Earlier American Presidents
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=63522
Printed Date: February 09 2025 at 14:58
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Earlier American Presidents
Posted By: Finnforest
Subject: Earlier American Presidents
Date Posted: December 12 2009 at 18:12
Same, but from the early 20th century to the end of the 60s.
-------------
...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell"
|
Replies:
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: December 12 2009 at 18:20
Either Truman or Eisenhower.
-------------
|
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: December 12 2009 at 18:46
I'm keeping cool with Coolidge, one of our last non-big-government Presidents
-------------
Time always wins.
|
Posted By: rpe9p
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 01:43
From Wikipedia:
"While [Theodore] Roosevelt was campaigning in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on October 14, 1912, a saloonkeeper named John Schrank shot him, but the bullet lodged in his chest only after penetrating
both his steel eyeglass case and passing through a thick (50 pages)
single-folded copy of the speech he was carrying in his jacket. Roosevelt, as an experienced hunter and anatomist, correctly concluded
that since he wasn't coughing blood, the bullet had not completely
penetrated the chest wall to his lung, and so declined suggestions he
go to the hospital immediately. Instead, he delivered his scheduled
speech with blood seeping into his shirt. He spoke for ninety minutes http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/I_have_just_been_shot - ."
Thats enough for him to get my vote
|
Posted By: zappaholic
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 10:18
 rpe9p wrote:
From Wikipedia:
"While [Theodore] Roosevelt was campaigning in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on October 14, 1912, a saloonkeeper named John Schrank shot him, but the bullet lodged in his chest only after penetrating both his steel eyeglass case and passing through a thick (50 pages) single-folded copy of the speech he was carrying in his jacket. Roosevelt, as an experienced hunter and anatomist, correctly concluded that since he wasn't coughing blood, the bullet had not completely penetrated the chest wall to his lung, and so declined suggestions he go to the hospital immediately. Instead, he delivered his scheduled speech with blood seeping into his shirt. He spoke for ninety minutes http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/I_have_just_been_shot - ."
Thats enough for him to get my vote
|
TR was a true badass, no question about it.
-------------
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 10:35
"I like Ike. My bike likes Ike."
-Fonzie
-------------
...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell"
|
Posted By: omri
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 10:54
FDR. Probably the best president ever.
-------------
omri
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 11:57
|
Dear God such an insane blowout. Calvin Coolidge absolutely.
Calvin Coolidge wrote:
I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people. The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the government. Every dollar we carelessly waste means that their life will be so much the more meager. Every dollar that we prudently save means that their life will be so much the more abundant. Economy is idealism in its most practical form.
|
Three of our worst presidents here with Wilson, FDR, and Hoover.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 12:04
^ I like this guy, even if he is from philly 
-------------
Time always wins.
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 12:08
|
Hey...Where is Nixon (1969)
FOUR MORE YEARS 
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 12:10
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Dear God such an insane blowout. Calvin Coolidge absolutely.
Calvin Coolidge wrote:
I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people. The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the government. Every dollar we carelessly waste means that their life will be so much the more meager. Every dollar that we prudently save means that their life will be so much the more abundant. Economy is idealism in its most practical form.
|
Three of our worst presidents here with Wilson, FDR, and Hoover. |
This.
Also, in response to the notion that the USA is a white man's country:
"....I was amazed to receive such a letter. During the war 500,000
colored men and boys were called up under the draft, not one of whom
sought to evade it. [As president, I am] one who feels a responsibility
for living up to the traditions and maintaining the principles of the
Republican Party. Our Constitution guarantees equal rights to all our
citizens, without discrimination on account of race or color. I have
taken my oath to support that Constitution.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge#cite_note-128 - "
-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 12:12
|
Why was FDR a bad president? I'm curious.
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 12:46
harmonium.ro wrote:
Why was FDR a bad president? I'm curious. |
FDR was not a bad President, his new deal worked and faought WWII, but he broke an unwritten rule.
When Washington finished his secondperiod, he was asked to be President again and he declined because he argued he fought against a monarchy and wouldn't create a new one.
Jefferson did the same, and after hijm, no President even dreamed in being candidate for a third period, except Ullysses S Grant (with terrible results, being forced to resign, before making itofficial due to corruption accusations), so this became an unwritten Ammendment.
