The Lies of Franklin Roosevelt

[Unkotare]

So I'll give you another source and definition: "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" by T. Edward Damer of Emory College. "Definition This fallacy consists in attempting to support a claim by quoting the judgement of one who is not an authority in the field, of an unidentified authority, or the judgement of an authority who is likely to be biased in some way."
Let's face it, you got caught creating a definition that supported your argument and when someone called you on it. You checked and found you were wrong so you created a smokecreen that no one was capable of understanding the definition. A grade school tactic. In any case I now have a read on your scholarship or lack thereof.

You keep proving my point that you don't understand the full definition - even after I've explained it to you over and over and over again.


I've even tried to give you an out by suggesting you let go of the fallacy and simply attempt to defend the scumbag yourself. You refuse to answer questions when you have no answer for them, and sooner or later you fall right back on logical fallacy again.

I have to conclude that you're a partisan hack and just plain stupid.

So who decided that argument by authority is a fallacy?

You're fucking hopeless.

 

[regent]

You keep proving my point that you don't understand the full definition - even after I've explained it to you over and over and over again.


I've even tried to give you an out by suggesting you let go of the fallacy and simply attempt to defend the scumbag yourself. You refuse to answer questions when you have no answer for them, and sooner or later you fall right back on logical fallacy again.

I have to conclude that you're a partisan hack and just plain stupid.

So who decided that argument by authority is a fallacy?

You're fucking hopeless.

Maybe your problem is that you are trying to prove that argument by authority is a fallacy if inductive, and I just wondered what authority you are using to prove your point. And if you are using an authority to prove your point, is that also a fallacy?
In any case logic or no, FDR is still rated as America's greatest presidents by 238 noted historians and pesidential experts.
By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts, and by golly they picked FDR. I don't believe FDR will hold on to the top position for all time, no matter the logic, but for now he seems to be number one. Newsweek did not mention your opinion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So who decided that argument by authority is a fallacy?

You're fucking hopeless.

Maybe your problem is that you are trying to prove that argument by authority is a fallacy if inductive, and I just wondered what authority you are using to prove your point. And if you are using an authority to prove your point, is that also a fallacy?
In any case logic or no, FDR is still rated as America's greatest presidents by 238 noted historians and pesidential experts.
By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts, and by golly they picked FDR. I don't believe FDR will hold on to the top position for all time, no matter the logic, but for now he seems to be number one. Newsweek did not mention your opinion.

"By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts, (sic)..."


Tell me, reggie....if all 10 turned out to be Obama voters, would that shake your faith, or cause you to lean more on your own research?


Careful now, reggie.....

 

[Unkotare]

Maybe your problem is that you are trying to prove that argument by authority is a fallacy if inductive, and I just wondered what authority you are using to prove your point. And if you are using an authority to prove your point, is that also a fallacy?
In any case logic or no, FDR is still rated as America's greatest presidents by 238 noted historians and pesidential [sic] experts.
By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts [sic], and by golly they picked FDR. I don't believe FDR will hold on to the top position for all time, no matter the logic, but for now he seems to be number one. Newsweek did not mention your opinion.

You are the crack whore of logical fallacy. You know you're doing it, you know it's wrong, but you can't help yourself because you've got nothing else.

 

[Unkotare]

...In any case logic or no...

That really says it all about you.

 

[regent]

You're fucking hopeless.

Maybe your problem is that you are trying to prove that argument by authority is a fallacy if inductive, and I just wondered what authority you are using to prove your point. And if you are using an authority to prove your point, is that also a fallacy?
In any case logic or no, FDR is still rated as America's greatest presidents by 238 noted historians and pesidential experts.
By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts, and by golly they picked FDR. I don't believe FDR will hold on to the top position for all time, no matter the logic, but for now he seems to be number one. Newsweek did not mention your opinion.

"By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts, (sic)..."


Tell me, reggie....if all 10 turned out to be Obama voters, would that shake your faith, or cause you to lean more on your own research?


Careful now, reggie.....

