The Lies of Franklin Roosevelt

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Experts?


WHO/UN
So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s
WHO | Message from the Director-General



Of course the same biases apply to the 'experts' who are willing to overlook Roosevelt's .....'anomalies.'

 

[Unkotare]

Hard to take eh?

Hard to take that you are incapable of thinking or reasoning? Hard to take that you are so 'limited' you have no choice but to fall back on logical fallacy over and over and over again despite being educated on the matter countless times? No, not hard to take. Just pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

 

[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.

Experts?


WHO/UN
So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s
WHO | Message from the Director-General



Of course the same biases apply to the 'experts' who are willing to overlook Roosevelt's .....'anomalies.'

We are discussing the historians rating of FDR, not health care. These ratings have been carried on since 1948 and hundreds of historians have been involved, historians that do not work for the federal government but most for universities. The latest survey involved 238 noted historians and presidential experts.
I think the better tack would be to charge that the historians in these surveys have been drinking flouridated water and as the John Birchers told us in the Fifties flouridated water softens the brain and we become communists. Who knows that might sail again?

 

[regent]

Hard to take eh?

Hard to take that you are incapable of thinking or reasoning? Hard to take that you are so 'limited' you have no choice but to fall back on logical fallacy over and over and over again despite being educated on the matter countless times? No, not hard to take. Just pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

I have that condition of taking expert opinion over poster's opinion. I take my doctors medical advice rather than my neighbor's, and I take the ratings of hundreds of historians rather than a posters.
I even abide by expert opinions on defnitions of logicical fallacies.
In any case, despite all your thinking and reasoning, FDR is still rated by historians as number one. Maybe you just don't think hard enough?

 

[gipper]

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.

Sadly we currently HAVE a POTUS much like Lincoln and FDR. If only he were more like Washington.

Regarding history, once you actually study it, you will find that much of the conventional opinions written by many historians is wrong. FDR is but one example, but a perfect one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Experts?


WHO/UN
So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s
WHO | Message from the Director-General



Of course the same biases apply to the 'experts' who are willing to overlook Roosevelt's .....'anomalies.'

We are discussing the historians rating of FDR, not health care. These ratings have been carried on since 1948 and hundreds of historians have been involved, historians that do not work for the federal government but most for universities. The latest survey involved 238 noted historians and presidential experts.
I think the better tack would be to charge that the historians in these surveys have been drinking flouridated water and as the John Birchers told us in the Fifties flouridated water softens the brain and we become communists. Who knows that might sail again?

Now, now, reggie.....don't pretend you don't see the relevance of the comparison with heath care experts.
That would be a fib, wouldn't it.


Especially after you refer to your doctor's advice.

 

[regent]

Experts?


WHO/UN
So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s
WHO | Message from the Director-General



Of course the same biases apply to the 'experts' who are willing to overlook Roosevelt's .....'anomalies.'

We are discussing the historians rating of FDR, not health care. These ratings have been carried on since 1948 and hundreds of historians have been involved, historians that do not work for the federal government but most for universities. The latest survey involved 238 noted historians and presidential experts.
I think the better tack would be to charge that the historians in these surveys have been drinking flouridated water and as the John Birchers told us in the Fifties flouridated water softens the brain and we become communists. Who knows that might sail again?

Now, now, reggie.....don't pretend you don't see the relevance of the comparison with heath care experts.
That would be a fib, wouldn't it.


Especially after you refer to your doctor's advice.

My doctor told me, never let em switch subjects on you. Stay on topic.
So what is the relevance of the comparison with health care experts?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's too bad that this post goes in "History," because the FDR endeavors are largely responsible for the social breakdown we face today....
Under Roosevelt's alignment with Soviet communism the United States "exchanged foundational principles and guiding ideas" for some sort of vain, destructive, moral relativity.






