[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.