Was FDR a fascist?

[glockmail]

Mike Church put it simply the other day when he compared socialism to fascism. “A fascist is a socialist with a gun.” Although overly simplified, the comparison is valid.

Its fairly obvious that FDR was a socialist. He ushered in the era of Big Government. His wide reaching social programs, such as Social Security, the “alphabet agencies” such as the WPA and the CCC, the explosive growth of government, and government employment have caused millions to be dependent on the government. He raised taxes to the highest level ever seen in America, up to an individual marginal rate of 91%!

But did FDR cross the line into fascism? Did he use a “gun” to enforce his policies? If you refuse to pay your taxes, would you not be threatened with imprisonment? What about the relocation camps for Americans of Japanese, Italian, or German origin?

FDR crossed the line. He was a fascist.

[Kathianne]

I just received my copy of Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg today.

pg. 11

..."Even FDR's defenders openly admitted ther admiration of fascism. Rexford Guy Tugwell, an influential member of FDR's Brain Trust, said of Italian Fascism,
"It's the cleanest, neatest most efficiently operating piece of social macihinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious."


"We are trying out the econmics of Fascism without having suffered all its social or political ravages." proclaimed the New Republic's editor Geoge Soule, an enthusiastic supporter of the FDR administration.

[glockmail]

I'd steal it but this is posted on JPP as well. The libs over there are having a bird! :lol:

[Kathianne]

I'd steal it but this is posted on JPP as well. The libs over there are having a bird! :lol:

I know. I really think people should try to keep threads on one forum. I try to keep the various topics in mind when I go from one to another. If it's a piece of information that I think general, I might cross post, but rarely.

It gives me a headache to keep the same argument going with so many people. Especially when I find my thread titles with someone else's name, sometimes even my opinion given at other places, sometimes with the the same link, sometimes with a different one. :lame2:

and I'm not talking about Glock!

[JohnDoe]

okay, i'll bite! :)

here's the definitions and some history that i have found on www.dictionary.com


American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source - Share This
fascism [(fash-iz-uhm)]


A system of government that flourished in Europe from the 1920s to the end of World War II. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco were all fascist states. As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism. Whereas communists are considered left-wing, fascists are usually described as right-wing.

Note: Today, the term fascist is used loosely to refer to military dictatorships, as well as governments or individuals that profess racism and that act in an arbitrary, high-handed manner.



fas·cism (fāsh'ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Based on this, I would say that FDR was NOT a fascist..... unless you considered him a RIGHT WING authoritarian.....?

We had a Congress that instituted SS and other socialistic programs, FDR didn't do it, "we the people" had representation that either legislated or regulated or delegated the money for each one of those programs and.....

FDR did nothing at gunpoint...and yes he did round up the Japanese here in this country which is horrible but he did not torture them or kill them or rule this country at gunpoint as an opressive dictator....and a few other things involved in the free market vs a fascist market regarding businesses were not present that would make him a fascist or us having a gvt form of fascism here in the united states during the time.


soooo, I repeat, NO, FDR was not a fascist. :)
jd

[Dilloduck]

:popcorn:

[LiberalNation]

I'd say he was pretty close, tho more successful at it then say Bush.

[manu1959]

no he was not a facist....his actions do not meet the standard

[LiberalNation]

Not for a classic facist but that term is used to mean more than that now days. He was elected three times and all that.

[hjmick]

Not for a classic facist but that term is used to mean more than that now days. He was elected three times and all that.

How many times was Saddam Hussein elected? :D j/k

[manu1959]

Not for a classic facist but that term is used to mean more than that now days. He was elected three times and all that.

name a classic facist.....

for extra credit is facisim a right wing or left wing political philosophy.....

[LiberalNation]

Hitler, classic facist. Stalin, commie (leftist) facist.

[manu1959]

Hitler, classic facist. Stalin, commie (leftist) facist.

stalin was a communist not a facist......imho

musolini?

franco?

so you believe facisim is left wing?......

[glockmail]

name a classic facist.....

for extra credit is facisim a right wing or left wing political philosophy.....
Hitler. Left wing:socialist. The use of the term to describe a conservative may be fashionable among leftists but is without basis.

[JohnDoe]

I'd say he was pretty close, tho more successful at it then say Bush.

but where does this fit in?


suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

[glockmail]

but where does this fit in? Haven't you heard? All Republicans are racist.

[manu1959]

but where does this fit in?

it doesn't.....but lets not let fact get in the way of a good whip around.....

[Kathianne]

okay, i'll bite! :)

here's the definitions and some history that i have found on www.dictionary.com






Based on this, I would say that FDR was NOT a fascist..... unless you considered him a RIGHT WING authoritarian.....?

We had a Congress that instituted SS and other socialistic programs, FDR didn't do it, "we the people" had representation that either legislated or regulated or delegated the money for each one of those programs and.....

FDR did nothing at gunpoint...and yes he did round up the Japanese here in this country which is horrible but he did not torture them or kill them or rule this country at gunpoint as an opressive dictator....and a few other things involved in the free market vs a fascist market regarding businesses were not present that would make him a fascist or us having a gvt form of fascism here in the united states during the time.


soooo, I repeat, NO, FDR was not a fascist. :)
jd

It's often been argued in political science classes whether fascism if far right or far left, I got an A+ on a paper like 30 years ago, (and I do remember because of the profs comments), that it was where the meeting of the minds of both the far left and far right met. It's the worst of both, there is no good side.

[Hugh Lincoln]

The term is meaningless to me. Dictatorship might be more accurate in describing those European governments of the 20th Century. Mainline conservatives want to stick the term 'fascist' back onto liberals because they don't like association with the racialism of Hitler, Mussolini, etc. FDR was not a racialist that I know of. He loved the Jews and involved them in his administration, and of course WWII was a favorite war of Jews.

[Said1]

Mike Church put it simply the other day when he compared socialism to fascism. “A fascist is a socialist with a gun.” Although overly simplified, the comparison is valid.

Its fairly obvious that FDR was a socialist. He ushered in the era of Big Government. His wide reaching social programs, such as Social Security, the “alphabet agencies” such as the WPA and the CCC, the explosive growth of government, and government employment have caused millions to be dependent on the government. He raised taxes to the highest level ever seen in America, up to an individual marginal rate of 91%!

But did FDR cross the line into fascism? Did he use a “gun” to enforce his policies? If you refuse to pay your taxes, would you not be threatened with imprisonment? What about the relocation camps for Americans of Japanese, Italian, or German origin?

FDR crossed the line. He was a fascist.

After reading this twice, I'm convinced I've seen it before. To whom do you owe credit?

[actsnoblemartin]

I believe he was, he didnt give a dam that 6 million jews were being shot in the head, and burned in ovens, sometimes while still being alive, and toddlers heads smashed against trees.

He was a piece of shit president, a coward, and all those who stand by when any genocide is being committed and do nothing are just as guilty

Remember, all it takes is for a few good men to do nothing


Mike Church put it simply the other day when he compared socialism to fascism. “A fascist is a socialist with a gun.” Although overly simplified, the comparison is valid.

Its fairly obvious that FDR was a socialist. He ushered in the era of Big Government. His wide reaching social programs, such as Social Security, the “alphabet agencies” such as the WPA and the CCC, the explosive growth of government, and government employment have caused millions to be dependent on the government. He raised taxes to the highest level ever seen in America, up to an individual marginal rate of 91%!

But did FDR cross the line into fascism? Did he use a “gun” to enforce his policies? If you refuse to pay your taxes, would you not be threatened with imprisonment? What about the relocation camps for Americans of Japanese, Italian, or German origin?

FDR crossed the line. He was a fascist.

[Kathianne]

After reading this twice, I'm convinced I've seen it before. To whom do you owe credit?

Jonah Goldberg

[glockmail]

After reading this twice, I'm convinced I've seen it before. To whom do you owe credit? My evil twin at JPP.

[glockmail]

Jonah Goldberg I wish I had his paycheck. :cool:

[flaja]

Mike Church put it simply the other day when he compared socialism to fascism. “A fascist is a socialist with a gun.” Although overly simplified, the comparison is valid.

Its fairly obvious that FDR was a socialist. He ushered in the era of Big Government. His wide reaching social programs, such as Social Security,

The first social security system in the entire world was created in imperial Germany by Otto von Bismark, who is credited with being an arch-conservative. Bismark created his social security system because he feared that the Left would launch a socialist revolution to get it.

Bismark acted in the truest conservative fashion. Going back to Burke conservatives have been opposed to mass concentrations of both wealth and poverty. The poor shouldn’t be allowed to dominate the rich by their number and the rich shouldn’t be allowed to oppress the poor simply because they have enough wealth to do so. Society must control wealth or the poor will go on the rampage and social upheaval is the last thing conservatives want.

[flaja]

I only just recently learned of Goldberg’s book and I haven’t had a chance to read it yet. But it sounds like something that I realized about a year or so ago. I haven’t studied much about Italian Fascism, but from what little I do know I am not inclined to see Fascism and National Socialisms as the same thing. Nazi Germany was far more similar to Soviet Russia than Fascist Italy and the Left has a cow when they are informed of this fact.

I have posted this “plan” on several other boards and only a few people have recognized it for what it is: The basic socio-economic blueprint for Nazi Germany (based on William Shirer’s book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, with dollar amounts adjusted for inflation). Quite a few people said it was a communist plan and there was one person who wanted to know which Democrat presidential candidate it came from.

Government:
1. The government levies heavy taxes.
2. The government prints money whenever necessary to avoid deficit spending or borrowing.
3. The government subsidizes things like factory construction and maintenance.
4. The government determines what a farm will produce.
5. The government determines the prices at which a farmer may sell what he produces (the prices are automatically set above what the market would otherwise dictate so farmers have a certain amount of guaranteed income).
6. The government determines what goods and services businesses can produce, how much they will produce and the price at which the produced goods and services will be sold.
7. The government, at the direction of business owners, determines the wages and salaries of all employees.
8. The government provides health insurance, unemployment insurance, disability insurance and a retirement pension to employees.
9. The government operates an organization that provides low-cost recreational and cultural activities- things like luxury cruise vacations for less than 2 weeks’ pay.
10. The government conscripts labor for public works projects in order to relieve massive, chronic or long-term unemployment.

Farmers:
1. Family farms may not be mortgaged or seized by creditors.
2. Family farms may not be sold.
3. Family farms must be inherited by the farmer’s oldest son or the nearest male relative and the heir is responsible for providing a living for the deceased farmer’s surviving spouse and minor children.

Business owners:
1. All corporations worth less than $500,000 must be sold to a larger corporation or closed.
2. No new corporation worth less than $2.8 million may be established.
3. No more than 6% of a corporation’s profits may be distributed as dividends. The remaining 94% must be either re-invested in the corporation or be used to purchase government bonds (which the government is not obligated to ever pay back).
4. Employers may demand greater output from employees without increasing wages or benefits.
5. Large business must either form cartels or join already existing cartels pertaining to whatever industry the business is associated with.
6. No business may fire an employee or lay off an employee without the government’s permission.

Labor:
1. Labor unions are illegal.
2. Employees may not strike.
3. No employee may leave his employer without the employer’s permission.
4. An employee must pay anywhere from 15 to 35 per cent of his pay in taxes and charitable donations mandated by the government.

[gabosaurus]

FDR was actually elected four times. He died shortly after beginning his fourth term.

Don't know if FDR was a "fascist" in the technical sense of the word. He certainly was not an isolationist. FDR approved of massive lend-lease programs for England, then moved up to send them military aid outright.
There are claims that the Americans had broken the Japanese code and knew of the planned attack on Pearl Harbor. The claims state that FDR allowed them to proceed as a way of galvanizing American support for entering World War II.

[diuretic]

Goldberg again - Newspeak and doublethink again.

No, FDR wasn't a fascist. Fascists tried to remove him:


The Business Plot, the Plot Against FDR, or the White House Putsch, was a political conspiracy involving several wealthy businessmen to overthrow the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.

Details of the matter came to light when retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler testified before a Congressional committee that a group of men had attempted to recruit him to serve as the leader of a plot and to assume and wield power once the coup was successful. Butler testified before the McCormack-Dickstein Committee in 1934.[1] In his testimony, Butler claimed that a group of several men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup. One of the alleged plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations on the existence of the plot,[2] but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten.

Major General Butler claimed that the American Liberty League was the primary means of funding the plot. The main backers were the Du Pont family, as well as leaders of U.S. Steel, General Motors, Standard Oil, Chase National Bank, and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. A BBC documentary about the plot alleges that Prescott Bush, father and grandfather to the 41st and 43rd US Presidents respectively, was also connected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot - more at link.

The US dodged fascism. Interestingly enough the UK also flirted with fascism in the time leading up to WWII and while many of the British aristocracy - and it's suggested the King (Edward VIII - later the Duke of Windsor) was sympathetic. In my own country there was an active fascist grouping - http://www.abc.net.au/gnt/history/Transcripts/s1202889.htm.

[glockmail]

The first social security system in the entire world was created in imperial Germany by Otto von Bismark, who is credited with being an arch-conservative. Bismark created his social security system because he feared that the Left would launch a socialist revolution to get it.

Bismark acted in the truest conservative fashion. Going back to Burke conservatives have been opposed to mass concentrations of both wealth and poverty. The poor shouldn’t be allowed to dominate the rich by their number and the rich shouldn’t be allowed to oppress the poor simply because they have enough wealth to do so. Society must control wealth or the poor will go on the rampage and social upheaval is the last thing conservatives want.

What does this have to do with FDR?

[glockmail]

....

No, FDR wasn't a fascist. Fascists tried to remove him:..... So what? He attacked them.

[flaja]

What does this have to do with FDR?

How could FDR’s social security have made him a liberal when the world’s first social security system was created by a conservative?

I was merely pointing out how easy it is for people on the net to have a false view of what constitutes conservatism and liberalism. If we cannot agree on what the labels mean beforehand, we have no hope of applying the labels in the course of discussion. What has historically been called conservative is often far removed from the dog-eat-dog libertarianism that gets passed off as conservatism on the net.

[glockmail]

How could FDR’s social security have made him a liberal when the world’s first social security system was created by a conservative?

I was merely pointing out how easy it is for people on the net to have a false view of what constitutes conservatism and liberalism. If we cannot agree on what the labels mean beforehand, we have no hope of applying the labels in the course of discussion. What has historically been called conservative is often far removed from the dog-eat-dog libertarianism that gets passed off as conservatism on the net.
Non Sequitur (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Non%20sequitur)

As we are discussing in contemporary USA, the labels are simply:
1. Conservative: Federal government should restrict its actions to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
2. Liberal: government is the solution to all society's ills.

[diuretic]

So what? He attacked them.

I'd like to respond but I need a bit more info. I know "he" is FDR, but who are "them"?

[diuretic]

Non Sequitur (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Non%20sequitur)

As we are discussing in contemporary USA, the labels are simply:
1. Conservative: Federal government should restrict its actions to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
2. Liberal: government is the solution to all society's ills.

1. Conservative: want to dismantle all government and replace it with private interests that are not accountable to the people.
2. Liberal: government has to be of an appropriate size and influence to provide basic and even advanced services to the population but not so large that the energies of the private sector are extinguished.

[manu1959]

1. Conservative: want to dismantle all government and replace it with private interests that are not accountable to the people.
2. Liberal: government has to be of an appropriate size and influence to provide basic and even advanced services to the population but not so large that the energies of the private sector are extinguished.

1. is an anarchist

2. is a moderate

[glockmail]

I'd like to respond but I need a bit more info. I know "he" is FDR, but who are "them"? Fascists in your post 28.

