Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: mandingo on May 18, 2007, 06:25:44 PM
-
???
-
FDR was a communist
-
a progressive what?
-
Yes.
And no.
-
He sure as hell belonged to a breed of Democrat that's long since vanished from the government scene.
In that generation, the GOP and the Dem's seemed more closely aligned. Albeit, They did not have the same issues prior to WWII that we have today.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
He sure as hell belonged to a breed of Democrat that's long since vanished from the government scene.
In that generation, the GOP and the Dem's seemed more closely aligned. Albeit, They did not have the same issues prior to WWII that we have today.
do you really think so? the way I see it nothing really original has happened in American politics since about 1820
here's a little something from a history book
Vigilance committees rounded up radicals. Attorney General Palmer raided immigrant neighborhoods and jailed about 4,000 aliens, some of whom he had deported on trumped up charges. All of this went on for six months, from November 1919 until Spring of 1920. Then, suddenly, people seemed to realize how foolishly they had been behaving ever since the war had begun. Hysteria at last subsided. The country appeared all at once to have grown tired of being stirred up by political leaders. Harding, promising a return to "normalcy" (a word he coinned), seemed just the man to supply it.
and this about Harding
...But there were few such exceptions good or bad; most men in politics belonged to the group that a Republican senator described when he explained how Harding came to be his party's nominee in 1920. "This year we had a lot of second-raters," he said. "Harding is no world-beater. But he's the best of the second-raters"
Harding's oratory, said Democrat William Gibbs McAdoo, gave "the impression of an army of pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea; sometimes these meandering words would actually capture a straggling thought and bear it triumphantly, a prisoner in their midst, until it died of servitude and overwork."
-
Originally posted by storch
FDR was a communist
:rofl :noid
-
The policies of FDR's New Deal sprang directly from the Progressive movement, although modified somewhat because of the need to address the realities of the Great Depression.
Teddy Roosevelt had given the Sherman Antitrust Act and the ICC real teeth, and thereby reined in the excesses of the great monopolies. Labor unions gained his support as well. FDR carried these a step further, regulating industrial practices and creating government programs in an attempt to provide work and relief for the unemployed.
The difference between Roosevelts time and our own is that his administration reached across the aisles of government and employed many Republicans, and prominent business leaders as well, in the formulation of the New Deal.
Such bipartisan cooperation is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.
-
fdr was one of the all time worst presidents... He was a liberal socialist in the extreme.. calling him a commie was not that far off.
lazs
-
FDR ruined america. We still haven't recovered. (Though to be fair, Lincoln got the wrecking ball going)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
FDR ruined america. We still haven't recovered. (Though to be fair, Lincoln got the wrecking ball going)
"People don't eat in the long run. People eat every day." - Harry Hopkins, responding to the whines of people like you at the time :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
fdr was one of the all time worst presidents... He was a liberal socialist in the extreme.. calling him a commie was not that far off.
lazs
Yeah, if it wasn't for FDR we'd all be homeless migrant workers speaking Japanese. Good call lazs.:aok
-
Originally posted by Vudak
"People don't eat in the long run. People eat every day." - Harry Hopkins, responding to the whines of people like you at the time :D
It was FDR that initiated the "Social Solutions" we have right now that are crippling this country.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It was FDR that initiated the "Social Solutions" we have right now that are crippling this country.
And Harry Hopkins' reasoning is why he had to do that. It's also why many, many of our elders absolutely adore FDR to no end. My grandfather was born dirt poor, his family was living in a little shack made of broken down boxcars during the Depression. He credited, rightly or wrongly, FDR with saving his life. Up until his last breath, if you'd ask him about FDR, his eyes would light up.
Is there a single president of our lifetimes (we're about the same age) that you'll be able to say that about someday? Do you even think it's possible that we'll ever see one?
I dunno. FDR had a good little quote of his own (might not be verbatim, don't feel like looking it up): "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."
