?

I must have missed all the fear mongering they have been spouting on Romanians and Bulgarians in the run up to Christmas, how also Nigel Farage wants only Christian refugees from Syria, basically condemning any children of the other faiths..Again the vast majority of UKIP policies from their own website are centered around immigration and the EU

If that is not targeting immigrants, I do not know what is

They target immigration - not immigrants.

Do you believe immigration needs to be controlled? Yes or No.

PhilDidge wrote:Eh?

Did you just say UKIP do not target immigrants sphinx?

I must have missed all the fear mongering they have been spouting on Romanians and Bulgarians in the run up to Christmas, how also Nigel Farage wants only Christian refugees from Syria, basically condemning any children of the other faiths..Again the vast majority of UKIP policies from their own website are centered around immigration and the EU

If that is not targeting immigrants, I do not know what is

Hi didge - what targeting of immigrants have they done?

BigAndy9 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Eh?

Did you just say UKIP do not target immigrants sphinx?

I must have missed all the fear mongering they have been spouting on Romanians and Bulgarians in the run up to Christmas, how also Nigel Farage wants only Christian refugees from Syria, basically condemning any children of the other faiths..Again the vast majority of UKIP policies from their own website are centered around immigration and the EU

If that is not targeting immigrants, I do not know what is

Hi didge - what targeting of immigrants have they done?

Read back to my last post

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:



The latter of your post only says to me...UKIP will just leave the vulnerable  and  poor to their own devices but you have passed it off as 'a UKIP governments who won't tell anyone what to do'...

And just how do you know they will govern as they say they will and follow through with all their policies ?

They have never governed before so why would you just trust a party so much who have never governed , nor even had an elected MP?..

Answer ...because the Tories are not RW enough for you Sphinx, and you would like to see immigrants, benefit claimants etc targeted more.

...I'm entitled to my opinion.  

Regards the vulnerable and the poor you might want to look up www.staretheridge.co.uk the UKIP disability spokesman.  

How do I know they govern how they say and follow through?  Well I dont - nobody knows how anyone will for that matter - but their track record for doing things differently in councils and sticking to their promises in councils is solid and evidentery.

Once upon a time Labour had never governed before or had an MP (although they may not be the best example of governing)

UKIP do not target immigrants and benefits claimants JD - as you would know if you actually listened to them.  UKIP want controls on immigrants - which is pretty much the position of all people living in the UK including recent immigrants who recognize that the current uncontrolled system cannot continue without causing massive damage.  You may be on of the odd few who is in total support of the open door policy  but I think I have seen you post elsewhere you are not.

As for benefit claimants - go and read what our disability spokesman has to say about that.  As far as fit healthy unemployed go do you have a problem with them being expected to take a job if there is a job available?

Yes you are entitled to your opinion - what you are not entitled to do is tell me mine is not allowed.

I never said you can't have an opinion Sphinx, and where have I ever said I was all for an open door policy?, in fact where has anyone here said they are for an open door policy ?...

And again,where have I said that any fit person should not work?...do you know where theses jobs will all come from for every fit unemployed person Sphinx?

You really should make up your mind on what I've said, as you're above post insinuates I'm all for the open door policy , but in the same sentence you then claim I'm not.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Regards the vulnerable and the poor you might want to look up www.staretheridge.co.uk the UKIP disability spokesman.  

How do I know they govern how they say and follow through?  Well I dont - nobody knows how anyone will for that matter - but their track record for doing things differently in councils and sticking to their promises in councils is solid and evidentery.

Once upon a time Labour had never governed before or had an MP (although they may not be the best example of governing)

UKIP do not target immigrants and benefits claimants JD - as you would know if you actually listened to them.  UKIP want controls on immigrants - which is pretty much the position of all people living in the UK including recent immigrants who recognize that the current uncontrolled system cannot continue without causing massive damage.  You may be on of the odd few who is in total support of the open door policy  but I think I have seen you post elsewhere you are not.

As for benefit claimants - go and read what our disability spokesman has to say about that.  As far as fit healthy unemployed go do you have a problem with them being expected to take a job if there is a job available?

Yes you are entitled to your opinion - what you are not entitled to do is tell me mine is not allowed.

I never said you can't have an opinion Sphinx, and where have I ever said I was all for an open door policy?, in fact where has anyone here said they are for an open door policy ?...

And again,where have I said that any fit person should not work?...do you know where theses jobs will all come from for every fit unemployed person Sphinx?

You really should make up your mind on what I've said, as you're above post insinuates I'm all for the open door policy , but  in the same sentence you then claim I'm not.

I was not insinuating that - I pointed out I had seen you post supporting controlled immigration.

My point is that you and many others attack UKIP for being anti immigration when advocating exactly the same position on immigration as UKIP.

Would you like to explain to me how the UKIP position on immigration is unacceptably different from your own?

As for the jobs UKIP position is to work on generation of jobs especially manufacturing by building on a much less regulated environment positioned as a gateway to a major market. They do not expect and never have expected people to be punished for failing to do non existence work. Combine that with reforming the education system to give equal value to practical trade and higher academic qualifications and making sure people leave education with the skills and values wanted by employers, and a slow easing of pressure on wages bought about by unskilled immigration and you have a party that is far more interested in helping the poor than the others.

sphinx wrote:............................................

.. could you explain why atrocities are acceptable if committed by the far left as that seems to be your stance.

  

THAT is one of the most insane and irrational rants I have seen from you this year, Sphinx..

AND, that's saying a lot !

 ::drnkpst::

Tommy Monk wrote:Wrong again Eilzel, it was a hard line left form of socialism that the NAZIs imposed, with a nationalist twist. A typically left style enormous state owned and controlled system of top down dictatorial rule. but with an emphasis of looking after their own national people first as well as others viewed as supporters of and contributors to the new system, and a similar harshness and brutality dished out to those deemed as non contributory or against the perceived common good, much the same as was happening under the other very similar hard left regime of communism at the time.

Not wrong. The massive reorganization of Germany by the Nazis saw the regeneration of a nation crippled after WWI and the depression. It was a roaring success and if you want to bring up the Nazis socialist aspect then you can only applaud it.

All the evils of Nazism however were born of Nationalism and its direct line to the idea of pure race. Nationalism saw Jews scapegoated, persecuted and eventually slaughtered; Nationalism saw invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland- Nationalism is today a staple of RW ideology in the west and that is where the label comes from- however over used it is (a point which I agree on).

Credible LWers today admit to the fact that many evils were committed by those extreme Leftist regimes in Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Russia and Kim's North Korea- we don't follow the approaches of those regimes but there is no denying their 'versions' of communism/socialism led to immense human loss and suffering. That the Nationalist RW refuse to do the same of the evils of Nationalist Nazism is telling.

Tommy Monk wrote:...............................

.. as the NAZI's were born of left wing ideals and were nationalist socialists themselves.

  

RUBBISH !!!

Just how stupid are you, Tommy !!!
Nazi's were only ever "socialist" in name..
NEVER in their actions or ideals ~ and most definitely were never based on any "left wing ideals" !

Your gross ignorance is breathtaking..
::fishffight::

Beekeeper wrote:

sphinx wrote:............................................

.. could you explain why atrocities are acceptable if committed by the far left as that seems to be your stance.

  

THAT is one of the most insane and irrational rants I have seen from you this year, Sphinx..

AND, that's saying a lot !

 ::drnkpst::

How is it a rant? Stalin killed more than Hitler yet the certain people seem to have no problem equating even centre right with Nazis without considering if their stance is close to Stalins than the person they are accusings stance is to Hitler.

Extremism should be unacceptable whatever direction you go in to reach it. UKIP is not extremist.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:Have you got a reason a US news organ would make it up completely with detailed figures?

My reason is that what they have written is their interpretation of a document which is something I don''t always accept at face value and may not agree with.

Have you got it anyway?

That the EU is very anti democratic you defend constantly on here. You are even worse you are an unpaid defender of an organisation that is undermining our country. Yes I do believe the EU could be paying folks to do this they have a huge budget for propaganda.

Interesting, we have Eilzel admitting the left wing socialist nature of the NAZIs and claiming it was the basis of their economic "roaring success", while denying that their nationalism had anything to do with left wing or their economic sucess.

Then we have Beekeeper who is denying that the NAZIs had any left wing socialist aspect about them at all, except for perhaps in their name.