[glockmail]

1. Conservative: want to dismantle all government and replace it with private interests that are not accountable to the people.
2. Liberal: government has to be of an appropriate size and influence to provide basic and even advanced services to the population but not so large that the energies of the private sector are extinguished.

Your definitions are out of whack.

[diuretic]

Fascists in your post 28.

You mean the people who plotted against FDR? The same ones that approached Smedley Butler?

[diuretic]

Your definitions are out of whack.

According to whom?

[Kathianne]

1. Conservative: want to dismantle all government and replace it with private interests that are not accountable to the people.
2. Liberal: government has to be of an appropriate size and influence to provide basic and even advanced services to the population but not so large that the energies of the private sector are extinguished.

Conservative: want to have the least government possible, while providing for the common good.

Liberal: Government to take care of the unwashed masses, who send money to provide for such.

[glockmail]

You mean the people who plotted against FDR? The same ones that approached Smedley Butler? The Germans and Italians.

[glockmail]

According to whom?

http://www.liberalparty.org/platform.shtml

http://www.acuf.org/principles/p_philos.asp

[diuretic]

The Germans and Italians.

Oh them, yes, the Allies were lined up against them between 1939 and 1945.

[Psychoblues]

By "them" I must assume you were speaking of those fascist conservatives of the 3rd Reich? Correct me if I am wrong, OK?



Oh them, yes, the Allies were lined up against them between 1939 and 1945.

[diuretic]

http://www.liberalparty.org/platform.shtml

http://www.acuf.org/principles/p_philos.asp

Ah, a party platform from the Liberal Party of the USA and a speech from Ronald Reagan to the Conservative Union (which of course isn't a party but is a philosophical and political grouping similar to the Socialist International). Interesting stuff but not that relevant to the pithy definitions being discussed.

[Psychoblues]

As per post #44, OK?

[diuretic]

By "them" I must assume you were speaking of those fascist conservatives of the 3rd Reich? Correct me if I am wrong, OK?

glock referenced the Germans and Italians, so yes, we're in agreement I think.

[Psychoblues]

Thanks for the clarification, doc!!!!!!!!!



glock referenced the Germans and Italians, so yes, we're in agreement I think.

[glockmail]

Ah, a party platform from the Liberal Party of the USA and a speech from Ronald Reagan to the Conservative Union (which of course isn't a party but is a philosophical and political grouping similar to the Socialist International). Interesting stuff but not that relevant to the pithy definitions being discussed.

Contemorary political definitions are best defined by their respective contemporary leaders. So I gave you links that decribed their philosophies, in their own words.

With regard to Reagan's speech, the Conservative Party of New York can be considered more qualified to outline contemporary Conservative philosophy better than you or I. Click on http://www.cpnys.org/ On the right side it has hypertext "What is conservatism? " That links to http://www.acuf.org/principles/index.asp, which itself has a button called "our Philosophy", which links to Reagan's speech. Contemporary Conservatives routinely call on Reagan to describe themselves.

[glockmail]

Oh them, yes, the Allies were lined up against them between 1939 and 1945. "They" (the Germans and Italians) never attacked the US, until FDR led the US to attack "them".

[retiredman]

"They" (the Germans and Italians) never attacked the US, until FDR led the US to attack "them".

Germany did declare war on us first.

[glockmail]

Germany did declare war on us first. That wasn't the issue.

[retiredman]

That wasn't the issue.

excuse me. I was just trying to keep the discussion historically accurate... your post seemed to indicate a movement away from that sort of accuracy.

[glockmail]

excuse me. I was just trying to keep the discussion historically accurate... your post seemed to indicate a movement away from that sort of accuracy. That was simply your inaccurate assessment.

[retiredman]

That was simply your inaccurate assessment.

if you say so... excuse my intrusion in any case. please get back to how America started the fight against the Germans notwithstanding their declaration of war against us. It's all yours.

[glockmail]

if you say so... excuse my intrusion in any case. please get back to how America started the fight against the Germans notwithstanding their declaration of war against us. It's all yours. Stay off the bottle. It's Lent.

[retiredman]

Stay off the bottle. It's Lent.

I only drink decaf

[glockmail]

I only drink decaf I was taking about The Famous Grouse.

[retiredman]

I was taking about The Famous Grouse.

The bottle of The Famous Grouse is safely ensconced in the liquor cabinet - along with all its friends - where it shall remain until Easter morning.

[glockmail]

The bottle of The Famous Grouse is safely ensconced in the liquor cabinet - along with all its friends - where it shall remain until Easter morning. I'll be at church while you're IV'ing the devils broth. :poke:

[retiredman]

I'll be at church while you're IV'ing the devils broth. :poke:


you'll be at church at 12:01 on Easter morning? Good for you!

I won't be going until 9:00.

and, I'll have you know, the Queen Mum drank The Famous Grouse!

[flaja]

Non Sequitur (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Non%20sequitur)

As we are discussing in contemporary USA, the labels are simply:
1. Conservative: Federal government should restrict its actions to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
2. Liberal: government is the solution to all society's ills.


Do these definitions have any kind of popular, academic or historical support, or are they you own inventions?

Can you give any examples of Democrat/liberal programs or laws that are unconstitutional?

[flaja]

1. is an anarchist

2. is a moderate


1. libertarian

2. something in the middle of the road with tire tracks across its middle

[flaja]

Conservative: want to have the least government possible, while providing for the common good.

Liberal: Government to take care of the unwashed masses, who send money to provide for such.

Conservative: someone who takes his guidance from tradition in an effort to maintain a stable, functioning society for all time and to this end is willing to let the government do what needs to be done but which individuals and the private sector either cannot or will not do.

Liberal: someone who rejects tradition as a source of wisdom in the mistaken notion that government can engineer society in order to insure equality not realizing that the only equality the government can insure is equality of mediocrity.

[flaja]

Oh them, yes, the Allies were lined up against them between 1939 and 1945.


The Italians overthrew Mussolini in 1943 whereupon the Allies concluded an armistice with the Italian government which then declared war on Germany.

[flaja]

Contemorary political definitions are best defined by their respective contemporary leaders.

Then why are you relying on a 27 year old speech for your idea of what conservatism is? Ronald Reagan has been dead for (what is it now?) 4 or 5 years and he hasn’t lead anything in 20 years.

Whether you realize it or not your top-down approach, i.e., the leaders of a movement get to determine what the movement is, is very much a fascist/liberal idea. It is more proper for the people to decide what they want and then choose a leader. It is never a leader’s proper place to tell people what they want.

And just how do today’s liberals and conservatives differ from the National Socialists, Italian Fascists, Soviet Socialists and conservatives of the 1930s and 1940s? If the definitions are relative to the times, then they have no meaning. What makes a conservative today may not be a conservative tomorrow. Then what do you do?

[flaja]

Germany did declare war on us first.

And their subs had been menacing U.S. merchant vessels before then.

[glockmail]

Do these definitions have any kind of popular, academic or historical support, or are they you own inventions?

Can you give any examples of Democrat/liberal programs or laws that are unconstitutional?

All three actually; no I didn't invent them.

Social Security Act. Where is it enumerated in the COTUS? It ain't, therefore it is unconstitutional.

[glockmail]

Then why are you relying on a 27 year old speech for your idea of what conservatism is? Ronald Reagan has been dead for (what is it now?) 4 or 5 years and he hasn’t lead anything in 20 years.

.... RR is still giving us inspiration, as documented. Conservative ideals take decades to change, not years or days like liberal ones.

[Kathianne]

Conservative: someone who takes his guidance from tradition in an effort to maintain a stable, functioning society for all time and to this end is willing to let the government do what needs to be done but which individuals and the private sector either cannot or will not do.

Liberal: someone who rejects tradition as a source of wisdom in the mistaken notion that government can engineer society in order to insure equality not realizing that the only equality the government can insure is equality of mediocrity.

