fatherpierre

Labour used to be left - now just right of centre IMHO. Tory the same. Liberal Central.

BNP=NF share some of the **** beliefs (no blacks, Asians, white only).

Bin Laden's lot is religoun based. Extremism.

I think

Edited 'cos my fingers don't work properly

[Edited by fatherpierre - 9/21/2002 2:44:49 PM]

tony jones

I wasn't out for getting spelling marks.

You can get an MSc in other than pure scince subjects, as you can get a Phd in a scince subject. Things have moved on quite a bit since you last were at school I quess.

tony jones

If in doubt check out http://e-learning.salford.ac.uk

tony jones

And if we are going to pick holes in grammer rather than content, "I'm quessing school may have been a scary for you".????

Not exactly good grammer and my post was done at 6 in the morning whats your excuse?

And no I do not support BNP, or any other nationalist party.

tony jones

And between spelling Holacost (sic)wrong and getting Hitler's nationality wrong. well, what can I say?

And exactly where do repatriate a german jew or a Gypsy, if you have got the time that is?

fatherpierre

Oooooooo I seem to have upset you, Tony!

At what point did I say that Hitler was German? I didn't

You can't repatriate a German Jew, homosexual etc, hence their murder.

And an BSC or MSc has to have a scientific base, IE be provable. A PHD is by definition philosophical.

[Edited by fatherpierre - 9/21/2002 4:15:24 PM]

tony jones

Quote " hardly a theme used by the the *****. world domination and the use of most of Europe so 'pure' Germans can spread and prosper". Germans can spread and prosper, if you can quote me any written document that backs this statement up, then you are a better man than me gugerdin.

You see Bob T this is why I say read up your self, as people will make statements that are not factual and when pulled up will go on about spelling mistakes instead of the point, it is classic loss of argument, Margret Thatcher used a very similar method when being pressed by interviewers in the 80's.

As for the PHd, Msc arguement, the fact is look at the salford University web site, its there in black and white.

And for your benefit i loved school, but for all the wrong reasons, which is why I start my Phd next year instead of 15 years ago.

Better late than never you may say.

camk

IRA /PIRA could be classified mainly Marxist/Seperatist background, I think 'really out on a limb here so no flames please' that the split from IRA to PIRA(Povisionals) was related to different Political content of the 2 repective groups doctrine. However the main aim of both groups was separation from the United Kingdom. The likelyhood is that Political overtones from both groups was based on where they could get support from at the height of their 'Reign of Terror' and that was from Left Wing Extremism. e.g. East Germany, Bader Meihnhoff,Red Army Faction ...etc etc.

Regards
Cammy

tony jones

Quote from father 'post 879' "There's nothing more right wing than the repatritation and financial rape of anyone deemed none German- Jews, Gypsies, Blacks and homosexuals. Then seeing repatriation would take to long -genocide.

Come on father, back this up with something other than your own opinion pleeeese!

Bearing in mind, you now realise Hitler was non German, and you can not repatriate a German to any other country, no matter how long you have.

But if you don't really have an answer, pick fault in the spelling and feel you have won the arguement that way.

fatherpierre

God is this still going?!

Tony, I can't be arsed arguing! I've got a hangover and feel like ****!

Of course everything I've said is my own opinion and what I can remember from Uni.

I don't profess to be an expert, but I'm 100% certain that the ***** led by the very Austrian Mr Hitler were ever so slightly right wing.

Chill Winston and good luck with your PHD - you must be mental!

tony jones

At the risk of sayin " I told you so"

No, it was a very socilist thing to do. Socialist because the Jews prior to 1939 were in finacial control of the money and comodaties markets of Germany. Dealing in comodities is a totallly capatalist trade, as it makes profit on the labour of the workers.

It was also a nationalist thing to do, as it descriminated against a religion rather than a number of individuls.

Which brings me back to my very first post that started this, the **** party were, 'National Socialists'.

sorry but i have spent 3 years looking at facts, not what somebody told me in the student bar.

Next.............

And if you are still there BOB.T. when you study politics, you may well come to same conclusion as me, all a load of boll**ks!

Yeh, i must be mad doing Phd, but it is a personal goal and I won't be happy till I can call myself "doctor". sad or what?

fatherpierre

Oh I'm not conceding defeat! I just can't be arsed today!

