Why didnt FDR tell VP Truman about the ABomb

[Unkotare]

Interring the Japanese was a small factor in the scale of WWII and the Depression.

Throwing over 100,000 innocent, loyal Americans (including some of the best and bravest we've ever had) into concentration camps is a "small factor" to you? That's how far you're willing to go to play the apologist, you shameless fucking shill? You're a disgrace, and certainly NOT a real American.

 

[Unkotare]

Would we do the same today under similar circumstances, I think we might.

No we wouldn't. Don't be stupid. Oops, too late.

 

[Unkotare]

There were no manuals, no textbooks on how to stop depressions, and there are still none today.

Thanks to the scumbag FDR we sure as hell know how to extend one.

 

[regent]

There were no manuals, no textbooks on how to stop depressions, and there are still none today.

Thanks to the scumbag FDR we sure as hell know how to extend one.

I'll give you the same question I posted earlier: why did FDR stop the New Deal? Here is your chance to exhibit some history.

 

[regent]

I would suspect that FDR has been studied, analyzed, dissected and investigated as much any US president including Lincoln. There is little not known about him, or those about him, and it is all in the record, I even know what high school Harold Ickes attended. Yet with all that his known of his successes and his failures, historians and the people from his era still believe he was the greatest. .

Can you defend the villian without resorting to logical fallacy? It doesn't seem you can.

Usually one names the logicial fallacy, then location. So what is the fallacy and where located?

 

[Unkotare]

What a surprise that you don't know. Appeal to authority.

 

[regent]

What a surprise that you don't know. Appeal to authority.

But is it a fallacy if the historians and presidential experts are in fact authorities?

I would suspect that using posters on these boards as authorities would be closer to a fallacy. Some of the presidential ratings could certainly be subject to question, i.e. a Gallup or Rasmussen poll of the general public. The general republic has trouble naming more than ten or twelve presidents much less rating all 43. Many history teachers of the lower grades cannot name all 43 presidents much less rate them. The most valid is questioning noted historians or presidential experts.

 

[Unkotare]

What a surprise that you don't know. Appeal to authority.

But is it a fallacy if the historians and presidential experts are in fact authorities?

Not if you can't identify these nameless "experts" nor specify how their expertise applies specifically to the matter at hand. Appeal to an unnamed authority is itself a fallacy. Any bias on the part of a supposed expert undermines any authority. Most importantly, if you do not use an authority to bolster an argument but instead of your own reasoning, such an appeal is not legitimate.

 

[regent]

What a surprise that you don't know. Appeal to authority.

But is it a fallacy if the historians and presidential experts are in fact authorities?

Not if you can't identify these nameless "experts" nor specify how their expertise applies specifically to the matter at hand. Appeal to an unnamed authority is itself a fallacy. Any bias on the part of a supposed expert undermines any authority. Most importantly, if you do not use an authority to bolster an argument but instead of your own reasoning, such an appeal is not legitimate.

There were 238 presidential experts in the Siena College poll and you want me to name them so you can save face? And what of the 2006 Siena poll with 744 professors, want those names too?
Might want to check out the definition of authority again and at the same time check out the Ad Hominem fallacy.
The Siena College poll of 238 noted historians and presidential experts I submit as authorities.
I still think the best defense against historical scholarship so far, is the usual "historians are communists," it seems to get the best response.

 

[gipper]

Regent believing in something just because some believe it, is not smart. You must think for yourself.

Regarding FDR, the evidence is overwhelming that he was a fool and a traitor. He did so many things that qualify for condemnation, but the interning American Japanese should qualify all by itself. To say nothing of his economic policies that impoverish millions and prolonged the Great Depression, his efforts to pack the SC, his numerous deceptive activities, his persistent lies regarding keeping us out of WWII while doing all he could instigate war, seeking reelection while dying during America's greatest war, consistently doing Stalin's bidding, etc...............................................................

I would suspect that FDR has been studied, analyzed, dissected and investigated as much any US president including Lincoln. There is little not known about him, or those about him, and it is all in the record, I even know what high school Harold Ickes attended. Yet with all that his known of his successes and his failures, historians and the people from his era still believe he was the greatest. I would suspect that any historian could make a good case, picking and choosing, that Lincoln was our worst president and people would accept it, I wouldn't. I think the historians are right on, FDR, Lincoln, Washington.
Interring the Japanese was a small factor in the scale of WWII and the Depression. The Court ruled it legal and America apologized and paid a few bucks. Would we do the same today under similar circumstances, I think we might. Look how we treated the Japanese before Pearl, or how some see Muslims at this time, or even the McCarthy period. Fear is a great motivator.
As for the prolonging of the Great Depression, do you have any idea of why FDR stopped the New Deal? There were no manuals, no textbooks on how to stop depressions, and there are still none today. FDR experimented and at times he was right and at times he was wrong, but he was trying.

Yes FDR has been studied extensively and when you look at the study OBJECTIVELY, you must conclude he was a fool, tyrant, and egotistical to a fault.

If he had been an R, liberals and Ds everywhere would still be condemning his name for imprisoning Japanese Americans. But since he is a D, he gets a pass. Don't you find this unusual? It also points to the bias by historians who rate Stalin's Stooge highly. Get it yet?

There is a MYTH built up around FDR. I went to the p-schools and was indoctrinated like everyone else. I was told FDR was great...that he got us out of the Depression and saved America in WWII. It was all bunk, yet this crap is still taught today.

You have been duped like many Americans.

And you are NOT correct about the not knowing what to do in a Depression. Do you think no nation had ever experienced a depression before the Great Depression? There was much information available on how to deal with a depression all of which, the Fool FDR ignored much like BO has done. FDR stopped the New Deal because it was a complete failure, just as BO's stimulus plan was a complete failure. However he continued massive interventions in the private sector and spent like a drunken fool....though he did enrich his followers so they could give him campaign cash....just like BO.

You have failed to learn from history, but you are far from being alone.

 

[regent]

The method of handling a depression before Hoover was wait it out. But that raised the question, would the American people wait it out? America was getting restless, plans for new type of governments and economic systems were gaining supporters and even vets were making funny noises. Hoover acted: supress the veterans and help business, trickle-down. It did not help. FDR was elected with no plans, but to try to find a solution. Some things he did helped, some did not, some were found unconstitutional. Do we have a plan today that is guaranteed to cure a depression? Absolutely not.
A couple of questions: Are all depressions the same?
Do all depressions have the same causes?
If there is a common cure for depressions what are they?
Have the cures been used a number of times and over a period of time and proven to work?
Why did FDR end the New Deal? And what would be the significance of that move?
Are most economists agreed on causes and cures of depressions?
If there is a tried and true method to cure depressions why didn't Bush use them at first inkling, or Hoover, or FDR or any of the world nations that have economic problems?
Is the solution that Romney suggests, the real tried and true solution? If so what is that solution?

 

[Unkotare]

But is it a fallacy if the historians and presidential experts are in fact authorities?

Not if you can't identify these nameless "experts" nor specify how their expertise applies specifically to the matter at hand. Appeal to an unnamed authority is itself a fallacy. Any bias on the part of a supposed expert undermines any authority. Most importantly, if you do not use an authority to bolster an argument but instead of your own reasoning, such an appeal is not legitimate.

There were 238 presidential experts in the Siena College poll and you want me to name them so you can save face? .

If they remain unnamed, then you are committing the fallacy in question, particularly since you haven't even tried to defend your position beyond, "they said so!" Do you expect anyone to take the opinion of a radical leftist who happens to be an expert in Hittite pottery as the last word on the matter of FDR? Even you can't be that stupid.

 

[whitehall]

Like it or not the media writes the history books. You can find the truth in the greatest Country in the world but you have to look for it. The liberal media created the FDR myth. His policies were so shockingly bad that it defies explanation but the media created the myth and that's what was taught to generations of kids. Elitist, well educated and rich, FDR was elected in 1932 on a promise to end the emerging recession and under his leadership in his first two terms the recession turned into a soup line depression known as the "great depression". FDR's foreign policy was a shambles. Hitler rose in power around the same time FDR was elected and the US virtually ignored the Nazi saber rattling. The incredible racism at the time led FDR to grossly (criminally?) underestimate the Japanese threat until they managed to sail across the Pacific undetected and attack the US Navy at Pearl Harbor. The liberal media kept the mess of the FDR administration afloat and he was elected to a 3rd and even a 4th term. FDR was so sick that the DNC hand picked a stupid little twerp senator that they could push around when they knew FDR would be elected and die within the first year of his 4th term.

 

[regent]

Not if you can't identify these nameless "experts" nor specify how their expertise applies specifically to the matter at hand. Appeal to an unnamed authority is itself a fallacy. Any bias on the part of a supposed expert undermines any authority. Most importantly, if you do not use an authority to bolster an argument but instead of your own reasoning, such an appeal is not legitimate.

There were 238 presidential experts in the Siena College poll and you want me to name them so you can save face? .

If they remain unnamed, then you are committing the fallacy in question, particularly since you haven't even tried to defend your position beyond, "they said so!" Do you expect anyone to take the opinion of a radical leftist who happens to be an expert in Hittite pottery as the last word on the matter of FDR? Even you can't be that stupid.

The authority is Siena College, it is their poll. Does Rasmussen put the names of the people that respond to its presidential polls on their results? If a poll of medical experts, the FDA, indicate a particular medicine is approved for use by the general public, is that deemed acceptable by rational people or do people need the names of the medical experts?
Siena College say their poll is valid and I and most people accept that as a valid poll. If you accept it or not that's your choice, but some of your life is based on the the concensus of experts and you don't even know their names. Might check out the definition of authority again.

 

[regent]

Like it or not the media writes the history books. You can find the truth in the greatest Country in the world but you have to look for it. The liberal media created the FDR myth. His policies were so shockingly bad that it defies explanation but the media created the myth and that's what was taught to generations of kids. Elitist, well educated and rich, FDR was elected in 1932 on a promise to end the emerging recession and under his leadership in his first two terms the recession turned into a soup line depression known as the "great depression". FDR's foreign policy was a shambles. Hitler rose in power around the same time FDR was elected and the US virtually ignored the Nazi saber rattling. The incredible racism at the time led FDR to grossly (criminally?) underestimate the Japanese threat until they managed to sail across the Pacific undetected and attack the US Navy at Pearl Harbor. The liberal media kept the mess of the FDR administration afloat and he was elected to a 3rd and even a 4th term. FDR was so sick that the DNC hand picked a stupid little twerp senator that they could push around when they knew FDR would be elected and die within the first year of his 4th term.

First the emerging depression you speak of, had been on the land for three plus years before FDR took office. That's not emerging. The soup lines were here long before FDR as were the apple sellers. In fact, Hoover lauded the apple sellers as new businessmen
The history taught to students is written by historians not the general media.
Hitler was not ignored but the depression took precedence, and as important, was the foreign nations changing their political and their economic systems. FDR was determined to keep our American political system and economic system intact.
We have been surprised a number of times by our enemies, recently 9/11, and 1983 with the attack in Lebannon killing 241 American military and at Pearl Harbor. Even after the Pearl Harbor attack MacArthur knowing of Pearl Harbor lost his air force on the ground to the Japanese. And as MacArthur discovered Truman was not a twerp as he was sent home, fired.

 

[Unkotare]

There were 238 presidential experts in the Siena College poll and you want me to name them so you can save face? .

If they remain unnamed, then you are committing the fallacy in question, particularly since you haven't even tried to defend your position beyond, "they said so!" Do you expect anyone to take the opinion of a radical leftist who happens to be an expert in Hittite pottery as the last word on the matter of FDR? Even you can't be that stupid.

The authority is Siena College, it is their poll. Does Rasmussen put the names of the people that respond to its presidential polls on their results? If a poll of medical experts, the FDA, indicate a particular medicine is approved for use by the general public, is that deemed acceptable by rational people or do people need the names of the medical experts?
Siena College say their poll is valid and I and most people accept that as a valid poll. If you accept it or not that's your choice, but some of your life is based on the the concensus of experts and you don't even know their names. Might check out the definition of authority again.

Polls are not 'proof' of anything. They are the compilation and statistical analysis of opinions. If they are to be held up as anything more than that you must be qualified. The FDA does not present opinions as proof of anything. Medical 'facts' are based on scientific studies and the results of research.

Again we see that you cannot even try to defend your position without resorting to logical fallacy. Maybe that should tell you something about your position.

 

[Unkotare]

FDR was determined to keep our American political system and economic system intact.

Oh really? Is that why he devoted himself fully to changing them into something they had never been?

 

[regent]

If they remain unnamed, then you are committing the fallacy in question, particularly since you haven't even tried to defend your position beyond, "they said so!" Do you expect anyone to take the opinion of a radical leftist who happens to be an expert in Hittite pottery as the last word on the matter of FDR? Even you can't be that stupid.

The authority is Siena College, it is their poll. Does Rasmussen put the names of the people that respond to its presidential polls on their results? If a poll of medical experts, the FDA, indicate a particular medicine is approved for use by the general public, is that deemed acceptable by rational people or do people need the names of the medical experts?
Siena College say their poll is valid and I and most people accept that as a valid poll. If you accept it or not that's your choice, but some of your life is based on the the concensus of experts and you don't even know their names. Might check out the definition of authority again.

Polls are not 'proof' of anything. They are the compilation and statistical analysis of opinions. If they are to be held up as anything more than that you must be qualified. The FDA does not present opinions as proof of anything. Medical 'facts' are based on scientific studies and the results of research.

Again we see that you cannot even try to defend your position without resorting to logical fallacy. Maybe that should tell you something about your position.

Of course polls are not proof, only evidence.
Medical facts are based on science, and it is that scientific approach that has been the best decider of what we think of as truths today. History is a social science and the goal of history is the truth. The truth may not be the goal of all historians but is of history-as a social science.
In any case, I'll take a consensus of of 238 noted historians on a historical topic, as better evidence than 238 posters, just as I'd take a poll of 238 medical experts on a medical topic as better evidence than 238 poster's opinions.

 

[Unkotare]

Again, you've got nothing but logical fallacy to defend your position.

 

[regent]

Again, you've got nothing but logical fallacy to defend your position.

Well, if you want to narrow the topic of FDR down to a definition of argument by authority so be it. It might be in your best interests at that.
One of my books, Introduction to Logic, by Irving M. Copi and Carl cohen defines the fallacy thus: "The fallacy Appeal to Inappropiate Authority arises when the appeal is made to parties that have no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand."
It seems that 238 historians of note and presidential experts just might have some legitimate claim to authority on an historical topic like past presidents. If you want the names of the 238 historians you might check on the Siena college poll of 2010 but it might take some red tape to get the names. Were I to obtain the names for you your next request would be for addresses, and then names of children and so on.