Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The German's are Making a Good Point

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    oath keepers are a bad example, and not what I would consider radical right wing.
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
    - Benjamin Franklin

    The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

      Why should anyone be tolerant of Nazis?
      Do not put words in my mouth!
      I did not say I tolerate Naziís.
      I simply donít tolerate Antifa either. I see them as opposite sides of the same coin both are bad and should be out of business.
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

        Antifa is not in the wrong. At the moment, they're heroes.
        You consider terrorists "heroes"?
        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Massena View Post

          Do their white supremacist/Nazis, etc. do the same thing or worse? I believe so. Both sides are equally guilty and they are not 'fine people.'
          No one referred to those two groups as "fine people"

          That is a lie that the MSM has been pushing for 2 years now.
          "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Nichols View Post

            No one referred to those two groups as "fine people"

            That is a lie that the MSM has been pushing for 2 years now.
            Trump said it and it isn't a lie. And you've been told this before:

            https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...sides-remarks/

            https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-sides/537012/

            Please show where the MSM 'lied.'
            We are not now that strength which in old days
            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Massena View Post

              Trump said it and it isn't a lie. And you've been told this before:

              https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...sides-remarks/

              https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-sides/537012/

              Please show where the MSM 'lied.'
              Thank you for the links, you have shown exactly when the MSM lie began with your two links.


              Here is what was said:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=NM6k8uNAQBA
              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                A poorly constructed thought experiment. In part 1, you force a conclusion rather than give a set of conditions and let the reader draw conclusions.
                To what extent are "gun rights" taken away? Completely? Banning certain weapons like "assault rifles?"
                If the radical Right started open warfare over this, yes, they would be criticized by mainstream Conservatives. As it is, mainstream Conservatives criticize the radical Right. Nobody particularly likes Neo-Nazis and racists on the radical Right.

                As for part 2, again poorly constructed. The best answer to that, given the odd wording and forced conclusion, would be Yes, people would worry about both groups.

                Are radical Leftists with guns any more or less concerning than radical Rightists with guns?







                The only reason that I'm ever so slightly less concerned about the radical Left with guns is because they've proven to be so damned incompetent with them, see Tacoma for examples. Personally I'd like to put both groups in the Mojave and let them terminate one another. Unfortunately if you pitted the top two pictures against the bottom two pictures, the result of that engagement would not be in doubt for a second.
                Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                  oath keepers are a bad example, and not what I would consider radical right wing.
                  So who precisely would you consider to be radical right wing then?

                  The KKK......umm....duh, they've become radical right wing fringe ever since they stopped being the Radical Enforcement Branch of the Democratic Party. They're also universally despised by literally everyone that's not them.

                  NeoNazis....again, duh. And again, literally everyone hates them.

                  So, outside of the two obvious radical right wing whipping boys, who is this radical right wing fringe in such vast numbers that Antifa takes heroic actions against? Gay WSJ affiliates from Vietnam? Random people on the street? I mean CNN put Richard Spencer on as a consultant, and he's an actual white supremacist though not really American.
                  Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                    Again we have an argument that centers around nazi sympathy. Who's the real problem? Easily the people who believe in white supremacy, want an ethnostate, want to remove all people of color. As illustrated in the posted tweets, the German's know best what happens when you allow such people to go uncontested. Bravo to antifa for not allowing history to repeat itself.
                    You misidentify the problem. The problem -- from a US civil society / constitutional perspective -- is not one of left-vs-right politics, but one in which all parties AND individual citizens will be allowed to peaceably participate, lobby, assemble, and protest in the political field. Under our Constitution, even those who advance indefensible views (neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Bolsheviks, Maoists, Muslim Brotherhood, PETA, ELF, etc, etc, etc) are free to do so, within certain legal and practicable limits, of course. The current fashion in US political discourse is not merely to participate publicly and meaningfully, but to drown out and shut out -- and ultimately to remove from the political playing field altogether -- one's opponents, whomever they may be. In short, each and every one of these radicals (and many others too numerous to mention) want to enact their own version of the Reign of Terror, the Night of the Long Knives, the Doctors' Plot, the Cultural Revolution, etc, etc, etc. Not a one of them, despite their lofty rhetoric, are seeking to preserve democracy by eliminating their foes: their design is to eliminate their foes in order to annihilate democracy. If I'm wrong in my estimation of all of these radicals' aims, then answer me this: when was the last time you heard a single one of them say something to the effect of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? That phrase -- considered the very bedrock of American mass participatory governance and civil society in my youth -- is now as obsolete as the Edsel. We're in real trouble, not because of white nationalism or ANTIFA or even radical Islam per se -- as scary as they are all on their own -- but because as citizens we're being asked, nay, expected, to line up behind and support one or another form of radicalism which seeks to kill our democracy just as sure as God made little green apples. It simply can't get any scarier than that.
                    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Tsar View Post

                      Do not put words in my mouth!
                      I did not say I tolerate Naziís.
                      I simply donít tolerate Antifa either. I see them as opposite sides of the same coin both are bad and should be out of business.

