Obama: The End of an Error.

[Polk]

FDR extended the Depression.

And, no checks with polka dots!

Between the time Roosevelt took office and the end of 1936, unemployment felt by 40% and industrial output more than doubled. If that's 'extend[ing] the Depression', you have a pretty warped perspective.

FDR did indeed extend the depression. The depression was ended in the late 1930s due to manufacturing orders from the WWII beligerents. FDR's policies completely failed, as his treasury secretary famously admitted at the time.

You realize that the story you're telling doesn't make sense. Your argument is that FDR extended the Depression by increasing government spending, but that the Depression was ended by the government buying arms, which is... government spending.

Also, of course Morgenthau would make such a claim. It was his insistence on balancing the budget that sent the economy back in to recession in 1937.

 

[Polk]

FDR extended the Depression.

And, no checks with polka dots!

Between the time Roosevelt took office and the end of 1936, unemployment felt by 40% and industrial output more than doubled. If that's 'extend[ing] the Depression', you have a pretty warped perspective.

While my political perspective may cause you to hesitate in accepting my analysis, here, is one from the Brookings Institute...


In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.” Articles & Commentary

Well, my ill-sartorialized friend, it seems that "pretty warped perspective" seems to have rebounded, and now is perched firmly on your neck, eh? Well, it's better than some of your ties.....

Well, first problems is that Brookings isn't a liberal organization. It's define as "liberal" in the sense that it's not a GOP talking point mill like AEI and Cato are. Even so, the article being referred to stated that the National Recovery Administration "retarded recovery", not the New Deal as a whole.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Between the time Roosevelt took office and the end of 1936, unemployment felt by 40% and industrial output more than doubled. If that's 'extend[ing] the Depression', you have a pretty warped perspective.

While my political perspective may cause you to hesitate in accepting my analysis, here, is one from the Brookings Institute...


In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.” Articles & Commentary

Well, my ill-sartorialized friend, it seems that "pretty warped perspective" seems to have rebounded, and now is perched firmly on your neck, eh? Well, it's better than some of your ties.....

Well, first problems is that Brookings isn't a liberal organization. It's define as "liberal" in the sense that it's not a GOP talking point mill like AEI and Cato are. Even so, the article being referred to stated that the National Recovery Administration "retarded recovery", not the New Deal as a whole.

1. "...first problems is that Brookings isn't a liberal organization."
What is one to take away from your post?
For one, you spend far more time picking out ties than in the study of subjects about which you post.
And this is well- as one should do what one does best.

Had you been familiar with the UCLA study, you would have avoided making the above mistake.
"These values are .026 and .038.
The fact that the Brookings estimate is larger means that Brookings
is more liberal than AEI. (More precisely, it means that as a
legislator or journalist becomes more liberal, he or she prefers
more and more to cite Brookings than AEI.) These estimates are
consistent with the claim that AEI is conservative (in an absolute
sense), while Brookings is liberal."
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf

And..."But they are also consistent
with a claim, e.g., that AEI is moderate-left while Brookings is
far-left." Ibid.

And consistent with my original post, "...the Brookings Institution (left-leaning)..."
True, tie-boy?

2. Not enough for you? How about this:

"Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% ."


3. Now, not to drive a stake through your heart, maybe, but note that as the time from the sainted FDR increases, more research indicates both what I have claimed, but also that his economic policies are as redolent of other totalitarian dictatorships. Consider the following, and watch for the phrase 'police state.'

Economists at the Brookings Institution reported, “The NRA on the whole retarded recovery.” Roosevelt’s Brain Truster Raymond Moley was among the framers of the NRA who later acknowledged the error of their ways. “Planning an economy in normal times is possible only through the discipline of a police state,” he reflected."
Obama’s Link to “Old Iron Pants” by Jim Powell

4. Alas, in the interests of full disclosure, I must admit that your new outfit is quite an improvement.....metrosexual-boy.

 

[Sarah G]

"Obamanomics has produced the weakest, most anemic recovery since the 1930s, when another generation’s big-government planners turned their great recession into the Great Depression. To be fair, President George W. Bush certainly did not give the best economic handoff - he too was addicted to spending - but to be clear, President Obama has unarguably fumbled the ball. He has, to borrow his own phrase, put his “boot on the neck” of American businesses with his increased taxes and regulatory burden; he has grown government with his wildly increased spending and outright take-overs; and he has weakened the dollar with his “quantitative easing” printing press.

