Roosevelt: His Bankrupt Policies

[Statistikhengst]

The very beginning of the OP begins with the claim that FDR prolonged the Great Depression. It is the conclusive ending to her opening statement. The conclusion of an opening statement defines the purpose of the thesis and the subject that is meant to be proven with the containing material in the thesis.

The academically accepted way to refute a thesis is to attack it at the beginning. This is preferred rather than a system of cherry picking factoids and quotes that can lead to endless back and forth disjointed debates over context and how those various factoids are even facts and whether quotes are or are not connected.

PC's claim that FDR prolonged the Great Depression is a claim that was debated and lost decades ago. It gets revived by the anti New Deal and FDR folks like the OP, but they never bring forward new data. They simply omit the data that caused their side of the debate to loose the debate decades ago and continuously ever since.

No matter how much the OP says her facts are not refuted, not one, the reader can easily look at the original post opening statement and see where she presents as a fact that FDR prolonged the depression. I refuted her statement as being non factual and offered as evidence the faulty data she was basing her statement on. That is what refuting a fact is. You claim it is wrong and offer evidence to prove why it is wrong. The OP becomes obligated to disprove the case made against her claim. She can not just shrug it off and move on to some other point. Whether other facts are true, false, embellished, exaggerated, etc. becomes irrelevant once the original claim of the thesis is refuted.

The OP has been challenged on some of her other claims. It was pointed out she misunderstood the relationship and differing priorities of FDR and Mogenthau, but while I briefly began that debate with the OP, I doubt that a person who can not comprehend the Legergott/Darby differences and distinctions would be able to discuss the more complicated one of FDR and Morgenthau.

Finally, I have continued to pester the OP over her often used source, Chesly Manly. It is impossible to check background and legitimacy of a non person author. Publications, especially newspapers promoting agenda's, use pen names so that background checks can't be made and questions can't be asked and demanded directly to the writer or alleged author of a story. The author takes on the credibility of an anonymous poster on a message board or blogger with an untraceable and unknown name and address. A person presenting a legitimate thesis must be able to present evidence of credibility for sources presented. Manly has no more credibility than a Archie and Jughead comic book.

One more thing, does anyone have a clue what I posted that was vulgar? What was the alleged barn yard thing?

Yepp.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[PoliticalChic]

The very beginning of the OP begins with the claim that FDR prolonged the Great Depression. It is the conclusive ending to her opening statement. The conclusion of an opening statement defines the purpose of the thesis and the subject that is meant to be proven with the containing material in the thesis.

The academically accepted way to refute a thesis is to attack it at the beginning. This is preferred rather than a system of cherry picking factoids and quotes that can lead to endless back and forth disjointed debates over context and how those various factoids are even facts and whether quotes are or are not connected.

PC's claim that FDR prolonged the Great Depression is a claim that was debated and lost decades ago. It gets revived by the anti New Deal and FDR folks like the OP, but they never bring forward new data. They simply omit the data that caused their side of the debate to loose the debate decades ago and continuously ever since.

No matter how much the OP says her facts are not refuted, not one, the reader can easily look at the original post opening statement and see where she presents as a fact that FDR prolonged the depression. I refuted her statement as being non factual and offered as evidence the faulty data she was basing her statement on. That is what refuting a fact is. You claim it is wrong and offer evidence to prove why it is wrong. The OP becomes obligated to disprove the case made against her claim. She can not just shrug it off and move on to some other point. Whether other facts are true, false, embellished, exaggerated, etc. becomes irrelevant once the original claim of the thesis is refuted.

The OP has been challenged on some of her other claims. It was pointed out she misunderstood the relationship and differing priorities of FDR and Mogenthau, but while I briefly began that debate with the OP, I doubt that a person who can not comprehend the Legergott/Darby differences and distinctions would be able to discuss the more complicated one of FDR and Morgenthau.

Finally, I have continued to pester the OP over her often used source, Chesly Manly. It is impossible to check background and legitimacy of a non person author. Publications, especially newspapers promoting agenda's, use pen names so that background checks can't be made and questions can't be asked and demanded directly to the writer or alleged author of a story. The author takes on the credibility of an anonymous poster on a message board or blogger with an untraceable and unknown name and address. A person presenting a legitimate thesis must be able to present evidence of credibility for sources presented. Manly has no more credibility than a Archie and Jughead comic book.

One more thing, does anyone have a clue what I posted that was vulgar? What was the alleged barn yard thing?

Completely ignored the post that responded to your post?

Can mean only one thing: it put you in your place.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ow! Oh! Ouch! Hey!
....no sooner do I post an informed, factual, supported critique of the Roosevelt hagiography, than the Rooseveltian running dog lackeys start nipping at my heels!

It's been said before: "Truth is the mother of hatred." Ausonius

Seems that an admission of Roosevelt's failures would be, to his devotees, an admission of their own.


Never one to knuckle under....I'm left with but one path: another undeniable exposé of the bankrupt, failed, counter-intuitive economic policies of the anti-American fraud, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The man was elected based on the basis of a national crisis...and on a web of lies. He proved to be a terrible manager of the economy.

Terrible.....he extended the Depression by years!



1. "At the Democratic national convention in June 1932, where FDR was nominated for president of the United States, the Democratic Party issued a platform promising a way out of the Great Depression. The party stated: “We believe that a party platform is a covenant with the people to be faithfully kept by the party entrusted with power.”"
Monetary Central Planning and the State Part 13 FDR s New Deal - The Future of Freedom Foundation

At the time, America was a more faith-based nation...and the word 'covenant' had a religious tone to it....


a. Covenant: A binding agreement; a compact.; In the Bible, a divine promise establishing or modifying God's relationship to humanity or to a particular group.
covenant - definition of covenant by The Free Dictionary


"...[a] month after accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination for the office of president of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered a campaign radio address to the nation. He focused on the extravagant spending policies of Herbert Hoover’s administration and the federal budget deficits it had created: “Let us have the courage to stop borrowing to meet continuing deficits,” Roosevelt said. “Revenues must cover expenditures by one means or another. Any government, like any family, can, for a year, spend a little more than it earns. But you know and I know that a continuation of that habit means the poorhouse.”
Monetary Central Planning and the State Part 13 FDR s New Deal - The Future of Freedom Foundation


Of course, this was hardly the first lie that Roosevelt told.





