[cheygriz]

How many think that our first **rabidly anti-gun president,*** FDR, was a red?

[TallPine]

no, but I have heard he was dyslexic :D

[Blackhawk]

Ol' FRD? Never heard of hmi... :rolleyes:

[MoNsTeR]

FDR was not a communist, nor likely a sympathizer. I don't know if he was a socialist in his own mind, though he certainly was by his actions.

Anything FDR might have done specifically to the rights of gun owners pales in comparison to what he did to this nation and its constitution as a whole. On the list of Greatest American Tyrants, he's #2 right behind Lincoln.

[telewinz]

Hell No, He is just want we needed at the time and their is some justification for calling him a "savior". Remember, at that time (early 30's) the farmers in Iowa (a very conservative & stable people) were canning food, conviced the US government was going to collapse:what: .

[Chris Rhines]

Communist? Maybe. Probably not an ICP member.
Totalitarian? Without a doubt.
Subhuman waste of skin? Oh, yeah.

- Chris

[Kaylee]

As I recall, FDR himself said his actions were intended to prevent the US from going down the Communist road. At the time remember, there was a heck of a lot of fear and dissaffection with Classical "lazzez-faire" markets. Further, "planning" was in its vigourous youth all over the world..

Then, as now, the popular pressure when things were going bad was to find a saviour to "do something." Didn't matter what, just "do something."

That that something in the end turned out to be a worse tragedy for the country than would otherwise have happened was not something they knew -- or cared to know -- at the time.


In the retrospect of history, sure I'd call him a disasterous, socialistic, wannabe tyrant. But given the character of the times, had he not come along, I'm not convinced another man, at least as bad, wouldn't have crawled out of the same rock and into the White House.

-K

[Skunkabilly]

LOL when I saw FRD, I was trying to figure it out...

FRed Durst? :D

[Hkmp5sd]

No, FDR was not a communist. He was the definition of a Liberal, however. He had no problem with the rich, powerful elite (since he was part of it) and with capitalism, but he also thought the government should take care of everyone from cradle-grave.

[another okie]

Federal Republic of Deutschland?
Free Range Ducks?
Fiercely Rabid Democrats?
Ferocious Republican Denial?

[Blackhawk]

Ditto what Hkmp5sd said.

[Destructo6]

Hell No, He is just want we needed at the time and their is some justification for calling him a "savior". Remember, at that time (early 30's) the farmers in Iowa (a very conservative & stable people) were canning food, conviced the US government was going to collapse
So, what did he do that was so great? The economy took another downturn in the late 1930's, so can you say he solved the Depression? The Depression didn't end until the WWII economy go into full swing.

In 1937 (?), he tried to add members, his appointees, to the USC to swing the court to his side. This was after they declared large portions of his earlier programs unconstitutional in 1935.

He could probably be best described as a "Populist" since he was left when that got votes and moved to the center when people like Huey Long arrived on the scene.

[Art Eatman]

Destruct06, FDR did the same sort of thing Reagan did: He provided hope at a time it was needed, a time of a national malaise. In that sense he was a Good Thing. Overall, I have a strong negative attitude against his Statism...

Art

[PlayTheAces]

I don't know what he really was. Definitely a socialist, and his attempt to pack the Supreme Court was an all out attack on the Constitution's separation of government. The only president to run and be elected four terms - obviously liked the power.

Wanted us in the war real bad, and most likely sacrificed Pearl Harbor to do it. Bear in mind up to the attack on Pearl, public opinion was strongly against our entering the war.

Although he gave the Soviets immense aid and manipulated our own public opinion to look at "Uncle Joe" as a great leader and friend, he also let the Russians carry a heavy load in the fighting and probably minimized our own casulties by doing it. When he gave up eastern europe he was sick and dying. I always wondered if he meant to do that all along, or was just out maneuvered when practically on his deathbed.

One thing I do know, he was very very slick.

[telewinz]

FDR gave people hope just like Reagan did only more so. Their was a fear and a doubt that capitalism could not succeed without "preying" on the common man. Without FDR we might not have the capitalistic system (None) we have now, regulated but in good health. Greed is like any other human emotion, excess brings about decline. FDR is the best friend the American people or business ever had! We survived!

[Hkmp5sd]

The only president to run and be elected four terms

At the time, there was no term limit on the office of the President. The fact he was elected 4 times only shows how well he was at convincing the American public he was good for them.

Wanted us in the war real bad, and most likely sacrificed Pearl Harbor to do it. Bear in mind up to the attack on Pearl, public opinion was strongly against our entering the war.

There is overwhelming proof that FDR did not have prior warning about the attack on Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen so the US could be drawn into the war.

The easiest way to prove this is the simple fact that allowing JAPAN to attach Pearl Harbor DID NOT guarantee FDR a way to get American forces into the EUROPEAN war. FDR wanted to help England and fight Germany. Even following Pearl Harbor, FDR had no excuse to join the fight in Europe. If Hitler had not made the remarkably stupid decision to declare war on the US, there is a very good chance the US would have fought Japan in the Pacific and left Europe for the Germans.

[Sean Smith]

FDR wasn't a communist. He wasn't really even a socialist. He was just a quasi-liberal. The right loves to bash him because he was a Democrat, because he is still the object of nutty hero-worship, and because most of his policies were a waste of time. He also pretended to have just enough interest in civil rights to keep alot of the black people from voting Republican.

But consider the prevailing trends everywhere else in the "civilized" world in the 1930s:

The best case was the UK, and they had the rise of a socialist party ("red" Labor) that would take over the country in 1945. After a 3-way civil war, Spain fell to Fascism, as did Germany and Italy. French society was a disaster area. Russia was ruled by Stalin, China was in chaos, and Japan had a god-Emperor. Meanwhile, the world economy was in a death-spiral for about a decade or so.

In that context, we really did get off light with FDR as our president. As for the theory that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance... it's B.S., folks. Take off the tin-foil hats and find a conspiracy theory that at least makes SOME sense. :rolleyes:

[MoNsTeR]

Several points are worth noting.

1. FDR's policies were generally not FDR's ideas. Most of the "New Deal" was initiated by Hoover, who was not, contrary to popular belief, a believer in hands-off laissez faire. Hoover's successor had the chance to end the wrong-headed gov't policies that began, and perpetuated the depression. FDR squandered that chance by taking those policies further, with predictable results.

2. The war economy did not end the depression. The depression ended when the war economy ended, allowing real, productive economic activity to begin again in earnest.

3. Just about every policy initated during the depression violated both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. It's hard to argue that any politician pushing such policies is our "friend".

[JoeSF]

No I don't. I think he made some bad decisions. But hindsight is always 20-20.

[waterdog]

FDR did know, because we had broken the Japanese code.

There is a lot of info on the subject.

waterdog

[Baba Louie]

HK,
waterdog may be correct if the book I read has any truth at all to it.

http://www.blueskypie.com/nonfictionbycategory/history/historynonfxnbooks/dayofdeceit.asp

Its worthy of a look.

FDR was a master politician and had a great mind. He reminds me of WJC in that regard. A couple of others as well, but we need not sink into that morass here at The High Road, neh?. The people loved him, he said the right things, he tried everything to get the economy up and running (all it took was a world war, or the belief and confidence in our manufacturing coupled with a market somewhere ready to buy).
I've heard it said about him by my late Grandad (a hardcore Repub living in DC at the time), "Give the devil his due, he kept us from sinking into communism", which I gather was a very real threat at the time.

And, strange as it seems, a war may have saved this nation. It certainly brought it to the forefront, which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your point of view.

We've had some good leaders, some bad, a few great ones. They all had character flaws... who does not? They each left their mark on our history and our course in the years following their administrations. Love or hate WJC, or GHB, the chickens are coming home to roost now, GWB is dealing with it and the next administration will have to deal with his aftermath.

Even Harry Truman said he had to bend the constitution once in awhile cause he couldn't get the congress to get things done that needed doing.

Its a strange political system we have here; 2 year terms unlimited (H. of Rep.), 4 year terms twice only (Exec.), 6 year terms unlimited (Sen.) but maybe it does beat having a dictator (with a religious bent) for life or a King sent from God Almighty.

I'd say FDR was the right man in the right place at the right time, because he was there and we put him there, over and over.
Or maybe only the rich should elect our leaders, eh?

Adios

[PlayTheAces]

As for the theory that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance... it's B.S., folks. Take off the tin-foil hats and find a conspiracy theory that at least makes SOME sense.

Actually, I don't consider what may or may not have been known tin hat fodder. It's a question that's beginning to receive more and more scruitiny by serious historians.

Do I think FDR knew the Japanese were going to hit Pearl and take out the Pacific fleet? No.

