America Ended With The Depression

[rightwinger]

It was the Depression and following WWII that turned the US into an economic and military superpower. FDR showed why he is considered our greatest modern American President and brought us to a 20th Century form of government

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yup.


This will come as bad news to you, AC....
At that time there were actually pro-American Democrats...and there was a rebellion in the party when he threatened the court packing.

It was one of the reasons the former Democrat presidential candidate Davis came out in opposition to FDR.



The 1924 race, Coolidge vs John Davis, was the last time both parties ran conservatives.

It's been a LONG time since either party ran a conservative.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It was the Depression and following WWII that turned the US into an economic and military superpower. FDR showed why he is considered our greatest modern American President and brought us to a 20th Century form of government

America was already an economic and military super power.

Try the Spanish-American war, corky.

 

[rightwinger]

It was the Depression and following WWII that turned the US into an economic and military superpower. FDR showed why he is considered our greatest modern American President and brought us to a 20th Century form of government

America was already an economic and military super power.

Try the Spanish-American war, corky.

Our military was second rate....Spains was third rate in 1898

At the beginning of WWII our Navy was maybe third in the world, our Army Airforce was a shell and our standing Army was depleted....It was post WWII that we became a Super Power

 

[Uncensored2008]

Our military was second rate....Spains was third rate in 1898

Yeah, that's what the Kaiser said, fucktard.

At the beginning of WWII our Navy was maybe third in the world, our Army Airforce was a shell and our standing Army was depleted....It was post WWII that we became a Super Power

You're an utter doofus.

Look, I know that you post purely to promote your shameful party - that you never even consider whether the idiocy you spew is factual - if it serves the party, you post it.

But seriously, this is beyond the pale, moron.

 

[Mad Scientist]

It's on record that FDR wanted to kick off a few Supreme Court Justices and stack the Court in his favor by expanding it to as many as 15 Justices.

Yup.

This will come as bad news to you, AC....
At that time there were actually pro-American Democrats...and there was a rebellion in the party when he threatened the court packing.

It was one of the reasons the former Democrat presidential candidate Davis came out in opposition to FDR.

The 1924 race, Coolidge vs John Davis, was the last time both parties ran conservatives.

That's just one example of how far the Overton Window has slid to the Left.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's on record that FDR wanted to kick off a few Supreme Court Justices and stack the Court in his favor by expanding it to as many as 15 Justices.

Yup.

This will come as bad news to you, AC....
At that time there were actually pro-American Democrats...and there was a rebellion in the party when he threatened the court packing.

It was one of the reasons the former Democrat presidential candidate Davis came out in opposition to FDR.

The 1924 race, Coolidge vs John Davis, was the last time both parties ran conservatives.

That's just one example of how far the Overton Window has slid to the Left.

You must be glowing!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The question was, has the court struck down the housing market law or not? If the Court has not declared it unconstitutional is the law then a valid law and should be obeyed?

It seems best for your perspective, to ignore post #35, as it obviates the view that judges adhere to the Constitution.

You can pretend ignorance....but we both know the truth, don't we.

Good for the judges, I try to adhere to the constitution also. Now back to the question: is a law valid and should be obeyed, even if it has not been reviewed by the Court?

1. If you are referring to the US Constitution, it deserves a capital letter "C."


2.Any judicial decision that cannot be identified specifically with the text of the Constitution is not legal.

How many times must I say that?

As many times as you've ignored the question of another way to alter the Constitution sans the amendment process?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It was the Depression and following WWII that turned the US into an economic and military superpower. FDR showed why he is considered our greatest modern American President and brought us to a 20th Century form of government

There can be no better example of religious faith than your post.


Of course, you have no way to know the path of the nation would have followed without the illegality of FDR....but you draw the only possible conclusion you can, or you would not be the Democrat pantheist that you've turned out to be.


In Chinese restaurants there is often a small alter with oranges for Buddha....
....no doubt you have a similar one for FDR....

 

[rightwinger]

It was the Depression and following WWII that turned the US into an economic and military superpower. FDR showed why he is considered our greatest modern American President and brought us to a 20th Century form of government

There can be no better example of religious faith than your post.


Of course, you have no way to know the path of the nation would have followed without the illegality of FDR....but you draw the only possible conclusion you can, or you would not be the Democrat pantheist that you've turned out to be.


In Chinese restaurants there is often a small alter with oranges for Buddha....
....no doubt you have a similar one for FDR....

FDR turned the US into a modern Democracy

It is only the Conservative wingnuts who want to bring us back to the 1920s

 

[rightwinger]

Our military was second rate....Spains was third rate in 1898

Yeah, that's what the Kaiser said, fucktard.

At the beginning of WWII our Navy was maybe third in the world, our Army Airforce was a shell and our standing Army was depleted....It was post WWII that we became a Super Power

You're an utter doofus.

Look, I know that you post purely to promote your shameful party - that you never even consider whether the idiocy you spew is factual - if it serves the party, you post it.

But seriously, this is beyond the pale, moron.

Why do I continue to toy with you?

Ten Things Every American Student Should Know About Our Army in WWII - FPRI

#1. The U.S. Army was a puny weakling when the war began
When the European war began in earnest on September 1, 1939, with the German invasion of Poland, the U.S. Army ranked seventeenth among armies of the world in size and combat power, just behind Romania. It numbered 190,000 soldiers. (It would grow to 8.3 million in 1945, a 44-fold increase.) When mobilization began in 1940, the Army had only 14,000 professional officers. The average age of majors—a middling rank, between captain and lieutenant colonel—was nearly 48; in the National Guard, nearly one-quarter of first lieutenants were over 40 years old, and the senior ranks were dominated by political hacks of certifiable military incompetence. Not a single officer on duty in 1941 had commanded a unit as large as a division in World War I. At the time of Pearl Harbor, in December 1941, only one American division was on a full war footing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It was the Depression and following WWII that turned the US into an economic and military superpower. FDR showed why he is considered our greatest modern American President and brought us to a 20th Century form of government

There can be no better example of religious faith than your post.


Of course, you have no way to know the path of the nation would have followed without the illegality of FDR....but you draw the only possible conclusion you can, or you would not be the Democrat pantheist that you've turned out to be.


In Chinese restaurants there is often a small alter with oranges for Buddha....
....no doubt you have a similar one for FDR....

FDR turned the US into a modern Democracy

It is only the Conservative wingnuts who want to bring us back to the 1920s

Your statement about your political opponents reeks with ignorance.
Take notes:
1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

3) Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.


And FDR? He moved us toward a lawless society.
And did you say the Right would move us back to the 1920's???
That's funny....in light of FDR moving us back 15 centuries: the lex regia: “The will of the prince has the force of law.”( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem)


I'm thinking of OP'ing something comparing FDR to the great constitutionalist, President Reagan.

But...it might be too long....there are so many areas in which they differ....

But, coax me.....

 

[rightwinger]

There can be no better example of religious faith than your post.


Of course, you have no way to know the path of the nation would have followed without the illegality of FDR....but you draw the only possible conclusion you can, or you would not be the Democrat pantheist that you've turned out to be.


In Chinese restaurants there is often a small alter with oranges for Buddha....
....no doubt you have a similar one for FDR....

FDR turned the US into a modern Democracy

It is only the Conservative wingnuts who want to bring us back to the 1920s

Your statement about your political opponents reeks with ignorance.
Take notes:
1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

3) Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.


And FDR? He moved us toward a lawless society.
And did you say the Right would move us back to the 1920's???
That's funny....in light of FDR moving us back 15 centuries: the lex regia: “The will of the prince has the force of law.”( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem)


I'm thinking of OP'ing something comparing FDR to the great constitutionalist, President Reagan.

But...it might be too long....there are so many areas in which they differ....

But, coax me.....

Well....I'll give you this

At least you didn't cut and paste

 

[PoliticalChic]

Our military was second rate....Spains was third rate in 1898

Yeah, that's what the Kaiser said, fucktard.

At the beginning of WWII our Navy was maybe third in the world, our Army Airforce was a shell and our standing Army was depleted....It was post WWII that we became a Super Power

You're an utter doofus.

Look, I know that you post purely to promote your shameful party - that you never even consider whether the idiocy you spew is factual - if it serves the party, you post it.

But seriously, this is beyond the pale, moron.

Why do I continue to toy with you?

Ten Things Every American Student Should Know About Our Army in WWII - FPRI

#1. The U.S. Army was a puny weakling when the war began
When the European war began in earnest on September 1, 1939, with the German invasion of Poland, the U.S. Army ranked seventeenth among armies of the world in size and combat power, just behind Romania. It numbered 190,000 soldiers. (It would grow to 8.3 million in 1945, a 44-fold increase.) When mobilization began in 1940, the Army had only 14,000 professional officers. The average age of majors—a middling rank, between captain and lieutenant colonel—was nearly 48; in the National Guard, nearly one-quarter of first lieutenants were over 40 years old, and the senior ranks were dominated by political hacks of certifiable military incompetence. Not a single officer on duty in 1941 had commanded a unit as large as a division in World War I. At the time of Pearl Harbor, in December 1941, only one American division was on a full war footing.

Do you realize that our military weakness was the result of FDR's policies?


While the FDR administration won the war, there is reason to believe that military decisions made things worse.

a. Due to cuts in military spending through the 30’s as a percentage of the federal budget, the United States was woefully unprepared for war. The US was 17th in the world in military strength, and this ultimately let us into a two-ocean war.

b. FDR did very little for the Army either with its size or weapons and during the 1930s, his defense budgets were cut to the bone. To quote George Marshall's words to FDR in May 1940: "If you don't do something...and do it right away, I don't know what is going to happen to this country". FDR had underestimated the Japanese and the Pearl Harbor attack devastated the American Navy and exposed the president's incompetence.

c. On May 16, 1940, Roosevelt had addressed Congress and asked for more than a billion dollars for defense, with a commitment for fifty thousand military aircraft. He knew, also, that he needed the good will of business to win the war: no longer would he call them “privileged princes…thirsting for power.”

The above from "FDR Goes To War," Folsom and Folsom

 

[regent]

It seems best for your perspective, to ignore post #35, as it obviates the view that judges adhere to the Constitution.

You can pretend ignorance....but we both know the truth, don't we.

Good for the judges, I try to adhere to the constitution also. Now back to the question: is a law valid and should be obeyed, even if it has not been reviewed by the Court?

1. If you are referring to the US Constitution, it deserves a capital letter "C."


2.Any judicial decision that cannot be identified specifically with the text of the Constitution is not legal.

How many times must I say that?

As many times as you've ignored the question of another way to alter the Constitution sans the amendment process?

How about privacy, where is that identified specifically in the constitution, how about abortion? And what of the Court having the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, where specifically is that found in the text of the constitution? If it had to be specifically found in the text of the constitution to be legal, why did the framers put in the tenth Amendment?

 

[PoliticalChic]

FDR turned the US into a modern Democracy

It is only the Conservative wingnuts who want to bring us back to the 1920s

Your statement about your political opponents reeks with ignorance.
Take notes:
1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

3) Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.


And FDR? He moved us toward a lawless society.
And did you say the Right would move us back to the 1920's???
That's funny....in light of FDR moving us back 15 centuries: the lex regia: “The will of the prince has the force of law.”( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem)


I'm thinking of OP'ing something comparing FDR to the great constitutionalist, President Reagan.

But...it might be too long....there are so many areas in which they differ....

But, coax me.....

Well....I'll give you this

At least you didn't cut and paste

I couldn't care less about your opinion about my style of posting. It is the message that is important.

You and I both know you only say that because you cannot disprove anything I say.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why do I continue to toy with you?

