FDR said what!!!!

[ihopehefails]

To the people running the GOP, it is all about money. To them, guys like John Kerry are traitors to their class. And I'm telling you what the rich said about FDR, so if you want to think that politics isn't all about MONEY, then they have won. That's exactly how the rich get some of the masses to vote with them. They use wedge issues like god gays and guns. And you may be a house slave, so you don't really care because at least you aren't a field slave.

Stop votiing over god gays and guns. If you aren't gay, ignore it. If someone doesn't believe in god, that's their choice. And neither party is taking away your gun.

And calling our way communism proves you are a retarded middle class voter who has been conned by Chaney & Bush to vote for their wars and $4 gas prices. Sucker.

Did you get a little tax break? That's nice. You gave it back on your home value, 401K, the debt & you got nothing to show for it. At least if it helped the American economy, but it didn't. Oil and Defense contractors are still making a fortune in Iraq, and you are paying for it.

Free Trade/For Profit Wars/Corporations/Capitalism/Deregulations/Wallstreet/Bankers are the fuck ups. Don't call us Commies. You know America is part socialist and part capitalism, right? To go 100% capitalism would make you a slave dummy.

If you are broke, you don't care who's gay or who's getting an abortion. Stop being a field slave.

First you call me a retard for saying that you are a communist but then point out we are part capitalist and communist. What part of the political spectrum is communist and what part is for free-trade?

I'm pretty sure I am not a field slave and neither is anyone else. A slave denotes ownership of someone else labor or their right to labor for whatever purpose they want. I may work for others but I'm executing my right to labor for the cause of enriching myself for my own purpose in the form of a paycheck.

Just ask the CEO of your company what he think about you. He thinks you cost too much.

Or don't you understand labor costs.

And I really want you to respond to Bush using tax payers $ to build a stadium. Why? Capitalism says if private companies won't put up the money to build it, then it shouldn't be built.

So you little worker bees can stop swallowing what the rich wing tells you. Time to wake up.

Stop arguing for CEO's golden parachuttes at the expense of your wages and benefits.

My employer has the right to offer wages or employment that they wish to offer for whatever reason they choose and I am not arguing for golden parachutes. In fact, I don't have a say if they should get them since I am not a stockholder in the companies that offer them.

You however seem upset that they are getting them. Fine. That is your right to be upset but tell me where you get the right to decide how someone else will get compensated and if the government has that right to do so then doesn't it also have the right to do so for the "worker bees"?

Under your thinking we are tansferring the right of a corp to offer compensation to its employees from a private entity (and the individuals that compose them) to the government itself. What you are advocating for is the loss of rights of any citizen to do with their property as they see fit.

 

[sealybobo]

Sillyboob is our resident incoherent babbling whackjob.....You'll get used to it.

Well I answered his questions.

I notice you never reply back telling me why I'm wrong. Why? Can't?

You don't get my analogy either. You hate to think that the rich control/run this country. You've been brainwashed that the government is the problem when in fact the problem is that corporations have gotten too powerful.

You can't fuck with the corporations because they hire people. THis is the angle the rich use to control their house slaves.

This is one of the biggest bits of misdirection in the history of the world. Most statist know that most American people hate government control so to misdirect this anger they have turned corporations into a defacto government status which is why you assume that the rich control this country because you can direct that anti-government feeling to an entity that most communist don't like aka corporations.

Now I could be wrong and you could be right that corporations control people but if this is so then provide an example of some kind of control that any corporation has that rival the control that government has. Do corps restrict your right to abortions? NO Do they restrict your right to worship God? No Do they restrict your behavior in any way that government does in these former examples? Again the answer is NO!

Now corps can buy influence in the government which is not a problem of corps getting to big but a problem of corruption which should be eliminated. Once elminated corps will lose their influence in government and will not affect your life other than selling you McDonalds's combo meal #1.

The reason people left England was that only the rich could be rich. As soon as America got started, the rich were already over here buying up oil fields and railroads. J Gould, Rockafellor, etc.