The devastation caused by Obamanomics is now undeniable. According to Investors Business Daily, 2 million net private-sector jobs have been lost; unemployment has increased by 1.5 percentage points; long-term unemployment is the worst ever on record; the dollar is 12 percent weaker; the number of Americans on food stamps has increased by 37 percent; the Misery Index (unemployment plus inflation) has increased by 62 percent; and the national debt has exploded by an alarming 40 percent. Mr. Obama is on pace to saddle America with more job-killing debt than all the first 43 presidents - combined.

Almost a century ago, Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt converted a great recession into the Great Depression with their big-government schemes. Similarly today, Mr. Obama has turned our Great Recession into the Obama Depression with his own - now old, tired and discredited - big-government schemes. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama cannot see the obvious lessons of the German Miracle: Unleash the free market, unshackle entrepreneurs and workers from big-government controls and we, the free people of the United States, can rescue our economy and create our own 21st century American Miracle."
WOLF: 'German Miracle' Barack Obama doesn't see - Washington Times
(emphasis mine)


We warned you....you wouldn't listen.
Now, let's see if can learn from your mistakes.

Obama has raised $27 million in one quarter. More than all of the Republican candidates combined. Looks like America still loves the president.

Maybe your lame candidates will learn a little something as well.

wow, so raising money is how you judge whether he has been good for the country?
pretty shallow.

Think it through. You'll get it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Between the time Roosevelt took office and the end of 1936, unemployment felt by 40% and industrial output more than doubled. If that's 'extend[ing] the Depression', you have a pretty warped perspective.

FDR did indeed extend the depression. The depression was ended in the late 1930s due to manufacturing orders from the WWII beligerents. FDR's policies completely failed, as his treasury secretary famously admitted at the time.

You realize that the story you're telling doesn't make sense. Your argument is that FDR extended the Depression by increasing government spending, but that the Depression was ended by the government buying arms, which is... government spending.

Also, of course Morgenthau would make such a claim. It was his insistence on balancing the budget that sent the economy back in to recession in 1937.

1. The point is that FDR's policies did not end the Depression:

It was not until 1937 that production reached the 1929 figure. There was still 14.3 percent unemployment—and this “miniboom” soon gave way to “the steepest economic decline in the history of the US”, which “lost half the ground gained…since 1932”.15 Unemployment rose again to 19 percent and was still at 14 percent on the eve of US entry into the war in 1940. The greatest slump capitalism had known was not ended by government action. The most this may have achieved was to replace continual decline by long stagnation, leaving a very high level of unemployment and output below that of the previous decade.16 JK Galbraith summed the situation up when he wrote, “The Great Depression of the thirties never came to an end. It merely disappeared in the great mobilisation of the forties”.17
International Socialism: The slump of the 1930s and the crisis today

 

[L.K.Eder]

They are making bumper stickers, " Obama- the end of an error." I am getting several and pasting it all over my vehicle.

you can order them here

 

[Polk]

FDR did indeed extend the depression. The depression was ended in the late 1930s due to manufacturing orders from the WWII beligerents. FDR's policies completely failed, as his treasury secretary famously admitted at the time.

You realize that the story you're telling doesn't make sense. Your argument is that FDR extended the Depression by increasing government spending, but that the Depression was ended by the government buying arms, which is... government spending.

Also, of course Morgenthau would make such a claim. It was his insistence on balancing the budget that sent the economy back in to recession in 1937.

1. The point is that FDR's policies did not end the Depression:

It was not until 1937 that production reached the 1929 figure. There was still 14.3 percent unemployment—and this “miniboom” soon gave way to “the steepest economic decline in the history of the US”, which “lost half the ground gained…since 1932”.15 Unemployment rose again to 19 percent and was still at 14 percent on the eve of US entry into the war in 1940. The greatest slump capitalism had known was not ended by government action. The most this may have achieved was to replace continual decline by long stagnation, leaving a very high level of unemployment and output below that of the previous decade.16 JK Galbraith summed the situation up when he wrote, “The Great Depression of the thirties never came to an end. It merely disappeared in the great mobilisation of the forties”.17
International Socialism: The slump of the 1930s and the crisis today

And why did the decline in 1937 occur? Because FDR listened to the conservatives of his day and attempted to balance the budget too quickly.

You're also missing a key point in all of this: there is no reasonable way to argue that government spending in the 1930s somehow damaged the economy, then turn around and say the Depression was ended by large increase in government spending in the early 1940s.

 

[Flopper]

"Obamanomics has produced the weakest, most anemic recovery since the 1930s

The fact that the recession was the worst since the 1930's just might have something to do with the weak recovery.

Excuse my vulgarity, but you appear to have your cause and effect relationship ass backwards.

That makes no sense.

 

[Polk]

While my political perspective may cause you to hesitate in accepting my analysis, here, is one from the Brookings Institute...


In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.” Articles & Commentary

Well, my ill-sartorialized friend, it seems that "pretty warped perspective" seems to have rebounded, and now is perched firmly on your neck, eh? Well, it's better than some of your ties.....

Well, first problems is that Brookings isn't a liberal organization. It's define as "liberal" in the sense that it's not a GOP talking point mill like AEI and Cato are. Even so, the article being referred to stated that the National Recovery Administration "retarded recovery", not the New Deal as a whole.

1. "...first problems is that Brookings isn't a liberal organization."
What is one to take away from your post?
For one, you spend far more time picking out ties than in the study of subjects about which you post.
And this is well- as one should do what one does best.

Had you been familiar with the UCLA study, you would have avoided making the above mistake.
"These values are .026 and .038.
The fact that the Brookings estimate is larger means that Brookings
is more liberal than AEI. (More precisely, it means that as a
legislator or journalist becomes more liberal, he or she prefers
more and more to cite Brookings than AEI.) These estimates are
consistent with the claim that AEI is conservative (in an absolute
sense), while Brookings is liberal."
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf

And..."But they are also consistent
with a claim, e.g., that AEI is moderate-left while Brookings is
far-left." Ibid.

And consistent with my original post, "...the Brookings Institution (left-leaning)..."
True, tie-boy?

2. Not enough for you? How about this:

"Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% ."


3. Now, not to drive a stake through your heart, maybe, but note that as the time from the sainted FDR increases, more research indicates both what I have claimed, but also that his economic policies are as redolent of other totalitarian dictatorships. Consider the following, and watch for the phrase 'police state.'

Economists at the Brookings Institution reported, “The NRA on the whole retarded recovery.” Roosevelt’s Brain Truster Raymond Moley was among the framers of the NRA who later acknowledged the error of their ways. “Planning an economy in normal times is possible only through the discipline of a police state,” he reflected."
Obama’s Link to “Old Iron Pants” by Jim Powell

4. Alas, in the interests of full disclosure, I must admit that your new outfit is quite an improvement.....metrosexual-boy.

AEI, which just parrots what the GOP talking point of the day is, is "moderate-left"? You really are out in space.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You realize that the story you're telling doesn't make sense. Your argument is that FDR extended the Depression by increasing government spending, but that the Depression was ended by the government buying arms, which is... government spending.

Also, of course Morgenthau would make such a claim. It was his insistence on balancing the budget that sent the economy back in to recession in 1937.

1. The point is that FDR's policies did not end the Depression:

It was not until 1937 that production reached the 1929 figure. There was still 14.3 percent unemployment—and this “miniboom” soon gave way to “the steepest economic decline in the history of the US”, which “lost half the ground gained…since 1932”.15 Unemployment rose again to 19 percent and was still at 14 percent on the eve of US entry into the war in 1940. The greatest slump capitalism had known was not ended by government action. The most this may have achieved was to replace continual decline by long stagnation, leaving a very high level of unemployment and output below that of the previous decade.16 JK Galbraith summed the situation up when he wrote, “The Great Depression of the thirties never came to an end. It merely disappeared in the great mobilisation of the forties”.17
International Socialism: The slump of the 1930s and the crisis today

And why did the decline in 1937 occur? Because FDR listened to the conservatives of his day and attempted to balance the budget too quickly.

You're also missing a key point in all of this: there is no reasonable way to argue that government spending in the 1930s somehow damaged the economy, then turn around and say the Depression was ended by large increase in government spending in the early 1940s.

C'mon....your making this too easy!

FDR didn't listen to anybody!!!

