Are the Lib Dems broken.

[Loz]

sagatelsagouni Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There you go liz, you answered your own question.

> Maybe the systems broke.....what now dear?

Hmmm. Lets look at some facts here...

- TT3 got banned

- sagatelsagouni suddenly appears with the same piss-poor playground insults and the same lack of any meaningful debate.

Conclusion...?

[sagatelsagouni]

Your a bendy bus?

[sagatelsagouni]

Odd .... "maybe the systems broke" that does not seem like a playground insult to me unless liz u went to a really 'special school'. And whats T3 got to do with it. Terminator ? Governor of Califonia ? affair with a Nanny? I'm lost

Anyway as for flashing buttons up there is not exlusion from the body politic an example of fasiscm, is that not a definition, have a little think about that Hugenot and come back with something. It does not matter how you do it, flashing button, postcode change, wall, briar fence.

As for goldberg here's a less emotional take from that left wing Red top the Gaurdian

" Liberal Fascism is a bracing and stylish examination of political history. That it is being published at a time when Goldberg's free market has failed and big government and charismatic presidents are on their way back in no way invalidates his work. Hard times test intellectuals and, for all its occasional false notes, Goldberg's case survives. "

[Huguenot]

The key phrase there is 'history'.

It should be noted that HG Wells 'wanted' liberal fascism - he didn't say it existed.

If you're really claiming that you cannnot understand the difference between the eugenicist, socially divisive totalitarian politics of late 19th century Europe and the wafty inclusive liberalism of modern UK then there is no helping you.

Personally I don't think you care one way or the other - you just love the idea of calling other people fascists in the hope that it'll get their goat.

I'll leave you with this quote from the same review - "he [Goldberg] clearly does want to be able to accuse the Clintons of fascism and his disavowals lack conviction. He is in danger of shouting "fascist" so often that he will miss the real thing when it appears."

In other words our reviewer does not endorse the Liberal Fascist assertion that you claim, merely that as a historical examination it's an interesting academic exercise.

[sagatelsagouni]

My point exactly, so you agree the first response was wildly over the top. I think it goes further than saying it is an interesting academic exercise it actually ends with "Goldberg's case survives" bit off a difference.

Do I think that blogging about a range of subjects that effectively exclude, isolate or push to the edges of your own personal boundaries, particular groups within society as having its roots in fascism then yes i do. Dressing that up as Liberalism is even bloody worse.

[Huguenot]

National Socialism was a populist movement, but that has nothing to do with it being progressive liberalism.

Progressive liberalism believes in government intervention in national issues like healthcare, economics and education and protecting civil rights.

Believing in government intervention doesn't make it totalitarianism.

In fact within the civil rights tenet of progressive liberalism lies one of the fundamental differences with National Socialism . The National Socialist movement believed in sustaining social division and the idea of a gentically defined ruling cadre (a victorian British concept) - a long way from civil rights.

Both movements had their roots in the rejection of the fiercely feudal nature of the imperial era.

It still doesn't make them the same thing.

Only a right wing twat like Goldberg could conflate the two. I'm sure Goldberg doesn't care whether he calls them fascists or socialists so long as it sells his books and feeds the rage of neo-cons.

[sagatelsagouni]

What progressive liberalism are you talking about exactly that of the Orange bookers ?

" The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism, edited by David Laws (now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury) and Paul Marshall. Particularly interesting are the contributions of the Lib Dems? present leadership.

Published in 2004, the Orange Book marked the start of the slow decline of progressive values in the Lib Dems and the gradual abandonment of social market values. It also provided the ideological standpoint around which the party?s right wing was able to coalesce and begin their march to power in the Lib Dems.

Clegg and his Lib Dem supporters have much in common with David Cameron and his allies in their philosophical approach and with their social liberal solutions to society?s perceived ills. The Orange Book is predicated on an abiding belief in the free market?s ability to address issues such as public healthcare, pensions, environment, globalisation, social and agricultural policy, local government and prisons.

The Lib Dem leadership seems to sit very easily in the Tory-led coalition. Now we see a Government made up of a single elite that has previously manifested itself as two separate political parties and which is divided more by subtle shades of opinion than any profound ideological difference.

Orange Book contributors Laws, Cable, Clegg, Huhne and Davey are all Oxbridge-educated, as is Danny Alexander, the other member of their cabal. Four of the five went to private schools. (Cable was a grammar school boy.)

