Nazis

[PsiSoldier]

lol.

The Americans take things too far. Neo-Nazis, communists, KKK etc. need to be oppressed. Their views need to be abolished from society, not accepted.

If you abolish Nazism and Communism (Although I can't see how Communism is evil.) and such, then you'll have to abolish all religions/beliefs. But Communism isn't exactly a religion... So, meh!

EDIT:

The Iraq War,

Wait a second, a month or two ago you were explaining to me how the Iraq war was a good thing. Jesus H.Christ man, get your story straight.

 

[Fuzzy Bunny]

If you abolish one national party just because you disagree with their ideas, you're setting a precendent that says it would be ok to abolish ANY national party that the ruling party disagrees with. In the end, you're left with one national party left, and they'd be more or less free to run the country however they please.

 

[Gibsonfire]

If you abolish one national party just because you disagree with their ideas, you're setting a precendent that says it would be ok to abolish ANY national party that the ruling party disagrees with. In the end, you're left with one national party left, and they'd be more or less free to run the country however they please.

Which in turn is being just like the communist style of government.

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

What? Margaret Thatcher gave him the best legacy he could have hoped for. sure, John Major was a bit of a twit, but he didn't screw it up that badly. He flushed the Conservative party down the drain, but he managed to keep the country in a good condition. Blair has just cocked it up, and Gordon Brown is going to be even worse.

Gee, and there was me thinking there was a legitimate reason for the Thatch-machine being branded 'The Ice Queen' or 'The Death-Bringer' or just merely 'The Scourge of the Working Class'. Only two groups of people found El Thatchmeister's reign advantageous - The rich English, and the very rich English (especially the very rich english). Tony Blair's labour governement have done a good amount (I say good, but in the comparative sense only) to keep Scotland recognized and not just 'that land over there with the kilted folk, yes, them that we steal oil off of'.

As bobsicle says, what has he really done wrong, and failing that, what would anyone else have done right?

Whoops, this thread is veering off course. Look out for that hedge! Although, it is a decent debate. Time for some snippety snipping action perhaps.

 

[BiG D]

Which in turn is being just like the communist style of government.

Communism isn't a type of government...

 

[Gibsonfire]

Communism isn't a type of government...

I said 'style' as in china or the Soviet Union having a government that is communist

 

[BiG D]

But you can have communism without the dictatorship, and a dictatorship without communism. I still don't see the connection between that and what fuzzy said...

 

[Gibsonfire]

But you can have communism without the dictatorship, and a dictatorship without communism. I still don't see the connection between that and what fuzzy said...

Ok I admit that it doesn't fit that well with what fuzzy said, I meant it more with what Taffy was saying and how communists should be abolished and then fuzzy said how when you get rid of political parties you are left with a one part state which I perceved as similar to a communist government.

 

[waterproofbob]

But you can have communism without the dictatorship, and a dictatorship without communism.

Holding to true communist ideals there should not be a dictator, it sort of completely eludes the point of communism, however this is not the greatest flaw to theoretical communism as a structure of a country. The fact that humans are inherently imperfect greedy beings means that communism will on a national scale always fail.

 

[Pestcontrol]

It is important to distinguish between ideological communism and de facto communism. BiG_D holds the first definition where WPB has the second.

Also there was a flavour where after the revolution there would be a temporary government with the goal of transforming society into a fully communist one and so make itself redundant, so in that way it can be considered a form of government.

Social liberalism FTW!

 

[DeZmond]

It is important to distinguish between ideological communism and de facto communism. BiG_D holds the first definition where WPB has the second.

Also there was a flavour where after the revolution there would be a temporary government with the goal of transforming society into a fully communist one and so make itself redundant, so in that way it can be considered a form of government.

^ What he said. Typically people get too addicted to power so in this phase of communism is where a regime often fails. It would perhaps have been interesting to see what would have happened should Lenin have stayed in power rather than Stalin taking over... would he have retained control?

For a lesson in communism read Animal Farm by George Orwell.

 

[Taffy]

Wait a second, a month or two ago you were explaining to me how the Iraq war was a good thing. Jesus H.Christ man, get your story straight.

The Iraq War was a good thing as far as removing one of the worlds evilest dictators goes. HOWEVER it was executed in the completely wrong way. If you know that your going to be occupying a country for some time then you quite obviously come up with a detailed yet flexible strategy. Something that was clearly missing in this case. I still maintain that the Iraq War was right. It was just executed by a pair of, as far as I can see, complete fools.

As far as Communism goes, it is in THEORY a great system, and if it worked i'd love it to bits. The problem is, it doesn't work. The whole idea of communism is in direct conflict with human nature and nature as a whole. Competition is what makes the world go round. Its survival of the fittest. And thats why it is an unworkable system. Unfortunately.

 

[DocBot]

I believe that has been substituted somewhat with the "survival of the one with the fittest parents"

...

 

[Taffy]

Huh? I don't understand...

 

[Gibsonfire]

Huh? I don't understand...

I think what Docbot is saying is (correct me if I'm wrong) that nowadays your position in society matters on your parents position. For instance if you are born into a low paid/class family you most probably will end up being in the same situation when you are older.

 

[Taffy]

Sorry for the late response, i've been offline for ages.

Sometimes, yes this is true. But in school, is it just coincidence that the people who come from a poorer background also have a poorer work ethic? Is it just coincidental that most who get the poorest grades also come from poor backgrounds? Maybe its the parents, not the background, that need to be questioned.

 

[DocBot]

...So, I wrote;

"survival of the one with the fittest parents"...

which you:

Huh? I don't understand...

But then gibson interpreted it, so you interpreted the interpretation to:

Maybe its the parents, not the background, that need to be questioned.

Amazing!

 

[Taffy]

I don't see how thats amazing. Hard work at school means better grades which means a better job which means better pay. It is the parents position to encourage their child to work hard. If they don't do that, the child won't work hard. So the parents haven't brought the child up properly, so the child will not be as successful in life.

Or maybe you interpreted my interpretaion wrong? I meant questioning the parents not in wealth but in parenting ability.

 

[Taffy]

I don't see how thats amazing. Hard work at school means better grades which means a better job which means better pay. It is the parents position to encourage their child to work hard. If they don't do that, the child won't work hard. So the parents haven't brought the child up properly, so the child will not be as successful in life.

Or maybe you interpreted my interpretaion wrong? I meant questioning the parents not in wealth but in parenting ability.

 

[Gopha]

Hey I TRY at school but it is a known fact that I suck at this whole education thing doesnt help when head of year hates you It is down to the parents, not about wealth though, a family can be as poor as possible so that would mean they would not want their kids to be the same as them therefore wanting the to do well and to get a good job. So I think its complete crap that its down to your parents position if you do well. of course it does help to have the right connections to get into city businesses but they are not going ot put a complete jackass of a person into a job just because their father was good at that job earlier in time.