Thank you FDR

[Unkotare]

I wonder if anti-FDR posters really think they are going to change America's image of FDR? And I wonder why it is so important that they feel they must change the image?
The people that lived and voted in the FDR era believed FDR was the best, and voted for him four times in a row. The historians that have rated presidents rated FDR the best president in our history, so all the anti's have is trying to find something that connects with America today, and so far many think Trump might be that answer. When the next president leaves office after Obama, FDR will still be rated number one, top of the heap, the best.

The same old logical fallacy AGAIN. Typical leftist tactic of repeating the same shit over and over hoping it will be accepted merely for that fact.

 

[regent]

I wonder if anti-FDR posters really think they are going to change America's image of FDR? And I wonder why it is so important that they feel they must change the image?
The people that lived and voted in the FDR era believed FDR was the best, and voted for him four times in a row. The historians that have rated presidents rated FDR the best president in our history, so all the anti's have is trying to find something that connects with America today, and so far many think Trump might be that answer. When the next president leaves office after Obama, FDR will still be rated number one, top of the heap, the best.

The same old logical fallacy AGAIN. Typical leftist tactic of repeating the same shit over and over hoping it will be accepted merely for that fact.

So this must be the first time you have used the fallacy gambit, and since you don't repeat, it will probably be the last. Can't wait to see your new argument.

 

[regent]

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409

That is a nice summation of FDR's economic policies. Thanks to statist historians, many Americans are under the misconception that his economic policies got us out of the Great Depression. Of course, he did get the nation out of the Great Depression, by involving us in WWII.

Are you suggesting it took the spending of WWII to get us out of the depression and FDR simply didn't spend enough with his various programs? Keynes would be proud of you.

 

[Unkotare]

I wonder if anti-FDR posters really think they are going to change America's image of FDR? And I wonder why it is so important that they feel they must change the image?
The people that lived and voted in the FDR era believed FDR was the best, and voted for him four times in a row. The historians that have rated presidents rated FDR the best president in our history, so all the anti's have is trying to find something that connects with America today, and so far many think Trump might be that answer. When the next president leaves office after Obama, FDR will still be rated number one, top of the heap, the best.

The same old logical fallacy AGAIN. Typical leftist tactic of repeating the same shit over and over hoping it will be accepted merely for that fact.

So this must be the first time you have used the fallacy gambit,......

Not a "gambit," an accurate observation. Many people have invited you to think for yourself and you have avoided even trying to do so.

 

[Unkotare]

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409

That is a nice summation of FDR's economic policies. Thanks to statist historians, many Americans are under the misconception that his economic policies got us out of the Great Depression. Of course, he did get the nation out of the Great Depression, by involving us in WWII.

Are you suggesting it took the spending of WWII to get us out of the depression and FDR simply didn't spend enough with his various programs? Keynes would be proud of you.

It was the END of WWII and the lifting of artificial governmental controls over large sectors of the economy that finally ended the Great Depression.

 

[regent]

I wonder if anti-FDR posters really think they are going to change America's image of FDR? And I wonder why it is so important that they feel they must change the image?
The people that lived and voted in the FDR era believed FDR was the best, and voted for him four times in a row. The historians that have rated presidents rated FDR the best president in our history, so all the anti's have is trying to find something that connects with America today, and so far many think Trump might be that answer. When the next president leaves office after Obama, FDR will still be rated number one, top of the heap, the best.

The same old logical fallacy AGAIN. Typical leftist tactic of repeating the same shit over and over hoping it will be accepted merely for that fact.

So this must be the first time you have used the fallacy gambit,......

Not a "gambit," an accurate observation. Many people have invited you to think for yourself and you have avoided even trying to do so.

For those that advocate thinking for oneself, usually means thinking like they do. As for history if the historians that write our history books agree with me that is only more evidence that I'm on the right path. If thinking for oneself is preferable to an education, I think I'll pass.

 

[Unkotare]

I wonder if anti-FDR posters really think they are going to change America's image of FDR? And I wonder why it is so important that they feel they must change the image?
The people that lived and voted in the FDR era believed FDR was the best, and voted for him four times in a row. The historians that have rated presidents rated FDR the best president in our history, so all the anti's have is trying to find something that connects with America today, and so far many think Trump might be that answer. When the next president leaves office after Obama, FDR will still be rated number one, top of the heap, the best.

