The Saga of Harry S

[PoliticalChic]

We challenge your research all the time and you simply ad hom and cry.

Aha!

Another lie.

I never cry. I simply ask you to provide any such challenge.

As I did today...and you were unable to even formulate a question.



Tell me how accurate I am: I picture a pie chart of your life looking like a Mecedes-Benz insignia, with the thirds labeled 'laughed at," "humiliated," and "shunned."
How's that for exactitude!!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

PC is once again in a pissing contest with someone who pointed out her character flaws. I agree she is flawed, her threads are universally iniquitous and generally assassinations of Democratic leaders (and everyone like JakeStarkey who questions the truth of her rants).

1. You seem to have forgotten to include any 'flaws' in the posts....
...wait...I'll check again.

Nope.

Not a one!

Must mean that, once again, I've hit the nail on your head!



2. Flaws in my character???
Clearly you worship me....hoping that some of my superiority will flow from the nips at my heels that you bestow.
You have my permission to begin referring to me as 'that national treasure.'


3. When will you be prepared to offer an opinion on the facts that I've provided, or are you still at the stage of forming an exploratory committee???



4. So.......what's this I hear? You and Jakal have decided on "We've Only Just Begun" as your first song?

Lovely.

Define "facts". Is the opinion of someone else a fact, or is it a logical fallacy?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Thanks PC. You offer citations and links to the facts you present but rarely get a reasoned response from your detractors. That they don't like what you present is clear but they offer nothing in return. I look forward to your posts.

Because her conclusions do not include all of the objective evidence and when some is pointed out she just raves and does not rebut.

Her problem, and she will be called out on it forever.

It appears you have nothing to contribute save your opinion and sadly that isn't enough.


.

"Because her conclusions do not include all of the objective evidence and when some is pointed out she just raves and does not rebut" is a valid observation and one many of us agree with.

I can't say that I've read all of her posts but I have read quite a few of them over the past six months or so. From what I've seen she is one of the few willing to cite her evidence. Most of the rebuttals however are rarely more than a personal opinion, with little on no corroborating evidence offered.

Looking through the links PC provides enhances the debate whether you agree with her position or not.

.

Are you familiar with the fallacy of an "appeal to authority? Using a single source or multiple sources matters not. All of her threads are logical fallacies for this reason, they are not essay's with examples. They are opinion pieces based on ideology.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC is once again in a pissing contest with someone who pointed out her character flaws. I agree she is flawed, her threads are universally iniquitous and generally assassinations of Democratic leaders (and everyone like JakeStarkey who questions the truth of her rants).

1. You seem to have forgotten to include any 'flaws' in the posts....
...wait...I'll check again.

Nope.

Not a one!

Must mean that, once again, I've hit the nail on your head!



2. Flaws in my character???
Clearly you worship me....hoping that some of my superiority will flow from the nips at my heels that you bestow.
You have my permission to begin referring to me as 'that national treasure.'


3. When will you be prepared to offer an opinion on the facts that I've provided, or are you still at the stage of forming an exploratory committee???



4. So.......what's this I hear? You and Jakal have decided on "We've Only Just Begun" as your first song?

Lovely.

Define "facts". Is the opinion of someone else a fact, or is it a logical fallacy?

You clearly suffer from short term memory loss.....so let's review for you.

You claim there are errors in my posts....I've asked for examples of same....

You haven't been able to find any.

So...you're next attempt to hide your petty behavior and your ignorance is to change the subject.

Nope.....

Do you believe (almost said 'think') that no one will notice that you came up empty?


Anything I've posted about Truman not true?

No, huh.



So, you appearance here today is just one more in a string of failures.



Ooops! I'm gonna be late for the meeting,
International Order of Geniuses with Humility

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thanks PC. You offer citations and links to the facts you present but rarely get a reasoned response from your detractors. That they don't like what you present is clear but they offer nothing in return. I look forward to your posts.

Because her conclusions do not include all of the objective evidence and when some is pointed out she just raves and does not rebut.

Her problem, and she will be called out on it forever.

It appears you have nothing to contribute save your opinion and sadly that isn't enough.


.

"Because her conclusions do not include all of the objective evidence and when some is pointed out she just raves and does not rebut" is a valid observation and one many of us agree with.

I can't say that I've read all of her posts but I have read quite a few of them over the past six months or so. From what I've seen she is one of the few willing to cite her evidence. Most of the rebuttals however are rarely more than a personal opinion, with little on no corroborating evidence offered.

Looking through the links PC provides enhances the debate whether you agree with her position or not.

.

Are you familiar with the fallacy of an "appeal to authority? Using a single source or multiple sources matters not. All of her threads are logical fallacies for this reason, they are not essay's with examples. They are opinion pieces based on ideology.

Stop tap-dancing.

Any mistakes in the posts???

No?

Dismissed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, PC's posts appeal to some writer's authority, without specific examples detailing chronology,actions, and causation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's add some more fuel to this fire!

While in thrall of communists and communism, poor Truman followed their every order, no matter what the evidence showed.


Case in point, Alger Hiss, and the notoriety of his trial serve as representations of the time, and the conditions thereof.


12. Dean Acheson, then undersecretary of Treasury, not only vouched for Alger Hiss and his brother, Donald, also charged by Whitaker, but Acheson immediately requested Donald as his assistant.
Right on cue, the press vilified HUAC for persecuting Hiss.


Where did Truman stand?
President Truman denounced the Hiss investigation as a “red herring” by do-nothing Republicans (Whitaker Chambers, Witness, p. 564-74)

Felix Frankfurter and Adlai Stevenson offered to be character witnesses for Hiss.




13. Elections have consequences. From FDR through Truman, world communism received the sort of support that kept the USSR alive, and added China to their realm by endorsing Mao over Chiang Kai-shek...


(On this date, November 12, 1866: the birthday of Sun Yat-sen, first president and founding father of the Republic of China. He died 3-12-1925.)



Here we see Truman following the Soviet line:

"Mr. Truman said that the nationalists should have surrendered because they didn't have a chance to win..
...the opinion of American ambassador Leighton Stuart was that the failure of American aid to come at the opportune moment was the real cause of the weakness of nationalists and the disintegration of their armies....many military commanders went over to the enemy because they saw the United States withdrawing moral support from Chiang Kai-shek.

Mr. Truman boldly defends what Treasury did. He doesn't mention Harry Dexter White, mentioned in congressional hearings as a communist spy, sat at Treasury with full power to say when the money promised Chiang Kai-shek would be forwarded or withheld." Toledo Blade, Toledo Blade - Google News Archive Search





14. . Intelligence historians Leona and Jerrold Schecter had evidence, reinvestigated and affirmed by the late Robert Novak, that Harry S. Truman was informed as early as 1950 that finding from the Venona project confirmed that Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White, and former State Department official Alger Hiss as Soviet agents.


a. The Schecters also revealed, according to their source, that powerful Washington movers and shakers were also informed of Venona's findings....and that the group included Philip Graham, publisher of the Washington Post.
Jerrold and Leona Schechter, "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History," p. 149, 156.


Pressure from the FBI, Army intelligence, and the American people pushed Truman to move out from under the influence of communists.....but not in time to take China back from them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, PC's posts appeal to some writer's authority, without specific examples detailing chronology,actions, and causation.

You imbecile....you're complaining about something .....and you have nothing.


Well....then again, you are nothing.....so there is a certain symmetry there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC did it again. Made claims without evidence, chronology, and causation, and appealed to authority.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Among the first lessons a writer must learn is that personal opinions and generalizations usually need illustrations drawn from first hand observation if the reader is to understand them clearly and be convinced of their validity."

This quote is taken from the first paragraph of Subject and Structure, An Anthology for Writers, a text book assigned to me in freshman English Reading and Comprehension at CAL.

Of course Comparison and Contrast, Classification and Division, Cause and Effect and process analysis can and are used by successful writers in an effort to convince others by providing evidence. In all of these PC is lacking.

 

[Decus]

Thanks PC. You offer citations and links to the facts you present but rarely get a reasoned response from your detractors. That they don't like what you present is clear but they offer nothing in return. I look forward to your posts.

Because her conclusions do not include all of the objective evidence and when some is pointed out she just raves and does not rebut.

Her problem, and she will be called out on it forever.

It appears you have nothing to contribute save your opinion and sadly that isn't enough.


.

"Because her conclusions do not include all of the objective evidence and when some is pointed out she just raves and does not rebut" is a valid observation and one many of us agree with.

I can't say that I've read all of her posts but I have read quite a few of them over the past six months or so. From what I've seen she is one of the few willing to cite her evidence. Most of the rebuttals however are rarely more than a personal opinion, with little on no corroborating evidence offered.

Looking through the links PC provides enhances the debate whether you agree with her position or not.

.

Are you familiar with the fallacy of an "appeal to authority? Using a single source or multiple sources matters not. All of her threads are logical fallacies for this reason, they are not essay's with examples. They are opinion pieces based on ideology.

Read the links and make up your own mind, but I can understand that some people are well-educated and don't feel the need to delve into a debate they feel was long ago resolved. The rules on this site however limit how much text you can quote from a source, so I do not see a problem with PC's posting style.

The fallacy of an appeal to authority rests on who you would allow as an expert or relevant authority in delivering an opinion. That opens up another dimension for debate. I'd be interested to know who you view as credible in the points raised in this thread regarding Truman.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Among the first lessons a writer must learn is that personal opinions and generalizations usually need illustrations drawn from first hand observation if the reader is to understand them clearly and be convinced of their validity."

This quote is taken from the first paragraph of Subject and Structure, An Anthology for Writers, a text book assigned to me in freshman English Reading and Comprehension at CAL.

Of course Comparison and Contrast, Classification and Division, Cause and Effect and process analysis can and are used by successful writers in an effort to convince others by providing evidence. In all of these PC is lacking.

This is all you have?

You gave up looking for errors in my posts?

So...based on your ineptitude and my rectitude, the evidence remains, I am, once again ......totally correct.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no "other dimension" when it comes to claims and proofs.

PC is entitled to her own opinions but may not claim her own facts, terms, and definitions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no "other dimension" when it comes to claims and proofs.

PC is entitled to her own opinions but may not claim her own facts, terms, and definitions.

Thus once again PC got her ass handed to her.

 

[PoliticalChic]

15. It is actually possible to see into Truman's psyche, and note the evolution, based on events as President.
One can witness his divorcing himself from the sort of bowing to Stalin that we saw in Franklin Roosevelt.


Having served under the Rooseveltian 'Stalin appeasement policies' for so long, Truman had to learn to reverse course... Even so, baby steps can be observed.


On May 23, 1945 (he became President on April 12, 1945), Truman sent Harry Hopkins, Averill Harriman, and Charles Bolen to see Stalin to smooth out some problems developing with Stalin...e.g., Army intelligence was finding out the truth about Stalin's massacres in the Katyn Forest.
One can imagine that, unlike his predecessor, cold blooded slaughter didn't sit well with this American.


At the same time, Truman sent the dunce, Joseph Davies, to Churchill to tell him that he, Truman, would continue to appease Stalin for the time being.


But Truman was beginning to show the good judgment he became known for...and thus, the incipient Cold War was beginning.


a. Education continued for Truman:
June 4, 1945, in a 15-minute meeting with General Carter W. Clarke, and Colonel Ernest Gibson, of Army intelligence, Truman was informed about army codebreakers working on secret cables sent from Moscow to Washington- the Venona decrypts.
"Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History," p. 111, Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter



16. And so, with respect to our vice-presidents, we see the hand of Providence. Truman became vice-president on January 20, 1945....and Roosevelt died on April 12,1945.
Had FDR died just a few months earlier, the United States would have assumed the role of vassal to the USSR.


a. In 1948, at the apex of Moscow-directed subversion of US politics, FDR’s VP Henry Wallace, former Sec’y of Agriculture, went on to form the Communist-dominated and Soviet-backed “Progressive Party.”
Of course, Wallace’s “Progressives” allowed not even the most peripheral criticism of Soviet aggression.
(John Patrick Diggins, “Good Intentions,” The National Interest, Fall, 2000)

The progressives received one million votes. The Communist Party USA did not field a presidential candidate, and instead endorsed Wallace for President on the Progressive ticket.(Progressive Party United States 1948 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




b. "In 1944, the Democrats bypassed Wallace to select Harry S. Truman as their vice-presidential nominee. Wallace was named Secretary of Commerce, where he feuded bitterly with Truman — who had by then ascended to the Oval Office — over the nation's confrontational posturing with the Soviet Union, which the agricultural expert deemed dangerously hawkish.

The clash earned Wallace a reputation among his detractors as a "Stalinist stooge." Alienated but undeterred, he mounted a run for the presidency in 1947.
One writer later termed his candidacy "the closest the Soviet Union ever came to actually choosing a president of the United States."
Henry Wallace - America s Worst Vice Presidents - TIME

Harry S. Truman....all things considered....a blessing for America.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Assertion based on slanted evaluation of evidence.

Give all the information you can find, not just your pet writer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no "other dimension" when it comes to claims and proofs.

PC is entitled to her own opinions but may not claim her own facts, terms, and definitions.

Thus once again PC got her ass handed to her.

You haven't disputed a single thing I've posted.....not one thing!

...you really belong back in the 'nervous hospital.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

Assertion based on slanted evaluation of evidence.

Give all the information you can find, not just your pet writer.

Time magazine??

My pet???




When you get run over by a car, it shouldn't be listed under accidents.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence:
1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.


This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.

And the counter-argument of the times was that the monarch derived his power from God, referred to as the divine right of kings.

Therefore it became a contest between mortal men over which side was God on;

the question of course was not settled by some God, but by men with guns.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence:
1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.


This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.

And the counter-argument of the times was that the monarch derived his power from God, referred to as the divine right of kings.

Therefore it became a contest between mortal men over which side was God on;

the question of course was not settled by some God, but by men with guns.

You are truly an uneducated dolt.

And to prove it, you persist in parading your ignorance in public.

When did the belief in such 'divine rights of kings' end?

Get a pencil and paper, and prepare to be educated:


1. Quia Emptoresis a statute passed in the reign of Edward I of England in1290 that prevented tenants from alienating their lands to others by subinfeudation (the practice by which tenants, holding land under the king or other superior lord, carved out new and distinct tenures in their turn by sub-letting or alienating a part of their lands), instead requiring all tenants who wished to alienate their land to do so by substitution.

By effectively ending the practice of subinfeudation, Quia Emptores hastened the end of feudalism in England,...

Direct feudal obligations were increasingly being replaced by cash rents and outright sales of land which gave rise to the practice of livery and maintenance or bastard feudalism, the retention and control by the nobility of land, money, soldiers and servants via direct salaries, land sales and rent payments.
Quia Emptores - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



a. The result of Edward I reforms was that England now had a justice system based on contracts, adversarial jurisprudence, and traditional ideas of fairness and property rights that no king or bishop could sweep away.


Again?
"....no king or bishop could sweep away."


2. By restricting the jurisdiction of clerks to church law, Edward I created a secular profession of lawyers and judges.

3. The next step leading to a capitalist society was the fact that the kingdom of England had no internal barriers to trade, a major difference from other European realms: it was a ready-made national market for goods.
See "Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," by Walter A. McDougall