Republican History

[Dancing David]

I swear this be a true story (look deep into my eyes):

A friend of mine lives in Alabama, he works for the Republican party (his claim). he recently stated to me in a conversation that:

"The reason the US didn't get into World War Two right away was because there was a democrat in the White House."

So what do you think, I know what I think.

Even scarier is that he used to give the troops political indoctrination when he was in the army. (He had the rank of Colonel at the time) I hope this isn't what he told the troops.

Peace

[aerocontrols]

but without more information as to why he thinks that, his claim is difficult to refute.

[Victor Danilchenko]

We have people here who are just as bad. Brooklyn Dodger for example once tried to cite democrats' old support of segregation as evidence for liberals not being anti-segregation enough... the abovementioned worthy claims to write professionally and be a conservative political activist, yet he apparently doesn't know basic history of US politics.

Ignorance abounds, especially so when it's backed by a fervent desire to believe.

[Skeptical Greg]

Last time I checked, Republicans don't discriminate against idiots.

What is your point?


Is this a :

" Tell a story about one of the stupidist people you've ever met ... And don't forget to tell us how they voted in the last election.."

thread ?

[DialecticMaterialist]

No Republican president can even hold a candle to FDR.

-Got us through the Great Depression.
-Got us through World War 2.
-Elected more times then any other US president in history.
-Created a law against more then two terms because he was elected so much.

Basically he got the US through not one, but two of the toughest times in our history and he did it brilliantly. IMO he's the greatest president ever.

I bet you had his Republican opponent been elected instead of FDR we'd all be speaking either Japanese or German right now.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
No Republican president can even hold a candle to FDR.

-Got us through the Great Depression.
-Got us through World War 2.
-Elected more times then any other US president in history.
-Created a law against more then two terms because he was elected so much.

Basically he got the US through not one, but two of the toughest times in our history and he did it brilliantly. IMO he's the greatest president ever.

I bet you had his Republican opponent been elected instead of FDR we'd all be speaking either Japanese or German right now. (emphasis added)

:rolleyes: sheesh...

I would like to refer everyone to Victor's last comment.

[Victor Danilchenko]

aerocontrols

I would like to refer everyone to Victor's last comment.that would be a bad reference. FDR was a major cause of Democratic party transforming from the old southern boys' party (of which Dixiecrats were a leftover) into the liberal Democratic party we know today. He was probably the first "new democrat" presidents, breaking both the GOP's decades-old status as the dominant party, and the democratic party's status as the representative of southern segregationist populists.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Sheesh talk about getting petty. Must have hit a sore spot.

I mean if you want to make a point you can just come out and make it. Hiding behind :) s and inneundos is rather cowardly.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
aerocontrols

that would be a bad reference. FDR was a major cause of Democratic party transforming from the old southern boys' party (of which Dixiecrats were a leftover) into the liberal Democratic party we know today. He was probably the first "new democrat" presidents, breaking both the GOP's decades-old status as the dominant party, and the democratic party's status as the representative of southern segregationist populists.

Those aren't the claims he made.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I swear this be a true story (look deep into my eyes):

A friend of mine lives in Alabama, he works for the Republican party (his claim). he recently stated to me in a conversation that:

"The reason the US didn't get into World War Two right away was because there was a democrat in the White House."

So what do you think, I know what I think.

I'd say he was wrong....

From what I understand, the president at the time was doing all he could to support the Allied war effort (lend/lease program, assistance with code breaking, convoy protection). But, the population in general did not support the war, and it took Pearl Harbour to get them out of their isolationist thought process.

Of course, I'm Canadian, so I could be mistaken about it. (Hey, we joined up within a week of the start.)

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Sheesh talk about getting petty. Must have hit a sore spot.

I mean if you want to make a point you can just come out and make it. Hiding behind :) s and inneundos is rather cowardly.

I emphasized the points I disagreed with. Roosevelt's refusal to step down after two terms is hardly a point in his favor, and the nation's decision to amend the Constitution to ensure it never happened again is evidence against your position that it's a good thing.

I also believe that your claim that Roosevelt created the term limit amendment himself is incorrect. Have you evidence to the contrary?

Finally, if you would like to elaborate on your last point, that I also emphasized, I would be happy to debate you on the issue, but I believe you will have a hard time demonstrating than any of the likely Republican possibilities for President would have allowed the Germans or the Japanese to successfully invade and conquer the United States.

MattJ

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
No Republican president can even hold a candle to FDR.

-Got us through the Great Depression.
-Got us through World War 2.
-Elected more times then any other US president in history.
-Created a law against more then two terms because he was elected so much.

Basically he got the US through not one, but two of the toughest times in our history and he did it brilliantly. IMO he's the greatest president ever.

I bet you had his Republican opponent been elected instead of FDR we'd all be speaking either Japanese or German right now. Na na na na na, my parties presidents are better than your parties presidents. And my dad can beat up your dad.

I think such efforts are frutiless and childish. I think FDR deserves credit and was a great president but I reject your presumption. Keep in mind Churchill and Patton and many of the generals and other leaders were no liberals.

Also, when considering presidents one can't help but think of Lincoln who saved the union and brought about emancipation.

First Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Through passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

Lincoln's second inaugural address closed with these words:

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan...to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
But, the population in general did not support the war, and it took Pearl Harbour to get them out of their isolationist thought process.

At the time, Republicans were the more isolationist party, as well.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I'd say he was wrong....

From what I understand, the president at the time was doing all he could to support the Allied war effort (lend/lease program, assistance with code breaking, convoy protection). But, the population in general did not support the war, and it took Pearl Harbour to get them out of their isolationist thought process.

Of course, I'm Canadian, so I could be mistaken about it. (Hey, we joined up within a week of the start.) No, you are right. Also...

For years after the Flying Tigers disbanded in 1942, they had been known as a mercenary air force in the service of the Chinese government. Finally on July 4, 1991, in a ceremony honoring the Flying Tigers, the United States Government belatedly admitted the truth - the Flying Tigers had been created by secret order of President Franklin Roosevelt months before Pearl Harbor to help the Chinese defend their cities from the relentless bombing by the Japanese, who had invaded China in 1937.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by RandFan
Also, when considering presidents one can't help but think of Lincoln who saved the union and brought about emancipation.

Why mock him for doing it and then turn around and do it yourself?

Victor's original post (correctly) indicated that the parties have changed so much that distinctions based on presidents from decades ago aren't that valuable.

MattJ

[DialecticMaterialist]

I emphasized the points I disagreed with. Roosevelt's refusal to step down after two terms is hardly a point in his favor,

Why should he? That wasn't illegal back then.


and the nation's decision to amend the Constitution to ensure it never happened again is evidence against your position that it's a good thing.

How so? Lets say he didn't step down...so what? He was elected four times in a row because he was a damn good president. Name one Republican that has had this priveledge.

Also what would you have rather had? A presidential switch DURING world war 2?

I also believe that your claim that Roosevelt created the term limit amendment himself is incorrect. Have you evidence to the contrary?

Nope you're right actually.

Finally, if you would like to elaborate on your last point, that I also emphasized, I would be happy to debate you on the issue, but I believe you will have a hard time demonstrating than any of the likely Republican possibilities for President would have allowed the Germans or the Japanese to successfully invade and conquer the United States.

The Republicans were isolationist at the time. They wouldn't have made Japan so angry as to attack Pearl Harbor, they wouldn't have funded Britain and Russia in their fight with Germany. In fact Roosevelt had to do some of the funding secretly.

The Republicans would have also not made the economic reforms necessary to get the country back on its feet prior to world war 2. They would have "let the system fix itself" because that was going so well.

From encyclopedia.com

Roosevelt was, however, responsible to a large extent for the rapid growth of American military strength.

