NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7103867.stm


Thoughts? I can understand the reasoning behind the bill (Franco was a total douchebag, deservedly loathed by most people), but this part

But this could be the last such gathering - under the government's proposed Law of Historic Memory, political acts at the Valley of the Fallen would be banned.

is, in my opinion, a blatant infringement on the right to free speech. Everyone has the right to voice his opinion, however repugnant it may be.

is, in my opinion, a blatant infringement on the right to free speech. Everyone has the right to voice his opinion, however repugnant it may be.

your playing with Spanish thinking here which very much places the civil war as happening only yesterday so normal reasoning won't really work out well

"its what Franco would of done" would of been a better argument to make

your playing with Spanish thinking here which very much places the civil war as happening only yesterday so normal reasoning won't really work out well

That's understandable, considering how much Spaniards suffered during the civil war - and the fact that many survivors are still around today.

"its what Franco would of done" would of been a better argument to make

I was actually thinking of that. :p

Leftists just hate being reminded that fascism works, unlike communism.

It's why with all the incompetent and brutal dictators in South American history, they always talk about Pinochet, even if he was the greatest leader in South American history. Or completely ignore what an incompetent Nelson Mandela was.

Leftists just hate being reminded that fascism works, unlike communism.

Fascism works at instilling terror and accumulating high body counts.

It's why with all the incompetent and brutal dictators in South American history, they always talk about Pinochet, even if he was the greatest leader in South American history. Or completely ignore what an incompetent Nelson Mandela was.

Mandela had his faults, but he is largely responsible for bringing about a peaceful reconciliation which has, for the most part, endured in South Africa. He has done much to bring whites and blacks together in the spirit of forgiveness and conciliation, and set the groundwork for a future color-blind society.

As for Pinochet, he was far better than many other Latin American dictators (on the left and right), and he may or may not have done some good for Chile's economy, but he was still a tyrannical douchebag.

so turning your economy into rubble is "working"?

also La Commune de Paris

To be fair, the Paris Commune was crushed too soon to determine if it would have eventually succeeded or failed. I think it would have failed, but that's something we can only guess on.

Leftists just hate being reminded that fascism works, unlike communism.

so turning your economy into rubble is "working"?

also La Commune de Paris

Really, you look at the economic state that Italy, Germany or Spain were in before fascism.

But people act like communism is somehow more acceptable than fascism, when the only difference is that communism has killed far more people and it's economic disaster from the start.

Fascism has killed a large number of people, but it's proven in every case to improve the economy of the state.

Fascism has killed a low of people, but it's proven in every case to improve the economy of the state.

No, all fascism does is creates a (temporary) inflationary boom, all the while accumulating massive debt.

And if you look at Spain and Portugal, they were two of the most backward countries in Europe - only when they began to liberalize did they see notable growth.

You could argue that we didn't see the real long-term effects, but it achieved what the purpose in enacting it's practice was.

Unlike communism, which of course starved to death millions of people in the major states, fascism improved the lives of most of it's citizens.

It was the foreign and social policies and not the economic policies that made fascism so unattractive.

You could argue that we didn't see the real long-term effects, but it achieved what the purpose in enacting it's practice was.

Unlike communism, which of course starved to death millions of people in the major states, fascism improved the lives of most of it's citizens.

It was the foreign and social policies and not the economic policies that made fascism so unattractive.

I disagree with you on fascism, but I fully agree with your assessment of Communism (NSG commies, note the capital "c").

It was the foreign and social policies and not the economic policies that made fascism so unattractive.

In comparison, communism sucked at economy and foreign, but not that much at social :)

EDIT: My first time warp! Yay!

Fascism has killed a large number of people, but it's proven in every case to improve the economy of the state.

no it hasn't go read your history

Unlike communism, which of course starved to death millions of people in the major states, fascism improved the lives of most of it's citizens.

no, what it did was affectively have people with nothing left to spend there money on eventually this lead to a boom in German holidays and high cost goods which from the outside look like everything was dandy

then we factor in that the economy's affectively start a downward trend once fascism attains power (though really for extremism to come to power anyway there has to be instability so thats more propaganda for you)

It was the foreign and social policies and not the economic policies that made fascism so unattractive.

no I think armed thugs seizing businesses and what essentially amounts to forced labor also help

In comparison, communism sucked at economy and foreign, but not that much at social :)

EDIT: My first time warp! Yay!

