FDR said what!!!!

[Political Junky]

How do you explain that there was a plot by conservatives in 1934 to remove FDR from office in favor of a government resembling Mussolini or Hitler?

 

[sealybobo]

Reaganism and the privatization of government services has weakened the middle class, enriched the corporatists beyond their wildest dreams, and has victimized the most defenseless in our society -- children in foster homes, the mentally ill who have been put in "outpatient" services and end up on the streets, and so many other categories. Anybody who supports 'reaganism' either is dense, a loon, uneducated, or malignant.

And if they can't even admit these basic facts, then what is the use in arguing with them?

Other than their arguments are the same arguments the righties in Washington are making. So we need to stay active in squashing their bs.

Whether its Dude, Rush or Glen Beck, they won't stop spewing their bullshit so we have to explain to others exactly why they are wrong.

But it gets tiring. I sort of took a few months off from this site because guys like Dude are draining. And he thinks I'm the idiot.

 

[ihopehefails]

Reaganism and the privatization of government services has weakened the middle class, enriched the corporatists beyond their wildest dreams, and has victimized the most defenseless in our society -- children in foster homes, the mentally ill who have been put in "outpatient" services and end up on the streets, and so many other categories. Anybody who supports 'reaganism' either is dense, a loon, uneducated, or malignant.

You mention this as if it is a crime.

 

[Toronado3800]

What we need now is complete deregulation of the economy not more of it.

I feel corruption in the average human makes both fear of damnation to hell necessary and a large number of government regulations. Similar corruption makes socialism not work.

Did the New Deal Work? Yes in that we never had a socialist revolution. The rest I suppose economists can argue either way.

On that train of thought, what country has a democratic government w/o the socialist ideal of the new deal in place or where is the country where the ideal small government is in place? Its an honest question. When I think no government power I think Mexico. There HAS TO be a better example.

 

[ihopehefails]

Yeah...We have to redefine terms, yet again.

FDR's depression busting was sooooo successful that it caused another depression!

I don't think they have a solid definition of any word in their vocabulary.

FDR won by a landslide his second term. So will Obama.

And you like bying Chinese? Me too. The difference is that I understand the negatives to doing it.

Doesn't affect you? Don't you have kids, neighbors and friends who might not all be as successful as you? Don't you care about them? You only care about yourself? Typical righty.

No. I am not obligated to care about them and the fact that so many people on the left demand that we care about complete strangers as if they were a member of our family is just repeating the motivations behind every fascist government.

And yes I do care about others but my caring about others is not extended to every member of our nation. Many people are pricks, including my neighbors, who do not deserve an ounce of caring from me. I may choose to be a Jesus and love every man on the globe but who the hell does that and still remains happy in their own life.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reaganism and the privatization of government services has weakened the middle class, enriched the corporatists beyond their wildest dreams, and has victimized the most defenseless in our society -- children in foster homes, the mentally ill who have been put in "outpatient" services and end up on the streets, and so many other categories. Anybody who supports 'reaganism' either is dense, a loon, uneducated, or malignant.

You mention this as if it is a crime.

That the corporatists were enriched on the backs of the most helpless in society, yes, that is criminal as well as immoral.

 

[ihopehefails]

What we need now is complete deregulation of the economy not more of it.

I feel corruption in the average human makes both fear of damnation to hell necessary and a large number of government regulations. Similar corruption makes socialism not work.

Did the New Deal Work? Yes in that we never had a socialist revolution. The rest I suppose economists can argue either way.

On that train of thought, what country has a democratic government w/o the socialist ideal of the new deal in place or where is the country where the ideal small government is in place? Its an honest question. When I think no government power I think Mexico. There HAS TO be a better example.

The problem with govt regulations for the purpose you are presupposing is that a crime will take place and that we have to to do preventive law enforcement but then we would be punishing people for crimes they have not committed yet or we think they will commit in the future due to our own prejudices.

It would be like locking up a large number of minorities for no reason other than we thing they might commit a crime in the future. That would justify us putting up extra "regulations" on their lives in order to prevent them from harming society but this fear is really based on a prejudice that is unfair to them and would be unfair for corporations for the same reason.