So let's just look at the nationalist aspect and its involvement in left wing politics.

Communism was proclaimed an international struggle, but the reality had both Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's Red China using Nationalism to gain support. Mao's dominance of China was secure for years based largely on his Nationalistic reputation gained from ousting the Japanese and other foreigners from the country.



You might also want to read this....

http://mises.org/daily/1937

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2715/i_resigned_for_linking_nazism_to_socialism_but_it_s_true

Tommy Monk wrote:Wrong again Eilzel, it was a hard line left form of socialism that the NAZIs imposed, with a nationalist twist. A typically left style enormous state owned and controlled system of top down dictatorial rule. but with an emphasis of looking after their own national people first as well as others viewed as supporters of and contributors to the new system, and a similar harshness and brutality dished out to those deemed as non contributory or against the perceived common good, much the same as was happening under the other very similar hard left regime of communism at the time.

Wrong. The Nazis simply co-opted the the language. What the Nazis had in mind was government ownership of the means of production in order to feed the military machine. That is not socialism.

Tommy Monk wrote:Interesting, we have Eilzel admitting the left wing socialist nature of the NAZIs and claiming it was the basis of their economic "roaring success", while denying that their nationalism had anything to do with left wing or their economic sucess.

Then we have Beekeeper who is denying that the NAZIs had any left wing socialist aspect about them at all, except for perhaps in their name.


So let's just look at the nationalist aspect and its involvement in left wing politics.

Communism was proclaimed an international struggle, but the reality had both Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's Red China using Nationalism to gain support. Mao's dominance of China was secure for years based largely on his Nationalistic reputation gained from ousting the Japanese and other foreigners from the country.



You might also want to read this....

http://mises.org/daily/1937

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2715/i_resigned_for_linking_nazism_to_socialism_but_it_s_true

Ok, you want to explain how socialism led to the Holocaust and invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Wrong again Eilzel, it was a hard line left form of socialism that the NAZIs imposed, with a nationalist twist. A typically left style enormous state owned and controlled system of top down dictatorial rule. but with an emphasis of looking after their own national people first as well as others viewed as supporters of and contributors to the new system, and a similar harshness and brutality dished out to those deemed as non contributory or against the perceived common good, much the same as was happening under the other very similar hard left regime of communism at the time.

Wrong.  The Nazis simply co-opted the the language.  What the Nazis had in mind was government ownership of the means of production in order to feed the military machine.  That is not socialism.

This is where as a Conservative I am embarrassed when some come out with this absurd claim that the Nazi's were lefties

PhilDidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Wrong.  The Nazis simply co-opted the the language.  What the Nazis had in mind was government ownership of the means of production in order to feed the military machine.  That is not socialism.

This is where as a Conservative I am embarrassed when some come out with this absurd claim that the Nazi's were lefties

Yes; Monk has mistaken my saying there were socialist aspects to the Nazi's, such as massive state apparatus and state driven engineering projects (like the autobahn's) as me saying the party was itself socialist- which is wasn't. It is desperation- the Left admit do not dispute the fact the likes of Mao and Stalin were extreme LWers; the Right should not seek to discard Hitler.

Eilzel wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


This is where as a Conservative I am embarrassed when some come out with this absurd claim that the Nazi's were lefties

Yes; Monk has mistaken my saying there were socialist aspects to the Nazi's, such as massive state apparatus and state driven engineering projects (like the autobahn's) as me saying the party was itself socialist- which is wasn't. It is desperation- the Left admit do not dispute the fact the likes of Mao and Stalin were extreme LWers; the Right should not seek to discard Hitler.

Just ask him if if the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are Democratic Eilzel.

It started out out as a two tier party with socialist and nationalists and Hitler certainly ousted many of those with socialist view points, thus showing where something had served its purpose it was quickly eliminated from the party[/quote]

Eilzel wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:
This is where as a Conservative I am embarrassed when some come out with this absurd claim that the Nazi's were lefties

Yes; Monk has mistaken my saying there were socialist aspects to the Nazi's, such as massive state apparatus and state driven engineering projects (like the autobahn's) as me saying the party was itself socialist- which is wasn't. It is desperation- the Left admit do not dispute the fact the likes of Mao and Stalin were extreme LWers; the Right should not seek to discard Hitler.