Conservative: someone who takes his guidance from tradition in an effort to maintain a stable, functioning society; recognizing that innovations in technology and challenges from within and without, necessitate adaptability. At the same time, caution should be exercised to avoid unintended consequences of precipitous actions.

Liberal: Believes that there should be an elite that works to the betterment of the rest of society, by managing their families, money, health, indeed all the minutia of life. At the same time recognizes but fails to acknowledged, that these drones owe them their very survival, which should be actualized by votes cast.

[manu1959]

conservatie government: protect its citizens

liberal government: provide for its citizens

[JackDaniels]

Mike Church put it simply the other day when he compared socialism to fascism. “A fascist is a socialist with a gun.” Although overly simplified, the comparison is valid.

Its fairly obvious that FDR was a socialist. He ushered in the era of Big Government. His wide reaching social programs, such as Social Security, the “alphabet agencies” such as the WPA and the CCC, the explosive growth of government, and government employment have caused millions to be dependent on the government. He raised taxes to the highest level ever seen in America, up to an individual marginal rate of 91%!

But did FDR cross the line into fascism? Did he use a “gun” to enforce his policies? If you refuse to pay your taxes, would you not be threatened with imprisonment? What about the relocation camps for Americans of Japanese, Italian, or German origin?

FDR crossed the line. He was a fascist.

FDR was undeniably, unquestionably a socialist. He did not believe in private property or personal ownership (unless it was about what he owned).

However, fascism is a very specific term in political science. One of the key ingredients in fascism is what can be described as hyper-nationalism.

FDR does not fit the real definition of fascism.

[Kathianne]

FDR was undeniably, unquestionably a socialist. He did not believe in private property or personal ownership (unless it was about what he owned).

However, fascism is a very specific term in political science. One of the key ingredients in fascism is what can be described as hyper-nationalism.

FDR does not fit the real definition of fascism.

Right about FDR to a point, wrong about fascism definition in political science. In any case, not worthy of negative rep.

How did JackDaniels get his rep? I disagree with many if not most of his posts, but not to the point of negging.

[flaja]

All three actually; no I didn't invent them.

Social Security Act. Where is it enumerated in the COTUS? It ain't, therefore it is unconstitutional.

Social Security is necessary and proper to regulate interstate/international commerce.

Try again.

[JackDaniels]

Right about FDR to a point, wrong about fascism definition in political science. In any case, not worthy of negative rep.


Whaaaa? While we can argue about little details, no educated person in political science would disagree that hypernationism is an important, though not full, aspect of fascism.

"Fascism exploits nationalism by playing upon feelings of superiority over others." (http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/westn/fascism.html)

While fascism is not defined as hypernationalism, hypernationalism is a necessary ingredient -- however presented, whether implicit or explicit.


How did JackDaniels get his rep? I disagree with many if not most of his posts, but not to the point of negging.

I get neg repped by nevadamedic and waterrescuedude2000 about 10 times a week -- they seem to think it makes them right, while in reality they have been intellectually bitchslapped by nearly every member of this board. I'm just not so petty as to care about "rep" I guess, unlike our liberal friends nv and others.

[Kathianne]

Social Security is necessary and proper to regulate interstate/international commerce.

Try again.What? How do you arrive at that?

[flaja]

RR is still giving us inspiration, as documented. Conservative ideals take decades to change, not years or days like liberal ones.

Decades to change? 27 years is more than 2 decades so how can there not be any change if political ideologies change over time? If Reagan is still giving inspiration to today's conservatives, why does the Republican Party not have a latterday Reagan as its intended nominee?

Make up your mind. Either political ideologies are dependent on current day conditions, as you previously claimed, or they are not as you claim now. You cannot have it both ways. 27 years ago is not current day conditions. You slithered into a trap of your own making and do not have the honestly to admit it.

[Yurt]

Whaaaa? While we can argue about little details, no educated person in political science would disagree that hypernationism is an important, though not full, aspect of fascism.

"Fascism exploits nationalism by playing upon feelings of superiority over others." (http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/westn/fascism.html)

While fascism is not defined as hypernationalism, hypernationalism is a necessary ingredient -- however presented, whether implicit or explicit.



I get neg repped by nevadamedic and waterrescuedude2000 about 10 times a week -- they seem to think it makes them right, while in reality they have been intellectually bitchslapped by nearly every member of this board. I'm just not so petty as to care about "rep" I guess, unlike our liberal friends nv and others.


interesting

[flaja]

Conservative: someone who takes his guidance from tradition in an effort to maintain a stable, functioning society; recognizing that innovations in technology and challenges from within and without, necessitate adaptability. At the same time, caution should be exercised to avoid unintended consequences of precipitous actions.

Include the bit about government being necessary when a need is beyond the ability and inclination of individuals and the private sector, and I’ll agree. There is an erroneous idea on the net that conservatism means fiercely independent rugged individualism as if conservatives care nothing about society. But this is the libertarian view, not the conservative one. In reality conservatives do have an obligation to society. We may not necessarily agree with government welfare, but if your neighbor’s barn burns down we do have a private responsibility to help him rebuild with a community barn-raising and we expect our neighbor to accept a similar obligation on our behalf should the need arise.

[flaja]

If you automatically equate liberalism with big government, did we have big government back in the 19th century when the federal government was building roads and canals and giving massive amounts of public land to homesteaders and railroad companies? How was the Homestead Act not the biggest welfare program in history?

[Kathianne]

Include the bit about government being necessary when a need is beyond the ability and inclination of individuals and the private sector, and I’ll agree. Please, give me an example.
There is an erroneous idea on the net that conservatism means fiercely independent rugged individualism as if conservatives care nothing about society. But this is the libertarian view, not the conservative one. In reality conservatives do have an obligation to society. We may not necessarily agree with government welfare, but if your neighbor’s barn burns down we do have a private responsibility to help him rebuild with a community barn-raising and we expect our neighbor to accept a similar obligation on our behalf should the need arise. Huh? I may or may not have the inclination to help, depends if he's a good guy or a son of bitch. No promise or obligation, my choice to help him rebuild.

[JackDaniels]

If you automatically equate liberalism with big government, did we have big government back in the 19th century when the federal government was building roads and canals and giving massive amounts of public land to homesteaders and railroad companies? How was the Homestead Act not the biggest welfare program in history?

With no income tax, either.

[Dilloduck]

If you automatically equate liberalism with big government, did we have big government back in the 19th century when the federal government was building roads and canals and giving massive amounts of public land to homesteaders and railroad companies? How was the Homestead Act not the biggest welfare program in history?

Because homesteaders fed America until the land was foreclosed on ?

[diuretic]

Contemorary political definitions are best defined by their respective contemporary leaders. So I gave you links that decribed their philosophies, in their own words.

And why would contemporary political definitions be best defined by their respective contemporary leaders? That would mean the only place we could find a definition worthwhile would be Wikipedia. There has to be some sort of objective definition that goes beyond self-reference. Anyway, rather than flog this particular dead/passed on/destroyed horse/equine/ I'll leave it there.




With regard to Reagan's speech, the Conservative Party of New York can be considered more qualified to outline contemporary Conservative philosophy better than you or I. Click on http://www.cpnys.org/ On the right side it has hypertext "What is conservatism? " That links to http://www.acuf.org/principles/index.asp, which itself has a button called "our Philosophy", which links to Reagan's speech. Contemporary Conservatives routinely call on Reagan to describe themselves.

They can outline their own party's policy platform and philosophy yes, but I don't think they can be held up as the singular source of what conservatism is outside of their own party. The Conservative Union would be a better bet, given that at least it's a collection of international conservatives who apparently have a shared view of conservatism that probably extends well beyond the limits of Reaganism.

[diuretic]

you'll be at church at 12:01 on Easter morning? Good for you!

I won't be going until 9:00.

and, I'll have you know, the Queen Mum drank The Famous Grouse!