1. Behind FDR's lies and actions which served to cover and support Stalin's murderous regime had to be the belief that, either,
FDR was a devotee of communism and anticipated imposing it on America..
....or, that he believed that he could incorporate Stalin into an organization with himself as the 'CEO.'

The former explanation would represent illimitable evil.....the latter, abysmal ignorance.





2. There is the false notion that FDR's infatuations began due to a need for the Soviet Union's aid in WWII, .....but he rushed to recognize them in 1933- was the first hint.

Is 'infatuation' too strong? Was there kind of political romance with Stalin?
Consider the following pieces of the puzzle before you consider it hyperbolic:

a. As former ambassador to the Soviet Union, William Bullitt, queried him about why he, FDR, persuaded the public that "communists had become the friends of democracy" and that he should remind all "that Communists in the United States are just as dangerous enemies as ever, and should not be allowed to crawl into our productive mechanism in order later to wreck it when they get new orders from somewhere abroad."
"For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt," Orville H. Bullitt, p. 522

b. Roosevelt threw himself into shoring up the USSR at any cost- in July of 1942 he lost 23 out of 34 ships in just one Lend-Lease supply voyage...

c. ...151,000 troops were left unsupplied in the Philippines....think Bataan Death March...

d. ....the British colony of Singapore was left without air cover in order to satisfy Stalin's desire for the planes. Found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore." Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.
Singapore fell February 15, 1942.

e. ...Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, irony of irony, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler.

f. The New Deal 'reorganization' of the State Department called for the destruction of "the best Soviet Library in the United States." (according to Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European Affairs Officer, State Department.) The 'Library' was broken up and dispersed among various files in the Library of Congress.
"Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies" by M. Stanton Evans, p. 83-84




3. Representative Martin Dies formed a committed to investigate communism, but found that government archives of communist records and correspondence had been destroyed. He wrote: "I was informed, confidentially, by a man well placed in the Department of Justice, that they were destroyed after it was learned that the Dies Committee was determined to conduct a full-scale investigation of Communism."
It was Harry Hopkins, FDR's White House live-in Soviet spy, who turned down Dies' request of assistance from Roosevelt to help furnish the nascent committee with a staff of lawyers, investigators and stenographers.
Dies, "Martin Dies' Story," p. 64.

a. Although the reference 'card-carrying Communist' was once accurate, the CPUSA stopped issuing cards once the Dies Committee began hearings. The highest membership serial number that his committee came across was 195,762.
'Given that Communists strive for quality, it was amazing tht they had been able to grow from 10,000 aliens in 1919 to nearly 200,000 members in 1938, mostly naive born or naturalized citizens."
Dies, Ibid, p. 62-63.




4. Remarkable as the attempt to make files inaccessible seems, it is just as common during Obama's term, during which both the Justice Department and the Pentagon have overseen the methodical purges of "anti-Islamic" educational materials from security and military files and training courses.
Diana West, "American Betrayal," chapter one.




5. "Because the American way and the Soviet system were diametrically opposed, FDR had to lie to present common ground to the American people. In order to make his Big Lie stick, he also had to remove the people who knew better. Literally. On a larger, more punitive scale, [Victor] Kravchenko discussed the same process."
West, Ibid, p. 247.


Kravchenko wrote, of his Soviet experiences:

"Shamelessly, without so much as an explanation, it revised half a century of Russian history. I don't mean simply that it falsified some facts or gave a new interpretation of events. I mean that it deliberately stood history on its head, expunging events and inventing facts.

It twisted the recent past--a past still fresh in millions of memories--into new and bizarre shapes, to conform with the version of affairs presented by the blood-purge trials and the accompanying propaganda... The roles of leading historical figures were perverted or altogether erased.... More than that, living witnesses, as far as possible, were removed. The directing staff of the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Moscow, repository of ideological truth, were removed and the more important people among them imprisoned or shot."
Text collection


And that is what FDR did in America.

...did to America.

