Poll: FDR # 1 President

[CrusaderFrank]

What proof?

With the "evidence" you've provided, it could practically be argued that the brain dead Great Society programs made people run faster, jump higher, added ten pins to their bowling average and got the dandelions out of their lawn.

Then again, analytical thought and basic logic aren't exactly in your wheel house to begin with.

Morning, Dude. If you can't play the game, you boo from the stands. I understand that, and so do the ones who play the game well. Keep on booing. And get a rule book.

Is LBJ one of your Heroes?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The decline in poverty was 63.8% during the Johnson years of War on Poverty.

Some people here are having trouble accepting the obvious fact: the program worked.

So you're a support big government social programs?

If it worked, when does it end?

Why does helping Americans have to end?

Because Socialism has failed everywhere its been tried with California and Illinois being the two most recent examples.

After 45 years, it's really not help anymore, is it?

 

[The T]

So you're a support big government social programs?

If it worked, when does it end?

Why does helping Americans have to end?

Because Socialism has failed everywhere its been tried with California and Illinois being the two most recent examples.

After 45 years, it's really not help anymore, is it?

And the other thing they have yet to come to grips with is that it isn't their money.

 

[Bfgrn]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

So...Lincoln was speaking of charity when his pretext was: "The legitimate object of Government"? WOW, why didn't he SAY charity you fucking pea brain???

I KNOW your point, you actually have a trinity...ME, MYSELF and I...fuck everyone else.

The KEY phrase that fascist assholes like you and your moron man crush fascist Levin have removed from your thinking and vocabulary is "individual capacities"

When Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's appointment to lead his war on poverty, his first epiphany was WHO comprised the poor. What he found; more than 50% were children, the TRUE definition OF a dependent, and then the next large group of true dependents were the elderly.

Human beings that are not have the "individual capacities" to 'pull themselves out of it by making the right choices for themselves'

So asshole, go preach your fascist final solution somewhere else.

Mark Levin is a fraud...

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

Bfgrn, you hit it right on the head. The T has missed one of the great foundational principles of this nation that we celebrate today. All people are created equal. All people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We do not succeed as Americans unless we love our brother and our sister as ourselves. Those who wish to place the individual over the community of individuals does not understand Americanism. You do, Bfgrn, and I salute you for it today.

And we had robust charities until FDR decided to try to eliminate them and replace them with government.

I've explained to you countless times: there is already a political party that exactly matches your "More and Bigger Government" answer to every question, Jake.

Headline:
President Roosevelt Shuts Down 'robust charities'

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

 

[rightwinger]

So you're a support big government social programs?

If it worked, when does it end?

Why does helping Americans have to end?

Because Socialism has failed everywhere its been tried with California and Illinois being the two most recent examples.

After 45 years, it's really not help anymore, is it?

After 45 years you are no longer helping the same people...we have a whole new set of people in poverty

Providing education and job skills to people struggling to survive is not socialism, it is common sense and common decency

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started...and more debt to boot" --Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury secretary

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why does helping Americans have to end?

Because Socialism has failed everywhere its been tried with California and Illinois being the two most recent examples.

After 45 years, it's really not help anymore, is it?

After 45 years you are no longer helping the same people...we have a whole new set of people in poverty

Providing education and job skills to people struggling to survive is not socialism, it is common sense and common decency

Right, you have created a trans-generational permanent underclass. And you seem proud of it too.

 

[Bfgrn]

Because Socialism has failed everywhere its been tried with California and Illinois being the two most recent examples.

After 45 years, it's really not help anymore, is it?

After 45 years you are no longer helping the same people...we have a whole new set of people in poverty

Providing education and job skills to people struggling to survive is not socialism, it is common sense and common decency

Right. you have created a trans-generational permanent underclass. And you seem proud of it too.

And you create graveyards with your loathsome dogma.

Is there ANY place for AmericANS in your super patriotism Frank?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

After 45 years you are no longer helping the same people...we have a whole new set of people in poverty

Providing education and job skills to people struggling to survive is not socialism, it is common sense and common decency

Right. you have created a trans-generational permanent underclass. And you seem proud of it too.

And you create graveyards with your loathsome dogma.

Is there ANY place for AmericANS in your super patriotism Frank?

ShOuLD I ReSpOnD LikE a NiPPly 16 YeAr OlD on EsTacy?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

After 45 years you are no longer helping the same people...we have a whole new set of people in poverty

Providing education and job skills to people struggling to survive is not socialism, it is common sense and common decency

Right. you have created a trans-generational permanent underclass. And you seem proud of it too.

And you create graveyards with your loathsome dogma.

Is there ANY place for AmericANS in your super patriotism Frank?

So being against a Soviet Style Centrally Planned economy is the new unAmerican?

