Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

A voice for the British National Party


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 576-600 of 768 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2012 16:32:56 BDT
Charlieost says:
Hi Roger. I do not have any roses but thanks for the suggestion. So perhaps you think that the UK should be ruled by Prince Charles when Lizzie pops off.

Now I will waste some time by explaining why I do not think that I am delusional. The choice between an elected body as a preference over a monarchy can be seen throughout history as various pretenders and claimants to the throne been the cause of civil war, take your pick, there is no shortage of them to choose.

Secondly, as civilisation has advanced we have in whatever ways taken power away from monarchs just as many Catholics are reclaiming the church from the central power of Rome. As free people we want representation by choice, not by imposition.

I know this will cut no ice with you. With all due respect Roger you are something of a dinosaur and we all know what happened to them.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2012 23:00:28 BDT
Last edited by the author on 29 Jul 2012 23:34:54 BDT
So you think that the Field Marshal in an Army should be told how to run a battle by the private soldiers? That's what you're suggesting after all.

I believe in autocratic monarchy. Charles I commented that a subject and a King are clean different things and he was right. He also stated that one king was preferable to an hundred, or something along those lines, referring to a parliament. We all know the old saying that a camel is a horse that got designed by a committee and there's much truth in the humour.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2012 23:28:28 BDT
I'm a superior grade of rabble.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2012 23:31:29 BDT
Yeah, I know, they all evolved into birds and flew away.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2012 01:20:48 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Jul 2012 01:21:28 BDT
I am a Catholic and in recent times have seen the hand of Rome directing affairs at remote distance. Toowoomba Diocese, where I live in Australia, now has a new Bishop because the former chap clashed with Rome over directives from The Vatican and ended up taking early retirement.

So should it be. If you belong to an organisation, be it a church or any other that has a management and rules, either obey the rules and the managment or leave. Rome - The papacy and the Vatican - directs the Catholic Church. In The Reformation there were many who didn't like how things were done and tried to repair them. If they couldn't they got out - LUTHER as example - and hence we have the Protestant Movement.

ROMA LOCVTOR EST CAVSA FINITA EST Rome has spoken, the matter is ended.

As for Prince Charles yes I believe he should be King Charles III at the due moment and his wife should be Queen. Charles II became King the moment his father was murdered by the treasonous Parliament in 1649.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2012 07:08:28 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Jul 2012 07:22:39 BDT
 says:
As stated in my original comment, Rosenberg is a Germanic name. Further, Yiddish is itself a High German Language.

Posted on 30 Jul 2012 07:33:29 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Jul 2012 07:34:05 BDT
You clearly have reading problems, either that or you think you're funny or clever - STOP TRANSLATING, I AM FLUENT IN GERMAN !!! I asked nicely the first time, but you just ignore that. (oh, and 'auf' doesn't mean 'until' that would be 'bis' - don't rely on the internet for your translations)

It's still a Jewish name - why do you think the Nazi's wanted background checks of people with 'nouns' as surnames ? Because. They. Are. Jewish. Names. As I said before, the words are 'German' but the people with the surnames (certainly during WW2 and prior) were Jews - less so now due to racial integration. Yiddish is derived from medieval German, Hebrew and Aramaic, various Slavic languages, Old French and Old Italian - so not as 'Germanic' as you seem to think.

edit - why did you bother editing it ?

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2012 03:57:01 BDT
A Jew died and found himself in Hell.

As he looked around he saw HITLER wearing glasses and sitting a a desk poring over large volumes of printed documnents. "I thought he'd end up here although I didn't think I would", said the Jew to a nearby daemon. "What's his punishment", he asked.

"Oh, it's reallydevilishly cruel. He has to spend eternity translating 'Mein Kampf' into Hebrew".

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2012 14:49:12 BDT
easytiger says:
AH was an orphan when he met his first jews in Vienna. Like I said in a previous post AH's doctrine shaped the rest of the century and beyond;anyone who objects to immigration is called a Nazi-you see?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Aug 2012 08:31:05 BDT
 says:
There are any number of on- and offline resources for you to check the provenance of the name 'Rosenberg' and the origins of the Yiddish language. The Yivo Institute for Jewish Research, for example: 'The basic grammar and vocabulary of Yiddish, which is written in the Hebrew alphabet, is Germanic. Yiddish, however, is not a dialect of German but a complete language - one of a family of West Germanic languages...'

Authorities for 'Rosenberg' included: Wikipedia/Ancestry.co/surnamedb.com As you pointed out the words 'Rosen' and 'Berg' are German, not Yiddish. Jews adopted German surnames (such as Rosenberg) - that did not render those names less German or the Jews who adopted them necessarily less Jewish.

I do not think '...the Nazis wanted background checks of people with 'nouns' as surnames' - you do. In National Socialist Germany everyone's racial background was subject to verification - even the highest ranking Nazis. A Jew bearing the name 'Schwarz' [German for the adjective 'Black'] would be just as checked as Jew called 'Rosen' [German for the noun 'Roses'].

I have translated these simple German words since this is a public not private thread, that is, you may not be the only person to read the post. It is perfectly proper to translate the 'auf' in the context of 'auf Wiedersehen' as 'Until', the literal translation being 'until we see again'. 'Auf' elsewhere is a different matter.

Auf! [.....here an imperative!]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Aug 2012 08:49:16 BDT
Your posts are directed to me and nobody else cares what German words mean.

The surnames of 'things' i.e. places, colours, items, nature were an indication of being Jewish. You had a background check of, iirc, 3 generations, for 'normal' German surnames; if you had a surname suggesting Jewishness then you had to go back 7 to prove you weren't a Jew in any shape or form.

"It is perfectly proper to translate the 'auf' in the context of 'auf Wiedersehen' as 'Until', the literal translation being 'until we see again'"

It doesn't 'literally' mean until we see again, the 'literal' (meaning - word for word) translation means 'upon again seeing'. Auf is a preposition e.g. on, at, in, to, upon, onto.

"Auf!" - Get up ?

Posted on 3 Aug 2012 10:54:38 BDT
 says:
Kodokushi, my posts to you are made on a public thread. They are not private. Other people are reading them [See '1 of 5 people thinks this post adds to the discussion.Do you?' under your post 28 Jul 2012 07.33.29. BDT] May I remind you of another of your public posts, this time made on 28 Jul 2012 Last Edit 19.02.47 BDT. You wrote:

'Rosenberg is a Jewish name - it's from Yiddish extraction. So much for 'Germanic' - clearly some people are moronic.'

Yet, as we have established, Yiddish is a Germanic language. Clearly you were a little hasty in describing 'some people' as 'moronic'. Scheisse!

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Aug 2012 12:25:52 BDT
Charlieost says:
Hi Roger. The thought of that idiot son of Lizzie Windsor becoming king has me feeling slightly queesy. Would it become compulsory to natter with the nettles on our way to work. Would the NHS be demolished and only Homeopathy accepted os a cure all. Talking of demolished. would all buildings that insult his royal highnesses sensibilities be removed.

And they said George the third was nuts.

Hope they go for it. We would be in stitches over here in Ireland.

As for your opinion on Rome. Yes I agree. If you do not agree with the totalitarian Vatican old school right wing nutters then leave. Leave in droves. Let the shrines and churches tumble. And good ridance to them all.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Aug 2012 12:30:46 BDT
Charlieost says:
Yo Kod. A German friend of mine called round just now and I pointed out your posts to her and she said that you were talking something beginning with sh and rhyming with Kaiser.

Another day quoth I.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Aug 2012 13:30:32 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Aug 2012 13:30:53 BDT
King George III was not, as you put it, nuts. He suffered from an blood stream illness called Porphyria, so named from the colour purple as one of the indicators was purple urine. It did effect the brain but not in the direct meaning of insanity.

A Northern Ireland Protestant art thou perchance?

Posted on 4 Aug 2012 15:15:19 BDT
easytiger says:
So if his piss wasn't purple, would he have been classed as nuts then?

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Aug 2012 22:46:34 BDT
You're completely off the track of my meaning. It was the illness that effected his mind so it was not insanity as defined. Hey, I'm a poet.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Aug 2012 19:56:59 BDT
Well done.

Posted on 6 Aug 2012 14:41:34 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 15 Aug 2012 22:39:27 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Aug 2012 00:54:27 BDT
Spin says:
DPR: Children need love, not discipline. Discipline is something which negates love. Love is its own "discipline". A loved child fares better in life than a disciplined child..

Posted on 7 Aug 2012 07:36:09 BDT
easytiger says:
Adults have a responsibility to teach children the rules. Your little undisciplined loved ones are brats to everyone else.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Aug 2012 07:59:46 BDT
I concur but in Australia we now have the situation where some obnoxious ankle biter throws a tantrum in the shopping centre and if the parent disciplines by applying a well aimed hand to the little darling's leg some b.....y leftist do-gooder and resident pest threatens to report said parent to the Police.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Aug 2012 08:04:59 BDT
You deluded fool, discipline, applied with love at the back of it, is required for the emotional development of the child leading to maturity.

A parent without any love for its child does not discipline and we see in today's western world the result of idiotic leftist social engineering that has thrown Godly values out the window.

Posted on 7 Aug 2012 08:27:50 BDT
You don't need to hit a child to discipline them.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Aug 2012 08:29:45 BDT
Research has shown that excessive discipline (i.e. hitting) has a negative effect on childrens emotions and leads to mental health problems as an adult.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  53
Total posts:  768
Initial post:  6 Jun 2012
Latest post:  20 Aug 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions