# The Lies of Franklin Roosevelt



## PoliticalChic

It's too bad that this post goes in "History," because the FDR endeavors are largely *responsible for the social breakdown we face today..*..
Under Roosevelt's alignment with Soviet communism the United States "exchanged foundational principles and guiding ideas" for some sort of vain, destructive, moral relativity.






1. Behind *FDR's lies and actions which served to cover and support Stalin's *murderous regime had to be the belief that, either, 
FDR was a devotee of communism and anticipated imposing it on America..
....or, that he believed that he could incorporate Stalin into an organization with himself as the 'CEO.'

 The former explanation would represent illimitable evil.....the latter, abysmal ignorance.





2. There is the false notion that FDR's infatuations began due to a need for the Soviet Union's aid in WWII, .....but he rushed to recognize them in 1933- was the first hint. 

Is 'infatuation' too strong? Was there kind of political romance with Stalin?
Consider the following pieces of the puzzle before you consider it hyperbolic:

a. As former ambassador to the Soviet Union, William Bullitt, queried him about *why he, FDR,  persuaded the public that "communists had become the friends of democracy" *and that he should remind all "that Communists in the United States are just as dangerous enemies as ever, and should not be allowed to crawl into our productive mechanism in order later to wreck it when they get new orders from somewhere abroad." 
 "For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt, p. 522

b. Roosevelt threw himself into *shoring up the USSR at any cost-* in July of 1942 he lost 23 out of 34 ships in just one Lend-Lease supply voyage...

c. ...151,000* troops were left unsupplied *in the Philippines....think Bataan Death March...

d. ....the British colony of *Singapore was left without air cover* in order to satisfy Stalin's desire for the planes.  Found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore." Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386. 
Singapore fell February 15, 1942.

e. ...*Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers *when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, irony of irony, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler.

f. The New Deal 'reorganization' of the State Department called for *the destruction of "the best Soviet Library in the United States."* (according to Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European Affairs Officer, State Department.) The 'Library' was broken up and dispersed among various files in the Library of Congress.
 "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies" by M. Stanton Evans, p. 83-84




3. Representative Martin Dies  formed a committed to investigate communism, but found that *government archives of communist records and correspondence had been destroyed.* He wrote: "I was informed, confidentially, by a man well placed in the Department of Justice, that they were destroyed after it was learned that the Dies Committee was determined to conduct a full-scale investigation of Communism."
 It was Harry Hopkins, FDR's White House live-in Soviet spy, who *turned down Dies' request of assistance from Roosevelt* to help furnish the nascent committee with a staff of lawyers, investigators and stenographers.  
Dies, "Martin Dies' Story," p. 64.

a. Although the reference 'card-carrying Communist' was once accurate, the CPUSA stopped issuing cards once the Dies Committee began hearings. The highest membership serial number that his committee came across was 195,762. 
'Given that Communists strive for quality, it was amazing tht they had been able to grow from 10,000 aliens in 1919 to nearly 200,000 members in 1938, mostly naive born or naturalized citizens." 
Dies, Ibid, p. 62-63.




4. Remarkable as the attempt to make files inaccessible seems, *it is just as common during Obama's term, *during which both the Justice Department and the Pentagon have overseen the methodical purges of "anti-Islamic" educational materials from security and military files and training courses. 
Diana West, "American Betrayal," chapter one.




5. "Because the American way and the Soviet system were diametrically opposed, *FDR had to lie to present common ground to the American people. In order to make his Big Lie stick, he also had to remove the people who knew better. Literally.* On a larger, more punitive scale,* [Victor] Kravchenko* discussed the same process." 
West, Ibid, p. 247.


Kravchenko wrote, of his Soviet experiences:

"Shamelessly, without so much as an explanation, it revised half a century of Russian history. I don't mean simply that it falsified some facts or gave a new interpretation of events. I mean that it deliberately stood history on its head, expunging events and inventing facts.

 It twisted the recent past--a past still fresh in millions of memories--into new and bizarre shapes, to conform with the version of affairs presented by the blood-purge trials and the accompanying propaganda... The roles of leading historical figures were perverted or altogether erased.... More than that, *living witnesses, as far as possible, were removed.* The directing staff of the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Moscow, repository of ideological truth, were removed and the more important people among them imprisoned or shot."
http://belousenko.com/books/Berberova/kravchenko_i_chose_freedom_english.htm


And that is what FDR did in America.

...did *to *America.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

FDR is responsible for the Communist genocide of almost 100 million humans. The world would have been a better place if he didn't so openly support Mao and Stalin.


----------



## regent

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR is responsible for the Communist genocide of almost 100 million humans. The world would have been a better place if he didn't so openly support Mao and Stalin.



You must get this information to the historians of America, every historical group in this country should know this new information. As soon as the historians know what you know they will stop rating FDR as America's greatest president and rate him, at least sixth worst, just below Bush. Don't waste a minute.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR is responsible for the Communist genocide of almost 100 million humans. The world would have been a better place if he didn't so openly support Mao and Stalin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must get this information to the historians of America, every historical group in this country should know this new information. As soon as the historians know what you know they will stop rating FDR as America's greatest president and rate him, at least sixth worst, just below Bush. Don't waste a minute.
Click to expand...


One capable of thinking and comprehending, would dispute the statements made in the OP that clearly show FDR a stooge for Stalin, rather than believe what they are told by statist historians.  Logic dictates that one must evaluate ALL the facts known to us today, before making a conclusion.

But then, we know you are not capable of logical thinking.  You prefer to be TOLD what to think....you would do well in the USSR.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR is responsible for the Communist genocide of almost 100 million humans. The world would have been a better place if he didn't so openly support Mao and Stalin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must get this information to the historians of America, every historical group in this country should know this new information. As soon as the historians know what you know they will stop rating FDR as America's greatest president and rate him, at least sixth worst, just below Bush. Don't waste a minute.
Click to expand...




What has happened to critical thinking?

And to the the courage to confront the new....and even dangerous facts?




I appreciate you reading the OP...but each and every time you fail to even try to deny said facts....
....for some reason you provide an insipid post suggesting that some other intellect is superior to yours, and you require their perspective to tell you what to believe.



This is one of those intellectual disconnects....you don't try to deny the new facts....but claim that you are unable to incorporate same into your thinking.


I provide the facts, and tell you the sources of same....you do with them what you wish.


----------



## Truthmatters

PC your link is shit.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Truthmatters said:


> PC your link is shit.






Watch your language.


The link is fine.

The source is illustrative.

Your skills are in need of an upgrade.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR is responsible for the Communist genocide of almost 100 million humans. The world would have been a better place if he didn't so openly support Mao and Stalin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must get this information to the historians of America, every historical group in this country should know this new information. As soon as the historians know what you know they will stop rating FDR as America's greatest president and rate him, at least sixth worst, just below Bush. Don't waste a minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened to critical thinking?
> 
> And to the the courage to confront the new....and even dangerous facts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate you reading the OP...but each and every time you fail to even try to deny said facts....
> ....for some reason you provide an insipid post suggesting that some other intellect is superior to yours, and you require their perspective to tell you what to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those intellectual disconnects....you don't try to deny the new facts....but claim that you are unable to incorporate same into your thinking.
> 
> 
> I provide
> the facts, and tell you the sources of same....you do with them what you wish.
Click to expand...


When you send all those historians the facts on FDR you might include a little reminder about critical thinking. Those historians have been rating presidents since 1948 and by this time they may be getting a little senile, so the more help they can get from posters on facts, on history, and critical thinking, the better.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

FDR had a little white house built in Warm Springs, Ga. due to the healing properties in the Springs there.  He stayed there during the summer.  His mistress stayed there with him.   It was common knowledge in Warm Springs that Eleanor's secretary was his mistess.  She offered to divorce him but he declined the offer fearing it would harm his reputation.  The Little White House is now a museum which includes the original furnishings - his personal belongings, etc.  I've seen it.  Quite a story behind the scenes for FDR.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must get this information to the historians of America, every historical group in this country should know this new information. As soon as the historians know what you know they will stop rating FDR as America's greatest president and rate him, at least sixth worst, just below Bush. Don't waste a minute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened to critical thinking?
> 
> And to the the courage to confront the new....and even dangerous facts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate you reading the OP...but each and every time you fail to even try to deny said facts....
> ....for some reason you provide an insipid post suggesting that some other intellect is superior to yours, and you require their perspective to tell you what to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those intellectual disconnects....you don't try to deny the new facts....but claim that you are unable to incorporate same into your thinking.
> 
> 
> I provide
> the facts, and tell you the sources of same....you do with them what you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you send all those historians the facts on FDR you might include a little reminder about critical thinking. Those historians have been rating presidents since 1948 and by this time they may be getting a little senile, so the more help they can get from posters on facts, on history, and critical thinking, the better.
Click to expand...




"When you send all those historians..."



That requires this explanation of another of our differences.



I never assume anyone else....anyone.....has a greater ability than I at having expertise. I read sources from both left and right.


I can read, analyze, and do research.

You, it seems, allow others to tell you what to think....e.g., "historians."



Get this:
Historian is a term for those who study history.
I study history....albeit not from 1948...
I must be one of those historians you claim to rely on.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Jeremiah said:


> FDR had a little white house built in Warm Springs, Ga. due to the healing properties in the Springs there.  He stayed there during the summer.  His mistress stayed there with him.   It was common knowledge in Warm Springs that Eleanor's secretary was his mistess.  She offered to divorce him but he declined the offer fearing it would harm his reputation.  The Little White House is now a museum which includes the original furnishings - his personal belongings, etc.  I've seen it.  Quite a story behind the scenes for FDR.




Interesting.
"She offered to divorce him but he declined the offer fearing it would harm his reputation."
I've read that she threatened to divorce him...but he promised to break it off with Mercer.....he lied. This was way before his presidency.
Her house in Hyde Park also has original furnishings.



I've visited his home, and Eleanor's- they are separate- at Hyde Park....and been to the FDR Presidential Library.





What I found amusing was the attached building, the* Henry A. Wallace *Visitor and Education Center.


*Wallace, was one of Roosevelt's three vice presidents......and a total dupe of the communists.*

He insisted that peace would be assured if the United States guaranteed Stalin control of Eastern Europe. (Ronad Radosh, Progressively Worse, The New Republic, June 12, 2000)  
When Stalin seized Czechoslovakia, Wallace sided with Stalin. When Stalin blockaded Berlin, Wallace opposed the Berlin Airlift. After visiting a Soviet slave camp, Wallace enthusiastically  described it a s a combination TVA and Hudson Bay Company. 
Ibid






Had not, as the Declaration of Independence notes, the Supreme Judge of the world mandated that FDR live long enough for Wallace to be replaced by Truman......*Stalin would have had another dupe in the Oval Office.*



Are you familiar with the old trivia question, what was Eleanor Roosevelt's maiden name?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR is responsible for the Communist genocide of almost 100 million humans. The world would have been a better place if he didn't so openly support Mao and Stalin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must get this information to the historians of America, every historical group in this country should know this new information. As soon as the historians know what you know they will stop rating FDR as America's greatest president and rate him, at least sixth worst, just below Bush. Don't waste a minute.
Click to expand...


What the fuck was so "Great" About FDR?

His economic programs were two terms of total failure 

More people on his staff and at State reported to Stalin than to him

He let the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor

He was a bigger racist than LBJ


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened to critical thinking?
> 
> And to the the courage to confront the new....and even dangerous facts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate you reading the OP...but each and every time you fail to even try to deny said facts....
> ....for some reason you provide an insipid post suggesting that some other intellect is superior to yours, and you require their perspective to tell you what to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those intellectual disconnects....you don't try to deny the new facts....but claim that you are unable to incorporate same into your thinking.
> 
> 
> I provide
> the facts, and tell you the sources of same....you do with them what you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you send all those historians the facts on FDR you might include a little reminder about critical thinking. Those historians have been rating presidents since 1948 and by this time they may be getting a little senile, so the more help they can get from posters on facts, on history, and critical thinking, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "When you send all those historians..."
> 
> 
> 
> That requires this explanation of another of our differences.
> 
> 
> 
> I never assume anyone else....anyone.....has a greater ability than I at having expertise. I read sources from both left and right.
> 
> 
> I can read, analyze, and do research.
> 
> You, it seems, allow others to tell you what to think....e.g., "historians."
> 
> 
> 
> Get this:
> Historian is a term for those who study history.
> I study history....albeit not from 1948...
> I must be one of those historians you claim to rely on.
Click to expand...



Nope I don't rely on someone who claims that the only qualification to be an historian is to say, "I study history."


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you send all those historians the facts on FDR you might include a little reminder about critical thinking. Those historians have been rating presidents since 1948 and by this time they may be getting a little senile, so the more help they can get from posters on facts, on history, and critical thinking, the better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "When you send all those historians..."
> 
> 
> 
> That requires this explanation of another of our differences.
> 
> 
> 
> I never assume anyone else....anyone.....has a greater ability than I at having expertise. I read sources from both left and right.
> 
> 
> I can read, analyze, and do research.
> 
> You, it seems, allow others to tell you what to think....e.g., "historians."
> 
> 
> 
> Get this:
> Historian is a term for those who study history.
> I study history....albeit not from 1948...
> I must be one of those historians you claim to rely on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I don't rely on someone who claims that the only qualification to be an historian is to say, "I study history."
Click to expand...




A better answer would have been a differentiation based on having been publishes.

That is, after all, the only real difference.

And, related to that, you, it seems, rely on those with a Leftist bent, who, therefore, would not be critical of FDR.


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> It's too bad that this post goes in "History," because the FDR endeavors are largely *responsible for the social breakdown we face today..*..
> Under Roosevelt's alignment with Soviet communism the United States "exchanged foundational principles and guiding ideas" for some sort of vain, destructive, moral relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Behind *FDR's lies and actions which served to cover and support Stalin's *murderous regime had to be the belief that, either,
> FDR was a devotee of communism and anticipated imposing it on America..
> ....or, that he believed that he could incorporate Stalin into an organization with himself as the 'CEO.'
> 
> The former explanation would represent illimitable evil.....the latter, abysmal ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. There is the false notion that FDR's infatuations began due to a need for the Soviet Union's aid in WWII, .....but he rushed to recognize them in 1933- was the first hint.
> 
> Is 'infatuation' too strong? Was there kind of political romance with Stalin?
> Consider the following pieces of the puzzle before you consider it hyperbolic:
> 
> a. As former ambassador to the Soviet Union, William Bullitt, queried him about *why he, FDR,  persuaded the public that "communists had become the friends of democracy" *and that he should remind all "that Communists in the United States are just as dangerous enemies as ever, and should not be allowed to crawl into our productive mechanism in order later to wreck it when they get new orders from somewhere abroad."
> "For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt, p. 522
> 
> b. Roosevelt threw himself into *shoring up the USSR at any cost-* in July of 1942 he lost 23 out of 34 ships in just one Lend-Lease supply voyage...
> 
> c. ...151,000* troops were left unsupplied *in the Philippines....think Bataan Death March...
> 
> d. ....the British colony of *Singapore was left without air cover* in order to satisfy Stalin's desire for the planes.  Found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore." Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.
> Singapore fell February 15, 1942.
> 
> e. ...*Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers *when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, irony of irony, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler.
> 
> f. The New Deal 'reorganization' of the State Department called for *the destruction of "the best Soviet Library in the United States."* (according to Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European Affairs Officer, State Department.) The 'Library' was broken up and dispersed among various files in the Library of Congress.
> "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies" by M. Stanton Evans, p. 83-84
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Representative Martin Dies  formed a committed to investigate communism, but found that *government archives of communist records and correspondence had been destroyed.* He wrote: "I was informed, confidentially, by a man well placed in the Department of Justice, that they were destroyed after it was learned that the Dies Committee was determined to conduct a full-scale investigation of Communism."
> It was Harry Hopkins, FDR's White House live-in Soviet spy, who *turned down Dies' request of assistance from Roosevelt* to help furnish the nascent committee with a staff of lawyers, investigators and stenographers.
> Dies, "Martin Dies' Story," p. 64.
> 
> a. Although the reference 'card-carrying Communist' was once accurate, the CPUSA stopped issuing cards once the Dies Committee began hearings. The highest membership serial number that his committee came across was 195,762.
> 'Given that Communists strive for quality, it was amazing tht they had been able to grow from 10,000 aliens in 1919 to nearly 200,000 members in 1938, mostly naive born or naturalized citizens."
> Dies, Ibid, p. 62-63.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Remarkable as the attempt to make files inaccessible seems, *it is just as common during Obama's term, *during which both the Justice Department and the Pentagon have overseen the methodical purges of "anti-Islamic" educational materials from security and military files and training courses.
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," chapter one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. "Because the American way and the Soviet system were diametrically opposed, *FDR had to lie to present common ground to the American people. In order to make his Big Lie stick, he also had to remove the people who knew better. Literally.* On a larger, more punitive scale,* [Victor] Kravchenko* discussed the same process."
> West, Ibid, p. 247.
> 
> 
> Kravchenko wrote, of his Soviet experiences:
> 
> "Shamelessly, without so much as an explanation, it revised half a century of Russian history. I don't mean simply that it falsified some facts or gave a new interpretation of events. I mean that it deliberately stood history on its head, expunging events and inventing facts.
> 
> It twisted the recent past--a past still fresh in millions of memories--into new and bizarre shapes, to conform with the version of affairs presented by the blood-purge trials and the accompanying propaganda... The roles of leading historical figures were perverted or altogether erased.... More than that, *living witnesses, as far as possible, were removed.* The directing staff of the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Moscow, repository of ideological truth, were removed and the more important people among them imprisoned or shot."
> Text collection
> 
> 
> And that is what FDR did in America.
> 
> ...did *to *America.



"In 1926, Roosevelt started the non-profit Georgia Warm Springs Foundation on the site of the springs he visited to partake of the waters' therapeutic effects. Twelve years later, he reinvented the charity as the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP). The NFIP was a non-partisan association of health scientists and volunteers that helped fund research for a polio vaccine and assisted victims on the long path through physical rehabilitation. Funded originally through the generosity of wealthy celebrities at yearly President's Birthday Balls, the foundation could not raise money fast enough to keep pace with polio's continued toll on America's children and, during the Depression, the polio epidemic worsened. In 1938, Roosevelt decided to appeal to the general public for help. At one fundraiser, celebrity singer Eddie Cantor jokingly urged the public to send dimes to the president, coining the term March of Dimes. The public took his appeal seriously, flooding the White House with 2,680,000 dimes and thousands of dollars in donations"

Franklin Roosevelt founds March of Dimes ? History.com This Day in History ? 1/3/1938

What has PoliticalChic done in her miserable life besides spread hate, fear and partisanship in an effort to further divide our country?

What is her agenda?  Besides character assassinations and the RED SCARE?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad that this post goes in "History," because the FDR endeavors are largely *responsible for the social breakdown we face today..*..
> Under Roosevelt's alignment with Soviet communism the United States "exchanged foundational principles and guiding ideas" for some sort of vain, destructive, moral relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Behind *FDR's lies and actions which served to cover and support Stalin's *murderous regime had to be the belief that, either,
> FDR was a devotee of communism and anticipated imposing it on America..
> ....or, that he believed that he could incorporate Stalin into an organization with himself as the 'CEO.'
> 
> The former explanation would represent illimitable evil.....the latter, abysmal ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. There is the false notion that FDR's infatuations began due to a need for the Soviet Union's aid in WWII, .....but he rushed to recognize them in 1933- was the first hint.
> 
> Is 'infatuation' too strong? Was there kind of political romance with Stalin?
> Consider the following pieces of the puzzle before you consider it hyperbolic:
> 
> a. As former ambassador to the Soviet Union, William Bullitt, queried him about *why he, FDR,  persuaded the public that "communists had become the friends of democracy" *and that he should remind all "that Communists in the United States are just as dangerous enemies as ever, and should not be allowed to crawl into our productive mechanism in order later to wreck it when they get new orders from somewhere abroad."
> "For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt, p. 522
> 
> b. Roosevelt threw himself into *shoring up the USSR at any cost-* in July of 1942 he lost 23 out of 34 ships in just one Lend-Lease supply voyage...
> 
> c. ...151,000* troops were left unsupplied *in the Philippines....think Bataan Death March...
> 
> d. ....the British colony of *Singapore was left without air cover* in order to satisfy Stalin's desire for the planes.  Found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore." Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.
> Singapore fell February 15, 1942.
> 
> e. ...*Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers *when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, irony of irony, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler.
> 
> f. The New Deal 'reorganization' of the State Department called for *the destruction of "the best Soviet Library in the United States."* (according to Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European Affairs Officer, State Department.) The 'Library' was broken up and dispersed among various files in the Library of Congress.
> "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies" by M. Stanton Evans, p. 83-84
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Representative Martin Dies  formed a committed to investigate communism, but found that *government archives of communist records and correspondence had been destroyed.* He wrote: "I was informed, confidentially, by a man well placed in the Department of Justice, that they were destroyed after it was learned that the Dies Committee was determined to conduct a full-scale investigation of Communism."
> It was Harry Hopkins, FDR's White House live-in Soviet spy, who *turned down Dies' request of assistance from Roosevelt* to help furnish the nascent committee with a staff of lawyers, investigators and stenographers.
> Dies, "Martin Dies' Story," p. 64.
> 
> a. Although the reference 'card-carrying Communist' was once accurate, the CPUSA stopped issuing cards once the Dies Committee began hearings. The highest membership serial number that his committee came across was 195,762.
> 'Given that Communists strive for quality, it was amazing tht they had been able to grow from 10,000 aliens in 1919 to nearly 200,000 members in 1938, mostly naive born or naturalized citizens."
> Dies, Ibid, p. 62-63.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Remarkable as the attempt to make files inaccessible seems, *it is just as common during Obama's term, *during which both the Justice Department and the Pentagon have overseen the methodical purges of "anti-Islamic" educational materials from security and military files and training courses.
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," chapter one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. "Because the American way and the Soviet system were diametrically opposed, *FDR had to lie to present common ground to the American people. In order to make his Big Lie stick, he also had to remove the people who knew better. Literally.* On a larger, more punitive scale,* [Victor] Kravchenko* discussed the same process."
> West, Ibid, p. 247.
> 
> 
> Kravchenko wrote, of his Soviet experiences:
> 
> "Shamelessly, without so much as an explanation, it revised half a century of Russian history. I don't mean simply that it falsified some facts or gave a new interpretation of events. I mean that it deliberately stood history on its head, expunging events and inventing facts.
> 
> It twisted the recent past--a past still fresh in millions of memories--into new and bizarre shapes, to conform with the version of affairs presented by the blood-purge trials and the accompanying propaganda... The roles of leading historical figures were perverted or altogether erased.... More than that, *living witnesses, as far as possible, were removed.* The directing staff of the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Moscow, repository of ideological truth, were removed and the more important people among them imprisoned or shot."
> Text collection
> 
> 
> And that is what FDR did in America.
> 
> ...did *to *America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In 1926, Roosevelt started the non-profit Georgia Warm Springs Foundation on the site of the springs he visited to partake of the waters' therapeutic effects. Twelve years later, he reinvented the charity as the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP). The NFIP was a non-partisan association of health scientists and volunteers that helped fund research for a polio vaccine and assisted victims on the long path through physical rehabilitation. Funded originally through the generosity of wealthy celebrities at yearly President's Birthday Balls, the foundation could not raise money fast enough to keep pace with polio's continued toll on America's children and, during the Depression, the polio epidemic worsened. In 1938, Roosevelt decided to appeal to the general public for help. At one fundraiser, celebrity singer Eddie Cantor jokingly urged the public to send dimes to the president, coining the term March of Dimes. The public took his appeal seriously, flooding the White House with 2,680,000 dimes and thousands of dollars in donations"
> 
> Franklin Roosevelt founds March of Dimes ? History.com This Day in History ? 1/3/1938
> 
> What has PoliticalChic done in her miserable life besides spread hate, fear and partisanship in an effort to further divide our country?
> 
> What is her agenda?  Besides character assassinations and the RED SCARE?
Click to expand...







Smert Komitet Gossudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti!


Get lost, you lying scum.


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad that this post goes in "History," because the FDR endeavors are largely *responsible for the social breakdown we face today..*..
> Under Roosevelt's alignment with Soviet communism the United States "exchanged foundational principles and guiding ideas" for some sort of vain, destructive, moral relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Behind *FDR's lies and actions which served to cover and support Stalin's *murderous regime had to be the belief that, either,
> FDR was a devotee of communism and anticipated imposing it on America..
> ....or, that he believed that he could incorporate Stalin into an organization with himself as the 'CEO.'
> 
> The former explanation would represent illimitable evil.....the latter, abysmal ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. There is the false notion that FDR's infatuations began due to a need for the Soviet Union's aid in WWII, .....but he rushed to recognize them in 1933- was the first hint.
> 
> Is 'infatuation' too strong? Was there kind of political romance with Stalin?
> Consider the following pieces of the puzzle before you consider it hyperbolic:
> 
> a. As former ambassador to the Soviet Union, William Bullitt, queried him about *why he, FDR,  persuaded the public that "communists had become the friends of democracy" *and that he should remind all "that Communists in the United States are just as dangerous enemies as ever, and should not be allowed to crawl into our productive mechanism in order later to wreck it when they get new orders from somewhere abroad."
> "For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt, p. 522
> 
> b. Roosevelt threw himself into *shoring up the USSR at any cost-* in July of 1942 he lost 23 out of 34 ships in just one Lend-Lease supply voyage...
> 
> c. ...151,000* troops were left unsupplied *in the Philippines....think Bataan Death March...
> 
> d. ....the British colony of *Singapore was left without air cover* in order to satisfy Stalin's desire for the planes.  Found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore." Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.
> Singapore fell February 15, 1942.
> 
> e. ...*Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers *when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, irony of irony, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler.
> 
> f. The New Deal 'reorganization' of the State Department called for *the destruction of "the best Soviet Library in the United States."* (according to Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European Affairs Officer, State Department.) The 'Library' was broken up and dispersed among various files in the Library of Congress.
> "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies" by M. Stanton Evans, p. 83-84
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Representative Martin Dies  formed a committed to investigate communism, but found that *government archives of communist records and correspondence had been destroyed.* He wrote: "I was informed, confidentially, by a man well placed in the Department of Justice, that they were destroyed after it was learned that the Dies Committee was determined to conduct a full-scale investigation of Communism."
> It was Harry Hopkins, FDR's White House live-in Soviet spy, who *turned down Dies' request of assistance from Roosevelt* to help furnish the nascent committee with a staff of lawyers, investigators and stenographers.
> Dies, "Martin Dies' Story," p. 64.
> 
> a. Although the reference 'card-carrying Communist' was once accurate, the CPUSA stopped issuing cards once the Dies Committee began hearings. The highest membership serial number that his committee came across was 195,762.
> 'Given that Communists strive for quality, it was amazing tht they had been able to grow from 10,000 aliens in 1919 to nearly 200,000 members in 1938, mostly naive born or naturalized citizens."
> Dies, Ibid, p. 62-63.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Remarkable as the attempt to make files inaccessible seems, *it is just as common during Obama's term, *during which both the Justice Department and the Pentagon have overseen the methodical purges of "anti-Islamic" educational materials from security and military files and training courses.
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," chapter one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. "Because the American way and the Soviet system were diametrically opposed, *FDR had to lie to present common ground to the American people. In order to make his Big Lie stick, he also had to remove the people who knew better. Literally.* On a larger, more punitive scale,* [Victor] Kravchenko* discussed the same process."
> West, Ibid, p. 247.
> 
> 
> Kravchenko wrote, of his Soviet experiences:
> 
> "Shamelessly, without so much as an explanation, it revised half a century of Russian history. I don't mean simply that it falsified some facts or gave a new interpretation of events. I mean that it deliberately stood history on its head, expunging events and inventing facts.
> 
> It twisted the recent past--a past still fresh in millions of memories--into new and bizarre shapes, to conform with the version of affairs presented by the blood-purge trials and the accompanying propaganda... The roles of leading historical figures were perverted or altogether erased.... More than that, *living witnesses, as far as possible, were removed.* The directing staff of the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Moscow, repository of ideological truth, were removed and the more important people among them imprisoned or shot."
> Text collection
> 
> 
> And that is what FDR did in America.
> 
> ...did *to *America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In 1926, Roosevelt started the non-profit Georgia Warm Springs Foundation on the site of the springs he visited to partake of the waters' therapeutic effects. Twelve years later, he reinvented the charity as the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP). The NFIP was a non-partisan association of health scientists and volunteers that helped fund research for a polio vaccine and assisted victims on the long path through physical rehabilitation. Funded originally through the generosity of wealthy celebrities at yearly President's Birthday Balls, the foundation could not raise money fast enough to keep pace with polio's continued toll on America's children and, during the Depression, the polio epidemic worsened. In 1938, Roosevelt decided to appeal to the general public for help. At one fundraiser, celebrity singer Eddie Cantor jokingly urged the public to send dimes to the president, coining the term March of Dimes. The public took his appeal seriously, flooding the White House with 2,680,000 dimes and thousands of dollars in donations"
> 
> Franklin Roosevelt founds March of Dimes ? History.com This Day in History ? 1/3/1938
> 
> What has PoliticalChic done in her miserable life besides spread hate, fear and partisanship in an effort to further divide our country?
> 
> What is her agenda?  Besides character assassinations and the RED SCARE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smert Komitet Gossudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti!
> 
> 
> Get lost, you lying scum.
Click to expand...


No.  But thanks so much for asking.

Let's see, what might you have accomplished in your 30 something years (?).  A career?  No, not with the amount of time you spend proselytizing on this forum (and I presume others); Marriage and a family?  No, not likely - divorce and several "get lost, you lying scum" failed relationships seems likely; does she own a dog or a cat?  I doubt it, narcissists aren't usually into caring for others - human or animal (though she may own a cat and use it like a 'beard'). 

And really, what is her agenda if not what I suggested?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In 1926, Roosevelt started the non-profit Georgia Warm Springs Foundation on the site of the springs he visited to partake of the waters' therapeutic effects. Twelve years later, he reinvented the charity as the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP). The NFIP was a non-partisan association of health scientists and volunteers that helped fund research for a polio vaccine and assisted victims on the long path through physical rehabilitation. Funded originally through the generosity of wealthy celebrities at yearly President's Birthday Balls, the foundation could not raise money fast enough to keep pace with polio's continued toll on America's children and, during the Depression, the polio epidemic worsened. In 1938, Roosevelt decided to appeal to the general public for help. At one fundraiser, celebrity singer Eddie Cantor jokingly urged the public to send dimes to the president, coining the term March of Dimes. The public took his appeal seriously, flooding the White House with 2,680,000 dimes and thousands of dollars in donations"
> 
> Franklin Roosevelt founds March of Dimes ? History.com This Day in History ? 1/3/1938
> 
> What has PoliticalChic done in her miserable life besides spread hate, fear and partisanship in an effort to further divide our country?
> 
> What is her agenda?  Besides character assassinations and the RED SCARE?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smert Komitet Gossudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti!
> 
> 
> Get lost, you lying scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  But thanks so much for asking.
> 
> Let's see, what might you have accomplished in your 30 something years (?).  A career?  No, not with the amount of time you spend proselytizing on this forum (and I presume others); Marriage and a family?  No, not likely - divorce and several "get lost, you lying scum" failed relationships seems likely; does she own a dog or a cat?  I doubt it, narcissists aren't usually into caring for others - human or animal (though she may own a cat and use it like a 'beard').
> 
> And really, what is her agenda if not what I suggested?
Click to expand...






I had a blossoming career as a life guard until some blue kid got me fired.

Get lost, you lying scum.


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smert Komitet Gossudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti!
> 
> 
> Get lost, you lying scum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  But thanks so much for asking.
> 
> Let's see, what might you have accomplished in your 30 something years (?).  A career?  No, not with the amount of time you spend proselytizing on this forum (and I presume others); Marriage and a family?  No, not likely - divorce and several "get lost, you lying scum" failed relationships seems likely; does she own a dog or a cat?  I doubt it, narcissists aren't usually into caring for others - human or animal (though she may own a cat and use it like a 'beard').
> 
> And really, what is her agenda if not what I suggested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a blossoming career as a life guard until some blue kid got me fired.
> 
> Get lost, you lying scum.
Click to expand...


No, but thanks for asking.  I see CrusaderFrank thanked you, you must be so proud.  When I think of the body of work produced by those who find you to be brilliant, witty and clever, I'm truly amazed.  Amazed someone would 'show their face' after getting praise from the village idiots.

BTW, do you have a cat?


----------



## Connery

The blanket term "Lies" is too far reaching in any honest analysis, IMO, rather a critical look at what occurred.

FDR believed that capitalism and excessive competition were responsible for the failed economy and implemented  over bearing government intervention which was deemed unconstitutional and prolonged the great depression. 

"The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted  albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years...."
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

If I were a mindless hack spouting off anything which furthers my agenda I would call FDR a Communist. Thankfully, I am a pragmatist who just wants to get at the truth regardless of the label.

Too much government interference hampers free enterprise as FDR's policies demonstrate and a laissez faire approach to economic growth and stability should always take precedence over government intervention.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  But thanks so much for asking.
> 
> Let's see, what might you have accomplished in your 30 something years (?).  A career?  No, not with the amount of time you spend proselytizing on this forum (and I presume others); Marriage and a family?  No, not likely - divorce and several "get lost, you lying scum" failed relationships seems likely; does she own a dog or a cat?  I doubt it, narcissists aren't usually into caring for others - human or animal (though she may own a cat and use it like a 'beard').
> 
> And really, what is her agenda if not what I suggested?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a blossoming career as a life guard until some blue kid got me fired.
> 
> Get lost, you lying scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but thanks for asking.  I see CrusaderFrank thanked you, you must be so proud.  When I think of the body of work produced by those who find you to be brilliant, witty and clever, I'm truly amazed.  Amazed someone would 'show their face' after getting praise from the village idiots.
> 
> BTW, do you have a cat?
Click to expand...






There seems to be a pattern here....

First you fabricate charges about my posts, lies, that, like you....are totally without merit.

Now you make requests for personal information about my private life.




I fully understand a lesser being like you,  having a fascination with my abilities, and charms....but, face facts: you have as much hope here as you've had in every other relationship you endeavored.



You not only sound like an imbecile, but I'll hazard a guess you look exactly like one too


I'll bet you're so ugly when you walk into a bank, they turn the cameras off!



Off with you, lying scum.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Connery said:


> The blanket term "Lies" is too far reaching in any honest analysis, IMO, rather a critical look at what occurred.
> 
> FDR believed that capitalism and excessive competition were responsible for the failed economy and implemented  over bearing government intervention which was deemed unconstitutional and prolonged the great depression.
> 
> "The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.
> 
> Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.
> 
> Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted  albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years...."
> FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> If I were a mindless hack spouting off anything which furthers my agenda I would call FDR a Communist. Thankfully, I am a pragmatist who just wants to get at the truth regardless of the label.
> 
> Too much government interference hampers free enterprise as FDR's policies demonstrate and a laissez faire approach to economic growth and stability should always take precedence over government intervention.







Sorry, Connery.....

While a most interesting post, it is not one that is applicable in this thread.

I certainly attack Roosevelt's economic policies....regularly....but this OP deals entirely with foreign policy.



The thrust is that FDR was willing to overlook all of the homicidal policies of Stalin, and convince Americans that the USSR was a noble partner for our democracy.

Not only was that a lie, but it allowed the Evil Empire to a flourish.....and communism to grow in our nation with severe and deleterious effect.



The Holocaust, the Ukrainian Terror Famine, the blood purges, the Katyn Forest massacre, the Korean War, Mao's slaughter of millions,....all can be traced to FDR's foreign policy vis-a-vis Stalin.

And, yes...I can back up everything in that perspective.



I hope you have the time and interest to comment on said view.


----------



## Connery

PoliticalChic said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> The blanket term "Lies" is too far reaching in any honest analysis, IMO, rather a critical look at what occurred.
> 
> FDR believed that capitalism and excessive competition were responsible for the failed economy and implemented  over bearing government intervention which was deemed unconstitutional and prolonged the great depression.
> 
> "The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.
> 
> Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.
> 
> Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted  albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years...."
> FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> If I were a mindless hack spouting off anything which furthers my agenda I would call FDR a Communist. Thankfully, I am a pragmatist who just wants to get at the truth regardless of the label.
> 
> Too much government interference hampers free enterprise as FDR's policies demonstrate and a laissez faire approach to economic growth and stability should always take precedence over government intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Connery.....
> 
> While a most interesting post, it is not one that is applicable in this thread.
> 
> I certainly attack Roosevelt's economic policies....regularly....but this OP deals entirely with foreign policy.
> 
> 
> 
> The thrust is that FDR was willing to overlook all of the homicidal policies of Stalin, and convince Americans that the USSR was a noble partner for our democracy.
> 
> Not only was that a lie, but it allowed the Evil Empire to a flourish.....and communism to grow in our nation with severe and deleterious effect.
> 
> 
> 
> The Holocaust, the Ukrainian Terror Famine, the blood purges, the Katyn Forest massacre, the Korean War, Mao's slaughter of millions,....all can be traced to FDR's foreign policy vis-a-vis Stalin.
> 
> And, yes...I can back up everything in that perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you have the time and interest to comment on said view.
Click to expand...


When I saw your term communism I naturally was thinking about:

 com·mu·nism
noun \&#712;käm-y&#601;-&#716;ni-z&#601;m, -yü-\

: a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property

Communism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


You are very difficult to understand sometimes....


----------



## PoliticalChic

Connery said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> The blanket term "Lies" is too far reaching in any honest analysis, IMO, rather a critical look at what occurred.
> 
> FDR believed that capitalism and excessive competition were responsible for the failed economy and implemented  over bearing government intervention which was deemed unconstitutional and prolonged the great depression.
> 
> "The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.
> 
> Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.
> 
> Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted  albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years...."
> FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> If I were a mindless hack spouting off anything which furthers my agenda I would call FDR a Communist. Thankfully, I am a pragmatist who just wants to get at the truth regardless of the label.
> 
> Too much government interference hampers free enterprise as FDR's policies demonstrate and a laissez faire approach to economic growth and stability should always take precedence over government intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Connery.....
> 
> While a most interesting post, it is not one that is applicable in this thread.
> 
> I certainly attack Roosevelt's economic policies....regularly....but this OP deals entirely with foreign policy.
> 
> 
> 
> The thrust is that FDR was willing to overlook all of the homicidal policies of Stalin, and convince Americans that the USSR was a noble partner for our democracy.
> 
> Not only was that a lie, but it allowed the Evil Empire to a flourish.....and communism to grow in our nation with severe and deleterious effect.
> 
> 
> 
> The Holocaust, the Ukrainian Terror Famine, the blood purges, the Katyn Forest massacre, the Korean War, Mao's slaughter of millions,....all can be traced to FDR's foreign policy vis-a-vis Stalin.
> 
> And, yes...I can back up everything in that perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you have the time and interest to comment on said view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I saw your term communism I naturally was thinking about:
> 
> com·mu·nism
> noun \&#712;käm-y&#601;-&#716;ni-z&#601;m, -yü-\
> 
> : a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property
> 
> Communism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> You are very difficult to understand sometimes....
Click to expand...






