This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

43% of Trump supporters want Trump to be able to shut down the media

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Fascism is gradual.  The second you relax, the maggots and intellectually challenged march to the drum of racial purity, xenophobic fears, and police state tactics which include overwhelming support for a militarized society.  Good people have to get off the couch and vote.  There is no more room for disengagement when dealing with fascist.  I thank God every day I live in a nation with a free press, and all the Trumps and Rand Pauls with their white power agenda and their personal preference for Russia and their white supremacy as they hope the two can have a mind meld.  What weak men.

All told, 43 percent of self-identified Republicans said that they believed “the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-poll-43percent-of-republicans-want-to-give-trump-the-power-to-shut-down-media/ar-BBLCyD3?li=BBnb7Kz

View user profile
You believe every poll you read to be the absolute truth, 'Oatie'?

....  These are findings from an Ipsos poll conducted August 3-6, 2018. For the survey, a sample of roughly 1,003 adults age 18+ from the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii was interviewed online in English. The sample includes 323 Democrats, 363 Republicans, and 207 Independents.

The sample for this study was randomly drawn from Ipsos’s online panel (see link below for more info on “Access Panels and Recruitment”), partner online panel sources, and “river” sampling (see link below for more info on the Ipsos “Ampario Overview” sample method) and does not rely on a population frame in the traditional sense ....  
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/americans-views-media-2018-08-07



(Besides ... Ipsos is a French polling organization.  And we all know the Froggies area a bunch of lying biased socialists!  Laughing  Laughing)

View user profile
You raised the issue that the poll was not accurate. Please describe how it was not scientific and was false. The truth is that you cannot handle the truth....the folks you honor are generally not good people, and America is in trouble when the third grade third reading group is making decisions for America.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:You raised the issue that the poll was not accurate. ....

I did not.  Not as regards that particular poll.  

I merely provided a link to the polling company's actual information about the poll and a quote from their site.
YOU decide if the poll is actually meaningful.


But you know as well as I do polls can be misconstrued and/or cherry-picked by media outlets, and can include such small sample sizes and/or methods as to render them pretty much meaningless ... except for propaganda purposes by the media outlets using the poll.

Besides .. how random people might answer an online poll is fairly meaningless too. Do you believe space aliens have visited the earth? How many people do you think might answer that question "yes." And of those people, how many of them does it actually affect how they go about their daily lives because they answered the question that way?

I don't put a lot of stock in polls myself. (I bet Hillary Clinton doesn't anymore either Laughing Laughing )



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 8/7/2018, 9:35 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
I could not imagine 20% of Republicans wanting to shut down the media.....it is unheard of as you could have a 100% error and the results are stunning as to how far fascism has advanced in America.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:I could not imagine 20% of Republicans wanting to shut down the media.....it is unheard of as you could have a 100% error and the results are stunning as to how far fascism has advanced in America.

You could probably get the same polling data on that topic in 1975, or 1910, or 1798.  Doesn't mean we're headed down the road to fascism.

Frankly, 'Oatie' ... no offense, but I think you just get a little melodramatic with all this hysteria about how "we're becoming a fascist country" lately.   Get a grip, man! We'll survive Donald Trump. And things won't change in the interim quite as much as you seem to be worried about.

View user profile
I have been told the same thing for over a decade when I argued that racism in America is alive and well. I was right. I am certain that this march to fascism and the intrusion of the fascist state of Russia into our system is not just a by golly moment in American history. It is a historic movement of treason, not much different than the civil war. Actually, the same regions and players are the catalyst for the rise of fascism in America. Sorry, you must have a zero tolerance policy toward fascism if you are going to defeat the same. I agree democracy will survive, not because people have overstated the threat of fascism, but because they have fought the same.

View user profile
All while you ignore the history of your collectivist leftist ideology.

Which party voted against the 15th amendment again? The dem record sucks.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:All while you ignore the history of your collectivist leftist ideology.

Which party voted against the 15th amendment again? The dem record sucks.

Yes nothing has changed since 1870.

View user profile
You had to be darn careful if you were a newspaper publisher in 1812 and published articles critical of the Madison administration:

Alexander Contee Hanson, Jr

....  Graduating from Saint John’s College in Annapolis in 1802, he embarked upon a career as an attorney.  An extreme partisan Federalist, he published the Federal Republican newspaper in Baltimore.  His attacks on the Madison Administration and the war against Great Britain sparked a series of riots by outraged Republicans in Baltimore in June-August 1812.

