The Original and the Final Truth on FDR by Dr. Gary North

[Anarchist420]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Today marks the 80th anniversary of the most deceptive speech in American political history."[/FONT]

Why has this been hidden to so many for so long? Did you like the blue pill? I didn't because too many people took it but at least I knew the truth and the minority was vindicated.

See my thread in which I was ridiculed for suggesting FDR campaigned on austerity. I'm not going to link to it now, but I was right whether people liked it or not. A great big good Thanks to Gary North and to our Creator who had the intelligence to prove it where I didn't.

 

[momeNt]

Brilliant.

Sounds a lot like Ron Paul. Except Dr. Paul is a healer and therefore genuine and FDR was a bankster and therefore a weasel.

 

[pauldun170]

Isn't that the guy who claimed the world was going to end because Y2K?
Nab yerself a Phd in 72' and you can call yourself a Dr for the rest of your life claiming the world is made of Rice Noodles and Bee taint.

 

[momeNt]

Isn't that the guy who claimed the world was going to end because Y2K?
Nab yerself a Phd in 72' and you can call yourself a Dr for the rest of your life claiming the world is made of Rice Noodles and Bee taint.

He discussed the economic implications if our computers were to get messed up. He did put some stock in that happening though. He was not on the software side of the scare.

 

[First]

lol conspiraSEEEEEEEEEE

 

[Juror No. 8]

FDR, America's very own concentration camp president, and hero to liberals and communists the world over.

What a real piece of shit he was.

 

[bfdd]

Fuck I hate FDR, the praise he gets disgusts me.

 

[lotus503]

Isn't that the guy who claimed the world was going to end because Y2K?
Nab yerself a Phd in 72' and you can call yourself a Dr for the rest of your life claiming the world is made of Rice Noodles and Bee taint.

lol@ bee taint

 

[MovingTarget]

Nothing more than a pathetic attempt to discredit one of our most successful presidents. The right is still fundamentally so opposed to reform today that they feel the need to discredit the root of the modern social safety net and the reigning in of laissez-faire economic policy. They still cannot accept the success that his reforms had in helping the everyday person. The only reason that this is gaining more traction nowadays is because people that were alive back then are dying off.

 

[Tom]

FDR did more than any other single individual to create the most powerful, most free, most equal, most industrious, wealthiest, nation in human history.

As well as many of the other most successful countries of today, including Japan and Germany.

 

[Juror No. 8]

FDR did more than any other single individual to create the most powerful, most free, most equal, most industrious, wealthiest, nation in human history.

As well as many of the other most successful countries of today, including Japan and Germany.

In other words, you celebrate a man who put innocent American citizens in concentration camps.

Many Germans celebrated Hitler for the same thing.

 

[First]

In other words, you celebrate a man who put innocent American citizens in concentration camps.

Many Germans celebrated Hitler for the same thing.

You're not particularly intelligent.

FYI.

 

[werepossum]

Isn't that the guy who claimed the world was going to end because Y2K?
Nab yerself a Phd in 72' and you can call yourself a Dr for the rest of your life claiming the world is made of Rice Noodles and Bee taint.

LMAO! +1

Y2K - combining the theory that computers never fail with the theory that any chip which can keep track of years, obviously is keeping track of years.

 

[werepossum]

FDR did some bad things and tried to do some more, but he also took a country that was isolationist, vehemently anti-war, and fundamentally opposed to supporting the nations that had not repaid their World War I loans, a nation not even remotely prepared for war, and managed to finagle us into not only keep Great Britain and the Soviet Union in the fight (without which there would have been no European invasion, ever, and we'd have a Nazi Europe) but also to half-way prepare us for war, knowing we were inevitably going to be drawn in. He also helped usher in the single biggest reason most old people aren't in poverty, as well as some important labor and legal reforms that helped us become a more prosperous manufacturing nation after the war. He (and to an extent, Churchill) kept the Soviets in the war when they might have returned to their original strategy of allowing Germany and Great Britain/America to batter each other into exhaustion, then sweeping over the victor. Hating him for the bad things he did is no better than loving Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini because they made the trains run on time. No leader - no human - is wholly good or wholly bad, and unless one's bad is on the level of a Hitler or a Stalin, one should not be judged by that alone.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Eleanor was the best thing about FDR.

 

[Agent11]

A large difference is that we did not gas the Japanese or force them to work to death to fuel our war effort.

To even attempt to equate the Japanese internment camps to the Holocaust is ludicrous.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gary North is the believer son in in law & acolyte of Rushdooney & an adherent to Christian Reconstructionism, making him a whackadoodle of the most dangerous kind.

http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2006/10/christian_recon.html

Obviously, he'll attack a pragmatic secularist like FDR.

 

[3chordcharlie]

A large difference is that we did not gas the Japanese or force them to work to death to fuel our war effort.

True

To even attempt to equate the Japanese internment camps to the Holocaust is ludicrous.

No, it is not.

Upon consideration, one was certainly far more egregious than the other. Both were unjustifiable deprivations of liberty that destroyed lives.

