Ladies and gentlemen, I give you 'the left'

[Burney]

Actually starting something with 'I'm not about to defend Stalin, but...' :shakehead:

738

[Sir C]

Actually starting something with 'I'm not about to defend Stalin, but...' :shakehead:

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:

[Mo Britain less Europe]

She is actually putting a strong case for eugenics.

[Burney]

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:

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:

[Burney]

She is actually putting a strong case for eugenics.

As someone pointed out to her, 'everything before the word 'but' is horseshīt'

[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?

[Sir C]

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:

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.

[Peter]

Actually starting something with 'I'm not about to defend Stalin, but...' :shakehead:

738

I'm not about to defend her but she does have a point in ther abstract doesn't she?

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.

[redgunamo]

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?

Yes, but that didn't actually work, did it.

[Peter]

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?

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.

Far better to find modern day loons on twitter. And it is more entertaining to be fair.

[Sir C]

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.

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.

[Peter]

The last 'vaguely left wing' ideas we had were the rantings of the fools Cameron and Osborn, and look where they got us.

They are not members of the Labour Party, Sir C.

[Burney]

I'm not about to defend her but she does have a point in ther abstract doesn't she?

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.

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.
She's attempting to excuse her beliefs on the grounds of good intentions, which is disingenuous at best.

[Sir C]

They are not members of the Labour Party, Sir C.

:shrug: They ought to have been; they were clearly committed socialists.

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.

[Burney]

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.

Far better to find modern day loons on twitter. And it is more entertaining to be fair.

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.

[Burney]

:shrug: They ought to have been; they were clearly committed socialists.

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.

Apart from anything else, Osborne has shown he was never a Tory with his recent antics.

[Sir C]

Apart from anything else, Osborne has shown he was never a Tory with his recent antics.

He seems determined to get his own back on May even if it lands us all with Comrade Corbyn, the fúcking maniac.

[Burney]

He seems determined to get his own back on May even if it lands us all with Comrade Corbyn, the fúcking maniac.

We can only hope the people of London stop buying the Standar...oh. :-(

[Peter]

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.

Mate??

Not the Burney I am used to at all....

[Peter]

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.
She's attempting to excuse her beliefs on the grounds of good intentions, which is disingenuous at best.

What beliefs are these? I dont even know who she is or what she is banging on about...

[Burney]

What beliefs are these? I dont even know who she is or what she is banging on about...

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 harmony

[Peter]

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 harmony

It would be dangerous to equate communism with equality. Is that what people do these days?

[Burney]

It would be dangerous to equate communism with equality. Is that what people do these days?

That is what she has done essentially, yes. I quote:

"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.'

[redgunamo]

It would be dangerous to equate communism with equality. Is that what people do these days?

The Germans do. Anyway, the other lot are banned.

https://keep.google.com/u/0/media/1jusI7pY-LiXmnyCPnpYHZZkX5PlIo5A?accept=image/gif,image/jpeg,image/jpg,image/png,image/webp,audio/aac&sz=600

[Ash]

That is what she has done essentially, yes. I quote:

"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.'

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.

I'm not making excuses for Hitler and Stalin but ....

[Peter]

That is what she has done essentially, yes. I quote:

"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.'

So presumably here she is also equating fascism with genocide. Again, thoroughly incorrect.

Basically, she doesn't know what she is talking about. Move on.

[Burney]

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.

I'm not making excuses for Hitler and Stalin but ....

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.

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.

[Burney]

So presumably here she is also equating fascism with genocide. Again, thoroughly incorrect.

Basically, she doesn't know what she is talking about. Move on.

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.

[Peter]

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.

Not exactly pleasant might be putting it mildly but I get your point :)

[Burney]

Not exactly pleasant might be putting it mildly but I get your point :)

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.

[Sir C]

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.

They could overcook the pasta.

Imagine gloopy pasta :-(

[Ash]

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.


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.

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:

[Peter]

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.

They know how to organise a defence, b.

[Burney]

They know how to organise a defence, b.

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).

[Burney]

They could overcook the pasta.

Imagine gloopy pasta :-(

The swine. The inhuman swine. :-(

[redgunamo]

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).

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.

Really, it's only us who do the thing properly.