Fascism Is as Fascism Does

[Discombobulated]

There were plenty of people who despised Roosevelt while he was in often. If you don't believe it, then you should read anything that H.L. Mencken had to say about him. After the war he became virtually a god, so it was difficult to make any of your ilk see the truth about him. It's only now that scholars have started seriously examining his record rather than engage in pure worship.

Rightwingers hate FDR for the same reasons they hate all liberals. Rightwingers hate FDR not because he once said something favorable about something about Mussolini;

they hate him because he irreversibly advanced liberalism. Rightwingers hate FDR because he won,

and they lost.

"....he once said something favorable about something about Mussolini;..."


Not just once.



BTW....he had the same view of Hitler's economic policies until the ovens were revealed.



" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to•the Soviet Union."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48

Do you ever talk about history in anything but the most superficial terms possible?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It seems the professor has nothing to say outside the the small confines of her ideology.

I've already put you in your place....last seat in the dumb row.

 

[Discombobulated]

"Dictatorship is not what we have, or anything close to it. You don't have to worry about the courts overruling a favored law under a dictatorship. You don't have to worry about votes. You don't have to worry about elections."


How about you pick up the works of J.L. Talmon.....

You're offering us these enormous block quotes with almost no commentary....and you don't seem to understand what you're posting. Talmon is explicitly attacking the positions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, from the 1750s to 1770s. Rousseau espoused the doctrine of the 'Natural Human', a philosophy of the base human as a savage at odds with the civilized man.

None of which has a thing to do with Fascism. Nor does Talmon even mention fascism in the quotes you offered. You're cherry picking ONE aspect of fascism, ignoring all others....and then offering us the opinion of a 1950s historian attacking the philosophy of a 1750s philosopher that makes no mention of the terms you're trying to redefine to fit your argument.

Fascism is a pretty specific doctrine and a rather modern one. And what we have isn't it. You can continue to ignore what fascism actually is......but you can't make us ignore it.

It's your understanding of 'democracy' that needs work.

Another extremely obvious and unsophisticated dodge.

 

[Discombobulated]

It seems the professor has nothing to say outside the the small confines of her ideology.

I've already put you in your place....last seat in the dumb row.

You've done nothing but demonstrate your somewhat modest intellectual endowment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It seems the professor has nothing to say outside the the small confines of her ideology.

I've already put you in your place....last seat in the dumb row.

You've done nothing but demonstrate your somewhat modest intellectual endowment.

"...somewhat modest intellectual endowment."


From someone whose every post can be summarized as "is not, is not."

 

[Discombobulated]

I've already put you in your place....last seat in the dumb row.

You've done nothing but demonstrate your somewhat modest intellectual endowment.

"...somewhat modest intellectual endowment."


From someone whose every post can be summarized as "is not, is not."

You don't quite seem to understand. Internet inspired pop culture historical revisionism is not history. Reading abridged excerpts doesn't help you understand that there are no legitimate historians who would support your narrow view.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There were plenty of people who despised Roosevelt while he was in often. If you don't believe it, then you should read anything that H.L. Mencken had to say about him. After the war he became virtually a god, so it was difficult to make any of your ilk see the truth about him. It's only now that scholars have started seriously examining his record rather than engage in pure worship.

Rightwingers hate FDR for the same reasons they hate all liberals. Rightwingers hate FDR not because he once said something favorable about something about Mussolini;

they hate him because he irreversibly advanced liberalism. Rightwingers hate FDR because he won,

and they lost.

Constitutionalists/Conservatives don't like FDR because he expanded the scope and power of government thus reducing "The People's" power and scope of self-determination. It's the same reason that the Founding Fathers didn't like King George.

I think you mean it's the same reason conservatives hate Lyndon Johnson's civil rights legislation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rightwingers hate FDR for the same reasons they hate all liberals. Rightwingers hate FDR not because he once said something favorable about something about Mussolini;

they hate him because he irreversibly advanced liberalism. Rightwingers hate FDR because he won,

and they lost.

"....he once said something favorable about something about Mussolini;..."


Not just once.



BTW....he had the same view of Hitler's economic policies until the ovens were revealed.



" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to•the Soviet Union."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48

Do you ever talk about history in anything but the most superficial terms possible?

She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate. Calling her understanding of history 'superficial' is way too kind.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There were plenty of people who despised Roosevelt while he was in often. If you don't believe it, then you should read anything that H.L. Mencken had to say about him. After the war he became virtually a god, so it was difficult to make any of your ilk see the truth about him. It's only now that scholars have started seriously examining his record rather than engage in pure worship.

Rightwingers hate FDR for the same reasons they hate all liberals. Rightwingers hate FDR not because he once said something favorable about something about Mussolini;

they hate him because he irreversibly advanced liberalism. Rightwingers hate FDR because he won,

and they lost.

Constitutionalists/Conservatives don't like FDR because he expanded the scope and power of government thus reducing "The People's" power and scope of self-determination. It's the same reason that the Founding Fathers didn't like King George.

And what parts of FDR's legacy do the majority of 'the People' now object to, specifically?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"....he once said something favorable about something about Mussolini;..."


Not just once.



BTW....he had the same view of Hitler's economic policies until the ovens were revealed.



" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to•the Soviet Union."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48

Do you ever talk about history in anything but the most superficial terms possible?

She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate. Calling her understanding of history 'superficial' is way too kind.

"She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate."

Prove it or be recognized....again.....for the liar that you are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You've done nothing but demonstrate your somewhat modest intellectual endowment.

"...somewhat modest intellectual endowment."


From someone whose every post can be summarized as "is not, is not."