On June 22, a mob in Baltimore destroyed the offices of the paper.  On July 28, a mob attacked the building to which Hanson had relocated the paper.  Hanson and his armed allies fired from the building into the mob, killing two of the rioters.  On July 29 Hanson and his friends surrendered to the militia.  That evening the jail was stormed by the Baltimore mob, and Hanson was beaten and left for dead.  A similar fate was meted out to his friend Henry Lee III who suffered such severe injuries that he never recovered

https://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/alexander-contee-hanson-jr/


Would you all like some other historical examples of popular hostility against the press?  How about this one?  (granted ...it was during a time of civil war, but nevertheless)

Major-General John A. Drx,

Commanding at New York:

Whereas there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and published this morning in the New York World and New York Journal of Commerce, newspapers printed and published in the city of New York, a false and spurious proclamation purporting to be signed by the President and to be countersigned by the Secretary of State, which publication is of a treasonable nature, designed to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and to the rebels now at war against the Government and their aiders and abettors, you are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and all such persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication, print and publish the same with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy; and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for their offense. You will also take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce, and hold the same until further orders, and prohibit any further publication therefrom.

A. LINCOLN.


“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.” - Thomas Jefferson  (kind of sounds like Trump and his "fake news", huh?)

Woodrow Wilson asked Congress to give him censorship powers

Or take a look a the text of the Sedition Act of 1798

“I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls,”  - Barak Hussein Obama


"Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: ‘Is it news?’ All I suggest is that you add the question: ‘Is it in the interest of the national security?’ And I hope that every group in America—unions and businessmen and public officials at every level—will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to this same exacting test." - President John F Kennedy

And then of course there was Nixon Laughing

I could go on and on ... but, before ya'll go getting all hysterical over this poll of unknown quality/reliability  ..... if anyone is really interested may I suggest that google is your friend.   We have a loooong history of Presidents and other politicians (and their supporters  )being hostile to some degree or other to the press. This is nothing new.  To think there has never been any popular or political sentiment against the press in this country is just being ignorant of history.



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 8/8/2018, 2:40 pm; edited 7 times in total

View user profile
President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, D.C
July 8, 2014

Mr. President,

You recently expressed concern that frustration in the country is breeding cynicism about democratic government. You need look no further than your own administration for a major source of that frustration – politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies. We call on you to take a stand to stop the spin and let the sunshine in.

Over the past two decades, public agencies have increasingly prohibited staff from communicating with journalists unless they go through public affairs offices or through political appointees. This trend has been especially pronounced in the federal government. We consider these restrictions a form of censorship -- an attempt to control what the public is allowed to see and hear.

The stifling of free expression is happening despite your pledge on your first day in office to bring “a new era of openness” to federal government – and the subsequent executive orders and directives which were supposed to bring such openness about.

Recent research has indicated the problem is getting worse throughout the nation, particularly at the federal level. Journalists are reporting that most federal agencies prohibit their employees from communicating with the press unless the bosses have public relations staffers sitting in on the conversations. Contact is often blocked completely. When public affairs officers speak, even about routine public matters, they often do so confidentially in spite of having the title “spokesperson.” Reporters seeking interviews are expected to seek permission, often providing questions in advance. Delays can stretch for days, longer than most deadlines allow. Public affairs officers might send their own written responses of slick non-answers. Agencies hold on-background press conferences with unnamed officials, on a not-for-attribution basis.

In many cases, this is clearly being done to control what information journalists – and the audience they serve – have access to. A survey found 40 percent of public affairs officers admitted they blocked certain reporters because they did not like what they wrote.

Some argue that controlling media access is needed to ensure information going out is correct. But when journalists cannot interview agency staff, or can only do so under surveillance, it undermines public understanding of, and trust in, government. This is not a “press vs. government” issue. This is about fostering a strong democracy where people have the information they need to self-govern and trust in its governmental institutions.

It has not always been this way. In prior years, reporters walked the halls of agencies and called staff people at will. Only in the past two administrations have media access controls been tightened at most agencies. Under this administration, even non-defense agencies have asserted in writing their power to prohibit contact with journalists without surveillance. Meanwhile, agency personnel are free speak to others -- lobbyists, special-interest representatives, people with money -- without these controls and without public oversight.

