Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
*******************************************************National Socialism in Germany and Communism in the USSR.Historically, unchecked Liberalism eventually morphs into either Fascism or Communism.
More bollocks. The only way that liberalism has ever "morphed" into fascism is by way of the fascists overthrowing liberalism in a coup or revolution. The liberals didn't become fascists, the fascists threw the liberals into concentration camps after taking over. And liberal regimes have never "morphed" into Communist ones in any way at all, including that one; Communist revolutionaries have overthrown monarchs, military dictators, and corrupt autocrats, but liberals, never.
Were two competing Liberal/Socialist ideologies with the exact same agenda.
Basically, both were touted as a workers utopia; where all allegiance and loyalty was directed to the state.
The New Deal was modeled after this European social experiment.
Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?
******************************************************Most Native Americans would vehemently disagree with you.******************************************************More bollocks. The only way that liberalism has ever "morphed" into fascism is by way of the fascists overthrowing liberalism in a coup or revolution. The liberals didn't become fascists, the fascists threw the liberals into concentration camps after taking over. And liberal regimes have never "morphed" into Communist ones in any way at all, including that one; Communist revolutionaries have overthrown monarchs, military dictators, and corrupt autocrats, but liberals, never.
Lenin overthrew the Russian Republic. Was Lenin a fascist? I would say yes. The mass killings of the Kulaks should be taken into account, from 700,000 (USSR) to 6 million (Solzhenitsyn). Authoritarian regimes are authoritarian regimes; no comparison to Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, nor Mussolini in the US.
One thing that I have learned while spending time on this board is that Liberals hate "truth".Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?
"But why take any posters words for what to believe,..."
Hope you check it out, reggie....
About the AHR
The American Historical Review (AHR) is the official publication of the American Historical Association. Since 1895, the AHR has been the journal of record for the historical profession in the United States--the only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is published in February, April, June, October, and December. The AHR editorial office is housed at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.
The American Historical Review - American Historical Association
One thing that I have learned while spending time on this board is that Liberals hate "truth".Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?
"But why take any posters words for what to believe,..."
Hope you check it out, reggie....
About the AHR
The American Historical Review (AHR) is the official publication of the American Historical Association. Since 1895, the AHR has been the journal of record for the historical profession in the United States--the only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is published in February, April, June, October, and December. The AHR editorial office is housed at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.
The American Historical Review - American Historical Association
Now, they love liberal based manufactured truth when it backs up their agenda.
But, pure unadulterated, truth for truth's sake, is an anathema to liberal thought.
*************************************
I was taught a "psychological profile" history of the Civil War. Lincoln, Davis, Lee, and Grant were actually killing off Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Henry, etc. I didn't see the theory then, thus prefer just HISTORY.
Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?
"But why take any posters words for what to believe,..."
Hope you check it out, reggie....
About the AHR
The American Historical Review (AHR) is the official publication of the American Historical Association. Since 1895, the AHR has been the journal of record for the historical profession in the United States--the only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is published in February, April, June, October, and December. The AHR editorial office is housed at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.
The American Historical Review - American Historical Association
Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?
"But why take any posters words for what to believe,..."
Hope you check it out, reggie....
About the AHR
The American Historical Review (AHR) is the official publication of the American Historical Association. Since 1895, the AHR has been the journal of record for the historical profession in the United States--the only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is published in February, April, June, October, and December. The AHR editorial office is housed at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.
The American Historical Review - American Historical Association
Not impressed. Schaivalbusch's book apparently did not cause any great upheaval in history or with historians. These things are written as say Beard's book on the Constitution to create some interest and feedback from other historians. But even with Beard, and his quite famous and controversial book, in the end other historians pointed out the flaws and Beard changed his mind somewhat.
This New Deal book created little or no stir among historians and it seems relegated now to its own history. Nope, not impressed. For liberalism might start with the Declaration of Independence.
Now, try to be honest....
"And anyone who calls Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler peas in a pod..."
That's not what I said, is it.
Should I point out that Mussolini's fascists, Hitler's National Socialists, and FDR's New Dealers were like three peas in a pod until the Holocaust was revealed
You simply mouth the Leftist "FDR was a saint" nonsense.
National Socialism in Germany and Communism in the USSR.
Now, try to be honest....
"And anyone who calls Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler peas in a pod..."
That's not what I said, is it.
Yes, actually, it is.