The same old logical fallacy AGAIN. Typical leftist tactic of repeating the same shit over and over hoping it will be accepted merely for that fact.

So this must be the first time you have used the fallacy gambit,......

Not a "gambit," an accurate observation. Many people have invited you to think for yourself and you have avoided even trying to do so.

For some: thinking for yourself, really means thinking like they do. I usually consider expert opinions and thoughts

TRY THINKING FOR YOURSELF. What the hell are you so afraid of?

 

[Unkotare]

For some: thinking for yourself, really means thinking like they do. ...

Not me. Go ahead and try it.

 

[regent]

For some: thinking for yourself, really means thinking like they do. ...

Not me. Go ahead and try it.

In your thinking for yourself endeavors have you ever thought of a topic other than FDR was scum or the internment camps were evil?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'll let others debate how good or bad he was.

However, I will say his infamous court packing scheme has to be one of the most arrogant overbearing efforts in U.S. history.

It showed a complete lack of respect for our balance of power as found in the constitution.

 

[regent]

I'll let others debate how good or bad he was.

However, I will say his infamous court packing scheme has to be one of the most arrogant overbearing efforts in U.S. history.

It showed a complete lack of respect for our balance of power as found in the constitution.

So where in the Constitution did it give the power to the Court to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional? When the Court decided they had the power was that a bigger lack of respect for the balance of power?

I'll let others debate how good or bad he was.

However, I will say his infamous court packing scheme has to be one of the most arrogant overbearing efforts in U.S. history.

It showed a complete lack of respect for our balance of power as found in the constitution.

So where in the Constitution was the Court given the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
Next question. How many times has the number of justices on the Supreme Court been changed?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'll let others debate how good or bad he was.

However, I will say his infamous court packing scheme has to be one of the most arrogant overbearing efforts in U.S. history.

It showed a complete lack of respect for our balance of power as found in the constitution.

So where in the Constitution did it give the power to the Court to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional? When the Court decided they had the power was that a bigger lack of respect for the balance of power?

I'll let others debate how good or bad he was.

However, I will say his infamous court packing scheme has to be one of the most arrogant overbearing efforts in U.S. history.

It showed a complete lack of respect for our balance of power as found in the constitution.

So where in the Constitution was the Court given the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
Next question. How many times has the number of justices on the Supreme Court been changed?

I'm sorry.

Did you think that that the first question has any bearing on my comment ?

Please rub the sleep out of your eyes.

As to your next question, who cares. It really has no bearing on the accusation that FDR purposely tried to pack the court in order to influence it's outcome.

Then, of course, you have the somewhat disputed "switch in time that saved nine".

 

[Vandalshandle]

FDR took office during the worst depression in world history. He was elected 4 times, and had WW2 all but won on his death. At the end of his presidency, America was the largest, most prosperous, indeed, the only, super power in the world.

These three sentences alone make him one of history's most successful presidents.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

FDR took office during the worst depression in world history. He was elected 4 times, and had WW2 all but won on his death. At the end of his presidency, America was the largest, most prosperous, indeed, the only, super power in the world.

These three sentences alone make him one of history's most successful presidents.

O.K.

By the same token....

Ronald Reagan took office as the economy was tanking.

He hardly campaigned in 1984 and almost totally swept his opponent.

If he could have run in 1988....No problem.

The U.S. had one of it's longest expansions following his presidency.

I guess he rates too.

Or did you want to rethink that ?

 

[regent]

I'll let others debate how good or bad he was.

However, I will say his infamous court packing scheme has to be one of the most arrogant overbearing efforts in U.S. history.

It showed a complete lack of respect for our balance of power as found in the constitution.

So where in the Constitution did it give the power to the Court to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional? When the Court decided they had the power was that a bigger lack of respect for the balance of power?

I'll let others debate how good or bad he was.

However, I will say his infamous court packing scheme has to be one of the most arrogant overbearing efforts in U.S. history.

It showed a complete lack of respect for our balance of power as found in the constitution.

So where in the Constitution was the Court given the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
Next question. How many times has the number of justices on the Supreme Court been changed?

I'm sorry.

Did you think that that the first question has any bearing on my comment ?

Please rub the sleep out of your eyes.

As to your next question, who cares. It really has no bearing on the accusation that FDR purposely tried to pack the court in order to influence it's outcome.

Then, of course, you have the somewhat disputed "switch in time that saved nine".

There was nothing illegal nor immoral in FDR asking for a new makeup of the Court, it had been changed six times before FDR asked for a seventh change. Congress did not pass the request so what was the damage to the nation? And with the stitch it was of little damage to FDR's programs.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'll let others debate how good or bad he was.

However, I will say his infamous court packing scheme has to be one of the most arrogant overbearing efforts in U.S. history.

It showed a complete lack of respect for our balance of power as found in the constitution.

So where in the Constitution did it give the power to the Court to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional? When the Court decided they had the power was that a bigger lack of respect for the balance of power?

I'll let others debate how good or bad he was.

However, I will say his infamous court packing scheme has to be one of the most arrogant overbearing efforts in U.S. history.

It showed a complete lack of respect for our balance of power as found in the constitution.

So where in the Constitution was the Court given the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
Next question. How many times has the number of justices on the Supreme Court been changed?

I'm sorry.

Did you think that that the first question has any bearing on my comment ?

Please rub the sleep out of your eyes.

As to your next question, who cares. It really has no bearing on the accusation that FDR purposely tried to pack the court in order to influence it's outcome.

Then, of course, you have the somewhat disputed "switch in time that saved nine".

There was nothing illegal nor immoral in FDR asking for a new makeup of the Court, it had been changed six times before FDR asked for a seventh change. Congress did not pass the request so what was the damage to the nation? And with the stitch it was of little damage to FDR's programs.

You bet....

As former Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed:

“ President Roosevelt lost the Court-packing battle, but he won the war for control of the Supreme Court ... not by any novel legislation, but by serving in office for more than twelve years, and appointing eight of the nine Justices of the Court. In this way the Constitution provides for ultimate responsibility of the Court to the political branches of government. [Yet] it was the United States Senate - a political body if there ever was one - who stepped in and saved the independence of the judiciary ... in Franklin Roosevelt's Court-packing plan in 1937".

Even his own party turned on him on this one.

But you keep believing that.

 

[Unkotare]

I'll let others debate how good or bad he was.

However, I will say his infamous court packing scheme has to be one of the most arrogant overbearing efforts in U.S. history.

It showed a complete lack of respect for our balance of power as found in the constitution.

So where in the Constitution did it give the power to the Court to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional? When the Court decided they had the power was that a bigger lack of respect for the balance of power?

I'll let others debate how good or bad he was.

However, I will say his infamous court packing scheme has to be one of the most arrogant overbearing efforts in U.S. history.

It showed a complete lack of respect for our balance of power as found in the constitution.

So where in the Constitution was the Court given the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
Next question. How many times has the number of justices on the Supreme Court been changed?

I'm sorry.

Did you think that that the first question has any bearing on my comment ?

Please rub the sleep out of your eyes.

As to your next question, who cares. It really has no bearing on the accusation that FDR purposely tried to pack the court in order to influence it's outcome.

Then, of course, you have the somewhat disputed "switch in time that saved nine".

There was nothing illegal nor immoral in FDR asking for a new makeup of the Court, it had been changed six times before FDR asked for a seventh change. Congress did not pass the request so what was the damage to the nation? And with the stitch it was of little damage to FDR's programs.

Only someone utterly devoid of self respect whores himself out in such a manner in order to play apologist to an enemy of the Constitution and the American people.

 

[regent]

I'll let others debate how good or bad he was.

However, I will say his infamous court packing scheme has to be one of the most arrogant overbearing efforts in U.S. history.

It showed a complete lack of respect for our balance of power as found in the constitution.

So where in the Constitution did it give the power to the Court to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional? When the Court decided they had the power was that a bigger lack of respect for the balance of power?

I'll let others debate how good or bad he was.

However, I will say his infamous court packing scheme has to be one of the most arrogant overbearing efforts in U.S. history.

It showed a complete lack of respect for our balance of power as found in the constitution.

So where in the Constitution was the Court given the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
Next question. How many times has the number of justices on the Supreme Court been changed?

I'm sorry.

Did you think that that the first question has any bearing on my comment ?

Please rub the sleep out of your eyes.

As to your next question, who cares. It really has no bearing on the accusation that FDR purposely tried to pack the court in order to influence it's outcome.

Then, of course, you have the somewhat disputed "switch in time that saved nine".

There was nothing illegal nor immoral in FDR asking for a new makeup of the Court, it had been changed six times before FDR asked for a seventh change. Congress did not pass the request so what was the damage to the nation? And with the stitch it was of little damage to FDR's programs.

You bet....

As former Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed:

“ President Roosevelt lost the Court-packing battle, but he won the war for control of the Supreme Court ... not by any novel legislation, but by serving in office for more than twelve years, and appointing eight of the nine Justices of the Court. In this way the Constitution provides for ultimate responsibility of the Court to the political branches of government. [Yet] it was the United States Senate - a political body if there ever was one - who stepped in and saved the independence of the judiciary ... in Franklin Roosevelt's Court-packing plan in 1937".

Even his own party turned on him on this one.

But you keep believing that.

But again where was the Court ever given the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'll let others debate how good or bad he was.

However, I will say his infamous court packing scheme has to be one of the most arrogant overbearing efforts in U.S. history.

It showed a complete lack of respect for our balance of power as found in the constitution.

So where in the Constitution did it give the power to the Court to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional? When the Court decided they had the power was that a bigger lack of respect for the balance of power?

I'll let others debate how good or bad he was.

However, I will say his infamous court packing scheme has to be one of the most arrogant overbearing efforts in U.S. history.

It showed a complete lack of respect for our balance of power as found in the constitution.

So where in the Constitution was the Court given the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
Next question. How many times has the number of justices on the Supreme Court been changed?

I'm sorry.

Did you think that that the first question has any bearing on my comment ?

Please rub the sleep out of your eyes.

As to your next question, who cares. It really has no bearing on the accusation that FDR purposely tried to pack the court in order to influence it's outcome.

Then, of course, you have the somewhat disputed "switch in time that saved nine".

There was nothing illegal nor immoral in FDR asking for a new makeup of the Court, it had been changed six times before FDR asked for a seventh change. Congress did not pass the request so what was the damage to the nation? And with the stitch it was of little damage to FDR's programs.

You bet....

As former Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed:

“ President Roosevelt lost the Court-packing battle, but he won the war for control of the Supreme Court ... not by any novel legislation, but by serving in office for more than twelve years, and appointing eight of the nine Justices of the Court. In this way the Constitution provides for ultimate responsibility of the Court to the political branches of government. [Yet] it was the United States Senate - a political body if there ever was one - who stepped in and saved the independence of the judiciary ... in Franklin Roosevelt's Court-packing plan in 1937".

Even his own party turned on him on this one.

But you keep believing that.

But again where was the Court ever given the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?

Why would I answer that ?

It has no bearing on my claims.

Obviously Roosevelt had an answer...he was pissed at the court for blocking his New Deal legislation.

You want to argue Marbury v. Madison...start another thread. I'd be happy to join in.

 

[regent]

So where in the Constitution did it give the power to the Court to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional? When the Court decided they had the power was that a bigger lack of respect for the balance of power?
So where in the Constitution was the Court given the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
Next question. How many times has the number of justices on the Supreme Court been changed?

I'm sorry.

Did you think that that the first question has any bearing on my comment ?

Please rub the sleep out of your eyes.

As to your next question, who cares. It really has no bearing on the accusation that FDR purposely tried to pack the court in order to influence it's outcome.

Then, of course, you have the somewhat disputed "switch in time that saved nine".

There was nothing illegal nor immoral in FDR asking for a new makeup of the Court, it had been changed six times before FDR asked for a seventh change. Congress did not pass the request so what was the damage to the nation? And with the stitch it was of little damage to FDR's programs.

You bet....

As former Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed:

“ President Roosevelt lost the Court-packing battle, but he won the war for control of the Supreme Court ... not by any novel legislation, but by serving in office for more than twelve years, and appointing eight of the nine Justices of the Court. In this way the Constitution provides for ultimate responsibility of the Court to the political branches of government. [Yet] it was the United States Senate - a political body if there ever was one - who stepped in and saved the independence of the judiciary ... in Franklin Roosevelt's Court-packing plan in 1937".

Even his own party turned on him on this one.

But you keep believing that.

But again where was the Court ever given the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?

Why would I answer that ?

It has no bearing on my claims.

Obviously Roosevelt had an answer...he was pissed at the court for blocking his New Deal legislation.

You want to argue Marbury v. Madison...start another thread. I'd be happy to join in.

If the Court had no Constitutional power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, FDR would not have been trying to pack the Supreme Court. It's a package thing,