The Lies of Franklin Roosevelt

[Book of Jeremiah]

Posters go through all these tid-bits of history to find fault with FDR, and certainly in twelve years of presidency, the Great Depression and World War II, there are many areas and many decisions where faults can be found. Yet, when push comes to shove in rating presidents historians, including conservative historians, have always rated FDR in the top three, with Lincoln and Washington. In the last rating, however, historians moved FDR from one of the top three to number one. The answer to that rating by some, is to label historians as communists, and non-thnkers as they are, but what of the American people, they elected FDR four times a record that will stand for some time. Were they communists too? So we can verify that the people that lived through that Great Depression and World War II, plus the historians agree on FDR's rating.
The question for conservatives and FDR haters is how do you combat the people that voted for FDR four times and the historians and presidential experts? Well other than calling FDR a communist, his marriage, his dog Fala, (yep, they went after
fdr's dog) plus nit picking mistakes in history not much. It's all in the history books.

Nitpicking mistakes in history? You call sending a ship full of innocent men, women and children to their executioners ( rather than granting them asylum ) to be a nitpicking "mistake"?

 

[Unkotare]

Posters go through all these tid-bits of history to find fault with FDR, and certainly in twelve years of presidency, the Great Depression and World War II, there are many areas and many decisions where faults can be found. Yet, when push comes to shove in rating presidents historians, including conservative historians, have always rated FDR in the top three, with Lincoln and Washington. In the last rating, however, historians moved FDR from one of the top three to number one. The answer to that rating by some, is to label historians as communists, and non-thnkers as they are, but what of the American people, they elected FDR four times a record that will stand for some time. Were they communists too? So we can verify that the people that lived through that Great Depression and World War II, plus the historians agree on FDR's rating.
The question for conservatives and FDR haters is how do you combat the people that voted for FDR four times and the historians and presidential experts? Well other than calling FDR a communist, his marriage, his dog Fala, (yep, they went after
fdr's dog) plus nit picking mistakes in history not much. It's all in the history books.

Nitpicking mistakes in history? You call sending a ship full of innocent men, women and children to their executioners ( rather than granting them asylum ) to be a nitpicking "mistake"?

There's nothing Reject won't say to defend his idol, that scumbag FDR. The only thing he won't do is think for himself.

 

[regent]

Posters go through all these tid-bits of history to find fault with FDR, and certainly in twelve years of presidency, the Great Depression and World War II, there are many areas and many decisions where faults can be found. Yet, when push comes to shove in rating presidents historians, including conservative historians, have always rated FDR in the top three, with Lincoln and Washington. In the last rating, however, historians moved FDR from one of the top three to number one. The answer to that rating by some, is to label historians as communists, and non-thnkers as they are, but what of the American people, they elected FDR four times a record that will stand for some time. Were they communists too? So we can verify that the people that lived through that Great Depression and World War II, plus the historians agree on FDR's rating.
The question for conservatives and FDR haters is how do you combat the people that voted for FDR four times and the historians and presidential experts? Well other than calling FDR a communist, his marriage, his dog Fala, (yep, they went after
fdr's dog) plus nit picking mistakes in history not much. It's all in the history books.

Nitpicking mistakes in history? You call sending a ship full of innocent men, women and children to their executioners ( rather than granting them asylum ) to be a nitpicking "mistake"?

There's nothing Reject won't say to defend his idol, that scumbag FDR. The only thing he won't do is think for himself.

You mean think like you. I can't do that, I mean being growed up and all. FDR allowed 15,000 Jewish visitors to stay after their visas had expired but remember Congress has a say in government and some of those Congress members were not happy about that decision. The St. Louis could go anyplace it wanted to drop off its passengers but not Cuba nor the U.S. The U.S. had a visa waiting list and as I remember the ship didn't go to executioneers but to Belgium.

 

[TooTall]

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?

Actually I have a 'candidate' in mind who did better....economically, and by reversing FDR's love affair with Stalin and his regime.


But that is hardly the issue...
Far too many are like you and refuse open their eyes to the glaring disservices and calumnies of Franklin Roosevelt.


You have neither addressed nor challenged the charges that he lied to the American public.


Could Americans make a mistake and elect a man to the presidency who shouldn't have been?

Well...they elected a rapist, and the current incompetent.....

Checkmate!

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"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."

Total poppycock, and a fabrication designed to hide the fact that you consider Roosevelt akin to a god.