But FDR not only was candidate a third, but also a fourth time, so the 10th Ammendment was formally adopted, after being pased in 1947
|
Sect. 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Sect. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress. |
What could had been a non written rule respected by everybody, turned into a mandatory law.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 12:52
harmonium.ro wrote:
Why was FDR a bad president? I'm curious.
|
Roosvelt sold us to the Soviets. And he was an insolent liar too. During the elections when he wanted to gain the votes of Polish immigrants he posed for a picture with a map of Poland in its pre-II-world-war borders in the background indicating he would defend them in that shape while the Big Three had already decided otherwise (and he kept it secret because of the elections)! 
-------------
"Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent."
Charles Bukowski
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 14:25
|
Being an avid Cracked reader I know the Roosevelt was hardcore.
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 14:41
A Person wrote:
Being an avid Cracked reader I know the Roosevelt was hardcore.
|
But you don't know he was a eugenicist, the same as Woodrow Wilson. 
-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 14:46
Epignosis wrote:
A Person wrote:
Being an avid Cracked reader I know the Roosevelt was hardcore.
|
But you don't know he was a eugenicist, the same as Woodrow Wilson.
|
I do now.
|
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 14:52
I would have to go with Truman. Even the aliens began to take notice after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
-------------
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 23:46
|
Hoover better have been a joke vote.
I don't think they hate FDR just because of the term limit thing, Ivan. ;-) Although I do agree that it was a dick move.
-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: December 13 2009 at 23:49
T.R., but honestly I don't know much about a lot of them.
-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
|
Posted By: rpe9p
Date Posted: December 14 2009 at 00:35
Henry Plainview wrote:
Hoover better have been a joke vote. |
Harding is the correct joke vote, one of the worst presidents in american history, though hoover was bad too
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: December 14 2009 at 02:45
|
From an American and also British point of view Franklin D,Roosevelt was the most important President in the list - the Great Depression devasted the whole western world, Roosevelt's "New Deal" policies brought in many social and economic benefits for the US before involvement in supporting the Allies during WW II.
Winston Churchill was recently voted the greatest Englishman who ever lived, and like Roosevelt he was the right man in the right place in what was a catastrophic period in World history, where if things had not gone our way who knows what the state the World would be in now. 
-------------
 Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 14 2009 at 04:21
I don't think any of us know these men or what really motivated them, and I suspect if you want to judge a President look at his policies.. besides you'd have to have some serious issues to want to be President
|
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: December 14 2009 at 06:27
Tuzvihar wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Why was FDR a bad president? I'm curious.
|
Roosvelt sold us to the Soviets. And he was an insolent liar too. During the elections when he wanted to gain the votes of Polish immigrants he posed for a picture with a map of Poland in its pre-II-world-war borders in the background indicating he would defend them in that shape while the Big Three had already decided otherwise (and he kept it secret because of the elections)!
|
Wasn't Churchill who led most of the negociations of the European Cake Sharing between UK/USA and URSS?
I remember having read in my high school history book an extract of Churchill's auto-biography in which he confessed having decided of the fate of Europe in a very short chit-chat with the moustache-man: they only needed 15 minutes, a map and one red pencil to say which countries would belong to the "West" or the "East".
Moreover, that wouldn't make him a bad AMERICAN president. Otherwise, you really must enjoy the French leaders.
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: December 14 2009 at 08:13
Henry Plainview wrote:
Hoover better have been a joke vote.
I don't think they hate FDR just because of the term limit thing, Ivan. ;-) Although I do agree that it was a dick move. |
Yes, but I believe is a bit unfair,the guy saved USA the 1929 crisis and was President during he toughest war ever.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 14 2009 at 15:24
harmonium.ro wrote:
Why was FDR a bad president? I'm curious.
|
First off he disgustingly forced 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps during WWII. One of the worst moments of American history that is somehow looked over because of the love affair people have with FDR and WWII as a beautiful war.
The biggest reason though is that he pushed New Deal policies on this country, an expansion of the role of the modern president, that prolonged the depression, where incredibly unconstitutional, and set the precedent for massive government debt and intervention that lasts until this day. Besides these economics policies being just plain wrong in a classic confusing of cause and effect, they struck at nearly all of the fundamental freedoms the country was founded on.
It gets even worse when you go into the details of how relief funds were directed to areas not based on need, but based on political idealogy, essentially plunging Americans into debt to buy off voters to ensure his (re-re-re-re)-)re-re-election
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: Bitterblogger
Date Posted: December 14 2009 at 19:00
|
T.R., by a mile. Here's why:
Helped negotiate the peace treaty in the Russo-Japanese war. Won Nobel Peace Prize.
Created the national park system.
Acquired Panama Canal Zone and started construction of the Panama Canal.
Food and Drug Act passed.
Busted trusts with Sherman Antitrust Act.
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 14 2009 at 23:02
"Acquired" is a nice way to put it.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: omri
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 11:57
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Why was FDR a bad president? I'm curious. |
First off he disgustingly forced 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps during WWII. One of the worst moments of American history that is somehow looked over because of the love affair people have with FDR and WWII as a beautiful war.
The biggest reason though is that he pushed New Deal policies on this country, an expansion of the role of the modern president, that prolonged the depression, where incredibly unconstitutional, and set the precedent for massive government debt and intervention that lasts until this day. Besides these economics policies being just plain wrong in a classic confusing of cause and effect, they struck at nearly all of the fundamental freedoms the country was founded on.
It gets even worse when you go into the details of how relief funds were directed to areas not based on need, but based on political idealogy, essentially plunging Americans into debt to buy off voters to ensure his (re-re-re-re)-)re-re-election |
I can't leave this one without an answer.
First, WWII was horible. none of us have a love afair with it. The thing is, it was the only war ever that was right against wrong and FDR understood it much before most Americans who were happy to stay away from it. Without his policy of lending the UK weapon (long before Pearl Harbour) the nazis would have won that war and probably some of us have never been born (myself included).
Second, FDR understood that the market is not god and in emergency situation the state should act and that's how USA got out of the 1929 crisis. Just a year ago another flaw of the market (and not enough state involvment and regulation) created another crisis to show again that pure capitalism and greed is self defeating. One has to be a blind believer to claim else nowadays.
Sorry for being rude but I felt those words should be said.
-------------
omri
|
Posted By: Bitterblogger
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 12:00
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
"Acquired" is a nice way to put it. |
You get spoils when you back the winning side in a war. Plus, we paid them cash.
|
Posted By: Tarquin Underspoon
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 15:19
Taft wins the poll. The only president for which we have had to widen the White House doors. That's good enough for my vote.
......yeaaaah....I'm not too good with my political history
-------------
"WAAAAAAOOOOOUGH! WAAAAAAAUUUUGGHHHH!! WAAAAAOOOO!!!"
-The Great Gig in the Sky
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 15:35
Glad to see that FDR has pulled ahead in the vote. Obviously, he's not only the best president of those listed, but the best president of the 20th century. One thing that the libertarians among us (and to some degree I have libertarian leanings) is that sometimes is necessary for the government to step in and take control of the economy and do what must be done in order to save the country. That's exactly what he did, and anyone who thinks he is not a great man is deluded by their hatred of government. Surprisingly, those people who so hate the government pumping money into the economy and helping the poor save their homes and feeding themselves have no problems when the government give multi-billion dollar bailouts to large corporations allowing their upper management to give themselves huge bonuses. 
-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 15:58
omri wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Why was FDR a bad president? I'm curious. |
First off he disgustingly forced 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps during WWII. One of the worst moments of American history that is somehow looked over because of the love affair people have with FDR and WWII as a beautiful war.
The biggest reason though is that he pushed New Deal policies on this country, an expansion of the role of the modern president, that prolonged the depression, where incredibly unconstitutional, and set the precedent for massive government debt and intervention that lasts until this day. Besides these economics policies being just plain wrong in a classic confusing of cause and effect, they struck at nearly all of the fundamental freedoms the country was founded on.
It gets even worse when you go into the details of how relief funds were directed to areas not based on need, but based on political idealogy, essentially plunging Americans into debt to buy off voters to ensure his (re-re-re-re)-)re-re-election |
I can't leave this one without an answer.
First, WWII was horible. none of us have a love afair with it. The thing is, it was the only war ever that was right against wrong and FDR understood it much before most Americans who were happy to stay away from it. Without his policy of lending the UK weapon (long before Pearl Harbour) the nazis would have won that war and probably some of us have never been born (myself included).
Second, FDR understood that the market is not god and in emergency situation the state should act and that's how USA got out of the 1929 crisis. Just a year ago another flaw of the market (and not enough state involvment and regulation) created another crisis to show again that pure capitalism and greed is self defeating. One has to be a blind believer to claim else nowadays.
Sorry for being rude but I felt those words should be said. |
To your first point, thanks for proving my statement. Clearly nobody is in love with that war. The only war ever that was right against wrong. A war that had to be fought, and be fought just the way it was, atomic bombings of Japan, fire-bombings of Dresden, all of that was so glorious, the greatest generation.
Secondly, not only did FDR not understand that notion, because the notion is false, but as I said he used the situation to further himself politically and not to help those in need. He wanted to be a dictator and damn well almost was. The list of unconstitutional offenses he racked up must be several volumes long.
It's funny how pure capitalism is doomed to fail, but pure capitalism hasn't existed in this country, and the further we stray to a hybrid market system, the more tumultuous the economy becomes. Maybe you should look at central agencies manipulating the market, like the Federal Reserve, instead of blindly accepting those things as sacrosanct establishments.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 15 2009 at 16:00
The Doctor wrote:
Glad to see that FDR has pulled ahead in the vote. Obviously, he's not only the best president of those listed, but the best president of the 20th century. One thing that the libertarians among us (and to some degree I have libertarian leanings) is that sometimes is necessary for the government to step in and take control of the economy and do what must be done in order to save the country. That's exactly what he did, and anyone who thinks he is not a great man is deluded by their hatred of government. Surprisingly, those people who so hate the government pumping money into the economy and helping the poor save their homes and feeding themselves have no problems when the government give multi-billion dollar bailouts to large corporations allowing their upper management to give themselves huge bonuses. |
It's far from obvious. If I'm deluded by anything, it's probably history.
You probably shouldn't make any assumptions about me either. Since it's obvious from anything I've ever said on issues of government that I find bailouts to be aberrant, disgusting policies you should refrain from a strawman argument involving them.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: Hemispheres
Date Posted: December 16 2009 at 22:26
FDR was the most significant, however TR was my favorite president, not at all like a modern republican.
-------------
[IMG]http://www.wheresthatfrom.com/avatars/miguelsanchez.gif">[IMG]http://www.rockphiles.com/all_images/Act_Images/TheMothersOfInvention/mothers300.jpg">
|
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: December 16 2009 at 23:42
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
omri wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Why was FDR a bad president? I'm curious. |
First off he disgustingly forced 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps during WWII. One of the worst moments of American history that is somehow looked over because of the love affair people have with FDR and WWII as a beautiful war.
The biggest reason though is that he pushed New Deal policies on this country, an expansion of the role of the modern president, that prolonged the depression, where incredibly unconstitutional, and set the precedent for massive government debt and intervention that lasts until this day. Besides these economics policies being just plain wrong in a classic confusing of cause and effect, they struck at nearly all of the fundamental freedoms the country was founded on.
It gets even worse when you go into the details of how relief funds were directed to areas not based on need, but based on political idealogy, essentially plunging Americans into debt to buy off voters to ensure his (re-re-re-re)-)re-re-election |
I can't leave this one without an answer.
First, WWII was horible. none of us have a love afair with it. The thing is, it was the only war ever that was right against wrong and FDR understood it much before most Americans who were happy to stay away from it. Without his policy of lending the UK weapon (long before Pearl Harbour) the nazis would have won that war and probably some of us have never been born (myself included).
Second, FDR understood that the market is not god and in emergency situation the state should act and that's how USA got out of the 1929 crisis. Just a year ago another flaw of the market (and not enough state involvment and regulation) created another crisis to show again that pure capitalism and greed is self defeating. One has to be a blind believer to claim else nowadays.
Sorry for being rude but I felt those words should be said. |
To your first point, thanks for proving my statement. Clearly nobody is in love with that war. The only war ever that was right against wrong. A war that had to be fought, and be fought just the way it was, atomic bombings of Japan, fire-bombings of Dresden, all of that was so glorious, the greatest generation.
Secondly, not only did FDR not understand that notion, because the notion is false, but as I said he used the situation to further himself politically and not to help those in need. He wanted to be a dictator and damn well almost was. The list of unconstitutional offenses he racked up must be several volumes long.
It's funny how pure capitalism is doomed to fail, but pure capitalism hasn't existed in this country, and the further we stray to a hybrid market system, the more tumultuous the economy becomes. Maybe you should look at central agencies manipulating the market, like the Federal Reserve, instead of blindly accepting those things as sacrosanct establishments. |
Seriously, where can I buy your book?
-------------
Time always wins.
|
Posted By: omri
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 06:33
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
omri wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Why was FDR a bad president? I'm curious. |
First off he disgustingly forced 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps during WWII. One of the worst moments of American history that is somehow looked over because of the love affair people have with FDR and WWII as a beautiful war.
The biggest reason though is that he pushed New Deal policies on this country, an expansion of the role of the modern president, that prolonged the depression, where incredibly unconstitutional, and set the precedent for massive government debt and intervention that lasts until this day. Besides these economics policies being just plain wrong in a classic confusing of cause and effect, they struck at nearly all of the fundamental freedoms the country was founded on.
It gets even worse when you go into the details of how relief funds were directed to areas not based on need, but based on political idealogy, essentially plunging Americans into debt to buy off voters to ensure his (re-re-re-re)-)re-re-election |
I can't leave this one without an answer.
First, WWII was horible. none of us have a love afair with it. The thing is, it was the only war ever that was right against wrong and FDR understood it much before most Americans who were happy to stay away from it. Without his policy of lending the UK weapon (long before Pearl Harbour) the nazis would have won that war and probably some of us have never been born (myself included).
Second, FDR understood that the market is not god and in emergency situation the state should act and that's how USA got out of the 1929 crisis. Just a year ago another flaw of the market (and not enough state involvment and regulation) created another crisis to show again that pure capitalism and greed is self defeating. One has to be a blind believer to claim else nowadays.
Sorry for being rude but I felt those words should be said. |
To your first point, thanks for proving my statement. Clearly nobody is in love with that war. The only war ever that was right against wrong. A war that had to be fought, and be fought just the way it was, atomic bombings of Japan, fire-bombings of Dresden, all of that was so glorious, the greatest generation.
Secondly, not only did FDR not understand that notion, because the notion is false, but as I said he used the situation to further himself politically and not to help those in need. He wanted to be a dictator and damn well almost was. The list of unconstitutional offenses he racked up must be several volumes long.
It's funny how pure capitalism is doomed to fail, but pure capitalism hasn't existed in this country, and the further we stray to a hybrid market system, the more tumultuous the economy becomes. Maybe you should look at central agencies manipulating the market, like the Federal Reserve, instead of blindly accepting those things as sacrosanct establishments. |
If I remember right (and I do) atomic bombs on Japan were thrown by Truman after FDR passed away. More than that, when talking about these bombs, the bombing of Dresden and so on we should all remember the bombing of England, the gehtos and the killing camps. War is never humanic but remembering only the evil one side did and "forgeting" the evil of the other side (which were far more barbaric) may lead us to conclusions about you that you will not like.
-------------
omri
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 14:58
manofmystery wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
omri wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Why was FDR a bad president? I'm curious. |
First off he disgustingly forced 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps during WWII. One of the worst moments of American history that is somehow looked over because of the love affair people have with FDR and WWII as a beautiful war.
The biggest reason though is that he pushed New Deal policies on this country, an expansion of the role of the modern president, that prolonged the depression, where incredibly unconstitutional, and set the precedent for massive government debt and intervention that lasts until this day. Besides these economics policies being just plain wrong in a classic confusing of cause and effect, they struck at nearly all of the fundamental freedoms the country was founded on.
It gets even worse when you go into the details of how relief funds were directed to areas not based on need, but based on political idealogy, essentially plunging Americans into debt to buy off voters to ensure his (re-re-re-re)-)re-re-election |
Send me money and I'll be happy to send you something I'll call my book  I can't leave this one without an answer.
First, WWII was horible. none of us have a love afair with it. The thing is, it was the only war ever that was right against wrong and FDR understood it much before most Americans who were happy to stay away from it. Without his policy of lending the UK weapon (long before Pearl Harbour) the nazis would have won that war and probably some of us have never been born (myself included).
Second, FDR understood that the market is not god and in emergency situation the state should act and that's how USA got out of the 1929 crisis. Just a year ago another flaw of the market (and not enough state involvment and regulation) created another crisis to show again that pure capitalism and greed is self defeating. One has to be a blind believer to claim else nowadays.
Sorry for being rude but I felt those words should be said. |
To your first point, thanks for proving my statement. Clearly nobody is in love with that war. The only war ever that was right against wrong. A war that had to be fought, and be fought just the way it was, atomic bombings of Japan, fire-bombings of Dresden, all of that was so glorious, the greatest generation.
Secondly, not only did FDR not understand that notion, because the notion is false, but as I said he used the situation to further himself politically and not to help those in need. He wanted to be a dictator and damn well almost was. The list of unconstitutional offenses he racked up must be several volumes long.
It's funny how pure capitalism is doomed to fail, but pure capitalism hasn't existed in this country, and the further we stray to a hybrid market system, the more tumultuous the economy becomes. Maybe you should look at central agencies manipulating the market, like the Federal Reserve, instead of blindly accepting those things as sacrosanct establishments. |
Seriously, where can I buy your book? |
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 17 2009 at 15:01
omri wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
omri wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Why was FDR a bad president? I'm curious. |
First off he disgustingly forced 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps during WWII. One of the worst moments of American history that is somehow looked over because of the love affair people have with FDR and WWII as a beautiful war.
The biggest reason though is that he pushed New Deal policies on this country, an expansion of the role of the modern president, that prolonged the depression, where incredibly unconstitutional, and set the precedent for massive government debt and intervention that lasts until this day. Besides these economics policies being just plain wrong in a classic confusing of cause and effect, they struck at nearly all of the fundamental freedoms the country was founded on.
It gets even worse when you go into the details of how relief funds were directed to areas not based on need, but based on political idealogy, essentially plunging Americans into debt to buy off voters to ensure his (re-re-re-re)-)re-re-election |
I can't leave this one without an answer.
First, WWII was horible. none of us have a love afair with it. The thing is, it was the only war ever that was right against wrong and FDR understood it much before most Americans who were happy to stay away from it. Without his policy of lending the UK weapon (long before Pearl Harbour) the nazis would have won that war and probably some of us have never been born (myself included).
Second, FDR understood that the market is not god and in emergency situation the state should act and that's how USA got out of the 1929 crisis. Just a year ago another flaw of the market (and not enough state involvment and regulation) created another crisis to show again that pure capitalism and greed is self defeating. One has to be a blind believer to claim else nowadays.
Sorry for being rude but I felt those words should be said. |
To your first point, thanks for proving my statement. Clearly nobody is in love with that war. The only war ever that was right against wrong. A war that had to be fought, and be fought just the way it was, atomic bombings of Japan, fire-bombings of Dresden, all of that was so glorious, the greatest generation.
Secondly, not only did FDR not understand that notion, because the notion is false, but as I said he used the situation to further himself politically and not to help those in need. He wanted to be a dictator and damn well almost was. The list of unconstitutional offenses he racked up must be several volumes long.
It's funny how pure capitalism is doomed to fail, but pure capitalism hasn't existed in this country, and the further we stray to a hybrid market system, the more tumultuous the economy becomes. Maybe you should look at central agencies manipulating the market, like the Federal Reserve, instead of blindly accepting those things as sacrosanct establishments. |
If I remember right (and I do) atomic bombs on Japan were thrown by Truman after FDR passed away. More than that, when talking about these bombs, the bombing of Dresden and so on we should all remember the bombing of England, the gehtos and the killing camps. War is never humanic but remembering only the evil one side did and "forgeting" the evil of the other side (which were far more barbaric) may lead us to conclusions about you that you will not like. |
Can nobody on this forum read? I very clearly said those things in response to you claiming there isn't a love affair with WWII. They're made as points of horrible things the Allies did in a war that was supposedly pure good against pure evil (because that Stalin guy on our side was just a peach).
