Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2023 12:01:33 GMT
It is a safe country only in the sense that Mussolini's Italy was a safe country. But then the Tories back in the day loved him too before he sided with Hitler He was a member of the Italian Socialist Party and a Revolutionary party before the collectivist Fascist party. 
The Left loved him and his writing. Obviously he had a fall out with the socialists over the war (socialists were divided over it), and when he came back from the horrors of WW1 he seemed to believe the Socialists were whiney pussies. I dunno, maybe he was just another lefty who went mad?
And? What does that prove? Doesnt alter the fact that his regime was a totalitarian dictatorship beloved of some Tories, apparent similar in that respect to Rwanda. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2023 12:12:06 GMT
He was a member of the Italian Socialist Party and a Revolutionary party before the collectivist Fascist party.
The Left loved him and his writing. Obviously he had a fall out with the socialists over the war (socialists were divided over it), and when he came back from the horrors of WW1 he seemed to believe the Socialists were whiney pussies. I dunno, maybe he was just another lefty who went mad?
And? What does that prove? Doesnt alter the fact that his regime was a totalitarian dictatorship beloved of some Tories, apparent similar in that respect to Rwanda. As is the way of the Left. How else are you going to force women with penis' into all areas of the totalitarian society you dream of? I tell you how, with abuse, lies and tyranny, where people will be locked up for disagreeing with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2023 13:28:23 GMT
And? What does that prove? Doesnt alter the fact that his regime was a totalitarian dictatorship beloved of some Tories, apparent similar in that respect to Rwanda. As is the way of the Left. How else are you going to force women with penis' into all areas of the totalitarian society you dream of? I tell you how, with abuse, lies and tyranny, where people will be locked up for disagreeing with it.
How much more crap are you going to invent that exists only in your own head. I have already told you I am a democratic socialist liberal libertarian and not a totalitarian at all. But if you are going to invent lies about me to attack, there is no point in even trying to debate with you because you persist in arguing with a straw man invented entirely by yourself, lol You do have amusement value though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2023 13:28:55 GMT
As is the way of the Left. How else are you going to force women with penis' into all areas of the totalitarian society you dream of? I tell you how, with abuse, lies and tyranny, where people will be locked up for disagreeing with it.
How much more crap are you going to invent that exists only in your own head? I have already told you I am a democratic socialist liberal libertarian and not a totalitarian at all. But if you are going to invent lies about me to attack, there is no point in even trying to debate with you because you persist in arguing with a straw man invented entirely by yourself, lol You do have amusement value though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2023 13:39:34 GMT
That's OK, srb. There are men who tell us they're women. It's just a matter of believing it or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2023 14:28:33 GMT
Do you agree to the centres in Rwanda? Rwanda is a dictatorship run by the same man for three decades, which imprisons political opponents and is perfectly okay with torturing them. It is a safe country only in the sense that Mussolini's Italy was a safe country. But then the Tories back in the day loved him too before he sided with Hitler Any ideas how we might make the UK an unsafe country? It sounds as if it may have some advantages. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2023 14:39:58 GMT
Rwanda is a dictatorship run by the same man for three decades, which imprisons political opponents and is perfectly okay with torturing them. It is a safe country only in the sense that Mussolini's Italy was a safe country. But then the Tories back in the day loved him too before he sided with Hitler Any ideas how we might make the UK an unsafe country? It sounds as if it may have some advantages. The current lot in power are doing their best to make this country less safe and secure for everyone.....credit where credit is due on that score. Welfare cuts, insecure housing, insecure jobs, pitiful pay, health services barely working, dentists almost inaccessible, policing cut to the bone, then amateurs recruited to get the numbers back up, hopelessly inadequate processing of asylum claims, which must include a few potentially dangerous people hanging about, not enough prison space to keep dangerous criminals locked up, wholly inadequate adult and child care services, tougher sentences for selling a bit of weed to consenting adults than for watching paedophile porn. Everything that keeps us safe cut to the bone, yet the highest taxes being paid since the war. Where has all the money gone? The frigging Caymen Islands? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 19, 2023 15:19:34 GMT
Rwanda is a dictatorship run by the same man for three decades, which imprisons political opponents and is perfectly okay with torturing them. It is a safe country only in the sense that Mussolini's Italy was a safe country. But then the Tories back in the day loved him too before he sided with Hitler Any ideas how we might make the UK an unsafe country? It sounds as if it may have some advantages. Vote Tory? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 19, 2023 15:23:31 GMT
