Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A Republican who was liberal on this issue.
NO, he was the epitome of conservative on this issue.
You can't escape the truth about the democrat party by playing (poorly) semantic games. Your inability to face up to what the democrat party has always been is just another aspect of liberalism: avoidance of responsibility.
Then where were the conservatives in 1942 who opposed the internment? You should be able to cite hundreds of them,
if being pro-immigrant, pro-civil rights for minorities, anti-profiling, etc., are conservative positions.
I gave you the modern day example of Muslims being discriminated against, efforts to discriminate against them in the wake of 9/11...
...that discrimination is almost entirely from conservatives. You don't know what you're talking about.
Guess where the buck stops, champ? And weren't you just oh-so-proud of how many democrats supported your false god FDR?
You managed to find a sum total of ONE Republican politician who opposed the internment.
Where were the other 99.9% of Republicans on the issue??
I "managed" to 'find' (sorry that US history is such a mystery to you) the most prominent conservative Republican voice in opposition to FDR's concentration camps and the abrogation of the rights of US citizens in general. I also "managed" to find the most prominent democrat - not only representing his party but controlling it virtually dictatorially - who was personally responsible for such a reprehensible act; one in an endless string of such acts by the democrats throughout their long and shameful history.
NO, he was the epitome of conservative on this issue.
You can't escape the truth about the democrat party by playing (poorly) semantic games. Your inability to face up to what the democrat party has always been is just another aspect of liberalism: avoidance of responsibility.
Then where were the conservatives in 1942 who opposed the internment? You should be able to cite hundreds of them,
if being pro-immigrant, pro-civil rights for minorities, anti-profiling, etc., are conservative positions.
I gave you the modern day example of Muslims being discriminated against, efforts to discriminate against them in the wake of 9/11...
...that discrimination is almost entirely from conservatives. You don't know what you're talking about.
You should try reading the words you quote. It would also help if you learned how to understand them. Your desperate and transparent attempt to leap now to false equivalencies only highlights the fact that you know you don't have a leg to stand on in the actual discussion at hand.
Guess where the buck stops, champ? And weren't you just oh-so-proud of how many democrats supported your false god FDR?
Then we agree that Bush was solely responsible for the disaster of Iraq?
Iraq was not a disaster, but despite the many, many prominent democrats who whole-heartedly supported removing saddam, the decision to go into Iraq rests with President Bush.
Why did most Republicans vote against reparations for the internment victims in 1988?
Are you nuts?
I have addressed the above misinformation already.
In your desperation to avoid the responsibility that rests with the democrat party and their standard-bearer, you are being deliberately dishonest.
Really? I'll bet you $1000 that most Republicans in Congress voted against the 1988 reparations bill.
You're either lying or ignorant.
where he went wrong was listening to anything a repub-lie-tard would say1. This guy I know went to a club, where he met a very attractive blonde. After a few drinks, they went back to his apartment, where, filled with anticipation, they wound up in bed. And he discovered that 'she' had a penis.
"I thought you wouldn't care." He did. His words to me: 'It's always somethin.'"
2. In a way, this is the problem with FDR's role in American history. Just like the blonde, he had a number of attractive features....but one glaring problem: a misunderstanding of geopolitical reality.
'It's always somethin.'"
a. That 'somethin' resulted in the United States becoming, for all intents and purposes, a vassal of the Soviet Union. It caused the Korean War. It is the reason that China became Maoist, with 75 million deaths. And if the United States ever goes to war with China....the 'somethin' will have been the provenance.
3. Roosevelt laughed off, literally, all of the revelations of Soviet agents in his administration. He never cared if his conversations were bugged by the Russians. He sent the USSR materials necessary to build the atomic bomb. One of his first official acts was the United States recognizing the Soviet Union, November 20th, 1933. The list of goes on and on, leading many to believe the was an agent of the Soviet Union.
That wasn't the case.
4. To understand what happened, recognize that a distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. Leftist believe that people are essentially good, and the result is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life.
It is a form of child-like wishful thinking.
It infected all of FDR's policies.
5. Dennis J. Dunn writes in "Caught Between Roosevelt & Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," that FDR believed in a theory of convergence that applied to the USSR and the US, i.e., that capitalism and Communism would each take on characteristics of the other. They would converge. FDR's contribution toward convergence was expanding the powers and reach of centralized government.
a. Dunn explains FDR's thinking: convergence theory "held that Soviet Russia and the United States were on convergent paths, where the United States was moving from laissez-faire capitalism to welfare state socialism and the Soviet Union was evolving from totalitarianism to social democracy."
b. Since FDR himself had moved the United States from laissez-faire capitalism to welfare state socialism....well, FDR was half right.
But....if only one half is doing all the converging....it is simply capitulation.
6. And so, Dunn explains, FDR's dogmatic belief in a point of convergence up the road is what allowed Roosevelt to discount and overlook all the violent contradictory evidence, the spying, the manipulation, the justification for the brutality of genocidal famines and gulags and every act of police-state repression.
The theory is what made FDR, if not a participant, at least an accomplice.
In our name.
7. In memoirs, both Representative Martin Dies, [p. 144-148] an earlier incarnation of Senator Joseph McCarthy, and, on the other side, Roosevelt ally Cardinal Spellman, [p. 222-225] both describe conversations with Roosevelt in which he speaks of his belief in convergence of the two nations. Dunn describes an interview with Averell Harriman, in which Harriman "emphasized the importance of the theory of convergence in explaining Roosevelt's policies."
8. "Adopting the "pseudoprofound theory of convergence," Rooseveltians claimed that the Soviet Union "was moving ineluctably toward democracy" (pp. 3-4). The author alleges that "moral relativism" prompted Roosevelt to mislead the American public and ignore his foreign policy advisors in order to prove that Stalin was an evolving democrat, not "a genocidal megalomaniac guided by the higher power of revolutionary inevitability ..." (p. 4, 6).
In contrast, "Traditionalists" rejected the theory of convergence. ... they viewed Stalin as "a murderer, a liar, and a vicious opponent of the United States and of pluralism generally."...." Traditionalists wanted Roosevelt to compel the Soviets to adopt democracy and "the minimum standards of moral behavior that were outlined in the world's principal religions and moral codes." These pleas, however, went unheeded as Roosevelt remained intent on pursuing "his policy of uncritical friendship toward Stalin" (pp. 8-9)."
H-Net Reviews
Today, it seems we have so very many Leftists who are still enchanted with the blonde's better feature.....
...and are willing to ignore 'somethin'......
You managed to find a sum total of ONE Republican politician who opposed the internment.
Where were the other 99.9% of Republicans on the issue??
I "managed" to 'find' (sorry that US history is such a mystery to you) the most prominent conservative Republican voice in opposition to FDR's concentration camps and the abrogation of the rights of US citizens in general. I also "managed" to find the most prominent democrat - not only representing his party but controlling it virtually dictatorially - who was personally responsible for such a reprehensible act; one in an endless string of such acts by the democrats throughout their long and shameful history.
So I guess the fact that Ron Paul opposed the Iraq war proves that the Republican Party as a whole opposed the Iraq War?
Are you mentally retarded?
If one Republican opposing internment is proof that all of American conservatism opposed it,
then one Democrat opposing internment would be proof that all of American liberalism opposed it,
correct?
Then where were the conservatives in 1942 who opposed the internment? You should be able to cite hundreds of them,
if being pro-immigrant, pro-civil rights for minorities, anti-profiling, etc., are conservative positions.
I gave you the modern day example of Muslims being discriminated against, efforts to discriminate against them in the wake of 9/11...
...that discrimination is almost entirely from conservatives. You don't know what you're talking about.
You should try reading the words you quote. It would also help if you learned how to understand them. Your desperate and transparent attempt to leap now to false equivalencies only highlights the fact that you know you don't have a leg to stand on in the actual discussion at hand.
You're the guy who thinks that finding one Republican who opposed internment exonerates all Republicans and conservatives in the country at the time.
I posted 4 Republicans who supported it. You're behind 4 to 1.
where he went wrong was listening to anything a repub-lie-tard would say1. This guy I know went to a club, where he met a very attractive blonde. After a few drinks, they went back to his apartment, where, filled with anticipation, they wound up in bed. And he discovered that 'she' had a penis.
"I thought you wouldn't care." He did. His words to me: 'It's always somethin.'"
2. In a way, this is the problem with FDR's role in American history. Just like the blonde, he had a number of attractive features....but one glaring problem: a misunderstanding of geopolitical reality.
'It's always somethin.'"
a. That 'somethin' resulted in the United States becoming, for all intents and purposes, a vassal of the Soviet Union. It caused the Korean War. It is the reason that China became Maoist, with 75 million deaths. And if the United States ever goes to war with China....the 'somethin' will have been the provenance.
3. Roosevelt laughed off, literally, all of the revelations of Soviet agents in his administration. He never cared if his conversations were bugged by the Russians. He sent the USSR materials necessary to build the atomic bomb. One of his first official acts was the United States recognizing the Soviet Union, November 20th, 1933. The list of goes on and on, leading many to believe the was an agent of the Soviet Union.
That wasn't the case.
4. To understand what happened, recognize that a distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. Leftist believe that people are essentially good, and the result is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life.
It is a form of child-like wishful thinking.
It infected all of FDR's policies.
5. Dennis J. Dunn writes in "Caught Between Roosevelt & Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," that FDR believed in a theory of convergence that applied to the USSR and the US, i.e., that capitalism and Communism would each take on characteristics of the other. They would converge. FDR's contribution toward convergence was expanding the powers and reach of centralized government.
a. Dunn explains FDR's thinking: convergence theory "held that Soviet Russia and the United States were on convergent paths, where the United States was moving from laissez-faire capitalism to welfare state socialism and the Soviet Union was evolving from totalitarianism to social democracy."
b. Since FDR himself had moved the United States from laissez-faire capitalism to welfare state socialism....well, FDR was half right.
But....if only one half is doing all the converging....it is simply capitulation.
6. And so, Dunn explains, FDR's dogmatic belief in a point of convergence up the road is what allowed Roosevelt to discount and overlook all the violent contradictory evidence, the spying, the manipulation, the justification for the brutality of genocidal famines and gulags and every act of police-state repression.
The theory is what made FDR, if not a participant, at least an accomplice.
In our name.
7. In memoirs, both Representative Martin Dies, [p. 144-148] an earlier incarnation of Senator Joseph McCarthy, and, on the other side, Roosevelt ally Cardinal Spellman, [p. 222-225] both describe conversations with Roosevelt in which he speaks of his belief in convergence of the two nations. Dunn describes an interview with Averell Harriman, in which Harriman "emphasized the importance of the theory of convergence in explaining Roosevelt's policies."
8. "Adopting the "pseudoprofound theory of convergence," Rooseveltians claimed that the Soviet Union "was moving ineluctably toward democracy" (pp. 3-4). The author alleges that "moral relativism" prompted Roosevelt to mislead the American public and ignore his foreign policy advisors in order to prove that Stalin was an evolving democrat, not "a genocidal megalomaniac guided by the higher power of revolutionary inevitability ..." (p. 4, 6).
In contrast, "Traditionalists" rejected the theory of convergence. ... they viewed Stalin as "a murderer, a liar, and a vicious opponent of the United States and of pluralism generally."...." Traditionalists wanted Roosevelt to compel the Soviets to adopt democracy and "the minimum standards of moral behavior that were outlined in the world's principal religions and moral codes." These pleas, however, went unheeded as Roosevelt remained intent on pursuing "his policy of uncritical friendship toward Stalin" (pp. 8-9)."
H-Net Reviews
Today, it seems we have so very many Leftists who are still enchanted with the blonde's better feature.....
...and are willing to ignore 'somethin'......
How does one measure the good in life? Does good consist only in a critical opinion of the other? Or does good consist in actions that make this journey through this often described vale of tears just a little nicer and easier? I can think of few acts that compare to the good of social security and the millions whose lives are just a little easier, and a little nicer. Humankind can look to Franklin Roosevelt for that act. How many acts come close to that one great act. None I can think of. If actions don't make things just a little better, what good are actions, what good are words. Words are often so empty of meaning. Words often consist in potential, someone has to bring them to life.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/307654-where-fdr-went-wrong-7.html#post7686105
I have addressed the above misinformation already.
In your desperation to avoid the responsibility that rests with the democrat party and their standard-bearer, you are being deliberately dishonest.
Really? I'll bet you $1000 that most Republicans in Congress voted against the 1988 reparations bill.
You're either lying or ignorant.
I already addressed this. You have been reduced to rank dishonesty now.
How does one measure the good in life? Does good consist only in a critical opinion of the other? Or does good consist in actions that make this journey through this often described vale of tears just a little nicer and easier? I can think of few acts that compare to the good of social security and the millions whose lives are just a little easier, and a little nicer. Humankind can look to Franklin Roosevelt for that act. How many acts come close to that one great act. None I can think of. If actions don't make things just a little better, what good are actions, what good are words. Words are often so empty of meaning. Words often consist in potential, someone has to bring them to life.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/307654-where-fdr-went-wrong-7.html#post7686105
"How does one measure the good in life?"
Well, Middy.....I can give you an opportunity to do just that.
1. Here is the plus side:
( from The Hundred Days of FDR, by Schlesinger)
"Who can now imagine a day when America offered no Social Security, no unemployment compensation, no food stamps, no Federal guarantee of bank deposits, no Federal supervision of the stock market, no Federal protection for collective bargaining, no Federal standards for wages and hours, no Federal support for farm prices or rural electrification, no Federal refinancing for farm and home mortgages, no Federal commitment to high employment or to equal opportunity - in short, no Federal responsibility for Americans who found themselves, through no fault of their own, in economic or social distress?"
The 'Hundred Days' of F.D.R.
2. What you overlook is the cost:
Korean War, China handed over to Mao, Eastern Europe, $17 trillion in debt.....largely due to FDR's domestic policies......
.....and the destruction of the Constitution and America as it was designed by the Founders.
Weigh the two.
1. This guy I know went to a club, where he met a very attractive blonde. After a few drinks, they went back to his apartment, where, filled with anticipation, they wound up in bed. And he discovered that 'she' had a penis.
"I thought you wouldn't care." He did. His words to me: 'It's always somethin.'"
2. In a way, this is the problem with FDR's role in American history. Just like the blonde, he had a number of attractive features....but one glaring problem: a misunderstanding of geopolitical reality.
'It's always somethin.'"
a. That 'somethin' resulted in the United States becoming, for all intents and purposes, a vassal of the Soviet Union. It caused the Korean War. It is the reason that China became Maoist, with 75 million deaths. And if the United States ever goes to war with China....the 'somethin' will have been the provenance.
3. Roosevelt laughed off, literally, all of the revelations of Soviet agents in his administration. He never cared if his conversations were bugged by the Russians. He sent the USSR materials necessary to build the atomic bomb. One of his first official acts was the United States recognizing the Soviet Union, November 20th, 1933. The list of goes on and on, leading many to believe the was an agent of the Soviet Union.
That wasn't the case.
4. To understand what happened, recognize that a distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. Leftist believe that people are essentially good, and the result is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life.
It is a form of child-like wishful thinking.
It infected all of FDR's policies.
5. Dennis J. Dunn writes in "Caught Between Roosevelt & Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," that FDR believed in a theory of convergence that applied to the USSR and the US, i.e., that capitalism and Communism would each take on characteristics of the other. They would converge. FDR's contribution toward convergence was expanding the powers and reach of centralized government.
a. Dunn explains FDR's thinking: convergence theory "held that Soviet Russia and the United States were on convergent paths, where the United States was moving from laissez-faire capitalism to welfare state socialism and the Soviet Union was evolving from totalitarianism to social democracy."
b. Since FDR himself had moved the United States from laissez-faire capitalism to welfare state socialism....well, FDR was half right.
But....if only one half is doing all the converging....it is simply capitulation.
6. And so, Dunn explains, FDR's dogmatic belief in a point of convergence up the road is what allowed Roosevelt to discount and overlook all the violent contradictory evidence, the spying, the manipulation, the justification for the brutality of genocidal famines and gulags and every act of police-state repression.
The theory is what made FDR, if not a participant, at least an accomplice.
In our name.
7. In memoirs, both Representative Martin Dies, [p. 144-148] an earlier incarnation of Senator Joseph McCarthy, and, on the other side, Roosevelt ally Cardinal Spellman, [p. 222-225] both describe conversations with Roosevelt in which he speaks of his belief in convergence of the two nations. Dunn describes an interview with Averell Harriman, in which Harriman "emphasized the importance of the theory of convergence in explaining Roosevelt's policies."
8. "Adopting the "pseudoprofound theory of convergence," Rooseveltians claimed that the Soviet Union "was moving ineluctably toward democracy" (pp. 3-4). The author alleges that "moral relativism" prompted Roosevelt to mislead the American public and ignore his foreign policy advisors in order to prove that Stalin was an evolving democrat, not "a genocidal megalomaniac guided by the higher power of revolutionary inevitability ..." (p. 4, 6).
In contrast, "Traditionalists" rejected the theory of convergence. ... they viewed Stalin as "a murderer, a liar, and a vicious opponent of the United States and of pluralism generally."...." Traditionalists wanted Roosevelt to compel the Soviets to adopt democracy and "the minimum standards of moral behavior that were outlined in the world's principal religions and moral codes." These pleas, however, went unheeded as Roosevelt remained intent on pursuing "his policy of uncritical friendship toward Stalin" (pp. 8-9)."
H-Net Reviews
Today, it seems we have so very many Leftists who are still enchanted with the blonde's better feature.....
...and are willing to ignore 'somethin'......
Let me clear the 'mud' out of the Augean-esque pile of words above.
'Convergence' is nothing more than the idea that somewhere between totalitarian communism and totalitarian capitalism
there is some sort of moderate, centrist, mix of the two, a happy medium if you will.
Of course to rightwingers who believe that the best symbol of how America has been destroyed is the Social Security check that goes into their grandmother's bank account every month,
'happy' is not the word they would use.
How does one measure the good in life? Does good consist only in a critical opinion of the other? Or does good consist in actions that make this journey through this often described vale of tears just a little nicer and easier? I can think of few acts that compare to the good of social security and the millions whose lives are just a little easier, and a little nicer. Humankind can look to Franklin Roosevelt for that act. How many acts come close to that one great act. None I can think of. If actions don't make things just a little better, what good are actions, what good are words. Words are often so empty of meaning. Words often consist in potential, someone has to bring them to life.
How does one measure the good in life? Does good consist only in a critical opinion of the other? Or does good consist in actions that make this journey through this often described vale of tears just a little nicer and easier? I can think of few acts that compare to the good of social security and the millions whose lives are just a little easier, and a little nicer. Humankind can look to Franklin Roosevelt for that act. How many acts come close to that one great act. None I can think of. If actions don't make things just a little better, what good are actions, what good are words. Words are often so empty of meaning. Words often consist in potential, someone has to bring them to life.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/307654-where-fdr-went-wrong-7.html#post7686105
Really? I'll bet you $1000 that most Republicans in Congress voted against the 1988 reparations bill.
You're either lying or ignorant.
I already addressed this. You have been reduced to rank dishonesty now.
What am I lying about?
where he went wrong was listening to anything a repub-lie-tard would say1. This guy I know went to a club, where he met a very attractive blonde. After a few drinks, they went back to his apartment, where, filled with anticipation, they wound up in bed. And he discovered that 'she' had a penis.
"I thought you wouldn't care." He did. His words to me: 'It's always somethin.'"
2. In a way, this is the problem with FDR's role in American history. Just like the blonde, he had a number of attractive features....but one glaring problem: a misunderstanding of geopolitical reality.
'It's always somethin.'"
a. That 'somethin' resulted in the United States becoming, for all intents and purposes, a vassal of the Soviet Union. It caused the Korean War. It is the reason that China became Maoist, with 75 million deaths. And if the United States ever goes to war with China....the 'somethin' will have been the provenance.
3. Roosevelt laughed off, literally, all of the revelations of Soviet agents in his administration. He never cared if his conversations were bugged by the Russians. He sent the USSR materials necessary to build the atomic bomb. One of his first official acts was the United States recognizing the Soviet Union, November 20th, 1933. The list of goes on and on, leading many to believe the was an agent of the Soviet Union.
That wasn't the case.
4. To understand what happened, recognize that a distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. Leftist believe that people are essentially good, and the result is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life.
It is a form of child-like wishful thinking.
It infected all of FDR's policies.
5. Dennis J. Dunn writes in "Caught Between Roosevelt & Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," that FDR believed in a theory of convergence that applied to the USSR and the US, i.e., that capitalism and Communism would each take on characteristics of the other. They would converge. FDR's contribution toward convergence was expanding the powers and reach of centralized government.
a. Dunn explains FDR's thinking: convergence theory "held that Soviet Russia and the United States were on convergent paths, where the United States was moving from laissez-faire capitalism to welfare state socialism and the Soviet Union was evolving from totalitarianism to social democracy."
b. Since FDR himself had moved the United States from laissez-faire capitalism to welfare state socialism....well, FDR was half right.
But....if only one half is doing all the converging....it is simply capitulation.
6. And so, Dunn explains, FDR's dogmatic belief in a point of convergence up the road is what allowed Roosevelt to discount and overlook all the violent contradictory evidence, the spying, the manipulation, the justification for the brutality of genocidal famines and gulags and every act of police-state repression.
The theory is what made FDR, if not a participant, at least an accomplice.
In our name.
7. In memoirs, both Representative Martin Dies, [p. 144-148] an earlier incarnation of Senator Joseph McCarthy, and, on the other side, Roosevelt ally Cardinal Spellman, [p. 222-225] both describe conversations with Roosevelt in which he speaks of his belief in convergence of the two nations. Dunn describes an interview with Averell Harriman, in which Harriman "emphasized the importance of the theory of convergence in explaining Roosevelt's policies."
8. "Adopting the "pseudoprofound theory of convergence," Rooseveltians claimed that the Soviet Union "was moving ineluctably toward democracy" (pp. 3-4). The author alleges that "moral relativism" prompted Roosevelt to mislead the American public and ignore his foreign policy advisors in order to prove that Stalin was an evolving democrat, not "a genocidal megalomaniac guided by the higher power of revolutionary inevitability ..." (p. 4, 6).
In contrast, "Traditionalists" rejected the theory of convergence. ... they viewed Stalin as "a murderer, a liar, and a vicious opponent of the United States and of pluralism generally."...." Traditionalists wanted Roosevelt to compel the Soviets to adopt democracy and "the minimum standards of moral behavior that were outlined in the world's principal religions and moral codes." These pleas, however, went unheeded as Roosevelt remained intent on pursuing "his policy of uncritical friendship toward Stalin" (pp. 8-9)."
H-Net Reviews
Today, it seems we have so very many Leftists who are still enchanted with the blonde's better feature.....
...and are willing to ignore 'somethin'......
Well at least America learned from the relocation centers and today if we were attacked by a nation other than Anglo, or with an unusual religion, or skin color, or different culture and so on we would not hold it against those Americans that are of that group. We are now a tolerant people that believe all Americans are equal. And one thing is certain we would not use the attack to profit, but rather we would be tolerant of Muslims, Communists, Asians, Blacks, and all groups, even if attacked.
