FDR vs JFK
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=90570
Printed Date: November 28 2024 at 13:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: FDR vs JFK
Posted By: smartpatrol
Subject: FDR vs JFK
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 18:47
|
FDR took part in getting us out of the biggest economic depression in American history and led us through WWII. JFK inspired the Apollo missions and was lucky enough to sleep with Marilyn Monroe. ------------- http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">  The greatest record label of all time! |
Replies:
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 19:02
|
The one that at least was reasonable enough not to start WWIII. ------------- 
|
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 19:10
|
I didn't vote for either one. ------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 19:14
|
Considering JFK served less than four years and FDR twelve, it's not quite a fair comparison. I like them both, very similar in many ways; terrible health problems, wary of war, highly ambitious and forward thinking, put the people first, understood the fragility of life. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 19:24
FDR did not get us out of anything. JFK got himself into a lot. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
smartpatrol wrote:Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 19:34
|
Kennedy because he cut taxes and no president has ever been worse than FDR. Can't wait to see the current economic mess we're in stretch out for fifteen years and people call it a triumph, Rob. ------------- 
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 19:35
|
FDR by far. He did a lot to get this country back on track again after the era of laissez faire economics led to the depression. FDR restored economic order and helped ease the suffering of many and returned this country to greatness, until the era of Ronald Reagan brought it all crashing down. And before you start Rob  , my parents lived through the depression. They were there. And I'm not really interested in right-wing rewrites of history.  ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Luna
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 19:36
|
FDR kind of threw the Constitution away and did as he pleased, but it didn't necessarily harm our country. JFK prevented the Cuban Missile Crisis, though I'm unsure of his amount of involvement. But Kennedy also gave us Lyndon which is unforgivable. ------------- https://aprilmaymarch.bandcamp.com/track/the-badger" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 19:38
There's not a shred of truth to that. Hoover was a big government guy.
And lots of people who were there for the 9/11 attacks think it was an inside job. Being there doesn't automatically make your opinion right. -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 19:41
|
Posted By: Luna
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 19:42
I'm just not too keen on the facts and don't know whether he personally resolved it or if his cabinet did much of the work. ------------- https://aprilmaymarch.bandcamp.com/track/the-badger" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 19:45
If he had prevented the Cuban Missile Crisis, that implies that there was no Cuban Missile Crisis, because JFK prevented it. Just sayin. As for the Constitution, sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few to cling to a 150 year old piece of paper (it was only 150 years old in 1939 before anyone says it's older than 150). ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Luna
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 19:47
I see I've ventured into the world of politics where the meaning of what you are saying is understood, but your phrasing is berated, therefore rendering what you have said worthless. He prevented nuclear war. ------------- https://aprilmaymarch.bandcamp.com/track/the-badger" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 19:49
Sense of humor dude. Check into it. I was just screwing with you. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 19:52
He did prevent nuclear war but not before stepping right into it with a combination of lack of experience, bad advice, and tension between Federal services unconscionable and almost unheard of in our history. It was a mess he and his JCS both caused and solved with the help of some very basic deal-cutting and face-saving on both sides. |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 19:59
|
Hoover WAS big government, and while it seems impossible to know for sure....in my book it seems like the Great Depression was heading for another, albeit bad, recession, the kind that always happens (and always will). Various policies made it worse/prolonged it. Anyyyyyyywho: This is impossible to answer because JFK had such a short presidency, and when you get into it The New Deal legacy is kinda messy. Did it prolong a depression, or steadily fix one? Was the 1937 backslide proof we needed the New Deal or proof that it was a bust? Was the New Deal even enough to be effective??? Keynes wanted much more government spending. Regardless of overall belief the New Deal did accomplish a few things like helping a housing crisis (with a program that ended up with a small profit) and started Social Security. That in itself was good but it spiraled out of control. Just some stuff to research and ponder if you havn't. As for JFK he just wasn't able to accomplish much in his time but he did push for tax cuts which later got passed, he spoke in favor of the Civil Rights Act which later got passed. The real biggie is what would he have done with Vietnam? Sadly we'll never know. He increased our presence there at first, but later ordered the removal of 1000 troops, and he took a less militaristic tone overall. I want to say he would've pulled out of 'Nam but we just can't know. After being a young, naive, easily dominated kid JFK really could've grown into a helluva figure. Shame he was iced by (insert 1 of 9001 possible people). Ya know I never like to answer anything, just throw out my crap and hope to cause more thought  |
Posted By: Luna
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 20:00
I thought pollyticks was srs bsns
But to play devil's advocate, would it matter how he solved it more than simply whether it was solved or not? ------------- https://aprilmaymarch.bandcamp.com/track/the-badger" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 20:10
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 20:13
Well....as I said in my post, JFK seemed to be growing into all that. To me he started off as, well not much of anything but a politician and rich kid...but the Cuban Missile Crisis seemed to spark a change (how could it not??) and he grew up and started saying f**k you to the militarists that held him. Also saying f**k you to his Daddy's people. As we know his pressuring of the mafia maybe was his downfall... FDR did have a pretty populist streak, heh a rich man who seemed to hate his own kind and fight for the common man!? |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 20:22
"Back on track" means you are operating on the assumption that the country was "on track" prior to the Great Depression. Care to elaborate?  ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 20:27
We don't know who killed him and may never, but as history unravels, the Mob is becoming the least likely of suspects, IMO, despite any "deathbed confessions". |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 20:36
|
Eh I really never bothered with all the "fun" stuff like sexual escapades. I much prefer the lame boring stuff like economic and foreign policy! Nah I really do think JFK would've become a great figure. He seemed to be turning into his own man and I DO think we would've seen the end of Vietnam. With that, maybe a different tone with the Cold War. It's complete speculation his intent with the Fed..I've heard either it was his first step to end it or just a minor move but yeah he did attempt to make reform. I wish I was alive in the 60's, I really can see how his death could've felt like the death of hope :/ Sadly all we have is the great mystery of his death, a lot of what ifs...and his tax cut and Civil Rights Act. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 20:38
|
and his great speeches |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 20:44
|
I have never bought into the "magic bullet" theory. Ballistics is an incredibly complex science and I don't think we really have a good sense of what is possible or impossible. In fact, a lot of scientific discoveries happen when something impossible happens and they then have to find a way to explain it.
-------------
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 20:45
My Dad told me the story of that day many times. He was a truck driver, and was heading down University Ave in Saint Paul, a very busy street. Looking out the window he noticed a disturbingly large number of people crying, some hugging each other. He remembered one guy in particular being down on one knee at a bus stop, weeping inconsolably. He had to stop briefly and ask what the hell was going on. He said everyone was completely glued to the television for days, with the news and funeral. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 20:51
I wasn't a trucker, but that sounds a lot like how I recall 9/11/2001 ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 20:57
|
I have never encountered a single person that didn't consider FDR to be a successful president besides this forum. I've even been taught about the success of the New Deal and Keynesian economics in school. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 21:01
What a terrible place school is. Did they also teach you that Columbus discovered America because he was the only one who thought the world was round? -------------
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 21:03
It's all that damned liberal indoctrination. Every good conservative knows what a terrible president FDR was. It's become part of the conservative dogma. You can't worship Reagan, big business and the wealthy and hold FDR in high regard at the same time. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 21:04
Says the guy who was homeschooled So what convinced you that FDR was such a terrible president? You must understand that I'm naturally rather wary of what in my experience is a fringe opinion.
Obviously not. There's a difference between proven facts and the historical interpretation of a president's policies. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 21:11
Because mainstream opinions are so chic, right? Look, save us time: If we explain it to you, will you seriously consider what we tell you about FDR? Or will you go "BAH. Mrs. Merkelstein taught me different in civics!" We promise to include sources. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 21:14
I've found most of them to be quite useful.
If I weren't willing to consider what you say, why would I ask you? My economics classes were terrible (for reasons that had nothing to do with FDR). |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 21:15
Having known quite a few teachers and having been one, I think it is a mistake to assume they know more than the average person simply because they have been given that role (no offense, Rob) There are many things. He made it illegal for private citizens to own gold. He put price caps on wages, which forced companies to offer perks(like health insurance) to compete for workers, which is part of why the health care market is so screwed up right now and why you lose your insurance when you quit your job. He implemented many social welfare programs that I believe are bad for the economy, the culture and people's standards of living. He adopted economic policies that I believe extended the Great Depression. Let me briefly explain the main problem with Keynesian economics. GDP is defined as equal to consumption, plus investment, plus government spending, plus net exports. GDP = C + I + G + NX Looking at that equation, it is clear that increasing government spending will increase GDP, right? Only if we hold all the other variables constant. The economy is not a laboratory where you can control one variable at a time, though. If you raise G, the money has to come from somewhere. Where does it come from? It can come from three places. 1. The government can simply print money. This just causes prices to rise, however, so in real terms you have not increased GDP, plus you have inflicted the costs of inflation on the country, which is bad. 2. You can get the money from taxpayers. Well then, that is less money they have for consumption or investment, so those variables will go down and, at the very least, you'll get a smaller increase than you anticipated, and at worst administrative costs will actually cause a reduction in GDP. 3. You can borrow it by selling government bonds. But the people you sell the bonds to already think America is a good investment, or they wouldn't buy them. If there were no government bonds for sale, they would invest in something else, so in this case the rise in G is met by a fall in either NX or I. These are the things they don't teach in college economics classes (unless I am teaching them.) -------------
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 21:19
I've been asked before and dismissed even after putting more than an hour into putting together data, which wasn't even addressed. I meant no offense to you.
