Most evil American political leader ever?

[Shi Huangdi]

FDR is the worst president in American histrory. He gets way too much credit for WWII- Churchill made most of the big decisions and FDR didn't do too much great. He refused to back anti-lynching laws. He interned the Japanese. He destroyed many of our economic freedoms. He turned back refugees from the Holocaust. He used his power to subvert checks and balances- using intimidation against the supreme court to get his unconstitutional programs through.

FDR

[David Floyd]

He turned back refugees from the Holocaust.

Actually, if the 1924 National Origins Act applied to refugees as well as immigrants, this is one area where he acted according to the law.

He was still pretty damn bad, though, and I'm not saying I support that law, either.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
FDR is the worst president in American histrory. He gets way too much credit for WWII- Churchill made most of the big decisions and FDR didn't do too much great. He refused to back anti-lynching laws. He interned the Japanese. He destroyed many of our economic freedoms. He turned back refugees from the Holocaust. He used his power to subvert checks and balances- using intimidation against the supreme court to get his unconstitutional programs through.

FDR

They're out in force today, I guess.

He destroyed many of our economic freedoms.

Yeah, I'm disappointed he destroyed our freedom to stand in bread lines. And the freedom to live without social security when we get too old to work.

Churchill, while a much better leader (probably the best war-time leader of democracy ever), couldn't defeat Germany on his own. FDR was the commander in chief of the Americans during most of WW2. And any knock against FDR is a knock against all of the American Armed Forces that served in WW2. I'm not sure you want to knock the greatest generation in the history of freedom.

[David Floyd]

And the freedom to live without social security when we get too old to work.

I think you are misdefining "freedom". You could use the same definition to say that laws against stealing take away your freedom to live comfortably. No, what social security does is take away my freedom to save or dispose of my money as I see fit, and if I'm too short-sighted to save any for my retirement, too damn bad.

And any knock against FDR is a knock against all of the American Armed Forces that served in WW2.

How so? I'm not gonna knock people who were forced to fight and die, although I will say that they should have resisted the draft.

[David Floyd]

Oh, and Sava - why not try to rebut specific arguments against FDR, rather than just making asinine statements such as "they're out in force today".

[DinoDoc]

He isn't able to do anything else.

[David Floyd]

Ooooh, that sounds like a challenge Sava

[Boris Godunov]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Chris 62
Actually, both were correct, but blocked by cronies.[/.QUOTE]

Oh come on. Even conservative legal scholars have acknowledged that Clinton's impeachment was unwarranted, based on the standard set in the Constitution.

Your lack of understanding of Reagan is astounding.

Once again, ya just keep repeating things until you hope they become true.

making it up as you go along again, eh?
I did?
News to me.
You must tell me more about myself, such as how your quoting things I never said.

You said on CGN, during my ban, that you read every thread on 'Poly. I will go dig it out in a bit...

Your showing your ignorence again, it was Europeans, as in Vikings, and it's documented.
Also, the first English colony, Roanake Island, was completely wiped out as well, just for your edifaction.

I'm not sure what "edifaction" means, but you asserted in that the natives attacked the Spanish first, which was blatantly wrong, as some sort of justification fo the Europeans slaughtering the natives. I sincerely doubt you can say what happened to the Vikings somehow inspired the later Europeans--who knew nothing of Viking exploits in the new world--to attack the natives as a pre-emptive measure.

And Roanoke??!! First, that was after 1600, over 100 years after the Spanish arrived in the New World. Second, that wasn't what you were referring to in that thread. Third, there is no evidence the Natives "attacked" the colony and wiped it out. The population spent its time digging for gold and not preparing for winter, so when it came they starved and froze. The English survivors most likely abandoned the colony and moved inland and JOINED Native settlements, intermixing with the native population.

Never said I did, Boris, but I never make it up, as you so love to do.Nonsense.

I've never made it up, either. We just have different perspectives.

The whole world sees things from it's own point of view, the difference is I refuse to distort history, and I won't comment on things I don't know about.

History is not as factual as you're pretending it is, and much of what you consider "historical fact" is the distorted view of biased historians of the time.

You yourself said he STOLE the election, now you say it's a debate.
You just called yourself a liar!

What? It is my opinion he stole the election, I never said anything more than that. I even said, point blank, that it was what I consider to be right and wrong from my perspective. Lord, you're grasping at straws. Oh, now you've just made something up yourself!

It really annoys you that people realize your take on everything has an agenda, doesn't it?
You should try talking too people, instead of at them.

Talking "too" people?

You're just guilty of this, I've seen it here thousands of times where you just hammered away with your own nonsense without listening to what others have to say. At least when I respond to your sillyness I make it a point to address the things you actually say rather than making up you're saying, which you just did with mine.

And everyone puts there agenda in their viewpoints, that's what makes them their viewpoints. Duh.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He isn't able to do anything else.

yes, and no... making asinine statements is a good way to insult people who make stupid posts. And plus, I don't feel the need to go out and find evidence to tell you how wrong you are. I'm too lazy to waste my time arguing with (**---insert non-insulting remark here--**).

I guess the difference between me and people like you, Davey boy, is that I care about the people who can't effectively plan for retirement. And I'm not greedy... I don't mind having the government take my money to support those less fortunate than me. I dislike the wasteful nature of the government, but I don't use it as an excuse to disband programs that despite their bureaucratic waste, do help some people.