On the Republican Party:

Isolationists held the upper hand in the party before World War II, and in 1940 two Republicans, Henry L. Stimson and Frank Knox , were virtually read out of the party for accepting posts in Roosevelt's cabinet.

http://encyclopedia.com/html/section/republcnp_depressionandworldwarii.asp

[DialecticMaterialist]

RandFan:


Na na na na na, my parties presidents are better than your parties presidents. And my dad can beat up your dad.

Hello McFly I'm not even a Democrat so this hardly *my* party. I've never actually been a Democrat.

And yes FDR was a damn good president. Perhaps the best in history. That's common sense.

Your statement sounds like sour grapes.

I think such efforts are frutiless and childish.


Oh yeah? Well the the "Na na na na" and accusation of me being a Democrat when I'm not I guess are fruitful and very mature.

I think FDR deserves credit and was a great president but I reject your presumption. Keep in mind Churchill and Patton and many of the generals and other leaders were no liberals.

LOL. So?

Did I say Republican General? Does the General fund allies? Does the General declare war? Does the General help with a Great Depression?

As for Churchill was he an isolationist? You know that conservatives and Britain are not the same as conservatives in the US right?

Also, when considering presidents one can't help but think of Lincoln who saved the union and brought about emancipation.


Yes Lincoln is good too. Damn fine president, I'll give you that. I think FDR is better but that's debatable.

In any event I'm not talking about why Republicans are bad, just the ones who for some reason like to bad mouth FDR as if he were the worst thing since corn bread.

And I'm not saying that Republicans are bad presidents for war time, but in the era of the Great Depression and World War 2, their economic policies and isolationist stance would have made them a very bad choice at the time.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Why should he? That wasn't common illegal back then.

Why did every other president do it?

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
How so? Lets say he didn't step down...so what? He was elected four times in a row because he was a damn good president. Name one Republican that has had this priveledge.

What do you mean "Let's say he didn't step down". It's not a hypothetical. Your request for me to name Republicans who have 'had that priviledge' is disingenuous, since, until Roosevelt, everyone respected the tradition that began with Washington, and, after Roosevelt, the nation changed the Constitution to make it impossible.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Also what would you have rather had? A presidential switch DURING world war 2?

Obviously. I think the 22nd Amendment was a good idea. Do you? Further, do you believe those who wrote it were stupid for not putting in an 'unless we're in a world war' clause?

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

The Republicans were isolationist at the time. They wouldn't have made Japan so angry as to attack Pearl Harbor, they wouldn't have funded Britain and Russia in their fight with Germany. In fact Roosevelt had to do some of the funding secretly.

The Republicans would have also not made the economic reforms necessary to get the country back on its feet prior to world war 2. They would have "let the system fix itself" because that was going so well.

All a good characterization of the Republican Party of the time that utterly fails to demonstrate that either the Germans or the Japanese would have succeeded (or attempted) to conquer the United States.

MattJ

[RandFan]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Why mock him for doing it and then turn around and do it yourself? Hi Matt,

I took issue with the "No Republican president can even hold a candle to FDR."

I think such a claim is silly. My point wasn't to say that Lincoln was better than any Democrat President it was to rebut his contention. I think Lincoln can hold a light to FDR.

So, yes there is at least one Republican president who can hold a light to FDR and claiming that FDR is the better than any Republican president is simply childish.

Am I wrong?

Victor's original post (correctly) indicated that the parties have changed so much that distinctions based on presidents from decades ago aren't that valuable. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this but more importantly it has nothing to do with whether or not FDR is better than any Republican President which had nothing as far as I can tell with victors original post but was instead DialectMaterialist assertion that.

I bet you had his Republican opponent been elected instead of FDR we'd all be speaking either Japanese or German right now. There is no way to know, such exercises are purely speculative. I would note that Eisenhower, a republican was quite able to prosecute the war.

Just a question, is this where Barbara Striesand came up with the notion that the liberals defeated Nazism?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Why did every other president do it?

Cause 1) It was a popular custom. 2) They couldn't get elected as much. 3) They weren't involved in an election during world war 2.