Let's go over the platform just to prove that my OPs are undeniable:

"The platform of the Democratic Party, whose ticket Roosevelt headed, called for
.... a 25 percent reduction in federal spending,

...a balanced federal budget,

...a sound gold currency “to be preserved at all hazards,”

....the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise

...and an end to the “extravagance” of Hoover’s farm programs.

This is what candidate Roosevelt promised, but it bears no resemblance to what President Roosevelt actually delivered."
"Great Myths of the Great Depression," Lawrence W Reed




Focus on this one:" ....the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise..."

Had the Democrats actually fulfilled this promise.....and not created government-sponsored enterprises(GSEs) i.e., FannieMae andFreddieMac....

Get ready....


There would not have been a mortgage meltdown!
The mortgage meltdown, the 2008 recession: thanks to Franklin Roosevelt

Nice copy and paste job!!!

Hardly informed, however, and fallacious to the core. Just like you!!!


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

I notice like all the other cowards,you were afraid to specify anything that was untrue.

In effect, you validated everything I posted.

Now, back under your rock.

All kinds of stuff you claim have been contested. Some of the stuff you claim is just absolutely ridiculous. You are blaming FDR for the 2008 recession. Much of what you claim has not been refuted has in fact been refuted with links and responses you are not able to respond to. I challenged you within the last few hours with specifics. You called my challenge vulgar. I challenged you to show where it was vulgar. You can't even answer that. You are just a liar and fake. You fail at basic concepts and knowledge about political science and history. The coward is you. You are the one hiding. Everyone challenging you is out in the open and providing refutes to your claims. You are just one of those cowards who give robot denials and ignore challenges like you are deaf and you never heard them.

Who and what was Manly, the foundation of most of your conspiracy theories. Who and what were Lebergott and Darby, the foundation of your FDR prolonging the Great Depression claim and key to your anti FDR tantrums.

You keep coming back and challenging people on your facts and the people keep telling you that you are distorting facts. This is not an unknown method of deceit. You think you have latched on to some kind of secret method of writing a conspiracy theory and making it look like a legitimate academically researched thesis. You have not discovered anything new. College professors would have failed you a half a century ago for using these methods. Even the best of today, some of your heroes like West get clobbered by legitimate scholars and historians for using sophisticated versions of this method. It sells books and placates the brainwashed, but doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Normal intelligent adults answer questions with answers. The non intelligent, liars and small children answer questions with questions. See if you can show which one of the aforementioned you are.

This thread has developed like every other PC thread. PC is a troll. Please stop feeding the trolls. It's the only solution. If these threads got no response, they would sink like a rock. Answering just keeps the game going.

"Please stop feeding the trolls. It's the only solution. If these threads got no response, they would sink like a rock. Answering just keeps the game going."

Excellent order the other Liberals!

Means exactly what I believe: Liberals lose every argument over facts and ideas.

In the marketplace of ideas......conservatives eat your lunch.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The very beginning of the OP begins with the claim that FDR prolonged the Great Depression. It is the conclusive ending to her opening statement. The conclusion of an opening statement defines the purpose of the thesis and the subject that is meant to be proven with the containing material in the thesis.

The academically accepted way to refute a thesis is to attack it at the beginning. This is preferred rather than a system of cherry picking factoids and quotes that can lead to endless back and forth disjointed debates over context and how those various factoids are even facts and whether quotes are or are not connected.

PC's claim that FDR prolonged the Great Depression is a claim that was debated and lost decades ago. It gets revived by the anti New Deal and FDR folks like the OP, but they never bring forward new data. They simply omit the data that caused their side of the debate to loose the debate decades ago and continuously ever since.

No matter how much the OP says her facts are not refuted, not one, the reader can easily look at the original post opening statement and see where she presents as a fact that FDR prolonged the depression. I refuted her statement as being non factual and offered as evidence the faulty data she was basing her statement on. That is what refuting a fact is. You claim it is wrong and offer evidence to prove why it is wrong. The OP becomes obligated to disprove the case made against her claim. She can not just shrug it off and move on to some other point. Whether other facts are true, false, embellished, exaggerated, etc. becomes irrelevant once the original claim of the thesis is refuted.

The OP has been challenged on some of her other claims. It was pointed out she misunderstood the relationship and differing priorities of FDR and Mogenthau, but while I briefly began that debate with the OP, I doubt that a person who can not comprehend the Legergott/Darby differences and distinctions would be able to discuss the more complicated one of FDR and Morgenthau.

Finally, I have continued to pester the OP over her often used source, Chesly Manly. It is impossible to check background and legitimacy of a non person author. Publications, especially newspapers promoting agenda's, use pen names so that background checks can't be made and questions can't be asked and demanded directly to the writer or alleged author of a story. The author takes on the credibility of an anonymous poster on a message board or blogger with an untraceable and unknown name and address. A person presenting a legitimate thesis must be able to present evidence of credibility for sources presented. Manly has no more credibility than a Archie and Jughead comic book.

One more thing, does anyone have a clue what I posted that was vulgar? What was the alleged barn yard thing?

Completely ignored the post that responded to your post?

Can mean only one thing: it put you in your place.

Only in your weird Sunnydale Sanitorium wet-dream world.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[PoliticalChic]

The very beginning of the OP begins with the claim that FDR prolonged the Great Depression. It is the conclusive ending to her opening statement. The conclusion of an opening statement defines the purpose of the thesis and the subject that is meant to be proven with the containing material in the thesis.

The academically accepted way to refute a thesis is to attack it at the beginning. This is preferred rather than a system of cherry picking factoids and quotes that can lead to endless back and forth disjointed debates over context and how those various factoids are even facts and whether quotes are or are not connected.

PC's claim that FDR prolonged the Great Depression is a claim that was debated and lost decades ago. It gets revived by the anti New Deal and FDR folks like the OP, but they never bring forward new data. They simply omit the data that caused their side of the debate to loose the debate decades ago and continuously ever since.

