Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
1. Mussolini exalts Capitalism, as would all you good conservatives:
"We affirm that the true story of capitalism is now beginning, because capitalism is not a system of oppression only, but is also a selection of values, a coordination of hierarchies, a more amply developed sense of individual responsibility."
2. Mussolini expresses disdain for more government programs, as do all you good conservatives:
"They ask us for programs but there are already too many. It is not programs that are wanting for the salvation of Italy but men and will power."
3. Mussolini scorns Democracy, in good conservative fashion:
"Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy. You in America will see that some day."
4. Mussolini despises Socialism, as do all good conservatives:
"The Socialists ask what is our program? Our program is to smash the heads of the Socialists."
and, as the topper, Mussolini channels the comic arrogance of PoliticalChic:
"I am making superhuman efforts to educate this people. When they have learnt to obey, they will believe what I tell them."
...So, RWnuts, how do you like your conservative pal Mussolini now?
lolol
Benito Mussolini - Wikiquote
So no one wants to even attempt to dispute my portrayal of Mussolini as a conservative?
lol. See how your own medicine tastes?
No conservative would agree with any of those statements.
You proved nothing.
He ignored that point when I pointed out that when Hitler entered Vienna, je was greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month, and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.
And what does that have to do with Roosevelt's legacy?
Are you trying to establish a premise that all public opinion is of no value? Isn't that an argument against democratic government?
What's your alternative to democratic government that will save us from the will of the People?
So if the majority voted to reinstitute slavery, you would be OK with it?
Oh, and btw, I'm still waiting for anyone to cite anything in FDR's legacy that a consensus of modern day Americans finds objectionable.
No one made such a claim, so why would we bother?
BTW, popular is not the same thing as "right."
So we're all in agreement that despite whatever wacky label some nut like PC wants to attach to FDR,
in the end it must be conceded that his legacy is a positive one?
Okay. Fair enough.
Hardly....
....it is revealing you to be the equivalent of a SNL comedy skit.
It's become painfully apparent that you have no idea what Fascism is, no clue what it looks like. So I think it's time to begin your education. Let's start your lesson with learning about some actual Fascists....rather than the one's of your imagination.
This is Francisco Franco, Fascist dictator of Spain.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX_-faiNTVU"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX_-faiNTVU[/ame]
Anything 'painful' to you is satisfactory to me.
Keep squealing, pig.
So no one wants to even attempt to dispute my portrayal of Mussolini as a conservative?
lol. See how your own medicine tastes?
No conservative would agree with any of those statements.
You proved nothing.
Really? So all those conservative attacks on 'democracy' on this forum are a mirage? All of the conservative championing of capitalism I've seen on this forum never happened?
No conservatives oppose Socialism? No conservatives oppose more government programs?
lolol. Nice try, Flounder.
And what does that have to do with Roosevelt's legacy?
Are you trying to establish a premise that all public opinion is of no value? Isn't that an argument against democratic government?
What's your alternative to democratic government that will save us from the will of the People?
So if the majority voted to reinstitute slavery, you would be OK with it?
I've pointed out many times that if enough Americans wanted to amend the Constitution to bring back slavery, it could be done, constitutionally. There is one in a zillion chance that would happen, but that is the system.
Of course you conservatives want a system where a conservative minority can rule. That you have all made clear.
Let's add this example of how the Justices bowed to the emperor, Franklin the Worst...er, First:
1. To see the abject cowardice of the Justices, note that in invalidating the Guffey-Vinson Coal Act on May 18, 1936, less than a year before Roosevelt attempted to pack the court, Justice Charles Evans Hughes said that federal laws restricting local labor relations provisions were unconstitutional, that "the relations of employer and employee is a local relation" and "the evils are all local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control."
STOP RIGHT THERE:
1.You are entitled to you own opinions but not your own facts, Chica!
2. The case you are reinventing, Carter v. Carter Coal Co, involved the Guffy-Snyder Act of 1935 which SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional in1936. The Guffy-Vinson Act you cited which passed in 1937 was constitutional.
3. You incorrectly credit Justice Hughes for the quote in your #1 above. Justice Sutherland wrote the opinion of the Court, not J. Hughes, and J. Sutherland included that quote under item 21 of the holding of the Court.
4. The first part of the quote, the employer/employee bit, does not exist in the text of the decision. It is total contrived and one can only conclude its purpose was to mislead.
And he was correct.....then....
HANG ON:
1. Who was correct?
2. You claim J. Hughes was responsible for the quote, but, alas, you were so very wrong.
3. So the "he" you are actually referring to is J. Sutherland, the author of the quote.
4. That makes one hell of a difference in your "argument".
2. He went on to say "Otherwise in view of the multitude of indirect effects Congress in its discretion could assume control of virtually all of the activities of the people to the subversion of the fundamental principles of the Constitution." And..."... it is not for the court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision."
HOLD IT:
1. Justice Hughes "went on to say" NOTHING.
2. This quote was not the J. Sutherland "he" who was responsible for the initial quote you cited incorrectly.
3. J. Hughes' Separate Opinion started at 298 U.S. p317 below the Court's Opinion starting at p278.
4. This quote is from the Separate Opinion by J. Hughes, Not the Court Opinion by J. Sutherland.
Atta boy, Hughes!!!
OY!
The US Constitution is inviolable!!!
Sort of......
HERE WE GO:
Now we get to see how your disconnected pieces written by two Supremes rather than the one you falsely asserted fit with the next piece of your very untidy premise.
3. Proof of Roosevelt's total control of another branch of government came just eleven months later: Chief Justice Hughes, spoke for the majority in finding the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional.
Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.
OH BROTHER:
1. The Court ruled the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 constitutional. That's one in a row for ya, Chica!
2. The actual case was the NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel at 301 U.S. 1. The case revolved around unfair labor practices in which Jones and Laughlin were involved in with coercion of their labor force.
3. Contrary to your assertion that the ruling allowed Congress to regulate labor relations in industrial plants, the Court ruled that the NRLB was within the boundaries established by the Act when it ruled the undue coercive measures against the companies labor force was impacting the flow of commerce as defined in the Act.
4. Just how in the Hell do you come to that conclusion without any evidence to displaying FDR's direct, or for that matter, indirect control of SCOTUS?
Roosevelt destroyed the independence of the Supreme Court.
AN ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION BASED ON YOUR REALLY SCREWED UP PREMISE!
An America without checks and balances.
Did your balance get checked at the door?
You're the one in need of checks and balances...on your integrity and imagination, Chica!
Let's put you and FDR in the correct light: frauds.
The position of fraud is reserved for you, Chica!
I note with great interest that you make no attempt to defend your previous argument. My critique stands unchallenged as testament to your warped chicanery.
If you are in the right, why no defense of your argument? The answer is it's damn foolish to defend proven error and rant against the truth! You're not stupid, just void of the concept of logical constructs. So who's the fraud?
1. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional.
Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, 'The Twenty Year Revolution,' p. 65.
So? That is what any President might do; persuasion of Congress or a Congressman from the bully pulpit. Inferring that communication somehow was a violation of his oath of office is absolutely idiotic. A person making that assertion must be incapable of applying reasoned logic to that situation. Now what influence does that statement to a Congressman have on bending the will of SCOTUS? Where's the Beef, Chica?
2. Let's cut right to the chase....
Roosevelt cowed the Supreme Court so that they give him the power to regulate within the states.....
You have not provided a single shred of evidence to support that conclusion. Pitiful! However unsubstantiated that argument might be, you'll be absolutely shocked to learn I agree with the conclusion. But your argument is in gross error.
Here is a hint for you...look to the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. If you had built a reasoned argument on that for the cowing of SCOTUS, we would have been in accord. But silly rabbit that you are, you're just too damn inept, lazy, dishonest or any combination of the three to do the bloody research and present a proper reasoned argument!
...the end of federalism, and the end of the Constitution.
The Court found the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional. Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.
I have already proven that to be a false conclusion based on the SCOTUS ruling in NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel at 301 U.S. 1, which you failed to cite and falsely characterize. The NLRB, under the Executive, is charged with dealing with labor disputes, NOT CONGRESS, Chica!
"April 12. In a series of five cases, headed by the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. case, the Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act — or * 'Wagner Act" — designed to protect labor unions and promote collective bargaining in industries throughout the nation. Factories and mills and mines and stores, whose activities had long been legally classified as ''local,'' subject only to state regulation, and so immune, under the Constitution, from federal meddling, were suddenly found — in fiat contradiction of the barely dry Schechter and Carter Coal Co. decisions — to "affect" interstate commerce "directly" enough to warrant Congressional control under the commerce clause. "
Full text of "Nine men : a political history of the Supreme Court from 1790 to 1955"
I doubt that you are capable of grasping the difference between your erroneous statement, "Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants" and the last line of your citation directly above. Again, the NLRB is under the Executive and Congress is tasked with law making, not labor dispute settlement, For God's sake!
So....I was correct...and you were simply tap-dancing, obfuscating to defend the indefensible.
Correct my ass! Just keep deluding yourself. If I was tap dancing around your post, where was your ability and courage to debunk any portion of my argument, coward! My reply was clear, concise and correct. Any obfuscation is yours and is manifested in your post to which I'm responding now. You are the one dancing, dodging and deflecting, Chica! Do you know what PROJECTION is?
The courts re-write the Constitution whenever they wish.
You're really not going to like this. That is a point of some agreement to a certain degree.
And you remain nothing but a hack mouthpiece for the anti-Constitution, Roosevelt.
I am to "hack mouthpiece" as you are to a reasoned, logical person. You have no evidence to back that up! You have no idea what my true impressions of FDR are except for the one I handed to you, and you rejected. Through your irrational "logic" and argumentation, you wrongfully determined FDR was a fascist.
In the 50+ years since my HS days, I've known the classical 20th century short-hand definition of fascism and socialism as:
Socialism - the political theory of economic equality for all set into practice through State control of industry/production toward that goal.
Fascism - the oligarchic control of the State which partners with private ownership of industry and venerates militaristic strength and conquest.
FDR fits the socialism definition to a tee, if one is an honest broker of historical fact. Your twisted arguments to transform FDR into a fascist are ridiculous and are unable to be proven though the ACTUAL historical record. Obviously, you will not agree because you have too much face invested in supporting your ludicrous theory within your fantasy universe.
Did your balance get checked at the door?
You're the one in need of checks and balances...on your integrity and imagination, Chica!
Let's put you and FDR in the correct light: frauds.
The position of fraud is reserved for you, Chica!
I note with great interest that you make no attempt to defend your previous argument. My critique stands unchallenged as testament to your warped chicanery.
If you are in the right, why no defense of your argument? The answer is it's damn foolish to defend proven error and rant against the truth! You're not stupid, just void of the concept of logical constructs. So who's the fraud?
1. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional.
Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, 'The Twenty Year Revolution,' p. 65.
So? That is what any President might do; persuasion of Congress or a Congressman from the bully pulpit. Inferring that communication somehow was a violation of his oath of office is absolutely idiotic. A person making that assertion must be incapable of applying reasoned logic to that situation. Now what influence does that statement to a Congressman have on bending the will of SCOTUS? Where's the Beef, Chica?
2. Let's cut right to the chase....
Roosevelt cowed the Supreme Court so that they give him the power to regulate within the states.....
You have not provided a single shred of evidence to support that conclusion. Pitiful! However unsubstantiated that argument might be, you'll be absolutely shocked to learn I agree with the conclusion. But your argument is in gross error.
Here is a hint for you...look to the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. If you had built a reasoned argument on that for the cowing of SCOTUS, we would have been in accord. But silly rabbit that you are, you're just too damn inept, lazy, dishonest or any combination of the three to do the bloody research and present a proper reasoned argument!
...the end of federalism, and the end of the Constitution.
The Court found the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional. Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.
I have already proven that to be a false conclusion based on the SCOTUS ruling in NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel at 301 U.S. 1, which you failed to cite and falsely characterize. The NLRB, under the Executive, is charged with dealing with labor disputes, NOT CONGRESS, Chica!
"April 12. In a series of five cases, headed by the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. case, the Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act or * 'Wagner Act" designed to protect labor unions and promote collective bargaining in industries throughout the nation. Factories and mills and mines and stores, whose activities had long been legally classified as ''local,'' subject only to state regulation, and so immune, under the Constitution, from federal meddling, were suddenly found in fiat contradiction of the barely dry Schechter and Carter Coal Co. decisions to "affect" interstate commerce "directly" enough to warrant Congressional control under the commerce clause. "
Full text of "Nine men : a political history of the Supreme Court from 1790 to 1955"
I doubt that you are capable of grasping the difference between your erroneous statement, "Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants" and the last line of your citation directly above. Again, the NLRB is under the Executive and Congress is tasked with law making, not labor dispute settlement, For God's sake!
So....I was correct...and you were simply tap-dancing, obfuscating to defend the indefensible.
Correct my ass! Just keep deluding yourself. If I was tap dancing around your post, where was your ability and courage to debunk any portion of my argument, coward! My reply was clear, concise and correct. Any obfuscation is yours and is manifested in your post to which I'm responding now. You are the one dancing, dodging and deflecting, Chica! Do you know what PROJECTION is?
The courts re-write the Constitution whenever they wish.
You're really not going to like this. That is a point of some agreement to a certain degree.
And you remain nothing but a hack mouthpiece for the anti-Constitution, Roosevelt.
I am to "hack mouthpiece" as you are to a reasoned, logical person. You have no evidence to back that up! You have no idea what my true impressions of FDR are except for the one I handed to you, and you rejected. Through your irrational "logic" and argumentation, you wrongfully determined FDR was a fascist.
In the 50+ years since my HS days, I've known the classical 20th century short-hand definition of fascism and socialism as:
Socialism - the political theory of economic equality for all set into practice through State control of industry/production toward that goal.
Fascism - the oligarchic control of the State which partners with private ownership of industry and venerates militaristic strength and conquest.
FDR fits the socialism definition to a tee, if one is an honest broker of historical fact. Your twisted arguments to transform FDR into a fascist are ridiculous and are unable to be proven though the ACTUAL historical record. Obviously, you will not agree because you have too much face invested in supporting your ludicrous theory within your fantasy universe.
...
So if the majority voted to reinstitute slavery, you would be OK with it?
I've pointed out many times that if enough Americans wanted to amend the Constitution to bring back slavery, it could be done, constitutionally. There is one in a zillion chance that would happen, but that is the system.
Of course you conservatives want a system where a conservative minority can rule. That you have all made clear.
Yeah, we know it could be done if it could be done. You posted a tautology. The question is would it be right? Do you believe the majority has the right to vote on anything?
Now don't lie. We all know you do.
It's become painfully apparent that you have no idea what Fascism is, no clue what it looks like. So I think it's time to begin your education. Let's start your lesson with learning about some actual Fascists....rather than the one's of your imagination.
This is Francisco Franco, Fascist dictator of Spain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX_-faiNTVU
Anything 'painful' to you is satisfactory to me.
Keep squealing, pig.
Lesson Number Two: Benito Mussolini, dictator of Italy.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOv-Ncs7vQk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOv-Ncs7vQk[/ame]
So if the majority voted to reinstitute slavery, you would be OK with it?
I've pointed out many times that if enough Americans wanted to amend the Constitution to bring back slavery, it could be done, constitutionally. There is one in a zillion chance that would happen, but that is the system.
Of course you conservatives want a system where a conservative minority can rule. That you have all made clear.
Yeah, we know it could be done if it could be done. You posted a tautology. The question is would it be right? Do you believe the majority has the right to vote on anything?
Now don't lie. We all know you do.
No one made such a claim, so why would we bother?
BTW, popular is not the same thing as "right."
So we're all in agreement that despite whatever wacky label some nut like PC wants to attach to FDR,
in the end it must be conceded that his legacy is a positive one?
Okay. Fair enough.
According to that theory Stalin's legacy is a positive one.
No conservative would agree with any of those statements.
You proved nothing.
Really? So all those conservative attacks on 'democracy' on this forum are a mirage? All of the conservative championing of capitalism I've seen on this forum never happened?
No conservatives oppose Socialism? No conservatives oppose more government programs?
lolol. Nice try, Flounder.
I don't know about conservatives, but I'm a libertarian. I don't believe the majority has the authority to vote away my rights.
.
Let's put you and FDR in the correct light: frauds.
The position of fraud is reserved for you, Chica!
I note with great interest that you make no attempt to defend your previous argument. My critique stands unchallenged as testament to your warped chicanery.
If you are in the right, why no defense of your argument? The answer is it's damn foolish to defend proven error and rant against the truth! You're not stupid, just void of the concept of logical constructs. So who's the fraud?
1. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional.
Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, 'The Twenty Year Revolution,' p. 65.
So? That is what any President might do; persuasion of Congress or a Congressman from the bully pulpit. Inferring that communication somehow was a violation of his oath of office is absolutely idiotic. A person making that assertion must be incapable of applying reasoned logic to that situation. Now what influence does that statement to a Congressman have on bending the will of SCOTUS? Where's the Beef, Chica?
2. Let's cut right to the chase....
Roosevelt cowed the Supreme Court so that they give him the power to regulate within the states.....
You have not provided a single shred of evidence to support that conclusion. Pitiful! However unsubstantiated that argument might be, you'll be absolutely shocked to learn I agree with the conclusion. But your argument is in gross error.
Here is a hint for you...look to the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. If you had built a reasoned argument on that for the cowing of SCOTUS, we would have been in accord. But silly rabbit that you are, you're just too damn inept, lazy, dishonest or any combination of the three to do the bloody research and present a proper reasoned argument!
...the end of federalism, and the end of the Constitution.
The Court found the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional. Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.
I have already proven that to be a false conclusion based on the SCOTUS ruling in NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel at 301 U.S. 1, which you failed to cite and falsely characterize. The NLRB, under the Executive, is charged with dealing with labor disputes, NOT CONGRESS, Chica!
"April 12. In a series of five cases, headed by the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. case, the Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act or * 'Wagner Act" designed to protect labor unions and promote collective bargaining in industries throughout the nation. Factories and mills and mines and stores, whose activities had long been legally classified as ''local,'' subject only to state regulation, and so immune, under the Constitution, from federal meddling, were suddenly found in fiat contradiction of the barely dry Schechter and Carter Coal Co. decisions to "affect" interstate commerce "directly" enough to warrant Congressional control under the commerce clause. "
Full text of "Nine men : a political history of the Supreme Court from 1790 to 1955"
I doubt that you are capable of grasping the difference between your erroneous statement, "Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants" and the last line of your citation directly above. Again, the NLRB is under the Executive and Congress is tasked with law making, not labor dispute settlement, For God's sake!
So....I was correct...and you were simply tap-dancing, obfuscating to defend the indefensible.
Correct my ass! Just keep deluding yourself. If I was tap dancing around your post, where was your ability and courage to debunk any portion of my argument, coward! My reply was clear, concise and correct. Any obfuscation is yours and is manifested in your post to which I'm responding now. You are the one dancing, dodging and deflecting, Chica! Do you know what PROJECTION is?
The courts re-write the Constitution whenever they wish.
You're really not going to like this. That is a point of some agreement to a certain degree.
And you remain nothing but a hack mouthpiece for the anti-Constitution, Roosevelt.
I am to "hack mouthpiece" as you are to a reasoned, logical person. You have no evidence to back that up! You have no idea what my true impressions of FDR are except for the one I handed to you, and you rejected. Through your irrational "logic" and argumentation, you wrongfully determined FDR was a fascist.
In the 50+ years since my HS days, I've known the classical 20th century short-hand definition of fascism and socialism as:
Socialism - the political theory of economic equality for all set into practice through State control of industry/production toward that goal.
Fascism - the oligarchic control of the State which partners with private ownership of industry and venerates militaristic strength and conquest.
FDR fits the socialism definition to a tee, if one is an honest broker of historical fact. Your twisted arguments to transform FDR into a fascist are ridiculous and are unable to be proven though the ACTUAL historical record. Obviously, you will not agree because you have too much face invested in supporting your ludicrous theory within your fantasy universe.
...
My, my......look at this little piggie squeal!
Enjoy being made to look the fool you are, Chica!?!
I said the Supreme Court first said that the federal government could not interfere in matters within the state....
There you go again, trying to baffle everyone with bullshit!
You made that sideways claim indirectly referring to Carter v. Carter Coal Co, within which SCOTUS ruled the Guffy-Snyder Act, 1935 unconstitutional for a specific set of circumstances. That is one law and one SCOTUS ruling. FDR had nothing to do with the ruling. His actions were aimed at the Congress to pass the law initially, NOT THE BLOODY SUPREMES!
You made another indirect reference to NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel, in which SCOTUS ruled the National Labor Relations Act, 1935 constitutional based on a completely different set of circumstances contained in a completely different law. Again, FDR had nothing to do with the ruling, And, yet again, his actions were aimed at the Congress to pass the law initially, NOT TO INFLUENCE THE SUPREMES YOU OBTUSE TWIT!
These are both landmark SCOTUS decisions that many folks, including myself, have studied, in depth, with great interest. You mix apples and oranges and come up with your wacked out version of Kool-Aide, Chica! How very, very scientific of you!
....Roosevelt made them cowards....
As I've already hinted to you, read up on FDR's Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. That was the genesis of the post 1937 kowtowing by SCOTUS to the New Deal paradigm, you ignorant flatulent fraud!
...and, sure enough! They turned right around and awarded the prize...the end of constitutional federalism.....to the central government.
So...change colors? Maybe that will make you correct......
....not.
My, my......look at this little piggie squeal!
Enjoy being made to look the fool you are, Chica!?!
I said the Supreme Court first said that the federal government could not interfere in matters within the state....
There you go again, trying to baffle everyone with bullshit!
You made that sideways claim indirectly referring to Carter v. Carter Coal Co, within which SCOTUS ruled the Guffy-Snyder Act, 1935 unconstitutional for a specific set of circumstances. That is one law and one SCOTUS ruling. FDR had nothing to do with the ruling. His actions were aimed at the Congress to pass the law initially, NOT THE BLOODY SUPREMES!
You made another indirect reference to NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel, in which SCOTUS ruled the National Labor Relations Act, 1935 constitutional based on a completely different set of circumstances contained in a completely different law. Again, FDR had nothing to do with the ruling, And, yet again, his actions were aimed at the Congress to pass the law initially, NOT TO INFLUENCE THE SUPREMES YOU OBTUSE TWIT!
These are both landmark SCOTUS decisions that many folks, including myself, have studied, in depth, with great interest. You mix apples and oranges and come up with your wacked out version of Kool-Aide, Chica! How very, very scientific of you!
....Roosevelt made them cowards....
As I've already hinted to you, read up on FDR's Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. That was the genesis of the post 1937 kowtowing by SCOTUS to the New Deal paradigm, you ignorant flatulent fraud!
...and, sure enough! They turned right around and awarded the prize...the end of constitutional federalism.....to the central government.
So...change colors? Maybe that will make you correct......
....not.
Forest got it right..."Stupid is as Stupid does."
Still True: You have no response to your errors and logical fallacies. All you can do is substitute ad hominem instead. How very shallow. Perhaps someday you'll find what's lacking to fill that ugly void you let others glimpse. Your binary abstract of reality is well suited for the small, narrow mind, Chica!
So, at this point it's time to ask,
what were Hoover and the Republicans doing, or had done, or were planning to do, that was so superior to the FDR plans that the American people should have kept them in power?
Did Hoover's presidency produce a record of accomplishment worthy of earning him another 4 years?
...My, my......look at this little piggie squeal!
Enjoy being made to look the fool you are, Chica!?!
I said the Supreme Court first said that the federal government could not interfere in matters within the state....
There you go again, trying to baffle everyone with bullshit!
You made that sideways claim indirectly referring to Carter v. Carter Coal Co, within which SCOTUS ruled the Guffy-Snyder Act, 1935 unconstitutional for a specific set of circumstances. That is one law and one SCOTUS ruling. FDR had nothing to do with the ruling. His actions were aimed at the Congress to pass the law initially, NOT THE BLOODY SUPREMES!
You made another indirect reference to NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel, in which SCOTUS ruled the National Labor Relations Act, 1935 constitutional based on a completely different set of circumstances contained in a completely different law. Again, FDR had nothing to do with the ruling, And, yet again, his actions were aimed at the Congress to pass the law initially, NOT TO INFLUENCE THE SUPREMES YOU OBTUSE TWIT!
These are both landmark SCOTUS decisions that many folks, including myself, have studied, in depth, with great interest. You mix apples and oranges and come up with your wacked out version of Kool-Aide, Chica! How very, very scientific of you!
....Roosevelt made them cowards....
As I've already hinted to you, read up on FDR's Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. That was the genesis of the post 1937 kowtowing by SCOTUS to the New Deal paradigm, you ignorant flatulent fraud!
...and, sure enough! They turned right around and awarded the prize...the end of constitutional federalism.....to the central government.
So...change colors? Maybe that will make you correct......
....not.
Forest got it right..."Stupid is as Stupid does."
Still True: You have no response to your errors and logical fallacies. All you can do is substitute ad hominem instead. How very shallow. Perhaps someday you'll find what's lacking to fill that ugly void you let others glimpse. Your binary abstract of reality is well suited for the small, narrow mind, Chica!
I didn't see you deny that the Court reversed itself on federal interference in the states....
I'll C&P that for ya 'cause you must be too damn short because the implication of that very point went over your tiny little head:
You made that sideways claim indirectly referring to Carter v. Carter Coal Co, within which SCOTUS ruled the Guffy-Snyder Act, 1935 unconstitutional for a specific set of circumstances. That is one law and one SCOTUS ruling. FDR had nothing to do with the ruling. His actions were aimed at the Congress to pass the law initially, NOT THE BLOODY SUPREMES!
You made another indirect reference to NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel, in which SCOTUS ruled the National Labor Relations Act, 1935 constitutional based on a completely different set of circumstances contained in a completely different law. Again, FDR had nothing to do with the ruling, And, yet again, his actions were aimed at the Congress to pass the law initially, NOT TO INFLUENCE THE SUPREMES YOU OBTUSE TWIT!
These are both landmark SCOTUS decisions that many folks, including myself, have studied, in depth, with great interest. You mix apples and oranges and come up with your wacked out version of Kool-Aide, Chica! How very, very scientific of you!
The two decisions you brought up that I cited above before and now again are about two different aspects of the Commerce Clause within TWO DIFFERENT LAWS. Are you too damn ignorant to see that or are you being intentionally obtuse yet again? Never mind, I know the answer!
That's because one of us is right, and the other is you.
Yeah, that would be me that's right and your erring with your knack for 3D again; dancing, dodging and deflecting!
And that's why ad hominem is more than appropriate in your case.
I see you learned a new term from me. Good little doggie!
You are a man who always sticks by his convictions. Well you got that part of it correct, little one. You will remain a fool no matter how much you get ridiculed for it! I'm not flattered at all by your paraphrasing of my own epitaphs! Get your own phucking material, Chica!
So, at this point it's time to ask,
what were Hoover and the Republicans doing, or had done, or were planning to do, that was so superior to the FDR plans that the American people should have kept them in power?
Did Hoover's presidency produce a record of accomplishment worthy of earning him another 4 years?
Nothing.
The GOP is the party of do nothing, know nothing.
They wanted to sit on their hands and watch the country crash and burn in October of 1929 just as they did in December of 2007.
...Forest got it right..."Stupid is as Stupid does."
Still True: You have no response to your errors and logical fallacies. All you can do is substitute ad hominem instead. How very shallow. Perhaps someday you'll find what's lacking to fill that ugly void you let others glimpse. Your binary abstract of reality is well suited for the small, narrow mind, Chica!
I didn't see you deny that the Court reversed itself on federal interference in the states....
I'll C&P that for ya 'cause you must be too damn short because the implication of that very point went over your tiny little head:
You made that sideways claim indirectly referring to Carter v. Carter Coal Co, within which SCOTUS ruled the Guffy-Snyder Act, 1935 unconstitutional for a specific set of circumstances. That is one law and one SCOTUS ruling. FDR had nothing to do with the ruling. His actions were aimed at the Congress to pass the law initially, NOT THE BLOODY SUPREMES!
You made another indirect reference to NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel, in which SCOTUS ruled the National Labor Relations Act, 1935 constitutional based on a completely different set of circumstances contained in a completely different law. Again, FDR had nothing to do with the ruling, And, yet again, his actions were aimed at the Congress to pass the law initially, NOT TO INFLUENCE THE SUPREMES YOU OBTUSE TWIT!
These are both landmark SCOTUS decisions that many folks, including myself, have studied, in depth, with great interest. You mix apples and oranges and come up with your wacked out version of Kool-Aide, Chica! How very, very scientific of you!
The two decisions you brought up that I cited above before and now again are about two different aspects of the Commerce Clause within TWO DIFFERENT LAWS. Are you too damn ignorant to see that or are you being intentionally obtuse yet again? Never mind, I know the answer!
That's because one of us is right, and the other is you.
Yeah, that would be me that's right and your erring with your knack for 3D again; dancing, dodging and deflecting!
And that's why ad hominem is more than appropriate in your case.
I see you learned a new term from me. Good little doggie!
You are a man who always sticks by his convictions. Well you got that part of it correct, little one. You will remain a fool no matter how much you get ridiculed for it! I'm not flattered at all by your paraphrasing of my own epitaphs! Get your own phucking material, Chica!
