Ken Burns Roosevelt Documentary

[Unkotare]

Stalin refused to allow FDR to communicate with him.

If you wonder why you aren't taken seriously, it's sentences like that.

Where it not for ignorance, you'd be agreeing with me.

Were it not for ignorance, she'd never post at all.

 

[Synthaholic]

I've been very specific, with actual words from those who knew the truth....

Why are you certain that they knew the truth rather than giving their opinions?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've been very specific, with actual words from those who knew the truth....

Why are you certain that they knew the truth rather than giving their opinions?

That suggestion I made about research?

You should consider it.

 

[Synthaholic]

There are no legitimate historians anywhere who would in any way validate the hair brained theory that FDRs policies extended the Second World War.

George Will is featured prominently in the documentary, and he has to drop his new-found wingnuttery to tell the truth, because he knows it's not some throwaway FOXNEWS segment, it's an accounting of history. And he cares about his reputation on such things.

 

[Synthaholic]

Stalin refused to allow FDR to communicate with him.

If you wonder why you aren't taken seriously, it's sentences like that.

Where it not for ignorance, you'd be agreeing with me.

Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.

 

[Synthaholic]

I've been very specific, with actual words from those who knew the truth....

Why are you certain that they knew the truth rather than giving their opinions?

That suggestion I made about research?

You should consider it.

All you are doing is cut and pasting the opinions of people who disagreed with FDR.

A 75 year old opinion is still just an opinion. It's not wine, getting better with age.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've been very specific, with actual words from those who knew the truth....

Why are you certain that they knew the truth rather than giving their opinions?

That suggestion I made about research?

You should consider it.

All you are doing is cut and pasting the opinions of people who disagreed with FDR.

A 75 year old opinion is still just an opinion. It's not wine, getting better with age.

The irony is that your post applies more accurately to what you 'learn' about Franklin Roosevelt.

Again....research.

I provide links and sources so that you may do exactly that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stalin refused to allow FDR to communicate with him.

If you wonder why you aren't taken seriously, it's sentences like that.

Where it not for ignorance, you'd be agreeing with me.

Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.

They were soul-mates.

1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.



What is your explanation for the above?

And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?

Would you?

 

[Discombobulated]

Stalin refused to allow FDR to communicate with him.

If you wonder why you aren't taken seriously, it's sentences like that.

Where it not for ignorance, you'd be agreeing with me.

Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.

They were soul-mates.

1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.



What is your explanation for the above?

And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?

Would you?

Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stalin refused to allow FDR to communicate with him.

If you wonder why you aren't taken seriously, it's sentences like that.

Where it not for ignorance, you'd be agreeing with me.

Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.

They were soul-mates.

1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.



What is your explanation for the above?

And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?

Would you?

Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.

Wait...."completely unsupported by any legitimate historians"....you're pretending you have knowledge of history, much less "legitimate historians"?????


Your ignorance is hidden about as well as a bikini hides 45 pounds of ugly fat~


Now jot this down: never......never.....doubt what I post.
It is completely accurate, your biases notwithstanding.

 

[jasonnfree]

I've been to Warm Springs, and who but the worst cynic wouldn't admire or even love President Roosevelt? He was a great icon in American history. Whatever happened to men like him, Truman, and Kennedy? That was the Democratic Party of old. Today we get America-hating shitbags like Clinton and Obama. We get Marxists who want to destroy America. Roosevelt must be spinning in his grave.

FDR was far more progressive than either Clinton or Obama, but he wasn't a Marxist. So what did those two do to make you think they're Marxists? How do you determine who American haters are anyway, give them a polygraph?

 

[Discombobulated]

If you wonder why you aren't taken seriously, it's sentences like that.

Where it not for ignorance, you'd be agreeing with me.

Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.

They were soul-mates.

1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.



What is your explanation for the above?

And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?

Would you?

Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.

Wait...."completely unsupported by any legitimate historians"....you're pretending you have knowledge of history, much less "legitimate historians"?????


Your ignorance is hidden about as well as a bikini hides 45 pounds of ugly fat~


Now jot this down: never......never.....doubt what I post.
It is completely accurate, your biases notwithstanding.

No doubt you can site the authors, books, and relevant passages that support your generic web based theories.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you wonder why you aren't taken seriously, it's sentences like that.

Where it not for ignorance, you'd be agreeing with me.

Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.

They were soul-mates.

1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.



What is your explanation for the above?

And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?

Would you?

Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.

Wait...."completely unsupported by any legitimate historians"....you're pretending you have knowledge of history, much less "legitimate historians"?????


Your ignorance is hidden about as well as a bikini hides 45 pounds of ugly fat~


Now jot this down: never......never.....doubt what I post.
It is completely accurate, your biases notwithstanding.