 

[Arkaign]

FDR did some bad things and tried to do some more, but he also took a country that was isolationist, vehemently anti-war, and fundamentally opposed to supporting the nations that had not repaid their World War I loans, a nation not even remotely prepared for war, and managed to finagle us into not only keep Great Britain and the Soviet Union in the fight (without which there would have been no European invasion, ever, and we'd have a Nazi Europe) but also to half-way prepare us for war, knowing we were inevitably going to be drawn in. He also helped usher in the single biggest reason most old people aren't in poverty, as well as some important labor and legal reforms that helped us become a more prosperous manufacturing nation after the war. He (and to an extent, Churchill) kept the Soviets in the war when they might have returned to their original strategy of allowing Germany and Great Britain/America to batter each other into exhaustion, then sweeping over the victor. Hating him for the bad things he did is no better than loving Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini because they made the trains run on time. No leader - no human - is wholly good or wholly bad, and unless one's bad is on the level of a Hitler or a Stalin, one should not be judged by that alone.

That's an impressively even-handed post. It's admirable to see a lack of extreme partisanship in this view. One might also note that many of the positions that one identified as 'Republican' or 'Democrat' leaning have flipped a good bit over the years. I have mixed feelings on FDR, but can't deeply fault him given basically the points you made here regarding WW2.

Even if one has fundamental disagreements with "The New Deal", it's not really arguable that the most secure and successful time in US history for the middle class was the post-war years, particularly 1950-1970ish (race problems notwithstanding of course). One could be a responsible high-school graduate, work a dependable job, own a home, a car, and take care of a family of 4 or more in relative safety with that single income. That is virtually impossible today. Whether or not this was because of, in spite of, or indifferent to the new deal, it does prove that the existence of it didn't preclude a great deal of success with regards to the general health of our economy.

 

[Arkaign]

TrueNo, it is not.

Upon consideration, one was certainly far more egregious than the other. Both were unjustifiable deprivations of liberty that destroyed lives.

Hmmm.

This is way too complex an issue to make direct comparisons and expect them to hold water.

There was a direct and concerted effort by the Nazis to exterminate whole populations of people. Operable word = exterminate. This alone makes the comparison ludicrous.

I do think the japanese internment camps were a gross overreaction, and tragic in many ways, but one must realize that these camps were incredibly innocuous in comparison to Soviet, Japanese, and German camps for their undesired. Google the Japanese occupation of Manchuria/China/Korea/etc, google the Soviet purges, google Ravensbruck and Dachau and Auschwitz. You'll find that the comparison falls flat.

We let the Japanese out after the war was over. One can't really believe that if the Japanese had won that they would have voluntarily stopped the slaughter of their undesirables, or that the Nazis would have gotten bored of incinerating, gassing, torturing and otherwise murdering their targeted prisoners and populations until they simply ran out of people to kill. Stalin is the greatest example of this, he kept right on sending people to a de-facto death sentence in Siberia and other notorious KGB prisons for the rest of his life.

 

[Juror No. 8]

..but one must realize that these camps were incredibly innocuous...

Yes, "innocuous" concentration camps. Getting hauled away at gunpoint and thrown in a concentration camp for almost four years for nothing other than your race is "innocuous" stuff. No big deal.

Thanks for the chuckle.

 

[Arkaign]

Yes, "innocuous" concentration camps. Getting hauled away at gunpoint and thrown in a concentration camp for almost four years for nothing other than your race is "innocuous" stuff. No big deal.

Thanks for the chuckle.

Yes, cut off a sentence to remove context to make a different meaning entirely. Way to go.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Yes, cut off a sentence to remove context to make a different meaning entirely. Way to go.

Don't look at me. I'm not the one who tried to spin Roosevelt's concentration camps as "innocuous".

Your own words, pal.

 

[Arkaign]

Don't look at me. I'm not the one who tried to spin Roosevelt's concentration camps as "innocuous".

Your own words, pal.

You're just making yourself look foolish. I made several points in that single sentence.

(1)- The camps were a gross overreaction.
(2)- The camps were quite tragic in many ways.
(3)- The camps were relatively innocuous COMPARED to the (notoriously so) brutal camps of the Nazis, the Japanese, and the Soviets.

As you seem to be almost intentionally dense and dedicated to making yourself look as if you have no comprehensive grasp of language (how does one get lost in a single sentence?) .. I will give you another chance to explain your views.

Do you think one had say a good chance of surviving in a US camp vs. say Dachau?
Do you think the camps are equally bad, or were some worse than others (say for the explicit purposes of torture and extermination)?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Hmmm.

This is way too complex an issue to make direct comparisons and expect them to hold water.

There was a direct and concerted effort by the Nazis to exterminate whole populations of people. Operable word = exterminate. This alone makes the comparison ludicrous.

I do think the japanese internment camps were a gross overreaction, and tragic in many ways, but one must realize that these camps were incredibly innocuous in comparison to Soviet, Japanese, and German camps for their undesired. Google the Japanese occupation of Manchuria/China/Korea/etc, google the Soviet purges, google Ravensbruck and Dachau and Auschwitz. You'll find that the comparison falls flat.

We let the Japanese out after the war was over. One can't really believe that if the Japanese had won that they would have voluntarily stopped the slaughter of their undesirables, or that the Nazis would have gotten bored of incinerating, gassing, torturing and otherwise murdering their targeted prisoners and populations until they simply ran out of people to kill. Stalin is the greatest example of this, he kept right on sending people to a de-facto death sentence in Siberia and other notorious KGB prisons for the rest of his life.

We imprisoned citizens and legal immigrants for no reason other than their heritage.

We confiscated their land and possessions and caused their businesses to fail.

We ruined lives.

Does this mean Japanese internment was fully equal to the holocaust of Jews, Gypsies, and other 'undesirables'?

No, but it doesn't make it 'no big deal', or even 'not really comparable'.

By the way, I forget, did we imprison everyone of German heritage, too?