[Closed] "Hitler? He got things done"

Finally?

he's being running his little empire as a fascist dictatorship for a while now so whats the suprise, and his pervert mate- son of Oswold Mosely!
and this is considered a sport!!!!and governments fall over themselves to get the 'specticle'
(forgive spelling,grammer etc. its late, Ive had a drink-but not the sentiment!)

You've got to admit he did go a little to far..

Demented dwarf

Always knew he was a nutter, I don't know why anyone ever defended him when talking about him (aquaintances I mean). Odious umpa lumpa.

It just goes to show how different his reality is from ours.

I read that in an 'astonished' way on the train this morning.

Can't believe he said the things he did!

what he espouses is no different from the political philosopher Hobbes all just a question of context

....pulls up chair and waits for Rude Boy....

(Mosely and Ecclestone :roll:)

great headline in the Economist this week (not usually known for its sense of humour 🙂 )

"Mosley Submits"

🙂

You've got to admit he did go a little to far..

Hmmm, comes across as a little odd, he's usually such a reasonable guy.

I think he is making a fair opinion. As far as I understand it, he isn't saying that everything Hitler did was right or good, he was opining that strong leadership gets things done.

Of course, as soon as Hitler's name is mentioned, heckles are raised. Which is why he chose him as his example.

m_f I think the hackles are up because he fails to reject hitler's "policies" with sufficient venom. He uses soft words like:

but apart from the fact that Hitler got taken away and persuaded to do things that I have no idea whether he wanted to do or not

In the end he got lost,

[url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6633504.ece ]This worries me more[/url]

m_f I think the hackles are up because he fails to reject hitler's "policies" with sufficient venom. He uses soft words like:

Whether it is because he felt they were irrelevant in the context of the interview or whether he agreed with them isn't clear.

and to assume the latter in the absence of any more evidence is a bit unfair.

I certainly agree there - he didn't attack all the atrocities that happened under his leadership. Whether it is because he felt they were irrelevant in the context of the interview or whether he agreed with them isn't clear.

What rubbish. Introduce Hitler as an example to be admired "because he got things done" and you can't exclude the things he did or the mechanisms he employed to do them as "irrelevant".

What rubbish. Introduce Hitler as an example to be admired "because he got things done" and you can't exclude the things he did or the mechanisms he employed to do them as "irrelevant".

not rubbish at all.

Its perfectly reasonable to seperate and discuss the operation of power from its content if you're talking about political systems.

and to assume the latter in the absence of any more evidence is a bit unfair.

What rubbish. Introduce Hitler as an example to be admired "because he got things done" and you can't exclude the things he did or the mechanisms he employed to do them as "irrelevant".

Whether or not it was justifiable is not the point at all - the point was that he was able to 'get things done' through strong leadership - in the same way Maggie was able to.

No Stoner. I don't understand what you mean when you refer to the content of power but "getting things done" isn't a political system.

Stoner's right. It is possible to separate out the various parts of a leader's methods, differentiating the good from the bad. Hitler, for all that he was probably the most evil, deranged person to have ever lived, must also have been incredibly charismatic to have held sway over Germany in the way that he did.

As for Ecclestone, at least he speaks his mind which is good to see in these days where the "tolerant" brigade are utterly intolerant of any remarks they don't agree with.

ecclestone was referring to the difference in results between democracy and autocracy. I imagine he was trying to draw a comparison between the historically autocratic running of the FIA "getting things done" as opposed his expectation that when a consensus based, F1 team inculsive, political system at the FIA is going to end up dithering around and not acheiving a great deal. The times article seemed keener to draw a comparison with Naziism instead. Nothing more sinister than that.

It seems everyone is far too keen to invoke godwins law.

erm.... 😕 What an odd little fellow. Is he related to Prince Philip in some way? Actually, no that can't be right, the DoE knows when to keep schtum nowadays.

everyone

Everyone? 😉

[img] [/img]

Hitler......... must also have been incredibly charismatic to have held sway over Germany in the way that he did.

So how come he never won the majority of seats in the Reichstag then ?

Even John Major, probably the most uncharismatic leader the World has seen in living memory, managed to win a majority of seats.

The highest vote the Nazi Party ever received under Adolf Hitler was July 1932 when it received 37.4% of the vote. In November that year there was another general election (the last free elections) in which support for the Nazi Party had fallen to 33.1%.

It is precisely because the Nazis saw their support waning after reaching a peak of just over a third, that they realised the importance of seizing power whilst they still could. After that they were able to arrest and murder their opponents, giving them a much better opportunity to do well in elections.

Hitler was a great 'motivational' leader. Either you agreed with him or you were removed!

You could argue Churchill was a great leader and others will argue he was a war monger.

Hitler undoubtedly had 'strong' points. He had a certain charisma that's not in doubt. Many of his staff have said since he was a terrific boss to work for, nothing was a problem, family leave, remembering individuals problems etc. Many 'modern' bosses could learn a lot - I'm not totally convinced Churchill was quite so congenial! That said of course the man's basic ideology was based on hatred and blame so basic FAIL there then. But would we have had a Hitler if we had not had the Treaty of Versailles? So who's fault was that?

tankslapper - Member

....pulls up chair and waits for Rude Boy....

I hope it's a nice comfy chair .......... it's going to be a long wait.

Because the small minority of inarticulate right-wing bigots on here have finally managed to get their way - they have silenced RudeBoy.

I am told that apparently STW received more complaints about RudeBoy than any other forum user. That sounds really quite damning, until you stop to think and realise that if half a dozen sad pathetic losers on here decide that they don't like one individual, then all they need to do is complain about them on more or less a daily basis, and very soon that individual will be classed as the most complained about user.

So faced with the constant anti-RudeBoy complaints, the easy simple solution was taken : 'Appeasement' ........ towards the bigots.

I feel nothing but utter contempt, for the sad losers who have eventually managed to get RudeBoy banned. You were very clearly incapable of challenging him (something which I could do - and did do regularly). So your only option was to have him silenced. You are weak and pathetic.

First they came for RudeBoy, I did not speak out because I was not RudeBoy.

That sounds really quite damning, until you stop to think and realise that if half a dozen sad pathetic losers on here decide that they don't like one individual, then all they need to do is complain about them on more or less a daily basis, and very soon they will be classed as the most complained about user.

a few assumptions in there GG unless you have been told that a) its half a dozen losers and b) that half a dozen losers complained on a daily basis.

Equally it could be a lot of non-loserish people complaining individually once or twice.

I certainly have no idea which it is...do you?

Equally it could be a lot of people complaining individually once or twice.

Do you [i]honestly believe[/i] that most people on here can be arsed to complain about other forum users ? 😯

That there are [i]that many[/i] sad pathetic individuals on here ? 😯

Surely not ?

Sadly RudeBoy tried to play their game, and he too complained about individuals when he saw examples of unacceptable bigotry. The wally should have realised that he was never going to win.

ernie lynch, if RB has been banned, it is because of his own inability to socially interact with people without being abusive. Despite being someone that preached peace, love and unity and saw himself as a champion of social co-existence he was without doubt the most anti social and antagonistic person on here who had one line of argument - agree with me because I am right otherwise I will call you stupid.

I shouldn't lose too much sleep though, he'll be back.

I shouldn't lose too much sleep though, he'll be back.

indeed.
Fred Dibnah
Paddedbra
RudeBoy.

anyone running a sweep on the next reincarnation of all our misplaced societal guilt?

That there are that many sad pathetic individuals on here ?

Well I was probably one of them. 😯

I did report one of his posts (and only one, and I havent gone to the effort of writing a specific complaint) using the report button* when he bombed an interesting discussion thread with loads of large, irrelevant images. I was hoping that the mods would simply remove the large images so that the thread of the discussion would be uninterrupted. His behavuiour was childish and annoying and I rose to the bait. I dont see quite why we should all be so grateful for his presence all the time or indeed tolerate his own brand of bigotry?

* Im assuming that as "most complained about" ST towers means a number of people have taken advantage of the effortless feature and clicked "report post" rather than sat down and written a long letter of complaint to the editor.

it is because of his own inability to socially interact with people without being abusive.

