Why Ann Coulter is great.
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
Blade96
Senior Master
yeah well you're calling people and movements communists and socialists when they clearly werent. McCarthy used to do that. I thought I'd make a joke.......cause he used to find commies in the most unlikely places...
So that makes it OK?
Even though he destroyed hundreds if not thousands of innocent lives? Just to nail a small handful of “communists”?
It was not and it is not against any law in the USA or the western world to be a member of the communist party.
He prosecuted people for what amounts to thought crimes. Sounds very communist/fascist/socialist to me.
Blade96
Senior Master
he did find some yeah
calling hitler a communist. I think he'd be offended.
And you're welcome, btw. I do like your threads like I said thread that go off topic as this one did at times is fun. Also the talk about fascism, communism, and socialism.Billcihak didnt say it was ok. He just said mcCarthy had found some real commies. Which he found a few.
Billchihak, I'm not totally convinced you aren't sitting at your computer winding people up and laughing over your coffee because surely no one can mix history up the way you do and be for real.
The pieces I post up from Jewish sites is from eye witness reports, you know, the people who were there at the time. these would include my parents, now unless you are willing to actually call them liars I'd suggest you do some reading and investigation to find out what the history actually is. You seem to forget that for many people this is still something that is within living memory, it's not just in books or films, it's in people's minds. You read it in books, my parents generation lived through it. My mother's entensive family died in the camps, she was the only survivor we've found. She knew what was going on, who were communists, who wasn't, she was there. Likewise the people who wrote up the pieces I've presented to you. Before you ask btw, there is all shades of political thought among the writers so there isn't a bias one way or the other.The other thing you don't seem to be able to do is to separate a political system from those who are dictators and tyrants. Somewhere such as Korea isn't a socialist state, it's a dictatorship through and through. There's nothing socialist, communist or anything else about it, it's one man who has taken control of the country and he will pass that on to his son. It can call itself whatever it wants but it's a dictatorship run by an evil man.
You need to widen your political education to encompass all aspects of political thought and to really understand how wide the spectrum of political thought is. You need to understand too that there are a great many people on all sides of the political divide that want to tell you how to run your life, it's a well known fact that politicians of all stripes think they know better than the electorate.
Both SensibleManiac and Granfire are correct, you need to be ignored until you can study your subject but you also need to be refuted because I'd hate for anyone to learn history from you, it's twisted and revisionist.
The pieces I post up from Jewish sites is from eye witness reports, you know, the people who were there at the time. these would include my parents, now unless you are willing to actually call them liars I'd suggest you do some reading and investigation to find out what the history actually is. You seem to forget that for many people this is still something that is within living memory, it's not just in books or films, it's in people's minds. You read it in books, my parents generation lived through it. My mother's entensive family died in the camps, she was the only survivor we've found. She knew what was going on, who were communists, who wasn't, she was there. Likewise the people who wrote up the pieces I've presented to you. Before you ask btw, there is all shades of political thought among the writers so there isn't a bias one way or the other.The other thing you don't seem to be able to do is to separate a political system from those who are dictators and tyrants. Somewhere such as Korea isn't a socialist state, it's a dictatorship through and through. There's nothing socialist, communist or anything else about it, it's one man who has taken control of the country and he will pass that on to his son. It can call itself whatever it wants but it's a dictatorship run by an evil man.
You need to widen your political education to encompass all aspects of political thought and to really understand how wide the spectrum of political thought is. You need to understand too that there are a great many people on all sides of the political divide that want to tell you how to run your life, it's a well known fact that politicians of all stripes think they know better than the electorate.
Both SensibleManiac and Granfire are correct, you need to be ignored until you can study your subject but you also need to be refuted because I'd hate for anyone to learn history from you, it's twisted and revisionist.
But how can that be? The name of the country says it's democratic. Surely, they wouldn't lie about something like that... :idunno:
From a link in a Bighollywood.com story. It talks about throwing around the term facist and nazi and why it is done.
Nonetheless, the way contemporary “Western” Leftists constantly hurl the labels “Nazi” and “Fascist” at anybody they disagree with suggests almost an obsession with Nazism. Such an obsession is also suggested by the way TV programs about Hitler and Nazism always seem to be available from our Left-dominated media. Programs about Stalin’s Russia are as rare as hen’s teeth by comparison.