I didn't need to become a teacher to know that, Logan. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 21:35
|
I am tired and I have to work tomorrow. So I will say one thing and then ask a specific question. Recessions and depressions happen. They don't occur because of free markets. They occur. What is your opinion of this President?  ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 21:37
|
Old Silent Cal. "Mr. Coolidge, I wagered my friend that I would be able to get more than two words out of you before the end of the evening." "You lose." -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 21:41
The bullets owned by Oswald at the time and attributed to the three empty shells found on the 6th floor were cheap surplus bullets from WW II (like the alleged rifle). They were copper jacketed as per war conventions to avoid explosive wounds. When the FBI test-fired those bullets, they tended to fragment. The bullet reported to have struck JFK in the rear skull may have entered the skull and fragmented causing multiple exit wounds to the top and rear. This would've caused an unusually massive and complex wound. Further, the shooter could easily have fired four or even five shots despite what the Warren report insists. But that's assuming it was Oswald or someone using his rifle and ammunition. The best official evidence suggests Oswald alone; the Empirical evidence suggests otherwise. |
Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 21:44
That's not what I'm assuming. That teacher in particular didn't know anything about, well, anything. I dropped the class after a year and have been an uninformed idiot on economic issues ever since. Otherwise I would have been a misinformed idiot.
I have no idea why that would be either bad or good. (See how uninformed I am?)
So you're saying it's a bad thing that companies offered their employees health insurance? I consider that a great improvement. Ultimately it's problematic to tie health insurance to employment (what if you're unemployed?), but it's better than the alternative at that point, which would have been no insurance at all for many people.
We have explored our differences on that topic at length elsewhere. Whatever the effects of welfare programs on the economy may be, I consider them necessary because they're the only way of guaranteeing certain things.
Like?
Sure.
Not all money in existence is being spent or invested. Especially in the group of high-income individuals there is a lot of money that wouldn't be going anywhere if it weren't for taxes.
There's a difference between investing in the American government and investing in the American economy. Government bonds are usually considered extremely safe, so I'm sure there are people who wouldn't be investing their money at all if not for government bonds. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 21:52
Really? Where is all that money? Do rich people keep it in vaults like Scrooge McDuck? Cash money earns a negative interest rate because of inflation. No rich person is dumb enough to leave significant piles of cash lying around and losing money. When you put money in a bank, it doesn't just sit there in the vault, they loan it out to people to spend or invest. That is how they make their money. Sure, there are little pockets of money sitting ni jars in people's homes, but that is pretty insignificant compared to what is spent and invested. It is a bad business move not to invest your money, and rich people tend to get rich by not making bad business moves. -------------
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 22:38
The needs of the many are better served by following the Constitution than by not so. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 22:45
|
Anyway, I am not arguing that every dime taxed or borrowed would be spent wisely elsewhere. I am arguing that, since taxation reduces how much money people have to spend, they will on average spend less than they would in the absence of taxation. And I am arguing that some of the money that goes towards government bonds would go towards other useful things, not all of it. I don't see how anyone could disagree with those points. This means that it is impossible to increase government spending in a vacuum with affecting consumption, investment and exports. This means that an increase in government spending will have a smaller affect on GDP than that equation would lead you to believe, but they never tell you that in economics classes, which I think is terrible. Personally, I am skeptical that this effect is positive at all, because i believe that markets allocated resources more efficiently than governments, but even if I am wrong, then the amount of government spending would need to be vastly greater than what is typically proposed to correct for contractions in the economy. Raising that amount of money through either borrowing or taxation is problematic, however, as people only have so much that you can tax and there is only so much you can borrow before interest rates go up and you face. I just think it's a very meddlesome and inefficient solution to a problem that will correct itself more quickly if left alone. -------------
|
Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 23:43
|
Oh my God, what did I start?