Listen, its not a misdirection. You can't deny that lobbyists grip on washington is a problem. You can't deny that politicians often are found working for their lobbyists and not for we the people.

And in case you don't know, the first president to start pushing this montra that "the government is the problem" was Reagan. And he sold it well, killing a lot of good regulations and giving the corporations more control.

And then the corporations put Bush in office and Bush put Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court. And now the courts side with corporations every time. Just look at the Exxon Valdez settlement. PATHETIC!!!

Private bankers own the federal reserve. They not only own you, but they own Europe and Russia and Australia. Now they own Iraq too. They don't own Venesuela, YET, and they don't own Iran, YET. But they sure did try, huh?

PS. Please pay attention to thinks like NAFTA. In NAFTA, your government is finding that in some trade agreements, they are POWERLESS to do anything about the unfairness of those agreements. Other countries can sue us if we renig on those agreements. And look how powerless we are to fix our trade agreements with China.

There's a saying. Give me control of a countries finances and I care not who makes its laws.

Its time for you middle class right wingers to wake up. If you want pro life politicians, vote for ones who also care to preserve the middle class.

Democracy, not free markets, is the thing that will save the middle class. With pure Capitalism, you are more costly than a Chinese or Mexican or Indian worker. Don't think it can happen to you? Doesn't have to happen to you. Its still affecting your wages and the economy.

 

[ihopehefails]

Tell me

a. Your profession
b. When did you buy your home?
c. How has your 401k done the last 10 years?
d. Do you even own a home or have a 401k?

I'll help you figure out how much your obsession with wedge issues like God/Gays and Guns are costing you.

Would you pay $10 a gallon to ban gay marriage? Because the GOP let the oil companies fuck with oil prices the last 8 years.

Or if the GOP put us into the second great depression and you lose your job because of it. Please tell me what wedge issue is so important to you that you would vote for the rich party when you aren't rich?

Brainwashed.

Money is not as important as morality since it is not everything in life. I know in your mind that you find this incompatible with conservative philosophy but what most conservatives believe in is that someone should retain the right to your property as you see fit and to follow your own conscience as you see fit (or at least they should) over your own self and property.

Abortion might be considered deeply immoral but that is not enough to ban it but since many people have this pesky religious idea that human life is just as valuable at conception as it is after it exits the womb then any fetus deserves the same legal protections than any post-exited baby would get.

That is the real question about abortion. At what point does a human life deserve legal protection. The deeply religious believes it starts at conception while the not so religious might not have those concepts ingrained in their head.

Who cares? Are you getting an abortion tomorrow? Then what do you give a fuck? We are already overpopulated.

Trust me, its all about $. The most important issues in Washington are about $.

If a pro lifer loses their $100K a year job and can't find a job for better than $50, all of the sudden abortion becomes a lot less important. Only comforable arrogant and ignorant middle class voters vote GOP.

And I didn't see my liberties improve under the GOP. Not even the part about retaining your right to property. I think the GOP made more people lose their property. Even rich people foreclosed on their second and third homes.

The GOP was all about privatizing all profits and socializing all the losses. And they fooled you by telling you socialism was the enemy and meanwhile unregulated capitalism fucked us all.

That's funny, because I see the GOP toss aside their moral values everytime there is money to be made. I think they are just telling you what you want to hear.

Have you ever read a bullshit mission statement from a corporation? You just told me the GOP's mission statement.

The big old bad immoral godless liberals are not looking to get your daughter to get an abortion.

But the GOP is looking to lower her wages.

The real intellectual roots of abortion have always been about population control and eugenics or why else would you mention this?

I happen to agree that Bush was a crypto-socialist as were many of the GOP and they got voted out but its odd that you blame unregulated markets for the cause and at the same time accuse the GOP's policies, which you said was already socialist, as creating the problems in the first place.

On this we agree, the crypto-socialism of George W. Bush was the cause. What we need now is complete deregulation of the economy not more of it.

 

[ihopehefails]

Well I answered his questions.

