The Lies of Franklin Roosevelt

[bripat9643]

I don't think historians or even FDR are much bothered by these evaluations.

This isn't about 'bothered'......it's about rectitude, right and wrong, justice.


But you know that, don't you....

....you've run out of excuses for FDR, and have admitted that you are simply his lap-dog.


Stop slobbering all over his shoes.

I don't think FDR has a need for excuses, rated our number one president by historians, elected four times by the people, that pretty much says it all. Can your candidate beat that?

It says he knew how to use the federal treasury to hold on to power. He was also the consumate liar. Historians are a gaggle of toadies on the government payroll. Their ratings are of no import.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think FDR has a need for excuses, rated our number one president by historians, elected four times by the people, that pretty much says it all. Can your candidate beat that?

You STILL have nothing but fallacy. You can't even pretend to defend the scumbag FDR.

No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln. At times some lies and historical untruths need to be corrected but even the 238 noted historians and authorities on presidents agree with me that FDR's number one, the top of the heap, king of the road. So what about the people that lived during his terms in office, four times they elected him. Hard to beat that record. Sure it's gotta hurt but....

Only imbeciles are impressed by the opinions of "professional historians." A more accurate title for them would be "government propagandists."

 

[Unkotare]

No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln. ....

You CAN'T defend the scumbag FDR, and you've never even tried. You've never done anything relative to the topic but repeat a logical fallacy over and over. You're not only a nuthugger, you're an idiot.

 

[regent]

You STILL have nothing but fallacy. You can't even pretend to defend the scumbag FDR.

No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln. At times some lies and historical untruths need to be corrected but even the 238 noted historians and authorities on presidents agree with me that FDR's number one, the top of the heap, king of the road. So what about the people that lived during his terms in office, four times they elected him. Hard to beat that record. Sure it's gotta hurt but....

1. "No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln."

The fact that I've posted several OPs with dozens of FDR's shortcomings casts the lie to your post.


2. "... 238 noted historians and authorities..."

Will you ever stand on your own two feet, and stop hiding behind Liberal academics?

Wanna go to your Mommy? She has your bottle heated up.

Yep, I believe that experts in their field might know more about a subject than I do, and worse, not one expert but 238 and that 238 was just from the last rating. What about the ratings since 1948 when FDR was rated third best president? Since 1948 that must be a lot of historians over a period of time that have rated FDR.
I realize that you claim to know more than the experts, but frankly, with your posts, you haven't convinced me. The mommy-bottle quote about says it all.

 

[regent]

No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln. ....

You CAN'T defend the scumbag FDR, and you've never even tried. You've never done anything relative to the topic but repeat a logical fallacy over and over. You're not only a nuthugger, you're an idiot.

Why do I feel there's a fallacy someplace in your post?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Or anything else.

Wrong. To be a physicist, you actually have to be able to do math, like calculus and differential equations. The same goes for being a chemist, an engineer or an computer programmer.

And if someone calls himself all of those titles and can't do long division what happens?

They throw him off the mathlete squad?

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln. At times some lies and historical untruths need to be corrected but even the 238 noted historians and authorities on presidents agree with me that FDR's number one, the top of the heap, king of the road. So what about the people that lived during his terms in office, four times they elected him. Hard to beat that record. Sure it's gotta hurt but....

1. "No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln."

The fact that I've posted several OPs with dozens of FDR's shortcomings casts the lie to your post.


2. "... 238 noted historians and authorities..."

Will you ever stand on your own two feet, and stop hiding behind Liberal academics?

Wanna go to your Mommy? She has your bottle heated up.

Yep, I believe that experts in their field might know more about a subject than I do, and worse, not one expert but 238 and that 238 was just from the last rating. What about the ratings since 1948 when FDR was rated third best president? Since 1948 that must be a lot of historians over a period of time that have rated FDR.
I realize that you claim to know more than the experts, but frankly, with your posts, you haven't convinced me. The mommy-bottle quote about says it all.

You thought it my duty is to convince you?


It may be that your whole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

 

[Truthseeker420]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUZGkNAUSvY]FDR: WARNING ABOUT TODAY'S REPUBLICANS - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

FDR: WARNING ABOUT TODAY'S REPUBLICANS - YouTube

1. John Maynard Keynes, in a letter published in the NYTimes, December 31, 1933, warned “ even wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action.” Even Keynes saw the danger in treating the nation’s capitalists as an enemy, as “the unscrupulous money changers,” as FDR called them in his first Inaugural.




