Why We're Where We Are

[PoliticalChic]

Interesting fact when discussing facts about the Great Depression and unemployment. How is it that so many Americans loved FDR during that time even though the unemployment numbers where so high? Easy explanation. The method for counting the unemployed was far different than used today. The numbers represented workers who did not have jobs in private industry. They did not include people working on public projects. Those working on public projects are considered to be on welfare and relief by today's revisionist. The people who built three aircraft carriers in preparation for WWll, the highways, bridges and tunnels that are still being used today, the National Park facilities, the dams, the Post Offices, schools, hospitals, National Guard Armories and all the other countless infrastructure that has served us for over 75 years were built by unemployed people, even though they got pay checks. The people getting payed to build the wonderful things that gave our nation a great infrastructure for the 20th Century and prepared us for a two front World War knew they weren't unemployed. The long line of unemployed PC uses for part of the revisionist scam could have never been assembled or formed. Her hoped for imaginary participants were busy building America's infrastructure.

1."The long line of unemployed PC uses for part of the revisionist blah blah blah...."
I didn't use it.....Folsom and Folsom used it.

"History books and politicians in both parties sing the praises for Franklin Delano Roosevelt's presidency and its measures to get America out of the Great Depression. What goes unappreciated is the fact that many of those measures exacerbated and extended the economic downturn of the 1930s.

New Deal or Raw Deal? is a careful documentation and analysis of those measures that allows us to reach only one conclusion: While President Roosevelt was a great man in some respects, his economic policy was a disaster.

What's worse is that public ignorance of those policy failures has lent support for similar policies in later years. Professor Burt Folsom has produced a highly readable book and has done a yeoman's job in exposing the New Deal." -- Walter E. Williams, John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, George Mason University


Then, there is the Roosevelt lap-dog......you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's leave it to those of us who are familiar that PC is conservative reactionary and not a Republican.

One, American materialism is rooted in American capitalism and our country's history.

Two, government assistance is not socialism.

Three, Cruz does not have a chance other than none.

Four, the neo-cons are not going to be allowed to send tens of thousands of American soliders back to the ME.

 

[Edgetho]

Okay, PC since you won't look into it..... The Contempt Charge you're bitching about?

Republicans handed it over to the US Attorney for Washington DC, scumbag motherfucker Ronald Machen, and instead of bringing it to a Grand Jury, as he is required by law to do, he dismissed the case and IMMEDIATELY left office. I mean....... Within minutes, maybe SECONDS of ILLEGALLY throwing the case out.

Otherwise, Republicans would call him in front of an Impeachment panel. So he left, literally , within minutes of tossing the case

We're doing everything we can to fight the corruption and disgusting filth in the scum of the earth dimocrap party.

What are you doing to help?

Serving Tea? Playing Ken and Barbie??

 

[JakeStarkey]

The attorney is not required at all by law to bring it forward to a grand jury. End of that nonsense.

Its job is to evaluate the Congress's request not slavishly follow it, for the Court;s legal dealing is not subordinate to the House.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No it didn't. The massive government spending program to build the war machine is what put people to work.

Yes, the government can create jobs.

Btw, the country came out of recession in 1933.

NYLiar burnishing his credentials.

1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…”

He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .



2. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
article - AEI

Those lies don't become true no matter how often you post them.

Since you're a simpleton, I give you a simple explanation. The blue parts are economic expansion, the red parts are economic contraction.

1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .


It appears you are unfamiliar with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian.

So?

He was wrong. Are claiming a liberal can never be wrong?

The chart clearly shows he was wrong.

Let's leave it up to those familiar with Schlesinger, and with your track record, to determine who is wrong.

No it didn't. The massive government spending program to build the war machine is what put people to work.

Yes, the government can create jobs.

Btw, the country came out of recession in 1933.

NYLiar burnishing his credentials.

1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…”

He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .



2. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
article - AEI

Those lies don't become true no matter how often you post them.

Since you're a simpleton, I give you a simple explanation. The blue parts are economic expansion, the red parts are economic contraction.

1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .


It appears you are unfamiliar with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian.

So?

He was wrong. Are claiming a liberal can never be wrong?

The chart clearly shows he was wrong.

Let's leave it up to those familiar with Schlesinger, and with your track record, to determine who is wrong.

I'm more familiar with Schlesinger than you are, because I know WHY he criticized FDR's policies.

Quoting Schlesinger:

"The reason the New Deal did not do even better was that Roosevelt, though much denounced at the time as a profligate spender, remained at heart a budget-balancer and a planner.

In any event, the hysterical opposition of businessmen to public spending for anyone but themselves made it politically impossible for him to spend very much."

See? Schlesinger faults FDR not for too much government spending, but for not enough.

The Hundred Days of F.D.R.

Oh, and let's add this gem from Schlesinger, now that you've decided he's your personal genius.

"The Hundred Days were only the start of a process that ended by transforming American society. 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?

These social changes have won general approval. Even the Reagan counterrevolution, for all its 19th-century laissez-faire and Social Darwinist passions, shrinks from abolishing the framework of social protection -the ''safety nets'' - created by the New Deal."

Who looks stupid now, monkey?

 

[NYcarbineer]

And just to make sure you flee this thread for good let me add this last Schlesinger quote (this is 1983 btw during the Reagan presidency):

"Perhaps our nation will be more united, more equitable and more prosperous, too, if we abandon the current program of cutting taxes for the rich and social programs for the poor

and recall the proposition Roosevelt set forth in his second inaugural:

''The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.'' "

 

[Toro]

1. A chicken in every pot, a new Chevrolet in every garage......


It is difficult to fight materialism....in fact, it is a mistake to fight it in the absolute, meaning if the alternative is starvation and homelessness.

That was the reason for so much of Franklin Roosevelt's success.


And once the desire for material satisfaction is given societal blessing....well, the line between sustaining life and simple greed is blurred.

Government promises you the chicken, and the Chevy.

Few ask where government gets the money to fulfill those promises, but your part of the deal is your vote, and what bit of liberty they chip away from your birthright.



But, like it or not, if you agree to the deal....you are a Leftist.
"Dialectical materialism... is a philosophy of science and nature, based on the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,..." Dialectical materialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




2. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.
Dennis Prager.


And, if the only reality is materialism, there is no such thing as the spiritual, or morality, or responsibility.


a. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
Concentration camps, gulags, famine as a government policy, show trials, torture....everything.

Hence, the reason for the ascendancy of Leftism: free chicken, Chevrolets, and the ability to do whatever feels good.



3. All of this was predicted....warned of....almost two centuries ago, by Alexis de Tocqueville. Writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, he described Liberalism as “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.”

It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”




4. We Americans have stumbled into the great sea change, from a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government, to one under the thumb of despotism. Think not? Still believe in the Constitution and on checks and balances?

Recently, the 'President' spit on those checks and balances:
" Obama Dares GOP: Go Ahead, ‘Have a Vote on Whether What I’m Doing Is Legal…I Will Veto’

“So in the short term,if Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner,want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do.”
Obama Dares GOP Go Ahead Have a Vote on Whether What I m Doing Is Legal I Will Veto MRCTV

Do you not find it ironic that the Republican party is the defender of the rich, the most materialistic group of people in America?

 

[PoliticalChic]

NYLiar burnishing his credentials.

1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…”

He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .



2. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
article - AEI

Those lies don't become true no matter how often you post them.

Since you're a simpleton, I give you a simple explanation. The blue parts are economic expansion, the red parts are economic contraction.

1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .


It appears you are unfamiliar with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian.

So?

He was wrong. Are claiming a liberal can never be wrong?

The chart clearly shows he was wrong.

Let's leave it up to those familiar with Schlesinger, and with your track record, to determine who is wrong.

NYLiar burnishing his credentials.

1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…”

He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .



2. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
article - AEI

Those lies don't become true no matter how often you post them.

Since you're a simpleton, I give you a simple explanation. The blue parts are economic expansion, the red parts are economic contraction.

1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .


It appears you are unfamiliar with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian.

So?

He was wrong. Are claiming a liberal can never be wrong?

The chart clearly shows he was wrong.

Let's leave it up to those familiar with Schlesinger, and with your track record, to determine who is wrong.

I'm more familiar with Schlesinger than you are, because I know WHY he criticized FDR's policies.

Quoting Schlesinger:

"The reason the New Deal did not do even better was that Roosevelt, though much denounced at the time as a profligate spender, remained at heart a budget-balancer and a planner.

In any event, the hysterical opposition of businessmen to public spending for anyone but themselves made it politically impossible for him to spend very much."

See? Schlesinger faults FDR not for too much government spending, but for not enough.

The Hundred Days of F.D.R.

Oh, and let's add this gem from Schlesinger, now that you've decided he's your personal genius.

"The Hundred Days were only the start of a process that ended by transforming American society. 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?

These social changes have won general approval. Even the Reagan counterrevolution, for all its 19th-century laissez-faire and Social Darwinist passions, shrinks from abolishing the framework of social protection -the ''safety nets'' - created by the New Deal."

Who looks stupid now, monkey?

Gee....I suggested that the reader could decide who to believe, Schlesinger, or a serial liar....

...and you're sweating like a stuck pig.


How appropriate!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Those lies don't become true no matter how often you post them.

Since you're a simpleton, I give you a simple explanation. The blue parts are economic expansion, the red parts are economic contraction.

1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .


It appears you are unfamiliar with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian.

So?

He was wrong. Are claiming a liberal can never be wrong?

The chart clearly shows he was wrong.

Let's leave it up to those familiar with Schlesinger, and with your track record, to determine who is wrong.

Those lies don't become true no matter how often you post them.

Since you're a simpleton, I give you a simple explanation. The blue parts are economic expansion, the red parts are economic contraction.

1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .


It appears you are unfamiliar with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian.

So?

He was wrong. Are claiming a liberal can never be wrong?

The chart clearly shows he was wrong.

Let's leave it up to those familiar with Schlesinger, and with your track record, to determine who is wrong.

I'm more familiar with Schlesinger than you are, because I know WHY he criticized FDR's policies.

Quoting Schlesinger:

"The reason the New Deal did not do even better was that Roosevelt, though much denounced at the time as a profligate spender, remained at heart a budget-balancer and a planner.

In any event, the hysterical opposition of businessmen to public spending for anyone but themselves made it politically impossible for him to spend very much."

See? Schlesinger faults FDR not for too much government spending, but for not enough.

The Hundred Days of F.D.R.

Oh, and let's add this gem from Schlesinger, now that you've decided he's your personal genius.

"The Hundred Days were only the start of a process that ended by transforming American society. 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?

These social changes have won general approval. Even the Reagan counterrevolution, for all its 19th-century laissez-faire and Social Darwinist passions, shrinks from abolishing the framework of social protection -the ''safety nets'' - created by the New Deal."

Who looks stupid now, monkey?

Gee....I suggested that the reader could decide who to believe, Schlesinger, or a serial liar....

...and you're sweating like a stuck pig.


How appropriate!

Now that I've proven that Schlesinger was to the left of FDR on the Great Depression, you're back to throwing feces at the audience.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. A chicken in every pot, a new Chevrolet in every garage......


It is difficult to fight materialism....in fact, it is a mistake to fight it in the absolute, meaning if the alternative is starvation and homelessness.

That was the reason for so much of Franklin Roosevelt's success.


And once the desire for material satisfaction is given societal blessing....well, the line between sustaining life and simple greed is blurred.

Government promises you the chicken, and the Chevy.

Few ask where government gets the money to fulfill those promises, but your part of the deal is your vote, and what bit of liberty they chip away from your birthright.



But, like it or not, if you agree to the deal....you are a Leftist.
"Dialectical materialism... is a philosophy of science and nature, based on the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,..." Dialectical materialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




2. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.
Dennis Prager.


And, if the only reality is materialism, there is no such thing as the spiritual, or morality, or responsibility.


a. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
Concentration camps, gulags, famine as a government policy, show trials, torture....everything.

Hence, the reason for the ascendancy of Leftism: free chicken, Chevrolets, and the ability to do whatever feels good.



3. All of this was predicted....warned of....almost two centuries ago, by Alexis de Tocqueville. Writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, he described Liberalism as “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.”

It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”




4. We Americans have stumbled into the great sea change, from a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government, to one under the thumb of despotism. Think not? Still believe in the Constitution and on checks and balances?

Recently, the 'President' spit on those checks and balances:
" Obama Dares GOP: Go Ahead, ‘Have a Vote on Whether What I’m Doing Is Legal…I Will Veto’

“So in the short term,if Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner,want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do.”
Obama Dares GOP Go Ahead Have a Vote on Whether What I m Doing Is Legal I Will Veto MRCTV

Do you not find it ironic that the Republican party is the defender of the rich, the most materialistic group of people in America?

Irony is not in the 5 essential food groups for a conservative like PC. It's up on the shelf she can't reach.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…”

He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .


It appears you are unfamiliar with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian.

So?

He was wrong. Are claiming a liberal can never be wrong?

The chart clearly shows he was wrong.

Let's leave it up to those familiar with Schlesinger, and with your track record, to determine who is wrong.

1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .


It appears you are unfamiliar with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian.

So?

He was wrong. Are claiming a liberal can never be wrong?

The chart clearly shows he was wrong.

Let's leave it up to those familiar with Schlesinger, and with your track record, to determine who is wrong.

I'm more familiar with Schlesinger than you are, because I know WHY he criticized FDR's policies.

Quoting Schlesinger:

"The reason the New Deal did not do even better was that Roosevelt, though much denounced at the time as a profligate spender, remained at heart a budget-balancer and a planner.

In any event, the hysterical opposition of businessmen to public spending for anyone but themselves made it politically impossible for him to spend very much."

See? Schlesinger faults FDR not for too much government spending, but for not enough.

The Hundred Days of F.D.R.

Oh, and let's add this gem from Schlesinger, now that you've decided he's your personal genius.

"The Hundred Days were only the start of a process that ended by transforming American society. 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?

These social changes have won general approval. Even the Reagan counterrevolution, for all its 19th-century laissez-faire and Social Darwinist passions, shrinks from abolishing the framework of social protection -the ''safety nets'' - created by the New Deal."

Who looks stupid now, monkey?

Gee....I suggested that the reader could decide who to believe, Schlesinger, or a serial liar....

...and you're sweating like a stuck pig.


How appropriate!

Now that I've proven that Schlesinger was to the left of FDR on the Great Depression, you're back to throwing feces at the audience.

But you didn't manage to deny this:

. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…”

He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .


If you weren't the lowest of the low, this would be another example of you embarrassing yourself.

 

[Edgetho]

The attorney is not required at all by law to bring it forward to a grand jury. End of that nonsense.

Its job is to evaluate the Congress's request not slavishly follow it, for the Court;s legal dealing is not subordinate to the House.

And you are a lying, ignorant, scumbag piece of dimocrap shit. Take that dick out of your mouth and maybe you'll be able to think with what's left of your brain

2 U.S. Code 194 - Certification of failure to testify or produce grand jury action LII Legal Information Institute

Whenever a witness summoned as mentioned in section 192 of this title fails to appear to testify or fails to produce any books, papers, records, or documents, as required, or whenever any witness so summoned refuses to answer any question pertinent to the subject under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee or subcommittee of either House of Congress, and the fact of such failure or failures is reported to either House while Congress is in session or when Congress is not in session, a statement of fact constituting such failure is reported to and filed with the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House, it shall be the duty of the said President of the Senate or Speaker of the House, as the case may be, to certify, and he shall so certify, the statement of facts aforesaid under the seal of the Senate or House, as the case may be, to the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. A chicken in every pot, a new Chevrolet in every garage......


It is difficult to fight materialism....in fact, it is a mistake to fight it in the absolute, meaning if the alternative is starvation and homelessness.

That was the reason for so much of Franklin Roosevelt's success.


And once the desire for material satisfaction is given societal blessing....well, the line between sustaining life and simple greed is blurred.

Government promises you the chicken, and the Chevy.

Few ask where government gets the money to fulfill those promises, but your part of the deal is your vote, and what bit of liberty they chip away from your birthright.



But, like it or not, if you agree to the deal....you are a Leftist.
"Dialectical materialism... is a philosophy of science and nature, based on the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,..." Dialectical materialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




2. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.
Dennis Prager.


And, if the only reality is materialism, there is no such thing as the spiritual, or morality, or responsibility.


a. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
Concentration camps, gulags, famine as a government policy, show trials, torture....everything.

Hence, the reason for the ascendancy of Leftism: free chicken, Chevrolets, and the ability to do whatever feels good.



3. All of this was predicted....warned of....almost two centuries ago, by Alexis de Tocqueville. Writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, he described Liberalism as “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.”

It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”




4. We Americans have stumbled into the great sea change, from a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government, to one under the thumb of despotism. Think not? Still believe in the Constitution and on checks and balances?

Recently, the 'President' spit on those checks and balances:
" Obama Dares GOP: Go Ahead, ‘Have a Vote on Whether What I’m Doing Is Legal…I Will Veto’

“So in the short term,if Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner,want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do.”
Obama Dares GOP Go Ahead Have a Vote on Whether What I m Doing Is Legal I Will Veto MRCTV

Do you not find it ironic that the Republican party is the defender of the rich, the most materialistic group of people in America?

Facts not in evidence.

It's one of those 'common sense' judgments, like 'two plumb lines are parallel.'

You really should think before you post.

 

[Edgetho]

Here's another link for you lying scum-sucking filthy dimocrap pieces of fucking shit...

Making the Lois Lerner Problem Disappear National Review Online

Lying

Motherfuckers

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you can cite the law, good for you. So can the US attorney. "Shall" is not mandatory, son. It's the attorney's discretion, not yours, not the House. You don't like it. No one cares.

Edgetho's melting mind is having a particularly troublesome day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So?

He was wrong. Are claiming a liberal can never be wrong?

The chart clearly shows he was wrong.

Let's leave it up to those familiar with Schlesinger, and with your track record, to determine who is wrong.

So?

He was wrong. Are claiming a liberal can never be wrong?

The chart clearly shows he was wrong.

Let's leave it up to those familiar with Schlesinger, and with your track record, to determine who is wrong.

I'm more familiar with Schlesinger than you are, because I know WHY he criticized FDR's policies.

Quoting Schlesinger:

"The reason the New Deal did not do even better was that Roosevelt, though much denounced at the time as a profligate spender, remained at heart a budget-balancer and a planner.

In any event, the hysterical opposition of businessmen to public spending for anyone but themselves made it politically impossible for him to spend very much."

See? Schlesinger faults FDR not for too much government spending, but for not enough.

The Hundred Days of F.D.R.

Oh, and let's add this gem from Schlesinger, now that you've decided he's your personal genius.

"The Hundred Days were only the start of a process that ended by transforming American society. 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?

These social changes have won general approval. Even the Reagan counterrevolution, for all its 19th-century laissez-faire and Social Darwinist passions, shrinks from abolishing the framework of social protection -the ''safety nets'' - created by the New Deal."

Who looks stupid now, monkey?

Gee....I suggested that the reader could decide who to believe, Schlesinger, or a serial liar....

...and you're sweating like a stuck pig.


How appropriate!

Now that I've proven that Schlesinger was to the left of FDR on the Great Depression, you're back to throwing feces at the audience.

But you didn't manage to deny this:

. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…”

He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .


If you weren't the lowest of the low, this would be another example of you embarrassing yourself.

 

[Edgetho]

So you can cite the law, good for you. So can the US attorney. "Shall" is not mandatory, son. It's the attorney's discretion, not yours, not the House. You don't like it. No one cares.

Edgetho's melting mind is having a particularly troublesome day.

You are a lying motherfucker.

That's the end of it.

Period

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you can cite the law, good for you. So can the US attorney. "Shall" is not mandatory, son. It's the attorney's discretion, not yours, not the House. You don't like it. No one cares.

Edgetho's melting mind is having a particularly troublesome day.

You are a lying motherfucker. That's the end of it. Period

No, I am not; yes, you are. You don't decide how it works. The attorney does, and that is the end of it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So?

He was wrong. Are claiming a liberal can never be wrong?

The chart clearly shows he was wrong.

Let's leave it up to those familiar with Schlesinger, and with your track record, to determine who is wrong.

So?

He was wrong. Are claiming a liberal can never be wrong?

The chart clearly shows he was wrong.

Let's leave it up to those familiar with Schlesinger, and with your track record, to determine who is wrong.

I'm more familiar with Schlesinger than you are, because I know WHY he criticized FDR's policies.

Quoting Schlesinger:

"The reason the New Deal did not do even better was that Roosevelt, though much denounced at the time as a profligate spender, remained at heart a budget-balancer and a planner.

In any event, the hysterical opposition of businessmen to public spending for anyone but themselves made it politically impossible for him to spend very much."

See? Schlesinger faults FDR not for too much government spending, but for not enough.

The Hundred Days of F.D.R.

Oh, and let's add this gem from Schlesinger, now that you've decided he's your personal genius.

"The Hundred Days were only the start of a process that ended by transforming American society. 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?

These social changes have won general approval. Even the Reagan counterrevolution, for all its 19th-century laissez-faire and Social Darwinist passions, shrinks from abolishing the framework of social protection -the ''safety nets'' - created by the New Deal."

Who looks stupid now, monkey?

Gee....I suggested that the reader could decide who to believe, Schlesinger, or a serial liar....

...and you're sweating like a stuck pig.


How appropriate!

Now that I've proven that Schlesinger was to the left of FDR on the Great Depression, you're back to throwing feces at the audience.

But you didn't manage to deny this:

. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…”

He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .


If you weren't the lowest of the low, this would be another example of you embarrassing yourself.

Yes I have. Your denial notwithstanding.

 

[Edgetho]

So you can cite the law, good for you. So can the US attorney. "Shall" is not mandatory, son. It's the attorney's discretion, not yours, not the House. You don't like it. No one cares.

Edgetho's melting mind is having a particularly troublesome day.

You are a lying motherfucker. That's the end of it. Period

No, I am not; yes, you are. You don't decide how it works. The attorney does, and that is the end of it.

You are not only a lying motherfucker, you're fucking STUPID as well...

The word 'shall' imposes a duty --

Legalwriting.net shall vs. will

To correctly use "shall," confine it to the meaning "has a duty to" and use it to impose a duty on a capable actor. Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 940–941 (2d ed., Oxford U. Press 1995). Here's how:

• Lessee shall sell the remaining oil . . .

In other words--

• Lessee [an actor capable of carrying out an obligation] shall [has a duty to] sell the remaining oil . . .

Edge:
The word 'will' imposes an obligation. NOT a duty.

You are one lying motherfucker. And I might be your daddy but I promise you I'm not your son.

I thought I kicked that last one down the stairs after she spent my $200 I gave her for the abortion on crack.

Explains a lot

scumbag motherfucker