PDA

View Full Version : Inconvenient political and economic truth.



LWW
09-03-2011, 08:01 AM
Jimmy Carter invented the "MISERY INDEX" (Inflation rate + unemployment rate.) as a political weapon in 1976.It has been reported that if the Obama regime hadn't arbitrarily shrank the supposed universe of job seekers, the true UE rate would be 11.4% and not the 9.1% being reported.

Jimmuh harangued at great length about the Gerald Rudolf Ford regime's misery index which he inherited being at 12.66% upon Jimmuh's ascension to the Oval Office ... after having averaged 16% under Ford's stewardship.

Carter, in true demokrook stupidonomic style, oversaw the MI increasing to as high as 21.98% ... and still at 19.72% when he left. Jimmuh Cahuh's reign saw the MI increase by a stout 61.6%.

The Ronald Wilson Reagan regime saw the MI drop to 97.72% ... a fall of 49.7%. The far left called this the worst economic performance since the great depression.

Bush the Elder more or less tread water as the MI rate went from 10.07% when he entered office to 10.3% when he left. The far left called this the worst economic performance since the great depression.

Bush the Younger inherited an MI of 7.93% and it was at 7.49% when he left office. The far left called this the worst economic performance since the great depression.

Barack Hussein Obama Junior saw the MI rise by 64.7% in less than 3 years ... outdoing even Jimmuh "Peanut Fahmuh" Cahtuh.

But ... that's using the cooked books of the Obama regime.

If you use the underemployed rate, by the formula used in 1993 and further back, the UE rate is 22.8% ... truly depression era levels.

If inflation was measured by the same formula as it was in 1980, the real US inflation rate is 11.4%.

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-cpi.gif


Using real numbers the true MI under the Obama regime is between 27.9% and 34.2%. The far left calls this progress.

http://rlv.zcache.com/jimmy_carter_not_the_worst_president_anymore_poste r-p228413103628056160t5wm_400.jpg

No longer the worst president in the last century. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics))

Soflasnapper
09-03-2011, 12:11 PM
Starts off with a falsehood, of course:

The misery index was initiated by economist Arthur Okun, an adviser to President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960's.

From Miseryindex.us (http://www.miseryindex.us/)

Carter, in true demokrook stupidonomic style, oversaw the MI increasing to as high as 21.98%

Continuing here with a false characterization of Democrats' economic policies, as the Democrats hold three of the best 5 performances on the misery index measure, including Truman's showing the best result ever, considerably better than Reagan's record. Here, showing the beginning, ending, average, and changes for each president under the MI (http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbyPresident.asp)

That the history of the MI isn't much of a story of Democratic failure is also seen in that chart, as by the history of which president saw the largest increase. The Carter/Obama duo (in that order, Obama hasn't increased it more than Carter did) is bracketed by Nixon ABOVE them with the worst performance on that measure, and trailed immediately by Eisenhower (see previous linked chart).

That it is a poor measure as to the whole economy is proven by the good placement (low ranking, as of lowered increase, actually going into a decrease of MI) for the Ford economy, nobody's idea of a good economy.

More errors:

The Ronald Wilson Reagan regime saw the MI drop to 97.72%

No. First, the MI isn't given in %s. It is composed of two percentage figures that are not comparable. And you missed a decimal point, it was 9.72. If your figure were correct, it would be a whole new worst MI record ever.

The far left called this the worst economic performance since the great depression.

No, they did not. It WAS stated as to the 10.8% unemployment rate peak of the Reagan/Volcker recession, and of course, that WAS INDEED the worst UE since the GD.

Bush the Elder more or less tread water as the MI rate went from 10.07% when he entered office to 10.3% when he left. The far left called this the worst economic performance since the great depression.


It was, although not by the MI, but by the average real gdp increase over those years.

Bush the Younger inherited an MI of 7.93% and it was at 7.49% when he left office. The far left called this the worst economic performance since the great depression.


It was, although again not by the MI, but by the average number of new jobs created over that period of time.

