# Franklin Roosevelt's Infatuation



## PoliticalChic

1. Frankie and Joey, sittin' in a tree

K-i-s-s-i-n-g

First came love, then came marriage

Then came Frankie....

  .....opening a 'second front' where Stalin wanted it.



Silly?
No.....tragic.

There is no explanation for Franklin Roosevelt's ...'betrothal'....his acquiescence to every slightest wish of Joseph Stalin, outside of the kind of *teen-age crush *that the inexperienced, less than worldly have in their pre-pubescent years.



2. George Kennan’s view of Roosevelt’s performance during the war ...
After commenting bitterly on the *“inexcusable body of ignorance about the Russian Communist movement, about the history of its diplomacy, about what had happened in the purges, and about what had been going on in Poland and the Baltic States,” *Kennan turns more directly to FDR alone:

I also have in mind FDRs evident conviction that Stalin, while perhaps a somewhat
difficult customer, was only, after all, a person like any other person; that the reason
we hadn’t been able to get along with him in the past was that *we had never really had
anyone with the proper personality and the proper qualities of sympathy and imagination to deal with him, *that he had been snubbed all along by the arrogant conservatives of the Western capitals; and that if only he could be exposed to the *persuasive charms of someone like FDR himself*, ideological preconceptions would melt and Russia’s cooperation with the West could be easily arranged.

For these assumptions there were no grounds whatsover; and they were *of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature..."*
http://www.mmisi.org/ma/30_02/nisbet.pdf



I quote Soviet expert Kennan because of that particular quote...."* of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature..."*


It supports my claim that *Roosevelt's attitude toward Stalin was that of a love-sick teeny-bopper, and not that of world-wise statesman.*


...to the utter detriment of the nation and the world.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

FDR was a folly. he's overrated


----------



## PoliticalChic

SassyIrishLass said:


> FDR was a folly. he's overrated



And, largely, lied about to his benefit.



Happy New Year, Sassy


----------



## SassyIrishLass

PoliticalChic said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a folly. he's overrated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, largely, lied about to his benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> Happy New Year, Sassy
Click to expand...


Yep and a Happy New Year to you as well


----------



## tyroneweaver

Looks like things haven't change much


----------



## PoliticalChic

tyroneweaver said:


> Looks like things haven't change much




I heard an interview this morn on Imus, with "*Douglas Brinkley* (born December 14, 1960) is an American author, professor of history at Rice University and a fellow at the James Baker Institute for Public Policy. Brinkley is the history commentator for CNN News..."
Douglas Brinkley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is one of this 'historians' that reggie allows to do his thinking for him....and Brinkley was spouting outright lies about the 'wonderful' Franklin Roosevelt, Pearl Harbor, and Normandy.

No, nothing has changed.


----------



## PoliticalChic

2. Stalin took full advantage of Roosevelt's infatuation to install one of his *Soviet spies*, Harry Hopkins, in the White House. No...not simply as Roosevelt's closest adviser.....but *actually living in the white house.*


a. Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he *lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom*, from May 1940 to December 1943. LIFE


b. The leading evidence that *Hopkins was a spy for Joseph Stalin* is presented by Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel in their 2000 book,_The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitor_





3. Harry Hopkins biographer, George McJimsey,  makes the claim that, *after Stalin and his spies in the administration demanded that the Allies never open communication with the anti-Hitler Germans, and accept only unconditional surrender- which would leave Germany in no condition to hinder Stalin's post war efforts to control all of Europe, Roosevelt viewed "the doctrine as an approach to Stalin...a device, along with Lend Lease aid and the promise of a second front for convincing Stalin of his good will."*
"Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy,"
by George McJimsey, , p. 278-279



Get that??? Not a way to speed the end of the war that was killing American boys*....a way to make nice with Stalin.*



a. United States suffered *292,000 combat deaths. Fully a third to a half during the last few years......could have been avoided.*
World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


100,000 American boys.....
*They were sacrificed, Roosevelt's love-token, to Stalin by this love-sick, puerile United States President.
What other explanation is there?*


----------



## Pete7469

FDR was one of the worst presidents in regards to our national interests. There's also Wilson and the moonbat messiah.


----------



## Kosh

FDR lied the US into WWII
FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US.
FDR locked up American citizens in camps to give loyalty tests
FDR built the military industrial complex that the far left wants to dismantle.

FDR created the Welfare state
FDR created Social Security
FDR initiated the income tax to pay for the war.

The latter three were sold to the American Public as being a temporary solution.

Not to mention many of his programs were considered unconstitutional. So he set out to replace the judges that were against him..


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pete7469 said:


> FDR was one of the worst presidents in regards to our national interests. There's also Wilson and the moonbat messiah.





Three of a kind.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Kosh said:


> FDR lied the US into WWII
> FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US.
> FDR locked up American citizens in camps to give loyalty tests
> FDR built the military industrial complex that the far left wants to dismantle.
> 
> FDR created the Welfare state
> FDR created Social Security
> FDR initiated the income tax to pay for the war.
> 
> The latter three were sold to the American Public as being a temporary solution.
> 
> Not to mention many of his programs were considered unconstitutional. So he set out to replace the judges that were against him..





Please find a prominent place for this, in your list of flagitious endeavors: more than any other President, Roosevelt ended the guidance of the Constitution.


----------



## Moonglow

Why start a fresh thread on this subject, when you already have posted a half a dozen on this spam?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> Why start a fresh thread on this subject, when you already have posted a half a dozen on this spam?




1. Is your definition of 'spam'  'stuff I can't deny but hate!!!'

2. Every thread includes new material...

Case in point:

a. United States suffered *292,000 combat deaths. Fully a third to a half during the last few years......could have been avoided.*
World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


100,000 American boys.....
*They were sacrificed, Roosevelt's love-token, to Stalin by this love-sick, puerile United States President.
What other explanation is there?*
*


Had Roosevelt ended the war when it was offered by anti-Nazi, anti-communist Germans.....over a hundred thousand American boys would have survived.*


----------



## PoliticalChic

4.  I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of, homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 100,000 to 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*

*That, in addition to the 20,000 American soldiers that Stalin held and never repatriated.*




The worst blunder was bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*


 Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...e.g.,that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.

Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693



a.  Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by Stalin's spy, *Harry Hopkins. *One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree *to unconditional surrender."*
"Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.




Franklin Roosevelt wanted a...'close relationship' with his 'Uncle Joe' more than he wanted an end to the war.

Clearly, *FDR was unworthy of the presidency.*


----------



## regent

Chic's arguments, 22, 31, 14, and 17, are noted. My response is 8, and 3.


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. Frankie and Joey, sittin' in a tree
> 
> K-i-s-s-i-n-g
> 
> First came love, then came marriage
> 
> Then came Frankie....
> 
> .....opening a 'second front' where Stalin wanted it.
> 
> 
> 
> Silly?
> No.....tragic.
> 
> There is no explanation for Franklin Roosevelt's ...'betrothal'....his acquiescence to every slightest wish of Joseph Stalin, outside of the kind of *teen-age crush *that the inexperienced, less than worldly have in their pre-pubescent years.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. George Kennan’s view of Roosevelt’s performance during the war ...
> After commenting bitterly on the *“inexcusable body of ignorance about the Russian Communist movement, about the history of its diplomacy, about what had happened in the purges, and about what had been going on in Poland and the Baltic States,” *Kennan turns more directly to FDR alone:
> 
> I also have in mind FDRs evident conviction that Stalin, while perhaps a somewhat
> difficult customer, was only, after all, a person like any other person; that the reason
> we hadn’t been able to get along with him in the past was that *we had never really had
> anyone with the proper personality and the proper qualities of sympathy and imagination to deal with him, *that he had been snubbed all along by the arrogant conservatives of the Western capitals; and that if only he could be exposed to the *persuasive charms of someone like FDR himself*, ideological preconceptions would melt and Russia’s cooperation with the West could be easily arranged.
> 
> For these assumptions there were no grounds whatsover; and they were *of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature..."*
> http://www.mmisi.org/ma/30_02/nisbet.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> I quote Soviet expert Kennan because of that particular quote...."* of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature..."*
> 
> 
> It supports my claim that *Roosevelt's attitude toward Stalin was that of a love-sick teeny-bopper, and not that of world-wise statesman.*
> 
> 
> ...to the utter detriment of the nation and the world.



Hey Chica, get some new material. This is all retread crap you've dredged up from the archives of your prior propaganda pile of distorted dung!


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> Chic's arguments, 22, 31, 14, and 17, are noted. My response is 8, and 3.





Another 'brilliant' non-response to the truth I reveal about your lord and master.

Your efforts aimed at me are as eggs attacking stones.



Question: don't you wear out the patches when you drop to your knees every time "Roosevelt" is mentioned?


----------



## PoliticalChic

ThoughtCrimes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Frankie and Joey, sittin' in a tree
> 
> K-i-s-s-i-n-g
> 
> First came love, then came marriage
> 
> Then came Frankie....
> 
> .....opening a 'second front' where Stalin wanted it.
> 
> 
> 
> Silly?
> No.....tragic.
> 
> There is no explanation for Franklin Roosevelt's ...'betrothal'....his acquiescence to every slightest wish of Joseph Stalin, outside of the kind of *teen-age crush *that the inexperienced, less than worldly have in their pre-pubescent years.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. George Kennan’s view of Roosevelt’s performance during the war ...
> After commenting bitterly on the *“inexcusable body of ignorance about the Russian Communist movement, about the history of its diplomacy, about what had happened in the purges, and about what had been going on in Poland and the Baltic States,” *Kennan turns more directly to FDR alone:
> 
> I also have in mind FDRs evident conviction that Stalin, while perhaps a somewhat
> difficult customer, was only, after all, a person like any other person; that the reason
> we hadn’t been able to get along with him in the past was that *we had never really had
> anyone with the proper personality and the proper qualities of sympathy and imagination to deal with him, *that he had been snubbed all along by the arrogant conservatives of the Western capitals; and that if only he could be exposed to the *persuasive charms of someone like FDR himself*, ideological preconceptions would melt and Russia’s cooperation with the West could be easily arranged.
> 
> For these assumptions there were no grounds whatsover; and they were *of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature..."*
> http://www.mmisi.org/ma/30_02/nisbet.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> I quote Soviet expert Kennan because of that particular quote...."* of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature..."*
> 
> 
> It supports my claim that *Roosevelt's attitude toward Stalin was that of a love-sick teeny-bopper, and not that of world-wise statesman.*
> 
> 
> ...to the utter detriment of the nation and the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Chica, get some new material. This is all retread crap you've dredged up from the archives of your prior propaganda pile of distorted dung!
Click to expand...





Everything I post is accurate, true, documented and sourced.

The proof is that you couldn't find a single error to support your hatred.

Sit back, get the antacids ready, and stay tuned for more.


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

PoliticalChic said:


> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Frankie and Joey, sittin' in a tree
> 
> K-i-s-s-i-n-g
> 
> First came love, then came marriage
> 
> Then came Frankie....
> 
> .....opening a 'second front' where Stalin wanted it.
> 
> 
> 
> Silly?
> No.....tragic.
> 
> There is no explanation for Franklin Roosevelt's ...'betrothal'....his acquiescence to every slightest wish of Joseph Stalin, outside of the kind of *teen-age crush *that the inexperienced, less than worldly have in their pre-pubescent years.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. George Kennan’s view of Roosevelt’s performance during the war ...
> After commenting bitterly on the *“inexcusable body of ignorance about the Russian Communist movement, about the history of its diplomacy, about what had happened in the purges, and about what had been going on in Poland and the Baltic States,” *Kennan turns more directly to FDR alone:
> 
> I also have in mind FDRs evident conviction that Stalin, while perhaps a somewhat
> difficult customer, was only, after all, a person like any other person; that the reason
> we hadn’t been able to get along with him in the past was that *we had never really had
> anyone with the proper personality and the proper qualities of sympathy and imagination to deal with him, *that he had been snubbed all along by the arrogant conservatives of the Western capitals; and that if only he could be exposed to the *persuasive charms of someone like FDR himself*, ideological preconceptions would melt and Russia’s cooperation with the West could be easily arranged.
> 
> For these assumptions there were no grounds whatsover; and they were *of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature..."*
> http://www.mmisi.org/ma/30_02/nisbet.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> I quote Soviet expert Kennan because of that particular quote...."* of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature..."*
> 
> 
> It supports my claim that *Roosevelt's attitude toward Stalin was that of a love-sick teeny-bopper, and not that of world-wise statesman.*
> 
> 
> ...to the utter detriment of the nation and the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Chica, get some new material. This is all retread crap you've dredged up from the archives of your prior propaganda pile of distorted dung!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I post is accurate, true, documented and sourced.
> 
> The proof is that you couldn't find a single error to support your hatred.
> 
> Sit back, get the antacids ready, and stay tuned for more.
Click to expand...


Just like you to avoid addressing the point of a post to which you respond! Feb 14, 2014 was the last time you started the same thread on Harry Hopkins along the same line of unbalanced reasoning with the same material as a basis. Harry Hopkins....Soviet Spy | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This thread is...

re·dun·dant
rəˈdəndənt/
_adjective_
adjective: *redundant*
not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous.
"This thread is redundant but does enable the initiator to display her narcissistic compulsion. "
synonyms: unnecessary, not required, inessential, unessential, needless, unneeded, uncalled for;


----------



## PoliticalChic

ThoughtCrimes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Frankie and Joey, sittin' in a tree
> 
> K-i-s-s-i-n-g
> 
> First came love, then came marriage
> 
> Then came Frankie....
> 
> .....opening a 'second front' where Stalin wanted it.
> 
> 
> 
> Silly?
> No.....tragic.
> 
> There is no explanation for Franklin Roosevelt's ...'betrothal'....his acquiescence to every slightest wish of Joseph Stalin, outside of the kind of *teen-age crush *that the inexperienced, less than worldly have in their pre-pubescent years.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. George Kennan’s view of Roosevelt’s performance during the war ...
> After commenting bitterly on the *“inexcusable body of ignorance about the Russian Communist movement, about the history of its diplomacy, about what had happened in the purges, and about what had been going on in Poland and the Baltic States,” *Kennan turns more directly to FDR alone:
> 
> I also have in mind FDRs evident conviction that Stalin, while perhaps a somewhat
> difficult customer, was only, after all, a person like any other person; that the reason
> we hadn’t been able to get along with him in the past was that *we had never really had
> anyone with the proper personality and the proper qualities of sympathy and imagination to deal with him, *that he had been snubbed all along by the arrogant conservatives of the Western capitals; and that if only he could be exposed to the *persuasive charms of someone like FDR himself*, ideological preconceptions would melt and Russia’s cooperation with the West could be easily arranged.
> 
> For these assumptions there were no grounds whatsover; and they were *of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature..."*
> http://www.mmisi.org/ma/30_02/nisbet.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> I quote Soviet expert Kennan because of that particular quote...."* of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature..."*
> 
> 
> It supports my claim that *Roosevelt's attitude toward Stalin was that of a love-sick teeny-bopper, and not that of world-wise statesman.*
> 
> 
> ...to the utter detriment of the nation and the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Chica, get some new material. This is all retread crap you've dredged up from the archives of your prior propaganda pile of distorted dung!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I post is accurate, true, documented and sourced.
> 
> The proof is that you couldn't find a single error to support your hatred.
> 
> Sit back, get the antacids ready, and stay tuned for more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like you to avoid addressing the point of a post to which you respond! Feb 14, 2014 was the last time you started the same thread on Harry Hopkins along the same line of unbalanced reasoning with the same material as a basis. Harry Hopkins....Soviet Spy | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> This thread is...
> 
> re·dun·dant
> rəˈdəndənt/
> _adjective_
> adjective: *redundant*
> not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous.
> "This thread is redundant but does enable the initiator to display her narcissistic compulsion. "
> synonyms: unnecessary, not required, inessential, unessential, needless, unneeded, uncalled for;
Click to expand...



Everything I post is accurate, true, documented and sourced.

The proof is that you couldn't find a single error to support your hatred.



Was this something you've learned before?
a. United States suffered *292,000 combat deaths. Fully a third to a half during the last few years......could have been avoided.*
World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


100,000 American boys.....
*They were sacrificed, Roosevelt's love-token, to Stalin by this love-sick, puerile United States President.
What other explanation is there?

*


I do so enjoy the aggravation I provide.....

...now, write soon, y'hear.


----------



## PoliticalChic

If the Allies had prosecuted the war via every way possible, they *could have had Hitler deposed and handed over, and the German Army surrender.*
And years before the actual end, with the saving of over 100,000 American lives.


5. *There was a large and well-organized anti-Nazi, and anti-communist underground in Germany, and Stalin demanded that it never be recognized....or even its existence admitted.*

In October of 1944, he AP bureau chief in Berlin, Louis Lochner tried to file a story on the *anti-Nazi Germans* operating out of France. The US military censors blocked the story.

"The government official in chare of censorship was forthcoming enough to confide to Lochner that there was *a personal directive from the president of the United States 'in his capacity as commander in chief forbidding all mention of the German resistance."
"Hitler and America,"by Klaus P. Fischer

"....a personal directive from the president...."*

Why?


 a. Fischer quotes Lochner as follows: "Stories of the existence of a resistance movement did not fit into the concept of Unconditional Surrender."



 Harry Hopkins biographer, George McJimsey, makes the claim that,*after Stalin and his spies in the administration demanded that the Allies never open communication with the anti-Hitler Germans, and accept only unconditional surrender- which would leave Germany in no condition to hinder Stalin's post war efforts to control all of Europe, Roosevelt viewed "the doctrine as an approach to Stalin...a device, along with Lend Lease aid and the promise of a second front for convincing Stalin of his good will."*
"Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy,"
by George McJimsey, , p. 278-279

"....*for convincing Stalin of his good will."*


Unconditional Surrender as a doctrine fit the aims of Stalin.....not America.


----------



## WildBillKelsoe

SassyIrishLass said:


> FDR was a folly. he's overrated



He knew How a war should be fought, though.


----------



## PoliticalChic

WildBillKelsoe said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a folly. he's overrated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He knew How a war should be fought, though.
Click to expand...


Not so, Billy.

His acquiescence to Stalin's every wish extended the length of WWII, with the commensurate combat deaths of American boys.

You can learn much from this thread.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Now....about Roosevelt's decision to choose Stalin as his political love-interest rather than *Stalin's blood brother, and ally, Adolph Hitler...*

6. *There is no measure by which Hitler was worse for the world than Stalin.*

In fact, based on how much smarter Stalin was than either Hitler or Roosevelt, he, *Stalin, was far worse than Hitler*. 
Stalin gave us Communist China, the Korean War, Vietnam, ....and the United Nations. And, some say, *the current Democrat Party*, which stands for the same things that the communist party did.




*The very best outcome of WWII would have been the destruction of both Hitler and Stalin*. Yet Roosevelt worked tirelessly to see that Soviet Communism survived, and even thrived in America.

Agreeing to *Stalin's demand for Unconditional Surrender*, refusing to coordinate with the anti-Nazi, anti-communist underground in Germany, cost the United States blood and treasure.


The opportunity to end the war earlier was there....
   "In a certain sense *there was not a single year between 1933 and 1945 during which there was not some contact or attempt at contact, between the anti-Hitler opposition and either Britain or the Unites States, or both."* The Greatest War Crime


Just as he extended the Depression though counter-productive policies and stupidity, *Franklin Roosevelt extended WWII by years......years that cost thousands of American lives....by his affiliation with Stalin.*


Stalin demanded that the Allies ignore German anti-Nazi resistance; Roosevelt bowed to the demand, as he did to Stalin's other demands.
Just one more example of Roosevelt's infatuation with the blood-drenched homicidal maniac, Joseph 'Koba' Stalin.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Stalin's aim was total world-wide international communism. He never deviated from that aim.
No nation nor any people could stand in his way, including the millions of his own citizens he slaughtered.
And he was so much smarter than any on the world scene that he, even posthumously, comes close to achieving it.


7. "*Archival evidence indicates that the Soviet’s wanted the war to continue *long enough for them to conquer Eastern Europe and in order for Germany to be utterly destroyed or “pastoralized” which was called for in t*he Morgenthau Plan which was actually written by Soviet spy Harry Dexter White*. The Soviets were also clamoring for a “second front” in France in order to deflect the allies out of Italy and the Balkans which was too close to Russia."
Chuck Morse Speaks: The Canaris Cover-up




8. Morganthau Plan:*"The Morgenthau Plan,*first proposed by United States Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr. in a memorandum entitled Suggested Post-Surrender Program for Germany, advocated that the Allied occupation of Germany following World War II include *measures to eliminate Germany's ability to wage war by eliminating its armament industry, and the removal or destruction of other key industries basic to military strength.*This included the removal or destruction of all industrial plants and equipment in the Ruhr area. "
Morgenthau Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. Now note the testimony by converted Soviet spy, Elizabeth Bentley, who revealed *Stalin's plans for Germany:*
Elizabeth Bentley, a former operative of the Soviet underground testified before the Senate subcommittee on August 14, 1951, naming some 80 Soviet spies. Her testimony was summarized in an FBI report, dated November 25, 1945.

Take a look at the methods and purpose of the Soviet operation:

Miss Bentley testified as follows about the Morgenthau plan, Stalin's plans for Germany:
Senator Eastland: "Did you know who drew that plan?"
Miss Bentley:*"Due to Mr. [Harry Dexter] White's influence, to push the devastation of Germany, because that was what the Russians wanted."*
Senator Ferguson: "That was what the Communists wanted?"

Miss Bentley: "Definitely Moscow wanted them *completely razed because then they would be of no help to the allies."*
Senator Eastland: "What you say is that it was* a Communist plot *to destroy Germany and weaken her to where she could not help us?"

Miss Bentley: "That is correct.*She could no longer be a barrier to protect the western world."                                                                                                              *Manly, 'The Twenty Year Revolution,' p.102-103



*Again: "Due to Mr. [Harry Dexter] White's influence, to push the devastation of Germany, because that was what the Russians wanted."*


----------



## WildBillKelsoe

PoliticalChic said:


> WildBillKelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a folly. he's overrated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He knew How a war should be fought, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so, Billy.
> 
> His acquiescence to Stalin's every wish extended the length of WWII, with the commensurate combat deaths of American boys.
> 
> You can learn much from this thread.
Click to expand...


What do you mean?


----------



## PoliticalChic

WildBillKelsoe said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WildBillKelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a folly. he's overrated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He knew How a war should be fought, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so, Billy.
> 
> His acquiescence to Stalin's every wish extended the length of WWII, with the commensurate combat deaths of American boys.
> 
> You can learn much from this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
Click to expand...


Spelled out in detail and with links and documentation in this very thread.


----------



## PoliticalChic

There were many *anti-Nazi Germans who could have aided in the war efforts. Stalin would not allow their participation in the war* because they were anti-communist as well. These Germans wanted surrender, but not the 'unconditional surrender' that Stalin imposed on Roosevelt.


9. "Most importantly, the (anti-Nazi, anti-communist) opposition to Hitler would have to be assured that the people who were about to risk their lives in an attempt to overthrow Hitlerwould, if they succeeded, be faced with something better than the "unconditional surrender" formula proclaimed as a British-American war aim at the Casablanca Conference of Churchill and Roosevelt in January 1943.

Von Papen needed to know "whether they would grant, to a *German Government which met democratic requirements*, the rights to which Germany's history and position entitled her. This must be the decisive factor in any further step (von Papen,_Memoirs_, p. 499; and Albert C. Wedemeyer,_Wedemeyer Reports!_New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1958, p. 417.)."

a. "In March, 1944, von Papen decided to make another effort to persuade FDR, through Earle, to mitigate "unconditional surrender" and *accept a separate surrender of the German armies to the Western Allies.* He decided, in case of favorable reply to his probe, to secretly fly Earle to Germany for a discussion of terms and conditions with two members of the Beck-Goerdeler resistance group: Count Gottfried Bismarck (grandson of the Iron Chancellor) and Berlin Chief of Police, Count Wolf-Heinrich Helldorf (von Papen,_Memoirs_, p. 522; and Wedemeyer,_Wedemeyer Reports!_, p. 418).


b. One of the leaders of the anti-Nazi, and anti-communist underground in Germany was "*Wilhelm Franz Canaris*(1 January 1887 – 9 April 1945) was aGerman admiraland chief of the_Abwehr_, the German military intelligence service, from 1935 to 1944. During the Second World War, he was among the military officers involved in theclandestine oppositiontoAdolf Hitlerand theNazi regime. He was executed inFlossenbürg concentration campfor the act of high treason."  Wilhelm Canaris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Again....Canaris was the head of German military intelligence who, for years, tried to align with the Allies to overthrow Hitler.


----------



## PoliticalChic

There is no doubt that *the war could have been ended years earlier* via the surrender of Germany, had in not been for Roosevelt's vassal-like acquiescence to Stalin's demands.

And the same Germans who had been sentenced at Nuremberg...plus Hitler and those who escaped...would have been handed over to the Allies.


Von Papen and Canarais, among others, tried.


10. Britain's intelligence chief said this about German military intelligence chief, Wilhelm Canaris:
*'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."*
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.


*Did you see the date: 1942.*
When did the war with Germany finally end?

*"May 7, 1945*: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"               Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945




What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
*"... fear of offending Russia...*"

Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
i.e., Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.


a. A few weeks before the war ended,*Canaris was hanged by he Nazis.*Hanged twice: "once to show him what death tasted like."
“Canaris Hanging Related,” New York Times, October 11, 1952.


----------



## WildBillKelsoe

PoliticalChic said:


> There were many *anti-Nazi Germans who could have aided in the war efforts. Stalin would not allow their participation in the war* because they were anti-communist as well. These Germans wanted surrender, but not the 'unconditional surrender' that Stalin imposed on Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> 9. "Most importantly, the (anti-Nazi, anti-communist) opposition to Hitler would have to be assured that the people who were about to risk their lives in an attempt to overthrow Hitlerwould, if they succeeded, be faced with something better than the "unconditional surrender" formula proclaimed as a British-American war aim at the Casablanca Conference of Churchill and Roosevelt in January 1943.
> 
> Von Papen needed to know "whether they would grant, to a *German Government which met democratic requirements*, the rights to which Germany's history and position entitled her. This must be the decisive factor in any further step (von Papen,_Memoirs_, p. 499; and Albert C. Wedemeyer,_Wedemeyer Reports!_New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1958, p. 417.)."
> 
> a. "In March, 1944, von Papen decided to make another effort to persuade FDR, through Earle, to mitigate "unconditional surrender" and *accept a separate surrender of the German armies to the Western Allies.* He decided, in case of favorable reply to his probe, to secretly fly Earle to Germany for a discussion of terms and conditions with two members of the Beck-Goerdeler resistance group: Count Gottfried Bismarck (grandson of the Iron Chancellor) and Berlin Chief of Police, Count Wolf-Heinrich Helldorf (von Papen,_Memoirs_, p. 522; and Wedemeyer,_Wedemeyer Reports!_, p. 418).
> 
> 
> b. One of the leaders of the anti-Nazi, and anti-communist underground in Germany was "*Wilhelm Franz Canaris*(1 January 1887 – 9 April 1945) was aGerman admiraland chief of the_Abwehr_, the German military intelligence service, from 1935 to 1944. During the Second World War, he was among the military officers involved in theclandestine oppositiontoAdolf Hitlerand theNazi regime. He was executed inFlossenbürg concentration campfor the act of high treason."  Wilhelm Canaris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Again....Canaris was the head of German military intelligence who, for years, tried to align with the Allies to overthrow Hitler.





PoliticalChic said:


> WildBillKelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WildBillKelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a folly. he's overrated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He knew How a war should be fought, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so, Billy.
> 
> His acquiescence to Stalin's every wish extended the length of WWII, with the commensurate combat deaths of American boys.
> 
> You can learn much from this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spelled out in detail and with links and documentation in this very thread.
Click to expand...


Unconditional surrender was Roosevelt's idea. The logic being, Germany had already been allowed to walk off the battlefield, under an armistice. The Allies weren't going to make the same mistake, twice.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. Frankie and Joey, sittin' in a tree
> .



You are infatuated with FDR

Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:

Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.


----------



## PoliticalChic

11. Roosvelt directed his employee, Dwight Eisenhower, to refuse any contact with the anti-Nazi, anti-communist Germans.  


a. "A SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force) directive *prohibited activities aimed at promoting German revolt against the Nazi regime.*
The Allied doctrine of unconditional surrender meant that "... those Germans — and particularly those German generals — who might have been *ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt* by their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country."
German Resistance to Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Any explanation other than Franklin Roosevelt's fealty to Joseph Stalin?




As George Kennan said about Roosevelt...


George Kennan’s view of Roosevelt’s performance during the war ...
After commenting bitterly on the*“inexcusable body of ignorance about the Russian Communist movement, about the history of its diplomacy, about what had happened in the purges, and about what had been going on in Poland and the Baltic States,”*Kennan turns more directly to FDR alone:

I also have in mind FDRs evident conviction that Stalin, while perhaps a somewhat
difficult customer, was only, after all, a person like any other person; that the reason
we hadn’t been able to get along with him in the past was that*we had never really had
anyone with the proper personality and the proper qualities of sympathy and imagination to deal with him,*that he had been snubbed all along by the arrogant conservatives of the Western capitals; and that if only he could be exposed to the*persuasive charms of someone like FDR himself*, ideological preconceptions would melt and Russia’s cooperation with the West could be easily arranged.

For these assumptions there were no grounds whatsover; and they were*of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature..."*
http://www.mmisi.org/ma/30_02/nisbet.pdf





Or....simply starry-eyed love.


They don't teach any of this in government school, do they.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Frankie and Joey, sittin' in a tree
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
Click to expand...



Nay, nay....I'm simply infused with truth.

Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that

1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."

Not a single one.


2.  Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
'

In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.


----------



## PoliticalChic

WildBillKelsoe said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were many *anti-Nazi Germans who could have aided in the war efforts. Stalin would not allow their participation in the war* because they were anti-communist as well. These Germans wanted surrender, but not the 'unconditional surrender' that Stalin imposed on Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> 9. "Most importantly, the (anti-Nazi, anti-communist) opposition to Hitler would have to be assured that the people who were about to risk their lives in an attempt to overthrow Hitlerwould, if they succeeded, be faced with something better than the "unconditional surrender" formula proclaimed as a British-American war aim at the Casablanca Conference of Churchill and Roosevelt in January 1943.
> 
> Von Papen needed to know "whether they would grant, to a *German Government which met democratic requirements*, the rights to which Germany's history and position entitled her. This must be the decisive factor in any further step (von Papen,_Memoirs_, p. 499; and Albert C. Wedemeyer,_Wedemeyer Reports!_New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1958, p. 417.)."
> 
> a. "In March, 1944, von Papen decided to make another effort to persuade FDR, through Earle, to mitigate "unconditional surrender" and *accept a separate surrender of the German armies to the Western Allies.* He decided, in case of favorable reply to his probe, to secretly fly Earle to Germany for a discussion of terms and conditions with two members of the Beck-Goerdeler resistance group: Count Gottfried Bismarck (grandson of the Iron Chancellor) and Berlin Chief of Police, Count Wolf-Heinrich Helldorf (von Papen,_Memoirs_, p. 522; and Wedemeyer,_Wedemeyer Reports!_, p. 418).
> 
> 
> b. One of the leaders of the anti-Nazi, and anti-communist underground in Germany was "*Wilhelm Franz Canaris*(1 January 1887 – 9 April 1945) was aGerman admiraland chief of the_Abwehr_, the German military intelligence service, from 1935 to 1944. During the Second World War, he was among the military officers involved in theclandestine oppositiontoAdolf Hitlerand theNazi regime. He was executed inFlossenbürg concentration campfor the act of high treason."  Wilhelm Canaris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Again....Canaris was the head of German military intelligence who, for years, tried to align with the Allies to overthrow Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WildBillKelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WildBillKelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a folly. he's overrated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He knew How a war should be fought, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so, Billy.
> 
> His acquiescence to Stalin's every wish extended the length of WWII, with the commensurate combat deaths of American boys.
> 
> You can learn much from this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spelled out in detail and with links and documentation in this very thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unconditional surrender was Roosevelt's idea. The logic being, Germany had already been allowed to walk off the battlefield, under an armistice. The Allies weren't going to make the same mistake, twice.
Click to expand...



Au contraire, Billy-boy....

Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).


1. Stalin has his spy who live in the White House, Harry Hopkins, present it to Roosevelt. 

a. Harry Hopkins biographer, George McJimsey, makes the claim that,*after Stalin and his spies in the administration demanded that the Allies never open communication with the anti-Hitler Germans, and accept only unconditional surrender- which would leave Germany in no condition to hinder Stalin's post war efforts to control all of Europe, Roosevelt viewed "the doctrine as an approach to Stalin...a device, along with Lend Lease aid and the promise of a second front for convincing Stalin of his good will."*
"Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy,"
by George McJimsey, , p. 278-279

b.  Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by Stalin's spy,*Harry Hopkins.*One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree *to unconditional surrender."*
"Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.

The plan for unconditional surrender cost America between 100,000 and 150,000 dead soldiers.





2. Soviet spy Harry Dexter White wrote the Morgenthau Plan which put the details of unconditional surrender on paper.

a. "*Archival evidence indicates that the Soviet’s wanted the war to continue*long enough for them to conquer Eastern Europe and in order for Germany to be utterly destroyed or “pastoralized” which was called for in t*he Morgenthau Plan which was actually written by Soviet spy Harry Dexter White*. The Soviets were also clamoring for a “second front” in France in order to deflect the allies out of Italy and the Balkans which was too close to Russia."
Chuck Morse Speaks: The Canaris Cover-up


b. Morganthau Plan:*"The Morgenthau Plan,*first proposed by United States Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr. in a memorandum entitled Suggested Post-Surrender Program for Germany, advocated that the Allied occupation of Germany following World War II include*measures to eliminate Germany's ability to wage war by eliminating its armament industry, and the removal or destruction of other key industries basic to military strength.*This included the removal or destruction of all industrial plants and equipment in the Ruhr area. "
Morgenthau Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

c. Now note the testimony by converted Soviet spy, Elizabeth Bentley, who revealed *Stalin's plans for Germany:*
Elizabeth Bentley, a former operative of the Soviet underground testified before the Senate subcommittee on August 14, 1951, naming some 80 Soviet spies. Her testimony was summarized in an FBI report, dated November 25, 1945.

Take a look at the methods and purpose of the Soviet operation:

Miss Bentley testified as follows about the Morgenthau plan, Stalin's plans for Germany:
Senator Eastland: "Did you know who drew that plan?"
Miss Bentley:*"Due to Mr. [Harry Dexter] White's influence, to push the devastation of Germany, because that was what the Russians wanted."*
Senator Ferguson: "That was what the Communists wanted?"

Miss Bentley: "Definitely Moscow wanted them*completely razed because then they would be of no help to the allies."*
Senator Eastland: "What you say is that it was*a Communist plot*to destroy Germany and weaken her to where she could not help us?"

Miss Bentley: "That is correct.*She could no longer be a barrier to protect the western world."*
Manly, 'The Twenty Year Revolution,' p.102-103



*Again: "Due to Mr. [Harry Dexter] White's influence, to push the devastation of Germany, because that was what the Russians wanted."



I've provide five sources in this post.....feel free to check any and all.*


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Frankie and Joey, sittin' in a tree
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nay, nay....I'm simply infused with truth.
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2.  Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
Click to expand...


You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR

Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:

Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.


----------



## regent

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Frankie and Joey, sittin' in a tree
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nay, nay....I'm simply infused with truth.
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2.  Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
Click to expand...

Add to that, America's best historians have never placed FDR lower than America's third greatest American president, and that's gotta hurt. Still Ronald Reagan voting for FDR may be the biggest hit, who knows.


----------



## Syriusly

regent said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Frankie and Joey, sittin' in a tree
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nay, nay....I'm simply infused with truth.
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2.  Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Add to that, America's best historians have never placed FDR lower than America's third greatest American president, and that's gotta hurt. Still Ronald Reagan voting for FDR may be the biggest hit, who knows.
Click to expand...


Or that FDR was immensely popular as President.- Hoover was booed- but FDR was hailed as a champion for Americans.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Frankie and Joey, sittin' in a tree
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nay, nay....I'm simply infused with truth.
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2.  Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Add to that, America's best historians have never placed FDR lower than America's third greatest American president, and that's gotta hurt. Still Ronald Reagan voting for FDR may be the biggest hit, who knows.
Click to expand...




"....America's best historians...."

Does that mean "America's most reliably Liberal historians"?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Frankie and Joey, sittin' in a tree
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nay, nay....I'm simply infused with truth.
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2.  Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Add to that, America's best historians have never placed FDR lower than America's third greatest American president, and that's gotta hurt. Still Ronald Reagan voting for FDR may be the biggest hit, who knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or that FDR was immensely popular as President.- Hoover was booed- but FDR was hailed as a champion for Americans.
Click to expand...



I ripped you pretty good in post #33, huh?

This one:

Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that

1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."

Not a single one.


2. Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
'

In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nay, nay....I'm simply infused with truth.
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2.  Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Add to that, America's best historians have never placed FDR lower than America's third greatest American president, and that's gotta hurt. Still Ronald Reagan voting for FDR may be the biggest hit, who knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or that FDR was immensely popular as President.- Hoover was booed- but FDR was hailed as a champion for Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I ripped you pretty good in post #33, huh?
> 
> This one:
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2. Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
Click to expand...


You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR

Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:

Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Frankie and Joey, sittin' in a tree
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nay, nay....I'm simply infused with truth.
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2.  Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Add to that, America's best historians have never placed FDR lower than America's third greatest American president, and that's gotta hurt. Still Ronald Reagan voting for FDR may be the biggest hit, who knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "....America's best historians...."
> 
> Does that mean "America's most reliably Liberal historians"?
Click to expand...

You might check on how  the historians that claimed to be conservative voted, unless you believe a conservative historian would lie?


----------



## WildBillKelsoe

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nay, nay....I'm simply infused with truth.
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2.  Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Add to that, America's best historians have never placed FDR lower than America's third greatest American president, and that's gotta hurt. Still Ronald Reagan voting for FDR may be the biggest hit, who knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or that FDR was immensely popular as President.- Hoover was booed- but FDR was hailed as a champion for Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I ripped you pretty good in post #33, huh?
> 
> This one:
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2. Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
Click to expand...


Helped Americans?  Like, when he imprisoned thousands of American citizens based on their etnicity sand national origin?


----------



## Syriusly

WildBillKelsoe said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Add to that, America's best historians have never placed FDR lower than America's third greatest American president, and that's gotta hurt. Still Ronald Reagan voting for FDR may be the biggest hit, who knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or that FDR was immensely popular as President.- Hoover was booed- but FDR was hailed as a champion for Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I ripped you pretty good in post #33, huh?
> 
> This one:
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2. Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Helped Americans?  Like, when he imprisoned thousands of American citizens based on their etnicity sand national origin?
Click to expand...


No- that was one of FDR's- and America's most horrible mistakes. Something that to this day many Conservatives here at USMB applaud. 

How did FDR help Americans?


Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance
Conservatives seem appalled that FDR did any of these things.


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

PoliticalChic said:


> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).



Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.

You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the USSR (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly, 

You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!


----------



## WildBillKelsoe

Syriusly said:


> WildBillKelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Add to that, America's best historians have never placed FDR lower than America's third greatest American president, and that's gotta hurt. Still Ronald Reagan voting for FDR may be the biggest hit, who knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or that FDR was immensely popular as President.- Hoover was booed- but FDR was hailed as a champion for Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I ripped you pretty good in post #33, huh?
> 
> This one:
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2. Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Helped Americans?  Like, when he imprisoned thousands of American citizens based on their etnicity sand national origin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- that was one of FDR's- and America's most horrible mistakes. Something that to this day many Conservatives here at USMB applaud.
> 
> How did FDR help Americans?
> 
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance
> Conservatives seem appalled that FDR did any of these things.
Click to expand...



0% unemployment?  That's not true


----------



## regent

The real question is how can Chic destroy FDR's rank as America's greatest president, and the best way so far seems to be make FDR into a communist. Will it  work? So far she has not nominated another candidate to replace FDR nor offered any real evidence. She deplores the use of America's greatest historians as evidence will use any writer that agrees with her as evidence.


----------



## PoliticalChic

WildBillKelsoe said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Add to that, America's best historians have never placed FDR lower than America's third greatest American president, and that's gotta hurt. Still Ronald Reagan voting for FDR may be the biggest hit, who knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or that FDR was immensely popular as President.- Hoover was booed- but FDR was hailed as a champion for Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I ripped you pretty good in post #33, huh?
> 
> This one:
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2. Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Helped Americans?  Like, when he imprisoned thousands of American citizens based on their etnicity sand national origin?
Click to expand...



Right you are, Billy-boy.

And, I'd be happy to document his disreputable opinions and behavior toward blacks, Jews, and Asians.

Happy New Year.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nay, nay....I'm simply infused with truth.
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2.  Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Add to that, America's best historians have never placed FDR lower than America's third greatest American president, and that's gotta hurt. Still Ronald Reagan voting for FDR may be the biggest hit, who knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "....America's best historians...."
> 
> Does that mean "America's most reliably Liberal historians"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You might check on how  the historians that claimed to be conservative voted, unless you believe a conservative historian would lie?
Click to expand...




Have you noticed that you have been unable to deny any .......any, not a single one.....of the charges I've leveled against your lord and master?

Like the good Germans, every one is met by you with a shrug.

And there will be more. Bet on it.
Happy New Year, reggie.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> The real question is how can Chic destroy FDR's rank as America's greatest president, and the best way so far seems to be make FDR into a communist. Will it  work? So far she has not nominated another candidate to replace FDR nor offered any real evidence. She deplores the use of America's greatest historians as evidence will use any writer that agrees with her as evidence.




Are you denying he was a communist supporter?

Are you?

1. The major player in the Alger Hiss saga was fellow Communist, Whitaker Chambers. In his book, _Witness_, Chambers explains is disillusionment as follows. In 1938, he determined not only to break with the Communist Party, but to inform on the Party when he could. The reason was that he was informed that Stalin was making efforts to align with Hitler, in 1939, and “from any human point of view, the pact was evil.”
 As Hitler marched into Poland, Chambers arranged a private meeting with Adolf Berle, President Roosevelt’s assistant Sec’y of State. Chambers detailed the Communist espionage network, naming at least two dozen Soviet spies in Roosevelt’s administration, including Alger Hiss. *Berle reported this to Roosevelt, who laughed, and told Berle to go f---  himself.* (Arthur Herman, Joseph McCarthy: Reexaming the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator, p. 60)

 No action was taken, and *in fact, Roosevelt promoted Hiss.* 


2.  Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse." Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.


When one begins to consider FDR's 'Russia Uber Alles' policy, evidence form KGB archived, opened in 1991, and the Venona Papers, sheds dispositive light on the reasons for said policy.


Was FDR Soviet communism's biggest fan?


No doubt.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ThoughtCrimes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the USSR (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
Click to expand...



Clean up your language: it shows you to be a loser.


1. "The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease.*As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR.....in November 1940* Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins.Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.” Roosevelt's Lend-Lease Act:  The Arm and Hammer / Hammer and Sickle Connection

a. The program was finally authorized by Congress and signed into effect on March 11, 1941. By November, after much heated debate, Congress extended the terms of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, even though the USSR had already been the recipient of American military weapons and had been promised $1 billion in financial aid. FDR signs Lend-Lease - Mar 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com


2. From a review of "Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer," by Edward Jay Epstein: The meticulously documented exposé of a celebrated American philanthropist - and traitor - that reads like a classic thriller.
New York Times Book Review Notable Book of the Year
Winner of the Financial Times Book Award
The dossier on Hammer tells another story. With unprecedented access to the files of both American and Soviet intelligence agencies as well as Hammer's own secretly taped conversations, investigative author Edward Jay Epstein lays bare the appalling fraud, unconscionable corruption, international treachery, and personal betrayal that indict beyond doubt this ruthlessly manipulative opportunist who courted American presidents and conspired with every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev.

3. And this about the man who shared lunches with Roosevelt, and Harry Hopkins: "Hammer sometimes claimed that his father had named him after a character, Armand Duval, in _La Dame aux Camélias_, a novel byAlexandre Dumas, fils. In fact, according to multiple biographers, Hammer was named after the "arm and hammer" graphic symbol of theSocialist Labor Party of America(SLP), in which his father, a committedsocialist, had a leadership role at one time.[8](After theRussian Revolution, a part of the SLP under Julius' leadership split off to become a founding element of the Communist Party USA.) Later in his life, Hammer confirmed that this was the origin of his given name.[2]" Armand Hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Stalin was far smarter than his erstwhile ally, Adolph Hitler,and his long time stooge, Franklin Roosevelt, whose actions can only be characterized as those of a love-sick, slobbering admirer of Stalin's.

Stalin used Roosevelt, and envisioned exactly what he wanted post-war.
He used Hitler.
He made Roosevelt his servant, giving him orders via Harry Hopkins and Armand Hammer among other spies who were welcomed by FDR into his administration.



Now stop licking his boots and get off your knees.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Frankie and Joey, sittin' in a tree
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nay, nay....I'm simply infused with truth.
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2.  Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Add to that, America's best historians have never placed FDR lower than America's third greatest American president, and that's gotta hurt. Still Ronald Reagan voting for FDR may be the biggest hit, who knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or that FDR was immensely popular as President.- Hoover was booed- but FDR was hailed as a champion for Americans.
Click to expand...



And, revealed...yet another lie by FDR.

He ran for President on reversing Hoover's economic plan....any then did the very opposite.

Let's school you on that, too:

1. The hagiography and idol-worship leaves out all understanding of his times...and what he actually said and did. So...here I am to save the day!

2. The basis of FDR's 1932 campaign to win the presidency from Herbert Hoover was *his emphatic promise to the suffering American people, that he would balance the budget.* Of course, he also promised that he would use the government to create jobs, and that they "had a right to a comfortable living."
FDR’s Commonwealth Club Address

3.The part about balancing the budget had a certain resonance as *President Harding had veered sharply away from federal spending and solved as big a recession in about one year. Certainly Franklin Roosevelt knew this,* as he hammered away at Hoover's spending. October 19, 1932, he nailed Hoover, observing that in recent years federal expenses had increased by $1 billion "and that I may add, is the most reckless and extravagant past that I have been able to discover in the statistical record of any peacetime Government anywhere, any time." Franklin D. Roosevelt: Campaign Address on the Federal Budget at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

a.* Roosevelt went further! The cause: "It arises from one cause only and that is the unbalanced budget *at he continued failure of this administration to take effective steps to balance it!  If that budget had been fully and honestly balanced in 1930, some of the 1931 troubles would have been avoided. Even if it had been balanced in 1931, much of the extreme dip in 1932 would have been obviated. Every financial man in the country knows why this is true."
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Campaign Address on the Federal Budget at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

b. And this: "...  carrying out the plain precept of our Party, which is to reduce the cost of current Federal Government operations by 25 percent." Ibid.


Can we let that sink in? Franklin Delano Roosevelt...budget wonk....balance the budget....stop the deficits....do what Republican Harding did!!!

I think I have the vapors!

4. Of course he went on to* vow that everyone he selects for his cabinet had to pledge absolute fealty to a balanced budget and a 25% across-the-board cut in government spending. 
As big a lie as his lie about thinking up Lend Lease or Unconditional Surrender.*

Yeah, boyyeeeee!

What a good fiscal conservative this guy would have been!!

Then he was elected....a fatal development.


5. Well....to begin with, in March of 1933, he didn't fill his cabinet with persons committed to a balanced budget. A pretty much poke 'in your eye.'
Nah....instead the bunch put together the huge spending and administrative expansion of his first hundred day, ....

* Roosevelt expanded the federal government and ran up deficits much greater than those of Hoover.



So....what have we learned, early in 2016?
One....FDR was a serial liar.
Two....that you may be the biggest dunce on this board.*


----------



## gipper

PoliticalChic said:


> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the Udupe (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clean up your language: it shows you to be a loser.
> 
> 
> 1. "The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease.*As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR.....in November 1940* Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins.Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.” Roosevelt's Lend-Lease Act:  The Arm and Hammer / Hammer and Sickle Connection
> 
> a. The program was finally authorized by Congress and signed into effect on March 11, 1941. By November, after much heated debate, Congress extended the terms of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, even though the USSR had already been the recipient of American military weapons and had been promised $1 billion in financial aid. FDR signs Lend-Lease - Mar 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com
> 
> 
> 2. From a review of "Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer," by Edward Jay Epstein: The meticulously documented exposé of a celebrated American philanthropist - and traitor - that reads like a classic thriller.
> New York Times Book Review Notable Book of the Year
> Winner of the Financial Times Book Award
> The dossier on Hammer tells another story. With unprecedented access to the files of both American and Soviet intelligence agencies as well as Hammer's own secretly taped conversations, investigative author Edward Jay Epstein lays bare the appalling fraud, unconscionable corruption, international treachery, and personal betrayal that indict beyond doubt this ruthlessly manipulative opportunist who courted American presidents and conspired with every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev.
> 
> 3. And this about the man who shared lunches with Roosevelt, and Harry Hopkins: "Hammer sometimes claimed that his father had named him after a character, Armand Duval, in _La Dame aux Camélias_, a novel byAlexandre Dumas, fils. In fact, according to multiple biographers, Hammer was named after the "arm and hammer" graphic symbol of theSocialist Labor Party of America(SLP), in which his father, a committedsocialist, had a leadership role at one time.[8](After theRussian Revolution, a part of the SLP under Julius' leadership split off to become a founding element of the Communist Party USA.) Later in his life, Hammer confirmed that this was the origin of his given name.[2]" Armand Hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was far smarter than his erstwhile ally, Adolph Hitler,and his long time stooge, Franklin Roosevelt, whose actions can only be characterized as those of a love-sick, slobbering admirer of Stalin's.
> 
> Stalin used Roosevelt, and envisioned exactly what he wanted post-war.
> He used Hitler.
> He made Roosevelt his servant, giving him orders via Harry Hopkins and Armand Hammer among other spies who were welcomed by FDR into his administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop licking his boots and get off your knees.
Click to expand...

Great thread PC.  Thank you for once again exposing FDR for the commie dupe traitor he was.

It is truly amazing that so many Americans continue to beleive the lies about Stalin's Stooge, like the poster dupes in this thread...Even after the truth is clearly exposed.

Imagine 65 years from now, dupes will be singing praises to Obama.

Apparently some humans refuse to accept truth and much prefer lies.  Is it ignorance or brainwashing or something else?


----------



## PoliticalChic

gipper said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the Udupe (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clean up your language: it shows you to be a loser.
> 
> 
> 1. "The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease.*As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR.....in November 1940* Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins.Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.” Roosevelt's Lend-Lease Act:  The Arm and Hammer / Hammer and Sickle Connection
> 
> a. The program was finally authorized by Congress and signed into effect on March 11, 1941. By November, after much heated debate, Congress extended the terms of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, even though the USSR had already been the recipient of American military weapons and had been promised $1 billion in financial aid. FDR signs Lend-Lease - Mar 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com
> 
> 
> 2. From a review of "Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer," by Edward Jay Epstein: The meticulously documented exposé of a celebrated American philanthropist - and traitor - that reads like a classic thriller.
> New York Times Book Review Notable Book of the Year
> Winner of the Financial Times Book Award
> The dossier on Hammer tells another story. With unprecedented access to the files of both American and Soviet intelligence agencies as well as Hammer's own secretly taped conversations, investigative author Edward Jay Epstein lays bare the appalling fraud, unconscionable corruption, international treachery, and personal betrayal that indict beyond doubt this ruthlessly manipulative opportunist who courted American presidents and conspired with every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev.
> 
> 3. And this about the man who shared lunches with Roosevelt, and Harry Hopkins: "Hammer sometimes claimed that his father had named him after a character, Armand Duval, in _La Dame aux Camélias_, a novel byAlexandre Dumas, fils. In fact, according to multiple biographers, Hammer was named after the "arm and hammer" graphic symbol of theSocialist Labor Party of America(SLP), in which his father, a committedsocialist, had a leadership role at one time.[8](After theRussian Revolution, a part of the SLP under Julius' leadership split off to become a founding element of the Communist Party USA.) Later in his life, Hammer confirmed that this was the origin of his given name.[2]" Armand Hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was far smarter than his erstwhile ally, Adolph Hitler,and his long time stooge, Franklin Roosevelt, whose actions can only be characterized as those of a love-sick, slobbering admirer of Stalin's.
> 
> Stalin used Roosevelt, and envisioned exactly what he wanted post-war.
> He used Hitler.
> He made Roosevelt his servant, giving him orders via Harry Hopkins and Armand Hammer among other spies who were welcomed by FDR into his administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop licking his boots and get off your knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great thread PC.  Thank you for once again exposing FDR for the commie dupe traitor he was.
> 
> It is truly amazing that so many Americans continue to beleive the lies about Stalin's Stooge, like the poster dupes in this thread...Even after the truth is clearly exposed.
> 
> Imagine 65 years from now, dupes will be singing praises to Obama.
> 
> Apparently some humans refuse to accept truth and much prefer lies.  Is it ignorance or brainwashing or something else?
Click to expand...




Sad but true, gipper.

They simply shrug when the truth about their demigod is revealed.


As the saying goes, one can only find justice in the cemetery and the dictionary.

The 32nd President marks a coda that ended the American era.


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

PoliticalChic said:


> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the USSR (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clean up your language: it shows you to be a loser.
> 
> 
> 1. "The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease.*As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR.....in November 1940* Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins.Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.” Roosevelt's Lend-Lease Act:  The Arm and Hammer / Hammer and Sickle Connection
> 
> a. The program was finally authorized by Congress and signed into effect on March 11, 1941. By November, after much heated debate, Congress extended the terms of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, even though the USSR had already been the recipient of American military weapons and had been promised $1 billion in financial aid. FDR signs Lend-Lease - Mar 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com
> 
> 
> 2. From a review of "Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer," by Edward Jay Epstein: The meticulously documented exposé of a celebrated American philanthropist - and traitor - that reads like a classic thriller.
> New York Times Book Review Notable Book of the Year
> Winner of the Financial Times Book Award
> The dossier on Hammer tells another story. With unprecedented access to the files of both American and Soviet intelligence agencies as well as Hammer's own secretly taped conversations, investigative author Edward Jay Epstein lays bare the appalling fraud, unconscionable corruption, international treachery, and personal betrayal that indict beyond doubt this ruthlessly manipulative opportunist who courted American presidents and conspired with every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev.
> 
> 3. And this about the man who shared lunches with Roosevelt, and Harry Hopkins: "Hammer sometimes claimed that his father had named him after a character, Armand Duval, in _La Dame aux Camélias_, a novel byAlexandre Dumas, fils. In fact, according to multiple biographers, Hammer was named after the "arm and hammer" graphic symbol of theSocialist Labor Party of America(SLP), in which his father, a committedsocialist, had a leadership role at one time.[8](After theRussian Revolution, a part of the SLP under Julius' leadership split off to become a founding element of the Communist Party USA.) Later in his life, Hammer confirmed that this was the origin of his given name.[2]" Armand Hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was far smarter than his erstwhile ally, Adolph Hitler,and his long time stooge, Franklin Roosevelt, whose actions can only be characterized as those of a love-sick, slobbering admirer of Stalin's.
> 
> Stalin used Roosevelt, and envisioned exactly what he wanted post-war.
> He used Hitler.
> He made Roosevelt his servant, giving him orders via Harry Hopkins and Armand Hammer among other spies who were welcomed by FDR into his administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop licking his boots and get off your knees.
Click to expand...


Chica, your typical copy & paste does not refute any of your previous lies I addressed. I'll repost it here so you can read it this time. If you don't care for me to characterize your lies as horseshit, then stop writing horseshit lies, idiot.



ThoughtCrimes said:


> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the USSR (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!



In response to your reply to my previous post, it is just more horseshit spread to deflect from your errors and lies. I did say you would try to change the narrative didn't I! And one last thing, Chica. I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were shitting your diapers.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt were among the greatest men in the history of our country. The op PropagandaChic has unfortunately shown she is against the USA at every turn. Sad trying to change history with propaganda. 

You are a communist aren't you PropagandaChic. It is easy to see as you are always putting down great American presidents at every turn. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are scum, human garbage.


----------



## gipper

Good Lord...another mindless dupe.


----------



## WheelieAddict

gipper said:


> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.





gipper said:


> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.


Says the communist that will denigrate our great American presidents at the drop of the hat after their weak mind absorbs propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## PoliticalChic

WheelieAddict said:


> Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt were among the greatest men in the history of our country. The op PropagandaChic has unfortunately shown she is against the USA at every turn. Sad trying to change history with propaganda.
> 
> You are a communist aren't you PropagandaChic. It is easy to see as you are always putting down great American presidents at every turn. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are scum, human garbage.




The entire thread is in opposition to the communist Joseph Stalin, and his puppet, Franklin Roosevelt...

...yet you write "You are a communist aren't you PropagandaChic."


Gads, you are a moron.
Early in the year...but you certainly are in the running for the most stupid post of 2016.


----------



## PoliticalChic

WheelieAddict said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the communist that will denigrate our great American presidents at the drop of the hat after their weak mind absorbs propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...



Neither Teddy Roosevelt nor Franklin Roosevelt honored the United States Constitution.

I do.

1. Well known is Teddy Roosevelt's outburst, when* told the Constitution did not permit the confiscation of private property: "To hell with the Constitution* when the people want coal!" Less well known is that at one point TR summoned General John M. Schofield, instructing him: "I bid you pay no heed to any other authority, no heed to a writ from a judge, or anything else except my commands." "33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask," by Thomas E. Woods, Jr., (p. 138) 

2. "It is a fact that *none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. [Franklin] *Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress. A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.63


Now...aren't you ashamed of your lack of education?


----------



## PoliticalChic

ThoughtCrimes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the USSR (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clean up your language: it shows you to be a loser.
> 
> 
> 1. "The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease.*As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR.....in November 1940* Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins.Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.” Roosevelt's Lend-Lease Act:  The Arm and Hammer / Hammer and Sickle Connection
> 
> a. The program was finally authorized by Congress and signed into effect on March 11, 1941. By November, after much heated debate, Congress extended the terms of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, even though the USSR had already been the recipient of American military weapons and had been promised $1 billion in financial aid. FDR signs Lend-Lease - Mar 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com
> 
> 
> 2. From a review of "Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer," by Edward Jay Epstein: The meticulously documented exposé of a celebrated American philanthropist - and traitor - that reads like a classic thriller.
> New York Times Book Review Notable Book of the Year
> Winner of the Financial Times Book Award
> The dossier on Hammer tells another story. With unprecedented access to the files of both American and Soviet intelligence agencies as well as Hammer's own secretly taped conversations, investigative author Edward Jay Epstein lays bare the appalling fraud, unconscionable corruption, international treachery, and personal betrayal that indict beyond doubt this ruthlessly manipulative opportunist who courted American presidents and conspired with every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev.
> 
> 3. And this about the man who shared lunches with Roosevelt, and Harry Hopkins: "Hammer sometimes claimed that his father had named him after a character, Armand Duval, in _La Dame aux Camélias_, a novel byAlexandre Dumas, fils. In fact, according to multiple biographers, Hammer was named after the "arm and hammer" graphic symbol of theSocialist Labor Party of America(SLP), in which his father, a committedsocialist, had a leadership role at one time.[8](After theRussian Revolution, a part of the SLP under Julius' leadership split off to become a founding element of the Communist Party USA.) Later in his life, Hammer confirmed that this was the origin of his given name.[2]" Armand Hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was far smarter than his erstwhile ally, Adolph Hitler,and his long time stooge, Franklin Roosevelt, whose actions can only be characterized as those of a love-sick, slobbering admirer of Stalin's.
> 
> Stalin used Roosevelt, and envisioned exactly what he wanted post-war.
> He used Hitler.
> He made Roosevelt his servant, giving him orders via Harry Hopkins and Armand Hammer among other spies who were welcomed by FDR into his administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop licking his boots and get off your knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chica, your typical copy & paste does not refute any of your previous lies I addressed. I'll repost it here so you can read it this time. If you don't care for me to characterize your lies as horseshit, then stop writing horseshit lies, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the USSR (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In response to your reply to my previous post, it is just more horseshit spread to deflect from your errors and lies. I did say you would try to change the narrative didn't I! And one last thing, Chica. I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were shitting your diapers.
Click to expand...



"I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were [in] your diapers."

So....you're explaining your vulgarity and ignorance on Alzheimer's Disease?

So sad.

Wipe the drool off your chin.


----------



## WheelieAddict

PoliticalChic said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt were among the greatest men in the history of our country. The op PropagandaChic has unfortunately shown she is against the USA at every turn. Sad trying to change history with propaganda.
> 
> You are a communist aren't you PropagandaChic. It is easy to see as you are always putting down great American presidents at every turn. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are scum, human garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire thread is in opposition to the communist Joseph Stalin, and his puppet, Franklin Roosevelt...
> 
> ...yet you write "You are a communist aren't you PropagandaChic."
> 
> 
> Gads, you are a moron.
> Early in the year...but you certainly are in the running for the most stupid post of 2016.
Click to expand...

Says the far right foxbot who listens to the propaganda she is told and spews it without question. 

FDR is one of our top five presidents in the history of the United States. Almost everyone agrees except for tools like you. My grandmother and and grandfather both served in the Army Air Corp during WW2. My grandfather "flew the hump" risking his life bringing supplies to China to help repel the Japanese. They were both republicans and voted for FDR. Most Americans and republicans did back then because he was a great president, history agrees.

So you can take your anti-American, propaganda, and communist agenda and go F yourself. My brave grandfather who went on to serve in the air national guard would agree with everything I said. What did your parents fight for? Communism like you? You are a disgrace to every American who has ever fought for our country.


----------



## WheelieAddict

"Propaganda Chic" is an absolute disgrace. How the hell can anyone who is a true American agree with the BS she spews? If you do you are just as disgraceful. Back your country like real patriots do not a pile of crap someone spews on the internet.

Seriously its amazingly disrespectful to our country that it has come to crap like this. Hold your head in shame traitors.


----------



## PoliticalChic

WheelieAddict said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt were among the greatest men in the history of our country. The op PropagandaChic has unfortunately shown she is against the USA at every turn. Sad trying to change history with propaganda.
> 
> You are a communist aren't you PropagandaChic. It is easy to see as you are always putting down great American presidents at every turn. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are scum, human garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire thread is in opposition to the communist Joseph Stalin, and his puppet, Franklin Roosevelt...
> 
> ...yet you write "You are a communist aren't you PropagandaChic."
> 
> 
> Gads, you are a moron.
> Early in the year...but you certainly are in the running for the most stupid post of 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the far right foxbot who listens to the propaganda she is told and spews it without question.
> 
> FDR is one of our top five presidents in the history of the United States. Almost everyone agrees except for tools like you. My grandmother and and grandfather both served in the Army Air Corp during WW2. My grandfather "flew the hump" risking his life bringing supplies to China to help repel the Japanese. They were both republicans and voted for FDR. Most Americans and republicans did back then because he was a great president, history agrees.
> 
> So you can take your anti-American, propaganda, and communist agenda and go F yourself. My brave grandfather who went on to serve in the air national guard would agree with everything I said. What did your parents fight for? Communism like you? You are a disgrace to every American who has ever fought for our country.
Click to expand...




I just used two specific quotes, linked and sourced.

I always do.

Clearly you are unable to deny that neither Teddy nor Franklin Roosevelt gave due respect to America's Founders, nor their memorialized guidance, the Constitution.



Unlike you Roosevelt lap-dogs, I have an extensive and deep education.
You've been put in your place twice now in the just a few posts.
I'm happy to provide the education you missed by being immersed in government school propaganda.


 Here's the basis of your problem...when you're a part of the 'masses'.....sometimes the 'm' is silent.


----------



## PoliticalChic

WheelieAddict said:


> "Propaganda Chic" is an absolute disgrace. How the hell can anyone who is a true American agree with the BS she spews? If you do you are just as disgraceful. Back your country like real patriots do not a pile of crap someone spews on the internet.
> 
> Seriously its amazingly disrespectful to our country that it has come to crap like this. Hold your head in shame traitors.




Seems you don't know that Franklin Roosevelt's policies were closer to Adolph Hitler than to Washington and Jefferson.


The National Socialists hailed these ‘relief measures’ in ways you will recognize:
May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”
And on January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’
And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”
The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”  
*"Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939,"*
by Wolfgang Schivelbusch 


So...you're a government school grad, huh?


----------



## WheelieAddict

PoliticalChic said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt were among the greatest men in the history of our country. The op PropagandaChic has unfortunately shown she is against the USA at every turn. Sad trying to change history with propaganda.
> 
> You are a communist aren't you PropagandaChic. It is easy to see as you are always putting down great American presidents at every turn. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are scum, human garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire thread is in opposition to the communist Joseph Stalin, and his puppet, Franklin Roosevelt...
> 
> ...yet you write "You are a communist aren't you PropagandaChic."
> 
> 
> Gads, you are a moron.
> Early in the year...but you certainly are in the running for the most stupid post of 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the far right foxbot who listens to the propaganda she is told and spews it without question.
> 
> FDR is one of our top five presidents in the history of the United States. Almost everyone agrees except for tools like you. My grandmother and and grandfather both served in the Army Air Corp during WW2. My grandfather "flew the hump" risking his life bringing supplies to China to help repel the Japanese. They were both republicans and voted for FDR. Most Americans and republicans did back then because he was a great president, history agrees.
> 
> So you can take your anti-American, propaganda, and communist agenda and go F yourself. My brave grandfather who went on to serve in the air national guard would agree with everything I said. What did your parents fight for? Communism like you? You are a disgrace to every American who has ever fought for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just used two specific quotes, linked and sourced.
> 
> I always do.
> 
> Clearly you are unable to deny that neither Teddy nor Franklin Roosevelt gave due respect to America's Founders, nor their memorialized guidance, the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you Roosevelt lap-dogs, I have an extensive and deep education.
> You've been put in your place twice now in the just a few posts.
> I'm happy to provide the education you missed by being immersed in government school propaganda.
> 
> 
> Here's the basis of your problem...when you're a part of the 'masses'.....sometimes the 'm' is silent.
Click to expand...

And the piece of anti-American garbage continues to spew her anti-American propaganda against one of our greatest presidents. How do you live with yourself? I can guess how. You have no conscience or patriotism. I bet your parents didn't do shit during the war and you groveled over here. And how do you appreciate it? By trashing a great president of the country you were lucky enough to emigrate to. 

You are truly the worst of the worst. You get freedom and then use it to denigrate the country that gave it to you. 

It must seriously suck to be you.


----------



## PoliticalChic

WheelieAddict said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt were among the greatest men in the history of our country. The op PropagandaChic has unfortunately shown she is against the USA at every turn. Sad trying to change history with propaganda.
> 
> You are a communist aren't you PropagandaChic. It is easy to see as you are always putting down great American presidents at every turn. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are scum, human garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire thread is in opposition to the communist Joseph Stalin, and his puppet, Franklin Roosevelt...
> 
> ...yet you write "You are a communist aren't you PropagandaChic."
> 
> 
> Gads, you are a moron.
> Early in the year...but you certainly are in the running for the most stupid post of 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the far right foxbot who listens to the propaganda she is told and spews it without question.
> 
> FDR is one of our top five presidents in the history of the United States. Almost everyone agrees except for tools like you. My grandmother and and grandfather both served in the Army Air Corp during WW2. My grandfather "flew the hump" risking his life bringing supplies to China to help repel the Japanese. They were both republicans and voted for FDR. Most Americans and republicans did back then because he was a great president, history agrees.
> 
> So you can take your anti-American, propaganda, and communist agenda and go F yourself. My brave grandfather who went on to serve in the air national guard would agree with everything I said. What did your parents fight for? Communism like you? You are a disgrace to every American who has ever fought for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just used two specific quotes, linked and sourced.
> 
> I always do.
> 
> Clearly you are unable to deny that neither Teddy nor Franklin Roosevelt gave due respect to America's Founders, nor their memorialized guidance, the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you Roosevelt lap-dogs, I have an extensive and deep education.
> You've been put in your place twice now in the just a few posts.
> I'm happy to provide the education you missed by being immersed in government school propaganda.
> 
> 
> Here's the basis of your problem...when you're a part of the 'masses'.....sometimes the 'm' is silent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the piece of anti-American garbage continues to spew her anti-American propaganda against one of our greatest presidents. How do you live with yourself? I can guess how. You have no conscience or patriotism. I bet your parents didn't do shit during the war and you groveled over here. And how do you appreciate it? By trashing a great president of the country you were lucky enough to emigrate to.
> 
> You are truly the worst of the worst. You get freedom and then use it to denigrate the country that gave it to you.
> 
> It must seriously suck to be you.
Click to expand...



So.....

...so far you haven't been able to deny that
1. Teddy Roosevelt had no respect for the United States Constitution
2. Franklin Roosevevelt, and, in fact, his entire New Deal constituency, had no respect for the United States Constitution nor for folks who wished to be governed by same.
3. That the Nazis not only had conspicuously similar economic policies to FDR, but that his book, "Looking Foward," could, in fact, have been written by a National Socialist ('Nazi')


Have I shamed your lack of education enough...or would you like some more?

OK...I admit to having great fun at your expense.....it's called 'schadenfreude'
Now you've learned more in these few minutes than in all of your (mis-)education.

My New Year's present.


----------



## WheelieAddict

PoliticalChic said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt were among the greatest men in the history of our country. The op PropagandaChic has unfortunately shown she is against the USA at every turn. Sad trying to change history with propaganda.
> 
> You are a communist aren't you PropagandaChic. It is easy to see as you are always putting down great American presidents at every turn. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are scum, human garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire thread is in opposition to the communist Joseph Stalin, and his puppet, Franklin Roosevelt...
> 
> ...yet you write "You are a communist aren't you PropagandaChic."
> 
> 
> Gads, you are a moron.
> Early in the year...but you certainly are in the running for the most stupid post of 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the far right foxbot who listens to the propaganda she is told and spews it without question.
> 
> FDR is one of our top five presidents in the history of the United States. Almost everyone agrees except for tools like you. My grandmother and and grandfather both served in the Army Air Corp during WW2. My grandfather "flew the hump" risking his life bringing supplies to China to help repel the Japanese. They were both republicans and voted for FDR. Most Americans and republicans did back then because he was a great president, history agrees.
> 
> So you can take your anti-American, propaganda, and communist agenda and go F yourself. My brave grandfather who went on to serve in the air national guard would agree with everything I said. What did your parents fight for? Communism like you? You are a disgrace to every American who has ever fought for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just used two specific quotes, linked and sourced.
> 
> I always do.
> 
> Clearly you are unable to deny that neither Teddy nor Franklin Roosevelt gave due respect to America's Founders, nor their memorialized guidance, the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you Roosevelt lap-dogs, I have an extensive and deep education.
> You've been put in your place twice now in the just a few posts.
> I'm happy to provide the education you missed by being immersed in government school propaganda.
> 
> 
> Here's the basis of your problem...when you're a part of the 'masses'.....sometimes the 'm' is silent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the piece of anti-American garbage continues to spew her anti-American propaganda against one of our greatest presidents. How do you live with yourself? I can guess how. You have no conscience or patriotism. I bet your parents didn't do shit during the war and you groveled over here. And how do you appreciate it? By trashing a great president of the country you were lucky enough to emigrate to.
> 
> You are truly the worst of the worst. You get freedom and then use it to denigrate the country that gave it to you.
> 
> It must seriously suck to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So.....
> 
> ...so far you haven't been able to deny that
> 1. Teddy Roosevelt had no respect for the United States Constitution
> 2. Franklin Roosevevelt, and, in fact, his entire New Deal constituency, had no respect for the United States Constitution nor for folks who wished to be governed by same.
> 3. That the Nazis not only had conspicuously similar economic policies to FDR, but that his book, "Looking Foward," could, in fact, have been written by a National Socialist ('Nazi')
> 
> 
> Have I shamed your lack of education enough...or would you like some more?
> 
> OK...I admit to having great fun at your expense.....it's called 'schadenfreude'
> Now you've learned more in these few minutes than in all of your (mis-)education.
> 
> My New Year's present.
Click to expand...

Says the far right propagandist that is trying to get you to hate your countries history. Please don't encourage the traitor.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Seriously though I'm being nice calling you human garbage. Have you ever served your country traitor? Actually I should be asking which country you serve. You spit on all our veterans graves including my grandparents with your hate of the United States and their great sacrifices in WW2.


----------



## PoliticalChic

WheelieAddict said:


> Seriously though I'm being nice calling you human garbage. Have you ever served your country traitor? Actually I should be asking which country you serve. You spit on all our veterans graves including my grandparents with your hate of the United States and their great sacrifices in WW2.




"You spit on all our veterans graves..."

Veterans???

Well, you can't have affection for veterans, and for Franklin Roosevelt.

1.  United States suffered *292,000 combat deaths. Fully a third to a half during the last few years......could have been avoided.*
World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those last few years cost 100,000 to 150,000 deaths of American troops because Roosevelt bowed to the demands of Joseph Stalin and refused to allow any surrender of Germany other than 'unconditional surrender.'

*Those troops were sacrificed, Roosevelt's love-token, to Stalin by this love-sick, puerile United States President.
What other explanation is there?

*

*2. *Despite the total victory in Europe by Allied forces, *thousands and thousands of US soldiers -- perhaps as many as 20,000 -- were never repatriated from prisoner of war (POW) camps, prisons and forced labor and concentration camps [by Stalin.]
*
These American soldiers were being held in Nazi prison camps, along with other Allied POWs and some Nazi captives, when they were overrun by* the Red Army. Thus, hundreds of thousands of Allied POWs who had been held by the Nazis, as well as millions of Western European citizens, or Displaced Persons, came under Red Army control. Indeed, this number increased because General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, decided to stop the US and British drive eastward into Germany, in order to wait for Soviet forces driving West, so that US and Soviet forces could meet in Berlin.*
Our 20,000 Missing POW's of WWII


Veterans that the Roosevelt administration never made the effort to retrieve.
Never returned by Roosevelt's ally, Stalin.


Amazing how much you don't know, huh?


----------



## WheelieAddict

I see the traitor is still spewing her propaganda. You have no shame. You are dead inside aren't you?


----------



## PoliticalChic

WheelieAddict said:


> I see the traitor is still spewing her propaganda. You have no shame. You are dead inside aren't you?




Everything I post is true,accurate, linked and sources.

It is documented.

You remain the perfect example of the the term in the title of the thread....'infatuation' with the Left's idols.

Bet I know who you voted for in 2012.
Could be?


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

PoliticalChic said:


> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the USSR (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clean up your language: it shows you to be a loser.
> 
> 
> 1. "The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease.*As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR.....in November 1940* Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins.Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.” Roosevelt's Lend-Lease Act:  The Arm and Hammer / Hammer and Sickle Connection
> 
> a. The program was finally authorized by Congress and signed into effect on March 11, 1941. By November, after much heated debate, Congress extended the terms of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, even though the USSR had already been the recipient of American military weapons and had been promised $1 billion in financial aid. FDR signs Lend-Lease - Mar 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com
> 
> 
> 2. From a review of "Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer," by Edward Jay Epstein: The meticulously documented exposé of a celebrated American philanthropist - and traitor - that reads like a classic thriller.
> New York Times Book Review Notable Book of the Year
> Winner of the Financial Times Book Award
> The dossier on Hammer tells another story. With unprecedented access to the files of both American and Soviet intelligence agencies as well as Hammer's own secretly taped conversations, investigative author Edward Jay Epstein lays bare the appalling fraud, unconscionable corruption, international treachery, and personal betrayal that indict beyond doubt this ruthlessly manipulative opportunist who courted American presidents and conspired with every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev.
> 
> 3. And this about the man who shared lunches with Roosevelt, and Harry Hopkins: "Hammer sometimes claimed that his father had named him after a character, Armand Duval, in _La Dame aux Camélias_, a novel byAlexandre Dumas, fils. In fact, according to multiple biographers, Hammer was named after the "arm and hammer" graphic symbol of theSocialist Labor Party of America(SLP), in which his father, a committedsocialist, had a leadership role at one time.[8](After theRussian Revolution, a part of the SLP under Julius' leadership split off to become a founding element of the Communist Party USA.) Later in his life, Hammer confirmed that this was the origin of his given name.[2]" Armand Hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was far smarter than his erstwhile ally, Adolph Hitler,and his long time stooge, Franklin Roosevelt, whose actions can only be characterized as those of a love-sick, slobbering admirer of Stalin's.
> 
> Stalin used Roosevelt, and envisioned exactly what he wanted post-war.
> He used Hitler.
> He made Roosevelt his servant, giving him orders via Harry Hopkins and Armand Hammer among other spies who were welcomed by FDR into his administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop licking his boots and get off your knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chica, your typical copy & paste does not refute any of your previous lies I addressed. I'll repost it here so you can read it this time. If you don't care for me to characterize your lies as horseshit, then stop writing horseshit lies, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the USSR (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In response to your reply to my previous post, it is just more horseshit spread to deflect from your errors and lies. I did say you would try to change the narrative didn't I! And one last thing, Chica. I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were shitting your diapers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were [in] your diapers."
> 
> So....you're explaining your vulgarity and ignorance on Alzheimer's Disease?
> 
> So sad.
> 
> Wipe the drool off your chin.
Click to expand...


Again you avoid addressing your lies and distortions with NOTHING but ad hominem. You're the one claiming this LIE!



PoliticalChic said:


> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).



When the Lend-Lease Act was signed on Mar 11, 1941 the USSR was still an ally of Germany and Italy having signed the "Pact of Steel". Stalin had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the creation of the Lend-Lease Act. That was your error, your LIE you refuse to address but rather deflect with more HORSESHIT! So you know what comes next for lying yet again...

<>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
*"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
*"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!


----------



## WheelieAddict

PoliticalChic said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the traitor is still spewing her propaganda. You have no shame. You are dead inside aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I post is true,accurate, linked and sources.
> 
> It is documented.
> 
> You remain the perfect example of the the term in the title of the thread....'infatuation' with the Left's idols.
> Says the North Korean communist trying to diminish the USA in some way by typing propaganda online in a little hovel with no soul. You are garbage.
> Bet I know who you voted for in 2012.
> Could be?
Click to expand...


----------



## WheelieAddict

ThoughtCrimes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the USSR (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clean up your language: it shows you to be a loser.
> 
> 
> 1. "The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease.*As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR.....in November 1940* Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins.Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.” Roosevelt's Lend-Lease Act:  The Arm and Hammer / Hammer and Sickle Connection
> 
> a. The program was finally authorized by Congress and signed into effect on March 11, 1941. By November, after much heated debate, Congress extended the terms of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, even though the USSR had already been the recipient of American military weapons and had been promised $1 billion in financial aid. FDR signs Lend-Lease - Mar 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com
> 
> 
> 2. From a review of "Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer," by Edward Jay Epstein: The meticulously documented exposé of a celebrated American philanthropist - and traitor - that reads like a classic thriller.
> New York Times Book Review Notable Book of the Year
> Winner of the Financial Times Book Award
> The dossier on Hammer tells another story. With unprecedented access to the files of both American and Soviet intelligence agencies as well as Hammer's own secretly taped conversations, investigative author Edward Jay Epstein lays bare the appalling fraud, unconscionable corruption, international treachery, and personal betrayal that indict beyond doubt this ruthlessly manipulative opportunist who courted American presidents and conspired with every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev.
> 
> 3. And this about the man who shared lunches with Roosevelt, and Harry Hopkins: "Hammer sometimes claimed that his father had named him after a character, Armand Duval, in _La Dame aux Camélias_, a novel byAlexandre Dumas, fils. In fact, according to multiple biographers, Hammer was named after the "arm and hammer" graphic symbol of theSocialist Labor Party of America(SLP), in which his father, a committedsocialist, had a leadership role at one time.[8](After theRussian Revolution, a part of the SLP under Julius' leadership split off to become a founding element of the Communist Party USA.) Later in his life, Hammer confirmed that this was the origin of his given name.[2]" Armand Hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was far smarter than his erstwhile ally, Adolph Hitler,and his long time stooge, Franklin Roosevelt, whose actions can only be characterized as those of a love-sick, slobbering admirer of Stalin's.
> 
> Stalin used Roosevelt, and envisioned exactly what he wanted post-war.
> He used Hitler.
> He made Roosevelt his servant, giving him orders via Harry Hopkins and Armand Hammer among other spies who were welcomed by FDR into his administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop licking his boots and get off your knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chica, your typical copy & paste does not refute any of your previous lies I addressed. I'll repost it here so you can read it this time. If you don't care for me to characterize your lies as horseshit, then stop writing horseshit lies, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the USSR (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In response to your reply to my previous post, it is just more horseshit spread to deflect from your errors and lies. I did say you would try to change the narrative didn't I! And one last thing, Chica. I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were shitting your diapers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were [in] your diapers."
> 
> So....you're explaining your vulgarity and ignorance on Alzheimer's Disease?
> 
> So sad.
> 
> Wipe the drool off your chin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you avoid addressing your lies and distortions with NOTHING but ad hominem. You're the one claiming this LIE!
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the Lend-Lease Act was signed on Mar 11, 1941 the USSR was still an ally of Germany and Italy having signed the "Pact of Steel". Stalin had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the creation of the Lend-Lease Act. That was your error, your LIE you refuse to address but rather deflect with more HORSESHIT! So you know what comes next for lying yet again...
> 
> <>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> 
> You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
> 
> In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
> *"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
> quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
> *"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> 
> The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
> 
> I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
Click to expand...

You dig your own grave. No one believes your BS except others that are mentally ill like yourself.

That explains this and I feel sorry for.............wait nope mentally ill or not you are still garbage.


----------



## PoliticalChic

WheelieAddict said:


> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the USSR (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clean up your language: it shows you to be a loser.
> 
> 
> 1. "The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease.*As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR.....in November 1940* Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins.Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.” Roosevelt's Lend-Lease Act:  The Arm and Hammer / Hammer and Sickle Connection
> 
> a. The program was finally authorized by Congress and signed into effect on March 11, 1941. By November, after much heated debate, Congress extended the terms of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, even though the USSR had already been the recipient of American military weapons and had been promised $1 billion in financial aid. FDR signs Lend-Lease - Mar 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com
> 
> 
> 2. From a review of "Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer," by Edward Jay Epstein: The meticulously documented exposé of a celebrated American philanthropist - and traitor - that reads like a classic thriller.
> New York Times Book Review Notable Book of the Year
> Winner of the Financial Times Book Award
> The dossier on Hammer tells another story. With unprecedented access to the files of both American and Soviet intelligence agencies as well as Hammer's own secretly taped conversations, investigative author Edward Jay Epstein lays bare the appalling fraud, unconscionable corruption, international treachery, and personal betrayal that indict beyond doubt this ruthlessly manipulative opportunist who courted American presidents and conspired with every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev.
> 
> 3. And this about the man who shared lunches with Roosevelt, and Harry Hopkins: "Hammer sometimes claimed that his father had named him after a character, Armand Duval, in _La Dame aux Camélias_, a novel byAlexandre Dumas, fils. In fact, according to multiple biographers, Hammer was named after the "arm and hammer" graphic symbol of theSocialist Labor Party of America(SLP), in which his father, a committedsocialist, had a leadership role at one time.[8](After theRussian Revolution, a part of the SLP under Julius' leadership split off to become a founding element of the Communist Party USA.) Later in his life, Hammer confirmed that this was the origin of his given name.[2]" Armand Hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was far smarter than his erstwhile ally, Adolph Hitler,and his long time stooge, Franklin Roosevelt, whose actions can only be characterized as those of a love-sick, slobbering admirer of Stalin's.
> 
> Stalin used Roosevelt, and envisioned exactly what he wanted post-war.
> He used Hitler.
> He made Roosevelt his servant, giving him orders via Harry Hopkins and Armand Hammer among other spies who were welcomed by FDR into his administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop licking his boots and get off your knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chica, your typical copy & paste does not refute any of your previous lies I addressed. I'll repost it here so you can read it this time. If you don't care for me to characterize your lies as horseshit, then stop writing horseshit lies, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the USSR (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In response to your reply to my previous post, it is just more horseshit spread to deflect from your errors and lies. I did say you would try to change the narrative didn't I! And one last thing, Chica. I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were shitting your diapers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were [in] your diapers."
> 
> So....you're explaining your vulgarity and ignorance on Alzheimer's Disease?
> 
> So sad.
> 
> Wipe the drool off your chin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you avoid addressing your lies and distortions with NOTHING but ad hominem. You're the one claiming this LIE!
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the Lend-Lease Act was signed on Mar 11, 1941 the USSR was still an ally of Germany and Italy having signed the "Pact of Steel". Stalin had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the creation of the Lend-Lease Act. That was your error, your LIE you refuse to address but rather deflect with more HORSESHIT! So you know what comes next for lying yet again...
> 
> <>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> 
> You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
> 
> In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
> *"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
> quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
> *"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> 
> The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
> 
> I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dig your own grave. No one believes your BS except others that are mentally ill like yourself.
> 
> That explains this and I feel sorry for.............wait nope mentally ill or not you are still garbage.
Click to expand...




So.....why are you unable to find a single error in what I posted?


WheelieAddict said:


> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the USSR (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clean up your language: it shows you to be a loser.
> 
> 
> 1. "The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease.*As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR.....in November 1940* Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins.Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.” Roosevelt's Lend-Lease Act:  The Arm and Hammer / Hammer and Sickle Connection
> 
> a. The program was finally authorized by Congress and signed into effect on March 11, 1941. By November, after much heated debate, Congress extended the terms of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, even though the USSR had already been the recipient of American military weapons and had been promised $1 billion in financial aid. FDR signs Lend-Lease - Mar 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com
> 
> 
> 2. From a review of "Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer," by Edward Jay Epstein: The meticulously documented exposé of a celebrated American philanthropist - and traitor - that reads like a classic thriller.
> New York Times Book Review Notable Book of the Year
> Winner of the Financial Times Book Award
> The dossier on Hammer tells another story. With unprecedented access to the files of both American and Soviet intelligence agencies as well as Hammer's own secretly taped conversations, investigative author Edward Jay Epstein lays bare the appalling fraud, unconscionable corruption, international treachery, and personal betrayal that indict beyond doubt this ruthlessly manipulative opportunist who courted American presidents and conspired with every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev.
> 
> 3. And this about the man who shared lunches with Roosevelt, and Harry Hopkins: "Hammer sometimes claimed that his father had named him after a character, Armand Duval, in _La Dame aux Camélias_, a novel byAlexandre Dumas, fils. In fact, according to multiple biographers, Hammer was named after the "arm and hammer" graphic symbol of theSocialist Labor Party of America(SLP), in which his father, a committedsocialist, had a leadership role at one time.[8](After theRussian Revolution, a part of the SLP under Julius' leadership split off to become a founding element of the Communist Party USA.) Later in his life, Hammer confirmed that this was the origin of his given name.[2]" Armand Hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was far smarter than his erstwhile ally, Adolph Hitler,and his long time stooge, Franklin Roosevelt, whose actions can only be characterized as those of a love-sick, slobbering admirer of Stalin's.
> 
> Stalin used Roosevelt, and envisioned exactly what he wanted post-war.
> He used Hitler.
> He made Roosevelt his servant, giving him orders via Harry Hopkins and Armand Hammer among other spies who were welcomed by FDR into his administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop licking his boots and get off your knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chica, your typical copy & paste does not refute any of your previous lies I addressed. I'll repost it here so you can read it this time. If you don't care for me to characterize your lies as horseshit, then stop writing horseshit lies, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the USSR (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In response to your reply to my previous post, it is just more horseshit spread to deflect from your errors and lies. I did say you would try to change the narrative didn't I! And one last thing, Chica. I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were shitting your diapers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were [in] your diapers."
> 
> So....you're explaining your vulgarity and ignorance on Alzheimer's Disease?
> 
> So sad.
> 
> Wipe the drool off your chin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you avoid addressing your lies and distortions with NOTHING but ad hominem. You're the one claiming this LIE!
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the Lend-Lease Act was signed on Mar 11, 1941 the USSR was still an ally of Germany and Italy having signed the "Pact of Steel". Stalin had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the creation of the Lend-Lease Act. That was your error, your LIE you refuse to address but rather deflect with more HORSESHIT! So you know what comes next for lying yet again...
> 
> <>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> 
> You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
> 
> In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
> *"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
> quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
> *"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> 
> The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
> 
> I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dig your own grave. No one believes your BS except others that are mentally ill like yourself.
> 
> That explains this and I feel sorry for.............wait nope mentally ill or not you are still garbage.
Click to expand...




So.....why are you unable to find a single error in what I posted?


You're amazed at all of the facts I provide....things they never let you know.

Admit it.
Confession is good for the soul.


----------



## WheelieAddict

PoliticalChic said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clean up your language: it shows you to be a loser.
> 
> 
> 1. "The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease.*As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR.....in November 1940* Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins.Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.” Roosevelt's Lend-Lease Act:  The Arm and Hammer / Hammer and Sickle Connection
> 
> a. The program was finally authorized by Congress and signed into effect on March 11, 1941. By November, after much heated debate, Congress extended the terms of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, even though the USSR had already been the recipient of American military weapons and had been promised $1 billion in financial aid. FDR signs Lend-Lease - Mar 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com
> 
> 
> 2. From a review of "Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer," by Edward Jay Epstein: The meticulously documented exposé of a celebrated American philanthropist - and traitor - that reads like a classic thriller.
> New York Times Book Review Notable Book of the Year
> Winner of the Financial Times Book Award
> The dossier on Hammer tells another story. With unprecedented access to the files of both American and Soviet intelligence agencies as well as Hammer's own secretly taped conversations, investigative author Edward Jay Epstein lays bare the appalling fraud, unconscionable corruption, international treachery, and personal betrayal that indict beyond doubt this ruthlessly manipulative opportunist who courted American presidents and conspired with every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev.
> 
> 3. And this about the man who shared lunches with Roosevelt, and Harry Hopkins: "Hammer sometimes claimed that his father had named him after a character, Armand Duval, in _La Dame aux Camélias_, a novel byAlexandre Dumas, fils. In fact, according to multiple biographers, Hammer was named after the "arm and hammer" graphic symbol of theSocialist Labor Party of America(SLP), in which his father, a committedsocialist, had a leadership role at one time.[8](After theRussian Revolution, a part of the SLP under Julius' leadership split off to become a founding element of the Communist Party USA.) Later in his life, Hammer confirmed that this was the origin of his given name.[2]" Armand Hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was far smarter than his erstwhile ally, Adolph Hitler,and his long time stooge, Franklin Roosevelt, whose actions can only be characterized as those of a love-sick, slobbering admirer of Stalin's.
> 
> Stalin used Roosevelt, and envisioned exactly what he wanted post-war.
> He used Hitler.
> He made Roosevelt his servant, giving him orders via Harry Hopkins and Armand Hammer among other spies who were welcomed by FDR into his administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop licking his boots and get off your knees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, your typical copy & paste does not refute any of your previous lies I addressed. I'll repost it here so you can read it this time. If you don't care for me to characterize your lies as horseshit, then stop writing horseshit lies, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the USSR (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In response to your reply to my previous post, it is just more horseshit spread to deflect from your errors and lies. I did say you would try to change the narrative didn't I! And one last thing, Chica. I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were shitting your diapers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were [in] your diapers."
> 
> So....you're explaining your vulgarity and ignorance on Alzheimer's Disease?
> 
> So sad.
> 
> Wipe the drool off your chin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you avoid addressing your lies and distortions with NOTHING but ad hominem. You're the one claiming this LIE!
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the Lend-Lease Act was signed on Mar 11, 1941 the USSR was still an ally of Germany and Italy having signed the "Pact of Steel". Stalin had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the creation of the Lend-Lease Act. That was your error, your LIE you refuse to address but rather deflect with more HORSESHIT! So you know what comes next for lying yet again...
> 
> <>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> 
> You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
> 
> In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
> *"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
> quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
> *"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> 
> The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
> 
> I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dig your own grave. No one believes your BS except others that are mentally ill like yourself.
> 
> That explains this and I feel sorry for.............wait nope mentally ill or not you are still garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.....why are you unable to find a single error in what I posted?
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clean up your language: it shows you to be a loser.
> 
> 
> 1. "The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease.*As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR.....in November 1940* Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins.Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.” Roosevelt's Lend-Lease Act:  The Arm and Hammer / Hammer and Sickle Connection
> 
> a. The program was finally authorized by Congress and signed into effect on March 11, 1941. By November, after much heated debate, Congress extended the terms of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, even though the USSR had already been the recipient of American military weapons and had been promised $1 billion in financial aid. FDR signs Lend-Lease - Mar 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com
> 
> 
> 2. From a review of "Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer," by Edward Jay Epstein: The meticulously documented exposé of a celebrated American philanthropist - and traitor - that reads like a classic thriller.
> New York Times Book Review Notable Book of the Year
> Winner of the Financial Times Book Award
> The dossier on Hammer tells another story. With unprecedented access to the files of both American and Soviet intelligence agencies as well as Hammer's own secretly taped conversations, investigative author Edward Jay Epstein lays bare the appalling fraud, unconscionable corruption, international treachery, and personal betrayal that indict beyond doubt this ruthlessly manipulative opportunist who courted American presidents and conspired with every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev.
> 
> 3. And this about the man who shared lunches with Roosevelt, and Harry Hopkins: "Hammer sometimes claimed that his father had named him after a character, Armand Duval, in _La Dame aux Camélias_, a novel byAlexandre Dumas, fils. In fact, according to multiple biographers, Hammer was named after the "arm and hammer" graphic symbol of theSocialist Labor Party of America(SLP), in which his father, a committedsocialist, had a leadership role at one time.[8](After theRussian Revolution, a part of the SLP under Julius' leadership split off to become a founding element of the Communist Party USA.) Later in his life, Hammer confirmed that this was the origin of his given name.[2]" Armand Hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was far smarter than his erstwhile ally, Adolph Hitler,and his long time stooge, Franklin Roosevelt, whose actions can only be characterized as those of a love-sick, slobbering admirer of Stalin's.
> 
> Stalin used Roosevelt, and envisioned exactly what he wanted post-war.
> He used Hitler.
> He made Roosevelt his servant, giving him orders via Harry Hopkins and Armand Hammer among other spies who were welcomed by FDR into his administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop licking his boots and get off your knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chica, your typical copy & paste does not refute any of your previous lies I addressed. I'll repost it here so you can read it this time. If you don't care for me to characterize your lies as horseshit, then stop writing horseshit lies, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the USSR (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In response to your reply to my previous post, it is just more horseshit spread to deflect from your errors and lies. I did say you would try to change the narrative didn't I! And one last thing, Chica. I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were shitting your diapers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were [in] your diapers."
> 
> So....you're explaining your vulgarity and ignorance on Alzheimer's Disease?
> 
> So sad.
> 
> Wipe the drool off your chin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you avoid addressing your lies and distortions with NOTHING but ad hominem. You're the one claiming this LIE!
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the Lend-Lease Act was signed on Mar 11, 1941 the USSR was still an ally of Germany and Italy having signed the "Pact of Steel". Stalin had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the creation of the Lend-Lease Act. That was your error, your LIE you refuse to address but rather deflect with more HORSESHIT! So you know what comes next for lying yet again...
> 
> <>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> 
> You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
> 
> In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
> *"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
> quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
> *"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> 
> The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
> 
> I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dig your own grave. No one believes your BS except others that are mentally ill like yourself.
> 
> That explains this and I feel sorry for.............wait nope mentally ill or not you are still garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.....why are you unable to find a single error in what I posted?
> 
> 
> You're amazed at all of the facts I provide....things they never let you know.
> 
> Admit it.
> Confession is good for the soul.
Click to expand...

I see the traitor is still bloviating anti-American propaganda. It's very sad. Do you get special privileges being a good communist for North Korea?


----------



## PoliticalChic

WheelieAddict said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, your typical copy & paste does not refute any of your previous lies I addressed. I'll repost it here so you can read it this time. If you don't care for me to characterize your lies as horseshit, then stop writing horseshit lies, idiot.
> 
> In response to your reply to my previous post, it is just more horseshit spread to deflect from your errors and lies. I did say you would try to change the narrative didn't I! And one last thing, Chica. I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were shitting your diapers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were [in] your diapers."
> 
> So....you're explaining your vulgarity and ignorance on Alzheimer's Disease?
> 
> So sad.
> 
> Wipe the drool off your chin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you avoid addressing your lies and distortions with NOTHING but ad hominem. You're the one claiming this LIE!
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the Lend-Lease Act was signed on Mar 11, 1941 the USSR was still an ally of Germany and Italy having signed the "Pact of Steel". Stalin had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the creation of the Lend-Lease Act. That was your error, your LIE you refuse to address but rather deflect with more HORSESHIT! So you know what comes next for lying yet again...
> 
> <>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> 
> You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
> 
> In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
> *"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
> quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
> *"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> 
> The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
> 
> I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dig your own grave. No one believes your BS except others that are mentally ill like yourself.
> 
> That explains this and I feel sorry for.............wait nope mentally ill or not you are still garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.....why are you unable to find a single error in what I posted?
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, your typical copy & paste does not refute any of your previous lies I addressed. I'll repost it here so you can read it this time. If you don't care for me to characterize your lies as horseshit, then stop writing horseshit lies, idiot.
> 
> In response to your reply to my previous post, it is just more horseshit spread to deflect from your errors and lies. I did say you would try to change the narrative didn't I! And one last thing, Chica. I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were shitting your diapers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were [in] your diapers."
> 
> So....you're explaining your vulgarity and ignorance on Alzheimer's Disease?
> 
> So sad.
> 
> Wipe the drool off your chin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you avoid addressing your lies and distortions with NOTHING but ad hominem. You're the one claiming this LIE!
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the Lend-Lease Act was signed on Mar 11, 1941 the USSR was still an ally of Germany and Italy having signed the "Pact of Steel". Stalin had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the creation of the Lend-Lease Act. That was your error, your LIE you refuse to address but rather deflect with more HORSESHIT! So you know what comes next for lying yet again...
> 
> <>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> 
> You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
> 
> In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
> *"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
> quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
> *"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> 
> The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
> 
> I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dig your own grave. No one believes your BS except others that are mentally ill like yourself.
> 
> That explains this and I feel sorry for.............wait nope mentally ill or not you are still garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.....why are you unable to find a single error in what I posted?
> 
> 
> You're amazed at all of the facts I provide....things they never let you know.
> 
> Admit it.
> Confession is good for the soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the traitor is still bloviating anti-American propaganda. It's very sad. Do you get special privileges being a good communist for North Korea?
Click to expand...



Actually, my posts are pro-America.
That would be the America of our Founders.

What you have been indoctrinated into is big government totalitarianism, you know, Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini.

The give-away is that you haven't been able to deny any of the facts I post.


----------



## Dot Com

WheelieAddict said:


> "Propaganda Chic" is an absolute disgrace. How the hell can anyone who is a true American agree with the BS she spews? If you do you are just as disgraceful. Back your country like real patriots do not a pile of crap someone spews on the internet.
> 
> Seriously its amazingly disrespectful to our country that it has come to crap like this. Hold your head in shame traitors.


^ that

We've all arrived at that conclusion WheelieAddict .


----------



## Dot Com

WheelieAddict said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt were among the greatest men in the history of our country. The op PropagandaChic has unfortunately shown she is against the USA at every turn. Sad trying to change history with propaganda.
> 
> You are a communist aren't you PropagandaChic. It is easy to see as you are always putting down great American presidents at every turn. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are scum, human garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire thread is in opposition to the communist Joseph Stalin, and his puppet, Franklin Roosevelt...
> 
> ...yet you write "You are a communist aren't you PropagandaChic."
> 
> 
> Gads, you are a moron.
> Early in the year...but you certainly are in the running for the most stupid post of 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the far right foxbot who listens to the propaganda she is told and spews it without question.
> 
> FDR is one of our top five presidents in the history of the United States. Almost everyone agrees except for tools like you. My grandmother and and grandfather both served in the Army Air Corp during WW2. My grandfather "flew the hump" risking his life bringing supplies to China to help repel the Japanese. They were both republicans and voted for FDR. Most Americans and republicans did back then because he was a great president, history agrees.
> 
> So you can take your anti-American, propaganda, and communist agenda and go F yourself. My brave grandfather who went on to serve in the air national guard would agree with everything I said. What did your parents fight for? Communism like you? You are a disgrace to every American who has ever fought for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just used two specific quotes, linked and sourced.
> 
> I always do.
> 
> Clearly you are unable to deny that neither Teddy nor Franklin Roosevelt gave due respect to America's Founders, nor their memorialized guidance, the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you Roosevelt lap-dogs, I have an extensive and deep education.
> You've been put in your place twice now in the just a few posts.
> I'm happy to provide the education you missed by being immersed in government school propaganda.
> 
> 
> Here's the basis of your problem...when you're a part of the 'masses'.....sometimes the 'm' is silent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the piece of anti-American garbage continues to spew her anti-American propaganda against one of our greatest presidents. How do you live with yourself? I can guess how. You have no conscience or patriotism. I bet your parents didn't do shit during the war and you groveled over here. And how do you appreciate it? By trashing a great president of the country you were lucky enough to emigrate to.
> 
> You are truly the worst of the worst. You get freedom and then use it to denigrate the country that gave it to you.
> 
> It must seriously suck to be you.
Click to expand...

she's an AZN immigrant

Thats how she feels it gives her carte blanche to slime one of this great nation's most important Presidents that won a world war and turned this great nation into a 20th cen industrial superpower as opposed to Reagan (R) who invaded Grenada? (I know) and had 32 criminal convictions in his Admin

She's


----------



## WheelieAddict

PoliticalChic said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were [in] your diapers."
> 
> So....you're explaining your vulgarity and ignorance on Alzheimer's Disease?
> 
> So sad.
> 
> Wipe the drool off your chin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you avoid addressing your lies and distortions with NOTHING but ad hominem. You're the one claiming this LIE!
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the Lend-Lease Act was signed on Mar 11, 1941 the USSR was still an ally of Germany and Italy having signed the "Pact of Steel". Stalin had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the creation of the Lend-Lease Act. That was your error, your LIE you refuse to address but rather deflect with more HORSESHIT! So you know what comes next for lying yet again...
> 
> <>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> 
> You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
> 
> In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
> *"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
> quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
> *"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> 
> The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
> 
> I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dig your own grave. No one believes your BS except others that are mentally ill like yourself.
> 
> That explains this and I feel sorry for.............wait nope mentally ill or not you are still garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.....why are you unable to find a single error in what I posted?
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I was probably tearing into FDR's hide when you were [in] your diapers."
> 
> So....you're explaining your vulgarity and ignorance on Alzheimer's Disease?
> 
> So sad.
> 
> Wipe the drool off your chin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you avoid addressing your lies and distortions with NOTHING but ad hominem. You're the one claiming this LIE!
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the Lend-Lease Act was signed on Mar 11, 1941 the USSR was still an ally of Germany and Italy having signed the "Pact of Steel". Stalin had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the creation of the Lend-Lease Act. That was your error, your LIE you refuse to address but rather deflect with more HORSESHIT! So you know what comes next for lying yet again...
> 
> <>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> 
> You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
> 
> In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
> *"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
> quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
> *"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> 
> The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
> 
> I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dig your own grave. No one believes your BS except others that are mentally ill like yourself.
> 
> That explains this and I feel sorry for.............wait nope mentally ill or not you are still garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.....why are you unable to find a single error in what I posted?
> 
> 
> You're amazed at all of the facts I provide....things they never let you know.
> 
> Admit it.
> Confession is good for the soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the traitor is still bloviating anti-American propaganda. It's very sad. Do you get special privileges being a good communist for North Korea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my posts are pro-America.
> That would be the America of our Founders.
> 
> What you have been indoctrinated into is big government totalitarianism, you know, Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini.
> 
> The give-away is that you haven't been able to deny any of the facts I post.
Click to expand...

Every post you make you insult my family who fought for our country. Go back to North Korea commie.


----------



## HenryBHough

Kosh said:


> FDR lied the US into WWII
> FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US.
> FDR locked up American citizens in camps to give loyalty tests
> FDR built the military industrial complex that the far left wants to dismantle.
> 
> FDR created the Welfare state
> FDR created Social Security
> FDR initiated the income tax to pay for the war.
> 
> The latter three were sold to the American Public as being a temporary solution.
> 
> Not to mention many of his programs were considered unconstitutional. So he set out to replace the judges that were against him..



OK, so from a Democrat Party Adherent point of view, what's not to like?


----------



## Dot Com

WheelieAddict said:


> I see the traitor is still spewing her propaganda. You have no shame. You are dead inside aren't you?


She's all too alive. She's just


----------



## waltky

Didn't Rod Stewart do a song called Infatuation?


----------



## PoliticalChic

WheelieAddict said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you avoid addressing your lies and distortions with NOTHING but ad hominem. You're the one claiming this LIE!
> 
> When the Lend-Lease Act was signed on Mar 11, 1941 the USSR was still an ally of Germany and Italy having signed the "Pact of Steel". Stalin had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the creation of the Lend-Lease Act. That was your error, your LIE you refuse to address but rather deflect with more HORSESHIT! So you know what comes next for lying yet again...
> 
> <>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> 
> You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
> 
> In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
> *"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
> quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
> *"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> 
> The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
> 
> I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
> 
> 
> 
> You dig your own grave. No one believes your BS except others that are mentally ill like yourself.
> 
> That explains this and I feel sorry for.............wait nope mentally ill or not you are still garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.....why are you unable to find a single error in what I posted?
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you avoid addressing your lies and distortions with NOTHING but ad hominem. You're the one claiming this LIE!
> 
> When the Lend-Lease Act was signed on Mar 11, 1941 the USSR was still an ally of Germany and Italy having signed the "Pact of Steel". Stalin had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the creation of the Lend-Lease Act. That was your error, your LIE you refuse to address but rather deflect with more HORSESHIT! So you know what comes next for lying yet again...
> 
> <>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> 
> You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
> 
> In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
> *"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
> quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
> *"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."*
> 
> The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
> 
> I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dig your own grave. No one believes your BS except others that are mentally ill like yourself.
> 
> That explains this and I feel sorry for.............wait nope mentally ill or not you are still garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.....why are you unable to find a single error in what I posted?
> 
> 
> You're amazed at all of the facts I provide....things they never let you know.
> 
> Admit it.
> Confession is good for the soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the traitor is still bloviating anti-American propaganda. It's very sad. Do you get special privileges being a good communist for North Korea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my posts are pro-America.
> That would be the America of our Founders.
> 
> What you have been indoctrinated into is big government totalitarianism, you know, Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini.
> 
> The give-away is that you haven't been able to deny any of the facts I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every post you make you insult my family who fought for our country. Go back to North Korea commie.
Click to expand...



Let's not generalize: you're the one I'm insulting, based both on proximity and on your abysmal ignorance.

BTW....I've never been to North Korea: I'm a real American, not a Roosevelt groupie.


----------



## WheelieAddict

PoliticalChic said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dig your own grave. No one believes your BS except others that are mentally ill like yourself.
> 
> That explains this and I feel sorry for.............wait nope mentally ill or not you are still garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are exactly the one I am insulting. Your rhetoric is anti-American propaganda, and you talk like someone from North Korea who is trained to hate the United States. You proudly hate our presidents all day long, North Korean.
> 
> So.....why are you unable to find a single error in what I posted?
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dig your own grave. No one believes your BS except others that are mentally ill like yourself.
> 
> That explains this and I feel sorry for.............wait nope mentally ill or not you are still garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.....why are you unable to find a single error in what I posted?
> 
> 
> You're amazed at all of the facts I provide....things they never let you know.
> 
> Admit it.
> Confession is good for the soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the traitor is still bloviating anti-American propaganda. It's very sad. Do you get special privileges being a good communist for North Korea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my posts are pro-America.
> That would be the America of our Founders.
> 
> What you have been indoctrinated into is big government totalitarianism, you know, Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini.
> 
> The give-away is that you haven't been able to deny any of the facts I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every post you make you insult my family who fought for our country. Go back to North Korea commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not generalize: you're the one I'm insulting, based both on proximity and on your abysmal ignorance.
> 
> BTW....I've never been to North Korea: I'm a real American, not a Roosevelt groupie.
Click to expand...


----------



## WheelieAddict

Your a commie that hates a great American president go back to North Korea.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Do you actually work besides spouting propaganda? I'm guessing no. Be honest about what you are.


----------



## WheelieAddict

I'm not on here all the time like you because I bust my ass trying to pay for a house. 

You are here all the time. Welfare queen.


----------



## WheelieAddict

It's absolutely shameful that it takes someone on vacation to confront your bs. Vacation earned, unlike your permanent vacation....


----------



## WheelieAddict

We need to get rid of these immigrants who sit and collect welfare then sit on their fat ass trying to spread propaganda on a message board.


----------



## PoliticalChic

WheelieAddict said:


> Your a commie that hates a great American president go back to North Korea.





Let's check that suggestion, that Roosevelt was 'a great American President.'

America, through the efforts of our Founders, envisioned a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
They memorialized same in our founding documents.
Central was the idea of the separation of power.

Roosevelt believed in none of that: he was a collectivist supporter of Stalin, who believed in overarching government geared toward socialism.

Therefore, conservatives, such as myself, are the true Americans.
The folks who fought in America's wars fought for  individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Roosevelt lied to Americans, claiming that Stalin fought for the same things that we did.

 'A more sinister ' proximate cause of our numbness when it come to Soviet crime' is*the lies that Franklin Roosevelt told the public in support of Stalin.*
Loy Henderson, State Department Russian expert of the time said: "Russia does not fight for the same ideals as the United States."

*Roosevelt swore to the American public the exact opposite: he declared that Stalin fought for the same ideals!*

September 30, 1941, FDR claimed that there was*freedom of religion in the USSR.*"The claim that Stalin's Russia allowed religious freedom was the first step in*a massive pro-Soviet campaign that the White House coordinated for the duration of the war."*
"Caught between Roosevelt and Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," by Dennis J. Dunn, p. 137



You Roosevelt aficionados are more closely aligned with every big government iteration.....communists, socialists, Liberals, Nazis, Progressives and fascists.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Don't contribute to your father's shame. Be an American! Get a job and live the American dream! (spouting propaganda isn't a real job garbage girl).


----------



## WheelieAddict

What is your job garbage girl?


----------



## PoliticalChic

WheelieAddict said:


> Do you actually work besides spouting propaganda? I'm guessing no. Be honest about what you are.




If you must know....I'm immensely wealthy.

I dare you to ask how wealthy.


----------



## PoliticalChic

WheelieAddict said:


> I'm not on here all the time like you because I bust my ass trying to pay for a house.
> 
> You are here all the time. Welfare queen.




Thank you for signing your name to that post.


----------



## PoliticalChic

WheelieAddict said:


> It's absolutely shameful that it takes someone on vacation to confront your bs. Vacation earned, unlike your permanent vacation....





Look at the education I've given you on this vacation....unlike the one given you on your earlier vacation....the one called 'government schooling.'


----------



## PoliticalChic

WheelieAddict said:


> Your a commie that hates a great American president go back to North Korea.




"Your a commie that hates a great American president go back to North Korea."

1.  That would be "You're a commie."
Another disability imposed on you by government schooling.

One can see the training that went into your career as flag-man for the crew paving the street. Did it take you long to learn when to hold up the 'stop' banner?

2. As I explained earlier, this thread is an attack on the communism embraced by Franklin Delano Roosevelt...so I would hardly be a 'commie.'

3. I can't go back to a place I've never been.



Congrats on so very many errors in such a short post.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Paupers that are forced to spout propaganda against their own country aren't wealthy lol. You really should try a real job. Just think, you can actually have some self worth when you try to paint everyone as bums.....yet you are the bum. Quite a conundrum.


----------



## PoliticalChic

WheelieAddict said:


> Paupers that are forced to spout propaganda against their own country aren't wealthy lol. You really should try a real job. Just think, you can actually have some self worth when you try to paint everyone as bums.....yet you are the bum. Quite a conundrum.




Job???

You peasant.

This anecdote will explain my economic position:

“There's a great story about _*Rodgers *_and _*Hammerstein *_in London in...“They walked through Berkeley Square on their way to _*lunch *_in some swank restaurant in Mayfair. They passed this _*Rolls*_-_*Royce *_dealer and there were two identical _*white*_ ...Rolls-Royces in the window. 

A couple of hours later, as they strolled back through the square, they went into the showroom for a better look. They decided to buy the two Rolls. Hammerstein reached into his pocket for his checkbook, but Rodgers said, 'No, no, let me get these. You got lunch."   
Michael Sloan, "The Equilizer," p.471-2

Yeah....that rich.


----------



## WheelieAddict

All you have shown me is that you are likely a lackey from North Korea that spouts propaganda for a few cents. And if you do this while living in the US it is shameful, against all our proud veterans. They didn't bust their ass so you could sit on your ass.


----------



## WheelieAddict

The worst thing is you are shaming your father. He doesn't deserve it, yet you make it happen. Shamefull


----------



## WheelieAddict

Please either join the great democratic republic that is the United States or get out.


----------



## gipper

WheelieAddict said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the communist that will denigrate our great American presidents at the drop of the hat after their weak mind absorbs propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...

I have been accused of being a lot of things on this board, but commie...now that is a first.

I guess when one is a brainwashed statist fool, commies are around every corner...but somehow the commie loving FDR is not one.  CRAZY!!!


----------



## WheelieAddict

gipper said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the communist that will denigrate our great American presidents at the drop of the hat after their weak mind absorbs propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been accused of being a lot of things on this board, but commie...now that is a first.
> 
> I guess when one is a brainwashed statist fool, commies are around every corner...but somehow the commie loving FDR is not one.  CRAZY!!!
Click to expand...

So why do you hate many of our freely elected presidents? Your not one of the dumbass revolution guys are you?


----------



## gipper

WheelieAddict said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the communist that will denigrate our great American presidents at the drop of the hat after their weak mind absorbs propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been accused of being a lot of things on this board, but commie...now that is a first.
> 
> I guess when one is a brainwashed statist fool, commies are around every corner...but somehow the commie loving FDR is not one.  CRAZY!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do you hate many of our freely elected presidents? Your not one of the dumbass revolution guys are you?
Click to expand...

PC outlines documented proof and your response is to call her a commie.

You must have a very low IQ.  The State loves dummies like you.


----------



## WheelieAddict

gipper said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the communist that will denigrate our great American presidents at the drop of the hat after their weak mind absorbs propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been accused of being a lot of things on this board, but commie...now that is a first.
> Lol. You are her tool. But go ahead and keep trying to make the USA look bad commie.
> I guess when one is a brainwashed statist fool, commies are around every corner...but somehow the commie loving FDR is not one.  CRAZY!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do you hate many of our freely elected presidents? Your not one of the dumbass revolution guys are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PC outlines documented proof and your response is to call her a commie.
> 
> You must have a very low IQ.  The State loves dummies like you.
Click to expand...


----------



## WheelieAddict

gipper said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the communist that will denigrate our great American presidents at the drop of the hat after their weak mind absorbs propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been accused of being a lot of things on this board, but commie...now that is a first.
> 
> I guess when one is a brainwashed statist fool, commies are around every corner...but somehow the commie loving FDR is not one.  CRAZY!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do you hate many of our freely elected presidents? Your not one of the dumbass revolution guys are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PC outlines documented proof and your response is to call her a commie.
> 
> You must have a very low IQ.  The State loves dummies like you.
Click to expand...

Yeah "documented truth" from commie fascist dot com. Stop trying to undermine the US traitor.


----------



## gipper

WheelieAddict said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the communist that will denigrate our great American presidents at the drop of the hat after their weak mind absorbs propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been accused of being a lot of things on this board, but commie...now that is a first.
> 
> I guess when one is a brainwashed statist fool, commies are around every corner...but somehow the commie loving FDR is not one.  CRAZY!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do you hate many of our freely elected presidents? Your not one of the dumbass revolution guys are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PC outlines documented proof and your response is to call her a commie.
> 
> You must have a very low IQ.  The State loves dummies like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah "documented truth" from commie fascist dot com. Stop trying to undermine the US traitor.
Click to expand...

You need to open your mind.  Mindlessly believing in the State that lies to you, is not smart.

If you can provide proof that disproves the documentation provided by PC, please do so.  Otherwise STFU statist dupe.


----------



## WheelieAddict

gipper said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the communist that will denigrate our great American presidents at the drop of the hat after their weak mind absorbs propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been accused of being a lot of things on this board, but commie...now that is a first.
> 
> I guess when one is a brainwashed statist fool, commies are around every corner...but somehow the commie loving FDR is not one.  CRAZY!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do you hate many of our freely elected presidents? Your not one of the dumbass revolution guys are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PC outlines documented proof and your response is to call her a commie.
> 
> You must have a very low IQ.  The State loves dummies like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah "documented truth" from commie fascist dot com. Stop trying to undermine the US traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to open your mind.  Mindlessly believing in the State that lies to you, is not smart.
> 
> If you can provide proof that disproves the documentation provided by PC, please do so.  Otherwise STFU statist dupe.
Click to expand...

Sorry I don't "open my mind" to propaganda like you do. Your an embarrassment.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the communist that will denigrate our great American presidents at the drop of the hat after their weak mind absorbs propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been accused of being a lot of things on this board, but commie...now that is a first.
> 
> I guess when one is a brainwashed statist fool, commies are around every corner...but somehow the commie loving FDR is not one.  CRAZY!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do you hate many of our freely elected presidents? Your not one of the dumbass revolution guys are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PC outlines documented proof and your response is to call her a commie.
> 
> You must have a very low IQ.  The State loves dummies like you.
Click to expand...

So why have America's most noted historians always rated FDR as one of America's top three presidents, and recently rated FDR the greatest American president?


----------



## WheelieAddict

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the communist that will denigrate our great American presidents at the drop of the hat after their weak mind absorbs propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been accused of being a lot of things on this board, but commie...now that is a first.
> 
> I guess when one is a brainwashed statist fool, commies are around every corner...but somehow the commie loving FDR is not one.  CRAZY!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do you hate many of our freely elected presidents? Your not one of the dumbass revolution guys are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PC outlines documented proof and your response is to call her a commie.
> 
> You must have a very low IQ.  The State loves dummies like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why have America's most noted historians always rated FDR as one of America's top three presidents, and recently rated FDR the greatest American president?
Click to expand...

They live in a different reality. One where they try to make the US look bad. Traitors


----------



## PoliticalChic

gipper said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the communist that will denigrate our great American presidents at the drop of the hat after their weak mind absorbs propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been accused of being a lot of things on this board, but commie...now that is a first.
> 
> I guess when one is a brainwashed statist fool, commies are around every corner...but somehow the commie loving FDR is not one.  CRAZY!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do you hate many of our freely elected presidents? Your not one of the dumbass revolution guys are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PC outlines documented proof and your response is to call her a commie.
> 
> You must have a very low IQ.  The State loves dummies like you.
Click to expand...



1. True on both counts, gipper.
That dunce has the IQ of asphalt.....I had a good time drawing that out.



2. reggie has a persona that he seems proud of: there are others far smarter than he is, to whom he has given over his power to think. The downside is he has given same to the wrong folks.
It is those of us who provide facts.....facts he makes no attempt to discount.....to whom he should have awarded that proprietorship, if to anyone.

You may have the same feeling as I..but I never have any doubts that I can know as much about any subject as any supposed expert.
I never give the power to think for me to anyone.




3. This is from a review of Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism," one of my favs, and agrees with much of what you said in your post:

"Even if one does not consider the liberal administrations of the recent past fascist, Mr. Goldberg is correct to see *the liberalism of today to be state worship, which built upon the original statist liberalism of the Wilson administration.*Mr. Goldberg has, unlike the leftists who yell the term, made the strongest possible case that *Americans today live in a soft form of fascism, a statist liberal society whose citizens are unaware of the roots of ideas they hold.  *America's 'Fascist Moment' - The New York Sun


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the communist that will denigrate our great American presidents at the drop of the hat after their weak mind absorbs propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been accused of being a lot of things on this board, but commie...now that is a first.
> 
> I guess when one is a brainwashed statist fool, commies are around every corner...but somehow the commie loving FDR is not one.  CRAZY!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do you hate many of our freely elected presidents? Your not one of the dumbass revolution guys are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PC outlines documented proof and your response is to call her a commie.
> 
> You must have a very low IQ.  The State loves dummies like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why have America's most noted historians always rated FDR as one of America's top three presidents, and recently rated FDR the greatest American president?
Click to expand...



1. Why are you never able to deny any of the material I post about Roosevelt?

2. The answer to your query can be found in Professor Phyllis Chesler's book, "The Death of Feminism," as it explains the reality of academia.

"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."*
*

If my posts were not the truth....you'd be able to show that.*


----------



## WheelieAddict

Once more the North Korean communist cannot stop with the propaganda. Shamefull


----------



## PoliticalChic

WheelieAddict said:


> Once more the North Korean communist cannot stop with the propaganda. Shamefull




What's propaganda?


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord...another mindless dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the communist that will denigrate our great American presidents at the drop of the hat after their weak mind absorbs propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been accused of being a lot of things on this board, but commie...now that is a first.
> 
> I guess when one is a brainwashed statist fool, commies are around every corner...but somehow the commie loving FDR is not one.  CRAZY!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do you hate many of our freely elected presidents? Your not one of the dumbass revolution guys are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PC outlines documented proof and your response is to call her a commie.
> 
> You must have a very low IQ.  The State loves dummies like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why have America's most noted historians always rated FDR as one of America's top three presidents, and recently rated FDR the greatest American president?
Click to expand...

Once again all you ever offer is your childish appeal to authority.

Try using your brain for once.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the communist that will denigrate our great American presidents at the drop of the hat after their weak mind absorbs propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been accused of being a lot of things on this board, but commie...now that is a first.
> 
> I guess when one is a brainwashed statist fool, commies are around every corner...but somehow the commie loving FDR is not one.  CRAZY!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do you hate many of our freely elected presidents? Your not one of the dumbass revolution guys are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PC outlines documented proof and your response is to call her a commie.
> 
> You must have a very low IQ.  The State loves dummies like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why have America's most noted historians always rated FDR as one of America's top three presidents, and recently rated FDR the greatest American president?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again all you ever offer is your childish appeal to authority.
> 
> Try using your brain for once.
Click to expand...

I try to use experts in most endeavors, medicine, military, history, law, and so on, expert opinion is what the big boys use, and what do you use, someone's  opinion?


----------



## Syriusly

WildBillKelsoe said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WildBillKelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or that FDR was immensely popular as President.- Hoover was booed- but FDR was hailed as a champion for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ripped you pretty good in post #33, huh?
> 
> This one:
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2. Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Helped Americans?  Like, when he imprisoned thousands of American citizens based on their etnicity sand national origin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- that was one of FDR's- and America's most horrible mistakes. Something that to this day many Conservatives here at USMB applaud.
> 
> How did FDR help Americans?
> 
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance
> Conservatives seem appalled that FDR did any of these things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 0% unemployment?  That's not true
Click to expand...


Virtually- there were more jobs than there were workers by 1944.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the Udupe (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clean up your language: it shows you to be a loser.
> 
> 
> 1. "The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease.*As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR.....in November 1940* Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins.Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.” Roosevelt's Lend-Lease Act:  The Arm and Hammer / Hammer and Sickle Connection
> 
> a. The program was finally authorized by Congress and signed into effect on March 11, 1941. By November, after much heated debate, Congress extended the terms of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, even though the USSR had already been the recipient of American military weapons and had been promised $1 billion in financial aid. FDR signs Lend-Lease - Mar 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com
> 
> 
> 2. From a review of "Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer," by Edward Jay Epstein: The meticulously documented exposé of a celebrated American philanthropist - and traitor - that reads like a classic thriller.
> New York Times Book Review Notable Book of the Year
> Winner of the Financial Times Book Award
> The dossier on Hammer tells another story. With unprecedented access to the files of both American and Soviet intelligence agencies as well as Hammer's own secretly taped conversations, investigative author Edward Jay Epstein lays bare the appalling fraud, unconscionable corruption, international treachery, and personal betrayal that indict beyond doubt this ruthlessly manipulative opportunist who courted American presidents and conspired with every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev.
> 
> 3. And this about the man who shared lunches with Roosevelt, and Harry Hopkins: "Hammer sometimes claimed that his father had named him after a character, Armand Duval, in _La Dame aux Camélias_, a novel byAlexandre Dumas, fils. In fact, according to multiple biographers, Hammer was named after the "arm and hammer" graphic symbol of theSocialist Labor Party of America(SLP), in which his father, a committedsocialist, had a leadership role at one time.[8](After theRussian Revolution, a part of the SLP under Julius' leadership split off to become a founding element of the Communist Party USA.) Later in his life, Hammer confirmed that this was the origin of his given name.[2]" Armand Hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was far smarter than his erstwhile ally, Adolph Hitler,and his long time stooge, Franklin Roosevelt, whose actions can only be characterized as those of a love-sick, slobbering admirer of Stalin's.
> 
> Stalin used Roosevelt, and envisioned exactly what he wanted post-war.
> He used Hitler.
> He made Roosevelt his servant, giving him orders via Harry Hopkins and Armand Hammer among other spies who were welcomed by FDR into his administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop licking his boots and get off your knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great thread PC.  Thank you for once again exposing FDR for the commie dupe traitor he was.
> 
> It is truly amazing that so many Americans continue to beleive the lies about Stalin's Stooge, like the poster dupes in this thread...Even after the truth is clearly exposed.
> 
> Imagine 65 years from now, dupes will be singing praises to Obama.
> 
> Apparently some humans refuse to accept truth and much prefer lies.  Is it ignorance or brainwashing or something else?
Click to expand...


FDR was such a terrible President that during his Presidency- the United States both became the worlds most powerful country- and also entered into an unprecedented era of growth and prosperity.

No wonder Conservatives hate FDR.


----------



## Camp

This OP has a routine whereby her claims and data are soundly debunked by posters who provide links to scholarly sources to discredit her conspiracy theories and useless sources. The routine is that she simply ignores the debunking. Many of the threads she creates are left in the garbage heap, but she will come back to reuse the same nonsense to give her hateful ideas another shot. No shame or integrity is shown.  By useless sources, meaning the sources would never be accepted for college-level thesis or an accepted historical work. Her cut and paste essays fall into the realm of the conspiracy theory level genre. She makes big bold claims, but little if any genuine substance to back them up. Distortion and lying by omission  are her tools.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been accused of being a lot of things on this board, but commie...now that is a first.
> 
> I guess when one is a brainwashed statist fool, commies are around every corner...but somehow the commie loving FDR is not one.  CRAZY!!!
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you hate many of our freely elected presidents? Your not one of the dumbass revolution guys are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PC outlines documented proof and your response is to call her a commie.
> 
> You must have a very low IQ.  The State loves dummies like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why have America's most noted historians always rated FDR as one of America's top three presidents, and recently rated FDR the greatest American president?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again all you ever offer is your childish appeal to authority.
> 
> Try using your brain for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I try to use experts in most endeavors, medicine, military, history, law, and so on, expert opinion is what the big boys use, and what do you use, someone's  opinion?
Click to expand...



You misuse the term 'expert" when you count on individuals whose opinions run counter to facts.

Again....I provide facts and conclusions based on those facts.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> WildBillKelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WildBillKelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ripped you pretty good in post #33, huh?
> 
> This one:
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2. Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Helped Americans?  Like, when he imprisoned thousands of American citizens based on their etnicity sand national origin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- that was one of FDR's- and America's most horrible mistakes. Something that to this day many Conservatives here at USMB applaud.
> 
> How did FDR help Americans?
> 
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance
> Conservatives seem appalled that FDR did any of these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 0% unemployment?  That's not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virtually- there were more jobs than there were workers by 1944.
Click to expand...



You claimed unemployment reached zero under Roosevelt.

"Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment" in post #43

You've been caught in a lie again.



1.  In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %.  Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.
*"The 10 Big Lies About America: Combating Destructive Distortions About Our Nation" Medved

2. It is an accepted fact that WWII caused the greatest decrease in unemployment.....certainly not FDR's policies.*


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> WildBillKelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WildBillKelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ripped you pretty good in post #33, huh?
> 
> This one:
> 
> Let's remind all that I had to put you in your place earlier, proving that
> 
> 1. Contrary to your claim that Senator Joseph McCarthy "ruined the lives of innocent Americans with false accusations," you could come up with a single non-communist, or supporter of communism, whose life was "ruined."
> 
> Not a single one.
> 
> 
> 2. Contrary to your lie that FDR didn't demand communist Henry A. Wallace as his vice-president...or he wouldn't run....I destroyed that propaganda lie as well.
> '
> 
> In short, you've been revealed as a lying FDR-lap dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Helped Americans?  Like, when he imprisoned thousands of American citizens based on their etnicity sand national origin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- that was one of FDR's- and America's most horrible mistakes. Something that to this day many Conservatives here at USMB applaud.
> 
> How did FDR help Americans?
> 
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance
> Conservatives seem appalled that FDR did any of these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 0% unemployment?  That's not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virtually- there were more jobs than there were workers by 1944.
Click to expand...

Good job FDR!  Your war to save Soviet Communism, resulted in so many dead people and men away from home  to fight your stupid war, that the unemployment rate improved.  Only a dunce would find this commendable.


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the Udupe (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clean up your language: it shows you to be a loser.
> 
> 
> 1. "The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease.*As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR.....in November 1940* Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins.Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.” Roosevelt's Lend-Lease Act:  The Arm and Hammer / Hammer and Sickle Connection
> 
> a. The program was finally authorized by Congress and signed into effect on March 11, 1941. By November, after much heated debate, Congress extended the terms of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, even though the USSR had already been the recipient of American military weapons and had been promised $1 billion in financial aid. FDR signs Lend-Lease - Mar 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com
> 
> 
> 2. From a review of "Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer," by Edward Jay Epstein: The meticulously documented exposé of a celebrated American philanthropist - and traitor - that reads like a classic thriller.
> New York Times Book Review Notable Book of the Year
> Winner of the Financial Times Book Award
> The dossier on Hammer tells another story. With unprecedented access to the files of both American and Soviet intelligence agencies as well as Hammer's own secretly taped conversations, investigative author Edward Jay Epstein lays bare the appalling fraud, unconscionable corruption, international treachery, and personal betrayal that indict beyond doubt this ruthlessly manipulative opportunist who courted American presidents and conspired with every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev.
> 
> 3. And this about the man who shared lunches with Roosevelt, and Harry Hopkins: "Hammer sometimes claimed that his father had named him after a character, Armand Duval, in _La Dame aux Camélias_, a novel byAlexandre Dumas, fils. In fact, according to multiple biographers, Hammer was named after the "arm and hammer" graphic symbol of theSocialist Labor Party of America(SLP), in which his father, a committedsocialist, had a leadership role at one time.[8](After theRussian Revolution, a part of the SLP under Julius' leadership split off to become a founding element of the Communist Party USA.) Later in his life, Hammer confirmed that this was the origin of his given name.[2]" Armand Hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was far smarter than his erstwhile ally, Adolph Hitler,and his long time stooge, Franklin Roosevelt, whose actions can only be characterized as those of a love-sick, slobbering admirer of Stalin's.
> 
> Stalin used Roosevelt, and envisioned exactly what he wanted post-war.
> He used Hitler.
> He made Roosevelt his servant, giving him orders via Harry Hopkins and Armand Hammer among other spies who were welcomed by FDR into his administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop licking his boots and get off your knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great thread PC.  Thank you for once again exposing FDR for the commie dupe traitor he was.
> 
> It is truly amazing that so many Americans continue to beleive the lies about Stalin's Stooge, like the poster dupes in this thread...Even after the truth is clearly exposed.
> 
> Imagine 65 years from now, dupes will be singing praises to Obama.
> 
> Apparently some humans refuse to accept truth and much prefer lies.  Is it ignorance or brainwashing or something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR was such a terrible President that during his Presidency- the United States both became the worlds most powerful country- and also entered into an unprecedented era of growth and prosperity.
> 
> No wonder Conservatives hate FDR.
Click to expand...

Yep...assist in destroying the industrialized world, then claim you are great at growing the economy.

Can't fix stupid.


----------



## PoliticalChic

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WildBillKelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WildBillKelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are infatuated with your hatred of FDR
> 
> Once again you display how much Conservatives despise the fact that FDR:
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance.
> You just can't stand that FDR helped Americans- and Conservatives didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helped Americans?  Like, when he imprisoned thousands of American citizens based on their etnicity sand national origin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- that was one of FDR's- and America's most horrible mistakes. Something that to this day many Conservatives here at USMB applaud.
> 
> How did FDR help Americans?
> 
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance
> Conservatives seem appalled that FDR did any of these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 0% unemployment?  That's not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virtually- there were more jobs than there were workers by 1944.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good job FDR!  Your war to save Soviet Communism, resulted in so many dead people and men away from home  to fight your stupid war, that the unemployment rate improved.  Only a dunce would find this commendable.
Click to expand...




 FDR's " war to save Soviet Communism,..."

Succinct, accurate, and pungent!


Excellent!


----------



## PoliticalChic

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the Udupe (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clean up your language: it shows you to be a loser.
> 
> 
> 1. "The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease.*As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR.....in November 1940* Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins.Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.” Roosevelt's Lend-Lease Act:  The Arm and Hammer / Hammer and Sickle Connection
> 
> a. The program was finally authorized by Congress and signed into effect on March 11, 1941. By November, after much heated debate, Congress extended the terms of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, even though the USSR had already been the recipient of American military weapons and had been promised $1 billion in financial aid. FDR signs Lend-Lease - Mar 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com
> 
> 
> 2. From a review of "Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer," by Edward Jay Epstein: The meticulously documented exposé of a celebrated American philanthropist - and traitor - that reads like a classic thriller.
> New York Times Book Review Notable Book of the Year
> Winner of the Financial Times Book Award
> The dossier on Hammer tells another story. With unprecedented access to the files of both American and Soviet intelligence agencies as well as Hammer's own secretly taped conversations, investigative author Edward Jay Epstein lays bare the appalling fraud, unconscionable corruption, international treachery, and personal betrayal that indict beyond doubt this ruthlessly manipulative opportunist who courted American presidents and conspired with every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev.
> 
> 3. And this about the man who shared lunches with Roosevelt, and Harry Hopkins: "Hammer sometimes claimed that his father had named him after a character, Armand Duval, in _La Dame aux Camélias_, a novel byAlexandre Dumas, fils. In fact, according to multiple biographers, Hammer was named after the "arm and hammer" graphic symbol of theSocialist Labor Party of America(SLP), in which his father, a committedsocialist, had a leadership role at one time.[8](After theRussian Revolution, a part of the SLP under Julius' leadership split off to become a founding element of the Communist Party USA.) Later in his life, Hammer confirmed that this was the origin of his given name.[2]" Armand Hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was far smarter than his erstwhile ally, Adolph Hitler,and his long time stooge, Franklin Roosevelt, whose actions can only be characterized as those of a love-sick, slobbering admirer of Stalin's.
> 
> Stalin used Roosevelt, and envisioned exactly what he wanted post-war.
> He used Hitler.
> He made Roosevelt his servant, giving him orders via Harry Hopkins and Armand Hammer among other spies who were welcomed by FDR into his administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop licking his boots and get off your knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great thread PC.  Thank you for once again exposing FDR for the commie dupe traitor he was.
> 
> It is truly amazing that so many Americans continue to beleive the lies about Stalin's Stooge, like the poster dupes in this thread...Even after the truth is clearly exposed.
> 
> Imagine 65 years from now, dupes will be singing praises to Obama.
> 
> Apparently some humans refuse to accept truth and much prefer lies.  Is it ignorance or brainwashing or something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR was such a terrible President that during his Presidency- the United States both became the worlds most powerful country- and also entered into an unprecedented era of growth and prosperity.
> 
> No wonder Conservatives hate FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep...assist in destroying the industrialized world, then claim you are great at growing the economy.
> 
> Can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...




Let me remind all that Stalin demanded 'unconditional surrender' and 'pasturization' of Germany to make certain that the anti-Nazi, anti-communists in Germany could not stop his transcontinental march after the war.



"The Red Army is relentless in its quest to control as much of Europe as possible, with Stalin taking full advantage of Dwight Eisenhower's timidity. The Russians are seizing more land, and more people are coming under their occupation.

Patton is incensed. "You cannot lay down with a diseased jackal," he recently insisted to a group of journalists. "Neither can we ever do business with the Russians."
When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in Europe, "Keeping our forces intact. Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people.
This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say to you that we have had a victory over the Germans but have lost the war."

Even Patton's nemesis,* British field marshal Montgomery, agrees: when accepting the surrender of German soldiers, he ordered his troops to stack the Wehrmacht rifles in such a way that they could easily be redistributed should the Germans and British need to defend themselves against a Russian advance. *


In time, of course, Patton's predictions will come true, and the world will have to live with the consequences of American gullibility."
"Killing Patton," O'Reilly and Dugard, p. 259-260


----------



## regent

Not too worry someday a better president will come along and FDR will lose his hold in the top three American presidents area. The problem is it's all in the books now and if the Republicans keep electing people like Bush, (fifth worst) it will take some time, maybe a century or two.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> Not too worry someday a better president will come along and FDR will lose his hold in the top three American presidents area. The problem is it's all in the books now and if the Republicans keep electing people like Bush, (fifth worst) it will take some time, maybe a century or two.




You've already been put in your place, and characterized as one of those who has given up his ability to think for himself.

No one is disagreeing with your decision.

Why are you back?


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too worry someday a better president will come along and FDR will lose his hold in the top three American presidents area. The problem is it's all in the books now and if the Republicans keep electing people like Bush, (fifth worst) it will take some time, maybe a century or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been put in your place, and characterized as one of those who has given up his ability to think for himself.
> 
> No one is disagreeing with your decision.
> 
> Why are you back?
Click to expand...

Regent knows more about history than you can ever dream to know. He actually lived through some of the periods you discuss and knew people via family and friends of that era. All you have are a library full of conspiracy books and agenda-driven partisan commentary hack works.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too worry someday a better president will come along and FDR will lose his hold in the top three American presidents area. The problem is it's all in the books now and if the Republicans keep electing people like Bush, (fifth worst) it will take some time, maybe a century or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been put in your place, and characterized as one of those who has given up his ability to think for himself.
> 
> No one is disagreeing with your decision.
> 
> Why are you back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regent knows more about history than you can ever dream to know. He actually lived through some of the periods you discuss and knew people via family and friends of that era. All you have are a library full of conspiracy books and agenda-driven partisan commentary hack works.
Click to expand...




Actually, what I have is education, versus your indoctrination.
That's why I've always able to document what I post.

Seems that incenses you.


But...for my amusement, could you reprise your post about Franklin Roosevelt being the 'moral compass' of the nation?
Seems to be a fav among those of us who know Roosevelt's actually record.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too worry someday a better president will come along and FDR will lose his hold in the top three American presidents area. The problem is it's all in the books now and if the Republicans keep electing people like Bush, (fifth worst) it will take some time, maybe a century or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been put in your place, and characterized as one of those who has given up his ability to think for himself.
> 
> No one is disagreeing with your decision.
> 
> Why are you back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regent knows more about history than you can ever dream to know. He actually lived through some of the periods you discuss and knew people via family and friends of that era. All you have are a library full of conspiracy books and agenda-driven partisan commentary hack works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what I have is education, versus your indoctrination.
> That's why I've always able to document what I post.
> 
> Seems that incenses you.
> 
> 
> But...for my amusement, could you reprise your post about Franklin Roosevelt being the 'moral compass' of the nation?
> Seems to be a fav among those of us who know Roosevelt's actually record.
Click to expand...

I have no problem saying that the President who put the welfare of the masses in front of the welfare of the rich had an outstanding moral compass. He was not perfect and he made mistakes, but he had the heart of a good Christian and cared about the poor and the oppressed more than others of his era. That is why he won every election time after time, four of them. You use a dishonest method of comparing his values to he values of later eras and ignore the reality and circumstances of the period of time he had influence in.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Franklin *Roosevelt lied about coming up with the idea of 'unconditional surrender,' *as he lied about coming up with Lend Lease, and about having written Haiti's constitution....
> ....it was Stalin who authored both 'unconditional surrender,' and Lend Lease (using Armand Hammer to bring it to Roosevelt).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, the USSR was still a treaty ally of Germany on March 11, 1941 when FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act. Armand Hammer returned to the US from the USSR in the late 1930's before Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, which started WWII just days later. Germany didn't declare war on the USSR until June 22, 1941.
> 
> You are trying to make the case that the USA, through FDR, was in bed with the USSR to render aid (Lend Lease) to the enemies of our allies in Europe BEFORE Germany broke the Pact of Steel between Germany, Italy and the Udupe (signed May 22, 1939). Lend-Lease was initially for England and only later on after Germany's declaration of war and initiation of Operation Barbarossa expanded to the USSR. You're a fool for posting lies about easily obtainable undisputed facts and then trying to get them to fly,
> 
> You're full of horseshit as usual, but being caught out once again with your bare ass hanging out won't stop you from dancing around the actual facts, changing the narrative or just plain lying, and you know I've caught you doing that often enough! The return of this thread is a waste of bandwidth on the net, Chica as you were warned!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clean up your language: it shows you to be a loser.
> 
> 
> 1. "The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease.*As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR.....in November 1940* Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins.Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.” Roosevelt's Lend-Lease Act:  The Arm and Hammer / Hammer and Sickle Connection
> 
> a. The program was finally authorized by Congress and signed into effect on March 11, 1941. By November, after much heated debate, Congress extended the terms of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, even though the USSR had already been the recipient of American military weapons and had been promised $1 billion in financial aid. FDR signs Lend-Lease - Mar 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com
> 
> 
> 2. From a review of "Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer," by Edward Jay Epstein: The meticulously documented exposé of a celebrated American philanthropist - and traitor - that reads like a classic thriller.
> New York Times Book Review Notable Book of the Year
> Winner of the Financial Times Book Award
> The dossier on Hammer tells another story. With unprecedented access to the files of both American and Soviet intelligence agencies as well as Hammer's own secretly taped conversations, investigative author Edward Jay Epstein lays bare the appalling fraud, unconscionable corruption, international treachery, and personal betrayal that indict beyond doubt this ruthlessly manipulative opportunist who courted American presidents and conspired with every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev.
> 
> 3. And this about the man who shared lunches with Roosevelt, and Harry Hopkins: "Hammer sometimes claimed that his father had named him after a character, Armand Duval, in _La Dame aux Camélias_, a novel byAlexandre Dumas, fils. In fact, according to multiple biographers, Hammer was named after the "arm and hammer" graphic symbol of theSocialist Labor Party of America(SLP), in which his father, a committedsocialist, had a leadership role at one time.[8](After theRussian Revolution, a part of the SLP under Julius' leadership split off to become a founding element of the Communist Party USA.) Later in his life, Hammer confirmed that this was the origin of his given name.[2]" Armand Hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was far smarter than his erstwhile ally, Adolph Hitler,and his long time stooge, Franklin Roosevelt, whose actions can only be characterized as those of a love-sick, slobbering admirer of Stalin's.
> 
> Stalin used Roosevelt, and envisioned exactly what he wanted post-war.
> He used Hitler.
> He made Roosevelt his servant, giving him orders via Harry Hopkins and Armand Hammer among other spies who were welcomed by FDR into his administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop licking his boots and get off your knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great thread PC.  Thank you for once again exposing FDR for the commie dupe traitor he was.
> 
> It is truly amazing that so many Americans continue to beleive the lies about Stalin's Stooge, like the poster dupes in this thread...Even after the truth is clearly exposed.
> 
> Imagine 65 years from now, dupes will be singing praises to Obama.
> 
> Apparently some humans refuse to accept truth and much prefer lies.  Is it ignorance or brainwashing or something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR was such a terrible President that during his Presidency- the United States both became the worlds most powerful country- and also entered into an unprecedented era of growth and prosperity.
> 
> No wonder Conservatives hate FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep...assist in destroying the industrialized world, then claim you are great at growing the economy.
> 
> Can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...


As I said-

FDR was such a terrible President that during his Presidency- the United States both became the worlds most powerful country- and also entered into an unprecedented era of growth and prosperity.

No wonder Conservatives hate FDR

I can't fix your stupid- perhaps you would have preferred that the United States not respond when Germany declared war on the United States, perhaps you prefered that United States not respond to the attacks on Pearl Harbor.

FDR didn't feel that way- and led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and Italy- and apparently you are still upset about that.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too worry someday a better president will come along and FDR will lose his hold in the top three American presidents area. The problem is it's all in the books now and if the Republicans keep electing people like Bush, (fifth worst) it will take some time, maybe a century or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been put in your place, and characterized as one of those who has given up his ability to think for himself.
> 
> No one is disagreeing with your decision.
> 
> Why are you back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regent knows more about history than you can ever dream to know. He actually lived through some of the periods you discuss and knew people via family and friends of that era. All you have are a library full of conspiracy books and agenda-driven partisan commentary hack works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what I have is education, versus your indoctrination.
> That's why I've always able to document what I post.
> 
> Seems that incenses you.
> 
> 
> But...for my amusement, could you reprise your post about Franklin Roosevelt being the 'moral compass' of the nation?
> Seems to be a fav among those of us who know Roosevelt's actually record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem saying that the President who put the welfare of the masses in front of the welfare of the rich had an outstanding moral compass. He was not perfect and he made mistakes, but he had the heart of a good Christian and cared about the poor and the oppressed more than others of his era. That is why he won every election time after time, four of them. You use a dishonest method of comparing his values to he values of later eras and ignore the reality and circumstances of the period of time he had influence in.
Click to expand...



So....his contempt for Jews, blacks and Asians fits with "he had the heart of a good Christian" and "comparing his values to he values of later eras and ignore the reality and circumstances of the period of time he had influence in."

Would you say the same about his compatriots, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini?
He was pals with all three.
Or...don't you care to judge those via "comparing his values to he values of later eras and ignore the reality and circumstances of the period of time he had influence in."

Gads, you're a fool.
And I mean that in only the kindest way.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WildBillKelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WildBillKelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Helped Americans?  Like, when he imprisoned thousands of American citizens based on their etnicity sand national origin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- that was one of FDR's- and America's most horrible mistakes. Something that to this day many Conservatives here at USMB applaud.
> 
> How did FDR help Americans?
> 
> 
> Led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
> Led the United States from 25% unemployment to zero unemployment
> Created the GI Bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Depositers bank insurance
> Conservatives seem appalled that FDR did any of these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 0% unemployment?  That's not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virtually- there were more jobs than there were workers by 1944.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good job FDR!  Your war to save Soviet Communism, resulted in so many dead people and men away from home  to fight your stupid war, that the unemployment rate improved.  Only a dunce would find this commendable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's " war to save Soviet Communism,..."
> 
> Succinct, accurate, and pungent!
> 
> 
> Excellent!
Click to expand...


As stupid and inaccurate as everyone of your posts- look at the chart below- this describes the exact reason why PC hates FDR





PC would have prefered the United States to fail- but FDR led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero unemployment.

Established Social Security, the GI Bill, unemployment insurance, and bank depositors insurance. 

Let the United States to an era of unprecedented prosperity and power. 

Of course PC hates FDR.........


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too worry someday a better president will come along and FDR will lose his hold in the top three American presidents area. The problem is it's all in the books now and if the Republicans keep electing people like Bush, (fifth worst) it will take some time, maybe a century or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been put in your place, and characterized as one of those who has given up his ability to think for himself.
> 
> No one is disagreeing with your decision.
> 
> Why are you back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regent knows more about history than you can ever dream to know. He actually lived through some of the periods you discuss and knew people via family and friends of that era. All you have are a library full of conspiracy books and agenda-driven partisan commentary hack works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what I have is education, versus your indoctrination.
> That's why I've always able to document what I post.
> 
> Seems that incenses you.
> 
> 
> But...for my amusement, could you reprise your post about Franklin Roosevelt being the 'moral compass' of the nation?
> Seems to be a fav among those of us who know Roosevelt's actually record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem saying that the President who put the welfare of the masses in front of the welfare of the rich had an outstanding moral compass. He was not perfect and he made mistakes, but he had the heart of a good Christian and cared about the poor and the oppressed more than others of his era. That is why he won every election time after time, four of them. You use a dishonest method of comparing his values to he values of later eras and ignore the reality and circumstances of the period of time he had influence in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So....his contempt for Jews, blacks and Asians fits with "he had the heart of a good Christian" and "comparing his values to he values of later eras and ignore the reality and circumstances of the period of time he had influence in."
> 
> Would you say the same about his compatriots, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini?
> He was pals with all three.
> Or...don't you care to judge those via "comparing his values to he values of later eras and ignore the reality and circumstances of the period of time he had influence in."
> 
> Gads, you're a fool.
> And I mean that in only the kindest way.
Click to expand...

Oh, STFU. You are dishonestly comparing an American President to three dictators who made mass arrest confiscated their property and turned the arrested into slave labor or executed them. The sin you complain about is that the American President gave the unemployed jobs instead of enslavement and death and instead of confiscating their property, gave them a chance to keep it and even build on it. You are trying to compare dictators who only cared about obtaining and growing military might to a leader whose priority were the masses that depended on him to make life better for them. He succeeded and they loved him for it.


----------



## Syriusly

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been put in your place, and characterized as one of those who has given up his ability to think for himself.
> 
> No one is disagreeing with your decision.
> 
> Why are you back?
> 
> 
> 
> Regent knows more about history than you can ever dream to know. He actually lived through some of the periods you discuss and knew people via family and friends of that era. All you have are a library full of conspiracy books and agenda-driven partisan commentary hack works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what I have is education, versus your indoctrination.
> That's why I've always able to document what I post.
> 
> Seems that incenses you.
> 
> 
> But...for my amusement, could you reprise your post about Franklin Roosevelt being the 'moral compass' of the nation?
> Seems to be a fav among those of us who know Roosevelt's actually record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem saying that the President who put the welfare of the masses in front of the welfare of the rich had an outstanding moral compass. He was not perfect and he made mistakes, but he had the heart of a good Christian and cared about the poor and the oppressed more than others of his era. That is why he won every election time after time, four of them. You use a dishonest method of comparing his values to he values of later eras and ignore the reality and circumstances of the period of time he had influence in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So....his contempt for Jews, blacks and Asians fits with "he had the heart of a good Christian" and "comparing his values to he values of later eras and ignore the reality and circumstances of the period of time he had influence in."
> 
> Would you say the same about his compatriots, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini?
> He was pals with all three.
> Or...don't you care to judge those via "comparing his values to he values of later eras and ignore the reality and circumstances of the period of time he had influence in."
> 
> Gads, you're a fool.
> And I mean that in only the kindest way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, STFU. You are dishonestly comparing an American President to three dictators who made mass arrest confiscated their property and turned the arrested into slave labor or executed them. The sin you complain about is that the American President gave the unemployed jobs instead of enslavement and death and instead of confiscating their property, gave them a chance to keep it and even build on it. You are trying to compare dictators who only cared about obtaining and growing military might to a leader whose priority were the masses that depended on him to make life better for them. He succeeded and they loved him for it.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

FDR at his death, left Americans as the most powerful nation in the world, and enjoying unprecedented prosperity. 

What exactly is the America that PC and his fellow FDR haters wish for?

An America that rolled over for Japan and Germany?
An America with 25% unemployment?
An America with no GI Bill, no Social Security, no unemployment insurance, no bank depositers insurance.?
An America that was a third rate industrial and military power?


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too worry someday a better president will come along and FDR will lose his hold in the top three American presidents area. The problem is it's all in the books now and if the Republicans keep electing people like Bush, (fifth worst) it will take some time, maybe a century or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been put in your place, and characterized as one of those who has given up his ability to think for himself.
> 
> No one is disagreeing with your decision.
> 
> Why are you back?
Click to expand...

Ah, so that is how history is learned, one just thinks history for oneself and bingo there history is. Well it might work for you but not for some, I prefer history that is researched using historical methods as taught in historiography classes. Still, as I remember, wasn't that how Professor Higgins taught music, but  that was a movie. Is there where you learned to think-history, a movie that teaches one how to think-history?


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too worry someday a better president will come along and FDR will lose his hold in the top three American presidents area. The problem is it's all in the books now and if the Republicans keep electing people like Bush, (fifth worst) it will take some time, maybe a century or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been put in your place, and characterized as one of those who has given up his ability to think for himself.
> 
> No one is disagreeing with your decision.
> 
> Why are you back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so that is how history is learned, one just thinks history for oneself and bingo there history is. Well it might work for you but not for some, I prefer history that is researched using historical methods as taught in historiography classes. Still, as I remember, wasn't that how Professor Higgins taught music, but  that was a movie. Is there where you learned to think-history, a movie that teaches one how to think-history?
Click to expand...

You keep repeating yourself.  Offering the same idiotic appeal to authority, but are unable to dispute any of the heinous actions, constant lying and deceptions, and the terribly ineffective policies of Stalin's Stooge.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too worry someday a better president will come along and FDR will lose his hold in the top three American presidents area. The problem is it's all in the books now and if the Republicans keep electing people like Bush, (fifth worst) it will take some time, maybe a century or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been put in your place, and characterized as one of those who has given up his ability to think for himself.
> 
> No one is disagreeing with your decision.
> 
> Why are you back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so that is how history is learned, one just thinks history for oneself and bingo there history is. Well it might work for you but not for some, I prefer history that is researched using historical methods as taught in historiography classes. Still, as I remember, wasn't that how Professor Higgins taught music, but  that was a movie. Is there where you learned to think-history, a movie that teaches one how to think-history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating yourself.  Offering the same idiotic appeal to authority, but are unable to dispute any of the heinous actions, constant lying and deceptions, and the terribly ineffective policies of Stalin's Stooge.
Click to expand...

Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too worry someday a better president will come along and FDR will lose his hold in the top three American presidents area. The problem is it's all in the books now and if the Republicans keep electing people like Bush, (fifth worst) it will take some time, maybe a century or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been put in your place, and characterized as one of those who has given up his ability to think for himself.
> 
> No one is disagreeing with your decision.
> 
> Why are you back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so that is how history is learned, one just thinks history for oneself and bingo there history is. Well it might work for you but not for some, I prefer history that is researched using historical methods as taught in historiography classes. Still, as I remember, wasn't that how Professor Higgins taught music, but  that was a movie. Is there where you learned to think-history, a movie that teaches one how to think-history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating yourself.  Offering the same idiotic appeal to authority, but are unable to dispute any of the heinous actions, constant lying and deceptions, and the terribly ineffective policies of Stalin's Stooge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.
Click to expand...

You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too worry someday a better president will come along and FDR will lose his hold in the top three American presidents area. The problem is it's all in the books now and if the Republicans keep electing people like Bush, (fifth worst) it will take some time, maybe a century or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been put in your place, and characterized as one of those who has given up his ability to think for himself.
> 
> No one is disagreeing with your decision.
> 
> Why are you back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so that is how history is learned, one just thinks history for oneself and bingo there history is. Well it might work for you but not for some, I prefer history that is researched using historical methods as taught in historiography classes. Still, as I remember, wasn't that how Professor Higgins taught music, but  that was a movie. Is there where you learned to think-history, a movie that teaches one how to think-history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating yourself.  Offering the same idiotic appeal to authority, but are unable to dispute any of the heinous actions, constant lying and deceptions, and the terribly ineffective policies of Stalin's Stooge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!
Click to expand...


And you are an apologist for Imperial Japan- that Japan was forced 'to war'.

Are you just anti-American or just totally ignorant of history.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too worry someday a better president will come along and FDR will lose his hold in the top three American presidents area. The problem is it's all in the books now and if the Republicans keep electing people like Bush, (fifth worst) it will take some time, maybe a century or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been put in your place, and characterized as one of those who has given up his ability to think for himself.
> 
> No one is disagreeing with your decision.
> 
> Why are you back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so that is how history is learned, one just thinks history for oneself and bingo there history is. Well it might work for you but not for some, I prefer history that is researched using historical methods as taught in historiography classes. Still, as I remember, wasn't that how Professor Higgins taught music, but  that was a movie. Is there where you learned to think-history, a movie that teaches one how to think-history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating yourself.  Offering the same idiotic appeal to authority, but are unable to dispute any of the heinous actions, constant lying and deceptions, and the terribly ineffective policies of Stalin's Stooge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!
Click to expand...

Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?
The dunces you speak of are America's greatest historians and have so spoken since they began rating presidents.


----------



## Camp

When the OP slams FDR she is slamming what has come to be known as "America's Greatest Generation". She portrays them as stupid fools who were easily scammed by the evil communist FDR. To PoliticalChic and her lap dogs like Gipper, The GREATEST GENERATION was the dumbest generation. To them, the generation that brought into being the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen were all stupid fools who were not smart enough to pick a leader.


----------



## boedicca

Ahhhh...I just realized something.   One of the reasons the Progtards are so enamoured of Roosie is that s/he was a proto-Trangenderer!


----------



## PoliticalChic

boedicca said:


> Ahhhh...I just realized something.   One of the reasons the Progtards are so enamoured of Roosie is that s/he was a proto-Trangenderer!





Well.....I didn't quite mean it that way.....

....more like a serious bro-crush.


But it is difficult to come up with a comprehensive explanation for all Roosevelt did for Stalin and Soviet Communism....
..from awarding the recognition that they desired early in his career....

....to giving materials that our troops could have used via Lend Lease....

....to opening a second front in Normandy vs. the more accessible Adriatic/Italy avenue...

....to the deaths of 150,000 American and Allied lives through Stalin's 'unconditional surrender' doctrine.


If not the bro-crush....then it had to be either mental illness, or he was actually a communist.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> When the OP slams FDR she is slamming what has come to be known as "America's Greatest Generation". She portrays them as stupid fools who were easily scammed by the evil communist FDR. To PoliticalChic and her lap dogs like Gipper, The GREATEST GENERATION was the dumbest generation. To them, the generation that brought into being the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen were all stupid fools who were not smart enough to pick a leader.




Of course that's a bald-faced lie, the sort you boot-lickers use to attempt to excuse Roosevelt's actions.

Roosevelt oversaw the slaughter of 150,000 members of that 'greatest generation' by acceding to Stalin's demand for 'unconditional surrender.'

There is no excuse for that.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been put in your place, and characterized as one of those who has given up his ability to think for himself.
> 
> No one is disagreeing with your decision.
> 
> Why are you back?
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so that is how history is learned, one just thinks history for oneself and bingo there history is. Well it might work for you but not for some, I prefer history that is researched using historical methods as taught in historiography classes. Still, as I remember, wasn't that how Professor Higgins taught music, but  that was a movie. Is there where you learned to think-history, a movie that teaches one how to think-history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating yourself.  Offering the same idiotic appeal to authority, but are unable to dispute any of the heinous actions, constant lying and deceptions, and the terribly ineffective policies of Stalin's Stooge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
> Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......
Click to expand...



Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been put in your place, and characterized as one of those who has given up his ability to think for himself.
> 
> No one is disagreeing with your decision.
> 
> Why are you back?
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so that is how history is learned, one just thinks history for oneself and bingo there history is. Well it might work for you but not for some, I prefer history that is researched using historical methods as taught in historiography classes. Still, as I remember, wasn't that how Professor Higgins taught music, but  that was a movie. Is there where you learned to think-history, a movie that teaches one how to think-history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating yourself.  Offering the same idiotic appeal to authority, but are unable to dispute any of the heinous actions, constant lying and deceptions, and the terribly ineffective policies of Stalin's Stooge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
> Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?
> The dunces you speak of are America's greatest historians and have so spoken since they began rating presidents.
Click to expand...




Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so that is how history is learned, one just thinks history for oneself and bingo there history is. Well it might work for you but not for some, I prefer history that is researched using historical methods as taught in historiography classes. Still, as I remember, wasn't that how Professor Higgins taught music, but  that was a movie. Is there where you learned to think-history, a movie that teaches one how to think-history?
> 
> 
> 
> You keep repeating yourself.  Offering the same idiotic appeal to authority, but are unable to dispute any of the heinous actions, constant lying and deceptions, and the terribly ineffective policies of Stalin's Stooge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
> Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.
Click to expand...




Glad you included the term "dictator."

A possible explanation for Roosevelt's actions and attitiudes was that he wanted to swim with the sharks, and be a shark.

He had excellent relations with Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini....

...in fact his economic policies reflected, prominently, those of other dictators.


"Many people were arrested for not complying with NRA regulations. Jack Magid of New Jersey, for example, was jailed for violating the “Tailor’s Code” by pressing a suit for 35 rather than the NRA required 40 cents."
HOW A CHICKEN TOOK DOWN THE BIG BAD BLUE EAGLE - Mike's Comments


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the OP slams FDR she is slamming what has come to be known as "America's Greatest Generation". She portrays them as stupid fools who were easily scammed by the evil communist FDR. To PoliticalChic and her lap dogs like Gipper, The GREATEST GENERATION was the dumbest generation. To them, the generation that brought into being the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen were all stupid fools who were not smart enough to pick a leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's a bald-faced lie, the sort you boot-lickers use to attempt to excuse Roosevelt's actions.
> 
> Roosevelt oversaw the slaughter of 150,000 members of that 'greatest generation' by acceding to Stalin's demand for 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> There is no excuse for that.
Click to expand...

You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the OP slams FDR she is slamming what has come to be known as "America's Greatest Generation". She portrays them as stupid fools who were easily scammed by the evil communist FDR. To PoliticalChic and her lap dogs like Gipper, The GREATEST GENERATION was the dumbest generation. To them, the generation that brought into being the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen were all stupid fools who were not smart enough to pick a leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's a bald-faced lie, the sort you boot-lickers use to attempt to excuse Roosevelt's actions.
> 
> Roosevelt oversaw the slaughter of 150,000 members of that 'greatest generation' by acceding to Stalin's demand for 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> There is no excuse for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.
Click to expand...



This help?
1.*[The 'unconditional surrender policy] helped prolong the war in Europe*through its usefulness toGerman domestic propagandathat used it to encourage further resistance against the Allied armies,*and its suppressive effect on theGerman resistancemovement*since even after a coup againstAdolf Hitler:

"...those Germans — and particularly those*German generals — who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by*their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve thetreatment meted outto their country."
Michael Balfour, "Another Look at 'Unconditional Surrender'",_International Affairs_(Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 46, No. 4 (Oct., 1970), pp. 719-736


Was Roosevelt stupid...???


*Unconditional surrender.....FDR's obedience to Joseph Stalin....and his greatest blunder.


How about this?

2.  Many Allied leaders agreed with General Wedemeyer, that Roosevelt's 'unconditional surrender' announcement unified and stiffened Germany's resolve not to surrender, ....they knew that it would prolong the war. Included with Wedermeyer were Winston Churchill, Brit foreign minister Anthony Eden, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Ambassador to Moscow Averell Harriman, and others.
"The Memoirs of Cordell Hull in two volumes," 1570, 1575


 casualties....

To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died –a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence

Get that?

135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.


Based on the ration of deaths to wounded, that would suggest almostan additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.

Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'



3. BTW.....the same view comes from the German side."All to whom I talked dwelt onthe effect of 'unconditional surrender' policy on the prolonging of the war. They told me that, but for this- and their troops, the factor that was more important- would have beento surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
"The German Generals Talk," byBasil H. Liddell Hart, p. 292-293

"....to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."


a. The disastrous consequences of the unconditional surrender policy soon became evident. Captain Harry Butcher, Eisenhower's naval aide, noted in his diary on April 14, 1944: "Any military person knows that there are conditions to every surrender. . . . Goebbels has made great capital with it to strengthen the morale of the German army and people.Our psychological experts believe we would be wiser if we created a mood of acceptance of surrender in the German army which would make possible a collapse of resistance. . . ."
"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," byHarry C. Butcher



It's soooooo easy to put you in your place.

*


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the OP slams FDR she is slamming what has come to be known as "America's Greatest Generation". She portrays them as stupid fools who were easily scammed by the evil communist FDR. To PoliticalChic and her lap dogs like Gipper, The GREATEST GENERATION was the dumbest generation. To them, the generation that brought into being the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen were all stupid fools who were not smart enough to pick a leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's a bald-faced lie, the sort you boot-lickers use to attempt to excuse Roosevelt's actions.
> 
> Roosevelt oversaw the slaughter of 150,000 members of that 'greatest generation' by acceding to Stalin's demand for 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> There is no excuse for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.
Click to expand...

WTF!  Do you know of the horrific bombings inflected by the allies against Germany and Japan?  Unbelievable suffering committed by Americans on civilians, but I guess you think that justified because Hitler bombed London...but you forgot to mention....funny how you always do forget, that the allies bombed Berlin beforehand.

But I know...facts mean nothing to you.


----------



## gipper

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the OP slams FDR she is slamming what has come to be known as "America's Greatest Generation". She portrays them as stupid fools who were easily scammed by the evil communist FDR. To PoliticalChic and her lap dogs like Gipper, The GREATEST GENERATION was the dumbest generation. To them, the generation that brought into being the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen were all stupid fools who were not smart enough to pick a leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's a bald-faced lie, the sort you boot-lickers use to attempt to excuse Roosevelt's actions.
> 
> Roosevelt oversaw the slaughter of 150,000 members of that 'greatest generation' by acceding to Stalin's demand for 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> There is no excuse for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This help?
> 1.*[The 'unconditional surrender policy] helped prolong the war in Europe*through its usefulness toGerman domestic propagandathat used it to encourage further resistance against the Allied armies,*and its suppressive effect on theGerman resistancemovement*since even after a coup againstAdolf Hitler:
> 
> "...those Germans — and particularly those*German generals — who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by*their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve thetreatment meted outto their country."
> Michael Balfour, "Another Look at 'Unconditional Surrender'",_International Affairs_(Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 46, No. 4 (Oct., 1970), pp. 719-736
> 
> 
> Was Roosevelt stupid...???
> 
> 
> *Unconditional surrender.....FDR's obedience to Joseph Stalin....and his greatest blunder.
> 
> 
> How about this?
> 
> 2.  Many Allied leaders agreed with General Wedemeyer, that Roosevelt's 'unconditional surrender' announcement unified and stiffened Germany's resolve not to surrender, ....they knew that it would prolong the war. Included with Wedermeyer were Winston Churchill, Brit foreign minister Anthony Eden, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Ambassador to Moscow Averell Harriman, and others.
> "The Memoirs of Cordell Hull in two volumes," 1570, 1575
> 
> 
> casualties....
> 
> To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died –a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
> So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence
> 
> Get that?
> 
> 135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.
> 
> 
> Based on the ration of deaths to wounded, that would suggest almostan additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.
> 
> Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> 
> 
> 3. BTW.....the same view comes from the German side."All to whom I talked dwelt onthe effect of 'unconditional surrender' policy on the prolonging of the war. They told me that, but for this- and their troops, the factor that was more important- would have beento surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
> "The German Generals Talk," byBasil H. Liddell Hart, p. 292-293
> 
> "....to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
> 
> 
> a. The disastrous consequences of the unconditional surrender policy soon became evident. Captain Harry Butcher, Eisenhower's naval aide, noted in his diary on April 14, 1944: "Any military person knows that there are conditions to every surrender. . . . Goebbels has made great capital with it to strengthen the morale of the German army and people.Our psychological experts believe we would be wiser if we created a mood of acceptance of surrender in the German army which would make possible a collapse of resistance. . . ."
> "My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," byHarry C. Butcher
> 
> 
> 
> It's soooooo easy to put you in your place.
> *
Click to expand...

Great stuff PC...I guess reggie does not consider that information history, since some government statist toady did not write it.  

I am guessing the FDR lovers on this forum have never read the truth. So, their natural response is to disagree proving their ignorance.  

The truth for some is difficult to accept, but it should not be.  Politicians are the lowest life forms on the planet...and pols like FDR are even lowest of the low.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the OP slams FDR she is slamming what has come to be known as "America's Greatest Generation". She portrays them as stupid fools who were easily scammed by the evil communist FDR. To PoliticalChic and her lap dogs like Gipper, The GREATEST GENERATION was the dumbest generation. To them, the generation that brought into being the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen were all stupid fools who were not smart enough to pick a leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's a bald-faced lie, the sort you boot-lickers use to attempt to excuse Roosevelt's actions.
> 
> Roosevelt oversaw the slaughter of 150,000 members of that 'greatest generation' by acceding to Stalin's demand for 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> There is no excuse for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF!  Do you know of the horrific bombings inflected by the allies against Germany and Japan?  Unbelievable suffering committed by Americans on civilians, but I guess you think that justified because Hitler bombed London...but you forgot to mention....funny how you always do forget, that the allies bombed Berlin beforehand.
> 
> But I know...facts mean nothing to you.
Click to expand...

My facts tell me that civilian industrial targets were not allowed by the British until two days after the area bombings of Rotterdam by the Germans on 14 May 1940. My history also tells me the first bombing of Berlin consisted of dropping 8 bombs on 7 June 1940. Maybe we have different history books.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the OP slams FDR she is slamming what has come to be known as "America's Greatest Generation". She portrays them as stupid fools who were easily scammed by the evil communist FDR. To PoliticalChic and her lap dogs like Gipper, The GREATEST GENERATION was the dumbest generation. To them, the generation that brought into being the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen were all stupid fools who were not smart enough to pick a leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's a bald-faced lie, the sort you boot-lickers use to attempt to excuse Roosevelt's actions.
> 
> Roosevelt oversaw the slaughter of 150,000 members of that 'greatest generation' by acceding to Stalin's demand for 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> There is no excuse for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF!  Do you know of the horrific bombings inflected by the allies against Germany and Japan?  Unbelievable suffering committed by Americans on civilians, but I guess you think that justified because Hitler bombed London...but you forgot to mention....funny how you always do forget, that the allies bombed Berlin beforehand.
> 
> But I know...facts mean nothing to you.
Click to expand...


Both sides did indeed bomb civilian targets during World War 2.

And to you- there is no difference between the United States- Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union

Clearly we see differently.

Which is why I consider FDR a great President for leaving the United States the most powerful country in the world, leading Americans into our most prosperous era-

While you wish that the United States had remained poor, and third rate.


----------



## bodecea

We see who has the Roosevelt Infatuation.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the OP slams FDR she is slamming what has come to be known as "America's Greatest Generation". She portrays them as stupid fools who were easily scammed by the evil communist FDR. To PoliticalChic and her lap dogs like Gipper, The GREATEST GENERATION was the dumbest generation. To them, the generation that brought into being the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen were all stupid fools who were not smart enough to pick a leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's a bald-faced lie, the sort you boot-lickers use to attempt to excuse Roosevelt's actions.
> 
> Roosevelt oversaw the slaughter of 150,000 members of that 'greatest generation' by acceding to Stalin's demand for 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> There is no excuse for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This help?
> 1.*[The 'unconditional surrender policy] helped prolong the war in Europe*through its usefulness toGerman domestic propagandathat used it to encourage further resistance against the Allied armies,*and its suppressive effect on theGerman resistancemovement*since even after a coup againstAdolf Hitler:
> 
> "...those Germans — and particularly those*German generals — who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by*their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve thetreatment meted outto their country."
> Michael Balfour, "Another Look at 'Unconditional Surrender'",_International Affairs_(Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 46, No. 4 (Oct., 1970), pp. 719-736
> 
> 
> Was Roosevelt stupid...???
> 
> 
> *Unconditional surrender.....FDR's obedience to Joseph Stalin....and his greatest blunder.
> 
> 
> How about this?
> 
> 2.  Many Allied leaders agreed with General Wedemeyer, that Roosevelt's 'unconditional surrender' announcement unified and stiffened Germany's resolve not to surrender, ....they knew that it would prolong the war. Included with Wedermeyer were Winston Churchill, Brit foreign minister Anthony Eden, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Ambassador to Moscow Averell Harriman, and others.
> "The Memoirs of Cordell Hull in two volumes," 1570, 1575
> 
> 
> casualties....
> 
> To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died –a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
> So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence
> 
> Get that?
> 
> 135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.
> 
> 
> Based on the ration of deaths to wounded, that would suggest almostan additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.
> 
> Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> 
> 
> 3. BTW.....the same view comes from the German side."All to whom I talked dwelt onthe effect of 'unconditional surrender' policy on the prolonging of the war. They told me that, but for this- and their troops, the factor that was more important- would have beento surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
> "The German Generals Talk," byBasil H. Liddell Hart, p. 292-293
> 
> "....to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
> 
> 
> a. The disastrous consequences of the unconditional surrender policy soon became evident. Captain Harry Butcher, Eisenhower's naval aide, noted in his diary on April 14, 1944: "Any military person knows that there are conditions to every surrender. . . . Goebbels has made great capital with it to strengthen the morale of the German army and people.Our psychological experts believe we would be wiser if we created a mood of acceptance of surrender in the German army which would make possible a collapse of resistance. . . ."
> "My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," byHarry C. Butcher
> 
> 
> 
> It's soooooo easy to put you in your place.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great stuff PC...I guess reggie does not consider that information history, since some government statist toady did not write it.
> 
> I am guessing the FDR lovers on this forum have never read the truth. So, their natural response is to disagree proving their ignorance.
> 
> The truth for some is difficult to accept, but it should not be.  Politicians are the lowest life forms on the planet...and pols like FDR are even lowest of the low.
Click to expand...

You guys never get your facts right. I just showed how you misinformed with your nonsense about the allies starting area bombing in Europe and bombing Berlin. The Germans actually started using the tactic with their volunteer legions in Spain.


----------



## PoliticalChic

bodecea said:


> We see who has the Roosevelt Infatuation.




You should avoid using words whose definition is unknown to you.

 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.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the OP slams FDR she is slamming what has come to be known as "America's Greatest Generation". She portrays them as stupid fools who were easily scammed by the evil communist FDR. To PoliticalChic and her lap dogs like Gipper, The GREATEST GENERATION was the dumbest generation. To them, the generation that brought into being the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen were all stupid fools who were not smart enough to pick a leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's a bald-faced lie, the sort you boot-lickers use to attempt to excuse Roosevelt's actions.
> 
> Roosevelt oversaw the slaughter of 150,000 members of that 'greatest generation' by acceding to Stalin's demand for 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> There is no excuse for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF!  Do you know of the horrific bombings inflected by the allies against Germany and Japan?  Unbelievable suffering committed by Americans on civilians, but I guess you think that justified because Hitler bombed London...but you forgot to mention....funny how you always do forget, that the allies bombed Berlin beforehand.
> 
> But I know...facts mean nothing to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My facts tell me that civilian industrial targets were not allowed by the British until two days after the area bombings of Rotterdam by the Germans on 14 May 1940. My history also tells me the first bombing of Berlin consisted of dropping 8 bombs on 7 June 1940. Maybe we have different history books.
Click to expand...

Do you deny massive aerial bombings of German and Japanese civilians during the war?  

Do you deny that Hitler was successfully taking out UK armament sites and had not attacked London UNTIL Berlin had been hit by the allies?


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the OP slams FDR she is slamming what has come to be known as "America's Greatest Generation". She portrays them as stupid fools who were easily scammed by the evil communist FDR. To PoliticalChic and her lap dogs like Gipper, The GREATEST GENERATION was the dumbest generation. To them, the generation that brought into being the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen were all stupid fools who were not smart enough to pick a leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's a bald-faced lie, the sort you boot-lickers use to attempt to excuse Roosevelt's actions.
> 
> Roosevelt oversaw the slaughter of 150,000 members of that 'greatest generation' by acceding to Stalin's demand for 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> There is no excuse for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF!  Do you know of the horrific bombings inflected by the allies against Germany and Japan?  Unbelievable suffering committed by Americans on civilians, but I guess you think that justified because Hitler bombed London...but you forgot to mention....funny how you always do forget, that the allies bombed Berlin beforehand.
> 
> But I know...facts mean nothing to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My facts tell me that civilian industrial targets were not allowed by the British until two days after the area bombings of Rotterdam by the Germans on 14 May 1940. My history also tells me the first bombing of Berlin consisted of dropping 8 bombs on 7 June 1940. Maybe we have different history books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you deny massive aerial bombings of German and Japanese civilians during the war?
> 
> Do you deny that Hitler was successfully taking out UK armament sites and had not attacked London UNTIL Berlin had been hit by the allies?
Click to expand...

 You said or implied the allies had started the area bombardment strategy by bombing Berlin first. I am saying the tactic   known as carpet bombing was first used by Germany. 

The first British air raid on Berlin took place on 25 August 1940. It was a retaliation raid for the German raid on London on 23 August. The Germans opened that can of worms.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the OP slams FDR she is slamming what has come to be known as "America's Greatest Generation". She portrays them as stupid fools who were easily scammed by the evil communist FDR. To PoliticalChic and her lap dogs like Gipper, The GREATEST GENERATION was the dumbest generation. To them, the generation that brought into being the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen were all stupid fools who were not smart enough to pick a leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's a bald-faced lie, the sort you boot-lickers use to attempt to excuse Roosevelt's actions.
> 
> Roosevelt oversaw the slaughter of 150,000 members of that 'greatest generation' by acceding to Stalin's demand for 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> There is no excuse for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This help?
> 1.*[The 'unconditional surrender policy] helped prolong the war in Europe*through its usefulness toGerman domestic propagandathat used it to encourage further resistance against the Allied armies,*and its suppressive effect on theGerman resistancemovement*since even after a coup againstAdolf Hitler:
> 
> "...those Germans — and particularly those*German generals — who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by*their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve thetreatment meted outto their country."
> Michael Balfour, "Another Look at 'Unconditional Surrender'",_International Affairs_(Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 46, No. 4 (Oct., 1970), pp. 719-736
> 
> 
> Was Roosevelt stupid...???
> 
> 
> *Unconditional surrender.....FDR's obedience to Joseph Stalin....and his greatest blunder.
> 
> 
> How about this?
> 
> 2.  Many Allied leaders agreed with General Wedemeyer, that Roosevelt's 'unconditional surrender' announcement unified and stiffened Germany's resolve not to surrender, ....they knew that it would prolong the war. Included with Wedermeyer were Winston Churchill, Brit foreign minister Anthony Eden, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Ambassador to Moscow Averell Harriman, and others.
> "The Memoirs of Cordell Hull in two volumes," 1570, 1575
> 
> 
> casualties....
> 
> To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died –a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
> So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence
> 
> Get that?
> 
> 135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.
> 
> 
> Based on the ration of deaths to wounded, that would suggest almostan additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.
> 
> Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> 
> 
> 3. BTW.....the same view comes from the German side."All to whom I talked dwelt onthe effect of 'unconditional surrender' policy on the prolonging of the war. They told me that, but for this- and their troops, the factor that was more important- would have beento surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
> "The German Generals Talk," byBasil H. Liddell Hart, p. 292-293
> 
> "....to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
> 
> 
> a. The disastrous consequences of the unconditional surrender policy soon became evident. Captain Harry Butcher, Eisenhower's naval aide, noted in his diary on April 14, 1944: "Any military person knows that there are conditions to every surrender. . . . Goebbels has made great capital with it to strengthen the morale of the German army and people.Our psychological experts believe we would be wiser if we created a mood of acceptance of surrender in the German army which would make possible a collapse of resistance. . . ."
> "My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," byHarry C. Butcher
> 
> 
> 
> It's soooooo easy to put you in your place.
> *
Click to expand...

Germany was given a conditional surrender you dopey dingbat. It was what they got at the end of World War I. They began violating it immediately. They secretly found ways to build their military and soon were developing terror bombing in Spain as the volunteer Condor Legion. It was determined  early on that they would not get another chance.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the OP slams FDR she is slamming what has come to be known as "America's Greatest Generation". She portrays them as stupid fools who were easily scammed by the evil communist FDR. To PoliticalChic and her lap dogs like Gipper, The GREATEST GENERATION was the dumbest generation. To them, the generation that brought into being the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen were all stupid fools who were not smart enough to pick a leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's a bald-faced lie, the sort you boot-lickers use to attempt to excuse Roosevelt's actions.
> 
> Roosevelt oversaw the slaughter of 150,000 members of that 'greatest generation' by acceding to Stalin's demand for 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> There is no excuse for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This help?
> 1.*[The 'unconditional surrender policy] helped prolong the war in Europe*through its usefulness toGerman domestic propagandathat used it to encourage further resistance against the Allied armies,*and its suppressive effect on theGerman resistancemovement*since even after a coup againstAdolf Hitler:
> 
> "...those Germans — and particularly those*German generals — who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by*their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve thetreatment meted outto their country."
> Michael Balfour, "Another Look at 'Unconditional Surrender'",_International Affairs_(Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 46, No. 4 (Oct., 1970), pp. 719-736
> 
> 
> Was Roosevelt stupid...???
> 
> 
> *Unconditional surrender.....FDR's obedience to Joseph Stalin....and his greatest blunder.
> 
> 
> How about this?
> 
> 2.  Many Allied leaders agreed with General Wedemeyer, that Roosevelt's 'unconditional surrender' announcement unified and stiffened Germany's resolve not to surrender, ....they knew that it would prolong the war. Included with Wedermeyer were Winston Churchill, Brit foreign minister Anthony Eden, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Ambassador to Moscow Averell Harriman, and others.
> "The Memoirs of Cordell Hull in two volumes," 1570, 1575
> 
> 
> casualties....
> 
> To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died –a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
> So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence
> 
> Get that?
> 
> 135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.
> 
> 
> Based on the ration of deaths to wounded, that would suggest almostan additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.
> 
> Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> 
> 
> 3. BTW.....the same view comes from the German side."All to whom I talked dwelt onthe effect of 'unconditional surrender' policy on the prolonging of the war. They told me that, but for this- and their troops, the factor that was more important- would have beento surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
> "The German Generals Talk," byBasil H. Liddell Hart, p. 292-293
> 
> "....to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
> 
> 
> a. The disastrous consequences of the unconditional surrender policy soon became evident. Captain Harry Butcher, Eisenhower's naval aide, noted in his diary on April 14, 1944: "Any military person knows that there are conditions to every surrender. . . . Goebbels has made great capital with it to strengthen the morale of the German army and people.Our psychological experts believe we would be wiser if we created a mood of acceptance of surrender in the German army which would make possible a collapse of resistance. . . ."
> "My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," byHarry C. Butcher
> 
> 
> 
> It's soooooo easy to put you in your place.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Germany was given a conditional surrender you dopey dingbat. It was what they got at the end of World War I. They began violating it immediately. They secretly found ways to build their military and soon were developing terror bombing in Spain as the volunteer Condor Legion. It was determined  early on that they would not get another chance.
Click to expand...




Any 'determination' was by Joseph Stalin.

The reason was so that he could roll his ideology across post-war Europe.

And that is all one has to know about Franklin Roosevelt.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the OP slams FDR she is slamming what has come to be known as "America's Greatest Generation". She portrays them as stupid fools who were easily scammed by the evil communist FDR. To PoliticalChic and her lap dogs like Gipper, The GREATEST GENERATION was the dumbest generation. To them, the generation that brought into being the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen were all stupid fools who were not smart enough to pick a leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's a bald-faced lie, the sort you boot-lickers use to attempt to excuse Roosevelt's actions.
> 
> Roosevelt oversaw the slaughter of 150,000 members of that 'greatest generation' by acceding to Stalin's demand for 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> There is no excuse for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This help?
> 1.*[The 'unconditional surrender policy] helped prolong the war in Europe*through its usefulness toGerman domestic propagandathat used it to encourage further resistance against the Allied armies,*and its suppressive effect on theGerman resistancemovement*since even after a coup againstAdolf Hitler:
> 
> "...those Germans — and particularly those*German generals — who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by*their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve thetreatment meted outto their country."
> Michael Balfour, "Another Look at 'Unconditional Surrender'",_International Affairs_(Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 46, No. 4 (Oct., 1970), pp. 719-736
> 
> 
> Was Roosevelt stupid...???
> 
> 
> *Unconditional surrender.....FDR's obedience to Joseph Stalin....and his greatest blunder.
> 
> 
> How about this?
> 
> 2.  Many Allied leaders agreed with General Wedemeyer, that Roosevelt's 'unconditional surrender' announcement unified and stiffened Germany's resolve not to surrender, ....they knew that it would prolong the war. Included with Wedermeyer were Winston Churchill, Brit foreign minister Anthony Eden, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Ambassador to Moscow Averell Harriman, and others.
> "The Memoirs of Cordell Hull in two volumes," 1570, 1575
> 
> 
> casualties....
> 
> To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died –a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
> So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence
> 
> Get that?
> 
> 135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.
> 
> 
> Based on the ration of deaths to wounded, that would suggest almostan additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.
> 
> Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> 
> 
> 3. BTW.....the same view comes from the German side."All to whom I talked dwelt onthe effect of 'unconditional surrender' policy on the prolonging of the war. They told me that, but for this- and their troops, the factor that was more important- would have beento surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
> "The German Generals Talk," byBasil H. Liddell Hart, p. 292-293
> 
> "....to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
> 
> 
> a. The disastrous consequences of the unconditional surrender policy soon became evident. Captain Harry Butcher, Eisenhower's naval aide, noted in his diary on April 14, 1944: "Any military person knows that there are conditions to every surrender. . . . Goebbels has made great capital with it to strengthen the morale of the German army and people.Our psychological experts believe we would be wiser if we created a mood of acceptance of surrender in the German army which would make possible a collapse of resistance. . . ."
> "My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," byHarry C. Butcher
> 
> 
> 
> It's soooooo easy to put you in your place.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Germany was given a conditional surrender you dopey dingbat. It was what they got at the end of World War I. They began violating it immediately. They secretly found ways to build their military and soon were developing terror bombing in Spain as the volunteer Condor Legion. It was determined  early on that they would not get another chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any 'determination' was by Joseph Stalin.
> 
> The reason was so that he could roll his ideology across post-war Europe.
> 
> And that is all one has to know about Franklin Roosevelt.
Click to expand...

The reason was that politics was being left at the edge of the battlefield and the soldiers who fought to the end would be the ones who determined the conditions Individual commanders who had fouhgt and led their men across th0se battlefields would have great amounts of authority and in the case of the Russians, be allowed to keep every inch of ground over ten million of their comrades died for. Some may disagree with that attitude, but they weren't the ones doing the fighting. It is easy to judge 75 years later and talk about all those soldiers settling for conditions and the prospects of sending their sons to war 20 years later because some politicians made "conditions" like their fathers had had to do.


----------



## regent

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's a bald-faced lie, the sort you boot-lickers use to attempt to excuse Roosevelt's actions.
> 
> Roosevelt oversaw the slaughter of 150,000 members of that 'greatest generation' by acceding to Stalin's demand for 'unconditional surrender.'
> 
> There is no excuse for that.
> 
> 
> 
> You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF!  Do you know of the horrific bombings inflected by the allies against Germany and Japan?  Unbelievable suffering committed by Americans on civilians, but I guess you think that justified because Hitler bombed London...but you forgot to mention....funny how you always do forget, that the allies bombed Berlin beforehand.
> 
> But I know...facts mean nothing to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My facts tell me that civilian industrial targets were not allowed by the British until two days after the area bombings of Rotterdam by the Germans on 14 May 1940. My history also tells me the first bombing of Berlin consisted of dropping 8 bombs on 7 June 1940. Maybe we have different history books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you deny massive aerial bombings of German and Japanese civilians during the war?
> 
> Do you deny that Hitler was successfully taking out UK armament sites and had not attacked London UNTIL Berlin had been hit by the allies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said or implied the allies had started the area bombardment strategy by bombing Berlin first. I am saying the tactic   known as carpet bombing was first used by Germany.
> 
> The first British air raid on Berlin took place on 25 August 1940. It was a retaliation raid for the German raid on London on 23 August. The Germans opened that can of worms.
Click to expand...

It was an oopser by the Germans but great for the allies, as they now had their justification to bomb German civilians, and they did so bomb.


Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so that is how history is learned, one just thinks history for oneself and bingo there history is. Well it might work for you but not for some, I prefer history that is researched using historical methods as taught in historiography classes. Still, as I remember, wasn't that how Professor Higgins taught music, but  that was a movie. Is there where you learned to think-history, a movie that teaches one how to think-history?
> 
> 
> 
> You keep repeating yourself.  Offering the same idiotic appeal to authority, but are unable to dispute any of the heinous actions, constant lying and deceptions, and the terribly ineffective policies of Stalin's Stooge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
> Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly

regent said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF!  Do you know of the horrific bombings inflected by the allies against Germany and Japan?  Unbelievable suffering committed by Americans on civilians, but I guess you think that justified because Hitler bombed London...but you forgot to mention....funny how you always do forget, that the allies bombed Berlin beforehand.
> 
> But I know...facts mean nothing to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My facts tell me that civilian industrial targets were not allowed by the British until two days after the area bombings of Rotterdam by the Germans on 14 May 1940. My history also tells me the first bombing of Berlin consisted of dropping 8 bombs on 7 June 1940. Maybe we have different history books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you deny massive aerial bombings of German and Japanese civilians during the war?
> 
> Do you deny that Hitler was successfully taking out UK armament sites and had not attacked London UNTIL Berlin had been hit by the allies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said or implied the allies had started the area bombardment strategy by bombing Berlin first. I am saying the tactic   known as carpet bombing was first used by Germany.
> 
> The first British air raid on Berlin took place on 25 August 1940. It was a retaliation raid for the German raid on London on 23 August. The Germans opened that can of worms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was an oopser by the Germans but great for the allies, as they now had their justification to bomb German civilians, and they did so bomb.
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep repeating yourself.  Offering the same idiotic appeal to authority, but are unable to dispute any of the heinous actions, constant lying and deceptions, and the terribly ineffective policies of Stalin's Stooge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
> Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible. 

And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either. 

So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.

And? 

Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does. 

Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.

But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president. 

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before. 

Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that.


----------



## regent

The Japanese and I suspect others often put their industry into civilian population areas, a form of cottage industry, but even so I suspect they would have been bombed anyway.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so that is how history is learned, one just thinks history for oneself and bingo there history is. Well it might work for you but not for some, I prefer history that is researched using historical methods as taught in historiography classes. Still, as I remember, wasn't that how Professor Higgins taught music, but  that was a movie. Is there where you learned to think-history, a movie that teaches one how to think-history?
> 
> 
> 
> You keep repeating yourself.  Offering the same idiotic appeal to authority, but are unable to dispute any of the heinous actions, constant lying and deceptions, and the terribly ineffective policies of Stalin's Stooge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
> Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.
Click to expand...

At the Constitution Convention it was suggested that we have three presidents, not one, it was supported by a few framers then discarded. If we were to have a dictator, Washington would have been number one on the scale, FDR probably second. Neither made the effort. however, but thanks to Republicans FDR will probably hold the title of terms served for years or forever.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep repeating yourself.  Offering the same idiotic appeal to authority, but are unable to dispute any of the heinous actions, constant lying and deceptions, and the terribly ineffective policies of Stalin's Stooge.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
> Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the Constitution Convention it was suggested that we have three presidents, not one, it was supported by a few framers then discarded. If we were to have a dictator, Washington would have been number one on the scale, FDR probably second. Neither made the effort. however, but thanks to Republicans FDR will probably hold the title of terms served for years or forever.
Click to expand...



You are a pathetically failed apologist.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.
> 
> 
> 
> You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
> Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the Constitution Convention it was suggested that we have three presidents, not one, it was supported by a few framers then discarded. If we were to have a dictator, Washington would have been number one on the scale, FDR probably second. Neither made the effort. however, but thanks to Republicans FDR will probably hold the title of terms served for years or forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pathetically failed apologist.
Click to expand...

No one apologized.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!
> 
> 
> 
> Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
> Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the Constitution Convention it was suggested that we have three presidents, not one, it was supported by a few framers then discarded. If we were to have a dictator, Washington would have been number one on the scale, FDR probably second. Neither made the effort. however, but thanks to Republicans FDR will probably hold the title of terms served for years or forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pathetically failed apologist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one apologized.
Click to expand...



Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.

He certainly was.

In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt *manifested his contempt for the Constitution*. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: *"I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."*

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF!  Do you know of the horrific bombings inflected by the allies against Germany and Japan?  Unbelievable suffering committed by Americans on civilians, but I guess you think that justified because Hitler bombed London...but you forgot to mention....funny how you always do forget, that the allies bombed Berlin beforehand.
> 
> But I know...facts mean nothing to you.
> 
> 
> 
> My facts tell me that civilian industrial targets were not allowed by the British until two days after the area bombings of Rotterdam by the Germans on 14 May 1940. My history also tells me the first bombing of Berlin consisted of dropping 8 bombs on 7 June 1940. Maybe we have different history books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you deny massive aerial bombings of German and Japanese civilians during the war?
> 
> Do you deny that Hitler was successfully taking out UK armament sites and had not attacked London UNTIL Berlin had been hit by the allies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said or implied the allies had started the area bombardment strategy by bombing Berlin first. I am saying the tactic   known as carpet bombing was first used by Germany.
> 
> The first British air raid on Berlin took place on 25 August 1940. It was a retaliation raid for the German raid on London on 23 August. The Germans opened that can of worms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was an oopser by the Germans but great for the allies, as they now had their justification to bomb German civilians, and they did so bomb.
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
> Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.
> 
> And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.
> 
> So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.
> 
> And?
> 
> Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.
> 
> Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that.
Click to expand...

You need to make up your mind...are we commies or cons?  Which is it?

You are so terribly confused.


----------



## regent

[QUOTE="PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
> Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the Constitution Convention it was suggested that we have three presidents, not one, it was supported by a few framers then discarded. If we were to have a dictator, Washington would have been number one on the scale, FDR probably second. Neither made the effort. however, but thanks to Republicans FDR will probably hold the title of terms served for years or forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pathetically failed apologist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one apologized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.
> 
> He certainly was.
> 
> In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt *manifested his contempt for the Constitution*. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: *"I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."*
> 
> This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.
> 
> 
> You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.


----------



## Unkotare

Nice to see you doing exactly what PC ordered you to do.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> Nice to see you doing exactly what PC ordered you to do.


How come you're not doing your interment camp thing?


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> [QUOTE="PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> At the Constitution Convention it was suggested that we have three presidents, not one, it was supported by a few framers then discarded. If we were to have a dictator, Washington would have been number one on the scale, FDR probably second. Neither made the effort. however, but thanks to Republicans FDR will probably hold the title of terms served for years or forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pathetically failed apologist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one apologized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.
> 
> He certainly was.
> 
> In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt *manifested his contempt for the Constitution*. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: *"I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."*
> 
> This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.
> 
> 
> You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.
Click to expand...




Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?

Is that the reason?

You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.

They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.

That's why you can never deny any of it.

You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the Constitution Convention it was suggested that we have three presidents, not one, it was supported by a few framers then discarded. If we were to have a dictator, Washington would have been number one on the scale, FDR probably second. Neither made the effort. however, but thanks to Republicans FDR will probably hold the title of terms served for years or forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pathetically failed apologist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one apologized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.
> 
> He certainly was.
> 
> In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt *manifested his contempt for the Constitution*. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: *"I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."*
> 
> This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.
> 
> 
> You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?
> 
> Is that the reason?
> 
> You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.
> 
> That's why you can never deny any of it.
> 
> You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.
Click to expand...

Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pathetically failed apologist.
> 
> 
> 
> No one apologized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.
> 
> He certainly was.
> 
> In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt *manifested his contempt for the Constitution*. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: *"I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."*
> 
> This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.
> 
> 
> You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?
> 
> Is that the reason?
> 
> You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.
> 
> That's why you can never deny any of it.
> 
> You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
Click to expand...


1. "Still name calling I see,..."
Dunce is an accurate description of you, one who claims not to do any thinking, but relying on others to provide same.

Unless you'd care to deny that that is what you post with metronomic regularity. 


2."As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph..."
Not true.
Or...you could certainly find the quote- as I give the link to same- and show that it was not what was being said.

See what I mean about you having become a liar as a defense against the truth.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pathetically failed apologist.
> 
> 
> 
> No one apologized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.
> 
> He certainly was.
> 
> In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt *manifested his contempt for the Constitution*. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: *"I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."*
> 
> This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.
> 
> 
> You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?
> 
> Is that the reason?
> 
> You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.
> 
> That's why you can never deny any of it.
> 
> You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
Click to expand...

Oh no!!!!....PC is calling me names...boohoo...It is hard not to call you names, when you post foolishness.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pathetically failed apologist.
> 
> 
> 
> No one apologized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.
> 
> He certainly was.
> 
> In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt *manifested his contempt for the Constitution*. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: *"I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."*
> 
> This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.
> 
> 
> You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?
> 
> Is that the reason?
> 
> You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.
> 
> That's why you can never deny any of it.
> 
> You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
Click to expand...

Here are couple additional tidbits for you to cry about, regarding your beloved tyrant.
1. Are you aware of FDR's covert involvement with the Polish government prior to the German invasion?  How he backed Poland's hard liners against Germany leading to WWII?  Why would he do this?
2. Are you aware of FDR's knowledge of the Katyn Massacre?  Do you know he knew Stalin did it, but went along with the Soviet version of events anyway?

Nice guy old FDR...the more one researches his actions, the more one realizes how overwhelming the evidence is that he was a disgusting asshole....well one must be able think objectively and logically...you obviously are incapable.


----------



## PoliticalChic

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one apologized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.
> 
> He certainly was.
> 
> In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt *manifested his contempt for the Constitution*. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: *"I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."*
> 
> This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.
> 
> 
> You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?
> 
> Is that the reason?
> 
> You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.
> 
> That's why you can never deny any of it.
> 
> You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here are couple additional tidbits for you to cry about, regarding your beloved tyrant.
> 1. Are you aware of FDR's covert involvement with the Polish government prior to the German invasion?  How he backed Poland's hard liners against Germany leading to WWII?  Why would he do this?
> 2. Are you aware of FDR's knowledge of the Katyn Massacre?  Do you know he knew Stalin did it, but went along with the Soviet version of events anyway?
> 
> Nice guy old FDR...the more one researches his actions, the more one realizes how overwhelming the evidence is that he was a disgusting asshole....well one must be able think objectively and logically...you obviously are incapable.
Click to expand...



Let's remind all of Katyn....yet another of Stalin's atrocities that FDR had no trouble agreeing to.

1. In April of 1943, the mass graves of thousands of shot, bayoneted, and asphyxiated Polish officers were uncovered in the Katyn pine forest near Smolensk, Russia.

a. April 13, 1943, Radio Berlin broadcasts the German discovery of *twenty-two thousand corpses of Polish officers "executed by the NKVD when the Soviets held the territory, spring of 1940.*

2. April 21, 1943, Stalin tells FDR that it was "German fascists" that massacred the helpless Polish officers. But...he fumed that his and FDR's ally, the Polish government in exile has the nerve to ask the International Red Cross to investigate the crime. Did you get that? Stalin was incensed that the Poles wanted the atrocity investigated.

a. The Red Cross said they would investigate....if all three parties- Germany, Poland, and the USSR agreed. Guess who refused. In fact, Pravda attacked the Poles as "Hitlerite lackeys" who would "go down in history as the helpmates of Cannibal Hitler." 
"Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter, p. 64. 


3. And *FDR administration? "No big deal." In fact, the US Office of War Information broadcast exactly what Stalin wanted them to.*

a. BTW....in 1990, the *Soviets finally admitted that the Katyn Massacre was a Soviet Crime. *
Katyn -- 1952 US Congressional findings (Страница 1) — English — Форумы сайта ПРАВДА О КАТЫНИ


4. So....what did FDR know, and when did he know it? "It wasn't only that all was forgiven by FDR;* all was ignored."*
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 204.              



reggie....what do your 'historians' tell you to think about Katyn?


BTW....Stalin had the 22 thousand killed so they could not resist communism after the war. It was exactly the same reason he demanded that FDR never allow Germany to surrender until it was "pasturized," and pulverized.



Now is the time for the other dunce, Camp, to rush in and claim FDR was the "moral compass of America."


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one apologized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.
> 
> He certainly was.
> 
> In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt *manifested his contempt for the Constitution*. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: *"I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."*
> 
> This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.
> 
> 
> You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?
> 
> Is that the reason?
> 
> You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.
> 
> That's why you can never deny any of it.
> 
> You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. "Still name calling I see,..."
> Dunce is an accurate description of you, one who claims not to do any thinking, but relying on others to provide same.
> 
> Unless you'd care to deny that that is what you post with metronomic regularity.
> 
> 
> 2."As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph..."
> Not true.
> Or...you could certainly find the quote- as I give the link to same- and show that it was not what was being said.
> 
> See what I mean about you having become a liar as a defense against the truth.
Click to expand...

I believe that professional historians may just know more history than I do and even you, so I defer to their history. So it's a contest between your history to prove FDR a communist, and thousands of the nations best historians since 1948 that say FDR was one of the three best if not the best, and I choose their history over yours.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.
> 
> He certainly was.
> 
> In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt *manifested his contempt for the Constitution*. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: *"I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."*
> 
> This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.
> 
> 
> You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.
> 
> 
> 
> Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?
> 
> Is that the reason?
> 
> You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.
> 
> That's why you can never deny any of it.
> 
> You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. "Still name calling I see,..."
> Dunce is an accurate description of you, one who claims not to do any thinking, but relying on others to provide same.
> 
> Unless you'd care to deny that that is what you post with metronomic regularity.
> 
> 
> 2."As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph..."
> Not true.
> Or...you could certainly find the quote- as I give the link to same- and show that it was not what was being said.
> 
> See what I mean about you having become a liar as a defense against the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Let me post your response for you Reggie.

Historians rate Stalin's Stooge one of our greatest presidents, so it must be so.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?
> 
> Is that the reason?
> 
> You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.
> 
> That's why you can never deny any of it.
> 
> You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. "Still name calling I see,..."
> Dunce is an accurate description of you, one who claims not to do any thinking, but relying on others to provide same.
> 
> Unless you'd care to deny that that is what you post with metronomic regularity.
> 
> 
> 2."As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph..."
> Not true.
> Or...you could certainly find the quote- as I give the link to same- and show that it was not what was being said.
> 
> See what I mean about you having become a liar as a defense against the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me post your response for you Reggie.
> 
> Historians rate Stalin's Stooge one of our greatest presidents, so it must be so.
Click to expand...

Now you're getting it.  Using experts is one of the best ways to  know and understand things. It's called education.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.
> 
> He certainly was.
> 
> In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt *manifested his contempt for the Constitution*. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: *"I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."*
> 
> This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.
> 
> 
> You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.
> 
> 
> 
> Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?
> 
> Is that the reason?
> 
> You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.
> 
> That's why you can never deny any of it.
> 
> You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here are couple additional tidbits for you to cry about, regarding your beloved tyrant.
> 1. Are you aware of FDR's covert involvement with the Polish government prior to the German invasion?  How he backed Poland's hard liners against Germany leading to WWII?  Why would he do this?
> 2. Are you aware of FDR's knowledge of the Katyn Massacre?  Do you know he knew Stalin did it, but went along with the Soviet version of events anyway?
> 
> Nice guy old FDR...the more one researches his actions, the more one realizes how overwhelming the evidence is that he was a disgusting asshole....well one must be able think objectively and logically...you obviously are incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's remind all of Katyn....yet another of Stalin's atrocities that FDR had no trouble agreeing to.
> 
> 1. In April of 1943, the mass graves of thousands of shot, bayoneted, and asphyxiated Polish officers were uncovered in the Katyn pine forest near Smolensk, Russia.
> 
> a. April 13, 1943, Radio Berlin broadcasts the German discovery of *twenty-two thousand corpses of Polish officers "executed by the NKVD when the Soviets held the territory, spring of 1940.*
> 
> 2. April 21, 1943, Stalin tells FDR that it was "German fascists" that massacred the helpless Polish officers. But...he fumed that his and FDR's ally, the Polish government in exile has the nerve to ask the International Red Cross to investigate the crime. Did you get that? Stalin was incensed that the Poles wanted the atrocity investigated.
> 
> a. The Red Cross said they would investigate....if all three parties- Germany, Poland, and the USSR agreed. Guess who refused. In fact, Pravda attacked the Poles as "Hitlerite lackeys" who would "go down in history as the helpmates of Cannibal Hitler."
> "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter, p. 64.
> 
> 
> 3. And *FDR administration? "No big deal." In fact, the US Office of War Information broadcast exactly what Stalin wanted them to.*
> 
> a. BTW....in 1990, the *Soviets finally admitted that the Katyn Massacre was a Soviet Crime. *
> Katyn -- 1952 US Congressional findings (Страница 1) — English — Форумы сайта ПРАВДА О КАТЫНИ
> 
> 
> 4. So....what did FDR know, and when did he know it? "It wasn't only that all was forgiven by FDR;* all was ignored."*
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 204.
> 
> 
> 
> reggie....what do your 'historians' tell you to think about Katyn?
> 
> 
> BTW....Stalin had the 22 thousand killed so they could not resist communism after the war. It was exactly the same reason he demanded that FDR never allow Germany to surrender until it was "pasturized," and pulverized.
> 
> 
> 
> Now is the time for the other dunce, Camp, to rush in and claim FDR was the "moral compass of America."
Click to expand...

There was little time for FDR to be concerned about an argument about who committed the atrocity in Poland. In the time frame being highlighted the battles in north Africa were still going on, the invasions for the southern front in Sicily, the Italian mainland, and southern France were being prepared and readied The battles on the eastern front were raging and the greatest and largest tank battle in world history at Kursk was in the making. The air war over Europe was raging also. B-17's with 10 man crews were being shot down by the scores but kept charging ahead, slowly devastating the Luftwaffe as it did. Eventually, that cost 26,000 airmen lives. In the Pacific US forces were taking back the Aleutian Islands that had been invaded and occupied by Japan, chasing down the leading Japanese General and shooting him out of the sky, etc., ect. All of this and more in the small time frame the OP has selected.
The question is, why would the US be concerned about whether the Germans or Russians committed this atrocity in Poland committed years before? What did it have, if anything to do with the events in the present or near future? The answer, nothing. If we believed the Nazi's, what were we supposed to do, scold Stalin. Stop everything and quit the war?


----------



## Unkotare

These fdr scumbag apologists are beyond fucking shameless.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> My facts tell me that civilian industrial targets were not allowed by the British until two days after the area bombings of Rotterdam by the Germans on 14 May 1940. My history also tells me the first bombing of Berlin consisted of dropping 8 bombs on 7 June 1940. Maybe we have different history books.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny massive aerial bombings of German and Japanese civilians during the war?
> 
> Do you deny that Hitler was successfully taking out UK armament sites and had not attacked London UNTIL Berlin had been hit by the allies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said or implied the allies had started the area bombardment strategy by bombing Berlin first. I am saying the tactic   known as carpet bombing was first used by Germany.
> 
> The first British air raid on Berlin took place on 25 August 1940. It was a retaliation raid for the German raid on London on 23 August. The Germans opened that can of worms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was an oopser by the Germans but great for the allies, as they now had their justification to bomb German civilians, and they did so bomb.
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
> Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.
> 
> And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.
> 
> So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.
> 
> And?
> 
> Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.
> 
> Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to make up your mind...are we commies or cons?  Which is it?
> 
> You are so terribly confused.
Click to expand...


Why would I think you are commies? 
Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.

And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.

So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.

And?

Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.

Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.

But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?
> 
> Is that the reason?
> 
> You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.
> 
> That's why you can never deny any of it.
> 
> You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here are couple additional tidbits for you to cry about, regarding your beloved tyrant.
> 1. Are you aware of FDR's covert involvement with the Polish government prior to the German invasion?  How he backed Poland's hard liners against Germany leading to WWII?  Why would he do this?
> 2. Are you aware of FDR's knowledge of the Katyn Massacre?  Do you know he knew Stalin did it, but went along with the Soviet version of events anyway?
> 
> Nice guy old FDR...the more one researches his actions, the more one realizes how overwhelming the evidence is that he was a disgusting asshole....well one must be able think objectively and logically...you obviously are incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's remind all of Katyn....yet another of Stalin's atrocities that FDR had no trouble agreeing to.
> 
> 1. In April of 1943, the mass graves of thousands of shot, bayoneted, and asphyxiated Polish officers were uncovered in the Katyn pine forest near Smolensk, Russia.
> 
> a. April 13, 1943, Radio Berlin broadcasts the German discovery of *twenty-two thousand corpses of Polish officers "executed by the NKVD when the Soviets held the territory, spring of 1940.*
> 
> 2. April 21, 1943, Stalin tells FDR that it was "German fascists" that massacred the helpless Polish officers. But...he fumed that his and FDR's ally, the Polish government in exile has the nerve to ask the International Red Cross to investigate the crime. Did you get that? Stalin was incensed that the Poles wanted the atrocity investigated.
> 
> a. The Red Cross said they would investigate....if all three parties- Germany, Poland, and the USSR agreed. Guess who refused. In fact, Pravda attacked the Poles as "Hitlerite lackeys" who would "go down in history as the helpmates of Cannibal Hitler."
> "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter, p. 64.
> 
> 
> 3. And *FDR administration? "No big deal." In fact, the US Office of War Information broadcast exactly what Stalin wanted them to.*
> 
> a. BTW....in 1990, the *Soviets finally admitted that the Katyn Massacre was a Soviet Crime. *
> Katyn -- 1952 US Congressional findings (Страница 1) — English — Форумы сайта ПРАВДА О КАТЫНИ
> 
> 
> 4. So....what did FDR know, and when did he know it? "It wasn't only that all was forgiven by FDR;* all was ignored."*
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 204.
> 
> 
> 
> reggie....what do your 'historians' tell you to think about Katyn?
> 
> 
> BTW....Stalin had the 22 thousand killed so they could not resist communism after the war. It was exactly the same reason he demanded that FDR never allow Germany to surrender until it was "pasturized," and pulverized.
> 
> 
> 
> Now is the time for the other dunce, Camp, to rush in and claim FDR was the "moral compass of America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was little time for FDR to be concerned about an argument about who committed the atrocity in Poland. In the time frame being highlighted the battles in north Africa were still going on, the invasions for the southern front in Sicily, the Italian mainland, and southern France were being prepared and readied The battles on the eastern front were raging and the greatest and largest tank battle in world history at Kursk was in the making. The air war over Europe was raging also. B-17's with 10 man crews were being shot down by the scores but kept charging ahead, slowly devastating the Luftwaffe as it did. Eventually, that cost 26,000 airmen lives. In the Pacific US forces were taking back the Aleutian Islands that had been invaded and occupied by Japan, chasing down the leading Japanese General and shooting him out of the sky, etc., ect. All of this and more in the small time frame the OP has selected.
> The question is, why would the US be concerned about whether the Germans or Russians committed this atrocity in Poland committed years before? What did it have, if anything to do with the events in the present or near future? The answer, nothing. If we believed the Nazi's, what were we supposed to do, scold Stalin. Stop everything and quit the war?
Click to expand...




But....but.....Roosevelt was the 'moral compass of America'....

I know it must be true 'cause some dunce told me so.


He couldn't be concerned about some ol' 22,000 human beings that his compatriot had strangled to death,,,,he was too busy being the 'moral compass of America'....


And he knew that Uncle Joe has million of Ukrainians starve to death to install collectivization,,,,and he shrugged 'cause that's what the 'moral compass of America' does.

And promoted spies in his administration when he found out that they worked for Soviet communism....'cause....well, you know.


----------



## Syriusly

Unkotare said:


> These fdr scumbag apologists are beyond fucking shameless.



And you fucking American hating scumbags hate FDR for all that he accomplished for America.

But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?
> 
> Is that the reason?
> 
> You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.
> 
> That's why you can never deny any of it.
> 
> You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. "Still name calling I see,..."
> Dunce is an accurate description of you, one who claims not to do any thinking, but relying on others to provide same.
> 
> Unless you'd care to deny that that is what you post with metronomic regularity.
> 
> 
> 2."As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph..."
> Not true.
> Or...you could certainly find the quote- as I give the link to same- and show that it was not what was being said.
> 
> See what I mean about you having become a liar as a defense against the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me post your response for you Reggie.
> 
> Historians rate Stalin's Stooge one of our greatest presidents, so it must be so.
Click to expand...


Who to believe- the majority of American historians or a few bitter anonymous FDR haters on the internet?

Oh right- Americans believe the historians.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?
> 
> Is that the reason?
> 
> You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.
> 
> That's why you can never deny any of it.
> 
> You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here are couple additional tidbits for you to cry about, regarding your beloved tyrant.
> 1. Are you aware of FDR's covert involvement with the Polish government prior to the German invasion?  How he backed Poland's hard liners against Germany leading to WWII?  Why would he do this?
> 2. Are you aware of FDR's knowledge of the Katyn Massacre?  Do you know he knew Stalin did it, but went along with the Soviet version of events anyway?
> 
> Nice guy old FDR...the more one researches his actions, the more one realizes how overwhelming the evidence is that he was a disgusting asshole....well one must be able think objectively and logically...you obviously are incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's remind all of Katyn....yet another of Stalin's atrocities that FDR had no trouble agreeing to.
> 
> 1. In April of 1943, the mass graves of thousands of shot, bayoneted, and asphyxiated Polish officers were uncovered in the Katyn pine forest near Smolensk, Russia.
> 
> a. April 13, 1943, Radio Berlin broadcasts the German discovery of *twenty-two thousand corpses of Polish officers "executed by the NKVD when the Soviets held the territory, spring of 1940.*
> 
> 2. April 21, 1943, Stalin tells FDR that it was "German fascists" that massacred the helpless Polish officers. But...he fumed that his and FDR's ally, the Polish government in exile has the nerve to ask the International Red Cross to investigate the crime. Did you get that? Stalin was incensed that the Poles wanted the atrocity investigated.
> 
> a. The Red Cross said they would investigate....if all three parties- Germany, Poland, and the USSR agreed. Guess who refused. In fact, Pravda attacked the Poles as "Hitlerite lackeys" who would "go down in history as the helpmates of Cannibal Hitler."
> "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter, p. 64.
> 
> 
> 3. And *FDR administration? "No big deal." In fact, the US Office of War Information broadcast exactly what Stalin wanted them to.*
> 
> a. BTW....in 1990, the *Soviets finally admitted that the Katyn Massacre was a Soviet Crime. *
> Katyn -- 1952 US Congressional findings (Страница 1) — English — Форумы сайта ПРАВДА О КАТЫНИ
> 
> 
> 4. So....what did FDR know, and when did he know it? "It wasn't only that all was forgiven by FDR;* all was ignored."*
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 204.
> 
> 
> 
> reggie....what do your 'historians' tell you to think about Katyn?
> 
> 
> BTW....Stalin had the 22 thousand killed so they could not resist communism after the war. It was exactly the same reason he demanded that FDR never allow Germany to surrender until it was "pasturized," and pulverized.
> 
> 
> 
> Now is the time for the other dunce, Camp, to rush in and claim FDR was the "moral compass of America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was little time for FDR to be concerned about an argument about who committed the atrocity in Poland. In the time frame being highlighted the battles in north Africa were still going on, the invasions for the southern front in Sicily, the Italian mainland, and southern France were being prepared and readied The battles on the eastern front were raging and the greatest and largest tank battle in world history at Kursk was in the making. The air war over Europe was raging also. B-17's with 10 man crews were being shot down by the scores but kept charging ahead, slowly devastating the Luftwaffe as it did. Eventually, that cost 26,000 airmen lives. In the Pacific US forces were taking back the Aleutian Islands that had been invaded and occupied by Japan, chasing down the leading Japanese General and shooting him out of the sky, etc., ect. All of this and more in the small time frame the OP has selected.
> The question is, why would the US be concerned about whether the Germans or Russians committed this atrocity in Poland committed years before? What did it have, if anything to do with the events in the present or near future? The answer, nothing. If we believed the Nazi's, what were we supposed to do, scold Stalin. Stop everything and quit the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But....but.....Roosevelt was the 'moral compass of America'....
> 
> I know it must be true 'cause some dunce told me so.
> 
> 
> He couldn't be concerned about some ol' 22,000 human beings that his compatriot had strangled to death,,,,he was too busy being the 'moral compass of America'....
> 
> 
> And he knew that Uncle Joe has million of Ukrainians starve to death to install collectivization,,,,and he shrugged 'cause that's what the 'moral compass of America' does.
> 
> And promoted spies in his administration when he found out that they worked for Soviet communism....'cause....well, you know.
Click to expand...

