Far left liberals are reaping what they have sown

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Not even close to a relevant response. The issue of the type of government in relation to practicing imperialism is irrelevant. No country had as its objective during the war or before the war to fight or defeat monarchies, especially England, as a form of government. The cause of the war had been imperialism and the goal of all the countries had been to protect and/or expand their existing territorial holdings. The fall of monarchies was an unintended consequence of the war, not a goal as you stated.

Keep on throwing that brown substance at the wall.

I never said form of government was the reason for war... it had a massive impact on who the victors were though...

This has shades of Canadians burning down the White House.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by boxcar

...

Nobody is calling you a fascist.

I am showing you present and historical examples and showing you that this is textbook... by the definition what fascists would do.

In today's lexicon and rhetoric you would simply need to replace the word Liberal with Bolshevik and Globalist with Jew(if you're a Nazi) or Capitalist (if you're not) and..... BOOM!

There you have it.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I never said form of government was the reason for war... it had a massive impact on who the victors were though...

This has shades of Canadians burning down the White House.

You said:

The Great War was the first major challenge as liberal democracies waged war against the traditional monarchy. LD in Europe survived... barely and the traditional monarchy was tossed on the scrap heap of history.


I asked what LD's you were referring to? Being a a LD had nothing to do with those governments opposing monarchies. Your point, if you don't understand it, is that LD's fought against monarchies as a form of government as if it was some great test of government type. Your point of view is askew.

Any LD who fought against a monarchy type of government, in WWI, fought with the object to protect and/or its outside territories. The subsequent collapse of the monarchies had been an unintended consequence of the war.

Once again nations practicing imperialism regardless of governmental form caused the war. It was a test of imperialistic strength and not LD's against monarchies as you propose. As a test of strength they both failed and the war grounded to a stand still, until Wilson screwed things up. More than likely without Wilson's intervention the Monarchy in England may have fallen too, as well as the French form of government.

[fast4522]

elysiantraveller posted

"Our supremacy is on a level never scene before in human history..."

and

"Its very hard here as our system of government is pretty ineffective at bringing about change...."

How we got here is irrelevant, millennial's like elysiantraveller want change because they think that it is their turn. Nothing could be farther from the truth, 60 is the new 40. When I was 33 I wanted everything to flow the way I wanted it to, guess what boy SSDD. Simple facts: 1 out of 5 millennial's has over $75k set aside in rainy day fund investments and are ultra liberal, 4 out of 5 are dirt poor. So whats going on with the hate for President Trump, policy's of this administration are crushing his parents who were younger and did well with the previous administration's policy and now today poses a threat to his rainy day fund.

So I say we have NO need to yield to other nations giving them any advantage to our markets. As for bringing about change to a more socialist LD I say do not let the door hit you in the ass when you leave. But if you do not leave expect the only change is your hair color.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

You said:

The Great War was the first major challenge as liberal democracies waged war against the traditional monarchy. LD in Europe survived... barely and the traditional monarchy was tossed on the scrap heap of history.


I asked what LD's you were referring to? Being a a LD had nothing to do with those governments opposing monarchies. Your point, if you don't understand it, is that LD's fought against monarchies as a form of government as if it was some great test of government type. Your point of view is askew.

Any LD who fought against a monarchy type of government, in WWI, fought with the object to protect and/or its outside territories. The subsequent collapse of the monarchies had been an unintended consequence of the war.

Once again nations practicing imperialism regardless of governmental form caused the war. It was a test of imperialistic strength and not LD's against monarchies as you propose. As a test of strength they both failed and the war grounded to a stand still, until Wilson screwed things up. More than likely without Wilson's intervention the Monarchy in England may have fallen too, as well as the French form of government.

Well apologies if that's the impression you got with what I was attempting to address.

Liberal democracies prevailed in WWI. Monarchies at that point were tossed aside as obsolete.

I never meant to imply it was the cause for war.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Well apologies if that's the impression you got with what I was attempting to address.

Liberal democracies prevailed in WWI. Monarchies at that point were tossed aside as obsolete.

I never meant to imply it was the cause for war.

With apologies to you I still don't understand what your point is?

You do understand the allies had been comprised of monarchies too. For example, Italy was a Kingdom, Japan an empire with an emperor, England a monarchy, Australia and Canada subjects of the English Crown, Russia a monarchy.

Liberal democracies did not prevail in WWI. The allies prevailed with some monarchies, even on the ally side, falling as an unintended consequence of the war and others like Italy and Japan stayed intact.

What I am saying if a a country like France kept its governmental form it was due to the luck of being on the side of victory and U.S. aid and not because it had a superior form of government.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

England was as much a monarchy then as they are now.

You're splitting hairs.

Is North Korea a Democratic Republic?

Does England have a royal family? Does the current queen have governmental duties? Did the The King influence war decisions in WWI? BTW Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy, whatever that is.

[davew]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Aren't the Trump "haters" of the opinion that America is the greatest country on the planet?

Then why do they try to change it?

[Marshall Bennett]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

but wait a minute...you're just the type of person a whole bunch of people on the left here would THINK I would love...

Now just how can this be?

Your inflated ego is the number 1 culprit. Why else would you spend the time you do in OT? Its a horse racing site first isn't it, created by you? My post aren't unlike several other conservatives here. Perhaps more pronounced at times.
No, I've rattled your ego in the past and you just aren't mature enough to get over it. You don't disagree with my post, you probably like an aggressive approach with liberals...in fact I'm sure you do. You simply hate me, and it has nothing to do with what I say anymore.
You really shouldn't put your mind in the heads of the radical left and decide how they'll think either. Most of their thinking is just weird..you know.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

With apologies to you I still don't understand what your point is?

You do understand the allies had been comprised of monarchies too. For example, Italy was a Kingdom, Japan an empire with an emperor, England a monarchy, Australia and Canada subjects of the English Crown, Russia a monarchy.

Liberal democracies did not prevail in WWI. The allies prevailed with some monarchies, even on the ally side, falling as an unintended consequence of the war and others like Italy and Japan stayed intact.

What I am saying if a a country like France kept its governmental form it was due to the luck of being on the side of victory and U.S. aid and not because it had a superior form of government.

They most certainly survived because they had a superior form of government.

Each form of government in the original post we are discussing has their pros and cons. No form of government can wage war the way a liberal democracy can. It's the only form that wages war with the explicit approval of its population.

France and Britain were going to win the war regardless of United States entry. The latter just allowed them to negotiate the brutal Versailles Treaty. The government of Germany collapsed and the Kaiser abdicated simultaneously with the ceasefire. Germany was done after the failed spring offensives...

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

They most certainly survived because they had a superior form of government.

Each form of government in the original post we are discussing has their pros and cons. No form of government can wage war the way a liberal democracy can. It's the only form that wages war with the explicit approval of its population.

France and Britain were going to win the war regardless of United States entry. The latter just allowed them to negotiate the brutal Versailles Treaty. The government of Germany collapsed and the Kaiser abdicated simultaneously with the ceasefire. Germany was done after the failed spring offensives...

First, I agree democracies are a better form of government. Second France and Britain would not have the war without the U.S. They did not have the man power or the resources to keep on waging such a brutal war. Their soldiers refused to continue offense fighting. If Wilson kept the U.S. out of the war France and Britain would have had to negotiate a peace treaty to end the conflict.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Does England have a royal family? Does the current queen have governmental duties? Did the The King influence war decisions in WWI? BTW Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy, whatever that is.

I meant to delete before you reply as I went back to your post.

And yes this is splitting hairs. Britain is a parliamentary democracy that retains a royal monarchy. Canada says it's a constitutional monarchy.

They are liberal democracies.

The DPRK is a authoritarian dictatorship not a democratic peoples republic and the PRC is not a peoples republic but a one party technocracy.

What they call themselves and what they are can be very different things.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I meant to delete before you reply as I went back to your post.

And yes this is splitting hairs. Britain is a parliamentary democracy that retains a royal monarchy. Canada says it's a constitutional monarchy.

They are liberal democracies.

The DPRK is a authoritarian dictatorship not a democratic peoples republic and the PRC is not a peoples republic but a one party technocracy.

What they call themselves and what they are can be very different things.

Again, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It doesn't matter what DPRK calls itself, it has no relevance to WWI facts.

The allies consisted of Monarchies and empires, that is a fact. England is a monarchy and the king guided war time decisions in WWI. Canada and Australia fought on the side of the allies, because they are subjects of the British Crown. That's the facts.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Again, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It doesn't matter what DPRK calls itself, it has no relevance to WWI facts.

The allies consisted of Monarchies and empires, that is a fact. England is a monarchy and the king guided war time decisions in WWI. Canada and Australia fought on the side of the allies, because they are subjects of the British Crown. That's the facts.

No he wasn't.

Anywho this is off the reservation of the point I was trying to make.

If you're trying to argue Britain wasn't a liberal parliamentary democracy at the time this is pointless to continue.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

No he wasn't.

Anywho this is off the reservation of the point I was trying to make.

If you're trying to argue Britain wasn't a liberal parliamentary democracy at the time this is pointless to continue.

I am stating facts, the allies were comprised of monarchies, which means any liberal democracies prevailed in the war only because of its allies. They did not survive because their form of government was superior. They survived by being on the winning side and U.S. aid. The fact is Italy's monarchy survived and so did Japan's empire. Did Italy's and Japan's government survive because they were superior forms of government too?