FDR

Great post, he is either stupid, uninformed, or dishonest
I asked for an example of anytime FDR did not follow the ruling of SCOTUS and adhere to that ruling. None has been provided. For FDR to have trashed the Constitution would mean he ignored rulings by the body that determine's the constitutionality of legislation or government actions.
So he created interment camps within the realm of the constitution/BOR?? Seriously...how can you claim he acted within the constitution/BOR and still understand that internment camps were created under his rule??? Please explain that rationale
Well, it comes down to the Korematsu v. United States, and that opens an interesting debate. The camps were ruled Constitutional by SCOTUS in '44, but subsequent rulings and debates question the ruling. Technically, the Korematsu ruling was constitutional, but the argument against it is a strong one. However strong that argument may be, it was held constitutional at the time.
No the constitution was ignored at the time...from a directive from FDR. The courts did not uphold the constitution either. Two groups doing something wrong does not make it constitutional when the BILL OF RIGHTS ARE IGNORED. That's the big kicker here, govt completely violated its greatest directive and over stepped its bounds. This wasn't even an issue of the country collapsing like the 3/5s compromise was, or the intitial allowing of slavery, bc lets be honest, we would not be a country if we said no to slavery, like almost all the founders wanted to do.

FDR was right about the axis powers threat to the world. But he was the president for 10 years before that, and pretty much was given any legilslation he wanted passed. But his vision did not work in America, and we suffered the GREAT depression. Everywhere else it was just a depression. He did not cause it, but he didn't really help us out of it either. And just 10 years prior to that, there was a depression that by every metric should have been 3 times worse than the Great Depression...but that self corrected and then even flourished within 18 months. I think FDR did what he thought best, but his thinking was that govt needed to reign in the markets/business/people etc. history has shown us he was wrong on that point.
And yet the historians have named FDR one of the three top presidents of
America and recently as America's best. When FDR took office he promised he would try different things, he would experiment. There was no manual on how to survive or remedy a Great Depression, especially one that had gone on for three years with another president. Is there a manual or procedure today that would tell the president and legislature how to act?
It depends on WHAT historians said that he was a top 3. For a progressive historian, yes, FDR was a giant despite his many policies having no effect. On paper they probably looked great, but in action they were flops. And those historians will acknowledge they were flops, but still praise him for his merits of philosophy. The problem is expansions on his philosophies, like with the war on poverty, are also proving to be flops as well...if I only had a nickel everytime I heard the term wage gap. Since the war on poverty, the lower classes have only expanded, and the upper classes have shrunk. Except the upper classes control an ever bigger chunk of the overall wealth than they did prior to the war on poverty. The war on poverty is just as failed as the war on drugs.

And yes there was something I cited to surviving and even thriving in a depression. And it was something that happened a mere 10 years before FDR's presidency. That was the Coolidge administrations methods. But you won't hear your progressive historians talk about him.
 
Silent Cal is usually rated about 29th best president out of the 43.
 
I asked for an example of anytime FDR did not follow the ruling of SCOTUS and adhere to that ruling. None has been provided. For FDR to have trashed the Constitution would mean he ignored rulings by the body that determine's the constitutionality of legislation or government actions.
So he created interment camps within the realm of the constitution/BOR?? Seriously...how can you claim he acted within the constitution/BOR and still understand that internment camps were created under his rule??? Please explain that rationale
Well, it comes down to the Korematsu v. United States, and that opens an interesting debate. The camps were ruled Constitutional by SCOTUS in '44, but subsequent rulings and debates question the ruling. Technically, the Korematsu ruling was constitutional, but the argument against it is a strong one. However strong that argument may be, it was held constitutional at the time.
No the constitution was ignored at the time...from a directive from FDR. The courts did not uphold the constitution either. Two groups doing something wrong does not make it constitutional when the BILL OF RIGHTS ARE IGNORED. That's the big kicker here, govt completely violated its greatest directive and over stepped its bounds. This wasn't even an issue of the country collapsing like the 3/5s compromise was, or the intitial allowing of slavery, bc lets be honest, we would not be a country if we said no to slavery, like almost all the founders wanted to do.

FDR was right about the axis powers threat to the world. But he was the president for 10 years before that, and pretty much was given any legilslation he wanted passed. But his vision did not work in America, and we suffered the GREAT depression. Everywhere else it was just a depression. He did not cause it, but he didn't really help us out of it either. And just 10 years prior to that, there was a depression that by every metric should have been 3 times worse than the Great Depression...but that self corrected and then even flourished within 18 months. I think FDR did what he thought best, but his thinking was that govt needed to reign in the markets/business/people etc. history has shown us he was wrong on that point.
And yet the historians have named FDR one of the three top presidents of
America and recently as America's best. When FDR took office he promised he would try different things, he would experiment. There was no manual on how to survive or remedy a Great Depression, especially one that had gone on for three years with another president. Is there a manual or procedure today that would tell the president and legislature how to act?
It depends on WHAT historians said that he was a top 3. For a progressive historian, yes, FDR was a giant despite his many policies having no effect. On paper they probably looked great, but in action they were flops. And those historians will acknowledge they were flops, but still praise him for his merits of philosophy. The problem is expansions on his philosophies, like with the war on poverty, are also proving to be flops as well...if I only had a nickel everytime I heard the term wage gap. Since the war on poverty, the lower classes have only expanded, and the upper classes have shrunk. Except the upper classes control an ever bigger chunk of the overall wealth than they did prior to the war on poverty. The war on poverty is just as failed as the war on drugs.

And yes there was something I cited to surviving and even thriving in a depression. And it was something that happened a mere 10 years before FDR's presidency. That was the Coolidge administrations methods. But you won't hear your progressive historians talk about him.

Tell a Republican in his 70s that FDR was a loser.
Go to an Emergency Room after he kicks the shit out of you.
 
Great post, he is either stupid, uninformed, or dishonest
I asked for an example of anytime FDR did not follow the ruling of SCOTUS and adhere to that ruling. None has been provided. For FDR to have trashed the Constitution would mean he ignored rulings by the body that determine's the constitutionality of legislation or government actions.
So he created interment camps within the realm of the constitution/BOR?? Seriously...how can you claim he acted within the constitution/BOR and still understand that internment camps were created under his rule??? Please explain that rationale
Well, it comes down to the Korematsu v. United States, and that opens an interesting debate. The camps were ruled Constitutional by SCOTUS in '44, but subsequent rulings and debates question the ruling. Technically, the Korematsu ruling was constitutional, but the argument against it is a strong one. However strong that argument may be, it was held constitutional at the time.
No the constitution was ignored at the time...from a directive from FDR. The courts did not uphold the constitution either. Two groups doing something wrong does not make it constitutional when the BILL OF RIGHTS ARE IGNORED. That's the big kicker here, govt completely violated its greatest directive and over stepped its bounds. This wasn't even an issue of the country collapsing like the 3/5s compromise was, or the intitial allowing of slavery, bc lets be honest, we would not be a country if we said no to slavery, like almost all the founders wanted to do.

FDR was right about the axis powers threat to the world. But he was the president for 10 years before that, and pretty much was given any legilslation he wanted passed. But his vision did not work in America, and we suffered the GREAT depression. Everywhere else it was just a depression. He did not cause it, but he didn't really help us out of it either. And just 10 years prior to that, there was a depression that by every metric should have been 3 times worse than the Great Depression...but that self corrected and then even flourished within 18 months. I think FDR did what he thought best, but his thinking was that govt needed to reign in the markets/business/people etc. history has shown us he was wrong on that point.
And yet the historians have named FDR one of the three top presidents of
America and recently as America's best. When FDR took office he promised he would try different things, he would experiment. There was no manual on how to survive or remedy a Great Depression, especially one that had gone on for three years with another president. Is there a manual or procedure today that would tell the president and legislature how to act?





What an utterly shameless, illogical nuthugger.
 
So he created interment camps within the realm of the constitution/BOR?? Seriously...how can you claim he acted within the constitution/BOR and still understand that internment camps were created under his rule??? Please explain that rationale
Well, it comes down to the Korematsu v. United States, and that opens an interesting debate. The camps were ruled Constitutional by SCOTUS in '44, but subsequent rulings and debates question the ruling. Technically, the Korematsu ruling was constitutional, but the argument against it is a strong one. However strong that argument may be, it was held constitutional at the time.
No the constitution was ignored at the time...from a directive from FDR. The courts did not uphold the constitution either. Two groups doing something wrong does not make it constitutional when the BILL OF RIGHTS ARE IGNORED. That's the big kicker here, govt completely violated its greatest directive and over stepped its bounds. This wasn't even an issue of the country collapsing like the 3/5s compromise was, or the intitial allowing of slavery, bc lets be honest, we would not be a country if we said no to slavery, like almost all the founders wanted to do.

FDR was right about the axis powers threat to the world. But he was the president for 10 years before that, and pretty much was given any legilslation he wanted passed. But his vision did not work in America, and we suffered the GREAT depression. Everywhere else it was just a depression. He did not cause it, but he didn't really help us out of it either. And just 10 years prior to that, there was a depression that by every metric should have been 3 times worse than the Great Depression...but that self corrected and then even flourished within 18 months. I think FDR did what he thought best, but his thinking was that govt needed to reign in the markets/business/people etc. history has shown us he was wrong on that point.
And yet the historians have named FDR one of the three top presidents of
America and recently as America's best. When FDR took office he promised he would try different things, he would experiment. There was no manual on how to survive or remedy a Great Depression, especially one that had gone on for three years with another president. Is there a manual or procedure today that would tell the president and legislature how to act?
It depends on WHAT historians said that he was a top 3. For a progressive historian, yes, FDR was a giant despite his many policies having no effect. On paper they probably looked great, but in action they were flops. And those historians will acknowledge they were flops, but still praise him for his merits of philosophy. The problem is expansions on his philosophies, like with the war on poverty, are also proving to be flops as well...if I only had a nickel everytime I heard the term wage gap. Since the war on poverty, the lower classes have only expanded, and the upper classes have shrunk. Except the upper classes control an ever bigger chunk of the overall wealth than they did prior to the war on poverty. The war on poverty is just as failed as the war on drugs.

And yes there was something I cited to surviving and even thriving in a depression. And it was something that happened a mere 10 years before FDR's presidency. That was the Coolidge administrations methods. But you won't hear your progressive historians talk about him.

Tell a Republican in his 70s that FDR was a loser.
Go to an Emergency Room after he kicks the shit out of you.




Wow. If you're worried about a 70 year old kicking your ass, you really need to hit the gym.
 

Forum List

Back
Top