Ten Things Every American Student Should Know About Our Army in WWII - FPRI

#1. The U.S. Army was a puny weakling when the war began
When the European war began in earnest on September 1, 1939, with the German invasion of Poland, the U.S. Army ranked seventeenth among armies of the world in size and combat power, just behind Romania. It numbered 190,000 soldiers. (It would grow to 8.3 million in 1945, a 44-fold increase.) When mobilization began in 1940, the Army had only 14,000 professional officers. The average age of majors—a middling rank, between captain and lieutenant colonel—was nearly 48; in the National Guard, nearly one-quarter of first lieutenants were over 40 years old, and the senior ranks were dominated by political hacks of certifiable military incompetence. Not a single officer on duty in 1941 had commanded a unit as large as a division in World War I. At the time of Pearl Harbor, in December 1941, only one American division was on a full war footing.

Look, I know there is absolutely nothing to you. You are a partisan hack, and nothing more. You exist to promote the party and have not thought beyond that task.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMBkEHtR97A]1-9 - THC - America The Story of Us - The Rise of a Super Power - Episodes 9 & 10 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Good for the judges, I try to adhere to the constitution also. Now back to the question: is a law valid and should be obeyed, even if it has not been reviewed by the Court?

1. If you are referring to the US Constitution, it deserves a capital letter "C."


2.Any judicial decision that cannot be identified specifically with the text of the Constitution is not legal.

How many times must I say that?

As many times as you've ignored the question of another way to alter the Constitution sans the amendment process?

How about privacy, where is that identified specifically in the constitution, how about abortion? And what of the Court having the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, where specifically is that found in the text of the constitution? If it had to be specifically found in the text of the constitution to be legal, why did the framers put in the tenth Amendment?

The principle remains unchanged.


No guesses, whims, caprice, penumbras......


If the people wish to change the Constitution, what is the only method?

Say it......I dare you.


"...why did the framers put in the tenth Amendment?"

The Constitution is designed to restrict tyranny of the federal government.

 

[regent]

1. If you are referring to the US Constitution, it deserves a capital letter "C."


2.Any judicial decision that cannot be identified specifically with the text of the Constitution is not legal.

How many times must I say that?

As many times as you've ignored the question of another way to alter the Constitution sans the amendment process?

How about privacy, where is that identified specifically in the constitution, how about abortion? And what of the Court having the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, where specifically is that found in the text of the constitution? If it had to be specifically found in the text of the constitution to be legal, why did the framers put in the tenth Amendment?

The principle remains unchanged.


No guesses, whims, caprice, penumbras......


If the people wish to change the Constitution, what is the only method?

Say it......I dare you.


"...why did the framers put in the tenth Amendment?"

The Constitution is designed to restrict tyranny of the federal government.

First, people do not change the Constitution, it is a political process that involves politicians. Second, there is not only one method for amending the constitution, but four.
And where does it specifically say in the text that the constitution is designed to restrict the tyranny of the federal government?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How about privacy, where is that identified specifically in the constitution, how about abortion? And what of the Court having the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, where specifically is that found in the text of the constitution? If it had to be specifically found in the text of the constitution to be legal, why did the framers put in the tenth Amendment?

The principle remains unchanged.


No guesses, whims, caprice, penumbras......


If the people wish to change the Constitution, what is the only method?

Say it......I dare you.


"...why did the framers put in the tenth Amendment?"

The Constitution is designed to restrict tyranny of the federal government.

First, people do not change the Constitution, it is a political process that involves politicians. Second, there is not only one method for amending the constitution, but four.
And where does it specifically say in the text that the constitution is designed to restrict the tyranny of the federal government?

The people do so via the ballot box.
1. The Constitution spells out four paths for an amendment:
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):
Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


2."And where does it specifically say in the text that the constitution is designed to restrict the tyranny of the federal government?"
It does so by specifically enumerating the only things the federal government can do.
Sadly...FDR used a crisis to end-run those restrictions.


3. As it is clear that you have a limited understanding of the Constitution, I hope you will read the OP that I'm going to put up tomorrow on Constitutional education.