What If....Roosevelt Was Pro-America?

[Camp]

'Dictatorship' on his wishlist?

You betcha'!

6. And FDR yearned to lord it over the businessmen of America, whose success he was never able to emulate......or even approach.


Franklin Roosevelt came from a very wealthy family, so one may puzzle at the vituperation he leveled at similar folks. Perhaps that very background is the reason, as he never learned how business worked, or how to earn money.

His mother Sara reported: "Money was never discussed at home....All his books and toys were provided for him. We never subjected the boy to a lot of don'ts."
"BEFORE THE TRUMPET: Young Franklin Roosevelt, 1882-1905," by Geoffrey C. Ward, p.125-126


a. Then again...how could they teach him about finance, after all, his father, James, inherited his fortune...and almost lost it by way of poor investments. His mother's father, Warren Delano, made his money selling opium illegally to Chinese addicts. When he retired to legitimate business, he didn't do much better than Franklin's father. Delano went back to the Opium trade, which is why Sara spent early years in China.
Ward, Op. Cit., p. 71.



Medial summary?

Franklin Roosevelt had a visceral hatred of capitalism and successful capitalists.
On the obverse, a fondness, and acceptance of the acts....no matter how homicidal.....of dictators.


Next.....how the above resulted in his foreign policy.

Your knowledge and understanding of FDR is beyond shallow. Roosevelt did not hate or even object to capitalism. He objected to welfare and special privileges given to the upper classes, which he was born into. The point of the NEW DEAL was that specific areas of the wealth in an economy should and could be shared with the masses and that simply being born into wealth was not an excuse for obscene manipulation of the economy to allow the undeserving to live those lives of obscene lives luxury at the cost of shoeless starving children and the masses living in poverty. FDR believed the wealthy should earn their money without the use of government support and resources and believed the nation's wealth could be shared at the same time deserving business owners and industry could profit.

You're not just a fool....you're a lying fool.

1. Franklin Roosevelt had a visceral animosity toward businessmen, entrepreneurs, successful capitalists. And he had a way with words, in describing them. "unscrupulousmoney changers..." the greed and shortsightedness of bankers and businessmen," "..rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence" "we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit." "there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing."

Wow! What the heck was that about? He was besmirching his fellow Americans, many of whom were responsible for the progress of society.


Then he had to suck up to them....

2. On May 26, 1940 his Fireside Chat signaled a new relationship with business: he would insure their profits, and assuage their fears that he would nationalize their factories.

a. “…we are calling upon the resources, the efficiency and the ingenuity of the American manufacturers of war material of all kinds -- airplanes and tanks and guns and ships, and all the hundreds of products that go into this material. The Government of the United States itself manufactures few of the implements of war. Private industry will continue to be the source of most of this material, and private industry will have to be speeded up to produce it at the rate and efficiency called for by the needs of the times….Private industry will have the responsibility of providing the best, speediest and most efficient mass production of which it is capable.” On National Defense - May 26, 1940


And all the while.....throwing kisses to Joseph Stalin.



Time for you to admit that I know the subject inside and out....
...and you, simply full of unrequited love for FDR, and hot air.

FDR was not sucking up to American industry, he was giving them their marching orders.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Had Hoover not screwed up so bad, FDR would have never been elected, but.....

So bad? FDR's screw-ups were way worse. America fell for propaganda much like today.

 

[Camp]

What was the actual cost of allowing the war to go on for several years more than necessary?

"....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day[June 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich?

You have tried to promote this nonsense in numerous threads and been rebuked every time. It's a bullshit concept that has no merit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

'Dictatorship' on his wishlist?

You betcha'!

6. And FDR yearned to lord it over the businessmen of America, whose success he was never able to emulate......or even approach.


Franklin Roosevelt came from a very wealthy family, so one may puzzle at the vituperation he leveled at similar folks. Perhaps that very background is the reason, as he never learned how business worked, or how to earn money.

