Biruitorul (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
:::Capitalism killed more people. So maybe we should have admins from pre-modern cultures that haven't still invented ideologies.[[User:Anonimu|A]][[Special:Mypage|nonimu]] 11:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
:::Capitalism killed more people. So maybe we should have admins from pre-modern cultures that haven't still invented ideologies.[[User:Anonimu|A]][[Special:Mypage|nonimu]] 11:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::I have lost patience for the type of idiocy you usually spout, and we've covered this ground before (in debates I won handily). Your preposterous claims don't give you a sophisticated rebellious edge; they consign you to irrelevance. If you want to bring some reliable source that backs up the laughable claim that "Capitalism killed more people [than Communism]", go ahead. Otherwise, don't waste our time. [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
::::I have lost patience for the type of idiocy you usually spout, and we've covered this ground before (in debates I won handily). Your preposterous claims don't give you a sophisticated rebellious edge; they consign you to irrelevance. If you want to bring some reliable source that backs up the laughable claim that "Capitalism killed more people [than Communism]", go ahead. Otherwise, don't waste our time. [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::Please refrain from personal attacks. You won no debates. I was just getting tired of hearing the same thigns again an again and i stopped replying to your blabbering. Of course i can bring one: ''Le livre noir du capitalisme''. It's currently out of print, but you may find it if you search in soem libraries.[[User:Anonimu|A]][[Special:Mypage|nonimu]] 11:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I'm not dismissing or discrediting your view. What I'm trying to say is that your communist views shouldn't have anything to do with a Liberal Party article, and they'll never improve it. --[[User:Eurocopter tigre|Eurocopter tigre]] 18:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
I'm not dismissing or discrediting your view. What I'm trying to say is that your communist views shouldn't have anything to do with a Liberal Party article, and they'll never improve it. --[[User:Eurocopter tigre|Eurocopter tigre]] 18:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
:::So how could the same party be founded twice? You can't compare the de jure inexistence of the defunct PNL in the late 30s and early 40s with it's disestablishment in 1947. The team of the defunct PNL remained more or less the same until disestablishment in 1947 and the party keept the same royalist and nationalist position throughout its existence. The party with the same name founded in 1990 had no real connection with the team of the 40s, condemned the nationalist positions of the first post-coup governments, and (as opposed to the PNTCD) never expressed a monarchist stance. I checked the liberal international and the european liberal group. They don't mention any continuity. I checked the pnl site... no word about it, the history section being about all forms of liberalism in the 19th century, not just PNL.[[User:Anonimu|A]][[Special:Mypage|nonimu]] 13:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
:::So how could the same party be founded twice? You can't compare the de jure inexistence of the defunct PNL in the late 30s and early 40s with it's disestablishment in 1947. The team of the defunct PNL remained more or less the same until disestablishment in 1947 and the party keept the same royalist and nationalist position throughout its existence. The party with the same name founded in 1990 had no real connection with the team of the 40s, condemned the nationalist positions of the first post-coup governments, and (as opposed to the PNTCD) never expressed a monarchist stance. I checked the liberal international and the european liberal group. They don't mention any continuity. I checked the pnl site... no word about it, the history section being about all forms of liberalism in the 19th century, not just PNL.[[User:Anonimu|A]][[Special:Mypage|nonimu]] 13:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::<font color="red">1989 was a Revolution, not a coup. Please stop profaning the memory of its hallowed dead.</font> Yes, something like a coup took place alongside the Revolution. But you disgrace their memory by lowering those heroic days to mere "coup" level. [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
::::<font color="red">1989 was a Revolution, not a coup. Please stop profaning the memory of its hallowed dead.</font> Yes, something like a coup took place alongside the Revolution. But you disgrace their memory by lowering those heroic days to mere "coup" level. [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::It's pretty clear from the video showing Ceausescu's last discourse that it was an organized event to take him down. Thus a coup.[[User:Anonimu|A]][[Special:Mypage|nonimu]] 11:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Simple: a party can be founded and re-founded. The rest is your deduction. I simply do not understand what problem you see with the history section at the PNL site. Furthermore, if you want to talk about consistencies in policies, the pre-1938 PNL was: republican then monarchist; antisemitic then open to Jewish integration; protectionist then laissez-faire then protectionist then laissez-faire ; irredentist then anti-irredentist then "the builder" of Greater Romania; anti-Carlist then pro-Carlist then anti-Carlist. Not that assessments of ideology add anything to this debate. Are we done? [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] 13:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
::::Simple: a party can be founded and re-founded. The rest is your deduction. I simply do not understand what problem you see with the history section at the PNL site. Furthermore, if you want to talk about consistencies in policies, the pre-1938 PNL was: republican then monarchist; antisemitic then open to Jewish integration; protectionist then laissez-faire then protectionist then laissez-faire ; irredentist then anti-irredentist then "the builder" of Greater Romania; anti-Carlist then pro-Carlist then anti-Carlist. Not that assessments of ideology add anything to this debate. Are we done? [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] 13:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 11:16, 25 August 2007
continuity
any proofs of continuity except the claims of the party and the similar name? we don't say PSD is founded in 1910, even if they would be the only ones who could have continuity throught PCRAnonimu 11:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Let's not forget that the PNL was dissolved by the communists, which starting with 1945, banned all political parties. --Eurocopter tigre 11:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- exactly, that PNL dissapeared in 1947. This is a new party founded in 1990, that has no real connections with the pre-1947 one except it's name. even its ideology it's just marginally similar to the pre 1947 one.Anonimu 11:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is not a new party, it is the same PNL, which was banned from 1947 to 1990. --Eurocopter tigre 12:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- No proofs, of course...Anonimu 12:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- No proofs also that the "actual" PNL it's not the "historical" one. So I think we should leave the article exactly how it is now. --Eurocopter tigre 12:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- A strong proof: pnl dead in 1947.. no underground organizations, nothing.. then 1989.. yupie, ceausescu gone... some minor members of pre 1947 pnt: hey, let's make a party, people with surely vote with us... then some random guys who wanted power: oh man, we're not important enough to get in the high positions of fsn... but hey, those mummies are right, let's make ourselves a "historical party"... what to choose?... pnt is taken, iron guard won't get american support... i know, i know, let's choose pnl... heck, they were better than pnt... thus pnl was born. no continuity.Anonimu 12:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is a science fiction story which reflects your communist political views. Of course I can also invent dozens SF stories. --Eurocopter tigre 12:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Probably you don't know the meaning of "science fiction". This is just a simplified dramatization of the real story. The main idea is a well known truth. Isn't it strange that "history of pnl" on the official site ends at the 1890s? Please stop with the personal attacks or i'll have to report you.Anonimu 13:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Which personal attacks? You have communist views, I have liberal views. Is this a personal attack?? Maybe I'm attacking myself... go ahead and report me.:)) --Eurocopter tigre 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I did read it many times. Still that is not a personal attack. You recognized yourself as a communist. Isn't this true? --Eurocopter tigre 17:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- You must have missed: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.". What i've said and what you're try doing are two different things.Anonimu 18:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's true only to a certain extent: see here. Since Communism is worse than Nazism (as measured by death toll), surely such a stance ought to apply to Reds (although we do have Communist administrators...). Biruitorul 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Capitalism killed more people. So maybe we should have admins from pre-modern cultures that haven't still invented ideologies.Anonimu 11:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have lost patience for the type of idiocy you usually spout, and we've covered this ground before (in debates I won handily). Your preposterous claims don't give you a sophisticated rebellious edge; they consign you to irrelevance. If you want to bring some reliable source that backs up the laughable claim that "Capitalism killed more people [than Communism]", go ahead. Otherwise, don't waste our time. Biruitorul 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please refrain from personal attacks. You won no debates. I was just getting tired of hearing the same thigns again an again and i stopped replying to your blabbering. Of course i can bring one: Le livre noir du capitalisme. It's currently out of print, but you may find it if you search in soem libraries.Anonimu 11:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have lost patience for the type of idiocy you usually spout, and we've covered this ground before (in debates I won handily). Your preposterous claims don't give you a sophisticated rebellious edge; they consign you to irrelevance. If you want to bring some reliable source that backs up the laughable claim that "Capitalism killed more people [than Communism]", go ahead. Otherwise, don't waste our time. Biruitorul 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Capitalism killed more people. So maybe we should have admins from pre-modern cultures that haven't still invented ideologies.Anonimu 11:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's true only to a certain extent: see here. Since Communism is worse than Nazism (as measured by death toll), surely such a stance ought to apply to Reds (although we do have Communist administrators...). Biruitorul 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not dismissing or discrediting your view. What I'm trying to say is that your communist views shouldn't have anything to do with a Liberal Party article, and they'll never improve it. --Eurocopter tigre 18:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- This whole discussion is absurd. 1. The majority of sources will not make or establish any difference between the "two parties". 2. The PNL has been dissolved several times in its existence (1938 ring a bell?). 3. The reader should not have cryptic links because users decide they know better. 4. The party is recognized as a direct successor by the international bodies it is part of. 5. The continuity was also stressed by the party's membership, and its (anemic) existence in clandestinity. 6. There are already thousands of links pointing this way.
- This whole argument comes from a man who does not have great respect for PNL policies before or since. It is an appeal to common sense. Dahn 22:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps I rushed in: once we got rid of the "separate parties" linking, I fully agree with the two dates of foundation. I hope this clarifies it for everyone. Dahn 12:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- So how could the same party be founded twice? You can't compare the de jure inexistence of the defunct PNL in the late 30s and early 40s with it's disestablishment in 1947. The team of the defunct PNL remained more or less the same until disestablishment in 1947 and the party keept the same royalist and nationalist position throughout its existence. The party with the same name founded in 1990 had no real connection with the team of the 40s, condemned the nationalist positions of the first post-coup governments, and (as opposed to the PNTCD) never expressed a monarchist stance. I checked the liberal international and the european liberal group. They don't mention any continuity. I checked the pnl site... no word about it, the history section being about all forms of liberalism in the 19th century, not just PNL.Anonimu 13:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- 1989 was a Revolution, not a coup. Please stop profaning the memory of its hallowed dead. Yes, something like a coup took place alongside the Revolution. But you disgrace their memory by lowering those heroic days to mere "coup" level. Biruitorul 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's pretty clear from the video showing Ceausescu's last discourse that it was an organized event to take him down. Thus a coup.Anonimu 11:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Simple: a party can be founded and re-founded. The rest is your deduction. I simply do not understand what problem you see with the history section at the PNL site. Furthermore, if you want to talk about consistencies in policies, the pre-1938 PNL was: republican then monarchist; antisemitic then open to Jewish integration; protectionist then laissez-faire then protectionist then laissez-faire ; irredentist then anti-irredentist then "the builder" of Greater Romania; anti-Carlist then pro-Carlist then anti-Carlist. Not that assessments of ideology add anything to this debate. Are we done? Dahn 13:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- 1989 was a Revolution, not a coup. Please stop profaning the memory of its hallowed dead. Yes, something like a coup took place alongside the Revolution. But you disgrace their memory by lowering those heroic days to mere "coup" level. Biruitorul 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- So how could the same party be founded twice? You can't compare the de jure inexistence of the defunct PNL in the late 30s and early 40s with it's disestablishment in 1947. The team of the defunct PNL remained more or less the same until disestablishment in 1947 and the party keept the same royalist and nationalist position throughout its existence. The party with the same name founded in 1990 had no real connection with the team of the 40s, condemned the nationalist positions of the first post-coup governments, and (as opposed to the PNTCD) never expressed a monarchist stance. I checked the liberal international and the european liberal group. They don't mention any continuity. I checked the pnl site... no word about it, the history section being about all forms of liberalism in the 19th century, not just PNL.Anonimu 13:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps I rushed in: once we got rid of the "separate parties" linking, I fully agree with the two dates of foundation. I hope this clarifies it for everyone. Dahn 12:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
English refs
This is English-language wikipedia. Please improve the article verifiability by adding more English-language sources. `'Míkka 18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)