 

[Oddball]

Did the New Deal Work? Yes in that we never had a socialist revolution. The rest I suppose economists can argue either way.

The New Deal was a socialist revolution.....In fact, FDR stole it lock, stock and barrel from the avowed socialist Eugene Debs.

 

[ihopehefails]

Reaganism and the privatization of government services has weakened the middle class, enriched the corporatists beyond their wildest dreams, and has victimized the most defenseless in our society -- children in foster homes, the mentally ill who have been put in "outpatient" services and end up on the streets, and so many other categories. Anybody who supports 'reaganism' either is dense, a loon, uneducated, or malignant.

You mention this as if it is a crime.

That the corporatists were enriched on the backs of the most helpless in society, yes, that is criminal as well as immoral.

I'm trying to figure out what I lost or was stolen from me when they got rich?

 

[ihopehefails]

How do you explain that there was a plot by conservatives in 1934 to remove FDR from office in favor of a government resembling Mussolini or Hitler?

Perhaps they feared having everything they have earned taken from them by the socialist president?

 

[Political Junky]

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination for a second term, delivered at Philadelphia on 27 June 1936, said, "The economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power."

 

[Oddball]

Wow...Some overheated, hyperbolic populist language at a party nominating convention proves everything!!

I'm soooooo swayed!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The term "economic royalists" is a truly evocative and historically accurate term for the corrupt corporatists that have controlled the GOP, along with SC values folks, for the last thirty years.

 

[Oddball]

Riiiiight...Corporatist influence in gubmint started a mere 30 years ago, and is limited to the GOP.

What a simp!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Can't contradict what I have said, Dude. You just proved it. Don't want your kind in my party no more. You nearly broke the Republic last time. You won't get another chance.

 

[Oddball]

It's contradicted in history, which you have no grip of.

The marriage of the corporate world and the feds started way back in 1871, with the creation of the mega-corporation known as "District of Columbia" (16 stat 419).

Records of the Government of the District of Columbia

But I don't expect true historical facts to sink into the thick skulls of partisan party man hacks, who seem to believe that history started the day that they were born.

 

[Toronado3800]

The problem with govt regulations for the purpose you are presupposing is that a crime will take place and that we have to to do preventive law enforcement but then we would be punishing people for crimes they have not committed yet or we think they will commit in the future due to our own prejudices.

It would be like locking up a large number of minorities for no reason other than we thing they might commit a crime in the future. That would justify us putting up extra "regulations" on their lives in order to prevent them from harming society but this fear is really based on a prejudice that is unfair to them and would be unfair for corporations for the same reason.

I'll argue preventative law enforcement is less of a cost to society than no law enforcement. Laws against murder are one. Laws against me stealing your car or other property are another.

Football is distracting me. My the Rams suck....

It seems our financial regulations come by a day late after banks or corporations prove they can not manage themselves. Is the FDIC more costly than the S&L bail out? Does the added stability of our banks make that cost worthwhile?

The Industrial Revolution pushed the other lot of regulations on businesses. It seems they killed an unacceptable number of folks building bridges and the like so here come OSHA regulations. Then folks unionize, corporations hire pinkertons to beat them, unions go to the mob for help, here come government regulations to stabilize that mess.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's contradicted in history, which you have no grip of.

The marriage of the corporate world and the feds started way back in 1871, with the creation of the mega-corporation known as "District of Columbia" (16 stat 419).

Records of the Government of the District of Columbia

But I don't expect true historical facts to sink into the thick skulls of partisan party man hacks, who seem to believe that history started the day that they were born.

Not only are you wrong, you are also dull and boring in your wrongness. The link of business and feds began in 1790 and 1791. Go look it up. And your point has nothing to do with the fact that the GOP wants your kind gone, gone, and gone.

 

[Oddball]

Face it, you're a dullard and willing useful idiot. Lest I forget to mention a willful and chronic victim.

I only linked to the fucking federal archives and quoted their own incorporating statute.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are wrong; nothing new there. The linkage began eighty years earlier with the intertwining of the federal government and the first national bank of the U.S.