You don't quite seem to understand. Internet inspired pop culture historical revisionism is not history. Reading abridged excerpts doesn't help you understand that there are no legitimate historians who would support your narrow view.

Did you just say 'is not'?

 

[Discombobulated]

"...somewhat modest intellectual endowment."


From someone whose every post can be summarized as "is not, is not."

You don't quite seem to understand. Internet inspired pop culture historical revisionism is not history. Reading abridged excerpts doesn't help you understand that there are no legitimate historians who would support your narrow view.

Did you just say 'is not'?

Not much to you......is there.

 

[Discombobulated]

"....he once said something favorable about something about Mussolini;..."


Not just once.



BTW....he had the same view of Hitler's economic policies until the ovens were revealed.



" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to•the Soviet Union."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48

Do you ever talk about history in anything but the most superficial terms possible?

She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate. Calling her understanding of history 'superficial' is way too kind.

She has yet to show any kind of understanding of history that hasn't been completely distorted with political ideology.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you ever talk about history in anything but the most superficial terms possible?

She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate. Calling her understanding of history 'superficial' is way too kind.

"She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate."

Prove it or be recognized....again.....for the liar that you are.

You're making too easy:

In your own words, verbatim:

Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here.
LIght....energy....but no sun...

But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative. There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And it’s surprisingly accurate.

Now who's the fucking liar? Who said it was accurate? Who said who said it was accurate?

lol

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/277042-genesis-correlates-with-science-6.html

 

[DriftingSand]

Rightwingers hate FDR for the same reasons they hate all liberals. Rightwingers hate FDR not because he once said something favorable about something about Mussolini;

they hate him because he irreversibly advanced liberalism. Rightwingers hate FDR because he won,

and they lost.

Constitutionalists/Conservatives don't like FDR because he expanded the scope and power of government thus reducing "The People's" power and scope of self-determination. It's the same reason that the Founding Fathers didn't like King George.

And what parts of FDR's legacy do the majority of 'the People' now object to, specifically?

By "majority" do you mean the folks standing in the welfare line as well as the illegals that have now become the responsibility of the American taxpayer? That majority?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Constitutionalists/Conservatives don't like FDR because he expanded the scope and power of government thus reducing "The People's" power and scope of self-determination. It's the same reason that the Founding Fathers didn't like King George.

And what parts of FDR's legacy do the majority of 'the People' now object to, specifically?

By "majority" do you mean the folks standing in the welfare line as well as the illegals that have now become the responsibility of the American taxpayer? That majority?

That's what I thought...

 

[TemplarKormac]

You've done nothing but demonstrate your somewhat modest intellectual endowment.

"...somewhat modest intellectual endowment."


From someone whose every post can be summarized as "is not, is not."

You don't quite seem to understand. Internet inspired pop culture historical revisionism is not history. Reading abridged excerpts doesn't help you understand that there are no legitimate historians who would support your narrow view.

And your argument is nothing but a non sequitur.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do you ever talk about history in anything but the most superficial terms possible?

She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate. Calling her understanding of history 'superficial' is way too kind.

She has yet to show any kind of understanding of history that hasn't been completely distorted with political ideology.

So how does any of this have to do with her thread, you two? Your debate skills are superficial at best; full of ad hominem. You won't prove your point at all. Simply attacking her character and philosophies will not win any arguments.

Hey, bob (may I call you bob?) NYcarbineer here is the picture of what a revisionist historian looks like. Do you vet your friends and allies before joining with them?

 

[PoliticalChic]

She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate. Calling her understanding of history 'superficial' is way too kind.

"She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate."

Prove it or be recognized....again.....for the liar that you are.

You're making too easy:

In your own words, verbatim:

Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here.
LIght....energy....but no sun...

But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative. There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And it’s surprisingly accurate.

Now who's the fucking liar? Who said it was accurate? Who said who said it was accurate?

lol

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/277042-genesis-correlates-with-science-6.html

I love making you go back and study my posts.....especially when the same shows you to be the despicable liar that you are.

You lied as follows:
"She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate."

I made no claim that "science had proven the Genesis creation myth..."


As you posted, "here follows an order of events" that is accurate.



Nothing can be better than when you, all by yourself, indicate what a putrid example of humanity you are.




So, sleaze.....did I claim "... that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate"....or that the order of events in the Bible has been accepted in modern theory?





I'm always disappointed when a liar's pants don't actually catch on fire.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate."

Prove it or be recognized....again.....for the liar that you are.

You're making too easy:

In your own words, verbatim:

Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here.
LIght....energy....but no sun...

But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative. There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And it’s surprisingly accurate.

Now who's the fucking liar? Who said it was accurate? Who said who said it was accurate?

lol

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/277042-genesis-correlates-with-science-6.html

I love making you go back and study my posts.....especially when the same shows you to be the despicable liar that you are.

You lied as follows:
"She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate."

I made no claim that "science had proven the Genesis creation myth..."


As you posted, "here follows an order of events" that is accurate.



Nothing can be better than when you, all by yourself, indicate what a putrid example of humanity you are.




So, sleaze.....did I claim "... that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate"....or that the order of events in the Bible has been accepted in modern theory?





I'm always disappointed when a liar's pants don't actually catch on fire.

1. In that thread I proved that Genesis got the order of events wrong, you were the one not telling the truth.

2. I'm only wrong in my interpretation of your statements in that thread if you concede that the Genesis creation myth is in fact a myth,

and therefore the Bible is wrong, which thus destroys any claim by any Christian that the Bible is the infallible word of God.

Are you willing to do that?