I notice you never reply back telling me why I'm wrong. Why? Can't?

You don't get my analogy either. You hate to think that the rich control/run this country. You've been brainwashed that the government is the problem when in fact the problem is that corporations have gotten too powerful.

You can't fuck with the corporations because they hire people. THis is the angle the rich use to control their house slaves.

This is one of the biggest bits of misdirection in the history of the world. Most statist know that most American people hate government control so to misdirect this anger they have turned corporations into a defacto government status which is why you assume that the rich control this country because you can direct that anti-government feeling to an entity that most communist don't like aka corporations.

Now I could be wrong and you could be right that corporations control people but if this is so then provide an example of some kind of control that any corporation has that rival the control that government has. Do corps restrict your right to abortions? NO Do they restrict your right to worship God? No Do they restrict your behavior in any way that government does in these former examples? Again the answer is NO!

Now corps can buy influence in the government which is not a problem of corps getting to big but a problem of corruption which should be eliminated. Once elminated corps will lose their influence in government and will not affect your life other than selling you McDonalds's combo meal #1.

The reason people left England was that only the rich could be rich. As soon as America got started, the rich were already over here buying up oil fields and railroads. J Gould, Rockafellor, etc.

Listen, its not a misdirection. You can't deny that lobbyists grip on washington is a problem. You can't deny that politicians often are found working for their lobbyists and not for we the people.

And in case you don't know, the first president to start pushing this montra that "the government is the problem" was Reagan. And he sold it well, killing a lot of good regulations and giving the corporations more control.

And then the corporations put Bush in office and Bush put Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court. And now the courts side with corporations every time. Just look at the Exxon Valdez settlement. PATHETIC!!!

Private bankers own the federal reserve. They not only own you, but they own Europe and Russia and Australia. Now they own Iraq too. They don't own Venesuela, YET, and they don't own Iran, YET. But they sure did try, huh?

PS. Please pay attention to thinks like NAFTA. In NAFTA, your government is finding that in some trade agreements, they are POWERLESS to do anything about the unfairness of those agreements. Other countries can sue us if we renig on those agreements. And look how powerless we are to fix our trade agreements with China.

There's a saying. Give me control of a countries finances and I care not who makes its laws.

Its time for you middle class right wingers to wake up. If you want pro life politicians, vote for ones who also care to preserve the middle class.

Democracy, not free markets, is the thing that will save the middle class. With pure Capitalism, you are more costly than a Chinese or Mexican or Indian worker. Don't think it can happen to you? Doesn't have to happen to you. Its still affecting your wages and the economy.

I did not say that corporation's corrupting influence was not a problem but neither is there mere existence by themselves because if a corp did not do any of the evil things that you are accusing them of such as corruption or breaking any other law then their should not be a problem with them existing.

Your version of democracy is socialism. Enough said.

 

[Oddball]

The real intellectual roots of abortion have always been about population control and eugenics or why else would you mention this?

I happen to agree that Bush was a crypto-socialist as were many of the GOP and they got voted out but its odd that you blame unregulated markets for the cause and at the same time accuse the GOP's policies, which you said was already socialist, as creating the problems in the first place.

On this we agree, the crypto-socialism of George W. Bush was the cause. What we need now is complete deregulation of the economy not more of it.

What you have to realize is that sillyboob is a crypto-kook, who takes a precuois few seeds of reality and weaves them into his warped crypto-kookery.

If you try to make sense out of it, your head will essplode.

 

[amrchaos]

Famous FDR quotes:

"I don't mind telling you in confidence that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian Gentlemen" (Of course, he was referring to Mussilini)

"if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army (we are not longer free people but soldiers who follow orders without question) willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property for such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership that aims at the greater good (Give up all our freedoms so he can tell us what to do). I assume unhesingtately the leadership of this great army (aka dictator) of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems"

"I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. (when people didn't want to go along with him) I shall ask the congress for one remaining instrument to meet the crisis--broad executive power (aka dictatorship) to wage war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by foreign foe"

...with this all of his followers cheered the new dictatorship as they did in Italy. Welcome to America 1933.

