Quoted: Quoted: Not to mention heavy-handed government, but I ran across this quote from him while on DU. "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."--FDR Wow, did he miss the point of America, or what.... Actually, I think you missed the point. He was referring to people like Wm. Randolph Hearst who controlled so many newspapers he about controlled the news. The same with a few indidviduals with shipping and the like. These few people were becoming more powerful than the elected government.

What duty does the government have to control the news or stop people from running their shipping businesses how they see fit?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not to mention heavy-handed government, but I ran across this quote from him while on DU. "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."--FDR Wow, did he miss the point of America, or what.... Actually, I think you missed the point. He was referring to people like Wm. Randolph Hearst who controlled so many newspapers he about controlled the news. The same with a few indidviduals with shipping and the like. These few people were becoming more powerful than the elected government. What duty does the government have to control the news or stop people from running their shipping businesses how they see fit?

There is more to it than that.

Google: "Yellow Press", "Monopoly" and "Rockefeller Standard Oil"

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not to mention heavy-handed government, but I ran across this quote from him while on DU. "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."--FDR Wow, did he miss the point of America, or what.... Actually, I think you missed the point. He was referring to people like Wm. Randolph Hearst who controlled so many newspapers he about controlled the news. The same with a few indidviduals with shipping and the like. These few people were becoming more powerful than the elected government. What duty does the government have to control the news or stop people from running their shipping businesses how they see fit? There is more to it than that. Google: "Yellow Press", "Monopoly" and "Rockefeller Standard Oil"

If news companies are unduly embellishing, or even making up stories, and the public is stupid enough to believe them...well, they've got it coming.

As far as monopolies and Standard Oil go, John D. Rockefeller's business strategy was brilliant. What right does the government have to break that up?

Besides, if you want to check the facts with your argument against monopolies, read this. www.fff.org/freedom/0592c.asp

If news companies are unduly embellishing, or even making up stories, and the public is stupid enough to believe them...well, they've got it coming.

Today with the internet, radio, tv etc. this is true but back then the newspaper was the only source of news from outside your town. Hence the importance of not allowing all newspapers to come under monopoly control.

Quoted: Quoted: A lot of monday morning quarterbacks present on this thread! Did anyone here actually experience the great depression? I seriously doubt it. And the ranks of World War II vets are getting thinner with each passing year. So if we want to talk about the Depression and WWII, we had to live through them?

Not necessarily, but those that suffered through those periods generally have a clearer view of what went on and why the government did what they did at the time.

History, any history, is always subject to debate. This thread is basically a "like or don't like FDR" subject. Whatever your opinion of the man or his politics, he brought this country through the (arguably) most difficult times of its existance.

Quoted: While I don’t have strong feelings about FDR one way or another, I’ll agree with him in the above quote. I certainly don’t like the idea of, say, Bill Gates actually running this country out of Redmond, Oregon!!

Psssst, that'd be Redmond Washington.
Oregon has the Anarchists (complete with Presidents in their organization).[:\]

Quoted: The "disaster" you speak of was his chances for reelection.  It's not a sure thing when you lose a third of the country on your watch, especially when that third provides the majority of revenue for the government.  Slavery had been in existence in the US for over 200 years. There was no need to act radically on it and the consequences of his actions have been felt for over 100 years.  I'm sure it will be all better once you start paying your slave reparations tax.

Uhm, nope.  Reread my post and you will see that you misunderstood it.  The disaster I was referring to was the Great Depression.  Go ahead and pay "my" slave reparations tax for me, rolleyes-boy.

"Lincoln the racist" was a popular topic on campus a few years back.   Depends on how you use the term.  He considered blacks primitive and planned to send them back to Africa. That is well documented. You need to go back on campus and do some reading.

99.99% of whites at the time, including Lincoln, would probably be considered racists by today's standards.  My point was that the great-great-grandchildren of the folks who idolized him now called him a racist--you know, the whole "as memories fade" motif of my post.  I suppose it was lost on the denser folk.  Sorry.




JFK acts like a Republican of today.  I don't recall hom doing anything to promote expansion of Federal power.  So what did JFK do for civil rights?  Did he talk about them or enact specific legislation?  

Geezusfrigginchristmas dude--He was totally for civil rights, but the democratic controlled congress blocked most of his moves.  He had to pursue his agenda on a case-by-case basis, AND he sent federal marshals to protect Freedom Riders and the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.  He did promise to enact comprehensive Civil Rights legislation, but he was assasinated before HE could do it--it was left to LBJ.

Back to the point--FDR was the right man for the times.

Quoted: Whether you love or hate FDR's domestic policies (I count myself as one of the latter), his performance as a wartime president is without peer in American history.  FDR's strategic brilliance, political deftness, and the ability to maintain and balance relationships with contentious coalition partners was essential to defeating the Axis powers.

And, if you have to sell out Eastern Europe to do it...no problem!

If political deftness and strategic brilliance was what we saw from Roosevelt at Yalta then god help us.

Quoted: Quoted: ... Stop listening to the anti-business bias in the meadia and hollywood. ... If you wish, replace the Bill Gates example with Barbara Streisand, the New York Times, the AFL/CIO, or such. The fundamental issue being addressed by FDR is an elected versus a non-elected government.

I'll put Streisand, NY Times, etc in. They still wouldn't come close to the threat that the growth of government has to my and my children's freedom.

FDR started the ball of big government rolling. LBJ set it in high gear. We may face huge problems, but a socialist President is never the right man for the job.