Roosevelt's New Deal: Anti-Black Legislation

It was General DeWitt that ordered the evacuation under FDR's EO. Was DeWitt a racist or just a general attempting to protect America? No other Corps general ordered an evcuation.
A quote by DeWitt:
"In the war in which we are now engaged," he wrote Stimson on February 14, "racial affinities are not severed by migration. The Japanese race is an enemy race, and while many second- and third-generation Japanese born on United States soil, possessed of United States citizenship, have become `Americanized,' the racial strains are undiluted.... It therefore follows that along the vital Pacific Coast over 112,000 potential enemies of Japanese extraction are at large today." "A Jap's a Jap," he proclaimed later, "and that's all there is to it."
Should FDR have removed DeWitt, overruled him, or what? Of course this is just the tip of the iceberg to that event.
 
I do not see any record of many prominent Republicans outraged at the treatment of Japanese Americans in 1942

There was only one to my knowledge

I'd like to add an explanation of the basic dif between you and the folks you support, the Left, and those of us on the other side.


The central and primary goal....perhaps the only one....of the Left, is equality.

The Left has no aim for prosperity....so if all folks black, white...even yellow....were equally poor, Lefties would be high fiving each other, and muttering "our work here is done."


This is why you folks should never, ever be entrusted with running governments.

No nation can have both equality and prosperity.


Dumbest post of the month

You must realize how I view enlightening our lesser lights, i.e., you....as a way of accumulating positive karma.

This is so simple that I'm almost surprised that you fail to understand it......then again,....


1. Equality as a social goal, with equal incomes and wealth for all is severely counterproductive economically, and, therefore, makes for a very poor society. Pursuing such a vision would require very high marginal tax rates on anyone with above-average production, income, and wealth. And, if income and wealth is going to be equalized, why would anyone save or invest? The only rational strategy is to consume all income, and not save any thing, as this would be anti-social under a social justice regime. With no savings, there would be no investment. But, investment would make no sense anyway, as any returns would be expropriated.


2. But…if one were to make sure they have low income…they would be rewarded with a grant from the government! So- what would you do?

3. Without savings and investment there can be no modern industrial society. The mechanisms of such a society would be barter and manual labor. Tools? Not even cave-man society, as their clubs would be confiscated to make sure this measure of wealth be equalized….in which case, no one would bother to make clubs…
Covered in detail in Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb."



Just because of how much fun it is to slap you around, let's go over this tête-à-tête one more time:

Me: A nation can have equality or it can have prosperity....but not both.

You: That's the dumbest post of the month!!!!!
 
A nation can equally aspire to both equality and prosperity.

To deny those goals as obtainable is to deny basic humanity.

I'd like to add an explanation of the basic dif between you and the folks you support, the Left, and those of us on the other side.


The central and primary goal....perhaps the only one....of the Left, is equality.

The Left has no aim for prosperity....so if all folks black, white...even yellow....were equally poor, Lefties would be high fiving each other, and muttering "our work here is done."


This is why you folks should never, ever be entrusted with running governments.

No nation can have both equality and prosperity.


Dumbest post of the month

You must realize how I view enlightening our lesser lights, i.e., you....as a way of accumulating positive karma.

This is so simple that I'm almost surprised that you fail to understand it......then again,....


1. Equality as a social goal, with equal incomes and wealth for all is severely counterproductive economically, and, therefore, makes for a very poor society. Pursuing such a vision would require very high marginal tax rates on anyone with above-average production, income, and wealth. And, if income and wealth is going to be equalized, why would anyone save or invest? The only rational strategy is to consume all income, and not save any thing, as this would be anti-social under a social justice regime. With no savings, there would be no investment. But, investment would make no sense anyway, as any returns would be expropriated.


2. But…if one were to make sure they have low income…they would be rewarded with a grant from the government! So- what would you do?

3. Without savings and investment there can be no modern industrial society. The mechanisms of such a society would be barter and manual labor. Tools? Not even cave-man society, as their clubs would be confiscated to make sure this measure of wealth be equalized….in which case, no one would bother to make clubs…
Covered in detail in Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb."



Just because of how much fun it is to slap you around, let's go over this tête-à-tête one more time:

Me: A nation can have equality or it can have prosperity....but not both.

You: That's the dumbest post of the month!!!!!
 
A nation can equally aspire to both equality and prosperity.

To deny those goals as obtainable is to deny basic humanity.

Dumbest post of the month

You must realize how I view enlightening our lesser lights, i.e., you....as a way of accumulating positive karma.

This is so simple that I'm almost surprised that you fail to understand it......then again,....


1. Equality as a social goal, with equal incomes and wealth for all is severely counterproductive economically, and, therefore, makes for a very poor society. Pursuing such a vision would require very high marginal tax rates on anyone with above-average production, income, and wealth. And, if income and wealth is going to be equalized, why would anyone save or invest? The only rational strategy is to consume all income, and not save any thing, as this would be anti-social under a social justice regime. With no savings, there would be no investment. But, investment would make no sense anyway, as any returns would be expropriated.


2. But…if one were to make sure they have low income…they would be rewarded with a grant from the government! So- what would you do?

3. Without savings and investment there can be no modern industrial society. The mechanisms of such a society would be barter and manual labor. Tools? Not even cave-man society, as their clubs would be confiscated to make sure this measure of wealth be equalized….in which case, no one would bother to make clubs…
Covered in detail in Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb."



Just because of how much fun it is to slap you around, let's go over this tête-à-tête one more time:

Me: A nation can have equality or it can have prosperity....but not both.

You: That's the dumbest post of the month!!!!!


OMG!!!

What a coincidence!!!


I just got the same note in a fortune cookie!!!
 
You are cute when you have your ESI moment (Earth Shaking Importance 14-year old girl squeal)!

There is no difference in the end result of communist or libertarian idealism.

The elites crush the population.

A nation can equally aspire to both equality and prosperity.

To deny those goals as obtainable is to deny basic humanity.

You must realize how I view enlightening our lesser lights, i.e., you....as a way of accumulating positive karma.

This is so simple that I'm almost surprised that you fail to understand it......then again,....


1. Equality as a social goal, with equal incomes and wealth for all is severely counterproductive economically, and, therefore, makes for a very poor society. Pursuing such a vision would require very high marginal tax rates on anyone with above-average production, income, and wealth. And, if income and wealth is going to be equalized, why would anyone save or invest? The only rational strategy is to consume all income, and not save any thing, as this would be anti-social under a social justice regime. With no savings, there would be no investment. But, investment would make no sense anyway, as any returns would be expropriated.


2. But…if one were to make sure they have low income…they would be rewarded with a grant from the government! So- what would you do?

3. Without savings and investment there can be no modern industrial society. The mechanisms of such a society would be barter and manual labor. Tools? Not even cave-man society, as their clubs would be confiscated to make sure this measure of wealth be equalized….in which case, no one would bother to make clubs…
Covered in detail in Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb."



Just because of how much fun it is to slap you around, let's go over this tête-à-tête one more time:

Me: A nation can have equality or it can have prosperity....but not both.

You: That's the dumbest post of the month!!!!!


OMG!!!

What a coincidence!!!


I just got the same note in a fortune cookie!!!
 
It was General DeWitt that ordered the evacuation under FDR's EO. Was DeWitt a racist or just a general attempting to protect America? No other Corps general ordered an evcuation.
A quote by DeWitt:
"In the war in which we are now engaged," he wrote Stimson on February 14, "racial affinities are not severed by migration. The Japanese race is an enemy race, and while many second- and third-generation Japanese born on United States soil, possessed of United States citizenship, have become `Americanized,' the racial strains are undiluted.... It therefore follows that along the vital Pacific Coast over 112,000 potential enemies of Japanese extraction are at large today." "A Jap's a Jap," he proclaimed later, "and that's all there is to it."
Should FDR have removed DeWitt, overruled him, or what? Of course this is just the tip of the iceberg to that event.


He should have had the son of a bitch hanged. He didn't because he agreed with him. FDR was an unamerican scumbag.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top