2. RepublicanWarren Harding inherited one of the sharpest recessions in American history in 1921. By July it was over. Harding and Treasury Sec’y Mellon cut government expenditures by 40 %, allowing wages to fall, in a natural recovery to full employment. The cuts, and even sharper tax cuts under Coolidge, produced the long period of growth and rising living standards associated with the Roaring Twenties.




3. 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.”
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI

 

[bripat9643]

No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln. At times some lies and historical untruths need to be corrected but even the 238 noted historians and authorities on presidents agree with me that FDR's number one, the top of the heap, king of the road. So what about the people that lived during his terms in office, four times they elected him. Hard to beat that record. Sure it's gotta hurt but....

1. "No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln."

The fact that I've posted several OPs with dozens of FDR's shortcomings casts the lie to your post.


2. "... 238 noted historians and authorities..."

Will you ever stand on your own two feet, and stop hiding behind Liberal academics?

Wanna go to your Mommy? She has your bottle heated up.

Yep, I believe that experts in their field might know more about a subject than I do, and worse, not one expert but 238 and that 238 was just from the last rating. What about the ratings since 1948 when FDR was rated third best president? Since 1948 that must be a lot of historians over a period of time that have rated FDR.
I realize that you claim to know more than the experts, but frankly, with your posts, you haven't convinced me. The mommy-bottle quote about says it all.

The so-called "experts" have all been trained to have the government approved views, and also handpicked by government toadies because they have the approved views. Uniformity of opinion among a gang of government minions is hardly surprising.

 

[bripat9643]

Or anything else.

Wrong. To be a physicist, you actually have to be able to do math, like calculus and differential equations. The same goes for being a chemist, an engineer or an computer programmer.

And if someone calls himself all of those titles and can't do long division what happens?

He would never get through engineering school if he couldn't do long division. However, you don't need a diploma in history to write books about history.

 

[regent]

Wrong. To be a physicist, you actually have to be able to do math, like calculus and differential equations. The same goes for being a chemist, an engineer or an computer programmer.

And if someone calls himself all of those titles and can't do long division what happens?

He would never get through engineering school if he couldn't do long division. However, you don't need a diploma in history to write books about history.

If anyone can write a book on history can anyone write a book on engineering?

 

[PoliticalChic]

And if someone calls himself all of those titles and can't do long division what happens?

He would never get through engineering school if he couldn't do long division. However, you don't need a diploma in history to write books about history.

If anyone can write a book on history can anyone write a book on engineering?

Look what you've been reduced to: you're actually suggesting that there is any correspondence between the hard sciences and the social sciences.


I believe that this makes the point:

When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".

The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".

The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?"
—The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).

 

[regent]

He would never get through engineering school if he couldn't do long division. However, you don't need a diploma in history to write books about history.

If anyone can write a book on history can anyone write a book on engineering?

Look what you've been reduced to: you're actually suggesting that there is any correspondence between the hard sciences and the social sciences.


I believe that this makes the point:

When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".

The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".

The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?"
—The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).

I'm suggesting that anyone can legally write a book about anything, physics, history; the question for most, is how accurate is the book or how well does the book sell.

 

[gipper]

Hey Reggie, this should enlighten you, but maybe not....

At the 1945 Yalta Conference, Stalin boasted to Winston Churchill that Commissar Lazar Kaganovitch, who had supervised the murder of at least seven million Ukrainians and sent 2 million to concentration camps, "is my Adolf Eichmann," referring to the Nazi official responsible for killing millions of Jews.

In 1945, the Soviet Union — the close wartime ally of Britain, Canada and the United States — had 5.5 million prisoners in its prison system, the gulag, of whom 25% died annually from cold, hunger, exhaustion and disease.

Though Stalin’s worst crimes were committed before World War II, the full horror of his system of industrialized murder and slave labor were barely known outside Russia until the 1980′s. To this day, the world is constantly reminded of Germany’s crimes during the National Socialist era. But Stalin’s victims, who surpassed those of Hitler by a factor of three times, are almost forgotten. Why?

History is the propaganda of the victors. Few photographs of the gulag have survived, evidence was destroyed, and witnesses have died. Churchill and Roosevelt could not admit they were allied to the greatest mass killer since Genghis Khan, and complicit in his crimes. Or reveal that Communist agents of influence had shaped White House policy. The feeble-minded Roosevelt even hailed Stalin as "Uncle Joe."

The world’s Communist and Socialist parties managed to suppress the full scope of Stalin’s crimes even after Nikita Khrushchev denounced him in 1956. Solzhenitsyn warned that socialism, and big sister communism, inevitably led to totalitarian states.

