Obama is the Next FDR

[Belsnickel]

(06-11-2015, 02:27 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: At the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library and Museum in Staunton, Va., where Wilson was born in a handsome brick house on a hill, visitorship has grown 12 percent in the past year.

It is a very neat little house and library nearby. a Presbyterian Manse. The Mary Baldwin campus right next door is gorgeous as well. Go wander about, take in a show at the Blackfriar, dinner at Mill Street (their ribs are great, but I always tend to order from the specials), and stay at the Stonewall Jackson.

Sorry, I'll stop being a promoter of all things Shenandoah Valley for now.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-11-2015, 02:44 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: First France and Britain were the ones that wanted harsh war consequences on Germany not Wilson.  "He (Wilson) is the only serious statesman here," wrote one observer. "He is a titan struggling with forces too great even for him." After the treaty was signed, it was far less idealistic than what Wilson had argued for.


And your assessment of Hitlers rise to power is at best simplistic at worst something Beck would spout on about.  That part of History is way more complex, especially since Hitler and the Nazi party almost never came to be.  A lot of conservative libertarian hyperbole at it's finest here.

Had we stayed out of WW1 .... They would have negotiated a reasonable surrender. That would have allowed Germans to save some dignity in their surrender.

And to wrap up the last couple of your posts.... For me it's not about slamming wilson because he was a democrat.... I am more upset he radically changed our foreign policy, which we will use today, I am tired of meddling to the point where we go into debt to pad profits of corporations, hedge funds, etc. As far as conservative commentary from Beck and others ..... You throw away arguments based on them coming from him and others you think have an agenda... Not sure taking history as its written and connecting the dots since is an agenda. It's good we found flaws, it means we have woken up.... Now as far as how Wilson is viewed by academics .... He was an academic, and there has been a faction of academics who forget to teach the bad stuff. This was a dark time In history, yes there were some positives of the progressive era ... But to deny that we didn't lose individual freedoms or that we all of sudden became interested in "spreading democracy throughout the world" .... Would not be genuine. Wilson and FDR both needed help to get us into war. The congress nor the people wanted war. That was clear.

Personally I think the era was interesting because of all the things that were glossed over .... This was a dark time in history.

In the end it depends on how you feel the country should be ran.. If you love the UN type apparatus, nation building, spreading democracy, then you love Wilson, FDR types. Bush in Iraq, bailouts, Obama is doing the same thing with TPP, the iran deal, the UN climate, bailouts, so if you don't mind losing your ind. freedoms for the betterment of the whole then your not gonna see this as anything but nonsense.

Honestly would be interesting to see who you think are the best preaidents. Top 3 or if you need more go ahead.

Personally I like Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(06-11-2015, 05:18 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:

Quote:Had we stayed out of WW1 .... They would have negotiated a reasonable surrender.   That would have allowed Germans to save some dignity in their surrender.  

Well we didn't and we couldn't have stayed out of WWI no matter who was president at the time.  Like I said France and Britain are the ones that wanted a harsh surrender.  No reason to believe they would've done otherwise even if we hadn't been involved.

Quote:And to wrap up the last couple of your posts....  For me it's not about slamming wilson because he was a democrat....  I am more upset he radically changed our foreign policy, which we will use today, I am tired of meddling to the point where we go into debt to pad profits of corporations, hedge funds, etc.   As far as conservative commentary from Beck and others .....   You throw away arguments based on them coming from him and others you think have an agenda...    Not sure taking history as its written and connecting the dots since is an agenda.    It's good we found flaws, it means we have woken up....   Now as far as how Wilson is viewed by academics ....  He was an academic, and there has been a faction of academics who forget to teach the bad stuff.    This was a dark time In history, yes there were some positives of the progressive era ... But to deny that we didn't lose individual freedoms or that we all of sudden became interested in "spreading democracy throughout the world"   .... Would not be genuine.    Wilson and FDR both needed help to get us into war.    The congress nor the people wanted war.   That was clear.

   See But it is about slamming Wilson, like I said it's the "in thing" for conservative libertarians.  Which is fine they can rant and rave about it if it makes them feel better.   And you're right I will throw away arguments by Beck and those of his ilk as well.  He definitely has an agenda and it's not just to tell you history, it's to SELL you history on half truths and hyperbole.

Now you'll get no argument from me that FDR and Wilson had flaws, absolutely they did, but so did every single president in our history.  If you remember my post in which I railed against Coolidge?  It's not because I hate the guy, I was actually making a point.  I deliberately left out every single positive thing I could find about the guy, which is exactly what you and Beck were doing with FDR and Wilson.  I certainly don't see it as dark time in history, I can see how a you would though.  Lots of social reform going on. Wilson and FDR didn't get "help" as you put it.  Neither one wanted anything to with the wars in Europe. Not only were neither president given a choice but neither was congress or the American people.  Either fight back or don't fight back

Quote:Personally I think the era was interesting because of all the things that were glossed over  ....   This was a dark time in history.

    So much change happened during this time, is why I find it interesting. 

Quote:In the end it depends on how you feel the country should be ran..  If you love the UN type apparatus, nation building, spreading democracy, then you love Wilson, FDR types.    Bush in Iraq, bailouts, Obama is doing the same thing with TPP, the iran deal, the UN climate,  bailouts, so if you don't mind losing your ind. freedoms for the betterment of the whole then your not gonna see this as anything but nonsense.

   The only nonsense I find at the moment is your belief that things are so black and white, this or that.  Politics and the world around us are much more nuanced and complex.

Quote:Honestly would be interesting to see who you think are the best preaidents.   Top 3 or if you need more go ahead.  

Personally I like Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge.

Some of my favorites (I don't like the term best, that pretty subjective) are FDR, TR, JFK, Ronnie, Lincoln, and Jefferson.  There are many more that I find fascinating.  There is only one US President that I really dislike and don't think history will ever be kind to and that is Andrew Johnson.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(06-11-2015, 04:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It is a very neat little house and library nearby. a Presbyterian Manse. The Mary Baldwin campus right next door is gorgeous as well. Go wander about, take in a show at the Blackfriar, dinner at Mill Street (their ribs are great, but I always tend to order from the specials), and stay at the Stonewall Jackson.

Sorry, I'll stop being a promoter of all things Shenandoah Valley for now.

I was stationed at Little Creek Amphib base in VA Beach, love that whole area.  So much history.  Now that my son is going on 15yo, I'm hoping to take a trip that way soon. 

[StLucieBengal]

Ok it won't let me quote you ....

1. Ofc France and Britain wanted a harsher surrender of Germany.... They lost loads and wanted compensated. The only way they get a harsh surrender is us getting into the war. Which coincides with Wilson's desires. He wanted to pick the winners. He wanted the allies to not only win but win big. Still doesn't mean we shouldn't have stayed out and let them fight their war.

2. Well I am slamming wilson and FDR because of I am specifically talking about their roles in war. i never said everything they did was bad... Your just assuming I did... Once we get on another topic that involves them... If praise is warranted i will praise. And yes they both had a choice. FDR wanted war, he told Churchill that many times. Just said congress nor the people would support a declaration of war. War helped both FDR and Wilson on a policy front. FDR had many failing domestic policies that war covered up.

3. Yes some good lots of bad

4. Why do you think I am seeing it black and white? I am looking at history and applying... Just because I don't go along with the notion that we had to go to war two times.

5. Your list of presodents is odd. Why do you like TR and FDR? Those two stick out from the other three on policy. The rest of those are pretty good.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(06-12-2015, 01:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:

Quote:Ok it won't let me quote you ....

1.  Ofc France and Britain wanted a harsher surrender of Germany.... They lost loads and wanted compensated.   The only way they get a harsh surrender is us getting into the war.   Which coincides with Wilson's desires.  He wanted to pick the winners.   He wanted the allies to not only win but win big.  Still doesn't mean we shouldn't have stayed out and let them fight their war.  

You just said a few posts ago they would've found a more reasonable surrender solution...what?  In bold is exactly what I've saying regarding that specific issue.  No matter whether we enter the war or not, if they win they would've asked for harsh conditions.  It's a moot point.  We're going no where on this subject, you say we should have stayed out of WWI, WWII,  I say we really didn't have much of choice.  We both seem firm on our position, maybe it's time to agree to disagree on that.

Quote:2.  Well I am slamming wilson and FDR because of I am specifically talking about their roles in war.   i never said everything they did was bad... Your just assuming I did...  Once we get on another topic that involves them... If praise is warranted i will praise.     And yes they both had a choice.  FDR wanted war,  he told Churchill that many times.   Just said congress nor the people would support a declaration of war.   War helped both FDR and Wilson on a policy front. FDR had many failing domestic policies that war covered up.

 
Neither wanted war initially, Both had their hand forced.  But once you commit you better go all in. And I'm the first to agree, that WWII probably did more to help end the depression.   But he did a lot of good, better than Hoover IMO.

Quote:3.  Yes some good lots of bad

I'd say more like lot's of good and bad.

Quote:4.  Why do you think I am seeing it black and white?  I am looking at history and applying...  Just because I don't go along with the notion that we had to go to war two times.

 

Quote:5.  Your list of presodents is odd.  Why do you like TR and FDR?  Those two stick out from the other three on policy.   The rest of those are pretty good.

I'll get back to both of these later, I have to take off.  My ride is here.

[StLucieBengal]

I am really enjoying this discussion with you.

1. Ok I get what your saying but I am contending.... That bad we never entered the war, it would have fizzled out as both sides were running out of troops and money. To sustain. Which would have forced a reasonable surrender for all. Obvious everyone wants more but wktjout us everyone would have gotten about the same. With some minor gives and takes. Imo... This would have been better than getting into war.

2. I agree neither wanted war to begin. But failed domestic policy for FDR and Wilson's desire to increase our influence abroad is what drove them to war. This is where I have issues with them. No wars = no concentration camps, no trade war with Japan, no operation snow, and no Pearl harbour. Had we maintained nuetrality and not given indication we were gonna join. Churchill wanted us to join, FDR needed us to join to cover his failed domestic policies. WW1 should have never happened, Wilson just wanted to meddle in other countries affairs. Something we were never meet to do....

And you are 100% right about the war getting is out of the depression. Buying bonds helped. And Hoover caused the depression, it would have been a normal dip without his meddling in the private sector. So I wil agree with you .... He was worthless.

3. I think a good thread would be to list all of a presidents accomplishments and then All of his bone heads. Then would be interesting to see how we think they stack up.... I agree with you all had good and bad stuff.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(06-12-2015, 11:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am really enjoying this discussion with you.  

1.  Ok I get what your saying but I am contending.... That bad we never entered the war, it would have fizzled out as both sides were running out of troops and money. To sustain.  Which would have forced a reasonable surrender for all.   Obvious everyone wants more but wktjout us everyone would have gotten about the same.   With some minor gives and takes.    Imo... This would have been better than getting into war.  

2.  I agree neither wanted war to begin.   But failed domestic policy for FDR and Wilson's desire to increase our influence abroad is what drove them to war.  This is where I have issues with them.  No wars = no concentration camps,  no trade war with Japan, no operation snow, and no Pearl harbour.   Had we maintained nuetrality and not given indication we were gonna join.  Churchill wanted us to join, FDR needed us to join to cover his failed domestic policies.   WW1 should have never happened, Wilson just wanted to meddle in other countries affairs.   Something we were never meet to do....  

And you are 100% right about the war getting is out of the depression.  Buying bonds helped.   And Hoover caused the depression, it would have been a normal dip without his meddling in the private sector.  So I wil agree with you .... He was worthless.  

3. I think a good thread would be to list all of a presidents accomplishments and then All of his bone heads.   Then would be interesting to see how we think they stack up....    I agree with you all had good and bad stuff.

Sorry left my screen on.  My kids down for the week so I'm going to have to log off for now. I'll see if I can finish some of my thoughts on these things after the kid goes to bed.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(06-12-2015, 11:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am really enjoying this discussion with you.  

Quote:1.  Ok I get what your saying but I am contending.... That bad we never entered the war, it would have fizzled out as both sides were running out of troops and money. To sustain.  Which would have forced a reasonable surrender for all.   Obvious everyone wants more but wktjout us everyone would have gotten about the same.   With some minor gives and takes.    Imo... This would have been better than getting into war.  

Again it's pure speculation that the war would've just fizzled out.  I'm not saying it would've been impossible but I highly doubt it.  Both sides refused to surrender mainly because both sides lost so much, and that was well before we entered the war.  Also Germany had started a campaign early in the war of unrestricted submarine warfare, in which the US maintained neutrality despite massive losses of merchant shipping.  Germany, realizing this to be a mistake, and not wanting to draw the US into the war ceased those operations.  However later in the war trying bring England to it's knees,  they resumed unrestricted warfare calculating that it would take the US a year before we were militarily ready, and hoped that England would surrender before that could happen.  They were wrong.

Quote:2.  I agree neither wanted war to begin.

  So do I.

Quote:But failed domestic policy for FDR and Wilson's desire to increase our influence abroad is what drove them to war.  This is where I have issues with them.

 Absolutely disagree that either went to war to cover up domestic policy failures.

Quote:No wars = no concentration camps,  no trade war with Japan, no operation snow, and no Pearl harbour.   Had we maintained nuetrality and not given indication we were gonna join.

 We've been through this.  No way we were going to just wish away either conflict by maintaining neutrality.

Quote:Churchill wanted us to join,

No denying that for sure. Absolutely I agree

Quote:FDR needed us to join to cover his failed domestic policies.

   Just covered that above.

Quote:WW1 should have never happened, Wilson just wanted to meddle in other countries affairs.   Something we were never meet to do....

  That tends to happen when another country is sinking your merchant fleet at will, without declaring war against you.

Quote:And you are 100% right about the war getting is out of the depression.  Buying bonds helped.   And Hoover caused the depression, it would have been a normal dip without his meddling in the private sector.  So I wil agree with you .... He was worthless.

  Well at least we have this.

Quote:3. I think a good thread would be to list all of a presidents accomplishments and then All of his bone heads.   Then would be interesting to I

Actually thought that is a great idea and I had a similar idea the other day.  I think I have an interesting way to do it though.  It wouldn't be in chronological order.  The format is based on a book that I have about the presidents.  I probably wont be able to start it until later this week after the kid goes back to his moms.  I'm just going to be busy until then.  Plus I want to see if I can find something similar on line, so I don't have to type a novel.

[JustWinBaby]

[StLucieBengal]

(06-13-2015, 03:09 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Actually thought that is a great idea and I had a similar idea the other day.  I think I have an interesting way to do it though.  It wouldn't be in chronological order.  The format is based on a book that I have about the presidents.  I probably wont be able to start it until later this week after the kid goes back to his moms.  I'm just going to be busy until then.  Plus I want to see if I can find something similar on line, so I don't have to type a novel.

Look forward to it.    Let me know what I can do to help..... There are loads of stuff that we never learn because it put them or us in a bad light .