1. FDR joined the USSR to the USA in 1933...so it clearly had nothing to do with saving American lives.

2. Foreign Service officer of note advised Roosevelt that we had nothing to gain by propping up Staling....he ignored them, and purged them from government.

3. Are you actually claiming that Stalin would have surrendered to Hitler?
Or....that Hitler would have beaten Russia's three greatest generals- December, January, and February?



There is not the slightest objectivity in your post....you simply cling to the hems of Roosevelt's garments.....

 

[regent]

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

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.

"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."

Total poppycock, and a fabrication designed to hide the fact that you consider Roosevelt akin to a god.


1. FDR joined the USSR to the USA in 1933...so it clearly had nothing to do with saving American lives.

2. Foreign Service officer of note advised Roosevelt that we had nothing to gain by propping up Staling....he ignored them, and purged them from government.

3. Are you actually claiming that Stalin would have surrendered to Hitler?
Or....that Hitler would have beaten Russia's three greatest generals- December, January, and February?



There is not the slightest objectivity in your post....you simply cling to the hems of Roosevelt's garments.....

Well the issue was in doubt at times, but that was then, and now all the doubt is gone, we know the outcome so it's considerabley easier to predict that the USSR will not surrender, even though Russia did make peace with Germany during the war to end all wars.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"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."

Total poppycock, and a fabrication designed to hide the fact that you consider Roosevelt akin to a god.


1. FDR joined the USSR to the USA in 1933...so it clearly had nothing to do with saving American lives.

2. Foreign Service officer of note advised Roosevelt that we had nothing to gain by propping up Staling....he ignored them, and purged them from government.

3. Are you actually claiming that Stalin would have surrendered to Hitler?
Or....that Hitler would have beaten Russia's three greatest generals- December, January, and February?



There is not the slightest objectivity in your post....you simply cling to the hems of Roosevelt's garments.....

Well the issue was in doubt at times, but that was then, and now all the doubt is gone, we know the outcome so it's considerabley easier to predict that the USSR will not surrender, even though Russia did make peace with Germany during the war to end all wars.

You're amazingly incorrect on every single count......

...and that may just be the vincible ignorance that allows you to pine for FDR.


First....it has not gone unnoticed that you have ignored the dispositive evidence in my post.

Secondly....Hilter and Stalin had treaties that armed and supported the Blitzkrieg, provided strategic materials to Hitler, and actually taught the SS how to operate concentration camps and conduct mass murder.
These were partners, planning to split Europe between them.




1. Early Nazi propaganda posters included the hammer and sickle.

2. When Hitler began his advances on other countries, Stalin refused to join the nations talking of stopping him. Stalin was, in fact, pleased that Hitler was destroying the old order throughout Europe. "There will be no parliaments, no trade unions, no armies, no governments....then Stalin will come as the liberator...millions of people will be sitting in concentration camps, hoping someone will liberate them, then Stalin and the Red Army will come and liberate them. That was his plan."
Vladimir Bukovsky.

3. September 1, 1939, Hitler attacked Poland....on September 17, Stalin attacks from the East. The Soviet radio transmitter in Minsk guided the Nazi bombers attacking Polish cities. Newsreel footage showed the Red Army in Nazi helmets, marching side by side with the SS. One photo shows the hammer and sickle along side the swastika.

a. The Soviet press depicted the battle as a fight against Polish fascism, with the peace-loving Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fighting aggressive Polish fascism.



4. Hitler and Stalin signed secret protocols to divide up Europe. First, Stalin moved against Finland, November 1939....for the aggression, the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations. Hitler attacked to the West.

a. Norway was invaded by Hitler with the direct help of the Soviet Union, providing the Soviet naval base near Murmansk. "German Admiral Raeder sent a letter of thanks to the Commander of the Soviet Navy, Kuznetsov."

5. Archival footage shows Nazi and Russian officers partying together. The USSR became the supplier of oil, iron ore, construction materials for Hitler's Blitzkrieg. And trainloads of grain, even while Russians were starving.

a. Communist party members throughout Europe were ordered to sabotage their nation's forces, and aid the Nazi attackers. The French Communist Party, July 1940: "It is comforting to see workers talking to German soldiers as friends,...'well done, comrades, and keep it up,' ...the brotherhood of man will not be forever a hope, it will become a living reality."




And Franklin Roosevelt knew all of the above.

A pity that you don't.

