Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am relying on the fact that in 1940 part of his platform was that he would do everything in his power to keep the United State out of the war, while he was doing all sorts of stuff to provoke Germany. He had US destroyers protecting british and US shipping halfway across the atlantic. They had orders to shoot anything that shot a them. Someone who was trying to avoid getting us in a war would have have simply let british shipping be on its own in international waters.

The Lend lease was purely designed to help Britain and was not an act of a neutral. Same with the rest of the Atlantic charter.

Roosevelt was not doing everything he could to keep us out of the war and was lying when he said he was. I am glad that he did. I don't know anything about that PBS special, and there may be some argments about what Roosevelt did and didn't do, but I have never heard anyone (except Ty) state that Roosevelt did not lie when he said that he would do everything he could to keep us out of the war.

I agree with you completely on the substance: I think FDR intentionally misled Americans to play to popular opinion.

I just disagree that this is common knowledge; I think that the position only gained wide acceptance in the 80s and has come under considerable attack. So I don't mind a request for more information or someone challenging what I view as accepted.

The interesting thing is how the idea of misleading the public is perceived: some have criticized FDR for not being enough of a leader and confronting the public, others for not following what the public thought. In hindsight, few disagree that war was inevitable, or that the American people were not fully prepared to fight until attacked.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Too late for this. You started a war. I'm like Kim il cook or whatever- paranoid but armed. Better change your sock and be more careful next time.

Do you have a favorite captain?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
Substance.

I have had plenty of postings without substance. What about my common knowledge posts? There was no substance in there.....

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Captain
Do you have a favorite captain?

Yes: Penske's neighbor who is retired from the Israeli Defense Forces as a Captain is my favorite. Least favorite is Captain Blye. Why not just let the crew party?

You don't raise any emotion but tedium, so you're not ranked.: sorry:bye: :bye:

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
I just disagree that this is common knowledge;

I think once the facts came out it was clear Roosevelt lied. I pointed out that I was glad that he did lied. If he had not he would not have been reelected and he would have been replaced by an isolationist who would have really tried to keep us out of the war. His replacement might have cancelled the Atlantic Charter and the oil Embargo against Japan and we my have never stepped in which would have been a disaster for the world.

The subject came up because people were accusing Bush of lying about the WMDs. I was pointing out that I didn't think Bush lied about the WMDs and even if he did it was no big deal because Presidents lie all the time. I then pointed out that FDR lied (and misled the public) about WWII and liberals don't seem to have a problem with that now.

Ty refused to accept that argument because he refused to believe FDR lied. Even after Penske cited a speech in which made it clear FDR was lying he then wanted another cite. I think he also questoned whether or not the Lend Lease deal was really a sweet heart deal for England. Or whether we escorted their destroyers half way across the Atlantic.

Obviously, the idea of Roosevelt lying did not appeal to him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have never heard anyone (except Ty) state that Roosevelt did not lie when he said that he would do everything he could to keep us out of the war.

You may have heard me say this, but it's not what I said. This routine of yours is getting tiresome.

Ty refused to accept that argument because he refused to believe FDR lied. Even after Penske cited a speech in which made it clear FDR was lying he then wanted another cite.

No, I asked for more of the speech from which Penske -- or whomever he got it from -- found the single sentence that he quoted. I wondered what the context was, and suspected -- correctly, it would seem -- that you and Penske are trafficking in someone else's arguments about FDR. I don't know much about the 1940 campaign myself.

I am perfectly willing to believe that FDR misled people, just as I am willing to believe that New Orleans officials connived with the North Koreans to deploy school buses as submarines.

There is some irony in having to point this out within a day of your refusing to accept that the White House is inflating budgetary projections for political purposes.

[Ty@50]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know much about the 1940 campaign myself.

And I can only help back to the start of the internet. Al Gore wasn't even born in 1940.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think once the facts came out it was clear Roosevelt lied. I pointed out that I was glad that he did lied. If he had not he would not have been reelected and he would have been replaced by an isolationist who would have really tried to keep us out of the war. His replacement might have cancelled the Atlantic Charter and the oil Embargo against Japan and we my have never stepped in which would have been a disaster for the world.

The subject came up because people were accusing Bush of lying about the WMDs. I was pointing out that I didn't think Bush lied about the WMDs and even if he did it was no big deal because Presidents lie all the time. I then pointed out that FDR lied (and misled the public) about WWII and liberals don't seem to have a problem with that now.

Ty refused to accept that argument because he refused to believe FDR lied. Even after Penske cited a speech in which made it clear FDR was lying he then wanted another cite. I think he also questoned whether or not the Lend Lease deal was really a sweet heart deal for England. Or whether we escorted their destroyers half way across the Atlantic.

Obviously, the idea of Roosevelt lying did not appeal to him.