------------- http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow"> The greatest record label of all time! |
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: November 12 2012 at 23:54
| FDR, cause he conquered most of Western Europe and Japan, the two other competitors to the US industrial base at that time and ushered a long time of US dominance throughout the world. |
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: November 13 2012 at 00:00
Bush jr? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 13 2012 at 00:43
|
^ Hear, hear |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 13 2012 at 06:07
Let's not forget the underlying assumption that government spending is somehow more effectual or efficient than any other spending. Briefly, it is not, mainly because it is easy to be a poor steward of other people's money. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 13 2012 at 07:20
You should know better than to even mention anything remotely political around here, unless you want long, libertarian diatribes hurled at you. -------------
|
Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 13 2012 at 07:25
I don't. That should be obvious. The question is: What about the money that otherwise wouldn't be efficiently spend? If I'm not mistaken, Keynesian economics argue that in certain situations decisions that make sense on an individual level can hurt the overall economy. The idea then is that the government, because it operates at a macro-economic level, can identify these problems and correct them through purposeful spending. I don't believe that Keynesians would advocate increased government spending in just about any situation. Only when the free market is unable to reach equilibrium on its own. And again, if I'm not mistaken, critics of Keynesian economics disagree that such a situation exists.
Well, let's blame awful economics classes then. I vaguely remember reading critical thoughts on both FDR and Keynesian economics in school, but our teacher was utterly unable to comprehend anything about economics beyond the most basic ideas, so this kind of fell by the wayside. As did many other things. Economics was the only class I ever had where I had a better understanding of the subject than my teacher despite knowing virtually nothing.
Wasn't the whole idea of Keynesian economics born out of a situation where the Great Depression stubbornly refused to fix itself, despite what all economists at the time believed?
Wait a minute. If the government collects a person's money through taxes, it stops being his money and becomes the government's money. The government isn't a steward of anybody else's money. The idea is that sometimes macro-economic decisions can be more effective than micro-economic ones. Thus, the government should collect money that would otherwise be misallocated and spend it where it makes sense. Whether or not that works is up for debate. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 13 2012 at 07:36
No one disputes that market failures such as externalities exist. Not even the most die hard Austrian school economist disputes that. We just think that the solution is worse than the original problem.
No not really. Hoover started efforts to "fix" the economy pretty much right from the get go, and FDR expanded them. The recession of 1920, which was extremely deep, snapped back without intervention in a year and a half.
The point is that the people who make the decisions about how the money is spent do not get to personally keep what is left over, as you do with your own paycheck, so there is no incentive for them to be careful with it. -------------
|
Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 13 2012 at 15:32
Why? I understand if you're skeptical about its effectiveness, but the idea that it makes things worse seems to be quite odd to me. The principle seems quite plausible: The government identifies a market failure and allocates it own spending to help fix it. Unless the government fails to do that the correctly, I see no reason why this should make the situation worse.
I guess I have some reading up to do on that matter. But I'm skeptical about the idea that because one recession snapped back quickly, another would have done the same. If there's anything I've learned about economics, it's that it's a complex and fairly unpredictable field. One recession isn't necessarily like the other.
Politicians are paid for making these decisions, and the effects that their decisions have on the economy strongly influence whether or not they get re-elected. Isn't that incentive enough to be careful? I find it absurd that a politician would think "Oh well, nothing's at stake for me here so I might as well just do as I please". |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 13 2012 at 16:26
No voter I've ever spoken with says, "I am voting to reelect X because he is a competent steward of our resources." When a large segment of the voting population is receiving benefits from the government but not investing in it, they generally do not care how much of other people's money is wasted or squandered as long as their own benefits (or the benefits of those they know) are not being reduced. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-02-19/news/fl-federal-government-waste-20110219_1_medicare-fraud-federal-agencies-error-rate" rel="nofollow - In 2010, federal programs wasted $125 billion. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: November 13 2012 at 16:30
|
Political Archives: The Ultimate Circus For Adults Source ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 13 2012 at 16:34
As you rightly point out, the economy is a very complex thing. I think it takes great hubris to assume that a few people can know what is best for a system that involves millions of individual decisions a day. The nature of government is that it works very slowly. By the time it identifies a problem, agrees on a solution, and implements it, conditions will have changed to such an extent that the impact will be at best unpredictable. I just don't think members of government are nimble or wise enough to be able to do these things. You are right that the theory is correct, but in practice it is too delicate an operation for so large and clumsy an institution. In theory you could throw a die so as to get the same number every time, but the amount of control required is beyond our capabilities.