Were some of his policies shortsighted? Sure. But times were tough then. You had to try something, and I'll give him credit for being a president who actually got off his butt and put in some effort trying to find solutions. He might not have been immaculate, but you've got to give him credit for trying.
Besides, some of his "socialist" ideas like the CCC seem an awful lot more appealing today than straight up welfare.
-
You know, hindsight being 20/20 and all; You really have to judge the performance of American presidents, by the way they handle the problems they have at hand during their stint in office. Lincoln had the Civil war; FDR had the Great Depression, and JFK had the Cuban missile crisis. Now, there are numerous smaller things in the background that deserve scrutiny (Could FDR have done something sooner to curb Japanese and German expansionism?) But, what we find that we are asking ourselves is, What is the total sum of the man in whole? Take for example his predecessor, Herbert Hoover. Herbert Hoover was a republican, like Coolidge who came before him. Here's a link for some quick info on Hoover:
http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/Ampres/essays/hoover/biography/9
Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover all got bad reps because alot of the things that contributed to the Great Depression have been attributed to them. However, what most people don't know, is that Hoover started up alot of social programs to try to help during the Depression. Most would argue that he really had no choice, that he would have faced impeachement had he not made any kind of relief effort. FDR instituted even more social programs to try to help the nation out. But, you will also notice in the link, that one thing is said. Our recovery from the Depression was not caused by any economic or social changes instituted by any president, but by the United States' entry into WWII.
-
The pure ignorance of history is astonishing. First, it wasn't the entrance into WW2 that pulled us out of the depression. It was the beginning of it that did.
And your grandfather might think that FDR saved his life, but the plans put into to place only lengthened the hardships, at an extreme cost to everyone around.
It's not even up for debate whether or not FDR should have acted sooner against Germany and Japan. Any numbnuts who has even spent 5 minutes reading the history of war knows that you can't self-involve yourself in an on going war unless you have been transgressed upon.
Every single war that has ever happened that we've won, we went in with a hostility committed against us. About 3/4 of the time, it was a true hostile action. The other quarter was a falsified act. All the wars we haven't won have been because the transgressions were probably falsified.
How far would the revolution have gotten had Britain done nothing to piss us off? How would the wars gone, had not the Maine or Lusitania been sunk (legitimate or not)?
-
Originally posted by storch
FDR was a communist
Absolutely, that's why he turned over half of Europe from control of one murderous dictator to a murderous communist dictator
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
And your grandfather might think that FDR saved his life, but the plans put into to place only lengthened the hardships, at an extreme cost to everyone around.
Well it's pretty easy for whiney little kids like you and me to say that, but then it is rather suprising when the old folks who had to live through harsh times actually like the guy. If most weren't dead, I think you'd find the majority thought he did a great job (they reelected him three times, after all). And they're the ones who had to live and deal with his things.
What you're doing is complaining about how his ideas have been run with/tampered for the past 60 years.
I don't mean whiney little kids as a personal insult to you, btw... It's just I think that's a common description of our generation as a whole. We've never been cold, hungry, or miserable. Yet all we do is complain ;)
-
It's not even up for debate whether or not FDR should have acted sooner against Germany and Japan. Any numbnuts who has even spent 5 minutes reading the history of war knows that you can't self-involve yourself in an on going war unless you have been transgressed upon.
The Yangtze incident of 1937. The gunboat Panay.
Reason and cause were both there. Our entry into the Second World War was inevitable. Production of war material for Britain and France did not take off until 1939, and none of the initial orders were a huge economic boost. It wasn't until our direct involvement, when we needed to rapidly equip an army 15-20 times it's prewar size, plus our allies, that we really took off.There weren't any mass hirings in the defense industry before then. That, was what took America out of the breadline, and back to work.