His mother Sara reported: "Money was never discussed at home....All his books and toys were provided for him. We never subjected the boy to a lot of don'ts."
"BEFORE THE TRUMPET: Young Franklin Roosevelt, 1882-1905," by Geoffrey C. Ward, p.125-126


a. Then again...how could they teach him about finance, after all, his father, James, inherited his fortune...and almost lost it by way of poor investments. His mother's father, Warren Delano, made his money selling opium illegally to Chinese addicts. When he retired to legitimate business, he didn't do much better than Franklin's father. Delano went back to the Opium trade, which is why Sara spent early years in China.
Ward, Op. Cit., p. 71.



Medial summary?

Franklin Roosevelt had a visceral hatred of capitalism and successful capitalists.
On the obverse, a fondness, and acceptance of the acts....no matter how homicidal.....of dictators.


Next.....how the above resulted in his foreign policy.

Your knowledge and understanding of FDR is beyond shallow. Roosevelt did not hate or even object to capitalism. He objected to welfare and special privileges given to the upper classes, which he was born into. The point of the NEW DEAL was that specific areas of the wealth in an economy should and could be shared with the masses and that simply being born into wealth was not an excuse for obscene manipulation of the economy to allow the undeserving to live those lives of obscene lives luxury at the cost of shoeless starving children and the masses living in poverty. FDR believed the wealthy should earn their money without the use of government support and resources and believed the nation's wealth could be shared at the same time deserving business owners and industry could profit.

You're not just a fool....you're a lying fool.

1. Franklin Roosevelt had a visceral animosity toward businessmen, entrepreneurs, successful capitalists. And he had a way with words, in describing them. "unscrupulousmoney changers..." the greed and shortsightedness of bankers and businessmen," "..rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence" "we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit." "there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing."

Wow! What the heck was that about? He was besmirching his fellow Americans, many of whom were responsible for the progress of society.
.

That was about putting the nation's welfare and social values before profiteering. He was telling the industrialist that values were more important than monetary profit sometimes, but especially when the nation was in crisis.

"that was about putting the nation's welfare and social values before profiteering"

Ohhhhh,,,,,,so, that's why he allowed some 200,000 American soldiers to die in the service of Soviet Communism?????


You're so dense that light bends around you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What was the actual cost of allowing the war to go on for several years more than necessary?

"....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day[June 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich?

You have tried to promote this nonsense in numerous threads and been rebuked every time. It's a bullshit concept that has no merit.

Everything I post is true and accurate.....it is linked, sourced and documented.


Everything.

 

[Camp]

What was the actual cost of allowing the war to go on for several years more than necessary?

"....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day[June 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich?

You have tried to promote this nonsense in numerous threads and been rebuked every time. It's a bullshit concept that has no merit.

Everything I post is true and accurate.....it is linked, sourced and documented.


Everything.

No, it isn't. I have challenged at least three points in your OP and your response has been to evade addressing them and changing the subject. Your so called facts are distortions. You use sources that are subjective and unproven in addition to simple distortion. Just because some political hack from the Mise Institute says something doesn't make it a fact. And you are still using Manly as a source. That is a source you have been challenged to explain a dozen times and never even attempted to answer. That is because you know he was a pen name for a notorious right wing newspaper magnate whose views were so outrageous and not credible that he refrained from using his own name.

 

[regent]

Chic, every time you do your thing against FDR, I ask you to send your evidence to the historians that have rated FDR one of the three greatest presidents since they began rating in 1948. It is obvious that you haven't sent your evidence as yet, as I was expecting the 238 noted historians to apologize for overlooking all your charges. I'll ask one more time please send all that material you have on FDR so the historians can change their ratings. In fact, the last rating the historians voted FDR, "America's best president."
Calling the historians communists doesn't quite do it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What was the actual cost of allowing the war to go on for several years more than necessary?

"....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day[June 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich?

You have tried to promote this nonsense in numerous threads and been rebuked every time. It's a bullshit concept that has no merit.

Everything I post is true and accurate.....it is linked, sourced and documented.


Everything.

No, it isn't. I have challenged at least three points in your OP and your response has been to evade addressing them and changing the subject. Your so called facts are distortions. You use sources that are subjective and unproven in addition to simple distortion. Just because some political hack from the Mise Institute says something doesn't make it a fact. And you are still using Manly as a source. That is a source you have been challenged to explain a dozen times and never even attempted to answer. That is because you know he was a pen name for a notorious right wing newspaper magnate whose views were so outrageous and not credible that he refrained from using his own name.

Claiming you don't agree with the author is hardly denying the facts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Chic, every time you do your thing against FDR, I ask you to send your evidence to the historians that have rated FDR one of the three greatest presidents since they began rating in 1948. It is obvious that you haven't sent your evidence as yet, as I was expecting the 238 noted historians to apologize for overlooking all your charges. I'll ask one more time please send all that material you have on FDR so the historians can change their ratings. In fact, the last rating the historians voted FDR, "America's best president."
Calling the historians communists doesn't quite do it.

"Chic, every time you do your thing against FDR, I ask you to send your evidence to the historians..."

That's because you're a fool.

It hardly amounts to denying the facts.

I fully understand your attempt at being clever.....your indoctrination is indelible.

 

[Camp]

What was the actual cost of allowing the war to go on for several years more than necessary?

"....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day[June 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich?

You have tried to promote this nonsense in numerous threads and been rebuked every time. It's a bullshit concept that has no merit.

Everything I post is true and accurate.....it is linked, sourced and documented.


Everything.

No, it isn't. I have challenged at least three points in your OP and your response has been to evade addressing them and changing the subject. Your so called facts are distortions. You use sources that are subjective and unproven in addition to simple distortion. Just because some political hack from the Mise Institute says something doesn't make it a fact. And you are still using Manly as a source. That is a source you have been challenged to explain a dozen times and never even attempted to answer. That is because you know he was a pen name for a notorious right wing newspaper magnate whose views were so outrageous and not credible that he refrained from using his own name.

Claiming you don't agree with the author is hardly denying the facts.

I am disagreeing because the sources you use are not reliable or accepted by historians and academics. What you call facts are speculations and opinions, not facts. When I give specifics about why your sources are dubious you ignore my specifics and evade defending them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What was the actual cost of allowing the war to go on for several years more than necessary?

"....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day[June 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich?

You have tried to promote this nonsense in numerous threads and been rebuked every time. It's a bullshit concept that has no merit.

Everything I post is true and accurate.....it is linked, sourced and documented.


Everything.

No, it isn't. I have challenged at least three points in your OP and your response has been to evade addressing them and changing the subject. Your so called facts are distortions. You use sources that are subjective and unproven in addition to simple distortion. Just because some political hack from the Mise Institute says something doesn't make it a fact. And you are still using Manly as a source. That is a source you have been challenged to explain a dozen times and never even attempted to answer. That is because you know he was a pen name for a notorious right wing newspaper magnate whose views were so outrageous and not credible that he refrained from using his own name.

Claiming you don't agree with the author is hardly denying the facts.

I am disagreeing because the sources you use are not reliable or accepted by historians and academics. What you call facts are speculations and opinions, not facts. When I give specifics about why your sources are dubious you ignore my specifics and evade defending them.

I wonder if you'd care to explain why Franklin Roosevelt demanded that the Democrat Party put a communists on as his vice-president, or he would refuse to run for a second term?





Waiting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. What if Roosevelt had endorsed America's aims and goals over those of Stalin's?
What if he stood for individualism, free markets, and the United States Constitution???



"Or, what if six months later, Canaris, Hitler’s secret opponent, had been encouraged to produce the defection of the German army and negotiate its surrender to the Allies?

What if one of the subsequent, serious attempts that other opponents of Hitler made through various Anglo-American emissaries in 1942, 1943, and 1944 had been able to overthrow the Führer, close down the concentration camps, abort the Final Solution, thwart Soviet conquests in Europe and Asia, call off every battle from Monte Cassino to D-day to the Warsaw Uprising to the Battle of the Bulge, avoid the destruction of city centers from Hamburg to Dresden, and save the lives of millions and millions and millions of people in between?


ut there it is: World War II could have ended years earlier had Communists working for Moscow not dominated Washington, quashing every anti-Nazi, anti-Communist attempt, beginning in late 1942, throughout 1943 and 1944, to make common cause with Anglo-American representatives…." Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 298





9. "The best that can be said is that FDR’s outlook was blinkered by his commitment to Germany’s unconditional surrender, and that his views about the long run were (a) unduly optimistic, (b) insouciant, or (c) actively pro-Soviet. Given the degree of influence wielded by Harry Hopkins with respect to unconditional surrender and Soviet success, I opt for (c). Dupe or not, FDR sat in the Oval Office and made the decisions that turned the world upside down." The World Turned Upside Down



And so.......a straight line from Franklin Roosevelt to Bernie Sanders.

 

[Camp]

You have tried to promote this nonsense in numerous threads and been rebuked every time. It's a bullshit concept that has no merit.

Everything I post is true and accurate.....it is linked, sourced and documented.


Everything.

No, it isn't. I have challenged at least three points in your OP and your response has been to evade addressing them and changing the subject. Your so called facts are distortions. You use sources that are subjective and unproven in addition to simple distortion. Just because some political hack from the Mise Institute says something doesn't make it a fact. And you are still using Manly as a source. That is a source you have been challenged to explain a dozen times and never even attempted to answer. That is because you know he was a pen name for a notorious right wing newspaper magnate whose views were so outrageous and not credible that he refrained from using his own name.

Claiming you don't agree with the author is hardly denying the facts.

I am disagreeing because the sources you use are not reliable or accepted by historians and academics. What you call facts are speculations and opinions, not facts. When I give specifics about why your sources are dubious you ignore my specifics and evade defending them.

I wonder if you'd care to explain why Franklin Roosevelt demanded that the Democrat Party put a communists on as his vice-president, or he would refuse to run for a second term?





Waiting.

You are evading answering the challenges again. Note, you are deflecting by changing the subject and attempting to defer into a different topic rather than address the rebukes of your OP.

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[Camp]

8. What if Roosevelt had endorsed America's aims and goals over those of Stalin's?
What if he stood for individualism, free markets, and the United States Constitution???



"Or, what if six months later, Canaris, Hitler’s secret opponent, had been encouraged to produce the defection of the German army and negotiate its surrender to the Allies?

What if one of the subsequent, serious attempts that other opponents of Hitler made through various Anglo-American emissaries in 1942, 1943, and 1944 had been able to overthrow the Führer, close down the concentration camps, abort the Final Solution, thwart Soviet conquests in Europe and Asia, call off every battle from Monte Cassino to D-day to the Warsaw Uprising to the Battle of the Bulge, avoid the destruction of city centers from Hamburg to Dresden, and save the lives of millions and millions and millions of people in between?


ut there it is: World War II could have ended years earlier had Communists working for Moscow not dominated Washington, quashing every anti-Nazi, anti-Communist attempt, beginning in late 1942, throughout 1943 and 1944, to make common cause with Anglo-American representatives…." Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 298





9. "The best that can be said is that FDR’s outlook was blinkered by his commitment to Germany’s unconditional surrender, and that his views about the long run were (a) unduly optimistic, (b) insouciant, or (c) actively pro-Soviet. Given the degree of influence wielded by Harry Hopkins with respect to unconditional surrender and Soviet success, I opt for (c). Dupe or not, FDR sat in the Oval Office and made the decisions that turned the world upside down." The World Turned Upside Down



And so.......a straight line from Franklin Roosevelt to Bernie Sanders.

This hodge podge of nonsense is based on a series of "what ifs". None of your "what ifs" had a chance of happening. BTW, guy you are dependent on for making any of that nonsense happen never had the power or means to do any of those things. He ended up being hanged by Hitler, twice. They hung him, revived him and hanged him a second time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Everything I post is true and accurate.....it is linked, sourced and documented.


Everything.

No, it isn't. I have challenged at least three points in your OP and your response has been to evade addressing them and changing the subject. Your so called facts are distortions. You use sources that are subjective and unproven in addition to simple distortion. Just because some political hack from the Mise Institute says something doesn't make it a fact. And you are still using Manly as a source. That is a source you have been challenged to explain a dozen times and never even attempted to answer. That is because you know he was a pen name for a notorious right wing newspaper magnate whose views were so outrageous and not credible that he refrained from using his own name.

Claiming you don't agree with the author is hardly denying the facts.

I am disagreeing because the sources you use are not reliable or accepted by historians and academics. What you call facts are speculations and opinions, not facts. When I give specifics about why your sources are dubious you ignore my specifics and evade defending them.

I wonder if you'd care to explain why Franklin Roosevelt demanded that the Democrat Party put a communists on as his vice-president, or he would refuse to run for a second term?





Waiting.

You are evading answering the challenges again. Note, you are deflecting by changing the subject and attempting to defer into a different topic rather than address the rebukes of you OP.

I wonder if you'd care to explain why Franklin Roosevelt demanded that the Democrat Party put a communists on as his vice-president, or he would refuse to run for a second term?


No answer?

 

[Camp]

No, it isn't. I have challenged at least three points in your OP and your response has been to evade addressing them and changing the subject. Your so called facts are distortions. You use sources that are subjective and unproven in addition to simple distortion. Just because some political hack from the Mise Institute says something doesn't make it a fact. And you are still using Manly as a source. That is a source you have been challenged to explain a dozen times and never even attempted to answer. That is because you know he was a pen name for a notorious right wing newspaper magnate whose views were so outrageous and not credible that he refrained from using his own name.

Claiming you don't agree with the author is hardly denying the facts.

I am disagreeing because the sources you use are not reliable or accepted by historians and academics. What you call facts are speculations and opinions, not facts. When I give specifics about why your sources are dubious you ignore my specifics and evade defending them.

I wonder if you'd care to explain why Franklin Roosevelt demanded that the Democrat Party put a communists on as his vice-president, or he would refuse to run for a second term?





Waiting.

You are evading answering the challenges again. Note, you are deflecting by changing the subject and attempting to defer into a different topic rather than address the rebukes of you OP.

I wonder if you'd care to explain why Franklin Roosevelt demanded that the Democrat Party put a communists on as his vice-president, or he would refuse to run for a second term?


No answer?

I answered you. You have not answered questions asked of you by myself or other posters. You have refused to address rebukes made by myself and other posters.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Claiming you don't agree with the author is hardly denying the facts.

I am disagreeing because the sources you use are not reliable or accepted by historians and academics. What you call facts are speculations and opinions, not facts. When I give specifics about why your sources are dubious you ignore my specifics and evade defending them.

I wonder if you'd care to explain why Franklin Roosevelt demanded that the Democrat Party put a communists on as his vice-president, or he would refuse to run for a second term?





Waiting.

You are evading answering the challenges again. Note, you are deflecting by changing the subject and attempting to defer into a different topic rather than address the rebukes of you OP.

I wonder if you'd care to explain why Franklin Roosevelt demanded that the Democrat Party put a communists on as his vice-president, or he would refuse to run for a second term?


No answer?

I answered you. You have not answered questions asked of you by myself or other posters. You have refused to address rebukes made by myself and other posters.

I wonder if you'd care to explain why Franklin Roosevelt demanded that the Democrat Party put a communists on as his vice-president, or he would refuse to run for a second term?

What's the answer?



Kinda says it all, huh?

And verifies everything I've posted about your demigod.

 

[regent]

Maybe an article in "Time" on presidents said it even better: "But maybe Roosevelt's contribution may be in setting the definition of presidential greatness-a standard that no president has since been able to meet."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe an article in "Time" on presidents said it even better: "But maybe Roosevelt's contribution may be in setting the definition of presidential greatness-a standard that no president has since been able to meet."

Maybe you'd like to take a shot at this, that your pal couldn't answer:

I wonder if you'd care to explain why Franklin Roosevelt demanded that the Democrat Party put a communists on as his vice-president, or he would refuse to run for a second term?