The Greatest President in 100 Years

[Toronado3800]

I'm sure that was tongue-in-cheek, Wicked....

...but here is my major gripe with King Franklin the First:

He made all sorts if changes to the Constitution, but didn't have the courage to use the amendment process.

I can more or less agree with your last statement! FDR may have saved America but did it a little shady like.

Heck, I say he created our America but still your point is valid the Cobstitution needs Ammendments more often. (like with the healthcare bill!)

No.

My prediction all along was that the Court would find it constitutional.

Your point?

Oh, I am NOT the legal expert but I think as good an idea as compulsive health insurance is, it is unconstitutional and the court got it wrong. Thankfully? Like I think it was you said, folks are too chicken sometimes to ammend the Constitution.

To go back to Reagan, I remember being younger and thinking "can a President just do that?" after our shelling and bombing sprees and the invasion of Grenada then the Bush 1 invasion of Panama. So if them guys who can somehow declare war are our Constitutional Conservatives......they better find another platform to run on.

FWIW as I get older I see more of the New Deal influence in Reagan and find him more complex. Communist hater. Big deficit spender to pump the economy. Militarily crazy but perhaps like Truman just to scare the Russians. Bank Bailouter. Union Buster but imposed the auto import tariff.

Weird complex man. Reagan lovers interest me also. Seems they love the mystique while being against half the things the man did as President. Obama deficit - BAD even though it gets smaller every year. Reagan deficit good - even though his yearly trend was terrible. This too big to fail / bailout - bad. Reagan bailing out S&Ls - good. Odd man that Reagan with power over folk's minds.

 

[Locke11_21]

Last 100 years

1. FDR
2. Ike
3. Wilson
4. Truman
5. Obama
6. Reagan

Wilson is the asshole who put us under Banker Control. Is that why you listed him?

Teddy Roosevelt is the America-hating asshole who gave us Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt ran as a 3rd party candidate with the Progressive Bull Moose party which cost Howard Taft the presidency. Remember, it was also Teddy Roosevelt who said "to hell with the Constitution". Roosevelt was the first treasonist America-hating president.

 

[Meathead]

Wilson would have been a great president, but he ultimately failed. Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were great and will always be so because they succeeded and their accomplishments are the stuff of legend. The jury is still out on Obama, but unless he gets a tailwind of great success, he will be among the worst two-term presidents.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"If I should claim any man as my master, that man would be Burke"
Woodrow Wilson

Wilson was both a racist and a fascist.

Wilson's quote means nothing, dolt.

When do you grow up an recognize that reality is defined by actions, not by words?

Ever?


Can you deny any of the statements about Wilson?
Any?


None?

Now, think about what that means.

Pure right wing propaganda. The world according to the Koch Brother's propaganda ministry; funded by all the major polluters on the planet.

PC, you are the embodiment of active ignorance.

You wouldn't know Burke if it hit you in the face. There is nothing about your agenda that resembles Burke. It is so far to the right that Mussolini and Hitler would be embarrassed.

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

And as far as your icon Ronbo Reagan, it took every President who preceded him combined to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt. It took Reagan only five years to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.

Reagan was the embodiment of the 'welfare queen' he chided. Reagan was the most fiscally irresponsible president in our history. Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.

Ironic you quote Murray Rothbard...

The Myths of Reaganomics

Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard

I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.

How well has Reaganomics achieved its own goals? Perhaps the best way of discovering those goals is to recall the heady days of Ronald Reagan's first campaign for the presidency, especially before his triumph at the Republican National Convention in 1980. In general terms, Reagan pledged to return, or advance, to a free market and to "get government off our backs."

Specifically, Reagan called for a massive cut in government spending, an even more drastic cut in taxation (particularly the income tax), a balanced budget by 1984 (that wild-spender, Jimmy Carter you see, had raised the budget deficit to $74 billion a year, and this had to be eliminated), and a return to the gold standard, where money is supplied by the market rather than by government. In addition to a call for free markets domestically, Reagan affirmed his deep commitment to freedom of international trade. Not only did the upper echelons of the administration sport Adam Smith ties, in honor of that moderate free-trader, but Reagan himself affirmed the depth of the influence upon him of the mid-19th century laissez-faire economist, Frederic Bastiat, whose devastating and satiric attacks on protectionism have been anthologized in economics readings ever since.

The gold standard was the easiest pledge to dispose of. President Reagan appointed an allegedly impartial gold commission to study the problem—a commission overwhelmingly packed with lifelong opponents of gold. The commission presented its predictable report, and gold was quickly interred.

Let's run down the other important areas:

Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.

Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.

Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.

Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.

This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.

One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Woodrow Wilson:
a. Had the world’s first modern propaganda ministry

b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.

c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous ‘poison’ into the American bloodstream

d. Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government

e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war

f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues

g. Nearly a quarter million ‘goons’ were given legal authority to beat and intimidate ‘slackers’ and dissenters

h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.




No, none of the above is untrue.


You, being educate, would be an example of untrue.

 

[rightwinger]

Wilson was both a racist and a fascist.

Wilson's quote means nothing, dolt.

When do you grow up an recognize that reality is defined by actions, not by words?

Ever?


Can you deny any of the statements about Wilson?
Any?


None?

Now, think about what that means.

Pure right wing propaganda. The world according to the Koch Brother's propaganda ministry; funded by all the major polluters on the planet.

PC, you are the embodiment of active ignorance.

You wouldn't know Burke if it hit you in the face. There is nothing about your agenda that resembles Burke. It is so far to the right that Mussolini and Hitler would be embarrassed.

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

And as far as your icon Ronbo Reagan, it took every President who preceded him combined to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt. It took Reagan only five years to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.

Reagan was the embodiment of the 'welfare queen' he chided. Reagan was the most fiscally irresponsible president in our history. Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.

Ironic you quote Murray Rothbard...

The Myths of Reaganomics

Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard

I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.

How well has Reaganomics achieved its own goals? Perhaps the best way of discovering those goals is to recall the heady days of Ronald Reagan's first campaign for the presidency, especially before his triumph at the Republican National Convention in 1980. In general terms, Reagan pledged to return, or advance, to a free market and to "get government off our backs."

Specifically, Reagan called for a massive cut in government spending, an even more drastic cut in taxation (particularly the income tax), a balanced budget by 1984 (that wild-spender, Jimmy Carter you see, had raised the budget deficit to $74 billion a year, and this had to be eliminated), and a return to the gold standard, where money is supplied by the market rather than by government. In addition to a call for free markets domestically, Reagan affirmed his deep commitment to freedom of international trade. Not only did the upper echelons of the administration sport Adam Smith ties, in honor of that moderate free-trader, but Reagan himself affirmed the depth of the influence upon him of the mid-19th century laissez-faire economist, Frederic Bastiat, whose devastating and satiric attacks on protectionism have been anthologized in economics readings ever since.

The gold standard was the easiest pledge to dispose of. President Reagan appointed an allegedly impartial gold commission to study the problem—a commission overwhelmingly packed with lifelong opponents of gold. The commission presented its predictable report, and gold was quickly interred.

Let's run down the other important areas:

Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.

Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.

Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.

Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.

This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.

One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Woodrow Wilson:
a. Had the world’s first modern propaganda ministry

b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.

c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous ‘poison’ into the American bloodstream

d. Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government

e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war

f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues

g. Nearly a quarter million ‘goons’ were given legal authority to beat and intimidate ‘slackers’ and dissenters

h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.




No, none of the above is untrue.


You, being educate, would be an example of untrue.

Wow, heady stuff

Do you mean that in WWI we actually engaged in propaganda? Perish the thought

 

[NoNukes]

Treason is noble compared to what your side stands for.

Your posts are becoming more and more outlandish.

I'm beginning to fear for your health.

Or....you may not understand the term 'treason.'

Let me help:

trea·son
/ˈtrēzən/
Noun
The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
The action of betraying someone or something.
Synonyms
treachery - betrayal - perfidy - disloyalty - sellout

I stand sanely by what I said.

The treasonous Americans that I see are actually on the right.

 

[NoNukes]

More cut & paste from USMB's resident non-thinker.

Cut-N-Run Reagan was a RINO. By today's standards, McCain and Mittens are both more conservative.

Well....as you must be the 'great thinker,' could you find any errors in the post to which you ostensibly are responding?


If you cannot....the conclusion of the OP is overwhelming.

You're on.......Let's see what you've got.

Wow....it was that easy to expose the 'great thinker.'

He ran away and hid.


My, oh, my....frightened away! What a delicate child you are, Synthy....

….you must wash in Woolite.

He probably fell asleep reading one of your posts.

 

[NoNukes]

Quote: Originally Posted by rightwinger
Last 100 years

1. FDR
2. Ike
3. Wilson
4. Truman
5. Obama
6. Reagan

I would rate both Nixon and Clinton higher than Reagan.

 

[Votto]

Grover Cleveland.

More than 100 years ago, dumbass.

In other words, who was the greatest progressive president of all time. After all, it was a century dominated exlusively by progressives.

As for Reagan, conservatives view him as their only representative. However, as has been said, he enlarged government, and did not limit it. He increased the debt, and did not reduce it.

