# The World FDR Inherited Thread



## Dante (Dec 18, 2014)

and he helped to fix. America, because of FDR became the greatest nation of the 20th century


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 18, 2014)

Dante said:


> and he helped to fix. America, because of FDR became the greatest nation of the 20th century


I am going to  assume that you are being sarcastic here cause I KNOW you arent serious.


----------



## Dante (Dec 18, 2014)

please 9/11 inside job 

please try some sanity?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2014)

Dante said:


> and he helped to fix. America, because of FDR became the greatest nation of the 20th century



exactly, to  a liberal 10 years of depression and 5 years of world war makes FDR the greatest hero!

see why we must be positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


----------



## Dante (Dec 18, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > and he helped to fix. America, because of FDR became the greatest nation of the 20th century
> ...




Yeah, FDR started WWII and the great depression. okie dokie


----------



## regent (Dec 18, 2014)

Well historians have been rating the presidents since 1948 and FDR has never been rated lower than third best president. In the last rating FDR was rated greatest American president. In that rating by 238 of America's best historians including presidential experts former presidents were rated on 20 presidential characteristics.
Those FDR ratings must kill Republicans but take heed, a liberal Republican was rated second best, Lincoln. Unfortunately, Bush was rated fifth worst.


----------



## whitehall (Dec 18, 2014)

FDR took a downturn in the economy and turned it into a soup line, bodies in ditches full scale depression in eight years. It took the carnage of a World War to turn the economy around.


----------



## regent (Dec 18, 2014)

whitehall said:


> FDR took a downturn in the economy and turned it into a soup line, bodies in ditches full scale depression in eight years. It took the carnage of a World War to turn the economy around.


Poor old Hoover, for three years could not figure out what was going on. Finally, he decided if you loan money to business they will start selling their products again to people, people with no money to buy. Maybe that's why historians have rated Hoover 36th.  worst president, one step ahead of Bush.
I think we're getting close to "historians are communists."


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 18, 2014)

FDR extended the Depression years longer than it needed to last. I find it amusing how the left excoriates Hoover, yet canonizes FDR when he simply took Hoover's failed policies and extrapolated them to the extreme.


----------



## regent (Dec 18, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> FDR extended the Depression years longer than it needed to last. I find it amusing how the left excoriates Hoover, yet canonizes FDR when he simply took Hoover's failed policies and extrapolated them to the extreme.


FDR, didn't follow Hoover's RFC, and rather than give me people money ala charity it was better they work, and better they work at fixing up America. So just agency WPA built 650,000 miles of new roads, 124,000 bridges, 18,000 parks and playgrounds, 125,000 public buildings including 41000 new schools and on and on. The banks, military, and most of America was involved in FDR's approach to the Great Depression, and maybe that's one reason for the historian's ratings and WWII was still coming.


----------



## whitehall (Dec 18, 2014)

regent said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > FDR took a downturn in the economy and turned it into a soup line, bodies in ditches full scale depression in eight years. It took the carnage of a World War to turn the economy around.
> ...


You almost gotta laugh about how democrats blame previous republican administrations even back to the early 20th century. Hoover only served a single term. The U.S. was in desperate trouble after FDR's 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and when his corpse was run by dishonest democrats for a 4th term he would not live through.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 18, 2014)

Dante said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



yep sure did,


Dante said:


> please 9/11 inside job
> 
> please try some sanity?


oh my god,i thought you were just joking,i didnt really think you were actually serious. you must be a democrat err i mean demopublican,by that last word that means in case you are in the dark on this,that both parties are corrupt and its REALLY a ONE PARTY SYSTEM disguised as a two party system so the sheople think they have a choice in who gets elected.

anyways you got to be a demo,the fact that you are objective about the truth on reagan that so many american sheople have been brainwashed about yet are as ignorant as they are about the corruption of FDR.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 18, 2014)

whitehall said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


oh my god i cant belief whitehall is speaking the truth for a change,happens once in a  great blue moon with him. FDR was right on Hoover starting it all but just like Obama has continued everything Bush got started and expanded it,same thing with FDR in Hoover.history repeats itself again.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 18, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> FDR extended the Depression years longer than it needed to last. I find it amusing how the left excoriates Hoover, yet canonizes FDR when he simply took Hoover's failed policies and extrapolated them to the extreme.




just as i said before,same as how Obomination has expanded what Bushwacker got started.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> its REALLY a ONE PARTY SYSTEM



actually they are exact opposites
Republicans sign the pledge to shrink govt and Democrats do the opposite. Welcome to your ABC's


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2014)

whitehall said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



When FDR died the economy finally recovered.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > FDR extended the Depression years longer than it needed to last. I find it amusing how the left excoriates Hoover, yet canonizes FDR when he simply took Hoover's failed policies and extrapolated them to the extreme.
> ...



except Bush was not a conservative


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 18, 2014)

Dante said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



damn all you have done on your research of FDR is what our corrupt school system has taught you.they never mention that to get the support of the american people to join churchill in his war against the germans that he purposely  allowed japan to bomb pearl harbour.day of decite written by a naval commande documents it all.a navy commander who objected to his lining of the fleet like he did got fired by FDR for doing so.He talks about how many navelmen felt betrayed by FDR's traiterous actions.

He didnt START the great depression,he just expanded what Hoover got started,you are correct there that he didnt start the depression.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 18, 2014)

regent said:


> Well historians have been rating the presidents since 1948 and FDR has never been rated lower than third best president. In the last rating FDR was rated greatest American president. In that rating by 238 of America's best historians including presidential experts former presidents were rated on 20 presidential characteristics.
> Those FDR ratings must kill Republicans but take heed, a liberal Republican was rated second best, Lincoln. Unfortunately, Bush was rated fifth worst.


Dude thats because historians are on our corrupt governments payrolls. so of course they are going to rate the most corrupt ones at the top.
thats why reagan is always right up there. they are tools for the government.lol.

You got to take in what these UNITED STATES historians say with a grain of salt. Now if it were some overseas historians from another country,I would take them more seriously.thats what everybody here should.lol.


----------



## Dante (Dec 18, 2014)

whitehall said:


> FDR took a downturn in the economy and turned it into a soup line, bodies in ditches full scale depression in eight years. It took the carnage of a World War to turn the economy around.




here we go with the bs


----------



## Camp (Dec 18, 2014)

regent said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > FDR extended the Depression years longer than it needed to last. I find it amusing how the left excoriates Hoover, yet canonizes FDR when he simply took Hoover's failed policies and extrapolated them to the extreme.
> ...


The folks who claim FDR prolonged the depression do so by counting all the workers at the various government agencies that built all those buildings and roads and bridges as "unemployed" because they were collecting government checks.Actual unemployment, people who couldn't find work, dropped to below 10%. The people collecting checks for working to build American infrastructure did not consider themselves to be unemployed.


----------



## Dante (Dec 18, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> FDR extended the Depression years longer than it needed to last. I find it amusing how the left excoriates Hoover, yet canonizes FDR when he simply took Hoover's failed policies and extrapolated them to the extreme.



that's one theory by those looking back


----------



## whitehall (Dec 18, 2014)

Dante said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > FDR took a downturn in the economy and turned it into a soup line, bodies in ditches full scale depression in eight years. It took the carnage of a World War to turn the economy around.
> ...


Hoover served one term. FDR ...duh


----------



## regent (Dec 18, 2014)

The depression began one year after Hoover took office and Hoover spent the next three years telling America how prosperity was just around the corner and chickens were jumping into pots. By the time FDR was elected we had been mired in the depression for three years. Hoover was helpless and his response to loan money to business was ridiculous. Business needed buyers of its products not loans. 
People went to banks to draw out their money to hide under the mattress, and many were too late, the banks that had used depositors money on the stock market were already closed and people lost it all. FDR closed the banks and the ones that were stable reopened and when FDR said it's ok to deposit, people brought the money back and deposited. That was just the opening of FDR's war on the depression.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 18, 2014)

Historians are either Communists or Communist supporters


----------



## Dante (Dec 18, 2014)

whitehall  the dope





whitehall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...




America loved what he did for them -- exactly


----------



## Dante (Dec 18, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Historians are either Communists or Communist supporters



Way to go Frank!


----------



## regent (Dec 19, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


Yep, Hoover served one term and the people refused to vote for Hoover again. But the people did vote for FDR, and then voted for FDR again, and then voted for FDR again and then voted for FDR again. Finally Republicans had to engineer an amendment to keep people from voting for Democrats more than twice. 
In the end, historians rated FDR the greatest and the people did the same. Gotta hurt, and I can understand the Republican war on FDR, and their pitiful  cries of FDR being a communist and not eating his veggies.


----------



## Dante (Dec 19, 2014)

Good read:
* Did you hear FDR prolonged the Great Depression? *
* Conservatives' newest talking point -- designed to stop Congress from passing an economic stimulus package -- is breathtaking. *
David Sirota
Jan 2, 2009



> Ummm … no.
> 
> On deeper examination, I discovered that *the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt’s term — four years marked by spectacular economic growth*. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal’s spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes,* in 1937-38, FDR “was persuaded to balance the budget” and “cut spending and the economy went back down again.” *Did you hear FDR prolonged the Great Depression - Salon.com


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 19, 2014)

whitehall said:


> FDR took a downturn in the economy and turned it into a soup line, bodies in ditches full scale depression in eight years. It took the carnage of a World War to turn the economy around.


And Hoovervilles were a figment of our imagination as was the Bonus Army?


----------



## regent (Dec 19, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > FDR took a downturn in the economy and turned it into a soup line, bodies in ditches full scale depression in eight years. It took the carnage of a World War to turn the economy around.
> ...


Speaking of the bonus army is a story I like contrasting the Hoover and FDR administrations. Hoover sent MacArthur and a contingent of infantry and maybe some tanks to clear the bonus out their Hoovervilles._ O_ne or two veterans died and maybe a baby.
When the bonus army met again after the election, FDR sent Eleanor down to talk to the veterans, she had lunch with them, they sang a few WWI songs and Eleanor left.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 19, 2014)

FDR took a bad situation and turned it into the worst economy in human history, eclipsing the 7 Biblical lean years.  Hitler's conquest of France was the event that eventually stopped the FDR Depression


----------



## bendog (Dec 19, 2014)

Camp said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



I partially agree.  First, those who claim FDR prolonged the depression are doing so from an ideological perspective.  That is to say that the opposite result cannot be true because it is ideologically unacceptable.   That is aimed directly at Cole and Ohanian, whose paper is the genesis for the criticism.  Their ideological aim was to downplay the role in increasing aggregate demand affecting increasing gnp. 

Misrepresenting the Recovery from the Great Depression Uneasy Money
Glasner's criticism of Cole and Ohanian is probably the clearest, but certainly not the last.  Glasner doesn't dispute the notion that FDR's acceptance of monopolies and artificial inflation of prices and wages with the NIRA curtailed the recovery.  But Glasner destroyed Cole and Ohanian's criticism of Friedman and how FDR abandoning the gold standard halted deflation.  Friedman has a beautiful clip on you tube illustrating the gold standard's role in the great depression. 

If you really want to see how ideologically jaded Cole and Ohanian are look at their comparision of US growth to intl growth in their fed paper.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/qr/qr2311.pdf
The fact is that no economy recovered until it was nationalized.  They're skewing the data by comparing the US economy to economies that were nationalized faster. 

But the bottom line, as Glasner posts, is that economic policy works "for good an ill."  And the reality is that in 1932 there was no strong central bank and no consensus amongst the economic powers about a unified monetarist response.


----------



## Dante (Dec 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR took a bad situation and turned it into the worst economy in human history, eclipsing the 7 Biblical lean years.  Hitler's conquest of France was the event that eventually stopped the FDR Depression




keep ignoring the facts: Did you hear FDR prolonged the Great Depression - Salon.com


----------



## Dante (Dec 19, 2014)

bendog said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


Did you hear FDR prolonged the Great Depression - Salon.com  yep


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 19, 2014)

FDR Averaged 20% unemployment from his inauguration in 1933 until Hitler conquered France in 1940

2 terms of Fail


----------



## bendog (Dec 19, 2014)

Dante said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


No policy is 100% good, and few 100% bad (Stalin, Mao and Hitler maybe).  But I believe the consensus was wage price controls of the NIRA were harmful.  I seem to recall they didn't work so good with inflation either when Nixon and Ford were presidents.   FDR got us off the gold standard, and as you link provides, we nearly simultaneously entered the two fastest years of econ growth of the 20th century.  Reagan and W proved that spending a hell of lot more govt money than taxes can stimulate the economy.  (-:


----------



## Dante (Dec 19, 2014)

bendog said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



long term versus short run, macro versus micro economic theory, partisan bickering, revisionist history it all plays into it. Facts and data are not disputed. What is disputed is how they are being used and for what reason such as furthering an agenda


----------



## bendog (Dec 19, 2014)

Well, I find it really objectionable when people who are paid to be economists pursue an agenda to say increasing aggregate demand does not increase gnp and ultimately wages.  Intentionally misleading people is not OK.  Especially when it's misleading people into believing something they want to believe for emotional reasons, be that "democrats really don't want to help people like me" or "the US really wants to destroy Russia" or "White America owes individual black people some economic outcome."

I'd accept that of Obama's stimulus, the effects of direct transfer by the feds to the State's to keep Medicaid and education programs going, when state revenues decreased so the State's couldn't spend the match to keep the federal money, and unemployment insurance are preferable to govt going out and hiring guys off the street to build dog parks and "winterize" buildings.  Republicans generally go along with the former but not the latter .. unless its a military buildup or George W Bush.

But it's misleading to say FDR prolonged the recession by seven years, when the data shows that nationalizing failed banks and getting off the gold standard stabilized both having easy credit available and an expanding money supply, increasing gnp, and without Roosevelt and clinging to the ideas of Mellon and Coolidge that wouldn't happen.  Without the FIRA, the recession might have ended sooner, and maybe the double dip would have been avoided .... maybe not, because maybe curtailing increasing aggregate demand with spending would still have been too much a sea anchor and the improving economy.  And to mislead people because some economists don't like the Obama stimulus so that they get a fundamental misapprehension of macroeconomics is something that deserves a kick in the butt.


----------



## Dante (Dec 19, 2014)

bendog   what do you think of ideological arguments that JFK's cuts make him more a conservative than a liberal, when JFK's cuts were  addressing demand side and not supply side?


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 19, 2014)

World War 2 saw the largest increase in government employment, and the largest increase in government spending(by percentage) we ever had. 

So when the claim is that WW2 ended our Depression- that seems to me to be a demonstration that massive government spending can end a Depression.

Meanwhile of course the usual wingnuts think that anyone who doesn't think FDR was a communist is a communist also.


----------



## Political Junky (Dec 19, 2014)

whitehall said:


> FDR took a downturn in the economy and turned it into a soup line, bodies in ditches full scale depression in eight years. It took the carnage of a World War to turn the economy around.


That's why camps of homeless and starving people were called Hoovervilles.
Hoover brought on the Depression, and FDR ended it.

Hooverville - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## whitehall (Dec 19, 2014)

regent said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


FDR and his distant cousin/wife Eleanor and Dougout Doug MacArthur always had total support from the lazy drunks that passed for the media in those days. In fact democrats still enjoy the total support regardless of issues from the drunks and druggies that pass for the mainstream media today. How could an administration get away with killing Veterans with tanks and incarcerating American citizens in concentration camps at the stroke of an executive order? FDR owned the media. How could Bubba Bill Clinton get away with credible accusations or rape and degenerate behavior in the Oval Office not to mention using tanks and poison gas against American citizens? You guessed it, the media.


----------



## Dante (Dec 19, 2014)

whitehall said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Wow!  

Despite the widespread popularity of these initiatives, *Roosevelt faced opposition from several quarters, including most of the nation’s newspaper publishers, many business and financial interests, entrenched states’-rights supporters, and advocates of small government*. Since the Gilded Age of the 1890s, those forces had controlled America’s economic establishment and, after a brief eclipse during the progressivism of the Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson administrations, they had assumed renewed primacy during the 1920s. Bolstering their position was a legal regime overseen by the US Supreme Court. In a line of cases following the end of Reconstruction, the Court had built a doctrinal superstructure conducive to modern laissez-faire industrialism and hostile to the claims of laborers and the indigent. Legal concepts like substantive due process had exalted private property and freedom of contract while limiting the power of government to regulate or otherwise interfere with entrepreneurship.​
FDR s Court-Packing Plan A Study in Irony The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History


----------



## Dante (Dec 19, 2014)

and how Clinton fits in is just batshit crazy


----------



## bendog (Dec 19, 2014)

JFK was a social liberal and international anti-communist.  JFK couldn't get the bill through, and LBJ did, but the basic notion of cutting to top rate to 70% is hardly that of what today's gop favors.  So, attempts to paint him as a "conservative" are laughable, and I don't think the conservatives want to claim LBJ as one of their own.  And, to get the bill passed, LBJ had to promise to keep spending under a level.  He lied, but he promised.  Reagan promised more spending too.  So, "supply side" and "Laugher curve" became ideological terms themselves to hide what was going to be a deficit explosion.  "Deficits don't matter, Reagan taught us that."

But, I'm not going to pretend to know what the financial situation was in the 1960s beyond growth stagnated under Ike, and there was real concern that the Russian economy was growing much faster than ours, but as it turned out the CIA was grossly incompetent in analyzing the Russian economy and the % of their gnp they spent on defense.

But, was there an excess in capital that required more demand to consume production?  Or, as in the 1970s, had demand been crushed by a decade of inflation followed by Fed induced recession?  Once inflation was killed, the Fed reduced rates, and increased demand came from improved consumer conditions, and increased capital resulted in more consumer choices.  And Reagan's tax plan was enacted the same day IBM marketed the first PC.  It's good to be lucky.

If there's a comparison, I'd say it was Thatcher/Reagan had a basic belief that growth would be better with private actors allocating capital to risk.

Yes, JFK promoted his tax cut as a way to spur growth.  But this eerily sounds that Reagan:

In meeting the demands of war finance, the individual income tax moved from a selective tax imposed on the wealthy to the means by which the great majority of our citizens participates in paying for well over one-half of our total budget receipts. It is supplemented by the corporation income tax, which provides for another quarter of the total.
This emphasis on income taxation has been a sound development. But so many taxpayers have become so preoccupied with so many tax-saving devices that business decisions are interfered with, and the efficient functioning of the price system is distorted.
Moreover, special provisions have developed into an increasing source of preferential treatment to various groups. Whenever one taxpayer is permitted to pay less, someone else must be asked to pay more. The uniform distribution of the tax burden is thereby disturbed and higher rates are made necessary by the narrowing of the tax base. Of course, some departures from uniformity are needed to promote desirable social or economic objectives of overriding importance which can be achieved most effectively through the tax mechanism. But many of the preferences which have developed do not meet such a test and need to be reevaluated in our tax reform program.
It will be a major aim of our tax reform program to reverse this process, by broadening the tax base and reconsidering the rate structure. The result should be a tax system that is more equitable, more efficient and more conducive to economic growth.

President Kennedy Appeals to the Congress for a Tax Cut - 1961

Yet, there's also this which sounds like Obama:

Changing economic conditions at home and abroad, the desire to achieve greater equity in taxation, and the strains which have developed in our balance of payments position in the last few years, compel us to examine critically certain features of our tax system which, in conjunction with the tax system of other countries, consistently favor United States private investment abroad compared with investment in our own economy. 1. Elimination of tax deferral privileges in developed countries and "tax haven" deferral privileges in all countries. Profits earned abroad by American firms operating through foreign subsidiaries are, under present tax laws, subject to United States tax only when they are returned to the parent company in the form of dividends. In some cases, this tax deferral has made possible indefinite postponement of the United States tax; and, in those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary [p.295] companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States.

So, I'm hard put to answer your question beyond what Glasner said in the conclusion of link I posted earlier, "econ policy has consequences, both good and bad."

Obviously in 1961, JFK had no notion of monetarism because Greenspan was just publishing his magnum opus.  He could not have known that the real cause of the great depression was the central bank reducing the monetary supply while deflation occurred, and the genius of FDR was to kill the gold standard and increase money.  (Of course that may have been more a byproduct of Keynes than actual policy.  It's good to be lucky.  Too bad JFK wasn't as lucky as Reagan in getting shot)  Did JFK even consider supply?  I suspect he had a Keynesian notion that supply would always rise and fall to fill demand.  EDIT:  BUT AS 1980 SHOWED, SUPPLY WILL NOT ALWAYS RISE TO FILL INCREASED DEMAND UNLESS EITHER WE HAVE MORE MONEY SUPPLY (POSSIBLE INFLATION) OR THE GOVT HAS LESS REVENUE WITH A TAX CUT.  So, there I agree with you that JFK's tax cut was not a supply side cut.  BUT, THERE'S A HERESEY TO THE REAGANMYTHOLOGISTS.  JUST AS THERE'S NO INVISIBLE HAND DIRECTING SOME INEVITABLE DEMAND IN MARKETS, REAGAN HIMSELF PURSUED ECON POLICY TO ALTER SUPPLY/DEMAND TO ACHIEVE A DIFFERENT BALANCE THAN THAT OF 1978.

But I don't think it really matters.  When ideologues say "supply side," they mean cut taxes on the rich cause they pay too much.  It has nothing to do with economics.  And, given how the top 1%'s incomes are rising faster than their share of income taxes are rising, I'm not crying for them.  My concern is more about how can incomes of workers be increased without some kind of "just tax the rich to even out income inequality."


----------



## Dante (Dec 19, 2014)

bendog said:


> JFK was a social liberal and international anti-communist.  JFK couldn't get the bill through, and LBJ did, but the basic notion of cutting to top rate to 70% is hardly that of what today's gop favors.  So, attempts to paint him as a "conservative" are laughable, and I don't think the conservatives want to claim LBJ as one of their own.  And, to get the bill passed, LBJ had to promise to keep spending under a level.  He lied, but he promised.  Reagan promised more spending too.  So, "supply side" and "Laugher curve" became ideological terms themselves to hide what was going to be a deficit explosion.  "Deficits don't matter, Reagan taught us that."
> 
> But, I'm not going to pretend to know what the financial situation was in the 1960s beyond growth stagnated under Ike, and there was real concern that the Russian economy was growing much faster than ours, but as it turned out the CIA was grossly incompetent in analyzing the Russian economy and the % of their gnp they spent on defense.
> 
> ...


bendog

I've read Kennedy's address and understand Thatcher/Reagan a little, but I don't find it eerily similar as much as similar in ways that all economic arguments sound similar to me. I guess the devil is always in the details, and now the computer models


----------



## bendog (Dec 19, 2014)

I think that's it exactly.  Once past the ideology, most economic arguments are pretty similar.  We really haven't had a real one since Ted and Jimmah disagreed on whether to continue ineffective wage price controls or to cause a recession to combat inflation.  The monetarists won.

I think maybe JFK's econ views were more moderate that the very liberal.  FDR literally did enjoy rubbing his class's nose in it.  Americans were starving and his class was outraged that FDR would do something like putting them on the dole and demanding they pay for it.  That response ushered in 30 years of distain for the very rich.  Truman had no use for them.  Ike was fine with wartime taxes.  JFK was a rich playboy.  A guy who gave his health for his country, but he sure didn't hate nice stuff.  It may not have been so much supply side as just trying to figure out how to grow the economy.


----------



## Dante (Dec 19, 2014)

bendog said:


> I think that's it exactly.  Once past the ideology, most economic arguments are pretty similar.  We really haven't had a real one since Ted and Jimmah disagreed on whether to continue ineffective wage price controls or to cause a recession to combat inflation.  The monetarists won.
> 
> I think maybe JFK's econ views were more moderate that the very liberal.  FDR literally did enjoy rubbing his class's nose in it.  Americans were starving and his class was outraged that FDR would do something like putting them on the dole and demanding they pay for it.  That response ushered in 30 years of distain for the very rich.  Truman had no use for them.  Ike was fine with wartime taxes.  JFK was a rich playboy.  A guy who gave his health for his country, but he sure didn't hate nice stuff.  It may not have been so much supply side as just trying to figure out how to grow the economy.



If the monetarists won, why did Reagan replace Burns -- no Miller, no Volker!  -- Volker with Greenspan?

Yeah, Carter the liberal!  

I was with Ted


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 19, 2014)

whitehall said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



FDR's incarceration of American citizen's of Japanese descent is a blemish on American history- and on his record. Unfortunately it was very popular at the time- which is how he could get away with it.

The use of tanks and the Army to disrupt Veterans was done on the orders of Herbert Hoover- who ordered Macarthur to use the army to clear out the vets- another disgraceful action- but that was Hoover's disgraceful action- MacArthur carried out his orders. 

Interesting isn't it that you blame FDR for one bad action- and but don't blame Hoover for the other disgraceful executive action?


----------



## Dante (Dec 19, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...




How the violence from the regular Army came about is an interesting story. Hoover did not authorize what took place. And yes, whitehall is an idiot for inferring FDR as President had something to do with it


----------



## regent (Dec 19, 2014)

whitehall said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


So the historians are communists, and are you now saying the media are communists?


----------



## Dante (Dec 19, 2014)

regent said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



He's channeling CrusaderFrank -- please don't stop him. He's doing a swell job!!


----------



## Camp (Dec 19, 2014)

regent said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


All the people who voted for him were communist too. And the people who visit one of his major Memorial's in Washington DC and New York are communist. In fact, all the people who ride over the major bridges and highways he built are commie's. Even the people still getting electric from the dams he built are communist.


----------



## Dante (Dec 19, 2014)

Camp hilarious!


----------



## Vigilante (Dec 19, 2014)

Joe Biden sings the praises of FDR!


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 18, 2015)

whitehall said:


> FDR took a downturn in the economy and turned it into a soup line, bodies in ditches full scale depression in eight years. It took the carnage of a World War to turn the economy around.


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR Averaged 20% unemployment from his inauguration in 1933 until Hitler conquered France in 1940
> 
> 2 terms of Fail


That happens in a depression.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 18, 2015)

Political Junky said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > FDR Averaged 20% unemployment from his inauguration in 1933 until Hitler conquered France in 1940
> ...



Only when FDR was President and only for the FDR Depression


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


----------



## Camp (Jan 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



It has been repeatedly shown to Frank in thread after thread with indisputable links  that he uses the unemployment numbers issued by Stanley Lebergott which represented the persons unavailable to the private labor force and not people actually out of work. It did not represent the persons the way unemployment numbers represent today. Lebergott's method counted workers on public projects building infrastructure like roads, bridges, dams, schools, post offices and collecting pay checks for the work as unemployed because they were not available to the private industry work force. They were considered to be on a form of relief because their pay checks were generated by government agencies or from government funded projects.  Another method of calculating unemployment was done by Michael Darby. Darby counted all workers who collected pay checks as being employed. When that method is used the unemployment rate during the Depression during the FDR years fall to as low as 9.6%.

fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/maremp93.pdf


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 19, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


We should not be so quick to discount FDR just because he presided over Depression and world war. It was just a little bad luck.


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 19, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


Hoover ran the country into Depression. Japan, Germany, and Italy declared war on us, but under FDR we won the war and recovered from Depression.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 19, 2015)

That scumbag fdr, in true democrat fashion, found novel ways of making bad situations worse.


----------



## regent (Jan 19, 2015)

Camp said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...





Unkotare said:


> That scumbag fdr, in true democrat fashion, found novel ways of making bad situations worse.


With no instruction book on curing Republican depressions FDR said he had to experiment, and he did. Some didn't turn out the way FDR hoped but in the end the depression was over and the war won. Two great victories and Republicans stood by, fingers in noses, weeping.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 19, 2015)

regent said:


> FDR said he had to experiment, and he did. ...




Like the democrat currently fucking up the country, he had no fucking clue what he was doing. He irresponsibly played 'cooked spaghetti' with the US economy, greatly deepening and lengthening the depression.


----------



## Agit8r (Jan 19, 2015)

If the South hadn't been electrified, there wouldn't be many right-wing bloggers.

So it's a mixed bag


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 19, 2015)

Political Junky said:


> under FDR we won the war and recovered from Depression.



dear, had it not been for liberal policies of Hoover (Hoover Dam stimulus) and FDR there would have been no Depression or world war that killed 60 million.

Liberalism is based in pure ignorance.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 19, 2015)

regent said:


> With no instruction book.



spoken like the true illiterate you are. There was indeed an instruction book on world history and it said freedom works and lib commie govt does not. Hoover and FDR lacked the IQ to understand so we had 16 years of Depression and 5 years of world war with 60 million killed that could have been avoided within a year by switching to freedom and capitalism.


----------



## regent (Jan 19, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > FDR said he had to experiment, and he did. ...
> ...


But FDR was doing something, and what he was doing must have been right for the people to vote for him four times in a row and Historians to name him America's best president. Know any other president that was so elected and so named? We can wait.


----------



## regent (Jan 19, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > With no instruction book.
> ...


No, see books on world history are about the history of the world and not about curing depressions. Depressions are great big recessions and instruction books usually tells one how to do something.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2015)

regent said:


> [
> But FDR was doing something, and what he was doing must have been right for the people to vote for him four times in a row ....



Yeah, it's called 'lying.' Every other President before him had the class to limit themselves to what Washington had established. He was enough of a power-hungry, arrogant, opportunist to play on fears and insecurities in a way none of his predecessors had. He was a dangerous scumbag set on gathering power unto himself at any cost.


----------



## Politico (Jan 20, 2015)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


because we have not had another world war happening since then.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 20, 2015)

regent said:


> But FDR was doing something,[communist] and what he was doing must have been right for the people to vote for him four times in a row and Historians to name him America's best president. Know any other president that was so elected and so named? We can wait.



too stupid!! People supported Hannibal and Hitler for years but that does not mean they were right!! FDR's record speaks for itself: 16 years of depression and 5 years of world war. If historians like that what does that tell you about historians!! If it had been 50 years of depression and 20 years of world war they would have loved him even more. Get it now?


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 24, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > But FDR was doing something,[communist] and what he was doing must have been right for the people to vote for him four times in a row and Historians to name him America's best president. Know any other president that was so elected and so named? We can wait.
> ...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 25, 2015)

Political Junky said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Liberal lacks IQ to say why it is BS:! People supported FDR, Hannibal and Hitler for years but that does not mean they were right!! FDR's record speaks for itself: 16 years of depression and 5 years of world war. If historians like that what does that tell you about historians!! If it had been 50 years of depression and 20 years of world war they would have loved him even more. Get it now?


----------



## Camp (Jan 25, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


PANTS ON FIRE LIAR


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 25, 2015)

Camp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Liberal lacks IQ to say why it is BS:! People supported FDR, Hannibal and Hitler for years but that does not mean they were right!! FDR's record speaks for itself: 16 years of depression and 5 years of world war. If historians like that what does that tell you about historians!! If it had been 50 years of depression and 20 years of world war they would have loved him even more. Get it now?


----------



## Camp (Jan 25, 2015)

FDR inherited the depression. But anyhow, explain explain how you come up with 16 years. And when you are done, explain 5 years of war. And by the way, Hannibal wasn't elected and Hitler made himself a dictator that didn't need majority support. He wouldn't have gotten votes from a lot of voters, particularly the ones he murdered or sent away to camps or terrorized.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 25, 2015)

Camp said:


> FDR inherited the depression.



FDR, during campaign, proposed conservative cures for Depression then turned liberal in office. In short, he and Hoover were both economic idiots and liberals. FDR inherited a liberal depression and prolonged it with liberal policies till his death finally ended  it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 25, 2015)

Camp said:


> , explain explain how you come up with 16 years.



1929-1945


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 25, 2015)

Camp said:


> , explain 5 years of war.



1939 invasion of Poland- 1945- Germany and Japan surrender


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 25, 2015)

[QUOTE="Camp, post: 10616954, member: 44680" Hitler made himself a dictator that didn't need majority support. .[/QUOTE]

people supported FDR and Hitler without intelligence. We lost more  the last month of the war in Europe than we lost the month of D-Day because the Germnans were all loyal big govt liberals.


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 25, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > FDR inherited the depression.
> ...


Link?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 25, 2015)

Political Junky said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



please tell the idiot  liberal to look it up himself


----------



## Camp (Jan 25, 2015)

Political Junky said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


Thecan't get out of his lies. He has to blame FDR for the things that happened under Hoover and blame FDR for Hitler starting the war in Europe in 1939 to make hiscomment work.


----------



## Camp (Jan 25, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



You are the idiot making the idiot claims. It is on you to show evidence that your post is not the post of an idiot. Why should I waste time looking for a link supporting your stupid crap. Where would I search to find that garbage? Is there a site called stupid shit or idiots be us? I have no idea where to find the kind of nonsense used to make you appear so dumb.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 25, 2015)

Camp said:


> He has to blame FDR for the things that happened under Hoover and blame FDR for Hitler starting the war in Europe in 1939



dear, FDR was the best example of a liberal American president in our hiistory. Liberal policies caused and prolonged the Depression for 16 years and caused WW2. So 16 years of world wide depression and war with 60 million dead can be laid at the liberal door. And this is not to mention the 120 million that fellow travelers Stalin and Mao slowly starved to death domesticially.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2015)

regent said:


> Well historians have been rating the presidents since 1948 and FDR has never been rated lower than third best president. In the last rating FDR was rated greatest American president. In that rating by 238 of America's best historians including presidential experts former presidents were rated on 20 presidential characteristics.
> Those FDR ratings must kill Republicans but take heed, a liberal Republican was rated second best, Lincoln. Unfortunately, Bush was rated fifth worst.



Why is it unfortunate that Bush was rated fifth worst?  What is unfortunate is that either Bush was ever president at all.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 25, 2015)

Camp said:


> You are the idiot making the idiot claims.



if so you would not be so afraid to point out the most idiotic claim. What does your fear teach us about liberalism ?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 25, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Why is it unfortunate that Bush was rated fifth worst?  What is unfortunate is that either Bush was ever president at all.



dear, are you slow? If you don't like the Bushes you must tell us why so we know if there is a reason not to like them! Do you see why we have to think you must be slow?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2015)

whitehall said:


> FDR took a downturn in the economy and turned it into a soup line, bodies in ditches full scale depression in eight years. It took the carnage of a World War to turn the economy around.



Downturn?  In what parallel dimension was the great the crash of '29 a simple "downturn?

Wall Street Crash of 1929 and its aftermath

*The impact of the Wall Street Crash:*

*1) 12 million people out of work*

*2) 12,000 people being made unemployed every day*

*3) 20,000 companies had gone bankrupt*

*4) 1616 banks had gone bankrupt*

*5) 1 farmer in 20 evicted*

*6) 23,000 people committed suicide in one year - the highest ever*

What was Hoover's response?

"He believed that if you were in trouble you should help yourself and not expect others to help you. This he called "rugged individualism". Therefore he did not do a great deal to help those out of work."

That "rugged individualism"  sounds all too familiar today, doesn't it?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 25, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it unfortunate that Bush was rated fifth worst?  What is unfortunate is that either Bush was ever president at all.
> ...



If you don't know why the Bushes totally suck,  I suspect you are the one who is slow.


----------



## Camp (Jan 25, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > He has to blame FDR for the things that happened under Hoover and blame FDR for Hitler starting the war in Europe in 1939
> ...


You are one of those people who demand that your opinions must be respected as gospel truth but don't think it is necessary to provide links to substantiated your views. That is because your views are based on the opinions of agenda driven commentators and not academics and scholars. You know that if you use your sources they will be refuted and exposed as political drivel.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 25, 2015)

Camp said:


> [ don't think it is necessary to provide links



too stupid since anybody can provide 1000's of links about anything!!!

See why we liberalism is based in pure  ignorance??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 25, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




dear, are you slow? If you don't like the Bushes you must tell us why so we know if there is a reason not to like them! Do you see why we have to think you must be slow


----------



## Camp (Jan 25, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > [ don't think it is necessary to provide links
> ...


You are a very dishonest person. You edited my post so without a reader looking further they do not see the explanation I gave for not going on a wild goose chase to find links supporting your argument. I provide links for what I post, it is your job to provide evidence of what you post and claim. You are using a lame ass method to escape having to back up your bull crap by demanding your debate opponent be responsible for supporting your claim. Somehow when a poster refusing to spend time researching your nonsense and providing proof that your nonsense it true, that becomes proof that your nonsense is indeed, true. This isn't junior high school. Step up or STFU.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 25, 2015)

Camp said:


> I provide links for what I post,.



too stupid!! then show one link that supports the idea that liberalism is not based in pure ignorance??


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Do you always wait for someone to tell you whether or not you like someone?  You can't make up your mind yourself?  Oh dear.


----------



## regent (Jan 26, 2015)

Camp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


Eddie edited my post also, makes it easier for him he replied when I accused.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 26, 2015)

regent said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



too stupid since anybody can provide 1000's of links about anything!!!

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 26, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



too stupid we are waiting for you to tell us if you have reason to hate the Bushes.
You brought it up but were too stupid to present your reasons or even know that reasons are necessary.

See why we must be positive that liberalism is based in ignorance?


----------



## Camp (Jan 26, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


No, you are the stupid one for believing anyone can provide 1000's of links about anything. You think that because a search engine comes back claiming 1000's of links it means 1000's of links to your topic. What it means is there are 1000's of links to your search words. You will get 1,000's of unrelated links and will miss getting other links, depending on the words you use in your search. You obviously don't comprehend how search engines work.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I said they suck.  I didn't say I hated them.  Do learn how to read.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 26, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



dear if as a typical you lack the IQ to present your reasons why are you here?


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 26, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



First of all, I don't have to give any reason to you.  You appear to be nothing more than a troll.  Secondly, it is clear that English is a second language to you.  You probably should take a class somewhere that can help you with your grammar.  And finally, if you have to ask why the Bush's suck, you probably haven't been paying attention these past 25 years.  How old are you, anyway?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 28, 2015)

Dante said:


> and he helped to fix. America, because of FDR became the greatest nation of the 20th century


FDR did what Obama has done,continue the corruption and unemployment bush got started.with FDR,it was following what Hoover got started.history tends to repeat itself here in the present,they never learn from the past.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 28, 2015)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> FDR extended the Depression years longer than it needed to last. I find it amusing how the left excoriates Hoover, yet canonizes FDR when he simply took Hoover's failed policies and extrapolated them to the extreme.



exactly.well said.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 28, 2015)

Dante said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



NOW your learning.
He started Americas war into it which he did not have to purposely allowing the japenese to bomb pearl harbor.the murderous traiter.thats documented in the book DAY OF DECEIT written by a naval officer. he started Americas involvement in it but he didn't start the great depression.Like I said,he just continued what Hoover got started expanding it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 28, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



certainly:
1) FDR type liberalism caused the Great Depression and continued it for 16 years
2) FDR type liberalism  caused WW2 and the rise of Hitler
3) there is agreement that as stupid as FDR was he didn't allow the Japs to bomb Pearl.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> First of all, I don't have to give any reason to you.



ok so we'll assume you are an idiot liberal who presents your irrelevant feelings to us but lacks the IQ to have a reason for feeling what you feel.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 28, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > and he helped to fix. America, because of FDR became the greatest nation of the 20th century
> ...



Right.  That would be why we are currently seeing a growth rate of at least 4% and an unemployment rate lower than it has been since before the recession begain.  Take a pill.


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 28, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, I don't have to give any reason to you.
> ...



Who is we?  Are you having a personality-splitting episode?  Forget to take your meds?  I don't know what your chances are for recovery, but you do have my sympathy.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 28, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



you need to read DAY of DECEIT.it wasnt written by just some hack writer,it was a top ranking military official that served under his administration.it spells out beyond a doubt he knew.


----------



## Friends (Jan 28, 2015)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> FDR extended the Depression years longer than it needed to last. I find it amusing how the left excoriates Hoover, yet canonizes FDR when he simply took Hoover's failed policies and extrapolated them to the extreme.


 
Life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as Franklin Roosevelt was elected president. That is why he was reelected three times. It is why reactionaries have never been able to repeal the signature reforms of the New Deal.


----------



## regent (Jan 29, 2015)

The Republicans create the greatest depression ever in the US, and have a new Republican president comes into office shortly after and did nothing except create an agency to loan money to corporations to build more of the products they couldn't sell. After four years of Hoover, FDR was elected  and America began a new life. Everything was not a 100%  success but America had a president that was trying, and not telling America the bootstrap stories we still hear. I wonder if Americans today have any idea of what FDR meant to the nation at that time? Historians and those Americans that lived through that period do know.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 29, 2015)

regent said:


> Historians and those Americans that lived through that period do know.





Americans he threw into his concentration camps do know.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 29, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > and he helped to fix. America, because of FDR became the greatest nation of the 20th century
> ...



Unemployment was about 25% the year FDR took office and was never that high again.


----------



## Camp (Jan 29, 2015)

Friends said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > FDR extended the Depression years longer than it needed to last. I find it amusing how the left excoriates Hoover, yet canonizes FDR when he simply took Hoover's failed policies and extrapolated them to the extreme.
> ...


He immediately put Americans to work building infrastructure and quietly began preparing the nation for the war he new was coming. The military projects he began included research, development and small scale production of the weapons that would determine the outcome of WWII. This included building, and hence retooling, for the most advanced aircraft carriers of the era, and the same for virtually all the aircraft that was used to defeat Japanese and German air forces and bomb both into defeat.

At the same time FDR put the unemployed to work building projects that continue to serve America to this very day. Bridges, roads, buildings, etc. built by those the conservative revisionist are still counted as unemployed by the revisionist because by collecting government generated pay checks they are considered as "relief workers" hence "unemployed" by the revisionist. Those workers who built the bridges, roads and perhaps your local post office or National Guard Armory that still stands and serves today, well,  the revisionist claim they were unemployed when those things were built. They have to make this ridiculous claim because to count those people as employed lowers the unemployment rate to as low as 9.6% between the time FDR took office in 1933, four years after the Great Depression began, and WWII.


----------



## regent (Jan 29, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Historians and those Americans that lived through that period do know.
> ...


Historians know of the mistakes FDR made, these boards are filled with them, and conservative and liberal historians still rate FDR as one of America's greatest presidents.


----------



## Camp (Jan 29, 2015)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


"Concentration Camp" has a special and specific meaning when used as terminology to refer to WWII era meaning. It is a phrase related to the death and slave labor camps of Nazi's. The Japanese internment camps in no way resembled those horrible camps. America has admitted they were a mistake and blemish on our history, but to blame them totally on FDR and compare them to the Nazi death camps is political posturing and an undeserved attack on the American people. It takes our mistake and our failure of the era out of context and attempts to distorts it into a great and unforgivable evil on the level of Nazi Germany and the murder of some ten million persons in special killing camps. Kids in Japanese camps went to school, not medical experiment labs and ovens. People in Japanese internment camps were fed and received medical attention. They were not starved and when they became ill they were not pulled aside and shot. The people in internment camps were treated unfairly, forced out of their homes and imprisoned while their property was confiscated by California businessmen and politicians. At the end of the war they were released.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 29, 2015)

Camp said:


> "Concentration Camp" has a special and specific meaning when used as terminology to refer to WWII era meaning. ...




I guess that's why that POS FDR used the term in reference to his Concentration Camps during the WWII era.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 29, 2015)

Camp said:


> but to blame them totally on FDR...




Only one chief executive's signature is on the executive order.


----------



## Camp (Jan 29, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > "Concentration Camp" has a special and specific meaning when used as terminology to refer to WWII era meaning. ...
> ...


It certainly is a debated topic. Did the term concentration camp have the same meaning as it did after the death camps were discovered? Did FDR actually refer to the internment camps as concentration camps? If so, did he mean they were in any way comparable to Nazi concentration camps?
It is obvious that by your calling FDR a POS your opinion is based on emotion rather than academic honesty. If you find it necessary to refer to Japanese internment camps as if they were the same as Nazi death camps, so be it. It's a free country. However, it is unreasonable for you to expect others to classify America and Americans on the same level as SS Nazi murderers and Hitler like henchmen.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 29, 2015)

Camp said:


> It certainly is a debated topic. ...




No, it isn't. The term accurately describes that POS FDR's camps, as he himself recognized.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 29, 2015)

Camp said:


> Did FDR actually refer to the internment camps as concentration camps? ...



Yes, because that is what they were.


----------



## gipper (Jan 29, 2015)

Dante said:


> and he helped to fix. America, because of FDR became the greatest nation of the 20th century


He inherited a messed up nation and world...and made it much worse.  He is the worst POTUS...and we have had many really bad ones.


----------



## Camp (Jan 29, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > It certainly is a debated topic. ...
> ...


How many Japanese Americans were gassed and starved in American camps?


----------



## Camp (Jan 29, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Did FDR actually refer to the internment camps as concentration camps? ...
> ...


Could you provide a link? I have found the references as you described, but not been able to attribute the statements to any specific speech or document. I know someone in his administration referred to the internment camps as concentration camps, but as I said, have not been able to find a direct FDR quote.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 29, 2015)

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




I didn't say anyone was gassed at that POS FDR's Concentration Camps. Put away your straw man.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 29, 2015)

Concentration Camps


----------



## Camp (Jan 29, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> Concentration Camps


Much better source for making case. More details and a good explanation of the debate.

nps.gov/tule/forteachers/upload/Words_Can_Lie_or_Clarify.pdf


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 29, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Unemployment was about 25% the year FDR took office and was never that high again.



of course thats way too stupid and liberal! Yes, it was never 25% again but it was always high enough to be called the Great Depression!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 29, 2015)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



name some conservatives or admit to being a typical liberal liar.


----------



## haissem123 (Jan 29, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > and he helped to fix. America, because of FDR became the greatest nation of the 20th century
> ...


that's right. its 10 years of war and 15 years of depression from the gop bush oil gate wars. please.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 29, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Unemployment was about 25% the year FDR took office and was never that high again.
> ...



So the president who took office in the year that was followed by everything getting better is accused of prolonging the depression?

lol


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 29, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



dear, the Depression did not end until FDR finally dropped dead!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 29, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> So the president who took office in the year that was followed by everything getting better is accused of prolonging the depression?
> 
> lol



yes dear FDR administration was the Great Depression. He did not end when he took office, it ended when he left office. See why we say the liberal will be stupid?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 29, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > So the president who took office in the year that was followed by everything getting better is accused of prolonging the depression?
> ...



Everything got better under FDR.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 29, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Wrong.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 29, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Everything got better under FDR.



yes dear they called it the Great Depression by mistake!!


----------



## gipper (Jan 29, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Everything got worse under FDR.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 29, 2015)

gipper said:


> Everything got worse under FDR.



yes I'd say WW2 is a good example. 60 million dead!!


----------



## regent (Jan 29, 2015)

So why did the people elect FDR the second time, and then a third time, and then a fourth time? People were all communists, right?
So why have America's best historians rated FDR as America's greatest president?
Historians were all communists, right?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 29, 2015)

regent said:


> So why did the people elect FDR the second time, and then a third time, and then a fourth time? People were all communists, right?
> So why have America's best historians rated FDR as America's greatest president?
> Historians were all communists, right?



dear, how stupid are you? The entire world made mistakes for 100,000 years before Republicans created America. Cubans still love Castro even though he has made boats illegal to maintain his Lib Nazi concentration camp! And lib turd Americans still love Castro!!

Do you understand?


----------



## regent (Jan 29, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > So why did the people elect FDR the second time, and then a third time, and then a fourth time? People were all communists, right?
> ...


If you have to go back 100,000 years to come up with a post, you have bigger problems than most think.
We are talking about an American president and American historians, not Castro nor his boats nor Nazi concentration camps.  FDR is still rated by America's noted historians as number one, top of  the line, biggest man on campus,


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 29, 2015)

regent said:


> FDR is still rated by America's noted historians as number one, top of  the line, biggest man on campus,



well then too bad obama didn't keep recession going for 17 years and have a 6 year world war in which 70 million were killed.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 29, 2015)

regent said:


> So why did the people elect FDR the second time, and then a third time, and then a fourth time? ..?




Lies, lies, fear.


----------



## Votto (Jan 29, 2015)

Dante said:


> and he helped to fix. America, because of FDR became the greatest nation of the 20th century



FDR was soooo great that they limited the number of terms a President can be elected after his gig was up.

It should not be surprising that the man who detested the Constitution by locking up innocent Japanese Americans and then proceeded to subvert the Constitution further via the Court Packing Scheme to try and push his policies through is the hero for Progressives.

I'm convinced that liberals believe that the ends justify the means.  For example, they would throw all conservatives in a concentration camp if it meant winning a war or passing a piece of legislation they are coveting.


----------



## regent (Jan 29, 2015)

Votto said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > and he helped to fix. America, because of FDR became the greatest nation of the 20th century
> ...


The Court saw the light and as they said at the time, "a stich in time saved nine." 
Perhaps the best answer for Republicans is to pass another amendment not allowing historians to rate presidents?


----------



## Picaro (Feb 1, 2015)

regent said:


> So why did the people elect FDR the second time, and then a third time, and then a fourth time? People were all communists, right?
> So why have America's best historians rated FDR as America's greatest president?
> Historians were all communists, right?



Another favorite cognitively dissonant 'criticism' the FDR haters on the right rant about is how his Keynesian spending policies failed, and 'WW II ended the Depression'. The only way this idiocy can be true is by admitting that FDR's policies failed because he didn't spend nearly enough relative to the depth of the Depression wide open laissez faire caused. In fact the latter is indeed the right and obvious answer.


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 9, 2015)

In spite of their rants, the Right has failed to do away with Social Security. Thanks, FDR.


----------



## gipper (Feb 10, 2015)

Political Junky said:


> In spite of their rants, the Right has failed to do away with Social Security. Thanks, FDR.


Social Security, along with Medicare and Medicaid, will fail on their own. 

I suppose it is news to you that these WELFARE programs are unsustainable.  You may be under the illusion they are insurance programs, when any fool can see they are just another government transfer of wealth program.   

SS is one big clearly exposed Ponzi scheme...and Ponzi schemes always fail.


----------



## Camp (Feb 10, 2015)

gipper said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > In spite of their rants, the Right has failed to do away with Social Security. Thanks, FDR.
> ...


Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. This is just a fraudulent talking point that has long been overused. The main reason it is not a Ponzi scheme is that Ponzi schemes eventually run out of money to keep the scheme going. Social Security will never run out of money because the voters who collect the benefits from Social Security will always make up the largest block of voters that pick the elected officials and issues of priority concern to those voters and hence, elected officials. It is far to easy to keep Social Security solvent and sustainable for it to ever run out of money.


----------



## Picaro (Feb 10, 2015)

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Social Security's problems center around its revenues having been dumped into the General Fund, and the crushing of wage levels in the U.S. drastically lowering the revenues from the payroll tax in inflation adjusted dollars over the years. Even at the 6 or 7% current rates employees are paying less in inflation adjusted dollars into the system than older workers have, despite all the lying and whining to the contrary.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 10, 2015)

Picaro said:


> [
> 
> Social Security's problems center around its revenues having been dumped into the General Fund, and the crushing of wage levels in the U.S. drastically lowering the revenues from the payroll tax in inflation adjusted dollars over the years. Even at the 6 or 7% current rates employees are paying less in inflation adjusted dollars into the system than older workers have, despite all the lying and whining to the contrary.



That never happened.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 10, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Everything got better under FDR.
> ...



The worst of the Depression was 1933.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 10, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


I will never understand why these fellows are bereft of any knowledge that a GOP president was  at the helm when the Great Depression began and was in charge for 3 years before FDR....


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 10, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



One of the lies PC depends on is that she uses a source that compares FDR's later UE numbers to 1931,

claiming it shows things didn't get better after he took office...'31 being of course 2 years BEFORE he became president.


----------



## Picaro (Feb 10, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



FDR was sworn into office first term in March, 1933; check a graph of the GDP and check out when the economy started climbing again. The confidence level was tremendous. The rich were still hoarding their wealth and hiding out behind private armies on their estates, having done absolutely nothing to build the economy back up under Hoover, unless you count gambling on short selling stocks and sniveling about taxes.


----------



## MikeK (Feb 10, 2015)

whitehall said:


> FDR took a downturn in the economy and turned it into a soup line, bodies in ditches full scale depression in eight years.


You are talking about Herbert Hoover, not FDR.  And the "downturn" you mention was in fact a full-scale economic _collapse._  FDR commenced the  mechanism of recovery by imposing a 91% tax on the rich and implementing the WPA and CCC programs -- which put money in circulation.  



> It took the carnage of a World War to turn the economy around.


That commonly held but nonsensical belief would be true if World War Two was conducted free of cost.  But it wasn't.  It was a financial disaster which was managed well by the FDR Administration.  The advantage it did provide was a graceful introduction into the era of advanced industrial production that took place in the early 1950s.


----------



## Picaro (Feb 10, 2015)

MikeK said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > FDR took a downturn in the economy and turned it into a soup line, bodies in ditches full scale depression in eight years.
> ...



Yes. That argument actually proves that FDR didn't spend enough during the '30's considering the depth of the Depression, going by their contradictory, cognitively dissonant 'criticism'. I guess military spending isn't 'government spending' or something in their minds. Who knows why; my guess is they just repeat nonsense they read at Free Republic or Town Hall, and don't bother to examine what it is they're repeating. From a macro-economic view, it doesn't matter whether or  not it was military spending or construction spending or any other productive expenditure, as long as it produced jobs, generated contracts for private firms and commodities, etc., and generally infused money into the economy to be spent and circulated.


----------



## MikeK (Feb 10, 2015)

Picaro said:


> FDR was sworn into office first term in March, 1933; check a graph of the GDP and check out when the economy started climbing again. The confidence level was tremendous. The rich were still hoarding their wealth and hiding out behind private armies on their estates, having done absolutely nothing to build the economy back up under Hoover, unless you count gambling on short selling stocks and sniveling about taxes.


It is amazing to me how effective the brazenly overt misinformation put forth by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and other multi-millionaire, right wing, corporatist propagandists has been, even in this time of readily available, factual information.

Josef Goebbels was right.  _"Ordinary people will swallow the most brazen lies if they are fed to them often enough!"_  It worked for the Nazis and it continues to work for the American right wing. 

So, thank you, Picaro, for your effort.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 10, 2015)

Picaro said:


> [
> 
> FDR was sworn into office first term in March, 1933;.



exactly and his Great Depression did not end till he finally died in 1945!! His legacy is 100% Depression and 100% World War!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 10, 2015)

MikeK said:


> it continues to work for the American right wing.



Dear the right wing follows the principles of our genius Founders. If you're a communist why don't you go to Cuba?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 10, 2015)

Picaro said:


> it doesn't matter whether or  not it was military spending or construction spending or any other productive expenditure, as long as it produced jobs, generated contracts for private firms and commodities, etc., and generally infused money into the economy to be spent and circulated.



a liberal will be 100% stupid! the money was taken from the economy and then infused back ito the economy so no net benefit is possible. If someone told you they could fill a swimming pool with water from the other side of the pool would you beleive them??

See why we have to be 100% positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 10, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



too stupid even FDR agreed unemployment never got better!!
****Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"

"The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]

In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal
is urgently needed


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 10, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> The worst of the Depression was 1933.



too 100% stupid and liberal, the Great Depression lasted till 1945 when FDR , a libcommie, finally died!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 10, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Barry can never rise to FDR's level because his recession only lasted 5 years longer than it should have!!


----------



## gipper (Feb 10, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


W


Moonglow said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


That alleviates FDR of any responsibility... In your mind...right?


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 10, 2015)

gipper said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Not at all, but it is important to the situation that was at hand when FDR came into office...


----------



## Picaro (Feb 10, 2015)

MikeK said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > FDR was sworn into office first term in March, 1933; check a graph of the GDP and check out when the economy started climbing again. The confidence level was tremendous. The rich were still hoarding their wealth and hiding out behind private armies on their estates, having done absolutely nothing to build the economy back up under Hoover, unless you count gambling on short selling stocks and sniveling about taxes.
> ...



Another topic worth discussing is what was happening in the two years before the 1929 crash; the slowdown and layoffs for people in the real economy began in 1927, roughly the same time short term interest on loaning cash to brokerages and stock market operators for margin buying went up to 4% and higher; floods of cash began being sucked into that instead of financing capital investments in factories and businesses in the real economy. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? ... But that's another thread in itself.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 10, 2015)

Picaro said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


In the U.S. presidential election of 1928, Hoover ran as the Republican Party’s nominee. Promising to bring continued peace and prosperity to the nation, he carried 40 states and defeated Democratic candidate Alfred E. Smith (1873-1944), the governor of New York, by a record margin of 444-87 electoral votes. “I have no fears for the future of our country,” Hoover declared in his inaugural address. “It is bright with hope.”

On October 24, 1929–only seven months after Hoover took office–a precipitous drop in the value of the U.S. stock market sent the economy spiraling downward and signaled the start of the Great Depression. Banks and businesses failed across the country. Nationwide unemployment rates rose from 3 percent in 1929 to 23 percent in 1932. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes and savings. Many people were forced to wait in bread lines for food and to live in squalid shantytowns known derisively as Hoovervilles.
Herbert Hoover - U.S. Presidents - HISTORY.com


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 10, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> In the U.S. presidential election of 1928, Hoover ran as the Republican Party’s nominee.



Hoover was a flaming liberal. Ever heard of the Hoover Dam stimulus project or the Smoot Hawley tarriff that collapsed world trade?.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 10, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > In the U.S. presidential election of 1928, Hoover ran as the Republican Party’s nominee.
> ...


----------



## Picaro (Feb 10, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



It's important to remember many parts of the country weren't booming in the '20's to begin with; farmers weren't doing well that decade, when a significant number of Americans lived in rural and small town areas, one reason being a huge portion of the manufacturing jobs went to immigrants, massive immigration levels after the Civil War and especially from the early 1880's on kept wages low, below even subsisitence level for many immigrants, so a 'boom' didn't mean much improvement for most people, native or immigrant, and a severe recession lasted into 1922, post -WW I. The ;middle class' was pretty small; few people had much of a buffer against hard times. As cheap as a Model T was, most people still had to borrow on credit to buy one.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 10, 2015)

Picaro said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


3% employment is not a boom?


----------



## Picaro (Feb 10, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



lol ... I don't know why, but I'm getting a vague sense Baiamonte just might be upset about something; hope it wasn't anythng I said.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 10, 2015)

Picaro said:


> It's important to remember many parts of the country weren't booming in the '20's to begin with;



dear, you clean forgot to say why its important to remember that? What's important to remember is that lib govt interference caused the Great Depression and prolonged it for 16 years that included a liberal world war with 60 million dead. It didn't happen again under Obama because he followed Milton Friedmans' advice.


----------



## Picaro (Feb 10, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



I doubt the unemployment rate was that low everywhere; Detroit, maybe.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 10, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > It's important to remember many parts of the country weren't booming in the '20's to begin with;
> ...


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 10, 2015)

Picaro said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


I just quoted the UE in a previous post...


----------



## Picaro (Feb 10, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



I know; I wasn't being snarky, just commenting on it.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 10, 2015)

Picaro said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


No problem....


----------



## gipper (Feb 10, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Hoover intervened massively in the economy.  The lying fool FDR campaigned against Hoover claiming he would curtain government intervention. Then after he won, intervened more than Hoover ever dreamed of...thus prolonging the Depression and then he lied us into WWII in an effort to save his sorry ass and the elites who owned him. 

Very similar to the doofuses W and BO.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 10, 2015)

gipper said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


According to  Steven Horwitz


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 10, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



no, according to history FDR's administration was the Great Depression and WW2. He was not responsible, he was merely the POTUS.


----------



## regent (Feb 10, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Not merely the POTUS but always one of the top three American presidents and most recently 238 noted historians including presidential experts voted FDR as America's greatest president. Your best bet was to change FDR into either a Republican, or maybe a commie. At the very least make the 238 historians into commies.
P.S. If you respond to this post please do not change my words to make it fit your response.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 10, 2015)

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



dear, I'm sure all the historians in Russia Germany and China loved Hitler Stalin and Mao too.
you are stupid and liberal so your argument is: "everybody says so and that makes it true".


----------



## regent (Feb 10, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


How can you be sure all the historians in Russia, Germany and China loved Hitler, Stalin and Mao? Maybe you went beyond the facts?
As for the 238 American historians that voted for best American president, they voted on twenty factors.  FDR did not come out first in all but enough.


----------



## Picaro (Feb 11, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dear, I'm sure all the historians in Russia Germany and China loved Hitler Stalin and Mao too.
> you are stupid and liberal so your argument is: "everybody says so and that makes it true".



So how many historians were there in Russia, Germany, and China who loved Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? Do you have a link to the polls? I think the standard has been set at 238, currently, so you should be able to come up with more, say 250.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 11, 2015)

Picaro said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dear, I'm sure all the historians in Russia Germany and China loved Hitler Stalin and Mao too.
> ...



you will always be stupid and liberal if you allow yourself to be distracted. If you think that FDRs depression and world war made him a great president please say why on earth that would be so or even why historians think it is so.


----------



## Picaro (Feb 11, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> you will always be stupid and liberal if you allow yourself to be distracted. If you think that FDRs depression and world war made him a great president please say why on earth that would be so or even why historians think it is so.



Because I saw a picture once of him wearing a monocle. Obviously anybody who wears a monocle is a better leader than somebody who doesn't.

Don't you agree?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 11, 2015)

Picaro said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > you will always be stupid and liberal if you allow yourself to be distracted. If you think that FDRs depression and world war made him a great president please say why on earth that would be so or even why historians think it is so.
> ...


you will always be stupid and liberal if you allow yourself to be distracted. If you think that FDRs depression and world war made him a great president please say why on earth that would be so or even why historians think it is so.


----------



## Camp (Feb 11, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Who are those historians rating Stalin, Hitler and Mao as great leaders? If you can not name them, does that make you the stupid one?


----------



## Picaro (Feb 11, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Well, if you don't consider the monocle thing important, how about hats? FDR has the best hats, too.


----------