Here are some recent examples:

• The New York Times ran a story last December on the soon-to-be implemented ICD-10 medical coding system, a massive change for the health care system that will affect the whole public. But the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), one of the federal agencies in charge of ICD-10, wouldn’t allow staff to talk to the reporter.

• A reporter with Investigative Post, an online news organization in New York, asked three times without success over the span of six weeks to have someone at EPA answer questions about the agency's actions regarding the city of Buffalo’s alleged mishandling of “universal waste” and hazardous waste.

• A journalist with Reuters spent more than a month trying to get EPA’s public affairs office to approve him talking with an agency scientist about the effects of climate change. The public affairs officer did not respond to him after his initial request, nor did her supervisor, until the frustrated journalist went over their heads and contacted EPA’s chief of staff.

The undersigned organizations ask that you seek an end to this restraint on communication in federal agencies. We ask that you issue a clear directive telling federal employees they’re not only free to answer questions from reporters and the public, but actually encouraged to do so. We believe that is one of the most important things you can do for the nation now, before the policies become even more entrenched.

We also ask you provide an avenue through which any incidents of this suppression of communication may be reported and corrected. Create an ombudsman to monitor and enforce your stated goal of restoring transparency to government and giving the public the unvarnished truth about its workings. That will go a long way toward dispelling Americans’ frustration and cynicism before it further poisons our democracy.

Further examples on the issue are provided as well as other resources.

Sincerely,

David Cuillier
President
Society of Professional Journalists

....

(and numerous other signatories - I left the other 30 or more off)
https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1253

View user profile
polecat wrote:

Yes nothing has changed since 1870.  

You know what they say ... "the more things change, the more they stay the same"  (or something like that)

The only point I'm making is the whole premise of this thread is just so much liberal snowflake hysteria.   But snowflake Cons do the same thing too, I know. Just flip sides of the same coin.

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:
But you know as well as I do polls can be misconstrued and/or cherry-picked by media outlets, and can include such small sample sizes and/or methods as to render them pretty much meaningless ... except for propaganda purposes by the media outlets using the poll.

Besides .. how random people might answer an online poll is fairly meaningless too.   Do you believe space aliens have visited the earth?  How many people do you think might answer that question "yes."  And of those people, how many of them does it actually affect how they go about their daily lives because they answered the question that way?

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Ipsos is a well-known and reliable company and it's Canadian, not French. It's a market research and consulting company. The polls are not done on the internet, there done by telephone interviewers who have to go through extensive training and the results are analyzed using complex statistical methods. Businesses rely on these kinds of polls to make multi-billion dollar deals.

The whole point of serious polling is to extract meaningful data from small samples.

You should do a little research before you shoot off your mouth.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:
But you know as well as I do polls can be misconstrued and/or cherry-picked by media outlets, and can include such small sample sizes and/or methods as to render them pretty much meaningless ... except for propaganda purposes by the media outlets using the poll.

Besides .. how random people might answer an online poll is fairly meaningless too.   Do you believe space aliens have visited the earth?  How many people do you think might answer that question "yes."  And of those people, how many of them does it actually affect how they go about their daily lives because they answered the question that way?

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Ipsos is a well-known and reliable company and it's Canadian, not French. It's a market research and consulting company. The polls are not done on the internet, there done by telephone interviewers who have to go through extensive training and the results are analyzed using complex statistical methods. Businesses rely on these kinds of polls to make multi-billion dollar deals.

The whole point of serious polling is to extract meaningful data from small samples.

You should do a little research before you shoot off your mouth.

I never said this particular poll was or wasn't reliable.  There's really no way to know unless one is an expert in such things and drills down into the specific means, methods, interviewers, training, who devised the questions and how,etc etc and a lot of other information about it that probably isn't easily publicly accessible.

How many people did it consist of ?  A thousand?  Out of how many million Amercans?  From what parts of the country?  How did they verify their party affiliations?  How did they control for race, age, education, religion, income and geographical distribution (urban vs rural vs suburban vs small town/city), What were the specific questions?   Were there questions that could lead the interviewees into answering subsequent questions a certain way?  How do they ensure there are not shills in the poll?   And what kind of people (on the right or left) tend to participate in polls?  And does that fact alone make them kind of non-representative of most people?  

I'm no expert on this stuff myself ... but I do know there's a whole lot more to it than meets the eye.  

