Why Conservative Is Simply Better....

[Billy_Kinetta]

Interesting, except the current Republican party is not a true Conservative party.

The current Republican party is reactionary with a Neo Conservative idea of spreading Democracy by war which isn't in sync with what Conservatism is about.

A matter of opinion.

What's sure, however, is that the current Democratic Party is the true Progressive party, and all that the modern definition entails. The masks came off when Al Gore lost the 2000 election, and the faces tattooed when Kerry matched that performance 2004.

You're wasting my time trying to change the subject to Liberalism.The Op has made the assertion that Conservatism is better for the individual and for society, the problem of course is that the Republican Party does not meet the standards of Conservatism. Do you have any idea when they will meet that standard?

The nation was designed to espouse classical liberal views, based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

In reality, there are only two choices, Republican or Democrat.

Neither is perfect....but....

Which is closer to the classical liberal view?

Conservatives seem to espouse non-classical liberal views, based on corporatism, fixed or crony markets, and unlimited government protections for their supporters (trillion dollar bailout anyone?).

Progressives seem to espouse non-classical liberal views based upon megalithic government; the Marxist philosophy "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"; incremental destruction of the Constitution and the rights and limitations enumerated by it; totalitarian control of education, speech and thought within the public school and university systems; erasure of foundational and general religious thought and practice from the public square; destruction of patriotic traditions and institutions; continued use of racism and "class warfare" to divide the country, and numerous and sundry other mischief designed to "fundamentally change the United States of America."

Next.

 

[Dad2three]

From Post 434: GDP was never brought up.

a. The League of Nations collected data from many nations throughout the 1930s on industrial production, unemployment, national debt, and taxes.
How did Roosevelt's United States compare with other countries?

In all four of these key indexesthe United States did very poorly, almost worse than any other nation in the study.

Most European nations handled the Great Depression better than the United States.

World Economic Survey: Eighth Year, 1938/1939 (Geneva: League of Nations, 1939) p.128, quoted in"New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America," by Burton W. Folsom Jr

"" by Burton W. Folsom Jr"

The right wing resident "historian", lol

Weird how FDR was elected 4 times AND the GOP didn't the keys to the House back for 50+ years?? lol

 

[Camp]

There's another example of self-absorbed adolescent behavior right there. Does your mommy know where you are?

You got your ass kicked.

Get over it.

It's not the first time.

Won't be the last.

You people are funniest when you're in denial.

good luck kissing PoliticalChic's ass. she's like 70 lol.

Lying about me is both your stock in trade, and the primary sign that you've lost......again.

You have been exposed for telling multiple lies by multiple posters with multiple ;links proving your lies in this thread. One that was detailed with impeccable links is in regards to your distorted out of context misuse of the Morganthau quote. Even when a photo copy of the actual diary page of the source was posted you stayed in denial and continued to promote your lie.
Manipulating and misusing quotes and even facts to paint a false analysis and conclusion is lying. That is what you do. In the case of Morgnathau you present a claim that Morganthau was disagreeing with FDR and his New Deal programs when he was in fact complaining to FDR about taxes not being applied to the rich at a grater rate. In addition you completely ignore the difference in priorities of Morganthau and his differing analylitcal facts and methods.

I never lie.

But you do...as in this lie: "One that was detailed with impeccable links is in regards to your distorted out of context misuse of the Morganthau quote."

This is what I posted:

1. Now, listen, I've listened to this Harry - now this thing has been tried for seven successive years, and we ' ve still got twelve million unemployed. I want to point out - you're all Just as much interested in Mr. Roosevelt as I am - before you launch this thing, I think you're opening yourselves to an attack that we' ve had seven years of deficits, seven years of increasing the thing, and we're just where we were seven years ago."
Morgenthau, 1939
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/_resources/images/morg/md0241.pdf
page 64




2. "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … 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 promises. … 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, Henry, Jr. (May 9, 1939).Henry Morgenthau Diary, Microfilm Roll #50(PDF, 1.9 MB).
Henry Morgenthau, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Both are correct, sourced, and linked.

Exposed you once again, huh?

You did exactly as I predicted you would do. I only wish folks would check out and read your own links to the Morgenthau quotes. Your distortions become obvious right away. It becomes clear that you have taken quotes out of context and Morgenthau is not even talking about what you claim. You are totally dependent on people not reading the links, even the ones you provide.

 

[Dad2three]

Interesting, except the current Republican party is not a true Conservative party.

The current Republican party is reactionary with a Neo Conservative idea of spreading Democracy by war which isn't in sync with what Conservatism is about.

A matter of opinion.

What's sure, however, is that the current Democratic Party is the true Progressive party, and all that the modern definition entails. The masks came off when Al Gore lost the 2000 election, and the faces tattooed when Kerry matched that performance 2004.

You're wasting my time trying to change the subject to Liberalism.The Op has made the assertion that Conservatism is better for the individual and for society, the problem of course is that the Republican Party does not meet the standards of Conservatism. Do you have any idea when they will meet that standard?

The nation was designed to espouse classical liberal views, based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

In reality, there are only two choices, Republican or Democrat.

Neither is perfect....but....

Which is closer to the classical liberal view?

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia. I weep for the dumbing-down of America whenever I see someone triumphantly claiming, "I'm right, because LOOK! Wikipedia agrees with me!"

 

[Dad2three]

So when states rights in the US lost out to 'central planning' and slavery was abolished, that was a tragic defeat?

You are sick.

