Roosevelt's Great Depression

[CrusaderFrank]

Wait, the ANTI Gov't Uncle Miltie WANTS Gov't to encroach on the markets by artificially picking winners and losers? THAT'S YOUR POSIT? lol

REAL INTEREST RATES? LOL

YOU DO REALIZE UNCLE MILTIE WANTED TO PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS RIGHT? lol

You've been found out, poseur.

You don't know jack shit.

Spend less time being a Google Master and more time learning about the subject you know little about.

You won't look so stupid to the people that do.

Dad2 is one of the few people I would consider putting on ignore. He's a pathological lair and unlike Wry or Rdean, he's not funny when he posts his "ideas"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now....where are the Roosevelt fans who are ready to explain the different results under Harding, as compared to those under Roosevelt?

Allegedly , the depression finished only due to the greatest expenditure program started by the US government which created thousands of hundreds of jobs,

dear if putting people in make work jobs helped we'd never have to worry about unemployment again would we?
This is Econ 101, class one day one. Did you ever think of attending college??

reggie don't need no stinkin' college!!

He told me, all he needs is his selected historians to tell him what to think!!!!

Actually....it's a real time saver.

From viewing your many distorted and twisted history threads it appears a college education is not always of significant value in regards to knowing or understanding history. The fact is, people who spend decades reading and studying history, in many cases decades of not only reading and studying, but having direct connections to important historical events, can easily have far more knowledge on the subject than a college educated person. This is especially true when the college educated person majored in a subject other than history and has a total lack of historical research methodology knowledge the way you do.

"From viewing your many distorted and twisted history threads it appears a college education is not always of significant value in regards to knowing or understanding history."

And, yet...you are never able to refute them.
So.....your post is merely the whining of a dunce put in his place.

True?

BTW.....no one does more and better research than moi.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wait, the ANTI Gov't Uncle Miltie WANTS Gov't to encroach on the markets by artificially picking winners and losers? THAT'S YOUR POSIT? lol

REAL INTEREST RATES? LOL

YOU DO REALIZE UNCLE MILTIE WANTED TO PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS RIGHT? lol

You've been found out, poseur.

You don't know jack shit.

Spend less time being a Google Master and more time learning about the subject you know little about.

You won't look so stupid to the people that do.

Dad2 is one of the few people I would consider putting on ignore. He's a pathological lair and unlike Wry or Rdean, he's not funny when he posts his "ideas"

Man, I love your tip-of-the-hat to Ms. Truthie ('lair').
I really miss her....and better times on the board.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wait, the ANTI Gov't Uncle Miltie WANTS Gov't to encroach on the markets by artificially picking winners and losers? THAT'S YOUR POSIT? lol

REAL INTEREST RATES? LOL

YOU DO REALIZE UNCLE MILTIE WANTED TO PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS RIGHT? lol

You've been found out, poseur.

You don't know jack shit.

Spend less time being a Google Master and more time learning about the subject you know little about.

You won't look so stupid to the people that do.

Dad2 is one of the few people I would consider putting on ignore. He's a pathological lair and unlike Wry or Rdean, he's not funny when he posts his "ideas"

Man, I love your tip-of-the-hat to Ms. Truthie ('lair').
I really miss her....and better times on the board.

I miss her. She was fun.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wait, the ANTI Gov't Uncle Miltie WANTS Gov't to encroach on the markets by artificially picking winners and losers? THAT'S YOUR POSIT? lol

REAL INTEREST RATES? LOL

YOU DO REALIZE UNCLE MILTIE WANTED TO PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS RIGHT? lol

You've been found out, poseur.

You don't know jack shit.

Spend less time being a Google Master and more time learning about the subject you know little about.

You won't look so stupid to the people that do.

Dad2 is one of the few people I would consider putting on ignore. He's a pathological lair and unlike Wry or Rdean, he's not funny when he posts his "ideas"

Man, I love your tip-of-the-hat to Ms. Truthie ('lair').
I really miss her....and better times on the board.

I miss her. She was fun.

No one calls me a 'bad cristain' anymore.

 

[Camp]

Now....where are the Roosevelt fans who are ready to explain the different results under Harding, as compared to those under Roosevelt?

Allegedly , the depression finished only due to the greatest expenditure program started by the US government which created thousands of hundreds of jobs,

dear if putting people in make work jobs helped we'd never have to worry about unemployment again would we?
This is Econ 101, class one day one. Did you ever think of attending college??

reggie don't need no stinkin' college!!

He told me, all he needs is his selected historians to tell him what to think!!!!

Actually....it's a real time saver.

From viewing your many distorted and twisted history threads it appears a college education is not always of significant value in regards to knowing or understanding history. The fact is, people who spend decades reading and studying history, in many cases decades of not only reading and studying, but having direct connections to important historical events, can easily have far more knowledge on the subject than a college educated person. This is especially true when the college educated person majored in a subject other than history and has a total lack of historical research methodology knowledge the way you do.

"From viewing your many distorted and twisted history threads it appears a college education is not always of significant value in regards to knowing or understanding history."

And, yet...you are never able to refute them.
So.....your post is merely the whining of a dunce put in his place.

True?

BTW.....no one does more and better research than moi.

Your knucklehead ideas are consistently refuted. I help to refute them all the time. Not that doing that is difficult. Your ideas come from the world of conspiracy theories and you use conspiracy methods of sourcing. Anyone who knows the difference between conspiracy sourcing methods and historian sourcing methods is able to refute your nonsense.

 

[regent]

Now....where are the Roosevelt fans who are ready to explain the different results under Harding, as compared to those under Roosevelt?

Allegedly , the depression finished only due to the greatest expenditure program started by the US government which created thousands of hundreds of jobs,

dear if putting people in make work jobs helped we'd never have to worry about unemployment again would we?
This is Econ 101, class one day one. Did you ever think of attending college??

reggie don't need no stinkin' college!!

He told me, all he needs is his selected historians to tell him what to think!!!!

Actually....it's a real time saver.

I think it is one of the Bill of Rights that says "Americans shall not be denied the right to read history, all the stinking history they want." You too Chic can read history. There are just some historians better than others, and those best historians, the cream of the crop, the big guns of American history agree with me. Not so much with you. I think it's the red costume.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Allegedly , the depression finished only due to the greatest expenditure program started by the US government which created thousands of hundreds of jobs,

dear if putting people in make work jobs helped we'd never have to worry about unemployment again would we?
This is Econ 101, class one day one. Did you ever think of attending college??

reggie don't need no stinkin' college!!

He told me, all he needs is his selected historians to tell him what to think!!!!

Actually....it's a real time saver.

From viewing your many distorted and twisted history threads it appears a college education is not always of significant value in regards to knowing or understanding history. The fact is, people who spend decades reading and studying history, in many cases decades of not only reading and studying, but having direct connections to important historical events, can easily have far more knowledge on the subject than a college educated person. This is especially true when the college educated person majored in a subject other than history and has a total lack of historical research methodology knowledge the way you do.

"From viewing your many distorted and twisted history threads it appears a college education is not always of significant value in regards to knowing or understanding history."

And, yet...you are never able to refute them.
So.....your post is merely the whining of a dunce put in his place.

True?

BTW.....no one does more and better research than moi.

Your knucklehead ideas are consistently refuted. I help to refute them all the time. Not that doing that is difficult. Your ideas come from the world of conspiracy theories and you use conspiracy methods of sourcing. Anyone who knows the difference between conspiracy sourcing methods and historian sourcing methods is able to refute your nonsense.

"Your knucklehead ideas are consistently refuted."
Put your dinaro where you put your diner.
Show me.

While I link, quote, and source....all you do is kiss Roosevelt's shoes.


Since I quote folks who know, and were there, your use of the word "conspiracy" falls flat.
It is simply an obfuscation.




I've got your number.
Although the author Daniel Silva used this description in a different connection, nothing could be more appropriate as a description of Roosevelt groupies like you:

They come in two varieties- those willing to be used, and those too stupid to realize that they are being used.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now....where are the Roosevelt fans who are ready to explain the different results under Harding, as compared to those under Roosevelt?

Allegedly , the depression finished only due to the greatest expenditure program started by the US government which created thousands of hundreds of jobs,

dear if putting people in make work jobs helped we'd never have to worry about unemployment again would we?
This is Econ 101, class one day one. Did you ever think of attending college??

reggie don't need no stinkin' college!!

He told me, all he needs is his selected historians to tell him what to think!!!!

Actually....it's a real time saver.

I think it is one of the Bill of Rights that says "Americans shall not be denied the right to read history, all the stinking history they want." You too Chic can read history. There are just some historians better than others, and those best historians, the cream of the crop, the big guns of American history agree with me. Not so much with you. I think it's the red costume.

reggie.....the historians called: time to refill your head.