 

[regent]

"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."

Total poppycock, and a fabrication designed to hide the fact that you consider Roosevelt akin to a god.


1. FDR joined the USSR to the USA in 1933...so it clearly had nothing to do with saving American lives.

2. Foreign Service officer of note advised Roosevelt that we had nothing to gain by propping up Staling....he ignored them, and purged them from government.

3. Are you actually claiming that Stalin would have surrendered to Hitler?
Or....that Hitler would have beaten Russia's three greatest generals- December, January, and February?



There is not the slightest objectivity in your post....you simply cling to the hems of Roosevelt's garments.....

Well the issue was in doubt at times, but that was then, and now all the doubt is gone, we know the outcome so it's considerabley easier to predict that the USSR will not surrender, even though Russia did make peace with Germany during the war to end all wars.

You're amazingly incorrect on every single count......

...and that may just be the vincible ignorance that allows you to pine for FDR.


First....it has not gone unnoticed that you have ignored the dispositive evidence in my post.

Secondly....Hilter and Stalin had treaties that armed and supported the Blitzkrieg, provided strategic materials to Hitler, and actually taught the SS how to operate concentration camps and conduct mass murder.
These were partners, planning to split Europe between them.




1. Early Nazi propaganda posters included the hammer and sickle.

2. When Hitler began his advances on other countries, Stalin refused to join the nations talking of stopping him. Stalin was, in fact, pleased that Hitler was destroying the old order throughout Europe. "There will be no parliaments, no trade unions, no armies, no governments....then Stalin will come as the liberator...millions of people will be sitting in concentration camps, hoping someone will liberate them, then Stalin and the Red Army will come and liberate them. That was his plan."
Vladimir Bukovsky.

3. September 1, 1939, Hitler attacked Poland....on September 17, Stalin attacks from the East. The Soviet radio transmitter in Minsk guided the Nazi bombers attacking Polish cities. Newsreel footage showed the Red Army in Nazi helmets, marching side by side with the SS. One photo shows the hammer and sickle along side the swastika.

a. The Soviet press depicted the battle as a fight against Polish fascism, with the peace-loving Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fighting aggressive Polish fascism.



4. Hitler and Stalin signed secret protocols to divide up Europe. First, Stalin moved against Finland, November 1939....for the aggression, the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations. Hitler attacked to the West.

a. Norway was invaded by Hitler with the direct help of the Soviet Union, providing the Soviet naval base near Murmansk. "German Admiral Raeder sent a letter of thanks to the Commander of the Soviet Navy, Kuznetsov."

5. Archival footage shows Nazi and Russian officers partying together. The USSR became the supplier of oil, iron ore, construction materials for Hitler's Blitzkrieg. And trainloads of grain, even while Russians were starving.

a. Communist party members throughout Europe were ordered to sabotage their nation's forces, and aid the Nazi attackers. The French Communist Party, July 1940: "It is comforting to see workers talking to German soldiers as friends,...'well done, comrades, and keep it up,' ...the brotherhood of man will not be forever a hope, it will become a living reality."




And Franklin Roosevelt knew all of the above.

A pity that you don't.

Of course FDR knew most of that, but so did many American citizens alive at the time. I think much of that history is new to some and it's like finding something they didn't know about, so bingo it must have been a secret.
The USSR was not a friend of ours, but did become a wartime ally, but as I said an ally to kill Germans.
One interesting tid-bit of history was to have seen the American-communists change their tune after Barbarossa.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well the issue was in doubt at times, but that was then, and now all the doubt is gone, we know the outcome so it's considerabley easier to predict that the USSR will not surrender, even though Russia did make peace with Germany during the war to end all wars.

You're amazingly incorrect on every single count......

...and that may just be the vincible ignorance that allows you to pine for FDR.


First....it has not gone unnoticed that you have ignored the dispositive evidence in my post.

Secondly....Hilter and Stalin had treaties that armed and supported the Blitzkrieg, provided strategic materials to Hitler, and actually taught the SS how to operate concentration camps and conduct mass murder.
These were partners, planning to split Europe between them.




1. Early Nazi propaganda posters included the hammer and sickle.

2. When Hitler began his advances on other countries, Stalin refused to join the nations talking of stopping him. Stalin was, in fact, pleased that Hitler was destroying the old order throughout Europe. "There will be no parliaments, no trade unions, no armies, no governments....then Stalin will come as the liberator...millions of people will be sitting in concentration camps, hoping someone will liberate them, then Stalin and the Red Army will come and liberate them. That was his plan."
Vladimir Bukovsky.