This continuing Leftist obsession with Nazism might make some sense if Nazism were uniquely evil but, horrible and massive though the Nazi crimes were, they were anything but unique. For a start, government by tyranny is, if anything, normal in human history. And both antisemitism and eugenic theories were normal in prewar Europe. Further back in history, even Martin Luther wrote a most vicious and well-known attack on the Jews. And Nazi theories of German racial superiority differed from then-customary British beliefs in British racial superiority mainly in that the British views were implemented with typical conservative moderation whereas the Nazi views were implemented with typical Leftist fanaticism and brutality (cf. Stalin and Pol Pot). And the Nazi and Russian pogroms differed mainly in typically greater German thoroughness and efficiency. And waging vicious wars and slaughtering people “en masse” because of their supposed group identity have been regrettably common phenomena both before and after Hitler (e.g. Stalin’s massacres of Kulaks and Ukrainians, the unspeakable Pol Pot’s massacres of all educated Cambodians, Peru’s “Shining Path”, the Nepalese Marxists, the Tamil Tigers and the universal Communist mass executions of “class-enemies”). Both Stalin and Mao Tse Tung are usually “credited” with murdering far more “class enemies” than Hitler executed Jews.
The money quote:
It seems an obvious conclusion, then, that the constant Leftist excoriation of Hitler and the Nazis stems not from the unique horribleness of Nazism but has as its main aim an effort at camouflage — an effort to disguise or hide from public awareness the real kinship that exists between Nazism and other forms of Leftism. They just cannot afford to have people realize that ALL the great mass-murders of the 20th century were the product of Leftism.
Nonetheless, the way contemporary “Western” Leftists constantly hurl the labels “Nazi” and “Fascist” at anybody they disagree with suggests almost an obsession with Nazism. Such an obsession is also suggested by the way TV programs about Hitler and Nazism always seem to be available from our Left-dominated media. Programs about Stalin’s Russia are as rare as hen’s teeth by comparison.
This continuing Leftist obsession with Nazism might make some sense if Nazism were uniquely evil but, horrible and massive though the Nazi crimes were, they were anything but unique. For a start, government by tyranny is, if anything, normal in human history. And both antisemitism and eugenic theories were normal in prewar Europe. Further back in history, even Martin Luther wrote a most vicious and well-known attack on the Jews. And Nazi theories of German racial superiority differed from then-customary British beliefs in British racial superiority mainly in that the British views were implemented with typical conservative moderation whereas the Nazi views were implemented with typical Leftist fanaticism and brutality (cf. Stalin and Pol Pot). And the Nazi and Russian pogroms differed mainly in typically greater German thoroughness and efficiency. And waging vicious wars and slaughtering people “en masse” because of their supposed group identity have been regrettably common phenomena both before and after Hitler (e.g. Stalin’s massacres of Kulaks and Ukrainians, the unspeakable Pol Pot’s massacres of all educated Cambodians, Peru’s “Shining Path”, the Nepalese Marxists, the Tamil Tigers and the universal Communist mass executions of “class-enemies”). Both Stalin and Mao Tse Tung are usually “credited” with murdering far more “class enemies” than Hitler executed Jews.
The money quote:
It seems an obvious conclusion, then, that the constant Leftist excoriation of Hitler and the Nazis stems not from the unique horribleness of Nazism but has as its main aim an effort at camouflage — an effort to disguise or hide from public awareness the real kinship that exists between Nazism and other forms of Leftism. They just cannot afford to have people realize that ALL the great mass-murders of the 20th century were the product of Leftism.
the article from my last post finally explains what it is to be a "right" winger. Finally.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22626
Historically, most of the world has been ruled by military men and their successors (Sargon II of Assyria, Alexander of Macedon, Caesar, Augustus, Constantine, Charlemagne, Frederick II of Prussia etc.) so it seems unlikely but perhaps the main point to note here is that the Hispanic dictatorships of the 20th century were very often created as a response to a perceived threat of a Communist takeover. This is particularly clear in the case of Spain, Chile and Argentina. They were an attempt to fight fire with fire. In Argentina of the 60s and 70s, for instance, Leftist "urban guerillas" were very active — blowing up anyone they disapproved of. The nice, mild, moderate Anglo-Saxon response to such depredations would have been to endure the deaths and disruptions concerned and use police methods to trace the perpetrators and bring them to trial. Much of the world is more fiery than that, however, and the Argentine generals certainly were. They became impatient with the slow-grinding wheels of democracy and its apparent impotence in the face of the Leftist revolutionaries. They therefore seized power and instituted a reign of terror against the Leftist revolutionaries that was as bloody, arbitrary and indiscriminate as what the Leftists had inflicted. In a word, they used military methods to deal with the Leftist attackers. So the nature of these regimes was only incidentally conservative. What they were was essentially military. We have to range further than the Hispanic generals, therefore, if we are to find out what is quintessentially conservative
He also explains the idea of leftism in this article:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24245