I guess your right then, Roosevelt should have just left office during world war 2, doing what's popular instead of what's right. :rolleyes:




What do you mean "Let's say he didn't step down".

That, lets say he didn't...so what?


It's not a hypothetical. Your request for me to name Republicans who have 'had that priviledge' is disingenuous, since, until Roosevelt, everyone respected the tradition that began with Washington, and, after Roosevelt, the nation changed the Constitution to make it impossible.

*chuckles* Disingenuine? Rhetorical maybe, not disingenuine. It hasn't happened because a) They couldn't do it. b) They went with what's popular.

But yeah, who's considered with interfering with our country during a little thing like World War 2, when we have a tradition to uphold.





Obviously. I think the 22nd Amendment was a good idea. Do you?

Nope. It encourages too much short-term thinking.


Further, do you believe those who wrote it were stupid for not putting in an 'unless we're in a world war' clause?

Yes if I disagree with them, that means I think they are stupid. :rolleyes: No false dillemma there.


Actually I think they weren't taking emergencies seriously enough and were somewhat enchanted by tradition. Partisanism also came into it as well(I'm sure Republicans weren't happy with having Roosevelt 4 terms in a row.)




All a good characterization of the Republican Party of the time that utterly fails to demonstrate that either the Germans or the Japanese would have succeeded (or attempted) to conquer the United States.

Our economy would have been worse off, Russia would have been conquered as well as Britain, and Japan would have had a free hand in conquering Eastern Asia. Not like the fascists would have gained a huge tactical advantage there, not like the US ability to fight war would gave been greatly reduced and theirs greatly increased.

I guess though I'm not 100 percent certain but am I suppose to be?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hi Matt,

I took issue with the "No Republican president can even hold a candle to FDR."

I think such a claim is silly. My point wasn't to say that Lincoln was better than any Democrat President it was to rebut his contention. I think Lincoln can hold a light to FDR.

So, yes there is at least one Republican president who can hold a light to FDR and claiming that FDR is the better than any Republican president is simply childish.

Am I wrong?

I think that not only his claim, but the entire debate, is silly. (Because Republicans circa Lincoln and Democrats circa Roosevelt have changed so drastically) I don't believe you're wrong, but I don't see the point of the argument.


Originally posted by RandFan
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this but more importantly it has nothing to do with whether or not FDR is better than any Republican President which had nothing as far as I can tell with victors original post but was instead DialectMaterialist assertion that.

Ok

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
But yeah, who's considered with interfering with our country during a little thing like World War 2, when we have a tradition to uphold.

Our poor democracy, not able to withstand a change in the Presidency during WWII. Except that it was able to do just that. How odd.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I took issue with the "No Republican president can even hold a candle to FDR."

I think such a claim is silly. My point wasn't to say that Lincoln was better than any Democrat President it was to rebut his contention. I think Lincoln can hold a light to FDR.

Ok you got Lincoln, nevemind that this was over a hundred years ago. Nevermind Lincoln's side had a huge advantage during the entire war(Roosevelt did not). Nevermind his cause was popular(Roosevelt's was not prior to Pearl Harbor). Nevermind he never had to deal with anything like the Great Depression.

So, yes there is at least one Republican president who can hold a light to FDR and claiming that FDR is the better than any Republican president is simply childish.

Yes one that comes close.

And why is that statement about FDR childish, aside from Lincoln, it's true. Had FDR been a Republican, you'd be joining in with me. This isn't partisanism, this is common sense.



There is no way to know, such exercises are purely speculative. I would note that Eisenhower, a republican was quite able to prosecute the war.

Yes I'm not 100 percent sure. It is speculation but it's reasonable speculation. The Republican Party at the time was dominated by isolationist and extreme capitalists.

Eisenhower also didn't run for president until AFTER FDR had died.

By then the Republicans weren't isolationist.

Just a question, is this where Barbara Striesand came up with the notion that the liberals defeated Nazism?

I have no idea. I don't even know who Barbara Strieshand is.