These men ? significantly, they are all men ? have never had to struggle financially, socially or academically. Clegg went to the expensive Westminster school, as did Huhne. Clegg was also educated at his family?s expense in the United States and at the exclusive College of Europe in Bruges. He was a member of the Conservative Association at Cambridge University and subsequently an integral member of Tory European Commissioner Leon Brittan?s private office in Brussels. So it?s no wonder that he feels comfortable with the Tory Party and its leaders. "

Ah so a populist party has had its direction shifted from within....

" The only faction within the Liberal Democrats that would have been able to oppose the relentless drive to the right in their party, the Beveridge Group, made up of social liberals who are convinced that the role of the state should be as a force to increase social welfare by state intervention, has been emasculated. Aside from Chris Huhne, only two of its 28 members in the House of Commons have been given ministerial posts ? and inconsequential ones at that, as deputy chief whip and junior transport minister. "

Maybe we will have the bizarre situation where its the conservatives who oppose the fasctist tendancies of the liberal elite within. These liberals who harbour a desire to form a powerful state which coordinates a society where everybody belongs and everyone is taken care of; where there is faith in the perfectibility of people and the authority of experts; and where everything is political, including health and well-being. Mmmm funny that sounds a bit familiar, were the national socialists big on organic food?

Its funny when you watch those clegg debates back on you tube, how arrogant he is, as if he has the authority of THE expert. Not so funny now however.

[James Barber]

The Orange Book came out in 2004 and 2007 Reinventing the State came out to redress the balance in the Lib Dems.

I think you'll find ministrerial seats in both coalition parties were agreed by both. So you wont find the right wing of the tories in govt posts generally or bvice versa. Hardly surprising.

As for centralists Lib Dem tendancies. Poppycock. The NHS reforms are now delivering 22 of 24 changes that the Lib Dem last conference wanted.

[Loz]

Orange Book contributors Laws, Cable, Clegg, Huhne and Davey are all Oxbridge-educated, as is Danny Alexander, the other member of their cabal.

Quiz of the day... what connects:

- Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

- Corpus Christi College, Oxford. (Yes, that is there twice)

- Newnham College, Cambridge.

- Keble College, Oxford.

- Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge.

[Marmora Man]

Labour opposition front bench?

[Loz]

Close. Very close.

[Marmora Man]

" The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism, edited by David Laws (now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury) and Paul Marshall. Particularly interesting are the contributions of the Lib Dems? present leadership.

You need to check your cut & paste work. David Laws ceased to be Chief Secretary to the Treasury about 12 months ago.

[sagatelsagouni]

James don't talk such utters rubbish. Trying to dress up the Lib Dem reforms as somehow part of your main stream party. Here read this and find out what is going on in your own party. You must really think that the electorate are just idiots, well thats an elitist view if their ever was one.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-slice-of-britain-lib-dem-guerrillas-plot-their-next-move-2299731.html

As for your 2 babbling lap dogs , what is your point exactly ? I dont mean in your response just in your very purpose its lost on me.

[Huguenot]

It's you do that doesn't make any sense AfN. Why do you have to be persistently rude in this stange cliched way?

What does that opinion piece tell us? That there's more than one political grouping in a political party? Of course there is - that's true of all political parties, and even more true of your anarchist colleagues.

Society and progress are predicated on compromise, not unity - something with which you may be unfamiliar.

That one group brings out a puff piece on their philosophical vision tells us very little about the beliefs of their colleagues.

[Loz]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quiz of the day... what connects:

>

> - Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

> - Corpus Christi College, Oxford. (Yes, that is there twice)

> - Newnham College, Cambridge.

> - Keble College, Oxford.

> - Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge.

Since no one guessed - they are the colleges that the five candidates for the Labour leadership attended. There was no non-Oxbridge educated candidate.

So it's hardly the LibDems that have a mainly Oxbridge educated leadership. Not by a long shot. So sneering at the education credentials of one party is a little hypocritical.

[sagatelsagouni]

Bloody labour noddies, who knew !