Great drink, pity about all those bloody feathers though :D

[diuretic]

1. libertarian

2. something in the middle of the road with tire tracks across its middle

1. Impractical

2. Armadillo (first used I think by the bloke in charge of Tx highways some years ago)

[diuretic]

The Italians overthrew Mussolini in 1943 whereupon the Allies concluded an armistice with the Italian government which then declared war on Germany.

The Allies fought Fascist Italy well before the Italians rose up (good for them) against Mussolini. The Battle of Taranto (1940) looms large in it. I think though most of the land fighting occurred in North Africa while the sea fighting took place (naturallly enough) in the Mediterranean.

[Kathianne]

The Allies fought Fascist Italy well before the Italians rose up (good for them) against Mussolini. The Battle of Taranto (1940) looms large in it. I think though most of the land fighting occurred in North Africa while the sea fighting took place (naturallly enough) in the Mediterranean.

I don't have time, but I'll try over the weekend. FDR was a socialist, with fascist leanings. Bah! At least til Sunday!

[flaja]

Please, give me an example. Huh? I may or may not have the inclination to help, depends if he's a good guy or a son of bitch. No promise or obligation, my choice to help him rebuild.



Please, give me an example.

Public education. Since state law doesn’t regulate the curriculum, student testing, accreditation or teacher qualifications of private schools in Florida we have an over-abundance of private schools, i.e., Christian academies, that don’t work. I used to be a Christian academy classroom teacher which meant that I was basically a baby-sitter for brats who couldn’t or wouldn’t do the work required in public schools.


Huh? I may or may not have the inclination to help, depends if he's a good guy or a son of bitch. No promise or obligation, my choice to help him rebuild.

Traditionally speaking your attitude was not the norm in American Society due to the Judeo-Christian influence that used to permeate American society.

[flaja]

With no income tax, either.


But with high tariffs.

[glockmail]

Social Security is necessary and proper to regulate interstate/international commerce.

..... Whhhaatt? :lol:

[flaja]

Because homesteaders fed America until the land was foreclosed on ?


So you think it is the government’s responsibility to feed people? How liberal can you get?

[glockmail]

Decades to change? 27 years is more than 2 decades so how can there not be any change if political ideologies change over time? If Reagan is still giving inspiration to today's conservatives, why does the Republican Party not have a latterday Reagan as its intended nominee?

Make up your mind. Either political ideologies are dependent on current day conditions, as you previously claimed, or they are not as you claim now. You cannot have it both ways. 27 years ago is not current day conditions. You slithered into a trap of your own making and do not have the honestly to admit it.:lol:

Since when does plural only mean two?

[glockmail]

.....How was the Homestead Act not the biggest welfare program in history? The government didn't tax the people to purchase the land in the first place.

[glockmail]

.... The Conservative Union would be a better bet, given that at least it's a collection of international conservatives who apparently have a shared view of conservatism that probably extends well beyond the limits of Reaganism. That's a different term. I'm talking about US conservatives. The terms do have a lot of similarities.

[flaja]

1. Impractical

2. Armadillo (first used I think by the bloke in charge of Tx highways some years ago)


1. Just plain stupid in most cases.

2. We are both thinking of Jim Hightower, the left-leaning former Ag secretary in Texas- yellow strip and dead armadillos.

Being a moderate means being afraid to offend anyone. It means seldom having sense enough to make up your own mind on complicated issues and then not having courage enough to stand up for what you believe when you do manage to make up your own mind.

[flaja]

The Allies fought Fascist Italy well before the Italians rose up (good for them) against Mussolini. The Battle of Taranto (1940) looms large in it. I think though most of the land fighting occurred in North Africa while the sea fighting took place (naturallly enough) in the Mediterranean.

Define fight. As long as the Hun didn’t try to help, fighting the Italians usually meant chasing them.

Most of the land fighting against the Italians likely didn’t take place in North Africa. The Italians already controlled Albania when the war started. Then in 1940 they invaded Greece. The Greeks fought back and chased the Italians all the way into Albania. This prompted Hitler to send help which meant invading Yugoslavia and Greece.

Then in 1941 the Brits came close to eliminating the Italians who were occupying North Africa. Again Hitler sent help in the form of the Afrika Korps. The Germans chased the British into Egypt but in November 1942 American troops landed in Vichy North Africa while the British counterattacked in Egypt. The following year saw a complete Allied victory in Africa whereupon we invaded Sicily and then mainland Italy. When it looked like the entire Italian front was going to collapse the Germans invaded Italy, which prompted the Italians to overthrow Mussolini.

As for sea fighting against the Italian, most of it took place at Taranto.

BTW: Since Hitler had no (immediate) plans to invade the Balkans he had to post-pone the start of his invasion of Russia in order to help Mussolini. William Shirer commented that this delay meant that the Germans didn’t have time enough to capture Moscow before the Russian winter set in. So the Italian invasion of Greece likely doomed the German invasion of Russia. In this regard the Italians did more for the Allied war effort than the French ever did.

[flaja]

Who circulated paper money that had no backing in either gold or silver: Adolf Hitler or Franklin Roosevelt?

Answer: Both. Roosevelt (unconstitutionally assuming Congress’ enumerated power to coin money and regulate its value) ordered that all privately owned gold be turned over to the government in exchange for paper money that couldn’t be redeemed in gold. Adolf Hitler circulated paper money known as MEFO which all armaments companies had to accept as payment for government contracts and which couldn’t be circulated among the general public and could only be redeemed (at a discount off the face value) for Reichmarks which had no gold value.


Who created government work camps: Adolf Hitler or Franklin Roosevelt?

Answer: Both. Roosevelt had the Civilian Conservation Corps. With the Labor Service and Landjahr, both men and women in Germany had to spend time either in the country or on farms doing manual labor.

Who “militarized” the nation’s youth: Adolf Hitler or Franklin Roosevelt?

Answer: Both. Hitler had the Hitler Youth and League of German Maidens with their Labor Service and Landjahr camps and some Americans complained that FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corp “militarized” the nation’s youth.


Who created an organization designed to put entertainers to work on behalf of the government: Adolf Hitler or Franklin Roosevelt?

Answer: Both. Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration had writers do things like write histories of various U.S. locales while painters decorated the walls of public buildings and actors put on shows for public entertainment. Hitler had the Reich Culture Chamber which coordinated the work of German writers, actors, musicians and artists.


Who co-opted the labor movement with a government sponsored labor union: Adolf Hitler or Franklin Roosevelt?

Answer: Both. Hitler had the German Labor Front and Roosevelt had the National Recovery Administration. The German Labor Front established government officials who had the power to regulate wages, working conditions and labor contracts and to mediate disputes between labor and management. The German Labor Front was designed to make labor and management cooperate and work in harmony for the benefit of the state. And according to Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration, companies who worked in individual industries were supposed to create a code of conduct for their industry designed to insure fair competition. The NRA also set working hours and a minimum wage for labor in an effort to mediate management-labor disputes. Furthermore, all employers under the National Recovery Administration had to accept labor unions. This gave the unions the power to prevent a non-union member from getting a job, i.e., if you didn’t join the union, you didn’t get a job.


Who tried to control public opinion through the use of mass propaganda: Adolf Hitler or Franklin Roosevelt?

Answer: Both. Hitler had the Nuremberg Nazi Party Rallies while Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration tried to gain the support industrial laborers through mass meetings and public parades (including a New York City parade that had 200,000 people).


Who was opposed to a judiciary that is independent of political influences: Adolf Hitler or Franklin Roosevelt?

Answer: Both. All judges in Nazi Germany had to uphold Nazi ideology and when it did happen that the courts acquitted someone that the Nazis wanted convicted, the Nazis simply took the person into “protective custody”. And Roosevelt wanted to alter the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court by adding enough new members to out-vote the existing members who had struck down some of his New Deal programs.

[flaja]

RR is still giving us inspiration, as documented. Conservative ideals take decades to change, not years or days like liberal ones.