Unrelated question: What's the "Kansas of Europe?"

your playing with Spanish thinking here which very much places the civil war as happening only yesterday so normal reasoning won't really work out well

"its what Franco would of done" would of been a better argument to make
Actually that argument makes no sense at all; however, "it's what Franco would've done" may make sense.

Sorry, I'm just fucking tired of that. It doesn't make any god damn sense to say of. Just because it sounds like "of" does not mean it is the fucking word "of."

State of the Vatican City :p

LMAO!

it was a smart jab at the "its what Hitler would of done" types

who would of thought I was that clever;)

Spiffy. ;)

Unrelated question: What's the "Kansas of Europe?"

State of the Vatican City :p

Sorry, I'm just fucking tired of that. It doesn't make any god damn sense to say of. Just because it sounds like "of" does not mean it is the fucking word "of."

it was a smart jab at the "its what Hitler would of done" types

who would of thought I was that clever;)

Really, you look at the economic state that Italy, Germany or Spain were in before fascism. And look at the economic state Germany and Italy were in after fascism. Actually, the only reason Germany wasn't in a worse state was because Speer decided to disobey Hitler.

And do look at the economic state Russia was in before communism.

But people act like communism is somehow more acceptable than fascism, when the only difference is that communism has killed far more people and it's economic disaster from the start.Fascism has the unfun tendency to kill more people in a shorter amount of time. Nazism in Germany for instance. If you take the average amount of deaths per year for the duration of Hitler's rule and keep going, the Nazis would have eclipsed the Soviet death toll very quickly. Of course, taking the average is very misleading, as the death toll picked up tremendously during the last three years of their rule and would probably have continued at a similar pace.

Fascism has killed a large number of people, but it's proven in every case to improve the economy of the state.What are you talking about? Germany was a mess after the war and it probably wouldn't have been better if the economic bubble the Nazis accumulated by handing out arms contracts would have been much different.

Leftists just hate being reminded that fascism works, unlike communism.

It's why with all the incompetent and brutal dictators in South American history, they always talk about Pinochet, even if he was the greatest leader in South American history. Or completely ignore what an incompetent Nelson Mandela was.

Oh it does, does it? Care to point to some evidence about it actually being successful?

As for this idiotic law, strike it from the books. Free speech is free speech, and if someone wants to do something there, just let them do it. It's not going to kill anyone.

And do look at the economic state Russia was in before communism.

Far from ideal, but it was an exporter of food. The U.S.S.R. had to import grain.

And the U.S.S.R.'s supposed "accomplishments" were only possible due to Western aid and trade. Read all about it in Antony Sutton's Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, Are the Russians Ten Feet Tall? by Werner Keller, and Survival Is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and Americas Future by Richard Pipes. Sutton's three-volume book took over a decade to research, and chock full of footnotes; interestingly, many of his sources are U.S. government, U.S. corporate, or even Soviet government sources.

Far from ideal, but it was an exporter of food. The U.S.S.R. had to import grain.

And the U.S.S.R.'s supposed "accomplishments" were only possible due to Western aid and trade. Read all about it in Antony Sutton's Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, Are the Russians Ten Feet Tall? by Werner Keller, and Survival Is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and Americas Future by Richard Pipes. Sutton's three-volume book took over a decade to research, and chock full of footnotes; interestingly, many of his sources are U.S. government, U.S. corporate, or even Soviet government sources.Well, of course. However Russia was an agricultural state to begin with when the Czars were still in power. As shitty as communism was, the autocratic rule of the Czars was probably worse. And the Soviets received precious little aid during the revolution.

On the whole, any totalitarian government is bad news.

Well, of course. However Russia was an agricultural state to begin with when the Czars were still in power.

True.

As shitty as communism was, the autocratic rule of the Czars was probably worse.

Debateable (sp?).

And the Soviets received precious little aid during the revolution.

A lot of Western capitalists (Lenin's deaf-mute-blindmen) supported them. Reason: money (Lenin aptly said that the capitalists would sell the rope used to hang them).

On the whole, any totalitarian government is bad news.

Amen to that.

Leftists just hate being reminded that fascism works, unlike communism.

It's why with all the incompetent and brutal dictators in South American history, they always talk about Pinochet, even if he was the greatest leader in South American history. Or completely ignore what an incompetent Nelson Mandela was.
But fascism in Spain didn't work, it only lasted as long as Franco did, and straight after they elected socialists.