Gonna add some info about FDR, as well, from the same source:
http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/Ampres/essays/fdroosevelt/biography/9
Sorry, wish I had put this in my first posting.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Well it's pretty easy for whiney little kids like you and me to say that, but then it is rather suprising when the old folks who had to live through harsh times actually like the guy. If most weren't dead, I think you'd find the majority thought he did a great job (they reelected him three times, after all). And they're the ones who had to live and deal with his things.
What you're doing is complaining about how his ideas have been run with/tampered for the past 60 years.
I don't mean whiney little kids as a personal insult to you, btw... It's just I think that's a common description of our generation as a whole. We've never been cold, hungry, or miserable. Yet all we do is complain ;)
I don't associate myself with the current generation. Mainly because I've got the average beat by about 50 IQ points.
Of course the old folks liked him. They gave up their long term health for some instant gratification. FDR didn't solve anything. He just propagated the circumstances until an external source stepped in and fixed the problem.
Imagine it like if I came up to you and said, "I can give you 5 thousand dollars now, or 50 thousand dollars 5 years from now." That generation picked 5 thousand dollars over 5 years, and while it made them happy, it fixed nothing.
-
Laser my friend, you've got no clue as to what made my parents' generation tick.
My grandfather was a sharecropper. During the height of the Dust Bowl drought, he netted only 25 dollars off of his crop in 1932. A pair of boot laces cost 5 cents...and he couldn't afford it. He tied his work boots up with the string used to bale hay.
A low-interest government loan, an "FDR" loan if you will, allowed he and my grandmother to buy a small farm of their own. There was no house on it, just a ramshackle old barn. They and their pre-school age children lived in a tent during the weeks it took him to tear down the barn and build a house from it.
Twenty-five percent of the work force of the United States was unemployed by 1932. Those people didn't want handouts, although they needed them to survive. They weren't bums. They wanted WORK. They didn't sell out anything.
Roosevelt's administration was faced with an almost insuperable task; bringing the nation out of the worst depression in its history. Having spent my life listening to the elderly citizens of the Mississippi delta talking about the hard times they lived through, I could only laugh when Al Gore equated the depression of 1992 with it.
Something had to be done, and Roosevelt attempted to do it. He tried to relieve the suffering and provide jobs. The New Deal might not have ended the Depression but the suffering was lessened, and the people's faith in their government was restored.
The Roosevelt legacy is a good one....whatever abuses of its programs might have taken place since. Sure, the Second World War brought us out of the Depression, but the nation was already on the road to recovery.
FDR deserves to be ranked as one of our greatest Presidents.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It was FDR that initiated the "Social Solutions" we have right now that are crippling this country.
He may have started them, but what we have today only vaguely resembles what he began. We've had over 70 years of politicians in Congress and Presidential Administrations to tack on more and more "bread and circuses" to many of the social programs, as well as outright pork barrel programs, of the country.
Blaming FDR for the social burden today is like blaming the Continental Congress for the buffoons we've got in the Capital Building today.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
Absolutely, that's why he turned over half of Europe from control of one murderous dictator to a murderous communist dictator
That was Churchill. He passed a note to Roosevelt at Potsdam with his plan to parcel out Europe with Stalin. Roosevelt glanced at it and said it was fine by him, but he should get rid of the piece of paper. Roosevelt didn't want to get involved in post-war Europe. He thought Europeans should do it.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
That was Churchill. He passed a note to Truman at Potsdam about his plan to parcel out Europe with Stalin. Truman glanced at it and said it was fine by him, but he should get rid of the piece of paper.
it was roosevelt and his communist state department.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Laser my friend, you've got no clue as to what made my parents' generation tick.
My grandfather was a sharecropper. During the height of the Dust Bowl drought, he netted only 25 dollars off of his crop in 1932. A pair of boot laces cost 5 cents...and he couldn't afford it. He tied his work boots up with the string used to bale hay.
A low-interest government loan, an "FDR" loan if you will, allowed he and my grandmother to buy a small farm of their own. There was no house on it, just a ramshackle old barn. They and their pre-school age children lived in a tent during the weeks it took him to tear down the barn and build a house from it.
Twenty-five percent of the work force of the United States was unemployed by 1932. Those people didn't want handouts, although they needed them to survive. They weren't bums. They wanted WORK. They didn't sell out anything.
Roosevelt's administration was faced with an almost insuperable task; bringing the nation out of the worst depression in its history. Having spent my life listening to the elderly citizens of the Mississippi delta talking about the hard times they lived through, I could only laugh when Al Gore equated the depression of 1992 with it.
Something had to be done, and Roosevelt attempted to do it. He tried to relieve the suffering and provide jobs. The New Deal might not have ended the Depression but the suffering was lessened, and the people's faith in their government was restored.
The Roosevelt legacy is a good one....whatever abuses of its programs might have taken place since. Sure, the Second World War brought us out of the Depression, but the nation was already on the road to recovery.
FDR deserves to be ranked as one of our greatest Presidents.
Up until this point, I had defended the american education system saying that it was not as bad as some people say it is. On top of that, I've defended the american people when foreigners and domestics insulted our intelligence.
And this is the first time I will say it. They were right. You specifically, and damn near singlehandedly have proven me wrong.
Just the pure garbage coming out of your mouthes proves how little we actually know about ourselves.
-
You're funny, intellectually-lazysailor. :D
Roosevelt instituted programs that were necessary at the time because of the depression and enormous division of wealth in the country. Subsequent poor stewardship of the programs, and failure to adapt to the current times of every adminstration and congress by the administration and congress is their fault, not his. Saying that Roosevelt's administration was communist is just wacky extremism.
-
not at all an extremist view. cordell hull was a communist sympathizer as was henry wallace. his administration was complete compromised at all levels by the nkvd and he personally delivered eastern europe to the bolsheviks. his administration is one of the worst in American history.
-
haha, thanks all, i just plagiarized all your stuff for my high school essay.
-
Storch, there was little doubt Henry Wallace was a communist sympathizer.
Cordell Hull was accused of being a communist sympathizer during the McCarthy Era. As was the case with so many of those accusations, they were based on little more that innuendo. Hull, as Secretary of State during World War II, was placed in the position of having to make unpleasant policies with our communist Allies. The only thing he could realistically be accused of is misconstruing the intentions of Mao's communists in China. Hull pressured Chiang to leave them alone, for he wanted them in the fight against the Japanese.
Laser, lighten up. You're using the classic "You're ignorant because you disagree with me" argument as a counterpoint to my post. Embrace the possibility that you might actually be mistaken about some of your conclusions.
What right do any of us have to belittle the generation that endured the hardships of the Great Depression? Perhaps we need another one, if for no other reason than to cure us of our arrogance.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Didn't you pay attention to lasersailer's post? He has you all beat by 50 IQ points. He must know what he's talking about.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
That was Churchill. He passed a note to Roosevelt at Potsdam with his plan to parcel out Europe with Stalin. Roosevelt glanced at it and said it was fine by him, but he should get rid of the piece of paper. Roosevelt didn't want to get involved in post-war Europe. He thought Europeans should do it.
Churchill wanted to rearm the Germans and march east! Churchill was slapped in the face by FDR and Uncle Joe's deals.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
Churchill wanted to rearm the Germans and march east!
I could swear that was Patton. But then again I watch too many movies.
-
i thought it was Mickey Mouse??
-
Originally posted by Shuckins Perhaps we need another one, if for no other reason than to cure us of our arrogance.
Regards, Shuckins [/B]
Wow. Every now and then a JEWELL!
WTG Shuckins!
-
You know, Shuckins...With all the outsourcing of tech jobs, the rising inflation, the dramatic change of our economy from a primarily manufacturing (80% manufacturing-based jobs in 1950) to a 60% and growing service base today...We may very well have one. Hell, maybe if we go poor up here, the mexicans' will decide it's better to stay home, rather than swim the Rio Grande:lol
-
To be perfectly frank, what could Roosevelt and Churchill be expected to do about the Russians occupying Eastern Europe? They would have had to have launched their military forces against the Red Army, the world's largest, in order to get them out.
After five years of war that is something they were not willing to do. They simply accepted the Soviet occupation as a fait accompli.
Hap, thanks. One of the best history lessons I ever taught in the public schools was one in which I sent my students out into the community to talk to friends and family who had lived through the Depression. Then each student had to stand at the front of the class and relate what they had been told.
There were a lot of touching stories related by some wide-eyed young people. One girl stated that when she asked her grandmother about her life during that period, she could not speak....and only wept.
We have no right to question the motives of that generation. Knowing that there was 50% unemployment in some cities is all the explanation we need.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by mandingo
haha, thanks all, i just plagiarized all your stuff for my high school essay.
that's pretty good. you are far too lazy to do your own work and will be a pimple on humanity's bellybutton any way. glad to be of help.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
Churchill wanted to rearm the Germans and march east! Churchill was slapped in the face by FDR and Uncle Joe's deals.
that is exactly right. at the start of the second world war one of the many errors britain commited was one on behalf of imperial self interest. had they allowed germany to pound the russians to dust by simply signing an armistice and allowing germany to proceed eastward most of us would have been far better off. the fact is that england, always jealously protective of her imperial holdings would not allow a strong power in europe to stand.
in the U.S. the communist administration was patiently looking for a good opportunity to allow the axis to draw us into war with huge popular support. the japanese gave the communists that with pearl harbor.
it's not clearly evident that the communist administration conspired for this event to occur but there is certainly plenty of circumstantial evidence suggesting that they did nothing to prevent it or even mitigate the damage.
the most damning evidence against the administration to this fact is that the war department did not forward deciphered japanese communiques to admiral husband e kimmel and lt. general walter short that would have allowed them the opportunity to better defend pearl harbor. it has not been proven that anyone in the communist administration prevented those comminques and other intelligence to be passed along but it has been suggested that this was the case from the very moment after the attack.
after the war in europe and the far east the communist administration with the new puppet in place did all that it could to pave the way and pay the tolls for the communism to spread globally.
the only reason why we aren't communists now is because the communists are so stupid they couldn't get out of their own way. every democratic administration has done all that it could to advance the cause of communism at home and abroad.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
fdr was one of the all time worst presidents... He was a liberal socialist in the extreme.. calling him a commie was not that far off.
lazs
A new deal?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
We have no right to question the motives of that generation. Knowing that there was 50% unemployment in some cities is all the explanation we need.
Regards, Shuckins
Are you serious? When that *******'s problems are still here more then 60 years later, WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO QUESTION IT.
-
Laser, it appears that you were right. We are operating on different intellectual plains.
Would anybody else care to step up to the plate? Laser's fast-balls are too much for me.
-
this is good... lazer is actually corect... lincoln started it... fdr helped it along and lbj finished off a great country. We are just waiting for the things these men have done to finish us off...
So many people talking about the great programs that were "needed" during the depression.. can you socialists tell me exactly how many Americans starved during the depression? can you name one person who was saved from starvation by a government program during the depression?
rolex is right on cue with his "fdr communism works.. we just haven't done it right." I think that is what they say about all communist efforts isn't it?
FDR believed... like all democrats.. that we could tax ourselves into prosperity..
rpm believes that without fdr... we could not have won WWII... the japs would have made beach landings and done to us what they did to the chinaman... Anyone in power could have and would have done the same... maybe better and faster.. Unless of course.. you think fdr faked the whole pearl harbor thing?
"Progressive"? If that is a liberal city dweller way of saying "commie" then yeah... he was a "progressive"... commie is just a lot easier to write and maybe a little more descriptive.
No one liked the word commie.. then... no one liked the word socialist... so now we have... "progressive". all the same thing really.
lazs