Then why did you say that a political ideology is defined by its contemporary leaders?

And if liberal ideas change on a nearly daily basis, why do liberals still invoke FDR after 70 years?

[flaja]

Whaaaa? While we can argue about little details, no educated person in political science would disagree that hypernationism is an important, though not full, aspect of fascism.

Compared to Italy and Germany fascist Spain wasn't nationalist at all. And why did the socialists in the Soviet Union call WWII the Great Patriotic War?


"Fascism exploits nationalism by playing upon feelings of superiority over others." (http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/westn/fascism.html)

Again Spain.


While fascism is not defined as hypernationalism, hypernationalism is a necessary ingredient -- however presented, whether implicit or explicit.

Spain?

Nationalism isn't a required component of fascism since there were "fascist" states that were not overly nationalistic while there have also been non-fascists states where nationalism ran rampant (Imperial Germany, France almost always, Greece while fighting the Turks).

[flaja]

What? How do you arrive at that?


Because it regulates commerce. It regulates how employers treat their employees.

[flaja]

Whhhaatt? :lol:

Social Security regulates commerce because it regulates working conditions i.e., pay of employees whose employers are engaged in interstate/international commerce.

Granted, what is necessary and proper is as much a matter of opinion as anything else, and Social Security may be an unwise program, but there is no legitimate way you say it is an unconstitutional one.

[manu1959]

Social Security regulates commerce because it regulates working conditions i.e., pay of employees whose employers are engaged in interstate/international commerce.

Granted, what is necessary and proper is as much a matter of opinion as anything else, and Social Security may be an unwise program, but there is no legitimate way you say it is an unconstitutional one.

what about companies that don't engage in interstate / international commerce.....seems ss would be unconsitutional for them...

[flaja]

The government didn't tax the people to purchase the land in the first place.


Most of the land that was homesteaded is found in the region that made up the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican Cession. The U.S. used tax money to buy the Louisiana land outright from France and the Mexican land came to the U.S. following the Mexican War and part of the treaty that ended that war (and transferred the land to the U.S.) required the federal government to assume some debts that Mexicans owed to U.S. citizens.

[glockmail]

Most of the land that was homesteaded is found in the region that made up the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican Cession. The U.S. used tax money to buy the Louisiana land outright from France and the Mexican land came to the U.S. following the Mexican War and part of the treaty that ended that war (and transferred the land to the U.S.) required the federal government to assume some debts that Mexicans owed to U.S. citizens. That money was from land sales and tarriffs, not taxes. :slap:

[glockmail]

Social Security regulates commerce because it regulates working conditions i.e., pay of employees whose employers are engaged in interstate/international commerce.

.... That's not even stretching a definition. Its just stoopid.

[glockmail]

Then why did you say that a political ideology is defined by its contemporary leaders?

And if liberal ideas change on a nearly daily basis, why do liberals still invoke FDR after 70 years?

Sorry I didn't realize that I was conversing with a first grader.

FDR would be appalled at liberals today.

[flaja]

That money was from land sales and tarriffs, not taxes. :slap:

Your documentation for the land sales is what? Prior to the Louisiana Purchase the only public land that the government had to sell was some of the region between the existing states and the Mississippi River- existing states claimed Kentucky and Tennessee and the regions of Alabama and Mississippi were claimed by Spain and part of the Northwest Territory was reserved for public schools and compensation for Revolutionary War vets). Since this region is far smaller than the Louisiana Purchase, I doubt that selling all of it would have been enough to buy Louisiana (let alone pay off the Revolutionary War debts or pay for the government’s day-to-day operations).

Furthermore, a tariff is a tax.

You really shouldn’t try to discuss history or politics since you have so little understanding of them.

[glockmail]

Your documentation for the land sales is what? Prior to the Louisiana Purchase the only public land that the government had to sell was some of the region between the existing states and the Mississippi River- existing states claimed Kentucky and Tennessee and the regions of Alabama and Mississippi were claimed by Spain and part of the Northwest Territory was reserved for public schools and compensation for Revolutionary War vets). Since this region is far smaller than the Louisiana Purchase, I doubt that selling all of it would have been enough to buy Louisiana (let alone pay off the Revolutionary War debts or pay for the government’s day-to-day operations).

Furthermore, a tariff is a tax.

You really shouldn’t try to discuss history or politics since you have so little understanding of them.The Morrill Act wasn’t until the 1860’s, and the Louisiana Purchase was made in 1803. The Federal government used land sales to fund itself for decades prior to 1803. Tariffs were the largest source of revenue since the 1790’s and the income tax wasn’t even established until the 1860’s.

You really should get your history and politics straight before trying to denigrate others. :pee:

[diuretic]

1. Just plain stupid in most cases.

2. We are both thinking of Jim Hightower, the left-leaning former Ag secretary in Texas- yellow strip and dead armadillos.

Being a moderate means being afraid to offend anyone. It means seldom having sense enough to make up your own mind on complicated issues and then not having courage enough to stand up for what you believe when you do manage to make up your own mind.

That's the bloke.

As for moderates. They're necessary to realise that sometimes the people on offer are ideological lunatics. If there were no moderates then you couldn't recognise the radicals (left and right).

[diuretic]

Define fight. As long as the Hun didn’t try to help, fighting the Italians usually meant chasing them.

Most of the land fighting against the Italians likely didn’t take place in North Africa. The Italians already controlled Albania when the war started. Then in 1940 they invaded Greece. The Greeks fought back and chased the Italians all the way into Albania. This prompted Hitler to send help which meant invading Yugoslavia and Greece.

Then in 1941 the Brits came close to eliminating the Italians who were occupying North Africa. Again Hitler sent help in the form of the Afrika Korps. The Germans chased the British into Egypt but in November 1942 American troops landed in Vichy North Africa while the British counterattacked in Egypt. The following year saw a complete Allied victory in Africa whereupon we invaded Sicily and then mainland Italy. When it looked like the entire Italian front was going to collapse the Germans invaded Italy, which prompted the Italians to overthrow Mussolini.

As for sea fighting against the Italian, most of it took place at Taranto.

BTW: Since Hitler had no (immediate) plans to invade the Balkans he had to post-pone the start of his invasion of Russia in order to help Mussolini. William Shirer commented that this delay meant that the Germans didn’t have time enough to capture Moscow before the Russian winter set in. So the Italian invasion of Greece likely doomed the German invasion of Russia. In this regard the Italians did more for the Allied war effort than the French ever did.

Yes, there was a heap of Allied activity fighting Italy in the first few years of WWII. :coffee:

[flaja]

The Morrill Act wasn’t until the 1860’s, and the Louisiana Purchase was made in 1803. The Federal government used land sales to fund itself for decades prior to 1803. Tariffs were the largest source of revenue since the 1790’s and the income tax wasn’t even established until the 1860’s.

You really should get your history and politics straight before trying to denigrate others. :pee:

The Morrill Act has nothing to do with with what I am talkng about.

The Northwest Ordinance and Land Ordinance, the laws that governed how the land between the Ohio and Mississippi River would be sold and settled came in 1785 and 1787. Both were enacted by the Confederation Congress, but the federal Congress made them federal law shortly after the Constitution took effect. The Louisiana Purchase wasn’t until 1803 and the Mexican Cession was not until 1848. The U.S. paid $15,000,000 for Louisiana and $18,250,000 for the Mexican Cession.

Now, part of Alexander Hamilton’s financial program was to have the federal government assume the state debts that were left over from the American Revolution (hoping to make the states more loyal to the new federal union) while paying off the national debt at face value plus interest. This amounted to $75,500,000 in debt (in 1790 money). If public land was sold to buy Louisiana, then we had to pay $75,500,000 in existing debt first- on top of funding the government otherwise. To pay the debt and fund the government the U.S., at Hamilton’s urging, enacted a tariff, i.e., a tax on imports as well as excise taxes on the production of various domestic industries (most notably whiskey).

