France, 1930's: A Fatal Flaw in Liberalism

[daveman]

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]

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]

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.

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.

Never mind Dragon

Reading is not davemans strongest suit

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]

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.

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.

Yup.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Never mind Dragon

Reading is not davemans strongest suit

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

That means I don't buy leftist bullshit.

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

 

[daveman]

Never mind Dragon

Reading is not davemans strongest suit

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

That means I don't buy leftist bullshit.

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

More lies from Leftwinger.

Of course, that's all he can do.

 

[rightwinger]

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

That means I don't buy leftist bullshit.

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

More lies from Leftwinger.

Of course, that's all he can do.

Alinsky 101:

Accuse others of what you are guilty of

 

[Political Junky]

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

More lies from Leftwinger.

Of course, that's all he can do.

Alinsky 101:

Accuse others of what you are guilty of

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

 

[daveman]

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

More lies from Leftwinger.

Of course, that's all he can do.

Alinsky 101:

Accuse others of what you are guilty of

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]

More lies from Leftwinger.

Of course, that's all he can do.

Alinsky 101:

Accuse others of what you are guilty of

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

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

 

[rightwinger]

Alinsky 101:

Accuse others of what you are guilty of

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

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

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]

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

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

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

Liar.

 

[editec]

Why didn't the UK stop Hitler?

Were they too liberal, too?

 

[Dragon]

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.

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

"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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

"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.

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]

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.

"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.

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....

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

Some people fell for it.

 

[koshergrl]

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.