I guess it beats coming to the realization that as a conservative, you have no representation in government and never will have.

As for Wilson, he by far had the greatest accomplishments of the progressive movement. After all, he enabled the system to exist via the federal income tax in order to feed the beast. Then he created the Fed to centrally control the economy. Progressives claim that it was created to promote stalization, but fail to mention that shortly after their creation the Great Depression hit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pure right wing propaganda. The world according to the Koch Brother's propaganda ministry; funded by all the major polluters on the planet.

PC, you are the embodiment of active ignorance.

You wouldn't know Burke if it hit you in the face. There is nothing about your agenda that resembles Burke. It is so far to the right that Mussolini and Hitler would be embarrassed.

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

And as far as your icon Ronbo Reagan, it took every President who preceded him combined to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt. It took Reagan only five years to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.

Reagan was the embodiment of the 'welfare queen' he chided. Reagan was the most fiscally irresponsible president in our history. Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.

Ironic you quote Murray Rothbard...

The Myths of Reaganomics

Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard

I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.

How well has Reaganomics achieved its own goals? Perhaps the best way of discovering those goals is to recall the heady days of Ronald Reagan's first campaign for the presidency, especially before his triumph at the Republican National Convention in 1980. In general terms, Reagan pledged to return, or advance, to a free market and to "get government off our backs."

Specifically, Reagan called for a massive cut in government spending, an even more drastic cut in taxation (particularly the income tax), a balanced budget by 1984 (that wild-spender, Jimmy Carter you see, had raised the budget deficit to $74 billion a year, and this had to be eliminated), and a return to the gold standard, where money is supplied by the market rather than by government. In addition to a call for free markets domestically, Reagan affirmed his deep commitment to freedom of international trade. Not only did the upper echelons of the administration sport Adam Smith ties, in honor of that moderate free-trader, but Reagan himself affirmed the depth of the influence upon him of the mid-19th century laissez-faire economist, Frederic Bastiat, whose devastating and satiric attacks on protectionism have been anthologized in economics readings ever since.

The gold standard was the easiest pledge to dispose of. President Reagan appointed an allegedly impartial gold commission to study the problem—a commission overwhelmingly packed with lifelong opponents of gold. The commission presented its predictable report, and gold was quickly interred.

Let's run down the other important areas:

Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.

Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.

Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.

Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.

This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.

One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Woodrow Wilson:
a. Had the world’s first modern propaganda ministry

b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.

c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous ‘poison’ into the American bloodstream

d. Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government

e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war

f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues

g. Nearly a quarter million ‘goons’ were given legal authority to beat and intimidate ‘slackers’ and dissenters

h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.




No, none of the above is untrue.


You, being educate, would be an example of untrue.

Wow, heady stuff

Do you mean that in WWI we actually engaged in propaganda? Perish the thought

Let's counter the vacuous stuff that you usually post with actual information...and, as you have attempted to shield Wilson, it will indicate your fascist leaning....


1. The Wilson Propaganda Ministry

a. George Creel was named to head the Committee on Public Information, the CPI. How liberal was he: “served as police commissioner in Denver, depriving policemen of guns and nightsticks”(JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie) Fear was a vital tool, “an important element to be bred into the civilian population.” (Goldberg, “Liberal Fascism,” p.109) He recruited about 75,000 "Four Minute Men," who spoke about the War at social events for an ideal length of four minutes, considering that the average human attention span was judged at the time to be four minutes.( George Creel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

b. The official position of the US government's Committee on Public Information was: "The force of an idea lies in its inspirational value. It matters very little if it is true or false." JTM | Full text | Comments on the nonpharmaceutical interventions in New York City and Chicago during the 1918 influenza pandemic
BTW....the same idea came from Georges Sorel, ideological father of the Left.

c. Wilson’s Sedition Act, May 1918 banned “uttering, printing, writing, or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States government of the military.

d. The postmaster general had authority to deny mailing privileges to any publication: at least 75 were banned. The supply of newsprint was halted by the War Industries Board of any journal that disparaged the draft.

e. The censorship of “The Masses” was prosecuted under the Espionage Act of June 1917, because it carried a cartoon proclaiming that it was a war to “make the world safe for capitalism,” and editorials praising draft resistors. Six editors’ trial resulted in hung juries.

f. He proclaimed that the greatest threat came from ‘hyphenated’ Americans: “I cannot say too often- any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready.” CONGRESS CHEERS AS WILSON URGES CURB ON PLOTTERS - Wild Applause Greets the President's Denunciation of Disloyal Citizens. ACCLAIM DEFENSE PLANS Members of Both Parties Express Approval of His Sentiments on Preparedness. UPHOLDS PAN-AMERICANISM Warns

g. “The Nation, on April 17, 1920, recounted how a clothing salesman received six months in jail for saying that Vladimir Lenin was smart.” "The Most Brainiest Man?" The Red Scare and Free Speech in Connecticut

Because the Oklahoma Council of Defense was an extralegal organization, numerous incidents of extreme measures occurred to eliminate dissent. Men were beaten with leather straps and tarred and feathered. OKLAHOMA COUNCIL OF DEFENSE



Here....let me help you: claim it was too long so you didn't read it....

