Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??

[gipper]

Maybe schools should drop history from their curriculumns

The economic slowdown in the 1920's actually started in 1927 for most Americans, and unemployment started rising, just a few years after the 1919-1921 recession after WW I. The stock market promised higher returns than investing in real businesses and sucked up money like a sponge, just like all the other 'booms' have, before and after the 1920's, including the current one. The economy began turning around within months of FDR's election, and by 1937 was almost back to pre-Depression levels of output.

As always, large increases in productivity rates caused employment to lag way behind, a recurrent problem throughout the 19th and 20th century, right up to today. Pile 'outsourcing' to 'business friendly' slave labor and sweatshop countries, like Red China and Viet Nam, Mexico, etc. through various scams like NAFTA, CAFTA, et al, and the domestic economy ends up with almost no connection to the Wall Street and Greenwich, Conn. economy people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet live in.

I see Frank weighed in to provide a fine example of the clueless cognitive dissonance I was talking about.

Thanks, Frank!

The one thing consistent throughout all Progressive thought is that it is founded on repeated and pathological lies. Once I fully understood just how pervasive this is, how it's down to the DNA level it became so much easier to deal with you fuckers.

I don't know if you're ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid and it really makes no difference you got everything totally wrong. But again you can't get to the Imaginary Greatness of FDR unless you're a pathological liar. You also can only disparage the phenomenal record of Coolidge by being a fucking liar

Why do schools even teach history if all historians are liars? Maybe history is a subject that should be dropped from schools along with some science courses and other subjects that raise controversy? Another solution might be two types of history courses: one type taught by historians and another by politicians. Come to think of it this could be my chance to teach medicine. Surely there is controversy in the medical field and I have lots of ideas on medicine. Doctor Regent, M.D. Sounds pretty good.
s

Not all historians are liars. Only statist historians are liars. There is a difference, but you are incapable of seeing it.

 

[regent]

Maybe schools should drop history from their curriculumns

The economic slowdown in the 1920's actually started in 1927 for most Americans, and unemployment started rising, just a few years after the 1919-1921 recession after WW I. The stock market promised higher returns than investing in real businesses and sucked up money like a sponge, just like all the other 'booms' have, before and after the 1920's, including the current one. The economy began turning around within months of FDR's election, and by 1937 was almost back to pre-Depression levels of output.

As always, large increases in productivity rates caused employment to lag way behind, a recurrent problem throughout the 19th and 20th century, right up to today. Pile 'outsourcing' to 'business friendly' slave labor and sweatshop countries, like Red China and Viet Nam, Mexico, etc. through various scams like NAFTA, CAFTA, et al, and the domestic economy ends up with almost no connection to the Wall Street and Greenwich, Conn. economy people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet live in.

I see Frank weighed in to provide a fine example of the clueless cognitive dissonance I was talking about.

Thanks, Frank!

The one thing consistent throughout all Progressive thought is that it is founded on repeated and pathological lies. Once I fully understood just how pervasive this is, how it's down to the DNA level it became so much easier to deal with you fuckers.

I don't know if you're ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid and it really makes no difference you got everything totally wrong. But again you can't get to the Imaginary Greatness of FDR unless you're a pathological liar. You also can only disparage the phenomenal record of Coolidge by being a fucking liar

Why do schools even teach history if all historians are liars? Maybe history is a subject that should be dropped from schools along with some science courses and other subjects that raise controversy? Another solution might be two types of history courses: one type taught by historians and another by politicians. Come to think of it this could be my chance to teach medicine. Surely there is controversy in the medical field and I have lots of ideas on medicine. Doctor Regent, M.D. Sounds pretty good.
s

Not all historians are liars. Only statist historians are liars. There is a difference, but you are incapable of seeing it.

 

[regent]

Maybe schools should drop history from their curriculumns

The economic slowdown in the 1920's actually started in 1927 for most Americans, and unemployment started rising, just a few years after the 1919-1921 recession after WW I. The stock market promised higher returns than investing in real businesses and sucked up money like a sponge, just like all the other 'booms' have, before and after the 1920's, including the current one. The economy began turning around within months of FDR's election, and by 1937 was almost back to pre-Depression levels of output.

As always, large increases in productivity rates caused employment to lag way behind, a recurrent problem throughout the 19th and 20th century, right up to today. Pile 'outsourcing' to 'business friendly' slave labor and sweatshop countries, like Red China and Viet Nam, Mexico, etc. through various scams like NAFTA, CAFTA, et al, and the domestic economy ends up with almost no connection to the Wall Street and Greenwich, Conn. economy people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet live in.

I see Frank weighed in to provide a fine example of the clueless cognitive dissonance I was talking about.

Thanks, Frank!

The one thing consistent throughout all Progressive thought is that it is founded on repeated and pathological lies. Once I fully understood just how pervasive this is, how it's down to the DNA level it became so much easier to deal with you fuckers.