Do you agree to the centres in Rwanda? Rwanda is a dictatorship run by the same man for three decades, which imprisons political opponents and is perfectly okay with torturing them. It is a safe country only in the sense that Mussolini's Italy was a safe country. But then the Tories back in the day loved him too before he sided with Hitler I was asking Zany his view , not you. His view would be within the context of the exchange . |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 19, 2023 15:27:49 GMT
How much more crap are you going to invent that exists only in your own head? I have already told you I am a democratic socialist liberal libertarian and not a totalitarian at all. But if you are going to invent lies about me to attack, there is no point in even trying to debate with you because you persist in arguing with a straw man invented entirely by yourself, lol You do have amusement value though. We also have to remember how far the left have taken us down this Soviet rabbit hole. The race laws mean that citizens cannot decide to whom they offer employment, with whom they associate, from whom they accept services and to whom they give a service. This is despite the fact that some citizens can exclude white people, straight people and men from the above. They have also brought much pressure to bear on some whose actions and pronouncements are legal yet must be excluded according to the left from meeting, discussing or airing their views and barred as much as possible from employment. A liberal libertarian would baulk at these notions of enforcement and it must be the 'socialist' bit that modifies the latter. As regards democratic then this has to be the biggest joke. For 60 years democracy has clearly indicated that immigration should be strictly controlled, yet here we are with the left in general cheerleading mass immigration numbers and applauding and welcoming anyone who can get here with scant disregard, and in fact some disparagement, of those who ask for the democratic wishes of the people to be given due consideration. I think you need to look at your political identity again as liberal and libertarian are no at all accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 19, 2023 16:29:21 GMT
We also have to remember how far the left have taken us down this Soviet rabbit hole. The race laws mean that citizens cannot decide to whom they offer employment, with whom they associate, from whom they accept services and to whom they give a service. This is despite the fact that some citizens can exclude white people, straight people and men from the above. They have also brought much pressure to bear on some whose actions and pronouncements are legal yet must be excluded according to the left from meeting, discussing or airing their views and barred as much as possible from employment. A liberal libertarian would baulk at these notions of enforcement and it must be the 'socialist' bit that modifies the latter. As regards democratic then this has to be the biggest joke. For 60 years democracy has clearly indicated that immigration should be strictly controlled, yet here we are with the left in general cheerleading mass immigration numbers and applauding and welcoming anyone who can get here with scant disregard, and in fact some disparagement, of those who ask for the democratic wishes of the people to be given due consideration. I think you need to look at your political identity again as liberal and libertarian are no at all accurate. Do you really wish to be allowed to be prejudiced based on colour or sexuality? Is that what your bemoaning here? That your right to make arbitary decisions based on stereotyped prejudice have been removed? As for excluding white people and straight men because of their colour or sexuality. That is pure nonsense, though no doubt you have concocted in your own mind a specific circumstance in which this happened. A libertarian be blowed, any civilisation cannot survive the type of prejudice you long for. And by controlled immigration I assume you mean the pure race maintained. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 19, 2023 17:17:27 GMT
We also have to remember how far the left have taken us down this Soviet rabbit hole. The race laws mean that citizens cannot decide to whom they offer employment, with whom they associate, from whom they accept services and to whom they give a service. This is despite the fact that some citizens can exclude white people, straight people and men from the above. They have also brought much pressure to bear on some whose actions and pronouncements are legal yet must be excluded according to the left from meeting, discussing or airing their views and barred as much as possible from employment. A liberal libertarian would baulk at these notions of enforcement and it must be the 'socialist' bit that modifies the latter. As regards democratic then this has to be the biggest joke. For 60 years democracy has clearly indicated that immigration should be strictly controlled, yet here we are with the left in general cheerleading mass immigration numbers and applauding and welcoming anyone who can get here with scant disregard, and in fact some disparagement, of those who ask for the democratic wishes of the people to be given due consideration. I think you need to look at your political identity again as liberal and libertarian are no at all accurate. Do you really wish to be allowed to be prejudiced based on colour or sexuality? Is that what your bemoaning here? That your right to make arbitary decisions based on stereotyped prejudice have been removed? As for excluding white people and straight men because of their colour or sexuality. That is pure nonsense, though no doubt you have concocted in your own mind a specific circumstance in which this happened. A