Harry Truman, Quo Vadis?

[Camp]

I like when the use of Chesley Manly is referenced as a source. Martin Dies is a funny one too, but Manly is the funniest.

 

[Unkotare]

This all seems to suggest that you really can't refute her points and the facts she uses to support them, so you attempt to merely dismiss them out of hand instead. That's lazy and ineffective, Smed.

 

[Camp]

The Boy Who Cried Wolf - AESOPS'S FABLES

 

[Moonglow]

It's hard to disprove a negative...

 

[SmedlyButler]

This all seems to suggest that you really can't refute her points and the facts she uses to support them, so you attempt to merely dismiss them out of hand instead. That's lazy and ineffective, Smed.

How much time would you be willing to put into "refuting" 9/11 conspiracies? That's how much time I'm willing to put into "refuting" any more of PC's copied and pasted alternate versions of history.

And now I've put as much time into explaining this to you as I'm willing to waste on another apparently hopeless mission.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The ACA is no different than requiring a driver to have auto insurance, unless you are rich enough to afford the liability and are not required to have insurance. Both pieces of legislation are corporate lobby gains.

Is there a mandate that everyone must drive a car?


Dunce.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What's even funnier is that those decrying communism and socialism believe in a God that runs Heaven like a socialist/communist camp. But that's seems to be Ok with them..?

Once upon a time your posts almost made sense.


So, I’m looking for evidence to determine exactly when your cerebrum entered the dead zone, and based on my extensive experience watching CSI, I know that I should check for signs of insect activity:
let’s call in the entomologist to pin down the exact minute of pupation!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution was worthless to the cause of freedom when it allowed slavery to exist as a compromise to include slave holding states..

There are two reasons to make this absurd and untrue statement:

1.It is made by those who have no understanding of the reasoning behind the Constitution.

2. It is made by those who leap to find any cudgel to beat down the fine reputation of this great nation.

Wait....weren't you the one who said earlier that there was genocide practiced against Indians, and I showed it to be untrue?
See what I mean about America haters like you?



Here is your lesson for today:

3. The Constitution was designed as a step toward ending slavery in this nation.

Many of the Founders wanted to eliminate slavery, but they knew that at the earliest points in our history it would not be possible, and still keep the Union together. Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly.
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."


Now don't repeat your slander again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think you missed the part where I mentioned "alternate reality". One has no obligation to refute an imaginary construct.

I thought you said it was all copy and paste? Now it's all "imagination"? Copying and pasting imagination? Which is it?

This is just too simple to be beyond comprehension, even for the most loyal PC fan. I'll say it again, slowly....

She uses copy and paste to "construct" her alternate realities. Other peoples words and conspiracy theories are her building blocks. And if in context other peoples words do not support her construct the solution is simple, use them out of context. When she says "I will construct..." (one of her favorite phrases) the result is ievitably another edition of imaginary history.

If the concept is still too difficult for you relate it to the various 9/11 conspiracies. You must be aware of how the 9/11 "truthers" abuse rational interpretation of facts quotes and coincidences to build their disparate frameworks. Same MO, same result. Imagined history.

I have a minute....let's teach you:


Some pointers.
1. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml)

2. What has been pejoratively referred to as ‘simply cut and paste,’ is, in fact, carefully chosen to substantiate a point. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts.(Critical Appraisal and Analysis - Critically Analyzing Information Sources - Cornell University Library Guides at Cornell University)

3. A valid objection to this selection of sources may be the type of audience being addressed. Is the ‘pasted selection’ aimed at a specialized or a general audience? Do you find the level ‘over your head’ or is this source too elementary? Ibid.

4. Are you objecting to the author's credentials--institutional affiliation (where he or she works), educational background, past writings, or experience? Or simply looking for a weapon to attack the post? This, of course, would be puerile.

5. Providing summaries or outlines of a source is valid as long as a link to the original is provided, and the author’s meaning is conveyed.

6. Nor is it necessary to insert one’s own language if the original article is simply abbreviated, with link provided.

7. What has been called ‘cut and paste’ is frequently the message board version of footnotes and endnotes of an academic essay. “…footnotes were declared outmoded just before the era of the word-processors which make using footnotes so much easier. Still, because of its relative ease in both writing and reading, parenthetical documentation is greatly preferred by most instructors.” http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml

While a public message board is the exact venue for giving opinions no matter their provenance, their attachment to reality, or even whether they are on a cognitive wavelength of any human on the planet, one should invest more credence to those that are able to show relevance, documentation and/or links. And, of course, a sense of humor.



In your face, booyyyyyyeeeeee!

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. George F. Kennan, chief of the State Department's policy planning staff, drafted
a rationale for the Marshall plan, including "In these circumstances, it is clear that the
main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long range, patient, but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.... The Russians look forward to a duel of infinite duration, and they see that already they have scored great successes." Kennan was clear on the patience of the communists, and that the best plan was to determinedly counter whatever the Soviets do.



2. From abject appeasement of the Soviet Union by Roosevelt, even to the extent of sheltering American traitors in the government, the Truman administration, ultimately, veered 180 degrees to a global policy of "containing" communism.

And this is the credit to be paid to Harry Truman: E-for-effort.


Still, it would be a mistake of untold significance to believe that the communists, fellow travelers, and dupes in the government "changed," or gave up their plans for America.

In fact, the revolutionaries began using the communist menace as a pretext to spend the United States into collectivism. Manly,"The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 157.






The strength of this great nation is also its greatest weakness.
We have a need to solve problems with immediacy.
We're quick and efficient....and what we accept as solution may not be so.

But our enemies are patient. It is a full century from the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, who suggested discarding the Constitution, to Barack Obama, who ignores it.

Within exactly that time frame we have embraced most of communism's aims.






Further, a new enemy is on the horizon, one whose patience is even greater....and who began as long ago as the seventh century.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Wait.....did you just say 'quack'?????

 

[SmedlyButler]

Looks like it will take

more than a minute. Keep trying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Looks like it will take

more than a minute. Keep trying.

I understand.....education is hardly your strong suit, ol' fella.....

 

[Camp]

" 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?

Wait.....did you just say 'quack'?????

You always find a way to avoid answering questions. You really don't know what Chesley Manly was. You use one of "his" publications as a source often, but you don't know what Chesley Manly represents. Here is another hint, Dec. 4, 1941 and Dec. 11, 1941.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Wait.....did you just say 'quack'?????

You always find a way to avoid answering questions. You really don't know what Chesley Manly was. You use one of "his" publications as a source often, but you don't know what Chesley Manly represents. Here is another hint, Dec. 4, 1941 and Dec. 11, 1941.

I've often found that the real losers in any debate try to change the subject from the content to the messenger.

And....of course, you are just such a loser.

But, you have clarified one question: So, you are the kind of idiot who chooses to challenge the source, rather than the truth of the information provided?
I always wondered exactly what kind of idiot you were.



So....I'm not going to allow you to obfuscate.....seems obvious the ol' two-step isn't working for you.



When you come up with a quality response…just give me a call…I’ll be ice skating in Hell.

 

[Camp]

Wait.....did you just say 'quack'?????

You always find a way to avoid answering questions. You really don't know what Chesley Manly was. You use one of "his" publications as a source often, but you don't know what Chesley Manly represents. Here is another hint, Dec. 4, 1941 and Dec. 11, 1941.

I've often found that the real losers in any debate try to change the subject from the content to the messenger.

And....of course, you are just such a loser.

But, you have clarified one question: So, you are the kind of idiot who chooses to challenge the source, rather than the truth of the information provided?
I always wondered exactly what kind of idiot you were.



So....I'm not going to allow you to obfuscate.....seems obvious the ol' two-step isn't working for you.



When you come up with a quality response…just give me a call…I’ll be ice skating in Hell.

So you don't know basic facts about the topics of which you write and know little if anything about the sources you use. That is why some may consider your cut and paste method of presenting a thesis or ideas unacceptable and worthy of mockery. You have no depth of knowledge of the subjects you cover. You seem to crawl through mostly conspiracy theory type publications and publications of questionalble historical accuracy and cherry pick qoutes to fit and support a pre-concieved result to present a specific agenda. When someone offers a challange or presents an aternative, you don't debate, you go negative and defensive. If you had a depth of knowledge or the slightest bit of expertise on the topics you wrtie about you would be able to answer some of the easy questions you have been asked.

 

[Unkotare]

This all seems to suggest that you really can't refute her points and the facts she uses to support them, so you attempt to merely dismiss them out of hand instead. That's lazy and ineffective, Smed.

How much time would you be willing to put into "refuting" 9/11 conspiracies? That's how much time I'm willing to put into "refuting" any more of PC's copied and pasted alternate versions of history.

And now I've put as much time into explaining this to you as I'm willing to waste on another apparently hopeless mission.

A simple white flag would be much simpler than all this song and dance you're going through. Trying to save some face in retreat? It's not working for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You always find a way to avoid answering questions. You really don't know what Chesley Manly was. You use one of "his" publications as a source often, but you don't know what Chesley Manly represents. Here is another hint, Dec. 4, 1941 and Dec. 11, 1941.

I've often found that the real losers in any debate try to change the subject from the content to the messenger.

And....of course, you are just such a loser.

But, you have clarified one question: So, you are the kind of idiot who chooses to challenge the source, rather than the truth of the information provided?
I always wondered exactly what kind of idiot you were.



So....I'm not going to allow you to obfuscate.....seems obvious the ol' two-step isn't working for you.



When you come up with a quality response…just give me a call…I’ll be ice skating in Hell.

So you don't know basic facts about the topics of which you write and know little if anything about the sources you use. That is why some may consider your cut and paste method of presenting a thesis or ideas unacceptable and worthy of mockery. You have no depth of knowledge of the subjects you cover. You seem to crawl through mostly conspiracy theory type publications and publications of questionalble historical accuracy and cherry pick qoutes to fit and support a pre-concieved result to present a specific agenda. When someone offers a challange or presents an aternative, you don't debate, you go negative and defensive. If you had a depth of knowledge or the slightest bit of expertise on the topics you wrtie about you would be able to answer some of the easy questions you have been asked.

Did you say "quack-quack"???


Let's be honest.....you have been unable to refute any of the OP....simply because I am totally correct.


...and, partially, because you're a moron.



C'mon....just one 'quack'....

 

[natstew]

While a great deal of that is true, Truman showed the strength and insight necessary to try to reverse some of the damage done by Roosevelt.

In a President, vision is more important than what might be considered high IQ.

Thus...

“I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Manhattan phone book than the entire faculty of Harvard.”


― William F. Buckley Jr.

You can measure I.Q. but "vision" is subject to speculation. Truman was a capitalist for sure but he didn't have a clue about the international threat of communism. When House democrats created HUAC Truman went along with it and later on went along with the media and blamed a single republican senator when the anti-communist era went sour.

Truman was, early on, exactly what you say.

The point of the thread is that he learned, and, to an extent, became very different from the Rooseveltian appeasers of Stalin.

If you don't believe that America owes him a debt, then read about Henry Wallace....what we could have had.

What we could have had? I think we've got it now under this Marxist, would be Dictator!

 

[natstew]

This generation of Leftists is a reflection of where our public education system went after Joseph McCarthy's attempt to purge Communists out of our schools.

"So, let's go over what has occurred.


With very little effort, I have proven that the brainwashing and indoctrination that you have suffered is....

....alas.....

....indelible.




Or, at least, that you are not strong minded enough to break free.



So sad." [end quote]

These weak minded people are the same ones who can be easily Hypnotized.