Should I point out that Mussolini's fascists, Hitler's National Socialists, and FDR's New Dealers were like three peas in a pod until the Holocaust was revealed
There you go. That is exactly what you said: that (except for the Holocaust) the Democrats under FDR and the Nazis under Hitler were identical. And it's nut-job stuff.
You simply mouth the Leftist "FDR was a saint" nonsense.
To say that Roosevelt was not a Nazi is not to say that he was a saint. Get a grip.
[
Clearly, "Hitler's National Socialists, and FDR's New Dealers ..."
Is not exactly " Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler peas in a pod."
[
Clearly, "Hitler's National Socialists, and FDR's New Dealers ..."
Is not exactly " Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler peas in a pod."
LOL is that the best you can do? Is that sort of pointless hair-splitting your best defense? Really, you would have been better off remaining silent.
That statement is equally false as saying the leaders themselves were identical, of course, and amounts to the same thing, unless you want to claim that one or both of them was a puppet figurehead and the underlings were the real power. Which is just about as crazy.
EDIT: And even then, you have to account for the radically different political outcomes of Nazi as compared to Democratic rule, just as I noted already.
Although tempting, try not to blame me for your inadequacies.
I see that explaining veracity to you is as useless as trying to blow out a lightbulb.
Although tempting, try not to blame me for your inadequacies.
I see that explaining veracity to you is as useless as trying to blow out a lightbulb.
Well, par for your usual course, you have now been reduced to personal invective and pointless insults. Knowing this for the sign that you have lost the debate, and that you are completely incapable of graciously acknowledging this, I guess my work is done here.
Bill Clinton was a Republican?Odd...you posted a picture of liberalism's foreign policy.Conservatism has no flaws:
At least they don't seem to see any.
Odd. It was Republicans who let Bin Laden go. It wasn't Republicans who got him.
Yes, you used the Leftist dictionary.Oh, goody. I was just thinking to myself, "Y'know, we need a blowhard leftist around here to define what a 'real conservative' is based on his stereotypes and leftist programming".
Sorry, I didn't use any stereotypes. I just used a dictionary. I recommend the practice if you're confused about what a word means. I recommend it even more highly when you're wrong.
If that's true, then you have to admit that modern liberals aren't even on the same planet as classical liberals.We really are confused in our discourse about the meaning of those two words "liberal" and "conservative." Another good example, besides the hijacking of the latter word by a radical movement that is about as conservative as Chariman Mao, is the idea that "classical liberals" held the same views as "movement conservatives" today.
Yes, classical liberals did indeed favor small, limited government. They also believed in economic equality, distrusted rich people, loathed capitalists and corporations, and were extremely wary of a strong, standing military. If you're going to call someone who is around today a "classical liberal," that person should share ALL of these positions, not just roughly half of one of them.
The truth is that modern liberals share almost all of these attitudes. While they don't share one hundred percent of them, and therefore shouldn't be called "classical liberals," to call them "liberals" is perfectly sound, as it recognizes that they and men like Locke, Smith, and Jefferson are almost entirely in agreement.
Conservatives -- real or "movement" -- come nowhere within shooting range of being classical liberals.
If that's true, then you have to admit that modern liberals aren't even on the same planet as classical liberals.We really are confused in our discourse about the meaning of those two words "liberal" and "conservative." Another good example, besides the hijacking of the latter word by a radical movement that is about as conservative as Chariman Mao, is the idea that "classical liberals" held the same views as "movement conservatives" today.
Yes, classical liberals did indeed favor small, limited government. They also believed in economic equality, distrusted rich people, loathed capitalists and corporations, and were extremely wary of a strong, standing military. If you're going to call someone who is around today a "classical liberal," that person should share ALL of these positions, not just roughly half of one of them.
The truth is that modern liberals share almost all of these attitudes. While they don't share one hundred percent of them, and therefore shouldn't be called "classical liberals," to call them "liberals" is perfectly sound, as it recognizes that they and men like Locke, Smith, and Jefferson are almost entirely in agreement.
Conservatives -- real or "movement" -- come nowhere within shooting range of being classical liberals.
But you won't. You're desperate to have it both ways.
Yes. Except for your support of overarching, burdensome government, your disregard for States' Rights, your distrust of the Constitution, your contempt for free speech that doesn't agree with you, your hatred for personal weapons, and your condemnation of personal liberty -- you're JUST LIKE the Founding Fathers.Classical liberals shared almost all of the views of modern liberals...