The Congress granted FDR broad executive powers. What happen to the dictatorship? Ihopehefails?


Or that is right--FDR was so popular that he died in office, similiar to a dictator except that the people return FDR to office 4 consecutive time!!! It is still a republic if you must constantly face re-election.

 

[ihopehefails]

The real intellectual roots of abortion have always been about population control and eugenics or why else would you mention this?

I happen to agree that Bush was a crypto-socialist as were many of the GOP and they got voted out but its odd that you blame unregulated markets for the cause and at the same time accuse the GOP's policies, which you said was already socialist, as creating the problems in the first place.

On this we agree, the crypto-socialism of George W. Bush was the cause. What we need now is complete deregulation of the economy not more of it.

What you have to realize is that sillyboob is a crypto-kook, who takes a precuois few seeds of reality and weaves them into his warped crypto-kookery.

If you try to make sense out of it, your head will essplode.

I just wish he would write one paragraph to sum up his point instead of making five or six little points that have nothing to do with each other.

 

[sealybobo]

First you call me a retard for saying that you are a communist but then point out we are part capitalist and communist. What part of the political spectrum is communist and what part is for free-trade?

I'm pretty sure I am not a field slave and neither is anyone else. A slave denotes ownership of someone else labor or their right to labor for whatever purpose they want. I may work for others but I'm executing my right to labor for the cause of enriching myself for my own purpose in the form of a paycheck.

Just ask the CEO of your company what he think about you. He thinks you cost too much.

Or don't you understand labor costs.

And I really want you to respond to Bush using tax payers $ to build a stadium. Why? Capitalism says if private companies won't put up the money to build it, then it shouldn't be built.

So you little worker bees can stop swallowing what the rich wing tells you. Time to wake up.

Stop arguing for CEO's golden parachuttes at the expense of your wages and benefits.

My employer has the right to offer wages or employment that they wish to offer for whatever reason they choose and I am not arguing for golden parachutes. In fact, I don't have a say if they should get them since I am not a stockholder in the companies that offer them.

You however seem upset that they are getting them. Fine. That is your right to be upset but tell me where you get the right to decide how someone else will get compensated and if the government has that right to do so then doesn't it also have the right to do so for the "worker bees"?

Under your thinking we are tansferring the right of a corp to offer compensation to its employees from a private entity (and the individuals that compose them) to the government itself. What you are advocating for is the loss of rights of any citizen to do with their property as they see fit.

Not true at all Glen Beck.

No, everyone with a brain has a problem with a failure CEO walking away with a golden parachutte. If you lose your job, do you get a severance? In union jobs, they get PAID when the company decides they don't need them anymore. And right wingers seem to cry when they hear labor gets big buy outs. Why is that? Don't they see labor's value?

And, I'm an American voter. If we decide that corporations and CEO's are out of control, we have the power to break em up and reign them in. They don't have rights. But the GOP wants to give corporations the rights of people.

See, this is too deep to explain to right wingers who just don't get it at all. There's too much you are unwilling to admit, so arguing with you is like running in a circle.

You aren't upset that a CEO goes to work for a company, runs that company into the ground, goes bankrupt, and then the CEO gets to walk away with $5 million dollar bonus for 5 years served? On top of his salary? You don't think that's excessive? And by the way, the Board of Directors are all CEO's at their own companies. Its a good old boys club.

And then the company got to renig on any pensions they promised before the CEO ran the company into the ground? If the Dem government sees that this is what the GOP set up for corporations when they were in power between 2000-2006, then the Dems have a responsibility to undo what the GOP did.

But $30 hr for a factory worker is too much?

It is my right as an American to organize. It used to be a more powerful right before Reagan started breaking the unions and taking power away from labor.

And I'm not looking to force companies to pay anything. I'm looking to improve the job market. That means tariffs, fixing nafta, some protectionism, regulations, taxes and bringing jobs home. That will improve wages.