States rights are not lost. The 10th Amendment is not repealed.

Slavery was abolished and civil rights were enforced in spite of the Democrats, not because of them.

Without the Northern Democrats the Civil Rights bill would never have passed.

Early Communist infiltration - those who brought the civil rights movement with them - into the Democratic party began in the Northern states.

Do study history, and check your sources.

Commies? lol

Fucking stupid AND crazy right wingers who are NEVER on the correct side of history!

I assume you define "history" as "whatever bullshit I've been told by my leftist leaders this week".

You COULD try to prove me wrong correct?

ONE policy EVER CONservatives have EVER been on the correct side of US history? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Which conservatives stated what you claim?

Certainly not the Founders.

You missed Mitt with his 47%? Bu$h just repeated it.

But besides that, just provide one of those conservatives "moral" truths that never change

Sure.

All men are created equal.

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

 

[frigidweirdo]

Conservatism is simply better because you don't need facts, you don't need the truth, you don't need anything like that.

All you need are words which are easy for people to understand.

Instead of giving difficult reasons for invading Iraq, you make simple reasons, so simple people can understand. That is why conservatism is better.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

We don't realize how evil Conservatives are, and always have been, because they tend to lose the battles they fight throughout history, and we tend to forget the evil lost causes conservatives supported.

As shown here:

CONSERVATIVES: ALWAYS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY:

1) Conservatives opposed the American Revolution

Conservatives vehemently warned us that it was unnatural to rebel against our Sovereign Lord, King George III, and that doing so would plunge the colonies into disorder. They assured us, as the father of conservatism, Edmund Burke echoed, that social stability would only come from the small group of wealthy aristocrats ruling over the poor majority. Conservatives reiterated that it was the duty of the poor to obey their “betters.” Their rewards, after all, will come in Heaven.

2) Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves

I know, I know. Here’s where the sophomoric CONS, lacking the ability for complex thought, will whine that Lincoln, a Republican, freed the slaves. But as Southern historian Al Benson, Jr. wrote in his article, “The Republican Party, There are NO conservative roots there,”

“It is interesting to note that, in 1860, the Democrats were the real conservatives, while the Republicans were the left-leaning radicals.”

The Republican Party of the 1860’s, as evidenced by their platform, was a progressive party that rose in opposition to the entrenched power structure. It called for protective tariffs, Besides emancipating the slaves, Lincoln was in favor of progressive taxation. The Revenue Act of 1862 levied a 3% tax on people making between $600 and $10,000 a year, and a 5% for those making over $10,000.

As Andrew Belonsky wrote for Death and Taxes,

“Lincoln believed that rich Americans should pay more than their less wealthy friends and neighbors.”

But, because they are CONS and want to rig the system in their favor, they only considered slaves “people” for purposes of counting them in order to increase the slave-state representation in Congress.

Conservatives warned that freeing the slaves, believe it or not, was an affront to liberty – as well as an evil government plot to force hardworking business owners to release their property. After all, as the Bible tells us, and as Rush Limbaugh later reminded us, “some people are just born to be slaves.”

3) Conservatives opposed women’s suffrage

Conservatives warned us that women just didn’t have the mind, much less the disposition, for politics. They would, of course, get all hysterical – and if they’re having their periods! Well, look out, men! As Limbaugh cautioned again, uppity women might put testicles in a lock box and upset the “natural” hierarchy.

Even today, in 2012, CONS (such as, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, tea party activist, Fox News contributor, and founder of an organization where Sean Hannity serves as an advisory board member) lament that the worst thing that ever happened to America was that women were given the right to vote.

4) Conservatives opposed minimum wage and child labor laws, the 8-hour work day, weekends, sick leave… etc.

Conservatives warned us that the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which established a national minimum wage, guaranteed ‘time-and-a-half’ for overtime in certain jobs and banned child labor, was going to collapse the economy. But President Franklin Roosevelt countered at the time, “Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, …tell you…that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry.” What a surprise! He was right and conservatives were wrong.

70 years later, CONS are still trying to undo the minimum wage and get those kids out of the classroom and back into the factories of Republican campaign contributors.

5) Conservatives opposed humane treatment of animals

Since Conservatives are too stupid to know how to make a buck unless they can leave filth, pain and destruction in their wake, they consistently oppose any regulation that not only keeps our food supply free of the filth they love to spread, but treats the creatures giving their lives for human sustenance with a level of dignity and humanity.

As a matter of fact, CONS are such insipid fascists that, rather than address and rectify the abuses at factory farms, they are currently working to make it illegal for whistleblowers to film the abuse. They have been successful in Iowa at this endeavor. After all, if a pig’s infected pustules are viciously sliced off sans painkillers, and no one is there to document the pig’s screams, did it ever really happen?

And, as for the filthy conditions in the farms feeding the good old U-S-A – U-S-A – U-S-A that the conservatives pretend to love, who cares if a few dozen Serfs eat chicken feces and die of E. coli when a Republican campaign contributor needs more profit?!

We all remember when John Boehner’s district in Ohio was experiencing an E. coli outbreak at the same time he was trying to gut more food industry regulations. The bottom line is, Republicans don’t care if their constituents get sick and die from the filth that Republican (and DINO) campaign contributors are feeding them. To Republicans, that means there’s one less person they have to disenfranchise out of voting.

But if the survivors try to seek justice or recourse and TRY and sue the corporation who killed their child, their pappy, or spouse…they won’t get too far since the John Robert’s Supreme Court had something to say about it.

