Fun talk:Left wing bastards

Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

I know the ultra-Right hates him with the sort of fury they normally reserve for Satan, Osama Bin Laden, or Hillary Clinton, but what exactly did he do that was so bad? I don't remember any mention of the New Deal Death Camps in my history textbooks.... --Gulik 14:18, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

What's up with George Clooney and Michael Moore, you can't possible include them in an article that is supposed to mirror Right Wing Bastards. Where are the hate quotes and the calls for genocide by these people? MiddleMan 15:43, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Umn, FDR:

• Voyage of the Damned (SS St. Louis) that turned back Jewish Refugees from Germany back to Germany and Hitler in 1939.

“”On 4 June 1939, the St. Louis was also refused permission to unload on orders of President Roosevelt as the ship waited in the Caribbean Sea between Florida and Cuba.

• Incarceration of Japanese Americans at Camps (Meanwhile, German POWs were allowed to leave their prison camps during the day, and shop in nearby towns), but U.S. citizens were rounded up and put into concentration camps (kinder/gentler than those of the NAZIs for the Jews, you do have to give FDR that.).
• Friends with "Uncle Joe" (his term of endearment to refer to Stalin).
• Mccollum Memo (deceit to get the USA into the war). Read Robert Stinnett's "Day of Deceit"
• Social Security
• Entitlement Nation
• Could have but did not prevent the Cold War.
• Allowed communists to infiltrate his white house, his state department, and our Manhattan project (Armed the USSR, basically).

FDR was evil, protected communists, discriminated against Japanese Americans, and allowed occidental German POWs to be held in prisons whose front gates were left open during the day. Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 15:58, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Social Security is Evil? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:01, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Theft is evil. Social security is theft. Ponzi schemes are evil. Socail security is a ponzi scheme that depends on population growth (either through natural reproduction or immigration). Encouraging the young not to plan for their future is evil. Social security does just that. (Some lady on NPR was talking about how she was draining her 401K plan in her 30s to the tune of $5000/year because her dog had some condition that required expensive treatments. Her blasted dog. )Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 16:06, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

No. Social Security is a redistribution of capital that takes place for the good of society as a whole, and which has been instituted by your legal representatives. To call it theft is either hyperbole or the result of a complete epistemological disconnect on your part. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:12, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

You should read John Locke. What makes you think that if 9 men and 1 woman are stranded on an island, and a vote is held as to how the woman will be shared among the men, that the vote removes the sin of the rapes? Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 16:16, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Did you seriously just equate social security with RAPE? I'm sorry, no excuses, you're an asshole. MyaR 16:23, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Nice argument. Wow. The vote on rape was intended to illustrate that voting on how to take something (e.g., property, pleasure) at the expense of somebody else (wage earner, woman) does not miraculously turn an evil into something else. No excuses necessary. Theft is theft, rape is rape, and votes don't change the conclusion. Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 16:25, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Nope. Crime of property, crime of person. Does not parallel, merely offends. And you knew damn well what you were doing. It equates women with property, no ways around it. It kills any modicum of an argument you might have. MyaR 16:28, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Neither indignation nor confusion diminishes the argument that was made. Nice try, though. The laws of nature exist whether or not a legislature recognizes (or contravenes) them. Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 16:32, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Wow MyaR - how incredibly stupid you are! Try to see the point Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} is making instead of suffering ridiculous outrage. Why even bother... Previous comment left by 69.158.122.66

Never try to hold up a Libertarian. Once you say "Your money or your life!" you'd better have brought a comfy chair and a box lunch while you wait for them to make up their mind... --Gulik 16:33, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

More hyperbole. Social security is funded by taxes, which are paid by everyone and distributed according to the needs of society. This is not a question of one person being exploited by the rest, but of a redistribution of a portion of wealth from those who can afford it to those who need it. As for your complete brutalization of any kind of meaningful political discourse (comparisons with evil and rape), well - I don't really know what to say about that. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:35, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

More depreciation on your part. Robin hood economics, communist model. Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 16:37, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

So, in other words, you want to do away with taxes altogether, considering you deny the right of Parliament to administrate such a redistribution? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:41, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Wow, FDR wasn't the Second Coming of Jesus, but a politician?! Color me shocked and appalled. Let me pick at this list a bit....

• Voyage of the Damned (SS St. Louis) that turned back Jewish Refugees from Germany back to Germany and Hitler in 1939.

Like just about every other President before or since has done with refugees considered "surplus to requirements", you mean? Yes, it sucks, but it's not the least bit unusual. Heck, How many Iraqi refugees has BushCo let in to the US?

• Incarceration of Japanese Americans at Camps (Meanwhile, German POWs were allowed to leave their prison camps during the day, and shop in nearby towns), but U.S. citizens were rounded up and put into concentration camps (kinder/gentler than those of the NAZIs for the Jews, you do have to give FDR that.).

Yep, good old-fashioned racism. No argument there, except at least we let them live, which is more than some previous presidents did with the Injuns.

• Friends with "Uncle Joe" (his term of endearment to refer to Stalin).

Him and Churchill. Think we would've won WWII without the Godless Commies?

• Mccollum Memo (deceit to get the USA into the war). Read Robert Stinnett's "Day of Deceit"

Think we shouldn't have fought the Nazis? My German is terrible, so I disagree.

• Social Security
• Entitlement Nation

This is just you being a Libertarian Absolutist, so I'll let more patient souls argue the point.

• Could have but did not prevent the Cold War.
• Allowed communists to infiltrate his white house, his state department, and our Manhattan project (Armed the USSR, basically).

Hoooooold on there. Was he too HOSILE to The Commies, or too FRIENDLY? Please pick one or the other to get huffy about.

--Gulik 16:33, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

In case you missed it, he was entirely too friendly. What made you think I accused him of being too hostile? Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 16:33, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, you said he could have prevented the Cold War, but didn't, and implied that was a Bad Thing. --Gulik 16:37, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I meant, in the sense, since he was so friendly, he did not continue the liberation of Eastern Europe from the weakened Soviets, as at least one of his generals recommended. Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 16:38, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

As weakened as the allies were you mean?

MiddleMan 17:03, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

George A. Patton did recommend that he be allowed to invade the USSR but the soviets would have been too strong for a quick finish. Stalin had gambled (based on info verified by Kim Philby that Japan had no interest in helping Germany by invading Russian territory) and had decimated his entire Eastern front of troops to throw into the defense of Moscow and later for the annihilation of the Wehrmacht. CЯacke® 17:15, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Actually, we did not need to conquer the Soviet Union, just prevent them from occupying Eastern Europe. We had the bomb (close enough anyway), and while the Soviets had the plans (thanks to Roosevelt's very soft stance on Soviet espionage), they were clearly in no position to produce a bomb in the near term. Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 22:11, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

The funny thing is... I wrote this, and apart from Bohdan trying to remove Jesus, it's still pretty much as I started it, I think. Not that I own it, or anything. Expecting many more LWBs to be added. human^{be in} 17:43, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I am honored by the shitstorm I started! Nothing warms the cockles of a wikian's heart like a giant discussion page on an article he/she created. human^{be in} 22:36, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Bastard is not a good term

First off, it is offensive to children, through no fault of their own (and usually at the fault of their promiscuious mother and a soceity that encourages premarital sexual relations), who are born to an unmarried woman. Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 16:03, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

What about the father? MiddleMan 16:26, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

You are absolutely right, Middleman, my apologies. And the promiscuious father's fault. Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 16:28, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Wow, HoG, you are in fine fettle today. Children are born out of marriage for a lot of reasons other than promiscuity. But then, you seem to be in a reductionist frame of mind today. MyaR 17:17, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I'd entertain "Left wing (and "Ring wing"), oh, let's say, Powerdrunkards howzat sound? CЯacke® 17:27, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm fine with a change of pejorative. Wouldn't want to offend any bastards out there by associating them with this swill. How about "nutjobs", "maniacs", "psychos" (no, offensive to the mentally ill), "whores" (offensive to sex workers). "Fruitcakes"? Not strong enough. "Assholes"? human^{be in} 17:37, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, yeah...all those would be fine by me. Then again, the title should oughta indicate that these people actually held temporal power so as not to be conflused with the run-of-the-mill Left (and Right) wing nutjobs, psychos and whatnot. CЯacke® 17:52, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

"Children are born out of marriage for a lot of reasons other than promiscuity." A woman who becomes a widow while pregnant does not to my knowledge produce a bastard. Women are raped, get pregnant, and give birth (and have abortions) -- but both are very rare. What other reasons would you like to educate me with? Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 22:08, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

"Promiscuity" = multiple sex partners. An unmarried woman in love might bear the child of a man who, obviously, she is not married to. Maybe, the only man she has doen the dirty deed with. No promiscuity there, right? human^{be in} 22:33, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Plus, going back to the origin, 'bastard' is rarely used in its original sense. I don't really care what the title of the article is, but 'bastard' to mean the child of unwed parents is the much rarer usage nowadays. But if people feel the need to change it, that wouldn't bother me, either. MyaR 14:18, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

Buh?

Jesus (c) Bohdan? --Kels 17:33, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Show some respect. If you can. Resident vandal

To you or some guy who's been dead for 2,000 years? --Kels 17:38, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Actually, He's probably the ONLY one that "fits" the last word of the title.CЯacke® 17:54, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

And I don't recall Mary consenting, either. Just an angel saying "You're it." Cheeky fucks, these omnipotent deities. --Robledo 19:02, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

To Fun or to Fun

What do you think, guys? Should we change this article into a "Fun" page? It is incredibly snarky, even by RW standards. =[ Beckenor ]= (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the "really embarrassing" are already there. Тy^rannosaurs 23:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should fuse the two pages, or just delete one or the other. Thoughts? =[ Beckenor ]= (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Merging could work. I find the "embarrassing" one to be better actually. Тy^{communications wire} 01:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a junk article from 2007, move it. --Onion ^Hi! :) 15:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, likely for the best. Тy^Ahoy! 15:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's taken care of, then. =[ Beckenor ]= (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)