A strong economy will improve wages.

But in 2006 and 2007, the corporations were showing record profits and labor lagged behind. Whether you know it or not, it is class warfare. So when will the masses start seeing

Yes, your employer has the right to pay you whatever they want, within the law.

But doesn't it bother you that in the future, NAFTA and unfettered globalization will most certainly mean less jobs available and so lower wages?

 

[amrchaos]

It's funny because when I put the first quote in google, the only thing that showed up was ihope's post on USMB. So I'm calling bullshit or want a link.

The second quote is from FDR's "Only Thing We Have to Fear is Fear Itself" speech in which he is talking about the economy. The way you have the quote is way off. I'm calling bullshit again.

The second quote in full:

"If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife."

And that last quote is also from his "Only Thing We Have to Fear is Fear Itself" speech.

And you butchered the three quote intentionally as well:

I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.

But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

Fucking hack, get the fuck off this board.

This will be easy

Here is the link:

Three New Deals: Reflections on ... - Google Books


In the highlighted bold section he is saying here that when congress doesn't use legal ways, which is one of the two courses, he will impose a military dictatorship or why else would he say "But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses" he shall use the same power as a military dictatorship would have as in the time of invasion.

1) what page number

2)Why should I regard this author as a trustworthy source??

 

[ihopehefails]

Famous FDR quotes:

"I don't mind telling you in confidence that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian Gentlemen" (Of course, he was referring to Mussilini)

"if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army (we are not longer free people but soldiers who follow orders without question) willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property for such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership that aims at the greater good (Give up all our freedoms so he can tell us what to do). I assume unhesingtately the leadership of this great army (aka dictator) of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems"

"I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. (when people didn't want to go along with him) I shall ask the congress for one remaining instrument to meet the crisis--broad executive power (aka dictatorship) to wage war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by foreign foe"

...with this all of his followers cheered the new dictatorship as they did in Italy. Welcome to America 1933.

The Congress granted FDR broad executive powers. What happen to the dictatorship? Ihopehefails?


Or that is right--FDR was so popular that he died in office, similiar to a dictator except that the people return FDR to office 4 consecutive time!!! It is still a republic if you must constantly face re-election.

I believe congress in incapable of granting its powers to another branch or for that fact no branch can grant a power to the other or you will be destroying the three branches of government concept.

He did get legally re-elected but American fascism took on an American tone which is why some people in the FDR administration referred to it as Jeffersonian fascism. It was different than Italian Fascism or NAZIism but still had its core idea that nations were not borders or govenernment but organic structures that were deeply connected to the spiritual nature of the populace.

 

[sealybobo]

Their talking about Reagan on the History channel now.

They said Reaganomics was basically, "don't worry about the future as far as deficits go".

And that Reaganomics wasn't an economic thing. It was a phylosophy.

He was all about big spending on military.

Reagan won the cold war thing was overblown. It was all rhetoric and right wing spin. But it worked on the dumb American voters. Hell, even I loved Reagan. I was in highschool. Not all 8 years of course. LOL.

Bush stole a lot from Reagan. Reagan made communism an evil thing and he also played the moral card a lot with the war on drugs.

Star wars was just a fantasy of Reagans.

 

[Ravi]

Famous FDR quotes:

"I don't mind telling you in confidence that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian Gentlemen" (Of course, he was referring to Mussilini)

"if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army (we are not longer free people but soldiers who follow orders without question) willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property for such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership that aims at the greater good (Give up all our freedoms so he can tell us what to do). I assume unhesingtately the leadership of this great army (aka dictator) of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems"

"I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. (when people didn't want to go along with him) I shall ask the congress for one remaining instrument to meet the crisis--broad executive power (aka dictatorship) to wage war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by foreign foe"

...with this all of his followers cheered the new dictatorship as they did in Italy. Welcome to America 1933.

The Congress granted FDR broad executive powers. What happen to the dictatorship? Ihopehefails?