That is complete bollox.

And so is this :

he was without doubt the most anti social and antagonistic person on here who had one line of argument - agree with me because I am right otherwise I will call you stupid.

So what if he was 'antagonistic' ? This is a forum.

So what if he called someone stupid ffs ?

I constantly disagreed with him- and sometimes he called me a ****. And ?

😕

So what if he was 'antagonistic' ? This is a forum

You wouldnt tolerate it down the pub would you?

Short people are vicious and very cunning because they need to make up for their shortcoming ... Look at Prince whatever you call him this day that is evil ...

I was once told 7 short man can conjure up a plan to burn the sky that is how evil they are ...

😆

That is complete bollox.

No, it's why he got banned. Keep up ernie.

Seems to me that despite your own pontificating, you're happy with anti social behaviour as long as it's a brand that you endorse.

You wouldnt tolerate it down the pub would you?

What's that got to do with it ? ......... clue me mancub 😕

As I said in a previous post quote :

[i]"I dislike no one on here (although I'm sure that I probably would if I met some in real life)"[/i]

If someone down the pub 'antagonised' me, I very much doubt that I would sit with them. Some people on here appear to want to go out of their way to be 'antagonised' by him. Like clicking on his threads for example.

you're happy with anti social behaviour as long as it's a brand that you endorse.

So how come I never complain about other forum users then ?

Explain that to me ?

Its quite possible that the majority of complaints arose from his posts on threads he [i]didn't[/i] start.

The pub analogy may not be entirely correct: as you say, you wouldnt chose to spend time with someone who revels in being antagostic. That doesnt mean that to modify the analogy for a forum we should have to change our tolerance of antagonisers (the majority adapting to accomodate the minority), surely it should be the other way around and the antagonsiers should modify [u]their[/u] behaviour or take themselves off the pitch?

So how come I never complain about other forum users then ?

But you do. I've never known you to be slow in coming forward if you disagree with someone. You may not complain to the mods but you still complain.

Anyway, back to the original topic. There is this gem in the interview:

[i]Although he admits that the News of the World’s exposé of Mr Mosley’s German fantasy S&M sex sessions was embarrassing, he had no moral objections. “People can do what they like. I had known Max for 40 years and I had no idea he was involved in this sort of thing. In fact, I said to him, ‘I’ve been invited to all the meetings you’ve had but you forgot to invite me to this one’.” [/i]

😆

I've never known you to be slow in coming forward if you disagree with someone. You may not complain to the mods but you still complain.

Complain ? Where do you get 'complain' from ?

To again quote myself from a previous post :

[i]"However, very often I see posts which I consider to be complete drivel. I always deal with that little problem in one of two ways. Either I challenge the poster or, I ignore it. Those are my only two options."[/i]

I never forget that I have a choice concerning whether or not I post on this forum. For example I chose to completely ignore some of the drivel which I read on the recent Ronnie Biggs thread.

Rudeboy was/is a raging cock lobster, now dry your eyes and move on.

Ernie_lynch ir RudeBoy and I claim my £5.

SSP

SSP - that insults Ernie more than you can know 🙂

Isn't insulting people what this place is for...I have MTBR for bike related stuff 🙂

BB is on its way!

SSP

I heard Mrs S signing for a recorded delivery this morning and I got all excited...only to feel deflated later 🙁

😉

ernie, there's little point contributing to threads whereby you're happy to condemn bigotry, intolerance and bullying in the wider world when you're happy enough to support it in this community.

Dissapointed, Devon.

All pubs have their characters, who occasionally get barred or sent home but are still the regulars that form the very reason people keep going there.

Despite being someone that preached peace, love and unity and saw himself as a champion of social co-existence he was without doubt the most anti social and antagonistic person on here

I wouldn't go that far, and having had more than a few run ins with Fred I have always taken it as the sort of banter and playing devils advocate on the argument that he both doled out and took in equal terms. There's no doubt he also raised some very fair points on racism and many other issues, although maybe took the PC angle a little too far on occasion.

who had one line of argument - agree with me because I am right otherwise I will call you stupid.