1. "You are very difficult to understand sometimes..."

I doubt that such is the case for one of your intelligence....if you actually read the OP to which you were ostensibly replying.....




2. The communism in question is that of Karl Marx....

This communism:
Lenin believed in Utopia, a harmony reached only after certain groups of people are killed: the 'War of Classes'. 
 'Initially, wherever communists come to power, Russia, Cuba, Poland, Nicaragua, China, it doesn't matter- they destroy about 10% of the people. They are not enemies...best intellectuals, best workers, best engineers...doesn't matter. It is to restructure the fabric of society, a form of social engineering." 
Vladimir Bukovsky.


3. And, to return to the OP....this is what Franklin Roosevelt decided to attach America to in November of 1933.

a. FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR. If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational:

 "*Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State* for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath" by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29. 


b. Bear in mind, *eight months earlier, journalist Gareth Jones had exposed Stalin's Terror Famine*: "In the train a Communist denied to me that there was a famine. I flung a crust of bread which I had been eating from my own supply into a spittoon. A peasant fellow-passenger fished it out and ravenously ate it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Jones_(journalist)

c. Malcolm Muggeridge "  was the first writer to *reveal the true nature of Stalin's regime when in 1933 he exposed the terror famine in the Ukraine.* " [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Time-Eternity-Uncollected-Writings-Muggeridge/dp/1570759057]Time and Eternity: The Uncollected Writings of Malcolm Muggeridge: Malcolm Muggeridge, Nicholas Flynn: 9781570759055: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

So* FDR knew of the Terror Famine...*yet he enveloped Joe Stalin in " the cloak of his popularity..." Time Magazine, December 17, 1934. 



I'd be happy to provide Dunn's 'convergence' theory that he developed to explain FDR's insane alliance with this sociopathic regime.


----------



## Connery

PoliticalChic said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Connery.....
> 
> While a most interesting post, it is not one that is applicable in this thread.
> 
> I certainly attack Roosevelt's economic policies....regularly....but this OP deals entirely with foreign policy.
> 
> 
> 
> The thrust is that FDR was willing to overlook all of the homicidal policies of Stalin, and convince Americans that the USSR was a noble partner for our democracy.
> 
> Not only was that a lie, but it allowed the Evil Empire to a flourish.....and communism to grow in our nation with severe and deleterious effect.
> 
> 
> 
> The Holocaust, the Ukrainian Terror Famine, the blood purges, the Katyn Forest massacre, the Korean War, Mao's slaughter of millions,....all can be traced to FDR's foreign policy vis-a-vis Stalin.
> 
> And, yes...I can back up everything in that perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you have the time and interest to comment on said view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I saw your term communism I naturally was thinking about:
> 
> com·mu·nism
> noun \&#712;käm-y&#601;-&#716;ni-z&#601;m, -yü-\
> 
> : a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property
> 
> Communism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> You are very difficult to understand sometimes....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you actually read the OP
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply, I should have done more than take a quick glance.... and spend the normal amount of time I do deciphering your writings.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

PoliticalChic said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR had a little white house built in Warm Springs, Ga. due to the healing properties in the Springs there.  He stayed there during the summer.  His mistress stayed there with him.   It was common knowledge in Warm Springs that Eleanor's secretary was his mistess.  She offered to divorce him but he declined the offer fearing it would harm his reputation.  The Little White House is now a museum which includes the original furnishings - his personal belongings, etc.  I've seen it.  Quite a story behind the scenes for FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> "She offered to divorce him but he declined the offer fearing it would harm his reputation."
> I've read that she threatened to divorce him...but he promised to break it off with Mercer.....he lied. This was way before his presidency.
> Her house in Hyde Park also has original furnishings.
> 
> 
> 
> I've visited his home, and Eleanor's- they are separate- at Hyde Park....and been to the FDR Presidential Library.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I found amusing was the attached building, the* Henry A. Wallace *Visitor and Education Center.
> 
> 
> *Wallace, was one of Roosevelt's three vice presidents......and a total dupe of the communists.*
> 
> He insisted that peace would be assured if the United States guaranteed Stalin control of Eastern Europe. (Ronad Radosh, Progressively Worse, The New Republic, June 12, 2000)
> When Stalin seized Czechoslovakia, Wallace sided with Stalin. When Stalin blockaded Berlin, Wallace opposed the Berlin Airlift. After visiting a Soviet slave camp, Wallace enthusiastically  described it a s a combination TVA and Hudson Bay Company.
> Ibid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had not, as the Declaration of Independence notes, the Supreme Judge of the world mandated that FDR live long enough for Wallace to be replaced by Truman......*Stalin would have had another dupe in the Oval Office.*
> 
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with the old trivia question, what was Eleanor Roosevelt's maiden name?
Click to expand...


I would have thought she'd threaten him at the very least, PC.  The person who gave the tour at The Little White House said Eleanor actually offered him the divorce so he could marry her but because of his political future - fear of harm to his reputation he decided against it.  From the photographs / tour  it doesn't look like he took Eleanor's threats seriously.  Mercer's bedroom was right next to his. ( at Warm Springs )   FDR was responsible for the deaths of the Jews seeking asylum during WWII.  He refused to grant the Jews refuge and forced them to sail back to Europe where they perished.  The man was utterly despicable.  No conscience whatsoever... 

 I would love to see what you could find out about Hoover & the FBI.  I was told there was never any confirmation about his actual date of birth - where he came from, etc.  

  As to what you have uncovered concerning FDR & Wallace -amazing!   Thank you!   

note*  I never heard of the trivia question what was Eleanor's maiden name.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Jeremiah said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR had a little white house built in Warm Springs, Ga. due to the healing properties in the Springs there.  He stayed there during the summer.  His mistress stayed there with him.   It was common knowledge in Warm Springs that Eleanor's secretary was his mistess.  She offered to divorce him but he declined the offer fearing it would harm his reputation.  The Little White House is now a museum which includes the original furnishings - his personal belongings, etc.  I've seen it.  Quite a story behind the scenes for FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> "She offered to divorce him but he declined the offer fearing it would harm his reputation."
> I've read that she threatened to divorce him...but he promised to break it off with Mercer.....he lied. This was way before his presidency.
> Her house in Hyde Park also has original furnishings.
> 
> 
> 
> I've visited his home, and Eleanor's- they are separate- at Hyde Park....and been to the FDR Presidential Library.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I found amusing was the attached building, the* Henry A. Wallace *Visitor and Education Center.
> 
> 
> *Wallace, was one of Roosevelt's three vice presidents......and a total dupe of the communists.*
> 
> He insisted that peace would be assured if the United States guaranteed Stalin control of Eastern Europe. (Ronad Radosh, Progressively Worse, The New Republic, June 12, 2000)
> When Stalin seized Czechoslovakia, Wallace sided with Stalin. When Stalin blockaded Berlin, Wallace opposed the Berlin Airlift. After visiting a Soviet slave camp, Wallace enthusiastically  described it a s a combination TVA and Hudson Bay Company.
> Ibid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had not, as the Declaration of Independence notes, the Supreme Judge of the world mandated that FDR live long enough for Wallace to be replaced by Truman......*Stalin would have had another dupe in the Oval Office.*
> 
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with the old trivia question, what was Eleanor Roosevelt's maiden name?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would have thought she'd threaten him at the very least, PC.  The person who gave the tour at The Little White House said Eleanor actually offered him the divorce so he could marry her but because of his political future - fear of harm to his reputation he decided against it.  From the photographs / tour  it doesn't look like he took Eleanor's threats seriously.  Mercer's bedroom was right next to his. ( at Warm Springs )   FDR was responsible for the deaths of the Jews seeking asylum during WWII.  He refused to grant the Jews refuge and forced them to sail back to Europe where they perished.  The man was utterly despicable.  No conscience whatsoever...
> 
> I would love to see what you could find out about Hoover & the FBI.  I was told there was never any confirmation about his actual date of birth - where he came from, etc.
> 
> As to what you have uncovered concerning FDR & Wallace -amazing!   Thank you!
> 
> note*  I never heard of the trivia question what was Eleanor's maiden name.
Click to expand...





Thank you for that post.

1. Eleanor's maiden name was Roosevelt...they were cousins.


2. In addition to your reference to the St. Louis, and the Jews....let's remember that his confinement of Japanese Americans was a political rather than military machination.

3. AND....his very first appointment to the Supreme Court was a KKKer who embroiled all of in the bogus 'separation of church and state' movement, to erase religion from the public arena.

a.	Hugo Black was his first, in 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said They all look alike to a person not a Jap. Engage: Conversations in Philosophy: "They all look alike to a person not a Jap"*: The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU

b. Hugo Black's anti-Catholic bias, which showed up in his actions on the Supreme Court:
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the eternal separation of Church and State.... Separation was a crucial part of the KKKs jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansmans Creed..."
Egnorance: Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state"


----------



## PoliticalChic

Connery said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I saw your term communism I naturally was thinking about:
> 
> com·mu·nism
> noun \&#712;käm-y&#601;-&#716;ni-z&#601;m, -yü-\
> 
> : a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property
> 
> Communism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> You are very difficult to understand sometimes....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you actually read the OP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for your reply, I should have done more than take a quick glance.... and spend the normal amount of time I do deciphering your writings.
Click to expand...




Watch your step, Connery.....or I may start posting in the Occitan language.....


----------



## Connery

PoliticalChic said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you actually read the OP
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your reply, I should have done more than take a quick glance.... and spend the normal amount of time I do deciphering your writings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch your step, Connery.....or I may start posting in the Occitan language.....
Click to expand...


I may understand you better as I speak Bronx....

BTW very nice topic!!!!!


----------



## regent

Posters go through all these tid-bits of history to find fault with FDR, and certainly in twelve years of presidency, the Great Depression and World War II, there are many areas and many decisions where faults can be found. Yet, when push comes to shove in rating presidents historians, including conservative historians, have always rated FDR in the top three, with Lincoln and Washington. In the last rating, however, historians moved FDR from one of the top three to number one. The answer to that rating by some, is to label historians as communists, and non-thnkers as they are, but what of the American people, they elected FDR four times a record that will stand for some time. Were they communists too?  So we can verify that the people that lived through that Great Depression and World War II, plus the historians agree on FDR's rating. 
The question for conservatives and FDR haters is how do you combat the people that voted for FDR four times and the historians and presidential experts? Well other than calling FDR a communist, his marriage, his dog Fala, (yep, they went after 
fdr's dog) plus nit picking mistakes in history not much. It's all in the history books.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> Posters go through all these tid-bits of history to find fault with FDR, and certainly in twelve years of presidency, the Great Depression and World War II, there are many areas and many decisions where faults can be found. Yet, when push comes to shove in rating presidents historians, including conservative historians, have always rated FDR in the top three, with Lincoln and Washington. In the last rating, however, historians moved FDR from one of the top three to number one. The answer to that rating by some, is to label historians as communists, and non-thnkers as they are, but what of the American people, they elected FDR four times a record that will stand for some time. Were they communists too?  So we can verify that the people that lived through that Great Depression and World War II, plus the historians agree on FDR's rating.
> The question for conservatives and FDR haters is how do you combat the people that voted for FDR four times and the historians and presidential experts? Well other than calling FDR a communist, his marriage, his dog Fala, (yep, they went after
> fdr's dog) plus nit picking mistakes in history not much. It's all in the history books.





An interesting comment.

BTW...I could list a dozen advances for society to FDR's credit....and did so on his birthday.

And you write...
"there are many areas and many decisions where faults can be found."

So, you agree with all..most....or many of the faults that I have posted over the months.
OK.


The difference in our perspectives is this: the weight on each side of the scale.


Perhaps this is too limiting as a summary....but I cannot forgive the damage to the fabric of American society and culture by acknowledging the material good that FDR did for the folks.

He told us that we were just like the Soviets....or, the same thing, that they were just like us.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posters go through all these tid-bits of history to find fault with FDR, and certainly in twelve years of presidency, the Great Depression and World War II, there are many areas and many decisions where faults can be found. Yet, when push comes to shove in rating presidents historians, including conservative historians, have always rated FDR in the top three, with Lincoln and Washington. In the last rating, however, historians moved FDR from one of the top three to number one. The answer to that rating by some, is to label historians as communists, and non-thnkers as they are, but what of the American people, they elected FDR four times a record that will stand for some time. Were they communists too?  So we can verify that the people that lived through that Great Depression and World War II, plus the historians agree on FDR's rating.
> The question for conservatives and FDR haters is how do you combat the people that voted for FDR four times and the historians and presidential experts? Well other than calling FDR a communist, his marriage, his dog Fala, (yep, they went after
> fdr's dog) plus nit picking mistakes in history not much. It's all in the history books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting comment.
> 
> BTW...I could list a dozen advances for society to FDR's credit....and did so on his birthday.
> 
> And you write...
> "there are many areas and many decisions where faults can be found."
> 
> So, you agree with all..most....or many of the faults that I have posted over the months.
> OK.
> 
> 
> The difference in our perspectives is this: the weight on each side of the scale.
> 
> 
> Perhaps this is too limiting as a summary....but I cannot forgive the damage to the fabric of American society and culture by acknowledging the material good that FDR did for the folks.
> 
> He told us that we were just like the Soviets....or, the same thing, that they were just like us.
Click to expand...


The problem with selecting isolated faults on a piecemeal basis is the larger historical picture, is often omitted. Add to that from the Monday morning quarter-back position we can not only look at the mistake but present a different action as the correct one. Posters on these boards are limited in giving the whole historical picture but not in labeling  historical mistakes or their version of the proper solution. 
Professional historians often do the same but other historians point out their errors. For example, Beard wrote a history saying that the framers in writing the Constitution intended it to be for the benefit of the wealthy and for themselves. Other historians called Beard on his interpretation and Beard accepted the criticisms. Eventually historians get history correct. 
As to your tid-bit of history that FDR said we were like the Soviets, if true, what was the larger picture at the time, what was FDR's intent. Did FDR mean we were like the Soviets in that we were communists, or that we were like the Soviets in that we were both fighting Germany, or other? And a good historian would ask what was the significant or importance of the statement.


----------



## Billo_Really

FU to all those who would knock FR.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Billo_Really said:


> FU to all those who would knock FR.






Liberal post, such as yours, always leave one with the conundrum.....deciding whether it is more classy or more insightful.


Dunce.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posters go through all these tid-bits of history to find fault with FDR, and certainly in twelve years of presidency, the Great Depression and World War II, there are many areas and many decisions where faults can be found. Yet, when push comes to shove in rating presidents historians, including conservative historians, have always rated FDR in the top three, with Lincoln and Washington. In the last rating, however, historians moved FDR from one of the top three to number one. The answer to that rating by some, is to label historians as communists, and non-thnkers as they are, but what of the American people, they elected FDR four times a record that will stand for some time. Were they communists too?  So we can verify that the people that lived through that Great Depression and World War II, plus the historians agree on FDR's rating.
> The question for conservatives and FDR haters is how do you combat the people that voted for FDR four times and the historians and presidential experts? Well other than calling FDR a communist, his marriage, his dog Fala, (yep, they went after
> fdr's dog) plus nit picking mistakes in history not much. It's all in the history books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting comment.
> 
> BTW...I could list a dozen advances for society to FDR's credit....and did so on his birthday.
> 
> And you write...
> "there are many areas and many decisions where faults can be found."
> 
> So, you agree with all..most....or many of the faults that I have posted over the months.
> OK.
> 
> 
> The difference in our perspectives is this: the weight on each side of the scale.
> 
> 
> Perhaps this is too limiting as a summary....but I cannot forgive the damage to the fabric of American society and culture by acknowledging the material good that FDR did for the folks.
> 
> He told us that we were just like the Soviets....or, the same thing, that they were just like us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with selecting isolated faults on a piecemeal basis is the larger historical picture, is often omitted. Add to that from the Monday morning quarter-back position we can not only look at the mistake but present a different action as the correct one. Posters on these boards are limited in giving the whole historical picture but not in labeling  historical mistakes or their version of the proper solution.
> Professional historians often do the same but other historians point out their errors. For example, Beard wrote a history saying that the framers in writing the Constitution intended it to be for the benefit of the wealthy and for themselves. Other historians called Beard on his interpretation and Beard accepted the criticisms. Eventually historians get history correct.
> As to your tid-bit of history that FDR said we were like the Soviets, if true, what was the larger picture at the time, what was FDR's intent. Did FDR mean we were like the Soviets in that we were communists, or that we were like the Soviets in that we were both fighting Germany, or other? And a good historian would ask what was the significant or importance of the statement.
Click to expand...





1. "The problem with selecting isolated faults on a piecemeal basis...."

I haven't done that. I've provided numerous examples, documented and linked, designed to lead to the overwhelming conclusion about FDR and the Soviets.


2. ".... is the larger historical picture, is often omitted."

As you haven't denied what I have provided....I would be more than appreciative if you would give some explanation of FDR's propensities in said regard......giving the larger picture.


No one has been able to do so. I await your insight.



3. "...look at the mistake but present a different action as the correct one."
I did so....here: 
http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/329174-fdr-and-what-could-have-been.html




4. "As to your tid-bit of history that FDR said we were like the Soviets, if true, what was the larger picture at the time, what was FDR's intent. Did FDR mean we were like the Soviets in that we were communists, or that we were like the Soviets in that we were both fighting Germany, or other?"

William Bullitt was FDR's first ambassador to Moscow.....and began as a supporter of the communists.
He became a strong anti-communist and his warnings to Roosevelt were ignored.

And the officers of the Foreign Service who opposed communism were purged....as per the demands of Stalin.

"...or that we were like the Soviets in that we were both fighting Germany, or other?"

We weren't fighting Germany in 1933, when FDR first recognized the USSR, even though he knew that Stalin had killed more of his own people than Hitler, later, would.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad that this post goes in "History," because the FDR endeavors are largely *responsible for the social breakdown we face today..*..
> Under Roosevelt's alignment with Soviet communism the United States "exchanged foundational principles and guiding ideas" for some sort of vain, destructive, moral relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Behind *FDR's lies and actions which served to cover and support Stalin's *murderous regime had to be the belief that, either,
> FDR was a devotee of communism and anticipated imposing it on America..
> ....or, that he believed that he could incorporate Stalin into an organization with himself as the 'CEO.'
> 
> The former explanation would represent illimitable evil.....the latter, abysmal ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. There is the false notion that FDR's infatuations began due to a need for the Soviet Union's aid in WWII, .....but he rushed to recognize them in 1933- was the first hint.
> 
> Is 'infatuation' too strong? Was there kind of political romance with Stalin?
> Consider the following pieces of the puzzle before you consider it hyperbolic:
> 
> a. As former ambassador to the Soviet Union, William Bullitt, queried him about *why he, FDR,  persuaded the public that "communists had become the friends of democracy" *and that he should remind all "that Communists in the United States are just as dangerous enemies as ever, and should not be allowed to crawl into our productive mechanism in order later to wreck it when they get new orders from somewhere abroad."
> "For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt, p. 522
> 
> b. Roosevelt threw himself into *shoring up the USSR at any cost-* in July of 1942 he lost 23 out of 34 ships in just one Lend-Lease supply voyage...
> 
> c. ...151,000* troops were left unsupplied *in the Philippines....think Bataan Death March...
> 
> d. ....the British colony of *Singapore was left without air cover* in order to satisfy Stalin's desire for the planes.  Found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore." Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.
> Singapore fell February 15, 1942.
> 
> e. ...*Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers *when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, irony of irony, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler.
> 
> f. The New Deal 'reorganization' of the State Department called for *the destruction of "the best Soviet Library in the United States."* (according to Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European Affairs Officer, State Department.) The 'Library' was broken up and dispersed among various files in the Library of Congress.
> "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies" by M. Stanton Evans, p. 83-84
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Representative Martin Dies  formed a committed to investigate communism, but found that *government archives of communist records and correspondence had been destroyed.* He wrote: "I was informed, confidentially, by a man well placed in the Department of Justice, that they were destroyed after it was learned that the Dies Committee was determined to conduct a full-scale investigation of Communism."
> It was Harry Hopkins, FDR's White House live-in Soviet spy, who *turned down Dies' request of assistance from Roosevelt* to help furnish the nascent committee with a staff of lawyers, investigators and stenographers.
> Dies, "Martin Dies' Story," p. 64.
> 
> a. Although the reference 'card-carrying Communist' was once accurate, the CPUSA stopped issuing cards once the Dies Committee began hearings. The highest membership serial number that his committee came across was 195,762.
> 'Given that Communists strive for quality, it was amazing tht they had been able to grow from 10,000 aliens in 1919 to nearly 200,000 members in 1938, mostly naive born or naturalized citizens."
> Dies, Ibid, p. 62-63.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Remarkable as the attempt to make files inaccessible seems, *it is just as common during Obama's term, *during which both the Justice Department and the Pentagon have overseen the methodical purges of "anti-Islamic" educational materials from security and military files and training courses.
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," chapter one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. "Because the American way and the Soviet system were diametrically opposed, *FDR had to lie to present common ground to the American people. In order to make his Big Lie stick, he also had to remove the people who knew better. Literally.* On a larger, more punitive scale,* [Victor] Kravchenko* discussed the same process."
> West, Ibid, p. 247.
> 
> 
> Kravchenko wrote, of his Soviet experiences:
> 
> "Shamelessly, without so much as an explanation, it revised half a century of Russian history. I don't mean simply that it falsified some facts or gave a new interpretation of events. I mean that it deliberately stood history on its head, expunging events and inventing facts.
> 
> It twisted the recent past--a past still fresh in millions of memories--into new and bizarre shapes, to conform with the version of affairs presented by the blood-purge trials and the accompanying propaganda... The roles of leading historical figures were perverted or altogether erased.... More than that, *living witnesses, as far as possible, were removed.* The directing staff of the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Moscow, repository of ideological truth, were removed and the more important people among them imprisoned or shot."
> Text collection
> 
> 
> And that is what FDR did in America.
> 
> ...did *to *America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In 1926, Roosevelt started the non-profit Georgia Warm Springs Foundation on the site of the springs he visited to partake of the waters' therapeutic effects. Twelve years later, he reinvented the charity as the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP). The NFIP was a non-partisan association of health scientists and volunteers that helped fund research for a polio vaccine and assisted victims on the long path through physical rehabilitation. Funded originally through the generosity of wealthy celebrities at yearly President's Birthday Balls, the foundation could not raise money fast enough to keep pace with polio's continued toll on America's children and, during the Depression, the polio epidemic worsened. In 1938, Roosevelt decided to appeal to the general public for help. At one fundraiser, celebrity singer Eddie Cantor jokingly urged the public to send dimes to the president, coining the term March of Dimes. The public took his appeal seriously, flooding the White House with 2,680,000 dimes and thousands of dollars in donations"
> 
> Franklin Roosevelt founds March of Dimes ? History.com This Day in History ? 1/3/1938
> 
> What has PoliticalChic done in her miserable life besides spread hate, fear and partisanship in an effort to further divide our country?
> 
> What is her agenda?  Besides character assassinations and the RED SCARE?
Click to expand...


March of Dimes?

Did you read the OP before that non-sequitar response?


----------



## Connery

PoliticalChic said:


> It's too bad that this post goes in "History," because the FDR endeavors are largely *responsible for the social breakdown we face today..*..
> Under Roosevelt's alignment with Soviet communism the United States "exchanged foundational principles and guiding ideas" for some sort of vain, destructive, moral relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Behind *FDR's lies and actions which served to cover and support Stalin's *murderous regime had to be the belief that, either,
> FDR was a devotee of communism and anticipated imposing it on America..
> ....or, that he believed that he could incorporate Stalin into an organization with himself as the 'CEO.'
> 
> The former explanation would represent illimitable evil.....the latter, abysmal ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. There is the false notion that FDR's infatuations began due to a need for the Soviet Union's aid in WWII, .....but he rushed to recognize them in 1933- was the first hint.
> 
> Is 'infatuation' too strong? Was there kind of political romance with Stalin?
> Consider the following pieces of the puzzle before you consider it hyperbolic:
> 
> a. As former ambassador to the Soviet Union, William Bullitt, queried him about *why he, FDR,  persuaded the public that "communists had become the friends of democracy" *and that he should remind all "that Communists in the United States are just as dangerous enemies as ever, and should not be allowed to crawl into our productive mechanism in order later to wreck it when they get new orders from somewhere abroad."
> "For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt, p. 522
> 
> b. Roosevelt threw himself into *shoring up the USSR at any cost-* in July of 1942 he lost 23 out of 34 ships in just one Lend-Lease supply voyage...
> 
> c. ...151,000* troops were left unsupplied *in the Philippines....think Bataan Death March...
> 
> d. ....the British colony of *Singapore was left without air cover* in order to satisfy Stalin's desire for the planes.  Found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore." Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.
> Singapore fell February 15, 1942.
> 
> e. ...*Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers *when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, irony of irony, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler.
> 
> f. The New Deal 'reorganization' of the State Department called for *the destruction of "the best Soviet Library in the United States."* (according to Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European Affairs Officer, State Department.) The 'Library' was broken up and dispersed among various files in the Library of Congress.
> "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies" by M. Stanton Evans, p. 83-84
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Representative Martin Dies  formed a committed to investigate communism, but found that *government archives of communist records and correspondence had been destroyed.* He wrote: "I was informed, confidentially, by a man well placed in the Department of Justice, that they were destroyed after it was learned that the Dies Committee was determined to conduct a full-scale investigation of Communism."
> It was Harry Hopkins, FDR's White House live-in Soviet spy, who *turned down Dies' request of assistance from Roosevelt* to help furnish the nascent committee with a staff of lawyers, investigators and stenographers.
> Dies, "Martin Dies' Story," p. 64.
> 
> a. Although the reference 'card-carrying Communist' was once accurate, the CPUSA stopped issuing cards once the Dies Committee began hearings. The highest membership serial number that his committee came across was 195,762.
> 'Given that Communists strive for quality, it was amazing tht they had been able to grow from 10,000 aliens in 1919 to nearly 200,000 members in 1938, mostly naive born or naturalized citizens."
> Dies, Ibid, p. 62-63.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Remarkable as the attempt to make files inaccessible seems, *it is just as common during Obama's term, *during which both the Justice Department and the Pentagon have overseen the methodical purges of "anti-Islamic" educational materials from security and military files and training courses.
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," chapter one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. "Because the American way and the Soviet system were diametrically opposed, *FDR had to lie to present common ground to the American people. In order to make his Big Lie stick, he also had to remove the people who knew better. Literally.* On a larger, more punitive scale,* [Victor] Kravchenko* discussed the same process."
> West, Ibid, p. 247.
> 
> 
> Kravchenko wrote, of his Soviet experiences:
> 
> "Shamelessly, without so much as an explanation, it revised half a century of Russian history. I don't mean simply that it falsified some facts or gave a new interpretation of events. I mean that it deliberately stood history on its head, expunging events and inventing facts.
> 
> It twisted the recent past--a past still fresh in millions of memories--into new and bizarre shapes, to conform with the version of affairs presented by the blood-purge trials and the accompanying propaganda... The roles of leading historical figures were perverted or altogether erased.... More than that, *living witnesses, as far as possible, were removed.* The directing staff of the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Moscow, repository of ideological truth, were removed and the more important people among them imprisoned or shot."
> Text collection
> 
> 
> And that is what FDR did in America.
> 
> ...did *to *America.




I finally had the time to properly devote to your op, my apologies. I am working on another aspect of FDR's presidency.

Your post was very interesting and insightful. My view is that FDR was the master manipulator of the 20th century who would go to any lengths to foster his vision of what the US should be and his relationship with Stalin is no different.

In his correspondence with Stalin FDR clearly sees a post war relationship between Russia and the US on all levels and sought to include Stalin on many levels including creating an economic infrastructure linking the US and Russia.   

The book* My Dear Mr. Stalin: The Complete Correspondence of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph V. Stalin*, Susan Butler, ed; with a Foreword by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005 demonstartes the relationship between the two


"The two also discussed the importance of post-war economic cooperation. Russia, which had suffered enormous losses of men and matériel during the war, was eager to secure a major loan for post-war reconstruction. On Feb. 23, 1944, Roosevelt wrote to Stalin about the Bretton Woods conference. "What I am raising here is the question of further steps toward the establishment of United Nations machinery for post-war economic collaboration, which was raised by the Secretary of State at the Moscow meeting and was discussed by you, Prime Minister Churchill, and myself at Teheran. I should appreciate it very much if you would give me your views on the suggestion made by the Secretary of State at Moscow, together with any other thoughts as to the best procedures to be followed in this extremely important matter."

Moreover, Roosevelt sought to establish a situation wherby Stalin would be viewed as an ally. "The correspondence also reveals the serious differences that President Roosevelt had with wartime "ally" Winston Churchill, over the course of the war, and, more fundamentally, over the shape of the world that would emerge from it. Roosevelt was intent on reshaping the post-war world around the creation of new nation-states in the developing world that would emerge from the destruction of the old colonial empires, a system which Roosevelt felt had given rise to the war. In that respect, Roosevelt felt that Stalin might serve as a key ally in his attempt to rid the world of the last vestiges of colonialism, and could well serve as a counterweight to the British Prime Minister, who was intent on reviving in some form a post-war British Empire."
Roosevelt-Stalin Correspondence Sheds Light on FDR Post-War Vision


FDR turned a blind eye to what Stalin was doing in Russia. I believe FDR was ruthless in his pursuits and would use anyone to further his  goals.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Connery said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad that this post goes in "History," because the FDR endeavors are largely *responsible for the social breakdown we face today..*..
> Under Roosevelt's alignment with Soviet communism the United States "exchanged foundational principles and guiding ideas" for some sort of vain, destructive, moral relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Behind *FDR's lies and actions which served to cover and support Stalin's *murderous regime had to be the belief that, either,
> FDR was a devotee of communism and anticipated imposing it on America..
> ....or, that he believed that he could incorporate Stalin into an organization with himself as the 'CEO.'
> 
> The former explanation would represent illimitable evil.....the latter, abysmal ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. There is the false notion that FDR's infatuations began due to a need for the Soviet Union's aid in WWII, .....but he rushed to recognize them in 1933- was the first hint.
> 
> Is 'infatuation' too strong? Was there kind of political romance with Stalin?
> Consider the following pieces of the puzzle before you consider it hyperbolic:
> 
> a. As former ambassador to the Soviet Union, William Bullitt, queried him about *why he, FDR,  persuaded the public that "communists had become the friends of democracy" *and that he should remind all "that Communists in the United States are just as dangerous enemies as ever, and should not be allowed to crawl into our productive mechanism in order later to wreck it when they get new orders from somewhere abroad."
> "For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt, p. 522
> 
> b. Roosevelt threw himself into *shoring up the USSR at any cost-* in July of 1942 he lost 23 out of 34 ships in just one Lend-Lease supply voyage...
> 
> c. ...151,000* troops were left unsupplied *in the Philippines....think Bataan Death March...
> 
> d. ....the British colony of *Singapore was left without air cover* in order to satisfy Stalin's desire for the planes.  Found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore." Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.
> Singapore fell February 15, 1942.
> 
> e. ...*Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers *when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, irony of irony, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler.
> 
> f. The New Deal 'reorganization' of the State Department called for *the destruction of "the best Soviet Library in the United States."* (according to Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European Affairs Officer, State Department.) The 'Library' was broken up and dispersed among various files in the Library of Congress.
> "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies" by M. Stanton Evans, p. 83-84
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Representative Martin Dies  formed a committed to investigate communism, but found that *government archives of communist records and correspondence had been destroyed.* He wrote: "I was informed, confidentially, by a man well placed in the Department of Justice, that they were destroyed after it was learned that the Dies Committee was determined to conduct a full-scale investigation of Communism."
> It was Harry Hopkins, FDR's White House live-in Soviet spy, who *turned down Dies' request of assistance from Roosevelt* to help furnish the nascent committee with a staff of lawyers, investigators and stenographers.
> Dies, "Martin Dies' Story," p. 64.
> 
> a. Although the reference 'card-carrying Communist' was once accurate, the CPUSA stopped issuing cards once the Dies Committee began hearings. The highest membership serial number that his committee came across was 195,762.
> 'Given that Communists strive for quality, it was amazing tht they had been able to grow from 10,000 aliens in 1919 to nearly 200,000 members in 1938, mostly naive born or naturalized citizens."
> Dies, Ibid, p. 62-63.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Remarkable as the attempt to make files inaccessible seems, *it is just as common during Obama's term, *during which both the Justice Department and the Pentagon have overseen the methodical purges of "anti-Islamic" educational materials from security and military files and training courses.
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," chapter one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. "Because the American way and the Soviet system were diametrically opposed, *FDR had to lie to present common ground to the American people. In order to make his Big Lie stick, he also had to remove the people who knew better. Literally.* On a larger, more punitive scale,* [Victor] Kravchenko* discussed the same process."
> West, Ibid, p. 247.
> 
> 
> Kravchenko wrote, of his Soviet experiences:
> 
> "Shamelessly, without so much as an explanation, it revised half a century of Russian history. I don't mean simply that it falsified some facts or gave a new interpretation of events. I mean that it deliberately stood history on its head, expunging events and inventing facts.
> 
> It twisted the recent past--a past still fresh in millions of memories--into new and bizarre shapes, to conform with the version of affairs presented by the blood-purge trials and the accompanying propaganda... The roles of leading historical figures were perverted or altogether erased.... More than that, *living witnesses, as far as possible, were removed.* The directing staff of the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Moscow, repository of ideological truth, were removed and the more important people among them imprisoned or shot."
> Text collection
> 
> 
> And that is what FDR did in America.
> 
> ...did *to *America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I finally had the time to properly devote to your op, my apologies. I am working on another aspect of FDR's presidency.
> 
> Your post was very interesting and insightful. My view is that FDR was the master manipulator of the 20th century who would go to any lengths to foster his vision of what the US should be and his relationship with Stalin is no different.
> 
> In his correspondence with Stalin FDR clearly sees a post war relationship between Russia and the US on all levels and sought to include Stalin on many levels including creating an economic infrastructure linking the US and Russia.
> 
> The book* My Dear Mr. Stalin: The Complete Correspondence of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph V. Stalin*, Susan Butler, ed; with a Foreword by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005 demonstartes the relationship between the two
> 
> 
> "The two also discussed the importance of post-war economic cooperation. Russia, which had suffered enormous losses of men and matériel during the war, was eager to secure a major loan for post-war reconstruction. On Feb. 23, 1944, Roosevelt wrote to Stalin about the Bretton Woods conference. "What I am raising here is the question of further steps toward the establishment of United Nations machinery for post-war economic collaboration, which was raised by the Secretary of State at the Moscow meeting and was discussed by you, Prime Minister Churchill, and myself at Teheran. I should appreciate it very much if you would give me your views on the suggestion made by the Secretary of State at Moscow, together with any other thoughts as to the best procedures to be followed in this extremely important matter."
> 
> Moreover, Roosevelt sought to establish a situation wherby Stalin would be viewed as an ally. "The correspondence also reveals the serious differences that President Roosevelt had with wartime "ally" Winston Churchill, over the course of the war, and, more fundamentally, over the shape of the world that would emerge from it. Roosevelt was intent on reshaping the post-war world around the creation of new nation-states in the developing world that would emerge from the destruction of the old colonial empires, a system which Roosevelt felt had given rise to the war. In that respect, Roosevelt felt that Stalin might serve as a key ally in his attempt to rid the world of the last vestiges of colonialism, and could well serve as a counterweight to the British Prime Minister, who was intent on reviving in some form a post-war British Empire."
> Roosevelt-Stalin Correspondence Sheds Light on FDR Post-War Vision
> 
> 
> FDR turned a blind eye to what Stalin was doing in Russia. I believe FDR was ruthless in his pursuits and would use anyone to further his  goals.
Click to expand...







That last line that you wrote is the heart of the issue.


How and why did he think that ignoring the iniquities of Soviet Russia could or should ever result in a bonding of the USA and the USSR?

The man had no moral compass, and no recognition of America's founding principles.

And, a deeper point in understanding his lack of objections to Marxism was the fact that what he aimed at domestically was materialism.....which is what Marx was about.



Consider the following pluses for FDR ( from The Hundred Days of FDR, by Schlesinger)

	"Who can now imagine a day when America offered no Social Security, no unemployment compensation, no food stamps, no Federal guarantee of bank deposits, no Federal supervision of the stock market, no Federal protection for collective bargaining, no Federal standards for wages and hours, no Federal support for farm prices or rural electrification, no Federal refinancing for farm and home mortgages, no Federal commitment to high employment or to equal opportunity - in short, no Federal responsibility for Americans who found themselves, through no fault of their own, in economic or social distress?"
The 'Hundred Days' of F.D.R.



Where is the spirituality of the Founders?


And, largely, that is the legacy he left for our nation.


----------



## Connery

PoliticalChic said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad that this post goes in "History," because the FDR endeavors are largely *responsible for the social breakdown we face today..*..
> Under Roosevelt's alignment with Soviet communism the United States "exchanged foundational principles and guiding ideas" for some sort of vain, destructive, moral relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Behind *FDR's lies and actions which served to cover and support Stalin's *murderous regime had to be the belief that, either,
> FDR was a devotee of communism and anticipated imposing it on America..
> ....or, that he believed that he could incorporate Stalin into an organization with himself as the 'CEO.'
> 
> The former explanation would represent illimitable evil.....the latter, abysmal ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. There is the false notion that FDR's infatuations began due to a need for the Soviet Union's aid in WWII, .....but he rushed to recognize them in 1933- was the first hint.
> 
> Is 'infatuation' too strong? Was there kind of political romance with Stalin?
> Consider the following pieces of the puzzle before you consider it hyperbolic:
> 
> a. As former ambassador to the Soviet Union, William Bullitt, queried him about *why he, FDR,  persuaded the public that "communists had become the friends of democracy" *and that he should remind all "that Communists in the United States are just as dangerous enemies as ever, and should not be allowed to crawl into our productive mechanism in order later to wreck it when they get new orders from somewhere abroad."
> "For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt, p. 522
> 
> b. Roosevelt threw himself into *shoring up the USSR at any cost-* in July of 1942 he lost 23 out of 34 ships in just one Lend-Lease supply voyage...
> 
> c. ...151,000* troops were left unsupplied *in the Philippines....think Bataan Death March...
> 
> d. ....the British colony of *Singapore was left without air cover* in order to satisfy Stalin's desire for the planes.  Found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore." Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.
> Singapore fell February 15, 1942.
> 
> e. ...*Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers *when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, irony of irony, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler.
> 
> f. The New Deal 'reorganization' of the State Department called for *the destruction of "the best Soviet Library in the United States."* (according to Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European Affairs Officer, State Department.) The 'Library' was broken up and dispersed among various files in the Library of Congress.
> "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies" by M. Stanton Evans, p. 83-84
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Representative Martin Dies  formed a committed to investigate communism, but found that *government archives of communist records and correspondence had been destroyed.* He wrote: "I was informed, confidentially, by a man well placed in the Department of Justice, that they were destroyed after it was learned that the Dies Committee was determined to conduct a full-scale investigation of Communism."
> It was Harry Hopkins, FDR's White House live-in Soviet spy, who *turned down Dies' request of assistance from Roosevelt* to help furnish the nascent committee with a staff of lawyers, investigators and stenographers.
> Dies, "Martin Dies' Story," p. 64.
> 
> a. Although the reference 'card-carrying Communist' was once accurate, the CPUSA stopped issuing cards once the Dies Committee began hearings. The highest membership serial number that his committee came across was 195,762.
> 'Given that Communists strive for quality, it was amazing tht they had been able to grow from 10,000 aliens in 1919 to nearly 200,000 members in 1938, mostly naive born or naturalized citizens."
> Dies, Ibid, p. 62-63.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Remarkable as the attempt to make files inaccessible seems, *it is just as common during Obama's term, *during which both the Justice Department and the Pentagon have overseen the methodical purges of "anti-Islamic" educational materials from security and military files and training courses.
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," chapter one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. "Because the American way and the Soviet system were diametrically opposed, *FDR had to lie to present common ground to the American people. In order to make his Big Lie stick, he also had to remove the people who knew better. Literally.* On a larger, more punitive scale,* [Victor] Kravchenko* discussed the same process."
> West, Ibid, p. 247.
> 
> 
> Kravchenko wrote, of his Soviet experiences:
> 
> "Shamelessly, without so much as an explanation, it revised half a century of Russian history. I don't mean simply that it falsified some facts or gave a new interpretation of events. I mean that it deliberately stood history on its head, expunging events and inventing facts.
> 
> It twisted the recent past--a past still fresh in millions of memories--into new and bizarre shapes, to conform with the version of affairs presented by the blood-purge trials and the accompanying propaganda... The roles of leading historical figures were perverted or altogether erased.... More than that, *living witnesses, as far as possible, were removed.* The directing staff of the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Moscow, repository of ideological truth, were removed and the more important people among them imprisoned or shot."
> Text collection
> 
> 
> And that is what FDR did in America.
> 
> ...did *to *America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I finally had the time to properly devote to your op, my apologies. I am working on another aspect of FDR's presidency.
> 
> Your post was very interesting and insightful. My view is that FDR was the master manipulator of the 20th century who would go to any lengths to foster his vision of what the US should be and his relationship with Stalin is no different.
> 
> In his correspondence with Stalin FDR clearly sees a post war relationship between Russia and the US on all levels and sought to include Stalin on many levels including creating an economic infrastructure linking the US and Russia.
> 
> The book* My Dear Mr. Stalin: The Complete Correspondence of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph V. Stalin*, Susan Butler, ed; with a Foreword by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005 demonstartes the relationship between the two
> 
> 
> "The two also discussed the importance of post-war economic cooperation. Russia, which had suffered enormous losses of men and matériel during the war, was eager to secure a major loan for post-war reconstruction. On Feb. 23, 1944, Roosevelt wrote to Stalin about the Bretton Woods conference. "What I am raising here is the question of further steps toward the establishment of United Nations machinery for post-war economic collaboration, which was raised by the Secretary of State at the Moscow meeting and was discussed by you, Prime Minister Churchill, and myself at Teheran. I should appreciate it very much if you would give me your views on the suggestion made by the Secretary of State at Moscow, together with any other thoughts as to the best procedures to be followed in this extremely important matter."
> 
> Moreover, Roosevelt sought to establish a situation wherby Stalin would be viewed as an ally. "The correspondence also reveals the serious differences that President Roosevelt had with wartime "ally" Winston Churchill, over the course of the war, and, more fundamentally, over the shape of the world that would emerge from it. Roosevelt was intent on reshaping the post-war world around the creation of new nation-states in the developing world that would emerge from the destruction of the old colonial empires, a system which Roosevelt felt had given rise to the war. In that respect, Roosevelt felt that Stalin might serve as a key ally in his attempt to rid the world of the last vestiges of colonialism, and could well serve as a counterweight to the British Prime Minister, who was intent on reviving in some form a post-war British Empire."
> Roosevelt-Stalin Correspondence Sheds Light on FDR Post-War Vision
> 
> 
> FDR turned a blind eye to what Stalin was doing in Russia. I believe FDR was ruthless in his pursuits and would use anyone to further his  goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That last line that you wrote is the heart of the issue.
> 
> 
> How and why did he think that ignoring the iniquities of Soviet Russia could or should ever result in a bonding of the USA and the USSR?
> 
> The man had no moral compass, and no recognition of America's founding principles.
> 
> And, a deeper point in understanding his lack of objections to Marxism was the fact that what he aimed at domestically was materialism.....which is what Marx was about.
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the following pluses for FDR ( from The Hundred Days of FDR, by Schlesinger)
> 
> "Who can now imagine a day when America offered no Social Security, no unemployment compensation, no food stamps, no Federal guarantee of bank deposits, no Federal supervision of the stock market, no Federal protection for collective bargaining, no Federal standards for wages and hours, no Federal support for farm prices or rural electrification, no Federal refinancing for farm and home mortgages, no Federal commitment to high employment or to equal opportunity - in short, no Federal responsibility for Americans who found themselves, through no fault of their own, in economic or social distress?"
> The 'Hundred Days' of F.D.R.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the spirituality of the Founders?
> 
> *
> And, largely, that is the legacy he left for our nation.*
Click to expand...


We have yet to abandon FDR's legacy of government control and strange diplomatic bedfellows . Some control/oversight is necessary, but not to the point where we are puppets. More importantly, any moral compass FDR may have had was gone with the responsibility of office. Right or wrong his singular goal was to set the US on the "right" course at any cost. In this issue he sold his soul.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting comment.
> 
> BTW...I could list a dozen advances for society to FDR's credit....and did so on his birthday.
> 
> And you write...
> "there are many areas and many decisions where faults can be found."
> 
> So, you agree with all..most....or many of the faults that I have posted over the months.
> OK.
> 
> 
> The difference in our perspectives is this: the weight on each side of the scale.
> 
> 
> Perhaps this is too limiting as a summary....but I cannot forgive the damage to the fabric of American society and culture by acknowledging the material good that FDR did for the folks.
> 
> He told us that we were just like the Soviets....or, the same thing, that they were just like us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with selecting isolated faults on a piecemeal basis is the larger historical picture, is often omitted. Add to that from the Monday morning quarter-back position we can not only look at the mistake but present a different action as the correct one. Posters on these boards are limited in giving the whole historical picture but not in labeling  historical mistakes or their version of the proper solution.
> Professional historians often do the same but other historians point out their errors. For example, Beard wrote a history saying that the framers in writing the Constitution intended it to be for the benefit of the wealthy and for themselves. Other historians called Beard on his interpretation and Beard accepted the criticisms. Eventually historians get history correct.
> As to your tid-bit of history that FDR said we were like the Soviets, if true, what was the larger picture at the time, what was FDR's intent. Did FDR mean we were like the Soviets in that we were communists, or that we were like the Soviets in that we were both fighting Germany, or other? And a good historian would ask what was the significant or importance of the statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "The problem with selecting isolated faults on a piecemeal basis...."
> 
> I haven't done that. I've provided numerous examples, documented and linked, designed to lead to the overwhelming conclusion about FDR and the Soviets.
> 
> 
> 2. ".... is the larger historical picture, is often omitted."
> 
> As you haven't denied what I have provided....I would be more than appreciative if you would give some explanation of FDR's propensities in said regard......giving the larger picture.
> 
> 
> No one has been able to do so. I await your insight.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. "...look at the mistake but present a different action as the correct one."
> I did so....here:
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/329174-fdr-and-what-could-have-been.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. "As to your tid-bit of history that FDR said we were like the Soviets, if true, what was the larger picture at the time, what was FDR's intent. Did FDR mean we were like the Soviets in that we were communists, or that we were like the Soviets in that we were both fighting Germany, or other?"
> 
> William Bullitt was FDR's first ambassador to Moscow.....and began as a supporter of the communists.
> He became a strong anti-communist and his warnings to Roosevelt were ignored.
> 
> And the officers of the Foreign Service who opposed communism were purged....as per the demands of Stalin.
> 
> "...or that we were like the Soviets in that we were both fighting Germany, or other?"
> 
> We weren't fighting Germany in 1933, when FDR first recognized the USSR, even though he knew that Stalin had killed more of his own people than Hitler, later, would.
Click to expand...


FDR was following America's first Secretary of State's, Jefferson, policy on recognizing  foreign governments: the "US should acknowledge any government to be rightful which is formed by the will of the nation."  That has been America's policy on recognition, not always followed by every administration but our policy, in short, we recognize the government in power. That policy  probably reflected on America's need to be recognized after our revolution.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with selecting isolated faults on a piecemeal basis is the larger historical picture, is often omitted. Add to that from the Monday morning quarter-back position we can not only look at the mistake but present a different action as the correct one. Posters on these boards are limited in giving the whole historical picture but not in labeling  historical mistakes or their version of the proper solution.
> Professional historians often do the same but other historians point out their errors. For example, Beard wrote a history saying that the framers in writing the Constitution intended it to be for the benefit of the wealthy and for themselves. Other historians called Beard on his interpretation and Beard accepted the criticisms. Eventually historians get history correct.
> As to your tid-bit of history that FDR said we were like the Soviets, if true, what was the larger picture at the time, what was FDR's intent. Did FDR mean we were like the Soviets in that we were communists, or that we were like the Soviets in that we were both fighting Germany, or other? And a good historian would ask what was the significant or importance of the statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "The problem with selecting isolated faults on a piecemeal basis...."
> 
> I haven't done that. I've provided numerous examples, documented and linked, designed to lead to the overwhelming conclusion about FDR and the Soviets.
> 
> 
> 2. ".... is the larger historical picture, is often omitted."
> 
> As you haven't denied what I have provided....I would be more than appreciative if you would give some explanation of FDR's propensities in said regard......giving the larger picture.
> 
> 
> No one has been able to do so. I await your insight.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. "...look at the mistake but present a different action as the correct one."
> I did so....here:
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/329174-fdr-and-what-could-have-been.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. "As to your tid-bit of history that FDR said we were like the Soviets, if true, what was the larger picture at the time, what was FDR's intent. Did FDR mean we were like the Soviets in that we were communists, or that we were like the Soviets in that we were both fighting Germany, or other?"
> 
> William Bullitt was FDR's first ambassador to Moscow.....and began as a supporter of the communists.
> He became a strong anti-communist and his warnings to Roosevelt were ignored.
> 
> And the officers of the Foreign Service who opposed communism were purged....as per the demands of Stalin.
> 
> "...or that we were like the Soviets in that we were both fighting Germany, or other?"
> 
> We weren't fighting Germany in 1933, when FDR first recognized the USSR, even though he knew that Stalin had killed more of his own people than Hitler, later, would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR was following America's first Secretary of State's, Jefferson, policy on recognizing  foreign governments: the "US should acknowledge any government to be rightful which is formed by the will of the nation."  That has been America's policy on recognition, not always followed by every administration but our policy, in short, we recognize the government in power. That policy  probably reflected on America's need to be recognized after our revolution.
Click to expand...







1. "FDR was following America's first Secretary of State's, Jefferson, policy on recognizing  foreign governments..."

 FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR. If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational:* "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. *That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath" by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29. 

So....who suffered from cognitive dissonance?





2. ""US should acknowledge any government to be rightful which is* formed by the will of the nation." *

This argument is insane...even from an FDR-sycophant like you, reggie.

"Russian Civil War (1917-22): 9,000,000"
Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls



You have yet to explain FDR's infatuation with Stalin, and communism.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "The problem with selecting isolated faults on a piecemeal basis...."
> 
> I haven't done that. I've provided numerous examples, documented and linked, designed to lead to the overwhelming conclusion about FDR and the Soviets.
> 
> 
> 2. ".... is the larger historical picture, is often omitted."
> 
> As you haven't denied what I have provided....I would be more than appreciative if you would give some explanation of FDR's propensities in said regard......giving the larger picture.
> 
> 
> No one has been able to do so. I await your insight.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. "...look at the mistake but present a different action as the correct one."
> I did so....here:
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/329174-fdr-and-what-could-have-been.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. "As to your tid-bit of history that FDR said we were like the Soviets, if true, what was the larger picture at the time, what was FDR's intent. Did FDR mean we were like the Soviets in that we were communists, or that we were like the Soviets in that we were both fighting Germany, or other?"
> 
> William Bullitt was FDR's first ambassador to Moscow.....and began as a supporter of the communists.
> He became a strong anti-communist and his warnings to Roosevelt were ignored.
> 
> And the officers of the Foreign Service who opposed communism were purged....as per the demands of Stalin.
> 
> "...or that we were like the Soviets in that we were both fighting Germany, or other?"
> 
> We weren't fighting Germany in 1933, when FDR first recognized the USSR, even though he knew that Stalin had killed more of his own people than Hitler, later, would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was following America's first Secretary of State's, Jefferson, policy on recognizing  foreign governments: the "US should acknowledge any government to be rightful which is formed by the will of the nation."  That has been America's policy on recognition, not always followed by every administration but our policy, in short, we recognize the government in power. That policy  probably reflected on America's need to be recognized after our revolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "FDR was following America's first Secretary of State's, Jefferson, policy on recognizing  foreign governments..."
> 
> FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR. If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational:* "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. *That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath" by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.
> 
> So....who suffered from cognitive dissonance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. ""US should acknowledge any government to be rightful which is* formed by the will of the nation." *
> 
> This argument is insane...even from an FDR-sycophant like you, reggie.
> 
> "Russian Civil War (1917-22): 9,000,000"
> Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to explain FDR's infatuation with Stalin, and communism.
Click to expand...


Reality. 

As to the will of the how does one define that?  Not the will of the people, certainly that is questionable for the US Revolution when only one third of the people in the colonies wanted the revolt.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was following America's first Secretary of State's, Jefferson, policy on recognizing  foreign governments: the "US should acknowledge any government to be rightful which is formed by the will of the nation."  That has been America's policy on recognition, not always followed by every administration but our policy, in short, we recognize the government in power. That policy  probably reflected on America's need to be recognized after our revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "FDR was following America's first Secretary of State's, Jefferson, policy on recognizing  foreign governments..."
> 
> FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR. If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational:* "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. *That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath" by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.
> 
> So....who suffered from cognitive dissonance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. ""US should acknowledge any government to be rightful which is* formed by the will of the nation." *
> 
> This argument is insane...even from an FDR-sycophant like you, reggie.
> 
> "Russian Civil War (1917-22): 9,000,000"
> Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to explain FDR's infatuation with Stalin, and communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality.
> 
> As to the will of the how does one define that?  Not the will of the people, certainly that is questionable for the US Revolution when only one third of the people in the colonies wanted the revolt.
Click to expand...




So....the "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," not to immerse their hands in the blood.....they were out of touch with reality?


You can do better, reggie.



And please....don't conflate the American Revolution, and the people involved, with the homicidal maniacs of Soviet Russia, and the abattoir they designed.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "FDR was following America's first Secretary of State's, Jefferson, policy on recognizing  foreign governments..."
> 
> FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR. If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational:* "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. *That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath" by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.
> 
> So....who suffered from cognitive dissonance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. ""US should acknowledge any government to be rightful which is* formed by the will of the nation." *
> 
> This argument is insane...even from an FDR-sycophant like you, reggie.
> 
> "Russian Civil War (1917-22): 9,000,000"
> Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to explain FDR's infatuation with Stalin, and communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality.
> 
> As to the will of the how does one define that?  Not the will of the people, certainly that is questionable for the US Revolution when only one third of the people in the colonies wanted the revolt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....the "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," not to immerse their hands in the blood.....they were out of touch with reality?
> 
> 
> You can do better, reggie.
> 
> 
> 
> And please....don't conflate the American Revolution, and the people involved, with the homicidal maniacs of Soviet Russia, and the abattoir they designed.
Click to expand...


This is like grade school. The four president's followed Wilson's lead in demanding the debts that Tsarist Russia owed America be paid. FDR negotiated a debt payment plan and recognized the USSR. The debt negotiations were carried on until Hitler became a threat. 
The American Revolutionists were probably considered traitors not communists.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR is responsible for the Communist genocide of almost 100 million humans. The world would have been a better place if he didn't so openly support Mao and Stalin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must get this information to the historians of America, every historical group in this country should know this new information. As soon as the historians know what you know they will stop rating FDR as America's greatest president and rate him, at least sixth worst, just below Bush. Don't waste a minute.
Click to expand...


Why would a bunch of commie historians change their view of FDR?


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you send all those historians the facts on FDR you might include a little reminder about critical thinking. Those historians have been rating presidents since 1948 and by this time they may be getting a little senile, so the more help they can get from posters on facts, on history, and critical thinking, the better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "When you send all those historians..."
> 
> 
> 
> That requires this explanation of another of our differences.
> 
> 
> 
> I never assume anyone else....anyone.....has a greater ability than I at having expertise. I read sources from both left and right.
> 
> 
> I can read, analyze, and do research.
> 
> You, it seems, allow others to tell you what to think....e.g., "historians."
> 
> 
> 
> Get this:
> Historian is a term for those who study history.
> I study history....albeit not from 1948...
> I must be one of those historians you claim to rely on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I don't rely on someone who claims that the only qualification to be an historian is to say, "I study history."
Click to expand...


That pretty much is the only qualification to be an historian.


----------



## regent

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When you send all those historians..."
> 
> 
> 
> That requires this explanation of another of our differences.
> 
> 
> 
> I never assume anyone else....anyone.....has a greater ability than I at having expertise. I read sources from both left and right.
> 
> 
> I can read, analyze, and do research.
> 
> You, it seems, allow others to tell you what to think....e.g., "historians."
> 
> 
> 
> Get this:
> Historian is a term for those who study history.
> I study history....albeit not from 1948...
> I must be one of those historians you claim to rely on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I don't rely on someone who claims that the only qualification to be an historian is to say, "I study history."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That pretty much is the only qualification to be an historian.
Click to expand...


Or anything else.


----------



## Unkotare

Billo_Really said:


> FU to all those who would knock FR.



FUCK YOU to all the scumbags like YOU who would play the apologist for FDR, the worst villain to ever soil the office of President of the United States.


----------



## gipper

Billo_Really said:


> FU to all those who would knock FR.



Are you a statist?  Do you love big unlimited government?  If so, you have learned nothing from history other than lies and misinformation, promoted by Statists.

Why would you admire an elitist fool like FDR?


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I don't rely on someone who claims that the only qualification to be an historian is to say, "I study history."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That pretty much is the only qualification to be an historian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or anything else.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  To be a physicist, you actually have to be able to do math, like calculus and differential equations.  The same goes for being a chemist, an engineer or an computer programmer.


----------



## PoliticalChic

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When you send all those historians..."
> 
> 
> 
> That requires this explanation of another of our differences.
> 
> 
> 
> I never assume anyone else....anyone.....has a greater ability than I at having expertise. I read sources from both left and right.
> 
> 
> I can read, analyze, and do research.
> 
> You, it seems, allow others to tell you what to think....e.g., "historians."
> 
> 
> 
> Get this:
> Historian is a term for those who study history.
> I study history....albeit not from 1948...
> I must be one of those historians you claim to rely on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I don't rely on someone who claims that the only qualification to be an historian is to say, "I study history."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That pretty much is the only qualification to be an historian.
Click to expand...



reggie ads "must be a qualified Liberal/Progressive/DeathPanelDemocrat," too.


----------



## PoliticalChic

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That pretty much is the only qualification to be an historian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  To be a physicist, you actually have to be able to do math, like calculus and differential equations.  The same goes for being a chemist, an engineer or an computer programmer.
Click to expand...




This applies to the academics on whom reggie relies:

1.	Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, *and anti-American*proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth. 

 [In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understandand this *obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality* and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear.
The Death of Feminism, by Phyllis Chesler



2.	Liberals stamp out dissent by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. This is the modern version of methods used by medieval Christianity: a secular Inquisition.
a.	Intelligentsia as grand inquisitors: in the media, universities, the law, political and professional groups. The dominating ideologies include anti-capitalism, feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. They form* the unchallengeable orthodoxy in academia.  No challenges or deviations are permitted, and anyone who does not share these values is defined as extreme. *
b.	These ideologies have as their common theme the overturning of the established order of the West.
c.	How ironic that intellectual liberty is assaulted within the institutions of reason.
Melanie Philips, The World Turned Upside Down, ch 6


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  To be a physicist, you actually have to be able to do math, like calculus and differential equations.  The same goes for being a chemist, an engineer or an computer programmer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This applies to the academics on whom reggie relies:
> 
> 1.	Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, *and anti-American*proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth.
> 
> [In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understandand this *obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality* and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear.
> The Death of Feminism, by Phyllis Chesler
> 
> 
> 
> 2.	Liberals stamp out dissent by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. This is the modern version of methods used by medieval Christianity: a secular Inquisition.
> a.	Intelligentsia as grand inquisitors: in the media, universities, the law, political and professional groups. The dominating ideologies include anti-capitalism, feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. They form* the unchallengeable orthodoxy in academia.  No challenges or deviations are permitted, and anyone who does not share these values is defined as extreme. *
> b.	These ideologies have as their common theme the overturning of the established order of the West.
> c.	How ironic that intellectual liberty is assaulted within the institutions of reason.
> Melanie Philips, The World Turned Upside Down, ch 6
Click to expand...


I don't think historians or even FDR are much bothered by these evaluations.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  To be a physicist, you actually have to be able to do math, like calculus and differential equations.  The same goes for being a chemist, an engineer or an computer programmer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This applies to the academics on whom reggie relies:
> 
> 1.	Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, *and anti-American*proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth.
> 
> [In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understandand this *obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality* and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear.
> The Death of Feminism, by Phyllis Chesler
> 
> 
> 
> 2.	Liberals stamp out dissent by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. This is the modern version of methods used by medieval Christianity: a secular Inquisition.
> a.	Intelligentsia as grand inquisitors: in the media, universities, the law, political and professional groups. The dominating ideologies include anti-capitalism, feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. They form* the unchallengeable orthodoxy in academia.  No challenges or deviations are permitted, and anyone who does not share these values is defined as extreme. *
> b.	These ideologies have as their common theme the overturning of the established order of the West.
> c.	How ironic that intellectual liberty is assaulted within the institutions of reason.
> Melanie Philips, The World Turned Upside Down, ch 6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think historians or even FDR are much bothered by these evaluations.
Click to expand...





This isn't about 'bothered'......it's about rectitude, right and wrong, justice.


But you know that, don't you....

....you've run out of excuses for FDR, and have admitted that you are simply his lap-dog.


Stop slobbering all over his shoes.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This applies to the academics on whom reggie relies:
> 
> 1.	Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, *and anti-American*proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth.
> 
> [In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understandand this *obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality* and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear.
> The Death of Feminism, by Phyllis Chesler
> 
> 
> 
> 2.	Liberals stamp out dissent by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. This is the modern version of methods used by medieval Christianity: a secular Inquisition.
> a.	Intelligentsia as grand inquisitors: in the media, universities, the law, political and professional groups. The dominating ideologies include anti-capitalism, feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. They form* the unchallengeable orthodoxy in academia.  No challenges or deviations are permitted, and anyone who does not share these values is defined as extreme. *
> b.	These ideologies have as their common theme the overturning of the established order of the West.
> c.	How ironic that intellectual liberty is assaulted within the institutions of reason.
> Melanie Philips, The World Turned Upside Down, ch 6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think historians or even FDR are much bothered by these evaluations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about 'bothered'......it's about rectitude, right and wrong, justice.
> 
> 
> But you know that, don't you....
> 
> ....you've run out of excuses for FDR, and have admitted that you are simply his lap-dog.
> 
> 
> Stop slobbering all over his shoes.
Click to expand...


I don't think FDR has a need for excuses, rated our number one president by historians, elected four times by the people, that pretty much says it all. Can your candidate beat that?


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think historians or even FDR are much bothered by these evaluations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about 'bothered'......it's about rectitude, right and wrong, justice.
> 
> 
> But you know that, don't you....
> 
> ....you've run out of excuses for FDR, and have admitted that you are simply his lap-dog.
> 
> 
> Stop slobbering all over his shoes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think FDR has a need for excuses, rated our number one president by historians, elected four times by the people, that pretty much says it all. Can your candidate beat that?
Click to expand...



Actually I have a 'candidate' in mind who did better....economically, and by reversing FDR's love affair with Stalin and his regime.


But that is hardly the issue...
Far too many are like you and refuse open their eyes to the glaring disservices and calumnies of Franklin Roosevelt.


You have neither addressed nor challenged the charges that he lied to the American public.


Could Americans make a mistake and elect a man to the presidency who shouldn't have been?

Well...they elected a rapist, and the current incompetent.....


----------



## regent

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That pretty much is the only qualification to be an historian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  To be a physicist, you actually have to be able to do math, like calculus and differential equations.  The same goes for being a chemist, an engineer or an computer programmer.
Click to expand...


And if someone calls himself all of those titles and can't do long division what happens?


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think historians or even FDR are much bothered by these evaluations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about 'bothered'......it's about rectitude, right and wrong, justice.
> 
> 
> But you know that, don't you....
> 
> ....you've run out of excuses for FDR, and have admitted that you are simply his lap-dog.
> 
> 
> Stop slobbering all over his shoes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think FDR has a need for excuses, rated our number one president by historians, elected four times by the people, that pretty much says it all. Can your candidate beat that?
Click to expand...





You STILL have nothing but fallacy. You can't even pretend to defend the scumbag FDR.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about 'bothered'......it's about rectitude, right and wrong, justice.
> 
> 
> But you know that, don't you....
> 
> ....you've run out of excuses for FDR, and have admitted that you are simply his lap-dog.
> 
> 
> Stop slobbering all over his shoes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think FDR has a need for excuses, rated our number one president by historians, elected four times by the people, that pretty much says it all. Can your candidate beat that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL have nothing but fallacy. You can't even pretend to defend the scumbag FDR.
Click to expand...


No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln. At times some lies and historical untruths need to be corrected but even the 238 noted historians and authorities on presidents agree with me that FDR's number one, the top of the heap, king of the road. So what about the people that lived during his terms in office, four times they elected him. Hard to beat that record. Sure it's gotta hurt but....


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think FDR has a need for excuses, rated our number one president by historians, elected four times by the people, that pretty much says it all. Can your candidate beat that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL have nothing but fallacy. You can't even pretend to defend the scumbag FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln. At times some lies and historical untruths need to be corrected but even the 238 noted historians and authorities on presidents agree with me that FDR's number one, the top of the heap, king of the road. So what about the people that lived during his terms in office, four times they elected him. Hard to beat that record. Sure it's gotta hurt but....
Click to expand...




1. "No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln." 

The fact that I've posted several OPs with dozens of FDR's shortcomings casts the lie to your post.


2. "... 238 noted historians and authorities..."

Will you ever stand on your own two feet, and stop hiding behind Liberal academics?

Wanna go to your Mommy? She has your bottle heated up.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think historians or even FDR are much bothered by these evaluations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about 'bothered'......it's about rectitude, right and wrong, justice.
> 
> 
> But you know that, don't you....
> 
> ....you've run out of excuses for FDR, and have admitted that you are simply his lap-dog.
> 
> 
> Stop slobbering all over his shoes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think FDR has a need for excuses, rated our number one president by historians, elected four times by the people, that pretty much says it all. Can your candidate beat that?
Click to expand...


It says he knew how to use the federal treasury to hold on to power.  He was also the consumate liar.  Historians are a gaggle of toadies on the government payroll.  Their ratings are of no import.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think FDR has a need for excuses, rated our number one president by historians, elected four times by the people, that pretty much says it all. Can your candidate beat that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL have nothing but fallacy. You can't even pretend to defend the scumbag FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln. At times some lies and historical untruths need to be corrected but even the 238 noted historians and authorities on presidents agree with me that FDR's number one, the top of the heap, king of the road. So what about the people that lived during his terms in office, four times they elected him. Hard to beat that record. Sure it's gotta hurt but....
Click to expand...


Only imbeciles are impressed by the opinions of "professional historians." A more accurate title for them would be "government propagandists."


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln. ....






You CAN'T defend the scumbag FDR, and you've never even tried. You've never done anything relative to the topic but repeat a logical fallacy over and over. You're not only a nuthugger, you're an idiot.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL have nothing but fallacy. You can't even pretend to defend the scumbag FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln. At times some lies and historical untruths need to be corrected but even the 238 noted historians and authorities on presidents agree with me that FDR's number one, the top of the heap, king of the road. So what about the people that lived during his terms in office, four times they elected him. Hard to beat that record. Sure it's gotta hurt but....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln."
> 
> The fact that I've posted several OPs with dozens of FDR's shortcomings casts the lie to your post.
> 
> 
> 2. "... 238 noted historians and authorities..."
> 
> Will you ever stand on your own two feet, and stop hiding behind Liberal academics?
> 
> Wanna go to your Mommy? She has your bottle heated up.
Click to expand...


Yep, I believe that experts in their field might know more about a subject than I do, and worse, not one expert but 238 and that 238 was just from the last rating. What about the ratings since 1948 when FDR was rated third best president? Since 1948 that must be a lot of historians over a period of time that have rated FDR.   
I realize that you claim to know more than the experts, but frankly, with your posts, you haven't convinced me. The mommy-bottle quote about says it all.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You CAN'T defend the scumbag FDR, and you've never even tried. You've never done anything relative to the topic but repeat a logical fallacy over and over. You're not only a nuthugger, you're an idiot.
Click to expand...


Why do I feel there's a fallacy someplace in your post?


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  To be a physicist, you actually have to be able to do math, like calculus and differential equations.  The same goes for being a chemist, an engineer or an computer programmer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if someone calls himself all of those titles and can't do long division what happens?
Click to expand...



They throw him off the mathlete squad?


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln. At times some lies and historical untruths need to be corrected but even the 238 noted historians and authorities on presidents agree with me that FDR's number one, the top of the heap, king of the road. So what about the people that lived during his terms in office, four times they elected him. Hard to beat that record. Sure it's gotta hurt but....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln."
> 
> The fact that I've posted several OPs with dozens of FDR's shortcomings casts the lie to your post.
> 
> 
> 2. "... 238 noted historians and authorities..."
> 
> Will you ever stand on your own two feet, and stop hiding behind Liberal academics?
> 
> Wanna go to your Mommy? She has your bottle heated up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, I believe that experts in their field might know more about a subject than I do, and worse, not one expert but 238 and that 238 was just from the last rating. What about the ratings since 1948 when FDR was rated third best president? Since 1948 that must be a lot of historians over a period of time that have rated FDR.
> I realize that you claim to know more than the experts, but frankly, with your posts, you haven't convinced me. The mommy-bottle quote about says it all.
Click to expand...





You thought it my duty is to convince you?


It may be that your whole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.


----------



## Truthseeker420

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUZGkNAUSvY]FDR: WARNING ABOUT TODAY'S REPUBLICANS - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic

Truthseeker420 said:


> FDR: WARNING ABOUT TODAY'S REPUBLICANS - YouTube






1.	John Maynard Keynes, in a letter published in the NYTimes, December 31, 1933, warned  even wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action. *Even Keynes saw the danger in treating the nations capitalists as an enemy, as the unscrupulous money changers, as FDR called them in his first Inaugural.*




2.	Republican*Warren Harding inherited one of the sharpest recessions in American history in 1921. By July it was over.* Harding and Treasury Secy Mellon cut government expenditures by 40 %, allowing wages to fall, in a natural recovery to full employment. The cuts, and even sharper tax cuts under Coolidge, produced the long period of *growth and rising living standards associated with the Roaring Twenties. *




3.	In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that * on the whole it retarded recovery. * 
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln. At times some lies and historical untruths need to be corrected but even the 238 noted historians and authorities on presidents agree with me that FDR's number one, the top of the heap, king of the road. So what about the people that lived during his terms in office, four times they elected him. Hard to beat that record. Sure it's gotta hurt but....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln."
> 
> The fact that I've posted several OPs with dozens of FDR's shortcomings casts the lie to your post.
> 
> 
> 2. "... 238 noted historians and authorities..."
> 
> Will you ever stand on your own two feet, and stop hiding behind Liberal academics?
> 
> Wanna go to your Mommy? She has your bottle heated up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, I believe that experts in their field might know more about a subject than I do, and worse, not one expert but 238 and that 238 was just from the last rating. What about the ratings since 1948 when FDR was rated third best president? Since 1948 that must be a lot of historians over a period of time that have rated FDR.
> I realize that you claim to know more than the experts, but frankly, with your posts, you haven't convinced me. The mommy-bottle quote about says it all.
Click to expand...


The so-called "experts" have all been trained to have the government approved views, and also handpicked by government toadies because they have the approved views.  Uniformity of opinion among a gang of government minions is hardly surprising.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  To be a physicist, you actually have to be able to do math, like calculus and differential equations.  The same goes for being a chemist, an engineer or an computer programmer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if someone calls himself all of those titles and can't do long division what happens?
Click to expand...


He would never get through engineering school if he couldn't do long division.  However, you don't need a diploma in history to write books about history.


----------



## regent

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  To be a physicist, you actually have to be able to do math, like calculus and differential equations.  The same goes for being a chemist, an engineer or an computer programmer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if someone calls himself all of those titles and can't do long division what happens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He would never get through engineering school if he couldn't do long division.  However, you don't need a diploma in history to write books about history.
Click to expand...


If anyone can write a book on history can anyone write a book on engineering?


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if someone calls himself all of those titles and can't do long division what happens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He would never get through engineering school if he couldn't do long division.  However, you don't need a diploma in history to write books about history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone can write a book on history can anyone write a book on engineering?
Click to expand...




Look what you've been reduced to: you're actually suggesting that there is any correspondence between the hard sciences and the social sciences.


I believe that this makes the point:

When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".

 The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace". 

The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?" 
The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He would never get through engineering school if he couldn't do long division.  However, you don't need a diploma in history to write books about history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone can write a book on history can anyone write a book on engineering?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look what you've been reduced to: you're actually suggesting that there is any correspondence between the hard sciences and the social sciences.
> 
> 
> I believe that this makes the point:
> 
> When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".
> 
> The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".
> 
> The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?"
> The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).
Click to expand...


I'm suggesting that anyone can legally write a book about anything, physics, history; the question for most, is how accurate is the book or how well does the book sell.


----------



## gipper

Hey Reggie, this should enlighten you, but maybe not....



> At the 1945 Yalta Conference, Stalin boasted to Winston Churchill that Commissar Lazar Kaganovitch, who had supervised the murder of at least seven million Ukrainians and sent 2 million to concentration camps, "is my Adolf Eichmann," referring to the Nazi official responsible for killing millions of Jews.
> 
> In 1945, the Soviet Union &#8212; the close wartime ally of Britain, Canada and the United States &#8212; had 5.5 million prisoners in its prison system, the gulag, of whom 25% died annually from cold, hunger, exhaustion and disease.
> 
> Though Stalin&#8217;s worst crimes were committed before World War II, the full horror of his system of industrialized murder and slave labor were barely known outside Russia until the 1980&#8242;s. To this day, the world is constantly reminded of Germany&#8217;s crimes during the National Socialist era. But Stalin&#8217;s victims, who surpassed those of Hitler by a factor of three times, are almost forgotten. Why?
> 
> History is the propaganda of the victors. Few photographs of the gulag have survived, evidence was destroyed, and witnesses have died. Churchill and Roosevelt could not admit they were allied to the greatest mass killer since Genghis Khan, and complicit in his crimes. Or reveal that Communist agents of influence had shaped White House policy. The feeble-minded Roosevelt even hailed Stalin as "Uncle Joe."
> 
> The world&#8217;s Communist and Socialist parties managed to suppress the full scope of Stalin&#8217;s crimes even after Nikita Khrushchev denounced him in 1956. Solzhenitsyn warned that socialism, and big sister communism, inevitably led to totalitarian states.
> 
> Many Western liberal intellectuals were infatuated with Stalin&#8217;s brute power and didn&#8217;t want to know about their idol&#8217;s crimes. The French leftist thinker Jean-Paul Sartre even refused to admit the gulag existed.
> 
> Revealing the truth about the Allies&#8217; role in supporting Stalin and his crimes would undermine the whole bogus mythology of World War II that has become the state religion for the political right in North America, Britain and Australia.
> 
> Those who considered the Jewish Holocaust a unique historical crime were not eager to bring attention to Stalin&#8217;s genocide lest it diminish or dilute their own people&#8217;s suffering.
> 
> The Bogus Mythology of WWII ? LewRockwell.com


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> Hey Reggie, this should enlighten you, but maybe not....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the 1945 Yalta Conference, Stalin boasted to Winston Churchill that Commissar Lazar Kaganovitch, who had supervised the murder of at least seven million Ukrainians and sent 2 million to concentration camps, "is my Adolf Eichmann," referring to the Nazi official responsible for killing millions of Jews.
> 
> In 1945, the Soviet Union  the close wartime ally of Britain, Canada and the United States  had 5.5 million prisoners in its prison system, the gulag, of whom 25% died annually from cold, hunger, exhaustion and disease.
> 
> Though Stalins worst crimes were committed before World War II, the full horror of his system of industrialized murder and slave labor were barely known outside Russia until the 1980&#8242;s. To this day, the world is constantly reminded of Germanys crimes during the National Socialist era. But Stalins victims, who surpassed those of Hitler by a factor of three times, are almost forgotten. Why?
> 
> History is the propaganda of the victors. Few photographs of the gulag have survived, evidence was destroyed, and witnesses have died. Churchill and Roosevelt could not admit they were allied to the greatest mass killer since Genghis Khan, and complicit in his crimes. Or reveal that Communist agents of influence had shaped White House policy. The feeble-minded Roosevelt even hailed Stalin as "Uncle Joe."
> 
> The worlds Communist and Socialist parties managed to suppress the full scope of Stalins crimes even after Nikita Khrushchev denounced him in 1956. Solzhenitsyn warned that socialism, and big sister communism, inevitably led to totalitarian states.
> 
> Many Western liberal intellectuals were infatuated with Stalins brute power and didnt want to know about their idols crimes. The French leftist thinker Jean-Paul Sartre even refused to admit the gulag existed.
> 
> Revealing the truth about the Allies role in supporting Stalin and his crimes would undermine the whole bogus mythology of World War II that has become the state religion for the political right in North America, Britain and Australia.
> 
> Those who considered the Jewish Holocaust a unique historical crime were not eager to bring attention to Stalins genocide lest it diminish or dilute their own peoples suffering.
> 
> The Bogus Mythology of WWII ? LewRockwell.com
Click to expand...



It seems some Americans today are schocked that we would ally with the USSR, but our goal was to save American lives, so we used Stalin to delay Germany until we were ready to open a second front. In the process of using Stalin to save those American lives we ignored his crimes, his economic/political system and delayed our second front as long as possible.  It seems today that some Americans are shocked that Stalin was not a poster boy for sweetness and light, but most Americans at the time knew Stalin was evil but our goal was to save American lives and we used the USSR to save those lives. Now, some naive Americans believe we did it to save the USSR but the USSR is gone, Hitler is gone and many American young men lived a full life because we used the USSR.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if someone calls himself all of those titles and can't do long division what happens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He would never get through engineering school if he couldn't do long division.  However, you don't need a diploma in history to write books about history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone can write a book on history can anyone write a book on engineering?
Click to expand...


Can anyone do calculus and differential equations?


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone can write a book on history can anyone write a book on engineering?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look what you've been reduced to: you're actually suggesting that there is any correspondence between the hard sciences and the social sciences.
> 
> 
> I believe that this makes the point:
> 
> When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".
> 
> The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".
> 
> The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?"
> The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm suggesting that anyone can legally write a book about anything, physics, history; the question for most, is how accurate is the book or how well does the book sell.
Click to expand...


Plenty of non-historians have written books about history that are quite accurate and compelling.  All you really need is an interest in the subject.  The same isn't the case with engineering or chemistry.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Those who fail to study history are doomed to believe 7 years of 20% unemployment is a great record


----------



## regent

Certain segments of society have been singing the blues about America's problems long before our Constitution,and the songs will continue long after this generation is gone. One example of a generation that may have deserved to do a little whining was the FDR era and yet I think the whining was less and more was accomplished, in that brief period than in the fifty years before or after. But maybe today's whining is louder?


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

regent said:


> Posters go through all these tid-bits of history to find fault with FDR, and certainly in twelve years of presidency, the Great Depression and World War II, there are many areas and many decisions where faults can be found. Yet, when push comes to shove in rating presidents historians, including conservative historians, have always rated FDR in the top three, with Lincoln and Washington. In the last rating, however, historians moved FDR from one of the top three to number one. The answer to that rating by some, is to label historians as communists, and non-thnkers as they are, but what of the American people, they elected FDR four times a record that will stand for some time. Were they communists too?  So we can verify that the people that lived through that Great Depression and World War II, plus the historians agree on FDR's rating.
> The question for conservatives and FDR haters is how do you combat the people that voted for FDR four times and the historians and presidential experts? Well other than calling FDR a communist, his marriage, his dog Fala, (yep, they went after
> fdr's dog) plus nit picking mistakes in history not much. It's all in the history books.



Nitpicking mistakes in history?  You call sending a ship full of innocent men, women and children to their executioners ( rather than granting them asylum ) to be a nitpicking "mistake"?


----------



## Unkotare

Jeremiah said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posters go through all these tid-bits of history to find fault with FDR, and certainly in twelve years of presidency, the Great Depression and World War II, there are many areas and many decisions where faults can be found. Yet, when push comes to shove in rating presidents historians, including conservative historians, have always rated FDR in the top three, with Lincoln and Washington. In the last rating, however, historians moved FDR from one of the top three to number one. The answer to that rating by some, is to label historians as communists, and non-thnkers as they are, but what of the American people, they elected FDR four times a record that will stand for some time. Were they communists too?  So we can verify that the people that lived through that Great Depression and World War II, plus the historians agree on FDR's rating.
> The question for conservatives and FDR haters is how do you combat the people that voted for FDR four times and the historians and presidential experts? Well other than calling FDR a communist, his marriage, his dog Fala, (yep, they went after
> fdr's dog) plus nit picking mistakes in history not much. It's all in the history books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nitpicking mistakes in history?  You call sending a ship full of innocent men, women and children to their executioners ( rather than granting them asylum ) to be a nitpicking "mistake"?
Click to expand...



There's nothing Reject won't say to defend his idol, that scumbag FDR. The only thing he won't do is think for himself.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posters go through all these tid-bits of history to find fault with FDR, and certainly in twelve years of presidency, the Great Depression and World War II, there are many areas and many decisions where faults can be found. Yet, when push comes to shove in rating presidents historians, including conservative historians, have always rated FDR in the top three, with Lincoln and Washington. In the last rating, however, historians moved FDR from one of the top three to number one. The answer to that rating by some, is to label historians as communists, and non-thnkers as they are, but what of the American people, they elected FDR four times a record that will stand for some time. Were they communists too?  So we can verify that the people that lived through that Great Depression and World War II, plus the historians agree on FDR's rating.
> The question for conservatives and FDR haters is how do you combat the people that voted for FDR four times and the historians and presidential experts? Well other than calling FDR a communist, his marriage, his dog Fala, (yep, they went after
> fdr's dog) plus nit picking mistakes in history not much. It's all in the history books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nitpicking mistakes in history?  You call sending a ship full of innocent men, women and children to their executioners ( rather than granting them asylum ) to be a nitpicking "mistake"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing Reject won't say to defend his idol, that scumbag FDR. The only thing he won't do is think for himself.
Click to expand...


You mean think like you. I can't do that, I mean being growed up and all. FDR allowed 15,000 Jewish visitors to stay after their visas had expired but remember Congress has a say in government and some of those Congress members were not happy about that decision. The St. Louis could go anyplace it wanted to drop off its passengers but not Cuba nor the U.S. The U.S. had a visa waiting list and as I remember the ship didn't go to executioneers but to Belgium.


----------



## TooTall

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about 'bothered'......it's about rectitude, right and wrong, justice.
> 
> 
> But you know that, don't you....
> 
> ....you've run out of excuses for FDR, and have admitted that you are simply his lap-dog.
> 
> 
> Stop slobbering all over his shoes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think FDR has a need for excuses, rated our number one president by historians, elected four times by the people, that pretty much says it all. Can your candidate beat that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I have a 'candidate' in mind who did better....economically, and by reversing FDR's love affair with Stalin and his regime.
> 
> 
> But that is hardly the issue...
> Far too many are like you and refuse open their eyes to the glaring disservices and calumnies of Franklin Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> You have neither addressed nor challenged the charges that he lied to the American public.
> 
> 
> Could Americans make a mistake and elect a man to the presidency who shouldn't have been?
> 
> Well...they elected a rapist, and the current incompetent.....
Click to expand...


Checkmate!


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Reggie, this should enlighten you, but maybe not....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the 1945 Yalta Conference, Stalin boasted to Winston Churchill that Commissar Lazar Kaganovitch, who had supervised the murder of at least seven million Ukrainians and sent 2 million to concentration camps, "is my Adolf Eichmann," referring to the Nazi official responsible for killing millions of Jews.
> 
> In 1945, the Soviet Union  the close wartime ally of Britain, Canada and the United States  had 5.5 million prisoners in its prison system, the gulag, of whom 25% died annually from cold, hunger, exhaustion and disease.
> 
> Though Stalins worst crimes were committed before World War II, the full horror of his system of industrialized murder and slave labor were barely known outside Russia until the 1980&#8242;s. To this day, the world is constantly reminded of Germanys crimes during the National Socialist era. But Stalins victims, who surpassed those of Hitler by a factor of three times, are almost forgotten. Why?
> 
> History is the propaganda of the victors. Few photographs of the gulag have survived, evidence was destroyed, and witnesses have died. Churchill and Roosevelt could not admit they were allied to the greatest mass killer since Genghis Khan, and complicit in his crimes. Or reveal that Communist agents of influence had shaped White House policy. The feeble-minded Roosevelt even hailed Stalin as "Uncle Joe."
> 
> The worlds Communist and Socialist parties managed to suppress the full scope of Stalins crimes even after Nikita Khrushchev denounced him in 1956. Solzhenitsyn warned that socialism, and big sister communism, inevitably led to totalitarian states.
> 
> Many Western liberal intellectuals were infatuated with Stalins brute power and didnt want to know about their idols crimes. The French leftist thinker Jean-Paul Sartre even refused to admit the gulag existed.
> 
> Revealing the truth about the Allies role in supporting Stalin and his crimes would undermine the whole bogus mythology of World War II that has become the state religion for the political right in North America, Britain and Australia.
> 
> Those who considered the Jewish Holocaust a unique historical crime were not eager to bring attention to Stalins genocide lest it diminish or dilute their own peoples suffering.
> 
> The Bogus Mythology of WWII ? LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It seems some Americans today are schocked that we would ally with the USSR, but our goal was to save American lives, so we used Stalin to delay Germany until we were ready to open a second front. In the process of using Stalin to save those American lives we ignored his crimes, his economic/political system and delayed our second front as long as possible.  It seems today that some Americans are shocked that Stalin was not a poster boy for sweetness and light, but most Americans at the time knew Stalin was evil but our goal was to save American lives and we used the USSR to save those lives. Now, some naive Americans believe we did it to save the USSR but the USSR is gone, Hitler is gone and many American young men lived a full life because we used the USSR.
Click to expand...






"It seems some Americans today are schocked that we would ally with the USSR, but our goal was to save American lives, so we used Stalin to delay Germany until we were ready to open a second front."

Total poppycock, and a fabrication designed to hide the fact that you consider Roosevelt akin to a god.


1. FDR joined the USSR to the USA in 1933...so it clearly had nothing to do with saving American lives.

2. Foreign Service officer of note advised Roosevelt that we had nothing to gain by propping up Staling....he ignored them, and purged them from government.

3. Are you actually claiming that Stalin would have surrendered to Hitler?
Or....that Hitler would have beaten Russia's three greatest generals- December, January, and February?



There is not the slightest objectivity in your post....you simply cling to the hems of Roosevelt's garments.....


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Reggie, this should enlighten you, but maybe not....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems some Americans today are schocked that we would ally with the USSR, but our goal was to save American lives, so we used Stalin to delay Germany until we were ready to open a second front. In the process of using Stalin to save those American lives we ignored his crimes, his economic/political system and delayed our second front as long as possible.  It seems today that some Americans are shocked that Stalin was not a poster boy for sweetness and light, but most Americans at the time knew Stalin was evil but our goal was to save American lives and we used the USSR to save those lives. Now, some naive Americans believe we did it to save the USSR but the USSR is gone, Hitler is gone and many American young men lived a full life because we used the USSR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It seems some Americans today are schocked that we would ally with the USSR, but our goal was to save American lives, so we used Stalin to delay Germany until we were ready to open a second front."
> 
> Total poppycock, and a fabrication designed to hide the fact that you consider Roosevelt akin to a god.
> 
> 
> 1. FDR joined the USSR to the USA in 1933...so it clearly had nothing to do with saving American lives.
> 
> 2. Foreign Service officer of note advised Roosevelt that we had nothing to gain by propping up Staling....he ignored them, and purged them from government.
> 
> 3. Are you actually claiming that Stalin would have surrendered to Hitler?
> Or....that Hitler would have beaten Russia's three greatest generals- December, January, and February?
> 
> 
> 
> There is not the slightest objectivity in your post....you simply cling to the hems of Roosevelt's garments.....
Click to expand...


Well the issue was in doubt at times, but that was then, and now all the doubt is gone, we know the outcome so it's considerabley easier to predict  that the USSR will  not surrender, even though Russia did make peace with Germany during the war to end all wars.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems some Americans today are schocked that we would ally with the USSR, but our goal was to save American lives, so we used Stalin to delay Germany until we were ready to open a second front. In the process of using Stalin to save those American lives we ignored his crimes, his economic/political system and delayed our second front as long as possible.  It seems today that some Americans are shocked that Stalin was not a poster boy for sweetness and light, but most Americans at the time knew Stalin was evil but our goal was to save American lives and we used the USSR to save those lives. Now, some naive Americans believe we did it to save the USSR but the USSR is gone, Hitler is gone and many American young men lived a full life because we used the USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It seems some Americans today are schocked that we would ally with the USSR, but our goal was to save American lives, so we used Stalin to delay Germany until we were ready to open a second front."
> 
> Total poppycock, and a fabrication designed to hide the fact that you consider Roosevelt akin to a god.
> 
> 
> 1. FDR joined the USSR to the USA in 1933...so it clearly had nothing to do with saving American lives.
> 
> 2. Foreign Service officer of note advised Roosevelt that we had nothing to gain by propping up Staling....he ignored them, and purged them from government.
> 
> 3. Are you actually claiming that Stalin would have surrendered to Hitler?
> Or....that Hitler would have beaten Russia's three greatest generals- December, January, and February?
> 
> 
> 
> There is not the slightest objectivity in your post....you simply cling to the hems of Roosevelt's garments.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the issue was in doubt at times, but that was then, and now all the doubt is gone, we know the outcome so it's considerabley easier to predict  that the USSR will  not surrender, even though Russia did make peace with Germany during the war to end all wars.
Click to expand...







You're amazingly incorrect on every single count......

...and that may just be the vincible ignorance that allows you to pine for FDR.


First....it has not gone unnoticed that you have ignored the dispositive evidence in my post.

Secondly....Hilter and Stalin had treaties that armed and supported the Blitzkrieg, provided strategic materials to Hitler, and actually taught the SS how to operate concentration camps and conduct mass murder.
These were partners, planning to split Europe between them.




1. Early Nazi propaganda posters included the hammer and sickle.

2. When Hitler began his advances on other countries, Stalin refused to join the nations talking of stopping him. Stalin was, in fact, pleased that Hitler was destroying the old order throughout Europe. "There will be no parliaments, no trade unions, no armies, no governments....then Stalin will come as the liberator...millions of people will be sitting in concentration camps, hoping someone will liberate them, then Stalin and the Red Army will come and liberate them. That was his plan." 
Vladimir Bukovsky.

3. *September 1, 1939, Hitler attacked Poland....on September 17, Stalin attacks from the East. *The Soviet radio transmitter in Minsk guided the Nazi bombers attacking Polish cities. Newsreel footage showed the Red Army in Nazi helmets, marching side by side with the SS. One photo shows the hammer and sickle along side the swastika.

a.  The Soviet press depicted the battle as a fight against Polish fascism, with the peace-loving Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fighting aggressive Polish fascism.



4. Hitler and Stalin signed secret protocols to divide up Europe. First, Stalin moved against Finland, November 1939....for the aggression, the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations. Hitler attacked to the West.

a.  *Norway was invaded by Hitler with the direct help of the Soviet Union, providing the Soviet naval base near Murmansk. *"German Admiral Raeder sent a letter of thanks to the Commander of the Soviet Navy, Kuznetsov."

5. Archival footage shows Nazi and Russian officers partying together. The USSR became the supplier of oil, iron ore, construction materials for Hitler's Blitzkrieg. And trainloads of grain, even while Russians were starving.

a. Communist party members throughout Europe were ordered to sabotage their nation's forces, and* aid the Nazi attackers.* The French Communist Party, July 1940: "It is comforting to see workers talking to German soldiers as friends,...'well done, comrades, and keep it up,' ...the brotherhood of man will not be forever a hope, it will become a living reality."




And Franklin Roosevelt knew all of the above.

A pity that you don't.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It seems some Americans today are schocked that we would ally with the USSR, but our goal was to save American lives, so we used Stalin to delay Germany until we were ready to open a second front."
> 
> Total poppycock, and a fabrication designed to hide the fact that you consider Roosevelt akin to a god.
> 
> 
> 1. FDR joined the USSR to the USA in 1933...so it clearly had nothing to do with saving American lives.
> 
> 2. Foreign Service officer of note advised Roosevelt that we had nothing to gain by propping up Staling....he ignored them, and purged them from government.
> 
> 3. Are you actually claiming that Stalin would have surrendered to Hitler?
> Or....that Hitler would have beaten Russia's three greatest generals- December, January, and February?
> 
> 
> 
> There is not the slightest objectivity in your post....you simply cling to the hems of Roosevelt's garments.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the issue was in doubt at times, but that was then, and now all the doubt is gone, we know the outcome so it's considerabley easier to predict  that the USSR will  not surrender, even though Russia did make peace with Germany during the war to end all wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're amazingly incorrect on every single count......
> 
> ...and that may just be the vincible ignorance that allows you to pine for FDR.
> 
> 
> First....it has not gone unnoticed that you have ignored the dispositive evidence in my post.
> 
> Secondly....Hilter and Stalin had treaties that armed and supported the Blitzkrieg, provided strategic materials to Hitler, and actually taught the SS how to operate concentration camps and conduct mass murder.
> These were partners, planning to split Europe between them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Early Nazi propaganda posters included the hammer and sickle.
> 
> 2. When Hitler began his advances on other countries, Stalin refused to join the nations talking of stopping him. Stalin was, in fact, pleased that Hitler was destroying the old order throughout Europe. "There will be no parliaments, no trade unions, no armies, no governments....then Stalin will come as the liberator...millions of people will be sitting in concentration camps, hoping someone will liberate them, then Stalin and the Red Army will come and liberate them. That was his plan."
> Vladimir Bukovsky.
> 
> 3. *September 1, 1939, Hitler attacked Poland....on September 17, Stalin attacks from the East. *The Soviet radio transmitter in Minsk guided the Nazi bombers attacking Polish cities. Newsreel footage showed the Red Army in Nazi helmets, marching side by side with the SS. One photo shows the hammer and sickle along side the swastika.
> 
> a.  The Soviet press depicted the battle as a fight against Polish fascism, with the peace-loving Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fighting aggressive Polish fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Hitler and Stalin signed secret protocols to divide up Europe. First, Stalin moved against Finland, November 1939....for the aggression, the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations. Hitler attacked to the West.
> 
> a.  *Norway was invaded by Hitler with the direct help of the Soviet Union, providing the Soviet naval base near Murmansk. *"German Admiral Raeder sent a letter of thanks to the Commander of the Soviet Navy, Kuznetsov."
> 
> 5. Archival footage shows Nazi and Russian officers partying together. The USSR became the supplier of oil, iron ore, construction materials for Hitler's Blitzkrieg. And trainloads of grain, even while Russians were starving.
> 
> a. Communist party members throughout Europe were ordered to sabotage their nation's forces, and* aid the Nazi attackers.* The French Communist Party, July 1940: "It is comforting to see workers talking to German soldiers as friends,...'well done, comrades, and keep it up,' ...the brotherhood of man will not be forever a hope, it will become a living reality."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Franklin Roosevelt knew all of the above.
> 
> A pity that you don't.
Click to expand...


Of course FDR knew most of that, but so did many American citizens alive at the time. I think much of that history is new to some and it's like finding something they didn't know about, so bingo it must have been a secret. 
The USSR was not a friend of ours, but did become a wartime ally, but as I said an ally to kill Germans. 
One interesting tid-bit of history was to have seen the American-communists change their tune after Barbarossa.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the issue was in doubt at times, but that was then, and now all the doubt is gone, we know the outcome so it's considerabley easier to predict  that the USSR will  not surrender, even though Russia did make peace with Germany during the war to end all wars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're amazingly incorrect on every single count......
> 
> ...and that may just be the vincible ignorance that allows you to pine for FDR.
> 
> 
> First....it has not gone unnoticed that you have ignored the dispositive evidence in my post.
> 
> Secondly....Hilter and Stalin had treaties that armed and supported the Blitzkrieg, provided strategic materials to Hitler, and actually taught the SS how to operate concentration camps and conduct mass murder.
> These were partners, planning to split Europe between them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Early Nazi propaganda posters included the hammer and sickle.
> 
> 2. When Hitler began his advances on other countries, Stalin refused to join the nations talking of stopping him. Stalin was, in fact, pleased that Hitler was destroying the old order throughout Europe. "There will be no parliaments, no trade unions, no armies, no governments....then Stalin will come as the liberator...millions of people will be sitting in concentration camps, hoping someone will liberate them, then Stalin and the Red Army will come and liberate them. That was his plan."
> Vladimir Bukovsky.
> 
> 3. *September 1, 1939, Hitler attacked Poland....on September 17, Stalin attacks from the East. *The Soviet radio transmitter in Minsk guided the Nazi bombers attacking Polish cities. Newsreel footage showed the Red Army in Nazi helmets, marching side by side with the SS. One photo shows the hammer and sickle along side the swastika.
> 
> a.  The Soviet press depicted the battle as a fight against Polish fascism, with the peace-loving Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fighting aggressive Polish fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Hitler and Stalin signed secret protocols to divide up Europe. First, Stalin moved against Finland, November 1939....for the aggression, the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations. Hitler attacked to the West.
> 
> a.  *Norway was invaded by Hitler with the direct help of the Soviet Union, providing the Soviet naval base near Murmansk. *"German Admiral Raeder sent a letter of thanks to the Commander of the Soviet Navy, Kuznetsov."
> 
> 5. Archival footage shows Nazi and Russian officers partying together. The USSR became the supplier of oil, iron ore, construction materials for Hitler's Blitzkrieg. And trainloads of grain, even while Russians were starving.
> 
> a. Communist party members throughout Europe were ordered to sabotage their nation's forces, and* aid the Nazi attackers.* The French Communist Party, July 1940: "It is comforting to see workers talking to German soldiers as friends,...'well done, comrades, and keep it up,' ...the brotherhood of man will not be forever a hope, it will become a living reality."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Franklin Roosevelt knew all of the above.
> 
> A pity that you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course FDR knew most of that, but so did many American citizens alive at the time. I think much of that history is new to some and it's like finding something they didn't know about, so bingo it must have been a secret.
> The USSR was not a friend of ours, but did become a wartime ally, but as I said an ally to kill Germans.
> One interesting tid-bit of history was to have seen the American-communists change their tune after Barbarossa.
Click to expand...







"The USSR was not a friend of ours, but did become a wartime ally, but as I said an ally to kill Germans."

Come now....you know very well that I disproved the above earlier.

Roosevelt made overtures to Stalin in 1933.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nitpicking mistakes in history?  You call sending a ship full of innocent men, women and children to their executioners ( rather than granting them asylum ) to be a nitpicking "mistake"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing Reject won't say to defend his idol, that scumbag FDR. The only thing he won't do is think for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean think like you..
Click to expand...



You said that before, and I told you before: NO, I mean think for yourself. You have shown no capacity for or interest in doing so.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing Reject won't say to defend his idol, that scumbag FDR. The only thing he won't do is think for himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean think like you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You said that before, and I told you before: NO, I mean think for yourself. You have shown no capacity for or interest in doing so.
Click to expand...




1. Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....


2. Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals.

Explaining or relating the facts to a Liberal is like trying to tell a devout Muslim that Al-Buraq didn't carry the prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Mi'raj or "Night Journey."


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean think like you..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said that before, and I told you before: NO, I mean think for yourself. You have shown no capacity for or interest in doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....
> 
> 
> 2. Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals.
> 
> Explaining or relating the facts to a Liberal is like trying to tell a devout Muslim that Al-Buraq didn't carry the prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Mi'raj or "Night Journey."
Click to expand...


So what facts, data, or experience are you trying to relate? You seem to have trouble putting down what you are trying to say. You've got the name calling down pretty well but  getting across your point seems to be the primary problem.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said that before, and I told you before: NO, I mean think for yourself. You have shown no capacity for or interest in doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....
> 
> 
> 2. Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals.
> 
> Explaining or relating the facts to a Liberal is like trying to tell a devout Muslim that Al-Buraq didn't carry the prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Mi'raj or "Night Journey."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what facts, data, or experience are you trying to relate? You seem to have trouble putting down what you are trying to say. You've got the name calling down pretty well but  getting across your point seems to be the primary problem.
Click to expand...






1. "...getting across your point seems to be the primary problem."

You know well that that is not true.

Prevarication by the other side is one of the great 'tells' as they say in poker, that admit defeat.

I accept same from you, after all, a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to instruct a Liberal.




2. "You've got the name calling down pretty well..."
Very true...but that's because I only post the truth.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....
> 
> 
> 2. Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals.
> 
> Explaining or relating the facts to a Liberal is like trying to tell a devout Muslim that Al-Buraq didn't carry the prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Mi'raj or "Night Journey."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what facts, data, or experience are you trying to relate? You seem to have trouble putting down what you are trying to say. You've got the name calling down pretty well but  getting across your point seems to be the primary problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "...getting across your point seems to be the primary problem."
> 
> You know well that that is not true.
> 
> Prevarication by the other side is one of the great 'tells' as they say in poker, that admit defeat.
> 
> I accept same from you, after all, a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to instruct a Liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "You've got the name calling down pretty well..."
> Very true...but that's because I only post the truth.
Click to expand...


Well actually that was in response to another poster. Your platitudes and cliches differ from his, so I apologize. Still friends?


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what facts, data, or experience are you trying to relate? You seem to have trouble putting down what you are trying to say. You've got the name calling down pretty well but  getting across your point seems to be the primary problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "...getting across your point seems to be the primary problem."
> 
> You know well that that is not true.
> 
> Prevarication by the other side is one of the great 'tells' as they say in poker, that admit defeat.
> 
> I accept same from you, after all, a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to instruct a Liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "You've got the name calling down pretty well..."
> Very true...but that's because I only post the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well actually that was in response to another poster. Your platitudes and cliches differ from his, so I apologize. Still friends?
Click to expand...



Friend 'til the end!
...and this is the end!

Just kiddin'!


----------



## gipper

Here is as good an explanation of FDR's policy toward Stalin and the USSR...



> The reasons for Franklin Roosevelt's support for Stalin are difficult to pin down. President Roosevelt himself once explained to William Bullitt, his first ambassador to Soviet Russia: "I think that if I give him [Stalin] everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything, and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy." (Cited in: Robert Nisbet, Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship [1989], p. 6.) Perhaps the most accurate (and kindest) explanation for Roosevelt's attitude is a profound ignorance, self-deception or naiveté. In the considered view of George Kennan, historian and former high-ranking US diplomat, in foreign policy Roosevelt was "a very superficial man, ignorant, dilettantish, with a severely limited intellectual horizon."
> Suvorov's 'The Last Republic' (Review)



That last sentence by George Keenan sums up FDR quite well.  It would also apply to the doofus in the WH now.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said that before, and I told you before: NO, I mean think for yourself. You have shown no capacity for or interest in doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....
> 
> 
> 2. Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals.
> 
> Explaining or relating the facts to a Liberal is like trying to tell a devout Muslim that Al-Buraq didn't carry the prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Mi'raj or "Night Journey."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what facts, data, or experience are you trying to relate? You seem to have trouble putting down what you are trying to say. You've got the name calling down pretty well but  getting across your point seems to be the primary problem.
Click to expand...






You have been inundated with facts relating to this topic again and again and again. Every time you simply fall back on a logical fallacy that has been explained to you again and again and again.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....
> 
> 
> 2. Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals.
> 
> Explaining or relating the facts to a Liberal is like trying to tell a devout Muslim that Al-Buraq didn't carry the prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Mi'raj or "Night Journey."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what facts, data, or experience are you trying to relate? You seem to have trouble putting down what you are trying to say. You've got the name calling down pretty well but  getting across your point seems to be the primary problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been inundated with facts relating to this topic again and again and again. Every time you simply fall back on a logical fallacy that has been explained to you again and again and again.
Click to expand...



So what is your point? If it is FDR, the facts are that FDR has never been rated by historians as less than America's third greatest president and in the most recent poll as the greatest American president. And the fact that most historians agree with me on rating presidents is another fact.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what facts, data, or experience are you trying to relate? You seem to have trouble putting down what you are trying to say. You've got the name calling down pretty well but  getting across your point seems to be the primary problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been inundated with facts relating to this topic again and again and again. Every time you simply fall back on a logical fallacy that has been explained to you again and again and again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what is your point? If it is FDR, the facts are that FDR has never been rated by historians as less than America's third greatest president and in the most recent poll as the greatest American president. And the fact that most historians agree with me on rating presidents is another fact.
Click to expand...



And there we go again...


----------



## regent

Hard to take eh?  True, I try to use experts in their field of expertise, and as we have discovered you ain't no expert at least not in the history area. Don't despair you might hit on some area you d0  have some some knowledge and I'll ooh and ah, but until then.... 
Until then I hope you keep giving me the opportunity to emphasize that FDR has finally been rated as America's greatest president. Now the question is, will FDR hold that position or will the historians give it to Obama? Probably not. It will be some time before we get another Lincoln, Washington or FDR.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> Hard to take eh?  True, I try to use experts in their field of expertise, and as we have discovered you ain't no expert at least not in the history area. Don't despair you might hit on some area you d0  have some some knowledge and I'll ooh and ah, but until then....
> Until then I hope you keep giving me the opportunity to emphasize that FDR has finally been rated as America's greatest president. Now the question is, will FDR hold that position or will the historians give it to Obama? Probably not. It will be some time before we get another Lincoln, Washington or FDR.





Experts?


WHO/UN
So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research and when they couldnt find data, they developed [data] through a variety of techniques. WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castros 
WHO | Message from the Director-General



Of course the same biases apply to the 'experts' who are willing to overlook Roosevelt's .....'anomalies.'


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Hard to take eh?




Hard to take that you are incapable of thinking or reasoning? Hard to take that you are so 'limited' you have no choice but to fall back on logical fallacy over and over and over again despite being educated on the matter countless times? No, not hard to take. Just pathetic. Utterly pathetic.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to take eh?  True, I try to use experts in their field of expertise, and as we have discovered you ain't no expert at least not in the history area. Don't despair you might hit on some area you d0  have some some knowledge and I'll ooh and ah, but until then....
> Until then I hope you keep giving me the opportunity to emphasize that FDR has finally been rated as America's greatest president. Now the question is, will FDR hold that position or will the historians give it to Obama? Probably not. It will be some time before we get another Lincoln, Washington or FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Experts?
> 
> 
> WHO/UN
> So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research and when they couldnt find data, they developed [data] through a variety of techniques. WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castros
> WHO | Message from the Director-General
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the same biases apply to the 'experts' who are willing to overlook Roosevelt's .....'anomalies.'
Click to expand...


We are discussing the historians rating of FDR, not health care. These ratings have been carried on since 1948 and hundreds of historians have been involved, historians that do not work for the federal government but most for universities.  The latest survey involved 238 noted historians and presidential experts. 
I think the better tack would be to charge that the historians in these surveys have been drinking flouridated water and as the John Birchers told us in the Fifties flouridated water softens the brain and we become communists. Who knows that might sail again?


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to take eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to take that you are incapable of thinking or reasoning? Hard to take that you are so 'limited' you have no choice but to fall back on logical fallacy over and over and over again despite being educated on the matter countless times? No, not hard to take. Just pathetic. Utterly pathetic.
Click to expand...


I have that condition of taking expert opinion over poster's opinion. I take my doctors medical advice rather than my neighbor's, and I take the ratings of hundreds of historians rather than a posters. 
I even abide by expert opinions on defnitions of logicical fallacies.
In any case, despite all your thinking and reasoning, FDR is still rated by historians as number one. Maybe you just don't think hard enough?


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> Hard to take eh?  True, I try to use experts in their field of expertise, and as we have discovered you ain't no expert at least not in the history area. Don't despair you might hit on some area you d0  have some some knowledge and I'll ooh and ah, but until then....
> Until then I hope you keep giving me the opportunity to emphasize that FDR has finally been rated as America's greatest president. Now the question is, will FDR hold that position or will the historians give it to Obama? Probably not. *It will be some time before we get another Lincoln, Washington or FDR.*



Sadly we currently HAVE a POTUS much like Lincoln and FDR.  If only he were more like Washington.

Regarding history, once you actually study it, you will find that much of the conventional opinions written by many historians is wrong.  FDR is but one example, but a perfect one.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to take eh?  True, I try to use experts in their field of expertise, and as we have discovered you ain't no expert at least not in the history area. Don't despair you might hit on some area you d0  have some some knowledge and I'll ooh and ah, but until then....
> Until then I hope you keep giving me the opportunity to emphasize that FDR has finally been rated as America's greatest president. Now the question is, will FDR hold that position or will the historians give it to Obama? Probably not. It will be some time before we get another Lincoln, Washington or FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Experts?
> 
> 
> WHO/UN
> So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research and when they couldnt find data, they developed [data] through a variety of techniques. WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castros
> WHO | Message from the Director-General
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the same biases apply to the 'experts' who are willing to overlook Roosevelt's .....'anomalies.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are discussing the historians rating of FDR, not health care. These ratings have been carried on since 1948 and hundreds of historians have been involved, historians that do not work for the federal government but most for universities.  The latest survey involved 238 noted historians and presidential experts.
> I think the better tack would be to charge that the historians in these surveys have been drinking flouridated water and as the John Birchers told us in the Fifties flouridated water softens the brain and we become communists. Who knows that might sail again?
Click to expand...




Now, now, reggie.....don't pretend you don't see the relevance of the comparison with heath care experts.
That would be a fib, wouldn't it.


Especially after you refer to your doctor's advice.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Experts?
> 
> 
> WHO/UN
> So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research and when they couldnt find data, they developed [data] through a variety of techniques. WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castros
> WHO | Message from the Director-General
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the same biases apply to the 'experts' who are willing to overlook Roosevelt's .....'anomalies.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are discussing the historians rating of FDR, not health care. These ratings have been carried on since 1948 and hundreds of historians have been involved, historians that do not work for the federal government but most for universities.  The latest survey involved 238 noted historians and presidential experts.
> I think the better tack would be to charge that the historians in these surveys have been drinking flouridated water and as the John Birchers told us in the Fifties flouridated water softens the brain and we become communists. Who knows that might sail again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, now, reggie.....don't pretend you don't see the relevance of the comparison with heath care experts.
> That would be a fib, wouldn't it.
> 
> 
> Especially after you refer to your doctor's advice.
Click to expand...




My doctor told me, never let em switch subjects on you. Stay on topic. 
So what is the relevance of the comparison with health care experts?


----------



## Cecilie1200

PoliticalChic said:


> It's too bad that this post goes in "History," because the FDR endeavors are largely *responsible for the social breakdown we face today..*..
> Under Roosevelt's alignment with Soviet communism the United States "exchanged foundational principles and guiding ideas" for some sort of vain, destructive, moral relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Behind *FDR's lies and actions which served to cover and support Stalin's *murderous regime had to be the belief that, either,
> FDR was a devotee of communism and anticipated imposing it on America..
> ....or, that he believed that he could incorporate Stalin into an organization with himself as the 'CEO.'
> 
> The former explanation would represent illimitable evil.....the latter, abysmal ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. There is the false notion that FDR's infatuations began due to a need for the Soviet Union's aid in WWII, .....but he rushed to recognize them in 1933- was the first hint.
> 
> Is 'infatuation' too strong? Was there kind of political romance with Stalin?
> Consider the following pieces of the puzzle before you consider it hyperbolic:
> 
> a. As former ambassador to the Soviet Union, William Bullitt, queried him about *why he, FDR,  persuaded the public that "communists had become the friends of democracy" *and that he should remind all "that Communists in the United States are just as dangerous enemies as ever, and should not be allowed to crawl into our productive mechanism in order later to wreck it when they get new orders from somewhere abroad."
> "For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt, p. 522
> 
> b. Roosevelt threw himself into *shoring up the USSR at any cost-* in July of 1942 he lost 23 out of 34 ships in just one Lend-Lease supply voyage...
> 
> c. ...151,000* troops were left unsupplied *in the Philippines....think Bataan Death March...
> 
> d. ....the British colony of *Singapore was left without air cover* in order to satisfy Stalin's desire for the planes.  Found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore." Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.
> Singapore fell February 15, 1942.
> 
> e. ...*Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers *when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, irony of irony, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler.
> 
> f. The New Deal 'reorganization' of the State Department called for *the destruction of "the best Soviet Library in the United States."* (according to Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European Affairs Officer, State Department.) The 'Library' was broken up and dispersed among various files in the Library of Congress.
> "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies" by M. Stanton Evans, p. 83-84
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Representative Martin Dies  formed a committed to investigate communism, but found that *government archives of communist records and correspondence had been destroyed.* He wrote: "I was informed, confidentially, by a man well placed in the Department of Justice, that they were destroyed after it was learned that the Dies Committee was determined to conduct a full-scale investigation of Communism."
> It was Harry Hopkins, FDR's White House live-in Soviet spy, who *turned down Dies' request of assistance from Roosevelt* to help furnish the nascent committee with a staff of lawyers, investigators and stenographers.
> Dies, "Martin Dies' Story," p. 64.
> 
> a. Although the reference 'card-carrying Communist' was once accurate, the CPUSA stopped issuing cards once the Dies Committee began hearings. The highest membership serial number that his committee came across was 195,762.
> 'Given that Communists strive for quality, it was amazing tht they had been able to grow from 10,000 aliens in 1919 to nearly 200,000 members in 1938, mostly naive born or naturalized citizens."
> Dies, Ibid, p. 62-63.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Remarkable as the attempt to make files inaccessible seems, *it is just as common during Obama's term, *during which both the Justice Department and the Pentagon have overseen the methodical purges of "anti-Islamic" educational materials from security and military files and training courses.
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," chapter one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. "Because the American way and the Soviet system were diametrically opposed, *FDR had to lie to present common ground to the American people. In order to make his Big Lie stick, he also had to remove the people who knew better. Literally.* On a larger, more punitive scale,* [Victor] Kravchenko* discussed the same process."
> West, Ibid, p. 247.
> 
> 
> Kravchenko wrote, of his Soviet experiences:
> 
> "Shamelessly, without so much as an explanation, it revised half a century of Russian history. I don't mean simply that it falsified some facts or gave a new interpretation of events. I mean that it deliberately stood history on its head, expunging events and inventing facts.
> 
> It twisted the recent past--a past still fresh in millions of memories--into new and bizarre shapes, to conform with the version of affairs presented by the blood-purge trials and the accompanying propaganda... The roles of leading historical figures were perverted or altogether erased.... More than that, *living witnesses, as far as possible, were removed.* The directing staff of the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Moscow, repository of ideological truth, were removed and the more important people among them imprisoned or shot."
> Text collection
> 
> 
> And that is what FDR did in America.
> 
> ...did *to *America.



On the other hand, the reason the message board has a "History" section is because so many of us realize that history affects our present world, and those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Those who don't understand that are going to be drooling mouthbreathers no matter where you post this stuff.


----------



## Cecilie1200

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR is responsible for the Communist genocide of almost 100 million humans. The world would have been a better place if he didn't so openly support Mao and Stalin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must get this information to the historians of America, every historical group in this country should know this new information. As soon as the historians know what you know they will stop rating FDR as America's greatest president and rate him, at least sixth worst, just below Bush. Don't waste a minute.
Click to expand...


Most historians are already aware of this, and DON'T rate FDR as America's greatest President.  Influential, yes.  Greatest?  In a pig's eye.


----------



## regent

Cecilie1200 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR is responsible for the Communist genocide of almost 100 million humans. The world would have been a better place if he didn't so openly support Mao and Stalin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must get this information to the historians of America, every historical group in this country should know this new information. As soon as the historians know what you know they will stop rating FDR as America's greatest president and rate him, at least sixth worst, just below Bush. Don't waste a minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most historians are already aware of this, and DON'T rate FDR as America's greatest President.  Influential, yes.  Greatest?  In a pig's eye.
Click to expand...


So who do historians rate as the greatest president?


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to take eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to take that you are incapable of thinking or reasoning? Hard to take that you are so 'limited' you have no choice but to fall back on logical fallacy over and over and over again despite being educated on the matter countless times? No, not hard to take. Just pathetic. Utterly pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have that condition of taking expert opinion over poster's opinion.
Click to expand...




You have the condition of being incapable of thinking for yourself. You have never once proposed or defended an argument or a position regarding that scumbag FDR. All you have EVER done is repeat the same logical fallacy over and over and over and over and over...


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to take that you are incapable of thinking or reasoning? Hard to take that you are so 'limited' you have no choice but to fall back on logical fallacy over and over and over again despite being educated on the matter countless times? No, not hard to take. Just pathetic. Utterly pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have that condition of taking expert opinion over poster's opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the condition of being incapable of thinking for yourself. You have never once proposed or defended an argument or a position regarding that scumbag FDR. All you have EVER done is repeat the same logical fallacy over and over and over and over and over...
Click to expand...


So what's your argument?


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have that condition of taking expert opinion over poster's opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the condition of being incapable of thinking for yourself. You have never once proposed or defended an argument or a position regarding that scumbag FDR. All you have EVER done is repeat the same logical fallacy over and over and over and over and over...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's your argument?
Click to expand...



That FDR was an immoral, dishonest, irresponsible, power-hungry scumbag who violated our Constitution, robbed US citizens of their rights and property in a manner anathema to all our country stands for, climbed into bed with (among others) Communism, and saddled future generations with insupportable government obligations we cannot possibly pay for in perpetuity. Many posters have presented mountains of FACTS to support this argument and you have never ONCE attempted to address said FACTS. You merely fall back on logical fallacy like some futile mantra that can change the FACTS of history. You can't think for yourself and you won't even try because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the condition of being incapable of thinking for yourself. You have never once proposed or defended an argument or a position regarding that scumbag FDR. All you have EVER done is repeat the same logical fallacy over and over and over and over and over...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That FDR was an immoral, dishonest, irresponsible, power-hungry scumbag who violated our Constitution, robbed US citizens of their rights and property in a manner anathema to all our country stands for, climbed into bed with (among others) Communism, and saddled future generations with insupportable government obligations we cannot possibly pay for in perpetuity. Many posters have presented mountains of FACTS to support this argument and you have never ONCE attempted to address said FACTS. You merely fall back on logical fallacy like some futile mantra that can change the FACTS of history. You can't think for yourself and you won't even try because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...


That's opinion, but let's take one charge, that FDR violated the Constitution. When did FDR violate the Constituiton?


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That FDR was an immoral, dishonest, irresponsible, power-hungry scumbag who violated our Constitution, robbed US citizens of their rights and property in a manner anathema to all our country stands for, climbed into bed with (among others) Communism, and saddled future generations with insupportable government obligations we cannot possibly pay for in perpetuity. Many posters have presented mountains of FACTS to support this argument and you have never ONCE attempted to address said FACTS. You merely fall back on logical fallacy like some futile mantra that can change the FACTS of history. You can't think for yourself and you won't even try because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's opinion, but let's take one charge, that FDR violated the Constitution. When did FDR violate the Constituiton?
Click to expand...




How about when he threw innocent, loyal Americans into concentration camps and kept them there under the threat of death? Depriving them of freedom, property, and equal protection. And before you bother, we know the Supreme Court that he had cowed via threats and intimidation were complicit in his crime, as later findings would attest. We know about the legal machinations, we know he violated the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Can you defend his actions? Can those possibly be the actions of a chief executive that YOU consider the best our country has ever had? If so, reconcile his villainy with your adulation.


----------



## regent

You answered your own charge that FDR violated the Constitution by declaring the Court declared the Executive order Counstitional  Next case?


----------



## jillian

i love the smell of revisionist history in the morning


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> You answered your own charge that FDR violated the Constitution by declaring the Court declared the Executive order Counstitional  Next case?





Ducking again, pussy? Address the issue. Can you defend his actions? Can those possibly be the actions of a chief executive that YOU consider the best our country has ever had? If so, reconcile his villainy with your adulation.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the condition of being incapable of thinking for yourself. You have never once proposed or defended an argument or a position regarding that scumbag FDR. All you have EVER done is repeat the same logical fallacy over and over and over and over and over...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That FDR was an immoral, dishonest, irresponsible, power-hungry scumbag who violated our Constitution, robbed US citizens of their rights and property in a manner anathema to all our country stands for, climbed into bed with (among others) Communism, and saddled future generations with insupportable government obligations we cannot possibly pay for in perpetuity. Many posters have presented mountains of FACTS to support this argument and you have never ONCE attempted to address said FACTS. You merely fall back on logical fallacy like some futile mantra that can change the FACTS of history. You can't think for yourself and you won't even try because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...


Only the very naive believe this kind of revisionist history. The mountains of facts are not accepted as facts by historians and scholars. The sources used to establish "facts" are used the same way as sources for conspiracy theories and blatant political hack histories are used. They are unreliable, distorted, taken out of context, etc. One need only look up a few of the sources discribed as "mountains of facts" in this thread to discover the sources have in many cases been debunked long ago by multiple scholars and professional historians.


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That FDR was an immoral, dishonest, irresponsible, power-hungry scumbag who violated our Constitution, robbed US citizens of their rights and property in a manner anathema to all our country stands for, climbed into bed with (among others) Communism, and saddled future generations with insupportable government obligations we cannot possibly pay for in perpetuity. Many posters have presented mountains of FACTS to support this argument and you have never ONCE attempted to address said FACTS. You merely fall back on logical fallacy like some futile mantra that can change the FACTS of history. You can't think for yourself and you won't even try because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the very naive believe this kind of revisionist history. The mountains of facts are not accepted as facts by historians and scholars. The sources used to establish "facts" are used the same way as sources for conspiracy theories and blatant political hack histories are used. They are unreliable, distorted, taken out of context, etc. One need only look up a few of the sources discribed as "mountains of facts" in this thread to discover the sources have in many cases been debunked long ago by multiple scholars and professional historians.
Click to expand...



Which FACTS don't you believe? This is not "revisionist history," it's just plain history. The FACT is that FDR signed Executive Order 9906 and threw over 100,000 innocent people, the majority of them US CITIZENS into concentration camps. Barbed wire, armed guard towers, the whole works. Are you trying to say you don't believe this FACT? Are YOU trying to 'revise' history?


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That FDR was an immoral, dishonest, irresponsible, power-hungry scumbag who violated our Constitution, robbed US citizens of their rights and property in a manner anathema to all our country stands for, climbed into bed with (among others) Communism, and saddled future generations with insupportable government obligations we cannot possibly pay for in perpetuity. Many posters have presented mountains of FACTS to support this argument and you have never ONCE attempted to address said FACTS. You merely fall back on logical fallacy like some futile mantra that can change the FACTS of history. You can't think for yourself and you won't even try because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the very naive believe this kind of revisionist history. The mountains of facts are not accepted as facts by historians and scholars. The sources used to establish "facts" are used the same way as sources for conspiracy theories and blatant political hack histories are used. They are unreliable, distorted, taken out of context, etc. One need only look up a few of the sources discribed as "mountains of facts" in this thread to discover the sources have in many cases been debunked long ago by multiple scholars and professional historians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which FACTS don't you believe? This is not "revisionist history," it's just plain history. The FACT is that FDR signed Executive Order 9906 and threw over 100,000 innocent people, the majority of them US CITIZENS into concentration camps. Barbed wire, armed guard towers, the whole works. Are you trying to say you don't believe this FACT? Are YOU trying to 'revise' history?
Click to expand...


You know damn well they were not concentration camps. When speaking about WWII, concentration camps have a very specific definition. Concentration camps discribe places of horror where human beings were starved, tortured and murdered. Concentration camps were places were small children and grandmothers were treated like animals. So fuck you and your accusation that that kind of thing happened in this country by and to Americans. Everyone is in agreement that the Japanese internment camps were wrong. We also understand that the country was in a panic and feared that the Japanese had spys and sabateurs. We overreacted. We don't need assholes accusing us of doing something a thousand times worse in an effort to spread some negative propaganda and portraying us as being the same as the Nazi's. And anyhow, you are simply deflecting from having to defend the hack/conspiracy revisionist history you want to push, which is impossible to do with the shit sources used in this thread.


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the very naive believe this kind of revisionist history. The mountains of facts are not accepted as facts by historians and scholars. The sources used to establish "facts" are used the same way as sources for conspiracy theories and blatant political hack histories are used. They are unreliable, distorted, taken out of context, etc. One need only look up a few of the sources discribed as "mountains of facts" in this thread to discover the sources have in many cases been debunked long ago by multiple scholars and professional historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which FACTS don't you believe? This is not "revisionist history," it's just plain history. The FACT is that FDR signed Executive Order 9906 and threw over 100,000 innocent people, the majority of them US CITIZENS into concentration camps. Barbed wire, armed guard towers, the whole works. Are you trying to say you don't believe this FACT? Are YOU trying to 'revise' history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know damn well they were not concentration camps. .
Click to expand...



Of course they were. By definition they were. FD-fucking-R referred to them as such himself. You don't like that? Good, you shouldn't.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which FACTS don't you believe? This is not "revisionist history," it's just plain history. The FACT is that FDR signed Executive Order 9906 and threw over 100,000 innocent people, the majority of them US CITIZENS into concentration camps. Barbed wire, armed guard towers, the whole works. Are you trying to say you don't believe this FACT? Are YOU trying to 'revise' history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know damn well they were not concentration camps. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they were. By definition they were. FD-fucking-R referred to them as such himself. You don't like that? Good, you shouldn't.
Click to expand...


The term concentration camp did not have the same meaning during the war until the German concentration camps were discovered. Today the term has a special meaning that reminds people of something other that an internment camp. We call them internment camps because that is what they were. If you are going to use the term concentration camp to insult America at least have the balls to stand up for yourself when you get called out and caught. Don't try to crawl back under the rock.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You answered your own charge that FDR violated the Constitution by declaring the Court declared the Executive order Counstitional  Next case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ducking again, pussy? Address the issue. Can you defend his actions? Can those possibly be the actions of a chief executive that YOU consider the best our country has ever had? If so, reconcile his villainy with your adulation.
Click to expand...


I thought the Issue was FDR's violations of the Constitution. Have you any more instances of FDR violating the Constitution or is that it? And what does violating the Constitution mean, does it mean in your opinion it was a violation, or it was the Court's opinion, similar to Truman and the mills, or does it mean disobeying a Court decision, similar to Jackson?
What do you mean when you say FDR violated the Constituton?


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know damn well they were not concentration camps. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they were. By definition they were. FD-fucking-R referred to them as such himself. You don't like that? Good, you shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term concentration camp did not have the same meaning during the war until the German concentration camps were discovered. Today the term has a special meaning that reminds people of something other that an internment camp. We call them internment camps because that is what they were. If you are going to use the term concentration camp to insult America at least have the balls to stand up for yourself when you get called out and caught. Don't try to crawl back under the rock.
Click to expand...



I most certainly do NOT intend to insult America. Having a scumbag like FDR in the White House was an insult to America. Words have meanings, kid. Like it or not, FDR ran CONCENTRATION CAMPS right here in the US filled mostly with US Citizens, all of whom were innocent of any crime of espionage, treason, or sabotage. In fact, many of the victims of FDR's crime proved themselves among the bravest and most loyal Americans we've ever produced. 

Concentration camps are exactly what they were. FD-fucking-R himself referred to them as such. They were not Nazi Death Camps, of course and I've never said they were, but they were CONCENTRATION CAMPS. You don't like that? Don't like the term? Good, you shouldn't, but you can't change history by hiding from it.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You answered your own charge that FDR violated the Constitution by declaring the Court declared the Executive order Counstitional  Next case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ducking again, pussy? Address the issue. Can you defend his actions? Can those possibly be the actions of a chief executive that YOU consider the best our country has ever had? If so, reconcile his villainy with your adulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought the Issue was FDR's violations of the Constitution.
Click to expand...



Ok, do you want to mention that:

"On November 10, 1983, Fred Korematsu`s conviction was overturned on the grounds that the federal government had withheld material evidence from the Supreme Court. In 2011, the justice department formally admitted that it had presented the case in error, eliminating its standing as a precedent.

Forty-six years after the harsh conditions, dislocated lives, and pain, the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 was signed by President Ronald Reagan. With it, the U.S. government formally acknowledged its mistake, apologized, and provided token financial restitution..."
Japanese Internment

Now you have no further grounds for denying his violation of the Constitution. Would you like to finally stop being a pussy and address this:

"Can you defend his actions? Can those possibly be the actions of a chief executive that YOU consider the best our country has ever had? If so, reconcile his villainy with your adulation."


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they were. By definition they were. FD-fucking-R referred to them as such himself. You don't like that? Good, you shouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term concentration camp did not have the same meaning during the war until the German concentration camps were discovered. Today the term has a special meaning that reminds people of something other that an internment camp. We call them internment camps because that is what they were. If you are going to use the term concentration camp to insult America at least have the balls to stand up for yourself when you get called out and caught. Don't try to crawl back under the rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I most certainly do NOT intend to insult America. Having a scumbag like FDR in the White House was an insult to America. Words have meanings, kid. Like it or not, FDR ran CONCENTRATION CAMPS right here in the US filled mostly with US Citizens, all of whom were innocent of any crime of espionage, treason, or sabotage. In fact, many of the victims of FDR's crime proved themselves among the bravest and most loyal Americans we've ever produced.
> 
> Concentration camps are exactly what they were. FD-fucking-R himself referred to them as such. They were not Nazi Death Camps, of course and I've never said they were, but they were CONCENTRATION CAMPS. You don't like that? Don't like the term? Good, you shouldn't, but you can't change history by hiding from it.
Click to expand...


You make my point about revisionist history depending on distortion, facts being taken out of context, etc. If everywhere in the revisionist history the term internment camp was used instead of "concentration camp", the story takes on a different persona. All those little distortions tweak the story to adhere to a certain agenda. Why else would the term for internment camps, used for over a half a century be changed to "concentration camps".
As for insulting American's, calling a president a scumbag is an insult to America. You insult the office of the Presidency, the American's who voted him to be President in four elections and the American's who petitioned to have a Memorial built in his honor in the nations capitol.


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Why else would the term for internment camps, used for over a half a century be changed to "concentration camps".




The change was from "concentration camp" to "internment camp." Learn some history.


And no matter how you want to sugar-coat it, the fact remains that FD-fucking-R ran CONCENTRATION CAMPS right here in the US and filled them with innocent, loyal Americans. If that's not the act of an un-American scumbag then I don't know what is. If you want to defend the fucking scumbag then YOU don't know what America is.


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> calling a president a scumbag is an insult to America. You insult the office of the Presidency,




The scumbag FDR was an insult to the office, to the country, and to the principles upon which it was founded. Stop being a dead scumbag's nuthugger.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ducking again, pussy? Address the issue. Can you defend his actions? Can those possibly be the actions of a chief executive that YOU consider the best our country has ever had? If so, reconcile his villainy with your adulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the Issue was FDR's violations of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, do you want to mention that:
> 
> "On November 10, 1983, Fred Korematsu`s conviction was overturned on the grounds that the federal government had withheld material evidence from the Supreme Court. In 2011, the justice department formally admitted that it had presented the case in error, eliminating its standing as a precedent.
> 
> Forty-six years after the harsh conditions, dislocated lives, and pain, the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 was signed by President Ronald Reagan. With it, the U.S. government formally acknowledged its mistake, apologized, and provided token financial restitution..."
> Japanese Internment
> 
> Now you have no further grounds for denying his violation of the Constitution. Would you like to finally stop being a pussy and address this:
> 
> "Can you defend his actions? Can those possibly be the actions of a chief executive that YOU consider the best our country has ever had? If so, reconcile his villainy with your adulation."
Click to expand...


I don't have to defend his actions. I'm waiting for the evidence that FDR violated the Constitution. Reagan is not the Supreme Court and his apology was just that, an apology, nothing about the Constitution.


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln."
> 
> The fact that I've posted several OPs with dozens of FDR's shortcomings casts the lie to your post.
> 
> 
> 2. "... 238 noted historians and authorities..."
> 
> Will you ever stand on your own two feet, and stop hiding behind Liberal academics?
> 
> Wanna go to your Mommy? She has your bottle heated up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, I believe that experts in their field might know more about a subject than I do, and worse, not one expert but 238 and that 238 was just from the last rating. What about the ratings since 1948 when FDR was rated third best president? Since 1948 that must be a lot of historians over a period of time that have rated FDR.
> I realize that you claim to know more than the experts, but frankly, with your posts, you haven't convinced me. The mommy-bottle quote about says it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called "experts" have all been trained to have the government approved views, and also handpicked by government toadies because they have the approved views.  Uniformity of opinion among a gang of government minions is hardly surprising.
Click to expand...


One of the many differences between leftists and conservatives is that leftists say, "You have a degree and job title.  You are an expert, and I must believe you."  Conservatives say, "Everyone talks out of their ass once in a while, even experts.  Prove to me that this isn't that time for you."


----------



## Cecilie1200

regent said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must get this information to the historians of America, every historical group in this country should know this new information. As soon as the historians know what you know they will stop rating FDR as America's greatest president and rate him, at least sixth worst, just below Bush. Don't waste a minute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most historians are already aware of this, and DON'T rate FDR as America's greatest President.  Influential, yes.  Greatest?  In a pig's eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who do historians rate as the greatest president?
Click to expand...


I guess that depends on which historians you ask.  They're certainly not a monolithic voting bloc by any means.  It also depends largely on what their rating standards are.  Many of them are looking more at influence and changing of the political landscape than they are on things like actually improving the lot of Americans or adhering to the laws and founding principles of the nation.


----------



## Cecilie1200

regent said:


> You answered your own charge that FDR violated the Constitution by declaring the Court declared the Executive order Counstitional  Next case?



Thank you for verifying what he said about you:  You're incapable of thinking for yourself.  You're asked to present an argument defending FDR's action, and all you can come up with is, "Someone else said so!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know damn well they were not concentration camps. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they were. By definition they were. FD-fucking-R referred to them as such himself. You don't like that? Good, you shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term concentration camp did not have the same meaning during the war until the German concentration camps were discovered. Today the term has a special meaning that reminds people of something other that an internment camp. We call them internment camps because that is what they were. If you are going to use the term concentration camp to insult America at least have the balls to stand up for yourself when you get called out and caught. Don't try to crawl back under the rock.
Click to expand...


Nice hairsplitting and glandular "thinking".  Too bad for you that words mean what they mean, not what you "feel" they mean.

Concentration camp : a type of prison where large numbers of people who are not soldiers are kept during a war and are usually forced to live in very bad conditions (Merriam-Webster)

A place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution.  (OxfordDictionaries.com)

A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions. (American Heritage dictionary)

Need me to go on?


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That FDR was an immoral, dishonest, irresponsible, power-hungry scumbag who violated our Constitution, robbed US citizens of their rights and property in a manner anathema to all our country stands for, climbed into bed with (among others) Communism, and saddled future generations with insupportable government obligations we cannot possibly pay for in perpetuity. Many posters have presented mountains of FACTS to support this argument and you have never ONCE attempted to address said FACTS. You merely fall back on logical fallacy like some futile mantra that can change the FACTS of history. You can't think for yourself and you won't even try because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's opinion, but let's take one charge, that FDR violated the Constitution. When did FDR violate the Constituiton?
Click to expand...


Asking that question only proves how uninformed you are.  You need to educate yourself before posting on a subject.


----------



## Camp

Cecilie1200 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they were. By definition they were. FD-fucking-R referred to them as such himself. You don't like that? Good, you shouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term concentration camp did not have the same meaning during the war until the German concentration camps were discovered. Today the term has a special meaning that reminds people of something other that an internment camp. We call them internment camps because that is what they were. If you are going to use the term concentration camp to insult America at least have the balls to stand up for yourself when you get called out and caught. Don't try to crawl back under the rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice hairsplitting and glandular "thinking".  Too bad for you that words mean what they mean, not what you "feel" they mean.
> 
> Concentration camp : a type of prison where large numbers of people who are not soldiers are kept during a war and are usually forced to live in very bad conditions (Merriam-Webster)
> 
> A place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution.  (OxfordDictionaries.com)
> 
> A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions. (American Heritage dictionary)
> 
> Need me to go on?
Click to expand...


Well ya, you need to go on. The definition from Merriam-Webster says "very bad conditions". Guess the arguement is what are "very bad conditions". Compared to other detention camps, internment camps, relocations camps and various other personel holding facilities of the era, American Japanese interment facilities are pretty high up on the scale of good treatment. 
The definition from Oxford mentions inadequate facilities and a place to hold personel waiting for mass execution. Nope, that one doesn't fit.
American Heritage dictionary mentions harsh conditions, so once again the determination is open to what "harsh" conditions means. And once again, compaired to facilities of the era, Japanese internment camps weren't all that harsh.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the very naive believe this kind of revisionist history. The mountains of facts are not accepted as facts by historians and scholars. The sources used to establish "facts" are used the same way as sources for conspiracy theories and blatant political hack histories are used. They are unreliable, distorted, taken out of context, etc. One need only look up a few of the sources discribed as "mountains of facts" in this thread to discover the sources have in many cases been debunked long ago by multiple scholars and professional historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which FACTS don't you believe? This is not "revisionist history," it's just plain history. The FACT is that FDR signed Executive Order 9906 and threw over 100,000 innocent people, the majority of them US CITIZENS into concentration camps. Barbed wire, armed guard towers, the whole works. Are you trying to say you don't believe this FACT? Are YOU trying to 'revise' history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know damn well they were not concentration camps. When speaking about WWII, concentration camps have a very specific definition. Concentration camps discribe places of horror where human beings were starved, tortured and murdered. Concentration camps were places were small children and grandmothers were treated like animals. So fuck you and your accusation that that kind of thing happened in this country by and to Americans. Everyone is in agreement that the Japanese internment camps were wrong. We also understand that the country was in a panic and feared that the Japanese had spys and sabateurs. We overreacted. We don't need assholes accusing us of doing something a thousand times worse in an effort to spread some negative propaganda and portraying us as being the same as the Nazi's. And anyhow, you are simply deflecting from having to defend the hack/conspiracy revisionist history you want to push, which is impossible to do with the shit sources used in this thread.
Click to expand...




1. "You know damn well they were not concentration camps. When speaking about WWII, concentration camps have a very specific definition. Concentration camps discribe places of horror where human beings were starved, tortured and murdered."

a.  Hitler's SS was actually taught by Stalin's minions how to construct and manage both concentration camps and mass murder.

b. FDR was informed as to the above.

c. FDR embraced Stalin.


2. While the power of Hegel, and belief in the state informed German world views, American history mitigated the effects of concentration camps.

But there is no denying that Roosevelt endorsed the use thereof.


3. Your post is but one more example of your slobbering defense of Roosevelt.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the Issue was FDR's violations of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, do you want to mention that:
> 
> "On November 10, 1983, Fred Korematsu`s conviction was overturned on the grounds that the federal government had withheld material evidence from the Supreme Court. In 2011, the justice department formally admitted that it had presented the case in error, eliminating its standing as a precedent.
> 
> Forty-six years after the harsh conditions, dislocated lives, and pain, the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 was signed by President Ronald Reagan. With it, the U.S. government formally acknowledged its mistake, apologized, and provided token financial restitution..."
> Japanese Internment
> 
> Now you have no further grounds for denying his violation of the Constitution. Would you like to finally stop being a pussy and address this:
> 
> "Can you defend his actions? Can those possibly be the actions of a chief executive that YOU consider the best our country has ever had? If so, reconcile his villainy with your adulation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to defend his actions. I'm waiting for the evidence that FDR violated the Constitution. Reagan is not the Supreme Court and his apology was just that, an apology, nothing about the Constitution.
Click to expand...



If you take off those idol-worship blinders you may find it easier to read. You quoted my post but apparently couldn't read it. Typical liberal.


----------



## regent

Apparently you need help with the question, what were the violations of the Constitution by FDR? You might have answered with AAA and other New Deal measures that the Court declared unconstitutonal. Since Marbury it has sort of been a tradition in the US that the Supreme Court makes the decision about violations of the Constitution. Posters, nor other citizens don't decide, and personal attacks don't swing it either. But let's try another question, is a law or presidential action legal until the Supreme Court rules it illegal? If it is legal until the Court rules, has a law been broken in the interim? Sort of ex post facto?


----------



## Agit8r

PoliticalChic said:


> It's too bad that this post goes in "History," because the FDR endeavors are largely *responsible for the social breakdown we face today..*..



Our social fabric would no doubt be more to your liking if the Allies had lost the war:

Godwin's Law Review


----------



## PoliticalChic

Agit8r said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad that this post goes in "History," because the FDR endeavors are largely *responsible for the social breakdown we face today..*..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our social fabric would no doubt be more to your liking if the Allies had lost the war:
> 
> Godwin's Law Review
Click to expand...




1. Before being a smartass, it is wise to first ensure one is smart. 
Otherwise one is merely being an ass. 
Someone should have informed you.

"...to your liking if the Allies had lost the war."
QED....you are an ass.



2. Here is one reason...of many.....that prove that you have not ensured that you are smart:
In your post is the assumption that Stalin's psychotic regime was essential in defeating Hitler.

Experts advised FDR that that would not be the case.




3. "Not only did FDR overlook the external evidence; FDR ignored the counsel of key experts at the State Department, which, at the time, was home...to an educated and experienced cadre of anti-Communists....who would be neutralized and purged...._n 1937...the Russian research library at the State Department was broken up, the files on Communists, foreign and domestic, ordered destroyed. The second, in 1943. Both purges took place under Soviet pressure and even direction as when in March 1943 Foreign Minister Litvinov, incredibly, handed over a list of American diplomats the Soviets wanted fired....a "guilt offering to Stalin from Roosevelt"... 
West, "American Betrayal," p.193.




4. What could, should have happened? When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941, America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!

 "Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile, leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war."

 These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer, as quoted by Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.



You poor, sad thing.....just one more of he hordes who have limited knowledge, but strong opinions._


----------



## gipper

Agit8r said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad that this post goes in "History," because the FDR endeavors are largely *responsible for the social breakdown we face today..*..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our social fabric would no doubt be more to your liking if the Allies had lost the war:
> 
> Godwin's Law Review
Click to expand...


You are under the mistaken belief that the USA won WWII.  We did not.  The Soviets won and by doing so, expanded their empire greatly...to say nothing of the commie take over of China, which was also a consequence of our poor leadership during WWII.


----------



## Agit8r

PoliticalChic said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad that this post goes in "History," because the FDR endeavors are largely *responsible for the social breakdown we face today..*..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our social fabric would no doubt be more to your liking if the Allies had lost the war:
> 
> Godwin's Law Review
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Before being a smartass, it is wise to first ensure one is smart.
> Otherwise one is merely being an ass.
> Someone should have informed you.
> 
> "...to your liking if the Allies had lost the war."
> QED....you are an ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Here is one reason...of many.....that prove that you have not ensured that you are smart:
> In your post is the assumption that Stalin's psychotic regime was essential in defeating Hitler.
> 
> Experts advised FDR that that would not be the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. "Not only did FDR overlook the external evidence; FDR ignored the counsel of key experts at the State Department, which, at the time, was home...to an educated and experienced cadre of anti-Communists....who would be neutralized and purged...._n 1937...the Russian research library at the State Department was broken up, the files on Communists, foreign and domestic, ordered destroyed. The second, in 1943. Both purges took place under Soviet pressure and even direction as when in March 1943 Foreign Minister Litvinov, incredibly, handed over a list of American diplomats the Soviets wanted fired....a "guilt offering to Stalin from Roosevelt"...
> West, "American Betrayal," p.193.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. What could, should have happened? When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941, America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!
> 
> "Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile, leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war."
> 
> These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer, as quoted by Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor, sad thing.....just one more of he hordes who have limited knowledge, but strong opinions._
Click to expand...

_

You are reading way beyond what I wrote.  Stalin may or may not have been a necessary ally. For the sake of this conversation, I do not care.

The fact is that were it not for FDR, Nazi Germany would have been the first to have the A-bomb, this continent would be speaking German, the Jewish people would not exist, and numerous other ill consequences.   But fucking traditionalist identity politics would likely be alive and well._


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Apparently you need help with the question, what were the violations of the Constitution by FDR? ?




I've addressed this question several times now. YOU continue to duck my question. You are transparent and pathetic. No wonder you never try to think for yourself - you suck at it.


----------



## Unkotare

Agit8r said:


> The fact is that were it not for FDR, Nazi Germany would have been the first to have the A-bomb, this continent would be speaking German, the Jewish people would not exist, and numerous other ill consequences.




What makes you think that?


----------



## Agit8r

Unkotare said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that were it not for FDR, Nazi Germany would have been the first to have the A-bomb, this continent would be speaking German, the Jewish people would not exist, and numerous other ill consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think that?
Click to expand...


Well, A) The Republican Party largely did not favor war against Germany at all, or even Lend-Lease.

And B) The Democrats did not have another charismatic leader type to get Lend Lease through, and to maintain the political will of the country during the lead-up to war.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which FACTS don't you believe? This is not "revisionist history," it's just plain history. The FACT is that FDR signed Executive Order 9906 and threw over 100,000 innocent people, the majority of them US CITIZENS into concentration camps. Barbed wire, armed guard towers, the whole works. Are you trying to say you don't believe this FACT? Are YOU trying to 'revise' history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know damn well they were not concentration camps. When speaking about WWII, concentration camps have a very specific definition. Concentration camps discribe places of horror where human beings were starved, tortured and murdered. Concentration camps were places were small children and grandmothers were treated like animals. So fuck you and your accusation that that kind of thing happened in this country by and to Americans. Everyone is in agreement that the Japanese internment camps were wrong. We also understand that the country was in a panic and feared that the Japanese had spys and sabateurs. We overreacted. We don't need assholes accusing us of doing something a thousand times worse in an effort to spread some negative propaganda and portraying us as being the same as the Nazi's. And anyhow, you are simply deflecting from having to defend the hack/conspiracy revisionist history you want to push, which is impossible to do with the shit sources used in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "You know damn well they were not concentration camps. When speaking about WWII, concentration camps have a very specific definition. Concentration camps discribe places of horror where human beings were starved, tortured and murdered."
> 
> a.  Hitler's SS was actually taught by Stalin's minions how to construct and manage both concentration camps and mass murder.
> 
> b. FDR was informed as to the above.
> 
> c. FDR embraced Stalin.
> 
> 
> 2. While the power of Hegel, and belief in the state informed German world views, American history mitigated the effects of concentration camps.
> 
> But there is no denying that Roosevelt endorsed the use thereof.
> 
> 
> 3. Your post is but one more example of your slobbering defense of Roosevelt.
Click to expand...


a., b., and c., are based on nothing more than your opinions based on hack syle sources from political commentators, distorted further to make a special agenda point. 2. is the same kind of garbadge and 3. is not my slobbering defense of Roosevelt, rather it is my slobbering defense of accurate history. People who twist and distort history the way you do for selfish political agenda's put politics in front of national security and the possibility for us to learn from our past, both the negative and positive, the good and the bad.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you need help with the question, what were the violations of the Constitution by FDR? ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've addressed this question several times now. YOU continue to duck my question. You are transparent and pathetic. No wonder you never try to think for yourself - you suck at it.
Click to expand...


Well I tried. You accused FDR of many things, one being he violated the Constitution, so I pursued that charge, and you gave your usual relocation camp response which according to the Court was not unConstitutional. I even gave you some hints of other unconstitutioanl charges made against FDR and nothing. Do you have any other Constitutional charges against FDR that you would like to bring up or is the relocation camps about the extent of it?


----------



## Unkotare

Agit8r said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that were it not for FDR, Nazi Germany would have been the first to have the A-bomb, this continent would be speaking German, the Jewish people would not exist, and numerous other ill consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, A) The Republican Party largely did not favor war against Germany at all.
Click to expand...



Neither did FDR, according to his lies.


----------



## Unkotare

Agit8r said:


> And B) The Democrats did not have another charismatic leader type to get Lend Lease through, and to maintain the political will of the country during the lead-up to war.





FDR didn't "maintain" any such will.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you need help with the question, what were the violations of the Constitution by FDR? ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've addressed this question several times now. YOU continue to duck my question. You are transparent and pathetic. No wonder you never try to think for yourself - you suck at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I tried.
Click to expand...



All you tried to do was duck, distort, and avoid. No wonder you never bothered trying to think for yourself before.


----------



## Agit8r

Unkotare said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> And B) The Democrats did not have another charismatic leader type to get Lend Lease through, and to maintain the political will of the country during the lead-up to war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR didn't "maintain" any such will.
Click to expand...


The hell he didn't.  He was probably the most influential president on public opinion of all time.  Not saying that it is an ideal model for a healthy democracy, but when we look back at history, most of us just see the results.


----------



## gipper

Agit8r said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that were it not for FDR, Nazi Germany would have been the first to have the A-bomb, this continent would be speaking German, the Jewish people would not exist, and numerous other ill consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, A) The Republican Party largely did not favor war against Germany at all, or even Lend-Lease.
> 
> And B) The Democrats did not have another charismatic leader type to get Lend Lease through, and to maintain the political will of the country during the lead-up to war.
Click to expand...


So we went to war to defeat Germany, only to give half of Europe to an even worse dictator and political ideology.  Not too smart really.

FDR was told of Stalin's many heinous acts and true nature, but purposely chose to ignore those warnings.  Germany and the USSR were allies and had partitioned Poland together, while Uncle Joe confiscated the Baltic States in 1939.  Stalin had every intention of world domination.  He was intending to attack Germany in 1941 and conquer all of Europe, but Adolf beat him to the punch.  These are facts few Americans apparently are aware of.

We would have been much better off not getting involved in WWII so that the two bastards, Hitler and Stalin, killed each other along with their tyrannical ideologies.


----------



## Art__Allm

gipper said:


> One capable of thinking and comprehending, would dispute the statements made in the OP that clearly show FDR a stooge for Stalin, rather than believe what they are told by statist historians.  Logic dictates that one must evaluate ALL the facts known to us today, before making a conclusion.
> 
> But then, we know you are not capable of logical thinking.  You prefer to be TOLD what to think....you would do well in the USSR.



Do you really believe that FDR was a stooge of Uncle Joe?
Was it not the other way round?

I think that the real masters of Uncle Joe and FDR had their headquarters in the Wall Street area.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Art__Allm said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One capable of thinking and comprehending, would dispute the statements made in the OP that clearly show FDR a stooge for Stalin, rather than believe what they are told by statist historians.  Logic dictates that one must evaluate ALL the facts known to us today, before making a conclusion.
> 
> But then, we know you are not capable of logical thinking.  You prefer to be TOLD what to think....you would do well in the USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that FDR was a stooge of Uncle Joe?
> Was it not the other way round?
> 
> I think that the real masters of Uncle Joe and FDR had their headquarters in the Wall Street area.
Click to expand...




What an interesting post....obviously from someone who hasn't a clue about history.



1. FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. One of his first official acts was to recognize the USSR, November 16th, 1933.

2. If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational: "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.



3. Well, one might say, why didn't the previous President's agree prior to FDR...and what made him change US policy?

a. "On December 6, 1917, the U.S. Government broke off diplomatic relations with Russia, shortly after the Bolshevik Party seized power from the Tsarist regime after the October Revolution. President Woodrow Wilson decided to withhold recognition at that time because the new Bolshevik government had refused to honor prior debts to the United States incurred by the Tsarist government, ignored pre-existing treaty agreements with other nations, and seized American property in Russia following the October Revolution. The Bolsheviks had also concluded a separate peace with Germany at Brest-Litovsk in March 1918, ending Russian involvement in World War I." Recognition of the Soviet Union, 1933 - 1921?1936 - Milestones - Office of the Historian


4. Bear in mind, *eight months earlier, journalist Gareth Jones had exposed Stalin's Terror Famine:* "In the train a Communist denied to me that there was a famine. I flung a crust of bread which I had been eating from my own supply into a spittoon. A peasant fellow-passenger fished it out and ravenously ate it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Jones_(journalist)

a. Malcolm Muggeridge "  was the first writer to reveal the true nature of Stalin s regime when in 1933 he exposed* the terror famine* in the Ukraine. " [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Time-Eternity-Uncollected-Writings-Muggeridge/dp/1570759057]Time and Eternity: The Uncollected Writings of Malcolm Muggeridge: Malcolm Muggeridge, Nicholas Flynn: 9781570759055: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Think Roosevelt knew?



5. Roosevelt signed the recognition agreement: Litvinov "returned to the Soviet embassy.....all smiles....and said 'Well, it's all in the bag; we have it.'" On September 23, 1939, Dr. D. H. Dombrowsky testified before the Dies committee. The Winona Republican-Herald ? 20 October 1947 ? Page 12 - Newspapers.com

a. The agreement that Litvinov signed promised:
" To respect scrupulously the indisputable right of the United States to order its own life within its own jurisdiction in its own way and to refrain from interfering in any manner in the internal affairs of the United States, its territories or possessions....  in particular, from any act tending to incite or encourage armed intervention, or any agitation or propaganda having as an aim, the violation of the territorial integrity of the United States, its territories or possessions, or the bringing about by force of a change in the political or social order of the whole or any part of the United States, its territories or possessions.... Not to permit the formation or residence on its territory of any organization or group--and to prevent the activity on its territory of any organization or group, or of representatives or officials of any organization or group--which makes claim to be the Government of,... prevent the activity on its territory of any organization or group, or of representatives or officials of any organization or group--which has as an aim the overthrow or the preparation for the overthrow of, or the bringing about by force of a change in, the political or social order of the whole or any part of the United States,...etc." Roosevelt-Litvinov

Get it? They promised no espionage, no CPUSA....


b. "FDR had knowledge of two glaring examples of communist conspiracy specifically directed against the United States." Hoover, Op. Cit.

Yeah....FDR knew.


----------



## Art__Allm

gipper said:


> So we went to war to defeat Germany, only to give half of Europe to an even worse dictator and political ideology.  Not too smart really.



But this was good for the financial elite of the USA, wasn't it?

Brits were the biggest losers, they lost their Empire because of the stupidity of their leaders.

Uncle Joe and Uncle Sam (speak the Wall Street) were interested in the collapse of the British Empire, but Brits were unable to figure that out.

They allied with Uncle Joe who was pushing for World Revolution, for the establishment of Communism in the entire Europe, for freeing the people of British Colonies, and who had killed millions of Christians in Russia.

The Brits declared war to an Anglophile who wanted the re-unification with former German provinces (and the citizens of Danzig wanted the re-unification with the rest of Germany, too) and neglected the Proposal of this Anglophile, who admired the British Empire, and who proposed to send his troops to protect the interests of the British Empire.

From Wikipedia:



> After the war, Ribbentrop testified that *in 1935 Hitler had promised to deliver twelve German divisions to the disposal of Britain for maintaining the integrity of her colonial possessions.*[100]


----------



## regent

As our first Secretary of State Jefferson adopted a policy of recognizing any legitimate government; legitimate government being one that was in charge of the nation and was not being contested. It was not question of liking or disliking the new government but the reality of power. That was American policy and FDR abided by that policy and recognized the Soviet Union. At the same time the old czarist government owed the US billions of dollars and agreed to pay some of that debt, at the same time American businessmen put pressure on FDR to recognize the USSR so we might begin a trade program. FDR recognized the Soviet Union in 1933, to carry out our usual recognition practice and to open up trade and hopefully get some of that money back that owed to the US.


----------



## Unkotare

Agit8r said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> And B) The Democrats did not have another charismatic leader type to get Lend Lease through, and to maintain the political will of the country during the lead-up to war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR didn't "maintain" any such will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hell he didn't.  .
Click to expand...



He sure as hell didn't. There was no public will to go to war in Europe or anywhere else at the time. He ran on staying out of the war himself, though he knew damn well it was coming. Public 'will' didn't shift until after Pearl Harbor, which a more adroit leader might have avoided or foreseen (not to mention the suggestions that he knew it was coming but let it - but I'm not into the conspiracy thing on that). He was a dishonest, racist, arrogant, power-hungry narcissist - which made him such a useful fool for Stalin. The most dangerous scum to ever sully OUR White House.


----------



## gipper

FDR was a useful idiot if there ever was one.  He did Stalin's bidding and allowed Stalin to win the war and conquer half of Europe.  His failures with the economy and the war, are epic...and yet, many Americans think he was a great leader.  It is terribly nauseating.  

It is further proof that the State has become first and foremost, in a nation founded on individual liberty, natural rights, and limited government.  It is all so disheartening.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> FDR was a useful idiot if there ever was one.  He did Stalin's bidding and allowed Stalin to win the war and conquer half of Europe.  His failures with the economy and the war are epic...and yet, many Americans think he was a great leader.  It is terribly nauseating.
> 
> It is further proof that the State has become first and foremost, in a nation founded on individual liberty, natural rights, and limited government.  It is all so disheartening.



The American people at the time believed FDR was one of the best, that's why they voted for him four times. In fact, he may have been the most beloved president of the American people, bar none. That we will never know. He instituted programs that are still with us, and some of those are programs are in economics. And as I have mentioned a few times, FDR has never been rated by historians as less than one of America's three greatest presidents and in the last rating, America's greatest. I wonder what the people of FDR's  time knew and what historians know today that FDR rates so high?


----------



## bullwinkle

Garbage!


----------



## regent

bullwinkle said:


> Garbage!



Nope, the Siena poll of presidents did not have a catagory labeled garbage, but the 238 historians did use twenty criteria to rate the presidents. FDR was not winner in each catatory. The historians  rated each president on:
Background
Imagination
Integrity
Intelligence
Luck
Willing to take chances
Avoid crucial mistakes
Court approintments
Domestic accomplishments
Executive appointments
Foreign policy accomplishments
Handling of US Economy
Party leadership
Relationship to Congress
Ability to compromise
Communication ability
Executive ability
Leadership ability
Overall ability
Present overall view 

Nope, no garbage


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a useful idiot if there ever was one.  He did Stalin's bidding and allowed Stalin to win the war and conquer half of Europe.  His failures with the economy and the war are epic...and yet, many Americans think he was a great leader.  It is terribly nauseating.
> 
> It is further proof that the State has become first and foremost, in a nation founded on individual liberty, natural rights, and limited government.  It is all so disheartening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American people at the time believed FDR was one of the best, that's why they voted for him four times. In fact, he may have been the most beloved president of the American people, bar none. That we will never know. He instituted programs that are still with us, and some of those are programs are in economics. And as I have mentioned a few times, FDR has never been rated by historians as less than one of America's three greatest presidents and in the last rating, America's greatest. I wonder what the people of FDR's  time knew and what historians know today that FDR rates so high?
Click to expand...


Citing Americans voting for FDR four times, as proof of his greatness, is foolish.  Americans have a long history of voting for terrible leaders.  The current POTUS is a perfect example, just as is FDR.

And citing statist historians as proof of FDR's greatness, is equally foolish.  Of course they love FDR...they are statists just like he was.

One must research the record for themselves and then make a conclusion on the facts.  When one does this, it becomes apparent that FDR was a terrible failure.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a useful idiot if there ever was one.  He did Stalin's bidding and allowed Stalin to win the war and conquer half of Europe.  His failures with the economy and the war are epic...and yet, many Americans think he was a great leader.  It is terribly nauseating.
> 
> It is further proof that the State has become first and foremost, in a nation founded on individual liberty, natural rights, and limited government.  It is all so disheartening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American people at the time believed FDR was one of the best, that's why they voted for him four times. In fact, he may have been the most beloved president of the American people, bar none. That we will never know. He instituted programs that are still with us, and some of those are programs are in economics. And as I have mentioned a few times, FDR has never been rated by historians as less than one of America's three greatest presidents and in the last rating, America's greatest. I wonder what the people of FDR's  time knew and what historians know today that FDR rates so high?
Click to expand...





None of which addresses his relationship with Stalin and the psychotic Marxist regime.


But you know that, don't you.


----------



## regent

For some reason I have faith in the evaluations of the historians that lived through the FDR-Stalin period and followed those events first-hand. Add to those historians on the scene, we now have historians that came after the FDR-Stalin period and have had time to sift through the historical sources and make another evaluation and both evaluations come out similar.  
As little history as I know I could question a number of things FDR did that I think might demand more scrutiny and could be labeled mistakes, a number of them being mistakes for political reasons, but politics is our government.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> For some reason I have faith in the evaluations of the historians that lived through the FDR-Stalin period and followed those events first-hand. Add to those historians on the scene, we now have historians that came after the FDR-Stalin period and have had time to sift through the historical sources and make another evaluation and both evaluations come out similar.
> As little history as I know I could question a number of things FDR did that I think might demand more scrutiny and could be labeled mistakes, a number of them being mistakes for political reasons, but politics is our government.




I accept your right to faith-based analysis.

Glad we agree that it isn't fact-based.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason I have faith in the evaluations of the historians that lived through the FDR-Stalin period and followed those events first-hand. Add to those historians on the scene, we now have historians that came after the FDR-Stalin period and have had time to sift through the historical sources and make another evaluation and both evaluations come out similar.
> As little history as I know I could question a number of things FDR did that I think might demand more scrutiny and could be labeled mistakes, a number of them being mistakes for political reasons, but politics is our government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I accept your right to faith-based analysis.
> 
> Glad we agree that it isn't fact-based.
Click to expand...


Yes, I have faith in the historians facts. I would suspect those facts as being more truthful than many poster's.


----------



## Cecilie1200

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason I have faith in the evaluations of the historians that lived through the FDR-Stalin period and followed those events first-hand. Add to those historians on the scene, we now have historians that came after the FDR-Stalin period and have had time to sift through the historical sources and make another evaluation and both evaluations come out similar.
> As little history as I know I could question a number of things FDR did that I think might demand more scrutiny and could be labeled mistakes, a number of them being mistakes for political reasons, but politics is our government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I accept your right to faith-based analysis.
> 
> Glad we agree that it isn't fact-based.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I have faith in the historians facts. I would suspect those facts as being more truthful than many poster's.
Click to expand...


I would suspect your skull of being filled with tapioca pudding.  It's apparent you have no use for any sort of thinking apparatus.


----------



## natstew

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR is responsible for the Communist genocide of almost 100 million humans. The world would have been a better place if he didn't so openly support Mao and Stalin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must get this information to the historians of America, every historical group in this country should know this new information. As soon as the historians know what you know they will stop rating FDR as America's greatest president and rate him, at least sixth worst, just below Bush. Don't waste a minute.
Click to expand...


regent, your sarcasm is disgusting!


----------



## Camp

These FDR threads are meant to demonize Roosevelt. The right is horrified that a President that not only believed, but proved beyond a doubt that hybred forms of socialism could be selectively applied and used in a capitalist economic system, and be viewed as one of our greatest President's. FDR believed in to big to fail. He knew the danger presented to the nation when industries and segments of the economy came under the control of small groups of individuals who could not be held accountable to the public for their greed and ability to stay within the law while they looted public holdings and wealth. More than a half century after this President died, hundreds of millions of American's have benifited from programs he instituted and projects he instigated. The right wing screams about socialism, but none of them turn down a social security check when they become eligible for it. They cry and whine about big government, but none of them complains about the roads and stuctures built by FDR in our National Parks that still are being used to this day. Nor do they complain about the Dam's he built and the system he created that brought electricity to areas and continue to do so. All these things are what todays right wing call socialism. Revisionist history is the weapon the right wing is dependent on. Revisionist history only works when the misinformation is not questioned and challanged.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> These FDR threads are meant to demonize Roosevelt. The right is horrified that a President that not only believed, but proved beyond a doubt that hybred forms of socialism could be selectively applied and used in a capitalist economic system, and be viewed as one of our greatest President's. FDR believed in to big to fail. He knew the danger presented to the nation when industries and segments of the economy came under the control of small groups of individuals who could not be held accountable to the public for their greed and ability to stay within the law while they looted public holdings and wealth. More than a half century after this President died, hundreds of millions of American's have benifited from programs he instituted and projects he instigated. The right wing screams about socialism, but none of them turn down a social security check when they become eligible for it. They cry and whine about big government, but none of them complains about the roads and stuctures built by FDR in our National Parks that still are being used to this day. Nor do they complain about the Dam's he built and the system he created that brought electricity to areas and continue to do so. All these things are what todays right wing call socialism. Revisionist history is the weapon the right wing is dependent on. Revisionist history only works when the misinformation is not questioned and challanged.








"These FDR threads are meant to demonize Roosevelt."

No more than your posts are meant as hagiography.


They simply reveal more truth than you can handle.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> These FDR threads are meant to demonize Roosevelt. The right is horrified that a President that not only believed, but proved beyond a doubt that hybred forms of socialism could be selectively applied and used in a capitalist economic system, and be viewed as one of our greatest President's. FDR believed in to big to fail. He knew the danger presented to the nation when industries and segments of the economy came under the control of small groups of individuals who could not be held accountable to the public for their greed and ability to stay within the law while they looted public holdings and wealth. More than a half century after this President died, hundreds of millions of American's have benifited from programs he instituted and projects he instigated. The right wing screams about socialism, but none of them turn down a social security check when they become eligible for it. They cry and whine about big government, but none of them complains about the roads and stuctures built by FDR in our National Parks that still are being used to this day. Nor do they complain about the Dam's he built and the system he created that brought electricity to areas and continue to do so. All these things are what todays right wing call socialism. Revisionist history is the weapon the right wing is dependent on. Revisionist history only works when the misinformation is not questioned and challanged.






"More than a half century after this President died, hundreds of millions of American's have benifited (sic) from programs he instituted and projects he instigated."


Is there a place on that scale for the 100 million plus who died at the hands of the communists for whom FDR served as facilitator?


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> These FDR threads are meant to demonize Roosevelt. .




His own actions and attitudes did that.


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Nor do they complain about the Dam's [sic] he built .





Actually, a lot of people (mainly on the left) do complain about them.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> These FDR threads are meant to demonize Roosevelt. The right is horrified that a President that not only believed, but proved beyond a doubt that hybred forms of socialism could be selectively applied and used in a capitalist economic system, and be viewed as one of our greatest President's. FDR believed in to big to fail. He knew the danger presented to the nation when industries and segments of the economy came under the control of small groups of individuals who could not be held accountable to the public for their greed and ability to stay within the law while they looted public holdings and wealth. More than a half century after this President died, hundreds of millions of American's have benifited from programs he instituted and projects he instigated. The right wing screams about socialism, but none of them turn down a social security check when they become eligible for it. They cry and whine about big government, but none of them complains about the roads and stuctures built by FDR in our National Parks that still are being used to this day. Nor do they complain about the Dam's he built and the system he created that brought electricity to areas and continue to do so. All these things are what todays right wing call socialism. Revisionist history is the weapon the right wing is dependent on. Revisionist history only works when the misinformation is not questioned and challanged.



The only thing your post proves is that you are terribly uninformed.

FDR has many detractors on both the right and left.  The facts of his failed presidency are clearly visible to anyone who wishes to investigate it.

The mere fact that he prolonged the Great Depression for 10 years, aligned with a murderous dictator, surrounded himself with Stalinist spies, imprisoned Japanese Americans, and caused terrible hardships for millions of Americans with his stupid policies, should be enough to prove he was a terrible failure.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> These FDR threads are meant to demonize Roosevelt. The right is horrified that a President that not only believed, but proved beyond a doubt that hybred forms of socialism could be selectively applied and used in a capitalist economic system, and be viewed as one of our greatest President's. FDR believed in to big to fail. He knew the danger presented to the nation when industries and segments of the economy came under the control of small groups of individuals who could not be held accountable to the public for their greed and ability to stay within the law while they looted public holdings and wealth. More than a half century after this President died, hundreds of millions of American's have benifited from programs he instituted and projects he instigated. The right wing screams about socialism, but none of them turn down a social security check when they become eligible for it. They cry and whine about big government, but none of them complains about the roads and stuctures built by FDR in our National Parks that still are being used to this day. Nor do they complain about the Dam's he built and the system he created that brought electricity to areas and continue to do so. All these things are what todays right wing call socialism. Revisionist history is the weapon the right wing is dependent on. Revisionist history only works when the misinformation is not questioned and challanged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing your post proves is that you are terribly uninformed.
> 
> FDR has many detractors on both the right and left.  The facts of his failed presidency are clearly visible to anyone who wishes to investigate it.
> 
> The mere fact that he prolonged the Great Depression for 10 years, aligned with a murderous dictator, surrounded himself with Stalinist spies, imprisoned Japanese Americans, and caused terrible hardships for millions of Americans with his stupid policies, should be enough to prove he was a terrible failure.
Click to expand...


Maybe in your eyes a failure, but in the eyes of the voters of that period, a total success. During FDR's time the American people elected FDR four times in a row, a reward the people gave to no other president. Add to the people's electing FDR four times, the historians since 1948 have rated FDR as one of the three greatest American presidents and in the last rating, rated FDR as America's greatest president. Winning four elections and historians rating FDR as America's greatest president, is not proof nor even evidence of a failed presidency?


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> These FDR threads are meant to demonize Roosevelt. The right is horrified that a President that not only believed, but proved beyond a doubt that hybred forms of socialism could be selectively applied and used in a capitalist economic system, and be viewed as one of our greatest President's. FDR believed in to big to fail. He knew the danger presented to the nation when industries and segments of the economy came under the control of small groups of individuals who could not be held accountable to the public for their greed and ability to stay within the law while they looted public holdings and wealth. More than a half century after this President died, hundreds of millions of American's have benifited from programs he instituted and projects he instigated. The right wing screams about socialism, but none of them turn down a social security check when they become eligible for it. They cry and whine about big government, but none of them complains about the roads and stuctures built by FDR in our National Parks that still are being used to this day. Nor do they complain about the Dam's he built and the system he created that brought electricity to areas and continue to do so. All these things are what todays right wing call socialism. Revisionist history is the weapon the right wing is dependent on. Revisionist history only works when the misinformation is not questioned and challanged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "These FDR threads are meant to demonize Roosevelt."
> 
> No more than your posts are meant as hagiography.
> 
> 
> They simply reveal more truth than you can handle.
Click to expand...


Nope, not hagiography. Convenient rhetoric on your part to call it that.
Your propaganda about FDR doesn't reveal truth. It is exactly what I described, an effort to fool people, to trick people, to misinform people. Your constant use of FDR's giving diplomatic recognition to the USSR is a great example. You present it as some sort of proof that FDR was trying to help the USSR and give support to Stalin. What you omit are factors that can be found in your own sources if a person reads beyond the quick quotes you post or site. 
FDR was under pressure to give diplomatic recognition to the USSR. The recognition had been denied after the revolution and murder of the Czar and his family and the USSR had been created. By the time FDR came into the picture most countries who had also halted diplomatic recognition had renewed it. When the US halted recognition Russia owed billions of dollars to US interest. Those debts could not even be considered for settlement unless and until recognition was instigated. At the same time, US business wanted recognition and pressured FDR to recognize the USSR with the hopes that it would assist in establishing trade. This was in the middle of the depression. 
In addition to the economic considerations, the USSR was viewed as an invaluable tool to put restrictions on Japanese exspansion. FDR hoped, correctly, that recognition would lead to influence and the influence could be used to keep Japan in check to a limited but strategicly valuable degree. 
Another part of the agreement that led to recognition of the USSR was that they agreed to stop funding and supporting communist groups in the US. They agreed to not interfere with America's domestic policies and internal business. 
And yet another part of the agreement was to allow freedom of religion to Amecican's living in the USSR. Along with that, specific legal rights were granted to American citizens living in the USSR.
So not recognizing the USSR meant no legal rights for American citizens in the USSR and no freedom of religion. It meant no repayment of billions of dollars in debt and a hindrance to international trade during the depression. It meant a possibility of a USSR/Japaness agreement that would allow Japan to focus resources in the southern zone facing western controlled oil fields and enabled an earlier attack on the southern zone.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> These FDR threads are meant to demonize Roosevelt. The right is horrified that a President that not only believed, but proved beyond a doubt that hybred forms of socialism could be selectively applied and used in a capitalist economic system, and be viewed as one of our greatest President's. FDR believed in to big to fail. He knew the danger presented to the nation when industries and segments of the economy came under the control of small groups of individuals who could not be held accountable to the public for their greed and ability to stay within the law while they looted public holdings and wealth. More than a half century after this President died, hundreds of millions of American's have benifited from programs he instituted and projects he instigated. The right wing screams about socialism, but none of them turn down a social security check when they become eligible for it. They cry and whine about big government, but none of them complains about the roads and stuctures built by FDR in our National Parks that still are being used to this day. Nor do they complain about the Dam's he built and the system he created that brought electricity to areas and continue to do so. All these things are what todays right wing call socialism. Revisionist history is the weapon the right wing is dependent on. Revisionist history only works when the misinformation is not questioned and challanged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "These FDR threads are meant to demonize Roosevelt."
> 
> No more than your posts are meant as hagiography.
> 
> 
> They simply reveal more truth than you can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, not hagiography. Convenient rhetoric on your part to call it that.
> Your propaganda about FDR doesn't reveal truth. It is exactly what I described, an effort to fool people, to trick people, to misinform people. Your constant use of FDR's giving diplomatic recognition to the USSR is a great example. You present it as some sort of proof that FDR was trying to help the USSR and give support to Stalin. What you omit are factors that can be found in your own sources if a person reads beyond the quick quotes you post or site.
> FDR was under pressure to give diplomatic recognition to the USSR. The recognition had been denied after the revolution and murder of the Czar and his family and the USSR had been created. By the time FDR came into the picture most countries who had also halted diplomatic recognition had renewed it. When the US halted recognition Russia owed billions of dollars to US interest. Those debts could not even be considered for settlement unless and until recognition was instigated. At the same time, US business wanted recognition and pressured FDR to recognize the USSR with the hopes that it would assist in establishing trade. This was in the middle of the depression.
> In addition to the economic considerations, the USSR was viewed as an invaluable tool to put restrictions on Japanese exspansion. FDR hoped, correctly, that recognition would lead to influence and the influence could be used to keep Japan in check to a limited but strategicly valuable degree.
> Another part of the agreement that led to recognition of the USSR was that they agreed to stop funding and supporting communist groups in the US. They agreed to not interfere with America's domestic policies and internal business.
> And yet another part of the agreement was to allow freedom of religion to Amecican's living in the USSR. Along with that, specific legal rights were granted to American citizens living in the USSR.
> So not recognizing the USSR meant no legal rights for American citizens in the USSR and no freedom of religion. It meant no repayment of billions of dollars in debt and a hindrance to international trade during the depression. It meant a possibility of a USSR/Japaness agreement that would allow Japan to focus resources in the southern zone facing western controlled oil fields and enabled an earlier attack on the southern zone.
Click to expand...





"Your propaganda about FDR doesn't reveal truth."

Let's see if I can shove those words right back down your kisser.


Provide a couple of examples of things I've posted about FDR that aren't the truth.


Otherwise, you're self-identified as a lying sack of offal.


Balls in your court.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> During FDR's time the American people elected FDR four times in a row, a reward the people gave to no other president.




No other president ran four times in a row, fool. Prior to that scumbag FDR, all presidents had followed the custom set by Washington. _Because_ of that scumbag FDR, we had to pass the 22nd Amendment.  


And there are/were despots the world over who were elected a lot more than four times. That in no way indicates that they were/are good leaders or decent human beings.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "These FDR threads are meant to demonize Roosevelt."
> 
> No more than your posts are meant as hagiography.
> 
> 
> They simply reveal more truth than you can handle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not hagiography. Convenient rhetoric on your part to call it that.
> Your propaganda about FDR doesn't reveal truth. It is exactly what I described, an effort to fool people, to trick people, to misinform people. Your constant use of FDR's giving diplomatic recognition to the USSR is a great example. You present it as some sort of proof that FDR was trying to help the USSR and give support to Stalin. What you omit are factors that can be found in your own sources if a person reads beyond the quick quotes you post or site.
> FDR was under pressure to give diplomatic recognition to the USSR. The recognition had been denied after the revolution and murder of the Czar and his family and the USSR had been created. By the time FDR came into the picture most countries who had also halted diplomatic recognition had renewed it. When the US halted recognition Russia owed billions of dollars to US interest. Those debts could not even be considered for settlement unless and until recognition was instigated. At the same time, US business wanted recognition and pressured FDR to recognize the USSR with the hopes that it would assist in establishing trade. This was in the middle of the depression.
> In addition to the economic considerations, the USSR was viewed as an invaluable tool to put restrictions on Japanese exspansion. FDR hoped, correctly, that recognition would lead to influence and the influence could be used to keep Japan in check to a limited but strategicly valuable degree.
> Another part of the agreement that led to recognition of the USSR was that they agreed to stop funding and supporting communist groups in the US. They agreed to not interfere with America's domestic policies and internal business.
> And yet another part of the agreement was to allow freedom of religion to Amecican's living in the USSR. Along with that, specific legal rights were granted to American citizens living in the USSR.
> So not recognizing the USSR meant no legal rights for American citizens in the USSR and no freedom of religion. It meant no repayment of billions of dollars in debt and a hindrance to international trade during the depression. It meant a possibility of a USSR/Japaness agreement that would allow Japan to focus resources in the southern zone facing western controlled oil fields and enabled an earlier attack on the southern zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Your propaganda about FDR doesn't reveal truth."
> 
> Let's see if I can shove those words right back down your kisser.
> 
> 
> Provide a couple of examples of things I've posted about FDR that aren't the truth.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, you're self-identified as a lying sack of offal.
> 
> 
> Balls in your court.
Click to expand...


I just gave an example of how revisionist history gets distorted to misinform people with the omission of facts related to a specific topic.  What is it that you think you reposted? Do you contest the facts I gave for FDR giving recognition to the USSR in 1933?


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> These FDR threads are meant to demonize Roosevelt. The right is horrified that a President that not only believed, but proved beyond a doubt that hybred forms of socialism could be selectively applied and used in a capitalist economic system, and be viewed as one of our greatest President's. FDR believed in to big to fail. He knew the danger presented to the nation when industries and segments of the economy came under the control of small groups of individuals who could not be held accountable to the public for their greed and ability to stay within the law while they looted public holdings and wealth. More than a half century after this President died, hundreds of millions of American's have benifited from programs he instituted and projects he instigated. The right wing screams about socialism, but none of them turn down a social security check when they become eligible for it. They cry and whine about big government, but none of them complains about the roads and stuctures built by FDR in our National Parks that still are being used to this day. Nor do they complain about the Dam's he built and the system he created that brought electricity to areas and continue to do so. All these things are what todays right wing call socialism. Revisionist history is the weapon the right wing is dependent on. Revisionist history only works when the misinformation is not questioned and challanged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing your post proves is that you are terribly uninformed.
> 
> FDR has many detractors on both the right and left.  The facts of his failed presidency are clearly visible to anyone who wishes to investigate it.
> 
> The mere fact that he prolonged the Great Depression for 10 years, aligned with a murderous dictator, surrounded himself with Stalinist spies, imprisoned Japanese Americans, and caused terrible hardships for millions of Americans with his stupid policies, should be enough to prove he was a terrible failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe in your eyes a failure, but in the eyes of the voters of that period, a total success. During FDR's time the American people elected FDR four times in a row, a reward the people gave to no other president. Add to the people's electing FDR four times, the historians since 1948 have rated FDR as one of the three greatest American presidents and in the last rating, rated FDR as America's greatest president. Winning four elections and historians rating FDR as America's greatest president, is not proof nor even evidence of a failed presidency?
Click to expand...


This has to be joke.  How could someone be so clueless?

Many American voters of that period, just like today, were clueless.  They voted for FDR because the state run media failed to inform them or outright deceived them.  Just as it is today.  To claim FDR, great because he was elected four times, is dumb.  He was on his death bed in 1944, yet got elected because the media failed to inform the American people.  He was very ill in 1940 and again the media failed to report.  He lied to the American people in 1940 claiming he would keep them out of war, while doing everything he possibly could to instigate a war.  He was as big a liar as the guy in the WH now.  Some things never change.

FDR was so arrogant, like Big Ears, that he ignored the precedent set by George Washington and all previous presidents, and chose to run for more than two terms.  

Statist historians love FDR because he was a statist like themselves...just like today.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> During FDR's time the American people elected FDR four times in a row, a reward the people gave to no other president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No other president ran four times in a row, fool. Prior to that scumbag FDR, all presidents had followed the custom set by Washington. _Because_ of that scumbag FDR, we had to pass the 22nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> And there are/were despots the world over who were elected a lot more than four times. That in no way indicates that they were/are good leaders or decent human beings.
Click to expand...


Which presidents, had they ran for a third term, been elected, and if elected for a third term, how about a fourth term? Could FDR have been elected for a fifth term, probably.  
The election of FDR to a third and then to fourth term, breaking the two term tradition indicates the American people wanted FDR for a  third and fourth term. 
The 22nd. Amendment was pushed by Republicans to avoid another FDR. Later with Ike, Republicans talked of repealing that amendment but even they would have been embarassed. 
As for the depots, this was America and no one forced anyone to vote for FDR, voting for a president was and still is, the people's choice.  
In any case the only president to be elected to a third and fourth term was FDR and thanks to the Republicans that may be a record for all time.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> During FDR's time the American people elected FDR four times in a row, a reward the people gave to no other president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No other president ran four times in a row, fool. Prior to that scumbag FDR, all presidents had followed the custom set by Washington. _Because_ of that scumbag FDR, we had to pass the 22nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> And there are/were despots the world over who were elected a lot more than four times. That in no way indicates that they were/are good leaders or decent human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which presidents, had they ran [sic] for a third term, been elected, and if elected for a third term, how about a fourth term [sic]? Could FDR have been elected for a fifth term, probably [sic].
> The election of FDR to a third and then to fourth term, breaking the two term tradition indicates the American people wanted FDR for a  third and fourth term.
> The 22nd. [sic] Amendment was pushed by Republicans to avoid another FDR. Later with Ike, Republicans talked of repealing that amendment but even they would have been embarassed [sic].
> As for the depots [sic], this was America and no one forced anyone to vote for FDR, voting for a president was and still is, the people's choice.
> In any case the only president to be elected to a third and fourth term was FDR and thanks to the Republicans that may be a record for all time.
Click to expand...


Once again you display an utter incompetence in logic and the English language.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other president ran four times in a row, fool. Prior to that scumbag FDR, all presidents had followed the custom set by Washington. _Because_ of that scumbag FDR, we had to pass the 22nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> And there are/were despots the world over who were elected a lot more than four times. That in no way indicates that they were/are good leaders or decent human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which presidents, had they ran [sic] for a third term, been elected, and if elected for a third term, how about a fourth term [sic]? Could FDR have been elected for a fifth term, probably [sic].
> The election of FDR to a third and then to fourth term, breaking the two term tradition indicates the American people wanted FDR for a  third and fourth term.
> The 22nd. [sic] Amendment was pushed by Republicans to avoid another FDR. Later with Ike, Republicans talked of repealing that amendment but even they would have been embarassed [sic].
> As for the depots [sic], this was America and no one forced anyone to vote for FDR, voting for a president was and still is, the people's choice.
> In any case the only president to be elected to a third and fourth term was FDR and thanks to the Republicans that may be a record for all time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you display an utter incompetence in logic and the English language.
Click to expand...


If this were the English and Logic board I would be concerned, but what about history?


----------



## whitehall

You have to consider the time in history and the information that Americans depended on. There was only radio and the newspapers. American philosopher Will Rogers said it best, "I only know what I read in the papers". The sad reality was that the only information Americans had was filtered through the pro FDR administration media. An administration can get away with any affront to the Constitution and the system of justice if the media tells the people it's O.K. and that's what they did with rare exceptions during the entire 3 1/2 terms. Americans didn't even know that the president was a virtual corpse when he ran for his 4th term because the media had been placed under the authority of the government during the war and they probably wouldn't have come out against the administration anyway.


----------



## regent

whitehall said:


> You have to consider the time in history and the information that Americans depended on. There was only radio and the newspapers. American philosopher Will Rogers said it best, "I only know what I read in the papers". The sad reality was that the only information Americans had was filtered through the pro FDR administration media. An administration can get away with any affront to the Constitution and the system of justice if the media tells the people it's O.K. and that's what they did with rare exceptions during the entire 3 1/2 terms. Americans didn't even know that the president was a virtual corpse when he ran for his 4th term because the media had been placed under the authority of the government during the war and they probably wouldn't have come out against the administration anyway.



Of the twenty characteristics historians grade presidents on, one is communication, and FDR was a master communicator. FDR's predecessor, Hoover, wanted questions from the press written down and submitted first and then Hoover took only the questions he wanted with no follow up. FDR required almost nothing from the press, he told them to ask away, and they did. There were many many anti FDR newspapers, all the Hearst papers and the Chicago Tribune hated FDR as did most publishers, but the reporters that was another story. I have a number of newspapers from that period and some were violently anti-FDR.
There is no Constitutional requirement concerning a president's health, that is up to the politicians. Republicans should learn to speak up.


----------



## Cecilie1200

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> These FDR threads are meant to demonize Roosevelt. The right is horrified that a President that not only believed, but proved beyond a doubt that hybred forms of socialism could be selectively applied and used in a capitalist economic system, and be viewed as one of our greatest President's. FDR believed in to big to fail. He knew the danger presented to the nation when industries and segments of the economy came under the control of small groups of individuals who could not be held accountable to the public for their greed and ability to stay within the law while they looted public holdings and wealth. More than a half century after this President died, hundreds of millions of American's have benifited from programs he instituted and projects he instigated. The right wing screams about socialism, but none of them turn down a social security check when they become eligible for it. They cry and whine about big government, but none of them complains about the roads and stuctures built by FDR in our National Parks that still are being used to this day. Nor do they complain about the Dam's he built and the system he created that brought electricity to areas and continue to do so. All these things are what todays right wing call socialism. Revisionist history is the weapon the right wing is dependent on. Revisionist history only works when the misinformation is not questioned and challanged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing your post proves is that you are terribly uninformed.
> 
> FDR has many detractors on both the right and left.  The facts of his failed presidency are clearly visible to anyone who wishes to investigate it.
> 
> The mere fact that he prolonged the Great Depression for 10 years, aligned with a murderous dictator, surrounded himself with Stalinist spies, imprisoned Japanese Americans, and caused terrible hardships for millions of Americans with his stupid policies, should be enough to prove he was a terrible failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe in your eyes a failure, but in the eyes of the voters of that period, a total success. During FDR's time the American people elected FDR four times in a row, a reward the people gave to no other president. Add to the people's electing FDR four times, the historians since 1948 have rated FDR as one of the three greatest American presidents and in the last rating, rated FDR as America's greatest president. Winning four elections and historians rating FDR as America's greatest president, is not proof nor even evidence of a failed presidency?
Click to expand...


And in the eyes of voters of this period, Obama is the Messiah.  The fact that you can get retards in the moment to believe anything impresses no one but other retards.


----------



## Cecilie1200

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> During FDR's time the American people elected FDR four times in a row, a reward the people gave to no other president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No other president ran four times in a row, fool. Prior to that scumbag FDR, all presidents had followed the custom set by Washington. _Because_ of that scumbag FDR, we had to pass the 22nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> And there are/were despots the world over who were elected a lot more than four times. That in no way indicates that they were/are good leaders or decent human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which presidents, had they ran for a third term, been elected, and if elected for a third term, how about a fourth term? Could FDR have been elected for a fifth term, probably.
> The election of FDR to a third and then to fourth term, breaking the two term tradition indicates the American people wanted FDR for a  third and fourth term.
> The 22nd. Amendment was pushed by Republicans to avoid another FDR. Later with Ike, Republicans talked of repealing that amendment but even they would have been embarassed.
> As for the depots, this was America and no one forced anyone to vote for FDR, voting for a president was and still is, the people's choice.
> In any case the only president to be elected to a third and fourth term was FDR and thanks to the Republicans that may be a record for all time.
Click to expand...


In any case, the only President with so little respect for the nation - up until then - and enough self-absorption and narcissism to RUN for more than two terms was FDR.  

Washington could have been President for life, had he wanted.  As a man of integrity, he understood that the United States was - and should be - more important than just one man.

Write that down somewhere, shitforbrains.


----------



## Cecilie1200

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which presidents, had they ran [sic] for a third term, been elected, and if elected for a third term, how about a fourth term [sic]? Could FDR have been elected for a fifth term, probably [sic].
> The election of FDR to a third and then to fourth term, breaking the two term tradition indicates the American people wanted FDR for a  third and fourth term.
> The 22nd. [sic] Amendment was pushed by Republicans to avoid another FDR. Later with Ike, Republicans talked of repealing that amendment but even they would have been embarassed [sic].
> As for the depots [sic], this was America and no one forced anyone to vote for FDR, voting for a president was and still is, the people's choice.
> In any case the only president to be elected to a third and fourth term was FDR and thanks to the Republicans that may be a record for all time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you display an utter incompetence in logic and the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this were the English and Logic board I would be concerned, but what about history?
Click to expand...


Well, that just says it all about leftists, doesn't it?  "English and logic are only for specific discussions ABOUT English and logic.  They have nothing to do with everyday communication about other topics."

Self-immolation, dude.  Look into it.


----------



## regent

Cecilie1200 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you display an utter incompetence in logic and the English language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this were the English and Logic board I would be concerned, but what about history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that just says it all about leftists, doesn't it?  "English and logic are only for specific discussions ABOUT English and logic.  They have nothing to do with everyday communication about other topics."
> 
> Self-immolation, dude.  Look into it.
Click to expand...


The topic is FDR and if you cannot create a suitable argument in that area by all means try logic and English and even better throw in a few more slogans, platitudes and name calling. But for all that effort, FDR is still the topic and still the pick of historians for greatest president. 
But I do look forward to your logic,logic that will destroy those 238 noted historians and presidential experts. I bet they are already quaking with fear.


----------



## natstew

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing your post proves is that you are terribly uninformed.
> 
> FDR has many detractors on both the right and left.  The facts of his failed presidency are clearly visible to anyone who wishes to investigate it.
> 
> The mere fact that he prolonged the Great Depression for 10 years, aligned with a murderous dictator, surrounded himself with Stalinist spies, imprisoned Japanese Americans, and caused terrible hardships for millions of Americans with his stupid policies, should be enough to prove he was a terrible failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your eyes a failure, but in the eyes of the voters of that period, a total success. During FDR's time the American people elected FDR four times in a row, a reward the people gave to no other president. Add to the people's electing FDR four times, the historians since 1948 have rated FDR as one of the three greatest American presidents and in the last rating, rated FDR as America's greatest president. Winning four elections and historians rating FDR as America's greatest president, is not proof nor even evidence of a failed presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has to be joke.  How could someone be so clueless?
> 
> Many American voters of that period, just like today, were clueless.  They voted for FDR because the state run media failed to inform them or outright deceived them.  Just as it is today.  To claim FDR, great because he was elected four times, is dumb.  He was on his death bed in 1944, yet got elected because the media failed to inform the American people.  He was very ill in 1940 and again the media failed to report.  He lied to the American people in 1940 claiming he would keep them out of war, while doing everything he possibly could to instigate a war.  He was as big a liar as the guy in the WH now.  Some things never change.
> 
> FDR was so arrogant, like Big Ears, that he ignored the precedent set by George Washington and all previous presidents, and chose to run for more than two terms.
> 
> Statist historians love FDR because he was a statist like themselves...just like today.
Click to expand...


So, if FDR was great because he was elected four times, Stalin was the greatest because he was elected 20 times?

FDR purposely prolonged the Depression just so he could use it to control the people.
Just like Obama, he was an Evil genius, politically.


----------



## regent

natstew said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your eyes a failure, but in the eyes of the voters of that period, a total success. During FDR's time the American people elected FDR four times in a row, a reward the people gave to no other president. Add to the people's electing FDR four times, the historians since 1948 have rated FDR as one of the three greatest American presidents and in the last rating, rated FDR as America's greatest president. Winning four elections and historians rating FDR as America's greatest president, is not proof nor even evidence of a failed presidency?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has to be joke.  How could someone be so clueless?
> 
> Many American voters of that period, just like today, were clueless.  They voted for FDR because the state run media failed to inform them or outright deceived them.  Just as it is today.  To claim FDR, great because he was elected four times, is dumb.  He was on his death bed in 1944, yet got elected because the media failed to inform the American people.  He was very ill in 1940 and again the media failed to report.  He lied to the American people in 1940 claiming he would keep them out of war, while doing everything he possibly could to instigate a war.  He was as big a liar as the guy in the WH now.  Some things never change.
> 
> FDR was so arrogant, like Big Ears, that he ignored the precedent set by George Washington and all previous presidents, and chose to run for more than two terms.
> 
> Statist historians love FDR because he was a statist like themselves...just like today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if FDR was great because he was elected four times, Stalin was the greatest because he was elected 20 times?
> 
> FDR purposely prolonged the Depression just so he could use it to control the people.
> Just like Obama, he was an Evil genius, politically.
Click to expand...


I thought most posters knew the difference between elections in the USSR and elections in America? Is that a failure of the schools to have taught that or did some people not undertand the whole concept of America?  
In logic would that be called a false analogy?


----------



## Cecilie1200

regent said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this were the English and Logic board I would be concerned, but what about history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that just says it all about leftists, doesn't it?  "English and logic are only for specific discussions ABOUT English and logic.  They have nothing to do with everyday communication about other topics."
> 
> Self-immolation, dude.  Look into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is FDR and if you cannot create a suitable argument in that area by all means try logic and English and even better throw in a few more slogans, platitudes and name calling. But for all that effort, FDR is still the topic and still the pick of historians for greatest president.
> But I do look forward to your logic,logic that will destroy those 238 noted historians and presidential experts. I bet they are already quaking with fear.
Click to expand...


Yes, the topic is FDR, and you are incapable of communicating on that topic with any sort of clarity or logic, and consider the idea that you SHOULD be able to do so ridiculous.  So you shouldn't find it odd that other people find YOU ridiculous.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which presidents, had they ran [sic] for a third term, been elected, and if elected for a third term, how about a fourth term [sic]? Could FDR have been elected for a fifth term, probably [sic].
> The election of FDR to a third and then to fourth term, breaking the two term tradition indicates the American people wanted FDR for a  third and fourth term.
> The 22nd. [sic] Amendment was pushed by Republicans to avoid another FDR. Later with Ike, Republicans talked of repealing that amendment but even they would have been embarassed [sic].
> As for the depots [sic], this was America and no one forced anyone to vote for FDR, voting for a president was and still is, the people's choice.
> In any case the only president to be elected to a third and fourth term was FDR and thanks to the Republicans that may be a record for all time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you display an utter incompetence in logic and the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this were the English and Logic board I would be concerned, but what about history?
Click to expand...



Did you think about that for even a second before posting it?


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> I have a number of newspapers from that period and some were violently anti-FDR...





Seems fair, considering that he was violently anti-America.


----------



## Unkotare

Cecilie1200 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you display an utter incompetence in logic and the English language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this were the English and Logic board I would be concerned, but what about history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that just says it all about leftists, doesn't it?  "English and logic are only for specific discussions ABOUT English and logic.  They have nothing to do with everyday communication about other topics."
> 
> Self-immolation, dude.  Look into it.
Click to expand...



Unbelievable that even he would actually post such a thing. I didn't think they made dunce caps that huge.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Unkotare said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this were the English and Logic board I would be concerned, but what about history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that just says it all about leftists, doesn't it?  "English and logic are only for specific discussions ABOUT English and logic.  They have nothing to do with everyday communication about other topics."
> 
> Self-immolation, dude.  Look into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unbelievable that even he would actually post such a thing. I didn't think they made dunce caps that huge.
Click to expand...


I think I'm incapable of being surprised by anything leftists do any more.


----------



## Camp

Cecilie1200 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing your post proves is that you are terribly uninformed.
> 
> FDR has many detractors on both the right and left.  The facts of his failed presidency are clearly visible to anyone who wishes to investigate it.
> 
> The mere fact that he prolonged the Great Depression for 10 years, aligned with a murderous dictator, surrounded himself with Stalinist spies, imprisoned Japanese Americans, and caused terrible hardships for millions of Americans with his stupid policies, should be enough to prove he was a terrible failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your eyes a failure, but in the eyes of the voters of that period, a total success. During FDR's time the American people elected FDR four times in a row, a reward the people gave to no other president. Add to the people's electing FDR four times, the historians since 1948 have rated FDR as one of the three greatest American presidents and in the last rating, rated FDR as America's greatest president. Winning four elections and historians rating FDR as America's greatest president, is not proof nor even evidence of a failed presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in the eyes of voters of this period, Obama is the Messiah.  The fact that you can get retards in the moment to believe anything impresses no one but other retards.
Click to expand...


Obama is not viewed as the Messiah. His approval ratings are below 50%. The actual far left are almost always angry with him. The whole Messiah thing is a propaganda ploy by the right to convince low information supporters like yourself that they are intellectually above those who support Obama. Hence, people who disagree with your political values are "retards". In the meantime, if one goes back and reads your post on the subject of FDR they find absolutely no facts or even opinions in regards to the subject. Instead they find jiberish, name calling, silly insults, etc. In other words, nothing intellectual or academic. Think about this, you just called what American's have come to call "The Greatest Generation" a bunch of retards. The people who worked themselves out of the worlds greatest depression and went on to win the worlds greatest war in history were a bunch of retards according to you. Really, give it some thought. Who is the retard, or at least who is the one with a retarded thought process?


----------



## Unkotare

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that just says it all about leftists, doesn't it?  "English and logic are only for specific discussions ABOUT English and logic.  They have nothing to do with everyday communication about other topics."
> 
> Self-immolation, dude.  Look into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unbelievable that even he would actually post such a thing. I didn't think they made dunce caps that huge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I'm incapable of being surprised by anything leftists do any more.
Click to expand...



Desensitized by overexposure to lefty idiots here.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which presidents, had they ran [sic] for a third term, been elected, and if elected for a third term, how about a fourth term [sic]? Could FDR have been elected for a fifth term, probably [sic].
> The election of FDR to a third and then to fourth term, breaking the two term tradition indicates the American people wanted FDR for a  third and fourth term.
> The 22nd. [sic] Amendment was pushed by Republicans to avoid another FDR. Later with Ike, Republicans talked of repealing that amendment but even they would have been embarassed [sic].
> As for the depots [sic], this was America and no one forced anyone to vote for FDR, voting for a president was and still is, the people's choice.
> In any case the only president to be elected to a third and fourth term was FDR and thanks to the Republicans that may be a record for all time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you display an utter incompetence in logic and the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this were the English and Logic board I would be concerned, but what about history?
Click to expand...


I'm entirely willing to believe that the history you learned is entirely devoid of logic.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unbelievable that even he would actually post such a thing. I didn't think they made dunce caps that huge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'm incapable of being surprised by anything leftists do any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Desensitized by overexposure to lefty idiots here.
Click to expand...


Geez, didn't mean to hurt your feelings and now you go away mad. If you want to talk about logic and English then OK we'll do it, even on the history board. So let's start with the definition of the Argument by Authority fallacy? Do you have a definiltion, not a definition that you made up on your very own but a definition by a real authority, and if you cite the authority that would make it sort of scholarly.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'm incapable of being surprised by anything leftists do any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desensitized by overexposure to lefty idiots here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geez, didn't mean to hurt your feelings ...
Click to expand...




Then everyone's happy, because you didn't.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> So let's start with the definition of the Argument by Authority fallacy? Do you have a definiltion [sic], not a definition that you made up on your very own but a definition by a real authority, and if you cite the authority that would make it sort of scholarly.






This is all you can do? Endlessly 'request' that I teach you the same lesson over and over and over? You're pathetic. You are spamming at this point. 

Every time you are left with nothing but this silly game you prove that you cannot defend that scumbag FDR.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's start with the definition of the Argument by Authority fallacy? Do you have a definiltion [sic], not a definition that you made up on your very own but a definition by a real authority, and if you cite the authority that would make it sort of scholarly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is all you can do? Endlessly 'request' that I teach you the same lesson over and over and over? You're pathetic. You are spamming at this point.
> 
> Every time you are left with nothing but this silly game you prove that you cannot defend that scumbag FDR.
Click to expand...


The problem is that your definition of the Authority fallacy is different than the ones in my texts. So did I read your definition wrong, or are the texts wrong, or your definition, I'm sure the latter. 
FDR is and has been defended by more able people than I, and you have posted few facts, in your attacks but a lot of opinions. But opinions are meaningless unless you have some expertise behind the opinions, and I see little historical expertise. 
FDR made many mistakes, but the historians agree with me that his mistakes were minor compared to his accomplishments, if not they would not have rated him America's greatest president.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your eyes a failure, but in the eyes of the voters of that period, a total success. During FDR's time the American people elected FDR four times in a row, a reward the people gave to no other president. Add to the people's electing FDR four times, the historians since 1948 have rated FDR as one of the three greatest American presidents and in the last rating, rated FDR as America's greatest president. Winning four elections and historians rating FDR as America's greatest president, is not proof nor even evidence of a failed presidency?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in the eyes of voters of this period, Obama is the Messiah.  The fact that you can get retards in the moment to believe anything impresses no one but other retards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama is not viewed as the Messiah. His approval ratings are below 50%. The actual far left are almost always angry with him. The whole Messiah thing is a propaganda ploy by the right to convince low information supporters like yourself that they are intellectually above those who support Obama. Hence, people who disagree with your political values are "retards". In the meantime, if one goes back and reads your post on the subject of FDR they find absolutely no facts or even opinions in regards to the subject. Instead they find jiberish, name calling, silly insults, etc. In other words, nothing intellectual or academic. Think about this, you just called what American's have come to call "The Greatest Generation" a bunch of retards. The people who worked themselves out of the worlds greatest depression and went on to win the worlds greatest war in history were a bunch of retards according to you. Really, give it some thought. Who is the retard, or at least who is the one with a retarded thought process?
Click to expand...






"The whole Messiah thing is a propaganda ploy by the right....blah blah blah...."

Not satisfied with being identified as a moron....now you insist on adding 'liar' to the appellation.....



Coulter:
*The mob characteristic most gustily exhibited by liberals is the tendency to worship and idolize their political leaders. *Le Bon explained that mobs can only grasp the &#8220;very simple and very exaggerated.&#8221; Their chosen images must be absolute and uncompromising&#8230; 

Passionate adoration are the primitive emotions of a mob, sentiments generally associated with women, children, and savages, according to Le Bon. 




Check out some examples&#8230;.


1. The Hollywood celebrities pledge Go to 3:54: "I pledge to be a servant to our president and all mankind." Creepy? 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51kAw4OTlA0]Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher's I Pledge Video - YouTube[/ame]






2. Time's Nancy Gibbs who opened this week's cover story by comparing Obama with Jesus: &#8220;Some princes are born in palaces. Some are born in mangers. But a few are born in the imagination, out of scraps of history and hope...&#8221; In the November 17 issue.

3. Chris Matthews: "If you're in [a room] with Obama, you feel the spirit moving." Book Monitor (Current Edition)

4. &#8220;Obama seemed the political equivalent of a rainbow &#8212; a sudden preternatural event inspiring awe and ecstasy....&#8221; Time&#8217;s Joe Klein, October 23, 2006 cover story, "Why Barack Obama Could Be the Next President."






5. NBC&#8217;s Matt Lauer noted that &#8220;people&#8221; have called Obama &#8220; &#8216;The Savior,&#8217; &#8216;The Messiah,&#8217; &#8216;The Messenger of Change,&#8217; &#8220; Today Show, NBC, October 20, 2008.

6. The New York Time&#8217;s Judith Warner reported, &#8220;Many women- not too surprisingly &#8211; were dreaming about sex with the president [Obama]&#8221;.http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...t-a-president/
&#8220;&#8230;the Obamas are not just a beacon of hope, inspiration and &#8220;demigodlikeness,&#8221; Ibid.


7. David Cordero, 24, made the sculpture for his senior show after noticing all the attention Obama has received: "All of this is a response to what I've been witnessing and hearing, this idea that Barack is sort of a potential savior that might come and absolve the country of all its sins," Cordero said.Sculpture of Obama as Jesus causes stir - politics - Decision '08 - Barack Obama News - msnbc.com

8. . In its November 22, 2010 issue, Obama has been shown by Newsweek on its cover page with multiple arms balancing several policy issues while raising his left leg mimicking the cosmic dance of the Hindu deity; considered a manifestation of Lord Shiva.
... Newsweek has named Obama "god of all things" on its cover.
SOURCE: Times of India (November 20, 2010).






9. &#8220;I haven&#8217;t seen a politician get this kind of walk-on-water coverage since Colin Powell a dozen years ago flirted with making a run for the White House,&#8221; said Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz on Meet the Press in February 2007

10. Samantha Fennell, formerly an associate publisher of Elle, wrote on the magazine&#8217;s website a month later: &#8220;When I attended my second &#8220;Obama Live&#8221; fund-raiser last week at New York City&#8217;s Grand Hyatt, . . . I was on my feet as Senator Obama entered the room. Fate had blessed me in this moment. . . . In a moment of divine intervention, he saw me,&#8230;&#8221;

11.Filmmaker Spike Lee, predicting an Obama victory, implicitly compared the candidate with Christ: &#8220;You&#8217;ll have to measure time by &#8216;Before Obama&#8217; and &#8216;After Obama.&#8217; . . .





12. Jesse Jackson, Jr. called Obama&#8217;s securing the Democratic nomination &#8220;so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.&#8221;


13. . Louis Farrakhan went one better, according to the website WorldNetDaily: &#8220;Barack has captured the youth. . . . That&#8217;s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.&#8221;


14. His followers needed to re-elect him to a second term, so that he could continue to accomplish the promises he made, thus, realizing his vision of America as a more perfect political union or &#8220;heaven here on earth.&#8221;
The Gospel According to Apostle Barack, by Barbara A. Thompson.

15. "Does it not feel as if some special hand is guiding Obama on his journey, I mean, as he has said, the utter improbability of it all?"
-- Daily Kos






I have more if you're not choking enough on the above.


Really makes you look like a fool, doesn't it.....


----------



## regent

If I were a politician I would rather have the Koch brothers support my campaign than have people call me a Messiah.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> If I were a politician I would rather have the Koch brothers support my campaign than have people call me a Messiah.




The Koch Brothers myth is a creation of the Leftist propaganda machine. It is designed to hide the financial manipulations of the Leftist criminal George Soros.


As folks....not you, of course,....became aware of the breadth and depth of Soros' power, it became incumbent upon his minions to find some way to shield him. 

The point: the financial input of Koch, as compared to Soros, would be like comparing a bamboo hut to the palace of Versailles.


Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to Leftwing groups.
"The New Leviathan," Horowitz and Laksin


Three Koch foundations made a total of 181 grants worth $25,405,525 in 2010 (most recent available records). The one Tides Foundation made a total of 2,627 grants worth $143,529,590 in 2010.
Liberal group grants over 5x as much as Koch Brothers but goes largely unnoticed by the media | Human Events


----------



## Cecilie1200

regent said:


> If I were a politician I would rather have the Koch brothers support my campaign than have people call me a Messiah.



Why?  Seems to me it's the shyster politician being worshipped as a Messiah by you drooling unwashed masses who's actually got his butt parked in the White House at the moment.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's start with the definition of the Argument by Authority fallacy? Do you have a definiltion [sic], not a definition that you made up on your very own but a definition by a real authority, and if you cite the authority that would make it sort of scholarly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is all you can do? Endlessly 'request' that I teach you the same lesson over and over and over? You're pathetic. You are spamming at this point.
> 
> Every time you are left with nothing but this silly game you prove that you cannot defend that scumbag FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is that your definition of the Authority fallacy is different than the ones in my texts.
Click to expand...



No, the problem is that you don't understand the full definition because you only read the jacket of an intro course book. I very kindly explained it to you in full but you are either too stupid to understand or refuse to do so because it would deprive you of your one and only argument in defending that scumbag FDR.


----------



## gipper

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were a politician I would rather have the Koch brothers support my campaign than have people call me a Messiah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Koch Brothers myth is a creation of the Leftist propaganda machine. It is designed to hide the financial manipulations of the Leftist criminal George Soros.
> 
> 
> As folks....not you, of course,....became aware of the breadth and depth of Soros' power, it became incumbent upon his minions to find some way to shield him.
> 
> The point: the financial input of Koch, as compared to Soros, would be like comparing a bamboo hut to the palace of Versailles.
> 
> 
> Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to Leftwing groups.
> "The New Leviathan," Horowitz and Laksin
> 
> 
> Three Koch foundations made a total of 181 grants worth $25,405,525 in 2010 (most recent available records). The one Tides Foundation made a total of 2,627 grants worth $143,529,590 in 2010.
> Liberal group grants over 5x as much as Koch Brothers but goes largely unnoticed by the media | Human Events
Click to expand...


Just another fine example of left wing bias in the media....and yet there are those on the Left who still proclaim left wing media bias does not exist....further proof of their psychosis.

Ask any run of the mill Leftist about the Koch brothers and many become unhinged.  Ask them about Soros and many will not even know who he is.  CRAZY!


----------



## Unkotare

Here's some very simple information that maybe FDR's nuthugger can understand (though I doubt it):


https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Appeal_to_authority.html


Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Misleading Authority


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is all you can do? Endlessly 'request' that I teach you the same lesson over and over and over? You're pathetic. You are spamming at this point.
> 
> Every time you are left with nothing but this silly game you prove that you cannot defend that scumbag FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that your definition of the Authority fallacy is different than the ones in my texts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, the problem is that you don't understand the full definition because you only read the jacket of an intro course book. I very kindly explained it to you in full but you are either too stupid to understand or refuse to do so because it would deprive you of your one and only argument in defending that scumbag FDR.
Click to expand...


If I were the only one defending FDR I might be concerned but the evidence is overwhelming that FDR was one of the three greatest American presidents as cited by historians since 1948. Add to that, in the last survey 238 noted historians and presidential experts named FDR number one, the best president we've ever had. Your argument pointing out that in your expert opinion he was a scumbag is sort of lost in the big picture.  

When I ask you to cite your source you go through a whole mumble jumble of evasions such is in this post. Anyway, here is the definition of the fallacy of Argument Ad Verecundiam as cited on page 118 of Introduction to Logic by Copi, U of Hawaii and Cohen, U of Michigan: The fallacy appeal to inappropriate authority arises when the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand. 
Seems the 238 noted historians have some claim to be authorities. 
Now, for your definition and source? 
But in all fairness I might inform Siena College and those 238 historians that you think FDR was a scumbag.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that your definition of the Authority fallacy is different than the ones in my texts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the problem is that you don't understand the full definition because you only read the jacket of an intro course book. I very kindly explained it to you in full but you are either too stupid to understand or refuse to do so because it would deprive you of your one and only argument in defending that scumbag FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I were the only one defending FDR I might be concerned .
Click to expand...



Ah, and now Appeal to Popularity. See what happens when you can't think for yourself?


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> ....as cited on page 118 of Introduction to Logic by Copi, U of Hawaii and Cohen, U of Michigan: The fallacy appeal to inappropriate authority arises when the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand.
> Seems the 238 noted historians have some claim to be authorities.





Remember when I told you that you didn't understand the full definition? Well, you've proved it again. That, or you are so completely out of hope now that you are being deliberately dishonest.


----------



## Steinlight

Fuck you unkotare. you would have made a perfect member of the America first committee with lindbergh you anti semite scum


----------



## Unkotare

Steinlight said:


> Fuck you unkotare. you would have made a perfect member of the America first committee with lindbergh [sic] you anti semite [sic] scum





What the fuck are you talking about? 



"anti semite"?


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....as cited on page 118 of Introduction to Logic by Copi, U of Hawaii and Cohen, U of Michigan: The fallacy appeal to inappropriate authority arises when the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand.
> Seems the 238 noted historians have some claim to be authorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when I told you that you didn't understand the full definition? Well, you've proved it again. That, or you are so completely out of hope now that you are being deliberately dishonest.
Click to expand...


So I'll give you another source and definition: "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" by T. Edward Damer of Emory College. "Definition This fallacy consists in attempting to support a claim by quoting the judgement of one who is not an authority in the field, of an unidentified authority, or the judgement of an authority who is likely to be biased  in some way." 
Let's face it, you got caught creating a definition that supported your argument and when someone called you on it. You checked and found you were wrong so you created a smokecreen that no one was capable of understanding the definition. A grade school tactic.  In any case I now have a read on your scholarship or lack thereof.


----------



## PoliticalChic

gipper said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were a politician I would rather have the Koch brothers support my campaign than have people call me a Messiah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Koch Brothers myth is a creation of the Leftist propaganda machine. It is designed to hide the financial manipulations of the Leftist criminal George Soros.
> 
> 
> As folks....not you, of course,....became aware of the breadth and depth of Soros' power, it became incumbent upon his minions to find some way to shield him.
> 
> The point: the financial input of Koch, as compared to Soros, would be like comparing a bamboo hut to the palace of Versailles.
> 
> 
> Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to Leftwing groups.
> "The New Leviathan," Horowitz and Laksin
> 
> 
> Three Koch foundations made a total of 181 grants worth $25,405,525 in 2010 (most recent available records). The one Tides Foundation made a total of 2,627 grants worth $143,529,590 in 2010.
> Liberal group grants over 5x as much as Koch Brothers but goes largely unnoticed by the media | Human Events
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just another fine example of left wing bias in the media....and yet there are those on the Left who still proclaim left wing media bias does not exist....further proof of their psychosis.
> 
> Ask any run of the mill Leftist about the Koch brothers and many become unhinged.  Ask them about Soros and many will not even know who he is.  CRAZY!
Click to expand...




Let's enlighten them!



1.	Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations. See if you can find the pattern in this partial list

a.	The Center for Constitutional Rights, founded by four longtime supporters of communist causes. 
Center for Constitutional Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b.	Various organizations that promote open borders and full citizenship rights for illegal aliens.

c.	Organizations such as the Sentencing Project, which attacks the American prison system as racist.

d.	The Gamaliel Foundtion and the Midwest Academy, whose radical instructors train political organizers. Barack has acknowledged publicly that he had been the director of a Gamaliel affiliate.
Michelle Malkin | » Creepy O-cult video of the day: ?Deliver us, Obama!? Updated

e.	The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, founded by self-declared communist Van Jones Van Jones projects have long been bankrolled by George Soros Open Society Institute, which gave $1 million to the Jones-founded Ella Baker Center before becoming a major donor to GFA. 
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7554



2.	*The media is a major interest of Soros. *He has investments in:

a.	NBC, ABC, NYTimes, Washington Post, the Columbia School of Journalism, National Public Radio, Pacifica Foundation, and Media Matters For America.

b.	Left-wing religious organizations such as Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Jim Wallis Sojourners, Catholics for Choice.

c.	Medea Benjamins Global Exchange, the organization that announced in 2004 that it would be sending aid to the families of terrorists fighting American troops in Iraq. Guide to the George Soros Network - Discover the Networks



3. In 1995, George Soros appeared on PBS with Charlie Rose, and said this:

"I like to influence policy.  I was not able to get to George Bush (Senior).  But now I think I have succeeded with my influence..*.I do now have great access in the (Clinton) administration.  There is no question about this.  We actually work together as a team." *
Archived-Articles: Hillary, Soros, Alinsky, and Rush

a.	Senators Reid and Harkin are taking their cues from Media Matters, a Soros-funded front group.  As Hillary Clinton declared at the recent Yearly Kos convention (her confirming sound bite played by Rush Limbaugh on the radio), she was the mastermind behind both The Center for American Progress (her think tank) and Media Matters (her media attack machine).  Hillary provides the name and political connections that Soros craves, and Soros provides the money. 
Ibid.


Very few know of The Shadow Party.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....as cited on page 118 of Introduction to Logic by Copi, U of Hawaii and Cohen, U of Michigan: The fallacy appeal to inappropriate authority arises when the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand.
> Seems the 238 noted historians have some claim to be authorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when I told you that you didn't understand the full definition? Well, you've proved it again. That, or you are so completely out of hope now that you are being deliberately dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I'll give you another source and definition: "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" by T. Edward Damer of Emory College. "Definition This fallacy consists in attempting to support a claim by quoting the judgement of one who is not an authority in the field, of an unidentified authority, or the judgement of an authority who is likely to be biased  in some way."
> Let's face it, you got caught creating a definition that supported your argument and when someone called you on it. You checked and found you were wrong so you created a smokecreen that no one was capable of understanding the definition. A grade school tactic.  In any case I now have a read on your scholarship or lack thereof.
Click to expand...




You keep proving my point that you don't understand the full definition - even after I've explained it to you over and over and over again.  


I've even tried to give you an out by suggesting you let go of the fallacy and simply attempt to defend the scumbag yourself. You refuse to answer questions when you have no answer for them, and sooner or later you fall right back on logical fallacy again. 

I have to conclude that you're a partisan hack and just plain stupid.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when I told you that you didn't understand the full definition? Well, you've proved it again. That, or you are so completely out of hope now that you are being deliberately dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I'll give you another source and definition: "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" by T. Edward Damer of Emory College. "Definition This fallacy consists in attempting to support a claim by quoting the judgement of one who is not an authority in the field, of an unidentified authority, or the judgement of an authority who is likely to be biased  in some way."
> Let's face it, you got caught creating a definition that supported your argument and when someone called you on it. You checked and found you were wrong so you created a smokecreen that no one was capable of understanding the definition. A grade school tactic.  In any case I now have a read on your scholarship or lack thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep proving my point that you don't understand the full definition - even after I've explained it to you over and over and over again.
> 
> 
> I've even tried to give you an out by suggesting you let go of the fallacy and simply attempt to defend the scumbag yourself. You refuse to answer questions when you have no answer for them, and sooner or later you fall right back on logical fallacy again.
> 
> I have to conclude that you're a partisan hack and just plain stupid.
Click to expand...


So who decided that argument by authority is a fallacy?


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I'll give you another source and definition: "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" by T. Edward Damer of Emory College. "Definition This fallacy consists in attempting to support a claim by quoting the judgement of one who is not an authority in the field, of an unidentified authority, or the judgement of an authority who is likely to be biased  in some way."
> Let's face it, you got caught creating a definition that supported your argument and when someone called you on it. You checked and found you were wrong so you created a smokecreen that no one was capable of understanding the definition. A grade school tactic.  In any case I now have a read on your scholarship or lack thereof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep proving my point that you don't understand the full definition - even after I've explained it to you over and over and over again.
> 
> 
> I've even tried to give you an out by suggesting you let go of the fallacy and simply attempt to defend the scumbag yourself. You refuse to answer questions when you have no answer for them, and sooner or later you fall right back on logical fallacy again.
> 
> I have to conclude that you're a partisan hack and just plain stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who decided that argument by authority is a fallacy?
Click to expand...




You're fucking hopeless.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep proving my point that you don't understand the full definition - even after I've explained it to you over and over and over again.
> 
> 
> I've even tried to give you an out by suggesting you let go of the fallacy and simply attempt to defend the scumbag yourself. You refuse to answer questions when you have no answer for them, and sooner or later you fall right back on logical fallacy again.
> 
> I have to conclude that you're a partisan hack and just plain stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who decided that argument by authority is a fallacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're fucking hopeless.
Click to expand...


Maybe your problem is that you are trying to prove that argument by authority is a fallacy if inductive, and I just wondered what authority you are using to prove your point. And if you are using an authority to prove your point, is that also a fallacy? 
In any case logic or no, FDR is still rated as America's greatest presidents by 238 noted historians and pesidential experts. 
By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts, and by golly they picked FDR. I don't believe FDR will hold on to the top position for all time, no matter the logic, but for now he seems to be number one. Newsweek did not mention your opinion.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who decided that argument by authority is a fallacy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're fucking hopeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe your problem is that you are trying to prove that argument by authority is a fallacy if inductive, and I just wondered what authority you are using to prove your point. And if you are using an authority to prove your point, is that also a fallacy?
> In any case logic or no, FDR is still rated as America's greatest presidents by 238 noted historians and pesidential experts.
> By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts, and by golly they picked FDR. I don't believe FDR will hold on to the top position for all time, no matter the logic, but for now he seems to be number one. Newsweek did not mention your opinion.
Click to expand...






 "By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts, (sic)..."


Tell me, reggie....if all 10 turned out to be Obama voters, would that shake your faith, or cause you to lean more on your own research?


Careful now, reggie.....


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Maybe your problem is that you are trying to prove that argument by authority is a fallacy if inductive, and I just wondered what authority you are using to prove your point. And if you are using an authority to prove your point, is that also a fallacy?
> In any case logic or no, FDR is still rated as America's greatest presidents by 238 noted historians and pesidential [sic] experts.
> By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts [sic], and by golly they picked FDR. I don't believe FDR will hold on to the top position for all time, no matter the logic, but for now he seems to be number one. Newsweek did not mention your opinion.





You are the crack whore of logical fallacy. You know you're doing it, you know it's wrong, but you can't help yourself because you've got nothing else.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> ...In any case logic or no...





That really says it all about you.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're fucking hopeless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe your problem is that you are trying to prove that argument by authority is a fallacy if inductive, and I just wondered what authority you are using to prove your point. And if you are using an authority to prove your point, is that also a fallacy?
> In any case logic or no, FDR is still rated as America's greatest presidents by 238 noted historians and pesidential experts.
> By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts, and by golly they picked FDR. I don't believe FDR will hold on to the top position for all time, no matter the logic, but for now he seems to be number one. Newsweek did not mention your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts, (sic)..."
> 
> 
> Tell me, reggie....if all 10 turned out to be Obama voters, would that shake your faith, or cause you to lean more on your own research?
> 
> 
> Careful now, reggie.....
Click to expand...


I've done my own research and discovered that historians agree with me, and that strengthened my faith in historians.  In fact, I'm reading an FDR history now and the author does not seem to care much for FDR, but then as I read I don't think the author cares much for history either.  Some historians vote their politics but still manage to be able historians. Most of us on these boards use history to strengthen our politics and weaken the other party politics.
Here is a question for you: if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe your problem is that you are trying to prove that argument by authority is a fallacy if inductive, and I just wondered what authority you are using to prove your point. And if you are using an authority to prove your point, is that also a fallacy?
> In any case logic or no, FDR is still rated as America's greatest presidents by 238 noted historians and pesidential experts.
> By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts, and by golly they picked FDR. I don't believe FDR will hold on to the top position for all time, no matter the logic, but for now he seems to be number one. Newsweek did not mention your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts, (sic)..."
> 
> 
> Tell me, reggie....if all 10 turned out to be Obama voters, would that shake your faith, or cause you to lean more on your own research?
> 
> 
> Careful now, reggie.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've done my own research and discovered that historians agree with me, and that strengthened my faith in historians.  In fact, I'm reading an FDR history now and the author does not seem to care much for FDR, but then as I read I don't think the author cares much for history either.  Some historians vote their politics but still manage to be able historians. Most of us on these boards use history to strengthen our politics and weaken the other party politics.
> Here is a question for you: if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals.
Click to expand...







"if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals."


1. Elizabeth Bentley identified up  to 150 Soviet spies working in the Roosevelt administration. *Her allegations were proven* once the KGB archives were opened in 1991. "Yet the consensus of several generations of American* historians (backed by many journalists and other opinion leaders) routinely mocked, ridiculed, and dismissed her as a fraud and montebank."* 
Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, " Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.543-544.


a. The only possible explanation is the mentality- actually,* the psychosis- of historians, *journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology. And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication. There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.




You see, those 'historians' that you worship and rely on, needed to negotiate academia....Liberal through and through.
Without being so, or adapting to be so, they would not have been able to become credentialed.
The same is true if they wish to be published.


2. In 2004, Klein and Western published a study of the voter registration of the professors at U of C, Berkeley, and at Stanford, over 1000 professors, and concluded that the findings supported *the one party campus conjecture.* At Berkeley, 9.9 to 1, and at Stanford, 7.6 to 1 of Democrats to Republicans. Ideological diversity does not exist on most campuses.

3. "Survey shocker: *Liberal profs admit theyd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement..*..Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses. 
Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement - Washington Times



4. *"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding,* tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-Americanproponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. *They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth." *
The Death of Feminism, by Professor Phyllis Chesler





Let's review the above: to advance in academia, one must lean Left.

'Historians' see the world through a Leftist lens.



I've posted a dozen OPs revealing the flaws and malevolence of Franklin Roosevelt. I don't recall a one that you have been able to dispute.

Should tell you something.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "By the way, "Newsweek" in 2013, polled ten of America's most distinguished historians to rate the presidnts, (sic)..."
> 
> 
> Tell me, reggie....if all 10 turned out to be Obama voters, would that shake your faith, or cause you to lean more on your own research?
> 
> 
> Careful now, reggie.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've done my own research and discovered that historians agree with me, and that strengthened my faith in historians.  In fact, I'm reading an FDR history now and the author does not seem to care much for FDR, but then as I read I don't think the author cares much for history either.  Some historians vote their politics but still manage to be able historians. Most of us on these boards use history to strengthen our politics and weaken the other party politics.
> Here is a question for you: if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals."
> 
> 
> 1. Elizabeth Bentley identified up  to 150 Soviet spies working in the Roosevelt administration. *Her allegations were proven* once the KGB archives were opened in 1991. "Yet the consensus of several generations of American* historians (backed by many journalists and other opinion leaders) routinely mocked, ridiculed, and dismissed her as a fraud and montebank."*
> Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, " Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.543-544.
> 
> 
> a. The only possible explanation is the mentality- actually,* the psychosis- of historians, *journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology. And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication. There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, those 'historians' that you worship and rely on, needed to negotiate academia....Liberal through and through.
> Without being so, or adapting to be so, they would not have been able to become credentialed.
> The same is true if they wish to be published.
> 
> 
> 2. In 2004, Klein and Western published a study of the voter registration of the professors at U of C, Berkeley, and at Stanford, over 1000 professors, and concluded that the findings supported *the one party campus conjecture.* At Berkeley, 9.9 to 1, and at Stanford, 7.6 to 1 of Democrats to Republicans. Ideological diversity does not exist on most campuses.
> 
> 3. "Survey shocker: *Liberal profs admit theyd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement..*..Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses.
> Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 
> 4. *"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding,* tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-Americanproponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. *They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth." *
> The Death of Feminism, by Professor Phyllis Chesler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review the above: to advance in academia, one must lean Left.
> 
> 'Historians' see the world through a Leftist lens.
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted a dozen OPs revealing the flaws and malevolence of Franklin Roosevelt. I don't recall a one that you have been able to dispute.
> 
> Should tell you something.
Click to expand...


I have no need to dispute most FDR flaws on these boards. Would I change the poster's mind or would historians rewrite their history based on any of our opinions? I see flagrant errors in history at times and do remind others what I believe to be the truth, but I don't have much hope that most of us are interested in the truth, only our political truth. 
I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria. Maybe one of the solutions for  conservatives is that more become historians. Would you support that idea?


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've done my own research and discovered that historians agree with me, and that strengthened my faith in historians.  In fact, I'm reading an FDR history now and the author does not seem to care much for FDR, but then as I read I don't think the author cares much for history either.  Some historians vote their politics but still manage to be able historians. Most of us on these boards use history to strengthen our politics and weaken the other party politics.
> Here is a question for you: if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals."
> 
> 
> 1. Elizabeth Bentley identified up  to 150 Soviet spies working in the Roosevelt administration. *Her allegations were proven* once the KGB archives were opened in 1991. "Yet the consensus of several generations of American* historians (backed by many journalists and other opinion leaders) routinely mocked, ridiculed, and dismissed her as a fraud and montebank."*
> Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, " Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.543-544.
> 
> 
> a. The only possible explanation is the mentality- actually,* the psychosis- of historians, *journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology. And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication. There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, those 'historians' that you worship and rely on, needed to negotiate academia....Liberal through and through.
> Without being so, or adapting to be so, they would not have been able to become credentialed.
> The same is true if they wish to be published.
> 
> 
> 2. In 2004, Klein and Western published a study of the voter registration of the professors at U of C, Berkeley, and at Stanford, over 1000 professors, and concluded that the findings supported *the &#8216;one party campus&#8217; conjecture.* At Berkeley, 9.9 to 1, and at Stanford, 7.6 to 1 of Democrats to Republicans. Ideological diversity does not exist on most campuses.
> 
> 3. "Survey shocker: *Liberal profs admit they&#8217;d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement..*..Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses.&#8221;
> Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 
> 4. *"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding,* tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American&#8230;proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. *They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth." *
> &#8220;The Death of Feminism,&#8221; by Professor Phyllis Chesler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review the above: to advance in academia, one must lean Left.
> 
> 'Historians' see the world through a Leftist lens.
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted a dozen OPs revealing the flaws and malevolence of Franklin Roosevelt. I don't recall a one that you have been able to dispute.
> 
> Should tell you something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no need to dispute most FDR flaws on these boards. Would I change the poster's mind or would historians rewrite their history based on any of our opinions? I see flagrant errors in history at times and do remind others what I believe to be the truth, but I don't have much hope that most of us are interested in the truth, only our political truth.
> I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria. Maybe one of the solutions for  conservatives is that more become historians. Would you support that idea?
Click to expand...


First, we had NO spies in the USSR before or during WWII.  The OSS, the first American spy agency, did not begin until 1942.  And I believe Stalin's Stooge forbid them from spying on allies, particularly his good buddy Uncle Joe.

So, trying to draw a moral equivalence between the massive spying apparatus of the USSR and the USA, is impossible.  Just another failure on your part.

Regarding conservative historians, this too in a non-starter.  History should be about exposing the truth....sadly liberal historians have no interest in the truth (see PC's post above as to why) and you have accepted their lies.

Many historians have exposed FDR for the fool he was, you are merely willfully ignorant of them.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals."
> 
> 
> 1. Elizabeth Bentley identified up  to 150 Soviet spies working in the Roosevelt administration. *Her allegations were proven* once the KGB archives were opened in 1991. "Yet the consensus of several generations of American* historians (backed by many journalists and other opinion leaders) routinely mocked, ridiculed, and dismissed her as a fraud and montebank."*
> Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, " Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.543-544.
> 
> 
> a. The only possible explanation is the mentality- actually,* the psychosis- of historians, *journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology. And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication. There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, those 'historians' that you worship and rely on, needed to negotiate academia....Liberal through and through.
> Without being so, or adapting to be so, they would not have been able to become credentialed.
> The same is true if they wish to be published.
> 
> 
> 2. In 2004, Klein and Western published a study of the voter registration of the professors at U of C, Berkeley, and at Stanford, over 1000 professors, and concluded that the findings supported *the one party campus conjecture.* At Berkeley, 9.9 to 1, and at Stanford, 7.6 to 1 of Democrats to Republicans. Ideological diversity does not exist on most campuses.
> 
> 3. "Survey shocker: *Liberal profs admit theyd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement..*..Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses.
> Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 
> 4. *"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding,* tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-Americanproponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. *They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth." *
> The Death of Feminism, by Professor Phyllis Chesler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review the above: to advance in academia, one must lean Left.
> 
> 'Historians' see the world through a Leftist lens.
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted a dozen OPs revealing the flaws and malevolence of Franklin Roosevelt. I don't recall a one that you have been able to dispute.
> 
> Should tell you something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need to dispute most FDR flaws on these boards. Would I change the poster's mind or would historians rewrite their history based on any of our opinions? I see flagrant errors in history at times and do remind others what I believe to be the truth, but I don't have much hope that most of us are interested in the truth, only our political truth.
> I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria. Maybe one of the solutions for  conservatives is that more become historians. Would you support that idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, we had NO spies in the USSR before or during WWII.  The OSS, the first American spy agency, did not begin until 1942.  And I believe Stalin's Stooge forbid them from spying on allies, particularly his good buddy Uncle Joe.
> 
> So, trying to draw a moral equivalence between the massive spying apparatus of the USSR and the USA, is impossible.  Just another failure on your part.
> 
> Regarding conservative historians, this too in a non-starter.  History should be about exposing the truth....sadly liberal historians have no interest in the truth (see PC's post above as to why) and you have accepted their lies.
> 
> Many historians have exposed FDR for the fool he was, you are merely willfully ignorant of them.
Click to expand...


Of course, America could not have spies without a spy organization. Imagine all those years, from 1787 to 1942 with no spies, but suppose we did have spies without an OSS and didn't tell anyone, would that be legal, would that be possible?


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need to dispute most FDR flaws on these boards. Would I change the poster's mind or would historians rewrite their history based on any of our opinions? I see flagrant errors in history at times and do remind others what I believe to be the truth, but I don't have much hope that most of us are interested in the truth, only our political truth.
> I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria. Maybe one of the solutions for  conservatives is that more become historians. Would you support that idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we had NO spies in the USSR before or during WWII.  The OSS, the first American spy agency, did not begin until 1942.  And I believe Stalin's Stooge forbid them from spying on allies, particularly his good buddy Uncle Joe.
> 
> So, trying to draw a moral equivalence between the massive spying apparatus of the USSR and the USA, is impossible.  Just another failure on your part.
> 
> Regarding conservative historians, this too in a non-starter.  History should be about exposing the truth....sadly liberal historians have no interest in the truth (see PC's post above as to why) and you have accepted their lies.
> 
> Many historians have exposed FDR for the fool he was, you are merely willfully ignorant of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, America could not have spies without a spy organization. Imagine all those years, from 1787 to 1942 with no spies, but suppose we did have spies without an OSS and didn't tell anyone, would that be legal, would that be possible?
Click to expand...


Okay then, you need to prove your point.  What historical evidence do you have that would indicate the American government was actively spying on other nations, akin to what the Soviets were doing, prior to 1942?  

And please outline the American spies that infiltrated the highest levels of Stalin's government before and during WWII, as Stalin did to FDR.

It certainly is hard to believe that America was NOT spying on foreign nations in any significant way prior to WWII, considering what our government has become and is doing today.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, we had NO spies in the USSR before or during WWII.  The OSS, the first American spy agency, did not begin until 1942.  And I believe Stalin's Stooge forbid them from spying on allies, particularly his good buddy Uncle Joe.
> 
> So, trying to draw a moral equivalence between the massive spying apparatus of the USSR and the USA, is impossible.  Just another failure on your part.
> 
> Regarding conservative historians, this too in a non-starter.  History should be about exposing the truth....sadly liberal historians have no interest in the truth (see PC's post above as to why) and you have accepted their lies.
> 
> Many historians have exposed FDR for the fool he was, you are merely willfully ignorant of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, America could not have spies without a spy organization. Imagine all those years, from 1787 to 1942 with no spies, but suppose we did have spies without an OSS and didn't tell anyone, would that be legal, would that be possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay then, you need to prove your point.  What historical evidence do you have that would indicate the American government was actively spying on other nations, akin to what the Soviets were doing, prior to 1942?
> 
> And please outline the American spies that infiltrated the highest levels of Stalin's government before and during WWII, as Stalin did to FDR.
> 
> It certainly is hard to believe that America was NOT spying on foreign nations in any significant way prior to WWII, considering what our government has become and is doing today.
Click to expand...


American spying began with George Washington but with America isolated by two oceans  spying and intelligence never gained the fame or oganization it did in Europe. Much of the intelligence work was done by the military and our spying probably came and went as needed. For example, during the Civil War an intelligance unit was formed. In the 1880's both army and navy formed intelligance units. In the Twenties there was the Black Chamber and the Justice department also did its share including the FBI. We had begun Magic 
But it was FDR that began the first modern  American intelligence unit with COI. 
This is just some highlights of pages of intelligence information. 
If you want more information from me on our spying activities you would have to torture and break me, well maybe a few bucks? 
 But remember it was FDR that began our first real big-time intelligence apparatus that led to the CIA.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've done my own research and discovered that historians agree with me, and that strengthened my faith in historians.  In fact, I'm reading an FDR history now and the author does not seem to care much for FDR, but then as I read I don't think the author cares much for history either.  Some historians vote their politics but still manage to be able historians. Most of us on these boards use history to strengthen our politics and weaken the other party politics.
> Here is a question for you: if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals."
> 
> 
> 1. Elizabeth Bentley identified up  to 150 Soviet spies working in the Roosevelt administration. *Her allegations were proven* once the KGB archives were opened in 1991. "Yet the consensus of several generations of American* historians (backed by many journalists and other opinion leaders) routinely mocked, ridiculed, and dismissed her as a fraud and montebank."*
> Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, " Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.543-544.
> 
> 
> a. The only possible explanation is the mentality- actually,* the psychosis- of historians, *journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology. And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication. There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, those 'historians' that you worship and rely on, needed to negotiate academia....Liberal through and through.
> Without being so, or adapting to be so, they would not have been able to become credentialed.
> The same is true if they wish to be published.
> 
> 
> 2. In 2004, Klein and Western published a study of the voter registration of the professors at U of C, Berkeley, and at Stanford, over 1000 professors, and concluded that the findings supported *the one party campus conjecture.* At Berkeley, 9.9 to 1, and at Stanford, 7.6 to 1 of Democrats to Republicans. Ideological diversity does not exist on most campuses.
> 
> 3. "Survey shocker: *Liberal profs admit theyd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement..*..Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses.
> Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 
> 4. *"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding,* tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-Americanproponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. *They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth." *
> The Death of Feminism, by Professor Phyllis Chesler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review the above: to advance in academia, one must lean Left.
> 
> 'Historians' see the world through a Leftist lens.
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted a dozen OPs revealing the flaws and malevolence of Franklin Roosevelt. I don't recall a one that you have been able to dispute.
> 
> Should tell you something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no need to dispute most FDR flaws on these boards. Would I change the poster's mind or would historians rewrite their history based on any of our opinions? I see flagrant errors in history at times and do remind others what I believe to be the truth, but I don't have much hope that most of us are interested in the truth, only our political truth.
> I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria. Maybe one of the solutions for  conservatives is that more become historians. Would you support that idea?
Click to expand...




1. You responded to none of the points raised in my post.

In fact, "one of the solutions for  conservatives is that more become historians" ignores the exact point raised.


2.  "I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria."

Diaphanous excuse.
In fact, I will construct an OP showing that quite the opposite is true.
Thanks for the idea.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, America could not have spies without a spy organization. Imagine all those years, from 1787 to 1942 with no spies, but suppose we did have spies without an OSS and didn't tell anyone, would that be legal, would that be possible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay then, you need to prove your point.  What historical evidence do you have that would indicate the American government was actively spying on other nations, akin to what the Soviets were doing, prior to 1942?
> 
> And please outline the American spies that infiltrated the highest levels of Stalin's government before and during WWII, as Stalin did to FDR.
> 
> It certainly is hard to believe that America was NOT spying on foreign nations in any significant way prior to WWII, considering what our government has become and is doing today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American spying began with George Washington but with America isolated by two oceans  spying and intelligence never gained the fame or oganization it did in Europe. Much of the intelligence work was done by the military and our spying probably came and went as needed. For example, during the Civil War an intelligance unit was formed. In the 1880's both army and navy formed intelligance units. In the Twenties there was the Black Chamber and the Justice department also did its share including the FBI. We had begun Magic
> But it was FDR that began the first modern  American intelligence unit with COI.
> This is just some highlights of pages of intelligence information.
> If you want more information from me on our spying activities you would have to torture and break me, well maybe a few bucks?
> But remember it was FDR that began our first real big-time intelligence apparatus that led to the CIA.
Click to expand...




"American spying began with George Washington..."

Very true....but ended by Democrats who like nothing better than weakening America.



1. Congress moved in the mid-1970s to reassert its role in shaping American foreign policy, including the most controversial tool of that policy, *covert action. Secrecy was seen as antithetical to the American way, *and there was widespread agreement that rogue agencies such as the CIA were a threat to liberty. 

2. Democrat Senator Frank Church and his allies claimed that an assertive legislative role would bring the United States back to the genius of the Founding Fathers. This assertion was made* despite the fact that American presidents from 1789 to 1974 were given wide latitude to conduct clandestine operations* they believed were in the national interest. President Washington, in his first annual message to Congress in 1790, requested a Contingency Fund, or secret service fund, as one member of Congress described it. Washington was given this fund, in the amount of $40,000, a sizable sum in the early 1790s. 

3. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln, *all authorized clandestine operations *out of this fund, and did not report the details to Congress. This pattern persisted until the mid-1970s with little or no change,...

4. *The damage done to the CIA by this congressional oversight regime (Democrat-controlled Pike and Church Committees) is quite extensive....condemned the agency for its contacts with unscrupulous characters, prohibited any further contact with these bad characters, i*...

5. [C]hairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden,[t]he Delaware Democrat was one of seventeen Senators who voted in 1974 to ban all covert operations, and proudly noted during his 1988 campaign for president that he had threatened to go public with covert action plans by the Reagan administration, causing them to cancel the operations."
History News Network | Congressional Oversight and the Crippling of the CIA



And this...

Here at home, the Obama administration has gravely impaired our capability to gather human intelligence by declassifying hundreds of pages of documents that explain our interrogation techniquesinformation that is now probably in al-Qaeda training manuals. https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=10



Democrats, ultimately, were the cause of 9/11, and will be the cause of the end of this nation.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, America could not have spies without a spy organization. Imagine all those years, from 1787 to 1942 with no spies, but suppose we did have spies without an OSS and didn't tell anyone, would that be legal, would that be possible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay then, you need to prove your point.  What historical evidence do you have that would indicate the American government was actively spying on other nations, akin to what the Soviets were doing, prior to 1942?
> 
> And please outline the American spies that infiltrated the highest levels of Stalin's government before and during WWII, as Stalin did to FDR.
> 
> It certainly is hard to believe that America was NOT spying on foreign nations in any significant way prior to WWII, considering what our government has become and is doing today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American spying began with George Washington but with America isolated by two oceans  spying and intelligence never gained the fame or oganization it did in Europe. Much of the intelligence work was done by the military and our spying probably came and went as needed. For example, during the Civil War an intelligance unit was formed. In the 1880's both army and navy formed intelligance units. In the Twenties there was the Black Chamber and the Justice department also did its share including the FBI. We had begun Magic
> But it was FDR that began the first modern  American intelligence unit with COI.
> This is just some highlights of pages of intelligence information.
> If you want more information from me on our spying activities you would have to torture and break me, well maybe a few bucks?
> But remember it was FDR that began our first real big-time intelligence apparatus that led to the CIA.
Click to expand...


You are not telling me anything I don't know and you are NOT backing up your claim that the USA was spying on the Soviets before and during WWII...akin to what the Soviets had going against the USA.  

Why do you digress?


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "if historians have a liberal bent is it because they were liberal before entering the history sphere or after? In short, does education create liberals."
> 
> 
> 1. Elizabeth Bentley identified up  to 150 Soviet spies working in the Roosevelt administration. *Her allegations were proven* once the KGB archives were opened in 1991. "Yet the consensus of several generations of American* historians (backed by many journalists and other opinion leaders) routinely mocked, ridiculed, and dismissed her as a fraud and montebank."*
> Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, " Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.543-544.
> 
> 
> a. The only possible explanation is the mentality- actually,* the psychosis- of historians, *journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology. And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication. There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, those 'historians' that you worship and rely on, needed to negotiate academia....Liberal through and through.
> Without being so, or adapting to be so, they would not have been able to become credentialed.
> The same is true if they wish to be published.
> 
> 
> 2. In 2004, Klein and Western published a study of the voter registration of the professors at U of C, Berkeley, and at Stanford, over 1000 professors, and concluded that the findings supported *the one party campus conjecture.* At Berkeley, 9.9 to 1, and at Stanford, 7.6 to 1 of Democrats to Republicans. Ideological diversity does not exist on most campuses.
> 
> 3. "Survey shocker: *Liberal profs admit theyd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement..*..Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses.
> Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 
> 4. *"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding,* tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-Americanproponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. *They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth." *
> The Death of Feminism, by Professor Phyllis Chesler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review the above: to advance in academia, one must lean Left.
> 
> 'Historians' see the world through a Leftist lens.
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted a dozen OPs revealing the flaws and malevolence of Franklin Roosevelt. I don't recall a one that you have been able to dispute.
> 
> Should tell you something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need to dispute most FDR flaws on these boards. Would I change the poster's mind or would historians rewrite their history based on any of our opinions? I see flagrant errors in history at times and do remind others what I believe to be the truth, but I don't have much hope that most of us are interested in the truth, only our political truth.
> I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria. Maybe one of the solutions for  conservatives is that more become historians. Would you support that idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You responded to none of the points raised in my post.
> 
> In fact, "one of the solutions for  conservatives is that more become historians" ignores the exact point raised.
> 
> 
> 2.  "I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria."
> 
> Diaphanous excuse.
> In fact, I will construct an OP showing that quite the opposite is true.
> Thanks for the idea.
Click to expand...


Perhaps universities do not hire as many conservatives as liberals because of the mission of the university? There are a number of conservative universities with conservative faculties, and conservative messages, but it seems their conservative message has to be coupled with religion. Then again, maybe the conservative message does not stand up to academic study. In fact, some of the major universities of today began as religious schools, they might have dropped the religion and kept the conservatism, but did not, why?
I can see where conservatives believe it is the faculties responsible for liberal schools but I believe liberalism has its own call to students, the very sort of the thing that caused  Galileo to be placed under house arrest.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need to dispute most FDR flaws on these boards. Would I change the poster's mind or would historians rewrite their history based on any of our opinions? I see flagrant errors in history at times and do remind others what I believe to be the truth, but I don't have much hope that most of us are interested in the truth, only our political truth.
> I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria. Maybe one of the solutions for  conservatives is that more become historians. Would you support that idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You responded to none of the points raised in my post.
> 
> In fact, "one of the solutions for  conservatives is that more become historians" ignores the exact point raised.
> 
> 
> 2.  "I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria."
> 
> Diaphanous excuse.
> In fact, I will construct an OP showing that quite the opposite is true.
> Thanks for the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps universities do not hire as many conservatives as liberals because of the mission of the university? There are a number of conservative universities with conservative faculties, and conservative messages, but it seems their conservative message has to be coupled with religion. Then again, maybe the conservative message does not stand up to academic study. In fact, some of the major universities of today began as religious schools, they might have dropped the religion and kept the conservatism, but did not, why?
> I can see where conservatives believe it is the faculties responsible for liberal schools but I believe liberalism has its own call to students, the very sort of the thing that caused  Galileo to be placed under house arrest.
Click to expand...







"...universities do not hire as many conservatives as liberals because of the mission of the university?"


This can be seen in Woodrow Wilsons speech as president of Princeton: Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life[but] to *make them as unlike their fathers as we can.* (Michael McGerr, A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920, p. 111


Same from Obama:

"U.S. President Barack Obama gives the commencement address to the graduating class of The Ohio State University at Ohio Stadium on May 5, 2013 in Columbus, Ohio.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. *You should reject these voices.* Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted."
Obama To Grads: Reject Voices That Warn About Government Tyranny | RealClearPolitics




Get it?
Make them unlike the men who made this country great.


Progressives. Disgusting.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, we had NO spies in the USSR before or during WWII.  The OSS, the first American spy agency, did not begin until 1942.  And I believe Stalin's Stooge forbid them from spying on allies, particularly his good buddy Uncle Joe.
> 
> So, trying to draw a moral equivalence between the massive spying apparatus of the USSR and the USA, is impossible.  Just another failure on your part.
> 
> Regarding conservative historians, this too in a non-starter.  History should be about exposing the truth....sadly liberal historians have no interest in the truth (see PC's post above as to why) and you have accepted their lies.
> 
> Many historians have exposed FDR for the fool he was, you are merely willfully ignorant of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, America could not have spies without a spy organization. Imagine all those years, from 1787 to 1942 with no spies, but suppose we did have spies without an OSS and didn't tell anyone, would that be legal, would that be possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay then, you need to prove your point.  What historical evidence do you have that would indicate the American government was actively spying on other nations, akin to what the Soviets were doing, prior to 1942?
> 
> And please outline the American spies that infiltrated the highest levels of Stalin's government before and during WWII, as Stalin did to FDR.
> 
> Can you give me my point but in my words not yours?
> Your evidence was that America didn't spy because we had no spy orgainzation; I suggested that a nation does not necessarily need a spy organization to spy. We really know that much about our spy history; I would suspect much of it is classified. Can you give your evidence that we didn't spy beyond our not having a spy organization?
Click to expand...


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, America could not have spies without a spy organization. Imagine all those years, from 1787 to 1942 with no spies, but suppose we did have spies without an OSS and didn't tell anyone, would that be legal, would that be possible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay then, you need to prove your point.  What historical evidence do you have that would indicate the American government was actively spying on other nations, akin to what the Soviets were doing, prior to 1942?
> 
> And please outline the American spies that infiltrated the highest levels of Stalin's government before and during WWII, as Stalin did to FDR.
> 
> Can you give me my point but in my words not yours?
> Your evidence was that America didn't spy because we had no spy orgainzation; I suggested that a nation does not necessarily need a spy organization to spy. We really know that much about our spy history; I would suspect much of it is classified. Can you give your evidence that we didn't spy beyond our not having a spy organization?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The old tit-for-tat strategy...why am I not surprised?
> 
> Here is what you stated:
> 
> 
> 
> I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I ask is that you provide some credible source confirming this statement.  You seem to believe the US was spying on Stalin just like Stalin was spying on the US before and during WWII.  There is nothing in the historical record, that I have read, that would indicate this is accurate.
Click to expand...


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay then, you need to prove your point.  What historical evidence do you have that would indicate the American government was actively spying on other nations, akin to what the Soviets were doing, prior to 1942?
> 
> And please outline the American spies that infiltrated the highest levels of Stalin's government before and during WWII, as Stalin did to FDR.
> 
> Can you give me my point but in my words not yours?
> Your evidence was that America didn't spy because we had no spy orgainzation; I suggested that a nation does not necessarily need a spy organization to spy. We really know that much about our spy history; I would suspect much of it is classified. Can you give your evidence that we didn't spy beyond our not having a spy organization?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The old tit-for-tat strategy...why am I not surprised?
> 
> Here is what you stated:
> 
> 
> 
> I accept the premise that the USSR had spies in the US, I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I ask is that you provide some credible source confirming this statement.  You seem to believe the US was spying on Stalin just like Stalin was spying on the US before and during WWII.  There is nothing in the historical record, that I have read, that would indicate this is accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No comfirmation needed, I accepted both premises and said so. You do not have to accept the premises. We are talking of spying and nations are not always open about their spying networks, so from our lowly perspective it is mostly guess work. For me, I find it reasonable to believe that America had spies in Russia and Russia in the United States. I even believe we flew airplanes over the Soviet Union, maybe to spy.
> The major powers, based on history, have a habit of spying with or without announced spy agencies, and sometimes they are so sneaky they even try to hide their spying, even from the public.
Click to expand...


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You responded to none of the points raised in my post.
> 
> In fact, "one of the solutions for  conservatives is that more become historians" ignores the exact point raised.
> 
> 
> 2.  "I also accept the premise that we had spies in the USSR, I also think our spies were, and are, better, if getting caught is a criteria."
> 
> Diaphanous excuse.
> In fact, I will construct an OP showing that quite the opposite is true.
> Thanks for the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps universities do not hire as many conservatives as liberals because of the mission of the university? There are a number of conservative universities with conservative faculties, and conservative messages, but it seems their conservative message has to be coupled with religion. Then again, maybe the conservative message does not stand up to academic study. In fact, some of the major universities of today began as religious schools, they might have dropped the religion and kept the conservatism, but did not, why?
> I can see where conservatives believe it is the faculties responsible for liberal schools but I believe liberalism has its own call to students, the very sort of the thing that caused  Galileo to be placed under house arrest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...universities do not hire as many conservatives as liberals because of the mission of the university?"
> 
> 
> This can be seen in Woodrow Wilsons speech as president of Princeton: Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life[but] to *make them as unlike their fathers as we can.* (Michael McGerr, A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920, p. 111
> 
> 
> Same from Obama:
> 
> "U.S. President Barack Obama gives the commencement address to the graduating class of The Ohio State University at Ohio Stadium on May 5, 2013 in Columbus, Ohio.
> PRESIDENT OBAMA: Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. *You should reject these voices.* Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted."
> Obama To Grads: Reject Voices That Warn About Government Tyranny | RealClearPolitics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get it?
> Make them unlike the men who made this country great.
> 
> 
> Progressives. Disgusting.
Click to expand...


Where is the Obama quote that says make them unlike the men who...?


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps universities do not hire as many conservatives as liberals because of the mission of the university? There are a number of conservative universities with conservative faculties, and conservative messages, but it seems their conservative message has to be coupled with religion. Then again, maybe the conservative message does not stand up to academic study. In fact, some of the major universities of today began as religious schools, they might have dropped the religion and kept the conservatism, but did not, why?
> I can see where conservatives believe it is the faculties responsible for liberal schools but I believe liberalism has its own call to students, the very sort of the thing that caused  Galileo to be placed under house arrest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...universities do not hire as many conservatives as liberals because of the mission of the university?"
> 
> 
> This can be seen in Woodrow Wilsons speech as president of Princeton: Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life[but] to *make them as unlike their fathers as we can.* (Michael McGerr, A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920, p. 111
> 
> 
> Same from Obama:
> 
> "U.S. President Barack Obama gives the commencement address to the graduating class of The Ohio State University at Ohio Stadium on May 5, 2013 in Columbus, Ohio.
> PRESIDENT OBAMA: Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. *You should reject these voices.* Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted."
> Obama To Grads: Reject Voices That Warn About Government Tyranny | RealClearPolitics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get it?
> Make them unlike the men who made this country great.
> 
> 
> Progressives. Disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the Obama quote that says make them unlike the men who...?
Click to expand...





Are you pretending not to see the same sentiment in the Obama quote above, as Wilson's?

Careful now...this is an IQ test.


----------



## Unkotare

The democrat party hasn't changed it's ideology or approach over the years, just it's marketing.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

FDR, great president who literally saved the country.


----------



## Unkotare

FD-fucking-R was a lowlife scumbag who soiled the office of the President, imperiled our from of government, meddled disastrously with our economy, saddled future generations with unsustainable obligations, played the useful fool (at best) for a communist dictator, and violated the very principles upon which this great nation was founded. Truly one of the worst villains in American history.


----------



## mamooth

FDR wouldn't join with Hitler to attack Stalin.

Hence, many conservatives hate FDR.

There's no need to look for complex explanations, when the simple explanation is in front of you.


----------



## guno

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad that this post goes in "History," because the FDR endeavors are largely *responsible for the social breakdown we face today..*..
> Under Roosevelt's alignment with Soviet communism the United States "exchanged foundational principles and guiding ideas" for some sort of vain, destructive, moral relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Behind *FDR's lies and actions which served to cover and support Stalin's *murderous regime had to be the belief that, either,
> FDR was a devotee of communism and anticipated imposing it on America..
> ....or, that he believed that he could incorporate Stalin into an organization with himself as the 'CEO.'
> 
> The former explanation would represent illimitable evil.....the latter, abysmal ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. There is the false notion that FDR's infatuations began due to a need for the Soviet Union's aid in WWII, .....but he rushed to recognize them in 1933- was the first hint.
> 
> Is 'infatuation' too strong? Was there kind of political romance with Stalin?
> Consider the following pieces of the puzzle before you consider it hyperbolic:
> 
> a. As former ambassador to the Soviet Union, William Bullitt, queried him about *why he, FDR,  persuaded the public that "communists had become the friends of democracy" *and that he should remind all "that Communists in the United States are just as dangerous enemies as ever, and should not be allowed to crawl into our productive mechanism in order later to wreck it when they get new orders from somewhere abroad."
> "For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt, p. 522
> 
> b. Roosevelt threw himself into *shoring up the USSR at any cost-* in July of 1942 he lost 23 out of 34 ships in just one Lend-Lease supply voyage...
> 
> c. ...151,000* troops were left unsupplied *in the Philippines....think Bataan Death March...
> 
> d. ....the British colony of *Singapore was left without air cover* in order to satisfy Stalin's desire for the planes.  Found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore." Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.
> Singapore fell February 15, 1942.
> 
> e. ...*Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers *when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, irony of irony, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler.
> 
> f. The New Deal 'reorganization' of the State Department called for *the destruction of "the best Soviet Library in the United States."* (according to Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European Affairs Officer, State Department.) The 'Library' was broken up and dispersed among various files in the Library of Congress.
> "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies" by M. Stanton Evans, p. 83-84
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Representative Martin Dies  formed a committed to investigate communism, but found that *government archives of communist records and correspondence had been destroyed.* He wrote: "I was informed, confidentially, by a man well placed in the Department of Justice, that they were destroyed after it was learned that the Dies Committee was determined to conduct a full-scale investigation of Communism."
> It was Harry Hopkins, FDR's White House live-in Soviet spy, who *turned down Dies' request of assistance from Roosevelt* to help furnish the nascent committee with a staff of lawyers, investigators and stenographers.
> Dies, "Martin Dies' Story," p. 64.
> 
> a. Although the reference 'card-carrying Communist' was once accurate, the CPUSA stopped issuing cards once the Dies Committee began hearings. The highest membership serial number that his committee came across was 195,762.
> 'Given that Communists strive for quality, it was amazing tht they had been able to grow from 10,000 aliens in 1919 to nearly 200,000 members in 1938, mostly naive born or naturalized citizens."
> Dies, Ibid, p. 62-63.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Remarkable as the attempt to make files inaccessible seems, *it is just as common during Obama's term, *during which both the Justice Department and the Pentagon have overseen the methodical purges of "anti-Islamic" educational materials from security and military files and training courses.
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," chapter one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. "Because the American way and the Soviet system were diametrically opposed, *FDR had to lie to present common ground to the American people. In order to make his Big Lie stick, he also had to remove the people who knew better. Literally.* On a larger, more punitive scale,* [Victor] Kravchenko* discussed the same process."
> West, Ibid, p. 247.
> 
> 
> Kravchenko wrote, of his Soviet experiences:
> 
> "Shamelessly, without so much as an explanation, it revised half a century of Russian history. I don't mean simply that it falsified some facts or gave a new interpretation of events. I mean that it deliberately stood history on its head, expunging events and inventing facts.
> 
> It twisted the recent past--a past still fresh in millions of memories--into new and bizarre shapes, to conform with the version of affairs presented by the blood-purge trials and the accompanying propaganda... The roles of leading historical figures were perverted or altogether erased.... More than that, *living witnesses, as far as possible, were removed.* The directing staff of the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Moscow, repository of ideological truth, were removed and the more important people among them imprisoned or shot."
> Text collection
> 
> 
> And that is what FDR did in America.
> 
> ...did *to *America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In 1926, Roosevelt started the non-profit Georgia Warm Springs Foundation on the site of the springs he visited to partake of the waters' therapeutic effects. Twelve years later, he reinvented the charity as the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP). The NFIP was a non-partisan association of health scientists and volunteers that helped fund research for a polio vaccine and assisted victims on the long path through physical rehabilitation. Funded originally through the generosity of wealthy celebrities at yearly President's Birthday Balls, the foundation could not raise money fast enough to keep pace with polio's continued toll on America's children and, during the Depression, the polio epidemic worsened. In 1938, Roosevelt decided to appeal to the general public for help. At one fundraiser, celebrity singer Eddie Cantor jokingly urged the public to send dimes to the president, coining the term March of Dimes. The public took his appeal seriously, flooding the White House with 2,680,000 dimes and thousands of dollars in donations"
> 
> Franklin Roosevelt founds March of Dimes ? History.com This Day in History ? 1/3/1938
> 
> What has PoliticalChic done in her miserable life besides spread hate, fear and partisanship in an effort to further divide our country?
> 
> What is her agenda?  Besides character assassinations and the RED SCARE?
Click to expand...


she is literally: ethnically, culturally and mentally  a Michelle Malkin clone, who has no deep understanding of our country and its history


----------



## Unkotare

guno said:


> she is literally: ethnically, culturally and mentally  a Michelle Malkin clone...





Care to explain what you think you meant by that, kid? Better be quick about it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

guno said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad that this post goes in "History," because the FDR endeavors are largely *responsible for the social breakdown we face today..*..
> Under Roosevelt's alignment with Soviet communism the United States "exchanged foundational principles and guiding ideas" for some sort of vain, destructive, moral relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Behind *FDR's lies and actions which served to cover and support Stalin's *murderous regime had to be the belief that, either,
> FDR was a devotee of communism and anticipated imposing it on America..
> ....or, that he believed that he could incorporate Stalin into an organization with himself as the 'CEO.'
> 
> The former explanation would represent illimitable evil.....the latter, abysmal ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. There is the false notion that FDR's infatuations began due to a need for the Soviet Union's aid in WWII, .....but he rushed to recognize them in 1933- was the first hint.
> 
> Is 'infatuation' too strong? Was there kind of political romance with Stalin?
> Consider the following pieces of the puzzle before you consider it hyperbolic:
> 
> a. As former ambassador to the Soviet Union, William Bullitt, queried him about *why he, FDR,  persuaded the public that "communists had become the friends of democracy" *and that he should remind all "that Communists in the United States are just as dangerous enemies as ever, and should not be allowed to crawl into our productive mechanism in order later to wreck it when they get new orders from somewhere abroad."
> "For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt, p. 522
> 
> b. Roosevelt threw himself into *shoring up the USSR at any cost-* in July of 1942 he lost 23 out of 34 ships in just one Lend-Lease supply voyage...
> 
> c. ...151,000* troops were left unsupplied *in the Philippines....think Bataan Death March...
> 
> d. ....the British colony of *Singapore was left without air cover* in order to satisfy Stalin's desire for the planes.  Found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore." Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.
> Singapore fell February 15, 1942.
> 
> e. ...*Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers *when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, irony of irony, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler.
> 
> f. The New Deal 'reorganization' of the State Department called for *the destruction of "the best Soviet Library in the United States."* (according to Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European Affairs Officer, State Department.) The 'Library' was broken up and dispersed among various files in the Library of Congress.
> "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies" by M. Stanton Evans, p. 83-84
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Representative Martin Dies  formed a committed to investigate communism, but found that *government archives of communist records and correspondence had been destroyed.* He wrote: "I was informed, confidentially, by a man well placed in the Department of Justice, that they were destroyed after it was learned that the Dies Committee was determined to conduct a full-scale investigation of Communism."
> It was Harry Hopkins, FDR's White House live-in Soviet spy, who *turned down Dies' request of assistance from Roosevelt* to help furnish the nascent committee with a staff of lawyers, investigators and stenographers.
> Dies, "Martin Dies' Story," p. 64.
> 
> a. Although the reference 'card-carrying Communist' was once accurate, the CPUSA stopped issuing cards once the Dies Committee began hearings. The highest membership serial number that his committee came across was 195,762.
> 'Given that Communists strive for quality, it was amazing tht they had been able to grow from 10,000 aliens in 1919 to nearly 200,000 members in 1938, mostly naive born or naturalized citizens."
> Dies, Ibid, p. 62-63.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Remarkable as the attempt to make files inaccessible seems, *it is just as common during Obama's term, *during which both the Justice Department and the Pentagon have overseen the methodical purges of "anti-Islamic" educational materials from security and military files and training courses.
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," chapter one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. "Because the American way and the Soviet system were diametrically opposed, *FDR had to lie to present common ground to the American people. In order to make his Big Lie stick, he also had to remove the people who knew better. Literally.* On a larger, more punitive scale,* [Victor] Kravchenko* discussed the same process."
> West, Ibid, p. 247.
> 
> 
> Kravchenko wrote, of his Soviet experiences:
> 
> "Shamelessly, without so much as an explanation, it revised half a century of Russian history. I don't mean simply that it falsified some facts or gave a new interpretation of events. I mean that it deliberately stood history on its head, expunging events and inventing facts.
> 
> It twisted the recent past--a past still fresh in millions of memories--into new and bizarre shapes, to conform with the version of affairs presented by the blood-purge trials and the accompanying propaganda... The roles of leading historical figures were perverted or altogether erased.... More than that, *living witnesses, as far as possible, were removed.* The directing staff of the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Moscow, repository of ideological truth, were removed and the more important people among them imprisoned or shot."
> Text collection
> 
> 
> And that is what FDR did in America.
> 
> ...did *to *America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In 1926, Roosevelt started the non-profit Georgia Warm Springs Foundation on the site of the springs he visited to partake of the waters' therapeutic effects. Twelve years later, he reinvented the charity as the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP). The NFIP was a non-partisan association of health scientists and volunteers that helped fund research for a polio vaccine and assisted victims on the long path through physical rehabilitation. Funded originally through the generosity of wealthy celebrities at yearly President's Birthday Balls, the foundation could not raise money fast enough to keep pace with polio's continued toll on America's children and, during the Depression, the polio epidemic worsened. In 1938, Roosevelt decided to appeal to the general public for help. At one fundraiser, celebrity singer Eddie Cantor jokingly urged the public to send dimes to the president, coining the term March of Dimes. The public took his appeal seriously, flooding the White House with 2,680,000 dimes and thousands of dollars in donations"
> 
> Franklin Roosevelt founds March of Dimes ? History.com This Day in History ? 1/3/1938
> 
> What has PoliticalChic done in her miserable life besides spread hate, fear and partisanship in an effort to further divide our country?
> 
> What is her agenda?  Besides character assassinations and the RED SCARE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> she is literally: ethnically, culturally and mentally  a Michelle Malkin clone, who has no deep understanding of our country and its history
Click to expand...




1. "she is literally: ethnically, culturally and mentally  a Michelle Malkin...."

A Michelle Malkin comparison???

I am truly honored.




2. "...has no deep understanding of our country and its history"


Our posts, I am certain, prove otherwise.


----------



## PoliticalChic

In a thread about FDR's lies, and the milieu he created wherein others, also, lied about Stalin and the Soviet Union, and communism itself, I would be remiss not to mention today's 'anniversary.'


*Today....March 31st, 1933 *

*Walter Duranty reported in the NYTimes &#8220;there is no famine* (in the Ukraine)&#8221;
while *7 &#8211;10 million were starved to death. I*n his New York Times articles (including one published on March 31, 1933), 



Duranty repeatedly denied the existence of a Ukrainian famine in 1932&#8211;33. 

In an August 24, 1933 article in NYT, he claimed "any report of a famine is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda. *Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932.*






*Democrats, Liberals, Progressives lying for totalitarian homicidal maniacs is hardly new or unusual.....*


NYTimes&#8217; Harrison Salisbury traveled to North Vietnam in 1966-67, and reported that the US was deliberately targeting the civilian population.

 But Guenter Lewy, in &#8220;America in Vietnam,&#8221; revealed that &#8220;Only after the articles had appeared did a small number of persons learn that *Salisbury, in effect, had given the authority of his byline to unverified Communist propaganda and the New York Times printed it as though Salisbury had established it himself *with his own on-the-scene reporting&#8230;borrowed extensively from a North *Vietnamese propaganda* pamphlet, &#8220;Report on US War Crimes in Nam-Dinh City&#8230;&#8221;
 Lewy, p. 400-401


----------



## LA RAM FAN

[E=regent;8438697]





CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR is responsible for the Communist genocide of almost 100 million humans. The world would have been a better place if he didn't so openly support Mao and Stalin.



You must get this information to the historians of AmQUOTerica, every historical group in this country should know this new information. As soon as the historians know what you know they will stop rating FDR as America's greatest president and rate him, at least sixth worst, just below Bush. Don't waste a minute.[/QUOTE]

Yeah its disgusting seeing his face on your coin you pull out. Every president we have had since Hoover,with the exception of JFK was a mass murderer and traiter to americans.thats what the real history of our presidents is.

You wont hear any of that from the lamestream media of course.Only the alternative press that reports it like it is that there is no difference between the two parties.That its really a one party system designed to look like two parties so the sheople think they have a choice in who gets elected.thats the only place you will hear the truth about FDR and the corruption of every president we had since Hoover.JFK again  being the lone exception.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

FDR served the bankers and the  establishment well so he stayed alive and they kept him around as his reward for that.


----------



## editec

The RIGHT is often so close to getting it.

They understand the flawed relationship that the DEMS have to the masters, but for tfe life of them (and our Republic) they constanctly fail to see that same relationship in the REPS.

How can they miss something so obvious?

I have a theory...they don't.

We are NOT really communicating with serious Republican thinkers, here.

I'm, not even sure these people ARE republicans.

When I speak to rank and file Republians here in Mid Coast Maine they ALL seem to understand that THEIR PARTY is as captured by the Masters  as the DEMs are.

Why is the self proclaiming CONS in this place are so much like propagandists, and so much NOT like the REPs I know?


----------



## Unkotare

"The masters"?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Unkotare said:


> "The masters"?





His post, is seems, is an attempt to paint both sides with that equivalence that the Left endeavors to hide behind.....
They shrug off the hundred million slaughtered by collectivists in the past century.


Logic, experience, facts, all show the dangers of collectivism.....but those folks accept it in exchange for the embrace of the herd, and its material rewards.



Sadly, it fits into a flaw of human nature.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> The RIGHT is often so close to getting it.
> 
> They understand the flawed relationship that the DEMS have to the masters, but for tfe life of them (and our Republic) they constanctly fail to see that same relationship in the REPS.
> 
> How can they miss something so obvious?
> 
> I have a theory...they don't.
> 
> We are NOT really communicating with serious Republican thinkers, here.
> 
> I'm, not even sure these people ARE republicans.
> 
> When I speak to rank and file Republians here in Mid Coast Maine they ALL seem to understand that THEIR PARTY is as captured by the Masters  as the DEMs are.
> 
> Why is the self proclaiming CONS in this place are so much like propagandists, and so much NOT like the REPs I know?



Bravo,Bravo.stands up and gives standing ovation.


----------



## PoliticalChic

9/11 inside job said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> The RIGHT is often so close to getting it.
> 
> They understand the flawed relationship that the DEMS have to the masters, but for tfe life of them (and our Republic) they constanctly fail to see that same relationship in the REPS.
> 
> How can they miss something so obvious?
> 
> I have a theory...they don't.
> 
> We are NOT really communicating with serious Republican thinkers, here.
> 
> I'm, not even sure these people ARE republicans.
> 
> When I speak to rank and file Republians here in Mid Coast Maine they ALL seem to understand that THEIR PARTY is as captured by the Masters  as the DEMs are.
> 
> Why is the self proclaiming CONS in this place are so much like propagandists, and so much NOT like the REPs I know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bravo,Bravo.stands up and gives standing ovation.
Click to expand...






Careful.....if you stand up, you may lose your seat on the bizarro bus.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

FDR,Churchill,,and Eisenhower were no better men that Stalin himself.All of them have been seen in photos hanging out with him having a jolly old good time.They were all mass murderers.Pretty much every president since Hoover has been a liar and mass murderer.

If they arent and dont do what their masters tell them to do,they end up like kennedy. the one exception of all the ones since Hoover  who didnt bow down to his masters.the american sheople here at the site dont seem to get that  though that the president is just a puppet.a mouthpiece for the establsihment. FDR in a long line that started under Hoover.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

here it is spelled out dummies style by another poster below.

The RIGHT is often so close to getting it.

They understand the flawed relationship that the DEMS have to the masters, but for tfe life of them (and our Republic) they constanctly fail to see that same relationship in the REPS.

How can they miss something so obvious?

I have a theory...they don't.

We are NOT really communicating with serious Republican thinkers, here.

I'm, not even sure these people ARE republicans.

When I speak to rank and file Republians here in Mid Coast Maine they ALL seem to understand that THEIR PARTY is as captured by the Masters as the DEMs are.

Why is the self proclaiming CONS in this place are so much like propagandists, and so much NOT like the REPs I know?


----------