My answer may seem at first paradoxical but it is that attitude to the status quo defines Leftists rather than Rightists. It is not Rightists who are in favour of the status quo. They are in fact indifferent to it and may equally favour it or oppose it according to circumstances. It is Leftists, on the other hand, who are always against the status quo, no matter what. Whatever else the Leftist may be, the bedrock of Leftism is a strong desire or even a need for political change, often extreme change. This does not, of course, mean that Leftists will favour all sorts of change equally. What sort of change the Leftist favours will depend on the needs that drive his/her desire for change.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22626
Historically, most of the world has been ruled by military men and their successors (Sargon II of Assyria, Alexander of Macedon, Caesar, Augustus, Constantine, Charlemagne, Frederick II of Prussia etc.) so it seems unlikely but perhaps the main point to note here is that the Hispanic dictatorships of the 20th century were very often created as a response to a perceived threat of a Communist takeover. This is particularly clear in the case of Spain, Chile and Argentina. They were an attempt to fight fire with fire. In Argentina of the 60s and 70s, for instance, Leftist "urban guerillas" were very active — blowing up anyone they disapproved of. The nice, mild, moderate Anglo-Saxon response to such depredations would have been to endure the deaths and disruptions concerned and use police methods to trace the perpetrators and bring them to trial. Much of the world is more fiery than that, however, and the Argentine generals certainly were. They became impatient with the slow-grinding wheels of democracy and its apparent impotence in the face of the Leftist revolutionaries. They therefore seized power and instituted a reign of terror against the Leftist revolutionaries that was as bloody, arbitrary and indiscriminate as what the Leftists had inflicted. In a word, they used military methods to deal with the Leftist attackers. So the nature of these regimes was only incidentally conservative. What they were was essentially military. We have to range further than the Hispanic generals, therefore, if we are to find out what is quintessentially conservative
He also explains the idea of leftism in this article:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24245
My answer may seem at first paradoxical but it is that attitude to the status quo defines Leftists rather than Rightists. It is not Rightists who are in favour of the status quo. They are in fact indifferent to it and may equally favour it or oppose it according to circumstances. It is Leftists, on the other hand, who are always against the status quo, no matter what. Whatever else the Leftist may be, the bedrock of Leftism is a strong desire or even a need for political change, often extreme change. This does not, of course, mean that Leftists will favour all sorts of change equally. What sort of change the Leftist favours will depend on the needs that drive his/her desire for change.
The slow, mild Anglo Saxon way of dealing with terrorists? You obviously have zero understanding as to how the British dealt with terrorism in Northern Ireland then.
The Argentine generals committed a reign of terror against everybody, not just the “leftist terrorists”. They arrested, tortured and made many thousands of innocents disappear. Sure they got some terrorists, but the vast majority were innocents from the left and the right.
Seriously Bill? IÂ’m a Conservative and IÂ’m finding a great deal of what you say quite embarrassing. Please go read some unbiased history.
You read the article Ken? At least it explains the difference between right and left and covers why facism and nazism are left rather than right. there is no condoning the actions of the right wing, I will leave that to the left. Here is finally an article that clearly explains how the right and left are actually different.
Oh, and socialism has still murdered more people, regardless of what the "right wing" may have done. Hitler belongs to the left as does Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Che and the others.
Oh, and socialism has still murdered more people, regardless of what the "right wing" may have done. Hitler belongs to the left as does Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Che and the others.
Blade96
Senior Master
I'm not gonna ignore Bill or his twin Ball. whatever their views on history (and maybe Ball isnt as judgemental as he portrayed himself, he did say that the abortion issue is near and dear to him personally so it showed in his posts about it I'm willing to give him a benefit of the doubt) I'd only ignore someone if they was harrassing me or something. But these two do none of that. I'm willing to just refute what he says about history. Actually I'm curious as to why he keeps calling Hitler and Mussolini leftists despite massive evidence to the contrary.
I appreciate that blade 96. If you look at my posts on my new thread lefts and rights or was it rights and lefts, the first article has a history of the right inside of an article on the left. It shows that nazism and facism are leftist in their leanings. the author tracks "right" down through the early history of Britain and Germany to the present. He points out that the supposed "right" dictatorships of latin america had more to do with the military than actual conservative(american conservative) belief systems. IT is all covered in the article. Thanks for coming over Blade 96, we may not agree but we can always discuss.
Blade96
Senior Master
Its harder to offend me
A person would have to have done something to me like my ex did (i hate him) and not apologize for it. Now I do talk to my ex's now gf, its kind of hard to avoid it as we go to the same dojo and have to train together, I do think she's nuts for moving in with the guy immediately and going on a trip with him only 3 months into their relationship and as they seem to be remarkably alike but one thing she has never been to me is mean. and i do think they deserve each other, and my problems with my ex began long before she even came into the picture, so it wasnt her fault my ex is who he is. But I do not have my ex on fb and i try to avoid him in the dojo. But Her I can deal with.and I'm pretty friendly and i'm the kind of person who likes to say hi to random people and do nice things for strangers.
But your views on history and who's left and who's right politically - they and you don't do anything to me. They are just your views on things.