Or worse - I do feel that this was Fred's real weakness, he repeatedly fell into a pattern of personal insult to win an argument, probably inadvertently as a way of trying to provoke reaction rather than any real intention to insult.

I shouldn't lose too much sleep though, he'll be back.

Hopefully, the place is less fun without him 🙂

Am I missing something here? The very strong implication of the post from Mark when he closed the Rudeboy thread (and presumably also banned Rudeboy - I don't think I've seen him since) is that he got banned purely because of his inability to follow the forum rules regarding swear filter avoidance. Mark did even mention that somebody (the implication being that that somebody wasn't a "right wing bigot" regular) had complained about that specifically.

GG - are you suggesting he shouldn't be banned given his inability to follow a basic set of forum rules the rest of us manage (well OK I got banned briefly once for failing to follow one of the rules - I deserved it)?

As scathing as I am towards him, I miss him now he's not here - the forum is a poorer place without him. If only he could learn to stick to the rules (I don't think it would detract at all from what he brings to the forum if he did).

p.s. if the mods are listening, I do hope reporting posts isn't treated as a request to ban somebody. Like Stoner I report posts in order for them to be edited due to the poster making a mistake, not because I think the poster shouldn't be here.

Is it me or is it rather ironic?

A thread is started about Hitler and then becomes all about Rude Boy?! I feel a subliminal message thing going on here......

Is this a Communism being the mirror image of Facism thing? 🙄

Frankly I miss the little guy. Surely we could have clubbed together to get some professional help to work out what was going on in his mind? 😉

Back on topic - I disagree with Stoner, the words he uses do make him appear to be an apologist for Hitler. If you're going to suggest he did some good things, I'd suggest that at the very least you should also condemn the bad things he was responsible for (Bernie appears unable even to admit Hitler was actually responsible for these things).

Hitler "got things done" because if you opposed him you (along with your family) were fairly likely to end up dead, in prison or in a concentration camp. If Ecclestone really thinks that is some kind of model for how to run either society or a sport then I'm surprised he kept the pencils out of his nose long enough to make his money. You can't admire Hitler's ability to "get things done" without accepting how he did them.

The very strong implication of the post from Mark when he closed the Rudeboy thread (and presumably also banned Rudeboy - I don't think I've seen him since) is that he got banned purely because of his inability to follow the forum rules regarding swear filter avoidance.

Nope he didn't get banned for swearing.

Check his last posts here and I'm pretty sure that you won't find any swearing or anything in anyway offensive.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/profile/rudeboy

IMO he almost certainly got banned because of [u]my[/u] post. As he says in an email to me :

[i]"Funny, because I had a two-day ban, came back, dint post owt offensive, yet now I've been banned for good.

I suspect your very supportive post just served to piss Mark off even more.[/i]"

I agree. IMO Mark just wants an easy uncomplicated life, and he dealt with the problem by simply banning RB. The swearing whilst maybe a problem in the past (as indeed it has been in my case) was simply the excuse.

It's ironic to think that RB probably got banned because of what I posted.

aracer - it's certainly what many people [i]expect[/i] from a modern citizen.

I imagine there will be calls from the usual corners for Ecclestone to "clarify" his views, to "disown" the actions of Hitler etc etc, and of course he will come out, face the press, and do so. Probably grudgingly I expect, but Id like to believe because he would have thought "that it goes without saying" not that he's being made to disown views he holds some sympathy with.

I am disappointed rudeboy has been banned, especially if he had come back from a 2 day ban and done nowt wrong then got banned again.

I fell very tempted to complain about some of the bigots on here and some of the other people who provoke arguments.

Im not sure the bigots are quite as personally offensive as rudeboy could be.

Offensive views should be tolerated and argued against. Offensive behaviour shouldn't.

I disagree stoner - it all depends on your viewpoint I guess but I find the racism oft expressed on here very offensive whereas I don't find rudeboys behaviour offensive - sometimes very annoying as it posting all those irrelevant images on a thread but never offensive in the way racism and prejudice is.

