Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution

[Uncensored2008]

In the 21st century, a "progressive" is simply a Communist too cowardly to use the proper terminology.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Funny how a very conservative Supreme Court doesn't have any problems, only the Pub Propaganda Machine and the hater dupes...

Today, February 5th, 1937.......King Franklin the First, aka Franklin Roosevelt, unveiled his attempt to subvert the United States Constitution, by simply making the Supreme Court his rubber stamp.

This was the date of his announcing his court-packing plan.

So....how did you plan to celebrate?



BTW....real Americans.....at that time the category included Democrats.......rebelled.

So the Congress shot down the Court packing thing but the Court saw the light and began to see FDR's programs as Constitutional. So who won the battle the Court battle, Congress or FDR? Remember, a stich in time saved nine.

King Franklin, the guy who despised the United States Constitution, won.

The same guy who made certain that communism in the Soviet Union and Stalin survived, and the ideology found a home in the United States.

But you know that.....didn't your 'historians' tell you that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the 21st century, a "progressive" is simply a Communist too cowardly to use the proper terminology.

I've heard the statement "Progressivism is socialism in slow motion," but one can certainly put 'communism' in there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Today, February 5th, 1937.......King Franklin the First, aka Franklin Roosevelt, unveiled his attempt to subvert the United States Constitution, by simply making the Supreme Court his rubber stamp.

This was the date of his announcing his court-packing plan.

So....how did you plan to celebrate?



BTW....real Americans.....at that time the category included Democrats.......rebelled.

That was not unconstitutional.

Subverting the Constitution not unconstitutional?

Oh...wait....you're the liar.

I get it.

Passing legislation that is not unconstitutional is not 'subverting' the Constitution. There is no constitutional provision setting the number of justices. The number of justices was set at 9 by legislation, in 1869.

Here's how it happened:

1. In 1937, Roosevelt tried to pack the judiciary, by stuffing more Liberals and KKKers on the Supreme Court, and in 1938 attempted to purge Democrat Senators who defeated the scheme.

While his tactic failed,his strategy succeeded:he made cowards of the Justices, effectivelydoing away with the 'checks and balances'provided by an independent Supreme Court.


a. Democrat Senator Ashurst of Arizona, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time,denounced court packing as a "prelude to tyranny,"but, when Roosevelt announced it, Ashurst issued a one-line statement late that afternoon saying he was in "favor of the President's proposal."
"No Senator can change his mind quicker than I."
Henry F. Ashurst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk about Lock-step Liberals.



b. Patriotic Democrat Carter Glass of Virginia, explained it as follows: "Why, if the President asked Congress to commit suicide tomorrow they'd do it."

Sound like the ObamaCare vote?




2. Lest any believe that Roosevelt's actions were less than design, he himself disclosed in his first inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1933, that his idea of leadership had no boundary, and, in fact, did not exclude dictatorship. He made clear that if Congress did not follow his orders, "I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for.... -broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency as great as the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.... for discipline and direction under leadership."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution,"p.64


a. From Congressional hearings, 1973:
“Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.”
Freedomsite.net



3. Other tyrants, the same:
"Obama vows to act alone if Congress doesn't cooperate"
Obama vows to act alone if Congress doesn't cooperate | recordonline.com


Constitution be damned!


So....when one thinks about it, essentially, in 2012, 65,899,660 voters cast their ballot for a monarchy, and against the Constitution.

You too, right?

You were going to prove what FDR did was unconstitutional,

or did you give up on that?

Proven.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That was not unconstitutional.

Subverting the Constitution not unconstitutional?

Oh...wait....you're the liar.

I get it.

Passing legislation that is not unconstitutional is not 'subverting' the Constitution. There is no constitutional provision setting the number of justices. The number of justices was set at 9 by legislation, in 1869.

Here's how it happened:

1. In 1937, Roosevelt tried to pack the judiciary, by stuffing more Liberals and KKKers on the Supreme Court, and in 1938 attempted to purge Democrat Senators who defeated the scheme.

While his tactic failed,his strategy succeeded:he made cowards of the Justices, effectivelydoing away with the 'checks and balances'provided by an independent Supreme Court.


a. Democrat Senator Ashurst of Arizona, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time,denounced court packing as a "prelude to tyranny,"but, when Roosevelt announced it, Ashurst issued a one-line statement late that afternoon saying he was in "favor of the President's proposal."
"No Senator can change his mind quicker than I."
Henry F. Ashurst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk about Lock-step Liberals.



b. Patriotic Democrat Carter Glass of Virginia, explained it as follows: "Why, if the President asked Congress to commit suicide tomorrow they'd do it."

Sound like the ObamaCare vote?




2. Lest any believe that Roosevelt's actions were less than design, he himself disclosed in his first inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1933, that his idea of leadership had no boundary, and, in fact, did not exclude dictatorship. He made clear that if Congress did not follow his orders, "I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for.... -broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency as great as the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.... for discipline and direction under leadership."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution,"p.64


a. From Congressional hearings, 1973:
“Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.”
Freedomsite.net



3. Other tyrants, the same:
"Obama vows to act alone if Congress doesn't cooperate"
Obama vows to act alone if Congress doesn't cooperate | recordonline.com


Constitution be damned!


So....when one thinks about it, essentially, in 2012, 65,899,660 voters cast their ballot for a monarchy, and against the Constitution.

You too, right?

You were going to prove what FDR did was unconstitutional,

or did you give up on that?

Proven.

You proved nothing and don't understand how the Constitution works.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In the 21st century, a "progressive" is simply a Communist too cowardly to use the proper terminology.

I've heard the statement "Progressivism is socialism in slow motion," but one can certainly put 'communism' in there.

If that's so awful, why did you admit you don't oppose Medicaid, which may be the biggest socialist program in the US?

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic

Can you pose an unloaded question just once please?

Instead of asking a question like "Do you still beat your wife?", try something a little more honest.

The manner in which you pose questions does not beg for an answer, it begs for a defense against the indefensible. "Liberalism vs. the constitution. what a steaming pile of intellectual lassitude.

NO.
I have no such intention.


First of all, being boring may be your style....but it's not mine.

Secondly, you should acknowledge that it makes things more interesting.

And, third, I am always ready and able to support anything I post.

Put up ya' dukes!

 

[Uncensored2008]

You proved nothing and don't understand how the Constitution works.

Oh?

And how do you think the Constitution works, Comrade?

(This should be rich!)

 

[Edgetho]

King Franklin, the guy who despised the United States Constitution, won.

The same guy who made certain that communism in the Soviet Union and Stalin survived, and the ideology found a home in the United States.

But you know that.....didn't your 'historians' tell you that?

He probably 'misremembered'. You know, like scum of the earth dimocraps do all the time.

I heard of a dimocrap that 'misremembered' about having his helicopter blown out of the sky.

Imagine that.

OBTW..... The New Yawk Slimes? Head of the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM...

They put the Brian Williams story on (sit down, I don't want you to hurt yourself if you faint)

NY Times Runs Story On Brian Williams Lying About Helicopter Being Shot Down On Page B10…

You’d think one of the most high profile journalists (and I use that term lightly) in America being caught in a stolen valor lie would be front page news at the New York Times, and you’d be wrong.

Via Newsbusters:

The Washington Post made a front-page story Thursday out of the revelation that NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams lied about being on a helicopter hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq. […]

The New York Times buried the story the bottom of B-10, in a 377-word article by Ravi Somaiya headlined “NBC Anchor Apologizes for Saying He Was Shot Down Over Iraq.” Somaiya began generously: “The NBC News anchor Brian Williams apologized Wednesday for mistakenly claiming he had been on a helicopter that was shot down by ground fire in Iraq in 2003.”

dimocraps are the scum of the earth

 

[PoliticalChic]

Subverting the Constitution not unconstitutional?

Oh...wait....you're the liar.

I get it.

Passing legislation that is not unconstitutional is not 'subverting' the Constitution. There is no constitutional provision setting the number of justices. The number of justices was set at 9 by legislation, in 1869.

Here's how it happened:

1. In 1937, Roosevelt tried to pack the judiciary, by stuffing more Liberals and KKKers on the Supreme Court, and in 1938 attempted to purge Democrat Senators who defeated the scheme.

While his tactic failed,his strategy succeeded:he made cowards of the Justices, effectivelydoing away with the 'checks and balances'provided by an independent Supreme Court.


a. Democrat Senator Ashurst of Arizona, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time,denounced court packing as a "prelude to tyranny,"but, when Roosevelt announced it, Ashurst issued a one-line statement late that afternoon saying he was in "favor of the President's proposal."
"No Senator can change his mind quicker than I."
Henry F. Ashurst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk about Lock-step Liberals.



b. Patriotic Democrat Carter Glass of Virginia, explained it as follows: "Why, if the President asked Congress to commit suicide tomorrow they'd do it."