That help?

 

[rightwinger]

Woodrow Wilson:
a. Had the world’s first modern propaganda ministry

b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.

c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous ‘poison’ into the American bloodstream

d. Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government

e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war

f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues

g. Nearly a quarter million ‘goons’ were given legal authority to beat and intimidate ‘slackers’ and dissenters

h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.




No, none of the above is untrue.


You, being educate, would be an example of untrue.

Wow, heady stuff

Do you mean that in WWI we actually engaged in propaganda? Perish the thought

Let's counter the vacuous stuff that you usually post with actual information...and, as you have attempted to shield Wilson, it will indicate your fascist leaning....


1. The Wilson Propaganda Ministry

a. George Creel was named to head the Committee on Public Information, the CPI. How liberal was he: “served as police commissioner in Denver, depriving policemen of guns and nightsticks”(JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie) Fear was a vital tool, “an important element to be bred into the civilian population.” (Goldberg, “Liberal Fascism,” p.109) He recruited about 75,000 "Four Minute Men," who spoke about the War at social events for an ideal length of four minutes, considering that the average human attention span was judged at the time to be four minutes.( George Creel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

b. The official position of the US government's Committee on Public Information was: "The force of an idea lies in its inspirational value. It matters very little if it is true or false." JTM | Full text | Comments on the nonpharmaceutical interventions in New York City and Chicago during the 1918 influenza pandemic
BTW....the same idea came from Georges Sorel, ideological father of the Left.

c. Wilson’s Sedition Act, May 1918 banned “uttering, printing, writing, or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States government of the military.

d. The postmaster general had authority to deny mailing privileges to any publication: at least 75 were banned. The supply of newsprint was halted by the War Industries Board of any journal that disparaged the draft.

e. The censorship of “The Masses” was prosecuted under the Espionage Act of June 1917, because it carried a cartoon proclaiming that it was a war to “make the world safe for capitalism,” and editorials praising draft resistors. Six editors’ trial resulted in hung juries.

f. He proclaimed that the greatest threat came from ‘hyphenated’ Americans: “I cannot say too often- any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready.” CONGRESS CHEERS AS WILSON URGES CURB ON PLOTTERS - Wild Applause Greets the President's Denunciation of Disloyal Citizens. ACCLAIM DEFENSE PLANS Members of Both Parties Express Approval of His Sentiments on Preparedness. UPHOLDS PAN-AMERICANISM Warns

g. “The Nation, on April 17, 1920, recounted how a clothing salesman received six months in jail for saying that Vladimir Lenin was smart.” "The Most Brainiest Man?" The Red Scare and Free Speech in Connecticut

Because the Oklahoma Council of Defense was an extralegal organization, numerous incidents of extreme measures occurred to eliminate dissent. Men were beaten with leather straps and tarred and feathered. OKLAHOMA COUNCIL OF DEFENSE



Here....let me help you: claim it was too long so you didn't read it....

That help?

Yea....shit like this tends to happen in times of war

How do you think we ended up with that stinker "Patriot Act" ???

 

[Synthaholic]

Well....as you must be the 'great thinker,' could you find any errors in the post to which you ostensibly are responding?


If you cannot....the conclusion of the OP is overwhelming.

You're on.......Let's see what you've got.

Wow....it was that easy to expose the 'great thinker.'

He ran away and hid.


My, oh, my....frightened away! What a delicate child you are, Synthy....

….you must wash in Woolite.

He probably fell asleep reading one of your posts.

No, I replied to her - she, in her typical dishonesty, ignored it and then claims I've run away.

This is what she does, unfortunately.

 

[NoNukes]

Wow....it was that easy to expose the 'great thinker.'

He ran away and hid.


My, oh, my....frightened away! What a delicate child you are, Synthy....

….you must wash in Woolite.

He probably fell asleep reading one of your posts.

No, I replied to her - she, in her typical dishonesty, ignored it and then claims I've run away.

This is what she does, unfortunately.

Could you put that in separate numbered sentences please?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL, look at those who thanked you for this thread, must make you so proud.

So, your opinion is yours, and I'm sure your not alone notwithstanding the many surveys wherein the top five have always included FDR, TR and your favorite WW (of the last 100 years, of course.)

That aside, one of the great achievments of our remote and unkown ancestors was mesurement. Now measurement is only a form of description, but its advantage is it allows us to provide quantative descriptions in place of qualitive ones, as you have done.

Would you elaborate on the entire record of President Reagan which makes him the greatest of the last 100 years? Compare and contrast him to TR and FDR and make an argument that Reagan made history and not revised history made the legend of RR.

Reagan freed the Eastern Europeans from the horrific oppression of Soviet Communism, the very same countries FDR turned over control to one of history's 2 greatest mass murderers "Uncle" Joe Stalin

And if FDR's awful economic performance makes him "great", Reagan's economic performance makes him a God

What are you talking about Frank? They were both deficit spenders to pump the economy... If you voted for Reagan Bush and Bush it makes sense that you like deficit spending big government.

I know this is hard maybe impossible for you to understand because Democrats look to big government and Progressive leaders like Rihanna looks to Chris Brown but I despise the Bushes. I suspect that HW was personally involved in the Reagan assassination and his son fucked Conservatives far worse than any Liberal coyld hsve

 

[Synthaholic]

My list, based on accomplishments as POTUS:

1. FDR
2. Johnson
3. Truman
4. Wilson
5. Nixon
6. Obama
7. Kennedy
8. Clinton
9. Eisenhower
10. Coolidge
11. George H.W. Bush
12. Reagan
13. Carter
14. Taft
15. Ford
16. Hoover
17. George W. Bush
18. Harding

Teddy Roosevelt was more than 100 years ago.

 

[Synthaholic]

Reagan freed the Eastern Europeans from the horrific oppression of Soviet Communism, the very same countries FDR turned over control to one of history's 2 greatest mass murderers "Uncle" Joe Stalin

And if FDR's awful economic performance makes him "great", Reagan's economic performance makes him a God

What are you talking about Frank? They were both deficit spenders to pump the economy... If you voted for Reagan Bush and Bush it makes sense that you like deficit spending big government.

I know this is hard maybe impossible for you to understand because Democrats look to big government and Progressive leaders like Rihanna looks to Chris Brown but I despise the Bushes. I suspect that HW was personally involved in the Reagan assassination and his son fucked Conservatives far worse than any Liberal coyld hsve

Wow.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh Frank, June 1945. Do you send Patton east?

Be proud and answer. If I was President in 1870 I don't know if I would have stopped manifest destiny from destroying the natives.

In June of 45 I would have been militarily leery of a war with Russia. You? What eould you have done?

A few things actually before heading east. First reconstitute all German units and integrate them with US units. Provide air cover for industries producing tanks and guns and ammo, put engineers on the task of coordinating German munitions on US units, image the Sherman Easy 8 with the 88L71 gun. Set up factories to produce massive amounts of rocket and cannon ammo for the Army air force because the proper name for Soviet tanks tank destroyers and artillery without air cover is "target practice"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

FDR: handed million of slaves and victims to Stalin, dragged the US economy down for 7 fucking years so he could experiment with a centrally planned economy.

Where the greatness?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What are you talking about Frank? They were both deficit spenders to pump the economy... If you voted for Reagan Bush and Bush it makes sense that you like deficit spending big government.

I know this is hard maybe impossible for you to understand because Democrats look to big government and Progressive leaders like Rihanna looks to Chris Brown but I despise the Bushes. I suspect that HW was personally involved in the Reagan assassination and his son fucked Conservatives far worse than any Liberal coyld hsve

Wow.

It's like LBJ whacking JFK and MLK, it's there, you just need to think about it

Oh, right, I see why you'd have a problem with that

 

[PoliticalChic]

FDR: handed million of slaves and victims to Stalin, dragged the US economy down for 7 fucking years so he could experiment with a centrally planned economy.

Where the greatness?

"But the exposure to investors that Morgenthau was getting through the gold purchase project of 1933 was already teaching him something. Investors didn't like the arbitrariness. It took away their confidence. One day Morgenthau asked FDR why the president had chosen to drive up the price of gold by 21 cents. The president cavalierly said he'd done that because 21 was seven times three, and three was a lucky number. "If anyone ever knew how we really set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers etc., I think they would be frightened," Morgenthau wrote in his diary. And they were: In the second half of 1933 a powerful stock rally flattened."
FDR, Obama and 'Confidence' - Council on Foreign Relations

"The president cavalierly..."
As he did with so very many things......