Fascism Is as Fascism Does

[bripat9643]

the constitutional imperatives of limited government and the principle of natural, inalienable human rights.

There's no such thing as natural rights without a state to enforce them. If I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by and watch me eat your kill in the hope that I might leave you some.

You only proved that you're a liberal ignoramus who doesn't know what a right is.

 

[bripat9643]

Thank you for the helpful list of irrelevant and discredited authors.

Not with a bang, but a whimper. . . .

Just goes to show that you can't learn as much as you thought from internet excerpts. Have you ever thought about reading a book? There are no legitimate historians who would characterize FDR as being fascist. None, never have been, never could be.

We've already informed you several times that your term "legitimate historian" means a government propagandist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Mussolini exalts Capitalism, as would all you good conservatives:

"We affirm that the true story of capitalism is now beginning, because capitalism is not a system of oppression only, but is also a selection of values, a coordination of hierarchies, a more amply developed sense of individual responsibility."

2. Mussolini expresses disdain for more government programs, as do all you good conservatives:

"They ask us for programs but there are already too many. It is not programs that are wanting for the salvation of Italy but men and will power."

3. Mussolini scorns Democracy, in good conservative fashion:

"Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy. You in America will see that some day."

4. Mussolini despises Socialism, as do all good conservatives:

"The Socialists ask what is our program? Our program is to smash the heads of the Socialists."

and, as the topper, Mussolini channels the comic arrogance of PoliticalChic:

"I am making superhuman efforts to educate this people. When they have learnt to obey, they will believe what I tell them."

...So, RWnuts, how do you like your conservative pal Mussolini now?

lolol

Benito Mussolini - Wikiquote

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rely on Goldberg? Goldberg's work is just one of the dozens written about the Progressive Era, you dope! Goldberg's observations are nothing new.

No you're wrong again, there are no legitimate historians who would support Goldberg's view.....just a lot of dummies on the internet.

Other works:

The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek.

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

Retrospectives: Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era by Thomas Leonard.

Progressivism and the Doctrine of Natural Rights and Nature and History in American Political Development by James W. Ceaser.

How Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson Reshaped the American Regime of Self-Government by Will Morrisey

Eugenics and the Progressives by D. Pickens.

Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant by Jonathan Spiro.

Southern Progressivism by Dewey W. Grantham.

The Progressive Era and Race: Reaction and Reform by David W. Southern

And these are just a few of the works on my self. Let me know when you're ready for more.

BTW, Taft was a conservative progressive; that is to say, he flirted with the elitist notion that classical liberalism's traditional emphasis on natural rights and limited government were the historical relics of agrarian society. He became disillusioned with the movement after Teddy betrayed him and essentially put that maniac Wilson in the White House. Latter Chief Justice Taft authored judicial opinions that slapped down a number of especially egregious constitutional transgressions fancied by progressives, particularly those touching on immigration law.


See also:

Fascism Comes to America by Ralph Raico

The Free Market: How FDR Made the Depression Worse

I also have a few titles on my self written by leftist historians. Their view of the Progressive movement is generally more favorable, of course. But the author's of these works don't entirely white wash the influences of Euro-fascism on American progressivism or deny the striking parallels between the two forms of national socialism in historical practice. In truth, the only things that frustrated the implementation of some of the more, shall we say, adventurous aspects of the progressive agenda favored by its leading lights were the constraints of constitutional law, the prevailing influence of Christian ethics, the pervasive rugged individualism of the American character and the devastating revelations of WWII. Incidentally, progressivism's eugenics movement in America had a profound influence on the thinking of European fascists, on the German Nazis especially!

FDR did not make the Depression worse. The peak of the Depression's 'worstness' was in 1933, when FDR had been in office less than a year. From then on things improved.

That FDR made the Depression worse stands as a textbook example of how the Right uses mythology for propaganda purposes.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

the constitutional imperatives of limited government and the principle of natural, inalienable human rights.

There's no such thing as natural rights without a state to enforce them. If I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by and watch me eat your kill in the hope that I might leave you some.