Sound like the ObamaCare vote?




2. Lest any believe that Roosevelt's actions were less than design, he himself disclosed in his first inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1933, that his idea of leadership had no boundary, and, in fact, did not exclude dictatorship. He made clear that if Congress did not follow his orders, "I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for.... -broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency as great as the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.... for discipline and direction under leadership."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution,"p.64


a. From Congressional hearings, 1973:
“Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.”
Freedomsite.net



3. Other tyrants, the same:
"Obama vows to act alone if Congress doesn't cooperate"
Obama vows to act alone if Congress doesn't cooperate | recordonline.com


Constitution be damned!


So....when one thinks about it, essentially, in 2012, 65,899,660 voters cast their ballot for a monarchy, and against the Constitution.

You too, right?

You were going to prove what FDR did was unconstitutional,

or did you give up on that?

Proven.

You proved nothing and don't understand how the Constitution works.

What are you, a lia......oops.



The objective was to show that Roosevelt acted to undermine the United States Constitution.
That was the aim of court-packing.
So....it was proven.


More:

1. January 3, 1936, Roosevelt bragged that he had "new instruments of public power" to battle challenges...plans for extra-constitutional powers:

" ...more menacing than merely a return to the past—bad as that would be. Our resplendent economic autocracy does not want to return to that individualism of which they prate, even though the advantages under that system went to the ruthless and the strong. They realize that in thirty-four months we have built up new instruments of public power. In the hands of a people's Government this power is wholesome and proper. "
Franklin D. Roosevelt Annual Message to Congress


2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote:
"I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
Franklin D. Roosevelt Letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill on H.R. 8479.



This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


3. BTW.... Roosevelt lost that battle, but won the war.
On April 12, 1937, the United States ceased to be a republic of limited constitutional government. The Supreme Court upheld the Wagner Labor Relations Act. No longer would the enumerated powers of the Constitution apply....now we would be a European model welfare state, in which the national legislature has power to regulate industry, agriculture, and virtually all the activities of the citizens. The coda came when the court upheld the Social Security Act on May 24, 1937, and, then, the compulsory marketing quotas of the new AAA, on April 17, 1936.
Manly, p. 68-69

[Wagner..., a New Deal-era senator, had authored 1935’s Wagner Act requiring collective bargaining in the private sector
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/bc0404dd.html]


a. Agricultural Adjustment Administration(AAA), former U.S. government agency established (1933) in the Dept. of Agriculture under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal program. Its purpose was to help farmers by reducing production of staple crops, thus raising farm prices and encouraging more diversified farming. Farmers were given benefit payments in return for limiting acreage given to staple crops; in the case of cotton and tobacco coercive taxes forced (1934–35) farmers to cut the amounts that they marketed.
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclope...-adjustment-administration.html#ixzz2t81DWplC




4. In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts ....
... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone."
The Brookshire Times from Brookshire Texas Page 2


Has the case against Roosevelt, for murdering the Constitution, been proven?

Yeah, it has.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the 21st century, a "progressive" is simply a Communist too cowardly to use the proper terminology.

I've heard the statement "Progressivism is socialism in slow motion," but one can certainly put 'communism' in there.

If that's so awful, why did you admit you don't oppose Medicaid, which may be the biggest socialist program in the US?

Have you ever considered becoming a truth-teller?

You could surprise everyone.

 

[Edgetho]

Have you ever considered becoming a truth-teller?

You could surprise everyone.

 

[Nosmo King]

PoliticalChic

Can you pose an unloaded question just once please?

Instead of asking a question like "Do you still beat your wife?", try something a little more honest.

The manner in which you pose questions does not beg for an answer, it begs for a defense against the indefensible. "Liberalism vs. the constitution. what a steaming pile of intellectual lassitude.

NO.
I have no such intention.


First of all, being boring may be your style....but it's not mine.

Secondly, you should acknowledge that it makes things more interesting.

And, third, I am always ready and able to support anything I post.

Put up ya' dukes!

It does not make things interesting. Posing loaded questions forces the respondent to first thrash your loaded question strawman. And, in the course of that thrashing, things get off topic or derailed in a quagmire of tangents. Nothing gets answered, nothing gets honest debate.

You may think of it as boring, I think of posing loaded questions as a thin disguise for the questioner. Perhaps she knows the wrongfulness of her position and tries to lead us down the primrose path of her choosing to avoid an honest answer which would refute her shaky position.

 

[regent]

Funny how a very conservative Supreme Court doesn't have any problems, only the Pub Propaganda Machine and the hater dupes...

Today, February 5th, 1937.......King Franklin the First, aka Franklin Roosevelt, unveiled his attempt to subvert the United States Constitution, by simply making the Supreme Court his rubber stamp.

This was the date of his announcing his court-packing plan.

So....how did you plan to celebrate?



BTW....real Americans.....at that time the category included Democrats.......rebelled.

So the Congress shot down the Court packing thing but the Court saw the light and began to see FDR's programs as Constitutional. So who won the battle the Court battle, Congress or FDR? Remember, a stich in time saved nine.

King Franklin, the guy who despised the United States Constitution, won.

The same guy who made certain that communism in the Soviet Union and Stalin survived, and the ideology found a home in the United States.

But you know that.....didn't your 'historians' tell you that?

Naw, they didn't mention the Soviet Union, nor communists, Stalin or any of that stuff. The historians were discussing the Court packing plan and pretty much staying on topic. We find going beyond the topic so as to put in one's own take, and a little name calling more often on the message boards. Have you noticed that too?

 

[Wry Catcher]

PoliticalChic

Can you pose an unloaded question just once please?

Instead of asking a question like "Do you still beat your wife?", try something a little more honest.

The manner in which you pose questions does not beg for an answer, it begs for a defense against the indefensible. "Liberalism vs. the constitution. what a steaming pile of intellectual lassitude.

NO.
I have no such intention.


First of all, being boring may be your style....but it's not mine.

Secondly, you should acknowledge that it makes things more interesting.

And, third, I am always ready and able to support anything I post.

Put up ya' dukes!

Your third is another lie.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Passing legislation that is not unconstitutional is not 'subverting' the Constitution. There is no constitutional provision setting the number of justices. The number of justices was set at 9 by legislation, in 1869.

Here's how it happened:

1. In 1937, Roosevelt tried to pack the judiciary, by stuffing more Liberals and KKKers on the Supreme Court, and in 1938 attempted to purge Democrat Senators who defeated the scheme.

While his tactic failed,his strategy succeeded:he made cowards of the Justices, effectivelydoing away with the 'checks and balances'provided by an independent Supreme Court.


a. Democrat Senator Ashurst of Arizona, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time,denounced court packing as a "prelude to tyranny,"but, when Roosevelt announced it, Ashurst issued a one-line statement late that afternoon saying he was in "favor of the President's proposal."
"No Senator can change his mind quicker than I."
Henry F. Ashurst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk about Lock-step Liberals.



b. Patriotic Democrat Carter Glass of Virginia, explained it as follows: "Why, if the President asked Congress to commit suicide tomorrow they'd do it."

Sound like the ObamaCare vote?




2. Lest any believe that Roosevelt's actions were less than design, he himself disclosed in his first inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1933, that his idea of leadership had no boundary, and, in fact, did not exclude dictatorship. He made clear that if Congress did not follow his orders, "I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for.... -broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency as great as the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.... for discipline and direction under leadership."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution,"p.64


a. From Congressional hearings, 1973:
“Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.”
Freedomsite.net



3. Other tyrants, the same:
"Obama vows to act alone if Congress doesn't cooperate"
Obama vows to act alone if Congress doesn't cooperate | recordonline.com


Constitution be damned!


So....when one thinks about it, essentially, in 2012, 65,899,660 voters cast their ballot for a monarchy, and against the Constitution.

You too, right?

You were going to prove what FDR did was unconstitutional,

or did you give up on that?

Proven.

You proved nothing and don't understand how the Constitution works.

What are you, a lia......oops.



The objective was to show that Roosevelt acted to undermine the United States Constitution.
That was the aim of court-packing.
So....it was proven.


More:

1. January 3, 1936, Roosevelt bragged that he had "new instruments of public power" to battle challenges...plans for extra-constitutional powers:

" ...more menacing than merely a return to the past—bad as that would be. Our resplendent economic autocracy does not want to return to that individualism of which they prate, even though the advantages under that system went to the ruthless and the strong. They realize that in thirty-four months we have built up new instruments of public power. In the hands of a people's Government this power is wholesome and proper. "
Franklin D. Roosevelt Annual Message to Congress


2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote:
"I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
Franklin D. Roosevelt Letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill on H.R. 8479.



This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


3. BTW.... Roosevelt lost that battle, but won the war.
On April 12, 1937, the United States ceased to be a republic of limited constitutional government. The Supreme Court upheld the Wagner Labor Relations Act. No longer would the enumerated powers of the Constitution apply....now we would be a European model welfare state, in which the national legislature has power to regulate industry, agriculture, and virtually all the activities of the citizens. The coda came when the court upheld the Social Security Act on May 24, 1937, and, then, the compulsory marketing quotas of the new AAA, on April 17, 1936.
Manly, p. 68-69

[Wagner..., a New Deal-era senator, had authored 1935’s Wagner Act requiring collective bargaining in the private sector
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/bc0404dd.html]


a. Agricultural Adjustment Administration(AAA), former U.S. government agency established (1933) in the Dept. of Agriculture under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal program. Its purpose was to help farmers by reducing production of staple crops, thus raising farm prices and encouraging more diversified farming. Farmers were given benefit payments in return for limiting acreage given to staple crops; in the case of cotton and tobacco coercive taxes forced (1934–35) farmers to cut the amounts that they marketed.
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclope...-adjustment-administration.html#ixzz2t81DWplC




4. In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts ....
... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone."
The Brookshire Times from Brookshire Texas Page 2


Has the case against Roosevelt, for murdering the Constitution, been proven?

Yeah, it has.

That is nonsense.

The Supreme Court makes you rightwing extremists cry. boohoo. It's supposed to. That proves it's working as designed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You proved nothing and don't understand how the Constitution works.

Oh?

And how do you think the Constitution works, Comrade?

(This should be rich!)

As follows:

1. The legislature passes a bill.

2. The President signs it. It becomes law.

3. Said law is constitutional, UNLESS, someone with standing challenges it in court, and the court finds in their favor, and the law is struck down.

...your turn...prove anything I've said is in error.

 

[francoHFW]

Only total hater dupes believe Obama is doing unconstitutional things lol...a disgrace.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic

Can you pose an unloaded question just once please?

Instead of asking a question like "Do you still beat your wife?", try something a little more honest.

The manner in which you pose questions does not beg for an answer, it begs for a defense against the indefensible. "Liberalism vs. the constitution. what a steaming pile of intellectual lassitude.

NO.
I have no such intention.


First of all, being boring may be your style....but it's not mine.

Secondly, you should acknowledge that it makes things more interesting.

And, third, I am always ready and able to support anything I post.

Put up ya' dukes!

It does not make things interesting. Posing loaded questions forces the respondent to first thrash your loaded question strawman. And, in the course of that thrashing, things get off topic or derailed in a quagmire of tangents. Nothing gets answered, nothing gets honest debate.

You may think of it as boring, I think of posing loaded questions as a thin disguise for the questioner. Perhaps she knows the wrongfulness of her position and tries to lead us down the primrose path of her choosing to avoid an honest answer which would refute her shaky position.

"It does not make things interesting."

Really...?

So....what are you doing here?


My motivation is simply to take commonly accepted "facts," memes, tropes that are the products of government schools and universities, and the lies of omission and commission, of the media, and reduce them to rubble.


Even those who have accepted the lies have the vague feeling that there is something wrong....but need to pretend to accept them to burnish their Liberal credentials.


And that is why you and others have the need to jump into the debate.

I will continue to stir the pot...and you will continue to find same interesting.


Put up ya' dukes, you wimp!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Funny how a very conservative Supreme Court doesn't have any problems, only the Pub Propaganda Machine and the hater dupes...

Today, February 5th, 1937.......King Franklin the First, aka Franklin Roosevelt, unveiled his attempt to subvert the United States Constitution, by simply making the Supreme Court his rubber stamp.

This was the date of his announcing his court-packing plan.

So....how did you plan to celebrate?



BTW....real Americans.....at that time the category included Democrats.......rebelled.

So the Congress shot down the Court packing thing but the Court saw the light and began to see FDR's programs as Constitutional. So who won the battle the Court battle, Congress or FDR? Remember, a stich in time saved nine.

King Franklin, the guy who despised the United States Constitution, won.

The same guy who made certain that communism in the Soviet Union and Stalin survived, and the ideology found a home in the United States.

But you know that.....didn't your 'historians' tell you that?

Naw, they didn't mention the Soviet Union, nor communists, Stalin or any of that stuff. The historians were discussing the Court packing plan and pretty much staying on topic. We find going beyond the topic so as to put in one's own take, and a little name calling more often on the message boards. Have you noticed that too?

But FDR is the topic.....and that's what you're afraid of, isn't it.