# France, 1930's: A Fatal Flaw in Liberalism



## PoliticalChic (Mar 17, 2012)

1.	Liberalism is a religion. Central to this religion is the assertion that evil does not exist, all conflict being attributed to a lack of understanding between the opposed.  The notion that an honest exchange of views will solve all problems is an article of faith, i.e. war never solved anything.

a. How is it that one can force oneself to accept horrendous ideas, and events, as though they were normal and totally expected?  Perhaps a cautionary tale from the 1930s
*The French Socialists of the 1930s had impeccable democratic credentials,* dating back to the 19th century. They won elections, and in Leon Blum they produced a great leader, a prime minister who had the ability to fuse French patriotism and social justice, and the finest cultural values.


2.	Which brings us to Paul Faure, the general-secretary of said French Socialists, and leader of* the faction that opposed war- at any cost.* While Blum recognized the horror that Hitler represented, the Paul-Fauristes desperately sought to find a description of reality that did not point in the direction of war!  Dont judge Germany too quickly, nor too starkly. After all, they had been treated poorly by the Treaty of Versailles. And their people living in Slavic countries werent being treated well shouldnt we show some flexibility? Conciliate the outraged German people! This is not cowardly, or unprincipledno, it is simply anti-war. And, *therefore, the real dangers were not from the Nazis or Hitler, but from the warmongers, *those who would profit from war!


a.	While those were the *arguments of the anti-war left,* the unfocused or philosophical basis which gave credence to those arguments, was that, in our modern world, even the enemies of reason cannot be the enemies of reason. Can you say* liberal naïveté of the nineteenth centurya simple minded optimism, the liberalism of a strictly rational world, the liberalism of denial.*


b.	Paul Faures French Socialists *refused to believe *that millions of respectable Germans subscribed to a political movement whose doctrines were paranoid conspiracy theories, blood-curdling hatreds, medieval superstitions, and the lure of mass murder.* For the Socialists, there was always a why.*

3.	So *our Socialist friends listened to the Nazis speeches about Jews*, and stroked their bearded chins, and queried, what is anti-Semitism, anyway?  Arent there some Jews who we dont like? And the war-hawkssome of them are Jewswhy, even Leon Blum, he is a Jew, and he takes a hard linesuspicious. Perhaps Hitler isnt entirely wrong.

a.	Marshal Petain and the right wing proposed to accept the invasion, a new government under Hitler. The anti-war left voted with Petain, and the new Vichy government arrested Blum, and sent him to Dachau.


4.	*The defenders of human rights and liberal values evolved into bigotry, tyranny, and murder.* The democratic leftists accepted a naïve faith in the rationalism of all things, and ended up as fascists.
From chapter six of "Terror and Liberalism," Paul Berman


----------



## daveman (Mar 17, 2012)




----------



## regent (Mar 17, 2012)

And in America it was one group that tried to warn America of the dangers of Hitler and tried to get America to rearm, and it was another group headed by the America Firsters that wanted isolation and not rearm. Guess which political party each group was allied with.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 17, 2012)

> .
> 1.	Liberalism is a religion. Central to this religion is the assertion that evil does not exist, all conflict being attributed to a lack of understanding between the opposed. The notion that an honest exchange of views will solve all problems is an article of faith, i.e. war never solved anything.



You tell them PC

Diplomacy is for pussies


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 17, 2012)

Of course, what PC neglects to tell us is that FDR was our greatest Liberal President and that it was the US Conservatives that urged us to mind our own business and stay out of the war


----------



## Sunni Man (Mar 17, 2012)

It is quite apparent there is a direct correlation between Liberalism and loss of reality.

Basically, the more Liberal a person's thinking becomes.

The further that persons grasp on reality slips away.


I am not going to say that Liberalism is a form of mental illness.

But is in essence more like a drug or intoxicant.


In small dose's Liberalism can help temper rigid or over the top conservative views.

Yet, like any drug, excessive Liberalism can become addictive and eventually unhealthy as the OP has clearly shown.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 17, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1.	Liberalism is a religion. Central to this religion is the assertion that evil does not exist



When you start with something this silly, why bother reading the rest? Good grief . . .


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 17, 2012)

Dragon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1.	Liberalism is a religion. Central to this religion is the assertion that evil does not exist
> ...



Disappointing, the lacunae in your education....
...You should read more....


1. 	"The* deifications and hagiologies *were particularly overt in the remarks of prominent black figures. Filmmaker Spike Lee, predicting an Obama victory, implicitly compared the candidate with Christ: *Youll have to measure time by Before Obama and After Obama. . . .*

a.	Jesse Jackson, Jr. called Obamas securing the Democratic nomination so extraordinary that another chapter could be *added to the Bible* to chronicle its significance.

b.	Louis Farrakhan went one better, according to the website WorldNetDaily: Barack has captured the youth. . . . Thats a sign.* When the Messiah speaks,* the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.

c.	The website ObamaMessiah.blogspot.com has diligently chronicled many more instances of such talk, which seems positively cringe-making in 2010.

d.	To this day, BarackObama.com displays at the top of its homepage the following words (attributed to Obama, though nobody seems to have been able to pinpoint the speech): IM ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE"

2. 	If twentieth-century history teaches us anything, its that* political religions *spell trouble. Soviet Communism, Italian Fascism, and Nazism arent just called political religions by scholars today. Mussolini, for instance, called his ideology not only a faith, but a religion that is conquering the laboring masses of the Italian people.

a.	And in Italy, writes the historian Michael Burleigh, intellectual sycophants and propagandists characterised [Mussolini] as a prodigy of genius in terms that would not have embarrassed Stalin: *messiah, saviour*, man of destiny, latterday Caesar, Napoleon, and so forth.

3. *The totalitarian movements which have arisen since World War I are fundamentally religious movements,* wrote the political scientist Waldemar Gurian in 1952, in part because they cannot conceive of realms of life outside and beyond their control. the private lives and practices of individuals.

a.	Marcel Prélot had commented that the totalitarian state, naturally extending its field of action far beyond the recognized domain of the conventional state, claims to constitute both a political entity and an ethical and spiritual community, . . .* the state itself being a church.*
The Varieties of Liberal Enthusiasm by Benjamin A. Plotinsky, City Journal Spring 2010


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Of course, what PC neglects to tell us is that FDR was our greatest Liberal President and that it was the US Conservatives that urged us to mind our own business and stay out of the war



Classical Liberals...known as conservatives, today...get any credit for the creation of the United States, and for writing the greatest political document in the history of the world, the US Constitution?


----------



## elvis (Mar 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Of course, what PC neglects to tell us is that FDR was our greatest Liberal President and that it was the US Conservatives that urged us to mind our own business and stay out of the war



Um FDR won an election by promising to keep us out of the war.


----------



## elvis (Mar 17, 2012)

elvis said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, what PC neglects to tell us is that FDR was our greatest Liberal President and that it was the US Conservatives that urged us to mind our own business and stay out of the war
> ...



Also, RW, are you saying 85 percent of the country before Pearl was conservative?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 17, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Disappointing, the lacunae in your education....



You're assuming that I've never heard the absurdity you spouted above. That's incorrect. I've heard it before. It's still absurd, though. Liberalism is not a religion, it's a political philosophy, and it does not depend in any way on the idea that evil does not exist. In fact, liberals tend to be quite moralistic.

If you enjoy gunning down straw men, have at it, but don't expect to be taken seriously while you do.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 17, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, what PC neglects to tell us is that FDR was our greatest Liberal President and that it was the US Conservatives that urged us to mind our own business and stay out of the war
> ...



Not quite....but good try anyway

It was the Conservatives of the day who supported the crown

Liberals liked to tar and feather them


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 17, 2012)

elvis said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, what PC neglects to tell us is that FDR was our greatest Liberal President and that it was the US Conservatives that urged us to mind our own business and stay out of the war
> ...



What was the conservative view in that election?


----------



## elvis (Mar 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So FDR was a conservative.


----------



## elvis (Mar 17, 2012)

elvis said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



Were it not for the war in Europe, FDR would not have run for a third term and a republican would have been elected. Unemployment was still 20 percent in 1940.   I can back this up with an historian who thinks FDR can walk on water if you like.


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 17, 2012)

Dragon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1.	Liberalism is a religion. Central to this religion is the assertion that evil does not exist
> ...




But Cheney does eXIST!


----------



## elvis (Mar 17, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Can you prove that?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 17, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Damned right he does! And that being the case, no liberal in the world is going to question the existence of evil for one second.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 17, 2012)

Dragon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Disappointing, the lacunae in your education....
> ...



In that post we find both facts and scholars....
....and neither convince you.

How many times does that have to be shown be a hallmark of Liberals?

I suppose that serves as more proof of Liberalism being a religion. Good work.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 17, 2012)

elvis said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Merely establishing that it was the Ultra Liberal FDR who led us through WWII and debunking PCs ridiculous  OP premise


----------



## DCJ (Mar 17, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> It is quite apparent there is a direct correlation between Liberalism and loss of reality.
> 
> Basically, the more Liberal a person's thinking becomes.
> 
> ...



& I guess you can prove your "illusions" here???


----------



## Trajan (Mar 17, 2012)

right going asideways when hje gets a qyestion winger said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



there ya go elvis.....thats RW doing his oh shit I got busted dance.....


----------



## Trajan (Mar 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



no, you got busted and are just ...go read a book RW..seriously....


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 17, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1.	Liberalism is a religion. Central to this religion is the assertion that evil does not exist, all conflict being attributed to a lack of understanding between the opposed.



Lose me right there. You're evil. So evil clearly exists.


----------



## regent (Mar 17, 2012)

elvis said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



Reminds me of an argument on the boards with a conservative that argued Truman was a Republican. 
It has become a full time occupation just correcting the conservative's revised history.  
For example, one finds that Jefferson was a conservative and founded the present Republican party; the Bill of Rights was a demand of conservatives before they would vote for ratification of the Constitution; FDR bombed Pearl Harbor after he caused the Great Depression and Harding was a Democrat. 
What happened to the old conservative charges of communism, socialism and Obama has big ears, guess they don't work anymore? 
Well, so far the conservatives haven't changed the latest Siena poll of 238 noted historians and presidential experts that rated FDR as America's greatest president, but stand by for a new conservative poll, the Sierra poll that names Bush America's greatest president.