You're unwittingly making an ontological argument that is inherently contradictory and self-negating.

 

[Discombobulated]

the constitutional imperatives of limited government and the principle of natural, inalienable human rights.

There's no such thing as natural rights without a state to enforce them. If I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by and watch me eat your kill in the hope that I might leave you some.

You're unwittingly making an ontological argument that is inherently contradictory and self-negating.

And you just talk a lot of horse shit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's add this example of how the Justices bowed to the emperor, Franklin the Worst...er, First:


1. To see the abject cowardice of the Justices, note that in invalidating the Guffey-Vinson Coal Act on May 18, 1936, less than a year before Roosevelt attempted to pack the court, Justice Charles Evans Hughes said that federal laws restricting local labor relations provisions were unconstitutional, that "the relations of employer and employee is a local relation" and "the evils are all local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control."

STOP RIGHT THERE:
1.You are entitled to you own opinions but not your own facts, Chica!
2. The case you are reinventing, Carter v. Carter Coal Co, involved the Guffy-Snyder Act of 1935 which SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional in1936. The Guffy-Vinson Act you cited which passed in 1937 was constitutional.
3. You incorrectly credit Justice Hughes for the quote in your #1 above. Justice Sutherland wrote the opinion of the Court, not J. Hughes, and J. Sutherland included that quote under item 21 of the holding of the Court.
4. The first part of the quote, the employer/employee bit, does not exist in the text of the decision. It is total contrived and one can only conclude its purpose was to mislead.

And he was correct.....then....

HANG ON:
1. Who was correct?
2. You claim J. Hughes was responsible for the quote, but, alas, you were so very wrong.
3. So the "he" you are actually referring to is J. Sutherland, the author of the quote.
4. That makes one hell of a difference in your "argument".

2. He went on to say "Otherwise in view of the multitude of indirect effects Congress in its discretion could assume control of virtually all of the activities of the people to the subversion of the fundamental principles of the Constitution." And..."... it is not for the court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision."

HOLD IT:
1. Justice Hughes "went on to say" NOTHING.
2. This quote was not the J. Sutherland "he" who was responsible for the initial quote you cited incorrectly.
3. J. Hughes' Separate Opinion started at 298 U.S. p317 below the Court's Opinion starting at p278.
4. This quote is from the Separate Opinion by J. Hughes, Not the Court Opinion by J. Sutherland.

Atta boy, Hughes!!!
OY!

The US Constitution is inviolable!!!


Sort of......

HERE WE GO:
Now we get to see how your disconnected pieces written by two Supremes rather than the one you falsely asserted fit with the next piece of your very untidy premise.

3. Proof of Roosevelt's total control of another branch of government came just eleven months later: Chief Justice Hughes, spoke for the majority in finding the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional.
Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.

OH BROTHER:
1. The Court ruled the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 constitutional. That's one in a row for ya, Chica!
2. The actual case was the NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel at 301 U.S. 1. The case revolved around unfair labor practices in which Jones and Laughlin were involved in with coercion of their labor force.
3. Contrary to your assertion that the ruling allowed Congress to regulate labor relations in industrial plants, the Court ruled that the NRLB was within the boundaries established by the Act when it ruled the undue coercive measures against the companies labor force was impacting the flow of commerce as defined in the Act.
4. Just how in the Hell do you come to that conclusion without any evidence to displaying FDR's direct, or for that matter, indirect control of SCOTUS?



Roosevelt destroyed the independence of the Supreme Court.

AN ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION BASED ON YOUR REALLY SCREWED UP PREMISE!


An America without checks and balances.

Did your balance get checked at the door?
You're the one in need of checks and balances...on your integrity and imagination, Chica!

Let's put you and FDR in the correct light: frauds.


1. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional.

Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, 'The Twenty Year Revolution,' p. 65.





2. Let's cut right to the chase....

Roosevelt cowed the Supreme Court so that they give him the power to regulate within the states.....

...the end of federalism, and the end of the Constitution.

The Court found the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional. Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.


"April 12. In a series of five cases, headed by the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. case, the Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act — or * 'Wagner Act" — designed to protect labor unions and promote collective bargaining in industries throughout the nation. Factories and mills and mines and stores, whose activities had long been legally classified as ''local,'' subject only to state regulation, and so immune, under the Constitution, from federal meddling, were suddenly found — in fiat contradiction of the barely dry Schechter and Carter Coal Co. decisions — to "affect" interstate commerce "directly" enough to warrant Congressional control under the commerce clause. "
Full text of "Nine men : a political history of the Supreme Court from 1790 to 1955"



So....I was correct...and you were simply tap-dancing, obfuscating to defend the indefensible.


The courts re-write the Constitution whenever they wish.


And you remain nothing but a hack mouthpiece for the anti-Constitution, Roosevelt.

 

[Discombobulated]

Let's add this example of how the Justices bowed to the emperor, Franklin the Worst...er, First:


1. To see the abject cowardice of the Justices, note that in invalidating the Guffey-Vinson Coal Act on May 18, 1936, less than a year before Roosevelt attempted to pack the court, Justice Charles Evans Hughes said that federal laws restricting local labor relations provisions were unconstitutional, that "the relations of employer and employee is a local relation" and "the evils are all local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control."

STOP RIGHT THERE:
1.You are entitled to you own opinions but not your own facts, Chica!
2. The case you are reinventing, Carter v. Carter Coal Co, involved the Guffy-Snyder Act of 1935 which SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional in1936. The Guffy-Vinson Act you cited which passed in 1937 was constitutional.
3. You incorrectly credit Justice Hughes for the quote in your #1 above. Justice Sutherland wrote the opinion of the Court, not J. Hughes, and J. Sutherland included that quote under item 21 of the holding of the Court.
4. The first part of the quote, the employer/employee bit, does not exist in the text of the decision. It is total contrived and one can only conclude its purpose was to mislead.

And he was correct.....then....

HANG ON:
1. Who was correct?
2. You claim J. Hughes was responsible for the quote, but, alas, you were so very wrong.
3. So the "he" you are actually referring to is J. Sutherland, the author of the quote.
4. That makes one hell of a difference in your "argument".

2. He went on to say "Otherwise in view of the multitude of indirect effects Congress in its discretion could assume control of virtually all of the activities of the people to the subversion of the fundamental principles of the Constitution." And..."... it is not for the court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision."

HOLD IT:
1. Justice Hughes "went on to say" NOTHING.
2. This quote was not the J. Sutherland "he" who was responsible for the initial quote you cited incorrectly.
3. J. Hughes' Separate Opinion started at 298 U.S. p317 below the Court's Opinion starting at p278.
4. This quote is from the Separate Opinion by J. Hughes, Not the Court Opinion by J. Sutherland.

Atta boy, Hughes!!!
OY!

The US Constitution is inviolable!!!


Sort of......

HERE WE GO:
Now we get to see how your disconnected pieces written by two Supremes rather than the one you falsely asserted fit with the next piece of your very untidy premise.

3. Proof of Roosevelt's total control of another branch of government came just eleven months later: Chief Justice Hughes, spoke for the majority in finding the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional.
Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.

OH BROTHER:
1. The Court ruled the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 constitutional. That's one in a row for ya, Chica!
2. The actual case was the NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel at 301 U.S. 1. The case revolved around unfair labor practices in which Jones and Laughlin were involved in with coercion of their labor force.
3. Contrary to your assertion that the ruling allowed Congress to regulate labor relations in industrial plants, the Court ruled that the NRLB was within the boundaries established by the Act when it ruled the undue coercive measures against the companies labor force was impacting the flow of commerce as defined in the Act.
4. Just how in the Hell do you come to that conclusion without any evidence to displaying FDR's direct, or for that matter, indirect control of SCOTUS?



Roosevelt destroyed the independence of the Supreme Court.

AN ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION BASED ON YOUR REALLY SCREWED UP PREMISE!


An America without checks and balances.

Did your balance get checked at the door?
You're the one in need of checks and balances...on your integrity and imagination, Chica!

Let's put you and FDR in the correct light: frauds.


1. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional.

Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, 'The Twenty Year Revolution,' p. 65.





2. Let's cut right to the chase....

Roosevelt cowed the Supreme Court so that they give him the power to regulate within the states.....

...the end of federalism, and the end of the Constitution.

The Court found the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional. Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.


"April 12. In a series of five cases, headed by the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. case, the Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act — or * 'Wagner Act" — designed to protect labor unions and promote collective bargaining in industries throughout the nation. Factories and mills and mines and stores, whose activities had long been legally classified as ''local,'' subject only to state regulation, and so immune, under the Constitution, from federal meddling, were suddenly found — in fiat contradiction of the barely dry Schechter and Carter Coal Co. decisions — to "affect" interstate commerce "directly" enough to warrant Congressional control under the commerce clause. "
Full text of "Nine men : a political history of the Supreme Court from 1790 to 1955"



So....I was correct...and you were simply tap-dancing, obfuscating to defend the indefensible.


The courts re-write the Constitution whenever they wish.


And you remain nothing but a hack mouthpiece for the anti-Constitution, Roosevelt.

Looks just like more nothing to me.

 

[Discombobulated]

the constitutional imperatives of limited government and the principle of natural, inalienable human rights.

There's no such thing as natural rights without a state to enforce them. If I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by and watch me eat your kill in the hope that I might leave you some.

Natural rights.......another vague idea that be can be defined any way they want.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did your balance get checked at the door?
You're the one in need of checks and balances...on your integrity and imagination, Chica!

Let's put you and FDR in the correct light: frauds.


1. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional.

Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, 'The Twenty Year Revolution,' p. 65.





2. Let's cut right to the chase....

Roosevelt cowed the Supreme Court so that they give him the power to regulate within the states.....

...the end of federalism, and the end of the Constitution.

The Court found the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional. Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.


"April 12. In a series of five cases, headed by the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. case, the Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act — or * 'Wagner Act" — designed to protect labor unions and promote collective bargaining in industries throughout the nation. Factories and mills and mines and stores, whose activities had long been legally classified as ''local,'' subject only to state regulation, and so immune, under the Constitution, from federal meddling, were suddenly found — in fiat contradiction of the barely dry Schechter and Carter Coal Co. decisions — to "affect" interstate commerce "directly" enough to warrant Congressional control under the commerce clause. "
Full text of "Nine men : a political history of the Supreme Court from 1790 to 1955"



So....I was correct...and you were simply tap-dancing, obfuscating to defend the indefensible.


The courts re-write the Constitution whenever they wish.


And you remain nothing but a hack mouthpiece for the anti-Constitution, Roosevelt.

Looks just like more nothing to me.

That's because you're nothing.....you must be looking in a mirror.


Note what it says as the lower left: "Warning: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear."

 

[Discombobulated]

Let's put you and FDR in the correct light: frauds.


1. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional.

Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, 'The Twenty Year Revolution,' p. 65.





2. Let's cut right to the chase....

Roosevelt cowed the Supreme Court so that they give him the power to regulate within the states.....

...the end of federalism, and the end of the Constitution.

The Court found the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional. Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.


"April 12. In a series of five cases, headed by the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. case, the Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act — or * 'Wagner Act" — designed to protect labor unions and promote collective bargaining in industries throughout the nation. Factories and mills and mines and stores, whose activities had long been legally classified as ''local,'' subject only to state regulation, and so immune, under the Constitution, from federal meddling, were suddenly found — in fiat contradiction of the barely dry Schechter and Carter Coal Co. decisions — to "affect" interstate commerce "directly" enough to warrant Congressional control under the commerce clause. "
Full text of "Nine men : a political history of the Supreme Court from 1790 to 1955"



So....I was correct...and you were simply tap-dancing, obfuscating to defend the indefensible.


The courts re-write the Constitution whenever they wish.