LWW
09-03-2011, 01:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Starts off with a falsehood, of course:

The misery index was initiated by economist Arthur Okun, an adviser to President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960's.

From Miseryindex.us (http://www.miseryindex.us/) </div></div>

No I didn't ... and you had to willfully truncate what I said to make it appear as such.

But, such are the ways of the followers of Alinsky.

LWW
09-03-2011, 01:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Carter, in true demokrook stupidonomic style, oversaw the MI increasing to as high as 21.98%

Continuing here with a false characterization of Democrats' economic policies, as the Democrats hold three of the best 5 performances on the misery index measure, including Truman's showing the best result ever, considerably better than Reagan's record. </div></div>

Which has no relevance to the performance of Jimmuh Cahtuh and the moonbat crazy left demokrooks that were taking over the party since 1964.

The Truman regime was an entirely different animal from the Jimmuh Cahtuh regime ... to the point that Truman was quite a bit to the right of Reagan on many issues. In fact.

C+ deflection omn your part.

LWW
09-03-2011, 01:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Ronald Wilson Reagan regime saw the MI drop to 97.72%

No. First, the MI isn't given in %s. It is composed of two percentage figures that are not comparable. And you missed a decimal point, it was 9.72. If your figure were correct, it would be a whole new worst MI record ever.</div></div>

You got me there ... the number was a typo and meant to be 9.72%.

LWW
09-03-2011, 01:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The far left called this the worst economic performance since the great depression.


Bush the Elder more or less tread water as the MI rate went from 10.07% when he entered office to 10.3% when he left. The far left called this the worst economic performance since the great depression.


It was

Bush the Younger inherited an MI of 7.93% and it was at 7.49% when he left office. The far left called this the worst economic performance since the great depression.


It was</div></div>

Yes they did, not it wasn't, and no it wasn't.

Repeating the myth doesn't make the myth true. Repeating the muth louder doesn't make the myth true. A myth is, by definition, a myth.

Soflasnapper
09-03-2011, 02:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Starts off with a falsehood, of course:

The misery index was initiated by economist Arthur Okun, an adviser to President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960's.

From Miseryindex.us (http://www.miseryindex.us/) </div></div>

No I didn't ... and you had to willfully truncate what I said to make it appear as such.

But, such are the ways of the followers of Alinsky. </div></div>

??? I didn't truncate ANYTHING, willfully or otherwise.

But you now claim that when you said, "Jimmy Carter invented the "MISERY INDEX [...]," you didn't mean he invented the misery index, but 'invented it as a political weapon'?

Ok, issues of bad or misleading sentence construction aside, let's see if that makes it better.

'As a political weapon,' Carter invented the Misery Index. No, that still means he invented the concept as well, which isn't correct.

So how to make it what you say you must have meant?

Although Carter did NOT 'invent' the Misery Index, which had been invented a decade before under the 3rd prior president before his race with Ford, he was the first to use it as a political attack statistic.

That may actually be accurate, although it is not what your clear meaning suggested was true.

Soflasnapper
09-03-2011, 03:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Carter, in true demokrook stupidonomic style, oversaw the MI increasing to as high as 21.98%

Continuing here with a false characterization of Democrats' economic policies, as the Democrats hold three of the best 5 performances on the misery index measure, including Truman's showing the best result ever, considerably better than Reagan's record. </div></div>

Which has no relevance to the performance of Jimmuh Cahtuh and the moonbat crazy left demokrooks that were taking over the party since 1964.

The Truman regime was an entirely different animal from the Jimmuh Cahtuh regime ... to the point that Truman was quite a bit to the right of Reagan on many issues. In fact.

C+ deflection omn your part. </div></div>

Really? Let's see.

Very high tax rates, over 90% top marginal rate? Check.

Tried for a national health care plan? Check.

Integrated the military services by executive order? Check.

Vetoed Taft-Hartley, which limited the power of labor unions by curbing union participation in politics by approving state "right to work" laws, and by allowing the President to block strikes through a judicially mandated eighty day "cooling-off" period? Check.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In September 1945, Truman presented to Congress a lengthy and rambling twenty-one point message that nonetheless attempted to set the post-war political and economic agenda. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Truman called for new public works programs, legislation guaranteeing "full employment," a higher minimum wage, extension of the Fair Employment Practices Committee (or FEPC, a war-time agency that monitored discrimination against African Americans in hiring practices of government agencies and defense industries), a larger Social Security System, and a national health insurance system.</span> Taken together, these requests demonstrated an interest in maintaining and building upon the New Deal. On reconversion, Truman pushed for quick demobilization of the military—a political necessity as the troops and their families clamored for a hasty return to civilian life—and the temporary extension of governmental economic controls.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Finally, in 1947, Truman reaffirmed his support for liberal initiatives like housing for the poor and federal assistance for education. He vetoed Republican tax bills perceived as favoring the rich and rejected a Republican effort to raise tariffs on imported wool, a measure he deemed isolationist. These positions, combined with his veto of Taft-Hartley and his sympathy toward price controls, situated Truman as the chief defender of the New Deal against Republican encroachments.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Truman announced an ambitious agenda in early 1949, which he called the "Fair Deal." It was a collection of policies and programs much desired by liberals in the Democratic Party: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>economic controls, repeal of Taft-Hartley, an increase in the minimum wage, expansion of the Social Security program, a housing bill, national health insurance, development projects modeled on the New Deal's Tennessee Valley Authority, liberalized immigration laws, and ambitious civil rights legislation for African-Americans.</span> </div></div>

These and other stone-cold facts about Truman indicate he was well within the mainstream of Democratic Party economic policies, both then, and now.

LWW
09-03-2011, 06:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Carter, in true demokrook stupidonomic style, oversaw the MI increasing to as high as 21.98%

Continuing here with a false characterization of Democrats' economic policies, as the Democrats hold three of the best 5 performances on the misery index measure, including Truman's showing the best result ever, considerably better than Reagan's record. </div></div>

Which has no relevance to the performance of Jimmuh Cahtuh and the moonbat crazy left demokrooks that were taking over the party since 1964.

The Truman regime was an entirely different animal from the Jimmuh Cahtuh regime ... to the point that Truman was quite a bit to the right of Reagan on many issues. In fact.

C+ deflection omn your part. </div></div>

Really? Let's see.

Very high tax rates, over 90% top marginal rate? <span style="color: #3366FF"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>Where even a haircut was deductible and nobody actually paid 90% because of the enormous loopholes contained with the tax code.</span></span> Check.

Tried for a national health care plan? <span style="color: #3366FF"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>No he didn't, at least not in the sense of anything even vaguely resembling OBAMACARE ... another myth. Why do you love myths? Truman's plan was to help increase the number of doctors and hospitals in rural areas, create minimum standards for new hospitals being built, and to create an optional national minimum health plan for those who could not secure insurance otherwise.</span></span> Check.

Integrated the military services by executive order? <span style="color: #3366FF"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>And another myth. Truman's ballyhooed EO amounted to nothing more than a separate but equal standard of pay, benefits, and barracks. Ike actually integrated military units.</span></span>Check.

Vetoed Taft-Hartley, which limited the power of labor unions by curbing union participation in politics by approving state "right to work" laws, and by allowing the President to block strikes through a judicially mandated eighty day "cooling-off" period? <span style="color: #3366FF"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>A purely political move as he knew the votes were in the senate to trump his veto HST knew he would have a tough 1948 election ... and he use the T-H act about a dozen times as POTUS, so his objections were obviously feigned.</span></span> Check.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In September 1945, Truman presented to Congress a lengthy and rambling twenty-one point message that nonetheless attempted to set the post-war political and economic agenda. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Truman called for new public works programs, legislation guaranteeing "full employment," a higher minimum wage, extension of the Fair Employment Practices Committee (or FEPC, a war-time agency that monitored discrimination against African Americans in hiring practices of government agencies and defense industries), a larger Social Security System, and a national health insurance system.</span> Taken together, these requests demonstrated an interest in maintaining and building upon the New Deal. On reconversion, Truman pushed for quick demobilization of the military—a political necessity as the troops and their families clamored for a hasty return to civilian life—and the temporary extension of governmental economic controls.</div></div> <span style="color: #3366FF"><span style='font-size: 11pt'></span></span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <s>Finally, in 1947, Truman reaffirmed his support for liberal initiatives like housing for the poor and federal assistance for education. He vetoed Republican tax bills perceived as favoring the rich and rejected a Republican effort to raise tariffs on imported wool, a measure he deemed isolationist. These positions, combined with his veto of Taft-Hartley and his sympathy toward price controls, situated Truman as the chief defender of the New Deal against Republican encroachments.</s></div></div> <span style="color: #3366FF"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>T-H myth has already been slain.</span></span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Truman announced an ambitious agenda in early 1949, which he called the "Fair Deal." It was a collection of policies and programs much desired by liberals in the Democratic Party: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>economic controls, repeal of Taft-Hartley, an increase in the minimum wage, expansion of the Social Security program, a housing bill, national health insurance, development projects modeled on the New Deal's Tennessee Valley Authority, liberalized immigration laws, and ambitious civil rights legislation for African-Americans.</span> </div></div>

These and other stone-cold facts about Truman indicate he was well within the mainstream of Democratic Party economic policies, both then, and now. </div></div>

<span style="color: #3366FF"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>HST being a liberal I would agree with. The current democrook party is not liberal. The current democrook party is leftist which is statist which is totalitarian. Ron Paul is a liberal. Sarah Palin is a liberal. Michelles Bachmann is a liberal. Barack Obama is a leftist-staist ... so was GGeorge W Bush ... so are you. Words mean things. Please use them correctly. I realize that the recent regimes in DC prefer that we all use NEWSPEAK ... but I'm a classic liberal and refuse to comply.</span></span>

Soflasnapper
09-04-2011, 12:12 PM
HST being a liberal I would agree with. The current democrook party is not liberal. The current democrook party is leftist which is statist which is totalitarian. Ron Paul is a liberal. Sarah Palin is a liberal. Michelles Bachmann is a liberal. Barack Obama is a leftist-staist ... so was GGeorge W Bush ... so are you. Words mean things. Please use them correctly. I realize that the recent regimes in DC prefer that we all use NEWSPEAK ... but I'm a classic liberal and refuse to comply.

I do use them correctly, and if I have a question on some usage, I can look at your usage and do the opposite.

I sincerely doubt you will find more than a handful of persons agreeing with your claims above, certainly as regarding Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, or Michele Bachmann, as those claims are based on a peculiar set of definitions you and perhaps a tiny band of fellow-travelers hold uniquely among the population of English speakers.

Your vocabulary is suited to 18th or 19th century usage, perhaps, but unless you are speaking to persons 200 years old or so, these are archaic meanings that do not now prevail.

LWW
09-04-2011, 12:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do use them correctly</div></div>

No, you most certainly do not.

Soflasnapper
09-04-2011, 06:37 PM
Usage is according to how people... use the words.

If we were to poll a reasonably large number of persons, from whatever walk of life or political bent, but including some Democrats and some Republicans, and asked whether Palin, Bachmann, Ron Paul, W Bush, etc., were 'liberals,' or 'conservatives,' isn't it obvious that it would run 100-1 that they would say they are 'conservatives'?

Unless you pack the sample with people with your same decoder rings, and secret handshakes, that is certainly the case.

So your position is that you alone, or along with some tiny fraction of the population not more than 1%, have the correct 'usage,' whereas how it is actually used in practice at 99% levels, is wrong. M'kay. (walking slowly backwards while making no threatening gestures)

LWW
09-05-2011, 05:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Usage is according to how people... use the words.

If we were to poll a reasonably large number of persons, from whatever walk of life or political bent, but including some Democrats and some Republicans, and asked whether Palin, Bachmann, Ron Paul, W Bush, etc., were 'liberals,' or 'conservatives,' isn't it obvious that it would run 100-1 that they would say they are 'conservatives'?

Unless you pack the sample with people with your same decoder rings, and secret handshakes, that is certainly the case.

So your position is that you alone, or along with some tiny fraction of the population not more than 1%, have the correct 'usage,' whereas how it is actually used in practice at 99% levels, is wrong. M'kay. (walking slowly backwards while making no threatening gestures)

</div></div>

All you have demonstrated is that the left constantly applies squatters rights to parts of the language, redefines it to something else, and then repeats it incessantly in the media until it becomes commonly accepted.

Hitler/Goering/Lenin/Stalin/Alinsky and many more all taught that if you repeat a lie loud enough and long enough, the general public will eventually believe it ... so you have had good teachers.

First example ... torture has been redefined by the left as placing a caterpillar ina murderer's cell. The public conception when they hear "TORTURE" is something akin to electrical wires to the genitals and/or bamboo shoots under the finger nails ... and the leftist leadership knows this. That's why they bleat "BUSH AUTHORIZED TORTURE OF DETAINEES!" and not "BUSH AUTHORIZED PUTTING A CATERPILLAR IN A MURDERER'S CELL!"

Now ... back to "LIBERAL" if you will.

The far left was at one time called "MARXISTS". Then Lenin gave that a bad name. So they claimed Marxists were right wing and they took to calling the left "COMMUNISTS" ... but Stalin screwed that up.

Next they called the left "FASCISTS" ... until that whole Hitler thingie. Next up, the left labeled their movement "PROGRESSIVE" ... even had a Progressive party with a former VPOTUS as a candidate ... until they were found to be a front for the Communist Party USA and he an agent of Joe Stalin.

Then they stole the word "LIBERAL" for awhile ... until the Dukakis debacle with the monkey in a tank photo op and the Willie Horton murderers on weekend passes stupidity and the claim on TV that he was such a pacifist that he wouldn't defend his own wife.

No, to modern times, the left is currently vacillating between calling their movement progressive again ... or liberalism. In all noted cases they have wordsmithed something that sounded compassionate and liberating because "STATISM BY OLIGARCHY" doesn't have much ring to it.

They also have repeatedly, and amazingly, pimped such simplistic agendas to the masses as "HOPENCHANGE" for well over a century ... although the end result is the abandonment of hope and change that the public would never have approved of had they bothered to ask what it was.

Proof again that it doesn't take much to rile up a mob ... and all leftist regimes have been based upon use of a mob to gain power,

Now, what does liberal actually mean in the classical oldspeak?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Words such as liberal, liberty, libertarian, and libertine all trace their history to the Latin liber, which means "free". ...

Early liberals, including Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Baruch Spinoza, attempted to determine the purpose of government in a liberal society. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'>To these liberals, securing the most essential amenities of life—liberty and private property among them—required the formation of a "sovereign" authority with universal jurisdiction.[61] In a natural state of affairs, liberals argued, humans were driven by the instincts of survival and self-preservation, and the only way to escape from such a dangerous existence was to form a common and supreme power capable of arbitrating between competing human desires.[62] This power could be formed in the framework of a civil society that allows individuals to make a voluntary social contract with the sovereign authority, transferring their natural rights to that authority in return for the protection of life, liberty, and property.[62] These early liberals often disagreed in their opinion of the most appropriate form of government, but they all shared the belief that liberty was natural and that its restriction needed strong justification.[62] Liberals generally believed in limited government, although several liberal philosophers decried government outright, with Thomas Paine writing that "government even in its best state is a necessary evil".</span>[63]</span> <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">Does Obama believe in this concept of "LIBERALISM" my confused friend? Clinton? Bush? Carter? Dean? You? Of course not. The Pauls? Palin? Bachmann? Much ... much closer.</span></span> ...

As part of the project to limit the powers of government, various <span style='font-size: 11pt'>liberal theorists—such as James Madison and the Baron de Montesquieu—conceived the notion of separation of powers, a system designed to equally distribute governmental authority among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.[63] Governments had to realize, liberals maintained, that poor and improper governance gave the people authority to overthrow the ruling order through any and all possible means—even through outright violence and revolution, if needed.</span> <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">Can you name for me a single democrat who believes this? I can't ... and precious few republicans.</span></span> ...

From the 17th century until the 19th century, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>liberals—from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill—conceptualized liberty as the absence of interference from government and from other individuals, claiming that all people should have the freedom to develop their own unique abilities and capacities without being sabotaged by others.[67] Mill's On Liberty (1859), one of the classic texts in liberal philosophy, proclaimed that "the only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way".</span></div></div>


True liberalism has always believed in the primacy of the individual and that the rights to personal liberty and private property are the only pillars upon which a free state can be built.

What calls itself "LIBERAL" today is the myriad groups that believe only in the collective liberty which the omnipotent oligarchy tolerates the people to have and that personal property rights are merely a mirage for the masses to hide the fact that all property belongs to the state.

IMHO ... the modern left should be ashamed to call their movement "LIBERAL" and that many other lovers of the US republic, you all know who you are, should be ashamed that they have allowed squatters to take over the word defining the ideology that this republic was built upon.

I sir am a true liberal ... you are most assuredly not.

Qtec
09-05-2011, 05:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All you have demonstrated is that the left constantly applies squatters rights to parts of the language,<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> redefines it to something else,<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> and then repeats it incessantly in the media u ntil it becomes commonly accepted.<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span>

Hitler/Goering/Lenin/Stalin/Alinsky and many more all taught that if you repeat a lie loud enough and long enough, the general public will eventually believe it <span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span>... so you have had good teachers.

First example ... torture has been redefined by the left as placing a caterpillar ina murderer's cell.<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> The public conception when they hear "TORTURE" is something akin to electrical wires to the genitals and/or bamboo shoots under the finger nails ...<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> and the leftist leadership knows this.<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> That's why they bleat "BUSH AUTHORIZED TORTURE OF DETAINEES!"<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> and not "BUSH AUTHORIZED PUTTING A CATERPILLAR IN A MURDERER'S CELL!"<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span>

Now ... back to "LIBERAL" if you will.

The far left was at one time called "MARXISTS".<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> Then Lenin gave that a bad name.<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> So they claimed Marxists were right wing and they took to calling the left "COMMUNISTS" ... but Stalin screwed that up.<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span>

Next they called the left "FASCISTS"<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> ... until that whole Hitler thingie.<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> Next up, the left labeled their movement "PROGRESSIVE" ...<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> even had a Progressive party with a former VPOTUS as a candidate<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> ... until they were found to be a front for the Communist Party USA<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> and he an agent of Joe Stalin.<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span>

Then they stole the word "LIBERAL" for awhile ... </div></div>


<span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span></span>


Oh never mind, I believe you........HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif


Make a claim.......

Q

LWW
09-05-2011, 06:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The far left was at one time called "MARXISTS".<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> </div></div>

OKELY DOKELY! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since Marx's death in 1883, various groups around the world have appealed to Marxism as the theoretical basis for their politics and policies, which have often proved to be dramatically different and conflicting[citation needed]. One of the first major political splits occurred between the advocates of 'reformism', who argued that the transition to socialism could occur within existing bourgeois parliamentarian frameworks, and communists, who argued that the transition to a socialist society required a revolution and the dissolution of the capitalist state. The 'reformist' tendency, later known as social democracy </div></div>

LWW
09-05-2011, 06:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then Lenin gave that a bad name.<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> So they claimed Marxists were right wing and they took to calling the left "COMMUNISTS" ... but Stalin screwed that up.<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span>

Q </div></div>

Not needed as you yourself have argued that Lenin/Stalin gave Marxism a bad name ... an opinion with which I agree.

LWW
09-05-2011, 06:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Next they called the left "FASCISTS"<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> ... until that whole Hitler thingie.<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> </div></div>[/quote]

Again ... not needed as the last time you argued this it was shown to you that Benito was booted from the Italian Socialist party because he was too moonbat crazy left for even their tastes ... and it has also been shown that the 1920's/30's Nazi Party platform was essentially identical to the 1972-2008 Democratic Party platform.

If you ignored the history lesson then, I have no reason to believe that you would pay attention now.

LWW
09-05-2011, 06:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Next up, the left labeled their movement "PROGRESSIVE" ...<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> even had a Progressive party with a former VPOTUS as a candidate<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> ... until they were found to be a front for the Communist Party USA<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> and he an agent of Joe Stalin.<span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span> </div></div>

Again, all posted and documented in the past on this very forum. If you seek verification I suggest you use the search function.

FWIW ... we both know that you won't.

Qtec
09-05-2011, 06:56 AM
...and this accurately describes the present day, 2011 Dem Party?

Yeah right.

Q

LWW
09-05-2011, 07:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Hitler/Goering/Lenin/Stalin/Alinsky and many more all taught that if you repeat a lie loud enough and long enough, the general public will eventually believe it <span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span>... so you have had good teachers.</div></div>

To throw you a bone which you will no doubt use to claim ultimate victory over the truth, I will confess that my mind thought Goebbels and my fingers typed Goering.

Nonetheless, as shown at the end, their philosophies were identical and they both were ... much like yourself ... among those in history who loved the lie.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."
Adolf Hitler </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
Adolf Hitler</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
Vladimir Lenin </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Print is the sharpest and the strongest weapon of our party."
Joseph Stalin </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue."
Saul Alinsky</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments."
Saul Alinsky</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"All effective actions require the passport of morality."
Saul Alinsky</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Saul Alinsky</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“Education is dangerous - Every educated person is a future enemy”
Hermann Goering </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels </div></div>
Adolf (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/lie_6.html) Hitler (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/lie_8.html)

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/v/vladimir_lenin.html)

Uncle Joe (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/joseph_stalin.html)

Saul Alinsky (http://rightwingnews.com/quotes/the-best-quotes-from-saul-alinskys-rules-for-radicals/)

Hermann Goering (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/hermann_goering/)

Joseph Goebbels (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/Joseph_Goebbels/)

This is where you swear that just because I proved it doesn't mean that I proved anything.

LWW
09-05-2011, 07:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...and this accurately describes the present day, 2011 Dem Party?

Yeah right.

Q </div></div>

Glad that you finally have came around.

LWW
09-05-2011, 07:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style="color: #990000">[link?] </span></span>


Oh never mind, I believe you........HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif


Make a claim.......

Q </div></div>

And finally, I have no issue with linking to data which support my claims.

What I object to is when idiots demand the same thing to be re-linked to ad infinitum simply so they can claim to have never seen it. IOW ... if you choose to remain willfully ignorant, that is your dilemma and not mine.

I repeatedly quote your demands for links, when you yourself won't do so, simply to demonstrate what a hypocrite you truly are ... demanding that others live up to a standard that you yourself will not.

Soflasnapper
09-05-2011, 12:00 PM
You should have paid attention to this phrase, which you left in normal text when you made the font larger afterwards:

From the 17th century until the 19th century,

I know that you have accurately described the usage of 200 years ago. That's what I said.

However, as the usage has been changed, and not recently, but in the second century before our own, these usages have gone by the wayside, along with the concept of phlogiston, and many other archaic usages.

You might as well insist that the Democrats are really Republicans, and vice versa, because they used to be self-called the Democratic-Republican Party. This is a false claim about today based on a true but long-ago changed fact in history.

Next you'll insist that music is only correctly in tune with the older standard of A=440 Hz vs. A=432 Hz or 444 Hz. That wouldn't make you right, but instead, an apparent acolyte of Lyndon Larouche and other originalist musicologists.

LWW
09-05-2011, 12:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You should have paid attention to this phrase, which you left in normal text when you made the font larger afterwards:

From the 17th century until the 19th century,</div></div>

Actually ... you should have.

As I so clearly stated, and you so clearly disagreed with, statists have changing what they wish to be called for centuries.

Now, as you are so often wont to do, your argument is that I'm clearly wrong because I'm clearly correct.

And you wonder why I believe that you also are a practitioner of doublethink.

LWW
09-06-2011, 03:00 AM
Thanks for making my point.

Again.