                      I'm not putting words in your mouth. You specifically said that antifa are the intolerant ones, which is correct. They are extremely intolerant of Nazis. So, given that you stated an issue with their intolerance, I'm asking you why antifa should be tolerant of Nazis?
                      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                      - Benjamin Franklin

                      The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                        You misidentify the problem. The problem -- from a US civil society / constitutional perspective -- is not one of left-vs-right politics, but one in which all parties AND individual citizens will be allowed to peaceably participate, lobby, assemble, and protest in the political field. Under our Constitution, even those who advance indefensible views (neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Bolsheviks, Maoists, Muslim Brotherhood, PETA, ELF, etc, etc, etc) are free to do so, within certain legal and practicable limits, of course. The current fashion in US political discourse is not merely to participate publicly and meaningfully, but to drown out and shut out -- and ultimately to remove from the political playing field altogether -- one's opponents, whomever they may be. In short, each and every one of these radicals (and many others too numerous to mention) want to enact their own version of the Reign of Terror, the Night of the Long Knives, the Doctors' Plot, the Cultural Revolution, etc, etc, etc. Not a one of them, despite their lofty rhetoric, are seeking to preserve democracy by eliminating their foes: their design is to eliminate their foes in order to annihilate democracy. If I'm wrong in my estimation of all of these radicals' aims, then answer me this: when was the last time you heard a single one of them say something to the effect of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? That phrase -- considered the very bedrock of American mass participatory governance and civil society in my youth -- is now as obsolete as the Edsel. We're in real trouble, not because of white nationalism or ANTIFA or even radical Islam per se -- as scary as they are all on their own -- but because as citizens we're being asked, nay, expected, to line up behind and support one or another form of radicalism which seeks to kill our democracy just as sure as God made little green apples. It simply can't get any scarier than that.
                        So if you could go back in time, you wouldn't change anything. You'd allow the Nazi party to rise to power, in the name of freedom?
                        "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                        - Benjamin Franklin

                        The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                          So if you could go back in time, you wouldn't change anything. You'd allow the Nazi party to rise to power, in the name of freedom?
                          In the German context, the rise of NSDAP to national power was predicated not on too few restrictions upon speech and political expression, but the German people's traditional all too ready acquiescence to expressions of national greatness (see von Bulow's Weltpolitik and the propaganda out of Ludendorff's Ober-Ost) and anything that could remotely represent itself as legitimate authority. In short, what lead to the Nazi's assumption of power wasn't too much free speech, but too little,
                          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                            So if you could go back in time, you wouldn't change anything. You'd allow the Nazi party to rise to power, in the name of freedom?
                            The Nazi party rose to power due to the peculiar conditions of the European parliamentary system. In Germany, in elections all parties go on the ballot equally and get apportioned seats in the Reichstag by the percentage of votes they win. The Nazis got like 37% or something like that. They then coerced and maneuvered von Hindenburg and the leadership of the Catholic Centrist Party, von Papen, into a coalition.
                            The radical Left Communists refused to work with more moderate Leftist Social Democrats leaving any alternative to Hitler and the Nazis gained power in a vacuum. Once Hitler was named Chancellor, and that was by no means easily accomplished, he quickly moved to consolidate power and eliminate opposition.

                            Such a set of conditions doesn't exist in the US system. The president isn't appointed by Congress, and seats aren't apportioned to Congress on a national basis-- although I'd bet the US Left would love that if it happened. Instead, the US system apportions everything on the basis of the individual states. Each state gets a delegation to Congress. Each state elects electors who then elect the president.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                              The Nazi party rose to power due to the peculiar conditions of the European parliamentary system. In Germany, in elections all parties go on the ballot equally and get apportioned seats in the Reichstag by the percentage of votes they win. The Nazis got like 37% or something like that. They then coerced and maneuvered von Hindenburg and the leadership of the Catholic Centrist Party, von Papen, into a coalition.
                              The radical Left Communists refused to work with more moderate Leftist Social Democrats leaving any alternative to Hitler and the Nazis gained power in a vacuum. Once Hitler was named Chancellor, and that was by no means easily accomplished, he quickly moved to consolidate power and eliminate opposition.

                              Such a set of conditions doesn't exist in the US system. The president isn't appointed by Congress, and seats aren't apportioned to Congress on a national basis-- although I'd bet the US Left would love that if it happened. Instead, the US system apportions everything on the basis of the individual states. Each state gets a delegation to Congress. Each state elects electors who then elect the president.
                              All true. In the US white nationalism has a mainstream party and platform. Making their rise much easier in the US than it was in Germany, as we're already seeing.
                              "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                              - Benjamin Franklin

                              The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                @All

                                *National socialism

                                Important to get this right.


                                Most people have no idea what fascism is (to no fault of their own) they have the Hollywood version of goosestepping Prussians/Germans in their head. Which is wrong, that was not a representation of Fascism, but of Germany military tradition...



                                I have mentioned this before, and clearly I have to do it again.

                                (Print this and mount it too your wall)

                                Fascism is neither inherently left or right, fascism is the merger of government and commercial enterprise with the government in total control. The government owns the means of production, or colludes heavily with major corporations to impose government control.

                                That's it.

                                Clue bell should be ringing loud and clear.


                                Addendum
                                I have no issue with nationalism in and of itself. I take issue, and oppose, Socialists, communists, globalists and Marxist who all support (and by all means implement) genocidal polices.

                                Be those of racial, ethnic or cultural nature....and on all scales.

                                Addendum II
                                I have no issue with group preference in and of itself either (besides, it's natural and healthy). Be that racial, ethnic or cultural. Heck, can be hobby related too.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X