On the other hand, the reason the message board has a "History" section is because so many of us realize that history affects our present world, and those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Those who don't understand that are going to be drooling mouthbreathers no matter where you post this stuff.

 

[Cecilie1200]

FDR is responsible for the Communist genocide of almost 100 million humans. The world would have been a better place if he didn't so openly support Mao and Stalin.

You must get this information to the historians of America, every historical group in this country should know this new information. As soon as the historians know what you know they will stop rating FDR as America's greatest president and rate him, at least sixth worst, just below Bush. Don't waste a minute.

Most historians are already aware of this, and DON'T rate FDR as America's greatest President. Influential, yes. Greatest? In a pig's eye.

 

[regent]

FDR is responsible for the Communist genocide of almost 100 million humans. The world would have been a better place if he didn't so openly support Mao and Stalin.

You must get this information to the historians of America, every historical group in this country should know this new information. As soon as the historians know what you know they will stop rating FDR as America's greatest president and rate him, at least sixth worst, just below Bush. Don't waste a minute.

Most historians are already aware of this, and DON'T rate FDR as America's greatest President. Influential, yes. Greatest? In a pig's eye.

So who do historians rate as the greatest president?

 

[Unkotare]

Hard to take eh?

Hard to take that you are incapable of thinking or reasoning? Hard to take that you are so 'limited' you have no choice but to fall back on logical fallacy over and over and over again despite being educated on the matter countless times? No, not hard to take. Just pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

I have that condition of taking expert opinion over poster's opinion.

You have the condition of being incapable of thinking for yourself. You have never once proposed or defended an argument or a position regarding that scumbag FDR. All you have EVER done is repeat the same logical fallacy over and over and over and over and over...

 

[regent]

Hard to take that you are incapable of thinking or reasoning? Hard to take that you are so 'limited' you have no choice but to fall back on logical fallacy over and over and over again despite being educated on the matter countless times? No, not hard to take. Just pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

I have that condition of taking expert opinion over poster's opinion.

You have the condition of being incapable of thinking for yourself. You have never once proposed or defended an argument or a position regarding that scumbag FDR. All you have EVER done is repeat the same logical fallacy over and over and over and over and over...

So what's your argument?

 

[Unkotare]

I have that condition of taking expert opinion over poster's opinion.

You have the condition of being incapable of thinking for yourself. You have never once proposed or defended an argument or a position regarding that scumbag FDR. All you have EVER done is repeat the same logical fallacy over and over and over and over and over...

So what's your argument?

That FDR was an immoral, dishonest, irresponsible, power-hungry scumbag who violated our Constitution, robbed US citizens of their rights and property in a manner anathema to all our country stands for, climbed into bed with (among others) Communism, and saddled future generations with insupportable government obligations we cannot possibly pay for in perpetuity. Many posters have presented mountains of FACTS to support this argument and you have never ONCE attempted to address said FACTS. You merely fall back on logical fallacy like some futile mantra that can change the FACTS of history. You can't think for yourself and you won't even try because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[regent]

You have the condition of being incapable of thinking for yourself. You have never once proposed or defended an argument or a position regarding that scumbag FDR. All you have EVER done is repeat the same logical fallacy over and over and over and over and over...

So what's your argument?

That FDR was an immoral, dishonest, irresponsible, power-hungry scumbag who violated our Constitution, robbed US citizens of their rights and property in a manner anathema to all our country stands for, climbed into bed with (among others) Communism, and saddled future generations with insupportable government obligations we cannot possibly pay for in perpetuity. Many posters have presented mountains of FACTS to support this argument and you have never ONCE attempted to address said FACTS. You merely fall back on logical fallacy like some futile mantra that can change the FACTS of history. You can't think for yourself and you won't even try because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

That's opinion, but let's take one charge, that FDR violated the Constitution. When did FDR violate the Constituiton?

 

[Unkotare]

So what's your argument?

