Fascism Is as Fascism Does

[M.D. Rawlings]

So, at this point it's time to ask,

what were Hoover and the Republicans doing, or had done, or were planning to do, that was so superior to the FDR plans that the American people should have kept them in power?

Did Hoover's presidency produce a record of accomplishment worthy of earning him another 4 years?

Nothing.

The GOP is the party of do nothing, know nothing.

They wanted to sit on their hands and watch the country crash and burn in October of 1929 just as they did in December of 2007.

Baloney! America would have come out of the depression within a few years had FDR not prolonged it for more than a decade by artificially inflating prices and wages! The only economists who deny that FACT anymore, you know nothing, are Marxist shills and historically illiterate rubes still imagining that the neoliberalism of the Progressive era, national socialism of the fascist kind after Wilson, was that of the classical liberalism of the Founders.

Shut up! This is why I loath you, Jones. Unlike most of the leftist rubes around here, you know the history.

And what's telling, none of you have sited a damn thing.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate | UCLA

“Progressive”

Progressivism and Liberalism

 

[Contumacious]

Baloney! America would have come out of the depression within a few years had FDR not prolonged it for more than a decade by artificially inflating prices and wages! ]

Exactly.

Itb would have been even better if they had abolished the cause of the depression : The Federal Reserve Board.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I didn't see you deny that the Court reversed itself on federal interference in the states....

I'll C&P that for ya 'cause you must be too damn short because the implication of that very point went over your tiny little head:

You made that sideways claim indirectly referring to Carter v. Carter Coal Co, within which SCOTUS ruled the Guffy-Snyder Act, 1935 unconstitutional for a specific set of circumstances. That is one law and one SCOTUS ruling. FDR had nothing to do with the ruling. His actions were aimed at the Congress to pass the law initially, NOT THE BLOODY SUPREMES!

You made another indirect reference to NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel, in which SCOTUS ruled the National Labor Relations Act, 1935 constitutional based on a completely different set of circumstances contained in a completely different law. Again, FDR had nothing to do with the ruling, And, yet again, his actions were aimed at the Congress to pass the law initially, NOT TO INFLUENCE THE SUPREMES YOU OBTUSE TWIT!

These are both landmark SCOTUS decisions that many folks, including myself, have studied, in depth, with great interest. You mix apples and oranges and come up with your wacked out version of Kool-Aide, Chica! How very, very scientific of you!

The two decisions you brought up that I cited above before and now again are about two different aspects of the Commerce Clause within TWO DIFFERENT LAWS. Are you too damn ignorant to see that or are you being intentionally obtuse yet again? Never mind, I know the answer!

That's because one of us is right, and the other is you.

Yeah, that would be me that's right and your erring with your knack for 3D again; dancing, dodging and deflecting!

And that's why ad hominem is more than appropriate in your case.

I see you learned a new term from me. Good little doggie!

You are a man who always sticks by his convictions. Well you got that part of it correct, little one. You will remain a fool no matter how much you get ridiculed for it! I'm not flattered at all by your paraphrasing of my own epitaphs! Get your own phucking material, Chica!

...

The point has been made, by me, and you dancing around it merely re-enforces it.
OY!~ The Pot and Kettle fallacy.

I certainly don't mind rubbing your face in it again: (She declares with false bravado)
The Supreme Court was bent in two by Franklin Roosevelt, and by fiat, ended what was the basis of ratification.
Your foundational proof of the argument is a sham, invalid and is mute in any linkage between argument and conclusion. An example of an argumentum e silentio fallacy. You just wouldn't take the hints handed to you.

1. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces)." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OH Joy! If one must cite wiki, one has hit bottom.
2. An actual study of history, beyond the superficial and politically correct intention of government schooling, will show that throughout the war, the states guarded their sovereignty, never giving to Congress authority that they couldn't reclaim.

a. Article II of the Articles of Confederation, 1777: Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. Know what that " expressly delegated to the United States" refers to?(emphasis added) Article I, Second 8....the enumerated powers.
The CORRECT answer to the highlighted question above, is it refers to the Articles ONLY given that document and its authority have been relegated to the dustbin of history and totally replaced by the Constitution. Yet another invalid logical construct floating around in your head, little one.


3. Almost immediately, there were individuals who demanded a more power federal center; they were called "Federalists." They pointed to shortcomings of the Articles as revealed by the war, such as providing the men, money and supplies. They blamed the Articles for difficulties in obtaining credit from European monarchies and bankers. The demand was to cede more power to a stronger federal government.
So...they wanted a conference to work out the flaws in the Articles....
That was the purpose of the Constitutional Convention, not that it has a damn thing to do with FDR's alleged fascism or his alleged interference with SCOTUS as you have previously and so very unfaithfully argued.


a. The Federalists tried a trick, telling the states that a meeting was to be held that would merely propose amendment to the Articles.
Virginian Patrick Henry refused to go, saying he "smelled a rat." Discerning History » The Importance of Patrick Henry in American?s Founding
Oh those tricky Federalists. A Constitutional Convention to do what was NECESSARY with the Articles, and Pat Henry was afraid that Virginia might loose some of its stature and sway among the several States. You really have a knack of mischaracterizing a topic, which in all truth, has absolutely nothing to do with your fantasies of FDR. Another useless pillar in your argument.



4. The very principle of limited federal power … was implicit in the unamended Constitution even before the Tenth Amendment was adopted."
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution," Kevin R.C. Gutzman, p. 73.
, p. 91.
That's a given even with a 4th grade knowledge of history...ah, let me amend that to 4th graders of 40-60 years ago. So your statement relates to FDR's alleged fascism and crossing the divide between the Executive and Judicial branches how? Another segment of your silent fallacy!



5. And before FDR got his hooks into it....the Supreme Court said "the relations of employer and employee is a local relation" and "the evils are all local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control."
"Otherwise in view of the multitude of indirect effects Congress in its discretion could assume control of virtually all of the activities of the people to the subversion of the fundamental principles of the Constitution." And..."... it is not for the court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 70.
Redundant, but you are getting back to one of your stanchions of your fallacious and inept argument used to unjustly crucify FDR for coercing the Supremes. But at least you have made a reference to FDR finally, albeit very belated. FDR did so much wrong, yet you go chasing the contrived apparitions in your mind. SCHEEESH!

Also quoted here:
And in a concurring opinion holding (298 U. S. 238) the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 in conflict with the Constitution, this was said by Chief Justice Hughes:
"If the people desire to give Congress the power to regulate industries within the State, and the relation of employers and employees in those industries, they are at liberty to declare their will in the appropriate manner; but it is not for the Court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision."(emphasis added)
Undermining the Constitution - A History of Lawless Government, by Thomas James Norton -Chapter VIII
Remember the Hughes quote highlighted above little one; it is about to bite you in your tush!


Of course, the court went on to renege on that oath.
OH MY GOD! There it is...the smoking gun! PoliticalChic made a declaration, therefore it must be truth by default in consideration of the source. However...
Gosh, where did you first see that reference to the volume and page reference to 298 U.S. 238, Carter v. Carter Coal ruling? Now READ AND UNDERSTAND the entire quote you cited from J. Hughes! See that first bit Hughes discusses? "If the people desire to give Congress the power to regulate industries within the State, and the relation of employers and employees in those industries, they are at liberty to declare their will in the appropriate manner;"

That is exactly what Congress did when they passed the National Labor Relations Act on the heals of the Supremes decision in Carter v Carter Coal. You have previously acknowledged NLRB v Jones and Laughlin Steel indirectly (your post #347). This was the other leg of the stool you used to support your conclusion FDR had coerced the High Court in what you saw as an absolute reversal by the Court regarding. But you were silent on what that force was...can we say fallacy?

Little one, there was no reversal by either the Court or J. Hughes and therefore no basis exists in your arguments to support your misbegotten conclusions that FDR was a fascist OR he had bent the Court to his will AT THAT POINT IN TIME! J. Hughes stated in Carter the labor regulatory portions of the Guffey-Snyder Act were unconstitutional, THEN went on with your citation highlighted in red above, stating it was up to Congress to pass such regulations through appropriate legislation.

You brought up two different cases, with two different set of circumstances, regarding two dissimilar aspects of the Commerce clause, governed by two different statutes. Your argument throughout is silent on the HOW of FDR's coercion of the Court, but, also silently, suggest his intimidation was in some connection to the two cases. Where is the violation of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers?

Yours is a classic argument of silence. That you persist with all that superfluous baggage in your 1 thru 4 above highlights you perfidy in your continuation of that duplicity.



And so, you dope, you have inadvertently supported my point.
Now that is really pathetic, little one! So much so, I can't find it in me to laugh at your incomprehension of reality at this point...perhaps if you had replied with your usual vitriol.

I have said all that needs to be said on your fallacious assertion regarding FDR's leanings and alleged usurpation of power. You will stick by your distortions until the cows come home. Which brings this to mind:

Edit: Corrected blue text placement error.

 

[bripat9643]

I've pointed out many times that if enough Americans wanted to amend the Constitution to bring back slavery, it could be done, constitutionally. There is one in a zillion chance that would happen, but that is the system.

Of course you conservatives want a system where a conservative minority can rule. That you have all made clear.

Yeah, we know it could be done if it could be done. You posted a tautology. The question is would it be right? Do you believe the majority has the right to vote on anything?

Now don't lie. We all know you do.

What is your point? A supermajority can amend the Constitution to say anything they want it to say.

You're comparing overwhelming support for Social Security to virtually no support for bringing back slavery to try to argue that public opinion of Social Security is wrongheaded.

YOU are wrongheaded.

So you have no objection if a majority decides it wants to string up a few Negroes from the nearest tree?

 

[bripat9643]

So, at this point it's time to ask,

what were Hoover and the Republicans doing, or had done, or were planning to do, that was so superior to the FDR plans that the American people should have kept them in power?

Did Hoover's presidency produce a record of accomplishment worthy of earning him another 4 years?

Hoover was no better than FDR. In fact, the later adopted all of Hoover's policies.

Hoover was also a progressive, just like FDR.

 

[bripat9643]

Really? So all those conservative attacks on 'democracy' on this forum are a mirage? All of the conservative championing of capitalism I've seen on this forum never happened?

No conservatives oppose Socialism? No conservatives oppose more government programs?

lolol. Nice try, Flounder.

I don't know about conservatives, but I'm a libertarian. I don't believe the majority has the authority to vote away my rights.
.

You can believe in Santa Claus too if you want to.

And you can continue to lick boot polish until they send you off to the Gulag.

 

[bripat9643]

So we're all in agreement that despite whatever wacky label some nut like PC wants to attach to FDR,

in the end it must be conceded that his legacy is a positive one?

Okay. Fair enough.

According to that theory Stalin's legacy is a positive one.

In case you missed it Stalin's Soviet Union fell apart a few decades ago.

Stalin is still immensely popular in Russia.

Social Security will also collapse. It's not as old as the Soviet Union, but it's lifespan will be about the same.

 

[Contumacious]

Oh, and btw, I'm still waiting for anyone to cite anything in FDR's legacy that a consensus of modern day Americans finds objectionable.

No one made such a claim, so why would we bother?

BTW, popular is not the same thing as "right."

So we're all in agreement that despite whatever wacky label some nut like PC wants to attach to FDR,

in the end it must be conceded that his legacy is a positive one?

.

So we're all in agreement that despite whatever wacky benevolent label some nut like ....you..... want to attach to FDR,

in the end it must be conceded that his legacy is an awful one.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

According to that theory Stalin's legacy is a positive one.

In case you missed it Stalin's Soviet Union fell apart a few decades ago.

Stalin is still immensely popular in Russia.

Social Security will also collapse. It's not as old as the Soviet Union, but it's lifespan will be about the same.

Obama's got 40%.....how's Stalin doing?

 

[Contumacious]

No one made such a claim, so why would we bother?

BTW, popular is not the same thing as "right."

So we're all in agreement that despite whatever wacky label some nut like PC wants to attach to FDR,

in the end it must be conceded that his legacy is a positive one?

.

So we're all in agreement that despite whatever wacky benevolent label some nut like ....you..... want to attach to FDR,

in the end it must be conceded that his legacy is an awful one.

.

 

[Abishai100]

Profiteerism


Governance logistics are based on the quality and profitability of social contracts.

Fascism seems to border on socialism, and various seemingly non-socialist states such as Sweden and the USA have experimented with pseudo-socialist policies.

Contracts are based on agreements between the people and the government, so they represent social perceptions of general profitability.

We can therefore analyze how modern capitalism dominions created by consumerism globalization (i.e., eTrade, Burger King, etc.) create a social demand for intricate contract evaluation. Such labor opens doors for serious criticism of seemingly democratic policies as they are related to today's USA-led brand of 'profiteerism capitalism.'

Ironically, such notions are reflected in American art totems such as the prosperity-magnification Hollywood (USA) movie "The Last Tycoon" (1976).