Bernie Ecclestone believes that Hitler “got taken away and persuaded to do things that I have no idea whether he wanted to do or not”. Those remarks go beyond a preference for decisive political leadership. They are more extreme even than a defence of autocracy.

They amount to a perverse historical revision of the record of the worst of despots. Ecclestone appears to be suggesting that Hitler may not have sought the Final Solution. Instead, in Ecclestone’s view, it is possible that Hitler was persuaded by others to attempt, against his instincts, the annihilation of the Jews.

already, aracer...

A Times commentator inferring a lot more from his words than I think is fair. Im no Ecclestone apologist, but I find the modern need for having to tread so softly everywhere, and clarify and caveat every statement in fear of offending, tiresome.

Of course if you're going to enter the subject of Hitler, you should always be thinking soft footsteps (as indeed you or I would), but maybe its a generational thing.

I have to confess I dont think Ive seen a great deal of racism in here. In fact Im pushed to identify a thread that is racist.(the Islamic girlfriend doesnt count IMO, because people atributed racist overtones to what was, IMO a quesiton founded in religious prejudice and I missed the Juan/French one, but since he's shown himself particularly prickly on the matter I dont have a whole lot of sympathy).

Prejudice (but not racial prejudice) is not neccessarily bad, it's just that the prejudicial has not yet completed the journey of knowlegde. Prejudice is ignorance, not malice IMO.

EDIT: TJ, Im sure this will roll on, but I'm going out, so not ignoring any posts in answer. I'll catch up with you later.

Stoner - I think it is a matter of perspective. It has been less frequent of late but I still see and nasty racist undercurrent that sometimes breaks out into the open.

I think you are right is is about ignorance and to some extent it is about diversity of views.

I disagree stoner - it all depends on your viewpoint I guess but I find the racism oft expressed on here very offensive whereas I don't find rudeboys behaviour offensive - sometimes very annoying as it posting all those irrelevant images on a thread but never offensive in the way racism and prejudice is.

TJ, racism is offensive and against the forum rules and should be reported. I am assuming that you don't find RB's behaviour offensive as you have never been on the receiving end of it. I have and can assure you that I found it deeply offensive. I will not tolerate someone calling me stupid and ignorant simply because they have an opposing point of view to mine, one which I might add, is not conclusive proof of either my ignorance or stupidity. I wouldn't tolerate it face to face and I won't tolerate it on the internet either.

What I find most depressing is that the posters who have so far been in defence of RB are those that usually rail against bigotry and narrow mindedness. Those traits seem to be happily ignored however when they come from a forum member who's political sentiments, if not manner of delivery, are sympathetic to their own.

Edit. FWIW, I often agreed with the political stances that he took but rarely the manner in which he choose to deliver them.

Fair enough TM. I did say

I don't find rudeboys behaviour offensive

trailmonkey - Member

I am assuming that you don't find RB's behaviour offensive as you have never been on the receiving end of it. I have and can assure you that I found it deeply offensive. I will not tolerate someone calling me stupid and ignorant

You need to chill mate.

Maybe take a your cue from this post, eh ? :

trailmonkey - Member

LOL at GG.

The epitomy of someone taking the internet too seriously.

I have often been 'on the receiving end'. I have been called all sorts, but I have [i]never[/i] been 'deeply offended'.
Quite frankly I couldn't give a toss, if someone called me 'stupid and ignorant' - why on earth should I ?

You sound pretty stupid and ignorant to me trailmonkey, if you are [i]offended[/i] by being called 'stupid and ignorant'.

BTW - Judging from the recent comments, it is interesting to note that no one appears to believe that the issue was RB's 'swearing'.

8)

One of the things I find distasteful about this forum, and society in general, is that those folk who espouse the (worthy I'll admit) ideals of tolerance, diversity and the like are also the folk who tend to be intolerant of those who don't share their own viewpoints.

For example the remarks above about a "strong undercurrent of racism". Most of the stuff on here that gets slammed as "racist" is merely someone expressing an opinion that other folk don't like. Personally I find the automatic tagging of someone as "racist" just because you don't agree with their point of view far more offensive than most of the original remarks.

Nope he didn't get banned for swearing.