1. "The effort to keep up industrial production and farm prices was not working. Roosevelt arbitrarily set the gold price daily. ..."
Roosevelt Recession of 1937-8 « The Burning Platform

2. Even about security of our nation!

“On September 2, 1939, the day after the outbreak of war in Europe, Whittaker Chambers had told much of what he knew about Soviet espionage in the United States to Adolph Berle, Assistant Secretary of State and President’s Roosevelt’s advisor on internal security. Immediately afterwards, Berle drew up a memorandum for the President which listed Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and the other leading for whom Chambers acted as courier. One was a leading presidential aide, Lauchlin Currie….Roosevelt, however, was not interested. He seems to have dismissed the whole idea of espionage rings within his administration as absurd.” ‘The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archives, the History of the KGB,” by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin.p.107


Did you read Schivelbusch's book comparing FDR, Mussolin, and Hitler? Same personalities. Many of the same policies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, first problems is that Brookings isn't a liberal organization. It's define as "liberal" in the sense that it's not a GOP talking point mill like AEI and Cato are. Even so, the article being referred to stated that the National Recovery Administration "retarded recovery", not the New Deal as a whole.

1. "...first problems is that Brookings isn't a liberal organization."
What is one to take away from your post?
For one, you spend far more time picking out ties than in the study of subjects about which you post.
And this is well- as one should do what one does best.

Had you been familiar with the UCLA study, you would have avoided making the above mistake.
"These values are .026 and .038.
The fact that the Brookings estimate is larger means that Brookings
is more liberal than AEI. (More precisely, it means that as a
legislator or journalist becomes more liberal, he or she prefers
more and more to cite Brookings than AEI.) These estimates are
consistent with the claim that AEI is conservative (in an absolute
sense), while Brookings is liberal."
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf

And..."But they are also consistent
with a claim, e.g., that AEI is moderate-left while Brookings is
far-left." Ibid.

And consistent with my original post, "...the Brookings Institution (left-leaning)..."
True, tie-boy?

2. Not enough for you? How about this:

"Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% ."


3. Now, not to drive a stake through your heart, maybe, but note that as the time from the sainted FDR increases, more research indicates both what I have claimed, but also that his economic policies are as redolent of other totalitarian dictatorships. Consider the following, and watch for the phrase 'police state.'

Economists at the Brookings Institution reported, “The NRA on the whole retarded recovery.” Roosevelt’s Brain Truster Raymond Moley was among the framers of the NRA who later acknowledged the error of their ways. “Planning an economy in normal times is possible only through the discipline of a police state,” he reflected."
Obama’s Link to “Old Iron Pants” by Jim Powell

4. Alas, in the interests of full disclosure, I must admit that your new outfit is quite an improvement.....metrosexual-boy.

AEI, which just parrots what the GOP talking point of the day is, is "moderate-left"? You really are out in space.

Why don't you dash off a note to UCLA?
I'm sure they'll be fascinated with your research.....or, at least, your tie.

 

[Polk]

1. The point is that FDR's policies did not end the Depression:

It was not until 1937 that production reached the 1929 figure. There was still 14.3 percent unemployment—and this “miniboom” soon gave way to “the steepest economic decline in the history of the US”, which “lost half the ground gained…since 1932”.15 Unemployment rose again to 19 percent and was still at 14 percent on the eve of US entry into the war in 1940. The greatest slump capitalism had known was not ended by government action. The most this may have achieved was to replace continual decline by long stagnation, leaving a very high level of unemployment and output below that of the previous decade.16 JK Galbraith summed the situation up when he wrote, “The Great Depression of the thirties never came to an end. It merely disappeared in the great mobilisation of the forties”.17
International Socialism: The slump of the 1930s and the crisis today

And why did the decline in 1937 occur? Because FDR listened to the conservatives of his day and attempted to balance the budget too quickly.

You're also missing a key point in all of this: there is no reasonable way to argue that government spending in the 1930s somehow damaged the economy, then turn around and say the Depression was ended by large increase in government spending in the early 1940s.

C'mon....your making this too easy!

FDR didn't listen to anybody!!!