Thank you for again proving my point. Please read more carefully what I say in the future.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: omri
Date Posted: December 21 2009 at 09:29
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
omri wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
omri wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Why was FDR a bad president? I'm curious. |
First off he disgustingly forced 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps during WWII. One of the worst moments of American history that is somehow looked over because of the love affair people have with FDR and WWII as a beautiful war.
The biggest reason though is that he pushed New Deal policies on this country, an expansion of the role of the modern president, that prolonged the depression, where incredibly unconstitutional, and set the precedent for massive government debt and intervention that lasts until this day. Besides these economics policies being just plain wrong in a classic confusing of cause and effect, they struck at nearly all of the fundamental freedoms the country was founded on.
It gets even worse when you go into the details of how relief funds were directed to areas not based on need, but based on political idealogy, essentially plunging Americans into debt to buy off voters to ensure his (re-re-re-re)-)re-re-election |
I can't leave this one without an answer.
First, WWII was horible. none of us have a love afair with it. The thing is, it was the only war ever that was right against wrong and FDR understood it much before most Americans who were happy to stay away from it. Without his policy of lending the UK weapon (long before Pearl Harbour) the nazis would have won that war and probably some of us have never been born (myself included).
Second, FDR understood that the market is not god and in emergency situation the state should act and that's how USA got out of the 1929 crisis. Just a year ago another flaw of the market (and not enough state involvment and regulation) created another crisis to show again that pure capitalism and greed is self defeating. One has to be a blind believer to claim else nowadays.
Sorry for being rude but I felt those words should be said. |
To your first point, thanks for proving my statement. Clearly nobody is in love with that war. The only war ever that was right against wrong. A war that had to be fought, and be fought just the way it was, atomic bombings of Japan, fire-bombings of Dresden, all of that was so glorious, the greatest generation.
Secondly, not only did FDR not understand that notion, because the notion is false, but as I said he used the situation to further himself politically and not to help those in need. He wanted to be a dictator and damn well almost was. The list of unconstitutional offenses he racked up must be several volumes long.
It's funny how pure capitalism is doomed to fail, but pure capitalism hasn't existed in this country, and the further we stray to a hybrid market system, the more tumultuous the economy becomes. Maybe you should look at central agencies manipulating the market, like the Federal Reserve, instead of blindly accepting those things as sacrosanct establishments. |
If I remember right (and I do) atomic bombs on Japan were thrown by Truman after FDR passed away. More than that, when talking about these bombs, the bombing of Dresden and so on we should all remember the bombing of England, the gehtos and the killing camps. War is never humanic but remembering only the evil one side did and "forgeting" the evil of the other side (which were far more barbaric) may lead us to conclusions about you that you will not like. |
Can nobody on this forum read? I very clearly said those things in response to you claiming there isn't a love affair with WWII. They're made as points of horrible things the Allies did in a war that was supposedly pure good against pure evil (because that Stalin guy on our side was just a peach).
Thank you for again proving my point. Please read more carefully what I say in the future. |
Though English is not my mother tongue I read very carefuly your words. I never said that everything the alies did in WWII was right. I agree that many things were wrong including what was done with the Japanese citizens of the US (as mentioned here by someone) so you don't need to go all the way to Stalin.
Yet, the basic fact is that this was war between those who believed that one race is superior than other, hence all other races should be destroyed (and not only they believed in it they actually killed many of those other races) and this is what I concider pure evil. My point of view is that one who compares between any other horible thing done in war to this pure evil as if both sides are equally bad / wrong tries to defend that philosophy (cause trying to say this genocide is just another "regular" bad thing occures at war is a way to say that the nazis weren't so bad. Sorry, I do not agree. There is a great difference between mass genocide to everything else ever happened on earth).
When your'e fighting pure evil then you are right even if by the way you do many wrong things.
Mary christmas !
-------------
omri
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 21 2009 at 13:49
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
omri wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
harmonium.ro wrote:
Why was FDR a bad president? I'm curious. |
First off he disgustingly forced 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps during WWII. One of the worst moments of American history that is somehow looked over because of the love affair people have with FDR and WWII as a beautiful war.
The biggest reason though is that he pushed New Deal policies on this country, an expansion of the role of the modern president, that prolonged the depression, where incredibly unconstitutional, and set the precedent for massive government debt and intervention that lasts until this day. Besides these economics policies being just plain wrong in a classic confusing of cause and effect, they struck at nearly all of the fundamental freedoms the country was founded on.
It gets even worse when you go into the details of how relief funds were directed to areas not based on need, but based on political idealogy, essentially plunging Americans into debt to buy off voters to ensure his (re-re-re-re)-)re-re-election |
I can't leave this one without an answer.
First, WWII was horible. none of us have a love afair with it. The thing is, it was the only war ever that was right against wrong and FDR understood it much before most Americans who were happy to stay away from it. Without his policy of lending the UK weapon (long before Pearl Harbour) the nazis would have won that war and probably some of us have never been born (myself included).
Second, FDR understood that the market is not god and in emergency situation the state should act and that's how USA got out of the 1929 crisis. Just a year ago another flaw of the market (and not enough state involvment and regulation) created another crisis to show again that pure capitalism and greed is self defeating. One has to be a blind believer to claim else nowadays.
Sorry for being rude but I felt those words should be said. |
To your first point, thanks for proving my statement. Clearly nobody is in love with that war. The only war ever that was right against wrong. A war that had to be fought, and be fought just the way it was, atomic bombings of Japan, fire-bombings of Dresden, all of that was so glorious, the greatest generation. Secondly, not only did FDR not understand that notion, because the notion is false, but as I said he used the situation to further himself politically and not to help those in need. He wanted to be a dictator and damn well almost was. The list of unconstitutional offenses he racked up must be several volumes long. It's funny how pure capitalism is doomed to fail, but pure capitalism hasn't existed in this country, and the further we stray to a hybrid market system, the more tumultuous the economy becomes. Maybe you should look at central agencies manipulating the market, like the Federal Reserve, instead of blindly accepting those things as sacrosanct establishments. |
I know your type, you're angry about everything-- understandable but quite useless, and an opinion no more informed than anyone elses
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 21 2009 at 18:14
omri wrote:
When your'e fighting pure evil then you are right even if by the way you do many wrong things.
|
I never said we weren't the correct side in the war.
I'm sorry I just can't agree with this statement.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 21 2009 at 18:25
Atavachron wrote:
I know your type, you're angry about everything-- understandable but quite useless, and an opinion no more informed than anyone elses
|
If you noticed I didn't get angry until my viewpoint was responded to in a very belittling and condescending tone. I came into this thread and only stated my preferences. I tend to get angry when I'm treated with a moron because people think that any informed opinion must coincide with their own.
Why do you come in with the angry remark? I know your type, you come into a conversation without any substantive point to add, instead just calling out a party in an attempt to seem superior. Seriously is that the kind of response you want from me? What's the point of your comment? If you have something to add, then add it, otherwise why are you even making a post.
Why does nearly every political discussion I'm a part of progress like this:
1) I state my belief. 2) One responds obviously implying that anyone with my viewpoint must be an imbecile (usually while annoying any of the substance of the post). 3) I respond with a similar tone defending my viewpoint. 4) Third parties (usually established members here strangely) see me as the bad guy because they disagree with my viewpoint and notice my aggression out of context.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 21 2009 at 19:53
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
I know your type, you're angry about everything-- understandable but quite useless, and an opinion no more informed than anyone elses
|
If you noticed I didn't get angry until my viewpoint was responded to in a very belittling and condescending tone. I came into this thread and only stated my preferences. I tend to get angry when I'm treated with a moron because people think that any informed opinion must coincide with their own. Why do you come in with the angry remark? I know your type, you come into a conversation without any substantive point to add, instead just calling a party in an attempt to seem superior. |
Fair enough
|
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: December 22 2009 at 01:16
Kennedy could of had the biggest beneficial impact.But he died or something.
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow">
|
|