3. September 1, 1939, Hitler attacked Poland....on September 17, Stalin attacks from the East. The Soviet radio transmitter in Minsk guided the Nazi bombers attacking Polish cities. Newsreel footage showed the Red Army in Nazi helmets, marching side by side with the SS. One photo shows the hammer and sickle along side the swastika.

a. The Soviet press depicted the battle as a fight against Polish fascism, with the peace-loving Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fighting aggressive Polish fascism.



4. Hitler and Stalin signed secret protocols to divide up Europe. First, Stalin moved against Finland, November 1939....for the aggression, the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations. Hitler attacked to the West.

a. Norway was invaded by Hitler with the direct help of the Soviet Union, providing the Soviet naval base near Murmansk. "German Admiral Raeder sent a letter of thanks to the Commander of the Soviet Navy, Kuznetsov."

5. Archival footage shows Nazi and Russian officers partying together. The USSR became the supplier of oil, iron ore, construction materials for Hitler's Blitzkrieg. And trainloads of grain, even while Russians were starving.

a. Communist party members throughout Europe were ordered to sabotage their nation's forces, and aid the Nazi attackers. The French Communist Party, July 1940: "It is comforting to see workers talking to German soldiers as friends,...'well done, comrades, and keep it up,' ...the brotherhood of man will not be forever a hope, it will become a living reality."




And Franklin Roosevelt knew all of the above.

A pity that you don't.

Of course FDR knew most of that, but so did many American citizens alive at the time. I think much of that history is new to some and it's like finding something they didn't know about, so bingo it must have been a secret.
The USSR was not a friend of ours, but did become a wartime ally, but as I said an ally to kill Germans.
One interesting tid-bit of history was to have seen the American-communists change their tune after Barbarossa.

"The USSR was not a friend of ours, but did become a wartime ally, but as I said an ally to kill Germans."

Come now....you know very well that I disproved the above earlier.

Roosevelt made overtures to Stalin in 1933.

 

[Unkotare]

Nitpicking mistakes in history? You call sending a ship full of innocent men, women and children to their executioners ( rather than granting them asylum ) to be a nitpicking "mistake"?

There's nothing Reject won't say to defend his idol, that scumbag FDR. The only thing he won't do is think for himself.

You mean think like you..

You said that before, and I told you before: NO, I mean think for yourself. You have shown no capacity for or interest in doing so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There's nothing Reject won't say to defend his idol, that scumbag FDR. The only thing he won't do is think for himself.

You mean think like you..

You said that before, and I told you before: NO, I mean think for yourself. You have shown no capacity for or interest in doing so.

1. Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....


2. Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals.

Explaining or relating the facts to a Liberal is like trying to tell a devout Muslim that Al-Buraq didn't carry the prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Mi'raj or "Night Journey."

 

[regent]

You mean think like you..

You said that before, and I told you before: NO, I mean think for yourself. You have shown no capacity for or interest in doing so.

1. Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....


2. Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals.

Explaining or relating the facts to a Liberal is like trying to tell a devout Muslim that Al-Buraq didn't carry the prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Mi'raj or "Night Journey."

So what facts, data, or experience are you trying to relate? You seem to have trouble putting down what you are trying to say. You've got the name calling down pretty well but getting across your point seems to be the primary problem.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You said that before, and I told you before: NO, I mean think for yourself. You have shown no capacity for or interest in doing so.

1. Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....


2. Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals.

Explaining or relating the facts to a Liberal is like trying to tell a devout Muslim that Al-Buraq didn't carry the prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Mi'raj or "Night Journey."

So what facts, data, or experience are you trying to relate? You seem to have trouble putting down what you are trying to say. You've got the name calling down pretty well but getting across your point seems to be the primary problem.

1. "...getting across your point seems to be the primary problem."

You know well that that is not true.

Prevarication by the other side is one of the great 'tells' as they say in poker, that admit defeat.

I accept same from you, after all, a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to instruct a Liberal.




2. "You've got the name calling down pretty well..."
Very true...but that's because I only post the truth.

 

[regent]

1. Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....


2. Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals.

Explaining or relating the facts to a Liberal is like trying to tell a devout Muslim that Al-Buraq didn't carry the prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Mi'raj or "Night Journey."