I do believe most of these kind opinion/attitude polls are pretty meaningless though.  But you go ahead and get all hysterical about it if you want.   Snowflake  Laughing

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:

How many people did it consist of ?  A thousand?  Out of how many million Amercans?  From what parts of the country?  How did they verify their party affiliations?  How did they control for race, age, education, religion, income and geographical distribution (urban vs rural vs suburban vs small town/city), What were the specific questions?   Were there questions that could lead the interviewees into answering subsequent questions a certain way?  How do they ensure there are not shills in the poll?   And what kind of people (on the right or left) tend to participate in polls?  And does that fact alone make them kind of non-representative of most people?  


Instead of asking a bunch of stupid questions, why don't you do a little research, Sparky? You're sitting at a computer hooked up to all the knowledge in the world but you're too lazy or stupid to educate yourself.

You admit you don't know something but you don't bother looking for the answer, you just shoot your mouth off. Typical conservative dumb-ass.

View user profile

View user profile
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt

After 1945, the term "fascist" conjured up images of Nazi death camps, but in the 1930s it had a very different connotation, meaning the centralization of political power as in Benito Mussolini's Italy and of a "third way" between communism and capitalism. While most American businessmen thought Roosevelt was hostile to them, critics on the left said he was too friendly. Comparisons of American domestic programs to fascist economics are not necessarily pejorative as one of the motives behind the Interstate Highway System was that President Eisenhower was impressed by Adolf Hitler's autobahn system.[23] Early in Roosevelt's first term, supporters and critics alike found similarities between the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and Italian corporatism. In 1935 and 1936, after Italy invaded Ethiopia and the Supreme Court struck down the NRA, contemporaries stopped comparing the NRA to Italian corporatism. Interest in the subject returned in 1973, when two prominent historians[who?] wrote articles on resemblances between the New Deal and fascist economics. According to James Q. Whitman, by the late 1980s it was "almost routine" for New Deal historians to identify similarities between the New Deal and fascist economic programs.[24] Similarities are in anti-depression policies as in totality the New Deal and fascism were very different.[25]

Critics on the left Edit
The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) first charged Roosevelt with being fascist less than two months after he took office. On May Day, 1933, the CPUSA ran a series of newspaper advertisements denouncing "the whole Roosevelt program of preparation for fascism and war" and calling Roosevelt a "fascist dictator". The ads' examples of alleged fascist activities included "forced labor for the unemployed" and harsh tactics against striking farm workers in California. Scholar Paul Kengor wrote that the charges were ridiculous.[26] Richard Hofstadter noted that critics from the left believed "that the NRA was a clear imitation of Mussolini's corporate state".[27]

Left-liberal publications such as The Nation and The New Republic worried that the Civilian Conservation Corps' (CCC) integration with the military could start a transformation to a fascistic society. While the CCC was operated by the military and had some militaristic aspects, the Roosevelt administration allayed these fears by emphasizing the CCC's civilian character. Unlike its German counterpart, the CCC was never a compulsory service.[28]

Critics on the right Edit
Main article: Old Right (United States)
Conservatives have made the most significant[dubious – discuss] criticisms of Roosevelt and have been keeping up with these criticisms for decades. They warned of "regimentation". They made cautionary comparisons of Roosevelt's economic programs to communism and fascism, to which Roosevelt responded in a June 1934 Fireside Chat by saying that the critics were motivated by self-interest and that everything he did was within the United States' political tradition.[29] Without providing details, Roosevelt privately told his Secretary of Interior Harold L. Ickes on October 4, 1933 that the New Deal was doing some things that were being done in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Roosevelt was a pragmatist who had studied under William James at Harvard College. As a pragmatist, Roosevelt was willing to consider various sources of ideas for social experiments.[30]

The most prominent of Roosevelt's critics in regards to fascism was Herbert Hoover, who saw a connection between the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) and the "Swope Plan", named after Gerard Swope. Hoover was an ardent supporter of trade associations, but saw the Swope Plan as fascistic because of its compulsory nature.[25] Historian George H. Nash argues:

Unlike the "moderate," internationalist, largely eastern bloc of Republicans who accepted (or at least acquiesced in) some of the "Roosevelt Revolution" and the essential premises of President Truman's foreign policy, the Republican Right at heart was counterrevolutionary. Anti-collectivist, anti-Communist, anti-New Deal, passionately committed to limited government, free market economics, and congressional (as opposed to executive) prerogatives, the G.O.P. conservatives were obliged from the start to wage a constant two-front war: against liberal Democrats from without and "me-too" Republicans from within.[31]
The Old Right emerged in opposition to the New Deal of President Roosevelt and Hoff says that "moderate Republicans and leftover Republican Progressives like Hoover composed the bulk of the Old Right by 1940, with a sprinkling of former members of the Farmer-Labor party, Non-Partisan League, and even a few midwestern prairie Socialists".[32]