----------



## elvis (Mar 17, 2012)

regent said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


I agree FDR was a great President, as does Newt Gingrich.  That doesn't mean he was God or that he pulled us out of the Depression.  he didn't.


----------



## regent (Mar 17, 2012)

elvis said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



Newt has to agree, think of his peers if he now said FDR was a conservative or that he was not a great president. True FDR didn't pull us out of the Great Depression but the people seemed pleased with his leadership, I mean elected four times. When the depression cleared America still had capitalism, and we went through WWII in reasonably good shape. Momentous years and all pretty much returned to normal, except we had Social Security, FDIC  and a number of other programs.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 17, 2012)

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



Oh Pleeeeease...

Save me the revisionist rightwing history trying to make it look like they meant a damn

It was Liberal FDR who brought us to war. It was the conservatives who whined all the way. Did FDR say he wanted to avoid war prior to the election? He sure as hell did and lied through his teeth. All of his journals and correspondence showed he already had us supplying England and was secretly supporting Churchill

We also know that it was the conservatives who whined about what a warmonger FDR was right up to Pearl Harbor


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 17, 2012)

regent said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



FDR made us a Superpower


----------



## daveman (Mar 17, 2012)

Dragon said:


> In fact, liberals tend to be quite moralistic.


Indeed.  You just have a habit of choosing the wrong side of issues.


----------



## daveman (Mar 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


You and your fellow Statists would have informed on the revolutionaries.  You likes you some oligarchy, you do.


----------



## daveman (Mar 17, 2012)

Dragon said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


See?  You'd rather label a fellow American as evil than our nation's enemies.


----------



## daveman (Mar 17, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1.	Liberalism is a religion. Central to this religion is the assertion that evil does not exist, all conflict being attributed to a lack of understanding between the opposed.
> ...


Another fine example.

Your definition of evil is based on politics, not actions.  You will not label a fellow leftist as evil, no matter what atrocities he may have committed.  

But let someone disagree with you -- whoo boy, now that's evil!!


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 18, 2012)

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



But history shows that it was the Conservatives of the day who turned in the liberal Patriots


----------



## Dragon (Mar 18, 2012)

daveman said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, liberals tend to be quite moralistic.
> ...



Whatever. That still leaves CG's OP being ridiculous drivel.

By the way, no foreign enemy has ever been the threat to liberty that our own government or powerful private organizations represent. Osama bin Ladin was a considerable threat to Americans, but Dick Cheney was worse, not because he was a worse man morally (six of one half a dozen of the other IMO), but because he was in a position to do more harm.


----------



## daveman (Mar 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Conservatives of that day are not the same as conservatives now.  Similarly, liberals of that day have nothing in common with liberals today.

Liberals then supported individual liberties, small Federal government, and State's rights.  You can tell because they built the government that way.  

Liberals today think those are horrible ideas.


----------



## daveman (Mar 18, 2012)

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


Uh huh.  The people who were in the WTC would probably have something different to say about that.

Like I said:  You choose the wrong side.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 18, 2012)

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You figured that one out did you?  Nothing today is like it was in 1776, especially our country

What is the same is that each new generation faces challenges. They can face those challenges with either a liberal or conservative mindset. Liberals will say, we can do better.......conservatives will say, let's keep things the way they are


----------



## daveman (Mar 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Today's liberals are saying "We can do better -- even though our ideas have all been proven failures by history.  No, really, it'll work this time, honest!!"


----------



## Dragon (Mar 18, 2012)

daveman said:


> Uh huh.  The people who were in the WTC would probably have something different to say about that.



They might; on the other hand, all the casualties we've taken in Iraq and Afghanistan might see things my way. The worst menace is the one hurting you, personally, right?

And in fact, it's quite doubtful that bin Ladin would have been any danger to us if it weren't for the Cheneys in our post-WWII history (although to assign all that blame to Cheney himself would be a bit much). Maybe he'd have blown up the Saudi royal family instead.

It can't be doubted, though, that the greatest menace to our liberty is always going to be our own government rather than any foreigner. A foreign government may be tyrannical, but it has no jurisdiction here, while our own government does.


----------



## daveman (Mar 18, 2012)

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Uh huh.  The people who were in the WTC would probably have something different to say about that.
> ...


Yeah.  So why do you give Obama a free pass?


----------



## rdean (Mar 18, 2012)

Conservatism has no flaws:







At least they don't seem to see any.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 18, 2012)

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Our ideas have not been proven wrong by history...

Civil rights
Womens rights
Worker protections
Environmental protections
Gay rights
Social Security
Medicare

All were pursued by liberals......all were opposed by conservatives

Conservatives have consistently been on the wrong side of history......they still are


----------



## Peach (Mar 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Of course, what PC neglects to tell us is that FDR was our greatest Liberal President and that it was the US Conservatives that urged us to mind our own business and stay out of the war


**********************************************
This is forgotten in the claims FDR allowed Pearl harbor, adored Stalin, etc.


----------



## daveman (Mar 18, 2012)

rdean said:


> Conservatism has no flaws:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Odd...you posted a picture of liberalism's foreign policy.


----------



## daveman (Mar 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


I agree, if you're using leftist revisionist history.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 18, 2012)

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



History doesn't lie. Conservatives opposed all those initiatives, many conservatives still do


----------



## Peach (Mar 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


************************************************
France formed a coalition against Germany with GB and Poland in 1939 also; I see this thread as incorrect about history actually.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 18, 2012)

To be completely fair about this, you have to distinguish real conservatism from the ideology of the "conservative movement" today, which is a radical movement and therefore not really conservative at all.

It's also important to point out that, when we are speaking of real conservatives, it was their job, their role in the dialog, to oppose all of those things on Rightwinger's list. Conservatives maintain a society's traditions and coherence, while progressives push for improvements. Not all progressive ideas are good ones (see: 18th Amendment), and it's important for them to prove themselves against objections before being implemented.

Over time, liberals are supposed to win and always do, but they have to win against conservative opposition, and not TOO easily, or society will fall apart.


----------



## Peach (Mar 18, 2012)

Dragon said:


> To be completely fair about this, you have to distinguish real conservatism from the ideology of the "conservative movement" today, which is a radical movement and therefore not really conservative at all.
> 
> It's also important to point out that, when we are speaking of real conservatives, it was their job, their role in the dialog, to oppose all of those things on Rightwinger's list. Conservatives maintain a society's traditions and coherence, while progressives push for improvements. Not all progressive ideas are good ones (see: 18th Amendment), and it's important for them to prove themselves against objections before being implemented.
> 
> Over time, liberals are supposed to win and always do, but they have to win against conservative opposition, and not TOO easily, or society will fall apart.


*********************************************
The first states to ratify the 18th Amendment are now Republican strongholds.


----------



## daveman (Mar 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


History doesn't lie.

But you do.


----------



## daveman (Mar 18, 2012)

Dragon said:


> To be completely fair about this, you have to distinguish real conservatism from the ideology of the "conservative movement" today, which is a radical movement and therefore not really conservative at all.
> 
> It's also important to point out that, when we are speaking of real conservatives, it was their job, their role in the dialog, to oppose all of those things on Rightwinger's list. Conservatives maintain a society's traditions and coherence, while progressives push for improvements. Not all progressive ideas are good ones (see: 18th Amendment), and it's important for them to prove themselves against objections before being implemented.
> 
> Over time, liberals are supposed to win and always do, but they have to win against conservative opposition, and not TOO easily, or society will fall apart.


Oh, goody.  I was just thinking to myself, "Y'know, we need a blowhard leftist around here to define what a 'real conservative' is based on his stereotypes and leftist programming".

Thanks!


----------



## elvis (Mar 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


This is such pointless you're playing...  but Abraham Lincoln was a republican.  Andrew Johnson was a democrat.  How proud you must be of those two facts.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 18, 2012)

elvis said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Where did I mention anything about Democrats or Republicans?


----------



## elvis (Mar 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


This is such a stupid game.  But I've played stupid games before. 
How many years did "liberals" win because of the "Solid South"?  FDR is one of many who won because of it.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 18, 2012)

elvis said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



There actually was a time in the land of far, far away when you had Republicans who fought for liberal ideals and Democrats who supported racist Jim Crow laws.


----------



## Peach (Mar 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


*****************************************************
True, and FRANCE was with Roland and Great Britain against Nazi Germany by 1939.


----------



## Peach (Mar 18, 2012)

Poland.


----------



## rdean (Mar 18, 2012)

daveman said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatism has no flaws:
> ...



Odd.  It was Republicans who let Bin Laden go.  It wasn't Republicans who got him.


----------



## elvis (Mar 18, 2012)

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Odd.  you're still a worthless piece of shit partisan hack jackass.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 18, 2012)

daveman said:


> Oh, goody.  I was just thinking to myself, "Y'know, we need a blowhard leftist around here to define what a 'real conservative' is based on his stereotypes and leftist programming".



Sorry, I didn't use any stereotypes. I just used a dictionary. I recommend the practice if you're confused about what a word means. I recommend it even more highly when you're wrong.


----------



## Peach (Mar 18, 2012)

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, goody.  I was just thinking to myself, "Y'know, we need a blowhard leftist around here to define what a 'real conservative' is based on his stereotypes and leftist programming".
> ...


***************************************************
And if you confused about France & WWII, read a history book, or ""link" to a reliable source.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 18, 2012)

Peach said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Stop blowing smoke and articulate any error you see....


----------



## Peach (Mar 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


************************************************
Chautemps was not socialist, Blum was. each served one year. France went through many Prime Ministers in the 1930's. Some were Socialists, some were not. France in the 1930's is not a good example of Socialist government. The USSR IS. Either repression or depression.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



1. History: Classical liberalism
	a. The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked *liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power)* precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal. War Is the Health of the State

b. Thus, *those views identify the 'conservative' of today!*

2. The *'revisionism'* is actually the change of *the name 'progressive' by John Dewey*, to obfuscate due to the extreme dislike of the public for progressives.

a. Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didnt agree. They *(Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy *where men of action were creating utopias. Also, John *Dewey renamed Progressivism as liberalism,* which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. *Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.*

b.  Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to *repackage progressive social theory* in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, *Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism"* to describe his social theory. Only after *realizing how damaging the name was *to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a *longtime member*, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism. 
John Dewey and the Philosophical Refounding of America by Tiffany Jones Miller - National Review Online

c. DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, "Liberalism and Social Action," should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms-- 
Ibid.

3. Here's why he changed the name:
The United States presidential* election of 1920 *was dominated by the aftermath of World War I and* the hostile reaction to Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president. *Harding's victory remains *the largest popular-vote percentage margin* (60.3% to 34.1%) in Presidential elections after the so-called "Era of Good Feelings" ended with the victory of James Monroe in the election of 1820.  United States presidential election, 1920 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So, let's *review.*...
Because the progressives were so hated, Dewey and the the socialist bunch ducked for cover by trying to self-identify as classical liberals, otherwise known as conservatives.



Should I point out that *Mussolini's fascists, Hitler's National Socialists, and FDR's New Dealers were like three peas in a pod *until the Holocaust was revealed....then, under cover of the media, they did a 'Dewey' and branded the Right as the fascists....

Is that sweat breaking out on your forehead, wingy???


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 18, 2012)

Peach said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



1."France in the 1930's is not a good example of Socialist government." 
 The OP does not say what you claim it does.
*Read more carefully.*
This, from the OP:
"The French Socialists of the 1930s had impeccable democratic credentials, dating back to the 19th century. They won elections, and in Leon Blum they produced a great leader, a prime minister who had the ability to fuse French patriotism and social justice, and the finest cultural values."

*Does that say 'French gover*nment throughout the 1930's was socialist," or would you like to admit you were in error?

2. Try not to post anything so *patently incorrect *again.

3. "I see this thread as incorrect about history actually."
Clean off your specs, you see no such thing. Actually.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 18, 2012)

We really are confused in our discourse about the meaning of those two words "liberal" and "conservative." Another good example, besides the hijacking of the latter word by a radical movement that is about as conservative as Chariman Mao, is the idea that "classical liberals" held the same views as "movement conservatives" today.

Yes, classical liberals did indeed favor small, limited government. They also believed in economic equality, distrusted rich people, loathed capitalists and corporations, and were extremely wary of a strong, standing military. If you're going to call someone who is around today a "classical liberal," that person should share ALL of these positions, not just roughly half of one of them.

The truth is that modern liberals share almost all of these attitudes. While they don't share one hundred percent of them, and therefore shouldn't be called "classical liberals," to call them "liberals" is perfectly sound, as it recognizes that they and men like Locke, Smith, and Jefferson are _almost_ entirely in agreement.

Conservatives -- real or "movement" -- come nowhere within shooting range of being classical liberals.


----------



## Peach (Mar 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


********************************************
France was not "socialist" throughout the 1930's, France was in turmoil, bad economic conditions, and went from one leader to another to other. I do not see how France can be labeled SOCIALIST through the entire decade(.) I see the USSR as an example of the Socialism/Communism failures.


----------



## Peach (Mar 18, 2012)

Peach said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...


********************************************
Blum lasted a year, as did Chautempt.  With so many changes in leadership, I don't think France can be pigeon holed for a DECADE.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



More PC cut and paste?



Skip it


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 18, 2012)

Peach said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



1. An interesting exercise in reality. When one makes a mistake and same is pointed out, the response of the one in error speaks volumes.

2. You incorrectly stated that the OP was historically inaccurate. When asked to elucidate, you went on about the French Government of the 1930's.

3. Unfortunately for you, the OP was about a party, the French Socialists, rather than the government of France.
I proved same with "The French Socialists of the 1930s ...."

4. The honorable response to said situation would have been a post from you that began with something along the lines of "Ah, now I see.....and so on and so forth."

5. The cover-up is always worse than the crime.
You're dismissed.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Now, now...we both know the truth.....


----------



## Peach (Mar 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


************************************************
There was no consistent leader in France in the 1930's; a new PM each year. How was socialism different than Laval's failure?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 18, 2012)

Dragon said:


> We really are confused in our discourse about the meaning of those two words "liberal" and "conservative." Another good example, besides the hijacking of the latter word by a radical movement that is about as conservative as Chariman Mao, is the idea that "classical liberals" held the same views as "movement conservatives" today.
> 
> Yes, classical liberals did indeed favor small, limited government. They also believed in economic equality, distrusted rich people, loathed capitalists and corporations, and were extremely wary of a strong, standing military. If you're going to call someone who is around today a "classical liberal," that person should share ALL of these positions, not just roughly half of one of them.
> 
> ...




Bogus.


"They also believed in economic equality,..."

Nonsense, as I'm about to prove.
The following is from Glenn Greenwald, With Liberty and Justice for Some; How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful,....a Liberal in the moderns sense...as you are.
The difference between you and Greenwald is that he knows what he is talking about.

1.	The central principle of Americas founding was that the rule of law would be the prime equalizing force; the founders considered vast inequality in every other realm to be inevitable and even desirable. A small number would of individuals would be naturally endowed with unique and extraordinary talents while most people, by definition, would be ordinary. So *the American concept of liberty would be premised on the inevitability of outcome inequality- success of some, failure of others.*

a.	Law was the one exception; no inequality was tolerable. It was the sine qua non ensuring fairness.

2.* None of the founders believed in equality as a general proposition. The opposite is true: they considered inequality on every level, other than law,* to be the natural, inevitable, and just state of affairs. Even Jefferson, one of the most egalitarian of the founders, held that there was a natural aristocracy among men, based on virtue and talents. This was not only natural, but desirable: The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and the government of society.

a.	Adams the same. It already appears, that there must be in every society of men *superiors an inferiors, because God has laid in the constitution and course of nature the foundations of the distinction.*


Help me with this: is it because you are remarkably uneducated...or that you simply make things up on the spot?

Either way, it is fun eviscerating your nonsense.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 18, 2012)

Peach said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



When you're in a hole, you should stop digging.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Sorry, but if you want to make a point.....make it

I don't debate cut and pastes


----------



## elvis (Mar 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


You said hole.


----------



## Peach (Mar 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


************************************************
Using France in the 1930's as an example of American political beliefs today starts a chasm.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> a. &#8220;The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked *liberalism ...
> 
> b. Thus, those views identify the 'conservative' of today! ...
> 
> ...


*

All of these statements are false. American intellectuals are disproportionately liberal. Classical liberals shared almost all of the views of modern liberals, and almost no views of modern conservatives. There has never been any such thing in this country, in power, running the government, as socialism, "war" or otherwise. And Roosevelt did not incarcerate and execute all of the Republicans, which would be a prerequisite for him being identical with Hitler or Mussolini. That's just for starters; then he'd have to murder all of the Democratic progressives, the way Hitler slaughtered all of the Nazi socialists in the Night of the Long Knives. And attempting to conquer Canada and Mexico would also increase the similarity.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I'll post the way I do, you read what you're not afraid to read...OK?

We both know that you are afraid of the material in my posts.

Be well.


----------



## regent (Mar 18, 2012)

Liberalism doesn't change, the means to achieve the liberalism can and does change but the core beliefs of liberalism are the same today as they were in the Age of reason. But as with most beliefs there are takeoffs and new types. But for all the comments on these boards, for and against liberalism, few seem to be able to define liberalism. 
The most common mistake with defining liberalism is using the means to achieve liberalism as part and parcel of liberal beliefs, i.e. small government or limited government is a part of of the liberal philosophy, it is not. Governments are a means to an end, not an end. But the question might be asked, what is the purpose of governments, how do governments fit into the liberal means to an end. In short, what is the purpose of government? Jefferson believed he knew, John Adams also knew and other founders and readers of the Age of Reason and Enlightenment might also have known. Do we?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 18, 2012)

Dragon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > a. The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked *liberalism ...
> ...


*

1. There is neither the time nor space to correct all of your misunderstandings and outright fibs....

You should begin with Wolfgang Schivelbusch, Three New Deals...FDR's economic programs were the same as Mussolini and Hitler....
...methinks you are pretending that we are speaking of concentration camps.

2. "American intellectuals are disproportionately liberal."
Again...a dishonest obfuscation. Intellectuals of the 19th century were students of Hegel.
I know you have no clue about Hegel...but his view was state over individual: the modern liberal view...

3. "There has never been any such thing in this country, in power, running the government, as socialism, "war" or otherwise."

During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.
1.	Had the worlds first modern propaganda ministry
2.	Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions. 
3.	The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous poison into the  American bloodstream
4.	Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government
5.	Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war
6.	College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues 
7.	Nearly a quarter million goons were given legal authority to beat and intimidate slackers and dissenters
8.	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


So, you post reeks of ignorance....
...I am no longer surprised at your lack of knowledge.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 18, 2012)

regent said:


> Liberalism doesn't change, the means to achieve the liberalism can and does change but the core beliefs of liberalism are the same today as they were in the Age of reason. But as with most beliefs there are takeoffs and new types. But for all the comments on these boards, for and against liberalism, few seem to be able to define liberalism.
> The most common mistake with defining liberalism is using the means to achieve liberalism as part and parcel of liberal beliefs, i.e. small government or limited government is a part of of the liberal philosophy, it is not. Governments are a means to an end, not an end. But the question might be asked, what is the purpose of governments, how do governments fit into the liberal means to an end. In short, what is the purpose of government? Jefferson believed he knew, John Adams also knew and other founders and readers of the Age of Reason and Enlightenment might also have known. Do we?



"Liberalism doesn't change, the means to achieve the liberalism can and does change but the core beliefs of liberalism are the same today as they were in the Age of reason."

Absolutely untrue.
Read the thread.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. There is neither the time nor space to correct all of your misunderstandings and outright fibs....



Then you shouldn't try. You're doping a damned shitty job, so you might as well not waste the efforgt



> You should begin with



No, I should not. I already know sufficient about the FACTS concerning the New Deal, Nazism, and Fascism. I have no interest in anyone else's OPINION, amounting to the spouting of propaganda, concerning same, nor would the existence of such opinions prove anything beyond the fact that those people held them.

It is a fact that classical liberals believed in economic equality, despised and distrusted corporations and the rich, and were anti-militaristic in the sense of opposing large standing armies. It is a fact that modern liberals share all of these beliefs with classical liberals while modern conservative share none of them. It is a fact that the "small government" views of classical liberals were not among their core values but rather were a means to an end, and a further fact that modern conservatives only half share that view in any case, as do modern liberals (but regarding different halves).

It is a fact that the fascist states of mid-20th century Europe maintained enormous military forces, did not allow free elections, slapped their political opponents in prison and/or executed them, and engaged in aggressive wars against their neighbors; these are not trivial characteristics of the fascist states but defining ones and the Roosevelt administration shared absolutely none of them. It is also a face that the characteristics that these regimes did share, namely a willingness to regulate the economy without going all the way to socialism, were not defining of the fascist states nor the things about them that people generally dislike (except narrow-minded ideologues like yourself, that is).

Nobody's opinion expressed about any of these things can override these facts, which show that your claims are sheer nonsense.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 18, 2012)

Dragon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1. There is neither the time nor space to correct all of your misunderstandings and outright fibs....
> ...



You do resist education, don't you.

Personality defect?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> You do resist education, don't you.



What I resist is indoctrination with the views of John Birch Society whack-jobs. One should not confuse that with education.


----------



## Peach (Mar 18, 2012)

American intellectuals are disproportionately liberal.
*************************************************
I see this as another false division of Americans; France in the 1930's being a lesson for America today I also reject. Charles deGaulle used the term "democratic" in his party at one point. Was HE like "liberals" in America today?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 18, 2012)

Dragon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > You do resist education, don't you.
> ...



The Schivelbusch book is a scholarly tome....probably over your head.

Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939 by Wolfgang Schivelbusch 

Book Description
Publication Date: November 27, 2007 | ISBN-10: 0312427433 | ISBN-13: 978-0312427436 | Edition: 1st
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is regarded today as the democratic ideal, a triumphant American response to a crisis that forced Germany and Italy toward National Socialism and Fascism. *Yet in the 1930s, before World War II, the regimes of Roosevelt, Mussolini, and Hitler bore fundamental similarities. I*n this groundbreaking work, Wolfgang Schivelbusch investigates the shared elements of these three "new deals"--focusing on their architecture and public works projects--to offer a new explanation for the popularity of Europe's totalitarian systems. Writing with flair and concision, Schivelbusch casts a different light on the New Deal and puts forth a provocative explanation for the still-mysterious popularity of Europe's most tyrannical regimes.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Afraid?

Far from it. I have just learned from experience that your cut and paste replies are not worth the effort 

I would have no problem replying to your opinion but I find your replies of "here is someone elses opinion, reply to that" to be insulting


----------



## Sunni Man (Mar 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


It's a slow but predictable process.

Historically, unchecked Liberalism eventually morphs into either Fascism or Communism.

Which are just two sides of the same coin.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 18, 2012)

Look, it's not as if I haven't studied that period of history -- EXTENSIVELY. And anyone who calls Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler peas in a pod is a nut job. My time is reasonably valuable to me, and I am not going to waste it wading through patently nonsensical ideas on your recommendation, which quite frankly is no recommendation at all.

Now, you want to make that case, don't refer me to someone's book, give me facts. I can show you many Social Democrats and Communists thrown into concentration camps and murdered by Adolf Hitler. Can you show me any Republicans, Socialists, or other non-Democratic politicians who were similarly imprisoned and executed by FDR? I can show you how Hitler built up an enormous military machine prior to going to war. Can you deny that the U.S. military was, in 1941, among the weakest in the world? I can show you how Hitler assumed dictatorial powers -- not some right-wing goofball's ridiculous metaphorical use of that word, either, but the real thing. Can you show how Roosevelt suspended elections, made himself the sole legislative authority, and made it a crime to criticize him? I can show you how Hitler started wars with Czechoslovakia, Poland, Holland, Norway, Belgium, and the Soviet Union. Can you show Roosevelt starting wars with anyone?

All of these represent Nazi behavior having nothing to do with the Holocaust, and so your implication above that the only difference between Hitler's Nazis and Roosevelt's Democrats involved the Holocaust is sheer drivel. Absolute bollocks. And anyone who claims to the contrary is a nut job. I don't care if you regard him as "scholarly." He's still a nut job, and definitely not worth my time.

Same is true, if less blatantly, regarding classical liberals and modern conservatives.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Silly, since they are obviously my opinions, unless you'd like to contend that they are posted at random.

I couldn't care less whether you read 'em or not....
...it's your loss.

Your excuses are transparent, and vapid.

It is totally understandable why you'd rather not be exposed to material that explodes your worldview...

...no explanations necessary. 
OK?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 18, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Historically, unchecked Liberalism eventually morphs into either Fascism or Communism.



More bollocks. The only way that liberalism has ever "morphed" into fascism is by way of the fascists overthrowing liberalism in a coup or revolution. The liberals didn't become fascists, the fascists threw the liberals into concentration camps after taking over. And liberal regimes have never "morphed" into Communist ones in any way at all, including that one; Communist revolutionaries have overthrown monarchs, military dictators, and corrupt autocrats, but liberals, never.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 18, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Look, it's not as if I haven't studied that period of history -- EXTENSIVELY. And anyone who calls Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler peas in a pod is a nut job. My time is reasonably valuable to me, and I am not going to waste it wading through patently nonsensical ideas on your recommendation, which quite frankly is no recommendation at all.
> 
> Now, you want to make that case, don't refer me to someone's book, give me facts. I can show you many Social Democrats and Communists thrown into concentration camps and murdered by Adolf Hitler. Can you show me any Republicans, Socialists, or other non-Democratic politicians who were similarly imprisoned and executed by FDR? I can show you how Hitler built up an enormous military machine prior to going to war. Can you deny that the U.S. military was, in 1941, among the weakest in the world? I can show you how Hitler assumed dictatorial powers -- not some right-wing goofball's ridiculous metaphorical use of that word, either, but the real thing. Can you show how Roosevelt suspended elections, made himself the sole legislative authority, and made it a crime to criticize him? I can show you how Hitler started wars with Czechoslovakia, Poland, Holland, Norway, Belgium, and the Soviet Union. Can you show Roosevelt starting wars with anyone?
> 
> ...



Now, try to be honest....
"And anyone who calls Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler peas in a pod..."
That's not what I said, is it.


Here is the original statement....and it is true.
"Should I point out that Mussolini's fascists, Hitler's National Socialists, and FDR's New Dealers were like three peas in a pod until the Holocaust was revealed....then, under cover of the media, they did a 'Dewey' and branded the Right as the fascists...."

The above is true, as opposed to the following:
" it's not as if I haven't studied that period of history -- EXTENSIVELY."
Baloney.
You simply mouth the Leftist "FDR was a saint" nonsense.



1.	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)


2.	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.*


3. 	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.


4.	*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. 


5. 	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.


----------



## Sunni Man (Mar 18, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Historically, unchecked Liberalism eventually morphs into either Fascism or Communism.
> ...


National Socialism in Germany and Communism in the USSR.

Were two competing Liberal/Socialist ideologies with the exact same agenda.

Basically, both were touted as a workers utopia; where all allegiance and loyalty was directed to the state.

The New Deal was modeled after this European social experiment.


----------



## Peach (Mar 18, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Historically, unchecked Liberalism eventually morphs into either Fascism or Communism.
> ...


******************************************************
Lenin overthrew the Russian Republic. Was Lenin a fascist? I would say yes. The mass killings of the Kulaks should be taken into account, from 700,000 (USSR) to 6 million (Solzhenitsyn). Authoritarian regimes are authoritarian regimes; no comparison to Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, nor Mussolini in the US.


----------



## regent (Mar 18, 2012)

Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters  words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 18, 2012)

regent said:


> Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters  words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?



Only recently has the Left's strangle-hold on dissemination of information been loosened.
Scholars are beginning to reveal the material in my post.

Do your homework, start here:

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.


Then come back and apologize.


----------



## Sunni Man (Mar 18, 2012)

Peach said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


Most Native Americans would vehemently disagree with you.


----------



## Peach (Mar 18, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


*******************************************************
Communism BEGAN in theory to apply to all nations. Fascism generally is a "nation as superior" idea. Schivelbusch is German and list "history of mentalities" as a method. I do not see FDR as either communist, nor fascist. Nor do I see the author's qualifications as a retrograde psychologist.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 18, 2012)

regent said:


> Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters  words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?



 "But why take any posters  words for what to believe,..."

Hope you check it out, reggie....


About the AHR
The American Historical Review (AHR) is the official publication of the American Historical Association. Since 1895, the AHR has been the journal of record for the historical profession in the United States--the only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is published in February, April, June, October, and December. The AHR editorial office is housed at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.
The American Historical Review - American Historical Association


----------



## Peach (Mar 18, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


******************************************************
The many at fault are too numerous to mention. I was slammed for noting A. Jackson was known as "the Indian Killer".


----------



## Sunni Man (Mar 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters  words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?
> ...


One thing that I have learned while spending time on this board is that Liberals hate "truth".

Now, they love liberal based manufactured truth when it backs up their agenda.

But, pure unadulterated, truth for truth's sake, is an anathema to liberal thought.


----------



## Peach (Mar 18, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


----------



## regent (Mar 18, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters  words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?
> ...



Not impressed. Schaivalbusch's book apparently did not cause any great upheaval in history or with historians. These things are written as say Beard's book on the Constitution to create some interest and feedback from other historians. But even with Beard, and his quite famous and controversial book, in the end other historians pointed out the flaws and Beard changed his mind somewhat. 
This New Deal book created little or no stir among historians and it seems relegated now to its own history. Nope, not impressed. For liberalism might start  with the Declaration of Independence.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 19, 2012)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Who the heck cares whether or not you are impressed????


You suggested all check out historians, do one's homework, and now, faced with a seminal work by Columbia University historian Garraty, as well as Schivelbusch, you are suddenly afraid to do so.

That says all one need know about your search for truth...and your intestinal fortitude.

Some purchase intellectual comfort cheaply.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 19, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Now, try to be honest....
> "And anyone who calls Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler peas in a pod..."
> That's not what I said, is it.



Yes, actually, it is.



> Should I point out that Mussolini's fascists, Hitler's National Socialists, and FDR's New Dealers were like three peas in a pod until the Holocaust was revealed



There you go. That is exactly what you said: that (except for the Holocaust) the Democrats under FDR and the Nazis under Hitler were identical. And it's nut-job stuff.



> You simply mouth the Leftist "FDR was a saint" nonsense.



To say that Roosevelt was not a Nazi is not to say that he was a saint. Get a grip.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 19, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> National Socialism in Germany and Communism in the USSR.



I bet you believe everything advertising tells you, too.

There were, in fact, some Nazis who took the "socialist" part of the party's name seriously. They were murdered after Hitler came to power. After that, it was just a name.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Now, try to be honest....
> ...




Seems that I must teach you vocabulary as well as history...
*ex·act·ly*/ig&#712;zaktl&#275;/
Adverb:	
Without discrepancy (used to emphasize the accuracy of a figure or description).
*In exact terms; *without vagueness.


Clearly, "Hitler's *National Socialists*, and FDR's* New Dealers .*.."

Is not exactly " *Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitle*r peas in a pod."


So, the nuance is beyond your limited ability to see that *I compare economic plans*, you pretend that I have *compared individuals.*

You are dishonest as well as uneducated.


Let me go further and explain the flawed gambit that you have attempted to use: since you have not the depth of 
knowledge of the subject that I have, the best a casuist such as yourself can do is- now watch and see the typical Leftist-Alinsky
methodology- attempt to smear the messenger, me, by claiming that I have equated Hitler and FDR.


But, you failed in this, as you have in so many other areas. 
I actually enjoy revealing your contemptible attempts...
....As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
 (Although, in your case, I would add that actual disinfectant might not be a bad idea either.)


----------



## regent (Mar 19, 2012)

Well I care if I'm not impressed. 
Historians like to kick up some dirt and with the kick might come something of note, so far these gentlemen seem to have made some dust. When the historical community goes bonkers, I'll go bonkers. Might make an interesting book, however, historical exposes that failed. For now, I'll stick with the larger school.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 19, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> Clearly, "Hitler's *National Socialists*, and FDR's* New Dealers .*.."
> 
> Is not exactly " *Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitle*r peas in a pod."



LOL is that the best you can do? Is that sort of pointless hair-splitting your best defense? Really, you would have been better off remaining silent.

That statement is equally false as saying the _leaders themselves_ were identical, of course, and amounts to the same thing, unless you want to claim that one or both of them was a puppet figurehead and the underlings were the real power. Which is just about as crazy.

EDIT: And even then, you have to account for the radically different political outcomes of Nazi as compared to Democratic rule, just as I noted already.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Although tempting, try not to blame me for your inadequacies.
I see that explaining veracity to you is as useless as trying to blow out a lightbulb.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 19, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Although tempting, try not to blame me for your inadequacies.
> I see that explaining veracity to you is as useless as trying to blow out a lightbulb.



Well, par for your usual course, you have now been reduced to personal invective and pointless insults. Knowing this for the sign that you have lost the debate, and that you are completely incapable of graciously acknowledging this, I guess my work is done here.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Although tempting, try not to blame me for your inadequacies.
> ...



What a great illustration of the beauty and value of the internet in general, and the USMB, specifically.

An individual such as myself can provide interesting and well researched material, for which the opposition has no response much less rebuttal, and a dolt such as you can save face by posting " you have lost the debate, and that you are completely incapable of graciously acknowledging this,...."

I must admit, it is a great tactic...and far less time consuming than actual study.

I suppose I shouldn't reveal this, but anyone reading both of our posts knows you are a fool. Was that a buzz-kill?


And deep down, you and I both know you have more issues than the Reader's Digest.


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2012)

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


Bill Clinton was a Republican?

I know you're so utterly desperate to finally win an online debate, Derp, but man, that's pathetic even for you.


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, goody.  I was just thinking to myself, "Y'know, we need a blowhard leftist around here to define what a 'real conservative' is based on his stereotypes and leftist programming".
> ...


Yes, you used the Leftist dictionary.  

I prefer the real one, thanks.  You know, the one where the definitions aren't all blank allowing the flailing leftist in question to make up his own definition.


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> We really are confused in our discourse about the meaning of those two words "liberal" and "conservative." Another good example, besides the hijacking of the latter word by a radical movement that is about as conservative as Chariman Mao, is the idea that "classical liberals" held the same views as "movement conservatives" today.
> 
> Yes, classical liberals did indeed favor small, limited government. They also believed in economic equality, distrusted rich people, loathed capitalists and corporations, and were extremely wary of a strong, standing military. If you're going to call someone who is around today a "classical liberal," that person should share ALL of these positions, not just roughly half of one of them.
> 
> ...


If that's true, then you have to admit that modern liberals aren't even on the same planet as classical liberals.

But you won't.  You're desperate to have it both ways.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 19, 2012)

daveman said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > We really are confused in our discourse about the meaning of those two words "liberal" and "conservative." Another good example, besides the hijacking of the latter word by a radical movement that is about as conservative as Chariman Mao, is the idea that "classical liberals" held the same views as "movement conservatives" today.
> ...



Never mind Dragon

Reading is not davemans strongest suit


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Classical liberals shared almost all of the views of modern liberals...


Yes.  Except for your support of overarching, burdensome government, your disregard for States' Rights, your distrust of the Constitution, your contempt for free speech that doesn't agree with you, your hatred for personal weapons, and your condemnation of personal liberty -- you're JUST LIKE the Founding Fathers.


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2012)

regent said:


> Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters  words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?


"Historians" like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are.


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2012)

Dragon said:


> That is exactly what you said: that (except for the Holocaust) the Democrats under FDR and the Nazis under Hitler were identical. And it's nut-job stuff.


I'd assume that you similarly chastised your fellow lefties who claim that American conservative Christians are just like the Taliban, but we both know you didn't.


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


Your problem is that I can read.  Your even worse problem is that I can think.

That means I don't buy leftist bullshit.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


 


Yup.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 19, 2012)

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Outside of his obsession for reading the works of Alinsky, daveman is not much for book learning


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


More lies from Leftwinger.  

Of course, that's all he can do.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 19, 2012)

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Alinsky 101:

Accuse others of what you are guilty of


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 19, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


That's been used by the republicans to a fare-thee-well...projection.


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



And this is where you get to link to a lie of mine.

But of course, you won't.  Because you can't.  You'll just keep lying.

Guaranteed.


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Hint:  rightwinger is not a right winger.  He's lying even in his username.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 19, 2012)

daveman said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I am a true Rightwinger, 

Daveman is what we like to call Alinsky Republicans, posting radical propaganda in an attempt to push his twisted agenda


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


Liar.


----------



## editec (Mar 20, 2012)

Why didn't the UK stop Hitler?

Were they _too liberal,_ too?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 20, 2012)

daveman said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > That is exactly what you said: that (except for the Holocaust) the Democrats under FDR and the Nazis under Hitler were identical. And it's nut-job stuff.
> ...



Well, at worst, those people who say that are guilty of exaggeration to make a point. I'll acknowledge the Taliban is worse. I'm not sure if they're worse because they really are deep down, or just because they have more power. The only way to test that, unfortunately, would be to give the religious right comparable power, and that would be a catastrophe even if it wouldn't end up quite as bad as what the Taliban did.

The Christian right and the Taliban are the same sort of animal. Maybe comparing them is like comparing a jaguar to a tiger. But comparing New Dealers to Nazis is like comparing a screwdriver to a grizzly bear. The first is arguably exaggeration. The second is nonsense.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 20, 2012)

daveman said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > We really are confused in our discourse about the meaning of those two words "liberal" and "conservative." Another good example, besides the hijacking of the latter word by a radical movement that is about as conservative as Chariman Mao, is the idea that "classical liberals" held the same views as "movement conservatives" today.
> ...



As Rightwinger pointed out, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. If you want to DISAGREE with what I said, and you quoted, and then on that basis say that modern liberals and classical liberals are poles apart, that's, well, wrong, but at least logically consistent. But in no way does that follow from what I said.

I think you should avoid posting before you get your coffee in the morning. Just a helpful thought. You're welcome.


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2012)

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


"Arguably exaggeration"?  No, it's unquestionably bullshit.  You have to go back to the Dark Ages to find Taliban-like behavior among Christians.  

Your irrational hatred of Christians makes you say stupid shit.


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2012)

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


It's not wrong.  Your position is utterly laughable and is in no way backed up by history.

REAL history, not the leftist crap you apparently read.


Dragon said:


> I think you should avoid posting before you get your coffee in the morning. Just a helpful thought. You're welcome.


I think you should do something to justify your arrogance.  NOTE:  "Being a liberal" isn't sufficient.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 20, 2012)

daveman said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


 
And compels him to lie. 

Those of us who believe in the inerrancy of the bible see that as evidence he's being used by Satan. Satan is the great deceiver, and when someone can't help lying, particularly when it is an offshoot of a committment to lead people from the path to Heaven and away from God, the saved view that as Satan working through them. 

Satan in the garden of eden lied in order to get Eve to take a bite of the apple, you know....


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


Satan's greatest trick was convincing the world he doesn't exist.

Some people fell for it.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 20, 2012)

And he uses them to pull more people away from God.

They don't make sense, they can't tell you why they do it, they lie incessantly and they promote things like the murder of infants.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 20, 2012)

They do it in the name of *wisdom* which confirms the bible even more.


----------



## regent (Mar 20, 2012)

daveman said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters  words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?
> ...



So two historians are communists, well then I guess we can trust the rest for the truth. Only two out of what, thousands, well that sure helps?


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2012)

regent said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


Oh, I have no doubt there are others.  They're the ones that reference Zinn and Chomsky.

And my focus was not on Communism, but on the distortion of history.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2012)

regent said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Sometimes, reggie, you seem to know whereof you speak, but here you are, if I can read between the lines, unaware of the leftward leanings of academia in general and the 'social scientists' specifically...

If one wishes to advance in academia, one had best toe the Leftist-line.
Only the bravest pursue the truth, in the way Garraty and Schivelbush do, especially with reference to the saints of the Left.

You do genuflect when you mention FDR, don't you?


Dr. Phillis Chesler, in "Death of Feminism":

1.	Academic feminists who *received tenure, promotion, and funding,* tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-Americanproponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. *They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth. * [In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understandand this obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear.

2. In 2004, Klein and Western published a study of the voter registration of the professors at U of C, Berkeley, and at Stanford, over 1000 professors, and concluded that the findings supported the* one party campus conjecture.* At Berkeley, 9.9 to 1, and at Stanford, 7.6 to 1 of Democrats to Republicans. Ideological diversity does not exist on most campuses.
In 2005 Klein and Stern surveyed 1,678 professors, and found that faculty is heavily skewed toward Democratic, and the most lopsided fields are Anthropology (30.2 to 1) and Sociology (28 to 1).