So what facts, data, or experience are you trying to relate? You seem to have trouble putting down what you are trying to say. You've got the name calling down pretty well but getting across your point seems to be the primary problem.

1. "...getting across your point seems to be the primary problem."

You know well that that is not true.

Prevarication by the other side is one of the great 'tells' as they say in poker, that admit defeat.

I accept same from you, after all, a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to instruct a Liberal.




2. "You've got the name calling down pretty well..."
Very true...but that's because I only post the truth.

Well actually that was in response to another poster. Your platitudes and cliches differ from his, so I apologize. Still friends?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So what facts, data, or experience are you trying to relate? You seem to have trouble putting down what you are trying to say. You've got the name calling down pretty well but getting across your point seems to be the primary problem.

1. "...getting across your point seems to be the primary problem."

You know well that that is not true.

Prevarication by the other side is one of the great 'tells' as they say in poker, that admit defeat.

I accept same from you, after all, a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to instruct a Liberal.




2. "You've got the name calling down pretty well..."
Very true...but that's because I only post the truth.

Well actually that was in response to another poster. Your platitudes and cliches differ from his, so I apologize. Still friends?

Friend 'til the end!
...and this is the end!

Just kiddin'!

 

[gipper]

Here is as good an explanation of FDR's policy toward Stalin and the USSR...

The reasons for Franklin Roosevelt's support for Stalin are difficult to pin down. President Roosevelt himself once explained to William Bullitt, his first ambassador to Soviet Russia: "I think that if I give him [Stalin] everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything, and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy." (Cited in: Robert Nisbet, Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship [1989], p. 6.) Perhaps the most accurate (and kindest) explanation for Roosevelt's attitude is a profound ignorance, self-deception or naiveté. In the considered view of George Kennan, historian and former high-ranking US diplomat, in foreign policy Roosevelt was "a very superficial man, ignorant, dilettantish, with a severely limited intellectual horizon."
Suvorov's 'The Last Republic' (Review)

That last sentence by George Keenan sums up FDR quite well. It would also apply to the doofus in the WH now.

 

[Unkotare]

You said that before, and I told you before: NO, I mean think for yourself. You have shown no capacity for or interest in doing so.

1. Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....


2. Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals.

Explaining or relating the facts to a Liberal is like trying to tell a devout Muslim that Al-Buraq didn't carry the prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Mi'raj or "Night Journey."

So what facts, data, or experience are you trying to relate? You seem to have trouble putting down what you are trying to say. You've got the name calling down pretty well but getting across your point seems to be the primary problem.

You have been inundated with facts relating to this topic again and again and again. Every time you simply fall back on a logical fallacy that has been explained to you again and again and again.

 

[regent]

1. Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....


2. Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals.

Explaining or relating the facts to a Liberal is like trying to tell a devout Muslim that Al-Buraq didn't carry the prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Mi'raj or "Night Journey."

So what facts, data, or experience are you trying to relate? You seem to have trouble putting down what you are trying to say. You've got the name calling down pretty well but getting across your point seems to be the primary problem.

You have been inundated with facts relating to this topic again and again and again. Every time you simply fall back on a logical fallacy that has been explained to you again and again and again.

So what is your point? If it is FDR, the facts are that FDR has never been rated by historians as less than America's third greatest president and in the most recent poll as the greatest American president. And the fact that most historians agree with me on rating presidents is another fact.

 

[Unkotare]

So what facts, data, or experience are you trying to relate? You seem to have trouble putting down what you are trying to say. You've got the name calling down pretty well but getting across your point seems to be the primary problem.

You have been inundated with facts relating to this topic again and again and again. Every time you simply fall back on a logical fallacy that has been explained to you again and again and again.

So what is your point? If it is FDR, the facts are that FDR has never been rated by historians as less than America's third greatest president and in the most recent poll as the greatest American president. And the fact that most historians agree with me on rating presidents is another fact.

And there we go again...

 

[regent]

Hard to take eh? True, I try to use experts in their field of expertise, and as we have discovered you ain't no expert at least not in the history area. Don't despair you might hit on some area you d0 have some some knowledge and I'll ooh and ah, but until then....
Until then I hope you keep giving me the opportunity to emphasize that FDR has finally been rated as America's greatest president. Now the question is, will FDR hold that position or will the historians give it to Obama? Probably not. It will be some time before we get another Lincoln, Washington or FDR.