libertarian be blowed, any civilisation cannot survive the type of prejudice you long for. And by controlled immigration I assume you mean the pure race maintained. You cannot see what you are saying. Whatever I wish for is immaterial because you used the operative words one is not allowed. No matter how you twist it that is not libertarian. You also missed the other important point that in making laws to outlaw discrimination they built in laws to allow exactly that. Now you can argue till the cows come home that it is for sound moral reasons but that does not alter the fact that they are discriminatory. I am applying a bit of logical thought to what srb actually said and how he described himself as a democratic socialist liberal libertarian and they are a rather disparate bunch of adjectives attached to libertarian. So much for libertarian as referenced above. Now liberal with the small l is quite clear in its meaning which ever meaning you choose 1 willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas: 2 relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise: As regards 'socialist' he does not agree that all people are equal he judges by belief and discriminates accordingly. As regards being a democrat people have voted for over 60 years for policies that state immigration will be strictly controlled. There is no getting away from that fact. So wanting and actively working to get something different is anti democratic. Now some people may want a purity of race others may want a society based largely on British values that people are welcome in manageable numbers to come and participate in. It does not matter which, it just matters that the democratic choice was for strictly controlled immigration. That does not negate anyone's rights if they are British Citizens. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 19, 2023 19:48:53 GMT
Do you really wish to be allowed to be prejudiced based on colour or sexuality? Is that what your bemoaning here? That your right to make arbitary decisions based on stereotyped prejudice have been removed? As for excluding white people and straight men because of their colour or sexuality. That is pure nonsense, though no doubt you have concocted in your own mind a specific circumstance in which this happened. A libertarian be blowed, any civilisation cannot survive the type of prejudice you long for. And by controlled immigration I assume you mean the pure race maintained. Don't be ridiculous. There has never been libertarian in the format you imply. Unless you wish to wish to live like an animal where the strongest make the rules. The Vikings perhaps. The Apes won out over the lions because they understood the mass was more important than the individual. Even apes got that, watch an ape pack, the chosen leader gets privileges, but step beyond those (bite a junior member) and the pack turn on him. Its called civilisation and libertarian still involves living within accepted rules of behaviour. Not to my knowledge. i do not believe you are. I believe you are acting out your frustrations at having different cultures and races in "your" country. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2023 21:02:10 GMT
We also have to remember how far the left have taken us down this Soviet rabbit hole. The race laws mean that citizens cannot decide to whom they offer employment, with whom they associate, from whom they accept services and to whom they give a service. This is despite the fact that some citizens can exclude white people, straight people and men from the above. They have also brought much pressure to bear on some whose actions and pronouncements are legal yet must be excluded according to the left from meeting, discussing or airing their views and barred as much as possible from employment. A liberal libertarian would baulk at these notions of enforcement and it must be the 'socialist' bit that modifies the latter. As regards democratic then this has to be the biggest joke. For 60 years democracy has clearly indicated that immigration should be strictly controlled, yet here we are with the left in general cheerleading mass immigration numbers and applauding and welcoming anyone who can get here with scant disregard, and in fact some disparagement, of those who ask for the democratic wishes of the people to be given due consideration. I think you need to look at your political identity again as liberal and libertarian are no at all accurate. True, the abuse, lies, hypocrisy and tantrums does give it away. I just put it all down to a form of manic attention spamming where they cannot openly no-platform. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 20, 2023 0:21:53 GMT
We also have to remember how far the left have taken us down this Soviet rabbit hole. The race laws mean that citizens cannot decide to whom they offer employment, with whom they associate, from whom they accept services and to whom they give a service. This is despite the fact that some citizens can exclude white people, straight people and men from the above. Do you really wish to be allowed to be prejudiced based on colour or sexuality? I think it's rather more subtle than that. My guess is that he doesn't accept that your (or anyone else's) crackpot and hysterical political interpretation of his various reasonable actions should make any difference to his rights to engage in those actions. In other words, he feels he has rights that ere independent of your preferences or interpretation and therefore doesn't have to provide you with an explanation for his various uses of those rights (ie tell you why he hired x rather than y). He does't accept that you have any legitimate authority to demand an explanation or demand he fulfill any criteria on these matters. Mind your own business |
|