Do I believe he expected an attack against us somewhere in the Pacific? Yes.

Personally, I think the attack coming at Pearl was something he felt was unlikely, and even it if we were hit there, he didn't feel the damage would be a grievous as it was.

[Bruce H]

I always wondered what would have happened if FDR and Hitler would have both been assasinated in the early thirties? FDR laid the ground work for where we are today. Why do we always elect the most worthless people to elective office? Is it because they are the only ones who run?

[cdbeaver]

All of you who did not go to college on the GI Bill of Rights, did not benefit from TVA, do not collect Social Security, did not grow up under WPA, NRA and other social programs designed to help the poor and helpless, please continue to bash FDR.

All others might want to reconsider their posts.

[Hkmp5sd]

Baba Louie,

I have read that book and many, many others on the subject. It seems that this issue will go into history like the "who shot JFK" issue. My personal belief is he did not know that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen.


Do I believe he expected an attack against us somewhere in the Pacific? Yes.

PlayTheAces,

THAT is the correct answer. Everyone knew Japan was going to attack somewhere in the Pacific. The general consensus was that they would hit the Philippines and the war plans of the previous decade were geared toward that.

In reality, FDR did not want to fight Japan at that time and was actually trying to use embargoes to get Japan to stop fighting in China. He believed a war with Japan may actually kill any chance he had for getting into the European conflict in time to save England (England was already making plans to fight the war from Canada). In true liberal fashion, he believed diplomacy and economic sanctions could bend the Japanese to his will.

Unfortunately, he didn't understand the way the Japanese viewed these embargoes. They viewed the cut off of oil and steel shipments as an act of war in itself and felt the US had backed them into a corner. They had a limited amount of material to fight for a short period of time. They decided to destroy the US fleet and then conquer enough territory to sustain their needs before the US could rebuild and come back to fight.

[Aahzz]

FDR was the worst president we've ever had. His socialist programs (yes, including Social Security) are the primary reason the feds have their hands as deep in our pockets as they do.

[MoNsTeR]

cdbeaver,
No one denies gov't programs have benefits. The problem is, those benefits are exceeded by their costs, both financial and moral.

[Destructo6]

Destruct06, FDR did the same sort of thing Reagan did: He provided hope at a time it was needed, a time of a national malaise. In that sense he was a Good Thing. Overall, I have a strong negative attitude against his Statism...
Actually, I believe FDR did quite the opposite. His programs were far reaching and anti-business in his first two terms. This had the effect that business leaders were paralyzed in fear that their businesses would be seized. Also, many believed that the new legislation would be overturned as unconstitutional, which much was, and that bred a wait and see attitude that stunted any recovery.
1. FDR's policies were generally not FDR's ideas. Most of the "New Deal" was initiated by Hoover, who was not, contrary to popular belief, a believer in hands-off laissez faire. Hoover's successor had the chance to end the wrong-headed gov't policies that began, and perpetuated the depression. FDR squandered that chance by taking those policies further, with predictable results.
Maybe you can ague that the ideas didn't spring from FDR's mind fully formed, but to say they weren't his is wrong. He took ownership of them when he put into the law books in his "First 100 Days."

[LostOneToo]

We have FDR to thank for giving eastern Europe away to the reds as a result of WW2. He also managed to goad the Japanese into attacking the US via economic blockades in order to convince the US public to let him join the war and aid the British. FDR's biggest worry was that Hitler's 5 year plans acually saved Germany from the Depression while his own were mostly bandaids that appeared to do something when in reality they did little for the long run.

Most of the older US generation seem to think FDR "saved" the US drom the depression with his social programs and that he "saved" the world for democracy. Ask anyone in the eastern European countries that the communists occupied agter WW2 about how much democracy FDR let them enjoy!!!!:what:

[fallingblock]

at best. FDR was the one president my father could not find anything good to say about, His first vote cast was for T.R., and his life spanned 80 years.

If FDR had not been president, perhaps we would have more of our freedoms. He did initiate Federal gun control with the NFA, and his shenanigans with the SCOTUS are well-established.

cdbeaver, I have personally benefitted from none of the programs you mention...but that is really not the point. They were and are, for the most part, grossly wasteful of the public funds and underachieving in their effect. For what it's worth, my father refused Social Security as an ongoing protest of FDR!

FDR wasn't a communist, but he surely was an elitist socialist:scrutiny: