FDR the great hero. - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Inter-war period (1919-1938), Russian civil war (1917–1921) and other non World War topics (1914-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Kman
#14215135
Quantum wrote:I was talking about you, not FDR.


Ok well in that case I dont see your point, FDR was an evil asshole, I am calling him out on this and exposing his true nature, where exactly is this a defeat of me that I make my opponents look bad and evil? I would say that helps my cause, whether it is "culturally marxist" or not (which I doubt it is) is irrelevant.

The reason why the right wing has been losing is exactly because people have been reluctant about doing what I am doing here which is criticize the other side, rightwingers have been too cowardly and too worried about being popular and because of this they have let the authoritarians get away with murder (both literally and figuratively), like the Mises Institute slogan says "Tu ne cede malis" (do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it).
By Xbow
#14215150
Kman wrote:FDR was not a rightwinger, he was a statist asshole who wanted to micromanage people just like dictators like Stalin or Mao. I am not attacking one of my own rightwingers, I am attacking someone who is on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me.


But FDR dressed up his micromanaging and authoritarian ways by making it seem more palatable by dressing it up in the guise of paternalism. Few can argue that FDR wasn't an elitist SOB that believed that the overwhelming bulk of humanity is too dumb to manage their own affairs. So Daddy FDR sat them down and told his children fantasy stories on the radio and conditioned them to do tricks on command.
#14215208
Zagadka wrote:I don't know if the Templars invented it, but most of medieval Christianity regarded interest on loans as sinful. Though it is also technically sinful in Judaism. And I doubt the Templars really invented or spread it, since it is directly referenced multiple times in biblical texts saying not to do it, meaning it must have been widespread before at least 500 BCE.


It's sinful in judaism to charge interest to another Jew, but gentiles are fair game. Of course, Beal helped highlight my point that any attempt to hold historic jews to count for any crimes against the general welfare is met with accusations of antisemetism; Jews had committed usury and viewed themselves as an outgroup, but somehow a reaction against them during the Middle Ages was wrong.

I'm not arguing Jews today are uniformly usurers or responsible for past crimes of usury, but the idea the historic treatment of jews had nothing to do with the way Jews viewed themselves and acted in larger society is also blatantly false.
By Beal
#14215336
Figlio di Moros wrote:Of course, Beal helped highlight my point that any attempt to hold historic jews to count for any crimes against the general welfare is met with accusations of antisemetism


Though we might disagree on what constitutes a crime, I have no problem with holding a person who happens to be Jewish accountable for his crimes. What I have a problem with is what you are doing: holding Jews, as a group of people, accountable for the alleged crimes of individuals:

Figlio di Moros wrote:Jews had committed usury and viewed themselves as an outgroup, but somehow a reaction against them during the Middle Ages was wrong.


So it wasn't wrong to "react" against the entire group of people for what you claim were the crimes of individual members?

Figlio di Moros wrote:I'm not arguing Jews today are uniformly usurers or responsible for past crimes of usury.


But apparently they should be held uniformly accountable...

Figlio di Moros wrote:but the idea the historic treatment of jews had nothing to do with the way Jews viewed themselves and acted in larger society is also blatantly false


...because they had it coming.
User avatar
By jimjam
#14215499
Kman wrote: FDR was an evil asshole


Just checked my bank statement. The usual $xxxx was credited just as it had been for the past 30 or 40 months. Thank You Franklin ......... you evil asshole

Money talks ,bullshit walks. The rich boys have been trying to kill Social Security for the past 70 years. They can't whup FDR even when he's been dead for 67 years. It is little wonder they hate him. Whupped by a dead man !
By Xbow
#14215541
JimJam wrote:Just checked my bank statement. The usual $xxxx was credited just as it had been for the past 30 or 40 months. Thank You Franklin you evil asshole

I have no problem with social security, I plan to squander FDR's gift to me on obscenely stacked Mexican hookers and beer when I file. I paid plenty of taxes to get it and its mine.

But understand that SS is actually a smaller program than SSD these days. I love seeing 25 year old skanks feeding off the SS disability system. assholes that have never worked. I observed two of those sub human creatures at the smoke shop buying crack pipes and rolling papers the last time I went in and bought a box of cigars. They were chatting openly about how shitty SSI disability is for not giving them enough cash. And how the bastards wouldn't pay for medical Marijuana. How horrible! I heard the term Bipolar. And now a walking tent can get disability for having a number of structural and metabolic faults related to morbid obesity. Cute! Even stupid welfare brats with 'learning disabilities' such as laziness and sloth can get Mama an extra $1000/month in disability payments.

I am sure that FDR did not intend to see his program squandered on those kind of lazy sub human deadbeats that never paid a dime into the system.

If it was an option I would stop doing volunteer work and recreational tank maintenance for the Patton Museum at Desert Center a couple of times a month. I would rather use that time as an unpaid rock-salt shotgun and motivational Taser Jockey at a labor camp for those lazy fucking swine.
[youtube]gRRzl2kHaXI[/youtube]
#14215556
Of course one sure way to identify itty bitty tiny brains is by the way they take a historical personage, take three known facts and six allegations about the historical figure and then judge said personage (or attempt to anyways) on the basis of TODAYS mores, morals and usages.
Way back in the day, killing a person was stuff of everyday, life was cheap. Back in another day, anyone not your color was fair game for pretty much anything, even today in the remotest parts of the Amazons, savages will kill strangers on sight, end of story.
To judge a historical figure by today's standards is inane and the only useful purpose it serves is to justify the self appointed judge's pre conceived ideas of the figure in question to begin with.
FDR was a great hero though today he would be called a flip flopper, particularly about the war he was involved in. He is also, at the end of the day, the father of US BIG Government and of the dependency society we seem to have turned into. He and his party were also very close to a dictatorship and flounted usage by getting himself re elected more than he should have. His personal life?? Who gives a rat's ass? His personal mores? Ditto! He did good for the United States AND THE WORLD when more than a UN resolution was needed to check evil. He did it great and he did it well. THAT is why he is one of the greatest presidents the United States has ever or will ever had.
User avatar
By jimjam
#14215963
AndresSerrano wrote:Of course one sure way to identify itty bitty tiny brains is by the way they take a historical personage, take three known facts and six allegations about the historical figure and then judge said personage (or attempt to anyways) on the basis of TODAYS mores, morals and usages.


There is no shortage of underage arm chair generals utilizing hindsight to regurgitate various sound bites that have entered into their heads. Listen to this in it's entirety and try to imagine one of our current crop of gutless wonders posing as leaders (One of my favorites: Marco (Empty Suit) Rubio) making a similar speech:


Xbow wrote:I am sure that FDR did not intend to see his program squandered on those kind of lazy sub human deadbeats that never paid a dime into the system.

Agreed 100%. I look in amazement at what the disability system has turned into. How can such a mess exist? It gives lie to the much touted welfare "reform". Seems all the parasites simply transferred from welfare to disability.
#14215968
Amazingly, we see men and women working today with greater problems than certain disability recipients. If you can walk in with a weak back and bum knee to work, should such health problems be dismissed for the SSD who claims they prevent them from working? After all, we go through great lengths to legislate and promote a fair working environment in which the disabled are to have as equal as possible a chance at employment; we must figure out where to draw the line between the employable and unemployable handicapped.
By Xbow
#14216051
JImJam wrote: I look in amazement at what the disability system has turned into. How can such a mess exist? It gives lie to the much touted welfare "reform". Seems all the parasites simply transferred from welfare to disability.
It exists because of assholes like Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein and the rest of the gang not to mention they are also the reason that we have Mexican immigrants that are on public assistance inside of two months once they have a green card. I mean seriously just screw the tax payers and people that have paid into the system for three or four decades. And I realize that part of the reason the shit-heads I mentioned above are so concerned with fairness to the swine that have chosen to milk the system rather than work is because the Republicans desire to strip SS to the bone for everyone including the folks that fully paid into the system. Its a very expensive knee-jerk reaction. And this massive giveaway is in progress and protected above all other government programs while wounded combat Veterans wait more than a year to get the rehabilitation and artificial limbs they need to get around as best they can.

But I still maintain that there is nothing wrong with our elected governments be they local, state or federal that an automated guillotine and a few guys like you and I couldn't fix in a single week of hard work. Then of course the pile of skulls would need to be stripped, bronzed and then assembled into a pyramid. A pyramid that should be put on display in 'Shithead Memorial Park' located in a prominent position in the Capitol Mall..near the Washington monument I'd say.

I think we can get the walking tents that WERE on public assistance to eat the flesh off those skulls and lick them clean without too much of a problem if they are denied other forms of sustenance.
User avatar
By jimjam
#14216151
Xbow wrote:I think we can get the walking tents that WERE on public assistance to eat the flesh off those skulls and lick them clean without too much of a problem if they are denied other forms of sustenance.

Something similar was attempted during the French revolution but the long term results were inconclusive at best. You and do not agree of some of the details but, I think, we do agree on the essential corruptness of human nature. Hopeless corruption, will not change. I admire your unabashed idealism but do not share your anger. I just do not spend much time with anger. This does not mean that I condone liars, hypocrites and thieves. It's simply my nature. We are all the same and we are all different. Take the Boston Marathon Masacre for example. I have run in the Boston Marathon and lived next to it's route. It has been part of me since I was a teenager. When i got the news, I was stunned, in shock. First reaction was to want to get ahold of the guilty party and beat the fucking shit out of him, slowly. Then,the anger passed and was replaced by profound sadness. Enough of this clearly off topic digression. I hope I do not get busted.
#14216165
jimjam wrote:Very astute and unbiased evaluation. Hey, he gets credit for a sort of perfection .


I like making arguments that are easy to refute. That way it's more telling when you cannot.
By Rich
#14216385
Bulaba Jones wrote:Are you joking? Do you know what the world looked like in 1943? Or at least Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Easte ... 944-12.png

Land Western Allied troops in the middle of German occupied Europe, in the Balkans? Land troops in 1943 in Manchuria when we hadn't even half-finished securing the Pacific, let alone contain the Japanese Home Islands? Do you know that the Japanese were invading China? Do you know that they had a large bulk of their military forces in China and the Manchukuo occupied region? And Scandinavia? What the hell?

It's like you aren't aware that we were allied with the Soviet Union, that they were on the side of the Allies, and they were in the middle of fighting 75-80% of Germany's entire armed forces. And you're suggesting that in 1943 we should've done all those things, betrayed our alliance with the Soviets and our close military cooperation with them (and I don't suppose you're aware we were helping to supply them with additional military hardware) and put troops right in the middle of German and Japanese territory deep in occupied Europe and Asia? That is absolutely and completely insane. You need to read a book on World War II.

Obviously I was giving broad strategic goals not a detailed plan of operation. Obvioulsy a landing in Manchuria in January 1943 was out of the question. Allied stategy should have been much more flexible. It needed to respond to German deployments. Germany was capable of denying a landing at any particular place. Anyway the details are complex. We should have been looking at taking Crete, Rhodes and possible other Greek islands prior to landing in the Balkan mainland. We sholuld also have been looking to grab, Sardinia, Corsica or even Sciliy if they were left virtually undefended. A big part of the problem was the fialure of the US to use Convoys and take other basic precaustions early on which led to disasterous and unnecesary shipping losses. The failure to build suffcoent landing craft and then the division of shipping capacity which went 7 to 1 to the Pacific Theatre. This meant that many of our European divisions sat around idle and we failed to fully use our Martitime advantage. German deploments in North Africa, the Italian Penisular and the Peloponesian penisular were all potentially highly vunerably to being cut off by allied landings. Hitler was initially prepared to sacrifice nearly the whole of the Italian peninsular, because of thsi obvious vunerabilty. Even when the allies finally got round to this encirclement landing strategy at Anzio, shipping shortages bodged the operation. Clearly there should have been landings both sides of the peninsular. Mark Clarles antics were just the icing on the cake of American strategic incompetance.

None of this would have involved breaking our alliance with the Soviets. Stalin never trusted Roosevelt anyway. He couldn't really believe that he was as gullable as he actually was.
User avatar
By jimjam
#14216685
Xbow wrote:It exists because of assholes like Elizabeth Warren


Looks like this thread has been banished to an arcane corner of POFO labeled "Inter-War" so I doubt you will ever see my esteemed post.

You got me swinging Crossbow. Elizabeth Warren is responsible for the explosion of SS disability claims ? Last time I looked, her area of operation was scumbag criminal bankers who fleece the sheep wholesale.
#14376916
FDR, pictured with his Jewish treasury secretary Henry Morgenthau, inscribed this photo, “from one of two of a kind.”
Image

Ahhhh - the crocodile tears from the rightwing concerning the plight of the Jews in Nazi Germany.

FDR was far better for the Jews than his political opponents or any world leader for that matter. If it had been up to his enemies on the right (the rightwing of both parties) the US would never have entered the war - just imagine the outcome for the Jews if they had prevailed.

In the anti-Semitic literature of that time (and of this time for that matter), FDR was/is a 'secret Jew' (sound familiar) who surrounded himself with Jews. Hitler was also convinced of this.
Rightwingers in America referred to Roosevelt as “Rosenfeld,” and referred to the New Deal as the “Jew Deal.”

Many Congressmen (Reps and Dems) argued against helping the Jews before and during WWII. It is amazing that FDR had us fighting the Nazis at all considering that Hearst, Lindbergh, Joe Kennedy, Ford, General Motors, IBM, Alcoa, and nearly every financial company wanted the US to help the Nazis in their war against the Russian Bolsheviks.

Thomas Mann, who fled Germany, met with FDR and said afterword that for the first time he believed the Nazis would be defeated because FDR was someone who understood the evil of Adolf Hitler.
Eleanor Roosevelt and others worked behind the scenes to help the Jews escape the Nazis. For their efforts, rightwing Republicans and Dixie-crats called her a communist Jew-lover.

FDR was operating under immigration quotas passed by Congress under Harding and Coolidge (both republicans) that were aimed at eastern Europe which was seen as a hotbed of Bolshevism (Hitler agreed). Hoover later added that no immigrant could be admitted who might need public assistance, but since Hitler was confiscating the Jews property and money, this was one more obstacle FDR had to deal with. In fact, FDR's opponents in Congress threatened to introduce legislation that would reduce, rather than increase, the quota.

quote -- http://newdeal.feri.org/feri/wvh.htm -- "Rabbi Stephen Wise, the pre-eminent spokesman for American Zionism, and his daughter Justine Polier, were personal friends of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt with as much access to the White House as anyone. Rabbi Wise described FDR by saying "No one was more genuinely free from religious prejudice and racial bigotry..." He recalls in March, 1933 how "Roosevelt's soul rebelled at the Nazi doctrine of superior and inferior races..." and how in March, 1945, days before his death, Roosevelt spoke movingly of his determination to establish "a free and democratic Jewish commonwealth in Palestine."

If you want to read a more balanced view of FDR ....
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php ... d=10007411

or this...
https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/r/r ... -myth.html

or this...
http://www.newsweek.com/did-fdr-betray-jews-187118

And then there's this....



PS: My avatar is Sophie Scholl ... google it
User avatar
By ThirdTerm
#14376938
In the Newsweek article linked above, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote that anti-Semitism in the US was far more prevalent than it is today and his party had been on the wrong side of the issue, which may be why President Roosevelt was afraid to take any decisive action to rescue Jews in Nazi-controlled Europe. In a conversation with Churchill in 1943, FDR raised the Jewish question and he supported a plan "to spread the Jews thin all over the world," rather than allowing hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe to settle in the US. The number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi era was limited to about 26,000 annually and less than 25% of the quota was filled during the Nazi era because of extra requirements for would-be immigrants imposed by the Roosevelt administration.

Image
FDR and the Jews
Richard Breitman
Allan J. Lichtman
In an extensive examination of this impassioned debate, Richard Breitman and Allan J. Lichtman find that the president was neither savior nor bystander. In FDR and the Jews, they draw upon many new primary sources to offer an intriguing portrait of a consummate politician—compassionate but also pragmatic—struggling with opposing priorities under perilous conditions. For most of his presidency Roosevelt indeed did little to aid the imperiled Jews of Europe. He put domestic policy priorities ahead of helping Jews and deferred to others’ fears of an anti-Semitic backlash. Yet he also acted decisively at times to rescue Jews, often withstanding contrary pressures from his advisers and the American public. Even Jewish citizens who petitioned the president could not agree on how best to aid their co-religionists abroad. Though his actions may seem inadequate in retrospect, the authors bring to light a concerned leader whose efforts on behalf of Jews were far greater than those of any other world figure. His moral position was tempered by the political realities of depression and war, a conflict all too familiar to American politicians in the twenty-first century.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674050266


In their recent book, Breitman and Lichtman are very apologetic about FDR's record but they still concede that FDR's actions were sometimes inadequate and a Holocaust survivor brought up the issue regarding the bombing of Auschwitz, which was Churchill's idea, during a discussion with the authors about Roosevelt and the Holocaust. There was the enthusiasm gap between Churchill and FDR when it came to saving the Jews. Churchill was first elected as an MP from a predominantly Jewish district in Manchester and he consistently courted Jewish voters throughout his political career and as the Colonial Secretary in the early 1920s, he was directly responsible for the founding of the Jewish colony in the British Mandate of Palestine, which later became Israel. Churchill also played a major role in defeating the Aliens Bill of 1904, which was designed to restrict Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe and Russia, a thinly disguised effort at anti-Semitic electioneering by the Tories at the time.

After an hour, the session was opened to questions. An elderly woman stood up and identified herself as a Hungarian Holocaust survivor who had been a prisoner at Auschwitz. She recalled seeing Allied planes in the sky over the camp (“little silver birds, maybe thousands of them”). But the bombs never fell. Lipstadt and Breitman had explained earlier that the planes were not able to reach Auschwitz until late in the war and that, in any case, bombing the camp would probably not have stopped the killing. But that did not satisfy the woman. “If they would have bombed the crematoria, they could have at least stopped them from murdering the Jews,” she said, her voice rising in indignation. “That’s why I blame the Allies for it, including the United States. My parents died there—my whole family died over there, OK? And I was 16, so it’s not like you said that Roosevelt couldn’t do nothing.” The audience of several hundred, which had been largely subdued during the talk, suddenly erupted in applause and shouts of encouragement.
http://www.thenation.com/article/175315/fdrs-jewish-problem#
#14377309
ThirdTerm wrote:“That’s why I blame the Allies for it, including the United States. My parents died there—my whole family died over there, OK? And I was 16, so it’s not like you said that Roosevelt couldn’t do nothing.” [/b]The audience of several hundred, which had been largely subdued during the talk, suddenly erupted in applause and shouts of encouragement.
http://www.thenation.com/article/175315/fdrs-jewish-problem#


Henry Morgenthau (who was one of the closest confidants of FDR) sent a memo to FDR entitled “The Acquiescence of this Government in the Murder of the Jews.” It showed proof of the State Department’s efforts to impede immigration of Jews.

-- http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... ep.htmlOne -- "One of the greatest crimes in history, the slaughter of the Jewish people in Europe, is continuing unabated.This Government has for a long time maintained that its policy is to work out programs to serve those Jews of Europe who could be saved. I am convinced on the basis of the information which is available to me that certain officials in our State Department, which is charged with carrying out this policy, have been guilty not only of gross procrastination and willful failure to act, but even of willful attempts to prevent action from being taken to rescue Jews from Hitler."


In response, Roosevelt set up the War Refugee Board in 1944. It coordinated and accelerated rescue efforts by cutting through the red tape that the State Dept. had created.
Roosevelt met with his cabinet and asked them write up legislation to increase the US quota, only to be told that Congress would not approve any such legislation, in fact the Congress was threatening to decrease the quota. FDR's apparent passivity towards these appeals was due in part to fierce political opposition.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php ... d=10007411

As for the bombing of the Concentration camps...

