What happened to the comments???

What happened to the comments???

I guess the Muslims were offended. ;~D

I'm sure cair probably saw this thread and complained.

I don't know what happened here; I noticed the other day that it was posted twice. One posting had several hours noted, the other none. I cliced the forums tab, and the "new" one was gone. Now, it looks like this one might be the "new" one.

I guess the Muslims were offended. ;~D

ParaTed, you're priceless. You know that?

Screw the Muslims: I'm offended by our (by which I mean the West's) pandering to the Whining Jew and his endless complaints. So six million of them died. And? It's no more than one incident in the pogrom-ridden history of a people that have been hated and despised wherever they have gone throughout their history.

As for the Holocaust being somehow different because it was the first instance of the application of industrial principle to the production of mass death - it's worthy of note only as a graphic example of the amorality of capitalism, industrialism, and market societies in general.

We've been killing each other ever since we learned to pick up rocks, and we've been trying to make the process as efficient as possible ever since we learned to think in such terms.

This because, of course, in a socialist society where liberalism has run amok for years, no one should EVER feel excluded or be offended for any reason whatsoever.

Only someone who has never lived in Britain and has the most meagre acquaintance with that country and its history, could possibly refer to it as a socialist society. Certain aspects of British society, such as its health care system, are socialised to a degree - and that degree has shrunk in its extent from the accession of Margaret Thatcher to its present limited extent under Blair.

In order to make itself re-electable in the aftermath of Thatcher, the Labour Party has consistently and relentlessly denied its socialist origins (it began as an offshoot of the Union movement) to become what it has under Blair, a middle-of-the-road centrist party dedicated to wooing the middle-classes and their interests while retaining (some) of the rhetoric (which Blair moves ever further from - a process certain to continue under Brown, should he ever succeed Blair) of its socialist past.

That this process has not been entirely successful with the British public is illustrated by the fact that for the first time since the Winter of Discontent in the early seventies there are signs of resurgence within the Union movement in Britain and of its growing resistance to the on-going betrayal of its principles by the Labour Party.

Britain has never been a Socialist State: certain aspects of its economy were at one time socialised, no more. It remains what it has been for most of the last four hundred years - a Liberal (in the old sense of the word) political economy in which economic activity is meant to be subject to Adam Smith's 'Guiding Hand'.

As to your comment that 'liberalism' runs amok in Britain, you again betray your ignorance. Liberalism, as it was originally formulated by thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, was a philosophical doctrine advocating liberty of the individual and a State confined to the maintenance of domestic peace and the deterrence of foreign enemies. Over the last four hundred years it has developed into what you would call (with equal inaccuracy) Conservatism, ecompassing among other things (such as the theory of the individual) free trade and the concept of the nation state.

What's referred to as 'liberalism' here is in fact socialism made demented by too much money, too little realism, and an almost total lack of political imagination. American liberals are in fact socialists. American conservatives are merely republicans with a taste for religious demagoguery. If any nation can be accused of harboring socialism run mad it is America, not Britain.

Liberalism, as it was originally formulated by thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, was a philosophical doctrine advocating liberty of the individual and a State confined to the maintenance of domestic peace and the deterrence of foreign enemies.

American liberals are in fact socialists.

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! I've been hammering away on that very theme since I arrived on JU. You've just put it more simply and much more clearly

While I respect the fact we can use different words for the same thing (pavement/sidewalk, nappy/diaper, roundabout/rotary ...) It gets too confusing when we use the same word for different things But the sheer silliness of Americans using as a term of abuse, the most apposite word to describe core American values is (almost) beyond belief.

So six million of them died. And?

And are you obtuse? They didn't just die, like an oops sorry. They were rounded up, stolen from, TORTURED, starved, raped, beaten, on and on.

So dying isn't quite the right word.

I think England needs to keep the memorial to remind themselves how many TIMES they have forsaken the Jewish nation over the last thousand years.

Those who aren't mindful of history are bound to repeat it.

What's referred to as 'liberalism' here is in fact socialism made demented by too much money, too little realism, and an almost total lack of political imagination. American liberals are in fact socialists. American conservatives are merely republicans with a taste for religious demagoguery. If any nation can be accused of harboring socialism run mad it is America, not Britain.

ooooooo.....Guess you told "U.S." didn't you?

