What have "LIBERALS" done for America?

FDR's "Liberalism" is pretty fascist and is quite similar to modern Liberals, I think. Classical liberalism seems to be more closely related to paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism. My beliefs are personally somewhere between the two.

Originally posted by Johnmike
FDR's "Liberalism" is pretty fascist and is quite similar to modern Liberals, I think. Classical liberalism seems to be more closely related to paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism. My beliefs are personally somewhere between the two.

Umm, well, I have often stated that FDR was the closest thing that we ever had to a dictator, excluding the current President, but I think that he was that at a time when our nation needed it. The nation needed someone to say, "Hey, this is the way it's going to be, period."

As far as a correlation between FDR and present day liberals, uh, while on the surface one may say there are similarities, I don't think that he'd support many of the things that present day "liberals," socialists in disguise, do today.

First, I seriously doubt that he's support an open doors policy concerning our national borders.

Secondly, it's hard to say where he'd stand on such issues as political correctness, abortion and gay marriage.



[edit on 21-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by redseal
Liberals are for abortion, but against the death penalty.
Kill a baby, save a criminal.

THE BIBLE SAYS YOUA REN'T HUMAN UNTIL YOU TAKE YOUR FIRST BREATH, THE BREATH OF LIFE, THEREFOR LIBERALS ARE GOING BY THE BIBLE

They are for afferimitive action.
Give someone a job based on their race, not qualifications.

THEY ARE FOR HELPING THE PEOPLE OPPRESSED FOR OVER 200 YEARS BY CONSERVATIVES

Love taxes.
More money in the goverments hands and less in yours! No wonder why we have the lowest savins rate in how many years. The govt knows how to spend your money better than you!!

UNDER CLINTON WE HAD A SURPLUS, THE PAST 5 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS HAVE SPENT MORE MONEY THEN EVERY PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA

Illegal Immigration.
The keyword here is ILLEGAL, Whats next to slide down this slope, child molesters?

GUESS WHO IS AGAINST THE AMNESTY BILL? DEMOCRATS! GUESS WHO IS PUSHING FOR IT, BUSH!

Gay marriage benifits.
Marriage is defined by the union of a man and woman, not man/man or woman/woman. You want the benifits play by the rules.

SO PRETTY MUCH THE SAME ARGUEMENT USED AGAINST BLACKS? BIGOT/RACIST

Reperations.
You want me to pay for something my great, great, great, great grandfolks may or may have not done? Well then it stands to reason you should pay for my great, great, great, great grand childrens actions. But dont pay them, I want you to pay me!! Lets just call it even.

DEMOCRATS DON'T SUPPORT THIS, NOT SURE HOW YOU GOT THAT IDEA

War in IRAQ/terrorisum.
Along for the ride as long as a Clinton is in office.

CLINTON DID NOT INVADE, NEVER WANTED TO, BECAUSE LIKE BUSH41 HE KNEW IT WOULD BE A DISASTER

Sexual relations isnt sexual.
Just ask Bill.

CHEATING ON YOUR WIFE ISN'T A CRIME BUT HE WAS PROSECUTED FOR IT

14 Year olds rights to abortion, condoms.
Ya 14 year olds think with a rational mind.

THEN YOU COMPLAIN WHEN A 14 YEAR OLD IS ON WELFARE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T TAKE CARE OF THE BABY

Partial birth abortion.
Stick a needle in the babys head just before it completely comes out. "wasn't alive untill it came fully out"

THIS IS DONE IN CHINA, NOT AMERICA

Pork barrel projects.
Way to many to list, I'd be here forever.

AGAIN THE PAST 5 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS SPENT MORE THEN EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA!

And on and on and on and on.......................

My answers are the ones in caps.

Learn to format quotes.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
THE BIBLE SAYS YOUA REN'T HUMAN UNTIL YOU TAKE YOUR FIRST BREATH, THE BREATH OF LIFE, THEREFOR LIBERALS ARE GOING BY THE BIBLE

Religion has no place in politics.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
THEY ARE FOR HELPING THE PEOPLE OPPRESSED FOR OVER 200 YEARS BY CONSERVATIVES

Sorry, just because you're black doesn't mean that you deserve my money.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
SO PRETTY MUCH THE SAME ARGUEMENT USED AGAINST BLACKS? BIGOT/RACIST

No, but some people think that marriage is between a man and a woman. Unless you see "black" as a different gender, your statement is moronic and shows great carelessness.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
CLINTON DID NOT INVADE, NEVER WANTED TO, BECAUSE LIKE BUSH41 HE KNEW IT WOULD BE A DISASTER

How ignorant are you? en.wikipedia.org...
That happened under, ding, Clinton!

Originally posted by Lightstorm
CHEATING ON YOUR WIFE ISN'T A CRIME BUT HE WAS PROSECUTED FOR IT

Wrong! He was prosecuted for lying under oath, which is a crime.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
THEN YOU COMPLAIN WHEN A 14 YEAR OLD IS ON WELFARE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T TAKE CARE OF THE BABY

Yes. I don't want to pay for a 14-year-old to take care of a child because she's too stupid to keep her legs closed. Actions have consequences.

Liberals have given American "conservative" Talk show hosts and it's listeners fodder to feed their delusions of grandeur and moral superiority.

So when Bush says God toild him to invade Iraq that's ok but when Dems follow the Bible it's wrong? When Reagan uses the Church to get into office it was great but when the Dems turn it around on you its bad?

And again, being a racist bigot on the gay thing just like it was with blacks for over 200 years.

And Wikipedia? Wow, great source, not. That source if I wanted to could say 2+2=6 if I get my friends to vote on it.

Also, The Republicans, like Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Rush Limbaugh, all said lying under oath isn't a crime if you're lying about something that isn't a crime. Cheating on your wife isn't a crime, therefor, according to the Republicans, he didn't commit a crime.(This was the defense Scooter used)

And again you don't want a 14 year old who you say isn't mature enough to make the decision to have sex with condoms or an abortion but then complain about having to pay welfare for the baby. If they are too stupid to have sex then obviously they are too stupid to have a kid therefor they should have condoms or abortions. Or are you going to sit there and say "Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't"?

Also, you avoided everything else I beat you on, good job.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
So when Bush says God toild him to invade Iraq that's ok but when Dems follow the Bible it's wrong? When Reagan uses the Church to get into office it was great but when the Dems turn it around on you its bad?

Talking about God and whatnot is fine. Using it to make policies is not good, no matter who does it.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
And again, being a racist bigot on the gay thing just like it was with blacks for over 200 years.

That has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
And Wikipedia? Wow, great source, not. That source if I wanted to could say 2+2=6 if I get my friends to vote on it.

Okay, the Kosovo War didn't happen?

I think I can safely call you an anti-intellectual moron if you're telling me that.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
Also, The Republicans, like Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Rush Limbaugh, all said lying under oath isn't a crime if you're lying about something that isn't a crime. Cheating on your wife isn't a crime, therefor, according to the Republicans, he didn't commit a crime.(This was the defense Scooter used)

Cheating isn't a crime. I don't care who said what, it is a crime to lie under oath.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
And again you don't want a 14 year old who you say isn't mature enough to make the decision to have sex with condoms or an abortion but then complain about having to pay welfare for the baby. If they are too stupid to have sex then obviously they are too stupid to have a kid therefor they should have condoms or abortions. Or are you going to sit there and say "Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't"?

The problem here is that you're forcing all the taxpayers to pay for the mistake some girl made, in the case of welfare. You can't just give someone money because they decided to have a bunch of kids they can't support.

For abortions, too many people don't believe in abortion. I personally think that it's wrong, that it's killing, though I don't think it should be federally banned (I support state and local bans, if they are desired). I do not want my money going to pay for some girl's abortion.

For condoms, let them buy them on their own if they want to have sex. Additionally, some people don't believe in contraception, and forcing them to support is is immoral.

Originally posted by LightstormAlso, you avoided everything else I beat you on, good job.

Actually, your post was a response to someone else. Additionally, since you were too lazy to take your responses out of the massive quote, it was difficult to respond to you (even though I was nice enough to try).


You sound like an angry child. Please keep your immaturity out of these forums, it'll be better for all of us.

[edit on 21-6-2007 by Johnmike]

I put them in caps so you could tell my response from the quote, a 4 year old could tell that, especially since I said that.

Also, Kosovo isn't Iraq. Nice try but two dif countries.

And the only reason you don't want gays to marry is because you don't like them? Sound just like the KKK saying interacial marriage was wrong because they said so.

Anyways, angry child? This from the person using the "Nuh uh cause I said so!" defense. And who is throwing insults? I'm probably older then you and I have proven my points, you have just said "I don't wanna pay for anything!" Fine, I will never get testicular cancer, I don't want my tax money to go towards research to cure testicular cancer.

Here is proof from the Treasury site that shows how the past three Republican Preisdents have spent more then every other president combined.

img98.imageshack.us...


[edit on 22-6-2007 by Lightstorm]

Originally posted by Lightstorm
Also, Kosovo isn't Iraq. Nice try but two dif countries.

Should I applaud you on your ability to distinguish two different countries by name?

Originally posted by Lightstorm
And the only reason you don't want gays to marry is because you don't like them? Sound just like the KKK saying interacial marriage was wrong because they said so.

Actually I don't really have a stance on gay marriage. I think it should be left up to the state to decide. It has nothing to do with not liking anyone, it's a matter of defining marriage. I think that civil unions between any consenting adult humans should be allowed in all states. Marriage, I don't know.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
Anyways, angry child? This from the person using the "Nuh uh cause I said so!" defense. And who is throwing insults? I'm probably older then you and I have proven my points, you have just said "I don't wanna pay for anything!" Fine, I will never get testicular cancer, I don't want my tax money to go towards research to cure testicular cancer.

Then we can privately fund it. But really, it's a different argument. I don't want to pay for intentional mistakes and morally questionable things.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
Here is proof from the Treasury site that shows how the past three Republican Preisdents have spent more then every other president combined.

img98.imageshack.us...

That graph is misleading; it starts too late.




What's important is, look at where it starts. That's Franklin Roosevelt/Truman. Notice how dramatically it fell under Eisenhower (Republican).



First, look at how it skyrocketed under FDR. I personally see him as the worst president in the history of this nation, although my reasoning doesn't rely on the national debt at that time by any means.

Notice that these graphs are PER GDP, which is why they don't perfectly align with your graph. That's because our national GDP has gone up considerably over time.



That said, I'm decidedly against the decision to start the war in Iraq, as I was against Clinton's decision to go into Serbia (with NATO, though) and Bush Sr.'s decision to go into Iraq the first time.

National debt, though, doesn't say too much about the state of the economy. No one figure can do that, though national debt is particularly useless in that respect. I believe that no matter how well or poorly the budget is balanced, the economy will take damage from attempts to implement mixed or command economic practices.

I don't support Neo-Conservatism, either. I see interventionists and authoritarians in a very bad light as well. Though I don't feel that interventionism is nearly as damaging to the economy as attempts to control it, I do think that preemptive warfare is against the just warfare principle and threatens to damage what this nation stands for, even when the reasons for doing so are good. Authoritarianism, on the other hand, is the one thing I fear more than the destruction of my economic freedom, though they do go hand in hand; once you take one freedom, you can take the other much more easily. That's why I'm so for state's rights, the right to bear arms, and putting restrictions on government agencies (illegal wiretapping, anyone?), and so against a bloated federal government constantly taking an active role in welfare and warfare.

My beliefs are best described as a cross between Paleolibertarianism and Paleoconservatism. So while I speak out against most Democrats, since they pretty much are Democrats because they believe in a somehow command or mixed economy (I'm currently studying the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics, though independently through books and essays), I'm just as ready to do the same against anyone who does the same, regardless of political party. Likewise, I will do just that against anyone who believes in authoritarian or interventionist principles.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by Johnmike]

What? You didn't look at the graph did you? It says "First 198 years, 37 presidents, of spending = 493billion" I think FDR is covered in that.

Bush 43 spent more money then every president in the first 200 years. Actually, looking at it, Bush 43 has spent more then every president in the first 214 years. Him and his daddy spent more then everyone. Two Bush's out spend 41 other presidents.

Your chart begins in 1975.

Again you refuse to read the posts before yours. Please, please, please, what else can I say? Read it before you post! For the love of God!

Your graph has TWO flaws, other than the misleading start date. One, it is not PER GDP. You need to look at the debt RELATIVE to what is produced within the nation. Here's an example: A debt of $1,000,000 is huge for an average person, but that same debt is nothing to a massive company like Microsoft. The nation's GDP has greatly increased, so pure money figures from the past would be misleading if you don't put the GDP at the time into the equation.

Additionally, is this graph adjusted for inflation? A dollar in the early 1800's is very, very different from the dollar now. You can't compare it.

In closing, any graph that does not both adjust for inflation and other factors that influence the value of the dollar and then compare what you get from that to the GDP of the nation is invalid and misleading.

No, it clearly says "1776-1974 Spending=493billion" So this just proves you didn't even look at it. And still sad that Bush spends more in one year then every other president did from 1776-1974.

Originally posted by Lightstorm

What? You didn't look at the graph did you? It says "First 198 years, 37 presidents, of spending = 493billion" I think FDR is covered in that.

Bush 43 spent more money then every president in the first 200 years. Actually, looking at it, Bush 43 has spent more then every president in the first 214 years. Him and his daddy spent more then everyone. Two Bush's out spend 41 other presidents.

You're looking at the wrong figure. You have to, number one, ADJUST FOR INFLATION AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT AFFECTS THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR.
Secondly, you have to look at it PER GDP.

Pure monetary figures don't tell you ANYTHING.

Read my post above yours, I explained it already.

Except Bush 43 has spent more then every democrat and he still has a year left! So, Bush 43 outspends every democrat, and both Bush's outspend EVERY presidnet EVER. So, who are the big spenders?

Originally posted by Lightstorm
Except Bush 43 has spent more then every democrat and he still has a year left! So, Bush 43 outspends every democrat, and both Bush's outspend EVERY presidnet EVER. So, who are the big spenders?

Per GDP, Franklin Roosevelt was higher, I believe. Not surprising, since he was practically a fascist.

A facist who...

Saved us from Hitler
Saved us from the Great Depression started by Republicans
Made us THEE Super Power of the World
Who spent less in his 4 terms then Bush spends in a year.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
Saved us from Hitler

We wouldn't have needed saving if he hadn't gotten us into the war.

Additionally, the United States really wasn't responsible for winning the war. You can blame that on the Soviet Union. Hitler was stupid enough to turn on it, even though top leaders were begging him not to. That's why he lost the war.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
Saved us from the Great Depression started by Republicans

No politicians caused it. It was caused naturally, but greatly worsened by the Federal Reserve restricting the supply of money.

All FDR did with the New Deal is make it worse.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
Made us THEE Super Power of the World

Not really. He got us into a war, cost us hundreds of thousands of American lives. Nothing to do with making us the superpower, we were just economically superior.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
Who spent less in his 4 terms then Bush spends in a year.

Again, you refuse to read. Right now I think you're just trying to troll the forums or something.

FDR spent far more per GDP than even Bush.


Yes, a fascist. He had Japanese sent to concentration camps for their ethnicity. He took a step toward robbing us of our Second Amendment right to bear arms. He tried to violate the system of checks and balances through court packing. He started censoring the media through the FCC. He got us into a horrendous World War. He turned us into a nation where the economy was fascist, completely controlled and subsidized, and therefore reliant, on an inefficient government.

There's really nothing "good" that he did.



I don't know, are you just trolling, or should I question your literacy? It's like you're ignoring every post above yours. Are you being paid to spread propaganda? I don't understand why you would behave this way.

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by Lightstorm
Saved us from Hitler

We wouldn't have needed saving if he hadn't gotten us into the war.

Additionally, the United States really wasn't responsible for winning the war. You can blame that on the Soviet Union. Hitler was stupid enough to turn on it, even though top leaders were begging him not to. That's why he lost the war.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
Saved us from the Great Depression started by Republicans

No politicians caused it. It was caused naturally, but greatly worsened by the Federal Reserve restricting the supply of money.

All FDR did with the New Deal is make it worse.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
Made us THEE Super Power of the World

Not really. He got us into a war, cost us hundreds of thousands of American lives. Nothing to do with making us the superpower, we were just economically superior.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
Who spent less in his 4 terms then Bush spends in a year.

Again, you refuse to read. Right now I think you're just trying to troll the forums or something.

FDR spent far more per GDP than even Bush.


Yes, a fascist. He had Japanese sent to concentration camps for their ethnicity. He took a step toward robbing us of our Second Amendment right to bear arms. He tried to violate the system of checks and balances through court packing. He started censoring the media through the FCC. He got us into a horrendous World War. He turned us into a nation where the economy was fascist, completely controlled and subsidized, and therefore reliant, on an inefficient government.

There's really nothing "good" that he did.



I don't know, are you just trolling, or should I question your literacy? It's like you're ignoring every post above yours. Are you being paid to spread propaganda? I don't understand why you would behave this way.

1. HITLER attacked us, you might not know this but there are German Submarines sunk off our coast cause they were sinking our ships so we sunk them. Hitler was planning to attack us, and had. Unless you want to be speaking German now...

2. Republicans did nothing to stop the GD. They sat around as Americans starved to death. FDR stopped it. His Fair Deal saved America. Without it millions more could have/would have starved to death or committed suicide as they lost everything. Ecxept for the super rich, republicans, so no point in doing anything to stop since the GOP didn't lose any major donors.

3. Before FDR a nation that was dieing, during and after thee super power. Or was that when God came down and blessed us?

4. And again in four terms, about 12 full and part of 1 since he died, he spent less then Bush did in one year.

Also, you take the 6.5 years we've had Bushes in office and you have more money spent then every other president combined. So again, who are the spending junkies when 2 Republican presidents spend more then every other president combined?

Originally posted by Lightstorm
1. HITLER attacked us, you might not know this but there are German Submarines sunk off our coast cause they were sinking our ships so we sunk them. Hitler was planning to attack us, and had. Unless you want to be speaking German now...

You're talking about Operation Paukenschlag, which took place in 1942, after the United States entered the war.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
2. Republicans did nothing to stop the GD. They sat around as Americans starved to death. FDR stopped it. His Fair Deal saved America. Without it millions more could have/would have starved to death or committed suicide as they lost everything. Ecxept for the super rich, republicans, so no point in doing anything to stop since the GOP didn't lose any major donors.

Right, "Republicans" did nothing to stop the Great Depression. I highly doubt that you understand the economics involved in its cause. Spend a half hour browsing Wikipedia, since you seem so adamant on repeating yourself.

Again, the New Deal didn't do anything to help the Great Depression. In fact, the only thing government can do through such action is make it worse. So no, FDR did not stop the Great Depression. Read up on it. Please?

Originally posted by Lightstorm
3. Before FDR a nation that was dieing, during and after thee super power. Or was that when God came down and blessed us?

It's more that the rest of the world was forced to recover from a devastating World War. The American economy greatly benefited from the demand for war materials, which we were supplying Allied nations with since before we were officially involved.

Originally posted by Lightstorm
4. And again in four terms, about 12 full and part of 1 since he died, he spent less then Bush did in one year.

Actually he died during his fourth term. But that takes time literacy to know.

Oh, and per GDP, he did spend more. Stop repeating yourself like a nitwit and read.

[edit on 25-6-2007 by Johnmike]