-- http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... camps.html --"Most people are familiar with the names of the major concentration camps — Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, Treblinka — and may think that these were the only places where Jews and other prisoners were held by the Nazis. Actually, each of the 23 main camps had subcamps, nearly 900 of them."


Auschwitz had 23 'sub-camps'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_ ... p#Subcamps

Not all camps were expressly designed as Extermination camps; the fear was that if you shut down one Extermination camp the SS would respond by killing all the inmates in some other random Concentration camps, Labor camps, or Prison camps.

To bomb them all would have been out of the question.

-- https://www.britannica.com/holocaust/article-9342910 -- Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy wrote to Leon Kubowitzki of the World Jewish Congress, noting that FDR's War Refugee Board had asked if it was possible to bomb Auschwitz. McCloy responded:

After a study it became apparent that such an operation could be executed only by the diversion of considerable air support essential to the success of our forces now engaged in decisive operations elsewhere and would in any case be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources. There has been considerable opinion to the effect that such an effort, even if practicable, might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans.

An internal U.S. War Department memo stated, “We must constantly bear in mind, however, that the most effective relief which can be given victims of enemy persecution is to insure the speedy defeat of the Axis.”
User avatar
By redcarpet
#14408476
Xbow wrote:And I realize that part of the reason the shit-heads I mentioned above are so concerned with fairness to the swine that have chosen to milk the system rather than work


In your average country, I imagine even in the US, most people on unemployment benefit ARE working. They just not making enough to get by without extra help. Income inequality is growing remember. The USA has an increasing under-class of working poor.

Combined with a weak labour movement and flexible labour market, people's wages are driven down and other conditions reduced because they're pushed onto individual contracts.
By Oberon
#14596839
Kman wrote:In his new book, FDR and the Holocaust, author Rafael Medoff reveals the real FDR as a bigoted, buffoonish, elitist windbag. Here are a few quotes:

"The best way to settle the Jewish question," FDR once said, "is to spread the Jews thin all over the world." It worked for him in Hyde Park, NY, he said.

Complaints about the plight of European Jews fleeing the Nazis were dismissed by FDR as "sob stuff."

German complaints about Jews were "understandable," said FDR.

"Jews in various professions should be definitely limited."

The cause of anti-Semitism in Poland, FDR announced, was the economic success of Jewish businessmen there.

FDR boasted to a U.S. senator that "there is no Jewish blood in our [the Roosevelts'] veins."

Efforts to minimize one's income taxes was "a dirty Jewish trick" to Roosevelt.

"Mingling Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, unfortunate results," said FDR.

"Immigration should be limited to those with blood of the right sort," he said.

In 1923 FDR decided that there were too many Jews at Harvard so, as a member of the board of trustees, he imposed a quota.

Rafael Medoff surmises that such views can explain the FDR regime's tepid response to the reality of the Holocaust.

Funny how this sort of info is never taught in the brainwashing schools (government schools) eh?


A collection of isolated quotes with zero context and doubtful provenance. Ethnic prejudice doesn't equal send them to the gas chambers; most people from those eras weren't the sheltered, sniveling Burb Brat hyper-sensitive neurotics that make up most people under the age 70 today in Europe and the U.S.
By Oberon
#14596844
As for 'restricting immigration', the U.S. had immigrations restrictions on the books since 1924 or so, Jews having made up close to 10% of the immigrants to the U.S. the last two decades or so before the restrictions, and in fact loosened them in favor of Jews after the war as well, so sniveling about that is to make a case that nobody else on the planet had any responsibility to take them in, plus no other refugees from other ethnic groups mattered as much as Jews do, which is absurd. We see the same type of nonsense today with the Syrian and other refugees acting as if Europe is somehow obligated to let them all in, just because they prefer Europe to Egypt or Libya or somewhere where their great 'culture' and 'religion' are more socially acceptable to them.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]