|
Post by clemiethedog on Mar 31, 2010 17:39:50 GMT
It's easy to see why conservatives hate FDR and his program. Conservatives hate to see a healthy, well-educated, well-paid populace with leisure time and a quality of life that is reserved for only the wealthy. A public that is poor, scared, and ignorant are easy to control and manipulate. That is the consservative manifesto. A portion of FDR's speech, from January 1944: In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education. Link: www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=130&Itemid
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 31, 2010 18:59:35 GMT
My God! The man sounds like a liberal leftie pinko progressive Commie and positively unAmerican. Sarah Palin should shoot him, then stuff him like a moose.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 31, 2010 19:16:47 GMT
My God! The man sounds like a liberal leftie pinko progressive Commie and positively unAmerican. Sarah Palin should shoot him, then stuff him like a moose. do me a favor hon, and please, please do not insult the moose. unlike palin and her ilk, at least the moose has a functioning brain
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 31, 2010 19:20:08 GMT
of course, clemmie is totally correct. as das has repeatedly said, republicans believe that, if you are not a millionaire, you should have nothing at all. the firmly hold that only the rich should be entitled to even the most basic amenities of life. anything that harms the real people but enriches the wealthy will overjoy the republicans
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 31, 2010 19:31:44 GMT
of course, clemmie is totally correct. as das has repeatedly said, republicans believe that, if you are not a millionaire, you should have nothing at all. the firmly hold that only the rich should be entitled to even the most basic amenities of life. anything that harms the real people but enriches the wealthy will overjoy the republicans What a fascistic culture! I'm glad that, here in Scotland, we believe in both the dignity of labour, and that an educated person should be given fair opportunities, regardless of how poor his/her background is. (One of the reasons Robert Burns is our national poet.) Scottish people were at the forefront of the Trade Unions movement. Good, god-fearing Proddie men who believed that the working person deserved a living wage, especially when the companies they worked for were making huge profits.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 31, 2010 19:49:42 GMT
of course, clemmie is totally correct. as das has repeatedly said, republicans believe that, if you are not a millionaire, you should have nothing at all. the firmly hold that only the rich should be entitled to even the most basic amenities of life. anything that harms the real people but enriches the wealthy will overjoy the republicans What a fascistic culture! I'm glad that, here in Scotland, we believe in both the dignity of labour, and that an educated person should be given fair opportunities, regardless of how poor his/her background is. (One of the reasons Robert Burns is our national poet.) Scottish people were at the forefront of the Trade Unions movement. Good, god-fearing Proddie men who believed that the working person deserved a living wage, especially when the companies they worked for were making huge profits. actually, for the most part, until reagan, even the majority of republicans believed that people who actually work should be paid. it was ronnie who started the push to elevate corporate profits over the welfare of the people who actually produce. of course, dumbya pushed it further to the extreme. AND, you're scotch. it is because the scots are that way that i can love to watch this:
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 31, 2010 20:31:30 GMT
AND, you're scotch. it is because the scots are that way that i can love to watch this: Only eggs and whisky are Scotch, but I'll let you off as I think you're being complimentary!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 31, 2010 20:34:57 GMT
jumbo a cardinal sin..scotch is a drink NOT and NEVER PEOPLE or PEOPLES... even a sassenache like me would never insult those north of the border by calling em scotch
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 31, 2010 20:36:20 GMT
AND, you're scotch. it is because the scots are that way that i can love to watch this: Only eggs and whisky are Scotch, but I'll let you off as I think you're being complimentary! and pancakes of which my family are inordinately fond[drop scones to you lot]
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 31, 2010 21:29:37 GMT
AND, you're scotch. it is because the scots are that way that i can love to watch this: Only eggs and whisky are Scotch, but I'll let you off as I think you're being complimentary! i WAS being complimentary. i know there is scotch whiskey, but i've never heard of scotch eggs.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 31, 2010 21:37:23 GMT
jumbo a cardinal sin..scotch is a drink NOT and NEVER PEOPLE or PEOPLES... even a sassenache like me would never insult those north of the border by calling em scotch sorry. i've never heard that. i will however, file it for future reference
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 31, 2010 23:23:39 GMT
FDR was a very good President when it came to supporting the war effort, lend lease, etc. But he was a disaster on everything else.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 1, 2010 14:48:45 GMT
FDR was a very good President when it came to supporting the war effort, lend lease, etc. But he was a disaster on everything else. your penchant for being 180 out from reality shows again. reality lad!! fdr was only the second president in history, lincoln being the first, who clearly demonstrated a commitment to the american people, and was so much a real american that he had the sense to be anti big business. reagan and dumbya were disasters for the REAL americans, as they did everything possible to destroy the country.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 1, 2010 22:03:27 GMT
Jumbo - did you know that Lincoln was considerably less popular than GW Bush while in office? History has shown him to be a great President. It will do the same for GW Bush.
There haven't been any good Democrat presidents with the exception of Harry Truman.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 1, 2010 23:15:17 GMT
Jumbo - did you know that Lincoln was considerably less popular than GW Bush while in office? History has shown him to be a great President. It will do the same for GW Bush. There haven't been any good Democrat presidents with the exception of Harry Truman. Then according to your own logic, Obama might turn out to be great also, taking into account your emphasis on his ''declining popularity".
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 2, 2010 6:45:25 GMT
Jumbo - did you know that Lincoln was considerably less popular than GW Bush while in office? History has shown him to be a great President. It will do the same for GW Bush. There haven't been any good Democrat presidents with the exception of Harry Truman. hardly lad. lincoln was unpopular in the south, which at that time, was not part of the u.s. lincoln put the country together again, whereas dumbya did everything he could think of to tear it apart. that is what history will remember you didn't learn much in school did you? you left out jfk, lbj, etc, and neglected to mention the FACT that the last good republican president was eisenhower a remedial history course is definitely in order for you
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 2, 2010 6:51:24 GMT
Jumbo - did you know that Lincoln was considerably less popular than GW Bush while in office? History has shown him to be a great President. It will do the same for GW Bush. There haven't been any good Democrat presidents with the exception of Harry Truman. Then according to your own logic, Obama might turn out to be great also, taking into account your emphasis on his ''declining popularity". not necessary. obama has already proven beyond all doubt, to those of us who choose to think rationally, that he is a hundred times better than dumbya ever was
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 2, 2010 23:25:01 GMT
No Jumbo - Lincoln was perhaps more unpopular in the North than in the South.
Did you ever notice the fatality statistics for the Civil War? At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam. The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates: Battle deaths: 110,070, Disease, etc.: 250,152, Total 360,222
There were a lot of unhappy mothers who lost their sons in the northern states Jumbo.
By comparison, how many American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan? What? 5,000 or more battle deaths as compared to the 110,000 in the Civil War?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 2, 2010 23:53:00 GMT
No Jumbo - Lincoln was perhaps more unpopular in the North than in the South. Did you ever notice the fatality statistics for the Civil War? At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam. The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates: Battle deaths: 110,070, Disease, etc.: 250,152, Total 360,222 There were a lot of unhappy mothers who lost their sons in the northern states Jumbo. By comparison, how many American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan? What? 5,000 or more battle deaths as compared to the 110,000 in the Civil War? big difference lad. afghanistan and the civil war are/were necessary, while there was NO legitimate reason for any american dying in iraq
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Apr 3, 2010 14:42:14 GMT
"No Jumbo - Lincoln was perhaps more unpopular in the North than in the South."
That is the precise opposite of the truth.
He was preparing to battle the Radical Republicans and their "bloody shirt" agenda, but he was shot before reconstruction started. Had he lived, I am certain it would have turned out differently. Lincoln had incredible political skill, something his successor lacked.
|
|