Or that is right--FDR was so popular that he died in office, similiar to a dictator except that the people return FDR to office 4 consecutive time!!! It is still a republic if you must constantly face re-election.

FDR didn't really send Americans to fight facism in Europe...he was actually helping Hitler and the axis win the war.

 

[Polk]

He is exactly what Obama is emulating. And did you just hear that FDR wasn't really any more successful than Hoover was at ending the recession?

Why do people keep repeating this even though it's untrue?

 

[Polk]

Hoover did a lot of economic intervention that made things worse but Rosevelt continued them for 12 years which kept America down when other countries were recovering.

Hoover's so-called intervention was on such a small scale as to be meaningless. Roosevelt combined fiscal stimulus with dumping gold convertibility and the economy took off like a rocket.

 

[ihopehefails]

Just ask the CEO of your company what he think about you. He thinks you cost too much.

Or don't you understand labor costs.

And I really want you to respond to Bush using tax payers $ to build a stadium. Why? Capitalism says if private companies won't put up the money to build it, then it shouldn't be built.

So you little worker bees can stop swallowing what the rich wing tells you. Time to wake up.

Stop arguing for CEO's golden parachuttes at the expense of your wages and benefits.

My employer has the right to offer wages or employment that they wish to offer for whatever reason they choose and I am not arguing for golden parachutes. In fact, I don't have a say if they should get them since I am not a stockholder in the companies that offer them.

You however seem upset that they are getting them. Fine. That is your right to be upset but tell me where you get the right to decide how someone else will get compensated and if the government has that right to do so then doesn't it also have the right to do so for the "worker bees"?

Under your thinking we are tansferring the right of a corp to offer compensation to its employees from a private entity (and the individuals that compose them) to the government itself. What you are advocating for is the loss of rights of any citizen to do with their property as they see fit.

Not true at all Glen Beck.

No, everyone with a brain has a problem with a failure CEO walking away with a golden parachutte. If you lose your job, do you get a severance? In union jobs, they get PAID when the company decides they don't need them anymore. And right wingers seem to cry when they hear labor gets big buy outs. Why is that? Don't they see labor's value?

And, I'm an American voter. If we decide that corporations and CEO's are out of control, we have the power to break em up and reign them in. They don't have rights. But the GOP wants to give corporations the rights of people.

See, this is too deep to explain to right wingers who just don't get it at all. There's too much you are unwilling to admit, so arguing with you is like running in a circle.

You aren't upset that a CEO goes to work for a company, runs that company into the ground, goes bankrupt, and then the CEO gets to walk away with $5 million dollar bonus for 5 years served? On top of his salary? You don't think that's excessive? And by the way, the Board of Directors are all CEO's at their own companies. Its a good old boys club.

And then the company got to renig on any pensions they promised before the CEO ran the company into the ground? If the Dem government sees that this is what the GOP set up for corporations when they were in power between 2000-2006, then the Dems have a responsibility to undo what the GOP did.

But $30 hr for a factory worker is too much?

It is my right as an American to organize. It used to be a more powerful right before Reagan started breaking the unions and taking power away from labor.

And I'm not looking to force companies to pay anything. I'm looking to improve the job market. That means tariffs, fixing nafta, some protectionism, regulations, taxes and bringing jobs home. That will improve wages.

A strong economy will improve wages.

But in 2006 and 2007, the corporations were showing record profits and labor lagged behind. Whether you know it or not, it is class warfare. So when will the masses start seeing

Yes, your employer has the right to pay you whatever they want, within the law.

But doesn't it bother you that in the future, NAFTA and unfettered globalization will most certainly mean less jobs available and so lower wages?

No because that has never been true. NAFTA has been around for a long time yet we have always had jobs. Isn't that an amazing coincidence?

Most of your other points revolved around the idea that if I think a company can offer compensation to people to whatever they like then I am endorsing it. No. I am saying that if two parties such as CEOs and stockholders agree to something then third parties such as you or I don't have a right to interfere with that.

