User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2012/June

Cotton Rogers

I'm must disagree with the charge that I'm edit warring I only reverted your edit since you claimed my source did not say Cleveland was not a conservative it clearly states in the second paragraph Cleveland took a conservative course as president therby making your claim false and I have been using the talkpage probably too much so how is it edit warringCotton Rogers (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have replied to you about edit-warring on your talk page. I will discuss content disputes on the article talk page. In the meantime, you should familiarize yourself with liberalism and conservatism. Policies which today seem conservative once were considered radical. That is part of what conservatism means - a return to earlier values. TFD (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have sourced my information which you unrightly deleted my putting it back up is not edit warring also you need to look up Paleoconservatism that is Jefferson in a nutshellCotton Rogers (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The article says that paleoconservatism developed in the 1930s in opposition to Franklin Roosevelt and stesses "tradition, limited government, civil society, anti-colonialism, anti-corporatism and anti-federalism, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity." Paul Gottfried, who coined the term, does not consider himself a paleo. Russell Kirk, the leading paleo writer, said in The Conservative Mind that Jefferson's election was a defeat for conservatism. What relevance does this article have? TFD (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I searched the whole article but could not find that quote from Kirk I might have missed it which section is it in? That aside I was refering to the line in the Conservative Heritage Section that said when many view the start of paleoconservatism "They often look back even further, to Edmund Burke, as well as the anti-federalist movement that stretched from the days of Thomas Jefferson to John C. Calhoun." which shows many thought Jefferson was the start of the paleoconservatism movement also his strict-constructionist views of the constitution, his oppposition to the a national bank, his anti-coporatism, his small goverment views, along with his supporting the gold standard and finally Jefferson's non-interventionist stands and reducing the size of the military all mirror paleoconservative views which clearly shows he had a mostly paleoconservative outlook when it came to governingCotton Rogers (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Also thought about the warning you gave me about edit warring since we are having the differance of opinion I don't believe you can objectivelly give me a seroius warning stating that I'm edit warring I want my habeaus corpus rights I think you need a completely unobjective third party to fairly give such a warning it seems to me the right thing to do whether your initial warning was justified or not Cotton Rogers (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

See Kirk, pp. 72-73: "These Federalists, the first conservative faction in an independent America, found themselves menaced by two radicalisms: one of French origins, the same enormous social and intellectual convulsion that Burke confronted; the other a growth in part native and in part English, the levelling agrarian republicanism of which Jefferson was the chief representative, zealous to abolish entail, primogeniture, church establishments, and all the vestiges of aristocracy, and to oppose centralization, strong government, public debt and the military.... if a true American Revolution can be said to have occurred, it came with the successes of Jefferson and the Republicans in 1800...."[1] TFD (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Repeat of what was said on Talk:Nazism that a user said I should post here

I honestly did not remember using Kuehnelt-Leddihn, it is an unusual name and I didn't remember it because it was unusual. You have said this: "The fact that he forgot that he was the one who made those complaints says something about his memory." That is a personal attack - you have no legitimacy in declaring your assumption about my personal nature (the state of my memory) to everyone here on the talk page - that is inappropriate and it was clearly intended as a condescending personal attack. Are you going to rescind the implicit comparison of my argument here to the material that you mentioned by Holocaust denier David Irving? I do not support David Irving's views, if you do not rescind that comparison, that is poisoning the well and misrepresenting my argument - violating Wikipedia talk page guidelines, and I will report if you do not rescind that comparison. Secondly I have the right now to report you for personal attacks now that you have insulted me by saying I have poor memory - I suggest you rescind that immediately - it is personal and not about the material being discussed at all, I am within grounds to report that as a personal attack.--R-41 (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

R-41, what TFD in reality said about the source, which, as he believes, had been used used by you, was: " He even quotes David Irving's discredited estimates of the number of deaths at Dresden, which originated from Nazi propaganda (p. 104). This historiography has received no notice in mainstream academic writing and does not belong in this article. " From one side, this argument is weak: the author quoting some Holocaust denier is not necessarily fringe. However, from the another hand, cautious and accurate TFD's language leaves no doubts that he neither drew nor implied any connection between you and the Holocaust denial.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. And my point is that Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn scholarship is so poor he is willing to use highly inflated figures from a pseudo-historian. Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn btw was the subject of a discussion by R-41 and myself.[2] The user who "forgot that he was the one who made those complaints" is not R-41, but about the user who "informed" R-41 about the complaints. TFD (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)