Discussion for article #224788
Obviously rwnjās arenāt a purely us problem and never has been exclusive. But thatās fairly amazingā¦the civil rights comission? Really? wowā¦go Europe.
1 Like
I thought that Germany had strict Holocaust-denial and Anti-Nazi-sentiment laws on the books?
(not that I endorse those laws, because I believe even offensive speech should be protected ā because of Freedom, and because itās a good way to identify the idiots for close monitoring)
2 Likes
As soon as this guy has as much control over their policy as our RWNJs do Iāll be a bit more concerned.
1 Like
Even the account in the Guardian says the āplan to nominate Hess for a Nobel Peace Prizeā came out in an account in 2007. Hess died in 1987, and you have to be alive to receive a Nobel Prize.
How far back was this? Did Voigt even have the pull needed to add a name to a nominating committee in or before '87?
Just checking in. He doesnāt seem like someone who would require gilding the lily to prove heās crazy. I also didnāt expect this article to pass around hearsay (unverified / no details even in the linked Guardian article). Shrinking Jewish deaths in the holocaust to ~5% of the actual total is sufficient in itself.
1 Like
So how does a Holocaust denier get elected or chosen to be on the EU Parliament Civil Rights Committee in the first place?
This says as much about the EU Parliament for Civil Rights as it does this fucking Nazi and lover of all things to do with the Third Reich.
Obviously someone finds it OK to allow this asshole to join, and condones this manās words and behavior or he wouldnāt have been chosen to hold the seat.
The EU Parliament Civil Rights Committee sounds like a sham propagandist operation. It clearly has no credibility.
1 Like
OK, lets see: 6 million dead is bad, but only 340,00 is ok. Just wondering where he would draw the line. 1 million? 2 million?
1 Like
His next gig will be as a consultant to the 2016 Baggernut nominee of the GOTP.
1 Like
Part of it, following these people a bit, would mean even those deaths can be pushed to other things. If it is a smaller number it is easier to say most of them died from ally bombings, most of them were not Jews and so on. There is usually a reason they try to make the number smaller in addition to the claim āit was not so badā. It is also usually to make the Naziās look like victims of bad PR.
Ubo, er, Udo sounds like a Limbaugh/Cruz combo with a smile that lights up an interrogation roomā¦
1 Like
This just inā¦Republicans in Congress have introduced a bill to amend Section 1, Article 2 of the Constitution, in order to allow Mr. Voigt onto the GĆĪ”ās 2016 Presidential ticketā¦
1 Like
So youāre saying we would not have had Tim McVey or any of our current day wackos, white supremacists, and neo-nazis if we had a second amendment?
Ohhh wait!!!
1 Like
I havenāt heard a lot of calls to disintact the Second Amendment, actually. But why donāt you, from your stores of knowledge, tell us about a time from history when armed civilians defeated some repressive dictatorship, or kept one from taking power? Any example at all. That would really bolster your argument, you knowāexamples. Itās what the cool kids do.
2 Likes
Yes, Germany has these laws, and no, First Amendment absolutism is not the route for every country.
Neo-Nazis have become very adept in obeying the letter of the law and defying its spirit. E.g., if you shout āHeil Hitlerā on the open street you will be arrested and fined. But what can you do against someone shouting ā88ā? And if you were to arrest people for shouting 88, theyād probably find some other substitute.
Having said that, Voigt still has spent a lot of time in front of courts and has been convicted several times. His party received 1.0 % of the vote, which under a new ruling of our Constitutional Court was good enough for one seat.
Voigt is a criminal whose impact on EU politics will be absolutely zero. He does not belong to any parliamentary group, since even LePen and her ilk didnāt want to be associated with him.
1 Like
This is nonsense. That committee has done stellar work in the past and will continue to do so. He will have zero influence in that committee. He is not even aligned with any parliamentary group in the EU Parliament; nobody wanted him. How did he get the seat?
Well, he is a member of parliament, duly elected. Every member gets at least one seat on one committee, and those who get nothing more can basically pick the committee they want to serve on.
Changing the rules bc of one criminal thug is giving him too much influence already.
Afghanistan = 1 - Soviet Union = 0
ā¦and we have just celebrated the 4th of July, among other thingsā¦!!!
āThe German court unsuccessfully attempted to outlaw the party in 2006, and another attempt is currently underway.ā
Almost correct. The suit can be brought to the Constitutional Court only by a very select group of people, namely the Federal Administration, the Bundestag and the second chamber, the Bundesrat. In 2001 all of these joined hands and prepared a case.
Declaring a party unconstitutional is not easy, even under German law. Nor should it be. The last successful case was in 1956, and the hurdles are high. It was not really a surprise when the Constitutional Court threw out the case on a complex technicality in 2003 (not 2006).
The Afghans were a warrior culture for centuries, hardwired to fight, and they defeated the British pretty handily once. They arenāt typical civilians. And it kinda helped they had billions of dollars in support from us and other countries, and that support included help from the CIFuckingA on weapons and tactics, with us supplying them with oodles of Stinger missiles to shoot down the gunships with. Thatās what turned the tide. They couldnāt do shit with their small arms till they got real military weapons. How many Stingers do you have lying around? Iām guessing none. America had the Continental Army and the French. Wanna try again?
1 Like
Dude, you are just too funny to watch, twisting yourself in a pretzel trying to find a way out for yourself, but then again you like to keep digging your already deep hole so:
- French Revolution
- Russian Revolution
- Mexican Revolution
- Cuban Revolution
- Haitian Revolution
- Iranian Revolution
- ā¦
Youāre pretty funny yourself, dude, thatās a consensus thing. I donāt want to keep your off-topic mania rolling but since your main example fell down on examination I have to say you canāt point to every revolution in history as an example of civilians with small arms defeating a repressive government. A dandy counter-example, for you dude, (youāre such a cool guy) would be Iraq under Saddam. Heavily armed society presided over by one of the most cruel, repressive dictators in living memory, a guy who happened to be a member of the minority Sunnis. Weapons all over the place, but anytime Saddam felt like grabbing you and torturing you to death he would do it. Thatās how useful those guns were. And thatās about how useful your fat suburbanites with a Glock 17 would be if the United States wanted to fuck with them. But go on, have your fantasies. Nothing a sensible person could say would make any difference, we all know that all too well.
1 Like