No matter how much the OP says her facts are not refuted, not one, the reader can easily look at the original post opening statement and see where she presents as a fact that FDR prolonged the depression. I refuted her statement as being non factual and offered as evidence the faulty data she was basing her statement on. That is what refuting a fact is. You claim it is wrong and offer evidence to prove why it is wrong. The OP becomes obligated to disprove the case made against her claim. She can not just shrug it off and move on to some other point. Whether other facts are true, false, embellished, exaggerated, etc. becomes irrelevant once the original claim of the thesis is refuted.

The OP has been challenged on some of her other claims. It was pointed out she misunderstood the relationship and differing priorities of FDR and Mogenthau, but while I briefly began that debate with the OP, I doubt that a person who can not comprehend the Legergott/Darby differences and distinctions would be able to discuss the more complicated one of FDR and Morgenthau.

Finally, I have continued to pester the OP over her often used source, Chesly Manly. It is impossible to check background and legitimacy of a non person author. Publications, especially newspapers promoting agenda's, use pen names so that background checks can't be made and questions can't be asked and demanded directly to the writer or alleged author of a story. The author takes on the credibility of an anonymous poster on a message board or blogger with an untraceable and unknown name and address. A person presenting a legitimate thesis must be able to present evidence of credibility for sources presented. Manly has no more credibility than a Archie and Jughead comic book.

One more thing, does anyone have a clue what I posted that was vulgar? What was the alleged barn yard thing?

Completely ignored the post that responded to your post?

Can mean only one thing: it put you in your place.

Only in your weird Sunnydale Sanitorium wet-dream world.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The proof is clear and present....
...when it comes to politics, economics, and worldview.....you can't compete.

.you morons are like the Eunuch in the Harem....you'd like to, but you just can't.


Evidence: not one of you could refute the dozen well documented, linked, supported charges I posted in the thread.


Yippee ki ya, mother hubbard.

 

[regent]

Ow! Oh! Ouch! Hey!
....no sooner do I post an informed, factual, supported critique of the Roosevelt hagiography, than the Rooseveltian running dog lackeys start nipping at my heels!

It's been said before: "Truth is the mother of hatred." Ausonius

Seems that an admission of Roosevelt's failures would be, to his devotees, an admission of their own.


Never one to knuckle under....I'm left with but one path: another undeniable exposé of the bankrupt, failed, counter-intuitive economic policies of the anti-American fraud, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The man was elected based on the basis of a national crisis...and on a web of lies. He proved to be a terrible manager of the economy.

Terrible.....he extended the Depression by years!



1. "At the Democratic national convention in June 1932, where FDR was nominated for president of the United States, the Democratic Party issued a platform promising a way out of the Great Depression. The party stated: “We believe that a party platform is a covenant with the people to be faithfully kept by the party entrusted with power.”"
Monetary Central Planning and the State Part 13 FDR s New Deal - The Future of Freedom Foundation

At the time, America was a more faith-based nation...and the word 'covenant' had a religious tone to it....


a. Covenant: A binding agreement; a compact.; In the Bible, a divine promise establishing or modifying God's relationship to humanity or to a particular group.
covenant - definition of covenant by The Free Dictionary


"...[a] month after accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination for the office of president of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered a campaign radio address to the nation. He focused on the extravagant spending policies of Herbert Hoover’s administration and the federal budget deficits it had created: “Let us have the courage to stop borrowing to meet continuing deficits,” Roosevelt said. “Revenues must cover expenditures by one means or another. Any government, like any family, can, for a year, spend a little more than it earns. But you know and I know that a continuation of that habit means the poorhouse.”
Monetary Central Planning and the State Part 13 FDR s New Deal - The Future of Freedom Foundation


Of course, this was hardly the first lie that Roosevelt told.





Let's go over the platform just to prove that my OPs are undeniable:

"The platform of the Democratic Party, whose ticket Roosevelt headed, called for
.... a 25 percent reduction in federal spending,

...a balanced federal budget,

...a sound gold currency “to be preserved at all hazards,”

....the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise

...and an end to the “extravagance” of Hoover’s farm programs.

This is what candidate Roosevelt promised, but it bears no resemblance to what President Roosevelt actually delivered."
"Great Myths of the Great Depression," Lawrence W Reed




Focus on this one:" ....the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise..."

Had the Democrats actually fulfilled this promise.....and not created government-sponsored enterprises(GSEs) i.e., FannieMae andFreddieMac....

Get ready....


There would not have been a mortgage meltdown!
The mortgage meltdown, the 2008 recession: thanks to Franklin Roosevelt

Nice copy and paste job!!!

Hardly informed, however, and fallacious to the core. Just like you!!!


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

I notice like all the other cowards,you were afraid to specify anything that was untrue.

In effect, you validated everything I posted.

Now, back under your rock.

All kinds of stuff you claim have been contested. Some of the stuff you claim is just absolutely ridiculous. You are blaming FDR for the 2008 recession. Much of what you claim has not been refuted has in fact been refuted with links and responses you are not able to respond to. I challenged you within the last few hours with specifics. You called my challenge vulgar. I challenged you to show where it was vulgar. You can't even answer that. You are just a liar and fake. You fail at basic concepts and knowledge about political science and history. The coward is you. You are the one hiding. Everyone challenging you is out in the open and providing refutes to your claims. You are just one of those cowards who give robot denials and ignore challenges like you are deaf and you never heard them.

Who and what was Manly, the foundation of most of your conspiracy theories. Who and what were Lebergott and Darby, the foundation of your FDR prolonging the Great Depression claim and key to your anti FDR tantrums.

You keep coming back and challenging people on your facts and the people keep telling you that you are distorting facts. This is not an unknown method of deceit. You think you have latched on to some kind of secret method of writing a conspiracy theory and making it look like a legitimate academically researched thesis. You have not discovered anything new. College professors would have failed you a half a century ago for using these methods. Even the best of today, some of your heroes like West get clobbered by legitimate scholars and historians for using sophisticated versions of this method. It sells books and placates the brainwashed, but doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Normal intelligent adults answer questions with answers. The non intelligent, liars and small children answer questions with questions. See if you can show which one of the aforementioned you are.

1. Not one single thing has been refuted.
Not one.

2. Let's begin at the beginning....America was based on the primacy of the individual over the central government.....the Founders made that very clear by demanding a Bill of Rights.
Franklin Roosevelt believed in the primacy of the government as representative of the collective, and it is one reason for his excellent relations with Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.

You, as well, believe in the collective over the rights of the individual


True or not?

