Education vs Indoctrination: FDR's Depression

[Claudette]

I said it before, the only other person who talked so much about his intelligence was Freddo Corleone so I always think of you as USMB's Freddo.

1. The initial premise of this thread was indoctrination vs. education using the Imaginary Greatness of FDR as the centerpiece. We were taught that FDR was great. We were taught that FDR saved Capitalism and the Middle Class prospered under FDR, but when we look at the record and question instead of sane, logical answers like "the New Deal dropped unemployment to 4% within 2 years" like we could say about how Harding, Coolidge and Mellon handled a similar economic circumstance a decade before, we are given platitudes and treated as heretics. That's not education, that's faith.

What year did FDR's New Deal end the Depression?

2. Freddo, name one person whose life was ruined by McCarthy. I can name many genuine 100% USSR Certified Communist spies who were outed by Sen McCarthy.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/revie...-of-senator-joe-mccarthy-m-stanton-evans.html

You still don't get it. Not that I'm surprised. Keep in mind these words: "There are liears, damn liars and statistics". But I'm sure that's way over your head too.

Sure, Freddo.

Sure.

Watch and learn how it works works with education instead of indoctrination.

"The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics — urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

...By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923."

https://mises.org/daily/3788

Real numbers. Real Success. Real Greatness.

Ahh yes. The Roaring Twenties.

Too bad Barry doesn't read history. He might learn how to govern.

 

[G.T.]

That's not a hard source, it's a source with a point of view.

Dropped unemployment from 12% to 2% in 2 1/2 years is a fact.

A fact

Not opinion

Fact.

It really happened

Not platitudes about saving Capitalism and the Middle Class, real events, a real record, real success

What do you have to tell us about FDR's Greatness in response?

Do you have facts to offer or just feel-good stuff you learned your whole live? You were indoctrinated.

See the difference?

Yes, I have hard FACTS to offer -

history is not on your side.
you are obsessed with fdr.
you have a revisionist view of history, according to history itself and according to the voters who actually LIVED it.
take a seat.

 

[midcan5]

The problem with revisionist interpretations of past history is reality. Harding Coolidge and Hoover have a known reality and it is the great depression. FDR has a known reality and it is fifty years of what many historians, and most people who lived through it, call our golden years. Speculative history is not history no matter how hard you want to believe. Brainwashing is often self induced for the partisan ideologue.

Weird how the right still fights FDR's success. http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/180822-i-welcome-their-hatred-fdr.html

For those interested in reality and not speculation check out the first two links.

Timeline of the Great Depression
Summary


Timeline of the Great Depression
The Great Depression, to 1935
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
Stiff upper lip.


"I do not know which makes a man more conservative – to know nothing but the present, or nothing but the past." JM Keynes

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's not a hard source, it's a source with a point of view.

Dropped unemployment from 12% to 2% in 2 1/2 years is a fact.

A fact

Not opinion

Fact.

It really happened

Not platitudes about saving Capitalism and the Middle Class, real events, a real record, real success

What do you have to tell us about FDR's Greatness in response?

Do you have facts to offer or just feel-good stuff you learned your whole live? You were indoctrinated.

See the difference?

Yes, I have hard FACTS to offer -

history is not on your side.
you are obsessed with fdr.
you have a revisionist view of history, according to history itself and according to the voters who actually LIVED it.
take a seat.

It was called the Great Depression, not because it was so awesome, but because is was worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years.

We see now that FDR's imitation of Uncles Joe's Central Planning was the main reason the Depression lasted so long.

All you offer in response are trained, indoctrinated answers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The problem with revisionist interpretations of past history is reality. Harding Coolidge and Hoover have a known reality and it is the great depression. FDR has a known reality and it is fifty years of what many historians, and most people who lived through it, call our golden years. Speculative history is not history no matter how hard you want to believe. Brainwashing is often self induced for the partisan ideologue.