Many Western liberal intellectuals were infatuated with Stalin’s brute power and didn’t want to know about their idol’s crimes. The French leftist thinker Jean-Paul Sartre even refused to admit the gulag existed.

Revealing the truth about the Allies’ role in supporting Stalin and his crimes would undermine the whole bogus mythology of World War II that has become the state religion for the political right in North America, Britain and Australia.

Those who considered the Jewish Holocaust a unique historical crime were not eager to bring attention to Stalin’s genocide lest it diminish or dilute their own people’s suffering.

The Bogus Mythology of WWII ? LewRockwell.com

 

[regent]

Hey Reggie, this should enlighten you, but maybe not....

At the 1945 Yalta Conference, Stalin boasted to Winston Churchill that Commissar Lazar Kaganovitch, who had supervised the murder of at least seven million Ukrainians and sent 2 million to concentration camps, "is my Adolf Eichmann," referring to the Nazi official responsible for killing millions of Jews.

In 1945, the Soviet Union — the close wartime ally of Britain, Canada and the United States — had 5.5 million prisoners in its prison system, the gulag, of whom 25% died annually from cold, hunger, exhaustion and disease.

Though Stalin’s worst crimes were committed before World War II, the full horror of his system of industrialized murder and slave labor were barely known outside Russia until the 1980′s. To this day, the world is constantly reminded of Germany’s crimes during the National Socialist era. But Stalin’s victims, who surpassed those of Hitler by a factor of three times, are almost forgotten. Why?

History is the propaganda of the victors. Few photographs of the gulag have survived, evidence was destroyed, and witnesses have died. Churchill and Roosevelt could not admit they were allied to the greatest mass killer since Genghis Khan, and complicit in his crimes. Or reveal that Communist agents of influence had shaped White House policy. The feeble-minded Roosevelt even hailed Stalin as "Uncle Joe."

The world’s Communist and Socialist parties managed to suppress the full scope of Stalin’s crimes even after Nikita Khrushchev denounced him in 1956. Solzhenitsyn warned that socialism, and big sister communism, inevitably led to totalitarian states.

Many Western liberal intellectuals were infatuated with Stalin’s brute power and didn’t want to know about their idol’s crimes. The French leftist thinker Jean-Paul Sartre even refused to admit the gulag existed.

Revealing the truth about the Allies’ role in supporting Stalin and his crimes would undermine the whole bogus mythology of World War II that has become the state religion for the political right in North America, Britain and Australia.

Those who considered the Jewish Holocaust a unique historical crime were not eager to bring attention to Stalin’s genocide lest it diminish or dilute their own people’s suffering.

The Bogus Mythology of WWII ? LewRockwell.com

It seems some Americans today are schocked that we would ally with the USSR, but our goal was to save American lives, so we used Stalin to delay Germany until we were ready to open a second front. In the process of using Stalin to save those American lives we ignored his crimes, his economic/political system and delayed our second front as long as possible. It seems today that some Americans are shocked that Stalin was not a poster boy for sweetness and light, but most Americans at the time knew Stalin was evil but our goal was to save American lives and we used the USSR to save those lives. Now, some naive Americans believe we did it to save the USSR but the USSR is gone, Hitler is gone and many American young men lived a full life because we used the USSR.

 

[bripat9643]

And if someone calls himself all of those titles and can't do long division what happens?

He would never get through engineering school if he couldn't do long division. However, you don't need a diploma in history to write books about history.

If anyone can write a book on history can anyone write a book on engineering?

Can anyone do calculus and differential equations?

 

[bripat9643]

If anyone can write a book on history can anyone write a book on engineering?

Look what you've been reduced to: you're actually suggesting that there is any correspondence between the hard sciences and the social sciences.


I believe that this makes the point:

When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".

The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".

The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?"
—The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).

I'm suggesting that anyone can legally write a book about anything, physics, history; the question for most, is how accurate is the book or how well does the book sell.

Plenty of non-historians have written books about history that are quite accurate and compelling. All you really need is an interest in the subject. The same isn't the case with engineering or chemistry.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Those who fail to study history are doomed to believe 7 years of 20% unemployment is a great record

 

[regent]

Certain segments of society have been singing the blues about America's problems long before our Constitution,and the songs will continue long after this generation is gone. One example of a generation that may have deserved to do a little whining was the FDR era and yet I think the whining was less and more was accomplished, in that brief period than in the fifty years before or after. But maybe today's whining is louder?