6) Conservatives opposed the Social Security Act

The Social Security Act established a system that provided old-age pensions for workers, survivors benefits for victims of work-related accidents, aid for orphans and widows, benefits for the blind and physically disabled, and unemployment insurance. Conservatives were apoplectic about this. They warned freedom-lovers everywhere that America’s next stop would be a government concentration camp.

Never mind that “a necessitous man is not a free man,” as FDR famously quoted. Conservatives were inciting their ignorant followers to, once again, oppose their own best interests for the sake of enabling the rich to keep treating them like hosts from which to suck profit.

As author Nancy J. Altman wrote in the LA Times,

“opponents claimed that Social Security would result in massive government control. A Republican congressman from New York, for example, charged: “The lash of the dictator will be felt, and 25 million free American citizens will for the first time submit themselves to a fingerprint test.”

Another New York congressman put it this way: “The bill opens the door and invites the entrance into the political field of a power so vast, so powerful as to threaten the integrity of our institutions and to pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants.” A Republican senator from Delaware claimed that Social Security would “end the progress of a great country and bring its people to the level of the average European.”

As we expected, the concentration camps have yet to come to fruition, and conservatives, ironically, scramble to position themselves as defenders of Social Security – still with a mind to destroy it.

These same arguments were retread decades later to oppose the Affordable Care Act. Being generally devoid of ideas, conservatives just keep replaying the same old tired tunes…confident their fear-based followers will continue to dance on cue.

7) Conservatives oppose clean air and water

Once upon a time, conservatives, although still fear-based, greed-centered, and inherently racist, weren’t completely bat-shit, off-the-rails, crazy. There were some who even believed that the land and environment we shared should be protected, and shouldn’t be a utilized as a toilet for psychopathic corporations to evacuate their waste.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen…it was Nixon who proposed the Environmental Protection Agency, which was ratified by Congress and began operation in December 1970.

But since then, a chain of events unfolded where powerful interests were able to reclaim the ground they were forced to concede to the greater good.

In a nutshell… After the defeat of Barry Goldwater, conservatives began to follow Lewis Powell’s memo to the Chamber of Commerce – a plan that laid out step-by-step how CONS, and thus, corporations, would take over America.

Reagan was elected and began his assault on the New Deal. The American working class was transformed into the working poor.

You see, one ironic tragedy of FDR’s New Deal was that it created economically stable middle classes who, with the aid of these incessant right-wing misinformation machines, were convinced their interests and the interests of billionaires were one in the same.

One aspect of the Reich-wing takeover of America laid out in the Powell Memo was the suggestion that the judiciary be stacked with extreme Reich-wing ideologues. Slowly, but surely, these judges loosened regulations and undid campaign finance laws and removed what little barriers existed that were meant to deter the rich from using their money to corrupt government. With their cushy jobs on the line, politicians began to dance solely to the tunes of their wealthy benefactors who wanted “big government” off their backs so their corporations could, among other offences, pollute the land they pretended to love. So here we are – at a point in history where Republicans (and some phony DINOS) don’t get out of bed in the morning unless they can attack the EPA, and any organization that We the People bring into being that dare try to regulate businesses from ravaging America like a third world nation.

Faced with the prospect of having to actually operate their businesses like members of a community rather than sociopathic children, conservatives whine that environmental regulations are “job killers.” As usual, this simply isn’t true. In fact, environmental regulations actually create jobs. ThinkProgress reported,

“According to a new report from the Economic Policy Institute, however, the “job-killing” part of the phrase “job-killing regulation” is built largely on myth. Last year, EPI released a report that found that several of the EPA’s proposed environmental regulations would actually create jobs. Now that the EPA has finalized a rule regulating toxic waste, EPI has used that rule to analyze whether such regulations are, indeed, job-killers. Once again, it found the opposite to be true, and said the new rule will actually create more jobs than it previously estimated…”

8) Conservatives opposed the Civil Right’s Act

Here, again, conservatives use conflation and count on the stupidity of their followers not to understand that “Democrat” didn’t (and doesn’t) always mean “liberal” and “Republican” doesn’t always mean, “conservative.”

You see, much like the Republicans of the 1860’s were the progressives, the Southern Democrats of Johnson’s era were the CONSERVATIVES who opposed the Civil Right’s Act.

Matthew Yglesias wrote for ThinkProgress,

“Bruce Bartlett has become so damn reasonable that he clearly needs to bolster his conservative bona fides somehow, and his favored path seems to be things like this post drawn from his book Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past. Bartlett’s point in the post is that most of the opponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were Democrats.

This is very true. But it simply highlights the fact that politics in 1964 were not ideologically aligned. The main block of support for white supremacy was a group of Southern Democrats, most of whom were very conservative on all issues, and all of whom were very conservative on the issue of race. They were joined in their support for white supremacy by a smaller block of non-southern conservative Republicans. Conservative movement organs like The National Review supported white supremacy, as did Barry Goldwater who was the leading conservative politician of the time. It’s a very interesting historical fact about the United States of America that for most of the twentieth century conservative southerners generally belonged to the Democratic Party. But it’s also true that if you think of American politics in terms of the history of ideological struggle, civil rights is clearly an issue on which the liberals were right and over time conservatives came around to that view.”

But, as Rand Paul’s recent criticism of the Civil Right’s Act reminds us… not ALL conservatives have “come around.”

9) Conservatives opposed Medicare

Unless it is bombing unarmed civilians for 10,000 feet, putting someone to death or invading a woman’s private medical decisions, conservatives have always hated anything to do with government. They tell their easily led followers that this has to do with “freedom,” and “big government” interference with the “rugged individual” conservatives fantasize they are. It’s the nice story the “average Joe” CON likes to tell himself on the way to cash his Social Security check, but it isn’t true. The real reason the conservative leadership opposes government is because government is the only organization large enough to tell the rich to pay their fair share, or regulate an oligarch’s corporations into “playing nice with the plebs.” Hence, the conservative hatred of anything that government does to promote the General Welfare.

Conservatives opposed Medicare for the same reason they opposed Social Security. It cuts into the potential profit of the 1%. It also affords the average citizen the ability to live in dignity. To the “Masters of the Universe,” an economically secure serf is an uppity serf. They like – and need – the people nice and economically desperate and easily exploitable. But they told their ignorant followers, “First you get Social Security – but next stop, it’s the gulag!”

Their soon-to-be-patron-saint, and reason the American middle class is currently on life-support, Ronald Reagan actually cut an LP called “Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine,” in which he warned the perpetually dumb that American “freedom” was in danger. He said, “pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him.”

But again, the REAL reason the CON leadership opposed Medicare was because they feared it would take America one step closer to offering health care as a right of citizenship – like the rest of the civilized world – and the gravy train would end for those conservative donors who got rich denying people health care.

10) Conservatives oppose Equal Protection Under the Law

There’s only one thing conservatives hate more than a brown person with the right to vote – and that’s an openly gay person.

You see, conservatives are scientifically-verified, fear-based cowards…and true Republican homophobes loathe the LGBT community for the simple fact that they possess what CONS can only envy…namely, the COURAGE to live an authentic life.

Just this week, conservatives in North Carolina voted to prevent two people of the same-sex from forming a legal marriage contract. This is because living in a free society takes a level of maturity conservatives simply don’t possess. They lack the intelligence to live up to the responsibilities of freedom – which includes ensuring that each citizen is afforded equal protection under the law – even if you don’t like them.

Yes. It is exhausting to live among whiny children sporting “Made in China” American flag lapel pins, working incessantly to devolve this nation into the antithesis of a free society – simply because they can’t handle the “freedom” they pretend to love.

So, as the President himself joins the rest of the civilized world and “evolves” to the notion that all people deserve the freedom to build a life and contract with the partner of their choosing, the conservatives dig their heals in deeper, once again on the wrong side of history.

We all must continue to evolve – without them.

Conservatives: Always On The Wrong Side Of History

The founders tried to work with the brits for a long long time...then they rebelled.

Wyoming, a liberal bastion, was allowing women to vote in elections some 30 years prior the passage of the 19th.

I consider myself both conservative and liberal.

Not left or right wing.

Like you own post lists...it was southern democrats that opposed civil rights.

The fact that you posted this only shows you are bought into whatever equivalent of FOX has control of your tiny little brain.

Can't help that.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

They evidently did not listen to their conservative masters in a monarchy and legislature of their home country...

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.

I damn sure wasn't a conservative move to ...rise in opposition or armed resistance to an established government or ruler.

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.

Left and right COMPLETELY switch? Several times over the last hundred years GOPers AND Dems HAVE switched sides, the VAST majority, UNLESS you "think" there is some liberal/PROGRESSIVE majority in the SOUTHERN CONservative CONfederate states of AmeriKKKA who fought PROGRESSIVE Abe?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Rush Limbaugh is a conservative ?

Now, I've heard everything.

Someone tried to tell me Hillary was liberal.

I was ROTFLMAO.

 

[Dad2three]

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. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh

2. 'Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
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 Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.
David Barton, Original Intent, 1997

Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988

“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” 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.

DESIGNED TO END SLAVERY? Oh right EXCEPT to those Southern states where we HAD to include the 2nd amendment for SLAVE PATROLS FOR THE SOUTHERN CONservative States OF AmeriKKKa


END SLAVERY? Hint NOT be the CONservatives!



...In other words, late 18th and early 19th century figures who never expressed a belief in Jesus Christ, who rarely if ever attended church, and who rarely if ever had anything positive to say about the Bible, are magically transformed into evangelical Christians, based on one or two select quotes that mention God or a deity in a somewhat positive light. George Washington (right) and Thomas Jefferson (below) are two such examples.

In short, many conservative Christians and politicians are re-writing history (it is an ongoing process on their part) in order to “prove” their claim that most (if not all) of America’s “Founding Fathers” were evangelical Christians.


Wall of Separation Between Church and State » Founding Fathers

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Interesting, except the current Republican party is not a true Conservative party.

The current Republican party is reactionary with a Neo Conservative idea of spreading Democracy by war which isn't in sync with what Conservatism is about.

A matter of opinion.

What's sure, however, is that the current Democratic Party is the true Progressive party, and all that the modern definition entails. The masks came off when Al Gore lost the 2000 election, and the faces tattooed when Kerry matched that performance 2004.

You're wasting my time trying to change the subject to Liberalism.The Op has made the assertion that Conservatism is better for the individual and for society, the problem of course is that the Republican Party does not meet the standards of Conservatism. Do you have any idea when they will meet that standard?

The nation was designed to espouse classical liberal views, based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

In reality, there are only two choices, Republican or Democrat.

Neither is perfect....but....

Which is closer to the classical liberal view?

Conservatives seem to espouse non-classical liberal views, based on corporatism, fixed or crony markets, and unlimited government protections for their supporters (trillion dollar bailout anyone?).

Progressives seem to espouse non-classical liberal views based upon megalithic government; the Marxist philosophy "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"; incremental destruction of the Constitution and the rights and limitations enumerated by it; totalitarian control of education, speech and thought within the public school and university systems; erasure of foundational and general religious thought and practice from the public square; destruction of patriotic traditions and institutions; continued use of racism and "class warfare" to divide the country, and numerous and sundry other mischief designed to "fundamentally change the United States of America."

Next.

Progressives are not liberal.

They are fascists who want to use government to force people to do things their way.

The far right is the same way, only they lie about it better.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

A matter of opinion.

What's sure, however, is that the current Democratic Party is the true Progressive party, and all that the modern definition entails. The masks came off when Al Gore lost the 2000 election, and the faces tattooed when Kerry matched that performance 2004.

You're wasting my time trying to change the subject to Liberalism.The Op has made the assertion that Conservatism is better for the individual and for society, the problem of course is that the Republican Party does not meet the standards of Conservatism. Do you have any idea when they will meet that standard?

The nation was designed to espouse classical liberal views, based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

In reality, there are only two choices, Republican or Democrat.

Neither is perfect....but....

Which is closer to the classical liberal view?

Conservatives seem to espouse non-classical liberal views, based on corporatism, fixed or crony markets, and unlimited government protections for their supporters (trillion dollar bailout anyone?).

Progressives seem to espouse non-classical liberal views based upon megalithic government; the Marxist philosophy "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"; incremental destruction of the Constitution and the rights and limitations enumerated by it; totalitarian control of education, speech and thought within the public school and university systems; erasure of foundational and general religious thought and practice from the public square; destruction of patriotic traditions and institutions; continued use of racism and "class warfare" to divide the country, and numerous and sundry other mischief designed to "fundamentally change the United States of America."

Next.

Progressives are not liberal.

They are fascists who want to use government to force people to do things their way.

The far right is the same way, only they lie about it better.

Yup, but not quite same-same. The only thing worse than a Republican at this stage is a Democrat.

 

[Dad2three]

Conservatism is simply better because you don't need facts, you don't need the truth, you don't need anything like that.

All you need are words which are easy for people to understand.

Instead of giving difficult reasons for invading Iraq, you make simple reasons, so simple people can understand. That is why conservatism is better.

I call it bumper sticker politics based on fear the right wingers LOVE.

 

[Dad2three]

We don't realize how evil Conservatives are, and always have been, because they tend to lose the battles they fight throughout history, and we tend to forget the evil lost causes conservatives supported.

As shown here:

CONSERVATIVES: ALWAYS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY:

1) Conservatives opposed the American Revolution

Conservatives vehemently warned us that it was unnatural to rebel against our Sovereign Lord, King George III, and that doing so would plunge the colonies into disorder. They assured us, as the father of conservatism, Edmund Burke echoed, that social stability would only come from the small group of wealthy aristocrats ruling over the poor majority. Conservatives reiterated that it was the duty of the poor to obey their “betters.” Their rewards, after all, will come in Heaven.

2) Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves

I know, I know. Here’s where the sophomoric CONS, lacking the ability for complex thought, will whine that Lincoln, a Republican, freed the slaves. But as Southern historian Al Benson, Jr. wrote in his article, “The Republican Party, There are NO conservative roots there,”

“It is interesting to note that, in 1860, the Democrats were the real conservatives, while the Republicans were the left-leaning radicals.”

The Republican Party of the 1860’s, as evidenced by their platform, was a progressive party that rose in opposition to the entrenched power structure. It called for protective tariffs, Besides emancipating the slaves, Lincoln was in favor of progressive taxation. The Revenue Act of 1862 levied a 3% tax on people making between $600 and $10,000 a year, and a 5% for those making over $10,000.

As Andrew Belonsky wrote for Death and Taxes,

“Lincoln believed that rich Americans should pay more than their less wealthy friends and neighbors.”

But, because they are CONS and want to rig the system in their favor, they only considered slaves “people” for purposes of counting them in order to increase the slave-state representation in Congress.

Conservatives warned that freeing the slaves, believe it or not, was an affront to liberty – as well as an evil government plot to force hardworking business owners to release their property. After all, as the Bible tells us, and as Rush Limbaugh later reminded us, “some people are just born to be slaves.”

3) Conservatives opposed women’s suffrage

Conservatives warned us that women just didn’t have the mind, much less the disposition, for politics. They would, of course, get all hysterical – and if they’re having their periods! Well, look out, men! As Limbaugh cautioned again, uppity women might put testicles in a lock box and upset the “natural” hierarchy.

Even today, in 2012, CONS (such as, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, tea party activist, Fox News contributor, and founder of an organization where Sean Hannity serves as an advisory board member) lament that the worst thing that ever happened to America was that women were given the right to vote.

4) Conservatives opposed minimum wage and child labor laws, the 8-hour work day, weekends, sick leave… etc.

Conservatives warned us that the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which established a national minimum wage, guaranteed ‘time-and-a-half’ for overtime in certain jobs and banned child labor, was going to collapse the economy. But President Franklin Roosevelt countered at the time, “Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, …tell you…that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry.” What a surprise! He was right and conservatives were wrong.

70 years later, CONS are still trying to undo the minimum wage and get those kids out of the classroom and back into the factories of Republican campaign contributors.

5) Conservatives opposed humane treatment of animals

Since Conservatives are too stupid to know how to make a buck unless they can leave filth, pain and destruction in their wake, they consistently oppose any regulation that not only keeps our food supply free of the filth they love to spread, but treats the creatures giving their lives for human sustenance with a level of dignity and humanity.

As a matter of fact, CONS are such insipid fascists that, rather than address and rectify the abuses at factory farms, they are currently working to make it illegal for whistleblowers to film the abuse. They have been successful in Iowa at this endeavor. After all, if a pig’s infected pustules are viciously sliced off sans painkillers, and no one is there to document the pig’s screams, did it ever really happen?

And, as for the filthy conditions in the farms feeding the good old U-S-A – U-S-A – U-S-A that the conservatives pretend to love, who cares if a few dozen Serfs eat chicken feces and die of E. coli when a Republican campaign contributor needs more profit?!

We all remember when John Boehner’s district in Ohio was experiencing an E. coli outbreak at the same time he was trying to gut more food industry regulations. The bottom line is, Republicans don’t care if their constituents get sick and die from the filth that Republican (and DINO) campaign contributors are feeding them. To Republicans, that means there’s one less person they have to disenfranchise out of voting.

But if the survivors try to seek justice or recourse and TRY and sue the corporation who killed their child, their pappy, or spouse…they won’t get too far since the John Robert’s Supreme Court had something to say about it.

6) Conservatives opposed the Social Security Act

The Social Security Act established a system that provided old-age pensions for workers, survivors benefits for victims of work-related accidents, aid for orphans and widows, benefits for the blind and physically disabled, and unemployment insurance. Conservatives were apoplectic about this. They warned freedom-lovers everywhere that America’s next stop would be a government concentration camp.

Never mind that “a necessitous man is not a free man,” as FDR famously quoted. Conservatives were inciting their ignorant followers to, once again, oppose their own best interests for the sake of enabling the rich to keep treating them like hosts from which to suck profit.

As author Nancy J. Altman wrote in the LA Times,

“opponents claimed that Social Security would result in massive government control. A Republican congressman from New York, for example, charged: “The lash of the dictator will be felt, and 25 million free American citizens will for the first time submit themselves to a fingerprint test.”

Another New York congressman put it this way: “The bill opens the door and invites the entrance into the political field of a power so vast, so powerful as to threaten the integrity of our institutions and to pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants.” A Republican senator from Delaware claimed that Social Security would “end the progress of a great country and bring its people to the level of the average European.”

As we expected, the concentration camps have yet to come to fruition, and conservatives, ironically, scramble to position themselves as defenders of Social Security – still with a mind to destroy it.

These same arguments were retread decades later to oppose the Affordable Care Act. Being generally devoid of ideas, conservatives just keep replaying the same old tired tunes…confident their fear-based followers will continue to dance on cue.

7) Conservatives oppose clean air and water

Once upon a time, conservatives, although still fear-based, greed-centered, and inherently racist, weren’t completely bat-shit, off-the-rails, crazy. There were some who even believed that the land and environment we shared should be protected, and shouldn’t be a utilized as a toilet for psychopathic corporations to evacuate their waste.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen…it was Nixon who proposed the Environmental Protection Agency, which was ratified by Congress and began operation in December 1970.

But since then, a chain of events unfolded where powerful interests were able to reclaim the ground they were forced to concede to the greater good.

In a nutshell… After the defeat of Barry Goldwater, conservatives began to follow Lewis Powell’s memo to the Chamber of Commerce – a plan that laid out step-by-step how CONS, and thus, corporations, would take over America.

Reagan was elected and began his assault on the New Deal. The American working class was transformed into the working poor.

You see, one ironic tragedy of FDR’s New Deal was that it created economically stable middle classes who, with the aid of these incessant right-wing misinformation machines, were convinced their interests and the interests of billionaires were one in the same.

One aspect of the Reich-wing takeover of America laid out in the Powell Memo was the suggestion that the judiciary be stacked with extreme Reich-wing ideologues. Slowly, but surely, these judges loosened regulations and undid campaign finance laws and removed what little barriers existed that were meant to deter the rich from using their money to corrupt government. With their cushy jobs on the line, politicians began to dance solely to the tunes of their wealthy benefactors who wanted “big government” off their backs so their corporations could, among other offences, pollute the land they pretended to love. So here we are – at a point in history where Republicans (and some phony DINOS) don’t get out of bed in the morning unless they can attack the EPA, and any organization that We the People bring into being that dare try to regulate businesses from ravaging America like a third world nation.

Faced with the prospect of having to actually operate their businesses like members of a community rather than sociopathic children, conservatives whine that environmental regulations are “job killers.” As usual, this simply isn’t true. In fact, environmental regulations actually create jobs. ThinkProgress reported,

“According to a new report from the Economic Policy Institute, however, the “job-killing” part of the phrase “job-killing regulation” is built largely on myth. Last year, EPI released a report that found that several of the EPA’s proposed environmental regulations would actually create jobs. Now that the EPA has finalized a rule regulating toxic waste, EPI has used that rule to analyze whether such regulations are, indeed, job-killers. Once again, it found the opposite to be true, and said the new rule will actually create more jobs than it previously estimated…”

8) Conservatives opposed the Civil Right’s Act

Here, again, conservatives use conflation and count on the stupidity of their followers not to understand that “Democrat” didn’t (and doesn’t) always mean “liberal” and “Republican” doesn’t always mean, “conservative.”

You see, much like the Republicans of the 1860’s were the progressives, the Southern Democrats of Johnson’s era were the CONSERVATIVES who opposed the Civil Right’s Act.

Matthew Yglesias wrote for ThinkProgress,

“Bruce Bartlett has become so damn reasonable that he clearly needs to bolster his conservative bona fides somehow, and his favored path seems to be things like this post drawn from his book Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past. Bartlett’s point in the post is that most of the opponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were Democrats.

This is very true. But it simply highlights the fact that politics in 1964 were not ideologically aligned. The main block of support for white supremacy was a group of Southern Democrats, most of whom were very conservative on all issues, and all of whom were very conservative on the issue of race. They were joined in their support for white supremacy by a smaller block of non-southern conservative Republicans. Conservative movement organs like The National Review supported white supremacy, as did Barry Goldwater who was the leading conservative politician of the time. It’s a very interesting historical fact about the United States of America that for most of the twentieth century conservative southerners generally belonged to the Democratic Party. But it’s also true that if you think of American politics in terms of the history of ideological struggle, civil rights is clearly an issue on which the liberals were right and over time conservatives came around to that view.”

But, as Rand Paul’s recent criticism of the Civil Right’s Act reminds us… not ALL conservatives have “come around.”

9) Conservatives opposed Medicare

Unless it is bombing unarmed civilians for 10,000 feet, putting someone to death or invading a woman’s private medical decisions, conservatives have always hated anything to do with government. They tell their easily led followers that this has to do with “freedom,” and “big government” interference with the “rugged individual” conservatives fantasize they are. It’s the nice story the “average Joe” CON likes to tell himself on the way to cash his Social Security check, but it isn’t true. The real reason the conservative leadership opposes government is because government is the only organization large enough to tell the rich to pay their fair share, or regulate an oligarch’s corporations into “playing nice with the plebs.” Hence, the conservative hatred of anything that government does to promote the General Welfare.

Conservatives opposed Medicare for the same reason they opposed Social Security. It cuts into the potential profit of the 1%. It also affords the average citizen the ability to live in dignity. To the “Masters of the Universe,” an economically secure serf is an uppity serf. They like – and need – the people nice and economically desperate and easily exploitable. But they told their ignorant followers, “First you get Social Security – but next stop, it’s the gulag!”

Their soon-to-be-patron-saint, and reason the American middle class is currently on life-support, Ronald Reagan actually cut an LP called “Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine,” in which he warned the perpetually dumb that American “freedom” was in danger. He said, “pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him.”

But again, the REAL reason the CON leadership opposed Medicare was because they feared it would take America one step closer to offering health care as a right of citizenship – like the rest of the civilized world – and the gravy train would end for those conservative donors who got rich denying people health care.

10) Conservatives oppose Equal Protection Under the Law

There’s only one thing conservatives hate more than a brown person with the right to vote – and that’s an openly gay person.

You see, conservatives are scientifically-verified, fear-based cowards…and true Republican homophobes loathe the LGBT community for the simple fact that they possess what CONS can only envy…namely, the COURAGE to live an authentic life.

Just this week, conservatives in North Carolina voted to prevent two people of the same-sex from forming a legal marriage contract. This is because living in a free society takes a level of maturity conservatives simply don’t possess. They lack the intelligence to live up to the responsibilities of freedom – which includes ensuring that each citizen is afforded equal protection under the law – even if you don’t like them.

Yes. It is exhausting to live among whiny children sporting “Made in China” American flag lapel pins, working incessantly to devolve this nation into the antithesis of a free society – simply because they can’t handle the “freedom” they pretend to love.

So, as the President himself joins the rest of the civilized world and “evolves” to the notion that all people deserve the freedom to build a life and contract with the partner of their choosing, the conservatives dig their heals in deeper, once again on the wrong side of history.

We all must continue to evolve – without them.

Conservatives: Always On The Wrong Side Of History

The founders tried to work with the brits for a long long time...then they rebelled.

Wyoming, a liberal bastion, was allowing women to vote in elections some 30 years prior the passage of the 19th.

I consider myself both conservative and liberal.

Not left or right wing.

Like you own post lists...it was southern democrats that opposed civil rights.

The fact that you posted this only shows you are bought into whatever equivalent of FOX has control of your tiny little brain.

Can't help that.

The Founders did, BUT the Torries/Loyalists, DIDN'T guess who the CONservatives were?


Southern Dems opposed civil rights? Oh right the SOUTHERN CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa who fought PROGRESSIVE Abe? Or was it the liberals fighting civil rights and MLK Jr was on your "side"

Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience, and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level. That's the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we are going to have to change the system.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[Dad2three]

Rush Limbaugh is a conservative ?

Now, I've heard everything.

Someone tried to tell me Hillary was liberal.

I was ROTFLMAO.

Yeah how silly to think the Druggster is a CONservative right?


Rush's First Televised Address to the Nation: Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Speech

Rush's First Televised Address to the Nation: Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Speech - The Rush Limbaugh Show







The 25 Most Influential People On The Right For 2013





1) Rush Limbaugh: He's the biggest right wing talk radio host in America, a generation of conservatives grew up listening to him, and he's capable of making news, killing legislation, and selling tens of thousands of books any time he opens his mouth.



John Hawkins - The 25 Most Influential People On The Right For 2013

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes your usual out of context crap. AND?

Yesterday I commented that Europe was essentially in a depression since the end of WWI and had much longer to build a model to resurrect themselves. Using the late 30's as an example is another way she pushes a dishonest argument, sure, they looked better than us they had been working at it a dozen years longer.

Really?

Must you insist on revealing that you know less than nothing???

“The two movements [that is, in the US and in Germany] nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations. Of the two the Nazis were the more successful in curing the economic ills of the 1930s. They reduced unemployment and stimulated industrial production faster than the Americans did and, considering their resources, handled their monetary and trade problems more successfully, certainly more imaginatively. This was partly because the Nazis employed deficit financing on a larger scale and partly because their totalitarian system better lent itself to the mobilization of society, both by force and by persuasion. By 1936 the depression was substantially over in Germany, far from finished in the United States.”

.

Your vote for Nazi totalitarianism is noted.

What a stupid post....

...exactly what I've come to expect of you.

Political Chic should win an award for complete and total lack of awareness.

My 'award' is saving shoe leather by the ability that I have of walking over the bodies of the dead Liberals I always leave behind.

That's my shoeprint on the back of your neck.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yesterday I commented that Europe was essentially in a depression since the end of WWI and had much longer to build a model to resurrect themselves. Using the late 30's as an example is another way she pushes a dishonest argument, sure, they looked better than us they had been working at it a dozen years longer.

Really?

Must you insist on revealing that you know less than nothing???

“The two movements [that is, in the US and in Germany] nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations. Of the two the Nazis were the more successful in curing the economic ills of the 1930s. They reduced unemployment and stimulated industrial production faster than the Americans did and, considering their resources, handled their monetary and trade problems more successfully, certainly more imaginatively. This was partly because the Nazis employed deficit financing on a larger scale and partly because their totalitarian system better lent itself to the mobilization of society, both by force and by persuasion. By 1936 the depression was substantially over in Germany, far from finished in the United States.”

.

Your vote for Nazi totalitarianism is noted.

What a stupid post....

...exactly what I've come to expect of you.

Political Chic should win an award for complete and total lack of awareness.

She copies and pastes without reading and understanding what she's posting. Clearly her post was an endorsement of Nazism.

She endorsed the 'totalitarian system', deficit spending, and government spending as the means to stimulate an economy.

So THAT'S why you're known as the NYLiar!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

You got your ass kicked.

Get over it.

It's not the first time.

Won't be the last.

You people are funniest when you're in denial.

good luck kissing PoliticalChic's ass. she's like 70 lol.

Lying about me is both your stock in trade, and the primary sign that you've lost......again.

You have been exposed for telling multiple lies by multiple posters with multiple ;links proving your lies in this thread. One that was detailed with impeccable links is in regards to your distorted out of context misuse of the Morganthau quote. Even when a photo copy of the actual diary page of the source was posted you stayed in denial and continued to promote your lie.
Manipulating and misusing quotes and even facts to paint a false analysis and conclusion is lying. That is what you do. In the case of Morgnathau you present a claim that Morganthau was disagreeing with FDR and his New Deal programs when he was in fact complaining to FDR about taxes not being applied to the rich at a grater rate. In addition you completely ignore the difference in priorities of Morganthau and his differing analylitcal facts and methods.

I never lie.

But you do...as in this lie: "One that was detailed with impeccable links is in regards to your distorted out of context misuse of the Morganthau quote."

This is what I posted:

1. Now, listen, I've listened to this Harry - now this thing has been tried for seven successive years, and we ' ve still got twelve million unemployed. I want to point out - you're all Just as much interested in Mr. Roosevelt as I am - before you launch this thing, I think you're opening yourselves to an attack that we' ve had seven years of deficits, seven years of increasing the thing, and we're just where we were seven years ago."
Morgenthau, 1939
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/_resources/images/morg/md0241.pdf
page 64




2. "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … 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 promises. … 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, Henry, Jr. (May 9, 1939).Henry Morgenthau Diary, Microfilm Roll #50(PDF, 1.9 MB).
Henry Morgenthau, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Both are correct, sourced, and linked.

Exposed you once again, huh?

You did exactly as I predicted you would do. I only wish folks would check out and read your own links to the Morgenthau quotes. Your distortions become obvious right away. It becomes clear that you have taken quotes out of context and Morgenthau is not even talking about what you claim. You are totally dependent on people not reading the links, even the ones you provide.

" I only wish folks would check out and read your own links to the Morgenthau quotes."


Me too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

From Post 434: GDP was never brought up.

a. The League of Nations collected data from many nations throughout the 1930s on industrial production, unemployment, national debt, and taxes.
How did Roosevelt's United States compare with other countries?

In all four of these key indexesthe United States did very poorly, almost worse than any other nation in the study.

Most European nations handled the Great Depression better than the United States.

World Economic Survey: Eighth Year, 1938/1939 (Geneva: League of Nations, 1939) p.128, quoted in"New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America," by Burton W. Folsom Jr

"" by Burton W. Folsom Jr"

The right wing resident "historian", lol

Weird how FDR was elected 4 times AND the GOP didn't the keys to the House back for 50+ years?? lol

"....FDR was elected 4 times...."

1. On March 12, 1938, Hitler’s troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month, and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.

2. The Nazis love Roosevelt....almost as much as you do.....

1. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”
2. And on January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’
3. And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”
4. The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”

Schivelbusch...."Three New Deals"
​

Again?
"...“…the fictional appearance of democracy.”



Don't you just hate how I murder you Liberals with facts and actual knowledge???