Historians compare New Deal with Europe Edit
The Swope Plan was the starting point for drafting the NIRA and it was in no way copied from Europe. Many prominent businessmen had participated in writing it. However, Hoover denounced the Swope plan as monopolistic and refused to support any proposal made by the Chamber of Commerce, though it was widely praised by American businessmen and academics.[33][34] The Swope Plan was corporatist, but far less extensive than fascist corporatism. Historian John A. Garraty said that the NIRA was "similar to experiments being carried out by the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini in Italy and by the Nazis in Hitler's Germany. It did not, of course, turn America into a fascist state, but it did herald an increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of interest groups, both industrialists' organizations and labor unions". Garraty said that another influence was the concept of the corporate state, where capitalists and workers, supervised by the government, worked out problems to avoid wasteful competition and dangerous social clashes.[35] Historian Ellis Hawley reviewed the legislative history of the NIRA. A key member of the Brains Trust, Raymond Moley, led efforts to review industrial recovery plans. Another significant influence was Hugh S. Johnson, who drew on his experience with the war industries board.[36] Popular historian Amity Shlaes stated:

The NRA was the consummation of a thousand articles and a thousand trends. It was the ideas of Moley, the trade unions, Stuart Chase, Tugwell, Stalin, Insull, Teddy Roosevelt, Henry Ford, and Mussolini's Italian model all rolled into one.[37]

According to comparative law scholar James Whitman, it was not the NIRA statute that fueled suspicions of fascism—it was the leaders of the National Recovery Administration as the head of the NRA, Hugh Johnson, openly admired Mussolini. Both Johnson and his assistant, Donald Richberg, made disturbing statements indicating that they were hostile to parliamentary government. Richberg denied being a fascist, but described Roosevelt several times as a "Man of Action". Whitman said that there were "striking" differences between the ideology of Johnson and Richberg and fascist propaganda.[24]

Garraty suggested that there were some "striking" similarities between Roosevelt's programs and German anti-depression policies, but concluded that the New Deal did not have much in common with fascism in total because of the vast political differences between the two systems. Roosevelt expanded political participation for the less fortunate and Garraty stated that the main reason for the similarities was that both nations were dealing with problems that were unique in the industrial world.[38] Garraty stated that the New Deal lacked any consistent ideological base. While the Brains Trust got a lot of attention, theorists never had much impact on Roosevelt who drew on populism, with its hostility to bankers and its willingness to inflate the currency; Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism in its dislike of competition and deemphasis on antitrust laws; and the ideas of social workers from the Progressive Era. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis influenced Roosevelt on financial reforms. The War Labor Board from World War I influenced Roosevelt's labor policy.[39]

Other scholars had varying views on the relationship between the New Deal and fascist economics:

New Deal historian William Leuchtenburg said in 1968 that "Mussolini's corporate state did not find [an] American following". Leuchtenburg said that if the New Deal had any foreign counterparts, it was in Scandinavia (see the Nordic model).[40] According to Leuchtenburg, Roosevelt was overall a net exporter of ideas and Arthur Schlesinger had similar findings.
John P. Diggins found only superficial similarities between the New Deal and Italian fascism. However, Diggins produced some quotations indicating that Roosevelt was interested in fascist economic programs and admired Mussolini.[41]
Kiran Klaus Patel stated: "On the whole, there was a special closeness between the German Labor Service and the CCC, just as there was a whole series of similar measures in social, cultural, and economic policies in Nazi Germany and under the New Deal". Patel stated that the two nations' politics were obviously different, with the United States adopting reform while Germany adopted fascism. The main reasons for the economic similarities according to Patel was the growth in state interventionism along with the fact that Germany and the United States faced similar problems, particularly the need to reduce mass unemployment. "In attempt to achieve that goal, both nations subsequently employed what were often strikingly similar instruments of economic and social policy; on this level, the crisis led to a limited degree of convergence.[42]
Ludwig von Mises wrote that the New Deal was a "replica" of Otto von Bismarck's social policies.[43] Milton Friedman also said that Bismarck's Germany influenced the New Deal. Friedman said that both Wilhelmine Germany's aristocratic and autocratic government and left-wing governments had a paternalistic philosophy. According to Friedman, other sources included Fabian England, Sweden and American universities, particularly Columbia. Britain's Old Age Insurance Act (1908) and National Insurance Act (1911) were precursors for America's social security laws.[44]
James Q. Whitman said that in its day-to-day operations the NRA only had limited resemblance to fascist corporatism. American corporatism was of an indigenous nature that traced back to nineteenth century German theorists of corporatism. It was also built on the United States' World War I experience, which used corporatism to manage the economy. European corporatism was an ideology of political economy, built on conflicts between labor and capital. It appealed to "thuggish anti-parliamentarians who were the fascists". The United States' corporatism was only an economic ideology as Americans viewed Congress as a "place full of incompetents, not rogues". Whitman said that there were two main differences between the NRA's corporatism and European fascism. One was that in the United States class warfare never reached the level of intensity that it did in Europe. The other reason was that unlike Italy and Germany, the United States had a long tradition of representative government.[45]
Shlaes wrote that Roosevelt's policies were often inspired by socialist or fascist models abroad. She acknowledges that Hoover and Roosevelt may not have had better alternative as their policies may have spared America some facsimile of Mussolini's fascism or Joseph Stalin's Communism. Shales states: "The argument that democracy would have failed in the United States without the New Deal stood for seven decades, and has been made anew, by scholars of considerable quality, quite recently".[46]
Friedrich Hayek Edit
In 1944, Friedrich Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom. Hayek focused mostly on Britain, but he also mentioned the New Deal and argued that Britain and the United States had started to abandon their basic commitment to personal liberty through increasingly statist economic programs. Historian Alan Brinkley said that Hayek's work was influential because it expressed concerns that already existed. The biggest challenge to the New Deal was the fear that the expanding federal bureaucracy limited personal economic freedom and autonomy. According to Brinkley, liberals accused Hayek of attacking a straw man, but their criticism had a strongly defensive tone. Alvin Hansen wrote a scathing review, but said that The Road to Serfdom is "'good medicine but a bad diet'". Stuart Chase acknowledged that Hayek provided "a useful warning [...] which every planner should paste under the glass top of his desk". Reinhold Niebuhr noted that totalitarianism's rise prompted the democracies to be apprehensive about collectivist solutions, stating that "a wise community will walk warily and test the effect of each new adventure before further adventures".[47]

View user profile
The CCC was modeled after Nazi Germany......patently false, and even if it was true, it does nothing to advance the fallow argument that New Deal programs were fascist. Sorry......political concepts are really quite simple. The fascist trying to turn progressives into fascist is a hoot. George Orwell had it nailed.

View user profile


What other president has attacked the media (except for his toadies) to this extent? He's terrified of honest reporting.

View user profile
Media outlets subject to FCC regulation should be sanctioned when they publish un-truths .... particularly when those un-truths are about our leaders and government policies.  Reporters who do the same should be barred from government press conferences.  

That's not censorship ... that's requiring responsible and truthful reporting!

View user profile
ConservaLady wrote:Media outlets subject to FCC regulation should be sanctioned when they publish un-truths about our leaders.  Reporters who do the same should be barred from government press conferences.  

That's not censorship ... that's requiring responsible and truthful reporting.

There goes FOX!  

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
ConservaLady wrote:Media outlets subject to FCC regulation should be sanctioned when they publish un-truths about our leaders.  Reporters who do the same should be barred from government press conferences.  

That's not censorship ... that's requiring responsible and truthful reporting.

There goes FOX!  

Hardly. But MSNBC and CNN ... oh yeah, they should receive plenty of sanction for the clearly malicious untruths they've been spreading around since President Trump came into office.

View user profile
ConservaLady wrote:Media outlets subject to FCC regulation should be sanctioned when they publish un-truths .... particularly when those un-truths are about our leaders and government policies.  Reporters who do the same should be barred from government press conferences.  

That's not censorship ... that's requiring responsible and truthful reporting!

And I suppose we're gonna leave it to some deluded cult-minded piece-of-shit like you to determine what's "truth," when all you've ever done is prove you don't even have a nodding acquaintance with it.

Laughing

View user profile
This has become so stupid that I think we have a sock pretending to be a stupid person.......trumpies are pretty challenged when entering a discussion, but this is smelling like sock.

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum