Was FDR the best President in American history?


I've seen modern day school history curricula, and they don't teach that the depression was caused by capitalism. They teach that it was caused by rampant speculation. The same thing that caused our current problems.
Same damn thing. Capitalism is based on speculation. It's called a 'distinction without a meaning".

So that's it! You believe capatilism and rampant speculation to be one and the same!


How many here belive capitalism and rampant speculation are one and the same?
 
Both of you....imagine that you were POTUS and a state sends a militia to attack a federal military base. They kill soldiers and capture the military base. What do you do?

And if aliens were to like capture asteroids and hurl them at Delaware...

Your avatar matches your intellect.

Weak deflection from the obvious point that your scenario has zilch point squat to do with reality.
 
Both of you....imagine that you were POTUS and a state sends a militia to attack a federal military base. They kill soldiers and capture the military base. What do you do?
Imagine that POTUS did everything to provoke said attack.

The attack on Ft. Sumpter occurred on December 26, 1860 and Lincoln was sworn in on March 4, 1861. Explain to me how Lincoln, as POTUS, did ANYTHING to provoke an attack when he hadn't even been sworn in?
 
I've seen modern day school history curricula, and they don't teach that the depression was caused by capitalism. They teach that it was caused by rampant speculation. The same thing that caused our current problems.
Same damn thing. Capitalism is based on speculation. It's called a 'distinction without a meaning".

So that's it! You believe capatilism and rampant speculation to be one and the same!

Nice straw man, got any others you want to try and sell? :eusa_naughty:
 
And if aliens were to like capture asteroids and hurl them at Delaware...

Your avatar matches your intellect.

Weak deflection from the obvious point that your scenario has zilch point squat to do with reality.

No. Your anti-intellectual comment is what has zilch to do with anything. But I wouldn't expect you to know that. BTW, since the scenario I proposed is what really happened, most would tend to think that it does indeed have something to do with reality. Even if it's a 'past reality'.
 
Same damn thing. Capitalism is based on speculation. It's called a 'distinction without a meaning".

So that's it! You believe capatilism and rampant speculation to be one and the same!

Nice straw man, got any others you want to try and sell? :eusa_naughty:

Please tell me that you're smarter than you're showing. You say capitalism and rampant speculation are the same and then you call it a straw man. Make up your mind????
 
Both of you....imagine that you were POTUS and a state sends a militia to attack a federal military base. They kill soldiers and capture the military base. What do you do?
Imagine that POTUS did everything to provoke said attack.

The attack on Ft. Sumpter occurred on December 26, 1860 and Lincoln was sworn in on March 4, 1861. Explain to me how Lincoln, as POTUS, did ANYTHING to provoke an attack when he hadn't even been sworn in?
They provoked it by not vacating the premises.

In case you didn't do so hot in your American geography class, South Carolina is well south of the Mason-Dixon line.
 
Both of you....imagine that you were POTUS and a state sends a militia to attack a federal military base. They kill soldiers and capture the military base. What do you do?
Imagine that POTUS did everything to provoke said attack.

The attack on Ft. Sumpter occurred on December 26, 1860 and Lincoln was sworn in on March 4, 1861. Explain to me how Lincoln, as POTUS, did ANYTHING to provoke an attack when he hadn't even been sworn in?

Ummm......Attack on Ft. Sumter April 12, 1861, anymore bullshit you want to peddle?
 



"Though modern myth claims that the free market "self-destructed" in 1929, government policy was the debacle’s principal culprit. If this crash had been like previous ones, the hard times would have ended in two or three years at the most, and likely sooner than that. But unprecedented political bungling instead prolonged the misery for over 10 years."
 
Imagine that POTUS did everything to provoke said attack.

The attack on Ft. Sumpter occurred on December 26, 1860 and Lincoln was sworn in on March 4, 1861. Explain to me how Lincoln, as POTUS, did ANYTHING to provoke an attack when he hadn't even been sworn in?
They provoked it by not vacating the premises.

In case you didn't do so hot in your American geography class, South Carolina is well south of the Mason-Dixon line.

Let me make sure I'm understanding your correctly. Is it your position that a federal military installation in any state is the property of that state? Is that what you're arguing?
 
So that's it! You believe capatilism and rampant speculation to be one and the same!

Nice straw man, got any others you want to try and sell? :eusa_naughty:

Please tell me that you're smarter than you're showing. You say capitalism and rampant speculation are the same and then you call it a straw man. Make up your mind????

CAN YOU NOT EVEN READ?

First off I didn't "say" anything, secondly the poster you responded (who wasn't me) said "Capitalism is based on speculation" to which you replied "You believe "capatilism" and RAMPANT speculation to be one and the same" ....... You clearly attempted to DISTORT what the poster said.

If you can't understand the difference then you're just clueless.
 



"Though modern myth claims that the free market "self-destructed" in 1929, government policy was the debacle’s principal culprit. If this crash had been like previous ones, the hard times would have ended in two or three years at the most, and likely sooner than that. But unprecedented political bungling instead prolonged the misery for over 10 years."

Which government policies are you referring to?
 



"Though modern myth claims that the free market "self-destructed" in 1929, government policy was the debacle’s principal culprit. If this crash had been like previous ones, the hard times would have ended in two or three years at the most, and likely sooner than that. But unprecedented political bungling instead prolonged the misery for over 10 years."

Well said, one need only look at the depression of 1920-1921, look at the federal government response to it, how quickly it ended and the prosperity that followed and then compare & contrast that to the government response to the great depression as well as it's length and depth to see that federal government economic interventionism is not the most efficient way to respond to economic crisis.
 
I have no comprehension problems....And you're still a fake.

I've yet to meet the real libertarian who didn't consider FDR as anything more than the warmongering authoritarian socialist despot he was.

Give it up, Jethro.

You go way, WAY beyond comprehension problems. You really have a HUGE cognitive problem or a massive ego disorder. You are only capable of 'framing' MY beliefs; beliefs that are personal to me and prioritized by ME, within ONLY you're narrow monolithic set of prioritie$.

There is only ONE type of libertarian in your little pea brain mind...YOU.

I really wasn't kidding about your word for the day...

It seems actual libertarians don't agree with you.....Social Security | Libertarian Party

I'd have to agree. How any can call themselves libertarian and think FDR was a great president is rather perplexing.

You can believe whatever you want. Those beliefs, whether you admit it or not, are not libertarian in nature.
 
Its funny though; there are "left-libertarians" that actually exist. I find it an oxymoron. I think leftists are as libertarian as much as Bishop Spong is a Christian.
 
Before the Depression Social security was called "Planning for Retirement" - which a pretty fair number of working class people managed. You know; blacksmiths, butchers, carpenters, masons, damn the list of working people does get long, back when people mostly worked for a living. Before FDR and his Socialist programs began the process of bankrupting the country, both financially and morally.

Let us not forget that like Lincoln, FDR broke the system of checks and balances envisioned by the framers of the constitution. Where Lincoln ignored the balance between states and the federal government, FDR ignored the balance between the branches, as seen most graphically with his stacking of the Supreme Court. When the court "checked" his unconstitutional plans, he simply changed the number sitting no the court and appointed toadies to approve whatever he wanted. This destruction of the constitution is precisely why he was a president of the worst sort.
Excellent.



Both of you....imagine that you were POTUS and a state sends a militia to attack a federal military base. They kill soldiers and capture the military base. What do you do?

Imagine you are POTUS and one (or more) states declare they no longer wish to be part of the nation and offer to PURCHASE the federal military land from you at a fair price. Would you summon the army to supress the states or sell the land?
 

Forum List

Back
Top