1. "The effort to keep up industrial production and farm prices was not working. Roosevelt arbitrarily set the gold price daily. ..."
Roosevelt Recession of 1937-8 « The Burning Platform

2. Even about security of our nation!

“On September 2, 1939, the day after the outbreak of war in Europe, Whittaker Chambers had told much of what he knew about Soviet espionage in the United States to Adolph Berle, Assistant Secretary of State and President’s Roosevelt’s advisor on internal security. Immediately afterwards, Berle drew up a memorandum for the President which listed Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and the other leading for whom Chambers acted as courier. One was a leading presidential aide, Lauchlin Currie….Roosevelt, however, was not interested. He seems to have dismissed the whole idea of espionage rings within his administration as absurd.” ‘The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archives, the History of the KGB,” by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin.p.107


Did you read Schivelbusch's book comparing FDR, Mussolin, and Hitler? Same personalities. Many of the same policies.

I see you dodged both points.

 

[Polk]

1. "...first problems is that Brookings isn't a liberal organization."
What is one to take away from your post?
For one, you spend far more time picking out ties than in the study of subjects about which you post.
And this is well- as one should do what one does best.

Had you been familiar with the UCLA study, you would have avoided making the above mistake.
"These values are .026 and .038.
The fact that the Brookings estimate is larger means that Brookings
is more liberal than AEI. (More precisely, it means that as a
legislator or journalist becomes more liberal, he or she prefers
more and more to cite Brookings than AEI.) These estimates are
consistent with the claim that AEI is conservative (in an absolute
sense), while Brookings is liberal."
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf

And..."But they are also consistent
with a claim, e.g., that AEI is moderate-left while Brookings is
far-left." Ibid.

And consistent with my original post, "...the Brookings Institution (left-leaning)..."
True, tie-boy?

2. Not enough for you? How about this:

"Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% ."


3. Now, not to drive a stake through your heart, maybe, but note that as the time from the sainted FDR increases, more research indicates both what I have claimed, but also that his economic policies are as redolent of other totalitarian dictatorships. Consider the following, and watch for the phrase 'police state.'

Economists at the Brookings Institution reported, “The NRA on the whole retarded recovery.” Roosevelt’s Brain Truster Raymond Moley was among the framers of the NRA who later acknowledged the error of their ways. “Planning an economy in normal times is possible only through the discipline of a police state,” he reflected."
Obama’s Link to “Old Iron Pants” by Jim Powell

4. Alas, in the interests of full disclosure, I must admit that your new outfit is quite an improvement.....metrosexual-boy.

AEI, which just parrots what the GOP talking point of the day is, is "moderate-left"? You really are out in space.

Why don't you dash off a note to UCLA?
I'm sure they'll be fascinated with your research.....or, at least, your tie.

That's your response?

AEI's staff is a Who's Who of the conservative movement.

Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, Alan Keyes, Paul Wolfowitz, Fred Thompson. Is that collection is "moderate-left" to you, you have a very warped view of American politics.

 

[Patrick2]

Between the time Roosevelt took office and the end of 1936, unemployment felt by 40% and industrial output more than doubled. If that's 'extend[ing] the Depression', you have a pretty warped perspective.

FDR did indeed extend the depression. The depression was ended in the late 1930s due to manufacturing orders from the WWII beligerents. FDR's policies completely failed, as his treasury secretary famously admitted at the time.

You realize that the story you're telling doesn't make sense. Your argument is that FDR extended the Depression by increasing government spending, but that the Depression was ended by the government buying arms, which is... government spending.

HA HA HA!!! You need to read more carefully. Listening now? The arms orders which stimulated the economy came from OUTSIDE the american economic system by the WWII belligerents in the late 1930s. The US didn't enter the war till 1941. As Morgenthau pointed out, the country had been using keynsian techniques for seven years (it started with panicky spending efforts by Herbert Hoover in his last year in office) with no result. That was spending money from INSIDE the US economy, which can only occur by means that depress an economy: borrowing, taxing, and/or printing money. Blink twice if you get it yet.

 

[SKEPTICISM]

If it happens at all, the 2012 Election will not be close; Dems lose in another landslide maybe bigger than in 2010.

great pratisan expectations this a.m. Frank?

Even without highlighting his epic failures, Obama is radioactive to so many people, his only chance to stay in office more than one term is to declare martial law and cancel the election

The only way Obama is not elected is if the voters stay home. But then again the GOP field of Presidential candidates leaves a lot to be desired as well and the Republican turn out may not turn out either. Then again 16 months from now is a long time away.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And why did the decline in 1937 occur? Because FDR listened to the conservatives of his day and attempted to balance the budget too quickly.

You're also missing a key point in all of this: there is no reasonable way to argue that government spending in the 1930s somehow damaged the economy, then turn around and say the Depression was ended by large increase in government spending in the early 1940s.

C'mon....your making this too easy!

FDR didn't listen to anybody!!!

1. "The effort to keep up industrial production and farm prices was not working. Roosevelt arbitrarily set the gold price daily. ..."
Roosevelt Recession of 1937-8 « The Burning Platform

2. Even about security of our nation!

“On September 2, 1939, the day after the outbreak of war in Europe, Whittaker Chambers had told much of what he knew about Soviet espionage in the United States to Adolph Berle, Assistant Secretary of State and President’s Roosevelt’s advisor on internal security. Immediately afterwards, Berle drew up a memorandum for the President which listed Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and the other leading for whom Chambers acted as courier. One was a leading presidential aide, Lauchlin Currie….Roosevelt, however, was not interested. He seems to have dismissed the whole idea of espionage rings within his administration as absurd.” ‘The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archives, the History of the KGB,” by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin.p.107


Did you read Schivelbusch's book comparing FDR, Mussolin, and Hitler? Same personalities. Many of the same policies.

I see you dodged both points.

Answered.

 

[PoliticalChic]

AEI, which just parrots what the GOP talking point of the day is, is "moderate-left"? You really are out in space.

Why don't you dash off a note to UCLA?
I'm sure they'll be fascinated with your research.....or, at least, your tie.

That's your response?

AEI's staff is a Who's Who of the conservative movement.

Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, Alan Keyes, Paul Wolfowitz, Fred Thompson. Is that collection is "moderate-left" to you, you have a very warped view of American politics.

Wow...I hardly noticed your obfuscation...

....weren't you the one who said Brookings was not liberal?
Oh, yeah...that was you, I recognize the tie.

 

[SKEPTICISM]

wow... end of an "error"....

almost clever.

I took it for the subtle mocking of what the radical leftists did after W won in 2000 with their 'countdown till out of office' clocks.

Musta been too nuanced for you.

Correction! GW Bush did not win the 2000 election. Bush was Selected into the WH by the Supreme Court!!! And in so doing, the State Rights of Fla, the Fla. Supreme Court, and The Will of The American People were all ignored, just to put the Village Idiot from
Tex-Ass. Meanwhile, the United States of America has never been the same since. We all are now living in the Corporate Republican Utopia of America.

At least Obama wasn't SELECTED by the Supreme Court and was elected by the Will of People. Thanks for playing.

 

[Polk]

Why don't you dash off a note to UCLA?
I'm sure they'll be fascinated with your research.....or, at least, your tie.

That's your response?

AEI's staff is a Who's Who of the conservative movement.

Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, Alan Keyes, Paul Wolfowitz, Fred Thompson. Is that collection is "moderate-left" to you, you have a very warped view of American politics.

Wow...I hardly noticed your obfuscation...

....weren't you the one who said Brookings was not liberal?
Oh, yeah...that was you, I recognize the tie.

Yes, I did say Brookings is not liberal. You responded with a source that claims Brookings and AEI are liberal.

 

[Polk]

C'mon....your making this too easy!

FDR didn't listen to anybody!!!

1. "The effort to keep up industrial production and farm prices was not working. Roosevelt arbitrarily set the gold price daily. ..."
Roosevelt Recession of 1937-8 « The Burning Platform

2. Even about security of our nation!

“On September 2, 1939, the day after the outbreak of war in Europe, Whittaker Chambers had told much of what he knew about Soviet espionage in the United States to Adolph Berle, Assistant Secretary of State and President’s Roosevelt’s advisor on internal security. Immediately afterwards, Berle drew up a memorandum for the President which listed Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and the other leading for whom Chambers acted as courier. One was a leading presidential aide, Lauchlin Currie….Roosevelt, however, was not interested. He seems to have dismissed the whole idea of espionage rings within his administration as absurd.” ‘The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archives, the History of the KGB,” by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin.p.107


Did you read Schivelbusch's book comparing FDR, Mussolin, and Hitler? Same personalities. Many of the same policies.

I see you dodged both points.

Answered.

Saying you answered doesn't make it so.