Why Did FDR Censor Criticism of Stalin?

[Unkotare]

Unable to destroy FDR's reputation in history you have moved to logic.

I have been directly pointing to FDR's shameful history. You were trying to avoid addressing his many ignominious acts by repeating a logical fallacy over and over. At least you admit now that pretending you know the first thing about logic is not the 'out' you're looking for.

 

[regent]

Unable to destroy FDR's reputation in history you have moved to logic.

I have been directly pointing to FDR's shameful history. You were trying to avoid addressing his many ignominious acts by repeating a logical fallacy over and over. At least you admit now that pretending you know the first thing about logic is not the 'out' you're looking for.

I don't have to defend FDR's reputation, others, such as the people of his period, and the experts defend it quite well. So what others have to say is pretty pointless. I didn't say I knew nothing about logic, I said I had not taken an introductory course in logic.

 

[whitehall]

The FDR administration has been elevated to sainthood by the callus liberal media and there is nothing that logic and reason can do about it.

 

[Unkotare]

Unable to destroy FDR's reputation in history you have moved to logic.

I have been directly pointing to FDR's shameful history. You were trying to avoid addressing his many ignominious acts by repeating a logical fallacy over and over. At least you admit now that pretending you know the first thing about logic is not the 'out' you're looking for.

I don't have to defend FDR's reputation, others, such as the people of his period, and the experts defend it quite well. So what others have to say is pretty pointless. ...

Hello? McFly? Hello? Anyone in there? You are repeating the same logical fallacy AGAIN. You have absolutely nothing else.

 

[Unkotare]

I didn't say I knew nothing about logic, I said I had not taken an introductory course in logic.

You have demonstrated that you don't know the first thing about it. Maybe you should take an introductory course.

 

[regent]

I didn't say I knew nothing about logic, I said I had not taken an introductory course in logic.

You have demonstrated that you don't know the first thing about it. Maybe you should take an introductory course.

I know that your weak or inductive fallacies are a classification of fallacies, so I asked you to name the fallacy and you go into the guessing game mode. Can you name the fallacy or not?

 

[Unkotare]

I didn't say I knew nothing about logic, I said I had not taken an introductory course in logic.

You have demonstrated that you don't know the first thing about it. Maybe you should take an introductory course.

I know that your weak or inductive fallacies are a classification of fallacies, so I asked you to name the fallacy and you go into the guessing game mode. Can you name the fallacy or not?

What the hell is wrong with you? Are you just trolling now?

There it is again, appeal to authority. You literally have nothing else, so you just repeat the fallacy over and over again; post after post, thread after thread.

 

[regent]

You have demonstrated that you don't know the first thing about it. Maybe you should take an introductory course.

I know that your weak or inductive fallacies are a classification of fallacies, so I asked you to name the fallacy and you go into the guessing game mode. Can you name the fallacy or not?

What the hell is wrong with you? Are you just trolling now?

There it is again, appeal to authority. You literally have nothing else, so you just repeat the fallacy over and over again; post after post, thread after thread.

Not a fallacy and you know it, historians have named FDR America's best president, so where the fallacy? You might check your Intro to Logic book again.

 

[Unkotare]

I know that your weak or inductive fallacies are a classification of fallacies, so I asked you to name the fallacy and you go into the guessing game mode. Can you name the fallacy or not?

What the hell is wrong with you? Are you just trolling now?

There it is again, appeal to authority. You literally have nothing else, so you just repeat the fallacy over and over again; post after post, thread after thread.

Not a fallacy and you know it...

Yes, it is, you ignorant dope. The way you are embarrassing yourself now is what happens when you get no further than leafing through some 'intro' book you picked up from the discount bin at your local bookstore and then trying to pretend you know what you're talking about.

 

[regent]

What the hell is wrong with you? Are you just trolling now?

Not a fallacy and you know it...

Yes, it is, you ignorant dope. The way you are embarrassing yourself now is what happens when you get no further than leafing through some 'intro' book you picked up from the discount bin at your local bookstore and then trying to pretend you know what you're talking about.

Ignorant dope? All I did was suggest that 238 of America's top historians and presidential experts were somewhat knowledgeable about America's history and its presidents. Seemed logical at the time.
Won't be long until someone comes up with a fallacy regarding name-calling.
30

 

[Unkotare]

Not a fallacy and you know it...

Yes, it is, you ignorant dope. The way you are embarrassing yourself now is what happens when you get no further than leafing through some 'intro' book you picked up from the discount bin at your local bookstore and then trying to pretend you know what you're talking about.

Ignorant dope?

Yes, ignorant dope. Now that I've taught you - AGAIN - where your thinking was flawed, let's see if you can try to defend the scumbag without falling back on a logical fallacy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not a fallacy and you know it...

Yes, it is, you ignorant dope. The way you are embarrassing yourself now is what happens when you get no further than leafing through some 'intro' book you picked up from the discount bin at your local bookstore and then trying to pretend you know what you're talking about.

Ignorant dope? All I did was suggest that 238 of America's top historians and presidential experts were somewhat knowledgeable about America's history and its presidents. Seemed logical at the time.
Won't be long until someone comes up with a fallacy regarding name-calling.
30

reggie....don't you want to get in touch with 'America's top 239th historian' before you come to a hasty conclusion?????

 

[regent]

Yes, it is, you ignorant dope. The way you are embarrassing yourself now is what happens when you get no further than leafing through some 'intro' book you picked up from the discount bin at your local bookstore and then trying to pretend you know what you're talking about.

Ignorant dope? All I did was suggest that 238 of America's top historians and presidential experts were somewhat knowledgeable about America's history and its presidents. Seemed logical at the time.
Won't be long until someone comes up with a fallacy regarding name-calling.
30

reggie....don't you want to get in touch with 'America's top 239th historian' before you come to a hasty conclusion?????

How many noted historians and presidential experts does America have to ask for a valid appraisal? In any case they have been asking these authorities on history and presidents to rate the presidents since 1948, so they must have asked quite a number over the last fifty years or so. How many do you think should be asked for a valid rating?
Won't be long till we get to the, historians are commies, thing again.
But another tack, is there another group that can rate the presidents better?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ignorant dope? All I did was suggest that 238 of America's top historians and presidential experts were somewhat knowledgeable about America's history and its presidents. Seemed logical at the time.
Won't be long until someone comes up with a fallacy regarding name-calling.
30

reggie....don't you want to get in touch with 'America's top 239th historian' before you come to a hasty conclusion?????

How many noted historians and presidential experts does America have to ask for a valid appraisal? In any case they have been asking these authorities on history and presidents to rate the presidents since 1948, so they must have asked quite a number over the last fifty years or so. How many do you think should be asked for a valid rating?
Won't be long till we get to the, historians are commies, thing again.
But another tack, is there another group that can rate the presidents better?

Reggie....do you agree that the majority of academics are of a Left-Wing persuasion?
I'm not changing the subject.....


And, would you agree that one's political outlook has an effect on how one perceives, reports things?
Case in point.....there are far, far too many issues, subjects, events to report on all even in a thousand page book.
True?


So....how does one decide what to include....or exclude?


Example:
.... 24 months after the assassination of JFK, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the Kennedys’ kept historian, published a thousand-page history of the thousand-day presidency without mentioning the assassin by name....or, more importantly, his communist affiliations.


Schlesinger....one of your 238 top historians.
Exclusions are how they edit history.


Get my drift?


You make a grave error in not considering which facts your historians leave out.

 

[Unkotare]

How many noted historians and presidential experts does America have to ask for a valid appraisal?

How about you forego the fallacy and provide your own appraisal? Why not put on your big-boy pants and defend or renounce the scumbag FDR's actions for yourself? Why not refute or admit the many, many facts that PC has produced on the subject? Why not try to think for yourself for once?

 

[regent]

reggie....don't you want to get in touch with 'America's top 239th historian' before you come to a hasty conclusion?????

How many noted historians and presidential experts does America have to ask for a valid appraisal? In any case they have been asking these authorities on history and presidents to rate the presidents since 1948, so they must have asked quite a number over the last fifty years or so. How many do you think should be asked for a valid rating?
Won't be long till we get to the, historians are commies, thing again.
But another tack, is there another group that can rate the presidents better?

Reggie....do you agree that the majority of academics are of a Left-Wing persuasion?
I'm not changing the subject.....


And, would you agree that one's political outlook has an effect on how one perceives, reports things?
Case in point.....there are far, far too many issues, subjects, events to report on all even in a thousand page book.
True?


So....how does one decide what to include....or exclude?


Example:
.... 24 months after the assassination of JFK, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the Kennedys’ kept historian, published a thousand-page history of the thousand-day presidency without mentioning the assassin by name....or, more importantly, his communist affiliations.


Schlesinger....one of your 238 top historians.
Exclusions are how they edit history.


Get my drift?


You make a grave error in not considering which facts your historians leave out.

So do all historians leave out these facts or just Schlesinger?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How many noted historians and presidential experts does America have to ask for a valid appraisal? In any case they have been asking these authorities on history and presidents to rate the presidents since 1948, so they must have asked quite a number over the last fifty years or so. How many do you think should be asked for a valid rating?
Won't be long till we get to the, historians are commies, thing again.
But another tack, is there another group that can rate the presidents better?

Reggie....do you agree that the majority of academics are of a Left-Wing persuasion?
I'm not changing the subject.....


And, would you agree that one's political outlook has an effect on how one perceives, reports things?
Case in point.....there are far, far too many issues, subjects, events to report on all even in a thousand page book.
True?


So....how does one decide what to include....or exclude?


Example:
.... 24 months after the assassination of JFK, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the Kennedys’ kept historian, published a thousand-page history of the thousand-day presidency without mentioning the assassin by name....or, more importantly, his communist affiliations.


Schlesinger....one of your 238 top historians.
Exclusions are how they edit history.


Get my drift?


You make a grave error in not considering which facts your historians leave out.

So do all historians leave out these facts or just Schlesinger?

Your vapid post means you got the point.

 

[regent]

How many noted historians and presidential experts does America have to ask for a valid appraisal?

How about you forego the fallacy and provide your own appraisal? Why not put on your big-boy pants and defend or renounce the scumbag FDR's actions for yourself? Why not refute or admit the many, many facts that PC has produced on the subject? Why not try to think for yourself for once?

What you mean is think like you. Not a chance.
When a budding youth I did know more than the experts but over the years that has somewhat changed. Today, I think it possible that 238 of America's top historians and presidential experts might know perhaps a little more history than I do, but then I'm the type that believes my medical doctor may know a wee bit more about medicine than I do.
Were I to appraise FDR on my own, I would rate FDR as America's greatest president, and I'm pleased the authorities agree with me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How many noted historians and presidential experts does America have to ask for a valid appraisal?

How about you forego the fallacy and provide your own appraisal? Why not put on your big-boy pants and defend or renounce the scumbag FDR's actions for yourself? Why not refute or admit the many, many facts that PC has produced on the subject? Why not try to think for yourself for once?

What you mean is think like you. Not a chance.
When a budding youth I did know more than the experts but over the years that has somewhat changed. Today, I think it possible that 238 of America's top historians and presidential experts might know perhaps a little more history than I do, but then I'm the type that believes my medical doctor may know a wee bit more about medicine than I do.
Were I to appraise FDR on my own, I would rate FDR as America's greatest president, and I'm pleased the authorities agree with me.

"Were I to appraise FDR on my own,...."

How about this OP?

 

[Unkotare]

How many noted historians and presidential experts does America have to ask for a valid appraisal?

How about you forego the fallacy and provide your own appraisal? Why not put on your big-boy pants and defend or renounce the scumbag FDR's actions for yourself? Why not refute or admit the many, many facts that PC has produced on the subject? Why not try to think for yourself for once?

What you mean is think like you.

No, I mean think - at all. Defend or renounce the scumbag FDR's actions for yourself. Refute or admit the many, many facts that PC has produced on the subject. You know - think. So far all you've ever done in the face of the historical facts is repeat a fallacy over and over again like the Rain Man chanting about being "A very good driver." You can do better.