Harry Truman, Quo Vadis?

[PoliticalChic]

What damage?

Two succinct, yet profound ripostes:


1. The shredding of the Constitution

2. A surfeit of ignoramuses like you.

How did he shred the Constitution? Quote the specific passages of the Constitution that he violated, and explain how he violated them.

I'd be pleased to answer that question as soon as you agree that you are an ignoramus for not knowing the answer.


Deal?

 

[Moonglow]

Surely then you must agree that the USSR controlled our govt under Eisenhower like he did the previous two administrations..

 

[Unkotare]

How did he shred the Constitution? Quote the specific passages of the Constitution that he violated, and explain how he violated them.

Go sit in the corner and play with a ball of yarn, you idiot. You're about 1,000 pages late to the discussion and it's over your head anyway.

So the Constituton is gone, shredded, kaput, and FDR did it. Do we have a pretend Constitution now or just what? .

I didn't say it was gone. You have misdirected your misconstrued comments.

 

[Moonglow]

Two succinct, yet profound ripostes:


1. The shredding of the Constitution

2. A surfeit of ignoramuses like you.

How did he shred the Constitution? Quote the specific passages of the Constitution that he violated, and explain how he violated them.

I'd be pleased to answer that question as soon as you agree that you are an ignoramus for not knowing the answer.


Deal?

You'll get more bees with honey than you will with vinegar..

 

[Unkotare]

How did he shred the Constitution? Quote the specific passages of the Constitution that he violated, and explain how he violated them.

I'd be pleased to answer that question as soon as you agree that you are an ignoramus for not knowing the answer.


Deal?

You'll get more bees with honey than you will with vinegar..

'Friends' is not a bee. He's a lump of shit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How did he shred the Constitution? Quote the specific passages of the Constitution that he violated, and explain how he violated them.

Go sit in the corner and play with a ball of yarn, you idiot. You're about 1,000 pages late to the discussion and it's over your head anyway.

So the Constituton is gone, shredded, kaput, and FDR did it. Do we have a pretend Constitution now or just what? What does the Supreme Court do when these Constitutional issues come before the Court? Too bad because the Constitution had some good liberal parts.
Adios Constitution.

1. "So the Constituton (sic) is gone, shredded, kaput, and FDR did it."

Good to see you finally catching on! Better late than never.




2. "Do we have a pretend Constitution now or just what?"

Get that pencil and paper ready, reggie....

Theodore J, Lowi, “The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States”

“Theodore Lowi, a political science eminence at Cornell University, years ago drew a bead on what was wrong with the American polity. In his "The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States," he claimed that the Founder's constitution of 1787 had been surreptitiously replaced with a new one by the FDR administration, and no one had actually noticed it for seventy-plus years. In current argot, we have been operating under US Constitution, 2.0 since the Roosevelt era. The contours of the constitution of this "Second Republic" as he deemed it, bears some scrutiny, as the Obama Administration and the 112th Congress go to work bringing even more change--possibly US Constitution 3.0. The preamble and first article of the actual constitution we have been living under, which Lowi acutely discerned, suffice to show where an Obama constitution will be taking off from. Archived-Articles: America's Third Republic?




In part:

PREAMBLE. There ought to be a national presence in every aspect of the lives of American citizens. National power is no longer a necessary evil; it is a positive virtue.

Article I. It is the primary purpose of this national government to provide domestic tranquility by reducing risk. This risk may be physical or it may be fiscal. In order to fulfill this sacred obligation, the national government shall be deemed to have sufficient power to eliminate threats from the environment through regulation, and to eliminate threats from economic uncertainty through insurance.

Article II. The separation of powers to the contrary notwithstanding, the center of this national government is the presidency. Said office is authorized to use any powers, real or imagined, to set our nation to rights making any rules or regulations the president deems appropriate; the president may delegate this authority to any other official or agency. The right to make all such rules and regulations is based on the assumption in this constitution that the office of the presidency embodies the will of the real majority of the American nation.

Article III. Congress exists, but only as a consensual body. Congress possesses all legislative authority but should limit itself to the delegation of broad grants of unstructured authority to the president. Congress must take care never to draft a careful and precise statute because this would interfere with the judgment of the president and his professional and full time administrators.

Article IV. There exists a separate administrative branch composed of persons whose right to govern is based on two principles: (1), the delegations of power flowing from Congress; and (2), the authority inherent in professional training and promotion through an administrative hierarchy. Congress and the courts may provide for administrative procedures and have the power to review agencies for their observance of these procedures; but in no instance should Congress or the courts attempt to displace the judgment of the administrators with their own.

Article V. The Judicial branch is responsible for two functions: (1), to preserve the procedural rights of citizens before all federal courts, state and local courts, and administrative agencies; and (2), to apply the Fourteenth Amendment of the 1787 Constitution as a natural-law defense of all substantive and procedural rights. The appellate courts shall exercise vigorous judicial review of all state and local government and court decisions, but in no instance shall the courts review the constitutionality of Congress’s grants of authority to the president or to the federal administrative agencies.

Article VI. The public interest shall be defined by the satisfaction of the voters in their constituencies. The test of public interest is reelection.

Article VII. The public interest to the contrary notwithstanding, actual policy making will not come from voter preferences or congressional enactments but form a process of tripartite bargaining between specialized administrators, relevant members of Congress, and the representatives of self-selected organized interests. Principalities And Powers: Goodbye Liberalism: Hello Socialism



You have so very much to learn......don't you, reggie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. When Harry Truman became President, a bureaucrat could practically wear a sign saying " I answer to Stalin and nobody else!"

And there were no penalties!

Well, even if that were true in April of 1945, when Truman became president, lest we forget that in March 1947, Truman issued Executive Order 9835 which required loyalty oaths from government employees and contractors (and was later used by many other government and private entities as well) and allowed the DoJ, FBI, and Treasury to crawl up anyone's butt with just the merest hint of Communism.

"...even if that were true in April of 1945, when Truman became president, lest we forget that in March 1947, Truman issued Executive Order 9835 which required loyalty oaths..."

This is a great example of the way the understanding of history has been manipulated by telling only half the truth.

The understanding of said loyalty oath is exactly what you are meant to believe....but is not the reality.


12. In March, 1947, Truman announced a new loyalty program for the whole government. Superficially, it appeared to be a good program, for the FBI was assigned the responsibility of making all loyalty investigations.

However, the FBI does not evaluate the evidence it submits to the government departments and agencies. Truman's order abolished the "reasonable doubt" test first adopted by the Civil Service Commission in 1942 and reinstituted in the State Department by Panuch in 1946.

This was the standard: that reasonable doubt about an employee's loyalty should be resolved in favor of the government. The new standard provided for the dismissal of employees only if "present" disloyalty could be proved. Past membership in the Communist Party ceased to be ground for dismissal.

Since Communists are ordered by the party to deny membership, it was virtually impossible under the new standard to prove "present" disloyalty even when former communist affiliations could be shown.


13. Not until 1951, when Senator McCarthy had stirred up Congress and the country about subversives in the government, was the Acheson-Truman rule changed. In April, 1951, Senator Hiram Bingham persuaded Truman to restore the "reasonable doubt" standard of loyalty.

"By that time," Panuch recalls, "the damage had been done. China was lost to the Communists and American soldiers were dying in Korea."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.149-150




So....the oath that you rely on in your post was cosmetic, but hardly efficacious.

Communists and their sympathizers ran the show.


But...in my post, one can see that Truman was waking from his lethargy....

 

[Moonglow]

I'd be pleased to answer that question as soon as you agree that you are an ignoramus for not knowing the answer.


Deal?

You'll get more bees with honey than you will with vinegar..

'Friends' is not a bee. He's a lump of shit.

zone 2 posting infraction...

 

[SmedlyButler]

Did I miss anything? Let's see;

Copy_Paste Copy_Paste Copy_Paste..... CHECK

Copy_Paste Copy_Paste Copy_Paste..... CHECK

Yadda Yadda Yadda................................ CHECK

No, doesn't look like I missed a thing. Just another installment of "PC's Legendary Copied and Pasted Version of Alternative Reality". Or revisionist "history", or whatever she calls it.

 

[Unkotare]

Did I miss anything? Let's see;

Copy_Paste Copy_Paste Copy_Paste..... CHECK

Copy_Paste Copy_Paste Copy_Paste..... CHECK

Yadda Yadda Yadda................................ CHECK

No, doesn't look like I missed a thing. Just another installment of "PC's Legendary Copied and Pasted Version of Alternative Reality". Or revisionist "history", or whatever she calls it.

I think you missed the part where you refuted anything she had to say. Maybe you just forgot to get around to that?

 

[Moonglow]

I still want to know what president got rid of the commies in our govt.?????

 

[SmedlyButler]

,
I did bring a gift, well a "virtual gift". A suggestion really;

I tried to pass this on to you before, not sure if you received it or not. Could be a real timesaver for you. And for those of us who enjoy scanning your posts over morning coffee (like our favorite political cartoons, say) it would really help, the material gets stale so quickly.

It does come with a plagiarism/copyright warning (which I'm sure you would feel free to ignore).

It doesn't come with a cautionary note regarding the concept of digital permanence, I'll pass that on myself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

,
I did bring a gift, well a "virtual gift". A suggestion really;

I tried to pass this on to you before, not sure if you received it or not. Could be a real timesaver for you. And for those of us who enjoy scanning your posts over morning coffee (like our favorite political cartoons, say) it would really help, the material gets stale so quickly.

It does come with a plagiarism/copyright warning (which I'm sure you would feel free to ignore).

It doesn't come with a cautionary note regarding the concept of digital permanence, I'll pass that on myself.

You don't like the form of my presentation, Smugly???


I couldn't find a better reason to continue with same.



"It does come with a plagiarism/copyright warning..."

The suggestion is a lie.


The truth is that you can't find a way to refute the content.

 

[Steven_R]

9. When Harry Truman became President, a bureaucrat could practically wear a sign saying " I answer to Stalin and nobody else!"

And there were no penalties!

Well, even if that were true in April of 1945, when Truman became president, lest we forget that in March 1947, Truman issued Executive Order 9835 which required loyalty oaths from government employees and contractors (and was later used by many other government and private entities as well) and allowed the DoJ, FBI, and Treasury to crawl up anyone's butt with just the merest hint of Communism.

"...even if that were true in April of 1945, when Truman became president, lest we forget that in March 1947, Truman issued Executive Order 9835 which required loyalty oaths..."

This is a great example of the way the understanding of history has been manipulated by telling only half the truth.

The understanding of said loyalty oath is exactly what you are meant to believe....but is not the reality.


12. In March, 1947, Truman announced a new loyalty program for the whole government. Superficially, it appeared to be a good program, for the FBI was assigned the responsibility of making all loyalty investigations.

However, the FBI does not evaluate the evidence it submits to the government departments and agencies. Truman's order abolished the "reasonable doubt" test first adopted by the Civil Service Commission in 1942 and reinstituted in the State Department by Panuch in 1946.

This was the standard: that reasonable doubt about an employee's loyalty should be resolved in favor of the government. The new standard provided for the dismissal of employees only if "present" disloyalty could be proved. Past membership in the Communist Party ceased to be ground for dismissal.

Since Communists are ordered by the party to deny membership, it was virtually impossible under the new standard to prove "present" disloyalty even when former communist affiliations could be shown.


13. Not until 1951, when Senator McCarthy had stirred up Congress and the country about subversives in the government, was the Acheson-Truman rule changed. In April, 1951, Senator Hiram Bingham persuaded Truman to restore the "reasonable doubt" standard of loyalty.

"By that time," Panuch recalls, "the damage had been done. China was lost to the Communists and American soldiers were dying in Korea."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.149-150




So....the oath that you rely on in your post was cosmetic, but hardly efficacious.

Communists and their sympathizers ran the show.


But...in my post, one can see that Truman was waking from his lethargy....

Except that Truman still put in the loyalty oath, even if it was for show as you claim. Nevermind that it still led to other loyalty oaths and gave fodder for the Red Scare and the likes of McCarthy and how many other organizations adopted the oaths. But even if the loyalty oath meant nothing, it still doesn't change the fact that Truman cracked down on striking unions that threatened national security and went to war over the expansion of Communism. If Truman and friends were really taking their marching orders from Moscow, why the Korean War? Why the Berlin Airlift or sending the Navy to the Strait of Taiwan or endorsing the Marshall Plan or creating the CIA and backing coup after coup?

 

[Moonglow]

Well, even if that were true in April of 1945, when Truman became president, lest we forget that in March 1947, Truman issued Executive Order 9835 which required loyalty oaths from government employees and contractors (and was later used by many other government and private entities as well) and allowed the DoJ, FBI, and Treasury to crawl up anyone's butt with just the merest hint of Communism.

"...even if that were true in April of 1945, when Truman became president, lest we forget that in March 1947, Truman issued Executive Order 9835 which required loyalty oaths..."

This is a great example of the way the understanding of history has been manipulated by telling only half the truth.

The understanding of said loyalty oath is exactly what you are meant to believe....but is not the reality.


12. In March, 1947, Truman announced a new loyalty program for the whole government. Superficially, it appeared to be a good program, for the FBI was assigned the responsibility of making all loyalty investigations.

However, the FBI does not evaluate the evidence it submits to the government departments and agencies. Truman's order abolished the "reasonable doubt" test first adopted by the Civil Service Commission in 1942 and reinstituted in the State Department by Panuch in 1946.

This was the standard: that reasonable doubt about an employee's loyalty should be resolved in favor of the government. The new standard provided for the dismissal of employees only if "present" disloyalty could be proved. Past membership in the Communist Party ceased to be ground for dismissal.

Since Communists are ordered by the party to deny membership, it was virtually impossible under the new standard to prove "present" disloyalty even when former communist affiliations could be shown.


13. Not until 1951, when Senator McCarthy had stirred up Congress and the country about subversives in the government, was the Acheson-Truman rule changed. In April, 1951, Senator Hiram Bingham persuaded Truman to restore the "reasonable doubt" standard of loyalty.

"By that time," Panuch recalls, "the damage had been done. China was lost to the Communists and American soldiers were dying in Korea."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.149-150




So....the oath that you rely on in your post was cosmetic, but hardly efficacious.

Communists and their sympathizers ran the show.


But...in my post, one can see that Truman was waking from his lethargy....

Except that Truman still put in the loyalty oath, even if it was for show as you claim. Nevermind that it still led to other loyalty oaths and gave fodder for the Red Scare and the likes of McCarthy and how many other organizations adopted the oaths. But even if the loyalty oath meant nothing, it still doesn't change the fact that Truman cracked down on striking unions that threatened national security and went to war over the expansion of Communism. If Truman and friends were really taking their marching orders from Moscow, why the Korean War? Why the Berlin Airlift or sending the Navy to the Strait of Taiwan or endorsing the Marshall Plan or creating the CIA and backing coup after coup?

The attempts at revisionist is to repeat the lie over and over, yet, when you ask them any pertinent or spot on questions, they have no script written to explain. I ask what GOP president removed the commies from our govt. Notice no real replies, why? Then the GOP presidents would be implicated in their plot to play character assassins of only democratic presidents.
or The GOP ignored the threat, or they think if they ignore me long enough I will just go away..

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, even if that were true in April of 1945, when Truman became president, lest we forget that in March 1947, Truman issued Executive Order 9835 which required loyalty oaths from government employees and contractors (and was later used by many other government and private entities as well) and allowed the DoJ, FBI, and Treasury to crawl up anyone's butt with just the merest hint of Communism.

"...even if that were true in April of 1945, when Truman became president, lest we forget that in March 1947, Truman issued Executive Order 9835 which required loyalty oaths..."

This is a great example of the way the understanding of history has been manipulated by telling only half the truth.

The understanding of said loyalty oath is exactly what you are meant to believe....but is not the reality.


12. In March, 1947, Truman announced a new loyalty program for the whole government. Superficially, it appeared to be a good program, for the FBI was assigned the responsibility of making all loyalty investigations.

However, the FBI does not evaluate the evidence it submits to the government departments and agencies. Truman's order abolished the "reasonable doubt" test first adopted by the Civil Service Commission in 1942 and reinstituted in the State Department by Panuch in 1946.

This was the standard: that reasonable doubt about an employee's loyalty should be resolved in favor of the government. The new standard provided for the dismissal of employees only if "present" disloyalty could be proved. Past membership in the Communist Party ceased to be ground for dismissal.

Since Communists are ordered by the party to deny membership, it was virtually impossible under the new standard to prove "present" disloyalty even when former communist affiliations could be shown.


13. Not until 1951, when Senator McCarthy had stirred up Congress and the country about subversives in the government, was the Acheson-Truman rule changed. In April, 1951, Senator Hiram Bingham persuaded Truman to restore the "reasonable doubt" standard of loyalty.

"By that time," Panuch recalls, "the damage had been done. China was lost to the Communists and American soldiers were dying in Korea."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.149-150




So....the oath that you rely on in your post was cosmetic, but hardly efficacious.

Communists and their sympathizers ran the show.


But...in my post, one can see that Truman was waking from his lethargy....

Except that Truman still put in the loyalty oath, even if it was for show as you claim. Nevermind that it still led to other loyalty oaths and gave fodder for the Red Scare and the likes of McCarthy and how many other organizations adopted the oaths. But even if the loyalty oath meant nothing, it still doesn't change the fact that Truman cracked down on striking unions that threatened national security and went to war over the expansion of Communism. If Truman and friends were really taking their marching orders from Moscow, why the Korean War? Why the Berlin Airlift or sending the Navy to the Strait of Taiwan or endorsing the Marshall Plan or creating the CIA and backing coup after coup?

What does "Except that..." mean???

1. The post documents that the oath in question was meaningless.

2. The purpose of the thread is to show how Harry Truman proceeded from the communist disease toward sanity.

I say toward, because he never fully recovered...but was still a sea change from Roosevelt.




3. "...gave fodder for the Red Scare and the likes of McCarthy..."

McCarthy was a true hero, sacrificing his career to teach folks like you a lesson which you clearly never will learn.

Consider the facts in this thread alone, and realize how indoctrinated your have been.



4. "....If Truman and friends were really taking their marching orders from Moscow, why the Korean War?"

This topic is far too immense for one thread...but you scream out for remediation:

Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins made certain that Stalin got the Atomic bomb.
That is the reason why there was a Korean War.


a. On April 5, 1951, Judge Irving R. Kaufman sentenced the Rosenbergs to death for theft of atomic secrets, and, resulted in "the communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason." Judge Kaufman's Sentencing Statement in the Rosenberg Case


b. The American people understood this, which explains the growing popularity of Senator Joseph McCarthy in polls.


c. It is clear today, based on archival evidence, unearthed by researchers in Russia and released in the United States, that Kaufman was correct.

"Absent an atomic bomb, Stalin would not have released Pyongyang's army to conquer the entire Korean peninsula. Confident that his possession of atomic weapons neutralized America's strategic advantage, Stalin was emboldened to unleash war in Korea in 1950."

Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, "Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p. 143, 545. And Romerstein and Breindel,"The Venona Secrets," p. xv, 253.


d. It is important to connect the treachery with the impact of that treachery: the theft of the nuclear technology with 36,940 Americans killed, 91,134 wounded, and 8,176 still missing, and this does not include at least two million civilian lives claimed on both sides. Bruce Cumings, "The Korean War: A History.' Included were 1.3 million South Korean casualties, including 400,000 dead. North Korea, 2 million casualties, and 900,000 Chinese soldiers killed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...even if that were true in April of 1945, when Truman became president, lest we forget that in March 1947, Truman issued Executive Order 9835 which required loyalty oaths..."

This is a great example of the way the understanding of history has been manipulated by telling only half the truth.

The understanding of said loyalty oath is exactly what you are meant to believe....but is not the reality.


12. In March, 1947, Truman announced a new loyalty program for the whole government. Superficially, it appeared to be a good program, for the FBI was assigned the responsibility of making all loyalty investigations.

However, the FBI does not evaluate the evidence it submits to the government departments and agencies. Truman's order abolished the "reasonable doubt" test first adopted by the Civil Service Commission in 1942 and reinstituted in the State Department by Panuch in 1946.

This was the standard: that reasonable doubt about an employee's loyalty should be resolved in favor of the government. The new standard provided for the dismissal of employees only if "present" disloyalty could be proved. Past membership in the Communist Party ceased to be ground for dismissal.

Since Communists are ordered by the party to deny membership, it was virtually impossible under the new standard to prove "present" disloyalty even when former communist affiliations could be shown.


13. Not until 1951, when Senator McCarthy had stirred up Congress and the country about subversives in the government, was the Acheson-Truman rule changed. In April, 1951, Senator Hiram Bingham persuaded Truman to restore the "reasonable doubt" standard of loyalty.

"By that time," Panuch recalls, "the damage had been done. China was lost to the Communists and American soldiers were dying in Korea."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.149-150




So....the oath that you rely on in your post was cosmetic, but hardly efficacious.

Communists and their sympathizers ran the show.


But...in my post, one can see that Truman was waking from his lethargy....

Except that Truman still put in the loyalty oath, even if it was for show as you claim. Nevermind that it still led to other loyalty oaths and gave fodder for the Red Scare and the likes of McCarthy and how many other organizations adopted the oaths. But even if the loyalty oath meant nothing, it still doesn't change the fact that Truman cracked down on striking unions that threatened national security and went to war over the expansion of Communism. If Truman and friends were really taking their marching orders from Moscow, why the Korean War? Why the Berlin Airlift or sending the Navy to the Strait of Taiwan or endorsing the Marshall Plan or creating the CIA and backing coup after coup?

The attempts at revisionist is to repeat the lie over and over, yet, when you ask them any pertinent or spot on questions, they have no script written to explain. I ask what GOP president removed the commies from our govt. Notice no real replies, why? Then the GOP presidents would be implicated in their plot to play character assassins of only democratic presidents.
or The GOP ignored the threat, or they think if they ignore me long enough I will just go away..

" I ask what GOP president removed the commies from our govt. "


You moron.....I showed proof that they have never.....never....been removed!

What did you think the ObamaCare/Henry Sigerist post was about????


Don't you understand the word 'totalitarian'????



It seems that exploding your lies means nothing.
For example: "The attempts at revisionist is to repeat the lie over and over,..."

Go ahead....find any lies.


Can't?

The only lie is your post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...even if that were true in April of 1945, when Truman became president, lest we forget that in March 1947, Truman issued Executive Order 9835 which required loyalty oaths..."

This is a great example of the way the understanding of history has been manipulated by telling only half the truth.

The understanding of said loyalty oath is exactly what you are meant to believe....but is not the reality.


12. In March, 1947, Truman announced a new loyalty program for the whole government. Superficially, it appeared to be a good program, for the FBI was assigned the responsibility of making all loyalty investigations.

However, the FBI does not evaluate the evidence it submits to the government departments and agencies. Truman's order abolished the "reasonable doubt" test first adopted by the Civil Service Commission in 1942 and reinstituted in the State Department by Panuch in 1946.

This was the standard: that reasonable doubt about an employee's loyalty should be resolved in favor of the government. The new standard provided for the dismissal of employees only if "present" disloyalty could be proved. Past membership in the Communist Party ceased to be ground for dismissal.

Since Communists are ordered by the party to deny membership, it was virtually impossible under the new standard to prove "present" disloyalty even when former communist affiliations could be shown.


13. Not until 1951, when Senator McCarthy had stirred up Congress and the country about subversives in the government, was the Acheson-Truman rule changed. In April, 1951, Senator Hiram Bingham persuaded Truman to restore the "reasonable doubt" standard of loyalty.

"By that time," Panuch recalls, "the damage had been done. China was lost to the Communists and American soldiers were dying in Korea."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.149-150




So....the oath that you rely on in your post was cosmetic, but hardly efficacious.

Communists and their sympathizers ran the show.


But...in my post, one can see that Truman was waking from his lethargy....

Except that Truman still put in the loyalty oath, even if it was for show as you claim. Nevermind that it still led to other loyalty oaths and gave fodder for the Red Scare and the likes of McCarthy and how many other organizations adopted the oaths. But even if the loyalty oath meant nothing, it still doesn't change the fact that Truman cracked down on striking unions that threatened national security and went to war over the expansion of Communism. If Truman and friends were really taking their marching orders from Moscow, why the Korean War? Why the Berlin Airlift or sending the Navy to the Strait of Taiwan or endorsing the Marshall Plan or creating the CIA and backing coup after coup?

The attempts at revisionist is to repeat the lie over and over, yet, when you ask them any pertinent or spot on questions, they have no script written to explain. I ask what GOP president removed the commies from our govt. Notice no real replies, why? Then the GOP presidents would be implicated in their plot to play character assassins of only democratic presidents.
or The GOP ignored the threat, or they think if they ignore me long enough I will just go away..

"...they think if they ignore me long enough I will just go away.."

Wrong.


I, for one, hope you never go away.


First, I explode your posts with ease.

Secondly, you are available to be pointed out as the poster-boy for government school indoctrination.

 

[Friends]

Again....your assumption is, at the least, questionable....

1. Obama wasn't the first Bolshevik to support socialized medicine.

For context, there was Henry Sigerist: "He devoted himself to the study of history of medicine. Socialized Medicine in the Soviet Union (1937), and History of Medicine were among his most important works. He emerged as a major spokesman for "compulsory health insurance". ...He attacked the American Medical Association because of his conflicting views on socialized medicine." Henry E. Sigerist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. The whole of Germany shall be declared a single and indivisible republic.
2. Every German, having reached the age of 21, shall have the right to vote and to be elected, provided he has not been convicted of a criminal offence.
3. Representatives of the people shall receive payment so that workers, too, shall be able to become members of the German parliament...

13. Complete separation of Church and State. The clergy of every denomination shall be paid only by the voluntary contributions of their congregations...

15. The introduction of steeply graduated taxes, and the abolition of taxes on articles of
consumption...

17. Universal and free education of the people.

The Committee
Karl Marx, Karl Schapper, H. Bauer, F. Engels, J. Moll, W. Wolff
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

--------

Karl Marx had a number of good ideas. I am glad we adopted many of them.

 

[Camp]

Except that Truman still put in the loyalty oath, even if it was for show as you claim. Nevermind that it still led to other loyalty oaths and gave fodder for the Red Scare and the likes of McCarthy and how many other organizations adopted the oaths. But even if the loyalty oath meant nothing, it still doesn't change the fact that Truman cracked down on striking unions that threatened national security and went to war over the expansion of Communism. If Truman and friends were really taking their marching orders from Moscow, why the Korean War? Why the Berlin Airlift or sending the Navy to the Strait of Taiwan or endorsing the Marshall Plan or creating the CIA and backing coup after coup?

The attempts at revisionist is to repeat the lie over and over, yet, when you ask them any pertinent or spot on questions, they have no script written to explain. I ask what GOP president removed the commies from our govt. Notice no real replies, why? Then the GOP presidents would be implicated in their plot to play character assassins of only democratic presidents.
or The GOP ignored the threat, or they think if they ignore me long enough I will just go away..

" I ask what GOP president removed the commies from our govt. "


You moron.....I showed proof that they have never.....never....been removed!

What did you think the ObamaCare/Henry Sigerist post was about????


Don't you understand the word 'totalitarian'????



It seems that exploding your lies means nothing.
For example: "The attempts at revisionist is to repeat the lie over and over,..."

Go ahead....find any lies.


Can't?

The only lie is your post.

Love it when you use Chesly Manly as a source. Did a person by that name ever exist? Is it exceptable to write history under a pseudonym? Was the correspondent for the Chicago Tribune a real person? If he was not real, who was responsible for publishing leaked documents?