[sagatelsagouni]

Not sure about rudeness can't seem to see that post. but the opinion piece (if u are talking about the indy link) just reclaims the idea from James that the liberal democrats are marching in the same direction. Although i do agree with what you say about a multitude of ideas i think it is reasonable to un spin political spin when one sees it. The Liberal democrats are in major trouble, more that labour were over iraq that's for sure. We also know that the reforms had little to do with liberal political pressure and more to with the fact that Andrew Lansley absolutely ballsed it up and cam ron made the best of a bad situation, politics huh.

[Huguenot]

So we have a big long list of what you're 'against' sagatelsagouni, what are you 'for'?

[sagatelsagouni]

Needle exchanges in East Dulwich.....U?

And while we are on the subject of needle sized pricks , apparently that arch liberal Cleggy had an idea all of his own. Yes seriously he was in the bath playing with his blue ducks when Eureka! An idea to present to cabinet. Seriously are we really just seen as C##nt# by this lot? Anyway he wants to pay 44+ million people, tax dodgers et all in shares for banks that we apparently own. Then depending on the share price at the time of sale he wants to give us all , anarchists and fascists a share in Gordon's master plan. What a f-ing genius he is. If proof was needed here it is....a tool of the highest order he certainly is.

[Loz]

Strange. I thought you were completely in agreement with the government needlessly giving money away to 'the people'.

[Huguenot]

Broadly speaking I thing SSG thinks there should be no government, no ideas, no collaboration and no compromises. Probably no media either. In fact probably no agriculutre or industry.

Which is somewhat at odds with the enthisasm to strike to save public sector salaries, but there you go. It never had to be logical or consistent when you just hate everyone.

I'm not sure I've ever seen SSG come up with an original idea, policy or plan of their own.

[sagatelsagouni]

Broadly speaking you are suggesting that in excess of 200000 teachers are anarchists , odd that.

And there is never any enthusiam to strike, and no its got not about 'saving' public sector salaries as you so elequently put it. It about the the probable majority of people outside of your group little oddities being unhappy with the fact that the wealth of just the 1,000 richest individuals in this country as measured by The Sunday Times was ?333.5bn. After a year of everyone being exhorted to pull together and share the burden, the wealth of this top 1,000 had increased to ?395.8bn.

The combined wealth of these ridiculously overvalued individuals is now over 40 per cent of our country's total sovereign debt. Room enough there for a substantial wealth tax before we start expropriating the rights and earnings of people who actually need what money they possess. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Obviously Loz still thinks that the 'people' exist as read in the 1980's in his SUN published copy of the 'Left and The Right and the Sun in the middle' : foreword by George and Lynne.

As for plans how about we get UDT on the moderators panel.

[Huguenot]

Can I take it from that that you believe in government? If so can you set us out a manifesto that has some constructive strategies? I'm interested because you claim that liberals are 'fascists' - so your own enlightended views mat well provide a more utopian solution?

"As for plans how about we get UnreliablePrejudice on the moderators panel."

Which presumably means that you think moderators are there to control and edit opinion to meet their own political ends, regardless of their own dishonesty?

Doesn't say a lot for your 'support for the people' does it?

The thing is SSG, that you demonstrate a lot of the totalitarian tendencies that you tar other people with. I understand that in psychological terms it's called 'projection'*.

*"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.

Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object."

[Undisputedtruth]

SGS Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "As for plans how about we get UnreliablePrejudice

> on the moderators panel."

>

> Which presumably means that you think moderators

> are there to control and edit opinion to meet

> their own political ends, regardless of their own

> dishonesty?

>

Actually it would means some line Chow Wow Huguenot wouldn't get away with writing such cr@p.

I'm amused by the word UnreliablePrejudice just for expressing my dislike for m&s and the Guardian. Very typical in how Huguenot talks nonsense and uses colourful words as camouflage but when you start to analyse them they are completely meaningless. Unreliable Prejudice are double negative words which means nothing just like many of Huguenot the chow wow's posts.

[sagatelsagouni]

Hey hugenot, actually you may have a real point (finally) about this projection thing for example this would mean that when you projected the following you were actually redirecting your own redirecting libidinal satisfaction.

" I think SSG and UnreliablePrejudice come from the same sad crowd that sit around in pubs saying "It's shite here and everyone are w@nkers" as a way of disguising the fact that their unpleasant and unnecessary behaviour is the reason that they're sat on their own. "

So by your own genius logic, you must spend a lot of time sat on your own. Surely the EDL, er sorry EDF , drinks meet is a bit more social that that. Surely they don't leave you on your own ?