I've done my own research and discovered that historians agree with me, and that strengthened my faith in historians. In fact, I'm reading an FDR history now and the author does not seem to care much for FDR, but then as I read I don't think the author cares much for history either. Some historians vote their politics but still manage to be able historians. Most of us on these boards use history to strengthen our politics and weaken the other party politics.
Here is a question for you: if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe your problem is that you are trying to prove that argument by authority is a fallacy if inductive, and I just wondered what authority you are using to prove your point. And if you are using an authority to prove your point, is that also a fallacy?
In any case logic or no, FDR is still rated as America's greatest presidents by 238 noted historians and pesidential experts.
By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts, and by golly they picked FDR. I don't believe FDR will hold on to the top position for all time, no matter the logic, but for now he seems to be number one. Newsweek did not mention your opinion.

"By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts, (sic)..."


Tell me, reggie....if all 10 turned out to be Obama voters, would that shake your faith, or cause you to lean more on your own research?


Careful now, reggie.....

I've done my own research and discovered that historians agree with me, and that strengthened my faith in historians. In fact, I'm reading an FDR history now and the author does not seem to care much for FDR, but then as I read I don't think the author cares much for history either. Some historians vote their politics but still manage to be able historians. Most of us on these boards use history to strengthen our politics and weaken the other party politics.
Here is a question for you: if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals.

"if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals."


1. Elizabeth Bentley identified up to 150 Soviet spies working in the Roosevelt administration. Her allegations were proven once the KGB archives were opened in 1991. "Yet the consensus of several generations of American historians (backed by many journalists and other opinion leaders) routinely mocked, ridiculed, and dismissed her as a fraud and montebank."
Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, " Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.543-544.


a. The only possible explanation is the mentality- actually, the psychosis- of historians, journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology. And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication. There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.




You see, those 'historians' that you worship and rely on, needed to negotiate academia....Liberal through and through.
Without being so, or adapting to be so, they would not have been able to become credentialed.
The same is true if they wish to be published.


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.

3. "Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement....Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses.”
Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement - Washington Times



4. "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."
“The Death of Feminism,” by Professor Phyllis Chesler





Let's review the above: to advance in academia, one must lean Left.

'Historians' see the world through a Leftist lens.



I've posted a dozen OPs revealing the flaws and malevolence of Franklin Roosevelt. I don't recall a one that you have been able to dispute.

Should tell you something.

 

[regent]

"By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts, (sic)..."


Tell me, reggie....if all 10 turned out to be Obama voters, would that shake your faith, or cause you to lean more on your own research?


Careful now, reggie.....

I've done my own research and discovered that historians agree with me, and that strengthened my faith in historians. In fact, I'm reading an FDR history now and the author does not seem to care much for FDR, but then as I read I don't think the author cares much for history either. Some historians vote their politics but still manage to be able historians. Most of us on these boards use history to strengthen our politics and weaken the other party politics.
Here is a question for you: if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals.

"if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals."


1. Elizabeth Bentley identified up to 150 Soviet spies working in the Roosevelt administration. Her allegations were proven once the KGB archives were opened in 1991. "Yet the consensus of several generations of American historians (backed by many journalists and other opinion leaders) routinely mocked, ridiculed, and dismissed her as a fraud and montebank."
Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, " Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.543-544.


a. The only possible explanation is the mentality- actually, the psychosis- of historians, journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology. And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication. There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.




You see, those 'historians' that you worship and rely on, needed to negotiate academia....Liberal through and through.
Without being so, or adapting to be so, they would not have been able to become credentialed.
The same is true if they wish to be published.


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.

3. "Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement....Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses.”
Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement - Washington Times



4. "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."
“The Death of Feminism,” by Professor Phyllis Chesler





Let's review the above: to advance in academia, one must lean Left.

'Historians' see the world through a Leftist lens.



I've posted a dozen OPs revealing the flaws and malevolence of Franklin Roosevelt. I don't recall a one that you have been able to dispute.

Should tell you something.

I have no need to dispute most FDR flaws on these boards. Would I change the poster's mind or would historians rewrite their history based on any of our opinions? I see flagrant errors in history at times and do remind others what I believe to be the truth, but I don't have much hope that most of us are interested in the truth, only our political truth.
I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria. Maybe one of the solutions for conservatives is that more become historians. Would you support that idea?

 

[gipper]

I've done my own research and discovered that historians agree with me, and that strengthened my faith in historians. In fact, I'm reading an FDR history now and the author does not seem to care much for FDR, but then as I read I don't think the author cares much for history either. Some historians vote their politics but still manage to be able historians. Most of us on these boards use history to strengthen our politics and weaken the other party politics.
Here is a question for you: if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals.

