quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

Any chance of a source that's either a historian or a political scientist for that?  As opposed to a psychologist...

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

its so much fun to see you bite though!

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

That's a nice bit of vicious hyperbole there, but the fact is, Hitler was a big lefty Socialist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Your profile says you live in Florida.

Did you move?

Nice diversion,  Alinsky would be proud. Which of the Rule for Radicals are you attempting to use?  I'm guessing #3, #4, #5.  Unfortunately, #7 seems to apply the most ....

Or perhaps you misunderstood or I wasn't clear enough...text has a way of missing the finer points.

How about:

I live HERE too, in the US.   For those that don't get the point:  

I live where Pres. Obama is our leader and I see what he is doing in terms of taking us left.  I have read about Europe, the "left" of Europe and the social programs in different countries. 

I see where Obama is heading*  towards the "left" with his proposals in the US.    By analogy,  the EU is starting to reject the path that Obama wants to take us down...one that has been travelled already by the EU and has found to be a dead end.  But Obama wants to go down that path because he doesn't see it as the dead end he is being told it is by the EU.

Socialized medicine.  Wage czars.  Governmentally-owned industries.  Mandated service.  (See http://www.barackobama.com/ ,  http://www.whitehouse.gov ) The whole "cradle to grave" thing.

But hey, a lot of people on this board are all for those things, bless their hearts.  But I'm among them.  Certainly we need to get some things changed, but I'm not sold on the extent to which Pres Obama wants to change things.

And still, no data to show otherwise, as I requested, rule.

The Rules for Radicals?  

That's it mister, no more Fox News for you, and from now on your mom and I are going block your access to conservative blogs on the computer.  

Ya know, that thar book lairning is a mighty fine thing, but I think it is a little presumptuous to be telling people they are wrong about the political system they live with daily, which you don't. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: numuncular

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

quote:

ORIGINAL: numuncular

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush


No doubt that Socialism in France is different than in Germany or Britain or .....

The point is that Obama has every intent, based on his websites, of bringing us down a Socialist path.  As far as France?  Well, I won't know until I only have to work 35 hours, get 8 weeks of vacation, 12 holidays, etc.
Pres Obama & Co are already trying to go that path...forced vacation pay, even for part time workers.  Nationalized Health care.

True, he may not get as far "Left", that I'll concede.  But not because Pres Obama & Co. wouldn't want to go that far "Left", which is the point I'm trying to make.   

I'm confused, do you think "vacation" pay is a bad thing or not?

as to the original post, the left didnt do 'that' bad, the turnout was miserable and low turnouts always favour right wing parties, a quick look at the chart for the final parliament shows its still fairly evenly balanced once you add in the greens, the true socialists and the various insane far right parties

Government mandated vacation pay?  Yes, I think that is a bad thing.

why on earth would someone hold such an odd view?
aside from moral issues, who in their right mind would believe a worker would be more productive without a decent holiday?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

And I live here for fuck's sake too

Yes Crush and you're the one informing us of the seismic shift to the right in Europe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

....your research other than biased personal experience?

I couldn't possibly attempt to compete with your research Crush as you've obviously reached the heights of objectivity while others are merely aspiring to your transendence of earthly reason.

As it happens however....

You really need to place in this context. The majority of Europeans are not interested in the European Parliament - something like 43% turned out to vote and in the UK it was something like 35%. That really is the clearest of indictment of politics in Europe i.e. these European elections are not as important as national elections and they certainly aren't a cast iron yardstick of how people will vote at national elections. For instance the expenses farce in the UK was a key factor in the poor showing of the Labour Party - the government copped for it.

To add polling figures suggest that the working classes and lower middle classes - traditional centre-left voters - shunned the voting booths so the elections were skewed towards the comfortable and well off i.e. traditional centre right voters.

In sum: these elections are not 'evidence' of a seismic shift to the right in Europe and as I stated earlier England is and always has been right of centre anyway (perhaps bar the aftermath of WW2).

P.S. Social Democrat parties did well in Greece Sweden Slovakia and Denmark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mezrem

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife


The Rules for Radicals?   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

He gave me a link to it too.

I wasn't questioning what it was about, only why he chose to use it in this conversation.

Thanks anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

New Labour does not advocate undoing all the stuff Thatcher broke, education and health care mostly

New Labour certainly does and has.

When they were elected in 1997 there was a considerable amount of reserves or 'war chest' as termed over here. New Labour invested heavily in health and education. Granted they do not advocate full state control of health and education - they believe that the private sector should be involved too - a position I agree with.

I called it centre ground. There has been a lot of investment/redistribution of wealth in the North of England that wouldn't have happened were the Tories still in power. New Labour can't really go 'round advocating a left-wing position anyway as they'd never get elected yet they certainly have redistributed wealth. The real surprise has been the stance on Iraq terrorism and detaining people without a trial for a period of 28 days - certainly a move to the right in that regard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The Tories are well right of center but if you think they are comparable to the GOP then you have no idea how far right the GOP really is.

The Tories are in the process of forming an anti-European Federalism alliance with openly racist parties in Europe.

Capital Punishment in England is 50/50 and I'd bet my last penny that the majority of those who agree vote conservative.

The Tories have been known to spy on political groups and anyone - such as the unions - who gets above their station are labeled the 'enemy within' and harassed by the media and secret services.

The whole British establishment - from the monarchy to the church of england to the political values of this country - are instinctively conservative. I wouldn't assume that the Church isn't important here; they're not in your face and it's all done in a typically understated British fashion but the Church of England is a church of shires with instinctively conservative rural values. These people are appointed to the House of Lords in order to ensure that the nation doesn't stray to far from traditional conservative values; people think they're harmless but the British establishment are masters at keeping it all under wraps.

The leader of the Conservative Party is harking back to Victorian times and welfare being voluntary and run by charities.

The Tories are strong opponents of the minimum wage and strong advocates of the free market.

As said - you'd be surprised.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DreamGoddess666

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

Actually, as I've stated in other posts,  I feel that they are BOTH wrong.   Too much government or too much morality control.  

Less governmental intervention.  More personal reliance.  But hey, I'm just an old fart...

I don't see Health Care as a "Right" for anyone.  If it "needs" to be mandated, then we should get the same level of care as our governmental officials get.  Or they should get the same level that we'll get.

You don't think health care should be a right? Wow, I don't even know what to say to that. Health care damn well should be a right. Every person has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Health care would fall under "life". All people deserve proper health care.

We need government mandates in order to stop absolute crap from happening. Canada and Denmark have it right. Might be more difficult with a bigger population, but we need to pull it off somehow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DreamGoddess666

Irrelevent. It wasn't Hitler being a "lefty Socialist" that made him bad. It was Hitler being a murderous psychopath with megalomaniacal delusions of grandeur that made him bad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


If Hitler were the exception, you might have a valid point, but he's not - he's actually the rule. Or have you forgotten about Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, and history's other infamous mass murdering socialists.

It seems that when government has to pay for your health care, sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the greater good of all, as resources wear thin. Handicapped people, the elderly, mental patients, and everyone else the leadership decides is a burden can often be subject to liquidation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DreamGoddess666

Irrelevent. It wasn't Hitler being a "lefty Socialist" that made him bad. It was Hitler being a murderous psychopath with megalomaniacal delusions of grandeur that made him bad.

quote:

And let us listen to Hitler himself on the matter: "There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."

Another quote:

"Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."

(Both quotes above are from Hermann Rauschning in Hitler Speaks, London, T. Butterworth, 1940, also called The Voice of Destruction. See e.g. here.

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


No, Communists are only Socialists who have finally gotten everything they ever wished for, Communism is just a little further South than Socialism. Canada, Denmark, etc., the people there are still under Democracies, they're merely on their way South.

Just like we are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


If you really expect your posts here to be read by anyone you'll need to learn how to act more mature.