(no subject)

Date: 15/11/12 21:52 (UTC)
It should be obvious what the oversight is meant to achieve: no breadlines and no large revolutionary movements hellbent on destroying the established order.

This would be the rationalist responce, but Paft is not a rationalist. I want to know what she thinks the goal is or if she even has one beyond more and/or democrat-sponsored regulation = good, less and/or republican-sponsored = bad.

BTW, modern genocides have invariably been the products of Right/conservative regimes.

Invariably? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I'll grant you Imperial Japan, and the US/Indian wars but if you're qualifying Communism and its derivatives or the assorted Post-Imperialist Populism movements in Central Africa as being "right wing" you're clearly using a different definition from the rest of us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics).

Likewise one can debate just how "Left" or "Right" National Socialism is seeing as the only difference between Ultra-Reactionaries and Ultra-Revolutionaries are the labels they apply to eachother.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 34 5 678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30