And you remain nothing but a hack mouthpiece for the anti-Constitution, Roosevelt.

Looks just like more nothing to me.

That's because you're nothing.....you must be looking in a mirror.


Note what it says as the lower left: "Warning: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear."

Please do continue with your incessant droning, it's very entertaining.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Looks just like more nothing to me.

That's because you're nothing.....you must be looking in a mirror.


Note what it says as the lower left: "Warning: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear."

Please do continue with your incessant droning, it's very entertaining.

Sure.


You act as if stupidity were a virtue.

 

[Discombobulated]

That's because you're nothing.....you must be looking in a mirror.


Note what it says as the lower left: "Warning: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear."

Please do continue with your incessant droning, it's very entertaining.

Sure.


You act as if stupidity were a virtue.

Seems to be just about all you have going for you.

 

[bripat9643]

the constitutional imperatives of limited government and the principle of natural, inalienable human rights.

There's no such thing as natural rights without a state to enforce them. If I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by and watch me eat your kill in the hope that I might leave you some.

Natural rights.......another vague idea that be can be defined any way they want.

No they can't. Of course, there's nothing stopping drones like you from lying about them.

 

[bripat9643]

No you're wrong again, there are no legitimate historians who would support Goldberg's view.....just a lot of dummies on the internet.

Other works:

The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek.

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

Retrospectives: Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era by Thomas Leonard.

Progressivism and the Doctrine of Natural Rights and Nature and History in American Political Development by James W. Ceaser.

How Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson Reshaped the American Regime of Self-Government by Will Morrisey

Eugenics and the Progressives by D. Pickens.

Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant by Jonathan Spiro.

Southern Progressivism by Dewey W. Grantham.

The Progressive Era and Race: Reaction and Reform by David W. Southern

And these are just a few of the works on my self. Let me know when you're ready for more.

BTW, Taft was a conservative progressive; that is to say, he flirted with the elitist notion that classical liberalism's traditional emphasis on natural rights and limited government were the historical relics of agrarian society. He became disillusioned with the movement after Teddy betrayed him and essentially put that maniac Wilson in the White House. Latter Chief Justice Taft authored judicial opinions that slapped down a number of especially egregious constitutional transgressions fancied by progressives, particularly those touching on immigration law.


See also:

Fascism Comes to America by Ralph Raico

The Free Market: How FDR Made the Depression Worse

I also have a few titles on my self written by leftist historians. Their view of the Progressive movement is generally more favorable, of course. But the author's of these works don't entirely white wash the influences of Euro-fascism on American progressivism or deny the striking parallels between the two forms of national socialism in historical practice. In truth, the only things that frustrated the implementation of some of the more, shall we say, adventurous aspects of the progressive agenda favored by its leading lights were the constraints of constitutional law, the prevailing influence of Christian ethics, the pervasive rugged individualism of the American character and the devastating revelations of WWII. Incidentally, progressivism's eugenics movement in America had a profound influence on the thinking of European fascists, on the German Nazis especially!

FDR did not make the Depression worse. The peak of the Depression's 'worstness' was in 1933, when FDR had been in office less than a year. From then on things improved.

That FDR made the Depression worse stands as a textbook example of how the Right uses mythology for propaganda purposes.

No one claims FDR made the depression more severe. They claim he made it last longer than it had to last. The evidence for that is virtually irrefutable.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

FDR did not make the Depression worse. The peak of the Depression's 'worstness' was in 1933, when FDR had been in office less than a year. From then on things improved.

That FDR made the Depression worse stands as a textbook example of how the Right uses mythology for propaganda purposes.

You're a pathological liar, NYcarbineer.

I asked what are the components of FDR's legacy that most Americans today object to?

So far no one has been able to name ONE.

You're a liar. The following is what you wrote, and the following is what I responded to:

And what, precisely and specifically, did Roosevelt do that qualifies as uniquely fascist under any sane definition of fascism, and that was uniquely an FDR policy?

You have yet to address this blatant falsehood.

FDR's demand-side interventions in the economy, particularly his progressive corporatist regime of artificially inflated prices and wages, made the Depression worse as they prolonged it for years against the market's self-correcting forces. Unemployment peaked at roughly 24% in 1933, but never got below 17% prior to the war production years. In short, roughly 16 to 17 million remained unemployed for years for no good reason at all. The matter has been well-understood for decades.

Anything that doesn't jell with lefty's magical world of Disney is myth. Myth. Yeah. That's one of lefty's favorite words. For more than a century, the American economy grew at a rate unparalleled in all of history, with cyclical downtowns and rapid recoveries. And then suddenly, for the first time in American history, the government got all jiggy with it and turned a depression into a Great Depression lasting nearly 14 years.

But for lefty all that history and subsequent economic experience and analyses is . . . well . . . you know, myth.

In truth, most leftists are pathological liars, and I'm done with this one in particular, because like most leftists nowadays, he's also an anti-Semitic. By the way, what is it with these liberal/progressive fascists and Jews ever since Wilson especially? They just can't seem to shake off the myths off that ancient disease.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Please do continue with your incessant droning, it's very entertaining.

Sure.


You act as if stupidity were a virtue.

Seems to be just about all you have going for you.

Laminate this for your wallet....'you can't beat something with nothing.'


'Nothing'....your nickname.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Other works:

The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek.

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

Retrospectives: Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era by Thomas Leonard.

Progressivism and the Doctrine of Natural Rights and Nature and History in American Political Development by James W. Ceaser.

How Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson Reshaped the American Regime of Self-Government by Will Morrisey

Eugenics and the Progressives by D. Pickens.

Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant by Jonathan Spiro.

Southern Progressivism by Dewey W. Grantham.

The Progressive Era and Race: Reaction and Reform by David W. Southern

And these are just a few of the works on my self. Let me know when you're ready for more.

BTW, Taft was a conservative progressive; that is to say, he flirted with the elitist notion that classical liberalism's traditional emphasis on natural rights and limited government were the historical relics of agrarian society. He became disillusioned with the movement after Teddy betrayed him and essentially put that maniac Wilson in the White House. Latter Chief Justice Taft authored judicial opinions that slapped down a number of especially egregious constitutional transgressions fancied by progressives, particularly those touching on immigration law.


See also:

Fascism Comes to America by Ralph Raico

The Free Market: How FDR Made the Depression Worse

I also have a few titles on my self written by leftist historians. Their view of the Progressive movement is generally more favorable, of course. But the author's of these works don't entirely white wash the influences of Euro-fascism on American progressivism or deny the striking parallels between the two forms of national socialism in historical practice. In truth, the only things that frustrated the implementation of some of the more, shall we say, adventurous aspects of the progressive agenda favored by its leading lights were the constraints of constitutional law, the prevailing influence of Christian ethics, the pervasive rugged individualism of the American character and the devastating revelations of WWII. Incidentally, progressivism's eugenics movement in America had a profound influence on the thinking of European fascists, on the German Nazis especially!

FDR did not make the Depression worse. The peak of the Depression's 'worstness' was in 1933, when FDR had been in office less than a year. From then on things improved.

That FDR made the Depression worse stands as a textbook example of how the Right uses mythology for propaganda purposes.

No one claims FDR made the depression more severe. They claim he made it last longer than it had to last. The evidence for that is virtually irrefutable.

"No one claims FDR made the depression more severe."

Arthur Schlesinger does.


Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .





That post.....more proof of what I said earlier: your motto, 'Why should I read,' a paean to stupidity, is matched by your propensity toward lies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

FDR did not make the Depression worse. The peak of the Depression's 'worstness' was in 1933, when FDR had been in office less than a year. From then on things improved.

That FDR made the Depression worse stands as a textbook example of how the Right uses mythology for propaganda purposes.

You're a pathological liar, NYcarbineer.

I asked what are the components of FDR's legacy that most Americans today object to?

So far no one has been able to name ONE.

You're a liar. The following is what you wrote, and the following is what I responded to:

And what, precisely and specifically, did Roosevelt do that qualifies as uniquely fascist under any sane definition of fascism, and that was uniquely an FDR policy?

You have yet to address this blatant falsehood.

FDR's demand-side interventions in the economy, particularly his progressive corporatist regime of artificially inflated prices and wages, made the Depression worse as they prolonged it for years against the market's self-correcting forces. Unemployment peaked at roughly 24% in 1933, but never got below 17% prior to the war production years. In short, roughly 16 to 17 million remained unemployed for years for no good reason at all. The matter has been well-understood for decades.

Anything that doesn't jell with lefty's magical world of Disney is myth. Myth. Yeah. That's one of lefty's favorite words. For more than a century, the American economy grew at a rate unparalleled in all of history, with cyclical downtowns and rapid recoveries. And then suddenly, for the first time in American history, the government got all jiggy with it and turned a depression into a Great Depression lasting nearly 14 years.

But for lefty all that history and subsequent economic experience and analyses is . . . well . . . you know, myth.

In truth, most leftists are pathological liars, and I'm done with this one in particular, because like most leftists nowadays, he's also an anti-Semitic. By the way, what is it with these liberal/progressive fascists and Jews ever since Wilson especially? They just can't seem to shake of the myths off that ancient disease.

"You're a pathological liar, NYcarbineer."


Not 'congenital'???

I stand corrected.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No you're wrong again, there are no legitimate historians who would support Goldberg's view.....just a lot of dummies on the internet.

Other works:

The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek.

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

Retrospectives: Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era by Thomas Leonard.

Progressivism and the Doctrine of Natural Rights and Nature and History in American Political Development by James W. Ceaser.

How Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson Reshaped the American Regime of Self-Government by Will Morrisey

Eugenics and the Progressives by D. Pickens.

Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant by Jonathan Spiro.

Southern Progressivism by Dewey W. Grantham.

The Progressive Era and Race: Reaction and Reform by David W. Southern

And these are just a few of the works on my self. Let me know when you're ready for more.

BTW, Taft was a conservative progressive; that is to say, he flirted with the elitist notion that classical liberalism's traditional emphasis on natural rights and limited government were the historical relics of agrarian society. He became disillusioned with the movement after Teddy betrayed him and essentially put that maniac Wilson in the White House. Latter Chief Justice Taft authored judicial opinions that slapped down a number of especially egregious constitutional transgressions fancied by progressives, particularly those touching on immigration law.


See also:

Fascism Comes to America by Ralph Raico

The Free Market: How FDR Made the Depression Worse

I also have a few titles on my self written by leftist historians. Their view of the Progressive movement is generally more favorable, of course. But the author's of these works don't entirely white wash the influences of Euro-fascism on American progressivism or deny the striking parallels between the two forms of national socialism in historical practice. In truth, the only things that frustrated the implementation of some of the more, shall we say, adventurous aspects of the progressive agenda favored by its leading lights were the constraints of constitutional law, the prevailing influence of Christian ethics, the pervasive rugged individualism of the American character and the devastating revelations of WWII. Incidentally, progressivism's eugenics movement in America had a profound influence on the thinking of European fascists, on the German Nazis especially!

FDR did not make the Depression worse. The peak of the Depression's 'worstness' was in 1933, when FDR had been in office less than a year. From then on things improved.

That FDR made the Depression worse stands as a textbook example of how the Right uses mythology for propaganda purposes.

"FDR did not make the Depression worse."

'In "The High Tide of American Conservatism: Davis, Coolidge, and the 1924 Election," Garland Tucker casts new light on the election and the two candidates, Democrat John W. Davis and Republican Calvin Coolidge. He quotes Paul Rubin: "We now know that FDR's policies likely prolonged the Great Depression because the economy never fully recovered in the 1930s, and actually got worse in the latter half of the decade." And then, quotes Paul Johnson: "Coolidge Prosperity was huge, real, widespread and it showed that the concept of a property-owning democracy could be realized."