"if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals."


1. Elizabeth Bentley identified up to 150 Soviet spies working in the Roosevelt administration. Her allegations were proven once the KGB archives were opened in 1991. "Yet the consensus of several generations of American historians (backed by many journalists and other opinion leaders) routinely mocked, ridiculed, and dismissed her as a fraud and montebank."
Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, " Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.543-544.


a. The only possible explanation is the mentality- actually, the psychosis- of historians, journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology. And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication. There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.




You see, those 'historians' that you worship and rely on, needed to negotiate academia....Liberal through and through.
Without being so, or adapting to be so, they would not have been able to become credentialed.
The same is true if they wish to be published.


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.

3. "Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement....Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses.”
Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement - Washington Times



4. "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."
“The Death of Feminism,” by Professor Phyllis Chesler





Let's review the above: to advance in academia, one must lean Left.

'Historians' see the world through a Leftist lens.



I've posted a dozen OPs revealing the flaws and malevolence of Franklin Roosevelt. I don't recall a one that you have been able to dispute.

Should tell you something.

I have no need to dispute most FDR flaws on these boards. Would I change the poster's mind or would historians rewrite their history based on any of our opinions? I see flagrant errors in history at times and do remind others what I believe to be the truth, but I don't have much hope that most of us are interested in the truth, only our political truth.
I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria. Maybe one of the solutions for conservatives is that more become historians. Would you support that idea?

First, we had NO spies in the USSR before or during WWII. The OSS, the first American spy agency, did not begin until 1942. And I believe Stalin's Stooge forbid them from spying on allies, particularly his good buddy Uncle Joe.

So, trying to draw a moral equivalence between the massive spying apparatus of the USSR and the USA, is impossible. Just another failure on your part.

Regarding conservative historians, this too in a non-starter. History should be about exposing the truth....sadly liberal historians have no interest in the truth (see PC's post above as to why) and you have accepted their lies.

Many historians have exposed FDR for the fool he was, you are merely willfully ignorant of them.

 

[regent]

"if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals."


1. Elizabeth Bentley identified up to 150 Soviet spies working in the Roosevelt administration. Her allegations were proven once the KGB archives were opened in 1991. "Yet the consensus of several generations of American historians (backed by many journalists and other opinion leaders) routinely mocked, ridiculed, and dismissed her as a fraud and montebank."
Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, " Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.543-544.


a. The only possible explanation is the mentality- actually, the psychosis- of historians, journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology. And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication. There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.




You see, those 'historians' that you worship and rely on, needed to negotiate academia....Liberal through and through.
Without being so, or adapting to be so, they would not have been able to become credentialed.
The same is true if they wish to be published.


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.

3. "Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement....Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses.”
Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement - Washington Times



4. "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."
“The Death of Feminism,” by Professor Phyllis Chesler





Let's review the above: to advance in academia, one must lean Left.

'Historians' see the world through a Leftist lens.



I've posted a dozen OPs revealing the flaws and malevolence of Franklin Roosevelt. I don't recall a one that you have been able to dispute.

Should tell you something.

I have no need to dispute most FDR flaws on these boards. Would I change the poster's mind or would historians rewrite their history based on any of our opinions? I see flagrant errors in history at times and do remind others what I believe to be the truth, but I don't have much hope that most of us are interested in the truth, only our political truth.
I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria. Maybe one of the solutions for conservatives is that more become historians. Would you support that idea?

First, we had NO spies in the USSR before or during WWII. The OSS, the first American spy agency, did not begin until 1942. And I believe Stalin's Stooge forbid them from spying on allies, particularly his good buddy Uncle Joe.

So, trying to draw a moral equivalence between the massive spying apparatus of the USSR and the USA, is impossible. Just another failure on your part.

Regarding conservative historians, this too in a non-starter. History should be about exposing the truth....sadly liberal historians have no interest in the truth (see PC's post above as to why) and you have accepted their lies.

Many historians have exposed FDR for the fool he was, you are merely willfully ignorant of them.

Of course, America could not have spies without a spy organization. Imagine all those years, from 1787 to 1942 with no spies, but suppose we did have spies without an OSS and didn't tell anyone, would that be legal, would that be possible?

 

[gipper]

I have no need to dispute most FDR flaws on these boards. Would I change the poster's mind or would historians rewrite their history based on any of our opinions? I see flagrant errors in history at times and do remind others what I believe to be the truth, but I don't have much hope that most of us are interested in the truth, only our political truth.
I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria. Maybe one of the solutions for conservatives is that more become historians. Would you support that idea?

First, we had NO spies in the USSR before or during WWII. The OSS, the first American spy agency, did not begin until 1942. And I believe Stalin's Stooge forbid them from spying on allies, particularly his good buddy Uncle Joe.

So, trying to draw a moral equivalence between the massive spying apparatus of the USSR and the USA, is impossible. Just another failure on your part.

Regarding conservative historians, this too in a non-starter. History should be about exposing the truth....sadly liberal historians have no interest in the truth (see PC's post above as to why) and you have accepted their lies.

Many historians have exposed FDR for the fool he was, you are merely willfully ignorant of them.

Of course, America could not have spies without a spy organization. Imagine all those years, from 1787 to 1942 with no spies, but suppose we did have spies without an OSS and didn't tell anyone, would that be legal, would that be possible?

Okay then, you need to prove your point. What historical evidence do you have that would indicate the American government was actively spying on other nations, akin to what the Soviets were doing, prior to 1942?

And please outline the American spies that infiltrated the highest levels of Stalin's government before and during WWII, as Stalin did to FDR.

It certainly is hard to believe that America was NOT spying on foreign nations in any significant way prior to WWII, considering what our government has become and is doing today.

 

[regent]

First, we had NO spies in the USSR before or during WWII. The OSS, the first American spy agency, did not begin until 1942. And I believe Stalin's Stooge forbid them from spying on allies, particularly his good buddy Uncle Joe.

So, trying to draw a moral equivalence between the massive spying apparatus of the USSR and the USA, is impossible. Just another failure on your part.

Regarding conservative historians, this too in a non-starter. History should be about exposing the truth....sadly liberal historians have no interest in the truth (see PC's post above as to why) and you have accepted their lies.

Many historians have exposed FDR for the fool he was, you are merely willfully ignorant of them.

Of course, America could not have spies without a spy organization. Imagine all those years, from 1787 to 1942 with no spies, but suppose we did have spies without an OSS and didn't tell anyone, would that be legal, would that be possible?

Okay then, you need to prove your point. What historical evidence do you have that would indicate the American government was actively spying on other nations, akin to what the Soviets were doing, prior to 1942?

And please outline the American spies that infiltrated the highest levels of Stalin's government before and during WWII, as Stalin did to FDR.

It certainly is hard to believe that America was NOT spying on foreign nations in any significant way prior to WWII, considering what our government has become and is doing today.

American spying began with George Washington but with America isolated by two oceans spying and intelligence never gained the fame or oganization it did in Europe. Much of the intelligence work was done by the military and our spying probably came and went as needed. For example, during the Civil War an intelligance unit was formed. In the 1880's both army and navy formed intelligance units. In the Twenties there was the Black Chamber and the Justice department also did its share including the FBI. We had begun Magic
But it was FDR that began the first modern American intelligence unit with COI.
This is just some highlights of pages of intelligence information.
If you want more information from me on our spying activities you would have to torture and break me, well maybe a few bucks?
But remember it was FDR that began our first real big-time intelligence apparatus that led to the CIA.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've done my own research and discovered that historians agree with me, and that strengthened my faith in historians. In fact, I'm reading an FDR history now and the author does not seem to care much for FDR, but then as I read I don't think the author cares much for history either. Some historians vote their politics but still manage to be able historians. Most of us on these boards use history to strengthen our politics and weaken the other party politics.
Here is a question for you: if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals.

"if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals."


1. Elizabeth Bentley identified up to 150 Soviet spies working in the Roosevelt administration. Her allegations were proven once the KGB archives were opened in 1991. "Yet the consensus of several generations of American historians (backed by many journalists and other opinion leaders) routinely mocked, ridiculed, and dismissed her as a fraud and montebank."
Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, " Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.543-544.


a. The only possible explanation is the mentality- actually, the psychosis- of historians, journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology. And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication. There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.




You see, those 'historians' that you worship and rely on, needed to negotiate academia....Liberal through and through.
Without being so, or adapting to be so, they would not have been able to become credentialed.
The same is true if they wish to be published.


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.

3. "Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement....Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses.”
Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement - Washington Times



4. "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."
“The Death of Feminism,” by Professor Phyllis Chesler





Let's review the above: to advance in academia, one must lean Left.

