# New Deal: Another Name For Fascism



## PoliticalChic

From Wolfgang Schivelbusch, "Three New Deals,"  

1.	Scholars have discovered that totalitarian philosophies have a *social-egalitarian component *that adds to the mass popularity of such regimes. Thus, not only National Socialism, with its belief that its racial doctrine entailed the promise of equality for all members of the German people, or Volk, but if one can look beyond the repression and terror,  *the New Deal *can be seen as a series of economic misadventures achieved through the force of mass propaganda, and owing its success solely to Americas victory in WWII.

a.	In an insightful analysis, John A. Garraty compared Roosevelts New Deal with aspects of the Third Reich: a strong leader; an ideology stressing the nation, the people and the land; state control of economic and social affairs; and the quality and quantity of government propaganda. Garraty, The New Deal,  National Socialism, and the Great Depression, American Historical Review, vol. 78 (1973) p. 907ff.

b.	Garraty reminds that to compare is not the same as to equate. Yet, many still find Garratys analysis too hot to handle.

2.	*The defining historical moment *for the thinking of the 1930s was the Great Depression. Many intellectuals decided that there was no particular reason to prefer the political system most closely associated with capitalism, liberal democracy, as opposed to the* new systems that promised a brighter future.* It is false to believe that the enlightened even here in America, were not *predisposed toward Fascism, and National Socialism.* Many within the liberal camp were ready and willing to save the situation by jettisoning liberal ballast, and proposed imitating various Fascist models.

a.	The many forms of *neo-socialism moved right into fascism*. A case in point is Mussolini, once an ardent socialist, who created Fascism as a better form of socialism.

b.	In France,Marcel Deat envisioned a form of society neither socialist nor capitalist, with a strong centralized state that controlled capital without appropriating it. In England, John Middleton Murray foresaw a government of national security which achieves the goal of economic separation of property and control

c. The term liberal, as used here, refers to economic and political laissez-faire philosophy originating with Adam Smith and the free-trade of Manchester capitalism.

3.	Noting the areas of convergence among *the New Deal, Fascism and National Socialism, *all three were considered postliberal state-capitalist, or state-socialist systems more closely related to one another than to classic Anglo-French liberalism. *Hitler, Mussolini, and Roosevelt *were seen as examples of plebiscite-based leadership, autocrats who came to power by varying but legal means, with socially oriented policies of collective consolidation.

a.	Were it not for the revelations of WWII, many of the American Left today would still claim lineage with Fascists and National Socialists.

History, an important tool in understanding the present.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

FDR: American Fascist.  

And that's also why the New Deal turned a bad recession into an economy worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years


----------



## Toronado3800

Interesting all this switching of Hitler's place on the political spectrum.  I don't want him on my side either!  Think I'll claim he was Tea Party lol.

Take into account the feelings of the time.  With hindsight it is difficult to do.

Capitalism looked like a failing institution in post industrial revolution economies.  

America was out of western conquored lands for big government to give away to folks who wanted to escape the barrons.  (Pa Ingels, the Union Pafific, and the rest were used to HUGE government land hand outs in exchange for work).  

In other countries where the economy tanked there were real live revolutions. 

FDR brought us from the capitalist extreme, an America I do not think we woukd recognize or like today, back towards the middle.


----------



## editec

Clearly the relationship between the central government and the rest of society changed post the crash of 1929.

You can call it any word that flaots your boat.

You can call it SAVING CAPITALISM from itself" if you approve.

You can call it FASCISM if you hate it (or if you like it and also like facism)

But _whatever you call it_, it was what it was.

It really wasn't until WWII when the government started SERIOULY deficit spending (and did so in a highly organized way that _certainly resembles_ FASCISM) that the economy improved.

But the thing is, after the war, all those wage and price controls were lifted.

So the USA _war emergency powers_ facism was temporary.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toronado3800 said:


> Interesting all this switching of Hitler's place on the political spectrum.  I don't want him on my side either!  Think I'll claim he was Tea Party lol.
> 
> Take into account the feelings of the time.  With hindsight it is difficult to do.
> 
> Capitalism looked like a failing institution in post industrial revolution economies.
> 
> America was out of western conquored lands for big government to give away to folks who wanted to escape the barrons.  (Pa Ingels, the Union Pafific, and the rest were used to HUGE government land hand outs in exchange for work).
> 
> In other countries where the economy tanked there were real live revolutions.
> 
> FDR brought us from the capitalist extreme, an America I do not think we woukd recognize or like today, back towards the middle.



This is not hindsight, this is history.

Actually, and not only from the OP....but from a study of the history of the period, the three leaders were largely on the same page.

*All three agreed *on the collective vs. the individual, on 'equality,' on government contol of the economy, on side aspects such as eugenics.

For example:
Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of hisThe Case for Sterilization. (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization) German race science stood on American progressives shoulders.


And, you may be interested in the following:

	The  propaganda of the New Deal (malefactors of great wealth) to the contrary,* FDR simply endeavored to re-create the corporatism *of the last war. The New Dealers invited one industry after another to write the codes under which they would be regulated.  Even more aggressive, the National Recovery Administration *forced industries to fix prices and in other ways to collude with one another:* the NRA approved 557 basic and 189 supplementary codes, covering almost 95% of all industrial workers. Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism"

a.	The intention was for big business to get bigger, and the little guy to be squeezed out: for example, the owners of the big chain movie houses wrote the codes that almost ran the independents out of business (even though 13,571 of the 18,321 movie theatres were independently owned). This in the name of efficiency and progress.

b.	New Deal bureaucrats studied Mussolinis corporatism closely. From Fortune magazine: *The Corporate state is to Mussolini what the New Deal is to Roosevelt*.(July 1934)

The change that *you mistakenly see as recent,* occurred when the horrors of the Nazi and Fascist regimes were uncovered, and so new meme was that there was a left-right separation that you seem to accept.

In point of fact, an earlier Progressive, Woodrow Wilson, made *the United States into the first Fascist nation, well before Mussiolini and Hitler.*
During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.
a. Had the worlds first modern propaganda ministry
b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions. 
c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous poison into the  American bloodstream
d.	Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government
e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war
f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues 
g. Nearly a quarter million goons were given legal authority to beat and intimidate slackers and dissenters
h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9


----------



## PoliticalChic

editec said:


> Clearly the relationship between the central government and the rest of society changed post the crash of 1929.
> 
> You can call it any word that flaots your boat.
> 
> You can call it SAVING CAPITALISM from itself" if you approve.
> 
> You can call it FASCISM if you hate it (or if you like it and also like facism)
> 
> But _whatever you call it_, it was what it was.
> 
> It really wasn't until WWII when the government started SERIOULY deficit spending (and did so in a highly organized way that _certainly resembles_ FASCISM) that the economy improved.
> 
> But the thing is, after the war, all those wage and price controls were lifted.
> 
> So the USA _war emergency powers_ facism was temporary.



No, no, my friend, even as flaccid as your defense of the New Deal is, it is wrong, and incorrect. 

First, it was not designed for "SAVING CAPITALISM from itself..." but rather to change horses to mount a new economic and political philosophy, as is shown in the OP.

And, further, you are totally wrong in our claim "wasn't until WWII when the government started SERIOULY deficit spending (and did so in a highly organized way that _certainly resembles_ FASCISM)..."
Either you have forgotten to read the history of the period, or you are passing the blame from FDR to WWII.

Here, let me show you, from almost a decade prior to WWII:

1.	Assumng that your narrative is geared toward minimizing the relationship between Roosevelts New Deal, and that of Mussolini and of Hitlerand that only due to the exigencies of the Second World War did it become necessary for Roosevelt to assume extreme powers identified with those of the other two regimes, let's see:

2.	*In 1933*, Fascism was celebrating *its eleventh year in power, in Italy, *and the *election of the National Socialists in Germany *represented an unmitigated defeat for liberal democracy in Europes largest industrialized nation.

a.	At the beginning of *the same month, FDR was inaugurated *as President. And before *Congress went into recess it granted powers to Roosevelt unprecedented *in peacetime. From Congressional hearings, 1973: Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. Emergency Powers Statutes (Senate Report 93-549)

3.	The *National Socialists hailed these relief measures *in ways you will recognize: 

a.	May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (Peoples Observer): *Roosevelts Dictatorial *Recovery Measures.

b.	And on January 17, 1934, We, too, as *German National Socialists are looking toward America* and *Roosevelts adoption of National Socialist strains *of thought in his economic and social policies comparable to Hitlers own dictatorial Fuhrerprinzip.

c.	And *[Roosevelt], too demands that collective *good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in *his book Looking Forward could have been written by a National Socialist*.one can assume that he feels *considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.*

d.	The paper also refers to the fictional appearance of democracy.


I'm going to assume that you are going to reconsider both your claim that war created fascism in the New Deal, and that the fascist strains of the New Deal have ended.


----------



## Polk

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR: American Fascist.
> 
> And that's also why the New Deal turned a bad recession into an economy worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years



Yeah. Damn that FDR, with the falling unemployment and massive increases in output.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Polk said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR: American Fascist.
> 
> And that's also why the New Deal turned a bad recession into an economy worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Damn that FDR, with the falling unemployment and massive increases in output.
Click to expand...


The Dog and the Wolf
A gaunt Wolf was almost dead with hunger when he happened to meet a House-dog who was passing by. "Ah, Cousin," said the Dog. "I knew how it would be; your irregular life will soon be the ruin of you. Why do you not work steadily as I do, and get your food regularly given to you?" 
"I would have no objection," said the Wolf, "if I could only get a place."

"I will easily arrange that for you," said the Dog; "come with me to my master and you shall share my work."

So the Wolf and the Dog went towards the town together. On the way there the Wolf noticed that the hair on a certain part of the Dog's neck was very much worn away, so he asked him how that had come about.

"Oh, it is nothing," said the Dog. "That is only the place where the collar is put on at night to keep me chained up; it chafes a bit, but one soon gets used to it."

"Is that all?" said the Wolf. "Then good-bye to you, Master Dog."

Better starve free than be a fat slave.


So, that tie in your avi, ...does it hide the chain?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Toronado3800 said:


> Interesting all this switching of Hitler's place on the political spectrum.  I don't want him on my side either!  Think I'll claim he was Tea Party lol.
> 
> Take into account the feelings of the time.  With hindsight it is difficult to do.
> 
> Capitalism looked like a failing institution in post industrial revolution economies.
> 
> America was out of western conquored lands for big government to give away to folks who wanted to escape the barrons.  (Pa Ingels, the Union Pafific, and the rest were used to HUGE government land hand outs in exchange for work).
> 
> In other countries where the economy tanked there were real live revolutions.
> 
> FDR brought us from the capitalist extreme, an America I do not think we woukd recognize or like today, back towards the middle.



You know less than nothing.

Under Coolidge and Mellon Post WWI unemployment went from 12% to 4% in 18 months. By the time they were done leaving the economy alone you could not time an unemployed person in America,

And that's before electricity was used widely.

Hoover was impressed by Stalin and thought he could centrally plan the US economy (For example the reason mattresses come in only four sizes king, queen, full and twin was because Herbert Wonder Boy Hoover wanted it that way)  Hoover's central planning started, then FDR's Fascist, Progressive Totalitarian leanings took a bad recession and managed to dwarf the 7 Biblical Lean Years.

The US economy did not even start to become well again until Hitler invaded Poland


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Polk said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR: American Fascist.
> 
> And that's also why the New Deal turned a bad recession into an economy worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Damn that FDR, with the falling unemployment and massive increases in output.
Click to expand...


1933: 24.9, 1934: 21.7%, 1935: 20.1%, 1936: 16.9%, 1937: 14.3%, 1938: 19.0%, 1939: 17.2%, 1940 14.6%

Here's the data set.

You need to thank Hitler for invading Poland for pulling US out of the FDR Depression


----------



## Big Fitz

PoliticalChic said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting all this switching of Hitler's place on the political spectrum.  I don't want him on my side either!  Think I'll claim he was Tea Party lol.
> 
> Take into account the feelings of the time.  With hindsight it is difficult to do.
> 
> Capitalism looked like a failing institution in post industrial revolution economies.
> 
> America was out of western conquored lands for big government to give away to folks who wanted to escape the barrons.  (Pa Ingels, the Union Pafific, and the rest were used to HUGE government land hand outs in exchange for work).
> 
> In other countries where the economy tanked there were real live revolutions.
> 
> FDR brought us from the capitalist extreme, an America I do not think we woukd recognize or like today, back towards the middle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not hindsight, this is history.
> 
> Actually, and not only from the OP....but from a study of the history of the period, the three leaders were largely on the same page.
> 
> *All three agreed *on the collective vs. the individual, on 'equality,' on government contol of the economy, on side aspects such as eugenics.
> 
> For example:
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of hisThe Case for Sterilization. (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization) German race science stood on American progressives shoulders.
> 
> 
> And, you may be interested in the following:
> 
> The  propaganda of the New Deal (malefactors of great wealth) to the contrary,* FDR simply endeavored to re-create the corporatism *of the last war. The New Dealers invited one industry after another to write the codes under which they would be regulated.  Even more aggressive, the National Recovery Administration *forced industries to fix prices and in other ways to collude with one another:* the NRA approved 557 basic and 189 supplementary codes, covering almost 95% of all industrial workers. Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism"
> 
> a.	The intention was for big business to get bigger, and the little guy to be squeezed out: for example, the owners of the big chain movie houses wrote the codes that almost ran the independents out of business (even though 13,571 of the 18,321 movie theatres were independently owned). This in the name of efficiency and progress.
> 
> b.	New Deal bureaucrats studied Mussolinis corporatism closely. From Fortune magazine: *The Corporate state is to Mussolini what the New Deal is to Roosevelt*.(July 1934)
> 
> The change that *you mistakenly see as recent,* occurred when the horrors of the Nazi and Fascist regimes were uncovered, and so new meme was that there was a left-right separation that you seem to accept.
> 
> In point of fact, an earlier Progressive, Woodrow Wilson, made *the United States into the first Fascist nation, well before Mussiolini and Hitler.*
> During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.
> a. Had the worlds first modern propaganda ministry
> b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.
> c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous poison into the  American bloodstream
> d.	Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government
> e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war
> f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues
> g. Nearly a quarter million goons were given legal authority to beat and intimidate slackers and dissenters
> h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
> http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9
Click to expand...

No no, you have to realize this is codewords PC.

- History is past events I agree with and will accept as true.
- Hindsight is past events I don't want to agree with and will refute as false regardless of evidence.

See how easy it is?  Discount hindsight, but what you believe is history!  The past becomes much more rosy that way.

Of course those who do not want Hitler where he rightfully belongs on the 'authoritarian left' side of the coin must explain how he could possibly be on the 'authoritarian right' without stretching the definitions of the subject like so much taffy.


----------



## PoliticalChic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR: American Fascist.
> 
> And that's also why the New Deal turned a bad recession into an economy worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Damn that FDR, with the falling unemployment and massive increases in output.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1933: 24.9, 1934: 21.7%, 1935: 20.1%, 1936: 16.9%, 1937: 14.3%, 1938: 19.0%, 1939: 17.2%, 1940 14.6%
> 
> Here's the data set.
> 
> You need to thank Hitler for invading Poland for pulling US out of the FDR Depression
Click to expand...


Sadly, many of our colleagues continue to see the conflation of business and government, with the latter in the driver's seat, as the correct model to the exclusion of the free-market capitalist model.

My hope is that threads like this will explain the nexus of politics and business, and provide the proof that government plays an excessive role.

1.	English and French commentators routinely depicted Roosevelt as akin to Mussolini. A more specific reason why, in 1933,* the New Deal was often compared with Fascism was that with the help of a massive propaganda campaign, Italy had transitioned from a liberal free-market system to a state-run corporatist one. *And corporatism was considered by elitists and intellectuals as the perfect response to the collapse of the liberal free-market economy, as was the national self-sufficiency of the Stalinist Soviet Union. *The National Recovery Administration was comparable to Mussolinis corporatism *as both had state control without actual expropriation of private property.

a.	*Mussolini wrote a book review of Roosevelts Looking Forward, *in which he said [as] Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian people. Popolo dItalia, July 7, 1933.

b.	In 1934, *Mussolini wrote a review of New Frontiers, by FDRs Secy of Agriculture, later Vice-President, Henry Wallace:* Wallaces answer to what America wants is as follows: anything but a return tyo the free-market, i.e., anarchistic economy. Where is America headed? This book leaves no doubt that it is on the road to corporatism, the economic system of the current century. Marco Sedda, Il politico, vol. 64, p. 263.

2. 	*Robert Reich, proponent of the from of corporatism known as the Third Way movement, wrote The Next American Frontier, in 1983,* and championed, in exchange for restructuring assistance from the government, businesses would agree to maintain their old work forces intact. 

a.	*Workers would become de factor citizens of their companies, in a relationship similar to Krupps General Regulations. *The Krupps feared the Social Democrats and to keep them out of their facilities, they used repression and a compensation package that many German workers found quite acceptable. If you worked for Krupp, your children were born in a Krupp hospital, educated in a Krupp school, played on a Krupp playground, etc. You shopped in a Krupp store. It was cradle-to-grave security of sorts. Women advertising for husbands would specify employees of Krupp. Chapter Four: notes

b.	In an even more eerie *echo of Italian Fascist corporatist thought, corporations would replace geographic jurisdictions as conduits of government support for economic and human development. *Social services- health care, day care, education, and so forth- would all be provided by your employer. Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."
We can see the same in the crony capitalism of the Obama administration.

3.  The Big Ripoff, by Tim Carney: in a supposed free enterprise system, Congress obviates free enterprise by picking winners and loser. While promising to reform the healthcare system by reducing costs, this Congress subsidizes drug companies and forbids re-importation of prescription drugs. This is not capitalism.
Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money


----------



## Bfgrn

FDR saved capitalism.

Next...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Big Fitz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting all this switching of Hitler's place on the political spectrum.  I don't want him on my side either!  Think I'll claim he was Tea Party lol.
> 
> Take into account the feelings of the time.  With hindsight it is difficult to do.
> 
> Capitalism looked like a failing institution in post industrial revolution economies.
> 
> America was out of western conquored lands for big government to give away to folks who wanted to escape the barrons.  (Pa Ingels, the Union Pafific, and the rest were used to HUGE government land hand outs in exchange for work).
> 
> In other countries where the economy tanked there were real live revolutions.
> 
> FDR brought us from the capitalist extreme, an America I do not think we woukd recognize or like today, back towards the middle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not hindsight, this is history.
> 
> Actually, and not only from the OP....but from a study of the history of the period, the three leaders were largely on the same page.
> 
> *All three agreed *on the collective vs. the individual, on 'equality,' on government contol of the economy, on side aspects such as eugenics.
> 
> For example:
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of hisThe Case for Sterilization. (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization) German race science stood on American progressives shoulders.
> 
> 
> And, you may be interested in the following:
> 
> The  propaganda of the New Deal (malefactors of great wealth) to the contrary,* FDR simply endeavored to re-create the corporatism *of the last war. The New Dealers invited one industry after another to write the codes under which they would be regulated.  Even more aggressive, the National Recovery Administration *forced industries to fix prices and in other ways to collude with one another:* the NRA approved 557 basic and 189 supplementary codes, covering almost 95% of all industrial workers. Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism"
> 
> a.	The intention was for big business to get bigger, and the little guy to be squeezed out: for example, the owners of the big chain movie houses wrote the codes that almost ran the independents out of business (even though 13,571 of the 18,321 movie theatres were independently owned). This in the name of efficiency and progress.
> 
> b.	New Deal bureaucrats studied Mussolinis corporatism closely. From Fortune magazine: *The Corporate state is to Mussolini what the New Deal is to Roosevelt*.(July 1934)
> 
> The change that *you mistakenly see as recent,* occurred when the horrors of the Nazi and Fascist regimes were uncovered, and so new meme was that there was a left-right separation that you seem to accept.
> 
> In point of fact, an earlier Progressive, Woodrow Wilson, made *the United States into the first Fascist nation, well before Mussiolini and Hitler.*
> During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.
> a. Had the worlds first modern propaganda ministry
> b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.
> c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous poison into the  American bloodstream
> d.	Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government
> e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war
> f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues
> g. Nearly a quarter million goons were given legal authority to beat and intimidate slackers and dissenters
> h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
> http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No no, you have to realize this is codewords PC.
> 
> - History is past events I agree with and will accept as true.
> - Hindsight is past events I don't want to agree with and will refute as false regardless of evidence.
> 
> See how easy it is?  Discount hindsight, but what you believe is history!  The past becomes much more rosy that way.
> 
> Of course those who do not want Hitler where he rightfully belongs on the 'authoritarian left' side of the coin must explain how he could possibly be on the 'authoritarian right' without stretching the definitions of the subject like so much taffy.
Click to expand...


Sadly, you are correct...I think they call it 'feel-good history.'

Accecpt only what agrees with you!


----------



## Big Fitz

Bfgrn said:


> FDR saved capitalism.
> 
> Next...


Only tardtard would make this connection.  How state property saved private property.  Yet some more "Slavery is Freedom" 'wisdumb' of the left.

Film at 11.


----------



## editec

PoliticalChic said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the relationship between the central government and the rest of society changed post the crash of 1929.
> 
> You can call it any word that flaots your boat.
> 
> You can call it SAVING CAPITALISM from itself" if you approve.
> 
> You can call it FASCISM if you hate it (or if you like it and also like facism)
> 
> But _whatever you call it_, it was what it was.
> 
> It really wasn't until WWII when the government started SERIOULY deficit spending (and did so in a highly organized way that _certainly resembles_ FASCISM) that the economy improved.
> 
> But the thing is, after the war, all those wage and price controls were lifted.
> 
> So the USA _war emergency powers_ facism was temporary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no, my friend, even as flaccid as your defense of the New Deal is, it is wrong, and incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think it was a defence of it flaccid or otherwise?
> 
> Clearly your presupposition about my motives are misleading you about who and what I really am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, it was not designed for "SAVING CAPITALISM from itself..." but rather to change horses to mount a new economic and political philosophy, as is shown in the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave my readers a variety of POVs used to describe the New Deal.  Those were not my words, they are the words of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, further, you are totally wrong in our claim "wasn't until WWII when the government started SERIOULY deficit spending (and did so in a highly organized way that _certainly resembles_ FASCISM)..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well on this point you're just totally misinformed.
> 
> Deficiet spending on the grand scale it took to radically cange our economy really didn't kick in until WWII.
> 
> In the New Deal years  deficiet spending was about 4 billion a year
> 
> In the years 1941-45 it hovered in the neighborhood of 60 Billion.
> 
> you can go here Government Spending Chart in United States 1930-1950 - Federal State Local
> 
> And check that for yourself if you doubt my scholarship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either you have forgotten to read the history of the period, or you are passing the blame from FDR to WWII.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  I'm not "passing the blame" I'm merely noting the facts.
> 
> 
> You'll excuse me if you don't respond to the rest of your post but it seems to have been written based on some false assumption about the point of my post.
> 
> I was merely pointing out that the NEW DEAL wasn't an especially strong Keynsian response to the economy.
> 
> And also, I pointed out that when the government DID start spending money it did not have, *it increased the national budgetary deficiet by a factor of 15 TIMES the previous year's spending.*
> 
> My advice to you is to stop trying to teacher you grandfather how to suck eggs.
> 
> And stop imagining that you can read my mind and ascribing motives to my posts that clearly are NOT there.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


----------



## Polk

CrusaderFrank said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR: American Fascist.
> 
> And that's also why the New Deal turned a bad recession into an economy worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Damn that FDR, with the falling unemployment and massive increases in output.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1933: 24.9, 1934: 21.7%, 1935: 20.1%, 1936: 16.9%, 1937: 14.3%, 1938: 19.0%, 1939: 17.2%, 1940 14.6%
> 
> Here's the data set.
> 
> You need to thank Hitler for invading Poland for pulling US out of the FDR Depression
Click to expand...


I'd say the fall from 24.9% to 14.3% was pretty significant. The reason unemployment ticks back up in 1938-1939 is that he paid too much attention to the conservatives of his day and cut spending.


----------



## Polk

Big Fitz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR saved capitalism.
> 
> Next...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only tardtard would make this connection.  How state property saved private property.  Yet some more "Slavery is Freedom" 'wisdumb' of the left.
> 
> Film at 11.
Click to expand...


Are you really naive enough to believe that people would have put up with the existing state of affairs forever?


----------



## editec

Ironically, it was the COMMUNISTS who were pissed at FDR and complained that he was "SAVING CAPITALISM"

Meanwhile, the radical right of the day was pissed at FDR and called the NEW DEALER *a  communist?*

The right wing BANKSTER CLASS even when so far as to call him "A TRAITOR TO _HIS CLASS." (how that for honesty on their part?...they KNEW that classism was alive and well in this nation)_

Meanwhile, the vast majority of saner Amercans just thanked him for trying to mitigate the worst effects of the worst economic disater this nation had EVER faced. (that's why he kept getting elected time after time, ya know?)

But his efforts to rejuvinate our eonomy didn't really work until when?

*1941 when the government really started spending money it did not have to fight the Axis powers.*


----------



## Bfgrn

Big Fitz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR saved capitalism.
> 
> Next...
> 
> 
> 
> Only tardtard would make this connection.  How state property saved private property.  Yet some more "Slavery is Freedom" 'wisdumb' of the left.
> 
> Film at 11.
Click to expand...


Only a retard would try to label FDR a fascist. Especially when there is evidence America's wealthiest industrialists and bankers plotted to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and replace it with a fascist dictatorship. 

Roosevelt did save capitalism from it's radical and extreme right wing form...fascism. 

Maybe a better way of stating it is FDR saved America from fascism. Because there were fascists in the Republican ranks and the biggest backers of Hitler in America were industrialists and bankers. 

But the word 'save' must be understood in proper context...100% of nothing is still NOTHING.

A wealthy man in a fine suit and top hat fell into deep water. He didn't know how to swim and was on the verge of drowning. Hearing his cries, another man dived into the water and saved him as his top hat floated away. The man who had almost drowned regained his breath and, for a moment, seemed grateful. Three years later, though, he returned and denounced his rescuer for not saving his hat, too.

That story is one that Franklin D. Roosevelt is said to have told describing what he had done for big- business men in 1933 when, in the words of Raymond Moley, a member of Roosevelt's New Deal brain trust, "capitalism was saved in eight days."


----------



## rdean

And I thought this was going to be about anti civil-rights policies and turning over the country to corporations.  Besides calling it Republican policies, what are the other names you could call it?


----------



## Polk

editec said:


> Ironically, it was the COMMUNISTS who were pissed at FDR and complained that he was "SAVING CAPITALISM"
> 
> Meanwhile, the radical right of the day was pissed at FDR and called the NEW DEALER *a  communist?*
> 
> The right wing BANKSTER CLASS even when so far as to call him "A TRAITOR TO _HIS CLASS." (how that for honesty on their part?...they KNEW that classism was alive and well in this nation)_
> 
> Meanwhile, the vast majority of saner Amercans just thanked him for trying to mitigate the worst effects of the worst economic disater this nation had EVER faced. (that's why he kept getting elected time after time, ya know?)
> 
> But his efforts to rejuvinate our eonomy didn't really work until when?
> 
> *1941 when the government really started spending money it did not have to fight the Axis powers.*



You really hit on it there at the end. They claim it was the Second World War that ended the Depression. Fair enough, but what was the mechanism by which it happened? A massive increase in government spending.


----------



## Polk

rdean said:


> And I thought this was going to be about anti civil-rights policies and turning over the country to corporations.  Besides calling it Republican policies, what are the other names you could call it?



Unless workers can be chained to their machines, is anyone truly free?


----------



## Big Fitz

Polk said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR saved capitalism.
> 
> Next...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only tardtard would make this connection.  How state property saved private property.  Yet some more "Slavery is Freedom" 'wisdumb' of the left.
> 
> Film at 11.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really naive enough to believe that people would have put up with the existing state of affairs forever?
Click to expand...

Which state of affairs are you referring to.  I'm sorry, my psychic powers are in the shop and I can't read advanced pronoun usage without context.

You know, that thing which you do about that over there?  You know... that guy... has a nose... wears a shirt.


----------



## Big Fitz

Bfgrn said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR saved capitalism.
> 
> Next...
> 
> 
> 
> Only tardtard would make this connection.  How state property saved private property.  Yet some more "Slavery is Freedom" 'wisdumb' of the left.
> 
> Film at 11.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a retard would try to label FDR a fascist. Especially when there is evidence America's wealthiest industrialists and bankers plotted to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and replace it with a fascist dictatorship.
> 
> Roosevelt did save capitalism from it's radical and extreme right wing form...fascism.
> 
> Maybe a better way of stating it is FDR saved America from fascism. Because there were fascists in the Republican ranks and the biggest backers of Hitler in America were industrialists and bankers.
> 
> But the word 'save' must be understood in proper context...100% of nothing is still NOTHING.
> 
> A wealthy man in a fine suit and top hat fell into deep water. He didn't know how to swim and was on the verge of drowning. Hearing his cries, another man dived into the water and saved him as his top hat floated away. The man who had almost drowned regained his breath and, for a moment, seemed grateful. Three years later, though, he returned and denounced his rescuer for not saving his hat, too.
> 
> That story is one that Franklin D. Roosevelt is said to have told describing what he had done for big- business men in 1933 when, in the words of Raymond Moley, a member of Roosevelt's New Deal brain trust, "capitalism was saved in eight days."
Click to expand...

...Pipes up our resident expert on being retarded.

Please explain to me the functional difference between the two political stances:

1. The state takes ownership of your business, and tells you what to do.
2. The state lets you keep your business as LONG as you do what they tell you.

What is the functional difference between the two, save option 2 having less paperwork and government bureaucracy.

Now, compare that to the position of the Conservative (classical liberal), which is 'right wing'.  How can either of these positions be right wing since the very nature of Conservatism is the rejection of government control of industry?


----------



## Polk

Big Fitz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only tardtard would make this connection.  How state property saved private property.  Yet some more "Slavery is Freedom" 'wisdumb' of the left.
> 
> Film at 11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really naive enough to believe that people would have put up with the existing state of affairs forever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which state of affairs are you referring to.  I'm sorry, my psychic powers are in the shop and I can't read advanced pronoun usage without context.
> 
> You know, that thing which you do about that over there?  You know... that guy... has a nose... wears a shirt.
Click to expand...


25% unemployment and a massive decline in output.

P.S.: The context is provided by the discussion. Please keep up.


----------



## Polk

Big Fitz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only tardtard would make this connection.  How state property saved private property.  Yet some more "Slavery is Freedom" 'wisdumb' of the left.
> 
> Film at 11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a retard would try to label FDR a fascist. Especially when there is evidence America's wealthiest industrialists and bankers plotted to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and replace it with a fascist dictatorship.
> 
> Roosevelt did save capitalism from it's radical and extreme right wing form...fascism.
> 
> Maybe a better way of stating it is FDR saved America from fascism. Because there were fascists in the Republican ranks and the biggest backers of Hitler in America were industrialists and bankers.
> 
> But the word 'save' must be understood in proper context...100% of nothing is still NOTHING.
> 
> A wealthy man in a fine suit and top hat fell into deep water. He didn't know how to swim and was on the verge of drowning. Hearing his cries, another man dived into the water and saved him as his top hat floated away. The man who had almost drowned regained his breath and, for a moment, seemed grateful. Three years later, though, he returned and denounced his rescuer for not saving his hat, too.
> 
> That story is one that Franklin D. Roosevelt is said to have told describing what he had done for big- business men in 1933 when, in the words of Raymond Moley, a member of Roosevelt's New Deal brain trust, "capitalism was saved in eight days."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...Pipes up our resident expert on being retarded.
> 
> Please explain to me the functional difference between the two political stances:
> 
> 1. The state takes ownership of your business, and tells you what to do.
> 2. The state lets you keep your business as LONG as you do what they tell you.
> 
> What is the functional difference between the two, save option 2 having less paperwork and government bureaucracy.
> 
> Now, compare that to the position of the Conservative (classical liberal), which is 'right wing'.  How can either of these positions be right wing since the very nature of Conservatism is the rejection of government control of industry?
Click to expand...


There's actually a rather significant difference between the two. For starters, the returns on production go to the state in the first case, while the returns still go to the business owners in the second. If you think that difference isn't significant, why did the Bolsheviks not have the support of the business community, while they were overwhelming in support of the Nazis?


----------



## Bfgrn

Big Fitz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only tardtard would make this connection.  How state property saved private property.  Yet some more "Slavery is Freedom" 'wisdumb' of the left.
> 
> Film at 11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a retard would try to label FDR a fascist. Especially when there is evidence America's wealthiest industrialists and bankers plotted to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and replace it with a fascist dictatorship.
> 
> Roosevelt did save capitalism from it's radical and extreme right wing form...fascism.
> 
> Maybe a better way of stating it is FDR saved America from fascism. Because there were fascists in the Republican ranks and the biggest backers of Hitler in America were industrialists and bankers.
> 
> But the word 'save' must be understood in proper context...100% of nothing is still NOTHING.
> 
> A wealthy man in a fine suit and top hat fell into deep water. He didn't know how to swim and was on the verge of drowning. Hearing his cries, another man dived into the water and saved him as his top hat floated away. The man who had almost drowned regained his breath and, for a moment, seemed grateful. Three years later, though, he returned and denounced his rescuer for not saving his hat, too.
> 
> That story is one that Franklin D. Roosevelt is said to have told describing what he had done for big- business men in 1933 when, in the words of Raymond Moley, a member of Roosevelt's New Deal brain trust, "capitalism was saved in eight days."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...Pipes up our resident expert on being retarded.
> 
> Please explain to me the functional difference between the two political stances:
> 
> 1. The state takes ownership of your business, and tells you what to do.
> 2. The state lets you keep your business as LONG as you do what they tell you.
> 
> What is the functional difference between the two, save option 2 having less paperwork and government bureaucracy.
> 
> Now, compare that to the position of the Conservative (classical liberal), which is 'right wing'.  How can either of these positions be right wing since the very nature of Conservatism is the rejection of government control of industry?
Click to expand...




What would you call the political stance that corporations should run our government? That is NOT classic liberalism, it is today's conservatism.

Is that what our founding fathers believed? OR, did they heavily regulate corporations, require corporations to serve the public good, hold owners and stockholders personally liable for any harm caused, prevent corporations from making any political or charitable contributions to influence law-making, and not allow corporations to own stock in other corporations or own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose?  

A quiz for our resident obtuse:

What was the entity, vehicle or instrument our founding fathers created to run our nation? Was it a corporation? Was it a private entity?

We tried 'rejection of government control of industry' from the end of the Civil War into the early 1900's...do you know what that era was called?

Did you ever take a course in civics?


----------



## rdean

Polk said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a retard would try to label FDR a fascist. Especially when there is evidence America's wealthiest industrialists and bankers plotted to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and replace it with a fascist dictatorship.
> 
> Roosevelt did save capitalism from it's radical and extreme right wing form...fascism.
> 
> Maybe a better way of stating it is FDR saved America from fascism. Because there were fascists in the Republican ranks and the biggest backers of Hitler in America were industrialists and bankers.
> 
> But the word 'save' must be understood in proper context...100% of nothing is still NOTHING.
> 
> A wealthy man in a fine suit and top hat fell into deep water. He didn't know how to swim and was on the verge of drowning. Hearing his cries, another man dived into the water and saved him as his top hat floated away. The man who had almost drowned regained his breath and, for a moment, seemed grateful. Three years later, though, he returned and denounced his rescuer for not saving his hat, too.
> 
> That story is one that Franklin D. Roosevelt is said to have told describing what he had done for big- business men in 1933 when, in the words of Raymond Moley, a member of Roosevelt's New Deal brain trust, "capitalism was saved in eight days."
> 
> 
> 
> ...Pipes up our resident expert on being retarded.
> 
> Please explain to me the functional difference between the two political stances:
> 
> 1. The state takes ownership of your business, and tells you what to do.
> 2. The state lets you keep your business as LONG as you do what they tell you.
> 
> What is the functional difference between the two, save option 2 having less paperwork and government bureaucracy.
> 
> Now, compare that to the position of the Conservative (classical liberal), which is 'right wing'.  How can either of these positions be right wing since the very nature of Conservatism is the *rejection of government control of industry*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's actually a rather significant difference between the two. For starters, the returns on production go to the state in the first case, while the returns still go to the business owners in the second. If you think that difference isn't significant, why did the Bolsheviks not have the support of the business community, while they were overwhelming in support of the Nazis?
Click to expand...


Today's conservatives want "industry" to BE the government.  They want to turn over control of the country to corporations. Why they think organizations with a profit motive would be better then what we have now is beyond me.


----------



## Big Fitz

Bfgrn said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a retard would try to label FDR a fascist. Especially when there is evidence America's wealthiest industrialists and bankers plotted to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and replace it with a fascist dictatorship.
> 
> Roosevelt did save capitalism from it's radical and extreme right wing form...fascism.
> 
> Maybe a better way of stating it is FDR saved America from fascism. Because there were fascists in the Republican ranks and the biggest backers of Hitler in America were industrialists and bankers.
> 
> But the word 'save' must be understood in proper context...100% of nothing is still NOTHING.
> 
> A wealthy man in a fine suit and top hat fell into deep water. He didn't know how to swim and was on the verge of drowning. Hearing his cries, another man dived into the water and saved him as his top hat floated away. The man who had almost drowned regained his breath and, for a moment, seemed grateful. Three years later, though, he returned and denounced his rescuer for not saving his hat, too.
> 
> That story is one that Franklin D. Roosevelt is said to have told describing what he had done for big- business men in 1933 when, in the words of Raymond Moley, a member of Roosevelt's New Deal brain trust, "capitalism was saved in eight days."
> 
> 
> 
> ...Pipes up our resident expert on being retarded.
> 
> Please explain to me the functional difference between the two political stances:
> 
> 1. The state takes ownership of your business, and tells you what to do.
> 2. The state lets you keep your business as LONG as you do what they tell you.
> 
> What is the functional difference between the two, save option 2 having less paperwork and government bureaucracy.
> 
> Now, compare that to the position of the Conservative (classical liberal), which is 'right wing'.  How can either of these positions be right wing since the very nature of Conservatism is the rejection of government control of industry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would you call the political stance that corporations should run our government? That is NOT classic liberalism, it is today's conservatism.
> 
> Is that what our founding fathers believed? OR, did they heavily regulate corporations, require corporations to serve the public good, hold owners and stockholders personally liable for any harm caused, prevent corporations from making any political or charitable contributions to influence law-making, and not allow corporations to own stock in other corporations or own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose?
> 
> A quiz for our resident obtuse:
> 
> What was the entity, vehicle or instrument our founding fathers created to run our nation? Was it a corporation? Was it a private entity?
> 
> We tried 'rejection of government control of industry' from the end of the Civil War into the early 1900's...do you know what that era was called?
> 
> Did you ever take a course in civics?
Click to expand...

Obviously I got more from my civics studies than you did.

Lassaiez faire capitalism is not a governmental system, but economic.  It is an extra-governmental concept, and not integral to our form of government.  How we select candidates on the other hand seems to be the source of your problem.  The fact that government does not prosecute those corrupting it

The founding fathers did not give us a collectivist system of government ownership.  They protected our individual rights from the power of the mob as well as provide the confines of which majority rule must operate.  They created a system of checks and balances to make sure power did not build up too much in any one area.  You are talking about an imbalance that must be corrected in governance, but are going at it the wrong way.  quelle suprise!

Unfortunately, you do not seem able to separate the concepts of industry from government, I don't think I'm capable of explaining such foreign concepts to you.  The depth of your envy and hate towards capitalism and individualism is too great.


----------



## Big Fitz

rdean said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Pipes up our resident expert on being retarded.
> 
> Please explain to me the functional difference between the two political stances:
> 
> 1. The state takes ownership of your business, and tells you what to do.
> 2. The state lets you keep your business as LONG as you do what they tell you.
> 
> What is the functional difference between the two, save option 2 having less paperwork and government bureaucracy.
> 
> Now, compare that to the position of the Conservative (classical liberal), which is 'right wing'.  How can either of these positions be right wing since the very nature of Conservatism is the *rejection of government control of industry*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's actually a rather significant difference between the two. For starters, the returns on production go to the state in the first case, while the returns still go to the business owners in the second. If you think that difference isn't significant, why did the Bolsheviks not have the support of the business community, while they were overwhelming in support of the Nazis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today's conservatives want "industry" to BE the government.  They want to turn over control of the country to corporations. Why they think organizations with a profit motive would be better then what we have now is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Show where I've stated such, since you are implying I said it.

Why does a profit motive make someone more efficient and effective?  Simple.  No one will buy or support a defective or insufficient or poorly functioning device.  They will always find the functional alternative.  Same goes for government.  It's why the Soviet Union and all the communist eastern bloc governments fell.  There were many better options out there.

Of course, no system is perfect, but there are many better than communism and it's collectivist ilk.


----------



## Big Fitz

Polk said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a retard would try to label FDR a fascist. Especially when there is evidence America's wealthiest industrialists and bankers plotted to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and replace it with a fascist dictatorship.
> 
> Roosevelt did save capitalism from it's radical and extreme right wing form...fascism.
> 
> Maybe a better way of stating it is FDR saved America from fascism. Because there were fascists in the Republican ranks and the biggest backers of Hitler in America were industrialists and bankers.
> 
> But the word 'save' must be understood in proper context...100% of nothing is still NOTHING.
> 
> A wealthy man in a fine suit and top hat fell into deep water. He didn't know how to swim and was on the verge of drowning. Hearing his cries, another man dived into the water and saved him as his top hat floated away. The man who had almost drowned regained his breath and, for a moment, seemed grateful. Three years later, though, he returned and denounced his rescuer for not saving his hat, too.
> 
> That story is one that Franklin D. Roosevelt is said to have told describing what he had done for big- business men in 1933 when, in the words of Raymond Moley, a member of Roosevelt's New Deal brain trust, "capitalism was saved in eight days."
> 
> 
> 
> ...Pipes up our resident expert on being retarded.
> 
> Please explain to me the functional difference between the two political stances:
> 
> 1. The state takes ownership of your business, and tells you what to do.
> 2. The state lets you keep your business as LONG as you do what they tell you.
> 
> What is the functional difference between the two, save option 2 having less paperwork and government bureaucracy.
> 
> Now, compare that to the position of the Conservative (classical liberal), which is 'right wing'.  How can either of these positions be right wing since the very nature of Conservatism is the rejection of government control of industry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's actually a rather significant difference between the two. For starters, the returns on production go to the state in the first case, while the returns still go to the business owners in the second. If you think that difference isn't significant, why did the Bolsheviks not have the support of the business community, while they were overwhelming in support of the Nazis?
Click to expand...


I'd call it stupidity.  They hoped they'd be getting richer by cooperating with the fascists.  There is hope they will survive if they just go along.  Communists made it clear that the capitalists would be removed and probably executed regardless of cooperation.  I think that makes it damn clear why capitalists will tolerate fascism a little better: a slim chance of survival and potential for huge corrupt profits (if they're corrupt too).  

In communist nations, the bureaucrats who replace the former capitalist owners grow very fat and profit personally off of their corruption inherent to the function of their collectivist government.  Under fascism, they  don't replace the owners with bureaucrats out of hand, they wait for them to fail to obey to replace them.  Otherwise, there's no need, and the owners get just as fat off of government corruption as long as they do what they're told and don't rock the boat.

As Al Capone said, you can get further with a kind word and a gun, than you can with just a kind word.

Let's all welcome the new boss... same as the old boss.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Polk said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Damn that FDR, with the falling unemployment and massive increases in output.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1933: 24.9, 1934: 21.7%, 1935: 20.1%, 1936: 16.9%, 1937: 14.3%, 1938: 19.0%, 1939: 17.2%, 1940 14.6%
> 
> Here's the data set.
> 
> You need to thank Hitler for invading Poland for pulling US out of the FDR Depression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say the fall from 24.9% to 14.3% was pretty significant. The reason unemployment ticks back up in 1938-1939 is that he paid too much attention to the conservatives of his day and cut spending.
Click to expand...


Seriously?

You think 15% unemployment after 7 full years is a job well done?

As usual your facts are all fucked up, in 1920-21 Conservative crushed unemployed in 18 months dropping it from 12% to 4%, if FDR was great for 15% unemployment after 7 years Conservatives are Gods.


----------



## Big Fitz

CrusaderFrank said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1933: 24.9, 1934: 21.7%, 1935: 20.1%, 1936: 16.9%, 1937: 14.3%, 1938: 19.0%, 1939: 17.2%, 1940 14.6%
> 
> Here's the data set.
> 
> You need to thank Hitler for invading Poland for pulling US out of the FDR Depression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say the fall from 24.9% to 14.3% was pretty significant. The reason unemployment ticks back up in 1938-1939 is that he paid too much attention to the conservatives of his day and cut spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> You think 15% unemployment after 7 full years is a job well done?
> 
> As usual you facts are all fucked up, in 1920-21 Conservative crushed unemployed in 18 months dropping it from 12% to 4%, if FDR was great for 15% unemployment after 7 years Conservatives are Gods.
Click to expand...

I prefer the Harding/Coolidge approach.

Depression of 1920


----------



## Bfgrn

Big Fitz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Pipes up our resident expert on being retarded.
> 
> Please explain to me the functional difference between the two political stances:
> 
> 1. The state takes ownership of your business, and tells you what to do.
> 2. The state lets you keep your business as LONG as you do what they tell you.
> 
> What is the functional difference between the two, save option 2 having less paperwork and government bureaucracy.
> 
> Now, compare that to the position of the Conservative (classical liberal), which is 'right wing'.  How can either of these positions be right wing since the very nature of Conservatism is the rejection of government control of industry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would you call the political stance that corporations should run our government? That is NOT classic liberalism, it is today's conservatism.
> 
> Is that what our founding fathers believed? OR, did they heavily regulate corporations, require corporations to serve the public good, hold owners and stockholders personally liable for any harm caused, prevent corporations from making any political or charitable contributions to influence law-making, and not allow corporations to own stock in other corporations or own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose?
> 
> A quiz for our resident obtuse:
> 
> What was the entity, vehicle or instrument our founding fathers created to run our nation? Was it a corporation? Was it a private entity?
> 
> We tried 'rejection of government control of industry' from the end of the Civil War into the early 1900's...do you know what that era was called?
> 
> Did you ever take a course in civics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously I got more from my civics studies than you did.
> 
> Lassaiez faire capitalism is not a governmental system, but economic.  It is an extra-governmental concept, and not integral to our form of government.  How we select candidates on the other hand seems to be the source of your problem.  The fact that government does not prosecute those corrupting it
> 
> The founding fathers did not give us a collectivist system of government ownership.  They protected our individual rights from the power of the mob as well as provide the confines of which majority rule must operate.  They created a system of checks and balances to make sure power did not build up too much in any one area.  You are talking about an imbalance that must be corrected in governance, but are going at it the wrong way.  quelle suprise!
> 
> Unfortunately, you do not seem able to separate the concepts of industry from government, I don't think I'm capable of explaining such foreign concepts to you.  The depth of your envy and hate towards capitalism and individualism is too great.
Click to expand...


The 'imbalance that must be corrected in governance' was done...It was called The New Deal. And Republicans and conservatives have been trying to systematically dismantle it for 70 years. The New Deal 'created a system of checks and balances to make sure power did not build up too much in any one area'...


----------



## Truthmatters

editec said:


> Clearly the relationship between the central government and the rest of society changed post the crash of 1929.
> 
> You can call it any word that flaots your boat.
> 
> You can call it SAVING CAPITALISM from itself" if you approve.
> 
> You can call it FASCISM if you hate it (or if you like it and also like facism)
> 
> But _whatever you call it_, it was what it was.
> 
> It really wasn't until WWII when the government started SERIOULY deficit spending (and did so in a highly organized way that _certainly resembles_ FASCISM) that the economy improved.
> 
> But the thing is, after the war, all those wage and price controls were lifted.
> 
> So the USA _war emergency powers_ facism was temporary.



File:GDP depression.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if you check this chart you will see the recovery WAS underway during FDRs first years.

In 1937 the republicans cried out for the efforts to be trimmed back to balence the budget,
FDR compromised with the republicans and they truimmed back the recovery effort and the recession of  1938 started.

He reupped the recovery and then things got better, then we entered WWII and the rest is history.

That is the reason the people of this country ( you know the ones who lived through it and won WWII for us)  LOVED FDR.

They lived the history and whern these people Trash FDR they Trash this generation of Americans who supported him.


----------



## Big Fitz

> The 'imbalance that must be corrected in governance' was done...It was  called The New Deal.



Ahhh yes.  To save the constitution, we must violate it!

Bullshit.  It caused power to flow into government hands from the private sector by violating the tax code, Interstate Commerce Clause and stripped bare states rights and individual rights all the more.


----------



## Bfgrn

Big Fitz said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say the fall from 24.9% to 14.3% was pretty significant. The reason unemployment ticks back up in 1938-1939 is that he paid too much attention to the conservatives of his day and cut spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> You think 15% unemployment after 7 full years is a job well done?
> 
> As usual you facts are all fucked up, in 1920-21 Conservative crushed unemployed in 18 months dropping it from 12% to 4%, if FDR was great for 15% unemployment after 7 years Conservatives are Gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer the Harding/Coolidge approach.
> 
> Depression of 1920
Click to expand...


Hey Big Fizzzzzzzzzzzz...if you cut your knee as a kid and mommy took you to the doctor and he stitched you up, would you go back to be stitched up if you had cancer?

Why is it you right wing ideologues believe every cause requires the same solution? Do you EVER look at cause before you blurt out your dogma?

Was the 1929 market crash caused by a transition from a wartime economy to a peaceful economy?


The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie  deliberate, contrived and dishonest  but the myth  persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## Bfgrn

Big Fitz said:


> The 'imbalance that must be corrected in governance' was done...It was  called The New Deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh yes.  To save the constitution, we must violate it!
> 
> Bullshit.  It caused power to flow into government hands from the private sector by violating the tax code, Interstate Commerce Clause and stripped bare states rights and individual rights all the more.
Click to expand...


And the balance the New Deal through the Great Society created was marked by an era of corporate wealth and boom, American innovation and dominance in technology, the mass building of infrastructure, the growth of a burgeoning middle class, the vast expansion of individual rights and men on the moon.

The conservative era that followed has built.............................................................


----------



## Big Fitz

Bfgrn said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 'imbalance that must be corrected in governance' was done...It was  called The New Deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh yes.  To save the constitution, we must violate it!
> 
> Bullshit.  It caused power to flow into government hands from the private sector by violating the tax code, Interstate Commerce Clause and stripped bare states rights and individual rights all the more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the balance the New Deal through the Great Society created was marked by an era of corporate wealth and boom, American innovation and dominance in technology, the mass building of infrastructure, the growth of a burgeoning middle class, the vast expansion of individual rights and men on the moon.
> 
> The conservative era that followed has built.............................................................
Click to expand...

Nooo.. the fact that our main industrial competitors were bombed into the stone age had NOTHING to do with it.    It was alllll social spending and government waste.

Nor did the hundreds of millions of dollars in repaid war bonds making their way into private individual hands allowing for large amounts of disposable income that never had before existed for the middle class.

Nor the new application of technologies garnered from wartime scientific investment, both private and public causing the creating of new industries and products to become economically viable for the masses to buy.

Nope.  It was all socialist spending of the government violating the constitution to buy voting blocs and create identity politics to support corrupt politicians enriching themselves off the largess of taxpayer monies they had no right to in the first place doing things they had no enumerated power to do.

Imbecile.


----------



## Truthmatters

Timeline of the Great Depression


take a look at the real history and the real numbers.

There is a reason the right waited until all these years later to try and rewrite this history.

The numbers are obvious and they hope people dont bring them back up.


When a partys ideas are so failed they hope you forget history it means they are dead wrong.


----------



## Bfgrn

Big Fitz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh yes.  To save the constitution, we must violate it!
> 
> Bullshit.  It caused power to flow into government hands from the private sector by violating the tax code, Interstate Commerce Clause and stripped bare states rights and individual rights all the more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the balance the New Deal through the Great Society created was marked by an era of corporate wealth and boom, American innovation and dominance in technology, the mass building of infrastructure, the growth of a burgeoning middle class, the vast expansion of individual rights and men on the moon.
> 
> The conservative era that followed has built.............................................................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nooo.. the fact that our main industrial competitors were bombed into the stone age had NOTHING to do with it.    It was alllll social spending and government waste.
> 
> Nor did the hundreds of millions of dollars in repaid war bonds making their way into private individual hands allowing for large amounts of disposable income that never had before existed for the middle class.
> 
> Nor the new application of technologies garnered from wartime scientific investment, both private and public causing the creating of new industries and products to become economically viable for the masses to buy.
> 
> Nope.  It was all socialist spending of the government violating the constitution to buy voting blocs and create identity politics to support corrupt politicians enriching themselves off the largess of taxpayer monies they had no right to in the first place doing things they had no enumerated power to do.
> 
> Imbecile.
Click to expand...


The New Deal recognized what our founding fathers knew...corporations must be regulated to protect We, the People from corporate malfeasance, unethical business practices and the usurp of government BY those corporations. It is a concept that is the very antithesis of today's conservatives.

Throughout our history our most visionary political leaders republican and democrat have been warning the American public against the domination by corporate power.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth who would erode them from within. 

Dwight Eisenhower, another republican in his most famous speech ever warned America against the domination by the military industrial complex.

Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country I fear the bankers more."

Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of Fascism" and Benito Mussolini who had an insiders view of that process said the same thing. Essentially he said that - he complained that Fascism should not be called Fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state of corporate power.

And we what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called Communism.

The domination of government by business is called Fascism.

And what our job is is to walk that narrow trail in between which is free market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.  ref


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> And the balance the New Deal through the Great Society created was marked by an era of corporate wealth and boom, American innovation and dominance in technology, the mass building of infrastructure, the growth of a burgeoning middle class, the vast expansion of individual rights and men on the moon.



Correct. 

Indeed, the period starting with the New Deal encompassed the greatest expanse of free market capitalism and individual civil liberties. 

And this Era was facilitated and embraced by republicans and conservatives, such as Earl Warren, Barry Goldwater, and Dwight Eisenhower. It was the great age of enlightened conservatism  the conjoining of public and private sectors, just as was done during the Second World War, to improve the American human condition. 

Consequently the OP is erroneous idiocy.


----------



## Bfgrn

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And the balance the New Deal through the Great Society created was marked by an era of corporate wealth and boom, American innovation and dominance in technology, the mass building of infrastructure, the growth of a burgeoning middle class, the vast expansion of individual rights and men on the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Indeed, the period starting with the New Deal encompassed the greatest expanse of free market capitalism and individual civil liberties.
> 
> And this Era was facilitated and embraced by republicans and conservatives, such as Earl Warren, Barry Goldwater, and Dwight Eisenhower. It was the great age of enlightened conservatism  the conjoining of public and private sectors, just as was done during the Second World War, to improve the American human condition.
> 
> Consequently the OP is erroneous idiocy.
Click to expand...


Living in New York, we had a Senator who was a....................LIBERAL Republican...Jacob Javits. A man that J. Edgar Hoover didn't want on the Warren Commission because......he was TOO liberal.


----------



## Truthmatters

The new deal certainly helped create a solid middle class, the best schools in the world and what many consider the best years this country ever had. The top tax rate was arround 88%.

They really have to spin hard to try and trash this record.

It will always fall short in the face of the real numbers.


----------



## Bfgrn

Truthmatters said:


> The new deal certainly helped create a solid middle class, the best schools in the world and what many consider the best years this country ever had. The top tax rate was arround 88%.
> 
> They really have to spin hard to try and trash this record.
> 
> It will always fall short in the face of the real numbers.



See if you can detect when the conservative era began...


----------



## Big Fitz

Bfgrn said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the balance the New Deal through the Great Society created was marked by an era of corporate wealth and boom, American innovation and dominance in technology, the mass building of infrastructure, the growth of a burgeoning middle class, the vast expansion of individual rights and men on the moon.
> 
> The conservative era that followed has built.............................................................
> 
> 
> 
> Nooo.. the fact that our main industrial competitors were bombed into the stone age had NOTHING to do with it.    It was alllll social spending and government waste.
> 
> Nor did the hundreds of millions of dollars in repaid war bonds making their way into private individual hands allowing for large amounts of disposable income that never had before existed for the middle class.
> 
> Nor the new application of technologies garnered from wartime scientific investment, both private and public causing the creating of new industries and products to become economically viable for the masses to buy.
> 
> Nope.  It was all socialist spending of the government violating the constitution to buy voting blocs and create identity politics to support corrupt politicians enriching themselves off the largess of taxpayer monies they had no right to in the first place doing things they had no enumerated power to do.
> 
> Imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The New Deal recognized what our founding fathers knew...corporations must be regulated to protect We, the People from corporate malfeasance, unethical business practices and the usurp of government BY those corporations. It is a concept that is the very antithesis of today's conservatives.
> 
> Throughout our history our most visionary political leaders republican and democrat have been warning the American public against the domination by corporate power.
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth who would erode them from within.
> 
> Dwight Eisenhower, another republican in his most famous speech ever warned America against the domination by the military industrial complex.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country I fear the bankers more."
> 
> Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of Fascism" and Benito Mussolini who had an insiders view of that process said the same thing. Essentially he said that - he complained that Fascism should not be called Fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state of corporate power.
> 
> And we what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called Communism.
> 
> The domination of government by business is called Fascism.
> 
> And what our job is is to walk that narrow trail in between which is free market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.  ref
Click to expand...




> The New Deal recognized what our founding fathers knew...corporations  must be regulated to protect We, the People from corporate malfeasance,  unethical business practices and the usurp of government BY those  corporations. It is a concept that is the very antithesis of today's  conservatives.



I look forward to you posting evidence of this ludicrous statement.  What are they usually called?  Hmmm.... oh yes.  White, rich, slave-owning, oppressive capitalist pigs.

Why would they ever want to repress themselves?  Or is this only a definition when it's politically convenient for you, quickly thrown over the side for you to try and score political points with lies later?



> Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be  destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political  institutions, our democratic institutions would be subverted by  malefactors of great wealth who would erode them from within.



He was partially right and a Republican... but not a conservative.  That being said, for his era he implemented some DESPERATELY needed reforms that helped increase freedom for the vox populi while preventing the abuse of power caused by too much power in too few hands.  It was because that era showed the dangers of Lassaiez faire capitalism which I have often pointed out and agreed needed regulation from.  I am very much for consumer and labor protection as much as I am for industry needed to be protected from bureaucrats and government interference in markets... including bailouts.  But you're comparing two eras with distinctly different levels of scale.  The good news is that while the boomers and progressivism is dying by it's own excesses in government corruption, many of the dangers of Parasitic Government is beginning to be rolled back.  And if we're lucky... really REALLY , we'll also see a rollback on Federal Power to pre-civil war levels.



> Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of  government by corporate power is "the essence of Fascism" and Benito  Mussolini who had an insider&#8217;s view of that process said the same thing.  Essentially he said that - he complained that Fascism should not be  called Fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the  merger of state of corporate power.



FDR got it backwards.  Government is the one in ultimate control, not industry.  What's a business going to do when the government pulls a gun on them?  Shoot back?  pfft!

As Mussolini defined it, the proper term is Corporatism.  This is where Government COOPERATES with and CONTROLS Industry not the other way around.  It's an unholy marriage of the two, but Government is in charge of Industry and covertly profits while Industry unjustly profits from protectionism and corruption.  Government still has the guns and law as their force, they control, not industry.  refuse to obey and you're done.  The government chucks you out and appoints a stooge from the party till they screw up.  You can believe otherwise all you want, but it's party Apparatchiks, not corporate boards who hold the cards.  Just like communists.  A gun to the temple of an unwilling participant is just as effective as a willing conspirator.

Now... how's that compare to our current administration??? ooooooooohh.... wow.  a little too close for comfort eh?  And think!  The labor unions are in bed with him too!  All those kickbacks are paying off it seems.  



> Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history,



Debatable.  He was the first.  But often you forget Republican does not equal Conservative.



> And we what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of  business by government is called Communism.



And Fascism.  Sorry, the difference is only in the bureaucracy.  Of course you deny the rainbow of leftism.  
Marxism=Progressivism=Collectivism=Communism=Liberalism=Fascism.  

Just like A Ford Escape is a Mercury Mariner is a Mazda Tribute.  Only thing different is some of the cosmetic parts and name plates.  Functionally they are 98% the same.



> And what our job is is to walk that narrow trail in between which is  free market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay  with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.  ref



Okay, if you are incapable of original thought we're done talking here.  I mean jeez!  Is there ever something you don't plagiarize and pass off as your own?  If I wanted to debate these authors, I'd have emailed them.  

But thanks for proving none of this is your idea... just another useful idiot for Lenin to love.


----------



## Big Fitz

Bfgrn said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new deal certainly helped create a solid middle class, the best schools in the world and what many consider the best years this country ever had. The top tax rate was arround 88%.
> 
> They really have to spin hard to try and trash this record.
> 
> It will always fall short in the face of the real numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See if you can detect when the conservative era began...
Click to expand...

Oh lookie!  Tardtard's favorite non-sequiter of dogmatic irrelevant insignificance correlation!

Now he will accuse me of being a mass murderer of some sort now because I've shown the math of this nonsense to be irrelevant garbage.


----------



## Sallow

Bfgrn said:


> FDR saved capitalism.
> 
> Next...



FDR saved capitalism after conservatives very nearly ended the Republic by pandering to the rich and powerful.


----------



## Truthmatters

twist and spin.

The real numbers show the real story and the right will never be able to make the real record disapear.

You can shit all over the generation of this country which lived through the great depression and won WWII all you want.

Most are dead now so you feel safe in doing so.

The numbers will never disapear and your historically failed political ideas will never be free of this history.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Living in New York, we had a Senator who was a....................LIBERAL Republican...Jacob Javits. A man that J. Edgar Hoover didn't want on the Warren Commission because......he was TOO liberal.



There were a number of intelligent, pragmatic republicans like Javits at that time who were interested in what was best for America and worked to create responsible governance, not blind dogma and pointless ideology as we see today and have examples of in this very thread.


----------



## Truthmatters

Thank the tea party


----------



## Big Fitz

Truthmatters said:


> twist and spin.
> 
> The real numbers show the real story and the right will never be able to make the real record disapear.
> 
> You can shit all over the generation of this country which lived through the great depression and won WWII all you want.
> 
> Most are dead now so you feel safe in doing so.
> 
> The numbers will never disapear and your historically failed political ideas will never be free of this history.


Not the place for self reflection, truthiepoo.  But that's some of the most honest things you've ever said about yourself.


----------



## Polk

rdean said:


> Today's conservatives want "industry" to BE the government.  They want to turn over control of the country to corporations. Why they think organizations with a profit motive would be better then what we have now is beyond me.



Of course that's what they want. And on occasion, you'll get one of them to slip up and say as much.


----------



## Polk

Big Fitz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Pipes up our resident expert on being retarded.
> 
> Please explain to me the functional difference between the two political stances:
> 
> 1. The state takes ownership of your business, and tells you what to do.
> 2. The state lets you keep your business as LONG as you do what they tell you.
> 
> What is the functional difference between the two, save option 2 having less paperwork and government bureaucracy.
> 
> Now, compare that to the position of the Conservative (classical liberal), which is 'right wing'.  How can either of these positions be right wing since the very nature of Conservatism is the rejection of government control of industry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's actually a rather significant difference between the two. For starters, the returns on production go to the state in the first case, while the returns still go to the business owners in the second. If you think that difference isn't significant, why did the Bolsheviks not have the support of the business community, while they were overwhelming in support of the Nazis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd call it stupidity.  They hoped they'd be getting richer by cooperating with the fascists.  There is hope they will survive if they just go along.  Communists made it clear that the capitalists would be removed and probably executed regardless of cooperation.  I think that makes it damn clear why capitalists will tolerate fascism a little better: a slim chance of survival and potential for huge corrupt profits (if they're corrupt too).
> 
> In communist nations, the bureaucrats who replace the former capitalist owners grow very fat and profit personally off of their corruption inherent to the function of their collectivist government.  Under fascism, they  don't replace the owners with bureaucrats out of hand, they wait for them to fail to obey to replace them.  Otherwise, there's no need, and the owners get just as fat off of government corruption as long as they do what they're told and don't rock the boat.
> 
> As Al Capone said, you can get further with a kind word and a gun, than you can with just a kind word.
> 
> Let's all welcome the new boss... same as the old boss.
Click to expand...


And guess what? Those hopes were correct!


----------



## Polk

CrusaderFrank said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1933: 24.9, 1934: 21.7%, 1935: 20.1%, 1936: 16.9%, 1937: 14.3%, 1938: 19.0%, 1939: 17.2%, 1940 14.6%
> 
> Here's the data set.
> 
> You need to thank Hitler for invading Poland for pulling US out of the FDR Depression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say the fall from 24.9% to 14.3% was pretty significant. The reason unemployment ticks back up in 1938-1939 is that he paid too much attention to the conservatives of his day and cut spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> You think 15% unemployment after 7 full years is a job well done?
> 
> As usual you facts are all fucked up, in 1920-21 Conservative crushed unemployed in 18 months dropping it from 12% to 4%, if FDR was great for 15% unemployment after 7 years Conservatives are Gods.
Click to expand...


I say a 40% fall in the rate in four years is a great job. If only he hadn't listened to the conservatives of his day, we'd have already been close to full employment by 1940.


----------



## Polk

If you want to know who the real fascists were, it was MacGuire and his gang.


----------



## Truthmatters

You will never be allowed to rewrite the history like you want to.


Keep spitting on the very generation that won WWII


----------



## Bfgrn

Big Fitz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nooo.. the fact that our main industrial competitors were bombed into the stone age had NOTHING to do with it.    It was alllll social spending and government waste.
> 
> Nor did the hundreds of millions of dollars in repaid war bonds making their way into private individual hands allowing for large amounts of disposable income that never had before existed for the middle class.
> 
> Nor the new application of technologies garnered from wartime scientific investment, both private and public causing the creating of new industries and products to become economically viable for the masses to buy.
> 
> Nope.  It was all socialist spending of the government violating the constitution to buy voting blocs and create identity politics to support corrupt politicians enriching themselves off the largess of taxpayer monies they had no right to in the first place doing things they had no enumerated power to do.
> 
> Imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Deal recognized what our founding fathers knew...corporations must be regulated to protect We, the People from corporate malfeasance, unethical business practices and the usurp of government BY those corporations. It is a concept that is the very antithesis of today's conservatives.
> 
> Throughout our history our most visionary political leaders republican and democrat have been warning the American public against the domination by corporate power.
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth who would erode them from within.
> 
> Dwight Eisenhower, another republican in his most famous speech ever warned America against the domination by the military industrial complex.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country I fear the bankers more."
> 
> Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of Fascism" and Benito Mussolini who had an insiders view of that process said the same thing. Essentially he said that - he complained that Fascism should not be called Fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state of corporate power.
> 
> And we what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called Communism.
> 
> The domination of government by business is called Fascism.
> 
> And what our job is is to walk that narrow trail in between which is free market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.  ref
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to you posting evidence of this ludicrous statement.  What are they usually called?  Hmmm.... oh yes.  White, rich, slave-owning, oppressive capitalist pigs.
> 
> Why would they ever want to repress themselves?  Or is this only a definition when it's politically convenient for you, quickly thrown over the side for you to try and score political points with lies later?
> 
> 
> 
> He was partially right and a Republican... but not a conservative.  That being said, for his era he implemented some DESPERATELY needed reforms that helped increase freedom for the vox populi while preventing the abuse of power caused by too much power in too few hands.  It was because that era showed the dangers of Lassaiez faire capitalism which I have often pointed out and agreed needed regulation from.  I am very much for consumer and labor protection as much as I am for industry needed to be protected from bureaucrats and government interference in markets... including bailouts.  But you're comparing two eras with distinctly different levels of scale.  The good news is that while the boomers and progressivism is dying by it's own excesses in government corruption, many of the dangers of Parasitic Government is beginning to be rolled back.  And if we're lucky... really REALLY , we'll also see a rollback on Federal Power to pre-civil war levels.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR got it backwards.  Government is the one in ultimate control, not industry.  What's a business going to do when the government pulls a gun on them?  Shoot back?  pfft!
> 
> As Mussolini defined it, the proper term is Corporatism.  This is where Government COOPERATES with and CONTROLS Industry not the other way around.  It's an unholy marriage of the two, but Government is in charge of Industry and covertly profits while Industry unjustly profits from protectionism and corruption.  Government still has the guns and law as their force, they control, not industry.  refuse to obey and you're done.  The government chucks you out and appoints a stooge from the party till they screw up.  You can believe otherwise all you want, but it's party Apparatchiks, not corporate boards who hold the cards.  Just like communists.  A gun to the temple of an unwilling participant is just as effective as a willing conspirator.
> 
> Now... how's that compare to our current administration??? ooooooooohh.... wow.  a little too close for comfort eh?  And think!  The labor unions are in bed with him too!  All those kickbacks are paying off it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> Debatable.  He was the first.  But often you forget Republican does not equal Conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of  business by government is called Communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Fascism.  Sorry, the difference is only in the bureaucracy.  Of course you deny the rainbow of leftism.
> Marxism=Progressivism=Collectivism=Communism=Liberalism=Fascism.
> 
> Just like A Ford Escape is a Mercury Mariner is a Mazda Tribute.  Only thing different is some of the cosmetic parts and name plates.  Functionally they are 98% the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what our job is is to walk that narrow trail in between which is  free market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay  with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.  ref
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, if you are incapable of original thought we're done talking here.  I mean jeez!  Is there ever something you don't plagiarize and pass off as your own?  If I wanted to debate these authors, I'd have emailed them.
> 
> But thanks for proving none of this is your idea... just another useful idiot for Lenin to love.
Click to expand...


Maybe if you had honored my request to not to chop up my posts, you would have gotten to the link beforehand. 


17th century political philosopher Thomas Hobbes called corporations "worms in the body politic." Adam Smith condemned them for their effect in curtailing "natural liberty." And most of the so-called "founding fathers" of this nation shared an opinion of corporations that today would earn them the label "lunatic fringe" from the same mainstream tongue-cluckers.

Those who won independence from England hated corporations as much as they hated the King. For it was through state-chartered corporations that the British government carried out some of its most pernicious oppression. Governments extending their power by means of corporations, and corporations themselves taking on the powers of government, are not new problems.

Because they were well aware of the track record of government-chartered corporations, and because they guarded their freedom so jealously, citizens of the newly independent United States of America chartered only a handful of corporations in the several decades after independence.

On those few occasions when states did charter a corporation, "the powers which the corporation might exercise in carrying out its purposes were sparingly conferred and strictly construed," Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in 1933.

In researching nineteenth-century laws regulating corporations, Morris found that in Wisconsin, as in most other states at that time:

    *Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.2

    *Corporations licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).3

    *The state legislature could revoke a corporations charter if it misbehaved.4

    *The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.5

    *As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldnt break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were just doing their job when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.6

    *State (not federal) courts heard cases where corporations or their agents were accused of breaking the law or harming the public.7

    *Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.8

    *Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.9

    *Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted in perpetuity, as is now the practice).10

    *Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.11

    *Corporations real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).12

    *Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.13

    *Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.14

    *State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.15

    *All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.16

Similar laws existed in most other states. 

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents


----------



## Bfgrn

Big Fitz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new deal certainly helped create a solid middle class, the best schools in the world and what many consider the best years this country ever had. The top tax rate was arround 88%.
> 
> They really have to spin hard to try and trash this record.
> 
> It will always fall short in the face of the real numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See if you can detect when the conservative era began...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh lookie!  Tardtard's favorite non-sequiter of dogmatic irrelevant insignificance correlation!
> 
> Now he will accuse me of being a mass murderer of some sort now because I've shown the math of this nonsense to be irrelevant garbage.
Click to expand...


The incarceration chart is accurate. You attacked the source, mindlessly ignoring that they provided documentation. 

U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin NCJ 221944

See page #6


----------



## Big Fitz

Bfgrn said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> See if you can detect when the conservative era began...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh lookie!  Tardtard's favorite non-sequiter of dogmatic irrelevant insignificance correlation!
> 
> Now he will accuse me of being a mass murderer of some sort now because I've shown the math of this nonsense to be irrelevant garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The incarceration chart is accurate. You attacked the source, mindlessly ignoring that they provided documentation.
> 
> U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin NCJ 221944
> 
> See page #6
Click to expand...

Accurate or not... it's still irrelevant and misleading.  But I know... it's your obsession.

It's still less than 1% of the entire population.  With a proportional increase about equal to population growth.

But the graph is pretty... misleading.... and very very irrelevant. But does still confirm your inability to comprehend correlation and causation.


----------



## Big Fitz

Polk said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's conservatives want "industry" to BE the government.  They want to turn over control of the country to corporations. Why they think organizations with a profit motive would be better then what we have now is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's what they want. And on occasion, you'll get one of them to slip up and say as much.
Click to expand...

Really?  Who invited GE into the government?  What's the relation of Jeffrey Immelt to the President?


----------



## Big Fitz

Bfgrn said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Deal recognized what our founding fathers knew...corporations must be regulated to protect We, the People from corporate malfeasance, unethical business practices and the usurp of government BY those corporations. It is a concept that is the very antithesis of today's conservatives.
> 
> Throughout our history our most visionary political leaders republican and democrat have been warning the American public against the domination by corporate power.
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth who would erode them from within.
> 
> Dwight Eisenhower, another republican in his most famous speech ever warned America against the domination by the military industrial complex.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country I fear the bankers more."
> 
> Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of Fascism" and Benito Mussolini who had an insider&#8217;s view of that process said the same thing. Essentially he said that - he complained that Fascism should not be called Fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state of corporate power.
> 
> And we what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called Communism.
> 
> The domination of government by business is called Fascism.
> 
> And what our job is is to walk that narrow trail in between which is free market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.  ref
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to you posting evidence of this ludicrous statement.  What are they usually called?  Hmmm.... oh yes.  White, rich, slave-owning, oppressive capitalist pigs.
> 
> Why would they ever want to repress themselves?  Or is this only a definition when it's politically convenient for you, quickly thrown over the side for you to try and score political points with lies later?
> 
> 
> 
> He was partially right and a Republican... but not a conservative.  That being said, for his era he implemented some DESPERATELY needed reforms that helped increase freedom for the vox populi while preventing the abuse of power caused by too much power in too few hands.  It was because that era showed the dangers of Lassaiez faire capitalism which I have often pointed out and agreed needed regulation from.  I am very much for consumer and labor protection as much as I am for industry needed to be protected from bureaucrats and government interference in markets... including bailouts.  But you're comparing two eras with distinctly different levels of scale.  The good news is that while the boomers and progressivism is dying by it's own excesses in government corruption, many of the dangers of Parasitic Government is beginning to be rolled back.  And if we're lucky... really REALLY , we'll also see a rollback on Federal Power to pre-civil war levels.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR got it backwards.  Government is the one in ultimate control, not industry.  What's a business going to do when the government pulls a gun on them?  Shoot back?  pfft!
> 
> As Mussolini defined it, the proper term is Corporatism.  This is where Government COOPERATES with and CONTROLS Industry not the other way around.  It's an unholy marriage of the two, but Government is in charge of Industry and covertly profits while Industry unjustly profits from protectionism and corruption.  Government still has the guns and law as their force, they control, not industry.  refuse to obey and you're done.  The government chucks you out and appoints a stooge from the party till they screw up.  You can believe otherwise all you want, but it's party Apparatchiks, not corporate boards who hold the cards.  Just like communists.  A gun to the temple of an unwilling participant is just as effective as a willing conspirator.
> 
> Now... how's that compare to our current administration??? ooooooooohh.... wow.  a little too close for comfort eh?  And think!  The labor unions are in bed with him too!  All those kickbacks are paying off it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> Debatable.  He was the first.  But often you forget Republican does not equal Conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> And Fascism.  Sorry, the difference is only in the bureaucracy.  Of course you deny the rainbow of leftism.
> Marxism=Progressivism=Collectivism=Communism=Liberalism=Fascism.
> 
> Just like A Ford Escape is a Mercury Mariner is a Mazda Tribute.  Only thing different is some of the cosmetic parts and name plates.  Functionally they are 98% the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what our job is is to walk that narrow trail in between which is  free market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay  with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.  ref
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, if you are incapable of original thought we're done talking here.  I mean jeez!  Is there ever something you don't plagiarize and pass off as your own?  If I wanted to debate these authors, I'd have emailed them.
> 
> But thanks for proving none of this is your idea... just another useful idiot for Lenin to love.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe if you had honored my request to not to chop up my posts, you would have gotten to the link beforehand.
> 
> 
> 17th century political philosopher Thomas Hobbes called corporations "worms in the body politic." Adam Smith condemned them for their effect in curtailing "natural liberty." And most of the so-called "founding fathers" of this nation shared an opinion of corporations that today would earn them the label "lunatic fringe" from the same mainstream tongue-cluckers.
> 
> Those who won independence from England hated corporations as much as they hated the King. For it was through state-chartered corporations that the British government carried out some of its most pernicious oppression. Governments extending their power by means of corporations, and corporations themselves taking on the powers of government, are not new problems.
> 
> Because they were well aware of the track record of government-chartered corporations, and because they guarded their freedom so jealously, citizens of the newly independent United States of America chartered only a handful of corporations in the several decades after independence.
> 
> On those few occasions when states did charter a corporation, "the powers which the corporation might exercise in carrying out its purposes were sparingly conferred and strictly construed," Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in 1933.
> 
> In researching nineteenth-century laws regulating corporations, Morris found that in Wisconsin, as in most other states at that time:
> 
> *Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.2
> 
> *Corporations&#8217; licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).3
> 
> *The state legislature could revoke a corporation&#8217;s charter if it misbehaved.4
> 
> *The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.5
> 
> *As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn&#8217;t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were &#8220;just doing their job&#8221; when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.6
> 
> *State (not federal) courts heard cases where corporations or their agents were accused of breaking the law or harming the public.7
> 
> *Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.8
> 
> *Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.9
> 
> *Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted &#8220;in perpetuity,&#8221; as is now the practice).10
> 
> *Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.11
> 
> *Corporations&#8217; real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).12
> 
> *Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.13
> 
> *Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.14
> 
> *State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.15
> 
> *All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.16
> 
> Similar laws existed in most other states.
> 
> The Early Role of Corporations in America
> 
> The Legacy of the Founding Parents
Click to expand...




> Maybe if you had honored my request to not to chop up my posts, you  would have gotten to the link beforehand.


Fucking grow up and stop making things that can be 'Fisk'ed so easily.

And this collection of retardation and deliberate misrepresentation requires more time and interest I have in refuting, so congrats, I won't be fisking this anytime soon unless boredom strikes.


----------



## Polk

Big Fitz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's conservatives want "industry" to BE the government.  They want to turn over control of the country to corporations. Why they think organizations with a profit motive would be better then what we have now is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's what they want. And on occasion, you'll get one of them to slip up and say as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Who invited GE into the government?  What's the relation of Jeffrey Immelt to the President?
Click to expand...


Asking someone to serve on a committee isn't handing them control. Saying that the role of government is to serve them, on the other hand, is.


----------



## Big Fitz

Polk said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's what they want. And on occasion, you'll get one of them to slip up and say as much.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Who invited GE into the government?  What's the relation of Jeffrey Immelt to the President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking someone to serve on a committee isn't handing them control. Saying that the role of government is to serve them, on the other hand, is.
Click to expand...

uhhhhh huh.  Is that how you're gonna spin it today?  And people say *I'm* Pollyanna!


----------



## Sallow

Big Fitz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Who invited GE into the government?  What's the relation of Jeffrey Immelt to the President?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asking someone to serve on a committee isn't handing them control. Saying that the role of government is to serve them, on the other hand, is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> uhhhhh huh.  Is that how you're gonna spin it today?  And people say *I'm* Pollyanna!
Click to expand...


I'm thinking you didn't have much problem with Bush and Cheney being big oil men, having secret meetings with other big oil men..and watching the profits on the oil industry go sky high while those two were in power.


----------



## geauxtohell

Conservatives are going to bitch about FDR saving this country until they are planted.

It won't change the facts of the matter.


----------



## Truthmatters

The pattern is now repeting in our economy and they need to stop what the course of history is showing.

I wish they would just get some new ideas that work  instead.


----------



## Big Fitz

Sallow said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking someone to serve on a committee isn't handing them control. Saying that the role of government is to serve them, on the other hand, is.
> 
> 
> 
> uhhhhh huh.  Is that how you're gonna spin it today?  And people say *I'm* Pollyanna!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm thinking you didn't have much problem with Bush and Cheney being big oil men, having secret meetings with other big oil men..and watching the profits on the oil industry go sky high while those two were in power.
Click to expand...

I had a problem with that as well.  Why?  Because the government shouldn't be in 90% of what it currently is in regarding business.

I'm just illustrating your rampant hypocrisy.

quelle suprise.


----------



## Truthmatters

The policies you promote would have the Business sector controlling us and our tool to have a fair shake neutered.


----------



## Big Fitz

Truthmatters said:


> The policies you promote would have the Business sector controlling us and our tool to have a fair shake neutered.


Obviously you have been ignoring my posts regarding the need for consumer, labor and industry protection.  Government should only be enforcing the rules of fair play and not protecting anyone economically save for unfair foreign competition like state industries and unfair subsidies.

I am an ethical capitalist.  I do not like trusts and monopolies within reason (meaning shared insurance actuarial tables are NOT a trust or monopoly).


----------



## Sallow

Big Fitz said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> uhhhhh huh.  Is that how you're gonna spin it today?  And people say *I'm* Pollyanna!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking you didn't have much problem with Bush and Cheney being big oil men, having secret meetings with other big oil men..and watching the profits on the oil industry go sky high while those two were in power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had a problem with that as well.  Why?  Because the government shouldn't be in 90% of what it currently is in regarding business.
> 
> I'm just illustrating your rampant hypocrisy.
> 
> quelle suprise.
Click to expand...




Okay..chief. Whatever. You voted Gore and Kerry..right?


----------



## Polk

Sallow said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking someone to serve on a committee isn't handing them control. Saying that the role of government is to serve them, on the other hand, is.
> 
> 
> 
> uhhhhh huh.  Is that how you're gonna spin it today?  And people say *I'm* Pollyanna!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm thinking you didn't have much problem with Bush and Cheney being big oil men, having secret meetings with other big oil men..and watching the profits on the oil industry go sky high while those two were in power.
Click to expand...


He didn't. I also doubt he had a problem with House Republicans saying the role of Congress is to serve the banks.


----------



## Bfgrn

Big Fitz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh lookie!  Tardtard's favorite non-sequiter of dogmatic irrelevant insignificance correlation!
> 
> Now he will accuse me of being a mass murderer of some sort now because I've shown the math of this nonsense to be irrelevant garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The incarceration chart is accurate. You attacked the source, mindlessly ignoring that they provided documentation.
> 
> U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin NCJ 221944
> 
> See page #6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Accurate or not... it's still irrelevant and misleading.  But I know... it's your obsession.
> 
> It's still less than 1% of the entire population.  With a proportional increase about equal to population growth.
> 
> But the graph is pretty... misleading.... and very very irrelevant. But does still confirm your inability to comprehend correlation and causation.
Click to expand...


OK Einstein...see how 'misleading' this FACT is...the United States of America, the bastion of freedom, the 'city upon the hill' has 5% the world population and 25% of the world's prisoners.

Here is your phrase for the day: per capita

The US has the most citizens imprisoned per capita than any other nation on the planet.






NOTE: The total number in custody per 100,000 residents per U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin NCJ 221944 is 762...so this chart is correct.


----------



## Truthmatters

Im willing to forgive him if he will man up and support what will work instead of the backing the historically failed ideas of the right.

Government has a duty to protect our democracy from the excesses of a few people who would seek make our government into their lacky.


----------



## Big Fitz

Bfgrn said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The incarceration chart is accurate. You attacked the source, mindlessly ignoring that they provided documentation.
> 
> U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin NCJ 221944
> 
> See page #6
> 
> 
> 
> Accurate or not... it's still irrelevant and misleading.  But I know... it's your obsession.
> 
> It's still less than 1% of the entire population.  With a proportional increase about equal to population growth.
> 
> But the graph is pretty... misleading.... and very very irrelevant. But does still confirm your inability to comprehend correlation and causation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK Einstein...see how 'misleading' this FACT is...the United States of America, the bastion of freedom, the 'city upon the hill' has 5% the world population and 25% of the world's prisoners.
> 
> Here is your phrase for the day: per capita
> 
> The US has the most citizens imprisoned per capita than any other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOTE: The total number in custody per 100,000 residents per U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin NCJ 221944 is 762...so this chart is correct.
Click to expand...

What part of irrelevant do you not understand.  Start your own thread whining about this if you want.  Oh wait... you have many times and been ignored.


----------



## Big Fitz

Polk said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> uhhhhh huh.  Is that how you're gonna spin it today?  And people say *I'm* Pollyanna!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking you didn't have much problem with Bush and Cheney being big oil men, having secret meetings with other big oil men..and watching the profits on the oil industry go sky high while those two were in power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't. I also doubt he had a problem with House Republicans saying the role of Congress is to serve the banks.
Click to expand...

Huh, you don't remember me having issues with that back on another board years back where you got pwned many many times I see.  

I had LESS of an issue than what I see with GE being done, but, I still have a problem.


----------



## Big Fitz

Truthmatters said:


> Im willing to forgive him if he will man up and support what will work instead of the backing the historically failed ideas of the right.
> 
> Government has a duty to protect our democracy from the excesses of a few people who would seek make our government into their lacky.


Yes, they do have a duty to protect our INDIVIDUAL rights from being infringed... by the government or plutocrats.  I never have denied that.  I have stated flatly that the fed has long since violated the enumerated powers doctrine.  Technically it started with the civil war, but went completely off the rails in the Great Depression.

Government also has no power to say when you've earned too much or have too much power till you abuse it.

Innocent till proven guilty?  Remember?  Government has no place, right or power to pick winners and losers.


----------



## Bfgrn

Big Fitz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Accurate or not... it's still irrelevant and misleading.  But I know... it's your obsession.
> 
> It's still less than 1% of the entire population.  With a proportional increase about equal to population growth.
> 
> But the graph is pretty... misleading.... and very very irrelevant. But does still confirm your inability to comprehend correlation and causation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK Einstein...see how 'misleading' this FACT is...the United States of America, the bastion of freedom, the 'city upon the hill' has 5% the world population and 25% of the world's prisoners.
> 
> Here is your phrase for the day: per capita
> 
> The US has the most citizens imprisoned per capita than any other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOTE: The total number in custody per 100,000 residents per U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin NCJ 221944 is 762...so this chart is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of irrelevant do you not understand.  Start your own thread whining about this if you want.  Oh wait... you have many times and been ignored.
Click to expand...


I guess this is just a 'leftist' issue...

A police state is just fine with you authoritarian statists. But if THAT is not BIG government and nefarious government intervention into people's lives, than what is?


----------



## Big Fitz

Bfgrn said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK Einstein...see how 'misleading' this FACT is...the United States of America, the bastion of freedom, the 'city upon the hill' has 5% the world population and 25% of the world's prisoners.
> 
> Here is your phrase for the day: per capita
> 
> The US has the most citizens imprisoned per capita than any other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOTE: The total number in custody per 100,000 residents per U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin NCJ 221944 is 762...so this chart is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> What part of irrelevant do you not understand.  Start your own thread whining about this if you want.  Oh wait... you have many times and been ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess this is just a 'leftist' issue...
> 
> A police state is just fine with you authoritarian statists. But if THAT is not BIG government and nefarious government intervention into people's lives, than what is?
Click to expand...

No... it's irrelevant to both the topic at hand, and rational people.


----------



## Bfgrn

Big Fitz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of irrelevant do you not understand.  Start your own thread whining about this if you want.  Oh wait... you have many times and been ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this is just a 'leftist' issue...
> 
> A police state is just fine with you authoritarian statists. But if THAT is not BIG government and nefarious government intervention into people's lives, than what is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No... it's irrelevant to both the topic at hand, and rational people.
Click to expand...


That's right Big statist Fizzzzzzz...

I should add this quote to my sig...



Big Fitz said:


> No system of justice is perfect. Secondly, executing the wrong person is an accident. Not murder. Executions are a punishment for a crime.



It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus


----------



## Big Fitz

Bfgrn said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this is just a 'leftist' issue...
> 
> A police state is just fine with you authoritarian statists. But if THAT is not BIG government and nefarious government intervention into people's lives, than what is?
> 
> 
> 
> No... it's irrelevant to both the topic at hand, and rational people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right Big statist Fizzzzzzz...
> 
> I should add this quote to my sig...
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No system of justice is perfect. Secondly, executing the wrong person is an accident. Not murder. Executions are a punishment for a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
> Albert Camus
Click to expand...

LOL... Ding!  There it is!  The maniac still has it!  LOL.

Love it.  Still stuck in your craw and more irrelevant every passing day.

You can't shame me with that, because what I said is true and morally correct.

Go play with your pet fetish on someone else's dime tardtard.  I'm done with you till you reach the ragged edges of sanity and speak something other than irrelevant libberish.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you call the political stance that corporations should run our government? That is NOT classic liberalism, it is today's conservatism.
> 
> Is that what our founding fathers believed? OR, did they heavily regulate corporations, require corporations to serve the public good, hold owners and stockholders personally liable for any harm caused, prevent corporations from making any political or charitable contributions to influence law-making, and not allow corporations to own stock in other corporations or own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose?
> 
> A quiz for our resident obtuse:
> 
> What was the entity, vehicle or instrument our founding fathers created to run our nation? Was it a corporation? Was it a private entity?
> 
> We tried 'rejection of government control of industry' from the end of the Civil War into the early 1900's...do you know what that era was called?
> 
> Did you ever take a course in civics?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously I got more from my civics studies than you did.
> 
> Lassaiez faire capitalism is not a governmental system, but economic.  It is an extra-governmental concept, and not integral to our form of government.  How we select candidates on the other hand seems to be the source of your problem.  The fact that government does not prosecute those corrupting it
> 
> The founding fathers did not give us a collectivist system of government ownership.  They protected our individual rights from the power of the mob as well as provide the confines of which majority rule must operate.  They created a system of checks and balances to make sure power did not build up too much in any one area.  You are talking about an imbalance that must be corrected in governance, but are going at it the wrong way.  quelle suprise!
> 
> Unfortunately, you do not seem able to separate the concepts of industry from government, I don't think I'm capable of explaining such foreign concepts to you.  The depth of your envy and hate towards capitalism and individualism is too great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'imbalance that must be corrected in governance' was done...It was called The New Deal. And Republicans and conservatives have been trying to systematically dismantle it for 70 years. The New Deal 'created a system of checks and balances to make sure power did not build up too much in any one area'...
Click to expand...


Fuck the New Deal.


----------



## Bfgrn

Big Fitz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No... it's irrelevant to both the topic at hand, and rational people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right Big statist Fizzzzzzz...
> 
> I should add this quote to my sig...
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No system of justice is perfect. Secondly, executing the wrong person is an accident. Not murder. Executions are a punishment for a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
> Albert Camus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL... Ding!  There it is!  The maniac still has it!  LOL.
> 
> Love it.  Still stuck in your craw and more irrelevant every passing day.
> 
> You can't shame me with that, because what I said is true and morally correct.
> 
> Go play with your pet fetish on someone else's dime tardtard.  I'm done with you till you reach the ragged edges of sanity and speak something other than irrelevant libberish.
Click to expand...


What you said is true and morally correct? For whom? You're statist position is that because there has been a crime, punishment must be carried out. If the state calls for an execution, then the guilt or innocence of the person being executed is irrelevant. The STATE deems an execution.

SO...If the person put to death is innocent..." (It's) Not murder. Executions are a punishment for a crime"

During WWII when the Nazis entered a town, if one of there soldiers was shot by a local, they would not seek the guilty party. They would choose someone to be used as example. Usually more than one male to be executed. It was their way...and YOURS.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right Big statist Fizzzzzzz...
> 
> I should add this quote to my sig...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
> Albert Camus
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... Ding!  There it is!  The maniac still has it!  LOL.
> 
> Love it.  Still stuck in your craw and more irrelevant every passing day.
> 
> You can't shame me with that, because what I said is true and morally correct.
> 
> Go play with your pet fetish on someone else's dime tardtard.  I'm done with you till you reach the ragged edges of sanity and speak something other than irrelevant libberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you said is true and morally correct? For whom? You're statist position is that because there has been a crime, punishment must be carried out. If the state calls for an execution, then the guilt or innocence of the person being executed is irrelevant. The STATE deems an execution.
> 
> SO...If the person put to death is innocent..." (It's) Not murder. Executions are a punishment for a crime"
> 
> During WWII when the Nazis entered a town, if one of there soldiers was shot by a local, they would not seek the guilty party. They would choose someone to be used as example. Usually more than one male to be executed. It was their way...and YOURS.
Click to expand...


FDR firebomed Dresden

Truman firebomed Tokyo (all wood houses) the nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki


----------



## Big Fitz

I'm sorry, does anyone hear a faint yammer of libberish out there?  It almost... naw.  He stopped being sentient a while back.  Couldn't be.

Must be hearing things.


----------



## Old Rocks

Now PC, you can try to rewrite history all you want. But to the people of the United States, and their descendents, FDR will always be on of the Great Presidents.


----------



## Old Rocks

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... Ding!  There it is!  The maniac still has it!  LOL.
> 
> Love it.  Still stuck in your craw and more irrelevant every passing day.
> 
> You can't shame me with that, because what I said is true and morally correct.
> 
> Go play with your pet fetish on someone else's dime tardtard.  I'm done with you till you reach the ragged edges of sanity and speak something other than irrelevant libberish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you said is true and morally correct? For whom? You're statist position is that because there has been a crime, punishment must be carried out. If the state calls for an execution, then the guilt or innocence of the person being executed is irrelevant. The STATE deems an execution.
> 
> SO...If the person put to death is innocent..." (It's) Not murder. Executions are a punishment for a crime"
> 
> During WWII when the Nazis entered a town, if one of there soldiers was shot by a local, they would not seek the guilty party. They would choose someone to be used as example. Usually more than one male to be executed. It was their way...and YOURS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR firebomed Dresden
> 
> Truman firebomed Tokyo (all wood houses) the nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Click to expand...


And Sherman burned and destroyed the Souths few industrial bases. War is hell, and always will be. Good reason not to start one.


----------



## Toronado3800

PoliticalChic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not hindsight, this is history.
> 
> Actually, and not only from the OP....but from a study of the history of the period, the three leaders were largely on the same page.
> 
> *All three agreed *on the collective vs. the individual, on 'equality,' on government contol of the economy, on side aspects such as eugenics.
> 
> For example:
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of hisThe Case for Sterilization. (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization) German race science stood on American progressives shoulders.
> 
> 
> And, you may be interested in the following:
> 
> The  propaganda of the New Deal (malefactors of great wealth) to the contrary,* FDR simply endeavored to re-create the corporatism *of the last war. The New Dealers invited one industry after another to write the codes under which they would be regulated.  Even more aggressive, the National Recovery Administration *forced industries to fix prices and in other ways to collude with one another:* the NRA approved 557 basic and 189 supplementary codes, covering almost 95% of all industrial workers. Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism"
> 
> a.	The intention was for big business to get bigger, and the little guy to be squeezed out: for example, the owners of the big chain movie houses wrote the codes that almost ran the independents out of business (even though 13,571 of the 18,321 movie theatres were independently owned). This in the name of efficiency and progress.
> 
> b.	New Deal bureaucrats studied Mussolinis corporatism closely. From Fortune magazine: *The Corporate state is to Mussolini what the New Deal is to Roosevelt*.(July 1934)
> 
> The change that *you mistakenly see as recent,* occurred when the horrors of the Nazi and Fascist regimes were uncovered, and so new meme was that there was a left-right separation that you seem to accept.
> 
> In point of fact, an earlier Progressive, Woodrow Wilson, made *the United States into the first Fascist nation, well before Mussiolini and Hitler.*
> During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.
> a. Had the worlds first modern propaganda ministry
> b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.
> c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous poison into the  American bloodstream
> d.	Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government
> e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war
> f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues
> g. Nearly a quarter million goons were given legal authority to beat and intimidate slackers and dissenters
> h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
> http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9
> 
> 
> 
> No no, you have to realize this is codewords PC.
> 
> - History is past events I agree with and will accept as true.
> - Hindsight is past events I don't want to agree with and will refute as false regardless of evidence.
> 
> See how easy it is?  Discount hindsight, but what you believe is history!  The past becomes much more rosy that way.
> 
> Of course those who do not want Hitler where he rightfully belongs on the 'authoritarian left' side of the coin must explain how he could possibly be on the 'authoritarian right' without stretching the definitions of the subject like so much taffy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, you are correct...I think they call it 'feel-good history.'
> 
> Accecpt only what agrees with you!
Click to expand...


FAQ ... The Political Compass  I'll let these folks who are not interested in my views explain.

Where should I look up that Hitler was a socialist?  I will read it.  Perhaps they are onto something.  It's always interesting at the least.


----------



## Toronado3800

Oh, and thank goodness we finally got standard sizes for mattresses.  I have been trying to figure out who to thank.  Imagine buying a bed from Ashley and always being stuck buying 78x83 mattresses to fill a Mrs. King size bed or whatever lol.


----------



## Bfgrn

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... Ding!  There it is!  The maniac still has it!  LOL.
> 
> Love it.  Still stuck in your craw and more irrelevant every passing day.
> 
> You can't shame me with that, because what I said is true and morally correct.
> 
> Go play with your pet fetish on someone else's dime tardtard.  I'm done with you till you reach the ragged edges of sanity and speak something other than irrelevant libberish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you said is true and morally correct? For whom? You're statist position is that because there has been a crime, punishment must be carried out. If the state calls for an execution, then the guilt or innocence of the person being executed is irrelevant. The STATE deems an execution.
> 
> SO...If the person put to death is innocent..." (It's) Not murder. Executions are a punishment for a crime"
> 
> During WWII when the Nazis entered a town, if one of there soldiers was shot by a local, they would not seek the guilty party. They would choose someone to be used as example. Usually more than one male to be executed. It was their way...and YOURS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR firebomed Dresden
> 
> Truman firebomed Tokyo (all wood houses) the nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Click to expand...


And that has WHAT to do with the incarceration rate and capital punishment in America since the early 1970's???


----------



## Publius1787

Bfgrn said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The incarceration chart is accurate. You attacked the source, mindlessly ignoring that they provided documentation.
> 
> U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin NCJ 221944
> 
> See page #6
> 
> 
> 
> Accurate or not... it's still irrelevant and misleading.  But I know... it's your obsession.
> 
> It's still less than 1% of the entire population.  With a proportional increase about equal to population growth.
> 
> But the graph is pretty... misleading.... and very very irrelevant. But does still confirm your inability to comprehend correlation and causation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK Einstein...see how 'misleading' this FACT is...the United States of America, the bastion of freedom, the 'city upon the hill' has 5% the world population and 25% of the world's prisoners.
> 
> Here is your phrase for the day: per capita
> 
> The US has the most citizens imprisoned per capita than any other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOTE: The total number in custody per 100,000 residents per U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin NCJ 221944 is 762...so this chart is correct.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that chart is garbage. China is not counted. They have more executions than triple the world combined. Can you imagine what their prison population is like?


----------



## Bfgrn

Publius1787 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Accurate or not... it's still irrelevant and misleading.  But I know... it's your obsession.
> 
> It's still less than 1% of the entire population.  With a proportional increase about equal to population growth.
> 
> But the graph is pretty... misleading.... and very very irrelevant. But does still confirm your inability to comprehend correlation and causation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK Einstein...see how 'misleading' this FACT is...the United States of America, the bastion of freedom, the 'city upon the hill' has 5% the world population and 25% of the world's prisoners.
> 
> Here is your phrase for the day: per capita
> 
> The US has the most citizens imprisoned per capita than any other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOTE: The total number in custody per 100,000 residents per U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin NCJ 221944 is 762...so this chart is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that chart is garbage. China is not counted. They have more executions than triple the world combined. Can you imagine what their prison population is like?
Click to expand...


So China is our benchmark...thanks for playing.


----------



## Toronado3800

We do keep a good number of folks in prison by any chart.

China is ridiculous. Oops, time for a new cell phone. Capitalism says I gotta send some bucks to keep the Chinese economy going.


----------



## PoliticalChic

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And the balance the New Deal through the Great Society created was marked by an era of corporate wealth and boom, American innovation and dominance in technology, the mass building of infrastructure, the growth of a burgeoning middle class, the vast expansion of individual rights and men on the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Indeed, the period starting with the New Deal encompassed the greatest expanse of free market capitalism and individual civil liberties.
> 
> And this Era was facilitated and embraced by republicans and conservatives, such as Earl Warren, Barry Goldwater, and Dwight Eisenhower. It was the great age of enlightened conservatism  the conjoining of public and private sectors, just as was done during the Second World War, to improve the American human condition.
> 
> Consequently the OP is erroneous idiocy.
Click to expand...


You folks are more fun than a barrel of Internatinal Communists!

Reveal the syncronisity of your vaunted FDR and the ideologs with whom he had so very much in common, and you squeal like a stuck Sus scrofa domesticus.

"....the OP is erroneous idiocy..."


1.	*Comparisons of the New Deal with totalitarian ideologies were provided from all sides.* A Republican senator described the NRA as having gone too far in the Russian direction, and a Democrat accused FDR of trying to *transplant Hitlerism *to every corner of this country. Schivelbusch, Three New Deals, p. 27. 

a.	Herbert Hoover: We must fight again for a government founded on individual liberty and opportunity that was the American vision. If we lose we will continue down this New Deal road to some sort of personal government based on collectivist theories. Under these ideas ours can become *some sort of Fascist government*.

b.	*The similarities of the economics of the New Deal to the economics of Mussolinis corporative state or Hitlers totalitarian state are both close and obvious. Norman Thomas, head of the American Socialist Party.*

c.	Schivelbusch occasionally overreaches, as when he writes that Roosevelt once referred to Stalin and Mussolini as his blood brothers.&#8201; (In fact, it seems clear in Schivel¬buschs sourceArthur Schlesingers The Age of Rooseveltthat FDR was saying communism and fascism were blood brothers to each other, not to him.) *But overall, this is a formidable piece of scholarship. *Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt - Reason Magazine

d.	Roosevelts Secy of the Interior, proclaimed: What we are doing in this country were some ot the things that wre being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. Confirmed:Roosevelt Ended the Great Depression When He Died

Did you get that from Reason? "But overall, this is a formidable piece of scholarship. 
Not "... erroneous idiocy..."

But I understand, the Left has spent so much time and effort to distance itself from the tag of Fascism, that to the anti-intellectual Leftist, the revelations about FDR's Fascism are no more than "... erroneous idiocy..."

You know, the first indication that you were on the wrong side of this arguement was the folks agreeing with you.....like BoringFriendlessGuy!


Now, how about spending a bit of effort, find some error in the OP, and post a real counter, rather than the default 'is not, is not......"


----------



## PoliticalChic

Big Fitz said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say the fall from 24.9% to 14.3% was pretty significant. The reason unemployment ticks back up in 1938-1939 is that he paid too much attention to the conservatives of his day and cut spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> You think 15% unemployment after 7 full years is a job well done?
> 
> As usual you facts are all fucked up, in 1920-21 Conservative crushed unemployed in 18 months dropping it from 12% to 4%, if FDR was great for 15% unemployment after 7 years Conservatives are Gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer the Harding/Coolidge approach.
> 
> Depression of 1920
Click to expand...


Excellent!

Harding was the best recession-fighter in US history!

Sadly, the 1924 election was the last time the two parties both ran conservative candidates.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Big Fitz said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say the fall from 24.9% to 14.3% was pretty significant. The reason unemployment ticks back up in 1938-1939 is that he paid too much attention to the conservatives of his day and cut spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> You think 15% unemployment after 7 full years is a job well done?
> 
> As usual you facts are all fucked up, in 1920-21 Conservative crushed unemployed in 18 months dropping it from 12% to 4%, if FDR was great for 15% unemployment after 7 years Conservatives are Gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer the Harding/Coolidge approach.
> 
> Depression of 1920
Click to expand...


Coolidge/Mellon is more accurate but yeah. Conservatism dropped unemployment faster than Obama's credibilty


----------



## PoliticalChic

Truthmatters said:


> The new deal certainly helped create a solid middle class, the best schools in the world and what many consider the best years this country ever had. The top tax rate was arround 88%.
> 
> They really have to spin hard to try and trash this record.
> 
> It will always fall short in the face of the real numbers.



I believe you have misinterpreted the question at hand.

The point being debated, and, I believe having been proven by the preponderance of the opinions of various academics and political professions, is whether* the FDR administration was based on the very same principles and ideas that informed other totalitarian regimes,* specifically the German National Socialists and the Italian Fascists.

Can I assume that *you would agree *that FDR's desire to enforce the collective over the rights of the individual?

And that *you agree *that the methods and strategies used by the FDR administration are consistent with the corporatism of the Fascist Mussolini?

That FDR used the same militarism that was the basis for the regimes of Hitler and Mussolni?

And that we can easliy document* the same mentality, rhetoric and symbolism *of the other two totalist outlooks?

And speaking of symbolism, 

1.	Schivelbusch discuses the architecture of the three regimes in terms of *monumentality, the need of people to create symbols *that reveal their inner life, their actions, and their social conceptions. The *similarity of the architecture of National Socialism, of Fascism, and of that of the New Deal *is a reminder of the fact that during the Great Depression, capitalisms period of crisis, all three philosophies rejected modernism and turned, instead, to *monumentality, a backward-looking, neoclassical architecture. *

a.	*In this style, the state manifests power and authority*. It is the architecture that would tower on behalf of, but also above, the people like a temple, inspiring trust, respect, and *a quasi-religious sense of deeper meaning and community*- while at the same time showing the rest of the world what it was dealing with.

b.	In the 19th century, along with liberal capitalism (in which the state restricted itself to a supervisory role and allowed the private sector to determine architectural aesthetics) *neoclassicism lost its hold, but in the 20th century, with increased state regulation of the economy, continuing with the mobilization of the economy during the war, and the near-total intervention during the Depression, it returned.*

c.	The term liberal, as used here, refers to economic and political laissez-faire philosophy originating with Adam Smith and the free-trade of Manchester capitalism.


I look forward to your stirring denounciation of FDR and the Fascism that he was able to bring to America, using the Democrat motto "Never let a crisis go to waste."


----------



## Toronado3800

Is that just a bunch of words saying "FDR Hitler and Stalin all believed in government having a big hand in the economy so they are all the same"?

In some sense I do agree....

Now dont confuse this FDR hand in the economy with being a new thing in America. Just the name changed. A hundred years previously the government was giving away land if you did what they wanted.  Big big huge program. 

Was that socialism? Was that fair to redistribute tax dollars from New York to clear Native Americans from Pa Ingele's land?  Who knows.  

I dont find the CCC that much an ideological difference.


----------



## Truthmatters

PoliticalChic said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new deal certainly helped create a solid middle class, the best schools in the world and what many consider the best years this country ever had. The top tax rate was arround 88%.
> 
> They really have to spin hard to try and trash this record.
> 
> It will always fall short in the face of the real numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you have misinterpreted the question at hand.
> 
> The point being debated, and, I believe having been proven by the preponderance of the opinions of various academics and political professions, is whether* the FDR administration was based on the very same principles and ideas that informed other totalitarian regimes,* specifically the German National Socialists and the Italian Fascists.
> 
> Can I assume that *you would agree *that FDR's desire to enforce the collective over the rights of the individual?
> 
> And that *you agree *that the methods and strategies used by the FDR administration are consistent with the corporatism of the Fascist Mussolini?
> 
> That FDR used the same militarism that was the basis for the regimes of Hitler and Mussolni?
> 
> And that we can easliy document* the same mentality, rhetoric and symbolism *of the other two totalist outlooks?
> 
> And speaking of symbolism,
> 
> 1.	Schivelbusch discuses the architecture of the three regimes in terms of *monumentality, the need of people to create symbols *that reveal their inner life, their actions, and their social conceptions. The *similarity of the architecture of National Socialism, of Fascism, and of that of the New Deal *is a reminder of the fact that during the Great Depression, capitalisms period of crisis, all three philosophies rejected modernism and turned, instead, to *monumentality, a backward-looking, neoclassical architecture. *
> 
> a.	*In this style, the state manifests power and authority*. It is the architecture that would tower on behalf of, but also above, the people like a temple, inspiring trust, respect, and *a quasi-religious sense of deeper meaning and community*- while at the same time showing the rest of the world what it was dealing with.
> 
> b.	In the 19th century, along with liberal capitalism (in which the state restricted itself to a supervisory role and allowed the private sector to determine architectural aesthetics) *neoclassicism lost its hold, but in the 20th century, with increased state regulation of the economy, continuing with the mobilization of the economy during the war, and the near-total intervention during the Depression, it returned.*
> 
> c.	The term liberal, as used here, refers to economic and political laissez-faire philosophy originating with Adam Smith and the free-trade of Manchester capitalism.
> 
> 
> I look forward to your stirring denounciation of FDR and the Fascism that he was able to bring to America, using the Democrat motto "Never let a crisis go to waste."
Click to expand...


This is all Glen Beck chalk board writings blather.

Its nonsense and means nothing.



Give us you link so we can see who really wrote it


----------



## Truthmatters

Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt - Reason Magazine

Oh here it is.

were you ever going to link to your source or jsut planned o n claiming it as your own?



http://www.cato.org/people/david-boaz


David Boaz is the executive vice president of the Cato Institute and has played a key role in the development of the Cato Institute and the libertarian movement. He is a provocative commentator and a leading authority on domestic issues such as education choice, drug legalization, the growth of government, and the rise of libertarianism. Boaz is the former editor of New Guard magazine and was executive director of the Council for a Competitive Economy prior to joining Cato in 1981. He is the author of Libertarianism: A Primer, described by the Los Angeles Times as "a well-researched manifesto of libertarian ideas," the editor of The Libertarian Reader, and coeditor of the Cato Handbook For Policymakers. His articles have been published in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, National Review, and Slate. He is a frequent guest on national television and radio shows, and has appeared on ABC's Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, CNN's Crossfire, NPR's Talk of the Nation and All Things Considered, John McLaughlin's One on One, Fox News Channel, BBC, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and other media. His latest book is The Politics of Freedom.









from the link, And this is where Beck got his crazy assed spew a few months ago, straight from the mouth of CATO.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


Schivelbusch finds parallels in the ideas, style, and programs of the disparate regimes &#8212;even their architecture. &#8220;Neoclassical monumentalism,&#8221; he writes, is &#8220;the architectural style in which the state visually manifests power and authority.&#8221; In Berlin, Moscow, and Rome, &#8220;the enemy that was to be eradicated was the laissez-faire architectural legacy of nineteenth-century liberalism, an unplanned jumble of styles and structures.&#8221; Washington erected plenty of neoclassical monuments in the &#8217;30s, though with less destruction than in the European capitals. Think of the &#8220;Man Controlling Trade&#8221; sculptures in front of the Federal Trade Commission, with a muscular man restraining an enormous horse. They would have been right at home in Il Duce&#8217;s Italy.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Truthmatters said:


> Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt - Reason Magazine
> 
> Oh here it is.
> 
> were you ever going to link to your source or jsut planned o n claiming it as your own?
> 
> 
> 
> David Boaz | Cato Institute: Policy Scholars
> 
> 
> David Boaz is the executive vice president of the Cato Institute and has played a key role in the development of the Cato Institute and the libertarian movement. He is a provocative commentator and a leading authority on domestic issues such as education choice, drug legalization, the growth of government, and the rise of libertarianism. Boaz is the former editor of New Guard magazine and was executive director of the Council for a Competitive Economy prior to joining Cato in 1981. He is the author of Libertarianism: A Primer, described by the Los Angeles Times as "a well-researched manifesto of libertarian ideas," the editor of The Libertarian Reader, and coeditor of the Cato Handbook For Policymakers. His articles have been published in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, National Review, and Slate. He is a frequent guest on national television and radio shows, and has appeared on ABC's Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, CNN's Crossfire, NPR's Talk of the Nation and All Things Considered, John McLaughlin's One on One, Fox News Channel, BBC, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and other media. His latest book is The Politics of Freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from the link, And this is where Beck got his crazy assed spew a few months ago, straight from the mouth of CATO.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> 
> 
> Schivelbusch finds parallels in the ideas, style, and programs of the disparate regimes even their architecture. Neoclassical monumentalism, he writes, is the architectural style in which the state visually manifests power and authority. In Berlin, Moscow, and Rome, the enemy that was to be eradicated was the laissez-faire architectural legacy of nineteenth-century liberalism, an unplanned jumble of styles and structures. Washington erected plenty of neoclassical monuments in the 30s, though with less destruction than in the European capitals. Think of the Man Controlling Trade sculptures in front of the Federal Trade Commission, with a muscular man restraining an enormous horse. They would have been right at home in Il Duces Italy.




"Oh here it is.

were you ever going to link to your source or jsut planned o n claiming it as your own?"



Clean off those specs...this is from post #95:
c. Schivelbusch occasionally overreaches, as when he writes that Roosevelt once referred to Stalin and Mussolini as his blood brothers.&#8201; (In fact, it seems clear in Schivel¬buschs sourceArthur Schlesingers The Age of Rooseveltthat FDR was saying communism and fascism were blood brothers to each other, not to him.) But overall, this is a formidable piece of scholarship. Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt - Reason Magazine


So...am I waiting for your retraction?


----------



## Truthmatters

its right wing clap trap dressed up to sound intellectual to silly cons like you.


Its meaningless.

Comparing building design to determine that Hilter was like some American president?


Look that is not serious historical comparisons.


It is propaganda and you cant even see it.


Its funny though when Beck did this on his little boards it sealed his CRAZY card with the country.

Not long after he trafficed in this nonsense he was heaved off the TV screen.


This is the type of silliness that is driving Americans away from the right.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Truthmatters said:


> its right wing clap trap dressed up to sound intellectual to silly cons like you.
> 
> 
> Its meaningless.
> 
> Comparing building design to determine that Hilter was like some American president?
> 
> 
> Look that is not serious historical comparisons.
> 
> 
> It is propaganda and you cant even see it.
> 
> 
> Its funny though when Beck did this on his little boards it sealed his CRAZY card with the country.
> 
> Not long after he trafficed in this nonsense he was heaved off the TV screen.
> 
> 
> This is the type of silliness that is driving Americans away from the right.



I mean no disrespect, but that was a far more cogent post than I expected....you won't accept architecture as being dispositive for the premise...
...good, how about similarites in mentality and symbolism??

This is pretty dense...I hope  you'll stick with it:

1.	Schilbusch finds the use of *metaphors based on the military *represent another link between the three systems. For Fascism and National Socialism *war was an act of creation in the construction of a national narrative*. For example, WWI created the need for authoritarian governance, as it represented the death of liberal democracy. The war instilled a solidarity among its soldiers, and heroic, messianic movements incorporated this inspiration. Politics was warfare.

2.	Features of these movements reflecting the war experience include the general, or strong leader, the uniforms, the storm troopers, a sense that life-and-death struggle rather than mannered debate, and the word battle for every major economic enterprise. Merchants had to be replaced with warriors!

a.	Even after the Mussolini and Hitler regimes controlled their governments, war mythology continued to inform the changes from liberal-parliamentary state into an autocracy closely patterned on the military.

3.	But bellicose metaphors are *not only found among the Fascists! *In his *inaugural address, 1933, Roosevelt *blamed the money changers for the economic crisis. Beyond economic and social steps against the Depression, Roosevelt had to declare war on it, else how could he demand the sacrifices, the stern performance of duty by old and young alike that he would propose?  Part of his address:

a.	He would ask Congress for broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe and be read  to submit our lives and our property to such discipline, with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in times of armed strife.

b.	Thus he speaks: if we are to go forward we must move as *a trained and loyal army *willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline because without such discipline, no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to *submit our lives and property to such discipline *because it makes possibly a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will hind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a *unity of duty *hitherto evoked only *in time of armed strife*. With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of *this great army *of our people, dedicated to a disciplined *attack upon *our common problems. FDR First Inaugural

4.	Follow the images of the Inaugural closely, and in it, also is the call to a better, earlier time, *the many references to religion*We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered, Practices of the unscrupulous money changers money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths.  And there is a utopia ahead: These dark days, my friends, will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny

5.	Lest one is unable to *imagine the words in German, with cheering throngs, *the following from Paul Bermans Terror and Liberalism, chapter two:

Each of the movements adopted *the same set of rites and symbols *to express that ideal: crowds chanting en masse, the monumental architecture, the insistence on unquestioning belief in preposterous doctrines.

a.	Each of the movements chose its own monochrome symbol, representing the oneness of authority, in red, brown or black.

b.	Each donned the identical uniform, - a shirt of red, brown or black.

c.	Each recounted a theory about history and mankind, explaining the movements goals and actions. 

6.	The mythology, curiously enough, was based on the New Testament, specifically the Book of Revelation of St. John the Devine. 

a.	*There is a people of God, and these are under attack, both from within (the city dwellers of Babylon, who have sunk into abominations) and from without (by the forces of Satan).*

b.	Resistance will result in the war of Armageddonwith the extermination of the evil ones. As will the devils force! But not without horrifying destruction.

c.	Then, there will be the reign of Christ for a thousand years.

7.	An Ur-myth, is a myth so ancient and so all-encompassing that it has become an irreducible part of the human experience, and is the basis for the tales that seem to give a patina of relevance to the movements.  It is this ur-myth that represents the origins of the movement-myths, in its modern versions.

a.	*Sometime after the First World War,* the Babylon-Armageddon made its way into political theory.  Each version had a people of God, under attack. There was the proletariat for the Bolsheviks and Stalinists; the *children of the Roman wolf for Mussolinis Fascists;* the Warriors of Christ the King for Francos Phalange, and the *Aryan race for the Nazis. *

b.	There were always subversive dwellers of Babylon, good at trading various commodities, polluting society with their abominations. Bourgeoisie, kulaks, Freemasons and cosmopolitans, and, always, Jews. Aided, of course, by Satanic forces, variously identified as capitalists, or Americans and their technology ( Heideggers Nazi interpretation) or the international Jewish conspiracy.

c.	The reign of God was always just ahead. The Age of the Proletariat (Bolsheviks and Stalinists); the *resurrected Roman Empire *(Fascists); the reign of Christ the King (Spanish Phalange); or a blond Aryan version of the Roman Empire, called *the Third Reich *(Nazis). 

d.	Of course, for all of the movements, it would be a one-party, unchallenged state, representing the final unity of mankind.

e.	And the leadera superman, a genius of geniuses, the one predicted by history, godlike- thrilling his worshipful followers perhaps establishing a new religion.

The same images can be found in Roosevelt's speech.


----------



## Truthmatters

like I said it is bellicous bullshit which means nothing.

Its random comparisons from the mind of some right wing propaganda site.

it is meaningless.

Hell you cant even understand any of it enough to comment in your own words.


----------



## Truthmatters

Its amazing to me that you would be silly enough to pretend the American president who fought the war against these people was the same as these people.

Heres some more comparisonsfor you.

The all had hair

They all ate food


They all drank water


They all wore shoes


They all slept in a bed


They all wanted their country to win the war.



Its sillytime stuff for people like you


----------



## PoliticalChic

Truthmatters said:


> Its amazing to me that you would be silly enough to pretend the American president who fought the war against these people was the same as these people.
> 
> Heres some more comparisonsfor you.
> 
> The all had hair
> 
> They all ate food
> 
> 
> They all drank water
> 
> 
> They all wore shoes
> 
> 
> They all slept in a bed
> 
> 
> They all wanted their country to win the war.
> 
> 
> 
> Its sillytime stuff for people like you



Yes, there certainly were a great number of similarities...I'm sure, based on my entry-level biology course, I could add a few more.
But within the parameters of politics and economics, this thread has accumulated quite a few similarities amongst the three, Hitler, Mussolini, and FDR.

Since you seem disinclined to pay much heed to same, perhaps a comparison to two other 19th century political giants might make the point. 

The 1924 election saw two conservatives face each other, Calvin Coolidge, Republican, and John W. Davis, the Democrat.

"Considering today's endemic morass of federal overreach, "The High Tide of American Conservatism: Davis, Coolidge and the 1924 Election," by Garland S. Tucker III is a liberty bell ringing in the distance. Tucker revives *Jeffersonian ideals of maximum individual freedom and minimal government interference.* The parallels between Calvin Coolidge, the incumbent Republican candidate, and John Davis, the Democratic candidate, are astonishing. 
Both grew up in rural America. Coolidge was born in 1872 and grew up in Notch, Vermont. Davis was born in 1873 in Clarksburg, West Virginia. Both grew up on farms. Both had strict parents stressing the importance of education. Both attended small renowned liberal arts schools: Coolidge, Amherst; Davis, W&L. Both became successful lawyers; Davis tried 140 cases before the US Supreme Court, a record at that time. Both possessed unimpeachable integrity. Both became gentlemen's gentlemen; both became lawyer's lawyers. Both were *Jeffersonian conservatives: like our Founding Fathers, less was more when it came to government*."

"The author has rightly corrected that prevalent popular view of this era, as one in need of historical balance. He quotes Paul Rubin: "We now know that *FDR's policies likely prolonged the Great Depression because the economy never fully recovered in the 1930s, and actually got worse in the latter half of the decade."* And then, quotes Paul Johnson: "Coolidge Prosperity was huge, real, widespread and it showed that the concept of a property-owning democracy could be realized." 

"Both Coolidge and Davis were exemplary public servants who articulately expounded a similar philosophy of* limited government and maximum individual freedom*..."

The above from various reviews of Garland Tucker's ""The High Tide of American Conservatism: Davis, Coolidge and the 1924 Election."

So, even a devout Democrat, deathly afraid of grouping the vaunted FDR with Hitler, Mussolini, and - heaven forfend- Fascism,...even you could not seee FDR in an assemblage with Coolidge and Davis, men who believed in the Founder's principles of private property, small government, maximum individual liberty and the Constitution.

So...would you at least admit that between the two political extemes FDR belongs where the OP places him?


----------



## Bfgrn

PoliticalChic said:


> Jeffersonian ideals of maximum individual freedom and minimal government interference.









"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393 

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482 

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29 

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Conservatives Remove Thomas Jefferson from School Textbooks

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term separation between church and state.)

The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based, Ms. Dunbar said. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Jefferson supported ObamaCare


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bfgrn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeffersonian ideals of maximum individual freedom and minimal government interference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393
> 
> "The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
> 
> "I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29
> 
> "To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258
> 
> "The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives Remove Thomas Jefferson from School Textbooks
> 
> Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term separation between church and state.)
> 
> The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based, Ms. Dunbar said.
> 
> Texas Conservatives Win Vote on Textbook Standards - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...


"...(Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term separation between church and state.)..."

So very good of you to provide an opportunity to correct the view that Jefferson was opposed to religion informing government....he was not. 
Kind of obviates that NYTimes nonsense, doesn't it.

What he was opposed to was government endorsing a particular religion, or a particular variation of Christianity.

The Baptists of New Enland did not find a friendly viewing of their brand of Christianity, and were afraid that they would be made to conform...they wrote to Jefferson for comfort in the matter, and received same...He stated that a wall to protect their rights should be enforced, but not the opposite direction.

1. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution,* ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.*

a.	From the 1790 *Massachusetts Constitution*, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and moralityby the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality
Massachusetts Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b.	*North Carolina Constitution*, article 32, 1776: That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State. Constitution of North Carolina, 1776

c.	So, the *Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didnt do the same, and mandate a national religion.* And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is a wall of separation between church and state.  He wasnt speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.

2. This language from Reynolds, a case involving* the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Establishment Clause, *quoted from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association the phrase "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861).(1) 

3. Thomas Jefferson wrote this to Madison, about Patrick Henry: What we have to do, I think,  is devotedly pray for his  death. (*Henry wanted state-established churches*.)  Hakim, A History of US, p. 153.

4. "It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon *a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, *but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment."
From Rehnquist, in Wallace v. Jaffree

5. The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former KKK member, Justice Hugo Black:
"The "high and impregnable" wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson's wall; rather, *it is the wall that Black--Justice Hugo Black--built* in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education."
The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church


Now, see, Boring....look how much you learn coming to the USMB!

But, I strongly suggest that you find someone with an unblemished record who is able to obtain a library card for you. 
Oops! I nearly forgot that you were Friendless!
Never mind.


----------



## Big Fitz

CrusaderFrank said:


> Jefferson supported ObamaCare


Who knew?


----------



## Big Fitz

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeffersonian ideals of maximum individual freedom and minimal government interference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393
> 
> "The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
> 
> "I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29
> 
> "To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258
> 
> "The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives Remove Thomas Jefferson from School Textbooks
> 
> Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term separation between church and state.)
> 
> The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based, Ms. Dunbar said.
> 
> Texas Conservatives Win Vote on Textbook Standards - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...(Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term separation between church and state.)..."
> 
> So very good of you to provide an opportunity to correct the view that Jefferson was opposed to religion informing government....he was not.
> Kind of obviates that NYTimes nonsense, doesn't it.
> 
> What he was opposed to was government endorsing a particular religion, or a particular variation of Christianity.
> 
> The Baptists of New Enland did not find a friendly viewing of their brand of Christianity, and were afraid that they would be made to conform...they wrote to Jefferson for comfort in the matter, and received same...He stated that a wall to protect their rights should be enforced, but not the opposite direction.
> 
> 1. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution,* ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.*
> 
> a.	From the 1790 *Massachusetts Constitution*, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and moralityby the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality
> Massachusetts Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> b.	*North Carolina Constitution*, article 32, 1776: That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State. Constitution of North Carolina, 1776
> 
> c.	So, the *Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didnt do the same, and mandate a national religion.* And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is a wall of separation between church and state.  He wasnt speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.
> 
> 2. This language from Reynolds, a case involving* the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Establishment Clause, *quoted from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association the phrase "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861).(1)
> 
> 3. Thomas Jefferson wrote this to Madison, about Patrick Henry: What we have to do, I think,  is devotedly pray for his  death. (*Henry wanted state-established churches*.)  Hakim, A History of US, p. 153.
> 
> 4. "It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon *a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, *but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment."
> From Rehnquist, in Wallace v. Jaffree
> 
> 5. The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former KKK member, Justice Hugo Black:
> "The "high and impregnable" wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson's wall; rather, *it is the wall that Black--Justice Hugo Black--built* in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education."
> The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church
> 
> 
> Now, see, Boring....look how much you learn coming to the USMB!
> 
> But, I strongly suggest that you find someone with an unblemished record who is able to obtain a library card for you.
> Oops! I nearly forgot that you were Friendless!
> Never mind.
Click to expand...




> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PoliticalChic again.



Dammit.


----------



## Bfgrn

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeffersonian ideals of maximum individual freedom and minimal government interference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393
> 
> "The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
> 
> "I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29
> 
> "To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258
> 
> "The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives Remove Thomas Jefferson from School Textbooks
> 
> Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term separation between church and state.)
> 
> The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based, Ms. Dunbar said.
> 
> Texas Conservatives Win Vote on Textbook Standards - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...(Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term separation between church and state.)..."
> 
> So very good of you to provide an opportunity to correct the view that Jefferson was opposed to religion informing government....he was not.
> Kind of obviates that NYTimes nonsense, doesn't it.
> 
> What he was opposed to was government endorsing a particular religion, or a particular variation of Christianity.
> 
> The Baptists of New Enland did not find a friendly viewing of their brand of Christianity, and were afraid that they would be made to conform...they wrote to Jefferson for comfort in the matter, and received same...He stated that a wall to protect their rights should be enforced, but not the opposite direction.
> 
> 1. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution,* ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.*
> 
> a.	From the 1790 *Massachusetts Constitution*, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and moralityby the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality
> Massachusetts Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> b.	*North Carolina Constitution*, article 32, 1776: That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State. Constitution of North Carolina, 1776
> 
> c.	So, the *Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didnt do the same, and mandate a national religion.* And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is a wall of separation between church and state.  He wasnt speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.
> 
> 2. This language from Reynolds, a case involving* the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Establishment Clause, *quoted from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association the phrase "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861).(1)
> 
> 3. Thomas Jefferson wrote this to Madison, about Patrick Henry: What we have to do, I think,  is devotedly pray for his  death. (*Henry wanted state-established churches*.)  Hakim, A History of US, p. 153.
> 
> 4. "It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon *a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, *but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment."
> From Rehnquist, in Wallace v. Jaffree
> 
> 5. The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former KKK member, Justice Hugo Black:
> "The "high and impregnable" wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson's wall; rather, *it is the wall that Black--Justice Hugo Black--built* in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education."
> The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church
> 
> 
> Now, see, Boring....look how much you learn coming to the USMB!
> 
> But, I strongly suggest that you find someone with an unblemished record who is able to obtain a library card for you.
> Oops! I nearly forgot that you were Friendless!
> Never mind.
Click to expand...


I am proud to be part of history. It was 1802 when Thomas Jefferson fired off a letter to the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut where he wrote:
_Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. _

When I contemplate all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802, it is amazing that this subject was never debated, discussed or dissected. It took YOU to decipher that Tom meant 'gate', not wall.

I suggest you fire off a letter to that goofball Dunbar. There is no need for conservatives to banish Jefferson from our children's textbooks. Copy President Obama, I'm sure he will enact your discovery immediately...


----------



## Toronado3800

"b. God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.&#8221; department, within this State.""

I find that terifying! Me not being protestant and all.  Imagine tha slave holding self indulgent upper class of north carolina sending me to prison or enslaving me for breaking their law.

None the less, another well researched post. Go PC


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bfgrn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393
> 
> "The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
> 
> "I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29
> 
> "To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258
> 
> "The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives Remove Thomas Jefferson from School Textbooks
> 
> Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term separation between church and state.)
> 
> The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based, Ms. Dunbar said.
> 
> Texas Conservatives Win Vote on Textbook Standards - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...(Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term separation between church and state.)..."
> 
> So very good of you to provide an opportunity to correct the view that Jefferson was opposed to religion informing government....he was not.
> Kind of obviates that NYTimes nonsense, doesn't it.
> 
> What he was opposed to was government endorsing a particular religion, or a particular variation of Christianity.
> 
> The Baptists of New Enland did not find a friendly viewing of their brand of Christianity, and were afraid that they would be made to conform...they wrote to Jefferson for comfort in the matter, and received same...He stated that a wall to protect their rights should be enforced, but not the opposite direction.
> 
> 1. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution,* ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.*
> 
> a.	From the 1790 *Massachusetts Constitution*, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and moralityby the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality
> Massachusetts Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> b.	*North Carolina Constitution*, article 32, 1776: That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State. Constitution of North Carolina, 1776
> 
> c.	So, the *Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didnt do the same, and mandate a national religion.* And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is a wall of separation between church and state.  He wasnt speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.
> 
> 2. This language from Reynolds, a case involving* the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Establishment Clause, *quoted from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association the phrase "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861).(1)
> 
> 3. Thomas Jefferson wrote this to Madison, about Patrick Henry: What we have to do, I think,  is devotedly pray for his  death. (*Henry wanted state-established churches*.)  Hakim, A History of US, p. 153.
> 
> 4. "It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon *a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, *but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment."
> From Rehnquist, in Wallace v. Jaffree
> 
> 5. The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former KKK member, Justice Hugo Black:
> "The "high and impregnable" wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson's wall; rather, *it is the wall that Black--Justice Hugo Black--built* in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education."
> The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church
> 
> 
> Now, see, Boring....look how much you learn coming to the USMB!
> 
> But, I strongly suggest that you find someone with an unblemished record who is able to obtain a library card for you.
> Oops! I nearly forgot that you were Friendless!
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am proud to be part of history. It was 1802 when Thomas Jefferson fired off a letter to the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut where he wrote:
> _Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. _
> 
> When I contemplate all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802, it is amazing that this subject was never debated, discussed or dissected. It took YOU to decipher that Tom meant 'gate', not wall.
> 
> I suggest you fire off a letter to that goofball Dunbar. There is no need for conservatives to banish Jefferson from our children's textbooks. Copy President Obama, I'm sure he will enact your discovery immediately...
Click to expand...


1. This is one of those amazing little coincidences one happens across in the course of one's jejune existence...
...I just happen to be reading the Catholic Encyclopedia, researching the concept of 'Vincible Ignorance'....and what do I behold?

YOUR PICTURE! True story!

So, it seems that your particular variety of ignorance has already been explored!

2. Now, today's specific example of ignorance. 
"...all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802, it is amazing that this subject was never debated, discussed or dissected."

Boring, you quoted the post,* item #4*,  in which Chief Justice William Rehnquist states in 1985 that your understanding of Jefferson's 'separation' statement was incorrect.

In your post.  Read it again. Then, your usual ritual: slap yourself on the forehead.

So, as much as I'd like to take credit for the thesis, I was a mere babe when he wrote that.

As he wrote '...*Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years." *we, those who have achieved mathematical competence, understand that to refer to roughly 1947, 'Emerson v. Board of Education as the inception of the misconception....not 1802.

...and certainly not "...all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802,...."

3. Further, when you learn your ABC's you might pick up a copy of Kidd's "God of Liberty"...that is, if you actually seek enlightenment.

4. In summary, and again from Rehnquist:
"The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit *the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. *Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. *As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,* nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means. "


As I bid you adieu, my little toad, I leave these word for one in your situation to ponder:
Atheists don't solve exponential equations because they don't believe in higher powers.


----------



## Bfgrn

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...(Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term separation between church and state.)..."
> 
> So very good of you to provide an opportunity to correct the view that Jefferson was opposed to religion informing government....he was not.
> Kind of obviates that NYTimes nonsense, doesn't it.
> 
> What he was opposed to was government endorsing a particular religion, or a particular variation of Christianity.
> 
> The Baptists of New Enland did not find a friendly viewing of their brand of Christianity, and were afraid that they would be made to conform...they wrote to Jefferson for comfort in the matter, and received same...He stated that a wall to protect their rights should be enforced, but not the opposite direction.
> 
> 1. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution,* ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.*
> 
> a.	From the 1790 *Massachusetts Constitution*, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and moralityby the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality
> Massachusetts Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> b.	*North Carolina Constitution*, article 32, 1776: That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State. Constitution of North Carolina, 1776
> 
> c.	So, the *Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didnt do the same, and mandate a national religion.* And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is a wall of separation between church and state.  He wasnt speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.
> 
> 2. This language from Reynolds, a case involving* the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Establishment Clause, *quoted from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association the phrase "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861).(1)
> 
> 3. Thomas Jefferson wrote this to Madison, about Patrick Henry: What we have to do, I think,  is devotedly pray for his  death. (*Henry wanted state-established churches*.)  Hakim, A History of US, p. 153.
> 
> 4. "It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon *a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, *but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment."
> From Rehnquist, in Wallace v. Jaffree
> 
> 5. The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former KKK member, Justice Hugo Black:
> "The "high and impregnable" wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson's wall; rather, *it is the wall that Black--Justice Hugo Black--built* in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education."
> The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church
> 
> 
> Now, see, Boring....look how much you learn coming to the USMB!
> 
> But, I strongly suggest that you find someone with an unblemished record who is able to obtain a library card for you.
> Oops! I nearly forgot that you were Friendless!
> Never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud to be part of history. It was 1802 when Thomas Jefferson fired off a letter to the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut where he wrote:
> _Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. _
> 
> When I contemplate all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802, it is amazing that this subject was never debated, discussed or dissected. It took YOU to decipher that Tom meant 'gate', not wall.
> 
> I suggest you fire off a letter to that goofball Dunbar. There is no need for conservatives to banish Jefferson from our children's textbooks. Copy President Obama, I'm sure he will enact your discovery immediately...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. This is one of those amazing little coincidences one happens across in the course of one's jejune existence...
> ...I just happen to be reading the Catholic Encyclopedia, researching the concept of 'Vincible Ignorance'....and what do I behold?
> 
> YOUR PICTURE! True story!
> 
> So, it seems that your particular variety of ignorance has already been explored!
> 
> 2. Now, today's specific example of ignorance.
> "...all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802, it is amazing that this subject was never debated, discussed or dissected."
> 
> Boring, you quoted the post,* item #4*,  in which Chief Justice William Rehnquist states in 1985 that your understanding of Jefferson's 'separation' statement was incorrect.
> 
> In your post.  Read it again. Then, your usual ritual: slap yourself on the forehead.
> 
> So, as much as I'd like to take credit for the thesis, I was a mere babe when he wrote that.
> 
> As he wrote '...*Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years." *we, those who have achieved mathematical competence, understand that to refer to roughly 1947, 'Emerson v. Board of Education as the inception of the misconception....not 1802.
> 
> ...and certainly not "...all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802,...."
> 
> 3. Further, when you learn your ABC's you might pick up a copy of Kidd's "God of Liberty"...that is, if you actually seek enlightenment.
> 
> 4. In summary, and again from Rehnquist:
> "The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit *the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. *Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. *As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,* nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means. "
> 
> 
> As I bid you adieu, my little toad, I leave these word for one in your situation to ponder:
> Atheists don't solve exponential equations because they don't believe in higher powers.
Click to expand...


I am glad you finally admit you choose judicial activism over our founders intent...a 'living' Constitution some call it...enlightening...Oh, I better not use that word, Cynthia Dunbar might be listening...


----------



## JiggsCasey

what an epic fail of a thread.... You've really gotta love how cons, who masturbate to the corporate model, attempt to do a 180 on reality and pretend that leftists are the "fascists."...  in fact, they'll simultaneously label lefty leaders "communist" as well as "fascist."

Priceless.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bfgrn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud to be part of history. It was 1802 when Thomas Jefferson fired off a letter to the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut where he wrote:
> _Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. _
> 
> When I contemplate all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802, it is amazing that this subject was never debated, discussed or dissected. It took YOU to decipher that Tom meant 'gate', not wall.
> 
> I suggest you fire off a letter to that goofball Dunbar. There is no need for conservatives to banish Jefferson from our children's textbooks. Copy President Obama, I'm sure he will enact your discovery immediately...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This is one of those amazing little coincidences one happens across in the course of one's jejune existence...
> ...I just happen to be reading the Catholic Encyclopedia, researching the concept of 'Vincible Ignorance'....and what do I behold?
> 
> YOUR PICTURE! True story!
> 
> So, it seems that your particular variety of ignorance has already been explored!
> 
> 2. Now, today's specific example of ignorance.
> "...all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802, it is amazing that this subject was never debated, discussed or dissected."
> 
> Boring, you quoted the post,* item #4*,  in which Chief Justice William Rehnquist states in 1985 that your understanding of Jefferson's 'separation' statement was incorrect.
> 
> In your post.  Read it again. Then, your usual ritual: slap yourself on the forehead.
> 
> So, as much as I'd like to take credit for the thesis, I was a mere babe when he wrote that.
> 
> As he wrote '...*Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years." *we, those who have achieved mathematical competence, understand that to refer to roughly 1947, 'Emerson v. Board of Education as the inception of the misconception....not 1802.
> 
> ...and certainly not "...all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802,...."
> 
> 3. Further, when you learn your ABC's you might pick up a copy of Kidd's "God of Liberty"...that is, if you actually seek enlightenment.
> 
> 4. In summary, and again from Rehnquist:
> "The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit *the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. *Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. *As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion,* nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means. "
> 
> 
> As I bid you adieu, my little toad, I leave these word for one in your situation to ponder:
> Atheists don't solve exponential equations because they don't believe in higher powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am glad you finally admit you choose judicial activism over our founders intent...a 'living' Constitution some call it...enlightening...Oh, I better not use that word, Cynthia Dunbar might be listening...
Click to expand...


I notices that frequently, when some folks can't response adequately, they attempt to change the subject...

...case in point.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JiggsCasey said:


> what an epic fail of a thread.... You've really gotta love how cons, who masturbate to the corporate model, attempt to do a 180 on reality and pretend that leftists are the "fascists."...  in fact, they'll simultaneously label lefty leaders "communist" as well as "fascist."
> 
> Priceless.



I'm sure you must be in a great hurry...not enough time to point out all the errors in the thread....

...but not even one? 

Far less than priceless: vacuous.


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> Today's conservatives want "industry" to BE the government.  They want to turn over control of the country to corporations. Why they think organizations with a profit motive would be better then what we have now is beyond me.



Today's leftists are stupid.


----------



## JiggsCasey

PoliticalChic said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> what an epic fail of a thread.... You've really gotta love how cons, who masturbate to the corporate model, attempt to do a 180 on reality and pretend that leftists are the "fascists."...  in fact, they'll simultaneously label lefty leaders "communist" as well as "fascist."
> 
> Priceless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you must be in a great hurry...not enough time to point out all the errors in the thread....
> 
> ...but not even one?
> 
> Far less than priceless: vacuous.
Click to expand...


Don't need to. It really speaks for itself. I mean, your team is routinely trying to pin both ideological polar opposites on the political party you loathe. LOL.

Nevermind that it's the modern right wing that exhibits the tenets of fascism far more the left ever has. Afterall, fascism IS the perfect union of the corporation and state, and Moussolini himself coined the term.


----------



## daveman

Bfgrn said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> You think 15% unemployment after 7 full years is a job well done?
> 
> As usual you facts are all fucked up, in 1920-21 Conservative crushed unemployed in 18 months dropping it from 12% to 4%, if FDR was great for 15% unemployment after 7 years Conservatives are Gods.
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer the Harding/Coolidge approach.
> 
> Depression of 1920
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Big Fizzzzzzzzzzzz...if you cut your knee as a kid and mommy took you to the doctor and he stitched you up, would you go back to be stitched up if you had cancer?
> 
> Why is it you right wing ideologues believe every cause requires the same solution? Do you EVER look at cause before you blurt out your dogma?
> 
> Was the 1929 market crash caused by a transition from a wartime economy to a peaceful economy?
> 
> 
> The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie  deliberate, contrived and dishonest  but the myth  persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
> President John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...

Yeah, Fitz, you need to look to the left for diversity of thought.  I mean, their solutions to problems range from "Tax the rich!" all the way over to "Tax the rich!"


----------



## daveman

Polk said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's conservatives want "industry" to BE the government.  They want to turn over control of the country to corporations. Why they think organizations with a profit motive would be better then what we have now is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's what they want. And on occasion, you'll get one of them to slip up and say as much.
Click to expand...


Wrong,  Utterly, stupidly, pig-headedly _wrong_.  

You know nothing of conservatism that you didn't learn from idiot leftists.

You know what conservatives want?

The maximum amount of personal liberty compatible with civilized society.  We don't want big intrusive government running our lives -- what makes you think we want big business running our lives?

Take your time.  I can tell you haven't given this any thought whatsoever.


----------



## daveman

Truthmatters said:


> Im willing to forgive him if he will man up and support what will work instead of the backing the historically failed ideas of the right.
> 
> Government has a duty to protect our democracy from the excesses of a few people who would seek make our government into their lacky.



But you support the government making US their lackey.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JiggsCasey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> what an epic fail of a thread.... You've really gotta love how cons, who masturbate to the corporate model, attempt to do a 180 on reality and pretend that leftists are the "fascists."...  in fact, they'll simultaneously label lefty leaders "communist" as well as "fascist."
> 
> Priceless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you must be in a great hurry...not enough time to point out all the errors in the thread....
> 
> ...but not even one?
> 
> Far less than priceless: vacuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't need to. It really speaks for itself. I mean, your team is routinely trying to pin both ideological polar opposites on the political party you loathe. LOL.
> 
> Nevermind that it's the modern right wing that exhibits the tenets of fascism far more the left ever has. Afterall, fascism IS the perfect union of the corporation and state, and Moussolini himself coined the term.
Click to expand...


"Don't need to."

Means "Unable to."

1. This has been an interesting thread, with a great deal of scholarly research and analysis behind it....but I suppose one would have to read through a hundred posts...

Admitting that you didn't would be far more honest than your original post.

2. And, yes, National Socialism, Fascism and Communism, along with numerous aspects of the New Deal, belong at the same end of the spectrum, the one that invests government with unlimited powers over individual liberty, and, in the case of the New Deal, sees no restrictions imposed by the Constitution.

Garatty, in the OP, thought that his very original work, 1973, was far enough removed from the emotions of WWII to allow clear analysis...but your response proves that even now that is difficult.

3. If you have the time and interest, I suggest posts #1,6, 12, 95 and 104...
...be happy to entertain any responses you have to same.


----------



## daveman

Toronado3800 said:


> We do keep a good number of folks in prison by any chart.



Then perhaps they shouldn't break the law, huh?


----------



## JiggsCasey

PoliticalChic said:


> "Don't need to."
> 
> Means "Unable to."



Only in the world of the Fraulein Coulter worshipper.

You keep telling yourself what you need to hear. Either way, your thread sucks, and you're a partisan whiner.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JiggsCasey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Don't need to."
> 
> Means "Unable to."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the world of the Fraulein Coulter worshipper.
> 
> You keep telling yourself what you need to hear. Either way, your thread sucks, and you're a partisan whiner.
Click to expand...


I love exposing the anti-intellectual Left.

That would be you.


----------



## JiggsCasey

PoliticalChic said:


> I love exposing the anti-intellectual Left.
> 
> That would be you.



LAWL. ... Based on what, exactly? The fact that every time I encounter you on this forum in my rare visits here, you're fawning all over yourself with some over-simplified, antagonistic partisan screed?

Do get over yourself, Anne Coulter disciple. You're no "intellectual," and you haven't "exposed" anything.

I mean, besides the fact that you're a joke here, and most of the forum knows it. Just like the caricature media icon you so adore.


----------



## Big Fitz

PoliticalChic said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Don't need to."
> 
> Means "Unable to."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the world of the Fraulein Coulter worshipper.
> 
> You keep telling yourself what you need to hear. Either way, your thread sucks, and you're a partisan whiner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love exposing the anti-intellectual Left.
> 
> That would be you.
Click to expand...

masterpiece of understatement.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JiggsCasey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love exposing the anti-intellectual Left.
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LAWL. ... Based on what, exactly? The fact that every time I encounter you on this forum in my rare visits here, you're fawning all over yourself with some over-simplified, antagonistic partisan screed?
> 
> Do get over yourself, Anne Coulter disciple. You're no "intellectual," and you haven't "exposed" anything.
> 
> I mean, besides the fact that you're a joke here, and most of the forum knows it. Just like the caricature media icon you so adore.
Click to expand...


Let me get this straight...in your several posts, the best you can do is bleat 'is not, is not...."

And you deny that you are less than intellectual????

And, since you bring up Queen Ann, she pretty much had you pegged when she wrote:

"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors!  They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press!  Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can&#8217;t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican&#8230;"

Now, in total honesty, look at your posts and try to deny that you have not added one jot of data, fact, rebuttal, counter argument....or even any useful conversation.

So....intellectually....you're pretty much a zero.

The only other theory that I can come up with is that Coulter paid you to make her look prescient, and yourself like the dolt that you are.

True?


----------