Weird how the right still fights FDR's success. http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/180822-i-welcome-their-hatred-fdr.html

For those interested in reality and not speculation check out the first two links.

Timeline of the Great Depression
Summary


Timeline of the Great Depression
The Great Depression, to 1935
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
Stiff upper lip.


"I do not know which makes a man more conservative – to know nothing but the present, or nothing but the past." JM Keynes

.

You're confused and uneducated which does not surprise me.

You were taught to blend Harding and Coolidge with Hoover but history teaches us that Coolidge ignored Hoover derisively calling him "Wonder Boy". Harding and Coolidge are a team while Hoover and FDR are the other team. The former favored letting the market work itself out and had stunning results, the latter were the Central Planners.

And again the whole "Lived through it narrative" does not make the 20% average unemployment magically disappear

Can you offer something other than, "People say FDR is Great, therefore he must be!" because that's how faith works

 

[G.T.]

All you offer in response are trained, indoctrinated answers.

Even so early, I'm 100% confident that this will be the ironic post of the day.

 

[G.T.]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

See how people respond when you challenge their faith?

 

[mal]

PhotoDump Meltdown...

Nice Work CF...



peace...

 

[G.T.]

 

[Moonglow]

Never doubt Frankie Boy, he obtained his information directly from the inhabitants of our hollow moon.

I believe he was there eating the cheese in the moon.

 

[Old Rocks]

1. In your educated opinion, what year did FDR's New Deal rescue the US economy? Did you research it at all?

2. McCarthy found genuine Verona certified Communist spies throughout the US government and the WH.

Before a I answer let me be clear. You're a partisan hack, not very bright and parrot the talking points of the right wing (Fascists in many respects). You lack any of the qualities of "Americana", are a callous conservatives who doesn't give a moments concern for anyone but himself. It's why I belittle you constantly, why I call Warrior an asshole at every opportunity, why I laugh at the stupidity or Willow Tree and Stephanie and become nauseas whenever I read PC's defense of conservatism.

1. FDR put people to work. The world economy was in chaos, Fascism was the growing ideology in parts of Europe and Asia as well as Communism. The threat of revolution here was real as the discrepancy between the 1% and the rest of of our people had never been greater (until possible now). Hoover sent troops to disperse the veterans of the first World War, read about the bonus army.

See: List of strikes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FDR was calm, focused and assured the American People that fear was the only thing to fear. You and your kind use fear as a tool to gain power (Hello Reichstag fire) and hate (Hello Kristalinacht).

Open you eyes, try (in your case it will be hard work) to think about the consequence of what you believe you want.

2. McCarthy was a drunk demagogue who ruined peoples lives. An asshole, much like today's callous conservatives.

Obama's plan is to put people to work. You're to damn dumb to understand that is the ultimate solution to our economic mess. Putting more money into the hands of the few only increases the likelihood we will become a pure plutocracy, the fascism of the 21st Century.

This is LOL funny. FDR put people to work in what year did the unemployment rate get under 10%, oh that would be with......drum roll please....World War 2! So the New Deal was a joke that PROLONGED the misery and then we have a WAR that got us out, and you liberals say war never solves anything, IMAGINE THAT!

Great Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The common view among economic historians is that the Great Depression ended with the advent of World War II.

Gee you think?

2)McCarthy went after Hollywood and was RIGHT. HE just made the mistake of taking on the Defense, so all of you liberals that hate the defense department, should thank them for dicrediting a guy who was smoking commies out of Hollywood, left and right.
And I know, go ahead and tell me which Hollywood "victum" was not really a commie.

Communists and 'Conservatives' both try to rewrite history.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Never doubt Frankie Boy, he obtained his information directly from the inhabitants of our hollow moon.

I believe he was there eating the cheese in the moon.

This is actually another great example of the Indoctrination vs Education theme we've been exploring. Indoctrination tells us that the Moon MUST be a natural Satellite because the prospect that it's an artificial body it's too terrifying to even begin to contemplate.

