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.
Note the word "PROGRESS"?
Liberal PAP. People properly aquainted with GOD already know what they have to do.
Stow the crap junior.
WE don't need politicians STEALING it from us through LAW. WE abide by God's LAW that the politician forgets even in their oaths of office.
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.
...and are willing to ignore 'somethin'......
The whole problem with your PRemise here is that you overinflate the importance of the US in the ultimate victory against the Axis.
The USSR did most of the "Heavy Lifting", as Cheney liked to use to say.
By contrast- The USSR lost 20 million people defeating Hitler. The US Lost 450,000. There was a death struggle, to be sure, between Communism and Fascism, but Capitalist Democracy was just holding the coats.
All the Left needs is ignorant, uneducated dolts like you.
This is the greeting Roosevelt's policies received from a kindred spirit....
The National Socialists hailed these relief measures in ways you will recognize:
a.May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (Peoples Observer): Roosevelts Dictatorial Recovery Measures.
b.And on January 17, 1934, We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America and Roosevelts adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies comparable to Hitlers own dictatorial Fuhrerprinzip.
c.And [Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book Looking Forward could have been written by a National Socialist .one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.
d.The paper also refers to the fictional appearance of democracy.
Schivelbusch, "Three New Deals"
Also, FDR conspired with Churchill and Stalin and ceded off eastern Europe to Russia.
Oh, and even when it came to trying to make things right, in the 1988 Civil Liberties Act, which included reparations and an apology to those harmed,
even though Ronald Reagan signed it,
most Republicans in Congress voted against it.
Of course.
Civil Liberties Act of 1988 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What's that compared to FDR's Tuskegee Experiments?
Also, FDR conspired with Churchill and Stalin and ceded off eastern Europe to Russia.
Sad and criminal that it was, when it comes to total lack of moral decency, nothing demonstrates FDR's shortcomings better than his succumbing "Uncle Joe"s demand that all Soviet soldiers that were prisoners of war held by Germans, and the liberated by Allies to be sent back to the Soviet Union.
Both FDR and Churchill knew fully well that that was the certain death sentence of those unfortunate soldiers, after having been worked and starved to death in Stalin's gulag.
As far as callously tossing entire countries over to the Soviet butchers, I know how that worked out. I was born and lived in Hungary until 1957 and saw it.
FDR was truly a despicable Communist sympathizer son-of-a-bitch.
FDR has been a real problem for conservatives, imagine the best president of the United States being a Democrat. What to do? Well one thing conservatives can do is try to create a new history of FDR's administration. It's quite simple have some authors weave a new pattern of history with some imaginary motives and explanations. The only problem is the real historians aren't buying the new creative history. To them facts are still facts and the proper arrangement is still essential, but the anti-FDRers and their history must cause a smile or two.
FDR has been a real problem for conservatives, imagine the best president of the United States being a Democrat.
You'd have to "imagine" it because it is not true. The best president we've had was Lincoln.
FDR has been a real problem for conservatives, imagine the best president of the United States being a Democrat. What to do? Well one thing conservatives can do is try to create a new history of FDR's administration. It's quite simple have some authors weave a new pattern of history with some imaginary motives and explanations. The only problem is the real historians aren't buying the new creative history. To them facts are still facts and the proper arrangement is still essential, but the anti-FDRers and their history must cause a smile or two.
Yeah, he was such a great president!
FDR is the only person in American history whose flagrant abuse of power, whose totally dishonest and egotistical delusions of grandeur, whose shortsightedness caused nearly fifty years of cold war, who imagined himself to be a king and emperor, made Americans realize that there can never be another person allowed to have such power.
Hence, the 22nd Amendment.
It is to be wished that there were a Senator or a Representative as crooked and dishonest as FDR, so then may be there would be another amendment to restrict them to two terms the same way.
Also, FDR conspired with Churchill and Stalin and ceded off eastern Europe to Russia.
Sad and criminal that it was, when it comes to total lack of moral decency, nothing demonstrates FDR's shortcomings better than his succumbing "Uncle Joe"s demand that all Soviet soldiers that were prisoners of war held by Germans, and the liberated by Allies to be sent back to the Soviet Union.
Both FDR and Churchill knew fully well that that was the certain death sentence of those unfortunate soldiers, after having been worked and starved to death in Stalin's gulag.
As far as callously tossing entire countries over to the Soviet butchers, I know how that worked out. I was born and lived in Hungary until 1957 and saw it.
FDR was truly a despicable Communist sympathizer son-of-a-bitch.
Also, FDR conspired with Churchill and Stalin and ceded off eastern Europe to Russia.
Sad and criminal that it was, when it comes to total lack of moral decency, nothing demonstrates FDR's shortcomings better than his succumbing "Uncle Joe"s demand that all Soviet soldiers that were prisoners of war held by Germans, and the liberated by Allies to be sent back to the Soviet Union.
Both FDR and Churchill knew fully well that that was the certain death sentence of those unfortunate soldiers, after having been worked and starved to death in Stalin's gulag.
As far as callously tossing entire countries over to the Soviet butchers, I know how that worked out. I was born and lived in Hungary until 1957 and saw it.
FDR was truly a despicable Communist sympathizer son-of-a-bitch.
You honestly think that there was American public support in 1945 for turning on the Soviet Union, and effectively starting WWIII, for the purpose of trying to drive the Soviets out of Eastern Europe? You're an idiot.
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.
...and are willing to ignore 'somethin'......
The whole problem with your PRemise here is that you overinflate the importance of the US in the ultimate victory against the Axis.
The USSR did most of the "Heavy Lifting", as Cheney liked to use to say.
By contrast- The USSR lost 20 million people defeating Hitler. The US Lost 450,000. There was a death struggle, to be sure, between Communism and Fascism, but Capitalist Democracy was just holding the coats.
At the end of the war, the USSR and US were the last men standing. The United Kingdom was on the winning side, but with the promise to the people who had fought to save it that the British Empire would end. (Again, comarisons, only 500K British died fighting the war, but over 2 million Indians and Pakistanis, on the promise of Indian independence.) France was shattered.
Let us take your example of the Korean War. Contrary to popular belief, Atom Bombs had little to do with Japan's surrender. What forced the Japanese to surrender was the USSR finally entered the Pacific War and rolled up their Kwantung Army in Manchuria in two weeks. (Again, all those weapons eventually ended up in Mao's hand. Stalin already had plenty.) the only reason Stalin didn't take the whole of Korea was because he didn't want a dustup with the US. NOthing was really going to stop him if he wanted to in 1945.
Now, besides the usual hystrical , "Communists killed a Gazillion people" nonsense. (Nope, sorry, not that many, and PEOPLE killed people, usually over reasons that had little to do with politics.)
The fact is, China was not ours to lose. Mao won because the Chinese people wanted him to win. It's why they still revere Mao even after they've concluded Communism isn't such a hot idea. Vietnam was not ours to lose. Those people got fed up with colonial domination, and that was it.
I do find the amusing notion of being a "Vassal" of the USSR funny. I had a talk with a British person once who felt the nation that really took advantage of WWII was the US. They charged the other allies exhorbitant amounts for war materials during the war and consumer goods after the war, and moved into the vacuum left as the Colonial Empires fell.
So Eisenhower thought Warren was a conservative, while knowing that Warren's single most significant action up that point had been his leadership in the internment movement?
But, if supporting internment was, as you insist, LIBERALISM, why didn't Eisenhower thus identify Warren as a liberal??
Here's a hint:
Being pro-internment at the time was on balance the conservative position, and the extremity of the circumstances, i.e., WORLD WAR,
cause many otherwise liberal politicians to get very conservative on that one issue.
You struggle mightily to absolve liberals, Democrats, from the guilt they so rightly deserve.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
You have admitted there can be a difference between a liberal and a Democrat.
Have you forgotten doing that already?
Can you show us how conservatism opposed the Japanese internment?
There is of course this CONSERVATIVE opinion, from one of your favorite airheads:
lol, defending internment to make the case for profiling Muslims.
In Defense of Internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And guess what, YOU won't even have the guts to say Malkin is full of crap.
too funny
Oh, and even when it came to trying to make things right, in the 1988 Civil Liberties Act, which included reparations and an apology to those harmed,
even though Ronald Reagan signed it,
most Republicans in Congress voted against it.
Of course.
Civil Liberties Act of 1988 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What's that compared to FDR's Tuskegee Experiments?
I don't know, why don't you ask Ronald Reagan, he was an FDR Democrat at the time.
lol, shut up Frank you're making a fool of yourself.
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.
...and are willing to ignore 'somethin'......
The whole problem with your PRemise here is that you overinflate the importance of the US in the ultimate victory against the Axis.
The USSR did most of the "Heavy Lifting", as Cheney liked to use to say.
By contrast- The USSR lost 20 million people defeating Hitler. The US Lost 450,000. There was a death struggle, to be sure, between Communism and Fascism, but Capitalist Democracy was just holding the coats.
At the end of the war, the USSR and US were the last men standing. The United Kingdom was on the winning side, but with the promise to the people who had fought to save it that the British Empire would end. (Again, comarisons, only 500K British died fighting the war, but over 2 million Indians and Pakistanis, on the promise of Indian independence.) France was shattered.
Let us take your example of the Korean War. Contrary to popular belief, Atom Bombs had little to do with Japan's surrender. What forced the Japanese to surrender was the USSR finally entered the Pacific War and rolled up their Kwantung Army in Manchuria in two weeks. (Again, all those weapons eventually ended up in Mao's hand. Stalin already had plenty.) the only reason Stalin didn't take the whole of Korea was because he didn't want a dustup with the US. NOthing was really going to stop him if he wanted to in 1945.
Now, besides the usual hystrical , "Communists killed a Gazillion people" nonsense. (Nope, sorry, not that many, and PEOPLE killed people, usually over reasons that had little to do with politics.)
The fact is, China was not ours to lose. Mao won because the Chinese people wanted him to win. It's why they still revere Mao even after they've concluded Communism isn't such a hot idea. Vietnam was not ours to lose. Those people got fed up with colonial domination, and that was it.
I do find the amusing notion of being a "Vassal" of the USSR funny. I had a talk with a British person once who felt the nation that really took advantage of WWII was the US. They charged the other allies exhorbitant amounts for war materials during the war and consumer goods after the war, and moved into the vacuum left as the Colonial Empires fell.
Sad and criminal that it was, when it comes to total lack of moral decency, nothing demonstrates FDR's shortcomings better than his succumbing "Uncle Joe"s demand that all Soviet soldiers that were prisoners of war held by Germans, and the liberated by Allies to be sent back to the Soviet Union.
Both FDR and Churchill knew fully well that that was the certain death sentence of those unfortunate soldiers, after having been worked and starved to death in Stalin's gulag.
As far as callously tossing entire countries over to the Soviet butchers, I know how that worked out. I was born and lived in Hungary until 1957 and saw it.
FDR was truly a despicable Communist sympathizer son-of-a-bitch.
You honestly think that there was American public support in 1945 for turning on the Soviet Union, and effectively starting WWIII, for the purpose of trying to drive the Soviets out of Eastern Europe? You're an idiot.
If you had ever bothered to look at the map of Europe, you would know that what you call Eastern Europe is nowhere near in the eastern part of Europe.
After the Battle of Stalingrad the Soviets were just as exhausted as the Germans. Churchill had the brains to see that they would have been easy picking but of course FDR ordered the Allies to stop at the river Elba, thereby missing a chance to get rid of Communism and his blind admiration for Uncle Joe and Communism unleashed nearly fifty years of terror in Europe.
Thanks for calling me an idiot. Coming from low-information typical liberal demagogue like you, I consider that as compliment.