 

[Bfgrn]

Right. you have created a trans-generational permanent underclass. And you seem proud of it too.

And you create graveyards with your loathsome dogma.

Is there ANY place for AmericANS in your super patriotism Frank?

So being against a Soviet Style Centrally Planned economy is the new unAmerican?

Why would anyone want an economy run by ultra conservatives?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And you create graveyards with your loathsome dogma.

Is there ANY place for AmericANS in your super patriotism Frank?

So being against a Soviet Style Centrally Planned economy is the new unAmerican?

Why would anyone want an economy run by ultra conservatives?

 

[GHook93]

Your a Muslim that support Sharia law, I would think fascism would be right up your alley!

FDR was a fascist piece of garbage.

 

[Bfgrn]

He was speaking of Charity...and not of one devised by Government. It's part of the glue (until now) that has held this Republic together.

And as to your 'Adolph' reference? Typical Statist horseshit. (You may ram that comment right up your poopchute from whence it came). I was nowhere advocating such and you know it.

YOU missed my entire point, and that is one of individual responsibility that comes with cititizenship and the practice of liberty therein. And that is not to infringe on the Liberties of others which the Government does by decree, fiat, and by force.

You may subscribe to the undeclared WAR on the individual that this Statist Government has started...but the majority of us don't and as a matter of fact? WE RESENT IT. And why movements as the TEA Party spring up which you decry and impugne.

November can't come too quickly.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

So...Lincoln was speaking of charity when his pretext was: "The legitimate object of Government"? WOW, why didn't he SAY charity you fucking pea brain???

I KNOW your point, you actually have a trinity...ME, MYSELF and I...fuck everyone else.

The KEY phrase that fascist assholes like you and your moron man crush fascist Levin have removed from your thinking and vocabulary is "individual capacities"

When Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's appointment to lead his war on poverty, his first epiphany was WHO comprised the poor. What he found; more than 50% were children, the TRUE definition OF a dependent, and then the next large group of true dependents were the elderly.

Human beings that do not have the "individual capacities" to 'pull themselves out of it by making the right choices for themselves'

So asshole, go preach your fascist final solution somewhere else.

Mark Levin is a fraud...

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

You've outed yourself and the problem with nanny-State government, and YOURSELF as a participant in the war on the individual as practiced BY the government which makes YOU part of the fucking problem .

Way to go asswipe.

YOU are the embodiment, the essence of the quintissential Statist.

You should be proud that you hate this Republic.

Your final solution: THESE freeloaders need to take individual responsibility, stop infringing on your liberties, get off their lazy fucking asses and get a job or just go away...

 

[Foxfyre]

Had it not been for Vietnam, I'd choose LBJ. No other president did more for civil rights.

LOL, he did what he did in hopes of votes, he did not believe in Civil Rights.

There is some evidence of that. And it is probable he just wanted a legacy nobody could take from him. The racist statements attributed to him during that period do raise questions for sure. But none of us are privy to his private thoughts or motives.

Vietnam is a pretty ugly part of his legacy though. And saying that he did more for civil rights than any other, that's also pretty tough to swallow for a serious historian. He did support and continue JFK's push for a Civil Rights Act and Johnson does get credit for setting the forces in motion to get it out of the Democratically controlled committee that did not want it to ever see the light of day.

The final vote on that act:
Senate:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

But Johnson's Great Society has netted mixed reviews with some improvements noted and many many unintended negative consequences also noted. And there were some ethics that were definitely questionable.

The same could be said of FDR. Some good stuff came out of his long tenure as President and some stuff that has netted unintended negative consequences. There is no doubt about it that he did try to get around Constitutional restraints by trying to pack the Supreme Court with people who would circumvent it, and pulled some other strings that even by today's standards stretched ethics to the maximum. But basically, he was a good man. Not America's greatest by a long stretch. But a good man.

 

[rightwinger]

Because Socialism has failed everywhere its been tried with California and Illinois being the two most recent examples.

After 45 years, it's really not help anymore, is it?

After 45 years you are no longer helping the same people...we have a whole new set of people in poverty

Providing education and job skills to people struggling to survive is not socialism, it is common sense and common decency

Right, you have created a trans-generational permanent underclass. And you seem proud of it too.

More rightwing mythology

Millions of Americans have been helped by training programs and jobskills programs to get out of poverty.

How does ignoring the nations poor end the trans-generational underclass you speak of?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are part way there. Also post the % of Dem and Pub that voted for and against by GEOGRAPHICAL districts. You will then realize that the division was not political or ideological but regional. The GOP are to be recognized for the wonderful support they gave, but the legislation was Democratic in origin and push, and Johnson was the prime pusher.

Context, Foxfyre, context.

Had it not been for Vietnam, I'd choose LBJ. No other president did more for civil rights.

LOL, he did what he did in hopes of votes, he did not believe in Civil Rights.

There is some evidence of that. And it is probable he just wanted a legacy nobody could take from him. The racist statements attributed to him during that period do raise questions for sure. But none of us are privy to his private thoughts or motives.

Vietnam is a pretty ugly part of his legacy though. And saying that he did more for civil rights than any other, that's also pretty tough to swallow for a serious historian. He did support and continue JFK's push for a Civil Rights Act and Johnson does get credit for setting the forces in motion to get it out of the Democratically controlled committee that did not want it to ever see the light of day.

The final vote on that act:
Senate:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

But Johnson's Great Society has netted mixed reviews with some improvements noted and many many unintended negative consequences also noted. And there were some ethics that were definitely questionable.

The same could be said of FDR. Some good stuff came out of his long tenure as President and some stuff that has netted unintended negative consequences. There is no doubt about it that he did try to get around Constitutional restraints by trying to pack the Supreme Court with people who would circumvent it, and pulled some other strings that even by today's standards stretched ethics to the maximum. But basically, he was a good man. Not America's greatest by a long stretch. But a good man.

 

[Bfgrn]

Had it not been for Vietnam, I'd choose LBJ. No other president did more for civil rights.

LOL, he did what he did in hopes of votes, he did not believe in Civil Rights.

There is some evidence of that. And it is probable he just wanted a legacy nobody could take from him. The racist statements attributed to him during that period do raise questions for sure. But none of us are privy to his private thoughts or motives.

Vietnam is a pretty ugly part of his legacy though. And saying that he did more for civil rights than any other, that's also pretty tough to swallow for a serious historian. He did support and continue JFK's push for a Civil Rights Act and Johnson does get credit for setting the forces in motion to get it out of the Democratically controlled committee that did not want it to ever see the light of day.

The final vote on that act:
Senate:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

But Johnson's Great Society has netted mixed reviews with some improvements noted and many many unintended negative consequences also noted. And there were some ethics that were definitely questionable.

The same could be said of FDR. Some good stuff came out of his long tenure as President and some stuff that has netted unintended negative consequences. There is no doubt about it that he did try to get around Constitutional restraints by trying to pack the Supreme Court with people who would circumvent it, and pulled some other strings that even by today's standards stretched ethics to the maximum. But basically, he was a good man. Not America's greatest by a long stretch. But a good man.

Your attempt to discredit Democrats and credit Republicans for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is disingenuous and misleading.

First of all, regionally, it was a North/South reenactment of the Civil War. States south of the Mason Dixon Lines vehemently opposed it. Secondly, there was no such thing as a Republicrat or a Dixiecon...there were no southern conservatives calling for passage of the bill.

There were good men of conscience in the Republican party like Everett Dirksen. But, there were also Liberal Republicans back then.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

 

[JakeStarkey]

The northern and western Republicans can take pride in their support of the Civil Rights Bill, but, yes, the Dems of the north and west voted in greater %s for it than those of the South.

Now those of you who have believed a false premise about the GOP being the driving force of the Civil Rights Bill should "bow your heads and say yes." That will do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You are part way there. Also post the % of Dem and Pub that voted for and against by GEOGRAPHICAL districts. You will then realize that the division was not political or ideological but regional. The GOP are to be recognized for the wonderful support they gave, but the legislation was Democratic in origin and push, and Johnson was the prime pusher.

Context, Foxfyre, context.

LOL, he did what he did in hopes of votes, he did not believe in Civil Rights.

There is some evidence of that. And it is probable he just wanted a legacy nobody could take from him. The racist statements attributed to him during that period do raise questions for sure. But none of us are privy to his private thoughts or motives.

Vietnam is a pretty ugly part of his legacy though. And saying that he did more for civil rights than any other, that's also pretty tough to swallow for a serious historian. He did support and continue JFK's push for a Civil Rights Act and Johnson does get credit for setting the forces in motion to get it out of the Democratically controlled committee that did not want it to ever see the light of day.

The final vote on that act:
Senate:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

But Johnson's Great Society has netted mixed reviews with some improvements noted and many many unintended negative consequences also noted. And there were some ethics that were definitely questionable.

The same could be said of FDR. Some good stuff came out of his long tenure as President and some stuff that has netted unintended negative consequences. There is no doubt about it that he did try to get around Constitutional restraints by trying to pack the Supreme Court with people who would circumvent it, and pulled some other strings that even by today's standards stretched ethics to the maximum. But basically, he was a good man. Not America's greatest by a long stretch. But a good man.

Ike passed the first Civil Rights Legislation, Ike sent in 82nd Airborne to integrate Democrat schools.

You continue to be a tool for Dem propaganda.