But why? What difference does it make if the Moon was created, likely taken from the Earth's crust and formed and placed in perfect orbit to give a planet where life might take hold?

There is still not a single, coherent explanation that has the Moon as a natural satellite orbiting the Earth. Hard to accept, I know. But that's what happens when you stop accepting dogma and start asking questions.

The latest test now reveal that the Moon and Earth composition is near identical (except that the Moon apparently either lacks a solid core or has a very small core -- no iron center) knocking the props out from the "Big Double Knock" theory of lunar formation.

Had you read any of the theories that try to account for how a planet the size of Earth would have something as Large as the Moon in orbit you might start to wonder the same

 

[G.T.]

Never doubt Frankie Boy, he obtained his information directly from the inhabitants of our hollow moon.

I believe he was there eating the cheese in the moon.

This is actually another great example of the Indoctrination vs Education theme we've been exploring. Indoctrination tells us that the Moon MUST be a natural Satellite because the prospect that it's an artificial body it's too terrifying to even begin to contemplate.

But why? What difference does it make if the Moon was created, likely taken from the Earth's crust and formed and placed in perfect orbit to give a planet where life might take hold?

There is still not a single, coherent explanation that has the Moon as a natural satellite orbiting the Earth. Hard to accept, I know. But that's what happens when you stop accepting dogma and start asking questions.

The latest test now reveal that the Moon and Earth composition is near identical (except that the Moon apparently either lacks a solid core or has a very small core -- no iron center) knocking the props out from the "Big Double Knock" theory of lunar formation.

Had you read any of the theories that try to account for how a planet the size of Earth would have something as Large as the Moon in orbit you might start to wonder the same

Yea, all of the astro-physicists miss this, but some internetz guy named Crusaderfrank who also believes in the magic sky fairy and is a birther.............has the science down.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I believe he was there eating the cheese in the moon.

This is actually another great example of the Indoctrination vs Education theme we've been exploring. Indoctrination tells us that the Moon MUST be a natural Satellite because the prospect that it's an artificial body it's too terrifying to even begin to contemplate.

But why? What difference does it make if the Moon was created, likely taken from the Earth's crust and formed and placed in perfect orbit to give a planet where life might take hold?

There is still not a single, coherent explanation that has the Moon as a natural satellite orbiting the Earth. Hard to accept, I know. But that's what happens when you stop accepting dogma and start asking questions.

The latest test now reveal that the Moon and Earth composition is near identical (except that the Moon apparently either lacks a solid core or has a very small core -- no iron center) knocking the props out from the "Big Double Knock" theory of lunar formation.

Had you read any of the theories that try to account for how a planet the size of Earth would have something as Large as the Moon in orbit you might start to wonder the same

Yea, all of the astro-physicists miss this, but some internetz guy named Crusaderfrank who also believes in the magic sky fairy and is a birther.............has the science down.

I know you couldn't be bothered to read any of it but know that a prominent astrophysicist said that the only explanation for the Moon was "observational error" just assume its' not there.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I believe he was there eating the cheese in the moon.

This is actually another great example of the Indoctrination vs Education theme we've been exploring. Indoctrination tells us that the Moon MUST be a natural Satellite because the prospect that it's an artificial body it's too terrifying to even begin to contemplate.

But why? What difference does it make if the Moon was created, likely taken from the Earth's crust and formed and placed in perfect orbit to give a planet where life might take hold?

There is still not a single, coherent explanation that has the Moon as a natural satellite orbiting the Earth. Hard to accept, I know. But that's what happens when you stop accepting dogma and start asking questions.

The latest test now reveal that the Moon and Earth composition is near identical (except that the Moon apparently either lacks a solid core or has a very small core -- no iron center) knocking the props out from the "Big Double Knock" theory of lunar formation.