The framers took a government with no power and created a new government with many powers. The anti-federalists, the liberal liberals, refused to ratify the new Constitution unless a bill of rights was promised. The Federalists, the conservative liberals, so promised and kept their promise.
What you refer to as the collective. the Constitution refers to as "We the people" and it was we the people that created the Constitution and we the people that rule through our representatives. In this new government the individual has some rights but only as the Constitution, and now the Court, indicate. None of the rights, in the Bill of Rights are absolute and we have many- many laws and court cases indicating that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ow! Oh! Ouch! Hey!
....no sooner do I post an informed, factual, supported critique of the Roosevelt hagiography, than the Rooseveltian running dog lackeys start nipping at my heels!

It's been said before: "Truth is the mother of hatred." Ausonius

Seems that an admission of Roosevelt's failures would be, to his devotees, an admission of their own.


Never one to knuckle under....I'm left with but one path: another undeniable exposé of the bankrupt, failed, counter-intuitive economic policies of the anti-American fraud, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The man was elected based on the basis of a national crisis...and on a web of lies. He proved to be a terrible manager of the economy.

Terrible.....he extended the Depression by years!



1. "At the Democratic national convention in June 1932, where FDR was nominated for president of the United States, the Democratic Party issued a platform promising a way out of the Great Depression. The party stated: “We believe that a party platform is a covenant with the people to be faithfully kept by the party entrusted with power.”"
Monetary Central Planning and the State Part 13 FDR s New Deal - The Future of Freedom Foundation

At the time, America was a more faith-based nation...and the word 'covenant' had a religious tone to it....


a. Covenant: A binding agreement; a compact.; In the Bible, a divine promise establishing or modifying God's relationship to humanity or to a particular group.
covenant - definition of covenant by The Free Dictionary


"...[a] month after accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination for the office of president of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered a campaign radio address to the nation. He focused on the extravagant spending policies of Herbert Hoover’s administration and the federal budget deficits it had created: “Let us have the courage to stop borrowing to meet continuing deficits,” Roosevelt said. “Revenues must cover expenditures by one means or another. Any government, like any family, can, for a year, spend a little more than it earns. But you know and I know that a continuation of that habit means the poorhouse.”
Monetary Central Planning and the State Part 13 FDR s New Deal - The Future of Freedom Foundation


Of course, this was hardly the first lie that Roosevelt told.





Let's go over the platform just to prove that my OPs are undeniable:

"The platform of the Democratic Party, whose ticket Roosevelt headed, called for
.... a 25 percent reduction in federal spending,

...a balanced federal budget,

...a sound gold currency “to be preserved at all hazards,”

....the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise

...and an end to the “extravagance” of Hoover’s farm programs.

This is what candidate Roosevelt promised, but it bears no resemblance to what President Roosevelt actually delivered."
"Great Myths of the Great Depression," Lawrence W Reed




Focus on this one:" ....the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise..."

Had the Democrats actually fulfilled this promise.....and not created government-sponsored enterprises(GSEs) i.e., FannieMae andFreddieMac....

Get ready....


There would not have been a mortgage meltdown!
The mortgage meltdown, the 2008 recession: thanks to Franklin Roosevelt

Nice copy and paste job!!!

Hardly informed, however, and fallacious to the core. Just like you!!!


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

I notice like all the other cowards,you were afraid to specify anything that was untrue.

In effect, you validated everything I posted.

Now, back under your rock.

All kinds of stuff you claim have been contested. Some of the stuff you claim is just absolutely ridiculous. You are blaming FDR for the 2008 recession. Much of what you claim has not been refuted has in fact been refuted with links and responses you are not able to respond to. I challenged you within the last few hours with specifics. You called my challenge vulgar. I challenged you to show where it was vulgar. You can't even answer that. You are just a liar and fake. You fail at basic concepts and knowledge about political science and history. The coward is you. You are the one hiding. Everyone challenging you is out in the open and providing refutes to your claims. You are just one of those cowards who give robot denials and ignore challenges like you are deaf and you never heard them.

Who and what was Manly, the foundation of most of your conspiracy theories. Who and what were Lebergott and Darby, the foundation of your FDR prolonging the Great Depression claim and key to your anti FDR tantrums.

You keep coming back and challenging people on your facts and the people keep telling you that you are distorting facts. This is not an unknown method of deceit. You think you have latched on to some kind of secret method of writing a conspiracy theory and making it look like a legitimate academically researched thesis. You have not discovered anything new. College professors would have failed you a half a century ago for using these methods. Even the best of today, some of your heroes like West get clobbered by legitimate scholars and historians for using sophisticated versions of this method. It sells books and placates the brainwashed, but doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Normal intelligent adults answer questions with answers. The non intelligent, liars and small children answer questions with questions. See if you can show which one of the aforementioned you are.

1. Not one single thing has been refuted.
Not one.

2. Let's begin at the beginning....America was based on the primacy of the individual over the central government.....the Founders made that very clear by demanding a Bill of Rights.
Franklin Roosevelt believed in the primacy of the government as representative of the collective, and it is one reason for his excellent relations with Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.

You, as well, believe in the collective over the rights of the individual


True or not?

The framers took a government with no power and created a new government with many powers. The anti-federalists, the liberal liberals, refused to ratify the new Constitution unless a bill of rights was promised. The Federalists, the conservative liberals, so promised and kept their promise.
What you refer to as the collective. the Constitution refers to as "We the people" and it was we the people that created the Constitution and we the people that rule through our representatives. In this new government the individual has some rights but only as the Constitution, and now the Court, indicate. None of the rights, in the Bill of Rights are absolute and we have many- many laws and court cases indicating that.

It was Progressive Woodrow Wilson who suggested discarding the Constitution.

It was Progressive Franklin Roosevelt who did just that.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Nice copy and paste job!!!

Hardly informed, however, and fallacious to the core. Just like you!!!


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

I notice like all the other cowards,you were afraid to specify anything that was untrue.

In effect, you validated everything I posted.

Now, back under your rock.

All kinds of stuff you claim have been contested. Some of the stuff you claim is just absolutely ridiculous. You are blaming FDR for the 2008 recession. Much of what you claim has not been refuted has in fact been refuted with links and responses you are not able to respond to. I challenged you within the last few hours with specifics. You called my challenge vulgar. I challenged you to show where it was vulgar. You can't even answer that. You are just a liar and fake. You fail at basic concepts and knowledge about political science and history. The coward is you. You are the one hiding. Everyone challenging you is out in the open and providing refutes to your claims. You are just one of those cowards who give robot denials and ignore challenges like you are deaf and you never heard them.

Who and what was Manly, the foundation of most of your conspiracy theories. Who and what were Lebergott and Darby, the foundation of your FDR prolonging the Great Depression claim and key to your anti FDR tantrums.

You keep coming back and challenging people on your facts and the people keep telling you that you are distorting facts. This is not an unknown method of deceit. You think you have latched on to some kind of secret method of writing a conspiracy theory and making it look like a legitimate academically researched thesis. You have not discovered anything new. College professors would have failed you a half a century ago for using these methods. Even the best of today, some of your heroes like West get clobbered by legitimate scholars and historians for using sophisticated versions of this method. It sells books and placates the brainwashed, but doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Normal intelligent adults answer questions with answers. The non intelligent, liars and small children answer questions with questions. See if you can show which one of the aforementioned you are.

1. Not one single thing has been refuted.
Not one.

2. Let's begin at the beginning....America was based on the primacy of the individual over the central government.....the Founders made that very clear by demanding a Bill of Rights.
Franklin Roosevelt believed in the primacy of the government as representative of the collective, and it is one reason for his excellent relations with Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.

You, as well, believe in the collective over the rights of the individual


True or not?

The framers took a government with no power and created a new government with many powers. The anti-federalists, the liberal liberals, refused to ratify the new Constitution unless a bill of rights was promised. The Federalists, the conservative liberals, so promised and kept their promise.
What you refer to as the collective. the Constitution refers to as "We the people" and it was we the people that created the Constitution and we the people that rule through our representatives. In this new government the individual has some rights but only as the Constitution, and now the Court, indicate. None of the rights, in the Bill of Rights are absolute and we have many- many laws and court cases indicating that.

It was Progressive Woodrow Wilson who suggested discarding the Constitution.

It was Progressive Franklin Roosevelt who did just that.

It's these kind of batshit crazy, fact free statements that make a strong case FOR progressivism.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[PoliticalChic]

I notice like all the other cowards,you were afraid to specify anything that was untrue.

In effect, you validated everything I posted.

Now, back under your rock.

All kinds of stuff you claim have been contested. Some of the stuff you claim is just absolutely ridiculous. You are blaming FDR for the 2008 recession. Much of what you claim has not been refuted has in fact been refuted with links and responses you are not able to respond to. I challenged you within the last few hours with specifics. You called my challenge vulgar. I challenged you to show where it was vulgar. You can't even answer that. You are just a liar and fake. You fail at basic concepts and knowledge about political science and history. The coward is you. You are the one hiding. Everyone challenging you is out in the open and providing refutes to your claims. You are just one of those cowards who give robot denials and ignore challenges like you are deaf and you never heard them.

Who and what was Manly, the foundation of most of your conspiracy theories. Who and what were Lebergott and Darby, the foundation of your FDR prolonging the Great Depression claim and key to your anti FDR tantrums.

You keep coming back and challenging people on your facts and the people keep telling you that you are distorting facts. This is not an unknown method of deceit. You think you have latched on to some kind of secret method of writing a conspiracy theory and making it look like a legitimate academically researched thesis. You have not discovered anything new. College professors would have failed you a half a century ago for using these methods. Even the best of today, some of your heroes like West get clobbered by legitimate scholars and historians for using sophisticated versions of this method. It sells books and placates the brainwashed, but doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Normal intelligent adults answer questions with answers. The non intelligent, liars and small children answer questions with questions. See if you can show which one of the aforementioned you are.

1. Not one single thing has been refuted.
Not one.

2. Let's begin at the beginning....America was based on the primacy of the individual over the central government.....the Founders made that very clear by demanding a Bill of Rights.
Franklin Roosevelt believed in the primacy of the government as representative of the collective, and it is one reason for his excellent relations with Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.

You, as well, believe in the collective over the rights of the individual


True or not?

The framers took a government with no power and created a new government with many powers. The anti-federalists, the liberal liberals, refused to ratify the new Constitution unless a bill of rights was promised. The Federalists, the conservative liberals, so promised and kept their promise.
What you refer to as the collective. the Constitution refers to as "We the people" and it was we the people that created the Constitution and we the people that rule through our representatives. In this new government the individual has some rights but only as the Constitution, and now the Court, indicate. None of the rights, in the Bill of Rights are absolute and we have many- many laws and court cases indicating that.

It was Progressive Woodrow Wilson who suggested discarding the Constitution.

It was Progressive Franklin Roosevelt who did just that.

It's these kind of batshit crazy, fact free statements that make a strong case FOR progressivism.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

"....fact free statements..."

Watch me ram this post back down you throat, you imbecile:

1. "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. …
Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]


2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President 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.


"....fact free statements..."
Now you say what, you imbecile?

 

[regent]

No president e discarded the Constitution. Strong presidents are often accused of discarding the Constitution such as Jefferson when he bought Louisiana, and Jackson when he told the Supreme Court to stuff their decision.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No president e discarded the Constitution. Strong presidents are often accused of discarding the Constitution such as Jefferson when he bought Louisiana, and Jackson when he told the Supreme Court to stuff their decision.

"No president e discarded the Constitution."

For clarity, so that I may address you correctly...are you a liar or a fool?



If you claim to be a fool......your education continues:

1. FDR cowed the Supreme Court, and he and they ended the guidance of the Constitution.


2. The 'Progressive Era' began prior to Saturday, March 4, 1933, the date ofFranklin Roosevelt's inauguration....but make no mistake: this friend of Joseph Stalin was central to the destruction of the Constitution.

Other players included three Progressives already on the Court: Louis Brandeis, who provided the mechanism for Woodrow Wilson's election in 1912, and Harlan Stone, and Benjamin Cardozo.

The fading hopes for Americarested on the shoulders of four Madisonian justices: Pierce Butler,James McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter.
In the middle, Owen Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.


3. Two cases beganthe evisceration: in Article 1, section 10, which stated that no state may pass any " Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,..."

a. In the 1934 U.S. Supreme Court caseHome Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell,the “Four Horsemen” — the Madisonians — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism, the Progressives.

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise:it ruled in express contravention of the constitutional prohibition. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.




4.The court also ruled against in Article 1, section 10 in finding that Congress's retroactive voiding of 'gold clauses' in contracts was constitutional.

Congress was following Roosevelt's plan to take America off the gold standard, and remove the ability of Americans to hold, and use, gold: at the time,"gold clauses" were common,and they give creditors the option of receiving gold in payment of debts.


Four cases came before the Court in 1935, the "Gold Clause Cases," and in each the Court found it constitutional to 'impair loan contracts.'



The above is a perfect example ofProgressive's use of the term 'interpret' the Constitution, when they actual rule counter to it.
(Covered in Charles Murray's "By The People")

Don't hesitate to ask if you require further remediation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Far from it, it is part of the misinformation campaign to discredit FDR.
.

dear, the New Deal was the Great Depression so FDR's record is the 100% perfect discreditation.

Do you have the IQ to understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No president e discarded the Constitution. Strong presidents are often accused of discarding the Constitution.

dear, you mean liberal presidents discard the Constitution as much as possible because they are opposed to it in principle since its principle is to limit the power of govt on the theory that govt is the source of evil in human history.

Now you can see why it was liberals who spied for Stalin and Hitler and not conservatives-right?.

 

[Camp]

All kinds of stuff you claim have been contested. Some of the stuff you claim is just absolutely ridiculous. You are blaming FDR for the 2008 recession. Much of what you claim has not been refuted has in fact been refuted with links and responses you are not able to respond to. I challenged you within the last few hours with specifics. You called my challenge vulgar. I challenged you to show where it was vulgar. You can't even answer that. You are just a liar and fake. You fail at basic concepts and knowledge about political science and history. The coward is you. You are the one hiding. Everyone challenging you is out in the open and providing refutes to your claims. You are just one of those cowards who give robot denials and ignore challenges like you are deaf and you never heard them.

Who and what was Manly, the foundation of most of your conspiracy theories. Who and what were Lebergott and Darby, the foundation of your FDR prolonging the Great Depression claim and key to your anti FDR tantrums.

You keep coming back and challenging people on your facts and the people keep telling you that you are distorting facts. This is not an unknown method of deceit. You think you have latched on to some kind of secret method of writing a conspiracy theory and making it look like a legitimate academically researched thesis. You have not discovered anything new. College professors would have failed you a half a century ago for using these methods. Even the best of today, some of your heroes like West get clobbered by legitimate scholars and historians for using sophisticated versions of this method. It sells books and placates the brainwashed, but doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Normal intelligent adults answer questions with answers. The non intelligent, liars and small children answer questions with questions. See if you can show which one of the aforementioned you are.

1. Not one single thing has been refuted.
Not one.

2. Let's begin at the beginning....America was based on the primacy of the individual over the central government.....the Founders made that very clear by demanding a Bill of Rights.
Franklin Roosevelt believed in the primacy of the government as representative of the collective, and it is one reason for his excellent relations with Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.

You, as well, believe in the collective over the rights of the individual


True or not?

The framers took a government with no power and created a new government with many powers. The anti-federalists, the liberal liberals, refused to ratify the new Constitution unless a bill of rights was promised. The Federalists, the conservative liberals, so promised and kept their promise.
What you refer to as the collective. the Constitution refers to as "We the people" and it was we the people that created the Constitution and we the people that rule through our representatives. In this new government the individual has some rights but only as the Constitution, and now the Court, indicate. None of the rights, in the Bill of Rights are absolute and we have many- many laws and court cases indicating that.

It was Progressive Woodrow Wilson who suggested discarding the Constitution.

It was Progressive Franklin Roosevelt who did just that.

It's these kind of batshit crazy, fact free statements that make a strong case FOR progressivism.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

"....fact free statements..."

Watch me ram this post back down you throat, you imbecile:

1. "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. …
Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]


2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President 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.


"....fact free statements..."
Now you say what, you imbecile?

Thanks you dopey fool. This is a post you timed perfectly to show how dishonest your source Manly was. The acts or bills being discussed are two bills called the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 followed by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937. The first on was called the Guffy-Snyder Act. It was ruled unconstitutional. The bill dealt with price controls of bituminous coal and labor regulations. The one FDR was writing about that was written to Congressman Hill that was used by Manly and now, you as you quote him, was written in regards to a follow up called the Guffy-Vinson as an assurance to Hill that the constitutional issues had been addressed. Sure enough, the Guffy-Vinson Act was passed and approved by the SCOTUS. The new Act retained the price controls but discarded controversial labor regulations. Hence, Roosevelt had given accurate and honest advice to Congressman Hill, not as you and Manly portray as dishonest advice and lobbying to pass unconstitutional law.

Note: Sources are small print legal reviews from academic sources. The above can be found in less complicated form at Wikipedia searching for Bituminous Coal Act 1935. Navigation to other more accepted resources are found there also.

Here is the exact bill FDR was writing about to Hill, the one the court fount constitutional.

nber.org/chapters/c2882.pdf

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

this is so true!!! a liberal must treasonously lie while taking oath of office to hold office in America. Many is the FDR administration spied for Stalin and many openly traveled there and came back to proclaim " they had seen the future and it worked."

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Not one single thing has been refuted.
Not one.

2. Let's begin at the beginning....America was based on the primacy of the individual over the central government.....the Founders made that very clear by demanding a Bill of Rights.
Franklin Roosevelt believed in the primacy of the government as representative of the collective, and it is one reason for his excellent relations with Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.

You, as well, believe in the collective over the rights of the individual


True or not?

The framers took a government with no power and created a new government with many powers. The anti-federalists, the liberal liberals, refused to ratify the new Constitution unless a bill of rights was promised. The Federalists, the conservative liberals, so promised and kept their promise.
What you refer to as the collective. the Constitution refers to as "We the people" and it was we the people that created the Constitution and we the people that rule through our representatives. In this new government the individual has some rights but only as the Constitution, and now the Court, indicate. None of the rights, in the Bill of Rights are absolute and we have many- many laws and court cases indicating that.

It was Progressive Woodrow Wilson who suggested discarding the Constitution.

It was Progressive Franklin Roosevelt who did just that.

It's these kind of batshit crazy, fact free statements that make a strong case FOR progressivism.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

"....fact free statements..."

Watch me ram this post back down you throat, you imbecile:

1. "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. …
Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]


2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President 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.


"....fact free statements..."
Now you say what, you imbecile?

Thanks you dopey fool. This is a post you timed perfectly to show how dishonest your source Manly was. The acts or bills being discussed are two bills called the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 followed by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937. The first on was called the Guffy-Snyder Act. It was ruled unconstitutional. The bill dealt with price controls of bituminous coal and labor regulations. The one FDR was writing about that was written to Congressman Hill that was used by Manly and now, you as you quote him, was written in regards to a follow up called the Guffy-Vinson as an assurance to Hill that the constitutional issues had been addressed. Sure enough, the Guffy-Vinson Act was passed and approved by the SCOTUS. The new Act retained the price controls but discarded controversial labor regulations. Hence, Roosevelt had given accurate and honest advice to Congressman Hill, not as you and Manly portray as dishonest advice and lobbying to pass unconstitutional law.

Note: Sources are small print legal reviews from academic sources. The above can be found in less complicated form at Wikipedia searching for Bituminous Coal Act 1935. Navigation to other more accepted resources are found there also.

Here is the exact bill FDR was writing about to Hill, the one the court fount constitutional.

nber.org/chapters/c2882.pdf

"..."I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
In your face, dope.

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone."
The Brookshire Times from Brookshire Texas Page 2


And this:

"Nebbia v. New York,...(1934),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the state of New York could regulate (set and/or otherwise control) the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.

Justice James C. McReynolds dissented from the majority opinion. His dissent was joined by JusticeWillis Van Devanter, Justice George Sutherland, and Justice Pierce Butler. These four Justices became nicknamed the Four Horsemen for their rejection of New Deal regulation.

McReynolds.... ultimately concluded that although “regulation to prevent recognized evils in business has long been upheld as permissible legislative action…fixation of the priceat which A, engaged in an ordinary business, may sell, in order to enable B, a producer, to improve his condition,has not been regarded as within legislative power,” adding “This is not regulation, but management, control, dictation.”"
Nebbia v. New York - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....but management, control, dictation."
Recognize what he was saying?
Government dictatorship.

De rigueur for Progressives.

That was the legacy of the Roosevelt Supreme Court.

 

[imawhosure]

The framers took a government with no power and created a new government with many powers. The anti-federalists, the liberal liberals, refused to ratify the new Constitution unless a bill of rights was promised. The Federalists, the conservative liberals, so promised and kept their promise.
What you refer to as the collective. the Constitution refers to as "We the people" and it was we the people that created the Constitution and we the people that rule through our representatives. In this new government the individual has some rights but only as the Constitution, and now the Court, indicate. None of the rights, in the Bill of Rights are absolute and we have many- many laws and court cases indicating that.

It was Progressive Woodrow Wilson who suggested discarding the Constitution.

It was Progressive Franklin Roosevelt who did just that.

It's these kind of batshit crazy, fact free statements that make a strong case FOR progressivism.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

"....fact free statements..."

Watch me ram this post back down you throat, you imbecile:

1. "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. …
Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]


2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President 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.


"....fact free statements..."
Now you say what, you imbecile?

Thanks you dopey fool. This is a post you timed perfectly to show how dishonest your source Manly was. The acts or bills being discussed are two bills called the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 followed by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937. The first on was called the Guffy-Snyder Act. It was ruled unconstitutional. The bill dealt with price controls of bituminous coal and labor regulations. The one FDR was writing about that was written to Congressman Hill that was used by Manly and now, you as you quote him, was written in regards to a follow up called the Guffy-Vinson as an assurance to Hill that the constitutional issues had been addressed. Sure enough, the Guffy-Vinson Act was passed and approved by the SCOTUS. The new Act retained the price controls but discarded controversial labor regulations. Hence, Roosevelt had given accurate and honest advice to Congressman Hill, not as you and Manly portray as dishonest advice and lobbying to pass unconstitutional law.

Note: Sources are small print legal reviews from academic sources. The above can be found in less complicated form at Wikipedia searching for Bituminous Coal Act 1935. Navigation to other more accepted resources are found there also.

Here is the exact bill FDR was writing about to Hill, the one the court fount constitutional.

nber.org/chapters/c2882.pdf

"..."I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
In your face, dope.

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone."
The Brookshire Times from Brookshire Texas Page 2


And this:

"Nebbia v. New York,...(1934),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the state of New York could regulate (set and/or otherwise control) the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.

Justice James C. McReynolds dissented from the majority opinion. His dissent was joined by JusticeWillis Van Devanter, Justice George Sutherland, and Justice Pierce Butler. These four Justices became nicknamed the Four Horsemen for their rejection of New Deal regulation.

McReynolds.... ultimately concluded that although “regulation to prevent recognized evils in business has long been upheld as permissible legislative action…fixation of the priceat which A, engaged in an ordinary business, may sell, in order to enable B, a producer, to improve his condition,has not been regarded as within legislative power,” adding “This is not regulation, but management, control, dictation.”"
Nebbia v. New York - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....but management, control, dictation."
Recognize what he was saying?
Government dictatorship.

De rigueur for Progressives.

That was the legacy of the Roosevelt Supreme Court.

Chic, your assertions are correct. FDR, before him Wilson, and now Obama are so far left that Bill Clinton would be considered a conservative were it not for Hilly care.

I think FDR was great as a war President, but his economic policies have no basis in fact. All you need do is look and see that everything he put in is going broke, just as economists predicted for the last 60 years.

I think libs have wonderful ideas, I really do; but what they all fail to do by calculation error, or purposely misinform, is tell anyone/everyone, how to pay for it. As an aside, GW wasn't much better, lol. All they have to do is tell us how they intend to pay for it, and if it goes into the red, shut it down. Do that, and they would get a hell of a lot more passed cause if they are wrong, it is done. Of course, they won't agree to that, because once they get people addicted to their KOOLAID, they have to keep them on the plantation.

 

[Camp]

The framers took a government with no power and created a new government with many powers. The anti-federalists, the liberal liberals, refused to ratify the new Constitution unless a bill of rights was promised. The Federalists, the conservative liberals, so promised and kept their promise.
What you refer to as the collective. the Constitution refers to as "We the people" and it was we the people that created the Constitution and we the people that rule through our representatives. In this new government the individual has some rights but only as the Constitution, and now the Court, indicate. None of the rights, in the Bill of Rights are absolute and we have many- many laws and court cases indicating that.

It was Progressive Woodrow Wilson who suggested discarding the Constitution.

It was Progressive Franklin Roosevelt who did just that.

It's these kind of batshit crazy, fact free statements that make a strong case FOR progressivism.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

"....fact free statements..."

Watch me ram this post back down you throat, you imbecile:

1. "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. …
Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]


2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President 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.


"....fact free statements..."
Now you say what, you imbecile?

Thanks you dopey fool. This is a post you timed perfectly to show how dishonest your source Manly was. The acts or bills being discussed are two bills called the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 followed by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937. The first on was called the Guffy-Snyder Act. It was ruled unconstitutional. The bill dealt with price controls of bituminous coal and labor regulations. The one FDR was writing about that was written to Congressman Hill that was used by Manly and now, you as you quote him, was written in regards to a follow up called the Guffy-Vinson as an assurance to Hill that the constitutional issues had been addressed. Sure enough, the Guffy-Vinson Act was passed and approved by the SCOTUS. The new Act retained the price controls but discarded controversial labor regulations. Hence, Roosevelt had given accurate and honest advice to Congressman Hill, not as you and Manly portray as dishonest advice and lobbying to pass unconstitutional law.

Note: Sources are small print legal reviews from academic sources. The above can be found in less complicated form at Wikipedia searching for Bituminous Coal Act 1935. Navigation to other more accepted resources are found there also.

Here is the exact bill FDR was writing about to Hill, the one the court fount constitutional.

nber.org/chapters/c2882.pdf

"..."I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
In your face, dope.

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone."
The Brookshire Times from Brookshire Texas Page 2


And this:

"Nebbia v. New York,...(1934),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the state of New York could regulate (set and/or otherwise control) the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.

Justice James C. McReynolds dissented from the majority opinion. His dissent was joined by JusticeWillis Van Devanter, Justice George Sutherland, and Justice Pierce Butler. These four Justices became nicknamed the Four Horsemen for their rejection of New Deal regulation.

McReynolds.... ultimately concluded that although “regulation to prevent recognized evils in business has long been upheld as permissible legislative action…fixation of the priceat which A, engaged in an ordinary business, may sell, in order to enable B, a producer, to improve his condition,has not been regarded as within legislative power,” adding “This is not regulation, but management, control, dictation.”"
Nebbia v. New York - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....but management, control, dictation."
Recognize what he was saying?
Government dictatorship.

De rigueur for Progressives.

That was the legacy of the Roosevelt Supreme Court.

You just did a bait and switch after ignoring the refute I handed you. FDR was right in what he told Hill. The 1937 bill turned out to be constitutional. You are simply ignoring the refute and continuing to use a 1937 letter about a specific bill as if it were written in 1935 about a different bill to make your point. It is dishonest and even after being shown it is dishonest you continue. Chances of an honest debate with you are hopeless.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I think libs have wonderful ideas,

How can SS for example be a wonderful idea if it discourages people from taking care of their own lives? A nation is trememdously weakened when a lib govt tries to free people from basic responsibilities.

Do you understand?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It was Progressive Woodrow Wilson who suggested discarding the Constitution.

It was Progressive Franklin Roosevelt who did just that.

It's these kind of batshit crazy, fact free statements that make a strong case FOR progressivism.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

"....fact free statements..."

Watch me ram this post back down you throat, you imbecile:

1. "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. …
Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]


2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President 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.


"....fact free statements..."
Now you say what, you imbecile?

Thanks you dopey fool. This is a post you timed perfectly to show how dishonest your source Manly was. The acts or bills being discussed are two bills called the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 followed by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937. The first on was called the Guffy-Snyder Act. It was ruled unconstitutional. The bill dealt with price controls of bituminous coal and labor regulations. The one FDR was writing about that was written to Congressman Hill that was used by Manly and now, you as you quote him, was written in regards to a follow up called the Guffy-Vinson as an assurance to Hill that the constitutional issues had been addressed. Sure enough, the Guffy-Vinson Act was passed and approved by the SCOTUS. The new Act retained the price controls but discarded controversial labor regulations. Hence, Roosevelt had given accurate and honest advice to Congressman Hill, not as you and Manly portray as dishonest advice and lobbying to pass unconstitutional law.

Note: Sources are small print legal reviews from academic sources. The above can be found in less complicated form at Wikipedia searching for Bituminous Coal Act 1935. Navigation to other more accepted resources are found there also.

Here is the exact bill FDR was writing about to Hill, the one the court fount constitutional.

nber.org/chapters/c2882.pdf

"..."I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
In your face, dope.

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone."
The Brookshire Times from Brookshire Texas Page 2


And this:

"Nebbia v. New York,...(1934),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the state of New York could regulate (set and/or otherwise control) the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.

Justice James C. McReynolds dissented from the majority opinion. His dissent was joined by JusticeWillis Van Devanter, Justice George Sutherland, and Justice Pierce Butler. These four Justices became nicknamed the Four Horsemen for their rejection of New Deal regulation.

McReynolds.... ultimately concluded that although “regulation to prevent recognized evils in business has long been upheld as permissible legislative action…fixation of the priceat which A, engaged in an ordinary business, may sell, in order to enable B, a producer, to improve his condition,has not been regarded as within legislative power,” adding “This is not regulation, but management, control, dictation.”"
Nebbia v. New York - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....but management, control, dictation."
Recognize what he was saying?
Government dictatorship.

De rigueur for Progressives.

That was the legacy of the Roosevelt Supreme Court.

You just did a bait and switch after ignoring the refute I handed you. FDR was right in what he told Hill. The 1937 bill turned out to be constitutional. You are simply ignoring the refute and continuing to use a 1937 letter about a specific bill as if it were written in 1935 about a different bill to make your point. It is dishonest and even after being shown it is dishonest you continue. Chances of an honest debate with you are hopeless.

FDR said that unconstiutionality was nothing to be concerned about.

Keep ignoring that, you dope.