The Northwest Territory provided around 143,304,320 acres of land that could be sold for public revenue. The original minimum purchase was 640 acres at no less than $1 per acre at public auction. When this didn’t raise any great amount of revenue (because the price was higher than most people could afford) Congress accepted an offer from speculators: 9 cents an acre for 1,500,000 acres. But even if the entire Northwest Territory had been sold at this price the entire revenue from the sale of public land would have yielded only $12,897,388. This wouldn’t have paid the existing debt, let alone fund the general government. Buying Louisiana with money raised by selling government land was simply impossible.

Didn’t you take any history at all in school?

[glockmail]

The Morrill Act has nothing to do with with what I am talkng about.

The Northwest Ordinance and Land Ordinance, the laws that governed how the land between the Ohio and Mississippi River would be sold and settled came in 1785 and 1787. Both were enacted by the Confederation Congress, but the federal Congress made them federal law shortly after the Constitution took effect. The Louisiana Purchase wasn’t until 1803 and the Mexican Cession was not until 1848. The U.S. paid $15,000,000 for Louisiana and $18,250,000 for the Mexican Cession.

Now, part of Alexander Hamilton’s financial program was to have the federal government assume the state debts that were left over from the American Revolution (hoping to make the states more loyal to the new federal union) while paying off the national debt at face value plus interest. This amounted to $75,500,000 in debt (in 1790 money). If public land was sold to buy Louisiana, then we had to pay $75,500,000 in existing debt first- on top of funding the government otherwise. To pay the debt and fund the government the U.S., at Hamilton’s urging, enacted a tariff, i.e., a tax on imports as well as excise taxes on the production of various domestic industries (most notably whiskey).

The Northwest Territory provided around 143,304,320 acres of land that could be sold for public revenue. The original minimum purchase was 640 acres at no less than $1 per acre at public auction. When this didn’t raise any great amount of revenue (because the price was higher than most people could afford) Congress accepted an offer from speculators: 9 cents an acre for 1,500,000 acres. But even if the entire Northwest Territory had been sold at this price the entire revenue from the sale of public land would have yielded only $12,897,388. This wouldn’t have paid the existing debt, let alone fund the general government. Buying Louisiana with money raised by selling government land was simply impossible.

Didn’t you take any history at all in school? I have google too, so I'm not impressed. The Morrill Act was to finance schools, which you mentioned previously for no apparent reason.

[flaja]

I have google too, so I'm not impressed. The Morrill Act was to finance schools, which you mentioned previously for no apparent reason.

I mentioned the financing of schools in order to give a better indication of how much public land could have been sold for revenue. Some of the land that the federal government owned prior to the Louisiana Purchase was reserved for public school use and Revolutionary War pensions and thus could not be sold to generate general revenue for the government.

And I have better than Google: college textbooks and 40 credit hours in history to go along with my bachelor’s degree in biology.

You said that the government bought the Louisiana Purchase with money that it had raised from selling public land and tariffs.

You erroneously implied that tariffs are not taxes and I have shown that the government could not have made enough money by selling public land to buy Louisiana.

You are an ignorant, bombastic fool.

[glockmail]

I mentioned the financing of schools in order to give a better indication of how much public land could have been sold for revenue. Some of the land that the federal government owned prior to the Louisiana Purchase was reserved for public school use and Revolutionary War pensions and thus could not be sold to generate general revenue for the government.

And I have better than Google: college textbooks and 40 credit hours in history to go along with my bachelor’s degree in biology.

You said that the government bought the Louisiana Purchase with money that it had raised from selling public land and tariffs.

You erroneously implied that tariffs are not taxes and I have shown that the government could not have made enough money by selling public land to buy Louisiana.

You are an ignorant, bombastic fool.
Wow. A degree in Bio. And you took history classes. You must have a real important job. :laugh2:

A Tarriff is not a tax as normally referred to in contemporary times. But you can call it anything that you like.

[bullypulpit]

Hitler. Left wing:socialist. The use of the term to describe a conservative may be fashionable among leftists but is without basis.

Hitler WAS NOT a leftist. the SA and the SS, at his orders, crushed the leftists, socialists and communists in Germany. He considered communism and socialism to be tools of jewish domination.

The primary difference between a communist dictatorship and a fascist disctatoship is the alliance of government and business found in a fascist state, rather than the nationalization of businesses.

[glockmail]

A socialist is a liberal who gets his way. A fascist is a socialist who uses force to get his way. Many will not submit willingly to socialism, so it must be forced upon them with punitive laws. Therefore liberals are fascists.

[Said1]

A socialist is a liberal who gets his way. A fascist is a socialist who uses force to get his way. Many will not submit willingly to socialism, so it must be forced upon them with punitive laws. Therefore liberals are fascists.

Geez, I'd like to read that piece of academia, got a link? :)

[Perspicientia]

Being a moderate means being afraid to offend anyone.

It means seldom having sense enough to make up your own mind on complicated issues and then not having courage enough to stand up for what you believe when you do manage to make up your own mind.

Those two sentences are quite striking!
You equal extremism to sense and courage. Never thought of the brownshirts as a particulary courageous and sensible group of people.

[bullypulpit]

A socialist is a liberal who gets his way. A fascist is a socialist who uses force to get his way. Many will not submit willingly to socialism, so it must be forced upon them with punitive laws. Therefore liberals are fascists.

Poor deductive reasoning old son as the premises of your argument are matters of opinion. But that is one of the great flaws of deductive reasoning. The premises can be utter crap, and their truth or falsehood is irrelevant. As long as they support the conclusion, however, the argument can be considered formally valid.

Your syllogism fails on those grounds.

[bullypulpit]

Being a moderate means being afraid to offend anyone. It means seldom having sense enough to make up your own mind on complicated issues and then not having courage enough to stand up for what you believe when you do manage to make up your own mind.

And you have what to support this silly assertion...I mean besides the voices in you head and the talking points from FOX Noise.

[glockmail]

Geez, I'd like to read that piece of academia, got a link? :)
You read it here, babe. :coffee:

[glockmail]

Poor deductive reasoning old son as the premises of your argument are matters of opinion. But that is one of the great flaws of deductive reasoning. The premises can be utter crap, and their truth or falsehood is irrelevant. As long as they support the conclusion, however, the argument can be considered formally valid.

Your syllogism fails on those grounds. In other words: "I'm wrong because you say so." :pee:

[diuretic]

A socialist is a liberal who gets his way. A fascist is a socialist who uses force to get his way. Many will not submit willingly to socialism, so it must be forced upon them with punitive laws. Therefore liberals are fascists.

Glock that's bullshit and you know it :laugh2:

Stop shit stirring. :coffee:

[diuretic]

Poor deductive reasoning old son as the premises of your argument are matters of opinion. But that is one of the great flaws of deductive reasoning. The premises can be utter crap, and their truth or falsehood is irrelevant. As long as they support the conclusion, however, the argument can be considered formally valid.

Your syllogism fails on those grounds.

Socrates was a fish or an old cow or something :laugh2:

I used to hate that stuff, damnit I still do :cheers2:

[glockmail]

Glock that's bullshit and you know it :laugh2:

Stop shit stirring. :coffee:



Main Entry: fas•cism
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Now let’s look at policies of American Liberals:


Exalting race above the individual (Affirmative Action)
Centralized autocratic government (big government, federal control and regulation)
Dictatorial leader (Hillary, unelected judges, Super Delegates)
Severe economic regimentation (high taxes, huge government sending programs and entitlements)
Severe social regimentation (political correctness)
Forcible suppression of opposition (Campaign Finance Reform, calls for resignations of those who are not politically correct)

[diuretic]

Now let’s look at policies of American Liberals:


Exalting race above the individual (Affirmative Action)
Centralized autocratic government (big government, federal control and regulation)
Dictatorial leader (Hillary, unelected judges, Super Delegates)
Severe economic regimentation (high taxes, huge government sending programs and entitlements)
Severe social regimentation (political correctness)
Forcible suppression of opposition (Campaign Finance Reform, calls for resignations of those who are not politically correct)


Try this, it's current, unlike the speculation you're putting forwards:


http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6485

[bullypulpit]

In other words: "I'm wrong because you say so." :pee:

Pee on thee.

