Talk:American Liberty League

message: In its opinion, the Roosevelt Administration was leading the U.S. toward fascism... and yet the ALL was allegedly a backer of the Business Plot which sought to install Fascist leadership in Washington?
:Dictatorship doesn't necessarily mean "Fascism" in the strictest sense of the term.
:Roosevelt's New Deal was characterized as Fascist in how it worked to control many aspects of the economy.  Some of it was ruled unconstitutional for good reason.
:-- Randy2063 23:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Huey Long put it, "When fascism comes to America, it will be called anti-fascism." The American Liberty League is proof of that. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you see the datestamps on this section? Collect (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-fascist? or Fascist? 

message: About 18 months - 2 years ago, BBC "Document" programme when into this in some detail, reading out some remaining documents.  It was pretty clear from the programme, that there was a coup attempt planned, but that many of the original documents have become unavailable. This article definitely seems to downplay the case or seriousness.  The BBC mentioned Prescott Bush, head of the Holland Amerika line and his German fascist linksEngineman (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: BBC

message: This entire page is almost word for word taken from: 
:^ The Republic: Conversations on Fundamentals By Charles A. Beard, Clyde W. (INT) Barrow (2008) , 9781412808033, p. xxiii 
This is a copyright violation.Capitalismojo (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look for yourself; GOOGLE BOOKS   It is uncanny. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Other way around -- the page predates the introduction to the book, and the author of the cited introduction appears to have plagiarized the Wikipedia article (which now cites to plagiarism to support the erroneous information an anon editor added to the article).  I've written the professor multiple times asking for an explanation, and he has failed to respond. THF (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha.  That is classic. We really do live in a new world.Capitalismojo (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Not the first place this has happened, by the way. Some authors are truly lazy. Collect (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  COPY VIO  

message: This is an impressive number - some detail about who they were would be fascinating if citable.  +sj+ 19:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually not that impressive; there were three other organizations pushing Roosevelt to the left that had more members.  The League was sufficiently unpopular that Alf Landon asked them not to endorse him. THF (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Try 125,000 per .  NYT behind a paywall says it claimed 150,000 at its peak.   Several sources state that it was responsible for FDR gaining seats in Congress as he could run against it (and it reduced his opposition from the left of his own party). Collect (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  100,000 members 

message: Please do not cite to John Buchanan (American politician).  There are plenty of legitimate historical reference works that we don't need to go to conspiracy theorists.  Thanks.  THF (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Buchanan 

message: Some segments of the current article promote the idea that the ALL was composed of more Democrats than Republicans.  No evidence is offered of this.  Notable participants were primarily Republican  This assertion that the group planning to overthrow Roosevelt--who is known to have been a Democrat--was composed primarily of Democrats is inaccurate.  Moreover, since the political party affiliation of those involved is both unsubstantiated and unnecessary to the historical record in Wikipedia, this unsubstantiated assertion seems to be an intentional effort to bias this piece.  There seem to have been numerous similar assaults on Wiki with the general intent of confusing readers as to the differences in history between fascist, communist, socialist and democratic political systems.
I recommend complete excision of any reference to our current political parties unless and until substantive information is provided.
RichardBogue (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea that the ALL was more democrats than republicans is both inaccurate and unnecessary revealing attempt to bias this piece.