Your outstanding characteristics, lying imbecile, are so obvious, that this post should come under the heading of 'beating a dead horse.'....

But I can't resist....my guilty pleasure.

Let's take the item that you claim....I eschew vulgar language, so I can't quote you, but with which you disagree vehemently....the one that should have ended any association Roosevelt considered with Stalin:

"6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath."




Now...watch me make mincemeat out of you:

1. FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace, endorse Stalin....and recognize the USSR.

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


2. Bear in mind, eight months earlier, journalist Gareth Jones had exposed Stalin's Terror Famine:
"In the train a Communist denied to me that there was a famine. I flung a crust of bread which I had been eating from my own supply into a spittoon. A peasant fellow-passenger fished it out and ravenously ate it." Gareth Jones journalist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. Malcolm Muggeridge "was the first writer to reveal the true nature of Stalin s regime when in 1933 he exposed the terror famine in the Ukraine. " Time and Eternity The Uncollected Writings of Malcolm Muggeridge Malcolm Muggeridge Nicholas Flynn 9781570759055 Amazon.com Books

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


3. Check the timeline. FDR didn't embrace the USSR out of a need in a fight against Hitler....in fact, at that time, FDR had a rosy relationship with Germany. So....why overlook the genocide?

a. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): 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.’



Did I just eat your lunch, or what????




Never doubt me again.


Never.

 

[Ropey]

Where it not for ignorance, you'd be agreeing with me.

Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.

They were soul-mates.

1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.



What is your explanation for the above?

And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?

Would you?

Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.

Wait...."completely unsupported by any legitimate historians"....you're pretending you have knowledge of history, much less "legitimate historians"?????


Your ignorance is hidden about as well as a bikini hides 45 pounds of ugly fat~


Now jot this down: never......never.....doubt what I post.
It is completely accurate, your biases notwithstanding.

No doubt you can site the authors, books, and relevant passages that support your generic web based theories.

You mean cite.

Now show your attack which then would call for a defense of the statements that you disagree with, rather than asking for proof that the statement exists when it exists here. Show it otherwise, in other words.

Without an attack on each and every proposal PC made, they stand without a cite.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where it not for ignorance, you'd be agreeing with me.

Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.

They were soul-mates.

1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.



What is your explanation for the above?

And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?

Would you?

Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.

Wait...."completely unsupported by any legitimate historians"....you're pretending you have knowledge of history, much less "legitimate historians"?????


Your ignorance is hidden about as well as a bikini hides 45 pounds of ugly fat~


Now jot this down: never......never.....doubt what I post.
It is completely accurate, your biases notwithstanding.

No doubt you can site the authors, books, and relevant passages that support your generic web based theories.

Check post #133, you dope.

Then wipe the egg off your face.

 

[Camp]

Where it not for ignorance, you'd be agreeing with me.

Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.

They were soul-mates.

1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.



What is your explanation for the above?

And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?

Would you?

Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.

Wait...."completely unsupported by any legitimate historians"....you're pretending you have knowledge of history, much less "legitimate historians"?????


Your ignorance is hidden about as well as a bikini hides 45 pounds of ugly fat~


Now jot this down: never......never.....doubt what I post.
It is completely accurate, your biases notwithstanding.

No doubt you can site the authors, books, and relevant passages that support your generic web based theories.

PC uses authors, books and passages, they just don't come from sources that would be accepted by professors connected wit

Where it not for ignorance, you'd be agreeing with me.

Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.

They were soul-mates.

1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.



What is your explanation for the above?

And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?

Would you?

Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.

Wait...."completely unsupported by any legitimate historians"....you're pretending you have knowledge of history, much less "legitimate historians"?????


Your ignorance is hidden about as well as a bikini hides 45 pounds of ugly fat~


Now jot this down: never......never.....doubt what I post.
It is completely accurate, your biases notwithstanding.

No doubt you can site the authors, books, and relevant passages that support your generic web based theories.

PC uses authors, books and passages. They just aren't accepted by professors who work at schools whose names are followed by the word University.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.

They were soul-mates.

1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.



What is your explanation for the above?

And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?

Would you?

Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.

Wait...."completely unsupported by any legitimate historians"....you're pretending you have knowledge of history, much less "legitimate historians"?????


Your ignorance is hidden about as well as a bikini hides 45 pounds of ugly fat~


Now jot this down: never......never.....doubt what I post.
It is completely accurate, your biases notwithstanding.

No doubt you can site the authors, books, and relevant passages that support your generic web based theories.

PC uses authors, books and passages, they just don't come from sources that would be accepted by professors connected wit

Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.

They were soul-mates.

1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.



What is your explanation for the above?

And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?

Would you?

Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.

Wait...."completely unsupported by any legitimate historians"....you're pretending you have knowledge of history, much less "legitimate historians"?????