That FDR was an immoral, dishonest, irresponsible, power-hungry scumbag who violated our Constitution, robbed US citizens of their rights and property in a manner anathema to all our country stands for, climbed into bed with (among others) Communism, and saddled future generations with insupportable government obligations we cannot possibly pay for in perpetuity. Many posters have presented mountains of FACTS to support this argument and you have never ONCE attempted to address said FACTS. You merely fall back on logical fallacy like some futile mantra that can change the FACTS of history. You can't think for yourself and you won't even try because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

That's opinion, but let's take one charge, that FDR violated the Constitution. When did FDR violate the Constituiton?

How about when he threw innocent, loyal Americans into concentration camps and kept them there under the threat of death? Depriving them of freedom, property, and equal protection. And before you bother, we know the Supreme Court that he had cowed via threats and intimidation were complicit in his crime, as later findings would attest. We know about the legal machinations, we know he violated the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Can you defend his actions? Can those possibly be the actions of a chief executive that YOU consider the best our country has ever had? If so, reconcile his villainy with your adulation.

 

[regent]

You answered your own charge that FDR violated the Constitution by declaring the Court declared the Executive order Counstitional Next case?

 

[jillian]

i love the smell of revisionist history in the morning

 

[Unkotare]

You answered your own charge that FDR violated the Constitution by declaring the Court declared the Executive order Counstitional Next case?

Ducking again, pussy? Address the issue. Can you defend his actions? Can those possibly be the actions of a chief executive that YOU consider the best our country has ever had? If so, reconcile his villainy with your adulation.

 

[Camp]

You have the condition of being incapable of thinking for yourself. You have never once proposed or defended an argument or a position regarding that scumbag FDR. All you have EVER done is repeat the same logical fallacy over and over and over and over and over...

So what's your argument?

That FDR was an immoral, dishonest, irresponsible, power-hungry scumbag who violated our Constitution, robbed US citizens of their rights and property in a manner anathema to all our country stands for, climbed into bed with (among others) Communism, and saddled future generations with insupportable government obligations we cannot possibly pay for in perpetuity. Many posters have presented mountains of FACTS to support this argument and you have never ONCE attempted to address said FACTS. You merely fall back on logical fallacy like some futile mantra that can change the FACTS of history. You can't think for yourself and you won't even try because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

Only the very naive believe this kind of revisionist history. The mountains of facts are not accepted as facts by historians and scholars. The sources used to establish "facts" are used the same way as sources for conspiracy theories and blatant political hack histories are used. They are unreliable, distorted, taken out of context, etc. One need only look up a few of the sources discribed as "mountains of facts" in this thread to discover the sources have in many cases been debunked long ago by multiple scholars and professional historians.

 

[Unkotare]

So what's your argument?

That FDR was an immoral, dishonest, irresponsible, power-hungry scumbag who violated our Constitution, robbed US citizens of their rights and property in a manner anathema to all our country stands for, climbed into bed with (among others) Communism, and saddled future generations with insupportable government obligations we cannot possibly pay for in perpetuity. Many posters have presented mountains of FACTS to support this argument and you have never ONCE attempted to address said FACTS. You merely fall back on logical fallacy like some futile mantra that can change the FACTS of history. You can't think for yourself and you won't even try because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

Only the very naive believe this kind of revisionist history. The mountains of facts are not accepted as facts by historians and scholars. The sources used to establish "facts" are used the same way as sources for conspiracy theories and blatant political hack histories are used. They are unreliable, distorted, taken out of context, etc. One need only look up a few of the sources discribed as "mountains of facts" in this thread to discover the sources have in many cases been debunked long ago by multiple scholars and professional historians.

Which FACTS don't you believe? This is not "revisionist history," it's just plain history. The FACT is that FDR signed Executive Order 9906 and threw over 100,000 innocent people, the majority of them US CITIZENS into concentration camps. Barbed wire, armed guard towers, the whole works. Are you trying to say you don't believe this FACT? Are YOU trying to 'revise' history?