"Yes, your employer has the right to pay you whatever they want, within the law." The most revealing thing about your way of thinking is the "within the law" part. People's rights are not a matter of existing within the law but they exist without the law and in the absense of government or can you explain to me why you need a law to speak freely. Is it the law that enables you to do so as in some grand command that say 'you may now speak' and like a puppet begin to speak or do you have that ability naturally?

I was not speaking of a corporation's rights within the law but their rights inherent to them by their natural existence as in natural law.

 

[Oddball]

The Congress granted FDR broad executive powers. What happen to the dictatorship? Ihopehefails?


Or that is right--FDR was so popular that he died in office, similiar to a dictator except that the people return FDR to office 4 consecutive time!!! It is still a republic if you must constantly face re-election.

I defy you to point out the Article 1 power that authorizes congress to abdicate any of their powers to the executive.

Insofar as fascism in America during the Roosevelt administration (and after for that matter) is concerned, I suggest you read Hayek's Road to Serfdom some time.

 

[ihopehefails]

Hoover did a lot of economic intervention that made things worse but Rosevelt continued them for 12 years which kept America down when other countries were recovering.

Hoover's so-called intervention was on such a small scale as to be meaningless. Roosevelt combined fiscal stimulus with dumping gold convertibility and the economy took off like a rocket.

It must have been a delayed launch because nothing happenned for 16 years.

 

[amrchaos]

Famous FDR quotes:

"I don't mind telling you in confidence that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian Gentlemen" (Of course, he was referring to Mussilini)

"if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army (we are not longer free people but soldiers who follow orders without question) willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property for such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership that aims at the greater good (Give up all our freedoms so he can tell us what to do). I assume unhesingtately the leadership of this great army (aka dictator) of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems"

"I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. (when people didn't want to go along with him) I shall ask the congress for one remaining instrument to meet the crisis--broad executive power (aka dictatorship) to wage war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by foreign foe"

...with this all of his followers cheered the new dictatorship as they did in Italy. Welcome to America 1933.

The Congress granted FDR broad executive powers. What happen to the dictatorship? Ihopehefails?


Or that is right--FDR was so popular that he died in office, similiar to a dictator except that the people return FDR to office 4 consecutive time!!! It is still a republic if you must constantly face re-election.

I believe congress in incapable of granting its powers to another branch or for that fact no branch can grant a power to the other or you will be destroying the three branches of government concept.

He did get legally re-elected but American fascism took on an American tone which is why some people in the FDR administration referred to it as Jeffersonian fascism. It was different than Italian Fascism or NAZIism but still had its core idea that nations were not borders or govenernment but organic structures that were deeply connected to the spiritual nature of the populace.

Actually--congress can grant certain powers it has to another branch, department, or group by consenting to allow that organization to take over a certain roll reserved to congress through the Constitution. Only the Legislature branch can do this. Such exmples include the mananging of the national debt--granted to the treasury(executive branch), conditional triggers to declare War(as seen in the Case to the 2nd Iraq war).

Or agreeing to allow the continuance of an act AFTER the executive branch performed said act(See desert storm---the first Iraq War)

 

[Oddball]

Hoover did a lot of economic intervention that made things worse but Rosevelt continued them for 12 years which kept America down when other countries were recovering.

Hoover's so-called intervention was on such a small scale as to be meaningless. Roosevelt combined fiscal stimulus with dumping gold convertibility and the economy took off like a rocket.

More like took off like a rock, into a double-dip depression.

 

[amrchaos]

The Congress granted FDR broad executive powers. What happen to the dictatorship? Ihopehefails?


Or that is right--FDR was so popular that he died in office, similiar to a dictator except that the people return FDR to office 4 consecutive time!!! It is still a republic if you must constantly face re-election.

I defy you to point out the Article 1 power that authorizes congress to abdicate any of their powers to the executive.

Insofar as fascism in America during the Roosevelt administration (and after for that matter) is concerned, I suggest you read Hayek's Road to Serfdom some time.

All congress has to do is consent--There goes the legislature branch.