Ah, now I understand the context.

Is this the famous how-ever-many-words in the state-of-the-union speech issue?

I'm in the who-cares-if-he-lied-as-long-as-the-outcome-was-right camp. Of course, I think we'll know whether the outcome was right in about 10-20 years.

This is the same place I come out on the FDR lied front. He has been fully vindicated.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There is some irony in having to point this out within a day of your refusing to accept that the White House is inflating budgetary projections for political purposes.

One of the drawbacks of having the Presidency and Congress controlled by the same party is that we no longer longer get to see duelling ridiculous budget claims on a regular basis. It used to be easy to just add them together and divide by two.

But isn't this the product of policy wonks who believe in their own snake-oil? When an economist of a given persuassion scores revenue based on policy changes, they are always convinced that their policy changes will achieve all they are intended to without any unintended consequences.

In other words, of course they are inflated, but don't they inevitably end up inflated without anyone needing to do it intentionally?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Captain
One of the drawbacks of having the Presidency and Congress controlled by the same party is that we no longer longer get to see duelling ridiculous budget claims on a regular basis. It used to be easy to just add them together and divide by two.

But isn't this the product of policy wonks who believe in their own snake-oil? When an economist of a given persuassion scores revenue based on policy changes, they are always convinced that their policy changes will achieve all they are intended to without any unintended consequences.

In other words, of course they are inflated, but don't they inevitably end up inflated without anyone needing to do it intentionally?

Good. Another poster
Who sees clearly that,
whatever persuasion,
A rat's still a rat.

So congrats. You now
qualify, in the main,
as one of few posters
who writes like he's sane.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Captain
One of the drawbacks of having the Presidency and Congress controlled by the same party is that we no longer longer get to see duelling ridiculous budget claims on a regular basis. It used to be easy to just add them together and divide by two.

But isn't this the product of policy wonks who believe in their own snake-oil? When an economist of a given persuassion scores revenue based on policy changes, they are always convinced that their policy changes will achieve all they are intended to without any unintended consequences.

In other words, of course they are inflated, but don't they inevitably end up inflated without anyone needing to do it intentionally?

Estimates of the deficit are inflated, not estimates of revenue.

That way, when the actual numbers are released, the White House can say: Good news! It's much better than was predicted!

This is exactly what they've been doing.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Estimates of the deficit are inflated, not estimates of revenue.

That way, when the actual numbers are released, the White House can say: Good news! It's much better than was predicted!

This is exactly what they've been doing.

Yes, that would be intentional and not just the normal snake oil. But I'm not sure I understand the basis for the claim -- are there other economists who can ferret out how they're dummying up numbers?

[Captain]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Good. Another poster
Who sees clearly that,
whatever persuasion,
A rat's still a rat.

So congrats. You now
qualify, in the main,
as one of few posters
who writes like he's sane.

Wow. I'm moved. I just wish I could do verse with this ease. I really enjoy these.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Estimates of the deficit are inflated, not estimates of revenue.

That way, when the actual numbers are released, the White House can say: Good news! It's much better than was predicted!

This is exactly what they've been doing.

Isn't consumer confidence the most important thing for a healthy economy? So since most people believe it, isn't it true?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
1 You will never convince anyone of anything here, so the post "substantive content" remark you made is absurd, and simply ids you as someone with no sense of this board. Penske and I WERE the most substantive posters here. But quickly learned not to bother.

I've been around here for a pretty long time, and I still don't buy this philosophy. I'm sorry you feel that way, because it clearly cuts down on the number of quality posts you provide (admitedly using a different standard here than you use).

Oh, I agree that the directly partisan political GOP-DEM knife-fights never seem to convince anyone. However, there is a lot more to this board (especially during a non-election season).

Every so often I learn something new, and there are many issues discussed here that I don't think much about in my everyday life (e.g. almost anything Burger posts on), so the discussions here do sometimes help shape my views.

The Captain hasn't been around long enough to see the range of your ouevre, Hank -- or to understand that every so often you will unexpectedly send out a thoughtful substantive post which cuts through the cloud of B.S. Most of your posts, though, are efforts at being simultaneously cryptic and funny -- which is tough to do and inevitably results in uneven quality.

Please don't try to discourage the Captain from posting on 18th and 19th century legal theory, or constitutional history, or from asking reasonable questions -- that is good shit. Its part of what distinguishes this Board from the standard AOL/Yahoo chat board and makes it worth spending time here.

S_A_M

P.S. I must have been away when Penske was one of the most substantive posters on the Boards (or it must have been a _long_ time ago). I am pleased that he's moved in that direction and cut down on the lunatic sockery in the past few months. Again, who knew he could have an interesting perspective? All praise to the babyjesuschrist superstar!