You told me nothing!

I'm just too lazy to be bothered today!

I too spent 3yrs studying and base my knowledge on that and not student bar talk.

Next......? How arrogant.

[Edited by fatherpierre - 9/22/2002 6:13:51 PM]

[Edited by fatherpierre - 9/22/2002 6:15:53 PM]

paulr

No paper at all.........probably the most sensible people of all

tony jones

I'm sorry but 3 years studying and you say, and I quote,
"The repatriation and finacial rape of anyone deemed none German"
So Hitler was encouraging this on himslef, Doh!

back this statement up and we can have a reasonable arguement, pick fault in spelling and all I can say is ..Next...

fatherpierre

Yawn.

Which part of "I can't be arsed" don't you understand, Tony?

You seem a little offended at the spelling thing - you keep repeating yourself on it.

*Sarcasm mode on*

Ok if it makes you feel better...........

You're right. Everything you write on here is correct and everything I've written is 100% incorrect. Shame on me for daring to have an opinion that hasn't 1st been reviewed and sanctioned by you, the true Oracle.

*Sarcasm mode off*

How's that?

NotoriousREV

I can't believe that anyone doing a PHD would:

A) argue that the ****'s were anything other than right wing

B) spell Science without the "e" twice in one post.

The **** Party, while espousing several "socialist" beliefs (unemployed? Go and work for the country building cars, motorways etc for a better future) were firmly right wing. If you did not conform to the German idea of the master race, i.e. Teutonic, you were a second class citizen. Now how could that be construed as Socialist? Hardly "everyone is equal" is it?

The fact is, the National Socialist party in Germany was twisted out of all recognition to become the **** party we all "know" by very clever people who wanted to gain power by feeding on the fears and worries of the disenfranchised electorate.

All of this is very much IMHO as I don;t have a degree of any kind, nor have I studied history at any academic level, feel free to flame, as long as you have any semblance of sanity in your posting.

fatherpierre

You're in for it now, Rev!

He doesn't like his spelling being pulled apart or being disagreed with!

Shame on you!!

NotoriousREV

Damn, I used a semi-colon instead of an apostrophe too, makes a mockery of my argument

IIRC, this same guy was arguing in another thread that "Agreed Value" Insurance doesn't mean that the insurance company "agrees" the "value" of your vehicle.

I find it ironic that he puts so much weight upon the relevance of a political party's name, and yet he reverses this belief when it comes to naming a type of insurance

tony jones

Which thread is this??? and if you don't belive someone can study for a PHd without being able to be word perfick all the time, then you should discover spell check. wonderful!
I have never said I was the worlds best speller, I have an A level maths, but my mental arthimatic is worse, thats why we have calculators. wonderful!

tony jones

I love being disagreed with, but yes it is poor when the arguement is you can't be right your spelling is poor. Steven Hawkins no doubt has similar problems.

I spend hours on the internet discussing this issue and how Eduard Schulte saw the logical conclusion of the **** policies in 1939 and was dismissed as a fool both by fellow germans and the Allies.

The german people were not evil they were very cleverly conned. They belived what they were told and got swept along.

My dissertation draws a comparision of Mr Schulte and hitler to modern day leaders threats, IE Sept 11th.

I don't know, you two prove my point, say somthing not liked and your dissmissed.

I only know two other subjects in depth, the poor state of UK Schools and private prisons. But I quess I'll keep them for AOL international rather than scoobynet.

I never siad I was on my Phd, I am on my MSc dissertation on the mthods of cummunication Mr Schulte used and failed to bring the dangers of hitler to worlds attention. I will start it next year after a 6 month break!

But if that is in doubt, contact me and we can have a little wager, possibly meeting at Salford Uni, with ownership documents at hand, winnner takes home two scoobies!! (mines a MY01)

fatherpierre

Taxi for Jones please.

And it's "you're" not "your".

[Edited by fatherpierre - 9/23/2002 12:40:12 PM]

NotoriousREV

I wonder if Herr Schulte had a spell checker?

bros2

Tony

1 Stephen W Hawking has no problems with spelling - it takes him so long to get words out that he makes damn sure there is little proof reading needed. He does get a little pissed off with people mis-spelling his name though!

