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.
Let's leave it up to those familiar with Schlesinger, and with your track record, to determine who is 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.
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 a lying motherfucker. That's the end of it. PeriodSo 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 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:
In other words--
- Lessee shall sell the remaining oil . . .
Edge:
- Lessee [an actor capable of carrying out an obligation] shall [has a duty to] sell the remaining oil . . .
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
FDR was transforming the country into one that relied less on oligarchs and big business and gave government options to neutralize the powers of the obscene rich. That meant a literal transfer of profit away from the profiteers and into the hands of the masses. Hence, there were two distinct economies going on at the same time and both of them fluctuated as the transfer occurred. Revisionist like to use the negativity experienced by private industry and ignore the benefits created in society as a whole. Private business constantly complained that they were not advancing enough and getting a "Raw Deal" while FDR was giving the entire nation a "New Deal". Eventually private industry caught up and a balance was reached after the war which would last until the attempted dismantling of New Deal concepts with Reagan. Even Reagan saw the value of FDR's concepts and left many of them alone, however he gave confidence to the kleptocrats and corporatist who are steadily financing the fronts for obtaining the dream of Tories and the aristocrats.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.
Seems like beating a dead horse to show that you are a liar....but it is fun.
1. I quoted Arthur Schlesinger.....he's a Liberal historian...isn't he?
One for me.
2. Speaking as an expert on the era, he said 'the [Roosevelt] policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…”
Do you know what that means, 'had not produced recovery'?
Two for me.
3. Resorting to your usual device...lying...you claimed the downturn ended in 1933...
but the Liberal historian, and expert on the era, basically called you a bald-faced liar....as follows:
"The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression..."
Three for me.....a shut-out.
In your face, boyyyyeeeeeee.
Are you quoting a gay couple that wants to marry?
Totalitarian governance bears little resemblance to one that values personal liberty.
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.
She's totally ignored that point.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.
Herbert Hoover was the reason for FDR's success?
This is why you are in Brooklyn?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
This is why you are in Brooklyn?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
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.
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.
Rich people generally choose to have more material things than everyone else. The live in bigger, nicer homes. They wear nicer clothes. They drive more expensive cars. They have more material things. They could choose to not to live like that. They could choose to live modestly, shop at WalMart, and buy Camrys. But they generally don't. They have more, nicer material things. Hence, rich people are more material.
Rich people tend to support the Republican Party more.
Ergo, the Republican Party supports the most material group of people in America.
The word is "shall", a duty to be, which is investigated by the attorney, who basically said, "The Congress and Edgetho are stupid, and this just won't fly."You should let it all out, Edgey....Stop pussy-footin' around and tell him what you really think of him! I'll hold ya' coat.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 a lying motherfucker. That's the end of it. PeriodSo 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 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:
In other words--
- Lessee shall sell the remaining oil . . .
Edge:
- Lessee [an actor capable of carrying out an obligation] shall [has a duty to] sell the remaining oil . . .
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
All that script to explain why people like to eat and like cars.
It's called mocking with sarcasm.All that script to explain why people like to eat and like cars.
With anyone but you, I would be astounded that one could be so dense as to come to that conclusion from the provided material.
You're a special kind of stupid, Camp.