I don't know if you're ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid and it really makes no difference you got everything totally wrong. But again you can't get to the Imaginary Greatness of FDR unless you're a pathological liar. You also can only disparage the phenomenal record of Coolidge by being a fucking liar

Why do schools even teach history if all historians are liars? Maybe history is a subject that should be dropped from schools along with some science courses and other subjects that raise controversy? Another solution might be two types of history courses: one type taught by historians and another by politicians. Come to think of it this could be my chance to teach medicine. Surely there is controversy in the medical field and I have lots of ideas on medicine. Doctor Regent, M.D. Sounds pretty good.
s

Not all historians are liars. Only statist historians are liars. There is a difference, but you are incapable of seeing it.

So tell us how to see the difference. So far, if an historian believes FDR was a great president he is a liar, right?

 

[Camp]

Let me decode your response.

What you should have posted:
The elite Left says AGW is real...so I dutifully believe them.

No, I believe them because

1) They are scientists who specialize in the study of this issue, and 95% of them say this is a problem.

2) They can show me evidence proving their point- Higher temperatures, melting ice caps, melting permafrost, and so on.

3) I can see evidence in the context of my own life, where we had BRUTAL winters here in Chicago when I was growing up in the 1960's and 1970's, but the winters now... meh, not so much.

There is a ton of evidence that clearly shows a lack of warming and that AGW is nothing more than a big government hoax.

I can't help you when you are blinded by propaganda.

AGW is politics...not science.

Maybe schools should drop history from their curriculumns

The economic slowdown in the 1920's actually started in 1927 for most Americans, and unemployment started rising, just a few years after the 1919-1921 recession after WW I. The stock market promised higher returns than investing in real businesses and sucked up money like a sponge, just like all the other 'booms' have, before and after the 1920's, including the current one. The economy began turning around within months of FDR's election, and by 1937 was almost back to pre-Depression levels of output.

As always, large increases in productivity rates caused employment to lag way behind, a recurrent problem throughout the 19th and 20th century, right up to today. Pile 'outsourcing' to 'business friendly' slave labor and sweatshop countries, like Red China and Viet Nam, Mexico, etc. through various scams like NAFTA, CAFTA, et al, and the domestic economy ends up with almost no connection to the Wall Street and Greenwich, Conn. economy people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet live in.

I see Frank weighed in to provide a fine example of the clueless cognitive dissonance I was talking about.

Thanks, Frank!

The one thing consistent throughout all Progressive thought is that it is founded on repeated and pathological lies. Once I fully understood just how pervasive this is, how it's down to the DNA level it became so much easier to deal with you fuckers.

I don't know if you're ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid and it really makes no difference you got everything totally wrong. But again you can't get to the Imaginary Greatness of FDR unless you're a pathological liar. You also can only disparage the phenomenal record of Coolidge by being a fucking liar

Why do schools even teach history if all historians are liars? Maybe history is a subject that should be dropped from schools along with some science courses and other subjects that raise controversy? Another solution might be two types of history courses: one type taught by historians and another by politicians. Come to think of it this could be my chance to teach medicine. Surely there is controversy in the medical field and I have lots of ideas on medicine. Doctor Regent, M.D. Sounds pretty good.
s

Not all historians are liars. Only statist historians are liars. There is a difference, but you are incapable of seeing it.

And yet not one single historian of repute can be found to support the OP of this thread.

 

[gipper]

Maybe schools should drop history from their curriculumns

The economic slowdown in the 1920's actually started in 1927 for most Americans, and unemployment started rising, just a few years after the 1919-1921 recession after WW I. The stock market promised higher returns than investing in real businesses and sucked up money like a sponge, just like all the other 'booms' have, before and after the 1920's, including the current one. The economy began turning around within months of FDR's election, and by 1937 was almost back to pre-Depression levels of output.

As always, large increases in productivity rates caused employment to lag way behind, a recurrent problem throughout the 19th and 20th century, right up to today. Pile 'outsourcing' to 'business friendly' slave labor and sweatshop countries, like Red China and Viet Nam, Mexico, etc. through various scams like NAFTA, CAFTA, et al, and the domestic economy ends up with almost no connection to the Wall Street and Greenwich, Conn. economy people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet live in.

I see Frank weighed in to provide a fine example of the clueless cognitive dissonance I was talking about.

Thanks, Frank!

The one thing consistent throughout all Progressive thought is that it is founded on repeated and pathological lies. Once I fully understood just how pervasive this is, how it's down to the DNA level it became so much easier to deal with you fuckers.

I don't know if you're ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid and it really makes no difference you got everything totally wrong. But again you can't get to the Imaginary Greatness of FDR unless you're a pathological liar. You also can only disparage the phenomenal record of Coolidge by being a fucking liar

Why do schools even teach history if all historians are liars? Maybe history is a subject that should be dropped from schools along with some science courses and other subjects that raise controversy? Another solution might be two types of history courses: one type taught by historians and another by politicians. Come to think of it this could be my chance to teach medicine. Surely there is controversy in the medical field and I have lots of ideas on medicine. Doctor Regent, M.D. Sounds pretty good.
s

Not all historians are liars. Only statist historians are liars. There is a difference, but you are incapable of seeing it.

So tell us how to see the difference. So far, if an historian believes FDR was a great president he is a liar, right?

It only takes a little commonsense, something you apparently lack.