2 Your dissertation "draws a comparison of Mr Schulte and Hitler to modern day leaders threats, IE Sept 11th". I was aware that Eduard Schulte passed on significant information and that this was initially considered to be without basis. Accordingly, the Americans could, justifiably, be held accountable for inaction during the greater part of 1942.

What's your thesis? I presume that the 11th Spetember WTC bombing was avoidable, based on an examination of intelligence data now available, and that the lessons of history are never learned?

Don't want to rain on your parade, but this sort of revisionist analysis has been done since time immemorial. Ones going round the coffee bar when I was doing International Relations in the 80's included:

- Could Pearl Harbor have been prevented? (Yes, Kimmel & Short got it wrong).

- Should Chamberlain have appeased Hitler in 1938/was Churchill right after all? (You all know the answer to this one).

- Did we get away with it by the skin of our teeth over the Cuban missile crisis? (Yes, John F. was a nutter, and groupthink rather than rational analysis guided his policy)

- Which one out of Bananarama would you like to ****? (The revisionist view says "none" but the truthful answer was Siobhan Fahey)

Bros

DavidRB

All this and no-one answered the question of why the terms "left" and "right" are used...

tony jones

Not at all Bros, thank you for some intelligent reply, the point was making re Mr hawkins is the content of his ideas is more important that the presentation.

I Aknowledge nothing is new re my study, but then what do you want blood? As long as I get the title, I get the wage increase.

And the whole point of the thread has been hijacked. My answer to Bob T was to read amd make up his own mind. Some people saw through Hitler but were poo-pooed, which is exactly what happened on here. I may have wrote things knowing what reaction I would get, but thats half the fun.

Want to talk about private prisons, or the state of our schools?

I think I'll call it a day now before I make too many enimies.

bros2

Tony,

Nah, I know nothing about prisons or schools.

Re the fact that your research isn't covering new ground, my dissertation was on car accessory pricing, with the thesis that manufacturers maximised profit on the factory-fit items on the basis that customers were price-inelastic re the basic cost, but considerably more elastic re option costs. Hence why a Merc sunroof in the 1980's used to cost £1k+ etc etc

Hardly ground-breaking stuff, and it's not exactly anything that people didn't already know. Got me the grade though, which is, as you say, all that matters.

Bit different with a PhD though - I'd really need to have the belief that what I was doing was really going to make a difference in my chosen field in order to maintain the necessary motivation.

Good luck with yours.



DavidRB

You asked for it, so here it is ......

Most political parties have a significant number of diverse views which are too disconnected to be easily summarised. In order to make parties electable thay have to appeal to the masses, and you can hardly expect those masses to plough through obstruse political tomes in search of "the message". As a result, summaries are needed and so we use the idiotic image of a single line reaching from a far left to a far right onto which every political view can supposedly be mapped. I don't know who came up with this idea, but I suppose it holds water in the sense that it equates to an entire landscape.

However, not only is the concept of a single dimension idiotic when applied to thousands of separate issues, but the two supposedly most distant ends of this single line (the far Left and the far Right) are virtually identical even if the persons who hold those 'extreme' views would fight to the death denying this self-evident truth, both shouting that they were right, that the other side were evil scum, and neither of them realising that they were indistinguishable from one another to the outside observer. Go to a BNP versus ANL rally and you'll see what I mean - you'd want to shoot all of them.

Both extreme Left and extreme Right, if applied in toto (no poodle rock jokes please) would lead to dictatorships in which the state denies the existance of the individual, treats its citizens as disposable and expects total obedience in the interest of the whole. Bit like the Borg. But without the head-detatching bit. It's worth noting that the single biggest idealogical difference between Left and Right is the belief in the individual; the Left (say, Karl Marx) believe in the innate goodness of the individual, and think that in the right circumstances people will work for the good of the whole because they believe in it. Conversely, the Right (say, Nicolo Machiavelli) think that people need to be controlled more because their natural tendency is to look out for themselves, and sod the rest - hence Machiavelli's insistence in The Prince that individuals be persuaded to act in the common interest by being made to understand that this was also in their own material interest. However, both Left and Right extremists would require the citizens to do as the state demanded - it's just that the Left would have you do it for love, the Right would have you do it for money. The end would be the same though ....