No, they don't think like that, you're right. It's more subtle than that. They are just not as careful to find the best use of the money. Think about when a company pays for your business trip. Do you spend days researching the cheapest flights and the best hotel bargains, or do you just take something easy and fast because it's not your money anyway? Sure, it's important that your company not waste money so that it does well and you can keep your job, but on an individual level, you cut corners because every penny is not coming out of your personal pocket. -------------
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 13 2012 at 16:38
And I'm skeptical that it wouldn't have done the same. You're operating from the null hypothesis that it is both necessary and possible for government's to correct economic fluctuations. To me, this is a positive statement that needs proof. I have never seen anything to indicate that this is in fact the case. We have had deep recessions that have snapped back quickly with no government intervention. We have never had a deep recession that snapped back quickly with lots of government intervention. Why do I have to prove my viewpoint? Shouldn't you have to prove yours? -------------
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 14 2012 at 10:57
|
There's a Newsweek special edition out now (went into Barnes and Noble because I had time to kill) about the greatest presidents. I don't know If I can remember them all, but there were ten. Among them: FDR Teddy JFK Lyndon Johnson Ronald Reagan Barack Obama Bill Clinton Woodrow Wilson Maybe it was about "modern" presidents, because hey lopsided. Anyway, I thought of all you guys.  ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 14 2012 at 10:59
There's a tendency to equate "great" with "accomplished." Those presidents all certainly accomplished a lot (except for Bill Clinton) but are all accomplishments necessarily good? My favorite presidents were all good stewards who didn't do too much to screw things up. -------------
|
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: December 10 2012 at 21:21
|
I'll vote for FDR. Since the mere mention of his name sends current Republicans into paroxysms of neo-con rabidity, it is obvious he served the country well. I regard him highly. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: December 10 2012 at 21:28
Feel better, bro? ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: December 10 2012 at 21:57
Never felt bad in the first place. How about you? ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: December 10 2012 at 22:27
Why do liberals hurl the word neo-con around as an insult? Neo-cons are closer to Democrats in ideology than classical conservatives. Furthermore, I don't know anyone on this board who is a neo-con or espouses neo-con principles. Could it be that they don't know what words mean? -------------
|
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: December 10 2012 at 22:44
Oh, excuse me for the oversight. I should have said "Paroxysms of classical conservative rabidity". It seems one must tread lightly or risk splitting hairs. But I must say, when you used the term "classical conservative", I had to chortle. You make it sound almost human. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: December 11 2012 at 04:20
Let me ask you, what would have happened if Hitler and his madmen was able to gain enough strength to implement the "New Order" that he had in mind long term. What would happen to the entire meaning of humanity being turned into this titanic struggle between "the races".
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: December 11 2012 at 07:04
Let me ask you what the hell you are talking about. -------------
|
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: December 11 2012 at 13:08
If the Americans had not entered the war to stop both and the Japanese from implementing their plans, I really have doubted that America could have survived. As unjust as wars were, this one was one that was very necessary to fight.
|
Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: December 11 2012 at 14:51
I don't think Logan said anything about WWII. ------------- I love dogs, I've always loved dogs |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: December 11 2012 at 14:54
|
I guess you're suggesting thta without FDR, Hitler would have won. I don't buy that. While he did a capable job as commander in chief, I don't think Truman or Eisenhower would have been any worse. And remember thta Truman is ultimately the one who finished the war.
-------------
|
Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: December 11 2012 at 15:24
|
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was probably the closest this country has had to a fascist president. -------------  
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: December 11 2012 at 15:30
|
Finally we agree on something.
-------------
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 12 2012 at 15:04
|
You are both wrong in so many ways you will never understand. Wallow in your ignorance. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: December 12 2012 at 15:12
 You've really made my
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 12 2012 at 15:59
|
Try George W. Bush... ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: December 12 2012 at 16:11
It's funny to be called ignorant by someone whose entire rhetorical technique consists of name-calling and posting other people's cartoons. -------------
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 12 2012 at 17:21
|
Well if you weren't such a poopyhead I wouldn't have to resort to name calling now would I? The cartoons offend your eh? Good! ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: December 12 2012 at 17:25
I don't have an eh. I am not Canadian. I think the cartoons are stupid and lazy, but I don't find them offensive at all. -------------
|
Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: December 12 2012 at 23:15
Please explain. -------------
|
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: December 13 2012 at 03:00
Or the US during the 1950s..
|