And who ever said that liberals defeated Nazism? Not me.

Just saying a liberal president at the time, is probably the best we've had to date and was better then a republican would have been.

Is that so hard to understand? Are you incapable of grasping the fact that a liberal actually made a better president then a republican at a time? That not all good things come from Republican Party? That the Republican Party has made some hefty mistakes?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Hello McFly I'm not even a Democrat so this hardly *my* party. I've never actually been a Democrat. Who cares? It still is a stupid and unprovable claim.

And yes FDR was a damn good president. Perhaps the best in history. That's common sense. No argument, so?

Your statement sounds like sour grapes. Because I take issue with a silly claim? Why is that sour grapes?

Oh yeah? Well the the "Na na na na" and accusation of me being a Democrat when I'm not I guess are fruitful and very mature. I don't care about your ideology. The statement was demonstrably inane. I can't change that.

RandFan
I think FDR deserves credit and was a great president but I reject your presumption. Keep in mind Churchill and Patton and many of the generals and other leaders were no liberals.

DialecticMaterialist
LOL. So? [/b] So, the ideology of a president is per se immaterial as to whether or not a president or leader can perofm the duties of office including prosecuting a war.

Now the dynamics of the ideology of the republicans at that time, yes, I think that is relevant. That is not what you were addressing though.

Did I say Republican General? Does the General fund allies? Does the General declare war? Does the General help with a Great Depression? No, you didn't need to. My examples demonstrate that Republicans are quite capable and willing to win a war.

As for Churchill was he an isolationist? You know that conservatives and Britain are not the same as conservatives in the US right? I never said that they were. But the Tory Party of England is much closer aligned to conservatives in the US than the Labor party. And you know this, you are just being pedantic.

In any event I'm not talking about why Republicans are bad, just the ones who for some reason like to bad mouth FDR as if he were the worst thing since corn bread. I don't hold that position and I have never bad mouthed FDR. I find your claim silly, that's all.

And I'm not saying that Republicans are bad presidents for war time, but in the era of the Great Depression and World War 2, their economic policies and isolationist stance would have made them a very bad choice at the time. That is a reasonable position. Please note that it bears no resemblance to "No Republican president can even hold a candle to FDR."

[DialecticMaterialist]

Our poor democracy, not able to withstand a change in the Presidency during WWII. Except that it was able to do just that. How odd.

Oh yes we are going to change policy and cabinet membership....during the biggest war in history. Great idea.

And are you talking about when FDR died? Yeah we changed....to vice president Truman. And by this time Japan was already losing, the critical part was over. In fact all Truman had to do was Nuke i.e. finish them off.

Yeah aside from the fact that it was basically the same administration and at the very end of the war you're right. Really grasping for straw now.

[Victor Danilchenko]

This is ridiculous. Democratic party of , say, 80 years ago wasn't liberal, and so having some great Democratic achievement from that time can't possibly be used to liberals' credit.

If anything, Lincoln was a liberal -- to the extent to which labels like "liberal" and "conservative' apply to Civil War-era political landscape, republican party was more liberal then, and democratic party was more conservative.

But basing any such claim on party delineation, rather than ideological delineation, is ridiculous.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Who cares? It still is a stupid and unprovable claim.

Ok call me childish then in the next breath call my claim "stupid."

And what do you mean unprovable? It is "provable" just that the evidence is not air tight or scientific.

I likewise know that if Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Habor war might never have erupted. I know if France had stopped Hitler when he wanted Austria or was re-arming the Nazis would probably not have invaded France.

Can I strongly prove any of the above? Do I need to? Or will simple common sense reasoning suffice?




Because I take issue with a silly claim? Why is that sour grapes?

You are reacting to it WAY to strongly. Also I didn't see you criticizing the "Franklin was an ineffectual communist" position first started in this thread. Did my support FDR comment take priority?



I don't care about your ideology.

Did I ask? No *you* are the one who said FDR belonged to my party. Such an accusation shows you obviously do care.




So, the ideology of a president is per se immaterial as to whether or not a president or leader can perofm the duties of office including prosecuting a war.

Nonsense. The President actions are determined in part by beliefs and values i.e. ideology. Are you saying that ideology doesn't matter when judging a leader?

That we could have elected a pacifist-anarchist and made it through world war 2?




No, you didn't need to. My examples demonstrate that Republicans are quite capable and willing to win a war.

OK, never said they weren't. A Republican president at the time though wouldn't have been as capable as Roosevelt.




I never said that they were. But the Tory Party of England is much closer aligned to conservatives in the US than the Labor party. And you know this, you are just being pedantic.

Yes but they aren't as extremely capitalist or isolationist as Republicans at the time were.




I don't hold that position and I have never bad mouthed FDR. I find your claim silly, that's all.

On what basis? So far all I got was some red herrings and "your childish" name calling.




That is a reasonable position. Please note that it bears no resemblance to "No Republican president can even hold a candle to FDR."

Well that's a point I do hold to. Maybe Lincoln comes very close but overall I like to point that out to the anti-FDR faction.

[DialecticMaterialist]

This is ridiculous. Democratic party of , say, 80 years ago wasn't liberal, and so having some great Democratic achievement from that time can't possibly be used to liberals' credit.



I must say I'm finding it hard to speak. Mainly cause sooo many words are being shoved right into my mouth.

In any event did I say modern day liberals can take credit from FDR?

And BTW I'm of course using the word liberal and conservative in relative terms. In the 16th century a modern day republican like Newt Gingrich would have probably been a radical. For his time though he's a conservative. Just as FDR for his time was a liberal.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
And why is that statement about FDR childish, aside from Lincoln, it's true. Had FDR been a Republican, you'd be joining in with me. This isn't partisanism, this is common sense. Believe what you want but no, I wouldn't be joining in with you.

Is that so hard to understand? Are you incapable of grasping the fact that a liberal actually made a better president then a republican at a time? That not all good things come from Republican Party? That the Republican Party has made some hefty mistakes? I have never held that liberals were bad presidents or that liberals are bad. I find that great people often transcend politics (see Earl Warren) and I don't see in any way see Republicans as good and Democrats as evil. I disagree with much that the Republican party stands for. I am staunchly against the war on drugs and am liberal on most social issues.

You misunderstand my objection. It is not that FDR wasn't what you say it is that no Republican president could hold a light to him. That I disagree with and find silly.

[Victor Danilchenko]

DialecticMaterialist

In any event did I say modern day liberals can take credit from FDR?Well, why else the "no republican president can touch FDR" thing?

FDR for his time was a liberal.yes, he was; but it had nothing to do with him being a democract.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Ok aside from Loncoln(who is ify) which Republican achieved as much as FDR?

BTW I believe no Democrat holds a candle to FDR either.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well, why else the "no republican president can touch FDR" thing?

Because I hear a lot of Republicans online and on the radio and on message boards badmouthing FDR as either ineffectual or communist.

This is especially true for Objectivists.(Who I know are not Republicans but still get the point.)



yes, he was; but it had nothing to do with him being a democract.

Yes it does. At that time, the Democratic ideas he adhered to were liberal.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
And what do you mean unprovable? It is "provable" just that the evidence is not air tight or scientific. It's provable in your eyes maybe but greatness is based on a lot of subjective criteria. There is argument as to how much FDR helped the Depression and whether he could have done more to rescue millions of Jews in the death camps. (see "While Six Million Died: A Chronicle of American Apathy") There is more but it is not my intention to disparage FDR. I just don't agree with your assessment and I think it is far from "provable".

You are reacting to it WAY to strongly. Also I didn't see you criticizing the "Franklin was an ineffectual communist" position first started in this thread. Did my support FDR comment take priority? I missed the statement that said "Franklin was an ineffectual communist" could you point it out to me.

I was able to find the following: "The reason the US didn't get into World War Two right away was because there was a democrat in the White House." Which is stupid. I pointed out in a later post that Roosevelt had supported the war prior to Pearl Harbor and had created the flying tigers.