So we have a single span from Left to Right, and everyone who wants power, and who thus has to win votes has to squeeze his own or her own imaginary position somewhere close to the supposed centre of the line so as to not be associated with 'extremists' who are usually vote losers.

In reality it is extremely difficult to create even a multi-dimensional representation of political ragbag parties because there is rarely any underlying ideology or theme to their beliefs. In Britain and America the 'right wing' tend to grant individuals more rights over spending their own money, thus plumping for lower taxes, but are less keen in self-expression, expecting individuals to conform to the norm. 'Left wingers' tend to want the state to determine more of how people spend their money, thus increasing taxes and seeking to redistibute wealth, but let the individual have more freedom in social behaviour. If those parties were consistent in their ideology we would have a choice between communal and individual instead of right and left. The 'communals' would want the state to determine more of how people spend their money and how they live socially whilst the 'individuals' would believe more in free markets and free social behaviour.

Given the polarised views of Left and Right, why don't we see such a clear ideological purity in political parties? Basically, because political parties are the pragmatic manifestation of political debate - they are vote-gathering machines rather than engines of philosophical discourse. Note that when the Soviet Union broke up and Russia turned toward democratic elections we had the confusing nonsense of reformers being described as left-wing and old time dictatorial communists as right-wing when previously communists had always been described as extreme left-wing. Even the labels lack ideological purity.

So how to define Left and Right, and is it actually any use? If we try to create dimensions on which to plot political positions we need to use dimensions that are not ragbags of contradictory beliefs.

Possible dimensions include:

- the number of persons involved in the governmental process where dictatorship by one person is at one end and 100% democracy is at the other

- the range of behaviours that government regards as having a right to determine and control where a minimal state is at one end and a totalitarian state is at the other

- and how widely the decisions by government are imposed by force where at one end citizens may opt out of any decisions they do not like and at the other end all citizens can be severely punished for not obeying.

Even those three dimensions do not cope with the complexity of the individual issues and the random nature of most real political arguments. Hence the Right (who believe in individual choice and support minimal state intervention) are firmly opposed to abortion, when surely they shopuld be on the other side. Or the faux-Socialist Blair government privatising the Air Traffic Control system even though Left-wing dogma would have it that this must remain in the control of the State.

What it self-evidently true is that TB and chums have nicked the Centre-Right agenda from the Conservatives, thus meaning that IDS can't really object to many of the policies - but because he HAS to disagree with the Government, we have the ludicrous position of a relatively Right-wing Conservative leader trying to take the party even further to the Right, thus making it even less electable. Fair play to Blair, he's a serious political operator, though the least Left-wing Labour leader ever.


Bros

EvilBevel

Very good stuff Bros, my compliments.

My personal view is that the dichotomy left/right and progressive/convervative was already quite useless before 1990, but became even more so after the crumbling of the Berlin wall.

In a lot of countries, social democrats/liberals/conservatives are fighting for a tight spot right in the centre of the political spectrum. With some extremists getting a lot of attention, taking advantage of the fact that the "traditional" parties are very weak and can never achieve what they promise (Europe is more prominent than we like to know BTW..., same goes for global markets.)

Also probably good to know that political parties can change very rapidly in a few years, depending on who gets the power (like your Mr. Blair example). The Belgian socialist party was pretty "left", but towards WWII, changed quite in the other direction (De Man). After the war, they were lefties again though

Another important distinction: communism versus socialism ... people tend to mix those up a bit.

But I disgress: using "left" and "right" is about as useful as saying a car is "fast" or "slow"

[Edited by EvilBevel - 9/23/2002 7:23:42 PM]

tony jones

Well wrote Bros, will read it agian later when home from work, but must pull u up on one very important point.

Surely Karen??

Seriously, I feel a new thread coming on, in 'Is Balir the best leader or worse?', You must agree at present there is absolutly no competition, which can't be a good thing.

And one for Nev, you are not taking me up on my challenge?, well you can ring Salford Uni and ask the title of the 'best' overall dissertation for 2000, and see who wrote it. and still keep your car. Cancel the taxi father!

bros2

Ah, but Siobhan then went off and formed Shakespears Sister with Marcella Detroit, so she gets my overall vote.

Bros

DavidRB

Bros - Nearly, but you still haven't explained why we use "left wing" and "right wing" as opposed to up & down, forward & backward, etc..

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20011217.html