Israel was "created" the moment Jacob finished wrestling with God on the river embankment when his hip was dislocated. But I refer to the Jewish people (as a whole) as the Jewish Nation because even without land to call their own they maintained their culture.

England and most of Europe have forsaken the Jews again and again going all the way back to before the Holy Wars. I believe a more chronological time chart can be found in an earlier thread on this same topic where "closetograd" laid it all out historically.

I have studied the Jewish Nation often over the years. And while I don't claim to know everything, or even close to everything, I am not totally ignorant of their culture.

Like I know for a fact that England kicked all the Jews out of their country in 1290 because the very next year was the end of the Holy War...which I have also studied (of course there were many) because I used to think they were romantic...hey I was 18!!!

This is corny, but when I was in highschool I wanted to be a historical romance writer. Ok, quit laughing! I loved how authors could take historical events and then use real personalities of the times to mix with their ficticious characters. So I did tons of research on my favorite countries at the time, and of course England was right there on top because of its vibrant but often debauched Monarchy....I learned a lot of history that way, and became to really like it.

Obviously I didn't write the historical romance novel because now I LIVE IT.....hahahahahaha!

As to your comment that 'liberalism' runs amok in Britain, you again betray your ignorance. Liberalism, as it was originally formulated by thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, was a philosophical doctrine advocating liberty of the individual and a State confined to the maintenance of domestic peace and the deterrence of foreign enemies. Over the last four hundred years it has developed into what you would call (with equal inaccuracy) Conservatism, ecompassing among other things (such as the theory of the individual) free trade and the concept of the nation state.

Gawrsh, I gess I dunno nuttin', huh?

Look Ice Cream man, you see things your way and I'll see'em mine. Any country that outlaws corporal punishment of children for any reason, then, not long after that, bans any knife over 3" (or whatever that would be in cm) in length because they're afraid anything bigger will be used as a weapon seems pretty damn liberal to me. Crazy liberal. Nutty liberal. They may not be socialist anymore, or so you say, but they've still got a long way to go toward coming back down to reality.

The Left hates the Jews and Isreal and tries to undermine and minimize them whenever possible, which is what's happening here.
I personally find that very amusing, because there are many on the extreme Right who feel the same way, but for different reasons.

As to your comment that 'liberalism' runs amok in Britain, you again betray your ignorance. Liberalism, as it was originally formulated by thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, was a philosophical doctrine advocating liberty of the individual and a State confined to the maintenance of domestic peace and the deterrence of foreign enemies. Over the last four hundred years it has developed into what you would call (with equal inaccuracy) Conservatism, ecompassing among other things (such as the theory of the individual) free trade and the concept of the nation state.

I have to ask, I am new here so I checked and found that Stardock is located in Plymouth, MI.

I work with many Hispanics. The Spanish phrase for getting out of a car is "baja te del coche", directly translated that is lower yourself from the car. Now far be it from me to go to Mexico and tell them they should rather say "salga te coche" which would be the direct translation of "get out of the car". Which brings me to my point, while we appreciate your 10 years of post graduate study; I would say that the bulk of the posters here are speaking what I am sure you to consider a bastardized form of English, but it is our form of English. So pooh-poohing about the definition of liberalism is somewhat nitpicking. I am quite sure no American is as well versed as you as to the origins of British political philosophy and I am even more sure that none of us own a four hundred year old dictionary of the English language. Many words have evolved over the last four hundred years, calling someone ignorant because they do not use a word in its original, 400 year old definition seems to me to be intellectual elitism

You make valid points about our knowledge of British government, almost all Americans as I, are completely ignorant of it and I question an American's wisdom in attempting to comment on it. But as misguided as it may be for an American to attempt intelligent discourse about the state of affairs in England, why must we be held to the British definition of language? While I appreciate your vast stores of knowledge, when an American says "liberal" I am sure that they are completely unaware of your archaic British definition of the word.

Aside from playing semantics with the language, I agree with you completely on the subject at hand.
.