Any historian who claims murderous, deceptive, corrupt, and heinous acts by politicians makes them great, is an idiot....and naturally a statist historian.

 

[regent]

Maybe schools should drop history from their curriculumns

The one thing consistent throughout all Progressive thought is that it is founded on repeated and pathological lies. Once I fully understood just how pervasive this is, how it's down to the DNA level it became so much easier to deal with you fuckers.

I don't know if you're ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid and it really makes no difference you got everything totally wrong. But again you can't get to the Imaginary Greatness of FDR unless you're a pathological liar. You also can only disparage the phenomenal record of Coolidge by being a fucking liar

Why do schools even teach history if all historians are liars? Maybe history is a subject that should be dropped from schools along with some science courses and other subjects that raise controversy? Another solution might be two types of history courses: one type taught by historians and another by politicians. Come to think of it this could be my chance to teach medicine. Surely there is controversy in the medical field and I have lots of ideas on medicine. Doctor Regent, M.D. Sounds pretty good.
s

Not all historians are liars. Only statist historians are liars. There is a difference, but you are incapable of seeing it.

So tell us how to see the difference. So far, if an historian believes FDR was a great president he is a liar, right?

It only takes a little commonsense, something you apparently lack.

Any historian who claims murderous, deceptive, corrupt, and heinous acts by politicians makes them great, is an idiot....and naturally a statist historian.

 

[regent]

Well I want to have common sense like you but the hard part is understanding why historians have to lie to be an historian. Is it only those that teach high school, college or graduate school history that are liars, if so can we trist the other historians to tell the truth?

 

[gipper]

Well I want to have common sense like you but the hard part is understanding why historians have to lie to be an historian. Is it only those that teach high school, college or graduate school history that are liars, if so can we trist the other historians to tell the truth?

Now that post should tell you something, but alas I have little faith.

You see...when an historian exposes the state, for what it is, guess what happens? Now try to think hard on that question.

 

[regent]

Well I want to have common sense like you but the hard part is understanding why historians have to lie to be an historian. Is it only those that teach high school, college or graduate school history that are liars, if so can we trist the other historians to tell the truth?

Now that post should tell you something, but alas I have little faith.

You see...when an historian exposes the state, for what it is, guess what happens? Now try to think hard on that question.

Aha, that's probably the reason for tenure in schools, right? It's all starting to fall in place now. Those school districts without tenure have their historians over the proverbial barrel, they have to lie to hold their jobs, but with tenure historians don't have to lie to hold their jobs and can expose the state.

 

[gipper]

Well I want to have common sense like you but the hard part is understanding why historians have to lie to be an historian. Is it only those that teach high school, college or graduate school history that are liars, if so can we trist the other historians to tell the truth?

Now that post should tell you something, but alas I have little faith.

You see...when an historian exposes the state, for what it is, guess what happens? Now try to think hard on that question.

Aha, that's probably the reason for tenure in schools, right? It's all starting to fall in place now. Those school districts without tenure have their historians over the proverbial barrel, they have to lie to hold their jobs, but with tenure historians don't have to lie to hold their jobs and can expose the state.

I see you did not think too hard about my question. Not surprised.

If you just do a little research into the lives of historians who criticized and exposed the state, you will find the answer. It is a task I fear beyond your abilities.

 

[regent]

Well I want to have common sense like you but the hard part is understanding why historians have to lie to be an historian. Is it only those that teach high school, college or graduate school history that are liars, if so can we trist the other historians to tell the truth?

Now that post should tell you something, but alas I have little faith.

You see...when an historian exposes the state, for what it is, guess what happens? Now try to think hard on that question.

Aha, that's probably the reason for tenure in schools, right? It's all starting to fall in place now. Those school districts without tenure have their historians over the proverbial barrel, they have to lie to hold their jobs, but with tenure historians don't have to lie to hold their jobs and can expose the state.

I see you did not think too hard about my question. Not surprised.

If you just do a little research into the lives of historians who criticized and exposed the state, you will find the answer. It is a task I fear beyond your abilities.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, but keep it up. In the meantime I discovered why historians are given tenure and why they are liars.

 

[JoeB131]

[

There is a ton of evidence that clearly shows a lack of warming and that AGW is nothing more than a big government hoax.

I can't help you when you are blinded by propaganda.

AGW is politics...not science.

Uh, no, there really isn't. but your ignorance of science is duly noted.

 

[Picaro]

And yet not one single historian of repute can be found to support the OP of this thread.

Well, that's because it isn't a History thread, and it belongs in the Conspiratard forums, not here.

 

[gipper]

And yet not one single historian of repute can be found to support the OP of this thread.

Well, that's because it isn't a History thread, and it belongs in the Conspiratard forums, not here.

Yep...because everyone knows politicians ALWAYS tell the truth and would never deceive the people.

 

[Camp]

And yet not one single historian of repute can be found to support the OP of this thread.

Well, that's because it isn't a History thread, and it belongs in the Conspiratard forums, not here.

Yep...because everyone knows politicians ALWAYS tell the truth and would never deceive the people.

So all historians are politicians?

 

[Toronado3800]

Sigh.

Well lets go for some facts. Tell me about the 1943 German peace offers.