'Historians' see the world through a Leftist lens.



I've posted a dozen OPs revealing the flaws and malevolence of Franklin Roosevelt. I don't recall a one that you have been able to dispute.

Should tell you something.

I have no need to dispute most FDR flaws on these boards. Would I change the poster's mind or would historians rewrite their history based on any of our opinions? I see flagrant errors in history at times and do remind others what I believe to be the truth, but I don't have much hope that most of us are interested in the truth, only our political truth.
I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria. Maybe one of the solutions for conservatives is that more become historians. Would you support that idea?

1. You responded to none of the points raised in my post.

In fact, "one of the solutions for conservatives is that more become historians" ignores the exact point raised.


2. "I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria."

Diaphanous excuse.
In fact, I will construct an OP showing that quite the opposite is true.
Thanks for the idea.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course, America could not have spies without a spy organization. Imagine all those years, from 1787 to 1942 with no spies, but suppose we did have spies without an OSS and didn't tell anyone, would that be legal, would that be possible?

Okay then, you need to prove your point. What historical evidence do you have that would indicate the American government was actively spying on other nations, akin to what the Soviets were doing, prior to 1942?

And please outline the American spies that infiltrated the highest levels of Stalin's government before and during WWII, as Stalin did to FDR.

It certainly is hard to believe that America was NOT spying on foreign nations in any significant way prior to WWII, considering what our government has become and is doing today.

American spying began with George Washington but with America isolated by two oceans spying and intelligence never gained the fame or oganization it did in Europe. Much of the intelligence work was done by the military and our spying probably came and went as needed. For example, during the Civil War an intelligance unit was formed. In the 1880's both army and navy formed intelligance units. In the Twenties there was the Black Chamber and the Justice department also did its share including the FBI. We had begun Magic
But it was FDR that began the first modern American intelligence unit with COI.
This is just some highlights of pages of intelligence information.
If you want more information from me on our spying activities you would have to torture and break me, well maybe a few bucks?
But remember it was FDR that began our first real big-time intelligence apparatus that led to the CIA.

"American spying began with George Washington..."

Very true....but ended by Democrats who like nothing better than weakening America.



1. “…Congress moved in the mid-1970s to “reassert” its role in shaping American foreign policy, including the most controversial tool of that policy, covert action. Secrecy was seen as antithetical to the American way, and there was widespread agreement that “rogue” agencies such as the CIA were a threat to liberty.

2. Democrat Senator Frank Church and his allies claimed that an assertive legislative role would bring the United States “back to the genius of the Founding Fathers.” This assertion was made despite the fact that American presidents from 1789 to 1974 were given wide latitude to conduct clandestine operations they believed were in the national interest. President Washington, in his first annual message to Congress in 1790, requested a Contingency Fund, or “secret service” fund, as one member of Congress described it. Washington was given this fund, in the amount of $40,000, a sizable sum in the early 1790s.

3. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln, all authorized clandestine operations out of this fund, and did not report the details to Congress. This pattern persisted until the mid-1970s with little or no change,...

4. The damage done to the CIA by this congressional oversight regime (Democrat-controlled Pike and Church Committees) is quite extensive....condemned the agency for its contacts with unscrupulous characters, prohibited any further contact with these bad characters, i...

5. [C]hairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden,…[t]he Delaware Democrat was one of seventeen Senators who voted in 1974 to ban all covert operations, and proudly noted during his 1988 campaign for president that he had threatened to “go public” with covert action plans by the Reagan administration, causing them to cancel the operations."
History News Network | Congressional Oversight and the Crippling of the CIA



And this...

Here at home, the Obama administration has gravely impaired our capability to gather human intelligence by declassifying hundreds of pages of documents that explain our interrogation techniques—information that is now probably in al-Qaeda training manuals. https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=10



Democrats, ultimately, were the cause of 9/11, and will be the cause of the end of this nation.

 

[gipper]

Of course, America could not have spies without a spy organization. Imagine all those years, from 1787 to 1942 with no spies, but suppose we did have spies without an OSS and didn't tell anyone, would that be legal, would that be possible?

Okay then, you need to prove your point. What historical evidence do you have that would indicate the American government was actively spying on other nations, akin to what the Soviets were doing, prior to 1942?

And please outline the American spies that infiltrated the highest levels of Stalin's government before and during WWII, as Stalin did to FDR.

It certainly is hard to believe that America was NOT spying on foreign nations in any significant way prior to WWII, considering what our government has become and is doing today.

American spying began with George Washington but with America isolated by two oceans spying and intelligence never gained the fame or oganization it did in Europe. Much of the intelligence work was done by the military and our spying probably came and went as needed. For example, during the Civil War an intelligance unit was formed. In the 1880's both army and navy formed intelligance units. In the Twenties there was the Black Chamber and the Justice department also did its share including the FBI. We had begun Magic
But it was FDR that began the first modern American intelligence unit with COI.
This is just some highlights of pages of intelligence information.
If you want more information from me on our spying activities you would have to torture and break me, well maybe a few bucks?
But remember it was FDR that began our first real big-time intelligence apparatus that led to the CIA.

You are not telling me anything I don't know and you are NOT backing up your claim that the USA was spying on the Soviets before and during WWII...akin to what the Soviets had going against the USA.

Why do you digress?

 

[regent]

"if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals."


1. Elizabeth Bentley identified up to 150 Soviet spies working in the Roosevelt administration. Her allegations were proven once the KGB archives were opened in 1991. "Yet the consensus of several generations of American historians (backed by many journalists and other opinion leaders) routinely mocked, ridiculed, and dismissed her as a fraud and montebank."
Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, " Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.543-544.


a. The only possible explanation is the mentality- actually, the psychosis- of historians, journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology. And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication. There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.




You see, those 'historians' that you worship and rely on, needed to negotiate academia....Liberal through and through.
Without being so, or adapting to be so, they would not have been able to become credentialed.
The same is true if they wish to be published.


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.

3. "Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement....Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses.”
Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement - Washington Times



4. "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."
“The Death of Feminism,” by Professor Phyllis Chesler





Let's review the above: to advance in academia, one must lean Left.

'Historians' see the world through a Leftist lens.



I've posted a dozen OPs revealing the flaws and malevolence of Franklin Roosevelt. I don't recall a one that you have been able to dispute.

Should tell you something.

I have no need to dispute most FDR flaws on these boards. Would I change the poster's mind or would historians rewrite their history based on any of our opinions? I see flagrant errors in history at times and do remind others what I believe to be the truth, but I don't have much hope that most of us are interested in the truth, only our political truth.
I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria. Maybe one of the solutions for conservatives is that more become historians. Would you support that idea?

1. You responded to none of the points raised in my post.

In fact, "one of the solutions for conservatives is that more become historians" ignores the exact point raised.


2. "I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria."

Diaphanous excuse.
In fact, I will construct an OP showing that quite the opposite is true.
Thanks for the idea.

Perhaps universities do not hire as many conservatives as liberals because of the mission of the university? There are a number of conservative universities with conservative faculties, and conservative messages, but it seems their conservative message has to be coupled with religion. Then again, maybe the conservative message does not stand up to academic study. In fact, some of the major universities of today began as religious schools, they might have dropped the religion and kept the conservatism, but did not, why?
I can see where conservatives believe it is the faculties responsible for liberal schools but I believe liberalism has its own call to students, the very sort of the thing that caused Galileo to be placed under house arrest.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have no need to dispute most FDR flaws on these boards. Would I change the poster's mind or would historians rewrite their history based on any of our opinions? I see flagrant errors in history at times and do remind others what I believe to be the truth, but I don't have much hope that most of us are interested in the truth, only our political truth.
I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria. Maybe one of the solutions for conservatives is that more become historians. Would you support that idea?

1. You responded to none of the points raised in my post.

In fact, "one of the solutions for conservatives is that more become historians" ignores the exact point raised.


2. "I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria."

Diaphanous excuse.
In fact, I will construct an OP showing that quite the opposite is true.
Thanks for the idea.

Perhaps universities do not hire as many conservatives as liberals because of the mission of the university? There are a number of conservative universities with conservative faculties, and conservative messages, but it seems their conservative message has to be coupled with religion. Then again, maybe the conservative message does not stand up to academic study. In fact, some of the major universities of today began as religious schools, they might have dropped the religion and kept the conservatism, but did not, why?
I can see where conservatives believe it is the faculties responsible for liberal schools but I believe liberalism has its own call to students, the very sort of the thing that caused Galileo to be placed under house arrest.

"...universities do not hire as many conservatives as liberals because of the mission of the university?"


This can be seen in Woodrow Wilson’s speech as president of Princeton: “Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life…[but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.” (Michael McGerr, “A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920,” p. 111


Same from Obama:

"U.S. President Barack Obama gives the commencement address to the graduating class of The Ohio State University at Ohio Stadium on May 5, 2013 in Columbus, Ohio.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted."
Obama To Grads: Reject Voices That Warn About Government Tyranny | RealClearPolitics




Get it?
Make them unlike the men who made this country great.


Progressives. Disgusting.

 

[regent]

First, we had NO spies in the USSR before or during WWII. The OSS, the first American spy agency, did not begin until 1942. And I believe Stalin's Stooge forbid them from spying on allies, particularly his good buddy Uncle Joe.

So, trying to draw a moral equivalence between the massive spying apparatus of the USSR and the USA, is impossible. Just another failure on your part.

Regarding conservative historians, this too in a non-starter. History should be about exposing the truth....sadly liberal historians have no interest in the truth (see PC's post above as to why) and you have accepted their lies.

Many historians have exposed FDR for the fool he was, you are merely willfully ignorant of them.

Of course, America could not have spies without a spy organization. Imagine all those years, from 1787 to 1942 with no spies, but suppose we did have spies without an OSS and didn't tell anyone, would that be legal, would that be possible?

Okay then, you need to prove your point. What historical evidence do you have that would indicate the American government was actively spying on other nations, akin to what the Soviets were doing, prior to 1942?

And please outline the American spies that infiltrated the highest levels of Stalin's government before and during WWII, as Stalin did to FDR.

Can you give me my point but in my words not yours?
Your evidence was that America didn't spy because we had no spy orgainzation; I suggested that a nation does not necessarily need a spy organization to spy. We really know that much about our spy history; I would suspect much of it is classified. Can you give your evidence that we didn't spy beyond our not having a spy organization?

 

[gipper]

Of course, America could not have spies without a spy organization. Imagine all those years, from 1787 to 1942 with no spies, but suppose we did have spies without an OSS and didn't tell anyone, would that be legal, would that be possible?

Okay then, you need to prove your point. What historical evidence do you have that would indicate the American government was actively spying on other nations, akin to what the Soviets were doing, prior to 1942?

And please outline the American spies that infiltrated the highest levels of Stalin's government before and during WWII, as Stalin did to FDR.

Can you give me my point but in my words not yours?
Your evidence was that America didn't spy because we had no spy orgainzation; I suggested that a nation does not necessarily need a spy organization to spy. We really know that much about our spy history; I would suspect much of it is classified. Can you give your evidence that we didn't spy beyond our not having a spy organization?

The old tit-for-tat strategy...why am I not surprised?

Here is what you stated:

I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria.

All I ask is that you provide some credible source confirming this statement. You seem to believe the US was spying on Stalin just like Stalin was spying on the US before and during WWII. There is nothing in the historical record, that I have read, that would indicate this is accurate.

 

[regent]

Okay then, you need to prove your point. What historical evidence do you have that would indicate the American government was actively spying on other nations, akin to what the Soviets were doing, prior to 1942?

And please outline the American spies that infiltrated the highest levels of Stalin's government before and during WWII, as Stalin did to FDR.

Can you give me my point but in my words not yours?
Your evidence was that America didn't spy because we had no spy orgainzation; I suggested that a nation does not necessarily need a spy organization to spy. We really know that much about our spy history; I would suspect much of it is classified. Can you give your evidence that we didn't spy beyond our not having a spy organization?

The old tit-for-tat strategy...why am I not surprised?

Here is what you stated:

I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria.

All I ask is that you provide some credible source confirming this statement. You seem to believe the US was spying on Stalin just like Stalin was spying on the US before and during WWII. There is nothing in the historical record, that I have read, that would indicate this is accurate.

No comfirmation needed, I accepted both premises and said so. You do not have to accept the premises. We are talking of spying and nations are not always open about their spying networks, so from our lowly perspective it is mostly guess work. For me, I find it reasonable to believe that America had spies in Russia and Russia in the United States. I even believe we flew airplanes over the Soviet Union, maybe to spy.
The major powers, based on history, have a habit of spying with or without announced spy agencies, and sometimes they are so sneaky they even try to hide their spying, even from the public.