I do agree that anybody who gets offended by RB either hasn't been here long enough to understand his posting style, or takes this forum far too seriously - I'd like to think I'd take it as a compliment if he started abusing me!

FFS, people! It's been a glorious sunny Saturday, and you chose to spend it like this?

*Wanders off, refills glass from the Pimms jug and turns off Wifi on the phone*

it is reasonably clear from Mark's post what the ban is officially for.

I don't think that there is any doubt 'what the ban is officially for'.

Captain - it all started off with me suggesting that Slapper gets himself a nice comfy chair.
Not too sure what happened after that 🙄

Anyway, back to the Bernie - I still think he's at the least a complete idiot for saying things like that and not considering the implications. Given he would appear not to be a complete idiot, or otherwise he wouldn't be so successful, you have to consider the alternative possibility...

FFS, people! It's been a glorious sunny Saturday, and you chose to spend it like this? *Wanders off, refills glass from the Pimms jug...*

Yeah, I could have been drinking and checking out STW....

🙄

I'd suggest the banning of Azbo probably had more to do with the events of a year ago rather than anything recent. A few swearwords warrant at most a temp exclusion if it's a problem, and come on, who doesn't come here for an argument/bit of sport?

I'm more surprised though at the people that admit to have reported posts. Squealers.

You sound pretty stupid and ignorant to me trailmonkey, if you are offended by being called 'stupid and ignorant'.

I have often been 'on the receiving end'. I have been called all sorts, but I have never been 'deeply offended'.
Quite frankly I couldn't give a toss, if someone called me 'stupid and ignorant' - why on earth should I ?

So, I should have the same set of values as you otherwise I am stupid and ignorant ? I think that statement says more about you than it does me.

Be as insulting as you like ernie, it's only making you look increasingly bad.

I will not tolerate someone calling me stupid and ignorant

Do you know, that makes you sound pompous too...

It's supposed to be fun, and although some folks under the age of 30 make their way here by accident and probably never return, if we are supposed to adhere to modes of conversation suitable for over-sensitive teenagers, I think I'll frig off elsewhere melon pickers.

Interesting documentary on radio 4 right now about those trains that ran on time. And the people in them. I'm feeling a bit sick.

Hitler Rude Boy Hitler Rude Boy Hitler Rude Boy Hitler Rude Boy

Just what on earth is this thread about?

Perhaps we should all just have a long rambling single thread on here where we talk about Hitler, Kylie, Eating, Drinking, Listening and the ever increasing size and weight of assorted fun bags?!

Personally I'm drinking a very nice bottle of McGuigan, listening to mrs.T reading to Mini T, contemplating a sticky toffee pudding the wife's just made (aint she great?!) and wondering what would have happened if Kylie and Adolf had got it on and wondering if the world would have been a better place....

Peace all.

Just what on earth is this thread about?

Little men with big Egos.

So, I should have the same set of values as you otherwise I am stupid and ignorant ?

It's up to you mate.

But why you should give a **** whether or not I think you're 'stupid and ignorant' is beyond me.

If you're looking for advise from me, I would suggest that you grow up and stop being 'deeply offended' by being called stupid and ignorant.

And stop making childish comments such as, quote : [i]"I will not tolerate someone calling me stupid and ignorant"[/i] ........ ffs

.

And btw, to those who make the ridiculous comment that RB was 'intolerant', I would suggest that in fact the opposite was true. For all his ranting, he was often far too tolerant imo. He remained very quiet on many threads dealing with islamophobia, the BNP and homophobia.

In this very recent thread which was very provocative about Islam and which totalled 9 pages, he only made one, very mild comment

[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cause-for-concern ]Cause for concern?[/url]

And on this thread which dealt with homophobia and in which one poster said, quote "Its obviously not natural" he couldn't bring himself to make any comment at all :

[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/gay-scottish-minister-to-be-debated ]Gay Scottish minister - to be debated[/url]

He was also I reckon, far too easy going on the BNP threads. A typical 'head-in-the-sand' middle-class liberal imo.

I'm more surprised though at the people that admit to have reported posts. Squealers.