Why is nazism popular today?

[Arising_uk]

Given this definition, the Labour guy is terror-friendly.

By that definition so are you and most of us.

[Arising_uk]

So... would you say your skepticism on the power given to Brit politicians extends or not extends to all politicians? ...

I'm not sceptical about the power given to British politicians. I'm sceptical about the ability of Parliament currently to properly debate and examine proposed bills of law with respect to emotive issues.

What are your criteria to separate which politician to trust with the powers vested in them (such as voting them in for an election win) and which not? ...

I vote for the policies not the person.

In particular, do you have any assurance that any politician will or will not fulfil the promises, such as they are, they make during campaigning?

By and large our politicians try to uphold their manifesto policies, if not I vote against them at the next election

My point being, of course, that the Labour guy ought to be distrusted just as much as everyone else, or else, you must trust everyone else as much as the Labour guy, but if you want to cherry pick whom to trust ab ovo and whom not to, then you have to present pretty strong reasons to back that action up.

Unless of course you vote randomly, or emotionally.

It's got bugger all to do with trust and everything to do with policy. The people I said I didn't trust were those who were enabled to act by a law, as they tend to use the powers they get to the fullest and in ways that weren't intended or in the spirit of the bill in mind at the time. It's not really that they are untrustful just that unless a bill is properly examined the law of unintended consequences can be very effective.

[-1-]

So... would you say your skepticism on the power given to Brit politicians extends or not extends to all politicians? ...

(ArisingUK) I'm not sceptical about the power given to British politicians. (-1-) Oh yes, you are. If you can believe your own words. You wrote the following in blue: (ArisingUK) give an authority extended powers over here and they will generally use them in areas not intended by the bill, law of unintended consequences an' all.I'm sceptical about the ability of Parliament currently to properly debate and examine proposed bills of law with respect to emotive issues.

What are your criteria to separate which politician to trust with the powers vested in them (such as voting them in for an election win) and which not? ...

I vote for the policies not the person.

In particular, do you have any assurance that any politician will or will not fulfil the promises, such as they are, they make during campaigning?

By and large our politicians try to uphold their manifesto policies, if not I vote against them at the next election

My point being, of course, that the Labour guy ought to be distrusted just as much as everyone else, or else, you must trust everyone else as much as the Labour guy, but if you want to cherry pick whom to trust ab ovo and whom not to, then you have to present pretty strong reasons to back that action up.

Unless of course you vote randomly, or emotionally.

It's got bugger all to do with trust and everything to do with policy. The people I said I didn't trust were those who were enabled to act by a law, as they tend to use the powers they get to the fullest and in ways that weren't intended or in the spirit of the bill in mind at the time. It's not really that they are untrustful just that unless a bill is properly examined the law of unintended consequences can be very effective.

[/color]

[-1-]

Need I point out that the passage in blue applies to politicians as well as to beaurocrats. The people pass extended power to the politicians, namely, to make law, and the politicians, as you point out, use the power to act in areas the law did not mean them to.

If you thought politicians were an exemption from this, then you ought to have worded it differently. Sorry.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

[
I am not a friend of Dachshund, at all, but I wouldn't want this guy, the head of Labour Party, to lead my nation, either, when he is so terror-friendly.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Corbyn is anti-war, which of course is going to upset all the warmongering fucktards out there.

I read the items on the list he did, attended, listened to, and voted for. This is clear. He is a terror-friendly person.

Of course he is against war. Against the war on terror. I only go by what I see. No delusions, no fantasy, no fiction. The list speaks for itself.

If there was a 'war on terror' then it would be most of the planet going to war with the US.
What a bloody sheeple you are. Shove your meaningless buzz-terms.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Need I point out that the passage in blue applies to politicians as well as to beaurocrats. The people pass extended power to the politicians, namely, to make law, and the politicians, as you point out, use the power to act in areas the law did not mean them to.

If you thought politicians were an exemption from this, then you ought to have worded it differently. Sorry.

What are 'beaurocrats'?

[-1-]

What are 'beaurocrats'?

I can't spell that word. Tried it at least a hundred tines and failed at each.

Same with newsense. nuissance. shit, can't do it.

[gaffo]

Surely you don't think brandishing a swastika and shouting Sig Heil makes one a Nazi in 2019?

Don't know about yours but ours generally don't do anything that stupid anymore.

The world is more complex than appearances.

I agree and so do they, that's why the alt-right sound so reasonable now but the message is the same old same old, 'they' are taking away your rights, you are becoming second-class citizens in your own country, 'they' are taking your jobs, capitalist globalization is evil, you are losing your national identity and 'they' are taking it away from you, etc, etc.

Like who?

Like Jo Cox, like the 69 kids in Norway, like the murders in NZ.

But you are right, I think I over reacted to IC's post as in Europe the bulk of attacks have been from Islamic Jihadists and their attempts to cause a reaction towards the muslim communities as they are following Mao's idea of terrorism to force a violent response towards the moderate muslims in an attempt to drive them into their camp and Bin Laden's brilliant lesson from the Americans to franchise out his terrorism is proving very popular with the disaffected. But any rise of the far-right has strong associations with it over here that maybe Americans don't feel but one can see the connections being built up amongst the far-right extremist groups to push their guff, you can hear it in the rise of far-right political parties across Europe and the idea of 'iliberal democracy'.

Then again I read stuff like this on wiki
"As of December 2018, the New America Foundation placed the number killed in terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11 as follows: 104 killed in jihadist terrorist attacks, 86 killed in far-right attacks, 8 killed in black separatist/nationalist/supremacist attacks, and 8 killed in ideological misogyny/"incel" ideology attacks. The politically conservative Daily Caller News Foundation using data from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), found 92% of all "ideologically motivated homicide incidents" committed in the United States from 2007 to 2016 were motivated by right-wing extremism or white supremacism. According to the Government Accountability Office of the United States, 73% of violent extremist incidents that resulted in deaths since September 12, 2001 were caused by right-wing extremist groups."

I think you are correct, Arising_UK. I googled Wiki for "left wing terrorism" and came up empty but "right wing terrorism" seems to be much more active. Even googling Antifa, I couldn't find many actual violent acts attributed to them. At worst they have maybe gotten into squabbles in the middle of protests where they pepper sprayed people or hit people who were also armed but their record doesn't seem to match up with the list of right wing attacks that can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-win ... ted_States

Somehow or another, it seems to be a misconception on this forum that the left is more dangerous than the right in Western nations. However, from what I can tell, it appears to be the opposite. I'm not a big fan of PC culture and SJWs for personal reasons, however, I have to go with the facts here and say that at worst they are a nuisance with their practices of public shaming and shouting down their opponents. However, it doesn't appear that they are really engaging in much in the way of physical violence and terror from the looks of it.

correct

[gaffo]

...... Right now England is torn with crisis, Belinda. ...

And why's that? Because the Tory party for purely party political interests called a referendum in fear of the result of British Representative democracy.

... Send Jean Claude Juncker a letter, telling him that you an English patriot, and you have some advice for him, i.e. Go F**K yourself, Juncker, you're nothing but a pencil-necked, spineless, pen-pusher - if you threaten England , you' live to regret it, you Hun bastard."

You are an idiot, Juncker is just the equivalent of a British Civil Servant and has no power to threaten anyone. Sod-off back to the US or OZ or wherever it is you hail from as you are as bad as the Yank plastic-paddies with your 'I identify as English' shtick.

amen cousin.

[gaffo]

... but I wouldn't want this guy, the head of Labour Party, to lead my nation, either, when he is so terror-friendly.

He doesn't lead the nation, he's not a President but a Prime Minister. To our great shame we are also forgetting this over here and our elections are becoming a farce of personality over policies.

I don't know the British system. In Canada, where I live and vote, the Prime Minister wields all political power. Practically.

you forget the "ceremonial" post of your Govnernor General - who i beleive still legally has the power to fire the Prime Minister.

In the US the Leader of the Nation and the Leader of the Free World has very limited power, over his domain, compared to the Prime Minister's power over Canada. The POTUS can only veto Bills (or whatever they call them there.) He only has power, and absolute power, during national emergencies, such as being at war.

sadly you do not understand that my President has more power than your assumption. He can decliar national emergencies (did that 3 months ago) (and so do a run around congress (duma) and get funding via expropriations from other sources - WH, Pentegon/etc - without need of duma's concent. He can also exercise Executive Orders (like Obama did when the duma refused to pass a comprehensive imigration bill a decade ago) to deal wiht illegal immigrants.

[gaffo]

What does 'terror-friendly' even mean? Do you realise the amount of terror the US and UK have unleashed upon millions of innocent people in the past few deacades?

I condemn the Invasion of Iraq, and the constant shit the Western Powers have been piling on the Arab world. Just as much as you do.

You should elect a Prime Minister who promises in his campaign that he or she will prosecute all war criminals in front of an international panel of judges, including George W. Bush (that's the younger one, right?) and some other dudies. Bush being one of the accused, not one of the judges.

US never signed up to the ICC - so your PM demand for Bush to sit in front of ICC judges would be an illegal order/act.

[gaffo]

the President is also leader of the Armed Forces which is not the case with the PM,

who controls the Armed Forces in the UK (or Canada for that matter)?

so(but I'm not sure) a President could declare a national emergency and the military would be honour-bound to obey him which is also another extremely strong and in my opinion dangerous power.

correct.

But my point is that the PM is not a President and parties should be voted in on policy not personality which is what is happening more and more nowadays, hence the puppies insistence that we should look at Corbyn as a President but it doesn't matter what Corbyn's beliefs are as he has to carry out the policies voted for by the Labour party membership not what he would like them to be. The problem we have been having over here is that over the past few decades the Executive have been taking more and more power to themselves over Parliament and the PM's have been ignoring their cabinets, something that Corbyn opposes, he would wish to make Parliament sovereign again.

I see, so you have a duma too!

lovely.

[-1-]

US never signed up to the ICC - so your PM demand for Bush to sit in front of ICC judges would be an illegal order/act.

I see, si!

[-1-]

who controls the Armed Forces in the UK (or Canada for that matter)?

I don't know about the UK. In Canada the armed forces are under the direct control of Shlomo Goldstein, the local shakter from Dohány Utca.

[Dachshund]

Given this definition, the Labour guy is terror-friendly.

By that definition so are you and most of us.

Please answer a simple question for me in a direct manner,that is, without any slipperiness or evasion.

It is very likely a General Election will be held in the UK this year. Due you think the current leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, is a fit person to be the Prime Minister of Britain? Yes or No ?

Regards

Dachsund