Well, Maf, I see your're what I began to suspect all along, a Social Darwinist, i.e you believe in the survival of the fittest a la the eugenics program advocated by, among others, good ol' Yankee Doodle Dandy, rootin', tootin' American, Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (...geez where d'ya think the Nazis probably got the idea from in the first place??)!
Really Lyz? C'mon you're an educated and well read individual, that sort of hyperbole is beneath you. You really got social Darwinism and 1930s racist sentiment from someone advancing a libertarian world view for limiting the role of government in personal interactions? Just wow bro, come off it.
Even the Bill of Rights did not forego the need for a conscience, Maf! As I keep reminding folks such as yourselves, "ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL"!
You seem to advocate a sort of 'Lord of the Flies' scenario as concerns the need to protect citizens from themselves, where the kids take over and adult supervision, the guidance of wisdom is non existent at worst, at best, marginalized.
Perhaps you or I have little need for gov't. help. Well, others have and who is to say that we are superior aka more fit to live and pursue every citizen's RIGHT to happiness, free of want and fear?
This is what happens when we lose sight of traditional values and attempt to play G_d.
Even the Bill of Rights did not forego the need for a conscience,
You profoundly misunderstand the Bill of Rights, it doesn't "protect" or "help" people, it sets ironclad limits on what the _government_ can do (like arrest people who have unpopular beliefs).
every citizen's RIGHT to happiness, free of want and fear?
There is no such right enumerated in the Constitution.
It seems, as with the electorate who sent Reagan over the top and into the Oval Office, that many misunderstand the basic rights guaranteed us as American citizens.
A historian, Michael Beschloss (??), I think, wrote a book years back, claiming that modern day Americans, Republicans above all, have warped the original meaning of the Constitution as signifying small instead of in fact, a bigger gov't. role than was previously realized.
the basic rights guaranteed us as American citizens.
The constitutions doesn't 'guarantee' rights but prevents the government from infringing against what might be called natural rights (such as having unpopular opinions).
And the federal government is really minor in the constitution, the primary level of government was intended to be at the state level with national government existing only where state level solutions were unfeasible.
So the current Polish law (easing back to the subject of the forum) would be completely unconstitutional as would any kind of holocaust denial legislation and that's how it should be - freedom of expression uber alles!
a bigger gov't. role than was previously realized.
I am getting very tired of your daily Liberal propaganda Lyzko. "Big Government" is a term coined by the democrats yet in essence obama created huge Big Government. obama has been labeled the "food stamp president" for expanding entitlements, while the size of the federal government has "exploded" under obama. The U.S. federal workforce rose by 130,000 under President Obama. President Trump is downsizing the federal government. Teflon Trump has begun cleaning house in various government agencies. Now get back on topic and quit being so wreckless with the truth.
"Big Government" is a term coined by the democrats yet in essence obama created huge Big Government.
No, it goes back further. Essentially the federal government has been increasing in importance (quite in contradiction to the constitution) since opponents of Civil Rights in the 1950s tried to tie their misbegotten cause with "states rights" usuing a legitimate principal to justify terrible unconstitutional actions gave the national government an excuse to roll back state (rather than federal) authority.
No president in the last 100 years has decreased the size of the national government.
Nevertheless anything...........quit your Liberal propaganda is the issue here. You want to open a thread about what happened in Florida do it but don't try to use it for a redirect to confuse the issue here.
I would be MORE THEN HAPPY to debate you on what happened in Florida in Random Chat. Now maybe for the second time will work like a charm by telling you to get back on topic of the thread here. (doubtful)
No president in the last 100 years has decreased the size of the national government.
Trump is presently working on it and has a very good start.
Roosevelt was the one who really started all the entitlements. At least back then we had a homogenous hard working population that didn't spend more time talking about 70 genders than making money and being with their family. The amount of people on food stamps, welfare, etc is staggering, and the amount of people not in the labor force for at least 1 year and not looking for a job is something like 60 million according to the BLS.
The dems ran with it ever since. Why do you think that dems don't really focus on things like tax cuts, increased wages, etc and instead talk about Trump being mean and racism? Because most of them either work for the government or are supported by the government (taxpayers).
Roosevelt saved this (once) great country from going the way of Nazi Germany. If someone is honestly entitled to gov't. aid, then by golly, they deserve to get it. If they're livin' off the dole, then agreed, they ought to get a swift kick in the butt and told to get a job.
A government is not merely a caretaker observer, but a regulatory agency which ideally was meant as a force of good, as America's Fathers, for instance (unlike Trump) knew instinctively that most people are basically lazy and swinish, quick to steal, pillage, rob, and let languish, if they had their druthers. Like the stern, but loving parent, the government was there to offer, not give out, help where it wasn't needed, furthermore, to reign in the greedy hand of the naughty child!
From around '47 - '63, it seemed as though the US government was doing her job nicely.
However, it looks as if I've run up against a bumper crop of disillusioned '60's -style idealists, suspicious of anything conventional, traditional, and workable....like our government's erstwhile role in the shaping the New Deal, a raw deal only to the Scrooges of this land.
All this has indirectly to do with the thread topic, whether a law which criminalizes the use of a misleading term, will protect citizens from the truth or not.
Lyzko it's not about the phrase or the law - that's just a pretext. You think this law, the sudden debate about limiting kosher food production, strict laws about holocaust property claim bill being shelved for now, all the new ww2 museums and other stuff is all just a coincidence? This is just to win easy points and assert Poland's independence from Israel's influence and guilt tripping. Nonetheless, the Poles know that while they can get away with p1ssing off Israel, they have to be cordial with American and EU Zionists - hence court Jew and PiS goys' favorite Shabbat dinner host Johnny Daniels. His exact words were that Poland is the safest place for Jews in Europe - and quite sadly thanks to recent events in western Europe, that might even be true (out of the large countries anyway)
If Israel and a lot of Jews weren't guilt tripping goys especially Poles we wouldn't need this law.
I assume people have heard of the latest uproar, after Morawiecki [truthfully] mentioned Jewish involvement in the Holocaust at the Munich Security Conference yesterday.
Good. Time for people to learn the truth about Jews. Great that this is making news, more people around the world will dig into it, Jews shot themselves in the foot. Go Poland, it is Poland that is doing it, wonderful, I did not know Morawiecki had some b...s but maybe he does.
I know that I myself certainly have been enlightened to what I have been confused with about Jews. Orthodox Jews are the true Jew to the Jewish faith. Zionist Jews are riding the shirttail of the Jewish faith for their personal gains and greed. Not knowing this before I came too the P.F. is where my confusion came from about Jews. I couldn't understand how some Jews (the Orthodox) could be so mellow and cool and while others (the Zionists) could be so annoying and demanding.
In fact most Zionist Jews don't even practice the Jewish faith.
I personally put the Zionists in the same boat I do with the LGBT's. (Annoying and demanding) I don't hate them but I don't condone nor will I ever agree to their beliefs either.
Mentioned on Wiki that Morawiecki's family is partially Jewish, furthermore, two of his blood relations (two aunts) were Holocaust survivors, if this info is accurate:-)
I heard one of his aunts is Jewish, but he is Catholic. Anyway if you want to say that his family is partially Jewish, it's just another reason why a complete arse like Yair Lapid saying that his comments at the Munich Security Conferece were anti-Semitic, is ludicrous.
Does anyone actually have a link to the wording of the law in question? Me and my family are having a disagreement about this issue, and I would like to know the facts. Does the law prevent anyone from saying that the some Polish people collaborated with the Nazis in helping them to imprison or kill people of Jewish decent? From what I heard, the only thing that it actually states is that the Polish government or the Polish people as a whole, are not responsible for Oświęcim, Majdanek, etc..., and are opposed to calling them "Polish concentration camps." If the law actually states that nobody is allowed to say that some Polish people collaborated or took it upon themselves to either kill Jews or to help send them to concentration camps, that would be a great injustice to the truth. Can someone actually give a link as to what the law actually says? The only thing I've read, is that the law states that the Polish government is opposed to calling them "Polish concentration camps", but my family says that the law also states that one can't say that some Polish people collaborated with the Nazis. I'm confused, please help to clarify...
The law doesn't state that you can't say some Polish people collaborated with the German Nazis and many people seem to be confused about this - that's why there seems to be so much anger. It just doesn't allow you to say that the Polish nation took part in the holocaust in general [as there was no Polish nation. It was occupied].
Thank you for posting that link WielkiPolak. I don't see anything there about it being a criminal offense to say that some Poles collaborated with the Nazis. It's just as I thought, my family is to dependent on the mainstream Polish media for their talking points. I moved to US as a boy of 12 years old, so I don't follow the politics in Poland as closely as the rest of my family does. But I had a feeling that the media there is just as full of BS as the one here in the US. If I believed everything they say about Trump, I would think he was the second coming of Hitler, which is just laughable if not disturbing and sad. And it was Hillary and the Democrats that clouded with Russian in the Uranium One scandal as well as getting opposition research on Trump from the Russkies. It seems that whatever the media says, you can pretty much bank on the opposite being true.
The most disgusting thing that the media did recently here in the US is praising and fawning over Kim Jong Un's sister and how she's stealing the show at the Winter Olympics. Utterly disgusting these pieces of crap Marxists that occupy the mainstream media.
"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed." - Mark Twain
Home / News / Israel opposing potential new Polish law to criminalise term 'Polish death camps'
