Actually starting something with 'I'm not about to defend Stalin, but...' :shakehead:
Attachment 738
Printable View
Actually starting something with 'I'm not about to defend Stalin, but...' :shakehead:
Attachment 738
I feel a bit sorry for her, she's clearly a bit educationally subnormal. She's the one who wrote an article a couple of weeks ago demanding 100% inheritance tax. :mentalcase:Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
She is actually putting a strong case for eugenics.
Her Timeline is hilarious, as she keeps quote tweeting all the serious political journalists ripping the pïss out of her in an attempt to play the victim. In fact all she's doing is displaying the contempt in which she is clearly held by her peers. :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
As someone pointed out to her, 'everything before the word 'but' is horseshīt'Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Britain less Europe
What i don't get is this - why does anyone bother to read the ravings of a nobody? Isn't ignoring this kind of rubbish the best medicine?
The Guardian's going to struggle next week when she and Owen are back at school. The 5th form will keep them busy, that's for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I'm not about to defend her but she does have a point in ther abstract doesn't she?Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I mean, the suffragettes were quite different to Hitler. A nuisance but preferable to him, I would argue.
Ditto the Chartists. I'm just saying.
Yes, but that didn't actually work, did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Britain less Europe
But b enjoys this. It would be far less entertaining if he posted sensible opinion and thought from vaguely left wing members of the Labour Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Britain less Europe
Far better to find modern day loons on twitter. And it is more entertaining to be fair.
The last 'vaguely left wing' ideas we had were the rantings of the fools Cameron and Osborn, and look where they got us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
They are not members of the Labour Party, Sir C.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Not really, since if an ideology's execution has proven to be murderous over and over again, continuing to bang the drum for it represents a degree of wilful blindness that amounts to complicity. It's akin to saying that pushing people off a cliff in a sincere expectation that they'll learn to fly (despite a century of evidence telling you they just die) is better than pushing them off because you want them dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
She's attempting to excuse her beliefs on the grounds of good intentions, which is disingenuous at best.
:shrug: They ought to have been; they were clearly committed socialists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
No, I'm afraid Osborne's 'handling' of the economy has debunked the socialist myth forever. You just have to accept it now; it doesn't work.
Mate, have you seen the Labour party lately? I'm seeing a distinct shortage of these sensible, vaguely left-wing members of whom you speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Apart from anything else, Osborne has shown he was never a Tory with his recent antics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
He seems determined to get his own back on May even if it lands us all with Comrade Corbyn, the fúcking maniac.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
We can only hope the people of London stop buying the Standar...oh. :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Mate??Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Not the Burney I am used to at all....
What beliefs are these? I dont even know who she is or what she is banging on about...Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Oh, she's objecting to the drawing of moral equivalence between communists and Nazis, suggesting the commies are nice, fluffy types who only want universal peace, love and harmonyQuote:
Originally Posted by Peter
It would be dangerous to equate communism with equality. Is that what people do these days?Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
That is what she has done essentially, yes. I quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
"My argument was that when comparing 21st C century fascists and communists their very different goals are morally relevant"
So basically: Fascists kill people because they're evil. Communists do it because they're good. Either way, millions die.'
The Germans do. Anyway, the other lot are banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
https://keep.google.com/u/0/media/1j...dio/aac&sz=600
You don't need to be either of these things though to happily kill people in huge quantities. Madeline Albright, centre-left, thought the death via her sanctions of half-a-million Iraqi children was 'worth it'. Fluffy ecologist Rachel Carson has arguably killed more than Hitler and Stalin combined. A million deaths from malaria every year since she got DDT banned in 1972. And still her book Silent Spring has a hand-written label of recommendation ("You must read this book") in Waterstones on Gower Street.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I'm not making excuses for Hitler and Stalin but ....
So presumably here she is also equating fascism with genocide. Again, thoroughly incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Basically, she doesn't know what she is talking about. Move on.
Of course not. I'm not buying the sanctions thing, though, since the alternative means of bringing unpleasant regimes to heel is war - take your pick. You could more justifiably point the finger at those children's government, which preferred them to die than to do what was necessary to stop them dying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
Don't get me started on the crimes of the environmental movement, though. You could also point to the fact that thousands of people across Europe will die this winter due to fuel poverty entirely created by unnecessary, ineffective and meaningless 'green' taxes on fuel.
No. Fascism to these people means Hitler and nothing else. Point out that Mussolini's Italy - whilst not exactly pleasant - would have been far preferable to live in than pretty much any Eastern Bloc country post-1945 and they'll call you a Nazi in no time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Not exactly pleasant might be putting it mildly but I get your point :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Yeah, but it's Italians at the end of the day. How bad can they get? To be really nasty, they'd have to put the hours in and be properly organised and that was never gonna happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
They could overcook the pasta.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Imagine gloopy pasta :-(
Sanctions is a kind of warfare. "Submit or die". ISTR that what Iraq had to do to avoid the sanctions included not owning any weapons of mass destruction. Same as it had to do to avoid being destroyed in war. Saddam was a badass but what followed has been worse, and it is repeated elsewhere with similar effects. And it turns out that many of those oppressed by Ba'athists in Iraq and Syria turned out to be headchoppers after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
To my mind those responsible for what is now a couple of million deaths in the endless wars from the US death machine (and its henchmen) could well be described as unpleasant regimes. Someone might want to bring them 'to heel'. :shrug:
They know how to organise a defence, b.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
It's true, isn't it? Their football is completely antithetical to their archetypal national character. One assumes it's because all the big clubs are northern Italian (i.e. not really Italian).Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
The swine. The inhuman swine. :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
They take it far too seriously, that's why. As though it's a duty or work or something. The Germans are the same, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Really, it's only us who do the thing properly.