Nonsense. The President actions are determined in part by beliefs and values i.e. ideology. Are you saying that ideology doesn't matter when judging a leader? That is exactly what I am saying. It is relevant to nomination and voting. Once elected it is the actions and not the ideology that determine the greatness of a person.

Let me ask you which do you think makes a better president republican or democrat?

Edited to be a little less provocative, sorry.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Ok aside from Lincoln(who is ify) which Republican achieved as much as FDR? (who is ify?) It is not my intention to engage in debate about the merits of presidents or whether or not FDR actually achieved all that you credit him with.

I am content to let you believe that he is the greatest president that ever lived. I think the contributions and achievements of Lincoln are easily par if they do not exceed FDR. If we had lost the war and the Union had been divided history would be very different than it is today and race relations would be dramatically different.

I don't know how to comparably measure presidents. I'll leave that to you. I understand your purpose and motivation better so I'll take back my "childish and stupid" comment.

RandFan

[DialecticMaterialist]

It's provable in your eyes maybe but greatness is based on a lot of subjective criteria. There is argument as to how much FDR helped the Depression and whether he could have done more to rescue millions of Jews in the death camps. (see "While Six Million Died: A Chronicle of American Apathy") There is more but it is not my intention to disparage FDR. I just don't agree with your assessment and I think it is far from "provable".

Well I don't think our values are so different that we can't agree on something like greatness of a leader if its to a high enough degree.

Also I'd say the argument concerning the depression and jews(you don't seriously hold FDR responsible do you?) is more or less mere bickering, Of course complaints can be made about ANY president, but allowing for that to fade into the background as a constant, FDR is a great man.




I missed the statement that said "Franklin was an ineffectual communist" could you point it out to me.

First post on this thread. The guy doesn't actually say Franklin was communist but accuses him of being ineffectual. The communist statement was made just as reference.


Which is stupid. I pointed out in a later post that Roosevelt had supported the war prior to Pearl Harbor and had created the flying tigers.

Which is a very good point.




That is exactly what I am saying. It is relevant to nomination and voting. Once elected it is the actions and not the ideology that determine the greatness of a person.

But ideology greatly influences/determines actions.

Let me ask you which do you think makes a better president republican or democrat?

Depends. Right now for example I like how we are taking out dictators in the Middle East, am for the death penalty, against reparations, affirmative actions etc.

But I tend to agree more with liberals in a lot of domestic policies, abortion,cloning, separation of church and state, social services.

Right now the war is a big part of it I guess so Republican. I've been wanting to see the Muslim regimes there go down for a while.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well I don't think our values are so different that we can't agree on something like greatness of a leader if its to a high enough degree.

Also I'd say the argument concerning the depression and jews(you don't seriously hold FDR responsible do you?) is more or less mere bickering, Of course complaints can be made about ANY president, but allowing for that to fade into the background as a constant, FDR is a great man. I will agree,

RandFan

P.S. I don't hold FDR responsible for the Holocaust, there is an argument that he could have done more. But you are perhaps right about bickering.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
But basing any such claim on party delineation, rather than ideological delineation, is ridiculous. Nothing could be more clear. Caeser was a Republican. Jesus was a Democrat. Robin Hood was a Communist. Who the hell cares.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Last time I checked, Republicans don't discriminate against idiots.

What is your point?


Is this a :

" Tell a story about one of the stupidist people you've ever met ... And don't forget to tell us how they voted in the last election.."

thread ?

Gee Diogenes I did mean to torque your latern there, maybe it's Calgon time?

I posted it because I was shocked by it, and I am very glad to learn that most Republicans don't agree with my friend. He does vote consistantly straight party line. Seems that all sorts of people quote leftists kooks and then go ' look at the bedwetter.'

I was always disturbed by the fact that he was instructing the troops and hoping to hear that we don't feed them that kind of information.

Kind of hoping that JK would suddenly 'flame on' and make me laugh.

Peace