[Sava]

You right wingers should just be honest and come out and say, "I don't care about anyone else but myself."

[David Floyd]

yes, and no... making asinine statements is a good way to insult people who make stupid posts. And plus, I don't feel the need to go out and find evidence to tell you how wrong you are. I'm too lazy to waste my time arguing with (**---insert non-insulting remark here--**).

Translation: We know more than you about history and political science, and you can't be bothered to learn about it. That about sum it up?

I guess the difference between me and people like you, Davey boy, is that I care about the people who can't effectively plan for retirement.

That's nice. Fortunately, these people who can't (or more likely don't) plan for retirement have a variety of options open to them, including charity, religious organizations, family, and continuing to work.

And I'm not greedy... I don't mind having the government take my money to support those less fortunate than me.

Well I DO mind. Fortunately, a simple solution is presented. You should voluntarily give your money to help out a less fortunate person, and you should let me make my own choices in that regard. Fair enough?

[loinburger]

It's easy to be charitable with other peoples' money.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Once again, ya just keep repeating things until you hope they become true.

Very lame Boris, go read about the man, concentrate on his time as california governer.

You said on CGN, during my ban, that you read every thread on 'Poly. I will go dig it out in a bit...

I did?
That must be some trick, considering I NEVER post at CGN.

I'm not sure what "edifaction" means, but you asserted in that the natives attacked the Spanish first, which was blatantly wrong, as some sort of justification fo the Europeans slaughtering the natives.

Considering I never made such an assertion, why do you keep saying I did?

I sincerely doubt you can say what happened to the Vikings somehow inspired the later Europeans--who knew nothing of Viking exploits in the new world--to attack the natives as a pre-emptive measure.

What are you talking about?
Will you quit phantom quoting me?

And Roanoke??!! First, that was after 1600, over 100 years after the Spanish arrived in the New World.

I never said they attacked the Spanish, YOU keep saying I said that.

Second, that wasn't what you were referring to in that thread. Third, there is no evidence the Natives "attacked" the colony and wiped it out.

No evidence?
The place was razeed to the groud.
Who did it, Gremlins?

The population spent its time digging for gold and not preparing for winter, so when it came they starved and froze. The English survivors most likely abandoned the colony and moved inland and JOINED Native settlements, intermixing with the native population.

Nice theory, buy why were the buildings destroyed?
Since when were the Virgina tribes so accomdating?
This is what I referred to earlier, making it up as you go along.

I've never made it up, either. We just have different perspectives.

See above for comments on that.

History is not as factual as you're pretending it is, and much of what you consider "historical fact" is the distorted view of biased historians of the time.

What? It is my opinion he stole the election, I never said anything more than that.

You stated it as fact, just a few pages ago.

I even said, point blank, that it was what I consider to be right and wrong from my perspective. Lord, you're grasping at straws. Oh, now you've just made something up yourself!

The beauty of these things is you can't escape your own words:
"He was certainly wrong, IMO, when he blatantly stole the 2000 election, but again, that's off-topic. "
In your opinion he blatently stole the election.
How did he accomplish this little feat?
The disputed ballots were from democratic counties, and the law was clear as to what were leagal ballets.
Just a tad biased there, wern't you?

Talking "too" people?

You know, I have heard that from several people when your name came up.

You're just guilty of this, I've seen it here thousands of times where you just hammered away with your own nonsense without listening to what others have to say.

I never "hammer away with nonsense", if I spaek on something it's either from personal experience or university training.

At least when I respond to your sillyness I make it a point to address the things you actually say rather than making up you're saying, which you just did with mine.

Nonsense.
For the last two days you have trying to make it a personal battle,
Your a silly Lefty Boris, everybody knows it, you have no objectivity.

And everyone puts there agenda in their viewpoints, that's what makes them their viewpoints. Duh.

Just figured that out, did you?

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Translation: We know more than you about history and political science, and you can't be bothered to learn about it. That about sum it up?

to quote from one of my fave movies... you know two things, jack and sh!t... and jack left town... Sorry, to disappoint you Davey, but I'm pretty sure I know a tad bit more about history as you, considering my minor in it at DePaul University. I've been studying 20th Century history since I was 10 years old because so many of the great world events have affected me and my family. And seriously, how much can you learn from the bottom of your beer bottle? Go back to your porch, get a 12 pack, and enjoy that polluted Texas air. Leave things like history and political science to people committed to education.

That's nice. Fortunately, these people who can't (or more likely don't) plan for retirement have a variety of options open to them, including charity, religious organizations, family, and continuing to work.

yeah and most of these people are homeless and live in halfway houses... what a great life

Well I DO mind. Fortunately, a simple solution is presented. You should voluntarily give your money to help out a less fortunate person, and you should let me make my own choices in that regard. Fair enough?

Of course. Let's rely on the charitable nature of the rich, they've proven to be a nice and moral bunch . In fact, lets just allow them to regress and create an aristocratic society similar to the middle ages. Good plan.

[Sava]

Originally posted by loinburger
It's easy to be charitable with other peoples' money.

Especially the hard earned hundred plus million dollar bonuses that corporate CEO's get when they rape and pillage investors.

I'd much rather have my money taken away by the government then some corporate bastard.