Your ignorance is hidden about as well as a bikini hides 45 pounds of ugly fat~


Now jot this down: never......never.....doubt what I post.
It is completely accurate, your biases notwithstanding.

No doubt you can site the authors, books, and relevant passages that support your generic web based theories.

PC uses authors, books and passages. They just aren't accepted by professors who work at schools whose names are followed by the word University.

Au contraire...."They just aren't accepted by" Rooseveltian boot-lickers like you.

Try on post #133 for size.

Then, take a seat with the other dope.

 

[Discombobulated]

Where it not for ignorance, you'd be agreeing with me.

Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.

They were soul-mates.

1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.



What is your explanation for the above?

And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?

Would you?

Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.

Wait...."completely unsupported by any legitimate historians"....you're pretending you have knowledge of history, much less "legitimate historians"?????


Your ignorance is hidden about as well as a bikini hides 45 pounds of ugly fat~


Now jot this down: never......never.....doubt what I post.
It is completely accurate, your biases notwithstanding.

Your outstanding characteristics, lying imbecile, are so obvious, that this post should come under the heading of 'beating a dead horse.'....

But I can't resist....my guilty pleasure.

Let's take the item that you claim....I eschew vulgar language, so I can't quote you, but with which you disagree vehemently....the one that should have ended any association Roosevelt considered with Stalin:

"6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath."




Now...watch me make mincemeat out of you:

1. FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace, endorse Stalin....and recognize the USSR.

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


2. Bear in mind, eight months earlier, journalist Gareth Jones had exposed Stalin's Terror Famine:
"In the train a Communist denied to me that there was a famine. I flung a crust of bread which I had been eating from my own supply into a spittoon. A peasant fellow-passenger fished it out and ravenously ate it." Gareth Jones journalist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. Malcolm Muggeridge "was the first writer to reveal the true nature of Stalin s regime when in 1933 he exposed the terror famine in the Ukraine. " Time and Eternity The Uncollected Writings of Malcolm Muggeridge Malcolm Muggeridge Nicholas Flynn 9781570759055 Amazon.com Books

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


3. Check the timeline. FDR didn't embrace the USSR out of a need in a fight against Hitler....in fact, at that time, FDR had a rosy relationship with Germany. So....why overlook the genocide?

a. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): 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.’



Did I just eat your lunch, or what????




Never doubt me again.


Never.

I still waiting for the part where you take all your superficial out of context characterizations and use them to explain how FDRs policies extended the Second World War.

 

[Camp]

They were soul-mates.

1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.



What is your explanation for the above?

And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?

Would you?

Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.

Wait...."completely unsupported by any legitimate historians"....you're pretending you have knowledge of history, much less "legitimate historians"?????


Your ignorance is hidden about as well as a bikini hides 45 pounds of ugly fat~


Now jot this down: never......never.....doubt what I post.
It is completely accurate, your biases notwithstanding.

No doubt you can site the authors, books, and relevant passages that support your generic web based theories.

PC uses authors, books and passages, they just don't come from sources that would be accepted by professors connected wit

They were soul-mates.

1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.



What is your explanation for the above?

And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?

Would you?

Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.

Wait...."completely unsupported by any legitimate historians"....you're pretending you have knowledge of history, much less "legitimate historians"?????


Your ignorance is hidden about as well as a bikini hides 45 pounds of ugly fat~


Now jot this down: never......never.....doubt what I post.
It is completely accurate, your biases notwithstanding.

No doubt you can site the authors, books, and relevant passages that support your generic web based theories.

PC uses authors, books and passages. They just aren't accepted by professors who work at schools whose names are followed by the word University.

Au contraire...."They just aren't accepted by" Rooseveltian boot-lickers like you.

Try on post #133 for size.

Then, take a seat with the other dope.

Well, you do use some on occasion, Folsom and Nash are both recognized historians, but they come with caveats as Folsom the well known libertarian and Nash, a staunch conservative. But most of your sources have been exposed as trash.

 

[Discombobulated]

Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.

They were soul-mates.

1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.



What is your explanation for the above?

And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?

Would you?

Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.

Wait...."completely unsupported by any legitimate historians"....you're pretending you have knowledge of history, much less "legitimate historians"?????


Your ignorance is hidden about as well as a bikini hides 45 pounds of ugly fat~


Now jot this down: never......never.....doubt what I post.
It is completely accurate, your biases notwithstanding.

No doubt you can site the authors, books, and relevant passages that support your generic web based theories.

You mean cite.

Now show your attack which then would call for a defense of the statements that you disagree with, rather than asking for proof that the statement exists when it exists here. Show it otherwise, in other words.

Without an attack on each and every proposal PC made, they stand without a cite.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to spell check.