Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There re so many inconsistencies in your "sources" I'd be here all day addressing and correcting them. But here is a link to show you just how outdated and slow you are...You are really serious, aren't you? You are not joking... BLAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The Communist Party and the Civil Rights Movement - Hankering for History
The Communist Party USA and African Americans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And just for fun -
The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
Obscure sources, blogs and a lot of unfounded assertions.
So dispute them.
a lot of the mess you posted has been discussed and rendered useless many times :
Conservatives vs Liberals: Who really tried to stop Civil Rights initiatives.
Did you REALLY just reference another post on this message board as your fucking source of proof?!
What's it like being a walking advertisement for EXTREMELY late-term abortion?
Wow!
Look at five Liberal Roosevelt-groupies screech, howl, and fume over the truth being revealed!!!
And pouring more truth-gasoline on this fire is my guilty pleasure.
How about some more?
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work."
And FDR's Treasury Secretary also told Congress:
"I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!"
Morgenthau made thisāstartling confession,ā as historian Burton W. Folsom Jr. calls it, during the seventh year of FDRās New Deal programs to combat the rampant unemployment of the Great Depression.
āIn these words, Morgenthau summarized a decade of disaster, especially during the years Roosevelt was in power. Indeed average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931, the year before Roosevelt captured the presidency from Herbert Hoover,āFolsom writes in his new book, āNew Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDRās Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.ā
Indeed, with those words, Morgenthau confessed what so many keepers of FDRās flame wonāt admit today: The New Deal was failed public policy. Massive spending on public works programs didnāt erase historic unemployment. It didnāt produce a recovery.
Some of the most desperate defenders of New Deal doctrine are getting a little shrill about this hard truth. Itās an important truth, nevertheless, especially because the same characters insist that Barack Obama must push through a āboldā economic stimulus that depends on hundreds of billions in new government spending to create or āsaveā jobs.
Budget and financial experts here at The Heritage Foundation are among cooler heads cautioning that President Obama ought not to repeat President Rooseveltās mistakes. In one such effort, Heritage last week distributeda chart showing that FDRās programs didnāt succeed in pushing unemployment below 20 percent.
'We're Spending More Than Ever and It Doesn't Work'
the most desperate defenders of New Deal doctrine are getting a little shrill ...
Morgenthau confessed what so many keepers of FDRās flame wonāt admit today...
average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931
FDR made it worse, and never.....never.....accomplished his goals!!!
For the life of me Political Chic I can't understand how Conservatives could ever think they have been correct about economic theory when most of the time they moderate from a position of failure. The economy during the first four years of FDR's administration did quite well and only was interrupted in 1937 when he slashed spending trying to balance the budget while wrongly thinking the economy was well enough to sustain itself. Even then, GDP did not drop and was strong throughout the recovery. When FDR realized what was happening he reversed course and GDP soared by 10.9% in 1939 and industrial production was up by 23%. You might pay attention to the garbage you're getting your sourcing from, it looks like typical conservative tripe not worth the paper it's written on.
"I can't understand how Conservatives could ever think they have been correct about economic theory when most of the time they moderate from a position of failure."
Lots of things you can't understand...
Watch me make you eat those words.
1. "Henry Morgenthau, Jr. (/ĖmÉrÉ”ÉnĪøÉĖ/; May 11, 1891 ā February 6, 1967) was the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. He played a major role in designing and financing the New Deal."
Henry Morgenthau, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
2. Don't take my word for the ineptitude, here is Roosevelt BFF, secretary of the treasury, expert on finance and compendium of statistics on the economy of the 1930's:
"āWe have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before andit does not work.And I have just one interest, and if I am wrongā¦somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promisesā¦I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we startedā¦And an enormous debt to boot!ā
Morgenthau Diary, May 9, 1939, Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Library
a. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that āon the whole it retarded recovery.ā
article - AEI
How ya' like them apples, boyyyyyeeeeeeee????
I thought the part you cut out was really cute: ."We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be.... I don't pay what I should. People of my class don't. People who have it should pay.... After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot!"[8]
I damn sure wasn't a conservative move to ...rise in opposition or armed resistance to an established government or ruler.They evidently did not listen to their conservative masters in a monarchy and legislature of their home country...we all enjoy letting someone tell us what is better,,,good thing the Founders didn't listen...
Oh, but they did. You should read their writings sometime.
Somehow, the erroneous assumption that anything leftists like from history is automatically "liberal" - and thus, associated with them - never fails to send me into gales of laughter.
I DO wish you wouldn't post it so often, though. I read this at work, and it's not good for me to sit at my desk, giggling.
You would have to be pretty dim to think that all are the same..I damn sure wasn't a conservative move to ...rise in opposition or armed resistance to an established government or ruler.They evidently did not listen to their conservative masters in a monarchy and legislature of their home country...we all enjoy letting someone tell us what is better,,,good thing the Founders didn't listen...
Oh, but they did. You should read their writings sometime.
Somehow, the erroneous assumption that anything leftists like from history is automatically "liberal" - and thus, associated with them - never fails to send me into gales of laughter.
I DO wish you wouldn't post it so often, though. I read this at work, and it's not good for me to sit at my desk, giggling.
Based on what? Your kindergarten definition of "conservative" and "liberal"? Spare me.
Let's just clarify what we're talking about, and put an end to this smeary, slip-sliding mess that leftists always try to make out of definitions in order to obstruct debate, shall we?
The conservative-liberal spectrum in American politics is not a matter of political parties, nor is it a matter of specific stands on specific issues, which can be affected by circumstances outside of political ideology. "Conservative" and "liberal" are defined by overall philosophy and worldview. Thomas Sowell refers to them as "visions". The issues change; the positions on them change, depending on the details and extenuating circumstances (I know the simplistic, all-or-nothing attitude of the left has a real problem with this part); but the vision that informs the decisions and positions remains essentially the same.
Now, as to parties, the Republican Party is by no means made up entirely of people with a homogenous conservative vision. Neither is the Democrat Party made up entirely of people with a homogenous liberal vision. But they each contain those visions respectively, and despite what today's left would like to believe, the idea that the two parties have somehow completely switched places on the political spectrum is simply ludicrous and has no evidence to support it. The left may not like what that reveals about the efficacy of their vision, but that's they're problem.
I believe you should stop imagining something that does not exist...They evidently did not listen to their conservative masters in a monarchy and legislature of their home country...we all enjoy letting someone tell us what is better,,,good thing the Founders didn't listen...
Oh, but they did. You should read their writings sometime.
How silly. The Democrat administration currently seated here might as well BE a monarchy.
You should cover the history of the era, and the conflict. You're quite confused.
PC has basically wallpapered you two with the facts and you are going to rewrite history.
Dick.
Why don't you take it over to the Bullring...where you can show us what you've got without moving the goal posts.
I'll be waiting to see that happen.
Where does she prove that FDR prolonged the Great Depression?
Prove it using this chart:
...lol, I guess we won't be getting that proof anytime soon.
Pull your head out of your ass.
Unless you are somehow going to make the assertion that GDP is the only measure of economic wholeness (which has been her claim all along) and referenced by the people she quoted out of the Roosevelt Administration.
Otherwise look at today. We've had GDP grown and all the far left has done is cry about how it all goes to the rich.
Which is it.
Do you think that the remaining rich didn't make out like bandits.
If you want to argue that, then you pricks should shut up about all the wealth concentration that is taking place now.
I said, GDP AND unemployment hit their worst levels in 1933. Do you accept that as fact?
Nobody has argued against that.
You haven't made a post that contributes to the topic.
In that sense, neither have you.
Because you've wondered way off the plantation in an effort to not be "wrong". (All the while making comments about what is really your behaviour).
I've proven that both unemployment and GDP hit their worst points of the Depression in 1933, and both improved from thereon.
Go ahead and try to prove that wrong.
Why ?
You don't get to set the defintions in your arguments.
Economic expansion/contraction is the measure upon which recessions, depressions, expansions are determined?
How can you not know that?
Li
lol, why in the world would you exclude GDP from a debate about a nation's economy? lol, goddam that's funny.
Nobody said exclude, dickweed.
Your argument has pretty much exclusively centered around it.
What has YOUR argument centered around?
Why don't you tell us when the Great Depression ended in your world.
Interesting that Henry Morgenthau, just as much a devotee of Roosevelt as Schlesinger, also admited what a failure Roosevelt was in his attempts to defeat the depression.
Only the blind Roosevelt groupies deny same.
More of your lies. Unemployment peaked in Roosevelt's first year. EVERYTHING got better from then on.
Interesting that Henry Morgenthau, just as much a devotee of Roosevelt as Schlesinger, also admited what a failure Roosevelt was in his attempts to defeat the depression.
Only the blind Roosevelt groupies deny same.
Morgenthau wanted to raise taxes on the Rich to balance the budget; it's amusing to see he's your expert witness from the era.
Sure.
All men are created equal.
Writing thoughts in a personal diary or making notes of conversations for private us is not testifying. Plus, the quote is exactly what has been repeatedly expressed, explained and shown with links as an effort by Morgenthau to convince FDR to raise taxes on the wealthy. It was not a reflection on the overall policies of the administration.Interesting that Henry Morgenthau, just as much a devotee of Roosevelt as Schlesinger, also admited what a failure Roosevelt was in his attempts to defeat the depression.
Only the blind Roosevelt groupies deny same.
Morgenthau wanted to raise taxes on the Rich to balance the budget; it's amusing to see he's your expert witness from the era.
Has nothing to do with the fact that I emphasized: Morgenthau testified that Roosevelt was an abject failure.
Seems you're not the only one to whom that appellation applies.
Sure.
All men are created equal.
All white, christian males are created equal you mean
Black people counted only for 3/5 and could be held as slaves and women didn't count at all
As I said, if that's such a "moral truth" why aren't true conservatives campaigning to bring back those good old days?
Writing thoughts in a personal diary or making notes of conversations for private us is not testifying. Plus, the quote is exactly what has been repeatedly expressed, explained and shown with links as an effort by Morgenthau to convince FDR to raise taxes on the wealthy. It was not a reflection on the overall policies of the administration.Interesting that Henry Morgenthau, just as much a devotee of Roosevelt as Schlesinger, also admited what a failure Roosevelt was in his attempts to defeat the depression.
Only the blind Roosevelt groupies deny same.
Morgenthau wanted to raise taxes on the Rich to balance the budget; it's amusing to see he's your expert witness from the era.
Has nothing to do with the fact that I emphasized: Morgenthau testified that Roosevelt was an abject failure.
Seems you're not the only one to whom that appellation applies.
Whatever you do, don't quote David Barton, the Christian Apologist completely untrained as a historian.Sure.
All men are created equal.
All white, christian males are created equal you mean
Black people counted only for 3/5 and could be held as slaves and women didn't count at all
As I said, if that's such a "moral truth" why aren't true conservatives campaigning to bring back those good old days?
I need to stop saying 'How dumb can you be?'....it appears you take it as a challenge.
1. The dominant American culture or the time was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. ā52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.ā David Limbaugh
2. 'Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, āan extremist Fundementalist hate group.ā
Coulter
3. Researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Foundersā quotes came directly out of the bible.
David Barton, Original Intent, 1997
Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988
āThe Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thoughtā American Political Science Review
4. Clearly, they both understood the Bible, and, unlike you, had a facility with the English language.
The understood that 'All men are created equal' meant....
...ready?..
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.
That is why our founding documents were designed to end slavery.
Whatever you do, don't quote David Barton, the Christian Apologist completely untrained as a historian.Sure.
All men are created equal.
All white, christian males are created equal you mean
Black people counted only for 3/5 and could be held as slaves and women didn't count at all
As I said, if that's such a "moral truth" why aren't true conservatives campaigning to bring back those good old days?
I need to stop saying 'How dumb can you be?'....it appears you take it as a challenge.
1. The dominant American culture or the time was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. ā52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.ā David Limbaugh
2. 'Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, āan extremist Fundementalist hate group.ā
Coulter
3. Researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Foundersā quotes came directly out of the bible.
David Barton, Original Intent, 1997
Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988
āThe Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thoughtā American Political Science Review
4. Clearly, they both understood the Bible, and, unlike you, had a facility with the English language.
The understood that 'All men are created equal' meant....
...ready?..
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.
That is why our founding documents were designed to end slavery.
Barton understands history about as well as you understand America and politics. Both of you are utterly clueless.Whatever you do, don't quote David Barton, the Christian Apologist completely untrained as a historian.Sure.
All men are created equal.
All white, christian males are created equal you mean
Black people counted only for 3/5 and could be held as slaves and women didn't count at all
As I said, if that's such a "moral truth" why aren't true conservatives campaigning to bring back those good old days?
I need to stop saying 'How dumb can you be?'....it appears you take it as a challenge.
1. The dominant American culture or the time was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. ā52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.ā David Limbaugh
2. 'Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, āan extremist Fundementalist hate group.ā
Coulter
3. Researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Foundersā quotes came directly out of the bible.
David Barton, Original Intent, 1997
Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988
āThe Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thoughtā American Political Science Review
4. Clearly, they both understood the Bible, and, unlike you, had a facility with the English language.
The understood that 'All men are created equal' meant....
...ready?..
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.
That is why our founding documents were designed to end slavery.
Most 'historians' are unequipped to provide accurate reading of the past. This is because of the Liberal bias that provides academicians with their incomes and their personal biases.
1. The Commintern, the Communist International, was founded in Moscow in March, 1919. Not far behind it, the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA) was founded in Chicago in September, 1919. While the archives are rich with their literature, they are rarely studied, as most academic historians are on the left and have little interest in revealing or discussing the revelations or machinations therein. Further, Yeltsin had declassified many documents in the 1990ās which proved that everything the anti-communists said, was true!
Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford āDUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century"
2. The Left's 'historians' produce outright lies.
For Liberals, Franklin Roosevelt was the cavalry riding in at the last minute to rescue an economy utterly destroyed by profit-mad Republicans.
The belief is largely based on lies told about the economy prior to the Depression, summed up this way:
"The character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties has be pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive."
BTW....that was Professors Commager and Morris of Columbia, stars of the Liberal firmament. If you went to university, this is what you were taught.
And, without personal research....believe.
Barton understands history about as well as you understand America and politics. Both of you are utterly clueless.Whatever you do, don't quote David Barton, the Christian Apologist completely untrained as a historian.Sure.
All men are created equal.
All white, christian males are created equal you mean
Black people counted only for 3/5 and could be held as slaves and women didn't count at all
As I said, if that's such a "moral truth" why aren't true conservatives campaigning to bring back those good old days?
I need to stop saying 'How dumb can you be?'....it appears you take it as a challenge.
1. The dominant American culture or the time was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. ā52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.ā David Limbaugh
2. 'Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, āan extremist Fundementalist hate group.ā
Coulter
3. Researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Foundersā quotes came directly out of the bible.
David Barton, Original Intent, 1997
Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988
āThe Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thoughtā American Political Science Review
4. Clearly, they both understood the Bible, and, unlike you, had a facility with the English language.
The understood that 'All men are created equal' meant....
...ready?..
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.
That is why our founding documents were designed to end slavery.
Most 'historians' are unequipped to provide accurate reading of the past. This is because of the Liberal bias that provides academicians with their incomes and their personal biases.
1. The Commintern, the Communist International, was founded in Moscow in March, 1919. Not far behind it, the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA) was founded in Chicago in September, 1919. While the archives are rich with their literature, they are rarely studied, as most academic historians are on the left and have little interest in revealing or discussing the revelations or machinations therein. Further, Yeltsin had declassified many documents in the 1990ās which proved that everything the anti-communists said, was true!
Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford āDUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century"
2. The Left's 'historians' produce outright lies.
For Liberals, Franklin Roosevelt was the cavalry riding in at the last minute to rescue an economy utterly destroyed by profit-mad Republicans.
The belief is largely based on lies told about the economy prior to the Depression, summed up this way:
"The character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties has be pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive."
BTW....that was Professors Commager and Morris of Columbia, stars of the Liberal firmament. If you went to university, this is what you were taught.
And, without personal research....believe.
Sure.
All men are created equal.
All white, christian males are created equal you mean
Black people counted only for 3/5 and could be held as slaves and women didn't count at all
As I said, if that's such a "moral truth" why aren't true conservatives campaigning to bring back those good old days?
I need to stop saying 'How dumb can you be?'....it appears you take it as a challenge.
1. The dominant American culture of the time was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. ā52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.ā David Limbaugh
2. 'Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, āan extremist Fundementalist hate group.ā
Coulter
3. Researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Foundersā quotes came directly out of the bible.
David Barton, Original Intent, 1997
Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988
āThe Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thoughtā American Political Science Review
4. Clearly, they both understood the Bible, and, unlike you, had a facility with the English language.
The understood that 'All men are created equal' meant....
...ready?..
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.
That is why our founding documents were designed to end slavery.
Writing thoughts in a personal diary or making notes of conversations for private us is not testifying. Plus, the quote is exactly what has been repeatedly expressed, explained and shown with links as an effort by Morgenthau to convince FDR to raise taxes on the wealthy. It was not a reflection on the overall policies of the administration.Interesting that Henry Morgenthau, just as much a devotee of Roosevelt as Schlesinger, also admited what a failure Roosevelt was in his attempts to defeat the depression.
Only the blind Roosevelt groupies deny same.
Morgenthau wanted to raise taxes on the Rich to balance the budget; it's amusing to see he's your expert witness from the era.
Has nothing to do with the fact that I emphasized: Morgenthau testified that Roosevelt was an abject failure.
Seems you're not the only one to whom that appellation applies.
Nonsense.
I've noticed that you alternate between bafflement and falsification, leaving an observer with the impression of one on a bungee cord.
Or, in your case, a dope on a rope.
Writing thoughts in a personal diary or making notes of conversations for private us is not testifying. Plus, the quote is exactly what has been repeatedly expressed, explained and shown with links as an effort by Morgenthau to convince FDR to raise taxes on the wealthy. It was not a reflection on the overall policies of the administration.Interesting that Henry Morgenthau, just as much a devotee of Roosevelt as Schlesinger, also admited what a failure Roosevelt was in his attempts to defeat the depression.
Only the blind Roosevelt groupies deny same.
Morgenthau wanted to raise taxes on the Rich to balance the budget; it's amusing to see he's your expert witness from the era.
Has nothing to do with the fact that I emphasized: Morgenthau testified that Roosevelt was an abject failure.
Seems you're not the only one to whom that appellation applies.
Nonsense.
I've noticed that you alternate between bafflement and falsification, leaving an observer with the impression of one on a bungee cord.
Or, in your case, a dope on a rope.
The debunking of your accusations and claims with accompanying links from multiple posters, including me, have not been refuted You haven't even given it an academic try. Your response has at most been the simple reposting of the same refuted and debunked nonsense. You have simple answered them with bloviation and worthless attempts to insult.
You stand guilty of lying. The court of some of us has so ruled. Go hide under a rock.