3.: The need to belong, most will sacrifice what makes them different in order to belong, to be liked. *The tension between the need to belong and the need to think independently can be unbearable. *


So, "So two historians are communists, well then I guess we can trust the rest for the truth." in light of the above, seems somewhat disingenuous...does it not?


For the record, I don't believe that most of our Leftist friends who are 'historians' are dishonest....rather they have internalized the need to say, or at least suggest, the 'correct' things. They have given up the ability to be objective in order to live well.

That doesn't apply to Zinn or Chomsky: they are dishonest, as you seem willing to admit.


----------



## editec (Mar 21, 2012)

regent said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


 
You have been misinformed.

Neither Zinn nor Chomsky advocate communism.

How do I know this?

Well among other things I studied with Zinn and I met and spoke to Chomsky.

Neither are communists.


----------



## daveman (Mar 21, 2012)

editec said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


But their "histories" are wildly inaccurate, sacrificing truth for ideology.


----------



## editec (Mar 21, 2012)

daveman said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


 

Feel free to point out all the historical inaccuracies you have found in your serious study of Zinn's history, Dave.

My problems with Zinn were never based on any historical inaccuracy he'd foisted.

My problems with Zinn were ALWAYS based on his analysis of what that history was actually telling us.

Tell ya what I think, Dave.

I think you've never actually studied either of what these guys wrote.

The fact that you claim either of them are communists informs me that you've never read anything they've written

I think you're making a statement about them based entirely on what _somebody told you those guys thought._

Am I wrong?


----------



## regent (Mar 21, 2012)

Surprised no one brought up Churchill and his advocating The Rule of Ten. The Rule of Ten that left Chamberlin unable to respond to Hitler at Munich. Was Churchill a liberal?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 21, 2012)

daveman said:


> "Arguably exaggeration"?  No, it's unquestionably bullshit.  You have to go back to the Dark Ages to find Taliban-like behavior among Christians.



That's because you have to go back to the Middle Ages to find Taliban-like theocratic power among Christians. The motivations of the Christian right and the Taliban are identical (allowing for the different religions involved), but we don't let the Christian right out without a keeper. That's the only difference.

EDIT: Actually, come to think of it what I said is only true in the United States, among the _American_ Christian right. In less advanced countries, Christians can still behave in Taliban fashion.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 21, 2012)

daveman said:


> It's not wrong.  Your position is utterly laughable and is in no way backed up by history.



There you go. Now you're being logically consistent, instead of claiming I said the opposite of what I did.

You're still wrong, though. Modern liberals agree with classical liberals on almost everything. Modern conservatives agree with classical liberals on almost nothing.


----------



## PeteEU (Mar 21, 2012)

daveman said:


> "Arguably exaggeration"?  No, it's unquestionably bullshit.  You have to go back to the Dark Ages to find Taliban-like behavior among Christians.
> 
> Your irrational hatred of Christians makes you say stupid shit.



Actually you just need to go to Uganda or Nigeria to see that...  anno 2012.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2012)

editec said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



If you don't see that Zinn was a communist, you were subsumed by personality....
...I can understand that.
Hey, bet the same with Bill Clinton...

FBI: Zinn said that he had participated in the activities of various organizations which might be considered Communist fronts but that his participation was motivated by his belief that in this country people had the right to believe, think and act according to their own ideals, the files say.
Howard Zinn


The fact that a bright guy like you is ready to stick up for him verifies what I have posted about the ability of self-delusion that many on the Left have developed.


----------



## Artevelde (Mar 21, 2012)

regent said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Chomsky is not a historian. He's a linguist.
Howard Zinn of course is a historian.

Undoubtedly there are many left leaning historians. But there are also thers.
I'm a historian myself by training and I certainly am not left wing.


----------



## Artevelde (Mar 21, 2012)

PeteEU said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > "Arguably exaggeration"?  No, it's unquestionably bullshit.  You have to go back to the Dark Ages to find Taliban-like behavior among Christians.
> ...



Nigeria? Where Muslim radicals burn Christian churches and murder Christians in increasing numbers?

You need to get better informed.


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 21, 2012)

elvis said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, what PC neglects to tell us is that FDR was our greatest Liberal President and that it was the US Conservatives that urged us to mind our own business and stay out of the war
> ...



It was my understanding that FDR saw a way to get us out of the depression.  War creates jobs producing weapons, ships, etc.  And that's what happened, it got us out of the depression.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Oh, yeah????
Prove it:
do you have the national anthem on your iPod???



Welcome to the board.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Suggesting that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming?


----------



## Artevelde (Mar 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



I don't have an ipod, ergo I don't have any national anthem on it.

I'm a pretty old fashioned guy.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...



Oh,... 8-track and betamax....


----------



## Artevelde (Mar 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Oh,... 8-track and betamax....



Not really, but I still listen to radio on an actual radio (and not only on my PC).

Betamax passed me by and I went straigth into DVD's.

But mainly into books, to tell the truth.

And as far as national anthems go: the dearest to my heart is the Flemish national anthem.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> If you don't see that Zinn was a communist, you were subsumed by personality....



Or, you've actually read his writing . . . or, you actually know what the word "communism" means, and don't redefine it as anything to the left of Atilla the Hun . . . or, you don't play the McCarthyist game of calling any liberal a communist on the flimsiest excuse, such as his small-scale participation in a non-communist organization that is vaguely associated with something that can be tangentially connected with someone who once visited Russia as a tourist.


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 21, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Japan declared war on us, followed by Germany, and Italy.


----------



## Artevelde (Mar 21, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> UpAndAbout said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



You are mistaken: The US declared war on Japan after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (without Japanese declaration of war).
Germany did indeed declare war on the US before the Us declared war on Germany.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 21, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> You are mistaken: The US declared war on Japan after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (without Japanese declaration of war).
> Germany did indeed declare war on the US before the Us declared war on Germany.



Japan did declare war on us. In fact, the intention was to declare war before the attack on Pearl Harbor, but they got their signals screwed up. As it was, they declared war immediately afterward, and well before Congress passed our own DOW on Japan.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 21, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




It was actually the fact that the war ended that got us out of the Great Depression. That scumbag FDR only prolonged it with the policies he forced on the nation, policies that are costing us to this day.


----------



## editec (Mar 21, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


 
FWIW, Zinn was a professor of political science at BU.



> Undoubtedly there are many left leaning historians. But there are also thers.
> 
> I'm a historian myself by training and I certainly am not left wing.


 
Zinn was in my opinion a *humanist* if any IST must be attached to his POV.


----------



## Artevelde (Mar 21, 2012)

editec said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Zinn may have taught political science, but his PhD was in History and he was an active member of the AHA.
I think Zinn would certainly have considered himself leftwing and at least a socialist sympathizer if not an outright socialist (albeit a democratic one and not really a communist).


----------



## Dragon (Mar 21, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> I think Zinn would certainly have considered himself leftwing and at least a socialist sympathizer if not an outright socialist (albeit a democratic one and not really a communist).



Bingo. But the lumping together of liberals and communists is a ploy of dishonest persons as old as the Red Scare of the 1920s.

Calling Howard Zinn a Communist because he shares with Communists a desire for social justice, is equivalent to calling Mother Teresa a white supremacist because both groups are Christian.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2012)

editec said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



"...if any IST must be attached to his POV."

Just doesn't seem to fit, techy: 

'America-haterIST'?


"Not surprisingly, irrefutable evidence has emerged that* the man who hated America* for at least 70 of his 87 years was  (Guess what! Shhhhh! No coaching from the audience, please!)....Hate-America Howie was * a Communist.* We always knew that was the worldview of his heart. But now it turns out that he made it official. *Hate-America Howie was a formal member of the Communist Party-USA.*

Hate America Howie (HAH) taught a class on "*Basic Marxism"* at party headquarters in Brooklyn, N.Y., advising his "students" that the basic teachings of *Marx and Lenin "were sound and should be adhered to *by those present"; HAH was a* pro-Castro* activist and backed radical groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Socialist Workers Party (SWP), Progressive Labor Party, and Black Panther Party; *supported a Communist victory in Vietnam,* visiting the Communist regime in Hanoi (ala "Hanoi Jane" Fonda  who  BTW  paid tribute to Howie upon his departure); in 1962, while President John F. Kennedy warned the Soviets to back off or suffer the consequences, HAH  at his quisling best  *publicly protested the U.S. demand for withdrawal of missiles from Cuba *("hence," according to Kincaid, "Zinn wanted the United States and its citizens to be vulnerable to a Soviet nuclear attack"  Attention, parlor pinks: Note this great nice guy *humanitarian's wish for you and me *was nearly 10 years after Stalin died); a video tribute to Zinn was posted by the pro-Marxist Institute for Policy Studies (IPW)"
Howard Zinn: Communist liar


Wanna re-think that, techy?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2012)

Dragon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't see that Zinn was a communist, you were subsumed by personality....
> ...



	You again!! 

I should have anticipated your entry when the air suddenly became cold, and hordes of black flies appeared out of nowhere, and green slime began oozing out of the walls.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> I should have anticipated your entry when the air suddenly became cold, and hordes of black flies appeared out of nowhere, and green slime began oozing out of the walls.



I think you should see your psychiatrist. That new medication seems to have some really undesirable side-effects.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2012)

Dragon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I should have anticipated your entry when the air suddenly became cold, and hordes of black flies appeared out of nowhere, and green slime began oozing out of the walls.
> ...



Pffftttt!

Shows how much you know: I can't see my psychiatrist- I killed him.


----------



## regent (Mar 21, 2012)

So assuming that historians are more of a liberal bent than the population in general, a question: Do liberals gravitate to  history or does history convert people to liberalism? Which comes first? 
And what of the other university acadamia, do they tend to be libeals or become liberal after their education. Is it education that creates liberalism? If that were true would not conservatives be doing all in their power to destroy education?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2012)

regent said:


> So assuming that historians are more of a liberal bent than the population in general, a question: Do liberals gravitate to  history or does history convert people to liberalism? Which comes first?
> And what of the other university acadamia, do they tend to be libeals or become liberal after their education. Is it education that creates liberalism? If that were true would not conservatives be doing all in their power to destroy education?



Reggie...if ignorance was made into bricks, you could build the Great Wall of China.
Radicals of the 60's took over every means of dissemination of information...starting with the universities.

That's why a traditionalist or conservative starts off with two strikes....and why they leave academia for greener pastures.

Here is a remedial for you:


1.	The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universitiesThey realized that the apocalypse never materialized. they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalismI watched many of my old comrades *apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.  *Collier and Horowitz, Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties, p. 294-295.

2.	The radicals were *not likely to go into business* or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into *politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.* Robert H. Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, p. 51

3.	[The radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood. Ibid p. 53

4.	The youthful radicals propelled a new set of values from the fringes to the midst of contemporary social conflict. Rothman and Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left, p. 392-394 
Thus the themes and traits of the New Left have become prominent in todays culture, and everything has become, ultimately, political. The result of the *politicization of the culture *is that ones opponents are not merely wrong, but are morally evil, and, therefore, one may wish every affliction to befall them. Can you see the modus operandi of Liberals?

a.	*Campus rioters *did not merely criticize universities as being in need of reform, but, rather, as institutions rotten with immorality from top to bottom.


b.	So student radicals, imbued with the political grace of the Left, were also freed of the restraints of morality, specifically honesty: one could lie in a noble cause.

c.	We can see the same religious absolution in Sorels belief that it was not wrong to break heads as well as laws.

d.	*Modern liberals no longer have to break heads, as they control many of the institutions they once attacked,* but lie they must, and do, as they could not get elected advertising their actual agenda.


----------



## daveman (Mar 21, 2012)

editec said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


I'm not saying they're Communist (although Chomsky in particular is sympathetic, and Zinn opposed capitalism).  

I'm saying their histories are based on ideology, not truth.

And for that, I have the words of Zinn himself:
Objectivity is impossible, and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.

-- Howard Zinn​
He flat-out tells you he's distorting history to serve his agenda.  

But you just keep pretending he's unbiased.  

I've read enough Chomsky to know he's just as full of crap.  The way he denied and whitewashed the genocide in Cambodia -- really, there's no point in reading any of his other crap.  

And no, I don't need to read anything else from either of them.  Just as I don't need to see a Pauly Shore movie to know it's going to be stupid, I don't need to read more Zinn or Chomsky to know that their "histories" are full of crap.


----------



## daveman (Mar 21, 2012)

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > "Arguably exaggeration"?  No, it's unquestionably bullshit.  You have to go back to the Dark Ages to find Taliban-like behavior among Christians.
> ...


So, you got nothing from this century.

Dismissed.


----------



## daveman (Mar 21, 2012)

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > It's not wrong.  Your position is utterly laughable and is in no way backed up by history.
> ...


You leftists have a remarkable capacity for self-deception.


----------



## daveman (Mar 21, 2012)

PeteEU said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > "Arguably exaggeration"?  No, it's unquestionably bullshit.  You have to go back to the Dark Ages to find Taliban-like behavior among Christians.
> ...


Are you talking about the Lord's Resistance Army?
The LRA's ideology is disputed amongst academics.[40][56] Although the LRA has been regarded primarily as a Christian militia,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] the LRA reportedly evokes Acholi nationalism on occasion,[57] but many observers doubt the sincerity of this behaviour and the loyalty of Kony to either ideology.[58][59][60][61][62]​
Not really a Christian organization, and certainly not Christian in their actions.

Although you failed, at least you tried.


----------



## Artevelde (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Calling Howard Zinn a Communist because he shares with Communists a desire for social justice, is equivalent to calling Mother Teresa a white supremacist because both groups are Christian.



Not all white supremacists are Christians. As a matter of fact, many are very anti-Christian.
And a very large percentage of Christians are of course not white (in any definition of the word).


----------



## Artevelde (Mar 22, 2012)

regent said:


> So assuming that historians are more of a liberal bent than the population in general, a question: Do liberals gravitate to  history or does history convert people to liberalism? Which comes first?
> And what of the other university acadamia, do they tend to be libeals or become liberal after their education. Is it education that creates liberalism? If that were true would not conservatives be doing all in their power to destroy education?



I don't accept your premise. Among academics in general, and among historians, can be found people of all different political persuasions, from far-left to far-right and everything in between.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 22, 2012)

daveman said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


----------



## regent (Mar 22, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > So assuming that historians are more of a liberal bent than the population in general, a question: Do liberals gravitate to  history or does history convert people to liberalism? Which comes first?
> ...



Good, I don't accept your evidence that they have not changed. The question, does the academic study of history change a budding historian's attitudes or just reinforce his attitudes. If it does neither, it's a pretty sad discipline. Limbaugh spends his mornings trying to change or reinforce America's political and social attutudes; can seven years of history not change or reinforce? 
History is often used in the lower grades to instill an attutude of patriotism or morality. In  high school it's use and application might be more questionable. But if if a person spends seven or eight years as a history major should it not have some kind of impact, does the individual leave the university with his previous attitude and perspective toward historical events  unchanged? That would be a sheer waste. 
Historians are often been charged with being liberal, is that true? What evidence is there to support that premise? If true, has the study of history created the liberalism or just reinforced the ideology?


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 22, 2012)

daveman said:


> PeteEU said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


 
Ignorant anti-Christian pukes like to point to the presence of Christian missionaries in the worst shitholes in the world as evidence that Christians support oppression, tyranny, murder, etc.

In reality, Christians are there because they travel to places where people are oppressed, to serve the people who are being oppressed. And they frequently get killed for their efforts.


----------



## daveman (Mar 22, 2012)

Dragon said:


> No, that's not what your quoted passage means. All I've read by him was his _People's History of the United States_, but in that he misstates no facts. All of the factual statements he makes in it one can find in other, more conventional historians as well. He does emphasize different facts than those conventional historians would, and concentrate on different aspects of events from the past -- all of which really happened. And THAT is what he meant.


All that means is you share his delusions.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 23, 2012)

daveman said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > No, that's not what your quoted passage means. All I've read by him was his _People's History of the United States_, but in that he misstates no facts. All of the factual statements he makes in it one can find in other, more conventional historians as well. He does emphasize different facts than those conventional historians would, and concentrate on different aspects of events from the past -- all of which really happened. And THAT is what he meant.
> ...



No, the fact that I approve of what he did means I share his -- whatever you want to call them.

It remains true that he distorted no facts. That's nobody's delusion.


----------



## daveman (Mar 23, 2012)

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


Riiiiight.

http://hnn.us/articles/1493.html

In an effort to bolster his arguments against putting criminals in jail, aggressive law enforcement tactics, and President Clinton&#8217;s crime bill, Zinn contends that in spite of all this &#8220;violent crime continues to increase.&#8221; It doesn&#8217;t. Like much of Zinn&#8217;s rhetoric, if you believe the opposite of what he says in this instance you would be correct. According to a Department of Justice report released in September of 2002, the violent crime rate has been cut in half since 1993.

According to Zinn, it was Mumia Abu-Jamal&#8217;s &#8220;race and radicalism,&#8221; as well as his &#8220;persistent criticism of the Philadelphia police&#8221; that landed him on death row in the early 1980s. Nothing about Abu-Jamal&#8217;s gun being found at the scene; nothing about the testimony of numerous witnesses pointing to him as the triggerman; nothing about additional witnesses reporting a confession by Abu-Jamal&#8212;it was Abu-Jamal&#8217;s dissenting voice that caused a jury of twelve to unanimously sentence him to death.

--

Zinn claims that &#8220;George Washington was the richest man in America.&#8221; He wasn&#8217;t, but it makes for a good Marxist tale.

--

&#8220;Unemployment grew in the Reagan years,&#8221; Zinn claims. Statistics show otherwise. Reagan inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent in his first month in office. By January of 1989, the rate had declined to 5.4 percent.​
And the reviewer hits upon why you like Zinn:

Here we come to the real secret of the commercial success of A People&#8217;s History. It is a case of simple ideas for simple minds &#8211; a broken record for the tone deaf.​Read the entire article.  If you're at all honest, you'll have to admit Zinn is a liar.


----------



## regent (Mar 28, 2012)

To evaluate Zinn or any other historian can be done best by reading what other historians say about the historian's history.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 29, 2012)

Getting something in current events wrong is different from distorting the facts of history.


----------



## DCJ (Mar 29, 2012)

daveman said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




Where exactly is Zinn making this argument???  
\​


----------



## daveman (Mar 29, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Getting something in current events wrong is different from distorting the facts of history.


No, it's not.  Current events is history that happens right now.  

And to further skewer your so-lame-it-should-be-euthanized rebuttal, George Washington, Mumia, and Reagan are NOT current events.  

Kiss Zinn's ass all you like.  But don't you dare tell me it tastes good, kid.


----------



## daveman (Mar 29, 2012)

BillCosby said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Here, in this book review:
From Howard Zinn: "The return of INSTEAD OF PRISONS comes at a time when it is very much needed, when two million human beings languish behind bars and barbed wire in the United States, and the reports of abuse, torture, rape, well as false convictions and cruel sentences, make moe people question the whole idea of prisons. But these thoughtful essays are not utopian. They present realistic alternatives to a system which is both cruel and ineffectual. It is more and more clear that prisons do not diminish crime. They diminish the men and women inside, and diminish the humanity of the rest of us outside. I hope this book will be widely read, so it can do for imprisonment what "Uncle Tom's Cabin" did for slavery -- arouse the nation."​


----------



## Dragon (Mar 29, 2012)

daveman said:


> And to further skewer your so-lame-it-should-be-euthanized rebuttal, George Washington, Mumia, and Reagan are NOT current events.



Ignoring your ignorant statement about current events being history, which deserves it, the above at least is true So tell me, what did Zinn say about George Washington, Mumia, and/or Ronald Reagan that is not factually true?

Incidentally, your quote from Zinn in his review of his own book does not state that crime is on the increase.


----------



## DCJ (Mar 30, 2012)

daveman said:


> BillCosby said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




I don't see that comment attributed to Zinn in that quote............​


----------



## editec (Mar 30, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde said:
> ...


 
Well you can THINK whatever you want but I actually took classes with the man and he was NOT supportive any of the communist regimes that existed.


Sometimes REALITY does trump theory, kid.

This is one of those times


----------



## daveman (Mar 30, 2012)

BillCosby said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BillCosby said:
> ...


Really?  Calling non-prison alternatives to incarceration "realistic", saying prisons are "ineffectual", and questioning the whole idea of prisons doesn't suggest to you he doesn't believe criminals should be imprisoned?

Uh huh.

Meanwhile, how about you address Zinn's other lies?  Or are you just going to pretend they don't exist?


----------



## daveman (Mar 30, 2012)

editec said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


And yet he was a member of the Communist Party.

Howard Zinn


----------



## Dragon (Mar 30, 2012)

daveman said:


> Really?  Calling non-prison alternatives to incarceration "realistic", saying prisons are "ineffectual", and questioning the whole idea of prisons doesn't suggest to you he doesn't believe criminals should be imprisoned?
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> Meanwhile, how about you address Zinn's other lies?



The opinions you paraphrased above are all values statements, therefore are neither true nor false, therefore cannot be lies.

I suspect this sort of confusion is where all of your errors about Zinn are coming from. You are confusing values opinions with which you disagree, with lies. The only way that a values statement can be a lie is if the person making it doesn't actually hold that value. For example, if I were to say, "Women who get abortions deserve to be in prison," that would be a lie, not because it's factually wrong (it's not making a factual statement ans so is neither true nor false), but because it's claiming a belief that I don't actually hold.

So unless you think that Zinn really believes that criminals SHOULD be imprisoned, that is not a lie.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 30, 2012)

daveman said:


> And yet he was a member of the Communist Party.
> 
> Howard Zinn



That link says that he was not. You really do have a reading comprehension problem, don't you?


----------



## DCJ (Mar 30, 2012)

daveman said:


> BillCosby said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



*
So, as I suspected, you do not have the quote................ *


----------



## Dragon (Mar 30, 2012)

BillCosby said:


> So, as I suspected, you do not have the quote.



Actually he did present a quote from Zinn. It doesn't include any lies, just opinions he disagrees with, but it WAS from Howard Zinn.


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 30, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Of course, what PC neglects to tell us is that FDR was our greatest Liberal President and that it was the US Conservatives that urged us to mind our own business and stay out of the war



Yes, but wasn't that BEFORE Japan bombed Pearl Harbor?


----------



## daveman (Mar 30, 2012)

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Really?  Calling non-prison alternatives to incarceration "realistic", saying prisons are "ineffectual", and questioning the whole idea of prisons doesn't suggest to you he doesn't believe criminals should be imprisoned?
> ...


I didn't claim that was a lie.  Do keep up.  

The lie is here:  
Zinn contends that in spite of all this *&#8220;violent crime continues to increase.&#8221;* It doesn&#8217;t. Like much of Zinn&#8217;s rhetoric, if you believe the opposite of what he says in this instance you would be correct. According to a Department of Justice report released in September of 2002, the violent crime rate has been cut in half since 1993.​
You misread the exchange between BillCosby and I.  

You made a mistake.  It is YOUR fault, not mine.


----------



## daveman (Mar 30, 2012)

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > And yet he was a member of the Communist Party.
> ...


I guessed you missed comprehending this part:

...he had, after all, allegedly told an informant he was a card-carrying member.​And then he told the agents otherwise.

Considering he's a proven liar, which statement to you suppose is correct?

Never mind, I know the answer.  You will unthinkingly and automatically believe everything Zinn said.


----------



## daveman (Mar 30, 2012)

BillCosby said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BillCosby said:
> ...


Yeah.  You just keep pretending Zinn didn't say what he said.

Oh, and about Zinn's other lies in the article -- it looks like you're going to pretend they don't exist.

Magical thinking.  A common leftist failing.


----------



## daveman (Mar 30, 2012)

So, as it turns out, no one can proves that Zinn's lies in the article I posted are factually correct.

That's because he is indeed a liar.

Like I said -- you can eat up his bullshit, but don't you dare tell me it tastes good.


----------



## DCJ (Mar 30, 2012)

Dragon said:


> BillCosby said:
> 
> 
> > So, as I suspected, you do not have the quote.
> ...




Perhaps you wanna present where Zinn made the quote???

It is real simple to do, so do it....................


----------



## DCJ (Mar 30, 2012)

daveman said:


> BillCosby said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



HHHmmmmmm  I an not interested in chasing your shadows, you got outted on the first, my job is done on that matter.............

Since you are a big hater, I am sure we will have plenty of more interesting things to discuss down the road.............

Howard was an old man, made lots & lots points, talks & speeches, & unlike yourself, never pretended to be unfathomable, unless you can find a "quote" disproving that of course............lol

Have you actually read any of his US history???


----------



## Dragon (Mar 31, 2012)

daveman said:


> The lie is here:
> Zinn contends that in spite of all this *violent crime continues to increase.*​




You have not demonstrated that Zinn said this. All you have quoted was someone else's statement about him.​


----------



## Flopper (Apr 2, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > National Socialism in Germany and Communism in the USSR.
> ...


You're correct.

Hitler transformed the German Worker's Party into the National Workers Party and to gain support of the trade unions, he changed it to the German National Socialist Workers Party, something that would come back to haunt him in dealing with German Industrialist in preparation for war.

After becoming Chancellor, he destroyed the trade unions, criminalized strikes and walkouts.  Private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the leader of the enterprise. and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." The employer was of course subject to the frequent orders of the ruling Nazi elite.

Although redistribution of wealth was used in the 20's to garner support from labor, once in power they did the very opposite.


----------



## daveman (Apr 2, 2012)

BillCosby said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BillCosby said:
> ...


I'm sure you feel it is.

So you can't prove his other lies are factually correct.

So you punt.


BillCosby said:


> Since you are a big hater, I am sure we will have plenty of more interesting things to discuss down the road.............


Perhaps we could discuss the definition of "hate", which is NOT "disagreeing with a leftist".


BillCosby said:


> Howard was an old man, made lots & lots points, talks & speeches, & unlike yourself, never pretended to be unfathomable, unless you can find a "quote" disproving that of course............lol


Oh, he was entirely fathomable -- to those who don't automatically believe everything he said.


BillCosby said:


> Have you actually read any of his US history???


I don't need to take a bite of shit to know it tastes like shit.  

Leftist-agenda-driven fantasies don't interest me.  I've read enough excerpts to know he deliberately altered and misstated facts (and outright lied) to know he's full of crap.


----------



## daveman (Apr 2, 2012)

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > The lie is here:
> ...



It's in his People's History of the United States.

Are you aware of the function of quotation marks and their significance?​


----------



## Dragon (Apr 3, 2012)

daveman said:


> It's in his People's History of the United States.
> 
> Are you aware of the function of quotation marks and their significance?



You presented a quote from the People's History that did NOT say that. You also presented someone else's words from something else, saying that he DID say that.

You have never presented Zinn's words actually saying that.


----------



## DCJ (Apr 3, 2012)

daveman said:


> BillCosby said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




*No, I would imagine you already know what that tastes like..*...........

*& that makes you an expert on your biased opinion, nothing more....*.......


*Since you have not actually read it, your opinion on it is worthless, just like the shit I outted you on.............

You go read it, & get back to me............  We can talk then.....*.....


----------



## daveman (Apr 3, 2012)

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > It's in his People's History of the United States.
> ...


The excerpt in question is not available online, and I'm not going to waste my money buying the piece of shit.

So it looks like your faith in your alleged historian will remain unchallenged by truth.


----------



## daveman (Apr 3, 2012)

BillCosby said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BillCosby said:
> ...


And why should I bother?  You like the taste of his shit.  You're not going to let facts change your mind.

Enjoy your delusions.


----------



## DCJ (Apr 4, 2012)

daveman said:


> BillCosby said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Good question, why should you bother, a total lack of cred on the issue has gotten you this far.........

You must be doing alright w/ all those posts & I guess no one actually bothers to check your shit anyway.......... Enjoy

AnywayZ if one day you decided to read it & make "an informed opinion" I would be interested in reading it.........


----------



## ThirdTerm (Apr 4, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> 2.	Which brings us to Paul Faure, the general-secretary of said French Socialists, and leader of* the faction that opposed war- at any cost.* While Blum recognized the horror that Hitler represented, the Paul-Fauristes desperately sought to find a description of reality that did not point in the direction of war!  Dont judge Germany too quickly, nor too starkly. After all, they had been treated poorly by the Treaty of Versailles. And their people living in Slavic countries werent being treated well shouldnt we show some flexibility? Conciliate the outraged German people!



The traditional anti-militarism of the French left hampered France's war efforts and Leon Blum resigned as French Prime Minister with the fall of the Popular Front in 1937 because his appeasement policy toward Germany was unpopular. A right-wing regime in France could have prevented the German invasion in 1940 and the subsequent occupation which humiliated the country but there was no Churchill in France.


----------



## daveman (Apr 4, 2012)

BillCosby said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BillCosby said:
> ...


You left off the rest of my post:

You like the taste of his shit. You're not going to let facts change your mind.

Enjoy your delusions.​
As far as cred, do you really think I give a shit about the opinion of anyone who thinks Zinn's not a ideologue hack?

You flatter yourself.  For no good reason.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 4, 2012)

daveman said:


> The excerpt in question is not available online, and I'm not going to waste my money buying the piece of shit.
> 
> So it looks like your faith in your alleged historian will remain unchallenged by truth.



LOL my views are in no way dependent on Zinn, and you quoted him, I didn't. Just the same, I'd recommend reading his book. The fact that you disagree with him is the best reason to do so. History isn't a presentation of "just the facts," because that's impossible with anything as complex as history. A historian always selects which facts to present and inserts his/her own biases, inevitably.

Another good historian to read, not as far "out there" as Zinn but a good antidote to the usual, is Barbara Tuchmann.

EDIT: I very much doubt that Zinn's alleged statement that crime was still increasing in the late Clinton years is in _A People's History_, since that was an earlier work of his.


----------



## DCJ (Apr 5, 2012)

daveman said:


> BillCosby said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You mean your childish part????   I don't bother w/ grown-UPs petty lil "shit"......  I guess it makes you feel better after I pointed out you are a fraud???  No matter......

That is all you got......  

When you read the book, I will be happy to rub your nose in that shit........  Go for it!!!


----------