The right want small state, small state control, small tax, small government spend, free market, combined with traditional values.

To suggest that to then go a bit further right means massive state and control with less freedoms, is quite frankly, absurd.

The NAZIs under Hitler constructed a system that was just like any other far left system known, and had no comparison with any right wing ideals outlined above.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
Yes; Monk has mistaken my saying there were socialist aspects to the Nazi's, such as massive state apparatus and state driven engineering projects (like the autobahn's) as me saying the party was itself socialist- which is wasn't. It is desperation- the Left admit do not dispute the fact the likes of Mao and Stalin were extreme LWers; the Right should not seek to discard Hitler.

The right want small state, small state control, small tax, small government spend, free market, combined with traditional values.

To suggest that to then go a bit further right means massive state and control with less freedoms, is quite frankly, absurd.

The NAZIs under Hitler constructed a system that was just like any other far left system known, and had no comparison with any right wing ideals outlined above.

So what do you call the current Tory Party?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
Yes; Monk has mistaken my saying there were socialist aspects to the Nazi's, such as massive state apparatus and state driven engineering projects (like the autobahn's) as me saying the party was itself socialist- which is wasn't. It is desperation- the Left admit do not dispute the fact the likes of Mao and Stalin were extreme LWers; the Right should not seek to discard Hitler.

The right want small state, small state control, small tax, small government spend, free market, combined with traditional values.

To suggest that to then go a bit further right means massive state and control with less freedoms, is quite frankly, absurd.

The NAZIs under Hitler constructed a system that was just like any other far left system known, and had no comparison with any right wing ideals outlined above.

There is nothing RW or LW about whether the state is big or small. The ultimate goal of Marxist Communism was for there to be no government (it was an unrealistic Utopian vision but still). I actually do like big government, but that is me personally. The Nazi's were also interested in traditional values- to the point anything remotely different was to be destroyed.

PhilDidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
Wrong.  The Nazis simply co-opted the the language.  What the Nazis had in mind was government ownership of the means of production in order to feed the military machine.  That is not socialism.

This is where as a Conservative I am embarrassed when some come out with this absurd claim that the Nazi's were lefties

As a true conservative you should be more annoyed that some try to associate you and right wing politics with being like Hitler and his "National Socialist German Workers' Party" and the massive state dictatorship, and ensuing human suffering that resulted from it.
As a true conservative you would know that this was nothing to do with your typical political and envisaged right wing beliefs and ideals which are outlined above.

@TM
but them they changed to Fascism.
Really RW are called Nazis not because of the economic principles but because of their attitudes towards foreigners, gays and the less fortunate.

Not all RWs I’ll give you that, but a lot are racist homophobic bigots.

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:Have you got a reason a US news organ would make it up completely with detailed figures?

My reason is that what they have written is their interpretation of a document which is something I don''t always accept at face value and may not agree with.

Have you got it anyway?

That the EU is very anti democratic you defend constantly on here. You are even worse you are an unpaid defender of an organisation that is undermining our country. Yes I do believe the EU could be paying folks to do this they have a huge budget for propaganda.

Pointing out the difference between the ECHR and the EU is not defending the EU. It's all about facts and I'm happy to keep you right on that score.

Tommy Monk wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:
This is where as a Conservative I am embarrassed when some come out with this absurd claim that the Nazi's were lefties

As a true conservative you should be more annoyed that some try to associate you and right wing politics with being like Hitler and his "National Socialist German Workers' Party" and the massive state dictatorship, and ensuing human suffering that resulted from it.
As a true conservative you would know that this was nothing to do with your typical political and envisaged right wing beliefs and ideals which are outlined above.

Sorry that's just ignorance.

As didge has pointed out, do you think the Democratic Republic of Korea is really very 'democratic'? Just because a word is there it doesn't mean they follow that doctrine.

Once again you have FAILED to point out how Socialism drove the ideologies that led to the Holocaust and WWII. That is because it DIDN'T.

The Holocaust and WWII happened because of Nationalist conservatism. A visceral hatred of different people like Jews, gays, gypsies and the disabled- you know all the people currently attacked by RWers today and papers like the Daily Mail (substitute Jews with Muslims today).

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


The right want small state, small state control, small tax, small government spend, free market, combined with traditional values.

To suggest that to then go a bit further right means massive state and control with less freedoms, is quite frankly, absurd.

The NAZIs under Hitler constructed a system that was just like any other far left system known, and had no comparison with any right wing ideals outlined above.

There is nothing RW or LW about whether the state is big or small. The ultimate goal of Marxist Communism was for there to be no government (it was an unrealistic Utopian vision but still). I actually do like big government, but that is me personally. The Nazi's were also interested in traditional values- to the point anything remotely different was to be destroyed.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS



     

I have to say I agree. It is a very unfortunate state of affairs, not the agreeing but your nailing of the post. I will refer myself to my favourite book " Animal Farm " May i now refer to as Snowball   

gerber wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

There is nothing RW or LW about whether the state is big or small. The ultimate goal of Marxist Communism was for there to be no government (it was an unrealistic Utopian vision but still). I actually do like big government, but that is me personally. The Nazi's were also interested in traditional values- to the point anything remotely different was to be destroyed.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS



     

I have to say I agree.  It is a very unfortunate state of affairs, not the agreeing but your nailing of the post.  I will refer myself to my favourite book  " Animal Farm "  May i now refer to as Snowball    

Thanks, I think   

Eilzel wrote:

gerber wrote:

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS



     

I have to say I agree.  It is a very unfortunate state of affairs, not the agreeing but your nailing of the post.  I will refer myself to my favourite book  " Animal Farm "  May i now refer to as Snowball    

Thanks, I think   

    

sphinx wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
The right want small state, small state control, small tax, small government spend, free market, combined with traditional values.
To suggest that to then go a bit further right means massive state and control with less freedoms, is quite frankly, absurd.
The NAZIs under Hitler constructed a system that was just like any other far left system known, and had no comparison with any right wing ideals outlined above.

So what do you call the current Tory Party?

Many things, where do I start?
Not very 'conservative' would be a polite and general way of putting it!
Although admittedly they are in a difficult position to implement the changes that are wanted and needed by the country, ie, smaller state, smaller state control, smaller tax, smaller government spend etc. Because the lefties immediately start the 'knee-jerk' reaction by the brainwashed in opposition to this by crying out how this means cuts for everything for everyone, from benefits to NHS, then shout out 'nasty party' rhetoric, and then start going on about RW being like Hitler and the NAZIs when they were actually a big state big control left wing dictatorship!!!
Effectively arguing against the dictatorial big state control of the NAZIs by having more dictatorial big state control by OUR government!!!!!!!
This is 'double-speak' bullshit of the highest order!!!!
And..... most annoying!
Any thoughts dodge?

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
The right want small state, small state control, small tax, small government spend, free market, combined with traditional values.
To suggest that to then go a bit further right means massive state and control with less freedoms, is quite frankly, absurd.
The NAZIs under Hitler constructed a system that was just like any other far left system known, and had no comparison with any right wing ideals outlined above.

There is nothing RW or LW about whether the state is big or small. The ultimate goal of Marxist Communism was for there to be no government (it was an unrealistic Utopian vision but still). I actually do like big government, but that is me personally. The Nazi's were also interested in traditional values- to the point anything remotely different was to be destroyed.

Yes there is, left is always demonstrated historically by big state authoritarian regimes and state control.


And for your claim of 'Marxist Communism was for there to be no government', what was government to be replaced by???? Religious law by any chance???


And run how and by who???




Maybe you should learn more about communism and the Bolshevik Revolution.......

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
There is nothing RW or LW about whether the state is big or small. The ultimate goal of Marxist Communism was for there to be no government (it was an unrealistic Utopian vision but still). I actually do like big government, but that is me personally. The Nazi's were also interested in traditional values- to the point anything remotely different was to be destroyed.

Yes there is, left is always demonstrated historically by big state authoritarian regimes and state control.


And for your claim of 'Marxist Communism was for there to be no government', what was government to be replaced by???? Religious law by any chance???


And run how and by who???




Maybe you should learn more about communism and the Bolshevik Revolution.......

You have not the first scooby doo what you are on about, so why did Hitler eradicate most of those with socialist views from his own party after they had served their purpose to woe voters?
Why is it that many national companies were sold on to then be private?

You do even have the understanding there is also such a thing as right wing socialism as a concept?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
The right want small state, small state control, small tax, small government spend, free market, combined with traditional values.
To suggest that to then go a bit further right means massive state and control with less freedoms, is quite frankly, absurd.
The NAZIs under Hitler constructed a system that was just like any other far left system known, and had no comparison with any right wing ideals outlined above.

There is nothing RW or LW about whether the state is big or small. The ultimate goal of Marxist Communism was for there to be no government (it was an unrealistic Utopian vision but still). I actually do like big government, but that is me personally. The Nazi's were also interested in traditional values- to the point anything remotely different was to be destroyed.

Yes there is, left is always demonstrated historically by big state authoritarian regimes and state control.


And for your claim of 'Marxist Communism was for there to be no government', what was government to be replaced by???? Religious law by any chance???


And run how and by who???




Maybe you should learn more about communism and the Bolshevik Revolution.......

Under Marxism, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (which was the name for the government to be formed after capitalism was overthrown) was a temporary stage to manage the transition to communism (living in self-governed communes with no state). Why on EARTH would an atheist replace the government with religious law???

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
There is nothing RW or LW about whether the state is big or small. The ultimate goal of Marxist Communism was for there to be no government (it was an unrealistic Utopian vision but still). I actually do like big government, but that is me personally. The Nazi's were also interested in traditional values- to the point anything remotely different was to be destroyed.

Yes there is, left is always demonstrated historically by big state authoritarian regimes and state control.


And for your claim of 'Marxist Communism was for there to be no government', what was government to be replaced by???? Religious law by any chance???


And run how and by who???




Maybe you should learn more about communism and the Bolshevik Revolution.......

Hello Napoleon.

So Monk who do you imagine knowing more or being the 'word' on communism- Lenin amd Stalin, who used Marxism in an authoritarian way to govern the USSR, or Karl Marx- who both claimed to follow?

If Marx then you should really reevaluate you ignorant view based on a few corrupt regimes.

The answer is Marx btw, he wrote the Communist Manifesto in case you didn't know.

Tommy Monk wrote:

sphinx wrote:
So what do you call the current Tory Party?

Many things, where do I start?
Not very 'conservative' would be a polite and general way of putting it!
Although admittedly they are in a difficult position to implement the changes that are wanted and needed by the country, ie, smaller state, smaller state control, smaller tax, smaller government spend etc. Because the lefties immediately start the 'knee-jerk' reaction by the brainwashed in opposition to this by crying out how this means cuts for everything for everyone, from benefits to NHS, then shout out 'nasty party' rhetoric, and then start going on about RW being like Hitler and the NAZIs when they were actually a big state big control left wing dictatorship!!!
Effectively arguing against the dictatorial big state control of the NAZIs by having more dictatorial big state control by OUR government!!!!!!!
This is 'double-speak' bullshit of the highest order!!!!
And..... most annoying!
Any thoughts dodge?

But the current conservative party have no interest in a smaller state - they dont want the change the size just what the size does.

sphinx wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Many things, where do I start?
Not very 'conservative' would be a polite and general way of putting it!
Although admittedly they are in a difficult position to implement the changes that are wanted and needed by the country, ie, smaller state, smaller state control, smaller tax, smaller government spend etc. Because the lefties immediately start the 'knee-jerk' reaction by the brainwashed in opposition to this by crying out how this means cuts for everything for everyone, from benefits to NHS, then shout out 'nasty party' rhetoric, and then start going on about RW being like Hitler and the NAZIs when they were actually a big state big control left wing dictatorship!!!
Effectively arguing against the dictatorial big state control of the NAZIs by having more dictatorial big state control by OUR government!!!!!!!
This is 'double-speak' bullshit of the highest order!!!!
And..... most annoying!
Any thoughts dodge?

But the current conservative party have no interest in a smaller state - they dont want the change the size just what the size does.

I agree, that's why I said 'not very conservative'!

Talk tough but much the same results.

Immigration is up after promise of reduction.

No 'bonfire of the quangos', just more business as usual.

The whole gay marriage fiasco, brought in by Cameron after promising not to do it just before elected, without any mandate in manifesto etc, and only passed with the help of labour and lib dems!

And with them overall being quite pro EU.

'Not very conservative' is me being polite and a generous understatement!