 

[PoliticalChic]

a right winger who is ALWAYS on the wrong side of history

dear, liberals spied for Stalin and Hitler and elected Obama. Is that the right side of History? Please tell us if you are a communist too?

And this...

"Nothing Liberals relish more than searching for reasons for being morally indignant! This is because they can’t take the moral high ground on abortion, adultery, illegitimacy, the divorce rate, drugs, crime, a president molesting an intern and then lying to federal investigators. They stake out a clear moral position only on the issue of slavery…of course, when it mattered, they were on the wrong side of that, too."
Coulter

 

[Camp]

dear if putting people in make work jobs helped we'd never have to worry about unemployment again would we?
This is Econ 101, class one day one. Did you ever think of attending college??

reggie don't need no stinkin' college!!

He told me, all he needs is his selected historians to tell him what to think!!!!

Actually....it's a real time saver.

From viewing your many distorted and twisted history threads it appears a college education is not always of significant value in regards to knowing or understanding history. The fact is, people who spend decades reading and studying history, in many cases decades of not only reading and studying, but having direct connections to important historical events, can easily have far more knowledge on the subject than a college educated person. This is especially true when the college educated person majored in a subject other than history and has a total lack of historical research methodology knowledge the way you do.

"From viewing your many distorted and twisted history threads it appears a college education is not always of significant value in regards to knowing or understanding history."

And, yet...you are never able to refute them.
So.....your post is merely the whining of a dunce put in his place.

True?

BTW.....no one does more and better research than moi.

Your knucklehead ideas are consistently refuted. I help to refute them all the time. Not that doing that is difficult. Your ideas come from the world of conspiracy theories and you use conspiracy methods of sourcing. Anyone who knows the difference between conspiracy sourcing methods and historian sourcing methods is able to refute your nonsense.

"Your knucklehead ideas are consistently refuted."
Put your dinaro where you put your diner.
Show me.

While I link, quote, and source....all you do is kiss Roosevelt's shoes.


Since I quote folks who know, and were there, your use of the word "conspiracy" falls flat.
It is simply an obfuscation.

.

I have shown two of your failures in this thread, and they are major failures. One represents a dishonest representation of fact, the other represents your sloppy method of sourcing. Do you really want me to show you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

reggie don't need no stinkin' college!!

He told me, all he needs is his selected historians to tell him what to think!!!!

Actually....it's a real time saver.

From viewing your many distorted and twisted history threads it appears a college education is not always of significant value in regards to knowing or understanding history. The fact is, people who spend decades reading and studying history, in many cases decades of not only reading and studying, but having direct connections to important historical events, can easily have far more knowledge on the subject than a college educated person. This is especially true when the college educated person majored in a subject other than history and has a total lack of historical research methodology knowledge the way you do.

"From viewing your many distorted and twisted history threads it appears a college education is not always of significant value in regards to knowing or understanding history."

And, yet...you are never able to refute them.
So.....your post is merely the whining of a dunce put in his place.

True?

BTW.....no one does more and better research than moi.

Your knucklehead ideas are consistently refuted. I help to refute them all the time. Not that doing that is difficult. Your ideas come from the world of conspiracy theories and you use conspiracy methods of sourcing. Anyone who knows the difference between conspiracy sourcing methods and historian sourcing methods is able to refute your nonsense.

"Your knucklehead ideas are consistently refuted."
Put your dinaro where you put your diner.
Show me.

While I link, quote, and source....all you do is kiss Roosevelt's shoes.


Since I quote folks who know, and were there, your use of the word "conspiracy" falls flat.
It is simply an obfuscation.

.

I have shown two of your failures in this thread, and they are major failures. One represents a dishonest representation of fact, the other represents your sloppy method of sourcing. Do you really want me to show you?

Watch this:

Did Franklin Roosevelt intend, from America's very first campaign in WWII, to turn Europe over to communism, under the control of Joseph Stalin?

Yes or no.

 

[Camp]

From viewing your many distorted and twisted history threads it appears a college education is not always of significant value in regards to knowing or understanding history. The fact is, people who spend decades reading and studying history, in many cases decades of not only reading and studying, but having direct connections to important historical events, can easily have far more knowledge on the subject than a college educated person. This is especially true when the college educated person majored in a subject other than history and has a total lack of historical research methodology knowledge the way you do.

"From viewing your many distorted and twisted history threads it appears a college education is not always of significant value in regards to knowing or understanding history."

And, yet...you are never able to refute them.
So.....your post is merely the whining of a dunce put in his place.

True?

BTW.....no one does more and better research than moi.

Your knucklehead ideas are consistently refuted. I help to refute them all the time. Not that doing that is difficult. Your ideas come from the world of conspiracy theories and you use conspiracy methods of sourcing. Anyone who knows the difference between conspiracy sourcing methods and historian sourcing methods is able to refute your nonsense.

"Your knucklehead ideas are consistently refuted."
Put your dinaro where you put your diner.
Show me.

While I link, quote, and source....all you do is kiss Roosevelt's shoes.


Since I quote folks who know, and were there, your use of the word "conspiracy" falls flat.
It is simply an obfuscation.

.

I have shown two of your failures in this thread, and they are major failures. One represents a dishonest representation of fact, the other represents your sloppy method of sourcing. Do you really want me to show you?

Watch this:

Did Franklin Roosevelt intend, from America's very first campaign in WWII, to turn Europe over to communism, under the control of Joseph Stalin?

Yes or no.

I've called you out on two specific areas and claims of your thesis. I've accused you of being dishonest on one and an unqualified sloppy researcher on the other. Still you deflect, and refuse to respond on those topics, instead wanting to start a discussion on the old stand-by FDR was a communist tool of Stalin fantasy. How about if you respond to the topics you have already lost in the debate enclosed in this thread.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"From viewing your many distorted and twisted history threads it appears a college education is not always of significant value in regards to knowing or understanding history."

And, yet...you are never able to refute them.
So.....your post is merely the whining of a dunce put in his place.

True?

BTW.....no one does more and better research than moi.

Your knucklehead ideas are consistently refuted. I help to refute them all the time. Not that doing that is difficult. Your ideas come from the world of conspiracy theories and you use conspiracy methods of sourcing. Anyone who knows the difference between conspiracy sourcing methods and historian sourcing methods is able to refute your nonsense.

"Your knucklehead ideas are consistently refuted."
Put your dinaro where you put your diner.
Show me.

While I link, quote, and source....all you do is kiss Roosevelt's shoes.


Since I quote folks who know, and were there, your use of the word "conspiracy" falls flat.
It is simply an obfuscation.

.

I have shown two of your failures in this thread, and they are major failures. One represents a dishonest representation of fact, the other represents your sloppy method of sourcing. Do you really want me to show you?

Watch this:

Did Franklin Roosevelt intend, from America's very first campaign in WWII, to turn Europe over to communism, under the control of Joseph Stalin?

Yes or no.

I've called you out on two specific areas and claims of your thesis. I've accused you of being dishonest on one and an unqualified sloppy researcher on the other. Still you deflect, and refuse to respond on those topics, instead wanting to start a discussion on the old stand-by FDR was a communist tool of Stalin fantasy. How about if you respond to the topics you have already lost in the debate enclosed in this thread.

Did Franklin Roosevelt intend to turn Europe over to communism, under the control of Joseph Stalin?

Yes or no.

 

[Camp]

Your knucklehead ideas are consistently refuted. I help to refute them all the time. Not that doing that is difficult. Your ideas come from the world of conspiracy theories and you use conspiracy methods of sourcing. Anyone who knows the difference between conspiracy sourcing methods and historian sourcing methods is able to refute your nonsense.

"Your knucklehead ideas are consistently refuted."
Put your dinaro where you put your diner.
Show me.

While I link, quote, and source....all you do is kiss Roosevelt's shoes.


Since I quote folks who know, and were there, your use of the word "conspiracy" falls flat.
It is simply an obfuscation.

.

I have shown two of your failures in this thread, and they are major failures. One represents a dishonest representation of fact, the other represents your sloppy method of sourcing. Do you really want me to show you?

Watch this:

Did Franklin Roosevelt intend, from America's very first campaign in WWII, to turn Europe over to communism, under the control of Joseph Stalin?

Yes or no.

I've called you out on two specific areas and claims of your thesis. I've accused you of being dishonest on one and an unqualified sloppy researcher on the other. Still you deflect, and refuse to respond on those topics, instead wanting to start a discussion on the old stand-by FDR was a communist tool of Stalin fantasy. How about if you respond to the topics you have already lost in the debate enclosed in this thread.

Did Franklin Roosevelt intend to turn Europe over to communism, under the control of Joseph Stalin?

Yes or no.

Can we assume you accept defeat on the topic of your fraudulent unemployment numbers and misquoting Morgenthau's diary. That pretty much means you loose the debate regarding your thesis presented in this thread.
If you want to debate the intentions of FDR in regards to turning over Europe you will have to deviate from the huckster tactics you so much depend on and be more precise of your meaning of "Europe" and "turning over". Europe is a big place and turning something over implies one has possession of the thing being turned over and thus has the ability to "turn it over". Can you answer question like an adult or are you dependent on answering questions by asking new questions the way a child does?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Your knucklehead ideas are consistently refuted."
Put your dinaro where you put your diner.
Show me.

While I link, quote, and source....all you do is kiss Roosevelt's shoes.


Since I quote folks who know, and were there, your use of the word "conspiracy" falls flat.
It is simply an obfuscation.

.

I have shown two of your failures in this thread, and they are major failures. One represents a dishonest representation of fact, the other represents your sloppy method of sourcing. Do you really want me to show you?

Watch this:

Did Franklin Roosevelt intend, from America's very first campaign in WWII, to turn Europe over to communism, under the control of Joseph Stalin?

Yes or no.

I've called you out on two specific areas and claims of your thesis. I've accused you of being dishonest on one and an unqualified sloppy researcher on the other. Still you deflect, and refuse to respond on those topics, instead wanting to start a discussion on the old stand-by FDR was a communist tool of Stalin fantasy. How about if you respond to the topics you have already lost in the debate enclosed in this thread.

Did Franklin Roosevelt intend to turn Europe over to communism, under the control of Joseph Stalin?

Yes or no.

Can we assume you accept defeat on the topic of your fraudulent unemployment numbers and misquoting Morgenthau's diary. That pretty much means you loose the debate regarding your thesis presented in this thread.
If you want to debate the intentions of FDR in regards to turning over Europe you will have to deviate from the huckster tactics you so much depend on and be more precise of your meaning of "Europe" and "turning over". Europe is a big place and turning something over implies one has possession of the thing being turned over and thus has the ability to "turn it over". Can you answer question like an adult or are you dependent on answering questions by asking new questions the way a child does?

The proof that EVERYTHING I've said about Roosevelt is true, accurate, and correct, is right here:
"Did Franklin Roosevelt intend to turn Europe over to communism, under the control of Joseph Stalin?

Yes or no."

You won't respond because it is eminently provable.


From before his election the liar- it is well documented that he was a liar- he was a totalitarian aficionado.


Every demand of Stalin's he rushed to fulfill.....well, maybe except for the delay in the "second front" because of the Brit surrenders in North Africa.

 

[Camp]

I have shown two of your failures in this thread, and they are major failures. One represents a dishonest representation of fact, the other represents your sloppy method of sourcing. Do you really want me to show you?

Watch this:

Did Franklin Roosevelt intend, from America's very first campaign in WWII, to turn Europe over to communism, under the control of Joseph Stalin?

Yes or no.

I've called you out on two specific areas and claims of your thesis. I've accused you of being dishonest on one and an unqualified sloppy researcher on the other. Still you deflect, and refuse to respond on those topics, instead wanting to start a discussion on the old stand-by FDR was a communist tool of Stalin fantasy. How about if you respond to the topics you have already lost in the debate enclosed in this thread.

Did Franklin Roosevelt intend to turn Europe over to communism, under the control of Joseph Stalin?

Yes or no.

Can we assume you accept defeat on the topic of your fraudulent unemployment numbers and misquoting Morgenthau's diary. That pretty much means you loose the debate regarding your thesis presented in this thread.
If you want to debate the intentions of FDR in regards to turning over Europe you will have to deviate from the huckster tactics you so much depend on and be more precise of your meaning of "Europe" and "turning over". Europe is a big place and turning something over implies one has possession of the thing being turned over and thus has the ability to "turn it over". Can you answer question like an adult or are you dependent on answering questions by asking new questions the way a child does?

The proof that EVERYTHING I've said about Roosevelt is true, accurate, and correct, is right here:
"Did Franklin Roosevelt intend to turn Europe over to communism, under the control of Joseph Stalin?

Yes or no."

You won't respond because it is eminently provable.


From before his election the liar- it is well documented that he was a liar- he was a totalitarian aficionado.


Every demand of Stalin's he rushed to fulfill.....well, maybe except for the delay in the "second front" because of the Brit surrenders in North Africa.

I am responding. You are the one that refuses to respond. I am not willing to play your silly game of loaded questions designed to illicit subjective responses. Now you are having a meltdown. You can not discuss any of the questions I have put forward in regards to you being dishonest or poorly qualified to discuss history because of your lack of knowledge in resource methodology. You are completely dependent on crib notes so to speak. Any questions outside of the crib notes and you are lost.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Watch this:

Did Franklin Roosevelt intend, from America's very first campaign in WWII, to turn Europe over to communism, under the control of Joseph Stalin?

Yes or no.

I've called you out on two specific areas and claims of your thesis. I've accused you of being dishonest on one and an unqualified sloppy researcher on the other. Still you deflect, and refuse to respond on those topics, instead wanting to start a discussion on the old stand-by FDR was a communist tool of Stalin fantasy. How about if you respond to the topics you have already lost in the debate enclosed in this thread.

Did Franklin Roosevelt intend to turn Europe over to communism, under the control of Joseph Stalin?

Yes or no.

Can we assume you accept defeat on the topic of your fraudulent unemployment numbers and misquoting Morgenthau's diary. That pretty much means you loose the debate regarding your thesis presented in this thread.
If you want to debate the intentions of FDR in regards to turning over Europe you will have to deviate from the huckster tactics you so much depend on and be more precise of your meaning of "Europe" and "turning over". Europe is a big place and turning something over implies one has possession of the thing being turned over and thus has the ability to "turn it over". Can you answer question like an adult or are you dependent on answering questions by asking new questions the way a child does?

The proof that EVERYTHING I've said about Roosevelt is true, accurate, and correct, is right here:
"Did Franklin Roosevelt intend to turn Europe over to communism, under the control of Joseph Stalin?

Yes or no."

You won't respond because it is eminently provable.


From before his election the liar- it is well documented that he was a liar- he was a totalitarian aficionado.


Every demand of Stalin's he rushed to fulfill.....well, maybe except for the delay in the "second front" because of the Brit surrenders in North Africa.

I am responding. You are the one that refuses to respond. I am not willing to play your silly game of loaded questions designed to illicit subjective responses. Now you are having a meltdown. You can not discuss any of the questions I have put forward in regards to you being dishonest or poorly qualified to discuss history because of your lack of knowledge in resource methodology. You are completely dependent on crib notes so to speak. Any questions outside of the crib notes and you are lost.

"I am responding."

Really?


"Did Franklin Roosevelt intend to turn Europe over to communism, under the control of Joseph Stalin?

Yes or no."


Stop tap-dancing and answer.

 

[G.T.]

Pc got owned

That liar got called on lying again, and denies it again. Waters wet

 

[G.T.]

reggie don't need no stinkin' college!!

He told me, all he needs is his selected historians to tell him what to think!!!!

Actually....it's a real time saver.

From viewing your many distorted and twisted history threads it appears a college education is not always of significant value in regards to knowing or understanding history. The fact is, people who spend decades reading and studying history, in many cases decades of not only reading and studying, but having direct connections to important historical events, can easily have far more knowledge on the subject than a college educated person. This is especially true when the college educated person majored in a subject other than history and has a total lack of historical research methodology knowledge the way you do.

"From viewing your many distorted and twisted history threads it appears a college education is not always of significant value in regards to knowing or understanding history."

And, yet...you are never able to refute them.
So.....your post is merely the whining of a dunce put in his place.

True?

BTW.....no one does more and better research than moi.

Your knucklehead ideas are consistently refuted. I help to refute them all the time. Not that doing that is difficult. Your ideas come from the world of conspiracy theories and you use conspiracy methods of sourcing. Anyone who knows the difference between conspiracy sourcing methods and historian sourcing methods is able to refute your nonsense.

"Your knucklehead ideas are consistently refuted."
Put your dinaro where you put your diner.
Show me.

While I link, quote, and source....all you do is kiss Roosevelt's shoes.


Since I quote folks who know, and were there, your use of the word "conspiracy" falls flat.
It is simply an obfuscation.

.

I have shown two of your failures in this thread, and they are major failures. One represents a dishonest representation of fact, the other represents your sloppy method of sourcing. Do you really want me to show you?

She has mastered the art of the old school classic gym game that is everyone's favorite.

Dodgeball.

3 ample methods: dip, duck and dodge.