Predictably, PoliticalChic deflects and evades the questions and challenges given to her. She is pushing this rant about an atrocity of murdered Polish officers whose buried remains were allegedly found by the Nazi's and reported as a Russian atrocity when the bodies were discovered in Poland. The Germans blamed the Russians and the Russians blamed the Germans. PoliticalChic blames FDR. Makes no sense. The event had nothing to do with the USA. Apparently she thinks FDR should have sided with the Germans and fired Russia and quit WW II. All the stuff I listed going on during the month the bodies were discovered, all the victories and progress, months away from the invasions of Sicily, Italy, and southern France, the raging air war over Europe, retaking the Aleutians, and PoliticalChic thinks the American President should have injected himself into an argument between the Nazi's and Stalin. Because he didn't, she claims he had no moral compass and was an evil man who supported communism and was a Stalin dupe.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
> 
> 
> 
> Here are couple additional tidbits for you to cry about, regarding your beloved tyrant.
> 1. Are you aware of FDR's covert involvement with the Polish government prior to the German invasion?  How he backed Poland's hard liners against Germany leading to WWII?  Why would he do this?
> 2. Are you aware of FDR's knowledge of the Katyn Massacre?  Do you know he knew Stalin did it, but went along with the Soviet version of events anyway?
> 
> Nice guy old FDR...the more one researches his actions, the more one realizes how overwhelming the evidence is that he was a disgusting asshole....well one must be able think objectively and logically...you obviously are incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's remind all of Katyn....yet another of Stalin's atrocities that FDR had no trouble agreeing to.
> 
> 1. In April of 1943, the mass graves of thousands of shot, bayoneted, and asphyxiated Polish officers were uncovered in the Katyn pine forest near Smolensk, Russia.
> 
> a. April 13, 1943, Radio Berlin broadcasts the German discovery of *twenty-two thousand corpses of Polish officers "executed by the NKVD when the Soviets held the territory, spring of 1940.*
> 
> 2. April 21, 1943, Stalin tells FDR that it was "German fascists" that massacred the helpless Polish officers. But...he fumed that his and FDR's ally, the Polish government in exile has the nerve to ask the International Red Cross to investigate the crime. Did you get that? Stalin was incensed that the Poles wanted the atrocity investigated.
> 
> a. The Red Cross said they would investigate....if all three parties- Germany, Poland, and the USSR agreed. Guess who refused. In fact, Pravda attacked the Poles as "Hitlerite lackeys" who would "go down in history as the helpmates of Cannibal Hitler."
> "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter, p. 64.
> 
> 
> 3. And *FDR administration? "No big deal." In fact, the US Office of War Information broadcast exactly what Stalin wanted them to.*
> 
> a. BTW....in 1990, the *Soviets finally admitted that the Katyn Massacre was a Soviet Crime. *
> Katyn -- 1952 US Congressional findings (Страница 1) — English — Форумы сайта ПРАВДА О КАТЫНИ
> 
> 
> 4. So....what did FDR know, and when did he know it? "It wasn't only that all was forgiven by FDR;* all was ignored."*
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 204.
> 
> 
> 
> reggie....what do your 'historians' tell you to think about Katyn?
> 
> 
> BTW....Stalin had the 22 thousand killed so they could not resist communism after the war. It was exactly the same reason he demanded that FDR never allow Germany to surrender until it was "pasturized," and pulverized.
> 
> 
> 
> Now is the time for the other dunce, Camp, to rush in and claim FDR was the "moral compass of America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was little time for FDR to be concerned about an argument about who committed the atrocity in Poland. In the time frame being highlighted the battles in north Africa were still going on, the invasions for the southern front in Sicily, the Italian mainland, and southern France were being prepared and readied The battles on the eastern front were raging and the greatest and largest tank battle in world history at Kursk was in the making. The air war over Europe was raging also. B-17's with 10 man crews were being shot down by the scores but kept charging ahead, slowly devastating the Luftwaffe as it did. Eventually, that cost 26,000 airmen lives. In the Pacific US forces were taking back the Aleutian Islands that had been invaded and occupied by Japan, chasing down the leading Japanese General and shooting him out of the sky, etc., ect. All of this and more in the small time frame the OP has selected.
> The question is, why would the US be concerned about whether the Germans or Russians committed this atrocity in Poland committed years before? What did it have, if anything to do with the events in the present or near future? The answer, nothing. If we believed the Nazi's, what were we supposed to do, scold Stalin. Stop everything and quit the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But....but.....Roosevelt was the 'moral compass of America'....
> 
> I know it must be true 'cause some dunce told me so.
> 
> 
> He couldn't be concerned about some ol' 22,000 human beings that his compatriot had strangled to death,,,,he was too busy being the 'moral compass of America'....
> 
> 
> And he knew that Uncle Joe has million of Ukrainians starve to death to install collectivization,,,,and he shrugged 'cause that's what the 'moral compass of America' does.
> 
> And promoted spies in his administration when he found out that they worked for Soviet communism....'cause....well, you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Predictably, PoliticalChic deflects and evades the questions and challenges given to her. She is pushing this rant about an atrocity of murdered Polish officers whose buried remains were allegedly found by the Nazi's and reported as a Russian atrocity when the bodies were discovered in Poland. The Germans blamed the Russians and the Russians blamed the Germans. PoliticalChic blames FDR. Makes no sense. The event had nothing to do with the USA. Apparently she thinks FDR should have sided with the Germans and fired Russia and quit WW II. All the stuff I listed going on during the month the bodies were discovered, all the victories and progress, months away from the invasions of Sicily, Italy, and southern France, the raging air war over Europe, retaking the Aleutians, and PoliticalChic thinks the American President should have injected himself into an argument between the Nazi's and Stalin. Because he didn't, she claims he had no moral compass and was an evil man who supported communism and was a Stalin dupe.
Click to expand...



1. "She is pushing this rant about an atrocity of murdered Polish officers whose buried remains were allegedly found by the Nazi's and reported as a Russian atrocity when the bodies were discovered in Poland. 

The Germans blamed the Russians and the Russians blamed the Germans."

Watch how swiftly I bury you:
*....in 1990, the Soviets finally admitted that the Katyn Massacre was a Soviet Crime. Katyn -- 1952 US Congressional findings (Страница 1) — English — Форумы сайта ПРАВДА О КАТЫНИ*


2. "PoliticalChic blames FDR. Makes no sense. The event had nothing to do with the USA. Apparently she thinks FDR should have sided with the Germans..."

FDR hid the truth.
He buried it.
He told the America public that Stalin fought for the same things as we did, while he was worse than Hitler.

a. George Earle was a special emissary of FDR's to Europe...and returned in 1944 with *proof that implicated the Soviets in the Katyn Forest massacre *(In April of 1943, the mass graves of *thousands of shot, bayoneted, and asphyxiated Polish officers *were uncovered in the Katyn pine forest near Smolensk, Russia.) Earle testified later at the Katyn Forest hearings that Joe Levy of the NYTimes, warned him that bringing an anti-Soviet report to FDR would be a career ender : "George, you don't know what you are going to over there. Harry Hopkins has completed domination over the President and the whole atmosphere over there is 'pink.'" 
West, "American Betrayal," p.211.

b. On March 22, 1945,* FDR wrote to Earle: "I have noted with concern your plan to publicize your unfavorable opinion of one of our allies. I do not wish you to do so. Not only do I not wish it, I specifically forbid you to do so."* He then ordered Earle to Samoa for the duration.


*And let's remind all what a hyper-partisan Roosevelt boot-licker you are: Roosevelt knew of the Terror Famine, the Katyn Forest Massacre, and other blood purges. by Stalin....and you claim he was 'the moral compass of America.'*

*Disgusting.*


----------



## Correll

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?
> 
> Is that the reason?
> 
> You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.
> 
> That's why you can never deny any of it.
> 
> You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. "Still name calling I see,..."
> Dunce is an accurate description of you, one who claims not to do any thinking, but relying on others to provide same.
> 
> Unless you'd care to deny that that is what you post with metronomic regularity.
> 
> 
> 2."As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph..."
> Not true.
> Or...you could certainly find the quote- as I give the link to same- and show that it was not what was being said.
> 
> See what I mean about you having become a liar as a defense against the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me post your response for you Reggie.
> 
> Historians rate Stalin's Stooge one of our greatest presidents, so it must be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're getting it.  Using experts is one of the best ways to  know and understand things. It's called education.
Click to expand...


Actually what you describe is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.


----------



## Correll

Syriusly said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> These fdr scumbag apologists are beyond fucking shameless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you fucking American hating scumbags hate FDR for all that he accomplished for America.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that
Click to expand...



1. The Great Depression was not going to be permanent. It is debatable the FDR's policies did more that create the appearance of doing something about the problem.

2. THe US, once dragged into the war by a surprise attack was destined to win due to vast economic and geographical advantages.

3. With the vast industrial nation America was well before FDR and with nearly all other industrial nations bombed to rubble, it was inevitable that the US would be the greatest Industrial and military power on the planet.

4. GI bill a plus. Social Security has become a budget buster. Unemployment insurance horribly abused. Bank Deposit insurance good.

5. On the other hand, trusting Stalin to hold Free Elections in Eastern Europe and thus giving the Soviet Union half of Europe was madness that has never been fully explained.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Lest there be any doubt at all.....

*"New Revelations on the Katyn Forest Massacre: Roosevelt Knew*

....many in Congress accusing the Roosevelt administration of covering up Soviet involvement in the grisly deed. *Hearings were held, and  a congressional committee eventually determined, in 1952, that Stalin’s Soviet Union had indeed been responsible, and that the Roosevelt administration had tried to cover up the episode *out of military necessity. The Soviet Union under Gorbachev finally admitted responsibility for Katyn, but the White House has never acknowledged any inside knowledge or attempt to cover up the event.

Now,the verdict is in. With the September 10 release of 1,000 pages of formerly classified documents by the National Archives, it has been *established beyond any reasonable doubt that the Roosevelt administration knew of the atrocity perpetrated by “Uncle Joe” Stalin long before the war was over, and made sure the American public did not find out about it."
New Revelations on the Katyn Forest Massacre: Roosevelt Knew



Once again...I'm never wrong.


*


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> These fdr scumbag apologists are beyond fucking shameless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you fucking American hating scumbags hate FDR for all that he accomplished for America.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that
Click to expand...

DESPISING a lying traitorous president is NOT THE SAME THING AS HATING THE COUNTRY...YOU IDIOT.  FDR IS NOT THE F-ING COUNTRY, YOU IDIOT.  FDR WAS A LYING STINKING CORRUPT POLITICIAN.

YOU THINK AMERICANS MUST ADMIRE FDR, TO BE GOOD AMERICANS.  ONLY A FOOL WOULD THINK THAT.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?
> 
> Is that the reason?
> 
> You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.
> 
> That's why you can never deny any of it.
> 
> You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. "Still name calling I see,..."
> Dunce is an accurate description of you, one who claims not to do any thinking, but relying on others to provide same.
> 
> Unless you'd care to deny that that is what you post with metronomic regularity.
> 
> 
> 2."As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph..."
> Not true.
> Or...you could certainly find the quote- as I give the link to same- and show that it was not what was being said.
> 
> See what I mean about you having become a liar as a defense against the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me post your response for you Reggie.
> 
> Historians rate Stalin's Stooge one of our greatest presidents, so it must be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're getting it.  Using experts is one of the best ways to  know and understand things. It's called education.
Click to expand...




No.
It's far from education.

Simply accepting the word of those you are willing to call 'expert' is the height of cowardice. You're afraid to face the waves of contumely that would come from Roosevelt, Leftist, groupies......like yourself.


Educate is from e' ducare.....to lead out of....
You may have been led, but you certainly haven't been led out of ignorance.
You remain a prime example of indoctrination.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?
> 
> Is that the reason?
> 
> You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.
> 
> That's why you can never deny any of it.
> 
> You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here are couple additional tidbits for you to cry about, regarding your beloved tyrant.
> 1. Are you aware of FDR's covert involvement with the Polish government prior to the German invasion?  How he backed Poland's hard liners against Germany leading to WWII?  Why would he do this?
> 2. Are you aware of FDR's knowledge of the Katyn Massacre?  Do you know he knew Stalin did it, but went along with the Soviet version of events anyway?
> 
> Nice guy old FDR...the more one researches his actions, the more one realizes how overwhelming the evidence is that he was a disgusting asshole....well one must be able think objectively and logically...you obviously are incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's remind all of Katyn....yet another of Stalin's atrocities that FDR had no trouble agreeing to.
> 
> 1. In April of 1943, the mass graves of thousands of shot, bayoneted, and asphyxiated Polish officers were uncovered in the Katyn pine forest near Smolensk, Russia.
> 
> a. April 13, 1943, Radio Berlin broadcasts the German discovery of *twenty-two thousand corpses of Polish officers "executed by the NKVD when the Soviets held the territory, spring of 1940.*
> 
> 2. April 21, 1943, Stalin tells FDR that it was "German fascists" that massacred the helpless Polish officers. But...he fumed that his and FDR's ally, the Polish government in exile has the nerve to ask the International Red Cross to investigate the crime. Did you get that? Stalin was incensed that the Poles wanted the atrocity investigated.
> 
> a. The Red Cross said they would investigate....if all three parties- Germany, Poland, and the USSR agreed. Guess who refused. In fact, Pravda attacked the Poles as "Hitlerite lackeys" who would "go down in history as the helpmates of Cannibal Hitler."
> "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter, p. 64.
> 
> 
> 3. And *FDR administration? "No big deal." In fact, the US Office of War Information broadcast exactly what Stalin wanted them to.*
> 
> a. BTW....in 1990, the *Soviets finally admitted that the Katyn Massacre was a Soviet Crime. *
> Katyn -- 1952 US Congressional findings (Страница 1) — English — Форумы сайта ПРАВДА О КАТЫНИ
> 
> 
> 4. So....what did FDR know, and when did he know it? "It wasn't only that all was forgiven by FDR;* all was ignored."*
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 204.
> 
> 
> 
> reggie....what do your 'historians' tell you to think about Katyn?
> 
> 
> BTW....Stalin had the 22 thousand killed so they could not resist communism after the war. It was exactly the same reason he demanded that FDR never allow Germany to surrender until it was "pasturized," and pulverized.
> 
> 
> 
> Now is the time for the other dunce, Camp, to rush in and claim FDR was the "moral compass of America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was little time for FDR to be concerned about an argument about who committed the atrocity in Poland. In the time frame being highlighted the battles in north Africa were still going on, the invasions for the southern front in Sicily, the Italian mainland, and southern France were being prepared and readied The battles on the eastern front were raging and the greatest and largest tank battle in world history at Kursk was in the making. The air war over Europe was raging also. B-17's with 10 man crews were being shot down by the scores but kept charging ahead, slowly devastating the Luftwaffe as it did. Eventually, that cost 26,000 airmen lives. In the Pacific US forces were taking back the Aleutian Islands that had been invaded and occupied by Japan, chasing down the leading Japanese General and shooting him out of the sky, etc., ect. All of this and more in the small time frame the OP has selected.
> The question is, why would the US be concerned about whether the Germans or Russians committed this atrocity in Poland committed years before? What did it have, if anything to do with the events in the present or near future? The answer, nothing. If we believed the Nazi's, what were we supposed to do, scold Stalin. Stop everything and quit the war?
Click to expand...

Damn.

The Katyn Massacre occurred in Spring 1940 and it is likely FDR knew who perpetrated it shortly thereafter.  We were not yet involved in FDR's War in Spring 1940. 

So in effect, your post is utterly and completely inaccurate.  Why are you a toady for a lying corrupt politician?


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny massive aerial bombings of German and Japanese civilians during the war?
> 
> Do you deny that Hitler was successfully taking out UK armament sites and had not attacked London UNTIL Berlin had been hit by the allies?
> 
> 
> 
> You said or implied the allies had started the area bombardment strategy by bombing Berlin first. I am saying the tactic   known as carpet bombing was first used by Germany.
> 
> The first British air raid on Berlin took place on 25 August 1940. It was a retaliation raid for the German raid on London on 23 August. The Germans opened that can of worms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was an oopser by the Germans but great for the allies, as they now had their justification to bomb German civilians, and they did so bomb.
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
> Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.
> 
> And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.
> 
> So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.
> 
> And?
> 
> Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.
> 
> Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to make up your mind...are we commies or cons?  Which is it?
> 
> You are so terribly confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I think you are commies?
> Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.
> 
> And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.
> 
> So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.
> 
> And?
> 
> Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.
> 
> Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that
Click to expand...

You referred to us a commies several times in this thread.  Now you post this...WTF?

Do you have dementia?


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Lest there be any doubt at all.....
> 
> *"New Revelations on the Katyn Forest Massacre: Roosevelt Knew*
> 
> ....many in Congress accusing the Roosevelt administration of covering up Soviet involvement in the grisly deed. *Hearings were held, and  a congressional committee eventually determined, in 1952, that Stalin’s Soviet Union had indeed been responsible, and that the Roosevelt administration had tried to cover up the episode *out of military necessity. The Soviet Union under Gorbachev finally admitted responsibility for Katyn, but the White House has never acknowledged any inside knowledge or attempt to cover up the event.
> 
> Now,the verdict is in. With the September 10 release of 1,000 pages of formerly classified documents by the National Archives, it has been *established beyond any reasonable doubt that the Roosevelt administration knew of the atrocity perpetrated by “Uncle Joe” Stalin long before the war was over, and made sure the American public did not find out about it."*
> *New Revelations on the Katyn Forest Massacre: Roosevelt Knew*
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again...I'm never wrong.*


You still have not answered the question that has been repeatedly asked. You just focus on the massacre having occurred and the evidence you present that you claim indicated FDR knew the Russians committed the atrocity.  What you refuse to address is the question of what you expect FDR to have done with this knowledge presented in the middle of World War ll. Rational and reasonable thinking would lead one to the logical conclusion that the only option was to ignore the event until the war was over and then to dispel justice. FDR died before those options for dispelling justice to the Germans or Russians occurred. 
Again, what would you suggest FDR should have done and how should he have dealt with Russia in the middle of WWII? Are you proclaiming that FDR was wrong to put it on the back burner and instead should have canceled and backed away from being allied with Russia to defeat Germany? 
The OP is seeking a backdoor into promoting her fantasy of the USA giving the Nazi's a conditional surrender because Stalin was a bad guy. Millions killed already in the war and the OP thinks it would have been good to forgive the Nazi's and become friends with them.


----------



## PoliticalChic

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?
> 
> Is that the reason?
> 
> You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.
> 
> That's why you can never deny any of it.
> 
> You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here are couple additional tidbits for you to cry about, regarding your beloved tyrant.
> 1. Are you aware of FDR's covert involvement with the Polish government prior to the German invasion?  How he backed Poland's hard liners against Germany leading to WWII?  Why would he do this?
> 2. Are you aware of FDR's knowledge of the Katyn Massacre?  Do you know he knew Stalin did it, but went along with the Soviet version of events anyway?
> 
> Nice guy old FDR...the more one researches his actions, the more one realizes how overwhelming the evidence is that he was a disgusting asshole....well one must be able think objectively and logically...you obviously are incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's remind all of Katyn....yet another of Stalin's atrocities that FDR had no trouble agreeing to.
> 
> 1. In April of 1943, the mass graves of thousands of shot, bayoneted, and asphyxiated Polish officers were uncovered in the Katyn pine forest near Smolensk, Russia.
> 
> a. April 13, 1943, Radio Berlin broadcasts the German discovery of *twenty-two thousand corpses of Polish officers "executed by the NKVD when the Soviets held the territory, spring of 1940.*
> 
> 2. April 21, 1943, Stalin tells FDR that it was "German fascists" that massacred the helpless Polish officers. But...he fumed that his and FDR's ally, the Polish government in exile has the nerve to ask the International Red Cross to investigate the crime. Did you get that? Stalin was incensed that the Poles wanted the atrocity investigated.
> 
> a. The Red Cross said they would investigate....if all three parties- Germany, Poland, and the USSR agreed. Guess who refused. In fact, Pravda attacked the Poles as "Hitlerite lackeys" who would "go down in history as the helpmates of Cannibal Hitler."
> "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter, p. 64.
> 
> 
> 3. And *FDR administration? "No big deal." In fact, the US Office of War Information broadcast exactly what Stalin wanted them to.*
> 
> a. BTW....in 1990, the *Soviets finally admitted that the Katyn Massacre was a Soviet Crime. *
> Katyn -- 1952 US Congressional findings (Страница 1) — English — Форумы сайта ПРАВДА О КАТЫНИ
> 
> 
> 4. So....what did FDR know, and when did he know it? "It wasn't only that all was forgiven by FDR;* all was ignored."*
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 204.
> 
> 
> 
> reggie....what do your 'historians' tell you to think about Katyn?
> 
> 
> BTW....Stalin had the 22 thousand killed so they could not resist communism after the war. It was exactly the same reason he demanded that FDR never allow Germany to surrender until it was "pasturized," and pulverized.
> 
> 
> 
> Now is the time for the other dunce, Camp, to rush in and claim FDR was the "moral compass of America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was little time for FDR to be concerned about an argument about who committed the atrocity in Poland. In the time frame being highlighted the battles in north Africa were still going on, the invasions for the southern front in Sicily, the Italian mainland, and southern France were being prepared and readied The battles on the eastern front were raging and the greatest and largest tank battle in world history at Kursk was in the making. The air war over Europe was raging also. B-17's with 10 man crews were being shot down by the scores but kept charging ahead, slowly devastating the Luftwaffe as it did. Eventually, that cost 26,000 airmen lives. In the Pacific US forces were taking back the Aleutian Islands that had been invaded and occupied by Japan, chasing down the leading Japanese General and shooting him out of the sky, etc., ect. All of this and more in the small time frame the OP has selected.
> The question is, why would the US be concerned about whether the Germans or Russians committed this atrocity in Poland committed years before? What did it have, if anything to do with the events in the present or near future? The answer, nothing. If we believed the Nazi's, what were we supposed to do, scold Stalin. Stop everything and quit the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn.
> 
> The Katyn Massacre occurred in Spring 1940 and it is likely FDR knew who perpetrated it shortly thereafter.  We were not yet involved in FDR's War in Spring 1940.
> 
> So in effect, your post is utterly and completely inaccurate.  Why are you a toady for a lying corrupt politician?
Click to expand...



They just lie, and lie.

Roosevelt did everything to back Stalin....including pressuring the Poles in exile to not pursue the issue.

"All along Stalin was intent on installing his Polish creatures based in Lublin as a postwar communist government. T*he Polish government in exile in London, by contrast, wanted to investigate the Katyn massacres. Roosevelt's response? "*I am inclined to think that Prime Minister Churchill will find a way of prevailing upon the Polish government in London in the future to act with more common sense," 

he wrote to Stalin,...
The Katyn Massacre Cover-Up


Clearly, Roosevelt wanted a pat on his head from Stalin.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Syriusly said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> These fdr scumbag apologists are beyond fucking shameless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you fucking American hating scumbags hate FDR for all that he accomplished for America.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that
Click to expand...



Lmao are you still trying to imply FDR policys are what created U.E. to go down to next to nothing in 45?



You forget they shot up in 1938 by 5%?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lest there be any doubt at all.....
> 
> *"New Revelations on the Katyn Forest Massacre: Roosevelt Knew*
> 
> ....many in Congress accusing the Roosevelt administration of covering up Soviet involvement in the grisly deed. *Hearings were held, and  a congressional committee eventually determined, in 1952, that Stalin’s Soviet Union had indeed been responsible, and that the Roosevelt administration had tried to cover up the episode *out of military necessity. The Soviet Union under Gorbachev finally admitted responsibility for Katyn, but the White House has never acknowledged any inside knowledge or attempt to cover up the event.
> 
> Now,the verdict is in. With the September 10 release of 1,000 pages of formerly classified documents by the National Archives, it has been *established beyond any reasonable doubt that the Roosevelt administration knew of the atrocity perpetrated by “Uncle Joe” Stalin long before the war was over, and made sure the American public did not find out about it."*
> *New Revelations on the Katyn Forest Massacre: Roosevelt Knew*
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again...I'm never wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have not answered the question that has been repeatedly asked. You just focus on the massacre having occurred and the evidence you present that you claim indicated FDR knew the Russians committed the atrocity.  What you refuse to address is the question of what you expect FDR to have done with this knowledge presented in the middle of World War ll. Rational and reasonable thinking would lead one to the logical conclusion that the only option was to ignore the event until the war was over and then to dispel justice. FDR died before those options for dispelling justice to the Germans or Russians occurred.
> Again, what would you suggest FDR should have done and how should he have dealt with Russia in the middle of WWII? Are you proclaiming that FDR was wrong to put it on the back burner and instead should have canceled and backed away from being allied with Russia to defeat Germany?
> The OP is seeking a backdoor into promoting her fantasy of the USA giving the Nazi's a conditional surrender because Stalin was a bad guy. Millions killed already in the war and the OP thinks it would have been good to forgive the Nazi's and become friends with them.
Click to expand...



I love how you are trying to run from your previous posts about Katyn, and Roosevelt.

Let's be clear, you disgusting little twerp:
 I PROVED that Stalin was responsible for the slaughter of 22,000 Poles....
I PROVED that Roosevelt knew and covered it up

I DARE YOU to post again, as you have before, that Franklin Roosevelt was 'the moral compass of America.'


"Millions killed already in the war and the OP thinks it would have been good to forgive the Nazi's and become friends with them."
You lying gutter rat.....
I DARE you to find any such post by me.


----------



## Correll

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lest there be any doubt at all.....
> 
> *"New Revelations on the Katyn Forest Massacre: Roosevelt Knew*
> 
> ....many in Congress accusing the Roosevelt administration of covering up Soviet involvement in the grisly deed. *Hearings were held, and  a congressional committee eventually determined, in 1952, that Stalin’s Soviet Union had indeed been responsible, and that the Roosevelt administration had tried to cover up the episode *out of military necessity. The Soviet Union under Gorbachev finally admitted responsibility for Katyn, but the White House has never acknowledged any inside knowledge or attempt to cover up the event.
> 
> Now,the verdict is in. With the September 10 release of 1,000 pages of formerly classified documents by the National Archives, it has been *established beyond any reasonable doubt that the Roosevelt administration knew of the atrocity perpetrated by “Uncle Joe” Stalin long before the war was over, and made sure the American public did not find out about it."*
> *New Revelations on the Katyn Forest Massacre: Roosevelt Knew*
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again...I'm never wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have not answered the question that has been repeatedly asked. You just focus on the massacre having occurred and the evidence you present that you claim indicated FDR knew the Russians committed the atrocity.  What you refuse to address is the question of what you expect FDR to have done with this knowledge presented in the middle of World War ll. Rational and reasonable thinking would lead one to the logical conclusion that the only option was to ignore the event until the war was over and then to dispel justice. FDR died before those options for dispelling justice to the Germans or Russians occurred.
> Again, what would you suggest FDR should have done and how should he have dealt with Russia in the middle of WWII? Are you proclaiming that FDR was wrong to put it on the back burner and instead should have canceled and backed away from being allied with Russia to defeat Germany?
> The OP is seeking a backdoor into promoting her fantasy of the USA giving the Nazi's a conditional surrender because Stalin was a bad guy. Millions killed already in the war and the OP thinks it would have been good to forgive the Nazi's and become friends with them.
Click to expand...


Possible policy responses were many.

From declaring the SU a Co-belligerent.

This would have made a lot of sense as our war aims were completely different.

We wanted to destroy Nazism and free their occupied nations.

The Soviets wanted to destroy Nazism and take their imperial possessions for themselves, including part of Germany. As was obvious from them entering the war as allies of Nazi Germany.

Lend Lease, the Second Front, all could have been tied to formal public treaties of Liberation with Governments in Exile.

And with proper spin in propaganda, the US public could have been prepared for possibly enforcing those promise.

Or we could have just let the Soviet die en mass until we were ready to invade on our time table and with the Soviet Nazi stop line somewhere is the Ukraine.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?
> 
> Is that the reason?
> 
> You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.
> 
> That's why you can never deny any of it.
> 
> You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here are couple additional tidbits for you to cry about, regarding your beloved tyrant.
> 1. Are you aware of FDR's covert involvement with the Polish government prior to the German invasion?  How he backed Poland's hard liners against Germany leading to WWII?  Why would he do this?
> 2. Are you aware of FDR's knowledge of the Katyn Massacre?  Do you know he knew Stalin did it, but went along with the Soviet version of events anyway?
> 
> Nice guy old FDR...the more one researches his actions, the more one realizes how overwhelming the evidence is that he was a disgusting asshole....well one must be able think objectively and logically...you obviously are incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's remind all of Katyn....yet another of Stalin's atrocities that FDR had no trouble agreeing to.
> 
> 1. In April of 1943, the mass graves of thousands of shot, bayoneted, and asphyxiated Polish officers were uncovered in the Katyn pine forest near Smolensk, Russia.
> 
> a. April 13, 1943, Radio Berlin broadcasts the German discovery of *twenty-two thousand corpses of Polish officers "executed by the NKVD when the Soviets held the territory, spring of 1940.*
> 
> 2. April 21, 1943, Stalin tells FDR that it was "German fascists" that massacred the helpless Polish officers. But...he fumed that his and FDR's ally, the Polish government in exile has the nerve to ask the International Red Cross to investigate the crime. Did you get that? Stalin was incensed that the Poles wanted the atrocity investigated.
> 
> a. The Red Cross said they would investigate....if all three parties- Germany, Poland, and the USSR agreed. Guess who refused. In fact, Pravda attacked the Poles as "Hitlerite lackeys" who would "go down in history as the helpmates of Cannibal Hitler."
> "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter, p. 64.
> 
> 
> 3. And *FDR administration? "No big deal." In fact, the US Office of War Information broadcast exactly what Stalin wanted them to.*
> 
> a. BTW....in 1990, the *Soviets finally admitted that the Katyn Massacre was a Soviet Crime. *
> Katyn -- 1952 US Congressional findings (Страница 1) — English — Форумы сайта ПРАВДА О КАТЫНИ
> 
> 
> 4. So....what did FDR know, and when did he know it? "It wasn't only that all was forgiven by FDR;* all was ignored."*
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 204.
> 
> 
> 
> reggie....what do your 'historians' tell you to think about Katyn?
> 
> 
> BTW....Stalin had the 22 thousand killed so they could not resist communism after the war. It was exactly the same reason he demanded that FDR never allow Germany to surrender until it was "pasturized," and pulverized.
> 
> 
> 
> Now is the time for the other dunce, Camp, to rush in and claim FDR was the "moral compass of America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was little time for FDR to be concerned about an argument about who committed the atrocity in Poland. In the time frame being highlighted the battles in north Africa were still going on, the invasions for the southern front in Sicily, the Italian mainland, and southern France were being prepared and readied The battles on the eastern front were raging and the greatest and largest tank battle in world history at Kursk was in the making. The air war over Europe was raging also. B-17's with 10 man crews were being shot down by the scores but kept charging ahead, slowly devastating the Luftwaffe as it did. Eventually, that cost 26,000 airmen lives. In the Pacific US forces were taking back the Aleutian Islands that had been invaded and occupied by Japan, chasing down the leading Japanese General and shooting him out of the sky, etc., ect. All of this and more in the small time frame the OP has selected.
> The question is, why would the US be concerned about whether the Germans or Russians committed this atrocity in Poland committed years before? What did it have, if anything to do with the events in the present or near future? The answer, nothing. If we believed the Nazi's, what were we supposed to do, scold Stalin. Stop everything and quit the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn.
> 
> The Katyn Massacre occurred in Spring 1940 and it is likely FDR knew who perpetrated it shortly thereafter.  We were not yet involved in FDR's War in Spring 1940.
> 
> So in effect, your post is utterly and completely inaccurate.  Why are you a toady for a lying corrupt politician?
Click to expand...

As usual, your prove you do not know your history, or more likely, depend on distorting it. The event in question took place in 1940, but the Germans did not get the word out about the discovery of the graves until late March and early April 1943. There is absolutely no hint of evidence that FDR knew about it before then. That is why you phrased your comment with "it is likely FDR knew". No, it was not likely and you are just making stuff up.


----------



## Correll

Here is a cool photo of soviet and nazi troops shaking hands after their joint invasion of Poland in 1939







I have read of a joint nazi -soviet parade in some Polish town, but have not found photos.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
> 
> 
> 
> Here are couple additional tidbits for you to cry about, regarding your beloved tyrant.
> 1. Are you aware of FDR's covert involvement with the Polish government prior to the German invasion?  How he backed Poland's hard liners against Germany leading to WWII?  Why would he do this?
> 2. Are you aware of FDR's knowledge of the Katyn Massacre?  Do you know he knew Stalin did it, but went along with the Soviet version of events anyway?
> 
> Nice guy old FDR...the more one researches his actions, the more one realizes how overwhelming the evidence is that he was a disgusting asshole....well one must be able think objectively and logically...you obviously are incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's remind all of Katyn....yet another of Stalin's atrocities that FDR had no trouble agreeing to.
> 
> 1. In April of 1943, the mass graves of thousands of shot, bayoneted, and asphyxiated Polish officers were uncovered in the Katyn pine forest near Smolensk, Russia.
> 
> a. April 13, 1943, Radio Berlin broadcasts the German discovery of *twenty-two thousand corpses of Polish officers "executed by the NKVD when the Soviets held the territory, spring of 1940.*
> 
> 2. April 21, 1943, Stalin tells FDR that it was "German fascists" that massacred the helpless Polish officers. But...he fumed that his and FDR's ally, the Polish government in exile has the nerve to ask the International Red Cross to investigate the crime. Did you get that? Stalin was incensed that the Poles wanted the atrocity investigated.
> 
> a. The Red Cross said they would investigate....if all three parties- Germany, Poland, and the USSR agreed. Guess who refused. In fact, Pravda attacked the Poles as "Hitlerite lackeys" who would "go down in history as the helpmates of Cannibal Hitler."
> "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter, p. 64.
> 
> 
> 3. And *FDR administration? "No big deal." In fact, the US Office of War Information broadcast exactly what Stalin wanted them to.*
> 
> a. BTW....in 1990, the *Soviets finally admitted that the Katyn Massacre was a Soviet Crime. *
> Katyn -- 1952 US Congressional findings (Страница 1) — English — Форумы сайта ПРАВДА О КАТЫНИ
> 
> 
> 4. So....what did FDR know, and when did he know it? "It wasn't only that all was forgiven by FDR;* all was ignored."*
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 204.
> 
> 
> 
> reggie....what do your 'historians' tell you to think about Katyn?
> 
> 
> BTW....Stalin had the 22 thousand killed so they could not resist communism after the war. It was exactly the same reason he demanded that FDR never allow Germany to surrender until it was "pasturized," and pulverized.
> 
> 
> 
> Now is the time for the other dunce, Camp, to rush in and claim FDR was the "moral compass of America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was little time for FDR to be concerned about an argument about who committed the atrocity in Poland. In the time frame being highlighted the battles in north Africa were still going on, the invasions for the southern front in Sicily, the Italian mainland, and southern France were being prepared and readied The battles on the eastern front were raging and the greatest and largest tank battle in world history at Kursk was in the making. The air war over Europe was raging also. B-17's with 10 man crews were being shot down by the scores but kept charging ahead, slowly devastating the Luftwaffe as it did. Eventually, that cost 26,000 airmen lives. In the Pacific US forces were taking back the Aleutian Islands that had been invaded and occupied by Japan, chasing down the leading Japanese General and shooting him out of the sky, etc., ect. All of this and more in the small time frame the OP has selected.
> The question is, why would the US be concerned about whether the Germans or Russians committed this atrocity in Poland committed years before? What did it have, if anything to do with the events in the present or near future? The answer, nothing. If we believed the Nazi's, what were we supposed to do, scold Stalin. Stop everything and quit the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn.
> 
> The Katyn Massacre occurred in Spring 1940 and it is likely FDR knew who perpetrated it shortly thereafter.  We were not yet involved in FDR's War in Spring 1940.
> 
> So in effect, your post is utterly and completely inaccurate.  Why are you a toady for a lying corrupt politician?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, your prove you do not know your history, or more likely, depend on distorting it. The event in question took place in 1940, but the Germans did not get the word out about the discovery of the graves until late March and early April 1943. There is absolutely no hint of evidence that FDR knew about it before then. That is way you phrased your comment with "it is likely FDR knew". No, it was not likely and you are just making stuff up.
Click to expand...




Let's be clear, you disgusting little twerp:
I PROVED that Stalin was responsible for the slaughter of 22,000 Poles....
I PROVED that Roosevelt knew and covered it up

I DARE YOU to post again, as you have before, that Franklin Roosevelt was 'the moral compass of America.'


"Millions killed already in the war and the OP thinks it would have been good to forgive the Nazi's and become friends with them."
You lying gutter rat.....
I DARE you to find any such post by me.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lest there be any doubt at all.....
> 
> *"New Revelations on the Katyn Forest Massacre: Roosevelt Knew*
> 
> ....many in Congress accusing the Roosevelt administration of covering up Soviet involvement in the grisly deed. *Hearings were held, and  a congressional committee eventually determined, in 1952, that Stalin’s Soviet Union had indeed been responsible, and that the Roosevelt administration had tried to cover up the episode *out of military necessity. The Soviet Union under Gorbachev finally admitted responsibility for Katyn, but the White House has never acknowledged any inside knowledge or attempt to cover up the event.
> 
> Now,the verdict is in. With the September 10 release of 1,000 pages of formerly classified documents by the National Archives, it has been *established beyond any reasonable doubt that the Roosevelt administration knew of the atrocity perpetrated by “Uncle Joe” Stalin long before the war was over, and made sure the American public did not find out about it."*
> *New Revelations on the Katyn Forest Massacre: Roosevelt Knew*
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again...I'm never wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have not answered the question that has been repeatedly asked. You just focus on the massacre having occurred and the evidence you present that you claim indicated FDR knew the Russians committed the atrocity.  What you refuse to address is the question of what you expect FDR to have done with this knowledge presented in the middle of World War ll. Rational and reasonable thinking would lead one to the logical conclusion that the only option was to ignore the event until the war was over and then to dispel justice. FDR died before those options for dispelling justice to the Germans or Russians occurred.
> Again, what would you suggest FDR should have done and how should he have dealt with Russia in the middle of WWII? Are you proclaiming that FDR was wrong to put it on the back burner and instead should have canceled and backed away from being allied with Russia to defeat Germany?
> The OP is seeking a backdoor into promoting her fantasy of the USA giving the Nazi's a conditional surrender because Stalin was a bad guy. Millions killed already in the war and the OP thinks it would have been good to forgive the Nazi's and become friends with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you are trying to run from your previous posts about Katyn, and Roosevelt.
> 
> Let's be clear, you disgusting little twerp:
> I PROVED that Stalin was responsible for the slaughter of 22,000 Poles....
> I PROVED that Roosevelt knew and covered it up
> 
> I DARE YOU to post again, as you have before, that Franklin Roosevelt was 'the moral compass of America.'
> 
> 
> "Millions killed already in the war and the OP thinks it would have been good to forgive the Nazi's and become friends with them."
> You lying gutter rat.....
> I DARE you to find any such post by me.
Click to expand...

You are blowing a gasket not being able to answer the questions you have been challenged to answer. I see someone else giving it a shot. But even you know it doesn't hold up. 
So, what would you have suggested FDR and the USA do when they got word of the massacre from the Nazi's that Stalin was responsible for this war atrocity?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Correll said:


> Here is a cool photo of soviet and nazi troops shaking hands after their joint invasion of Poland in 1939
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read of a joint nazi -soviet parade in some Polish town, but have not found photos.




Excellent.

Do you have the link to that photo?

You can find archive pics of the troops together here:

http://www.livingscoop.com/watch.php?v=MjQwMQ==

http://www.livingscoop.com/watch.php?v=MjQwMQ==


"The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.

 "Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems." http://www.economist.com/node/11401983


----------



## Correll

Wait, here we go.

German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia







German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk on September 22, 1939







German and Soviet officers present at the parade: Generalleutnant Mauritz von Wiktorin (left), General der Panzertruppe Heinz Guderian(centre) and KombrigSemyon Krivoshein (right)









Rolling Soviet tanks and German motorcyclists.








German and Soviet personnel amid parade display material.


Yep. NO reason for FDR to be suspicious of Good Old Uncle Joe...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lest there be any doubt at all.....
> 
> *"New Revelations on the Katyn Forest Massacre: Roosevelt Knew*
> 
> ....many in Congress accusing the Roosevelt administration of covering up Soviet involvement in the grisly deed. *Hearings were held, and  a congressional committee eventually determined, in 1952, that Stalin’s Soviet Union had indeed been responsible, and that the Roosevelt administration had tried to cover up the episode *out of military necessity. The Soviet Union under Gorbachev finally admitted responsibility for Katyn, but the White House has never acknowledged any inside knowledge or attempt to cover up the event.
> 
> Now,the verdict is in. With the September 10 release of 1,000 pages of formerly classified documents by the National Archives, it has been *established beyond any reasonable doubt that the Roosevelt administration knew of the atrocity perpetrated by “Uncle Joe” Stalin long before the war was over, and made sure the American public did not find out about it."*
> *New Revelations on the Katyn Forest Massacre: Roosevelt Knew*
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again...I'm never wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have not answered the question that has been repeatedly asked. You just focus on the massacre having occurred and the evidence you present that you claim indicated FDR knew the Russians committed the atrocity.  What you refuse to address is the question of what you expect FDR to have done with this knowledge presented in the middle of World War ll. Rational and reasonable thinking would lead one to the logical conclusion that the only option was to ignore the event until the war was over and then to dispel justice. FDR died before those options for dispelling justice to the Germans or Russians occurred.
> Again, what would you suggest FDR should have done and how should he have dealt with Russia in the middle of WWII? Are you proclaiming that FDR was wrong to put it on the back burner and instead should have canceled and backed away from being allied with Russia to defeat Germany?
> The OP is seeking a backdoor into promoting her fantasy of the USA giving the Nazi's a conditional surrender because Stalin was a bad guy. Millions killed already in the war and the OP thinks it would have been good to forgive the Nazi's and become friends with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you are trying to run from your previous posts about Katyn, and Roosevelt.
> 
> Let's be clear, you disgusting little twerp:
> I PROVED that Stalin was responsible for the slaughter of 22,000 Poles....
> I PROVED that Roosevelt knew and covered it up
> 
> I DARE YOU to post again, as you have before, that Franklin Roosevelt was 'the moral compass of America.'
> 
> 
> "Millions killed already in the war and the OP thinks it would have been good to forgive the Nazi's and become friends with them."
> You lying gutter rat.....
> I DARE you to find any such post by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are blowing a gasket not being able to answer the questions you have been challenged to answer. I see someone else giving it a shot. But even you know it doesn't hold up.
> So, what would you have suggested FDR and the USA do when they got word of the massacre from the Nazi's that Stalin was responsible for this war atrocity?
Click to expand...



Let's be clear, you disgusting little twerp:
I PROVED that Stalin was responsible for the slaughter of 22,000 Poles....
I PROVED that Roosevelt knew and covered it up

I DARE YOU to post again, as you have before, that Franklin Roosevelt was 'the moral compass of America.'


"Millions killed already in the war and the OP thinks it would have been good to forgive the Nazi's and become friends with them."
You lying gutter rat.....
I DARE you to find any such post by me.


----------



## Correll

PoliticalChic said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a cool photo of soviet and nazi troops shaking hands after their joint invasion of Poland in 1939
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read of a joint nazi -soviet parade in some Polish town, but have not found photos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Do you have the link to that photo?
> 
> You can find archive pics of the troops together here:
> 
> http://www.livingscoop.com/watch.php?v=MjQwMQ==
> 
> http://www.livingscoop.com/watch.php?v=MjQwMQ==
> 
> 
> "The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.
> 
> "Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems." http://www.economist.com/node/11401983
Click to expand...



Just good ole Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland#Aftermath


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are couple additional tidbits for you to cry about, regarding your beloved tyrant.
> 1. Are you aware of FDR's covert involvement with the Polish government prior to the German invasion?  How he backed Poland's hard liners against Germany leading to WWII?  Why would he do this?
> 2. Are you aware of FDR's knowledge of the Katyn Massacre?  Do you know he knew Stalin did it, but went along with the Soviet version of events anyway?
> 
> Nice guy old FDR...the more one researches his actions, the more one realizes how overwhelming the evidence is that he was a disgusting asshole....well one must be able think objectively and logically...you obviously are incapable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's remind all of Katyn....yet another of Stalin's atrocities that FDR had no trouble agreeing to.
> 
> 1. In April of 1943, the mass graves of thousands of shot, bayoneted, and asphyxiated Polish officers were uncovered in the Katyn pine forest near Smolensk, Russia.
> 
> a. April 13, 1943, Radio Berlin broadcasts the German discovery of *twenty-two thousand corpses of Polish officers "executed by the NKVD when the Soviets held the territory, spring of 1940.*
> 
> 2. April 21, 1943, Stalin tells FDR that it was "German fascists" that massacred the helpless Polish officers. But...he fumed that his and FDR's ally, the Polish government in exile has the nerve to ask the International Red Cross to investigate the crime. Did you get that? Stalin was incensed that the Poles wanted the atrocity investigated.
> 
> a. The Red Cross said they would investigate....if all three parties- Germany, Poland, and the USSR agreed. Guess who refused. In fact, Pravda attacked the Poles as "Hitlerite lackeys" who would "go down in history as the helpmates of Cannibal Hitler."
> "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter, p. 64.
> 
> 
> 3. And *FDR administration? "No big deal." In fact, the US Office of War Information broadcast exactly what Stalin wanted them to.*
> 
> a. BTW....in 1990, the *Soviets finally admitted that the Katyn Massacre was a Soviet Crime. *
> Katyn -- 1952 US Congressional findings (Страница 1) — English — Форумы сайта ПРАВДА О КАТЫНИ
> 
> 
> 4. So....what did FDR know, and when did he know it? "It wasn't only that all was forgiven by FDR;* all was ignored."*
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 204.
> 
> 
> 
> reggie....what do your 'historians' tell you to think about Katyn?
> 
> 
> BTW....Stalin had the 22 thousand killed so they could not resist communism after the war. It was exactly the same reason he demanded that FDR never allow Germany to surrender until it was "pasturized," and pulverized.
> 
> 
> 
> Now is the time for the other dunce, Camp, to rush in and claim FDR was the "moral compass of America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was little time for FDR to be concerned about an argument about who committed the atrocity in Poland. In the time frame being highlighted the battles in north Africa were still going on, the invasions for the southern front in Sicily, the Italian mainland, and southern France were being prepared and readied The battles on the eastern front were raging and the greatest and largest tank battle in world history at Kursk was in the making. The air war over Europe was raging also. B-17's with 10 man crews were being shot down by the scores but kept charging ahead, slowly devastating the Luftwaffe as it did. Eventually, that cost 26,000 airmen lives. In the Pacific US forces were taking back the Aleutian Islands that had been invaded and occupied by Japan, chasing down the leading Japanese General and shooting him out of the sky, etc., ect. All of this and more in the small time frame the OP has selected.
> The question is, why would the US be concerned about whether the Germans or Russians committed this atrocity in Poland committed years before? What did it have, if anything to do with the events in the present or near future? The answer, nothing. If we believed the Nazi's, what were we supposed to do, scold Stalin. Stop everything and quit the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn.
> 
> The Katyn Massacre occurred in Spring 1940 and it is likely FDR knew who perpetrated it shortly thereafter.  We were not yet involved in FDR's War in Spring 1940.
> 
> So in effect, your post is utterly and completely inaccurate.  Why are you a toady for a lying corrupt politician?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, your prove you do not know your history, or more likely, depend on distorting it. The event in question took place in 1940, but the Germans did not get the word out about the discovery of the graves until late March and early April 1943. There is absolutely no hint of evidence that FDR knew about it before then. That is way you phrased your comment with "it is likely FDR knew". No, it was not likely and you are just making stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be clear, you disgusting little twerp:
> I PROVED that Stalin was responsible for the slaughter of 22,000 Poles....
> I PROVED that Roosevelt knew and covered it up
> 
> I DARE YOU to post again, as you have before, that Franklin Roosevelt was 'the moral compass of America.'
> 
> 
> "Millions killed already in the war and the OP thinks it would have been good to forgive the Nazi's and become friends with them."
> You lying gutter rat.....
> I DARE you to find any such post by me.
Click to expand...

FDR was a great moral compass for the country and the world. You dared me. I have no problem saying that about the guy that America calls the Greatest Generation chose four times to elect as their President. 
You have never proven any of your hateful malicious trash about FDR. That is a delusion of yours. A fantasy.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
> As to your documentation,  I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.
> 
> 
> 
> Here are couple additional tidbits for you to cry about, regarding your beloved tyrant.
> 1. Are you aware of FDR's covert involvement with the Polish government prior to the German invasion?  How he backed Poland's hard liners against Germany leading to WWII?  Why would he do this?
> 2. Are you aware of FDR's knowledge of the Katyn Massacre?  Do you know he knew Stalin did it, but went along with the Soviet version of events anyway?
> 
> Nice guy old FDR...the more one researches his actions, the more one realizes how overwhelming the evidence is that he was a disgusting asshole....well one must be able think objectively and logically...you obviously are incapable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's remind all of Katyn....yet another of Stalin's atrocities that FDR had no trouble agreeing to.
> 
> 1. In April of 1943, the mass graves of thousands of shot, bayoneted, and asphyxiated Polish officers were uncovered in the Katyn pine forest near Smolensk, Russia.
> 
> a. April 13, 1943, Radio Berlin broadcasts the German discovery of *twenty-two thousand corpses of Polish officers "executed by the NKVD when the Soviets held the territory, spring of 1940.*
> 
> 2. April 21, 1943, Stalin tells FDR that it was "German fascists" that massacred the helpless Polish officers. But...he fumed that his and FDR's ally, the Polish government in exile has the nerve to ask the International Red Cross to investigate the crime. Did you get that? Stalin was incensed that the Poles wanted the atrocity investigated.
> 
> a. The Red Cross said they would investigate....if all three parties- Germany, Poland, and the USSR agreed. Guess who refused. In fact, Pravda attacked the Poles as "Hitlerite lackeys" who would "go down in history as the helpmates of Cannibal Hitler."
> "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter, p. 64.
> 
> 
> 3. And *FDR administration? "No big deal." In fact, the US Office of War Information broadcast exactly what Stalin wanted them to.*
> 
> a. BTW....in 1990, the *Soviets finally admitted that the Katyn Massacre was a Soviet Crime. *
> Katyn -- 1952 US Congressional findings (Страница 1) — English — Форумы сайта ПРАВДА О КАТЫНИ
> 
> 
> 4. So....what did FDR know, and when did he know it? "It wasn't only that all was forgiven by FDR;* all was ignored."*
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 204.
> 
> 
> 
> reggie....what do your 'historians' tell you to think about Katyn?
> 
> 
> BTW....Stalin had the 22 thousand killed so they could not resist communism after the war. It was exactly the same reason he demanded that FDR never allow Germany to surrender until it was "pasturized," and pulverized.
> 
> 
> 
> Now is the time for the other dunce, Camp, to rush in and claim FDR was the "moral compass of America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was little time for FDR to be concerned about an argument about who committed the atrocity in Poland. In the time frame being highlighted the battles in north Africa were still going on, the invasions for the southern front in Sicily, the Italian mainland, and southern France were being prepared and readied The battles on the eastern front were raging and the greatest and largest tank battle in world history at Kursk was in the making. The air war over Europe was raging also. B-17's with 10 man crews were being shot down by the scores but kept charging ahead, slowly devastating the Luftwaffe as it did. Eventually, that cost 26,000 airmen lives. In the Pacific US forces were taking back the Aleutian Islands that had been invaded and occupied by Japan, chasing down the leading Japanese General and shooting him out of the sky, etc., ect. All of this and more in the small time frame the OP has selected.
> The question is, why would the US be concerned about whether the Germans or Russians committed this atrocity in Poland committed years before? What did it have, if anything to do with the events in the present or near future? The answer, nothing. If we believed the Nazi's, what were we supposed to do, scold Stalin. Stop everything and quit the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn.
> 
> The Katyn Massacre occurred in Spring 1940 and it is likely FDR knew who perpetrated it shortly thereafter.  We were not yet involved in FDR's War in Spring 1940.
> 
> So in effect, your post is utterly and completely inaccurate.  Why are you a toady for a lying corrupt politician?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, your prove you do not know your history, or more likely, depend on distorting it. The event in question took place in 1940, but the Germans did not get the word out about the discovery of the graves until late March and early April 1943. There is absolutely no hint of evidence that FDR knew about it before then. That is why you phrased your comment with "it is likely FDR knew". No, it was not likely and you are just making stuff up.
Click to expand...

Okay...maybe FDR did not learn of the massacre until 1943, which I mistakenly insinuated he knew about in 1940...though his long love affair with Uncle Joe was so hot, could it be he learned of it in 1940 during their pillow talks?


----------



## Syriusly

bear513 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> These fdr scumbag apologists are beyond fucking shameless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you fucking American hating scumbags hate FDR for all that he accomplished for America.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lmao are you still trying to imply FDR policys are what created U.E. to go down to next to nothing in 45?
> 
> 
> 
> You forget they shot up in 1938 by 5%?
Click to expand...


I am saying that FDR lead the United States from unemployment of 25% to 9% in 1940 to virtually zero unemployment in 1945.

And also introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositers insurance.

And led the United States to victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.

Which of those accomplishments do you think Americans regret?


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are couple additional tidbits for you to cry about, regarding your beloved tyrant.
> 1. Are you aware of FDR's covert involvement with the Polish government prior to the German invasion?  How he backed Poland's hard liners against Germany leading to WWII?  Why would he do this?
> 2. Are you aware of FDR's knowledge of the Katyn Massacre?  Do you know he knew Stalin did it, but went along with the Soviet version of events anyway?
> 
> Nice guy old FDR...the more one researches his actions, the more one realizes how overwhelming the evidence is that he was a disgusting asshole....well one must be able think objectively and logically...you obviously are incapable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's remind all of Katyn....yet another of Stalin's atrocities that FDR had no trouble agreeing to.
> 
> 1. In April of 1943, the mass graves of thousands of shot, bayoneted, and asphyxiated Polish officers were uncovered in the Katyn pine forest near Smolensk, Russia.
> 
> a. April 13, 1943, Radio Berlin broadcasts the German discovery of *twenty-two thousand corpses of Polish officers "executed by the NKVD when the Soviets held the territory, spring of 1940.*
> 
> 2. April 21, 1943, Stalin tells FDR that it was "German fascists" that massacred the helpless Polish officers. But...he fumed that his and FDR's ally, the Polish government in exile has the nerve to ask the International Red Cross to investigate the crime. Did you get that? Stalin was incensed that the Poles wanted the atrocity investigated.
> 
> a. The Red Cross said they would investigate....if all three parties- Germany, Poland, and the USSR agreed. Guess who refused. In fact, Pravda attacked the Poles as "Hitlerite lackeys" who would "go down in history as the helpmates of Cannibal Hitler."
> "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter, p. 64.
> 
> 
> 3. And *FDR administration? "No big deal." In fact, the US Office of War Information broadcast exactly what Stalin wanted them to.*
> 
> a. BTW....in 1990, the *Soviets finally admitted that the Katyn Massacre was a Soviet Crime. *
> Katyn -- 1952 US Congressional findings (Страница 1) — English — Форумы сайта ПРАВДА О КАТЫНИ
> 
> 
> 4. So....what did FDR know, and when did he know it? "It wasn't only that all was forgiven by FDR;* all was ignored."*
> Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 204.
> 
> 
> 
> reggie....what do your 'historians' tell you to think about Katyn?
> 
> 
> BTW....Stalin had the 22 thousand killed so they could not resist communism after the war. It was exactly the same reason he demanded that FDR never allow Germany to surrender until it was "pasturized," and pulverized.
> 
> 
> 
> Now is the time for the other dunce, Camp, to rush in and claim FDR was the "moral compass of America."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was little time for FDR to be concerned about an argument about who committed the atrocity in Poland. In the time frame being highlighted the battles in north Africa were still going on, the invasions for the southern front in Sicily, the Italian mainland, and southern France were being prepared and readied The battles on the eastern front were raging and the greatest and largest tank battle in world history at Kursk was in the making. The air war over Europe was raging also. B-17's with 10 man crews were being shot down by the scores but kept charging ahead, slowly devastating the Luftwaffe as it did. Eventually, that cost 26,000 airmen lives. In the Pacific US forces were taking back the Aleutian Islands that had been invaded and occupied by Japan, chasing down the leading Japanese General and shooting him out of the sky, etc., ect. All of this and more in the small time frame the OP has selected.
> The question is, why would the US be concerned about whether the Germans or Russians committed this atrocity in Poland committed years before? What did it have, if anything to do with the events in the present or near future? The answer, nothing. If we believed the Nazi's, what were we supposed to do, scold Stalin. Stop everything and quit the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn.
> 
> The Katyn Massacre occurred in Spring 1940 and it is likely FDR knew who perpetrated it shortly thereafter.  We were not yet involved in FDR's War in Spring 1940.
> 
> So in effect, your post is utterly and completely inaccurate.  Why are you a toady for a lying corrupt politician?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, your prove you do not know your history, or more likely, depend on distorting it. The event in question took place in 1940, but the Germans did not get the word out about the discovery of the graves until late March and early April 1943. There is absolutely no hint of evidence that FDR knew about it before then. That is why you phrased your comment with "it is likely FDR knew". No, it was not likely and you are just making stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay...maybe FDR did not learn of the massacre until 1943, which I mistakenly insinuated he knew about in 1940...though his long love affair with Uncle Joe was so hot, could it be he learned of it in 1940 during their pillow talks?
Click to expand...


I am sure that FDR had as many pillow talks with Stalin as you did.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lest there be any doubt at all.....
> 
> *"New Revelations on the Katyn Forest Massacre: Roosevelt Knew*
> 
> ....many in Congress accusing the Roosevelt administration of covering up Soviet involvement in the grisly deed. *Hearings were held, and  a congressional committee eventually determined, in 1952, that Stalin’s Soviet Union had indeed been responsible, and that the Roosevelt administration had tried to cover up the episode *out of military necessity. The Soviet Union under Gorbachev finally admitted responsibility for Katyn, but the White House has never acknowledged any inside knowledge or attempt to cover up the event.
> 
> Now,the verdict is in. With the September 10 release of 1,000 pages of formerly classified documents by the National Archives, it has been *established beyond any reasonable doubt that the Roosevelt administration knew of the atrocity perpetrated by “Uncle Joe” Stalin long before the war was over, and made sure the American public did not find out about it."*
> *New Revelations on the Katyn Forest Massacre: Roosevelt Knew*
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again...I'm never wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have not answered the question that has been repeatedly asked. You just focus on the massacre having occurred and the evidence you present that you claim indicated FDR knew the Russians committed the atrocity.  What you refuse to address is the question of what you expect FDR to have done with this knowledge presented in the middle of World War ll. Rational and reasonable thinking would lead one to the logical conclusion that the only option was to ignore the event until the war was over and then to dispel justice. FDR died before those options for dispelling justice to the Germans or Russians occurred.
> Again, what would you suggest FDR should have done and how should he have dealt with Russia in the middle of WWII? Are you proclaiming that FDR was wrong to put it on the back burner and instead should have canceled and backed away from being allied with Russia to defeat Germany?
> The OP is seeking a backdoor into promoting her fantasy of the USA giving the Nazi's a conditional surrender because Stalin was a bad guy. Millions killed already in the war and the OP thinks it would have been good to forgive the Nazi's and become friends with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you are trying to run from your previous posts about Katyn, and Roosevelt.
> 
> Let's be clear, you disgusting little twerp:
> I PROVED that Stalin was responsible for the slaughter of 22,000 Poles....
> I PROVED that Roosevelt knew and covered it up
> 
> I DARE YOU to post again, as you have before, that Franklin Roosevelt was 'the moral compass of America.'
> 
> 
> "Millions killed already in the war and the OP thinks it would have been good to forgive the Nazi's and become friends with them."
> You lying gutter rat.....
> I DARE you to find any such post by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are blowing a gasket not being able to answer the questions you have been challenged to answer. I see someone else giving it a shot. But even you know it doesn't hold up.
> So, what would you have suggested FDR and the USA do when they got word of the massacre from the Nazi's that Stalin was responsible for this war atrocity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be clear, you disgusting little twerp:
> I PROVED that Stalin was responsible for the slaughter of 22,000 Poles....
> I PROVED that Roosevelt knew and covered it up
> 
> e.
Click to expand...


You crack me up every time you claim to have proven anything.


----------



## Syriusly

Correll said:


> Wait, here we go.
> 
> German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk on September 22, 1939
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German and Soviet officers present at the parade: Generalleutnant Mauritz von Wiktorin (left), General der Panzertruppe Heinz Guderian(centre) and KombrigSemyon Krivoshein (right)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rolling Soviet tanks and German motorcyclists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German and Soviet personnel amid parade display material.
> 
> 
> Yep. NO reason for FDR to be suspicious of Good Old Uncle Joe...



And suspicious yes.

Would you have preferred FDR not assist the Soviets- not ally with the Soviets while the United States took on Japan and Germany?

Because I look at the outcome- and the United States still exists, Germany and Japan are our allies, and the Soviet Union no longer exists.

The United States emerged from World War 2 the most powerful nation in the world- and Americans began a period of our greatest prosperity. 

What should we have changed?


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said or implied the allies had started the area bombardment strategy by bombing Berlin first. I am saying the tactic   known as carpet bombing was first used by Germany.
> 
> The first British air raid on Berlin took place on 25 August 1940. It was a retaliation raid for the German raid on London on 23 August. The Germans opened that can of worms.
> 
> 
> 
> It was an oopser by the Germans but great for the allies, as they now had their justification to bomb German civilians, and they did so bomb.
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.
> 
> And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.
> 
> So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.
> 
> And?
> 
> Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.
> 
> Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to make up your mind...are we commies or cons?  Which is it?
> 
> You are so terribly confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I think you are commies?
> Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.
> 
> And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.
> 
> So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.
> 
> And?
> 
> Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.
> 
> Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You referred to us a commies several times in this thread.  Now you post this...WTF?
> 
> Do you have dementia?
Click to expand...


Do you have dementia? Or just poor reading comprehension? I have never called you a commie but it amuses me that you seem confused by my plain words

Why would I think you are commies?
Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.

And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.

So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.

And?

Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.

Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.

But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that


----------



## regent

FDR's New Deal's WPA  also gave us 1000 miles of airport runways, 651,000 miles of highways 124,000 new bridges, 8,000 parks, TVA, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,300 schools and  instead of a handout-- jobs. Then there was also the PWA, CCC and other agencies rebuilding America. One other little thing FDR inspired was the "March of Dimes" that led to the end of polio.


----------



## Correll

Syriusly said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, here we go.
> 
> German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk on September 22, 1939
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German and Soviet officers present at the parade: Generalleutnant Mauritz von Wiktorin (left), General der Panzertruppe Heinz Guderian(centre) and KombrigSemyon Krivoshein (right)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rolling Soviet tanks and German motorcyclists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German and Soviet personnel amid parade display material.
> 
> 
> Yep. NO reason for FDR to be suspicious of Good Old Uncle Joe...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And suspicious yes.
> 
> Would you have preferred FDR not assist the Soviets- not ally with the Soviets while the United States took on Japan and Germany?
> 
> Because I look at the outcome- and the United States still exists, Germany and Japan are our allies, and the Soviet Union no longer exists.
> 
> The United States emerged from World War 2 the most powerful nation in the world- and Americans began a period of our greatest prosperity.
> 
> What should we have changed?
Click to expand...




Thinking of the post war situation would a have been a reasonable expectation.


Negotiating somewhat tougher with Stalin would have been good too.

After all, the Soviet were the ones with millions of Nazi Troops roaming around inside their country.

In a normal negotiating that is the type of situation that is normally considered to give you a WEAK position, not one where you issue demands, such as Half of Europe.

Just saying.


----------



## Correll

regent said:


> FDR's New Deal's WPA  also gave us 1000 miles of airport runways, 651,000 miles of highways 124,000 new bridges, 8,000 parks, TVA, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,300 schools and  instead of a handout-- jobs. Then there was also the PWA, CCC and other agencies rebuilding America. One other little thing FDR inspired was the "March of Dimes" that led to the end of polio.



If you think that your economic sanctions are going to economically crush your enemy, should you not give consideration to possible escalation from them?

The FDR was so aggressive against the Japanese but did nothing to adopt a defensive stance militarily was somewhat of a fuckup that resulted in a serious military defeat.


----------



## regent

Correll said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's New Deal's WPA  also gave us 1000 miles of airport runways, 651,000 miles of highways 124,000 new bridges, 8,000 parks, TVA, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,300 schools and  instead of a handout-- jobs. Then there was also the PWA, CCC and other agencies rebuilding America. One other little thing FDR inspired was the "March of Dimes" that led to the end of polio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that your economic sanctions are going to economically crush your enemy, should you not give consideration to possible escalation from them?
> 
> The FDR was so aggressive against the Japanese but did nothing to adopt a defensive stance militarily was somewhat of a fuckup that resulted in a serious military defeat.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about, the Panay, Pearl Harbor or what? If it was Pearl Harbor that was a naval base and both the navy and army should have been defending their base. If it was the PI MacArthur should have been defending those islands also. But Orange was involved with the PI.


----------



## Syriusly

Correll said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, here we go.
> 
> German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk on September 22, 1939
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German and Soviet officers present at the parade: Generalleutnant Mauritz von Wiktorin (left), General der Panzertruppe Heinz Guderian(centre) and KombrigSemyon Krivoshein (right)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rolling Soviet tanks and German motorcyclists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German and Soviet personnel amid parade display material.
> 
> 
> Yep. NO reason for FDR to be suspicious of Good Old Uncle Joe...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And suspicious yes.
> 
> Would you have preferred FDR not assist the Soviets- not ally with the Soviets while the United States took on Japan and Germany?
> 
> Because I look at the outcome- and the United States still exists, Germany and Japan are our allies, and the Soviet Union no longer exists.
> 
> The United States emerged from World War 2 the most powerful nation in the world- and Americans began a period of our greatest prosperity.
> 
> What should we have changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking of the post war situation would a have been a reasonable expectation.
> 
> 
> Negotiating somewhat tougher with Stalin would have been good too.
> 
> After all, the Soviet were the ones with millions of Nazi Troops roaming around inside their country.
> 
> In a normal negotiating that is the type of situation that is normally considered to give you a WEAK position, not one where you issue demands, such as Half of Europe.
> 
> Just saying.
Click to expand...


And lets say FDR negotiated agreements by Stalin to- what leave Germany after conquering it? leave Poland?

Since Stalin actually did ignore all of the agreements that he did make with Western governments regarding free elections in Poland and everything else- what good would have more agreements that we were unwilling to enforce?

I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.

Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union. 

The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong. 

Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill. 

FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR.


----------



## Syriusly

Correll said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's New Deal's WPA  also gave us 1000 miles of airport runways, 651,000 miles of highways 124,000 new bridges, 8,000 parks, TVA, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,300 schools and  instead of a handout-- jobs. Then there was also the PWA, CCC and other agencies rebuilding America. One other little thing FDR inspired was the "March of Dimes" that led to the end of polio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that your economic sanctions are going to economically crush your enemy, should you not give consideration to possible escalation from them?
> 
> The FDR was so aggressive against the Japanese but did nothing to adopt a defensive stance militarily was somewhat of a fuckup that resulted in a serious military defeat.
Click to expand...


FDR had been on a military building program for several years- almost every aircraft carrier that served in the Pacific was the result of a Roosevelt budget. 

There was a concern for a Japanese attack- but we underestimated the Japanese- consistently. The expectation was that the attack would likely happen against the Phillippines and that the U.S. would have more warning. While there was at least one navy officer who had predicted a Pearl Harbor attack- that was one scenario out of many. 

Certainly Pearl should have been better prepared- read up on the attack on Pearl Harbor and there are a series of strategic and tactical errors- luckily the Japanese made them too. They didn't get our carriers- and they didn't come back for another attack to really finish off Pearl.  Pearl was a costly setback for the U.S.- it delayed our victory in the Pacific at the most by 1 year. 

Japan though screwed up by attacking Pearl- if they had attacked Malaysia and Indonesia, the United States would not have intervened.  Hard to believe but by attacking Pearl- Japan probably condemned themselves to defeat.


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was an oopser by the Germans but great for the allies, as they now had their justification to bomb German civilians, and they did so bomb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.
> 
> And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.
> 
> So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.
> 
> And?
> 
> Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.
> 
> Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to make up your mind...are we commies or cons?  Which is it?
> 
> You are so terribly confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I think you are commies?
> Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.
> 
> And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.
> 
> So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.
> 
> And?
> 
> Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.
> 
> Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You referred to us a commies several times in this thread.  Now you post this...WTF?
> 
> Do you have dementia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have dementia? Or just poor reading comprehension? I have never called you a commie but it amuses me that you seem confused by my plain words
> 
> Why would I think you are commies?
> Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.
> 
> And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.
> 
> So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.
> 
> And?
> 
> Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.
> 
> Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that
Click to expand...

My apologizes.  I confused you with another FDR lover in this thread, who called me a commie.

Yes, FDR did many things which I will agree were good for the nation, but the dickhead was in office for way too long.  He was bound to get some things right.

The problem for you apologists is he got so many things wrong, resulting in terrible suffering and death, that the bad far outweighs the good.


----------



## Correll

Syriusly said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, here we go.
> 
> German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk on September 22, 1939
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German and Soviet officers present at the parade: Generalleutnant Mauritz von Wiktorin (left), General der Panzertruppe Heinz Guderian(centre) and KombrigSemyon Krivoshein (right)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rolling Soviet tanks and German motorcyclists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German and Soviet personnel amid parade display material.
> 
> 
> Yep. NO reason for FDR to be suspicious of Good Old Uncle Joe...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And suspicious yes.
> 
> Would you have preferred FDR not assist the Soviets- not ally with the Soviets while the United States took on Japan and Germany?
> 
> Because I look at the outcome- and the United States still exists, Germany and Japan are our allies, and the Soviet Union no longer exists.
> 
> The United States emerged from World War 2 the most powerful nation in the world- and Americans began a period of our greatest prosperity.
> 
> What should we have changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking of the post war situation would a have been a reasonable expectation.
> 
> 
> Negotiating somewhat tougher with Stalin would have been good too.
> 
> After all, the Soviet were the ones with millions of Nazi Troops roaming around inside their country.
> 
> In a normal negotiating that is the type of situation that is normally considered to give you a WEAK position, not one where you issue demands, such as Half of Europe.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And lets say FDR negotiated agreements by Stalin to- what leave Germany after conquering it? leave Poland?
> 
> Since Stalin actually did ignore all of the agreements that he did make with Western governments regarding free elections in Poland and everything else- what good would have more agreements that we were unwilling to enforce?
> 
> I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.
> 
> Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.
> 
> The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.
> 
> Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.
> 
> FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR.
Click to expand...



1. Who said we would be unwilling to enforce them?

2. It's not like he had a weak hand.

3. Communism was more than just a "danger for twenty years". Tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea and Vietnam, and the threat of Nuclear War was a generations long shadow.

4. Nice moving of the goalposts there. A few posts ago it was "no better outcome", now it's "no better uniting of America".


----------



## Correll

Syriusly said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's New Deal's WPA  also gave us 1000 miles of airport runways, 651,000 miles of highways 124,000 new bridges, 8,000 parks, TVA, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,300 schools and  instead of a handout-- jobs. Then there was also the PWA, CCC and other agencies rebuilding America. One other little thing FDR inspired was the "March of Dimes" that led to the end of polio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that your economic sanctions are going to economically crush your enemy, should you not give consideration to possible escalation from them?
> 
> The FDR was so aggressive against the Japanese but did nothing to adopt a defensive stance militarily was somewhat of a fuckup that resulted in a serious military defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR had been on a military building program for several years- almost every aircraft carrier that served in the Pacific was the result of a Roosevelt budget.
> 
> There was a concern for a Japanese attack- but we underestimated the Japanese- consistently. The expectation was that the attack would likely happen against the Phillippines and that the U.S. would have more warning. While there was at least one navy officer who had predicted a Pearl Harbor attack- that was one scenario out of many.
> 
> Certainly Pearl should have been better prepared- read up on the attack on Pearl Harbor and there are a series of strategic and tactical errors- luckily the Japanese made them too. They didn't get our carriers- and they didn't come back for another attack to really finish off Pearl.  Pearl was a costly setback for the U.S.- it delayed our victory in the Pacific at the most by 1 year.
> 
> Japan though screwed up by attacking Pearl- if they had attacked Malaysia and Indonesia, the United States would not have intervened.  Hard to believe but by attacking Pearl- Japan probably condemned themselves to defeat.
Click to expand...



Almost any US President during the 30s would have increased defense spending.

I do give him credit for giving the Manhattan Project a go ahead. Good call that. Easy to imagine the to an old guy like him it could have sounded outlandish.


----------



## Camp

Correll said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's New Deal's WPA  also gave us 1000 miles of airport runways, 651,000 miles of highways 124,000 new bridges, 8,000 parks, TVA, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,300 schools and  instead of a handout-- jobs. Then there was also the PWA, CCC and other agencies rebuilding America. One other little thing FDR inspired was the "March of Dimes" that led to the end of polio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that your economic sanctions are going to economically crush your enemy, should you not give consideration to possible escalation from them?
> 
> The FDR was so aggressive against the Japanese but did nothing to adopt a defensive stance militarily was somewhat of a fuckup that resulted in a serious military defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR had been on a military building program for several years- almost every aircraft carrier that served in the Pacific was the result of a Roosevelt budget.
> 
> There was a concern for a Japanese attack- but we underestimated the Japanese- consistently. The expectation was that the attack would likely happen against the Phillippines and that the U.S. would have more warning. While there was at least one navy officer who had predicted a Pearl Harbor attack- that was one scenario out of many.
> 
> Certainly Pearl should have been better prepared- read up on the attack on Pearl Harbor and there are a series of strategic and tactical errors- luckily the Japanese made them too. They didn't get our carriers- and they didn't come back for another attack to really finish off Pearl.  Pearl was a costly setback for the U.S.- it delayed our victory in the Pacific at the most by 1 year.
> 
> Japan though screwed up by attacking Pearl- if they had attacked Malaysia and Indonesia, the United States would not have intervened.  Hard to believe but by attacking Pearl- Japan probably condemned themselves to defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Almost any US President during the 30s would have increased defense spending.
> 
> I do give him credit for giving the Manhattan Project a go ahead. Good call that. Easy to imagine the to an old guy like him it could have sounded outlandish.
Click to expand...

Congress refused or was slow to increase defense spending until after his Jan. 6, 1941 State of the Union "Four Freedoms " speech made 11 months before Pearl Harbor.
All through the '30's FDR and the US were stymied in defense spending by the isolationist and the Neutrality Act. The best he could do without Congressional funding was to push industry and use relief funds to develop modern weapons and retool the MIC factories so that when the funds became available there would be a headstart and afford industry to rush into production.

Insight into the difficulties in Defense Funding. This is a book review but gives useful data;
nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books/review/those-angry-days-and-1940.html?_r=0

The FOUR FREEDOMS SPEECH;
history.com/this-day-in-history/franklin-d-roosevelt-speaks-of-four-freedoms

fdrlibrary.marist.edu/pdfs/fftext.pdf


----------



## Correll

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's New Deal's WPA  also gave us 1000 miles of airport runways, 651,000 miles of highways 124,000 new bridges, 8,000 parks, TVA, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,300 schools and  instead of a handout-- jobs. Then there was also the PWA, CCC and other agencies rebuilding America. One other little thing FDR inspired was the "March of Dimes" that led to the end of polio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that your economic sanctions are going to economically crush your enemy, should you not give consideration to possible escalation from them?
> 
> The FDR was so aggressive against the Japanese but did nothing to adopt a defensive stance militarily was somewhat of a fuckup that resulted in a serious military defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR had been on a military building program for several years- almost every aircraft carrier that served in the Pacific was the result of a Roosevelt budget.
> 
> There was a concern for a Japanese attack- but we underestimated the Japanese- consistently. The expectation was that the attack would likely happen against the Phillippines and that the U.S. would have more warning. While there was at least one navy officer who had predicted a Pearl Harbor attack- that was one scenario out of many.
> 
> Certainly Pearl should have been better prepared- read up on the attack on Pearl Harbor and there are a series of strategic and tactical errors- luckily the Japanese made them too. They didn't get our carriers- and they didn't come back for another attack to really finish off Pearl.  Pearl was a costly setback for the U.S.- it delayed our victory in the Pacific at the most by 1 year.
> 
> Japan though screwed up by attacking Pearl- if they had attacked Malaysia and Indonesia, the United States would not have intervened.  Hard to believe but by attacking Pearl- Japan probably condemned themselves to defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Almost any US President during the 30s would have increased defense spending.
> 
> I do give him credit for giving the Manhattan Project a go ahead. Good call that. Easy to imagine the to an old guy like him it could have sounded outlandish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress refused or was slow to increase defense spending until after his Jan. 6, 1941 State of the Union "Four Freedoms " speech made 11 months before Pearl Harbor.
> All through the '30's FDR and the US were stymied in defense spending by the isolationist and the Neutrality Act. The best he could do without Congressional funding was to push industry and use relief funds to develop modern weapons and retool the MIC factories so that when the funds became available there would be a headstart and afford industry to rush into production.
> 
> Insight into the difficulties in Defense Funding. This is a book review but gives useful data;
> nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books/review/those-angry-days-and-1940.html?_r=0
> 
> The FOUR FREEDOMS SPEECH;
> history.com/this-day-in-history/franklin-d-roosevelt-speaks-of-four-freedoms
> 
> fdrlibrary.marist.edu/pdfs/fftext.pdf
Click to expand...


You are syriusly are welcome to argue whether FDR did enough to build up the military for the war he saw coming.

I was just referencing that he should have had his military thinking seriously about defense.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's New Deal's WPA  also gave us 1000 miles of airport runways, 651,000 miles of highways 124,000 new bridges, 8,000 parks, TVA, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,300 schools and  instead of a handout-- jobs. Then there was also the PWA, CCC and other agencies rebuilding America. One other little thing FDR inspired was the "March of Dimes" that led to the end of polio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that your economic sanctions are going to economically crush your enemy, should you not give consideration to possible escalation from them?
> 
> The FDR was so aggressive against the Japanese but did nothing to adopt a defensive stance militarily was somewhat of a fuckup that resulted in a serious military defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR had been on a military building program for several years- almost every aircraft carrier that served in the Pacific was the result of a Roosevelt budget.
> 
> There was a concern for a Japanese attack- but we underestimated the Japanese- consistently. The expectation was that the attack would likely happen against the Phillippines and that the U.S. would have more warning. While there was at least one navy officer who had predicted a Pearl Harbor attack- that was one scenario out of many.
> 
> Certainly Pearl should have been better prepared- read up on the attack on Pearl Harbor and there are a series of strategic and tactical errors- luckily the Japanese made them too. They didn't get our carriers- and they didn't come back for another attack to really finish off Pearl.  Pearl was a costly setback for the U.S.- it delayed our victory in the Pacific at the most by 1 year.
> 
> Japan though screwed up by attacking Pearl- if they had attacked Malaysia and Indonesia, the United States would not have intervened.  Hard to believe but by attacking Pearl- Japan probably condemned themselves to defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Almost any US President during the 30s would have increased defense spending.
> 
> I do give him credit for giving the Manhattan Project a go ahead. Good call that. Easy to imagine the to an old guy like him it could have sounded outlandish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress refused or was slow to increase defense spending until after his Jan. 6, 1941 State of the Union "Four Freedoms " speech made 11 months before Pearl Harbor.
> All through the '30's FDR and the US were stymied in defense spending by the isolationist and the Neutrality Act. The best he could do without Congressional funding was to push industry and use relief funds to develop modern weapons and retool the MIC factories so that when the funds became available there would be a headstart and afford industry to rush into production.
> 
> Insight into the difficulties in Defense Funding. This is a book review but gives useful data;
> nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books/review/those-angry-days-and-1940.html?_r=0
> 
> The FOUR FREEDOMS SPEECH;
> history.com/this-day-in-history/franklin-d-roosevelt-speaks-of-four-freedoms
> 
> fdrlibrary.marist.edu/pdfs/fftext.pdf
Click to expand...

Yes...it is terribly unfortunate the isolationists did not defeat Stalin's Stooge, before he committed his heinous crimes.  Think of all the lives saved and the horrendous suffering prevented. 

Yes...if only FDR the Psychopath, had never been POTUS.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's New Deal's WPA  also gave us 1000 miles of airport runways, 651,000 miles of highways 124,000 new bridges, 8,000 parks, TVA, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,300 schools and  instead of a handout-- jobs. Then there was also the PWA, CCC and other agencies rebuilding America. One other little thing FDR inspired was the "March of Dimes" that led to the end of polio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that your economic sanctions are going to economically crush your enemy, should you not give consideration to possible escalation from them?
> 
> The FDR was so aggressive against the Japanese but did nothing to adopt a defensive stance militarily was somewhat of a fuckup that resulted in a serious military defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR had been on a military building program for several years- almost every aircraft carrier that served in the Pacific was the result of a Roosevelt budget.
> 
> There was a concern for a Japanese attack- but we underestimated the Japanese- consistently. The expectation was that the attack would likely happen against the Phillippines and that the U.S. would have more warning. While there was at least one navy officer who had predicted a Pearl Harbor attack- that was one scenario out of many.
> 
> Certainly Pearl should have been better prepared- read up on the attack on Pearl Harbor and there are a series of strategic and tactical errors- luckily the Japanese made them too. They didn't get our carriers- and they didn't come back for another attack to really finish off Pearl.  Pearl was a costly setback for the U.S.- it delayed our victory in the Pacific at the most by 1 year.
> 
> Japan though screwed up by attacking Pearl- if they had attacked Malaysia and Indonesia, the United States would not have intervened.  Hard to believe but by attacking Pearl- Japan probably condemned themselves to defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Almost any US President during the 30s would have increased defense spending.
> 
> I do give him credit for giving the Manhattan Project a go ahead. Good call that. Easy to imagine the to an old guy like him it could have sounded outlandish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress refused or was slow to increase defense spending until after his Jan. 6, 1941 State of the Union "Four Freedoms " speech made 11 months before Pearl Harbor.
> All through the '30's FDR and the US were stymied in defense spending by the isolationist and the Neutrality Act. The best he could do without Congressional funding was to push industry and use relief funds to develop modern weapons and retool the MIC factories so that when the funds became available there would be a headstart and afford industry to rush into production.
> 
> Insight into the difficulties in Defense Funding. This is a book review but gives useful data;
> nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books/review/those-angry-days-and-1940.html?_r=0
> 
> The FOUR FREEDOMS SPEECH;
> history.com/this-day-in-history/franklin-d-roosevelt-speaks-of-four-freedoms
> 
> fdrlibrary.marist.edu/pdfs/fftext.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...it is terribly unfortunate the isolationists did not defeat Stalin's Stooge, before he committed his heinous crimes.  Think of all the lives saved and the horrendous suffering prevented.
> 
> Yes...if only FDR the Psychopath, had never been POTUS.
Click to expand...

I think when the Japanese began confiscating private businesses and interest in Asia and the Germans began making demands about where and with whom America could trade, even to the point of torpedoing American Navel ships escorting American merchant ships, the isolationist fell out of good grace. Even American flagged cruise ships in the Carribean were stopped on the high seas by Germans and inspected for what the Germans insisted was "forbidden trade" being smuggled onto South American flagged vessels. By the time US sailors were being killed in the Atlantic before the war was declared, America had stopped listening to the isolationist and the Neutrality Act was abandoned.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that your economic sanctions are going to economically crush your enemy, should you not give consideration to possible escalation from them?
> 
> The FDR was so aggressive against the Japanese but did nothing to adopt a defensive stance militarily was somewhat of a fuckup that resulted in a serious military defeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR had been on a military building program for several years- almost every aircraft carrier that served in the Pacific was the result of a Roosevelt budget.
> 
> There was a concern for a Japanese attack- but we underestimated the Japanese- consistently. The expectation was that the attack would likely happen against the Phillippines and that the U.S. would have more warning. While there was at least one navy officer who had predicted a Pearl Harbor attack- that was one scenario out of many.
> 
> Certainly Pearl should have been better prepared- read up on the attack on Pearl Harbor and there are a series of strategic and tactical errors- luckily the Japanese made them too. They didn't get our carriers- and they didn't come back for another attack to really finish off Pearl.  Pearl was a costly setback for the U.S.- it delayed our victory in the Pacific at the most by 1 year.
> 
> Japan though screwed up by attacking Pearl- if they had attacked Malaysia and Indonesia, the United States would not have intervened.  Hard to believe but by attacking Pearl- Japan probably condemned themselves to defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Almost any US President during the 30s would have increased defense spending.
> 
> I do give him credit for giving the Manhattan Project a go ahead. Good call that. Easy to imagine the to an old guy like him it could have sounded outlandish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress refused or was slow to increase defense spending until after his Jan. 6, 1941 State of the Union "Four Freedoms " speech made 11 months before Pearl Harbor.
> All through the '30's FDR and the US were stymied in defense spending by the isolationist and the Neutrality Act. The best he could do without Congressional funding was to push industry and use relief funds to develop modern weapons and retool the MIC factories so that when the funds became available there would be a headstart and afford industry to rush into production.
> 
> Insight into the difficulties in Defense Funding. This is a book review but gives useful data;
> nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books/review/those-angry-days-and-1940.html?_r=0
> 
> The FOUR FREEDOMS SPEECH;
> history.com/this-day-in-history/franklin-d-roosevelt-speaks-of-four-freedoms
> 
> fdrlibrary.marist.edu/pdfs/fftext.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...it is terribly unfortunate the isolationists did not defeat Stalin's Stooge, before he committed his heinous crimes.  Think of all the lives saved and the horrendous suffering prevented.
> 
> Yes...if only FDR the Psychopath, had never been POTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think when the Japanese began confiscating private businesses and interest in Asia and the Germans began making demands about where and with whom America could trade, even to the point of torpedoing American Navel ships escorting American merchant ships, the isolationist fell out of good grace. Even American flagged cruise ships in the Carribean were stopped on the high seas by Germans and inspected for what the Germans insisted was "forbidden trade" being smuggled onto South American flagged vessels. By the time US sailors were being killed in the Atlantic before the war was declared, America had stopped listening to the isolationist and the Neutrality Act was abandoned.
Click to expand...

Yes the Germans were on to FDR's covert effort to assist the dumdass Brits...an act of war.  Why was he trying to instigate war with Germany?  Why was he always lying to the people?

It was not until FDR tricked Japan into war, that the isolationist movement ended...too bad.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR had been on a military building program for several years- almost every aircraft carrier that served in the Pacific was the result of a Roosevelt budget.
> 
> There was a concern for a Japanese attack- but we underestimated the Japanese- consistently. The expectation was that the attack would likely happen against the Phillippines and that the U.S. would have more warning. While there was at least one navy officer who had predicted a Pearl Harbor attack- that was one scenario out of many.
> 
> Certainly Pearl should have been better prepared- read up on the attack on Pearl Harbor and there are a series of strategic and tactical errors- luckily the Japanese made them too. They didn't get our carriers- and they didn't come back for another attack to really finish off Pearl.  Pearl was a costly setback for the U.S.- it delayed our victory in the Pacific at the most by 1 year.
> 
> Japan though screwed up by attacking Pearl- if they had attacked Malaysia and Indonesia, the United States would not have intervened.  Hard to believe but by attacking Pearl- Japan probably condemned themselves to defeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost any US President during the 30s would have increased defense spending.
> 
> I do give him credit for giving the Manhattan Project a go ahead. Good call that. Easy to imagine the to an old guy like him it could have sounded outlandish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress refused or was slow to increase defense spending until after his Jan. 6, 1941 State of the Union "Four Freedoms " speech made 11 months before Pearl Harbor.
> All through the '30's FDR and the US were stymied in defense spending by the isolationist and the Neutrality Act. The best he could do without Congressional funding was to push industry and use relief funds to develop modern weapons and retool the MIC factories so that when the funds became available there would be a headstart and afford industry to rush into production.
> 
> Insight into the difficulties in Defense Funding. This is a book review but gives useful data;
> nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books/review/those-angry-days-and-1940.html?_r=0
> 
> The FOUR FREEDOMS SPEECH;
> history.com/this-day-in-history/franklin-d-roosevelt-speaks-of-four-freedoms
> 
> fdrlibrary.marist.edu/pdfs/fftext.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...it is terribly unfortunate the isolationists did not defeat Stalin's Stooge, before he committed his heinous crimes.  Think of all the lives saved and the horrendous suffering prevented.
> 
> Yes...if only FDR the Psychopath, had never been POTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think when the Japanese began confiscating private businesses and interest in Asia and the Germans began making demands about where and with whom America could trade, even to the point of torpedoing American Navel ships escorting American merchant ships, the isolationist fell out of good grace. Even American flagged cruise ships in the Carribean were stopped on the high seas by Germans and inspected for what the Germans insisted was "forbidden trade" being smuggled onto South American flagged vessels. By the time US sailors were being killed in the Atlantic before the war was declared, America had stopped listening to the isolationist and the Neutrality Act was abandoned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the Germans were on to FDR's covert effort to assist the dumdass Brits...an act of war.  Why was he trying to instigate war with Germany?  Why was he always lying to the people?
> 
> It was not until FDR tricked Japan into war, that the isolationist movement ended...too bad.
Click to expand...


Yeah- some people still to this day regret that the United States defeated Imperial Japan and helped defeat Nazi Germany.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.
> 
> And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.
> 
> So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.
> 
> And?
> 
> Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.
> 
> Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to make up your mind...are we commies or cons?  Which is it?
> 
> You are so terribly confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I think you are commies?
> Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.
> 
> And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.
> 
> So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.
> 
> And?
> 
> Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.
> 
> Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You referred to us a commies several times in this thread.  Now you post this...WTF?
> 
> Do you have dementia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have dementia? Or just poor reading comprehension? I have never called you a commie but it amuses me that you seem confused by my plain words
> 
> Why would I think you are commies?
> Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.
> 
> And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.
> 
> So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.
> 
> And?
> 
> Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.
> 
> Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My apologizes.  I confused you with another FDR lover in this thread, who called me a commie.
> 
> Yes, FDR did many things which I will agree were good for the nation, but the dickhead was in office for way too long.  He was bound to get some things right.
> 
> The problem for you apologists is he got so many things wrong, resulting in terrible suffering and death, that the bad far outweighs the good.
Click to expand...


The problem for you FDR haters is that while FDR got many things wrong, he got the important things right. You think that bad far outweighs the good.

But the good- as I keep pointing out- was really important 'good'

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

And it bears repeating- at the time of FDR's death- the United States was just starting a period of unprecedented wealth and prosperity of the American people.

You consider that to be 'bad'- I consider that all to be good.


----------



## Correll

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to make up your mind...are we commies or cons?  Which is it?
> 
> You are so terribly confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I think you are commies?
> Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.
> 
> And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.
> 
> So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.
> 
> And?
> 
> Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.
> 
> Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You referred to us a commies several times in this thread.  Now you post this...WTF?
> 
> Do you have dementia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have dementia? Or just poor reading comprehension? I have never called you a commie but it amuses me that you seem confused by my plain words
> 
> Why would I think you are commies?
> Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.
> 
> And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.
> 
> So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.
> 
> And?
> 
> Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.
> 
> Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My apologizes.  I confused you with another FDR lover in this thread, who called me a commie.
> 
> Yes, FDR did many things which I will agree were good for the nation, but the dickhead was in office for way too long.  He was bound to get some things right.
> 
> The problem for you apologists is he got so many things wrong, resulting in terrible suffering and death, that the bad far outweighs the good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem for you FDR haters is that while FDR got many things wrong, he got the important things right. You think that bad far outweighs the good.
> 
> But the good- as I keep pointing out- was really important 'good'
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> And it bears repeating- at the time of FDR's death- the United States was just starting a period of unprecedented wealth and prosperity of the American people.
> 
> You consider that to be 'bad'- I consider that all to be good.
Click to expand...



And I have already addressed these.

1. The Great Depression was never going to be permanent. And WWII would have ended unemployment if a potted plant was sitting in the Oval Office.

2. FDR did not make this nation into the economic giant that won the war. The potted plant? With the resources and the power of the United States behind it, could have won that war. 

3. His social polices were a lot more mixed than you are giving credit for.

4. And with the rest of the Industrial world in rubble, of course we had an economic boom.

5. On the other hand, he gave half of Europe over to the man that started WWII as an ally of Adolf Hitler.


----------



## Syriusly

Correll said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, here we go.
> 
> German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk on September 22, 1939
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German and Soviet officers present at the parade: Generalleutnant Mauritz von Wiktorin (left), General der Panzertruppe Heinz Guderian(centre) and KombrigSemyon Krivoshein (right)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rolling Soviet tanks and German motorcyclists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German and Soviet personnel amid parade display material.
> 
> 
> Yep. NO reason for FDR to be suspicious of Good Old Uncle Joe...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And suspicious yes.
> 
> Would you have preferred FDR not assist the Soviets- not ally with the Soviets while the United States took on Japan and Germany?
> 
> Because I look at the outcome- and the United States still exists, Germany and Japan are our allies, and the Soviet Union no longer exists.
> 
> The United States emerged from World War 2 the most powerful nation in the world- and Americans began a period of our greatest prosperity.
> 
> What should we have changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking of the post war situation would a have been a reasonable expectation.
> 
> 
> Negotiating somewhat tougher with Stalin would have been good too.
> 
> After all, the Soviet were the ones with millions of Nazi Troops roaming around inside their country.
> 
> In a normal negotiating that is the type of situation that is normally considered to give you a WEAK position, not one where you issue demands, such as Half of Europe.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And lets say FDR negotiated agreements by Stalin to- what leave Germany after conquering it? leave Poland?
> 
> Since Stalin actually did ignore all of the agreements that he did make with Western governments regarding free elections in Poland and everything else- what good would have more agreements that we were unwilling to enforce?
> 
> I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.
> 
> Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.
> 
> The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.
> 
> Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.
> 
> FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Who said we would be unwilling to enforce them? History does. In 1945, the American people looked at the Soviet Union as our ally- who had been fighting the evil Nazi's. After VJ day, the United States could not demobilize fast enough- the American people were clamoring for their boys to come home. There was absolutely no appetite to go to war in 1945 with the USSR over the rights of the Polish people or any of the other Eastern Europeans that would end up on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
> 
> 2. It's not like he had a weak hand.
> Like I said- why do you think more 'promises' would have accomplished anything more than the promises that Stalin did make- and ignored? FDR was primarily concerned with a) helping the Soviets defeat Nazi Germany(who FDR considered the largest threat) and b) getting the USSR to come into the war against Imperial Japan.
> 
> 3. Communism was more than just a "danger for twenty years". Tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea and Vietnam, and the threat of Nuclear War was a generations long shadow.
> Communism was primarily a 'danger' for 20 years. Yes- tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea- a country which arguably we had an obligation to protect- and of which the USSR was directly involved with- and Vietnam- a country we had no obligation to defend against their own civil war- Vietnam was a war of choice by the United States- a choice that in hindsight was a terrible choice for the United States.
> 
> Been to Vietnam? I have. Nominally Communist, while actually incredibly capitalist. Communism- real Soviet style communism- collapsed under its own weight, as it did in China.
> 
> The alternative? Going to war with the Soviet Union in 1945 would not have been tens of thousands of American lives- it would have been hundreds of thousands.
> 
> 4. Nice moving of the goalposts there. A few posts ago it was "no better outcome", now it's "no better uniting of America".
Click to expand...


No moving of goal posts- just a different aspect of why FDR was successful. 


I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.

Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.

The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.

Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.

FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR


----------



## kiwiman127

What is this?  PC's 927th thread about FDR.
The title of this thread should be "PoliticalChic's extreme obsession with FDR."  Her obsession with FDR has crossed the line between sane into insane.


----------



## Syriusly

Correll said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I think you are commies?
> Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.
> 
> And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.
> 
> So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.
> 
> And?
> 
> Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.
> 
> Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that
> 
> 
> 
> You referred to us a commies several times in this thread.  Now you post this...WTF?
> 
> Do you have dementia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have dementia? Or just poor reading comprehension? I have never called you a commie but it amuses me that you seem confused by my plain words
> 
> Why would I think you are commies?
> Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.
> 
> And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.
> 
> So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.
> 
> And?
> 
> Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.
> 
> Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.
> 
> But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My apologizes.  I confused you with another FDR lover in this thread, who called me a commie.
> 
> Yes, FDR did many things which I will agree were good for the nation, but the dickhead was in office for way too long.  He was bound to get some things right.
> 
> The problem for you apologists is he got so many things wrong, resulting in terrible suffering and death, that the bad far outweighs the good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem for you FDR haters is that while FDR got many things wrong, he got the important things right. You think that bad far outweighs the good.
> 
> But the good- as I keep pointing out- was really important 'good'
> 
> He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.
> 
> He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.
> 
> And it bears repeating- at the time of FDR's death- the United States was just starting a period of unprecedented wealth and prosperity of the American people.
> 
> You consider that to be 'bad'- I consider that all to be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I have already addressed these.
> 
> 1. The Great Depression was never going to be permanent. And WWII would have ended unemployment if a potted plant was sitting in the Oval Office.
> 
> 2. FDR did not make this nation into the economic giant that won the war. The potted plant? With the resources and the power of the United States behind it, could have won that war.
> 
> 3. His social polices were a lot more mixed than you are giving credit for.
> 
> 4. And with the rest of the Industrial world in rubble, of course we had an economic boom.
> 
> 5. On the other hand, he gave half of Europe over to the man that started WWII as an ally of Adolf Hitler.
Click to expand...


1. The Great Depression was never going to be permanent.

And yet- FDR was the President who was the President that led the United States out of the Great Depression. Do you have any idea how bad the Depression was by 1933? There was real concern that there would be a revolt in the United States- farmers had already taken over cities in the Midwest in protest over what was happening to them- in 1933 the United States was on a precipice- and FDR took actions which reassured Americans. There is a whole lot of Monday morning quarter backing of what FDR could have done better- but we know what was accomplished while he was President- and what wasn't accomplished under Hoover- his predecessor.

1a And WWII would have ended unemployment if a potted plant was sitting in the Oval Office.

And why is that? Ever thought about why WW2 ended unemployment? 

Massive government spending. The United States hired about 12,000,000 men for our armed forces- and spent massive amounts of money building ships and airplanes and tanks- built by American workers who earned more money than they had ever seen before.
Essentially FDR's pre-war strategy to fight the Depression on steroids 

2. FDR did not make this nation into the economic giant that won the war. The potted plant? With the resources and the power of the United States behind it, could have won that war. 

FDR did however lead this nation into being the economic giant that won the war.  You want to blame FDR for mistakes made during his Presidency- then acknowledge that he was the President that left the United States at the brink of our greatest prosperity. 

3. His social polices were a lot more mixed than you are giving credit for.

There were several policies that were either unsuccessful, or mixed. But because of FDR we do have Social Security, unemployment insurance, bank depositors insurance and the GI Bill. 

If you disagree with those programs- well- any politician running to abolish any of them? Anyone who doesn't consider the GI Bill to be a brilliant social policy? 

4. And with the rest of the Industrial world in rubble, of course we had an economic boom.

And FDR led the United States so that we were able to take advantage of that. 

5. On the other hand, he gave half of Europe over to the man that started WWII as an ally of Adolf Hitler.

Except of course that is actually false. FDR never 'gave' the USSR anything- other than materials to help it fight the Germans. The Soviets defeated the Nazi's in Poland and Hungary and Eastern Germany- yes with our material assistance- but they beat the Germans and took possession of Eastern Europe. FDR never 'gave' Eastern Europe to Stalin- Stalin took it.


----------



## Correll

Syriusly said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, here we go.
> 
> German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk on September 22, 1939
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German and Soviet officers present at the parade: Generalleutnant Mauritz von Wiktorin (left), General der Panzertruppe Heinz Guderian(centre) and KombrigSemyon Krivoshein (right)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rolling Soviet tanks and German motorcyclists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German and Soviet personnel amid parade display material.
> 
> 
> Yep. NO reason for FDR to be suspicious of Good Old Uncle Joe...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And suspicious yes.
> 
> Would you have preferred FDR not assist the Soviets- not ally with the Soviets while the United States took on Japan and Germany?
> 
> Because I look at the outcome- and the United States still exists, Germany and Japan are our allies, and the Soviet Union no longer exists.
> 
> The United States emerged from World War 2 the most powerful nation in the world- and Americans began a period of our greatest prosperity.
> 
> What should we have changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking of the post war situation would a have been a reasonable expectation.
> 
> 
> Negotiating somewhat tougher with Stalin would have been good too.
> 
> After all, the Soviet were the ones with millions of Nazi Troops roaming around inside their country.
> 
> In a normal negotiating that is the type of situation that is normally considered to give you a WEAK position, not one where you issue demands, such as Half of Europe.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And lets say FDR negotiated agreements by Stalin to- what leave Germany after conquering it? leave Poland?
> 
> Since Stalin actually did ignore all of the agreements that he did make with Western governments regarding free elections in Poland and everything else- what good would have more agreements that we were unwilling to enforce?
> 
> I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.
> 
> Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.
> 
> The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.
> 
> Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.
> 
> FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Who said we would be unwilling to enforce them? History does. In 1945, the American people looked at the Soviet Union as our ally- who had been fighting the evil Nazi's. After VJ day, the United States could not demobilize fast enough- the American people were clamoring for their boys to come home. There was absolutely no appetite to go to war in 1945 with the USSR over the rights of the Polish people or any of the other Eastern Europeans that would end up on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
> 
> 2. It's not like he had a weak hand.
> Like I said- why do you think more 'promises' would have accomplished anything more than the promises that Stalin did make- and ignored? FDR was primarily concerned with a) helping the Soviets defeat Nazi Germany(who FDR considered the largest threat) and b) getting the USSR to come into the war against Imperial Japan.
> 
> 3. Communism was more than just a "danger for twenty years". Tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea and Vietnam, and the threat of Nuclear War was a generations long shadow.
> Communism was primarily a 'danger' for 20 years. Yes- tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea- a country which arguably we had an obligation to protect- and of which the USSR was directly involved with- and Vietnam- a country we had no obligation to defend against their own civil war- Vietnam was a war of choice by the United States- a choice that in hindsight was a terrible choice for the United States.
> 
> Been to Vietnam? I have. Nominally Communist, while actually incredibly capitalist. Communism- real Soviet style communism- collapsed under its own weight, as it did in China.
> 
> The alternative? Going to war with the Soviet Union in 1945 would not have been tens of thousands of American lives- it would have been hundreds of thousands.
> 
> 4. Nice moving of the goalposts there. A few posts ago it was "no better outcome", now it's "no better uniting of America".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No moving of goal posts- just a different aspect of why FDR was successful.
> 
> 
> I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.
> 
> Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.
> 
> The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.
> 
> Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.
> 
> FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR
Click to expand...




1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises.

2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there.

3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge.

4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts.

5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't.


----------



## Syriusly

Correll said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And suspicious yes.
> 
> Would you have preferred FDR not assist the Soviets- not ally with the Soviets while the United States took on Japan and Germany?
> 
> Because I look at the outcome- and the United States still exists, Germany and Japan are our allies, and the Soviet Union no longer exists.
> 
> The United States emerged from World War 2 the most powerful nation in the world- and Americans began a period of our greatest prosperity.
> 
> What should we have changed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking of the post war situation would a have been a reasonable expectation.
> 
> 
> Negotiating somewhat tougher with Stalin would have been good too.
> 
> After all, the Soviet were the ones with millions of Nazi Troops roaming around inside their country.
> 
> In a normal negotiating that is the type of situation that is normally considered to give you a WEAK position, not one where you issue demands, such as Half of Europe.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And lets say FDR negotiated agreements by Stalin to- what leave Germany after conquering it? leave Poland?
> 
> Since Stalin actually did ignore all of the agreements that he did make with Western governments regarding free elections in Poland and everything else- what good would have more agreements that we were unwilling to enforce?
> 
> I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.
> 
> Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.
> 
> The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.
> 
> Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.
> 
> FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Who said we would be unwilling to enforce them? History does. In 1945, the American people looked at the Soviet Union as our ally- who had been fighting the evil Nazi's. After VJ day, the United States could not demobilize fast enough- the American people were clamoring for their boys to come home. There was absolutely no appetite to go to war in 1945 with the USSR over the rights of the Polish people or any of the other Eastern Europeans that would end up on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
> 
> 2. It's not like he had a weak hand.
> Like I said- why do you think more 'promises' would have accomplished anything more than the promises that Stalin did make- and ignored? FDR was primarily concerned with a) helping the Soviets defeat Nazi Germany(who FDR considered the largest threat) and b) getting the USSR to come into the war against Imperial Japan.
> 
> 3. Communism was more than just a "danger for twenty years". Tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea and Vietnam, and the threat of Nuclear War was a generations long shadow.
> Communism was primarily a 'danger' for 20 years. Yes- tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea- a country which arguably we had an obligation to protect- and of which the USSR was directly involved with- and Vietnam- a country we had no obligation to defend against their own civil war- Vietnam was a war of choice by the United States- a choice that in hindsight was a terrible choice for the United States.
> 
> Been to Vietnam? I have. Nominally Communist, while actually incredibly capitalist. Communism- real Soviet style communism- collapsed under its own weight, as it did in China.
> 
> The alternative? Going to war with the Soviet Union in 1945 would not have been tens of thousands of American lives- it would have been hundreds of thousands.
> 
> 4. Nice moving of the goalposts there. A few posts ago it was "no better outcome", now it's "no better uniting of America".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No moving of goal posts- just a different aspect of why FDR was successful.
> 
> 
> I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.
> 
> Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.
> 
> The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.
> 
> Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.
> 
> FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises._
> 
> 2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there.
> 
> 3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge.
> 
> 4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts.
> 
> 5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't.
Click to expand...


_1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises._

Another great example of Monday morning quarterbacking. I don't know about you- but I wasn't alive in 1942_-_ was the propaganda short sighted? Perhaps- on the other hand- the United States already had 3 declared enemies- and had no reason or intention in 1942 to expect that we would be going to war with the USSR. 

_2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there._

_"don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets"........_because the United States wanted Germany to beat the USSR? Looking back now- it is easy for you to say that the United States should have just let Germany and the USSR slug it out_- but in 1942, it looked like the USSR could fall to Nazi Germany- and that is something that FDR would have justly been condemned for. We know that Lend Lease helped the Soviets defeat the bulk of the Germany military- the Western Allies faced roughly only 1/3 of the Germany military. Your 'proposal' had the very real prospect of a German victory over the Soviets....and that would have been worse than the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. _

_The 'second front'- FDR certainly didn't open up the second front when Stalin was demanding it- the United States instead first attacked in North Africa, and then through Italy- all the time while Stalin was pressing the Western Allies for what became D-Day. 

3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge._

_The Soviets were johnny come latelys to Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was part of the indigenous Vietnamese guerrilla's fighting the Japanese, and had expected that the French would give Vietnam independence after the war- which didn't happen. The United States got sucked into a war in Vietnam that we should never have gotten involved in. _

_How do I know this? Because Vietnam did eventually fall- but there were no more dominoes falling as our 'strategy' said would happen. And as I pointed out- Vietnam is now a thriving capitalist economy with a shell of a government that calls itself Communist. 

4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts._

What about my previous post was 'incorrect'? My position about FDR has been pretty consistent- if you want I can present it again. _

5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't._

The United States didn't have nukes while FDR was alive. Why do you think FDR should have been playing chicken with Stalin with weapons that at the time were still theoretical? In 1942, FDR was more concerned that the United States develop a nuclear bomb before Nazi Germany than where the Soviets would be in 1945. 

And what about Stalin's history makes you think that he gave a damn if his people were starving- or dying?


----------



## Correll

Syriusly said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking of the post war situation would a have been a reasonable expectation.
> 
> 
> Negotiating somewhat tougher with Stalin would have been good too.
> 
> After all, the Soviet were the ones with millions of Nazi Troops roaming around inside their country.
> 
> In a normal negotiating that is the type of situation that is normally considered to give you a WEAK position, not one where you issue demands, such as Half of Europe.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And lets say FDR negotiated agreements by Stalin to- what leave Germany after conquering it? leave Poland?
> 
> Since Stalin actually did ignore all of the agreements that he did make with Western governments regarding free elections in Poland and everything else- what good would have more agreements that we were unwilling to enforce?
> 
> I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.
> 
> Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.
> 
> The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.
> 
> Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.
> 
> FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Who said we would be unwilling to enforce them? History does. In 1945, the American people looked at the Soviet Union as our ally- who had been fighting the evil Nazi's. After VJ day, the United States could not demobilize fast enough- the American people were clamoring for their boys to come home. There was absolutely no appetite to go to war in 1945 with the USSR over the rights of the Polish people or any of the other Eastern Europeans that would end up on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
> 
> 2. It's not like he had a weak hand.
> Like I said- why do you think more 'promises' would have accomplished anything more than the promises that Stalin did make- and ignored? FDR was primarily concerned with a) helping the Soviets defeat Nazi Germany(who FDR considered the largest threat) and b) getting the USSR to come into the war against Imperial Japan.
> 
> 3. Communism was more than just a "danger for twenty years". Tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea and Vietnam, and the threat of Nuclear War was a generations long shadow.
> Communism was primarily a 'danger' for 20 years. Yes- tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea- a country which arguably we had an obligation to protect- and of which the USSR was directly involved with- and Vietnam- a country we had no obligation to defend against their own civil war- Vietnam was a war of choice by the United States- a choice that in hindsight was a terrible choice for the United States.
> 
> Been to Vietnam? I have. Nominally Communist, while actually incredibly capitalist. Communism- real Soviet style communism- collapsed under its own weight, as it did in China.
> 
> The alternative? Going to war with the Soviet Union in 1945 would not have been tens of thousands of American lives- it would have been hundreds of thousands.
> 
> 4. Nice moving of the goalposts there. A few posts ago it was "no better outcome", now it's "no better uniting of America".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No moving of goal posts- just a different aspect of why FDR was successful.
> 
> 
> I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.
> 
> Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.
> 
> The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.
> 
> Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.
> 
> FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises._
> 
> 2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there.
> 
> 3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge.
> 
> 4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts.
> 
> 5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises._
> 
> Another great example of Monday morning quarterbacking. I don't know about you- but I wasn't alive in 1942_-_ was the propaganda short sighted? Perhaps- on the other hand- the United States already had 3 declared enemies- and had no reason or intention in 1942 to expect that we would be going to war with the USSR.
> 
> _2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there._
> 
> _"don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets"........_because the United States wanted Germany to beat the USSR? Looking back now- it is easy for you to say that the United States should have just let Germany and the USSR slug it out_- but in 1942, it looked like the USSR could fall to Nazi Germany- and that is something that FDR would have justly been condemned for. We know that Lend Lease helped the Soviets defeat the bulk of the Germany military- the Western Allies faced roughly only 1/3 of the Germany military. Your 'proposal' had the very real prospect of a German victory over the Soviets....and that would have been worse than the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. _
> 
> _The 'second front'- FDR certainly didn't open up the second front when Stalin was demanding it- the United States instead first attacked in North Africa, and then through Italy- all the time while Stalin was pressing the Western Allies for what became D-Day.
> 
> 3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge._
> 
> _The Soviets were johnny come latelys to Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was part of the indigenous Vietnamese guerrilla's fighting the Japanese, and had expected that the French would give Vietnam independence after the war- which didn't happen. The United States got sucked into a war in Vietnam that we should never have gotten involved in. _
> 
> _How do I know this? Because Vietnam did eventually fall- but there were no more dominoes falling as our 'strategy' said would happen. And as I pointed out- Vietnam is now a thriving capitalist economy with a shell of a government that calls itself Communist.
> 
> 4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts._
> 
> What about my previous post was 'incorrect'? My position about FDR has been pretty consistent- if you want I can present it again.
> _
> 5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't._
> 
> The United States didn't have nukes while FDR was alive. Why do you think FDR should have been playing chicken with Stalin with weapons that at the time were still theoretical? In 1942, FDR was more concerned that the United States develop a nuclear bomb before Nazi Germany than where the Soviets would be in 1945.
> 
> And what about Stalin's history makes you think that he gave a damn if his people were starving- or dying?
Click to expand...



1. You cite history as though it was the only way things could possibly have gone. I point out that other polices could have been chosen, and you accuse me of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That is not reasonable. 

2. Unless FDR had access to military experts who could read a map and count numbers of troops. Germany was already holding down territory and population greater than Germany itself and now they were at war with the largest nation in the world with a population far, far larger than Germany's.

Stalin needed US, far more than we needed him. That should have been reflected in the post war situation. But it wasn't.

3. NOne of that addresses the fact that Vietnam was part of the Cold War and that the Cold War was thus far longer than 20 years and was very costly in terms of lives and money.

4. Potted plant could "lead" to economic boom and military dominance of America after WWII, what with rest of industrialized world in ruins. That's what was wrong with previous post before you moved goal post.

5. You brought up war in 45. I pointed out that we would have had nukes against soviet that did not. That FDR was dead is not a dispute of that fact. I don't think Stalin would care about his people. I think he would care about whether he could win. Starving people have less military capability.


----------



## regent

One concern of the depression was that people would eventually revolt as a few other nations had revolted against a bad economy and any other reason that appealed to them.
There are always cadres about making revolt noises, as even today there are  those anxious to try their guns out, and other anxious for whatever. In a crisis those cadres grow.


----------



## Syriusly

Correll said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And lets say FDR negotiated agreements by Stalin to- what leave Germany after conquering it? leave Poland?
> 
> Since Stalin actually did ignore all of the agreements that he did make with Western governments regarding free elections in Poland and everything else- what good would have more agreements that we were unwilling to enforce?
> 
> I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.
> 
> Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.
> 
> The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.
> 
> Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.
> 
> FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Who said we would be unwilling to enforce them? History does. In 1945, the American people looked at the Soviet Union as our ally- who had been fighting the evil Nazi's. After VJ day, the United States could not demobilize fast enough- the American people were clamoring for their boys to come home. There was absolutely no appetite to go to war in 1945 with the USSR over the rights of the Polish people or any of the other Eastern Europeans that would end up on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
> 
> 2. It's not like he had a weak hand.
> Like I said- why do you think more 'promises' would have accomplished anything more than the promises that Stalin did make- and ignored? FDR was primarily concerned with a) helping the Soviets defeat Nazi Germany(who FDR considered the largest threat) and b) getting the USSR to come into the war against Imperial Japan.
> 
> 3. Communism was more than just a "danger for twenty years". Tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea and Vietnam, and the threat of Nuclear War was a generations long shadow.
> Communism was primarily a 'danger' for 20 years. Yes- tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea- a country which arguably we had an obligation to protect- and of which the USSR was directly involved with- and Vietnam- a country we had no obligation to defend against their own civil war- Vietnam was a war of choice by the United States- a choice that in hindsight was a terrible choice for the United States.
> 
> Been to Vietnam? I have. Nominally Communist, while actually incredibly capitalist. Communism- real Soviet style communism- collapsed under its own weight, as it did in China.
> 
> The alternative? Going to war with the Soviet Union in 1945 would not have been tens of thousands of American lives- it would have been hundreds of thousands.
> 
> 4. Nice moving of the goalposts there. A few posts ago it was "no better outcome", now it's "no better uniting of America".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No moving of goal posts- just a different aspect of why FDR was successful.
> 
> 
> I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.
> 
> Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.
> 
> The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.
> 
> Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.
> 
> FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises._
> 
> 2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there.
> 
> 3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge.
> 
> 4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts.
> 
> 5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises._
> 
> Another great example of Monday morning quarterbacking. I don't know about you- but I wasn't alive in 1942_-_ was the propaganda short sighted? Perhaps- on the other hand- the United States already had 3 declared enemies- and had no reason or intention in 1942 to expect that we would be going to war with the USSR.
> 
> _2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there._
> 
> _"don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets"........_because the United States wanted Germany to beat the USSR? Looking back now- it is easy for you to say that the United States should have just let Germany and the USSR slug it out_- but in 1942, it looked like the USSR could fall to Nazi Germany- and that is something that FDR would have justly been condemned for. We know that Lend Lease helped the Soviets defeat the bulk of the Germany military- the Western Allies faced roughly only 1/3 of the Germany military. Your 'proposal' had the very real prospect of a German victory over the Soviets....and that would have been worse than the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. _
> 
> _The 'second front'- FDR certainly didn't open up the second front when Stalin was demanding it- the United States instead first attacked in North Africa, and then through Italy- all the time while Stalin was pressing the Western Allies for what became D-Day.
> 
> 3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge._
> 
> _The Soviets were johnny come latelys to Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was part of the indigenous Vietnamese guerrilla's fighting the Japanese, and had expected that the French would give Vietnam independence after the war- which didn't happen. The United States got sucked into a war in Vietnam that we should never have gotten involved in. _
> 
> _How do I know this? Because Vietnam did eventually fall- but there were no more dominoes falling as our 'strategy' said would happen. And as I pointed out- Vietnam is now a thriving capitalist economy with a shell of a government that calls itself Communist.
> 
> 4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts._
> 
> What about my previous post was 'incorrect'? My position about FDR has been pretty consistent- if you want I can present it again.
> _
> 5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't._
> 
> The United States didn't have nukes while FDR was alive. Why do you think FDR should have been playing chicken with Stalin with weapons that at the time were still theoretical? In 1942, FDR was more concerned that the United States develop a nuclear bomb before Nazi Germany than where the Soviets would be in 1945.
> 
> And what about Stalin's history makes you think that he gave a damn if his people were starving- or dying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You cite history as though it was the only way things could possibly have gone. I point out that other polices could have been chosen, and you accuse me of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That is not reasonable.
> 
> 2. Unless FDR had access to military experts who could read a map and count numbers of troops. Germany was already holding down territory and population greater than Germany itself and now they were at war with the largest nation in the world with a population far, far larger than Germany's.
> 
> Stalin needed US, far more than we needed him. That should have been reflected in the post war situation. But it wasn't.
> 
> 3. NOne of that addresses the fact that Vietnam was part of the Cold War and that the Cold War was thus far longer than 20 years and was very costly in terms of lives and money.
> 
> 4. Potted plant could "lead" to economic boom and military dominance of America after WWII, what with rest of industrialized world in ruins. That's what was wrong with previous post before you moved goal post.
> 
> 5. You brought up war in 45. I pointed out that we would have had nukes against soviet that did not. That FDR was dead is not a dispute of that fact. I don't think Stalin would care about his people. I think he would care about whether he could win. Starving people have less military capability.
Click to expand...


_1. You cite history as though it was the only way things could possibly have gone. I point out that other polices could have been chosen, and you accuse me of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That is not reasonable. _

I agree- at least in part. However, as I point out we do know how history turned out. Any alternative policies are necessarily speculation- and very well could have turned out worse. The United States at the end of WW2 was the most powerful country in the world, our citizens, the most prosperous- that is a pretty good result- compare that to the end of WW1


_2. Unless FDR had access to military experts who could read a map and count numbers of troops. Germany was already holding down territory and population greater than Germany itself and now they were at war with the largest nation in the world with a population far, far larger than Germany's
_
And if FDR had done that- and just presumed that Germany could not defeat the USSR- but it ended up winning? Then what? You presume that FDR made the wrong decision, and that is based upon your presumption that Germany could not defeat the Soviets- and in 1942 that was anything but a sure thing. 

_Stalin needed US, far more than we needed him. That should have been reflected in the post war situation. But it wasn't._

Again- how? Stalin ignored the agreements that were made. 

3. NOne of that addresses the fact that Vietnam was part of the Cold War and that the Cold War was thus far longer than 20 years and was very costly in terms of lives and money.

Vietnam was the end of the combat part of the Cold War- which ended just over 20 years after the end of WW2. The rest of the 'Cold War' was not costly in terms of lives- sure we spent money on it- but again- what was the alternative? Do you think we should have gone to war with the USSR in 1945 to prevent the Cold War?
_
4. Potted plant could "lead" to economic boom and military dominance of America after WWII, what with rest of industrialized world in ruins. That's what was wrong with previous post before you moved goal post._

Maybe- maybe not- yet my point is factual- yours is speculation. During FDR's presidency- and under his leadership-  the United States went from a third rate economy and military power to the most powerful and most prosperous country in the world. And those are the facts. 

5. You brought up war in 45. I pointed out that we would have had nukes against soviet that did not. That FDR was dead is not a dispute of that fact. I don't think Stalin would care about his people. I think he would care about whether he could win. Starving people have less military capability.

And you complain about me moving goal posts?

Here is my post- in response to your claim that FDR gave the USSR half of Europe:
_Except of course that is actually false. FDR never 'gave' the USSR anything- other than materials to help it fight the Germans. The Soviets defeated the Nazi's in Poland and Hungary and Eastern Germany- yes with our material assistance- but they beat the Germans and took possession of Eastern Europe. FDR never 'gave' Eastern Europe to Stalin- Stalin took it.
_
You responded with 'nukes'

_Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't._

FDR had no nukes- ever.  You brought up nukes in response to my post about FDR not giving Stalin half of Europe- now you don't want to talk about FDR?

In 1945 we had 3 nuclear bombs- 1 we tested in New Mexico- 2 we dropped on Japan. We had no nukes to use against the Soviets in 1945- unless we decided suddenly that forcing the Soviets out of Poland was more important to us than defeating Imperial Japan. And of course FDR had nothing to do with those decisions. 

Speaking of starving people- in 1945- the 'starving people' included most of Western Europe- which the United States was trying to keep fed. Going to war with the Soviet Union would not have helped them.

If you want to speak complain about FDR giving up too much to Stalin- limit that discussion to the time he was actually alive.


----------



## Syriusly

regent said:


> One concern of the depression was that people would eventually revolt as a few other nations had revolted against a bad economy and any other reason that appealed to them.
> There are always cadres about making revolt noises, as even today there are  those anxious to try their guns out, and other anxious for whatever. In a crisis those cadres grow.



There was a very serious concern about that in 1932 and 1933- newspapers were predicting revolution, farmers had taken over highways- 1933 was a powder keg. And we survived. 

We can't predict for certain how things would have turned out if FDR was not elected, or if he had different policies- but we can see how we emerged at the end of his presidency- and we came out of it far better than Hoover left the United States.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I too grew up being taught that FDR was "the greatest President" who "rescued capitalism" and "won WWII" , etc.

Once you look behind the curtain, you learn FDR was the biggest lying scumbag who the Founding fathers are still beating daily in the afterlife. 

He was Stalin's sock puppet and fuck toy.


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> I too grew up being taught that FDR was "the greatest President" who "rescued capitalism" and "won WWII" , etc.
> 
> Once you look behind the curtain, you learn FDR was the biggest lying scumbag who the Founding fathers are still beating daily in the afterlife.
> 
> He was Stalin's sock puppet and fuck toy.


Mindless drivel.


----------



## regent

Great name calling with naught behind it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.


----------



## Dot Com

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.


how many Russians died fighting the Nazis Frank57?


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.


What a stupid concept. Stalin orchestrated FDR to allow over 10 million Russians military killed and another 14 million civilian casualties compared to several hundred thousand US KIA casualties? And we are to believe it was not FDR, but rather Stalin that led that war that defeat the Nazi's according to Frank's post.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid concept. Stalin orchestrated FDR to allow over 10 million Russians military killed and another 14 million civilian casualties compared to several hundred thousand US KIA casualties? And we are to believe it was not FDR, but rather Stalin that led that war that defeat the Nazi's according to Frank's post.
Click to expand...


You think Stalin gave a single fuck about casualties???? in 1933 he STARVED 6 million of his own fucking people to death!

Stalin defeated the Nazis and the USA.  Who the fuck held back Patton from entering Berlin a month ahead of Stalin?

Stalin wanted Normandy to fail. That's the only reason he ordered FDR's bone-headed invasion of a continent we were already on. I'm sure he did everything in his power to get Hitler to reinforce Normandy and not fall for the Calais diversion, but Hitler would not listen.


----------



## Correll

Syriusly said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Who said we would be unwilling to enforce them? History does. In 1945, the American people looked at the Soviet Union as our ally- who had been fighting the evil Nazi's. After VJ day, the United States could not demobilize fast enough- the American people were clamoring for their boys to come home. There was absolutely no appetite to go to war in 1945 with the USSR over the rights of the Polish people or any of the other Eastern Europeans that would end up on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
> 
> 2. It's not like he had a weak hand.
> Like I said- why do you think more 'promises' would have accomplished anything more than the promises that Stalin did make- and ignored? FDR was primarily concerned with a) helping the Soviets defeat Nazi Germany(who FDR considered the largest threat) and b) getting the USSR to come into the war against Imperial Japan.
> 
> 3. Communism was more than just a "danger for twenty years". Tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea and Vietnam, and the threat of Nuclear War was a generations long shadow.
> Communism was primarily a 'danger' for 20 years. Yes- tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea- a country which arguably we had an obligation to protect- and of which the USSR was directly involved with- and Vietnam- a country we had no obligation to defend against their own civil war- Vietnam was a war of choice by the United States- a choice that in hindsight was a terrible choice for the United States.
> 
> Been to Vietnam? I have. Nominally Communist, while actually incredibly capitalist. Communism- real Soviet style communism- collapsed under its own weight, as it did in China.
> 
> The alternative? Going to war with the Soviet Union in 1945 would not have been tens of thousands of American lives- it would have been hundreds of thousands.
> 
> 4. Nice moving of the goalposts there. A few posts ago it was "no better outcome", now it's "no better uniting of America".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No moving of goal posts- just a different aspect of why FDR was successful.
> 
> 
> I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.
> 
> Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.
> 
> The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.
> 
> Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.
> 
> FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises._
> 
> 2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there.
> 
> 3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge.
> 
> 4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts.
> 
> 5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises._
> 
> Another great example of Monday morning quarterbacking. I don't know about you- but I wasn't alive in 1942_-_ was the propaganda short sighted? Perhaps- on the other hand- the United States already had 3 declared enemies- and had no reason or intention in 1942 to expect that we would be going to war with the USSR.
> 
> _2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there._
> 
> _"don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets"........_because the United States wanted Germany to beat the USSR? Looking back now- it is easy for you to say that the United States should have just let Germany and the USSR slug it out_- but in 1942, it looked like the USSR could fall to Nazi Germany- and that is something that FDR would have justly been condemned for. We know that Lend Lease helped the Soviets defeat the bulk of the Germany military- the Western Allies faced roughly only 1/3 of the Germany military. Your 'proposal' had the very real prospect of a German victory over the Soviets....and that would have been worse than the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. _
> 
> _The 'second front'- FDR certainly didn't open up the second front when Stalin was demanding it- the United States instead first attacked in North Africa, and then through Italy- all the time while Stalin was pressing the Western Allies for what became D-Day.
> 
> 3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge._
> 
> _The Soviets were johnny come latelys to Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was part of the indigenous Vietnamese guerrilla's fighting the Japanese, and had expected that the French would give Vietnam independence after the war- which didn't happen. The United States got sucked into a war in Vietnam that we should never have gotten involved in. _
> 
> _How do I know this? Because Vietnam did eventually fall- but there were no more dominoes falling as our 'strategy' said would happen. And as I pointed out- Vietnam is now a thriving capitalist economy with a shell of a government that calls itself Communist.
> 
> 4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts._
> 
> What about my previous post was 'incorrect'? My position about FDR has been pretty consistent- if you want I can present it again.
> _
> 5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't._
> 
> The United States didn't have nukes while FDR was alive. Why do you think FDR should have been playing chicken with Stalin with weapons that at the time were still theoretical? In 1942, FDR was more concerned that the United States develop a nuclear bomb before Nazi Germany than where the Soviets would be in 1945.
> 
> And what about Stalin's history makes you think that he gave a damn if his people were starving- or dying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You cite history as though it was the only way things could possibly have gone. I point out that other polices could have been chosen, and you accuse me of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That is not reasonable.
> 
> 2. Unless FDR had access to military experts who could read a map and count numbers of troops. Germany was already holding down territory and population greater than Germany itself and now they were at war with the largest nation in the world with a population far, far larger than Germany's.
> 
> Stalin needed US, far more than we needed him. That should have been reflected in the post war situation. But it wasn't.
> 
> 3. NOne of that addresses the fact that Vietnam was part of the Cold War and that the Cold War was thus far longer than 20 years and was very costly in terms of lives and money.
> 
> 4. Potted plant could "lead" to economic boom and military dominance of America after WWII, what with rest of industrialized world in ruins. That's what was wrong with previous post before you moved goal post.
> 
> 5. You brought up war in 45. I pointed out that we would have had nukes against soviet that did not. That FDR was dead is not a dispute of that fact. I don't think Stalin would care about his people. I think he would care about whether he could win. Starving people have less military capability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _1. You cite history as though it was the only way things could possibly have gone. I point out that other polices could have been chosen, and you accuse me of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That is not reasonable. _
> 
> I agree- at least in part. However, as I point out we do know how history turned out. Any alternative policies are necessarily speculation- and very well could have turned out worse. The United States at the end of WW2 was the most powerful country in the world, our citizens, the most prosperous- that is a pretty good result- compare that to the end of WW1
> 
> 
> _2. Unless FDR had access to military experts who could read a map and count numbers of troops. Germany was already holding down territory and population greater than Germany itself and now they were at war with the largest nation in the world with a population far, far larger than Germany's
> _
> And if FDR had done that- and just presumed that Germany could not defeat the USSR- but it ended up winning? Then what? You presume that FDR made the wrong decision, and that is based upon your presumption that Germany could not defeat the Soviets- and in 1942 that was anything but a sure thing.
> 
> _Stalin needed US, far more than we needed him. That should have been reflected in the post war situation. But it wasn't._
> 
> Again- how? Stalin ignored the agreements that were made.
> 
> 3. NOne of that addresses the fact that Vietnam was part of the Cold War and that the Cold War was thus far longer than 20 years and was very costly in terms of lives and money.
> 
> Vietnam was the end of the combat part of the Cold War- which ended just over 20 years after the end of WW2. The rest of the 'Cold War' was not costly in terms of lives- sure we spent money on it- but again- what was the alternative? Do you think we should have gone to war with the USSR in 1945 to prevent the Cold War?
> _
> 4. Potted plant could "lead" to economic boom and military dominance of America after WWII, what with rest of industrialized world in ruins. That's what was wrong with previous post before you moved goal post._
> 
> Maybe- maybe not- yet my point is factual- yours is speculation. During FDR's presidency- and under his leadership-  the United States went from a third rate economy and military power to the most powerful and most prosperous country in the world. And those are the facts.
> 
> 5. You brought up war in 45. I pointed out that we would have had nukes against soviet that did not. That FDR was dead is not a dispute of that fact. I don't think Stalin would care about his people. I think he would care about whether he could win. Starving people have less military capability.
> 
> And you complain about me moving goal posts?
> 
> Here is my post- in response to your claim that FDR gave the USSR half of Europe:
> _Except of course that is actually false. FDR never 'gave' the USSR anything- other than materials to help it fight the Germans. The Soviets defeated the Nazi's in Poland and Hungary and Eastern Germany- yes with our material assistance- but they beat the Germans and took possession of Eastern Europe. FDR never 'gave' Eastern Europe to Stalin- Stalin took it._
> 
> You responded with 'nukes'
> 
> _Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't._
> 
> FDR had no nukes- ever.  You brought up nukes in response to my post about FDR not giving Stalin half of Europe- now you don't want to talk about FDR?
> 
> In 1945 we had 3 nuclear bombs- 1 we tested in New Mexico- 2 we dropped on Japan. We had no nukes to use against the Soviets in 1945- unless we decided suddenly that forcing the Soviets out of Poland was more important to us than defeating Imperial Japan. And of course FDR had nothing to do with those decisions.
> 
> Speaking of starving people- in 1945- the 'starving people' included most of Western Europe- which the United States was trying to keep fed. Going to war with the Soviet Union would not have helped them.
> 
> If you want to speak complain about FDR giving up too much to Stalin- limit that discussion to the time he was actually alive.
Click to expand...



1.When you make an historical judgement on an historical events, you invite speculation on alternative possibilities.

2. With the roll the Nazis were on, it was completely reasonable for the layperson to fear that the Nazis were unstoppable Supermen.  Of course, FDR had put himself forward to be LEader of a large nation, and really should have been able to look deeper and further than Panic.

3. Not sure why you keep saying 20 years. Vietnam ended in 75. Afghanistan was part of the COld War too, and it didn't end until 89.

4. THe US economy was not Third Rate before FDR. That is not factual. The US economy became the world's largest economy in 1880, two years before FDR was born.

5. He signed agreements that recognized Soviet control over Eastern Europe on the promise of free elections. He gave them vast amounts of military and economic aid so that they could advance faster and further. He made no efforts to enforce those promises, which were obvious lies. It is not unreasonable to use the word "gave".

6. YOu brought up the idea of a us/ussr war in 45.


----------



## Syriusly

Correll said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No moving of goal posts- just a different aspect of why FDR was successful.
> 
> 
> I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.
> 
> Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.
> 
> The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.
> 
> Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.
> 
> FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR
> 
> 
> 
> _1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises._
> 
> 2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there.
> 
> 3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge.
> 
> 4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts.
> 
> 5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises._
> 
> Another great example of Monday morning quarterbacking. I don't know about you- but I wasn't alive in 1942_-_ was the propaganda short sighted? Perhaps- on the other hand- the United States already had 3 declared enemies- and had no reason or intention in 1942 to expect that we would be going to war with the USSR.
> 
> _2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there._
> 
> _"don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets"........_because the United States wanted Germany to beat the USSR? Looking back now- it is easy for you to say that the United States should have just let Germany and the USSR slug it out_- but in 1942, it looked like the USSR could fall to Nazi Germany- and that is something that FDR would have justly been condemned for. We know that Lend Lease helped the Soviets defeat the bulk of the Germany military- the Western Allies faced roughly only 1/3 of the Germany military. Your 'proposal' had the very real prospect of a German victory over the Soviets....and that would have been worse than the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. _
> 
> _The 'second front'- FDR certainly didn't open up the second front when Stalin was demanding it- the United States instead first attacked in North Africa, and then through Italy- all the time while Stalin was pressing the Western Allies for what became D-Day.
> 
> 3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge._
> 
> _The Soviets were johnny come latelys to Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was part of the indigenous Vietnamese guerrilla's fighting the Japanese, and had expected that the French would give Vietnam independence after the war- which didn't happen. The United States got sucked into a war in Vietnam that we should never have gotten involved in. _
> 
> _How do I know this? Because Vietnam did eventually fall- but there were no more dominoes falling as our 'strategy' said would happen. And as I pointed out- Vietnam is now a thriving capitalist economy with a shell of a government that calls itself Communist.
> 
> 4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts._
> 
> What about my previous post was 'incorrect'? My position about FDR has been pretty consistent- if you want I can present it again.
> _
> 5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't._
> 
> The United States didn't have nukes while FDR was alive. Why do you think FDR should have been playing chicken with Stalin with weapons that at the time were still theoretical? In 1942, FDR was more concerned that the United States develop a nuclear bomb before Nazi Germany than where the Soviets would be in 1945.
> 
> And what about Stalin's history makes you think that he gave a damn if his people were starving- or dying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You cite history as though it was the only way things could possibly have gone. I point out that other polices could have been chosen, and you accuse me of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That is not reasonable.
> 
> 2. Unless FDR had access to military experts who could read a map and count numbers of troops. Germany was already holding down territory and population greater than Germany itself and now they were at war with the largest nation in the world with a population far, far larger than Germany's.
> 
> Stalin needed US, far more than we needed him. That should have been reflected in the post war situation. But it wasn't.
> 
> 3. NOne of that addresses the fact that Vietnam was part of the Cold War and that the Cold War was thus far longer than 20 years and was very costly in terms of lives and money.
> 
> 4. Potted plant could "lead" to economic boom and military dominance of America after WWII, what with rest of industrialized world in ruins. That's what was wrong with previous post before you moved goal post.
> 
> 5. You brought up war in 45. I pointed out that we would have had nukes against soviet that did not. That FDR was dead is not a dispute of that fact. I don't think Stalin would care about his people. I think he would care about whether he could win. Starving people have less military capability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _1. You cite history as though it was the only way things could possibly have gone. I point out that other polices could have been chosen, and you accuse me of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That is not reasonable. _
> 
> I agree- at least in part. However, as I point out we do know how history turned out. Any alternative policies are necessarily speculation- and very well could have turned out worse. The United States at the end of WW2 was the most powerful country in the world, our citizens, the most prosperous- that is a pretty good result- compare that to the end of WW1
> 
> 
> _2. Unless FDR had access to military experts who could read a map and count numbers of troops. Germany was already holding down territory and population greater than Germany itself and now they were at war with the largest nation in the world with a population far, far larger than Germany's
> _
> And if FDR had done that- and just presumed that Germany could not defeat the USSR- but it ended up winning? Then what? You presume that FDR made the wrong decision, and that is based upon your presumption that Germany could not defeat the Soviets- and in 1942 that was anything but a sure thing.
> 
> _Stalin needed US, far more than we needed him. That should have been reflected in the post war situation. But it wasn't._
> 
> Again- how? Stalin ignored the agreements that were made.
> 
> 3. NOne of that addresses the fact that Vietnam was part of the Cold War and that the Cold War was thus far longer than 20 years and was very costly in terms of lives and money.
> 
> Vietnam was the end of the combat part of the Cold War- which ended just over 20 years after the end of WW2. The rest of the 'Cold War' was not costly in terms of lives- sure we spent money on it- but again- what was the alternative? Do you think we should have gone to war with the USSR in 1945 to prevent the Cold War?
> _
> 4. Potted plant could "lead" to economic boom and military dominance of America after WWII, what with rest of industrialized world in ruins. That's what was wrong with previous post before you moved goal post._
> 
> Maybe- maybe not- yet my point is factual- yours is speculation. During FDR's presidency- and under his leadership-  the United States went from a third rate economy and military power to the most powerful and most prosperous country in the world. And those are the facts.
> 
> 5. You brought up war in 45. I pointed out that we would have had nukes against soviet that did not. That FDR was dead is not a dispute of that fact. I don't think Stalin would care about his people. I think he would care about whether he could win. Starving people have less military capability.
> 
> And you complain about me moving goal posts?
> 
> Here is my post- in response to your claim that FDR gave the USSR half of Europe:
> _Except of course that is actually false. FDR never 'gave' the USSR anything- other than materials to help it fight the Germans. The Soviets defeated the Nazi's in Poland and Hungary and Eastern Germany- yes with our material assistance- but they beat the Germans and took possession of Eastern Europe. FDR never 'gave' Eastern Europe to Stalin- Stalin took it._
> 
> You responded with 'nukes'
> 
> _Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't._
> 
> FDR had no nukes- ever.  You brought up nukes in response to my post about FDR not giving Stalin half of Europe- now you don't want to talk about FDR?
> 
> In 1945 we had 3 nuclear bombs- 1 we tested in New Mexico- 2 we dropped on Japan. We had no nukes to use against the Soviets in 1945- unless we decided suddenly that forcing the Soviets out of Poland was more important to us than defeating Imperial Japan. And of course FDR had nothing to do with those decisions.
> 
> Speaking of starving people- in 1945- the 'starving people' included most of Western Europe- which the United States was trying to keep fed. Going to war with the Soviet Union would not have helped them.
> 
> If you want to speak complain about FDR giving up too much to Stalin- limit that discussion to the time he was actually alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _1.When you make an historical judgement on an historical events, you invite speculation on alternative possibilities._
> 
> 
> 2. With the roll the Nazis were on, it was completely reasonable for the layperson to fear that the Nazis were unstoppable Supermen.  Of course, FDR had put himself forward to be LEader of a large nation, and really should have been able to look deeper and further than Panic.
> 
> 
> 
> _3. Not sure why you keep saying 20 years. Vietnam ended in 75. Afghanistan was part of the COld War too, and it didn't end until 89_.
> 
> 
> 
> _4. THe US economy was not Third Rate before FDR. That is not factual. The US economy became the world's largest economy in 1880, two years before FDR was born._
> 
> 
> 
> _5. He signed agreements that recognized Soviet control over Eastern Europe on the promise of free elections. He gave them vast amounts of military and economic aid so that they could advance faster and further. He made no efforts to enforce those promises, which were obvious lies. It is not unreasonable to use the word "gave"._
> 
> 
> 
> 6. YOu brought up the idea of a us/ussr war in 45.
Click to expand...


_1.When you make an historical judgement on an historical events, you invite speculation on alternative possibilities._

Agreed- but speculation is what it remains- and has to be.

2. With the roll the Nazis were on, it was completely reasonable for the layperson to fear that the Nazis were unstoppable Supermen.  Of course, FDR had put himself forward to be LEader of a large nation, and really should have been able to look deeper and further than Panic.

And how did FDR 'panic'? He capably led the United States to victory over both Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Lend Lease worked- the Soviets did the majority of the hard work defeating Nazi Germany, likely saving tens if not hundreds of thousands of U.S. lives- and yes that is speculation. 

3. Not sure why you keep saying 20 years. Vietnam ended in 75. Afghanistan was part of the COld War too, and it didn't end until 89.

You are correct- for some reason I kept thinking Vietnam ended in '68. We didn't have soldiers in Afghanistan- but yes- I will concede that was part of the Cold War also. However- in my opinion- the United States still ended 'winning' the Cold War- and at far less cost than going to war with the Soviets in 1945. 

4. THe US economy was not Third Rate before FDR. That is not factual. The US economy became the world's largest economy in 1880, two years before FDR was born.

I haven't been able to find the details- but looking at some charts- you appear to be correct- I stand corrected. 

But you are cherry picking my post to nit pick- what I said still stands- other than 'third rate economy'

_Maybe- maybe not- yet my point is factual- yours is speculation. During FDR's presidency- and under his leadership-  the United States went from a third rate economy and military power to the most powerful and most prosperous country in the world. And those are the facts._ 


5. He signed agreements that recognized Soviet control over Eastern Europe on the promise of free elections. He gave them vast amounts of military and economic aid so that they could advance faster and further. He made no efforts to enforce those promises, which were obvious lies. It is not unreasonable to use the word "gave".

Oh yes it is unreasonable to use the word gave- it would be frankly dishonest. FDR did sign agreements with Stalin on how to administer Europe after the war ended. This of course happens about 2 years after we started Lend Lease with the Soviets. FDR made not effort to enforce those promises because FDR was dead by the time the Soviets were clearly breaking them. 

Your alternative? That FDR let the USSR take on Germany on its own doesn't guarantee that the Soviets would have not taken Eastern Europe- instead what is more likely is one of two scenarios- either Germany defeats the Soviets- which means Nazi Germany remains in control of all of Europe- or that the Soviets beat Germany on its own- and takes all of Europe except for Italy, which would be the only European country the Western Allies would control. 

6. YOu brought up the idea of a us/ussr war in 45

You are the one who said that FDR should have threatened Stalin with nukes. 

The idea that any 'agreement' would have resulted in Stalin peacefully withdrawing from Eastern Europe in 1945 is pretty ridiculous- because yes Stalin was a liar- and a dictator. He didn't care whether or not his people suffered hardships- he had more troops in Eastern Europe than the Western Allies had in all of Europe. Stalin was not leaving Eastern Europe in 1945 without a fight- a fight which America didn't want.


----------



## Syriusly

CrusaderFrank said:


> I too grew up being taught that FDR was "the greatest President" who "rescued capitalism" and "won WWII" , etc.
> 
> Once you look behind the curtain, you learn FDR was the biggest lying scumbag who the Founding fathers are still beating daily in the afterlife.
> 
> He was Stalin's sock puppet and fuck toy.



There is a reason I basically ignore Frank's threads- they are all much of the same. 

He is PC light.


----------



## Syriusly

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.



You have let Stalin direct your posting.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dot Com said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> how many Russians died fighting the Nazis Frank57?
Click to expand...




Education coming your way!
Better duck!

1. *World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. *Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. 

When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat. 

*More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. *Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army. 
"The Secret Betrayal"byNikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.

*The Soviet Union killed more than twenty million men, women and children.*




*2. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin



3. "In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost." 
Georgy Zhukov hero file


*
Russians would do anything not to return to Roosevelt's pal's 'paradise.'
4. The 850,000 strong army of Gen. Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov, having *gone to the other side, Germany, "to save their country from Stalin" *and having later surrendered to US forces, "formed the core of those forcebly repatritated between 1944 and 1947." 
 "Operation Keelhaul; The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present.by Julius Epstein  p.27, 53.

a. Gen. Deniken, former commanding general of the White Russian armies which were supported by the USA in 1917-1920, explained that* none of these men served in the Nazi army out of love for Germany..."they hated the Germans" he wrote....rather, they knew what awaited them in the 'Soviet paradise.'*


5. How badly did these individuals not want to go to Stalin's USSR? From the NYTimes, January 20, 1946: "Ten renegade Russian soldiers, in a frenzy of terror over *their impending repatriation to the homeland, committed suicide* today during a riot in the Dachau prison camp...."

a.  And, in the Times, March 5, 1946: " - Many *thousands of persons hostile to the present regime in the Soviet Union* are being forcibly sent there....the Catholic Church constantly received appeals from 'displaced persons' terrified of being sent back to territory now controlled by Russia."


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid concept. Stalin orchestrated FDR to allow over 10 million Russians military killed and another 14 million civilian casualties compared to several hundred thousand US KIA casualties? And we are to believe it was not FDR, but rather Stalin that led that war that defeat the Nazi's according to Frank's post.
Click to expand...



Stalin killed them, you fool.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I too grew up being taught that FDR was "the greatest President" who "rescued capitalism" and "won WWII" , etc.
> 
> Once you look behind the curtain, you learn FDR was the biggest lying scumbag who the Founding fathers are still beating daily in the afterlife.
> 
> He was Stalin's sock puppet and fuck toy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason I basically ignore Frank's threads- they are all much of the same.
> 
> He is PC light.
Click to expand...




Good reason you ignore them: he destroys you.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid concept. Stalin orchestrated FDR to allow over 10 million Russians military killed and another 14 million civilian casualties compared to several hundred thousand US KIA casualties? And we are to believe it was not FDR, but rather Stalin that led that war that defeat the Nazi's according to Frank's post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin killed them, you fool.
Click to expand...

Millions of German soldiers were killed by Russian soldiers, who in turned killed Russian soldiers by the millions, you dunce.


----------



## Dot Com

No matter the spin PoliSpice puts on it, Many more Russians perished fighting the Nazis


----------



## Dot Com

PoliticalChic said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> how many Russians died fighting the Nazis Frank57?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education coming your way!
> Better duck!
> 
> 1. *World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. *Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis.
> 
> When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat.
> 
> *More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. *Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army.
> "The Secret Betrayal"byNikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
> 
> *The Soviet Union killed more than twenty million men, women and children.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"*
> *Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin*
> 
> 
> 
> *3. "In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost." *
> *Georgy Zhukov hero file*
> 
> 
> 
> Russians would do anything not to return to Roosevelt's pal's 'paradise.'
> 4. The 850,000 strong army of Gen. Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov, having *gone to the other side, Germany, "to save their country from Stalin" *and having later surrendered to US forces, "formed the core of those forcebly repatritated between 1944 and 1947."
> "Operation Keelhaul; The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present.by Julius Epstein  p.27, 53.
> 
> a. Gen. Deniken, former commanding general of the White Russian armies which were supported by the USA in 1917-1920, explained that* none of these men served in the Nazi army out of love for Germany..."they hated the Germans" he wrote....rather, they knew what awaited them in the 'Soviet paradise.'*
> 
> 
> 5. How badly did these individuals not want to go to Stalin's USSR? From the NYTimes, January 20, 1946: "Ten renegade Russian soldiers, in a frenzy of terror over *their impending repatriation to the homeland, committed suicide* today during a riot in the Dachau prison camp...."
> 
> a.  And, in the Times, March 5, 1946: " - Many *thousands of persons hostile to the present regime in the Soviet Union* are being forcibly sent there....the Catholic Church constantly received appeals from 'displaced persons' terrified of being sent back to territory now controlled by Russia."
Click to expand...

The same "Tolstoy" that was found guilty of libel? Come on PoliSpice.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid concept. Stalin orchestrated FDR to allow over 10 million Russians military killed and another 14 million civilian casualties compared to several hundred thousand US KIA casualties? And we are to believe it was not FDR, but rather Stalin that led that war that defeat the Nazi's according to Frank's post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin killed them, you fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Millions of German soldiers were killed by Russian soldiers, who in turned killed Russian soldiers by the millions, you dunce.
Click to expand...



Stalin killed them.
Stalin...Roosevelt's supervisor. 
I just proved it with links, and sources....and you do your usual failure of a job.


----------



## guno

PoliticalChic said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> how many Russians died fighting the Nazis Frank57?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education coming your way!
> Better duck!
> 
> 1. *World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. *Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis.
> 
> When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat.
> 
> *More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. *Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army.
> "The Secret Betrayal"byNikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
> 
> *The Soviet Union killed more than twenty million men, women and children.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"*
> *Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin*
> 
> 
> 
> *3. "In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost." *
> *Georgy Zhukov hero file*
> 
> 
> 
> Russians would do anything not to return to Roosevelt's pal's 'paradise.'
> 4. The 850,000 strong army of Gen. Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov, having *gone to the other side, Germany, "to save their country from Stalin" *and having later surrendered to US forces, "formed the core of those forcebly repatritated between 1944 and 1947."
> "Operation Keelhaul; The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present.by Julius Epstein  p.27, 53.
> 
> a. Gen. Deniken, former commanding general of the White Russian armies which were supported by the USA in 1917-1920, explained that* none of these men served in the Nazi army out of love for Germany..."they hated the Germans" he wrote....rather, they knew what awaited them in the 'Soviet paradise.'*
> 
> 
> 5. How badly did these individuals not want to go to Stalin's USSR? From the NYTimes, January 20, 1946: "Ten renegade Russian soldiers, in a frenzy of terror over *their impending repatriation to the homeland, committed suicide* today during a riot in the Dachau prison camp...."
> 
> a.  And, in the Times, March 5, 1946: " - Many *thousands of persons hostile to the present regime in the Soviet Union* are being forcibly sent there....the Catholic Church constantly received appeals from 'displaced persons' terrified of being sent back to territory now controlled by Russia."
Click to expand...

you weren't around and you have no family connections to anyone who was around at that time, you are uneducated in American history


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dot Com said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> how many Russians died fighting the Nazis Frank57?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education coming your way!
> Better duck!
> 
> 1. *World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. *Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis.
> 
> When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat.
> 
> *More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. *Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army.
> "The Secret Betrayal"byNikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
> 
> *The Soviet Union killed more than twenty million men, women and children.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"*
> *Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin*
> 
> 
> 
> *3. "In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost." *
> *Georgy Zhukov hero file*
> 
> 
> 
> Russians would do anything not to return to Roosevelt's pal's 'paradise.'
> 4. The 850,000 strong army of Gen. Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov, having *gone to the other side, Germany, "to save their country from Stalin" *and having later surrendered to US forces, "formed the core of those forcebly repatritated between 1944 and 1947."
> "Operation Keelhaul; The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present.by Julius Epstein  p.27, 53.
> 
> a. Gen. Deniken, former commanding general of the White Russian armies which were supported by the USA in 1917-1920, explained that* none of these men served in the Nazi army out of love for Germany..."they hated the Germans" he wrote....rather, they knew what awaited them in the 'Soviet paradise.'*
> 
> 
> 5. How badly did these individuals not want to go to Stalin's USSR? From the NYTimes, January 20, 1946: "Ten renegade Russian soldiers, in a frenzy of terror over *their impending repatriation to the homeland, committed suicide* today during a riot in the Dachau prison camp...."
> 
> a.  And, in the Times, March 5, 1946: " - Many *thousands of persons hostile to the present regime in the Soviet Union* are being forcibly sent there....the Catholic Church constantly received appeals from 'displaced persons' terrified of being sent back to territory now controlled by Russia."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The same "Tolstoy" that was found guilty of libel? Come on PoliSpice.
Click to expand...



1. Tolstoy was not charged with libel.

2. This, the book I've referenced:
""Victims of Yalta"" by Nikolai Tolstoy, Encounter, June 1980 - UNZ.org"Victims of Yalta", by Nikolai Tolstoy, Encounter, June 1980, page 89-92 – Peregrine Worsthorne, in a review, declared that, "More than enough has now emerged about the Russian deportations to stir the national conscience, and the matter cannot be left as it is. If a new war crime on this scale had suddenly come to light in Germany, Britain would be the first to agitate for an inquiry; indeed for much more than that . . . if honour, at this late stage, can never be redeemed, at least dishonour can be squarely faced."

As I stated, it documents the forced repatriations to Roosevelt's pal's 'paradise.'


----------



## Dot Com

many millions still perished fighting the Nazis, The Battle of Stalingrad alone qualifies that or are you unawares?

Battle of Stalingrad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The heavy losses inflicted on the German _Wehrmacht_ make it arguably the most strategically decisive battle of the whole war.[14] It was a turning point in the European theatre of World War II; German forces never regained the initiative in the East and withdrew a vast military force from the West to replace their losses.[1]


----------



## Dot Com

PoliticalChic said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> how many Russians died fighting the Nazis Frank57?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education coming your way!
> Better duck!
> 
> 1. *World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. *Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis.
> 
> When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat.
> 
> *More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. *Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army.
> "The Secret Betrayal"byNikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
> 
> *The Soviet Union killed more than twenty million men, women and children.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"*
> *Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin*
> 
> 
> 
> *3. "In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost." *
> *Georgy Zhukov hero file*
> 
> 
> 
> Russians would do anything not to return to Roosevelt's pal's 'paradise.'
> 4. The 850,000 strong army of Gen. Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov, having *gone to the other side, Germany, "to save their country from Stalin" *and having later surrendered to US forces, "formed the core of those forcebly repatritated between 1944 and 1947."
> "Operation Keelhaul; The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present.by Julius Epstein  p.27, 53.
> 
> a. Gen. Deniken, former commanding general of the White Russian armies which were supported by the USA in 1917-1920, explained that* none of these men served in the Nazi army out of love for Germany..."they hated the Germans" he wrote....rather, they knew what awaited them in the 'Soviet paradise.'*
> 
> 
> 5. How badly did these individuals not want to go to Stalin's USSR? From the NYTimes, January 20, 1946: "Ten renegade Russian soldiers, in a frenzy of terror over *their impending repatriation to the homeland, committed suicide* today during a riot in the Dachau prison camp...."
> 
> a.  And, in the Times, March 5, 1946: " - Many *thousands of persons hostile to the present regime in the Soviet Union* are being forcibly sent there....the Catholic Church constantly received appeals from 'displaced persons' terrified of being sent back to territory now controlled by Russia."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The same "Tolstoy" that was found guilty of libel? Come on PoliSpice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Tolstoy was not charged with libel.
> 
> 2. This, the book I've referenced:
> ""Victims of Yalta"" by Nikolai Tolstoy, Encounter, June 1980 - UNZ.org"Victims of Yalta", by Nikolai Tolstoy, Encounter, June 1980, page 89-92 – Peregrine Worsthorne, in a review, declared that, "More than enough has now emerged about the Russian deportations to stir the national conscience, and the matter cannot be left as it is. If a new war crime on this scale had suddenly come to light in Germany, Britain would be the first to agitate for an inquiry; indeed for much more than that . . . if honour, at this late stage, can never be redeemed, at least dishonour can be squarely faced."
> 
> As I stated, it documents the forced repatriations to Roosevelt's pal's 'paradise.'
Click to expand...

I know, he was convicted and forced to pay recompense


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dot Com said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> how many Russians died fighting the Nazis Frank57?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education coming your way!
> Better duck!
> 
> 1. *World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. *Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis.
> 
> When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat.
> 
> *More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. *Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army.
> "The Secret Betrayal"byNikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
> 
> *The Soviet Union killed more than twenty million men, women and children.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"*
> *Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin*
> 
> 
> 
> *3. "In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost." *
> *Georgy Zhukov hero file*
> 
> 
> 
> Russians would do anything not to return to Roosevelt's pal's 'paradise.'
> 4. The 850,000 strong army of Gen. Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov, having *gone to the other side, Germany, "to save their country from Stalin" *and having later surrendered to US forces, "formed the core of those forcebly repatritated between 1944 and 1947."
> "Operation Keelhaul; The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present.by Julius Epstein  p.27, 53.
> 
> a. Gen. Deniken, former commanding general of the White Russian armies which were supported by the USA in 1917-1920, explained that* none of these men served in the Nazi army out of love for Germany..."they hated the Germans" he wrote....rather, they knew what awaited them in the 'Soviet paradise.'*
> 
> 
> 5. How badly did these individuals not want to go to Stalin's USSR? From the NYTimes, January 20, 1946: "Ten renegade Russian soldiers, in a frenzy of terror over *their impending repatriation to the homeland, committed suicide* today during a riot in the Dachau prison camp...."
> 
> a.  And, in the Times, March 5, 1946: " - Many *thousands of persons hostile to the present regime in the Soviet Union* are being forcibly sent there....the Catholic Church constantly received appeals from 'displaced persons' terrified of being sent back to territory now controlled by Russia."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The same "Tolstoy" that was found guilty of libel? Come on PoliSpice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Tolstoy was not charged with libel.
> 
> 2. This, the book I've referenced:
> ""Victims of Yalta"" by Nikolai Tolstoy, Encounter, June 1980 - UNZ.org"Victims of Yalta", by Nikolai Tolstoy, Encounter, June 1980, page 89-92 – Peregrine Worsthorne, in a review, declared that, "More than enough has now emerged about the Russian deportations to stir the national conscience, and the matter cannot be left as it is. If a new war crime on this scale had suddenly come to light in Germany, Britain would be the first to agitate for an inquiry; indeed for much more than that . . . if honour, at this late stage, can never be redeemed, at least dishonour can be squarely faced."
> 
> As I stated, it documents the forced repatriations to Roosevelt's pal's 'paradise.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, he was convicted and forced to pay recompense
Click to expand...





1. "Although Tolstoy was not the initial target of the libel action, he insisted in joining Watts as defendant..."
Nikolai Tolstoy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please don't try to pretend you actually know anything.



2. The above has nothing to do with the repatriation of unwilling victims to Roosevelt's pal's 'paradise.'


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dot Com said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> how many Russians died fighting the Nazis Frank57?
Click to expand...


How many Russians did Stalin murder? How big a multiple was it of your heroes WWII losses?


----------



## Dot Com

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> how many Russians died fighting the Nazis Frank57?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many Russians did Stalin murder? How big a multiple was it of your heroes WWII losses?
Click to expand...

deflect much Frank57? The fact is they fought the nazis tooth & nail.


----------



## regent

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.


If Stalin had conducted our strategy DDay  would have been on December 8th. 1941. FDR kept telling Stalin that the Dday check was in the mail year after year. I imagine Stalin knew FDR was jerking him around but what could he do? And to Insult Stalin even more, Truman wouldn't let Stalin into Japan after FDR had made Stalin promise to aid the US in defeating  Japan.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> If Stalin had conducted our strategy DDay  would have been on December 8th. 1941. FDR kept telling Stalin that the Dday check was in the mail year after year. I imagine Stalin knew FDR was jerking him around but what could he do? And to Insult Stalin even more, Truman wouldn't let Stalin into Japan after FDR had made Stalin promise to aid the US in defeating  Japan.
Click to expand...


Stalin got FDR to go to war with Japan. Japan should have attacked the USSR and ignored FDR provocation


----------



## regent

guno said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> how many Russians died fighting the Nazis Frank57?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education coming your way!
> Better duck!
> 
> 1. *World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. *Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis.
> 
> When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat.
> 
> *More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. *Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army.
> "The Secret Betrayal"byNikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
> 
> *The Soviet Union killed more than twenty million men, women and children.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"*
> *Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin*
> 
> 
> 
> *3. "In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost." *
> *Georgy Zhukov hero file*
> 
> 
> 
> Russians would do anything not to return to Roosevelt's pal's 'paradise.'
> 4. The 850,000 strong army of Gen. Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov, having *gone to the other side, Germany, "to save their country from Stalin" *and having later surrendered to US forces, "formed the core of those forcebly repatritated between 1944 and 1947."
> "Operation Keelhaul; The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present.by Julius Epstein  p.27, 53.
> 
> a. Gen. Deniken, former commanding general of the White Russian armies which were supported by the USA in 1917-1920, explained that* none of these men served in the Nazi army out of love for Germany..."they hated the Germans" he wrote....rather, they knew what awaited them in the 'Soviet paradise.'*
> 
> 
> 5. How badly did these individuals not want to go to Stalin's USSR? From the NYTimes, January 20, 1946: "Ten renegade Russian soldiers, in a frenzy of terror over *their impending repatriation to the homeland, committed suicide* today during a riot in the Dachau prison camp...."
> 
> a.  And, in the Times, March 5, 1946: " - Many *thousands of persons hostile to the present regime in the Soviet Union* are being forcibly sent there....the Catholic Church constantly received appeals from 'displaced persons' terrified of being sent back to territory now controlled by Russia."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you weren't around and you have no family connections to anyone who was around at that time, you are uneducated in American history
Click to expand...

But she has links.


----------



## Dot Com

regent said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> how many Russians died fighting the Nazis Frank57?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education coming your way!
> Better duck!
> 
> 1. *World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. *Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis.
> 
> When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat.
> 
> *More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. *Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army.
> "The Secret Betrayal"byNikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
> 
> *The Soviet Union killed more than twenty million men, women and children.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"*
> *Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin*
> 
> 
> 
> *3. "In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost." *
> *Georgy Zhukov hero file*
> 
> 
> 
> Russians would do anything not to return to Roosevelt's pal's 'paradise.'
> 4. The 850,000 strong army of Gen. Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov, having *gone to the other side, Germany, "to save their country from Stalin" *and having later surrendered to US forces, "formed the core of those forcebly repatritated between 1944 and 1947."
> "Operation Keelhaul; The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present.by Julius Epstein  p.27, 53.
> 
> a. Gen. Deniken, former commanding general of the White Russian armies which were supported by the USA in 1917-1920, explained that* none of these men served in the Nazi army out of love for Germany..."they hated the Germans" he wrote....rather, they knew what awaited them in the 'Soviet paradise.'*
> 
> 
> 5. How badly did these individuals not want to go to Stalin's USSR? From the NYTimes, January 20, 1946: "Ten renegade Russian soldiers, in a frenzy of terror over *their impending repatriation to the homeland, committed suicide* today during a riot in the Dachau prison camp...."
> 
> a.  And, in the Times, March 5, 1946: " - Many *thousands of persons hostile to the present regime in the Soviet Union* are being forcibly sent there....the Catholic Church constantly received appeals from 'displaced persons' terrified of being sent back to territory now controlled by Russia."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you weren't around and you have no family connections to anyone who was around at that time, you are uneducated in American history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But she has links.
Click to expand...

Everyone here knows about her "links". She sourced the Daily Caller, The WSJ And CNSNews all in one thread last week.


----------



## Uncensored2008

regent said:


> But she has links.



And facts, and brains, and knowledge, all things that Batshit utterly lacks.

Why would you go to bat for Guano? He does more damage to the left than any right wing poster could ever do?


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> If Stalin had conducted our strategy DDay  would have been on December 8th. 1941. FDR kept telling Stalin that the Dday check was in the mail year after year. I imagine Stalin knew FDR was jerking him around but what could he do? And to Insult Stalin even more, Truman wouldn't let Stalin into Japan after FDR had made Stalin promise to aid the US in defeating  Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stalin got FDR to go to war with Japan. Japan should have attacked the USSR and ignored FDR provocation
Click to expand...

Japan needed oil. The oil wells were controlled protected by the US and Britain. There was no oil to be had from the areas in Russia that were in reach of Japan. The oil reserves in western Russia had not been discovered, let alone operating.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I too grew up being taught that FDR was "the greatest President" who "rescued capitalism" and "won WWII" , etc.
> 
> Once you look behind the curtain, you learn FDR was the biggest lying scumbag who the Founding fathers are still beating daily in the afterlife.
> 
> He was Stalin's sock puppet and fuck toy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason I basically ignore Frank's threads- they are all much of the same.
> 
> He is PC light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good reason you ignore them: he destroys you.
Click to expand...


LOL.....my ego is quite intact. 

Your sanity- not so much.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid concept. Stalin orchestrated FDR to allow over 10 million Russians military killed and another 14 million civilian casualties compared to several hundred thousand US KIA casualties? And we are to believe it was not FDR, but rather Stalin that led that war that defeat the Nazi's according to Frank's post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin killed them, you fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Millions of German soldiers were killed by Russian soldiers, who in turned killed Russian soldiers by the millions, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just proved it with links, and sources.....
Click to expand...


Cracks me up every time PC makes that claim......


----------



## Dot Com

PoliSpice should run for office. OH, Silly me. They'd find out, in due course, that she has taken the ?Daily Caller/Breitbart brown acid

As to the OP, FDR is forever in the American Pantheon of greats


----------



## regent

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> If Stalin had conducted our strategy DDay  would have been on December 8th. 1941. FDR kept telling Stalin that the Dday check was in the mail year after year. I imagine Stalin knew FDR was jerking him around but what could he do? And to Insult Stalin even more, Truman wouldn't let Stalin into Japan after FDR had made Stalin promise to aid the US in defeating  Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stalin got FDR to go to war with Japan. Japan should have attacked the USSR and ignored FDR provocation
Click to expand...

Japan's goal was oil, and you have her attacking the US for FDR's provocation, it was oil and the US navy stood in the way of that oil.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> If Stalin had conducted our strategy DDay  would have been on December 8th. 1941. FDR kept telling Stalin that the Dday check was in the mail year after year. I imagine Stalin knew FDR was jerking him around but what could he do? And to Insult Stalin even more, Truman wouldn't let Stalin into Japan after FDR had made Stalin promise to aid the US in defeating  Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stalin got FDR to go to war with Japan. Japan should have attacked the USSR and ignored FDR provocation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's goal was oil, and you have her attacking the US for FDR's provocation, it was oil and the US navy stood in the way of that oil.
Click to expand...

Yes...FDR did all he could to provoke Japan.  Like embargo oil, freeze Japanese assets, terminate negotiations... All against the advice of his military and civilian advisers.  Then arming the Philippines.  All in an effort to position Japan into attacking.  It worked perfectly...well not for the sailors sacrificed at Pearl, but for Stalin's Stooge.  FDR even knew Japan's attack plans well beforehand and warned no one.

Why?  To protect Soviet Communism.

You must be so proud.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> If Stalin had conducted our strategy DDay  would have been on December 8th. 1941. FDR kept telling Stalin that the Dday check was in the mail year after year. I imagine Stalin knew FDR was jerking him around but what could he do? And to Insult Stalin even more, Truman wouldn't let Stalin into Japan after FDR had made Stalin promise to aid the US in defeating  Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stalin got FDR to go to war with Japan. Japan should have attacked the USSR and ignored FDR provocation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's goal was oil, and you have her attacking the US for FDR's provocation, it was oil and the US navy stood in the way of that oil.
Click to expand...


Riiiiiight.  And after Pearl, we started shipping oil to Japan, right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

FDR was Stalin's JV team


----------



## Correll

Syriusly said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> _1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises._
> 
> 2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there.
> 
> 3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge.
> 
> 4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts.
> 
> 5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises._
> 
> Another great example of Monday morning quarterbacking. I don't know about you- but I wasn't alive in 1942_-_ was the propaganda short sighted? Perhaps- on the other hand- the United States already had 3 declared enemies- and had no reason or intention in 1942 to expect that we would be going to war with the USSR.
> 
> _2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there._
> 
> _"don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets"........_because the United States wanted Germany to beat the USSR? Looking back now- it is easy for you to say that the United States should have just let Germany and the USSR slug it out_- but in 1942, it looked like the USSR could fall to Nazi Germany- and that is something that FDR would have justly been condemned for. We know that Lend Lease helped the Soviets defeat the bulk of the Germany military- the Western Allies faced roughly only 1/3 of the Germany military. Your 'proposal' had the very real prospect of a German victory over the Soviets....and that would have been worse than the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. _
> 
> _The 'second front'- FDR certainly didn't open up the second front when Stalin was demanding it- the United States instead first attacked in North Africa, and then through Italy- all the time while Stalin was pressing the Western Allies for what became D-Day.
> 
> 3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge._
> 
> _The Soviets were johnny come latelys to Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was part of the indigenous Vietnamese guerrilla's fighting the Japanese, and had expected that the French would give Vietnam independence after the war- which didn't happen. The United States got sucked into a war in Vietnam that we should never have gotten involved in. _
> 
> _How do I know this? Because Vietnam did eventually fall- but there were no more dominoes falling as our 'strategy' said would happen. And as I pointed out- Vietnam is now a thriving capitalist economy with a shell of a government that calls itself Communist.
> 
> 4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts._
> 
> What about my previous post was 'incorrect'? My position about FDR has been pretty consistent- if you want I can present it again.
> _
> 5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't._
> 
> The United States didn't have nukes while FDR was alive. Why do you think FDR should have been playing chicken with Stalin with weapons that at the time were still theoretical? In 1942, FDR was more concerned that the United States develop a nuclear bomb before Nazi Germany than where the Soviets would be in 1945.
> 
> And what about Stalin's history makes you think that he gave a damn if his people were starving- or dying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You cite history as though it was the only way things could possibly have gone. I point out that other polices could have been chosen, and you accuse me of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That is not reasonable.
> 
> 2. Unless FDR had access to military experts who could read a map and count numbers of troops. Germany was already holding down territory and population greater than Germany itself and now they were at war with the largest nation in the world with a population far, far larger than Germany's.
> 
> Stalin needed US, far more than we needed him. That should have been reflected in the post war situation. But it wasn't.
> 
> 3. NOne of that addresses the fact that Vietnam was part of the Cold War and that the Cold War was thus far longer than 20 years and was very costly in terms of lives and money.
> 
> 4. Potted plant could "lead" to economic boom and military dominance of America after WWII, what with rest of industrialized world in ruins. That's what was wrong with previous post before you moved goal post.
> 
> 5. You brought up war in 45. I pointed out that we would have had nukes against soviet that did not. That FDR was dead is not a dispute of that fact. I don't think Stalin would care about his people. I think he would care about whether he could win. Starving people have less military capability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _1. You cite history as though it was the only way things could possibly have gone. I point out that other polices could have been chosen, and you accuse me of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That is not reasonable. _
> 
> I agree- at least in part. However, as I point out we do know how history turned out. Any alternative policies are necessarily speculation- and very well could have turned out worse. The United States at the end of WW2 was the most powerful country in the world, our citizens, the most prosperous- that is a pretty good result- compare that to the end of WW1
> 
> 
> _2. Unless FDR had access to military experts who could read a map and count numbers of troops. Germany was already holding down territory and population greater than Germany itself and now they were at war with the largest nation in the world with a population far, far larger than Germany's
> _
> And if FDR had done that- and just presumed that Germany could not defeat the USSR- but it ended up winning? Then what? You presume that FDR made the wrong decision, and that is based upon your presumption that Germany could not defeat the Soviets- and in 1942 that was anything but a sure thing.
> 
> _Stalin needed US, far more than we needed him. That should have been reflected in the post war situation. But it wasn't._
> 
> Again- how? Stalin ignored the agreements that were made.
> 
> 3. NOne of that addresses the fact that Vietnam was part of the Cold War and that the Cold War was thus far longer than 20 years and was very costly in terms of lives and money.
> 
> Vietnam was the end of the combat part of the Cold War- which ended just over 20 years after the end of WW2. The rest of the 'Cold War' was not costly in terms of lives- sure we spent money on it- but again- what was the alternative? Do you think we should have gone to war with the USSR in 1945 to prevent the Cold War?
> _
> 4. Potted plant could "lead" to economic boom and military dominance of America after WWII, what with rest of industrialized world in ruins. That's what was wrong with previous post before you moved goal post._
> 
> Maybe- maybe not- yet my point is factual- yours is speculation. During FDR's presidency- and under his leadership-  the United States went from a third rate economy and military power to the most powerful and most prosperous country in the world. And those are the facts.
> 
> 5. You brought up war in 45. I pointed out that we would have had nukes against soviet that did not. That FDR was dead is not a dispute of that fact. I don't think Stalin would care about his people. I think he would care about whether he could win. Starving people have less military capability.
> 
> And you complain about me moving goal posts?
> 
> Here is my post- in response to your claim that FDR gave the USSR half of Europe:
> _Except of course that is actually false. FDR never 'gave' the USSR anything- other than materials to help it fight the Germans. The Soviets defeated the Nazi's in Poland and Hungary and Eastern Germany- yes with our material assistance- but they beat the Germans and took possession of Eastern Europe. FDR never 'gave' Eastern Europe to Stalin- Stalin took it._
> 
> You responded with 'nukes'
> 
> _Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't._
> 
> FDR had no nukes- ever.  You brought up nukes in response to my post about FDR not giving Stalin half of Europe- now you don't want to talk about FDR?
> 
> In 1945 we had 3 nuclear bombs- 1 we tested in New Mexico- 2 we dropped on Japan. We had no nukes to use against the Soviets in 1945- unless we decided suddenly that forcing the Soviets out of Poland was more important to us than defeating Imperial Japan. And of course FDR had nothing to do with those decisions.
> 
> Speaking of starving people- in 1945- the 'starving people' included most of Western Europe- which the United States was trying to keep fed. Going to war with the Soviet Union would not have helped them.
> 
> If you want to speak complain about FDR giving up too much to Stalin- limit that discussion to the time he was actually alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _1.When you make an historical judgement on an historical events, you invite speculation on alternative possibilities._
> 
> 
> 2. With the roll the Nazis were on, it was completely reasonable for the layperson to fear that the Nazis were unstoppable Supermen.  Of course, FDR had put himself forward to be LEader of a large nation, and really should have been able to look deeper and further than Panic.
> 
> 
> 
> _3. Not sure why you keep saying 20 years. Vietnam ended in 75. Afghanistan was part of the COld War too, and it didn't end until 89_.
> 
> 
> 
> _4. THe US economy was not Third Rate before FDR. That is not factual. The US economy became the world's largest economy in 1880, two years before FDR was born._
> 
> 
> 
> _5. He signed agreements that recognized Soviet control over Eastern Europe on the promise of free elections. He gave them vast amounts of military and economic aid so that they could advance faster and further. He made no efforts to enforce those promises, which were obvious lies. It is not unreasonable to use the word "gave"._
> 
> 
> 
> 6. YOu brought up the idea of a us/ussr war in 45.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _1.When you make an historical judgement on an historical events, you invite speculation on alternative possibilities._
> 
> Agreed- but speculation is what it remains- and has to be.
> 
> 2. With the roll the Nazis were on, it was completely reasonable for the layperson to fear that the Nazis were unstoppable Supermen.  Of course, FDR had put himself forward to be LEader of a large nation, and really should have been able to look deeper and further than Panic.
> 
> And how did FDR 'panic'? He capably led the United States to victory over both Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Lend Lease worked- the Soviets did the majority of the hard work defeating Nazi Germany, likely saving tens if not hundreds of thousands of U.S. lives- and yes that is speculation.
> 
> 3. Not sure why you keep saying 20 years. Vietnam ended in 75. Afghanistan was part of the COld War too, and it didn't end until 89.
> 
> You are correct- for some reason I kept thinking Vietnam ended in '68. We didn't have soldiers in Afghanistan- but yes- I will concede that was part of the Cold War also. However- in my opinion- the United States still ended 'winning' the Cold War- and at far less cost than going to war with the Soviets in 1945.
> 
> 4. THe US economy was not Third Rate before FDR. That is not factual. The US economy became the world's largest economy in 1880, two years before FDR was born.
> 
> I haven't been able to find the details- but looking at some charts- you appear to be correct- I stand corrected.
> 
> But you are cherry picking my post to nit pick- what I said still stands- other than 'third rate economy'
> 
> _Maybe- maybe not- yet my point is factual- yours is speculation. During FDR's presidency- and under his leadership-  the United States went from a third rate economy and military power to the most powerful and most prosperous country in the world. And those are the facts._
> 
> 
> 5. He signed agreements that recognized Soviet control over Eastern Europe on the promise of free elections. He gave them vast amounts of military and economic aid so that they could advance faster and further. He made no efforts to enforce those promises, which were obvious lies. It is not unreasonable to use the word "gave".
> 
> Oh yes it is unreasonable to use the word gave- it would be frankly dishonest. FDR did sign agreements with Stalin on how to administer Europe after the war ended. This of course happens about 2 years after we started Lend Lease with the Soviets. FDR made not effort to enforce those promises because FDR was dead by the time the Soviets were clearly breaking them.
> 
> Your alternative? That FDR let the USSR take on Germany on its own doesn't guarantee that the Soviets would have not taken Eastern Europe- instead what is more likely is one of two scenarios- either Germany defeats the Soviets- which means Nazi Germany remains in control of all of Europe- or that the Soviets beat Germany on its own- and takes all of Europe except for Italy, which would be the only European country the Western Allies would control.
> 
> 6. YOu brought up the idea of a us/ussr war in 45
> 
> You are the one who said that FDR should have threatened Stalin with nukes.
> 
> The idea that any 'agreement' would have resulted in Stalin peacefully withdrawing from Eastern Europe in 1945 is pretty ridiculous- because yes Stalin was a liar- and a dictator. He didn't care whether or not his people suffered hardships- he had more troops in Eastern Europe than the Western Allies had in all of Europe. Stalin was not leaving Eastern Europe in 1945 without a fight- a fight which America didn't want.
Click to expand...



1. If you claim that FDR's leadership was good, you are assuming that alternative leadership might have been worse. This is a form of speculation also. I do not attack you for doing that , I respected it as a form of reasoned judgement and addressed your viewpoint seriously and honestly.

2. THe Nazis and the Soviets were already at war before the US was involved. FDR didn't cause that. He didn't have to convince Stalin to fight the Nazi. THe Nazi were hundreds of milies inside of his country intent of the destruction of his nation and more importantly to Stalin, himself. Stalin should have been negotiating with the US on what we wanted.

3. THe relatively bloodless ending of the COld War under Reagan was IMO, a near miracle. And your assumption that any change is US policy would have led to either WWIII in 45 or a Nazi victory dismisses the concepts of diplomacy and leverage. FDR didn't even try. At all. Not even a little.

4. Thank you for honestly admitting the historical reality of the US economy. Note that a massive change in facts does not change your position at all. Ask yourself why that is.

The US military third rateness was a function of our historical and geographical isolationism.

5. THe promises were obvious lies the moment Stalin made them. Even before the promises it was obvious that Stalin would take and oppress any lands he took and use that territory to threaten more lands. Why? Because that is what he had been doing for years, prior. Hell, it was what he did when he allied with Hitler to invade Poland.

6. If Stalin hadn't been so far into Central Europe due to less Lend Lease, it would have been less of an issue. Cold War would have been a lot less scary if the Iron Curtain ran along Poland's Western Border. Or even Eastern Border.


----------



## Correll

Dot Com said:


> No matter the spin PoliSpice puts on it, Many more Russians perished fighting the Nazis



It was probably a mistake on Stalin's part to ally with Hitler and invade a nation between them, thus removing the buffer state between Nazi Germany and COmmunist USSR, and then trust Hitler to NOT invade him.

That's bad policy on Stalin's part, not bravery or sacrifice.


----------



## Syriusly

Correll said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises._
> 
> Another great example of Monday morning quarterbacking. I don't know about you- but I wasn't alive in 1942_-_ was the propaganda short sighted? Perhaps- on the other hand- the United States already had 3 declared enemies- and had no reason or intention in 1942 to expect that we would be going to war with the USSR.
> 
> _2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there._
> 
> _"don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets"........_because the United States wanted Germany to beat the USSR? Looking back now- it is easy for you to say that the United States should have just let Germany and the USSR slug it out_- but in 1942, it looked like the USSR could fall to Nazi Germany- and that is something that FDR would have justly been condemned for. We know that Lend Lease helped the Soviets defeat the bulk of the Germany military- the Western Allies faced roughly only 1/3 of the Germany military. Your 'proposal' had the very real prospect of a German victory over the Soviets....and that would have been worse than the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. _
> 
> _The 'second front'- FDR certainly didn't open up the second front when Stalin was demanding it- the United States instead first attacked in North Africa, and then through Italy- all the time while Stalin was pressing the Western Allies for what became D-Day.
> 
> 3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge._
> 
> _The Soviets were johnny come latelys to Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was part of the indigenous Vietnamese guerrilla's fighting the Japanese, and had expected that the French would give Vietnam independence after the war- which didn't happen. The United States got sucked into a war in Vietnam that we should never have gotten involved in. _
> 
> _How do I know this? Because Vietnam did eventually fall- but there were no more dominoes falling as our 'strategy' said would happen. And as I pointed out- Vietnam is now a thriving capitalist economy with a shell of a government that calls itself Communist.
> 
> 4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts._
> 
> What about my previous post was 'incorrect'? My position about FDR has been pretty consistent- if you want I can present it again.
> _
> 5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't._
> 
> The United States didn't have nukes while FDR was alive. Why do you think FDR should have been playing chicken with Stalin with weapons that at the time were still theoretical? In 1942, FDR was more concerned that the United States develop a nuclear bomb before Nazi Germany than where the Soviets would be in 1945.
> 
> And what about Stalin's history makes you think that he gave a damn if his people were starving- or dying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You cite history as though it was the only way things could possibly have gone. I point out that other polices could have been chosen, and you accuse me of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That is not reasonable.
> 
> 2. Unless FDR had access to military experts who could read a map and count numbers of troops. Germany was already holding down territory and population greater than Germany itself and now they were at war with the largest nation in the world with a population far, far larger than Germany's.
> 
> Stalin needed US, far more than we needed him. That should have been reflected in the post war situation. But it wasn't.
> 
> 3. NOne of that addresses the fact that Vietnam was part of the Cold War and that the Cold War was thus far longer than 20 years and was very costly in terms of lives and money.
> 
> 4. Potted plant could "lead" to economic boom and military dominance of America after WWII, what with rest of industrialized world in ruins. That's what was wrong with previous post before you moved goal post.
> 
> 5. You brought up war in 45. I pointed out that we would have had nukes against soviet that did not. That FDR was dead is not a dispute of that fact. I don't think Stalin would care about his people. I think he would care about whether he could win. Starving people have less military capability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _1. You cite history as though it was the only way things could possibly have gone. I point out that other polices could have been chosen, and you accuse me of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That is not reasonable. _
> 
> I agree- at least in part. However, as I point out we do know how history turned out. Any alternative policies are necessarily speculation- and very well could have turned out worse. The United States at the end of WW2 was the most powerful country in the world, our citizens, the most prosperous- that is a pretty good result- compare that to the end of WW1
> 
> 
> _2. Unless FDR had access to military experts who could read a map and count numbers of troops. Germany was already holding down territory and population greater than Germany itself and now they were at war with the largest nation in the world with a population far, far larger than Germany's
> _
> And if FDR had done that- and just presumed that Germany could not defeat the USSR- but it ended up winning? Then what? You presume that FDR made the wrong decision, and that is based upon your presumption that Germany could not defeat the Soviets- and in 1942 that was anything but a sure thing.
> 
> _Stalin needed US, far more than we needed him. That should have been reflected in the post war situation. But it wasn't._
> 
> Again- how? Stalin ignored the agreements that were made.
> 
> 3. NOne of that addresses the fact that Vietnam was part of the Cold War and that the Cold War was thus far longer than 20 years and was very costly in terms of lives and money.
> 
> Vietnam was the end of the combat part of the Cold War- which ended just over 20 years after the end of WW2. The rest of the 'Cold War' was not costly in terms of lives- sure we spent money on it- but again- what was the alternative? Do you think we should have gone to war with the USSR in 1945 to prevent the Cold War?
> _
> 4. Potted plant could "lead" to economic boom and military dominance of America after WWII, what with rest of industrialized world in ruins. That's what was wrong with previous post before you moved goal post._
> 
> Maybe- maybe not- yet my point is factual- yours is speculation. During FDR's presidency- and under his leadership-  the United States went from a third rate economy and military power to the most powerful and most prosperous country in the world. And those are the facts.
> 
> 5. You brought up war in 45. I pointed out that we would have had nukes against soviet that did not. That FDR was dead is not a dispute of that fact. I don't think Stalin would care about his people. I think he would care about whether he could win. Starving people have less military capability.
> 
> And you complain about me moving goal posts?
> 
> Here is my post- in response to your claim that FDR gave the USSR half of Europe:
> _Except of course that is actually false. FDR never 'gave' the USSR anything- other than materials to help it fight the Germans. The Soviets defeated the Nazi's in Poland and Hungary and Eastern Germany- yes with our material assistance- but they beat the Germans and took possession of Eastern Europe. FDR never 'gave' Eastern Europe to Stalin- Stalin took it._
> 
> You responded with 'nukes'
> 
> _Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't._
> 
> FDR had no nukes- ever.  You brought up nukes in response to my post about FDR not giving Stalin half of Europe- now you don't want to talk about FDR?
> 
> In 1945 we had 3 nuclear bombs- 1 we tested in New Mexico- 2 we dropped on Japan. We had no nukes to use against the Soviets in 1945- unless we decided suddenly that forcing the Soviets out of Poland was more important to us than defeating Imperial Japan. And of course FDR had nothing to do with those decisions.
> 
> Speaking of starving people- in 1945- the 'starving people' included most of Western Europe- which the United States was trying to keep fed. Going to war with the Soviet Union would not have helped them.
> 
> If you want to speak complain about FDR giving up too much to Stalin- limit that discussion to the time he was actually alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _1.When you make an historical judgement on an historical events, you invite speculation on alternative possibilities._
> 
> 
> 2. With the roll the Nazis were on, it was completely reasonable for the layperson to fear that the Nazis were unstoppable Supermen.  Of course, FDR had put himself forward to be LEader of a large nation, and really should have been able to look deeper and further than Panic.
> 
> 
> 
> _3. Not sure why you keep saying 20 years. Vietnam ended in 75. Afghanistan was part of the COld War too, and it didn't end until 89_.
> 
> 
> 
> _4. THe US economy was not Third Rate before FDR. That is not factual. The US economy became the world's largest economy in 1880, two years before FDR was born._
> 
> 
> 
> _5. He signed agreements that recognized Soviet control over Eastern Europe on the promise of free elections. He gave them vast amounts of military and economic aid so that they could advance faster and further. He made no efforts to enforce those promises, which were obvious lies. It is not unreasonable to use the word "gave"._
> 
> 
> 
> 6. YOu brought up the idea of a us/ussr war in 45.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _1.When you make an historical judgement on an historical events, you invite speculation on alternative possibilities._
> 
> Agreed- but speculation is what it remains- and has to be.
> 
> 2. With the roll the Nazis were on, it was completely reasonable for the layperson to fear that the Nazis were unstoppable Supermen.  Of course, FDR had put himself forward to be LEader of a large nation, and really should have been able to look deeper and further than Panic.
> 
> And how did FDR 'panic'? He capably led the United States to victory over both Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Lend Lease worked- the Soviets did the majority of the hard work defeating Nazi Germany, likely saving tens if not hundreds of thousands of U.S. lives- and yes that is speculation.
> 
> 3. Not sure why you keep saying 20 years. Vietnam ended in 75. Afghanistan was part of the COld War too, and it didn't end until 89.
> 
> You are correct- for some reason I kept thinking Vietnam ended in '68. We didn't have soldiers in Afghanistan- but yes- I will concede that was part of the Cold War also. However- in my opinion- the United States still ended 'winning' the Cold War- and at far less cost than going to war with the Soviets in 1945.
> 
> 4. THe US economy was not Third Rate before FDR. That is not factual. The US economy became the world's largest economy in 1880, two years before FDR was born.
> 
> I haven't been able to find the details- but looking at some charts- you appear to be correct- I stand corrected.
> 
> But you are cherry picking my post to nit pick- what I said still stands- other than 'third rate economy'
> 
> _Maybe- maybe not- yet my point is factual- yours is speculation. During FDR's presidency- and under his leadership-  the United States went from a third rate economy and military power to the most powerful and most prosperous country in the world. And those are the facts._
> 
> 
> 5. He signed agreements that recognized Soviet control over Eastern Europe on the promise of free elections. He gave them vast amounts of military and economic aid so that they could advance faster and further. He made no efforts to enforce those promises, which were obvious lies. It is not unreasonable to use the word "gave".
> 
> Oh yes it is unreasonable to use the word gave- it would be frankly dishonest. FDR did sign agreements with Stalin on how to administer Europe after the war ended. This of course happens about 2 years after we started Lend Lease with the Soviets. FDR made not effort to enforce those promises because FDR was dead by the time the Soviets were clearly breaking them.
> 
> Your alternative? That FDR let the USSR take on Germany on its own doesn't guarantee that the Soviets would have not taken Eastern Europe- instead what is more likely is one of two scenarios- either Germany defeats the Soviets- which means Nazi Germany remains in control of all of Europe- or that the Soviets beat Germany on its own- and takes all of Europe except for Italy, which would be the only European country the Western Allies would control.
> 
> 6. YOu brought up the idea of a us/ussr war in 45
> 
> You are the one who said that FDR should have threatened Stalin with nukes.
> 
> The idea that any 'agreement' would have resulted in Stalin peacefully withdrawing from Eastern Europe in 1945 is pretty ridiculous- because yes Stalin was a liar- and a dictator. He didn't care whether or not his people suffered hardships- he had more troops in Eastern Europe than the Western Allies had in all of Europe. Stalin was not leaving Eastern Europe in 1945 without a fight- a fight which America didn't want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _1. If you claim that FDR's leadership was good, you are assuming that alternative leadership might have been worse. This is a form of speculation also. I do not attack you for doing that , I respected it as a form of reasoned judgement and addressed your viewpoint seriously and honestly._
> 
> _2. THe Nazis and the Soviets were already at war before the US was involved. FDR didn't cause that. He didn't have to convince Stalin to fight the Nazi. THe Nazi were hundreds of milies inside of his country intent of the destruction of his nation and more importantly to Stalin, himself. Stalin should have been negotiating with the US on what we wanted._
> 
> 
> _3. THe relatively bloodless ending of the COld War under Reagan was IMO, a near miracle. And your assumption that any change is US policy would have led to either WWIII in 45 or a Nazi victory dismisses the concepts of diplomacy and leverage. FDR didn't even try. At all. Not even a little._
> 
> 
> _4. Thank you for honestly admitting the historical reality of the US economy. Note that a massive change in facts does not change your position at all. Ask yourself why that is.
> 
> The US military third rateness was a function of our historical and geographical isolationism_.
> 
> _5. THe promises were obvious lies the moment Stalin made them. Even before the promises it was obvious that Stalin would take and oppress any lands he took and use that territory to threaten more lands. Why? Because that is what he had been doing for years, prior. Hell, it was what he did when he allied with Hitler to invade Poland._
> 
> 6. If Stalin hadn't been so far into Central Europe due to less Lend Lease, it would have been less of an issue. Cold War would have been a lot less scary if the Iron Curtain ran along Poland's Western Border. Or even Eastern Border.
Click to expand...


By the way- I am enjoying our discussion.

_1. If you claim that FDR's leadership was good, you are assuming that alternative leadership might have been worse. This is a form of speculation also. I do not attack you for doing that , I respected it as a form of reasoned judgement and addressed your viewpoint seriously and honestly._

That is really the essence of my point- we do know that the United States at the time of FDR's death was vastly improved from when he became President, and that the United States had become the most powerful country in the world- certainly FDR was not responsible for all of that- but we really don't know how any alternative leader would have performed- and certainly there was a lot of room in the alternative for things to have gone worse.

_2. THe Nazis and the Soviets were already at war before the US was involved. FDR didn't cause that. He didn't have to convince Stalin to fight the Nazi. THe Nazi were hundreds of milies inside of his country intent of the destruction of his nation and more importantly to Stalin, himself. Stalin should have been negotiating with the US on what we wanted._

I think you are circling back around- my response is what I had said previously- why would FDR have taken the chance on a Nazi victory over the Soviets? In 1941, the world had seen the Nazi armies destroy the Soviet forces and were only stopped outside of Moscow at the time of Pearl Harbor- from the British and U.S. perspective at the time- there were many predictions that the Germans would defeat the Soviets

_"don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets"........because the United States wanted Germany to beat the USSR? Looking back now- it is easy for you to say that the United States should have just let Germany and the USSR slug it out- but in 1942, it looked like the USSR could fall to Nazi Germany- and that is something that FDR would have justly been condemned for. We know that Lend Lease helped the Soviets defeat the bulk of the Germany military- the Western Allies faced roughly only 1/3 of the Germany military. Your 'proposal' had the very real prospect of a German victory over the Soviets....and that would have been worse than the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. _


_3. THe relatively bloodless ending of the COld War under Reagan was IMO, a near miracle. And your assumption that any change is US policy would have led to either WWIII in 45 or a Nazi victory dismisses the concepts of diplomacy and leverage. FDR didn't even try. At all. Not even a little._

_FDR didn't try what? FDR negotiated with Stalin and had agreements that all of the area under Soviet control would have free elections _

_The Big Three further agreed that democracies would be established, all liberated European and former Axis satellite countries would hold free elections and that order would be restored.[10] In that regard, they promised to rebuild occupied countries by processes that will allow them "to create democratic institutions of their own choice. This is a principle of the Atlantic Charter – the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live".[10] The resulting report stated that the three would assist occupied countries to form interim government that "pledged to the earliest possible establishment through free elections of the Governments responsive to the will of the people" and to "facilitate where necessary the holding of such elections."_

_Stalin didn't renege on those commitments until after FDR's death- so exactly what is it that you wanted FDR to 'negotiate'?_



_4. Thank you for honestly admitting the historical reality of the US economy. Note that a massive change in facts does not change your position at all. Ask yourself why that is.

The US military third rateness was a function of our historical and geographical isolationism_.

The historical isolationism that changed while FDR was President- along with going from a military smaller than Portugal's to the most power military in the world. 

_5. THe promises were obvious lies the moment Stalin made them. Even before the promises it was obvious that Stalin would take and oppress any lands he took and use that territory to threaten more lands. Why? Because that is what he had been doing for years, prior. Hell, it was what he did when he allied with Hitler to invade Poland._

So why do you think that more 'diplomacy' by FDR would have made a difference- since you acknowledge that Stalin was a liar?  

6. If Stalin hadn't been so far into Central Europe due to less Lend Lease, it would have been less of an issue. Cold War would have been a lot less scary if the Iron Curtain ran along Poland's Western Border. Or even Eastern Border.

It would have been a lot scarier if the Iron Curtain ran from France to all of the former German occupied Europe. Or if instead of a Cold War- we faced a Nazi Germany that had conquered the Soviets and could focus all of the Third Reich's resources on the Western Allies.


----------



## Syriusly

Correll said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter the spin PoliSpice puts on it, Many more Russians perished fighting the Nazis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was probably a mistake on Stalin's part to ally with Hitler and invade a nation between them, thus removing the buffer state between Nazi Germany and COmmunist USSR, and then trust Hitler to NOT invade him.
> 
> That's bad policy on Stalin's part, not bravery or sacrifice.
Click to expand...


I think it was greed on Stalin's part. And arrogance.


----------



## Syriusly

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> If Stalin had conducted our strategy DDay  would have been on December 8th. 1941. FDR kept telling Stalin that the Dday check was in the mail year after year. I imagine Stalin knew FDR was jerking him around but what could he do? And to Insult Stalin even more, Truman wouldn't let Stalin into Japan after FDR had made Stalin promise to aid the US in defeating  Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stalin got FDR to go to war with Japan. Japan should have attacked the USSR and ignored FDR provocation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's goal was oil, and you have her attacking the US for FDR's provocation, it was oil and the US navy stood in the way of that oil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight.  And after Pearl, we started shipping oil to Japan, right?
Click to expand...


I know it is a waste of time- but really - are you this ignorant?

When Japan launched its attacks, it attacked not only the United States, but also the Dutch East Indies- where the oil was.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> If Stalin had conducted our strategy DDay  would have been on December 8th. 1941. FDR kept telling Stalin that the Dday check was in the mail year after year. I imagine Stalin knew FDR was jerking him around but what could he do? And to Insult Stalin even more, Truman wouldn't let Stalin into Japan after FDR had made Stalin promise to aid the US in defeating  Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stalin got FDR to go to war with Japan. Japan should have attacked the USSR and ignored FDR provocation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's goal was oil, and you have her attacking the US for FDR's provocation, it was oil and the US navy stood in the way of that oil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...FDR did all he could to provoke Japan.  Like embargo oil, freeze Japanese assets, terminate negotiations... All against the advice of his military and civilian advisers.  Then arming the Philippines.  All in an effort to position Japan into attacking.  It worked perfectly...well not for the sailors sacrificed at Pearl, but for Stalin's Stooge.  FDR even knew Japan's attack plans well beforehand and warned no one.
> 
> Why?  To protect Soviet Communism.
> 
> You must be so proud.
Click to expand...


'provoke Japan'- which is appeaser speak for "Japan was just an innocent in World War 2- Japan wasn't responsible for attacking the United States- it was all FDR's fault.

Japan had been at war in China since the 1930's- and had actually attacked and sank an American navy ship in China. Japan had a choice when it came to the U.S. embargoes- withdraw from its war in China, negotiate a settlement in China- or go to war to obtain oil.

Japan made the choice. You blame the United States for Japan's actions- I blame Japan. 

FDR did not know of the planned attack on Pearl until shortly before the attack occurred- when the code for the attack was broken- and the warning to Pearl came to late. 

Why exactly do you wish Japan and Germany were the victors in World War 2?


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> If Stalin had conducted our strategy DDay  would have been on December 8th. 1941. FDR kept telling Stalin that the Dday check was in the mail year after year. I imagine Stalin knew FDR was jerking him around but what could he do? And to Insult Stalin even more, Truman wouldn't let Stalin into Japan after FDR had made Stalin promise to aid the US in defeating  Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stalin got FDR to go to war with Japan. Japan should have attacked the USSR and ignored FDR provocation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's goal was oil, and you have her attacking the US for FDR's provocation, it was oil and the US navy stood in the way of that oil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...FDR did all he could to provoke Japan.  Like embargo oil, freeze Japanese assets, terminate negotiations... All against the advice of his military and civilian advisers.  Then arming the Philippines.  All in an effort to position Japan into attacking.  It worked perfectly...well not for the sailors sacrificed at Pearl, but for Stalin's Stooge.  FDR even knew Japan's attack plans well beforehand and warned no one.
> 
> Why?  To protect Soviet Communism.
> 
> You must be so proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'provoke Japan'- which is appeaser speak for "Japan was just an innocent in World War 2- Japan wasn't responsible for attacking the United States- it was all FDR's fault.
> 
> Japan had been at war in China since the 1930's- and had actually attacked and sank an American navy ship in China. Japan had a choice when it came to the U.S. embargoes- withdraw from its war in China, negotiate a settlement in China- or go to war to obtain oil.
> 
> Japan made the choice. You blame the United States for Japan's actions- I blame Japan.
> 
> FDR did not know of the planned attack on Pearl until shortly before the attack occurred- when the code for the attack was broken- and the warning to Pearl came to late.
> 
> Why exactly do you wish Japan and Germany were the victors in World War 2?
Click to expand...

When will you ever learn?  Politicians are scum.  They are not like you and me.  I know it is hard to think FDR or any POTUS would be so deceptive and traitorous, but you must face reality.  It is time to put your big boy pants on, and accept reality.

This from historian George Victor...do you think Reggie will find him acceptable?

Twelve days before the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt surprised his advisors by saying that war with Japan was about to begin. Secretary of War Stimson noted in his diary:
*The question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.*
Mr. Victor admits he is an admirer of Roosevelt. *While he is clear that Roosevelt manipulated the country into war, *he does not condemn him for it:
History has recorded many, many rulers’ manipulations of their people into war without their subordinates blowing the whistle. Presidents James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, and Woodrow Wilson did it before [Roosevelt], and others have done it after him.
*This is difficult for many to accept,* especially the idea that honorable and upright military leaders would allow such a thing to occur. General George Marshall, in testimony to various tribunals after Pearl Harbor was clear, however:

*He testified to a congressional committee that withholding vital information from commanders was routine practice.*

*Roosevelt had warnings of the coming attack.* It was fortunate for Roosevelt that his political enemies did not know…that [intelligence officers] had been reading the most confidential Japanese ciphers even before the attack, and that the Japanese war plans were no secret to American intelligence.
snip
Something happened at this time to get Roosevelt to change so abruptly and go against his military advisors. Victor cites *historian Waldo Heinrichs *with a “unique idea.”

*Roosevelt changed his attitude about pressuring Japan in order to save the Soviet Union. *Germany had just invaded Russia, and Japan was contemplating when and how to support its German ally. Roosevelt was aware of these Japanese deliberations and preparations – Japan would make war plans for both the Soviet Union and the United States, but would only fight one of them. Victor believes it is quite credible that *Roosevelt abruptly changed his approach and became more provocative with Japan for the purpose of reducing the risk that Japan attacks the Soviets.*

Even in the last days of November and early December, Japan is still seen as making overtures for peace. These were rejected by Washington, in fact Japan notes Washington’s provocative tone (from an intercepted message from Tokyo to Berlin):


The conversations…between Tokyo and Washington now stand broken…lately England and the United States have taken a provocative attitude…war may suddenly break out.


*In late November, Roosevelt had knowledge that the Japanese fleet was sailing east toward Hawaii, as supported by William Casey of U.S. intelligence. “The British had sent word that a Japanese fleet was steaming east toward Hawaii.” That this information was sent to Washington is confirmed by various British intelligence officers as well.*

*More at the link, if you are man enough to face reality...*
bionic mosquito: The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Stalin had conducted our strategy DDay  would have been on December 8th. 1941. FDR kept telling Stalin that the Dday check was in the mail year after year. I imagine Stalin knew FDR was jerking him around but what could he do? And to Insult Stalin even more, Truman wouldn't let Stalin into Japan after FDR had made Stalin promise to aid the US in defeating  Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin got FDR to go to war with Japan. Japan should have attacked the USSR and ignored FDR provocation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's goal was oil, and you have her attacking the US for FDR's provocation, it was oil and the US navy stood in the way of that oil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...FDR did all he could to provoke Japan.  Like embargo oil, freeze Japanese assets, terminate negotiations... All against the advice of his military and civilian advisers.  Then arming the Philippines.  All in an effort to position Japan into attacking.  It worked perfectly...well not for the sailors sacrificed at Pearl, but for Stalin's Stooge.  FDR even knew Japan's attack plans well beforehand and warned no one.
> 
> Why?  To protect Soviet Communism.
> 
> You must be so proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'provoke Japan'- which is appeaser speak for "Japan was just an innocent in World War 2- Japan wasn't responsible for attacking the United States- it was all FDR's fault.
> 
> Japan had been at war in China since the 1930's- and had actually attacked and sank an American navy ship in China. Japan had a choice when it came to the U.S. embargoes- withdraw from its war in China, negotiate a settlement in China- or go to war to obtain oil.
> 
> Japan made the choice. You blame the United States for Japan's actions- I blame Japan.
> 
> FDR did not know of the planned attack on Pearl until shortly before the attack occurred- when the code for the attack was broken- and the warning to Pearl came to late.
> 
> Why exactly do you wish Japan and Germany were the victors in World War 2?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When will you ever learn?  Politicians are scum.  They are not like you and me.  I know it is hard to think FDR or any POTUS would be so deceptive and traitorous, but you must face reality.  It is time to put your big boy pants on, and accept reality.
Click to expand...


Clearly you don't live in 'reality'


----------



## CrusaderFrank

In Dec 1941 the Germans had the spires of the Kremlin in their field glasses. Can you imagine had the Japanese attacked the USSR instead of the USA?


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> [
> *More at the link, if you are man enough to face reality...*
> bionic mosquito: The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable



I went to the link- which is a book review of the Pearl Harbor Myth. 

Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't allow us to read Chapter 13- which is the meat of the author's proposal that FDR knew that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, and the book report lists only some unattributed claims. 

To you- 'reality' is one man's book- which may- or may not represent the historical facts. 

Oh- but it is interesting that the author of the book is quite an FDR fan.....


----------



## regent

How many times has Congress investigated Pearl Harbor?


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin got FDR to go to war with Japan. Japan should have attacked the USSR and ignored FDR provocation
> 
> 
> 
> Japan's goal was oil, and you have her attacking the US for FDR's provocation, it was oil and the US navy stood in the way of that oil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...FDR did all he could to provoke Japan.  Like embargo oil, freeze Japanese assets, terminate negotiations... All against the advice of his military and civilian advisers.  Then arming the Philippines.  All in an effort to position Japan into attacking.  It worked perfectly...well not for the sailors sacrificed at Pearl, but for Stalin's Stooge.  FDR even knew Japan's attack plans well beforehand and warned no one.
> 
> Why?  To protect Soviet Communism.
> 
> You must be so proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'provoke Japan'- which is appeaser speak for "Japan was just an innocent in World War 2- Japan wasn't responsible for attacking the United States- it was all FDR's fault.
> 
> Japan had been at war in China since the 1930's- and had actually attacked and sank an American navy ship in China. Japan had a choice when it came to the U.S. embargoes- withdraw from its war in China, negotiate a settlement in China- or go to war to obtain oil.
> 
> Japan made the choice. You blame the United States for Japan's actions- I blame Japan.
> 
> FDR did not know of the planned attack on Pearl until shortly before the attack occurred- when the code for the attack was broken- and the warning to Pearl came to late.
> 
> Why exactly do you wish Japan and Germany were the victors in World War 2?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When will you ever learn?  Politicians are scum.  They are not like you and me.  I know it is hard to think FDR or any POTUS would be so deceptive and traitorous, but you must face reality.  It is time to put your big boy pants on, and accept reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you don't live in 'reality'
Click to expand...

What?  You don't believe historians???

Reggie is not going like this.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> How many times has Congress investigated Pearl Harbor?


Reggie...do you believe everything Congress says, just like you believe what every statist government paid historian says?


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> *More at the link, if you are man enough to face reality...*
> bionic mosquito: The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went to the link- which is a book review of the Pearl Harbor Myth.
> 
> Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't allow us to read Chapter 13- which is the meat of the author's proposal that FDR knew that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, and the book report lists only some unattributed claims.
> 
> To you- 'reality' is one man's book- which may- or may not represent the historical facts.
> 
> Oh- but it is interesting that the author of the book is quite an FDR fan.....
Click to expand...

If one man writes a book and it is documented with historical facts and quotes from those involved, is it true?


----------



## gipper

CrusaderFrank said:


> In Dec 1941 the Germans had the spires of the Kremlin in their field glasses. Can you imagine had the Japanese attacked the USSR instead of the USA?


Makes one wonder what Stalin's Stooge would have done had that happened.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> *More at the link, if you are man enough to face reality...*
> bionic mosquito: The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went to the link- which is a book review of the Pearl Harbor Myth.
> 
> Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't allow us to read Chapter 13- which is the meat of the author's proposal that FDR knew that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, and the book report lists only some unattributed claims.
> 
> To you- 'reality' is one man's book- which may- or may not represent the historical facts.
> 
> Oh- but it is interesting that the author of the book is quite an FDR fan.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If one man writes a book and it is documented with historical facts and quotes from those involved, is it true?
Click to expand...


One man writes a book- which I haven't read- and haven't evaluated- then the 'truth' of the book is something I haven't evaluated.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Dec 1941 the Germans had the spires of the Kremlin in their field glasses. Can you imagine had the Japanese attacked the USSR instead of the USA?
> 
> 
> 
> Makes one wonder what Stalin's Stooge would have done had that happened.
Click to expand...


Oh certainly PoliticalChic would cheer.


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> *More at the link, if you are man enough to face reality...*
> bionic mosquito: The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went to the link- which is a book review of the Pearl Harbor Myth.
> 
> Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't allow us to read Chapter 13- which is the meat of the author's proposal that FDR knew that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, and the book report lists only some unattributed claims.
> 
> To you- 'reality' is one man's book- which may- or may not represent the historical facts.
> 
> Oh- but it is interesting that the author of the book is quite an FDR fan.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If one man writes a book and it is documented with historical facts and quotes from those involved, is it true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One man writes a book- which I haven't read- and haven't evaluated- then the 'truth' of the book is something I haven't evaluated.
Click to expand...

The book actually cites several historians who also prove FDR's treachery.  

Get the book, read it, and then we can talk.  Okay?


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> *More at the link, if you are man enough to face reality...*
> bionic mosquito: The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went to the link- which is a book review of the Pearl Harbor Myth.
> 
> Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't allow us to read Chapter 13- which is the meat of the author's proposal that FDR knew that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, and the book report lists only some unattributed claims.
> 
> To you- 'reality' is one man's book- which may- or may not represent the historical facts.
> 
> Oh- but it is interesting that the author of the book is quite an FDR fan.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If one man writes a book and it is documented with historical facts and quotes from those involved, is it true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One man writes a book- which I haven't read- and haven't evaluated- then the 'truth' of the book is something I haven't evaluated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The book actually cites several historians who also prove FDR's treachery.
> 
> Get the book, read it, and then we can talk.  Okay?
Click to expand...


Okay.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times has Congress investigated Pearl Harbor?
> 
> 
> 
> Reggie...do you believe everything Congress says, just like you believe what every statist government paid historian says?
Click to expand...

The point: was Pearl Harbor investigated when the Republicans were in power? I think both parties investigated and Pearl may be the most  investigated event in US history save for Obama being a citizen. Leave out one little verifiable fact re Pearl Harbor and the whole thing changes.  
A number of historians are retired and a number have never worked for universities, and a larger number would lose status if they wrote Mickey Mouse history with sources that could not be verified as valid by other historians. Might check how conservative historians have rated FDR or even a Wall Street poll, usually third best. 
A few historians have rated FDR on one characteristic, say moral leadership, by John Miller who rated FDR a failure on that issue.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Roosevelt "Day on Infamy" speech, draft November 30, 1941

 Yesterday, (Jap fleet scheduled to arrive between December 5  to December 7), a day which will live in infamy


----------



## Dot Com

Wheres OP (PoliSpice)?


----------



## regent

CrusaderFrank said:


> Roosevelt "Day on Infamy" speech, draft November 30, 1941
> 
> Yesterday, (Jap fleet scheduled to arrive between December 5  to December 7), a day which will live in infamy


And the source?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roosevelt "Day on Infamy" speech, draft November 30, 1941
> 
> Yesterday, (Jap fleet scheduled to arrive between December 5  to December 7), a day which will live in infamy
> 
> 
> 
> And the source?
Click to expand...

My imagination


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like things haven't change much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I heard an interview this morn on Imus, with "*Douglas Brinkley* (born December 14, 1960) is an American author, professor of history at Rice University and a fellow at the James Baker Institute for Public Policy. Brinkley is the history commentator for CNN News..."
> Douglas Brinkley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> This is one of this 'historians' that reggie allows to do his thinking for him....and Brinkley was spouting outright lies about the 'wonderful' Franklin Roosevelt, Pearl Harbor, and Normandy.
> 
> No, nothing has changed.
Click to expand...

And in your "think history" mode you decided he lied?


----------



## Votto

PoliticalChic said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR lied the US into WWII
> FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US.
> FDR locked up American citizens in camps to give loyalty tests
> FDR built the military industrial complex that the far left wants to dismantle.
> 
> FDR created the Welfare state
> FDR created Social Security
> FDR initiated the income tax to pay for the war.
> 
> The latter three were sold to the American Public as being a temporary solution.
> 
> Not to mention many of his programs were considered unconstitutional. So he set out to replace the judges that were against him..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please find a prominent place for this, in your list of flagitious endeavors: more than any other President, Roosevelt ended the guidance of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


You are wasting your time.  You are talking to a group of people who idealize men like Che Guevara and Moa and Lenin.  These people are fascists and murders without any regard to natural rights.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Votto said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR lied the US into WWII
> FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US.
> FDR locked up American citizens in camps to give loyalty tests
> FDR built the military industrial complex that the far left wants to dismantle.
> 
> FDR created the Welfare state
> FDR created Social Security
> FDR initiated the income tax to pay for the war.
> 
> The latter three were sold to the American Public as being a temporary solution.
> 
> Not to mention many of his programs were considered unconstitutional. So he set out to replace the judges that were against him..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please find a prominent place for this, in your list of flagitious endeavors: more than any other President, Roosevelt ended the guidance of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wasting your time.  You are talking to a group of people who idealize men like Che Guevara and Moa and Lenin.  These people are fascists and murders without any regard to natural rights.
Click to expand...



This is my mission: provide the truth that government schooling hides.


----------



## Votto

PoliticalChic said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR lied the US into WWII
> FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US.
> FDR locked up American citizens in camps to give loyalty tests
> FDR built the military industrial complex that the far left wants to dismantle.
> 
> FDR created the Welfare state
> FDR created Social Security
> FDR initiated the income tax to pay for the war.
> 
> The latter three were sold to the American Public as being a temporary solution.
> 
> Not to mention many of his programs were considered unconstitutional. So he set out to replace the judges that were against him..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please find a prominent place for this, in your list of flagitious endeavors: more than any other President, Roosevelt ended the guidance of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wasting your time.  You are talking to a group of people who idealize men like Che Guevara and Moa and Lenin.  These people are fascists and murders without any regard to natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is my mission: provide the truth that government schooling hides.
Click to expand...


Fight 24/7 taxpayer funded indoctrination in public schools?

Good luck with that.


----------



## Camp

Votto said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR lied the US into WWII
> FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US.
> FDR locked up American citizens in camps to give loyalty tests
> FDR built the military industrial complex that the far left wants to dismantle.
> 
> FDR created the Welfare state
> FDR created Social Security
> FDR initiated the income tax to pay for the war.
> 
> The latter three were sold to the American Public as being a temporary solution.
> 
> Not to mention many of his programs were considered unconstitutional. So he set out to replace the judges that were against him..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please find a prominent place for this, in your list of flagitious endeavors: more than any other President, Roosevelt ended the guidance of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wasting your time.  You are talking to a group of people who idealize men like Che Guevara and Moa and Lenin.  These people are fascists and murders without any regard to natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is my mission: provide the truth that government schooling hides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fight 24/7 taxpayer funded indoctrination in public schools?
> 
> Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

She will not do it with the conspiracy nonsense and trash she spews here all the time. Accurate history can only be obtained by the use of provable objective methods of research. It can not be obtained by weaving together subjective speculation and opinion.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR lied the US into WWII
> FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US.
> FDR locked up American citizens in camps to give loyalty tests
> FDR built the military industrial complex that the far left wants to dismantle.
> 
> FDR created the Welfare state
> FDR created Social Security
> FDR initiated the income tax to pay for the war.
> 
> The latter three were sold to the American Public as being a temporary solution.
> 
> Not to mention many of his programs were considered unconstitutional. So he set out to replace the judges that were against him..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please find a prominent place for this, in your list of flagitious endeavors: more than any other President, Roosevelt ended the guidance of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wasting your time.  You are talking to a group of people who idealize men like Che Guevara and Moa and Lenin.  These people are fascists and murders without any regard to natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is my mission: provide the truth that government schooling hides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fight 24/7 taxpayer funded indoctrination in public schools?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She will not do it with the conspiracy nonsense and trash she spews here all the time. Accurate history can only be obtained by the use of provable objective methods of research. It can not be obtained by weaving together subjective speculation and opinion.
Click to expand...




"Accurate history can only be obtained by the use of provable objective methods of research."

And that is exactly why I am always correct.


Glad you noticed.


----------



## Camp

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> *More at the link, if you are man enough to face reality...*
> bionic mosquito: The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went to the link- which is a book review of the Pearl Harbor Myth.
> 
> Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't allow us to read Chapter 13- which is the meat of the author's proposal that FDR knew that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, and the book report lists only some unattributed claims.
> 
> To you- 'reality' is one man's book- which may- or may not represent the historical facts.
> 
> Oh- but it is interesting that the author of the book is quite an FDR fan.....
Click to expand...


This is a link to an interview with the author done in 2007. He confirms that his works are considered conspiracy theories and not accepted by acknowledged historians. Upon reading some reviews, it is easy to see why historians would reject his works. Many of the so-called facts he relies on are not facts at all, but rather the authors own speculative conclusions, the very definition of what makes a conspiracy and or a revisionist work instead of an actual history. 

equaltimeforfreethought.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/Transcript.pdf


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please find a prominent place for this, in your list of flagitious endeavors: more than any other President, Roosevelt ended the guidance of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wasting your time.  You are talking to a group of people who idealize men like Che Guevara and Moa and Lenin.  These people are fascists and murders without any regard to natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is my mission: provide the truth that government schooling hides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fight 24/7 taxpayer funded indoctrination in public schools?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She will not do it with the conspiracy nonsense and trash she spews here all the time. Accurate history can only be obtained by the use of provable objective methods of research. It can not be obtained by weaving together subjective speculation and opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Accurate history can only be obtained by the use of provable objective methods of research."
> 
> And that is exactly why I am always correct.
> 
> 
> Glad you noticed.
Click to expand...


You can not sprinkle unreliable and invalid sources with cherry picked distortions from valid ones and make those claims. We have been through this many times. If your sourcing would be rejected for use at colleges and universities if is fair to reject it under any circumstances.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wasting your time.  You are talking to a group of people who idealize men like Che Guevara and Moa and Lenin.  These people are fascists and murders without any regard to natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my mission: provide the truth that government schooling hides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fight 24/7 taxpayer funded indoctrination in public schools?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She will not do it with the conspiracy nonsense and trash she spews here all the time. Accurate history can only be obtained by the use of provable objective methods of research. It can not be obtained by weaving together subjective speculation and opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Accurate history can only be obtained by the use of provable objective methods of research."
> 
> And that is exactly why I am always correct.
> 
> 
> Glad you noticed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can not sprinkle unreliable and invalid sources with cherry picked distortions from valid ones and make those claims. We have been through this many times. If your sourcing would be rejected for use at colleges and universities if is fair to reject it under any circumstances.
Click to expand...



Need another beating?

Sure thing....

Eisenhower and Patton: Their Motives, and Their Rewards | Page 3 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


I have to admit I love showing how much more I know than you do.


----------



## Dot Com

PoliticalSpice is back 

You DO realize that you need help right?


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my mission: provide the truth that government schooling hides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fight 24/7 taxpayer funded indoctrination in public schools?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She will not do it with the conspiracy nonsense and trash she spews here all the time. Accurate history can only be obtained by the use of provable objective methods of research. It can not be obtained by weaving together subjective speculation and opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Accurate history can only be obtained by the use of provable objective methods of research."
> 
> And that is exactly why I am always correct.
> 
> 
> Glad you noticed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can not sprinkle unreliable and invalid sources with cherry picked distortions from valid ones and make those claims. We have been through this many times. If your sourcing would be rejected for use at colleges and universities if is fair to reject it under any circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Need another beating?
> 
> Sure thing....
> 
> Eisenhower and Patton: Their Motives, and Their Rewards | Page 3 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> I have to admit I love showing how much more I know than you do.
Click to expand...


Hilarious- PC quoting himself.

What an idiot.


----------



## Syriusly

Camp said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> *More at the link, if you are man enough to face reality...*
> bionic mosquito: The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went to the link- which is a book review of the Pearl Harbor Myth.
> 
> Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't allow us to read Chapter 13- which is the meat of the author's proposal that FDR knew that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, and the book report lists only some unattributed claims.
> 
> To you- 'reality' is one man's book- which may- or may not represent the historical facts.
> 
> Oh- but it is interesting that the author of the book is quite an FDR fan.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a link to an interview with the author done in 2007. He confirms that his works are considered conspiracy theories and not accepted by acknowledged historians. Upon reading some reviews, it is easy to see why historians would reject his works. Many of the so-called facts he relies on are not facts at all, but rather the authors own speculative conclusions, the very definition of what makes a conspiracy and or a revisionist work instead of an actual history.
> 
> equaltimeforfreethought.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/Transcript.pdf
Click to expand...


Great find- and in his interview- what did he say?

Victor:
I want to add something. A few times, you referred to what Roosevelt knew
of the intelligence of the coming attack. We don't have data on what he knew specifically.
We do know that every day, intelligence officers of the Army and Navy came to him with
intelligence that had arrived since the day before. And we know that that included warnings of
the coming attack. But we're not in a position to say what Roosevelt knew at one point or
another point. That cannot be documented day by day.


----------