Your premises and your conclusion, are logically valid as the premises support the conclusion. However, being matters of opinion, your syllogism produces no genuinely useful information as it simply serves to reinforce and validate your prejudices.

[bullypulpit]

In other words: "I'm wrong because you say so." :pee:



Pee on thee.

Your premises and your conclusion, are logically valid as the premises support the conclusion. However, being matters of opinion, your syllogism produces no genuinely useful information as it simply serves to reinforce and validate your prejudices.

Gotcha!

[glockmail]

Try this, it's current, unlike the speculation you're putting forwards:


http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6485 That was dumb. Make up a definition then tell lies about America? :laugh2:

My "speculation" is based on the current, simple definition, and the facts about the current American Liberal philosophy.

[retiredman]

That was dumb. Make up a definition then tell lies about America? :laugh2:

My "speculation" is based on the current, simple definition, and the facts about the current American Liberal philosophy.


which of those 63 points would you say were "lies" about America?

[glockmail]

#2. Both a disdain for and the sacrifice of Human Rights.

Just a start.

Fact is, that the writer makes up his own definition of fascism. Then he chokes on his own dung.

[retiredman]

#2. Both a disdain for and the sacrifice of Human Rights.

Just a start.

Fact is, that the writer makes up his own definition of fascism. Then he chokes on his own dung.

I would suggest that blithely applying shock and awe to the population of a large urban city showed significant disdain for human rights. What else ya got?

[glockmail]

I would suggest that blithely applying shock and awe to the population of a large urban city showed significant disdain for human rights. What else ya got? Deflection.

The issue is liberal policies of fascism.

[retiredman]

and the article showed 63 instances where current republican policies are fascist. you called them lies...I asked for you to point out a lie... you tried...and failed.

next.

[diuretic]

So, Bear Stearns is bailed out by taxpayer's money while an individual is allowed to go to the wall.


Number 9

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm


9.) Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

[glockmail]

I would suggest that blithely applying shock and awe to the population of a large urban city showed significant disdain for human rights. What else ya got?

Like FDR did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[glockmail]

...

Number 9

....

.

Where is that in the definition of fascism? Link to a dictionary definition.

[retiredman]

Where is that in the definition of fascism? Link to a dictionary definition.

if the sum total of your understanding of fascism is contained in the Webster's definition, there really is no need to pretend to have an intellectual discussion about this. There are hundreds of books written on the subject of fascism that serve to illuminate and expand and enhance our understanding of the subject beyond what we find in a DICTIONARY.

[glockmail]

Anyone can write a book. A dictionary ensures that the meanings of words don't change to suit someone's political agenda. :slap:

[retiredman]

Anyone can write a book. A dictionary ensures that the meanings of words don't change to suit someone's political agenda. :slap:


I stand by my statement... for you to claim full understanding of fascism based upon a reading of Webster's is laughable. For you to suggest that fascism can be fully defined in a dictionary entry is really indicative of your intellectual depth.

[glockmail]

I stand by my statement... for you to claim full understanding of fascism based upon a reading of Webster's is laughable. For you to suggest that fascism can be fully defined in a dictionary entry is really indicative of your intellectual depth. For you to rely on definitions crafted by political operatives is typical of you, and liberals. :pee:

Try comparing Japan 1945 with Bagdad again, dummy. :coffee:

[glockmail]

If killing civilians makes you a fascist, then FDR trumps Mussolini!
Dresden, Germany, a city of minimal military significance, was heavily bombarded from February 13 through April 17, 1945, killing between 35,000 and 135,000 people1. Heavy conventional, incendiary bombing raids were not isolated to Europe. A three-day bombing raid on Tokyo, Japan starting on March 9, 1945 killed at least 83,800 people and wounded more than 160,000 people2. Japan claimed more than 130,000 people dead2. The bombings and the subsequent fires destroyed approximately 16 square miles of the city - 40 percent of the city's area and 267,000 buildings!2 The United States lost only 14 aircraft and this type of bombing was conducted over other Japanese cities during the next few months2. The use of incendiary bombs, or fire bombs, of 60 cities between November 1944 and July 1945 resulted in approximately 800,000 casualties and deaths6.http://www.signalalpha.com/html/world_war_two.html

[Austin.Texas]

One definition of fascism comes from one of the most notable fascists in history.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
You know, sorta like letting corporations run our government, and control all the power which should belong to individual citizens.

The idea that liberals are fascist is moronic. Liberals are not the ones who decided it was OK to start locking people up without trial and illegally wiretap everyone, including political opponents, as this administration has done.

[Dilloduck]

If killing civilians makes you a fascist, then FDR trumps Mussolini! http://www.signalalpha.com/html/world_war_two.html

Gotta give Churchill credit for Dresden.

[Dilloduck]

One definition of fascism comes from one of the most notable fascists in history.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
You know, sorta like letting corporations run our government, and control all the power which should belong to individual citizens.

The idea that liberals are fascist is moronic. Liberals are not the ones who decided it was OK to start locking people up without trial and illegally wiretap everyone, including political opponents, as this administration has done.

Read you history---FDR locked up thousands of Americans without a trial.

[glockmail]

FDR also created huge government corporations to do the things that people used to do themselves. The idea that conservatives are fascist is moronic.

[Said1]

I stand by my statement... for you to claim full understanding of fascism based upon a reading of Webster's is laughable. For you to suggest that fascism can be fully defined in a dictionary entry is really indicative of your intellectual depth.
Webster's site does have a link entitled "learn more about facism' under the word's definition. Encyclopedia Britannica rules! :laugh2:

[goober]

Are these the words of a Fascist?


This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

If anything FDR would be disappointed in today's Democrats for failing to implement fully his vision for America.

[Kathianne]

Are these the words of a Fascist?



If anything FDR would be disappointed in today's Democrats for failing to implement fully his vision for America.

Those are Roosevelt quotes? :link: please.

[midcan5]

Mike Church put it simply the other day when he compared socialism to fascism. “A fascist is a socialist with a gun.” Although overly simplified, the comparison is valid.

It is obvious the thread poster knows no history or definitions of political ideologies. When I read these sort of inane comments, I wonder at our education system? We have debated this recently on USMB but if one wants a clear write up on fascism read this piece.

http://www.cursor.org/stories/fascismii.php

Hallmarks of Fascism

anti-intellectualism
repudiation of rationalism and reason, emotion over reason
leader discovers and represents the will of the people
the state over the individual
nation supremacy, nationalism, national greatness
social Darwinism and constant struggle
action for actions sake, violence to strengthen nation
corporation-state unity
faith in the nation and the leader
hero worship
police state, crushing of opposition
National Socialism - add racism to fascism

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Philosophic_Roots_Ideology.html



Also FDR's policies kept the US from fascism as the sentiment was strong at that time in the US as well as the rest of the world.

[Kathianne]

It is obvious the thread poster knows no history or definitions of political ideologies. When I read these sort of inane comments, I wonder at our education system? We have debated this recently on USMB but if one wants a clear write up on fascism read this piece.

http://www.cursor.org/stories/fascismii.php

Hallmarks of Fascism

anti-intellectualism
repudiation of rationalism and reason, emotion over reason
leader discovers and represents the will of the people
the state over the individual
nation supremacy, nationalism, national greatness
social Darwinism and constant struggle
action for actions sake, violence to strengthen nation
corporation-state unity
faith in the nation and the leader
hero worship
police state, crushing of opposition
National Socialism - add racism to fascism

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Philosophic_Roots_Ideology.html



Also FDR's policies kept the US from fascism as the sentiment was strong at that time in the US as well as the rest of the world.

Haven't read the book, have you?