• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

France's National Front to sue Madonna over Le Pen swastika

Free speech protects unpopular speech as well.

Wrong. Political speech operates on the laws of internet forum troll: Whatever the moderator (media) approves of is what everyone is constantly bombarded with into acceptance, whatever the moderator (media) disapproves of is slandered and trolled.
 
It's quite a bit stronger than putting a Cycle and Hammer on a socialist candidate.

Would that be a BI-cycle, UNI-cycle or a TRI-cycle?
 
you can't? Surely, likely depending on how you went about it, you might end up detained, and investigated, but you would never be charged for saying mean things to the man (example, the guy who told Cheney to **** off in New Orleans). Also, this board is private and not a function of the state, so you don't have rights to free speech here

Well, you can, and can get arrested then get paid:


Couple Arrested at Bush Rally Settles Lawsuit for $80,000

Jeff and Nicole Rank went to Bush's Fourth of July speech at the state Capitol wearing homemade T-shirts with a red circle with a bar through it over the word "Bush."

On the back, hers read "Love America, Hate Bush" and his read "Regime Change Starts At Home."

When the couple refused to cover up their shirts, they were arrested and charged with trespassing. Those charges were later dropped by the city of Charleston, and city officials later apologized.​


I guess being on public lands at a public event they must've not been standing in their "free speech zone" Bush was giving us back then.
 
You're logic isn't even basic dude.

I was going to chime in an blow your ship outta the water, but others are doung such a fine job, I'm just gonna sit back watch the turkey shoot.

i know, to you it must seem like my IQ is at the genius level, apparently.

I plainly quoted Hitler saying that nazis were nothing more than marxists, in essence, making them wholly indistinguishable, logically, from communism.

Crying about the truth that commies and nazis are a bunch of leftist turds in the same toilet bowl of socialism doesn't change the fact they are.

What's next guys, fingers in your ears? Gonna hold your breath? Please do.
 
i know, to you it must seem like my IQ is at the genius level, apparently.

I plainly quoted Hitler saying that nazis were nothing more than marxists, in essence, making them wholly indistinguishable, logically, from communism.

Crying about the truth that commies and nazis are a bunch of leftist turds in the same toilet bowl of socialism doesn't change the fact they are.

What's next guys, fingers in your ears? Gonna hold your breath? Please do.

Then someone posted the whole Hitler quote, not your partitioned shortened quote and it blew your whole argument that they are indistinguishable.
 
you can't? Surely, likely depending on how you went about it, you might end up detained, and investigated, but you would never be charged for saying mean things to the man (example, the guy who told Cheney to **** off in New Orleans). Also, this board is private and not a function of the state, so you don't have rights to free speech here

What someone yelled at Dick Cheney, and what would happen to someone in the example I gave are two different matters. You said yourself; "you might be detained"; thrown in the jug for eight hours is more like it. And with repsect to this board: you missed the point about free speech . . .
 
i know, to you it must seem like my IQ is at the genius level, apparently.

I plainly quoted Hitler saying that nazis were nothing more than marxists, in essence, making them wholly indistinguishable, logically, from communism.

Crying about the truth that commies and nazis are a bunch of leftist turds in the same toilet bowl of socialism doesn't change the fact they are.

What's next guys, fingers in your ears? Gonna hold your breath? Please do.

You can quote anybody you want, however, you should know that not citing a source: (uh, that means the time and place that the quote was made), and providing a context by which the quoter said what he or she said, means that you're just throwing something on the wall to if it sticks: well that won't stick.

Go ahead, keep playin'. Just keep walkin' around and keep misquoting and BS'n and gettin' all tangled up. I'm gonna jerk on that rope here pretty soon.
 
Last edited:
What someone yelled at Dick Cheney, and what would happen to someone in the example I gave are two different matters. You said yourself; "you might be detained"; thrown in the jug for eight hours is more like it. And with repsect to this board: you missed the point about free speech . . .

yes, we have very narrow restrictions on free speech. That doesn't mean we approach the matter in the same way as every other state with such restrictions, especially those as expansive as some of the European states. Also, libel and slander are almost impossible to seek damages for, when discussing public figures
 
I hope the french judges kick the NF's case out -mind you this will be good publicity for Madonna's next concert in Nice.

This will be an interesting case to follow - I think Madonna will come out best from this and hopefully some who supported the French far-right will be shown up for the scum they are. The French Govt should award Mademoiselle Madonna a Légion d'honneur for this.

I find this to be yet another reason to dislike Madonna.

Comparing Populists to Fascists is really quite disgusting. It'd be like comparing Ross Perot to Franco.

As a Conservative, while I am offended, I don't want to see Madonna get fined. An apology would be appreciated.
 
Well, you can, and can get arrested then get paid:


Couple Arrested at Bush Rally Settles Lawsuit for $80,000

Jeff and Nicole Rank went to Bush's Fourth of July speech at the state Capitol wearing homemade T-shirts with a red circle with a bar through it over the word "Bush."

On the back, hers read "Love America, Hate Bush" and his read "Regime Change Starts At Home."

When the couple refused to cover up their shirts, they were arrested and charged with trespassing. Those charges were later dropped by the city of Charleston, and city officials later apologized.​


I guess being on public lands at a public event they must've not been standing in their "free speech zone" Bush was giving us back then.

This little circle is the free speech zone. Everything else is legal for globalist propaganda.
 
yes, we have very narrow restrictions on free speech. That doesn't mean we approach the matter in the same way as every other state with such restrictions, especially those as expansive as some of the European states. Also, libel and slander are almost impossible to seek damages for, when discussing public figures

Public figures only scratche the surface. When somebody makes up stories about someone else's business for example, the libeler is taken court and often has a judgement rendered against them.

Ya'know, I don't think it's necessary for the discussion to split hairs on the issue. I don't contradict your points, and mine are really self explanitory. When teh radical right yells about Free Speech they're being hyperbolic at best.

I'd like for you to elaborate on your point about European states though.
 
Public figures only scratche the surface. When somebody makes up stories about someone else's business for example, the libeler is taken court and often has a judgement rendered against them.

libel against public figures is considered on separate merits exactly for the reason of how it may effect political speech



I'd like for you to elaborate on your point about European states though.

a perfect example would be the hate speech prosecution against Geert Wilders, under hate speech laws. Clearly that would never happen in the states
 
Europe simply draws the "shouting fire in a theatre" line in a different place.

We feel that some views are so repellent and vile they have no place in public discourse.
 
Last edited:
Europe simply draws the "shouting fire in a theatre" line in a different place.

We feel that some views are so repellent and vile they have no place in public discourse.

shouting "fire" in a crowded theater demands immediate action by those in the theater, and due to the nature of a fire, there isn't really room to debate if such is true. The same can't really be said of someone comparing islam to Nazism, or spouting theories of secret cabals of Jewish Bankers. Both of which have elements that get hashed out here all the time, and seemingly haven't caused any social harm.
 
Last edited:
To answer the questions if Nazis are "left" or "right", you first need to define "left" and "right". That's hard to do, but some models are more helpful and have more explanatory power than others.

Many Americans, especially on the right, seem to believe the spectrum is just one-dimensional, while "right" means small government and "left" means big government. By that definition, the Nazis were certainly "left". But I believe this model is deficient, cannot explain much if anything at all.

By all other meaningful models to define "left" or "right", the Nazis were clearly far-right. Pre-enlightened authoritarianism supposing humans don't have equal rights? Check. Rabid nationalism/rah rah patriotism? Check. Militarism? Check. Ethnic chauvinism and anti-Semitism? Check. Rejection of liberal democracy? Check. All of this had traditionally been elements of the monarchist conservative right.

In 19th century Germany, there was a monarchist authoritarian "big government" right against classic liberalism (along the lines of modern libertarianism) on the left. In Weimar Germany, "small government" was centrist - The monarchist conservatives were just as much "big government" as the far left commies. The "right" had always been traditionally anti-democratic and authoritarian in Germany and the Nazis just took this monarchist conservatism to the extreme.

The one-dimensional spectrum provides no means to explain political philosophies in Germany until 1945 accurately.

When American right-wingers try to view the situation in Germany pre-1945 through the glasses of modern day political buzzwords, desperately attempting to smear the "librulz", it makes them look silly.
 
Europe simply draws the "shouting fire in a theatre" line in a different place.

We feel that some views are so repellent and vile they have no place in public discourse.

Agreed.

Tolerance towards rabid intolerance doesn't make sense. It's like asking a cannibal to be a good boy and say his prayer before he eats you.

And Americans shouldn't be on a high horse on that topic. The laws against hate speech in Europe are tame compared to what Americans do with Muslim terror suspects. At least our neo-Nazis get a fair trial and their rights are respected when they get a punishment, we don't let our executive systematically kidnap them from the streets, extralegally detain them, torture them and deny them a lawyer without any court ever being able to rule against it.
 
Last edited:
Agreed.

Tolerance towards rabid intolerance doesn't make sense. It's like asking a cannibal to be a good boy and say his prayer before he eats you.

And Americans shouldn't be on a high horse on that topic. The laws against hate speech in Europe are tame compared to what Americans do with Muslim terror suspects. At least our neo-Nazis get a fair trial and their rights are respected when they get a punishment, we don't let our executive systematically kidnap them from the streets, extralegally detain them, torture them and deny them a lawyer without any court ever being able to rule against it.

No one is preaching tolerance for intolerance. But acknowledging outlawing ideas doesn't make them go a way, and in many senses, allows them to flourish by going unchallenged. And while I agree our approach towards terror suspects is problematic, to say the least, they are not being prosecuted for simply disseminating unpopular ideas. Like in the above cited case
 
No one is preaching tolerance for intolerance. But acknowledging outlawing ideas doesn't make them go a way, and in many senses, allows them to flourish by going unchallenged. And while I agree our approach towards terror suspects is problematic, to say the least, they are not being prosecuted for simply disseminating unpopular ideas. Like in the above cited case

To some extent, I agree. Probably the German approach to anti-constitutional movements or hate speech is too extreme, it's like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. Neo-Nazism is a problem, but maybe the excessive legal prosecution gives them more attention than warranted. That way, they get extra attention which maybe even makes them stronger (on very low level). We have a vivid discussion about this topic over here. Many believe it's better to challenge neo-Nazis with arguments, than prosecuting them.

That said, considering our past, I rather see my legal system err against Nazis, than in favor of them. Let's better play it safe.

As for the terror suspects extralegally held by the US executives: Many of them are innocent and did nothing at all. Many are just suspects and none of them has ever been proven guilty of anything by any orderly court. If they were guilty of crimes, they could easily be treated by a court. But the executive doesn't allow that, simply because this would inevitably reveal that many of them are innocent.

These policies strike me as much more questionable and Nazi-like than anything that happens in Europe on the field of hate speech.
 
Don't get me wrong, I can fully understand why views evolved differently in western Europe. I just don't agree with it

PS I agree with much of the criticism lobbed at the us govt in it's approach to terrorism. But some of the policies are driven by politics, as opposed to interests of the state (at least that's my impression as an "insider")
 
Don't get me wrong, I can fully understand why views evolved differently in western Europe. I just don't agree with it

PS I agree with much of the criticism lobbed at the us govt in it's approach to terrorism. But some of the policies are driven by politics, as opposed to interests of the state (at least that's my impression as an "insider")

Maybe I overreact a little when it comes to the subject of US anti-terror policies. As a German, I have been bombarded in school with stories how the Nazis were evil and how they cemented their power by slowly taking one right away from the people after the other, and the people applauded, because the Nazis fueled the fear of communist or foreign enemies. You know, Reichstag fire and all that.

It frightens me a little when I see hardly any American has a problem with these obvious violations of basic human rights by their government. They even cheer when the executive grabs more and more unchecked power, so far they'd diselect any politician who doesn't join the chorus and appears "weak" on terror.

Certainly Bush was no Hitler, neither is Obama or Romney. But you never know what happens in the future, if and when these practizes persist. That the executive can just grab random people from the street, deny them a fair trial and torture them, without any instance being able to do anything against it ... well, it just calls for abuse.

In theory, the people should check the government. But in reality, the opposite happens. Even many of those who pay lip service to "small government"* don't seem to be willing to stand against such a blatant violation of the most basic human rights and excessive expansion of executive power.

(*notable exception: Genuine libertarians. Kudos to them.)
 
lol, try voting in that atmosphere. The worst part is seeing people playing lip service to civil rights, purely out of political interests. It's like "ok, it's politics, and everyone is going to be a c*nt. But do you really need to be that big of a c*nt?"
 
Tolerance towards rabid intolerance doesn't make sense.

in·tol·er·ant

adjective /inˈtälərənt/ 

Not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own



________________

So you guys think everyone should just agree, hold hands under the rainbow and sing songs.
 
To answer the questions if Nazis are "left" or "right", you first need to define "left" and "right". That's hard to do, but some models are more helpful and have more explanatory power than others.

Many Americans, especially on the right, seem to believe the spectrum is just one-dimensional, while "right" means small government and "left" means big government. By that definition, the Nazis were certainly "left". But I believe this model is deficient, cannot explain much if anything at all.

By all other meaningful models to define "left" or "right", the Nazis were clearly far-right. Pre-enlightened authoritarianism supposing humans don't have equal rights? Check. Rabid nationalism/rah rah patriotism? Check. Militarism? Check. Ethnic chauvinism and anti-Semitism? Check. Rejection of liberal democracy? Check. All of this had traditionally been elements of the monarchist conservative right.

In 19th century Germany, there was a monarchist authoritarian "big government" right against classic liberalism (along the lines of modern libertarianism) on the left. In Weimar Germany, "small government" was centrist - The monarchist conservatives were just as much "big government" as the far left commies. The "right" had always been traditionally anti-democratic and authoritarian in Germany and the Nazis just took this monarchist conservatism to the extreme.

The one-dimensional spectrum provides no means to explain political philosophies in Germany until 1945 accurately.

When American right-wingers try to view the situation in Germany pre-1945 through the glasses of modern day political buzzwords, desperately attempting to smear the "librulz", it makes them look silly.

Very very well said. With respect to liberlasim and the right's charge to "big government"; to use the term with that reference assumes that it is true. The Democratic domestic policy has, since 1929, provided fail-safes and safety nets for people in need: the military is such a safety net and was used to help young men in trouble with law. The idea of these protections being "big government", in my view, is just silly right-wing propoganda.

The third Reich (empire) was the very definition of big government. It also, as you stated carrried all the elements of todays US right-wing. What we're dealing with here in the case of vendur et al is simply attempts at revisionist history to draw attention away from today's right-wing tactics and ideology. Both the Third Reich and today's right-wing have far more in common with feudalism and fascism than anything the right may pretend to be. One of the first things Nazism embarked on was finding fault with and being the "victims" of some ubiquitous force outside of their patriotic vision for the country. Anderson Cooper Debunks Michele Bachmann Claims Of 'Muslim Extremist' Infiltration Of US Government (VIDEO) Of course, like Himmler's SS, today's right-wing measures true patriotism through the criteria of blind obedience, patriotic "purity", and recognition with a fervent desire to take care of the problems, be active in flushing out problems of course as defined by the right-wing leadership, to be active in supplanting the government with their own people, and keeping up a military front of which the juggernaught will be a proud part as a measure of his or her patriotism.

Today's corporate feudalism is only stimulated by this distemper with our military playing the part of that bastion of free enterprise in US foreign policy: there being no difference than the Great Plantation of Ulster, or journalist John L O'Sullivan's Manifest Destiny: very much a part of Hitler's design as well.

The right-wing is of course attempting to redesign FDR as well with teh same ridiclous tactics as outlined above by Anderson Cooper.
 
To answer the questions if Nazis are "left" or "right", you first need to define "left" and "right". That's hard to do, but some models are more helpful and have more explanatory power than others.

Many Americans, especially on the right, seem to believe the spectrum is just one-dimensional, while "right" means small government and "left" means big government. By that definition, the Nazis were certainly "left". But I believe this model is deficient, cannot explain much if anything at all.

By all other meaningful models to define "left" or "right", the Nazis were clearly far-right. Pre-enlightened authoritarianism supposing humans don't have equal rights? Check. Rabid nationalism/rah rah patriotism? Check. Militarism? Check. Ethnic chauvinism and anti-Semitism? Check. Rejection of liberal democracy? Check. All of this had traditionally been elements of the monarchist conservative right.

In 19th century Germany, there was a monarchist authoritarian "big government" right against classic liberalism (along the lines of modern libertarianism) on the left. In Weimar Germany, "small government" was centrist - The monarchist conservatives were just as much "big government" as the far left commies. The "right" had always been traditionally anti-democratic and authoritarian in Germany and the Nazis just took this monarchist conservatism to the extreme.

The one-dimensional spectrum provides no means to explain political philosophies in Germany until 1945 accurately.

When American right-wingers try to view the situation in Germany pre-1945 through the glasses of modern day political buzzwords, desperately attempting to smear the "librulz", it makes them look silly.

Clearly, Naziism has elements of both the ideologies of the right and the left. What it really is is extreme authoritarianism, and the polar opposite of libertarianism, not of right wing or left wing.
 
Back
Top Bottom