Forums-->Off-game forum-->
<<|<|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|23|24|>|>>
| Author | May 21, 2011-End Of The World? |
|---|
Uh no. YOU stated that the big abti-Israel push was starting and I pointed out that you were WRONG!
I liked how you skipped past what post 297 was about only to be wrong again.
Another name on the drive-by list. Now scat, boy. | The dunderheads on the left have a history of not being able to spot danger. Both with the rise of the Nazis and Soviet Communism, they failed miserably while the right easily saw both for what they were.
Speaking of bias and the BBC, did you know they had an anti-Churchill bias going on? Probably not.
"The Churchill biographies note mostly in passing that the BBC systematically barred Churchill from discussing his defense and foreign policy views during the 1930's; Sir John Reith was head of the BBC at the time. Manchester states that "Reith saw to it that [Churchill] was seldom heard over the BBC..." Reith wrote of Churchill in Reith's monumentally voluminous diaries, "I absolutely hate him."
In 1938 Churchill was scheduled to appear on the BBC for a half-hour talk -- on the Mediterranean. When the Czech crisis erupted, Manchester reports, Churchill asked that the program be cancelled. On the Saturday before Parliament's debate on the Munich Agreement, Churchill agreed nevertheless to meet with (future Communist spy) Guy Burgess of the BBC. Churchill complained to Burgess, according to Burgess's recollection, that "he had been very badly treated in the matter of political broadcasts and that he was always muzzled by the BBC."
Why did Reith detest Churchill? In Reith's eyes, Churchill was of course a warmonger, and Reith, not coincidentally, held Hitler in the highest regard. How little times have changed."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/node/14105#ixzz1OXuBJckH
Oh I get it, Churchill was a warmonger for pointing out the real warmonger on the horizon. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Yes the left was also in love with Mussolini and Mau. I mean, can you have a worse record? I think the dude who predicted the Rapture and missed has a better record! LOL
So, my point being that the left is stunningly blind to the danger Israel faces but some are purposely pushing this peace deal because they know its all a farce.
There is a ton of info I COULD post about this whole affair but when dealing with the "religious" left, certain groups of people are above honest criticism.
Get permission to open a thread about the Israeli/Pali issue and I will take on all comers granted I am allowed to use all my arsenal in defense. I know the left likes an unfair fight so they may not agree.
Finally, anyone pushing for this peace deal is either willingly ignorant, or they just are plain ignorant. I mean, who makes peace with those who have in their charter to destroy you all and won't remove it?
Who makes peace with people who pass out candy in celebration of the murder of little children, who danced in the streets on 9/11, who tell their kids on TV to hate Jews?
Sorry lefties but you have proven yourselves woefully inept at spotting danger. Thankfully we have documentation and film to prove it, unlike some events in the Bible. | for Grunge:
kk i may no be completely right for jainism but they do worship their tirthankars n as far as i remember there 24 tirthankars.
moreover, beliefs of jainism are not all familiar to a lay man bcoz they preach a very aesthetic life and all jains are not like this.
MARAJI walk barefeet in the scorching heat of 45 C of india. they keep their mouth covered with some strip . i hv also heard that in a stage of their life maraji get bald by plucking each hair of their head.
this is what i saw .
srry if i dont know all specific terms coz im not jain | Modi, learn your history. Churchill was part of the Asquith Liberal Party that brought in Old age pensions and unemployment insurance. He was in a party that brought in unemployment insurance. I've repeated it for emphasis. That's about as left wing as it gets. Admittedly by WWII he'd said Mussolini had shown the world how to deal with dissidents and suggested using Machine Guns on workers who'd gone on strike, so it looks like he changed a bit in the intervening decades, and you could rightly claim him as right wing.. but part of that right wing leaning was supporting Mussolini.
The man who he replaced as prime minister was Neville Chamberlain. Also known as the great appeaser. Also a Conservative Politician.
Just like prophecy. Ignore the stuff that makes it look bad and cherry pick the good stuff. With history, there's not the same need for interpretation. It all shows the most famously ignorant man in history was right wing. | Modi, learn your history. Churchill was part of the Asquith Liberal Party that brought in Old age pensions and unemployment insurance. He was in a party that brought in unemployment insurance. I've repeated it for emphasis. That's about as left wing as it gets. Admittedly by WWII he'd said Mussolini had shown the world how to deal with dissidents and suggested using Machine Guns on workers who'd gone on strike, so it looks like he changed a bit in the intervening decades, and you could rightly claim him as right wing.. but part of that right wing leaning was supporting Mussolini.
The man who he replaced as prime minister was Neville Chamberlain. Also known as the great appeaser. Also a Conservative Politician.
Ahahaha nice try.
Lefties LOVE to rewrite history. Churchill was a lefty now? Oh how hilarious!
Liberalism in Europe today
In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves liberal are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe[44] is a party of the European Parliament that represents most liberal parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many liberal parties throughout the world,[45] such as the Liberal Party of Australia.[46]
Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or neoliberals. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European socialist or social democratic parties. | Also it must be noted that compared to today's left, yesterday's left are ultra-right wingers.
Today's left would totally reject JFK because he was a hawk.