Had you read any of the theories that try to account for how a planet the size of Earth would have something as Large as the Moon in orbit you might start to wonder the same

Yea, all of the astro-physicists miss this, but some internetz guy named Crusaderfrank who also believes in the magic sky fairy and is a birther.............has the science down.

Magic Sky Fairy?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This is actually another great example of the Indoctrination vs Education theme we've been exploring. Indoctrination tells us that the Moon MUST be a natural Satellite because the prospect that it's an artificial body it's too terrifying to even begin to contemplate.

But why? What difference does it make if the Moon was created, likely taken from the Earth's crust and formed and placed in perfect orbit to give a planet where life might take hold?

There is still not a single, coherent explanation that has the Moon as a natural satellite orbiting the Earth. Hard to accept, I know. But that's what happens when you stop accepting dogma and start asking questions.

The latest test now reveal that the Moon and Earth composition is near identical (except that the Moon apparently either lacks a solid core or has a very small core -- no iron center) knocking the props out from the "Big Double Knock" theory of lunar formation.

Had you read any of the theories that try to account for how a planet the size of Earth would have something as Large as the Moon in orbit you might start to wonder the same

Yea, all of the astro-physicists miss this, but some internetz guy named Crusaderfrank who also believes in the magic sky fairy and is a birther.............has the science down.

I know you couldn't be bothered to read any of it but know that a prominent astrophysicist said that the only explanation for the Moon was "observational error" just assume its' not there.

Poor ole GT ain't the sharpest tool in the shed... go easy on her.

 

[G.T.]

This is actually another great example of the Indoctrination vs Education theme we've been exploring. Indoctrination tells us that the Moon MUST be a natural Satellite because the prospect that it's an artificial body it's too terrifying to even begin to contemplate.

But why? What difference does it make if the Moon was created, likely taken from the Earth's crust and formed and placed in perfect orbit to give a planet where life might take hold?

There is still not a single, coherent explanation that has the Moon as a natural satellite orbiting the Earth. Hard to accept, I know. But that's what happens when you stop accepting dogma and start asking questions.

The latest test now reveal that the Moon and Earth composition is near identical (except that the Moon apparently either lacks a solid core or has a very small core -- no iron center) knocking the props out from the "Big Double Knock" theory of lunar formation.

Had you read any of the theories that try to account for how a planet the size of Earth would have something as Large as the Moon in orbit you might start to wonder the same

Yea, all of the astro-physicists miss this, but some internetz guy named Crusaderfrank who also believes in the magic sky fairy and is a birther.............has the science down.

I know you couldn't be bothered to read any of it but know that a prominent astrophysicist said that the only explanation for the Moon was "observational error" just assume its' not there.

Prominent in what sort of circles? Cuz someone in a blog said "prominent," and you took the bait?

It's 2012 genius. It's established fact that the moon is real, put your tin-foil hat(e) down.

 

[G.T.]

Yea, all of the astro-physicists miss this, but some internetz guy named Crusaderfrank who also believes in the magic sky fairy and is a birther.............has the science down.

I know you couldn't be bothered to read any of it but know that a prominent astrophysicist said that the only explanation for the Moon was "observational error" just assume its' not there.

Poor ole GT ain't the sharpest tool in the shed... go easy on her.

Oh, so you believe the moon is a (non natural)sattelite also?



How many of you idiots are off the reservation? jesus christ

 

[G.T.]

Yea, all of the astro-physicists miss this, but some internetz guy named Crusaderfrank who also believes in the magic sky fairy and is a birther.............has the science down.

I know you couldn't be bothered to read any of it but know that a prominent astrophysicist said that the only explanation for the Moon was "observational error" just assume its' not there.

Poor ole GT ain't the sharpest tool in the shed... go easy on her.

Seriously -

this is a poster calling me not-sharp.................because I *DONT* believe that the moon is a hoax.

In which universe does believing that the moon *IS* a hoax, make you "sharp," oh pointy one?