Hawks are right wing and doves are left.
Churchill was right wing and Chamberlain was left. He was a dove.
Let's take a short stroll down memory lane, shall we? In the early 90s, Murphy Brown was a TV show and the plot had her out of wedlock pregnancy as its story line. The country went flat out mad and called the station in such numbers that it made national news.
Today? You have gay shows, teen mom shows, and all sorts of crud you can imagine and nobody seems to care.
As a whole, society has shifted FAR to the left.
A Democrat in the 40s would be just as appalled by an out of wedlock pregnancy as the right. It's just the way it was son. | he Conservative Party[11] is a centre-right political party in the United Kingdom that adheres to the philosophies of conservatism and British unionism. It is the largest political party in the UK, and is currently the largest single party in the House of Commons with 306 seats. It governs in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, with party leader David Cameron as Prime Minister.
The Conservative Party emerged in 1834 out of the old Tory Party, which dates to 1678; it has always been colloquially called the 'Tory Party' or 'Tories'. The party was one of two dominant parties in the nineteenth century, along with the Liberals. It changed its name to 'Conservative and Unionist Party' in 1912 after merging with the Liberal Unionist Party, although that name is rarely used and it is generally referred to as simply 'The Conservative Party'.
In the 1920s the Liberals collapsed and the Labour became the Conservatives' main rivals. The Conservatives have the edge in forming governments for 57 years of the 20th century, including Winston Churchill (1940–45, 1951–55) and Margaret Thatcher (1979–90). Thatcher's tenure led to wide-ranging economic liberalisation, placing the Conservatives firmly as the most free market and eurosceptic of the three major parties. The party was returned to government in 2010 under the more liberal leadership of David Cameron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_%28UK%29
The Conservative Party came to power in the United Kingdom after victory in the 1951 general election. This was the first purely Conservative government since Stanley Baldwin's 1924-1929 administration. Winston Churchill became Prime Minister for a second time.
And for the icing on the cake, England in a moment of brotherly love with the Yanks, sent a bust of Winston Churchill to the White House after 9/11.
"A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.
The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.
But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."
Aw, did the true colors show again? I suppose you will also claim Thatcher now as yours? Bwahahahaha | As usual, ignore that which doesn't suit. I notice you quietly ignored Churchill's support for Mussolini and somehow called Chamberlain left wing. He and Churchill were in the same party!
Hawk and Dove are not necessarily right and left wing. JFK was left wing, but was also a Hawk. It can work. You can't call JFK right wing because your argument fails.
You just change the definition when it doesn't fit. I generally see Left and Right as most commonly used in economic terms. Left generally supports helping out the poor in society, while the right thinks that if they are so useless that they can't help themselves, they should just do the world a favour and die quietly and stop being a leech on society.
I will absolutely 100% agree with you than in regards to social values in regards to liberal and conservative (which to me is a different discussion than left and right wing economic issues), there's been a shift to liberal. The busy body "I will tell you what to do even though it's none of my business" has been mostly shut down.
But in regards to economics, no way. The right have never had it so good. In the 1960s the CEOs were getting 42 times the wage of the average factory worker. In 2000 it was 531 times as much. This article is worth reading
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html | for Barbarian-Fishy:
Is Thatcher right or left. She and Churchill are linked arm in arm.
The formation of the conservatives in the 50s with Winston at the head was and still is, right wing.
Left wing is Labor, is it not? | while the right thinks that if they are so useless that they can't help themselves, they should just do the world a favour and die quietly and stop being a leech on society
Really? Shall we all view the ultra-leftie George Bernard Shaw and what he thought of poor people?
Lets do so, shall we?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eir00rOho
Oh the humanity! | Churchill was once left wing, as shown by him supporting, and actually writing the legislation for an aged pension an unemployment insurance. He changed and became more conservative later in life and changed parties. Same as Kissinger, who was once a democrat. Is that too hard to comprehend? I wrote it in the 1st post, but you still seem to think I'm claiming him for the left.
Thatcher is right wing economically, and was also a conservative on social issues and a hawk on military issues. Churchill was confused on financial issues, right wing one moment, left the next(read up about his work on the gold standard), a hawk on military, and conservative on social issues, so they are similar.
There is no left wing party in America and Britain on economic measures. Labor can best claim to be Centre-Left, and Democrats can best claim to be centre. Australia have the greens who are far left, labour who are centre left, and Liberal who are paradoxically right wing. | I wrote it in the 1st post, but you still seem to think I'm claiming him for the left.
Well I'm certainly claiming him as a righty as we all revere him as a hero. The left does not, as can be seen in the Obama CLASSLESS act over the bust.
He sent it as a message.
Sometimes a man is chained by the political party they came up in, until as we saw with Churchill, he achieved such popularity that he was able to form his own government where he can be who he always wanted to be.
On a side note:
“Some people like the Jews, and some do not. But no thoughtful man can deny the fact that they are, beyond any question, the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has appeared in the world.”
- Winston Churchill - Prime Minister of Great Britain
Thanks Winston ) | Reagan was the same sort of man as Churchill. He was a Democrat, but in a time where that meant something totally different than being a Democrat in the 80s.
Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants, something the left of today wants vs the wishes of the right.
This said, Reagan is the ultimate hero of the right but Churchill is right there with him.
Reagan also saw the rise of Communism as a grave danger. He was a Dem at that time but again, Dems in the 40s and 50s were totally different than today.
When he became Republican president, he went right after the Soviets. Now can you claim because he was a Dem when he went after communism that Dems saw the danger? No because those Dems are NOT the same as today. | You've said the world has moved to the left. I disagree, but we are talking about your position here. Chamberlain, who was a conservative in 1938, so by your standards, much more to the right than the right wing of today, missed the build up of Germany.
Explain how in any way you can claim that the Right are better at seeing danger than the Left when the biggest diplomatic error of the modern era was done by a right wing politician? | for Barbarian-Fishy:
I'm sorry but the biggest error in the modern era to spotting danger is the rise of Communism. Germany was small potatoes compared to what Stalin did.
From one of your own, an Aussie and a lefty.
"Facts that don't fit one's world view can be difficult to see. Consider the way the left spent decades ignoring the horrors of Soviet communism, horrors that were obvious to anyone who cared to look from at least the early 1930s. The facts didn't fit in with the way they wanted to see the world, so they spent decades in denial, looking the other way.
For most of the left, that blindness ended, dramatically, with the invasion of Hungary in 1956: it became impossible not to acknowledge the brutal realities of the dictatorship of the proletariat."
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/boneheaded-beliefs-bound-to-end-in-death-by-d rowning-20110602-1fh3g.html#ixzz1ObCg3Oe6
Now come to terms like some of the other adults have please. | A quote from your original post of 362 which started this "The dunderheads on the left have a history of not being able to spot danger. Both with the rise of the Nazis and Soviet Communism, they failed miserably while the right easily saw BOTH for what they were." {Capitalisation for emphasis}
Can I replace the "Care to answer the Genesis Contradiction?", with "Care to explain how Neville Chamberlain doesn't show that the right wing failed miserably in spotting danger", as your above post doesn't answer the Neville question.
Now come to terms like some of the adults can do, that you were wrong, and shown to be wrong, unless you can give an answer for Neville.
I'm sure all your Jewish buddies are content that Stalin was worse than Hitler. If you truly believe that, and aren't just saying that to try to protect your poor position, I ask you to have that as a conversation starter the next time you visit a synagogue or talk to your Jewish family members.
Also, Kissinger, a republican, went soft on the Russians with his Detente, so the republicans, not the Dems, went soft on Russia first. | for Barbarian-Fishy:
Can I replace the "Care to answer the Genesis Contradiction?", with "Care to explain how Neville Chamberlain doesn't show that the right wing failed miserably in spotting danger", as your above post doesn't answer the Neville question.
I already stated that the parties that are now in this day, left and right, are by no means even remotely resembling what they were in the 30s and 40s.
Its no contradiction son. Who reveres Churchill today as a hero, right or left?
If Churchill was alive today, he would be a righty. If Chamberlain were alive today he would be a lefty. We would utterly reject the fool as we reject the current crop of fools.
Appeasement is a trait of the left. Force is a trait of the right.
You can't be a Dem warmonger today as we saw when the left rabidly came after Joe Lieberman because he supported the war.
In contrast, Chamberlain would be a perfect fit for todays left. Appeaser, and the opposite of Churchill.
Was not Lieberman a solid liberal Dem all his life until that one moment? Yes he was and he was quickly tossed out of his party. If Chamberlain was a Republican today and came out with such a pathetic statement, we would not only shout him down, we would boot his arse out in the next election cycle. | for Barbarian-Fishy:
No comment about George Bernard Shaw, darling of the left?
It should be no surprise to you that he was against the US Constitution as are many lefties today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R7jL0_JANY&feature=related
Hmmm? | You are basically saying even though nearly everyone would define Chamberlain as a right wing politician, especially as he was in the same party as your right wing idol Churchill, he's left wing because he didn't spot the danger. Then of course you saying the left missed the danger is correct, as you have completely change the definition to say that any dove is left wing, when clearly history shows that not to be true. I've said it before and I'll say it again. You just can't change the definition when you are wrong to make yourself right.
Chamberlain was right wing. Nearly everyone would describe him as right wing. The most famous appeaser in history, the most famous dove, is right wing. If it will make your brain explode, then change the defition to preserve your world view. I would not like to be responsible for putting you in an asylum.
Lieberman was thrown out due to his opposition to the health care plan. | for Barbarian-Fishy:
Sorry but the definition of left and right has changed drastically from the 30s. You just can't admit it I guess.
Joe Lieberman's longtime Democratic allies grew practically apoplectic as he backed John McCain for president, stumped for the Republican candidate and criticized Barack Obama.
So when Obama won and Democrats cemented their hold on Congress, liberal activists demanded the independent Connecticut senator be tossed out of the Democratic caucus, and some Democratic senators called for him to be stripped of his committee chairmanship.
Dude, it was already OVER for Liberman and the Dems BEFORE Obama even stepped foot in the WH. Health care. Please spare me son. |
<<|<|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|23|24|>|>>Back to topics list
|
