This message was self-deleted by its author

[Cali_Democrat]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Cali_Democrat) on Tue Oct 22, 2013, 09:00 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Care to explain this?

At the start of World War II, under the authority of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, the United States government detained and interned over 11,000 German enemy aliens, as well as a small number of German-American citizens, either naturalized or native-born. Their ranks included immigrants to the U.S. as well as visitors stranded in the U.S. by hostilities. In many cases, the families of the internees were allowed to remain together at internment camps in the U.S. In other cases, families were separated. Limited due process was allowed for those arrested and detained.

The population of German citizens in the United States – not to mention American citizens of German birth – was far too large for a general policy of internment comparable to that used in the case of the Japanese in America.[23] Instead, German citizens were detained and evicted from coastal areas on an individual basis. The War Department considered mass expulsions from coastal areas for reasons of military security, but never executed such plans.[24]

A total of 11,507 Germans and German-Americans were interned during the war, accounting for 36% of the total internments under the Justice Department's Enemy Alien Control Program, but far less than the 110,000 Japanese-Americans interned.[25] Such internments began with the detention of 1,260 Germans shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor.[26] Of the 254 persons evicted from coastal areas, the majority were German.[27]

In addition, over 4,500 ethnic Germans were brought to the U.S. from Latin America and similarly detained. The Federal Bureau of Investigation drafted a list of Germans in fifteen Latin American countries whom it suspected of subversive activities and, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, demanded their eviction to the U.S. for detention.[28] The countries that responded expelled 4,058 people.[29] Some 10% to 15% were Nazi party members, including approximately a dozen who were recruiters for the NSDAP/AO, roughly the overseas arm of the Nazi party. Just eight were people suspected of espionage.[30] Also transferred were some 81 Jewish Germans who had recently fled persecution in Nazi Germany.[30] Many had been residents of Latin America for years, some for decades.[30] In some instances, corrupt Latin American officials took the opportunity to seize their property. Sometimes financial rewards paid by American intelligence led to someone's identification and expulsion.[30] Several countries did not participate in the program, while others operated their own detention facilities.[30][31]

The U.S. internment camps to which Germans from Latin America were directed included:[30]

Texas
Crystal City
Kenedy
Seagoville
Florida
Camp Blanding
Oklahoma
Stringtown
North Dakota
Fort Lincoln
Tennessee
Camp Forrest

Some internees were held at least as late as 1948.[32]
Review legislation

Legislation was introduced in the United States Congress in 2001 to create an independent commission to review government policies on European enemy ethnic groups during the war. On August 3, 2001, Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) the European Americans and Refugees Wartime Treatment Study Act in the U.S. Senate, joined by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Senator Joseph Lieberman. This bill creates an independent commission to review U.S. government policies directed against German and Italians during World War II in the U.S. and Latin America.[33]

In 2007, the U.S. Senate passed the Wartime Treatment Study Act, which would examine the treatment of ethnic groups targeted by the U.S. government during World War II. Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions opposed it, citing historians from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum who called it exaggerated. [34]

In 2009, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law passed the Wartime Treatment Study Act by a vote of 9 to 1,[35] but it was not voted on by the full house and did not become law.

[geek tragedy]

6. You explained it yourself:

At the start of World War II, under the authority of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, the United States government detained and interned over 11,000 German enemy aliens, as well as a small number of German-American citizens, either naturalized or native-born.

A total of 11,507 Germans and German-Americans were interned during the war, accounting for 36% of the total internments under the Justice Department's Enemy Alien Control Program, but far less than the 110,000 Japanese-Americans interned.

So, you're talking about 500 German-Americans (11,507-11,000) vs 110,000 Japanese Americans.

[bluestate10]

112. Putting captured combatants nd sympathizers in prison is vastly different from rounding

up innocent, peaceful and patriotic people just because of their physical appearance. The OP is right, FDR was abysmal on racial progress, he didn't even see fit to equalize Black soldiers that were fighting and dying for this nation, it took Truman to do that. FDR approved Social Security because he reasoned that people would pay in, but few would collect. FDR did some really good things with policy, but he also allowed some purely evil activity to take place, without lifting a finger to stop it.

[upaloopa]

2. So any good he did is not to be counted?

I think you need to see the whole man not just his negative side.
Without Roosevelt we would never have the middle class that we all are saying is dying out.
The time before Roosevelt is just what the Koch brothers want us to return to.
The New Deal gave us the ability to be more than a surf for the rich.

[pnwmom]

30. No. But it's wrong to put him up on a pedestal, as many do here.

He achieved some great things, but he did it with a Congress that was overwhelmingly Democratic -- a luxury Obama doesn't have.

[Smarmie Doofus]

37. The south was solid DEM and solid CONSERVATIVE and SEGREGATIONIST.

>>>but he did it with a Congress that was overwhelmingly Democratic -- a luxury Obama doesn't have.>>>

That's a touch misleading.

[pnwmom]

40. He wasn't acting against segregation, was he?

And the South was suffering from the Depression, so they didn't fight him on economic issues.

[bowens43]

3. thats the best you have? Seriously? LOL

[Mojorabbit]

81. I know right!

There are a group of posters here that seem prone to black and white thinking. Sure FDR made some severe blunders but he also did some amazingly wonderful things.

[tridim]

99. Obama has done some amazingly wonderful things, with no severe blunders at all...

In 1/3rd the time.

[Mojorabbit]

137. Drones killing civilians. NSA surveillance ramped up.

I could go on. You have your opinion I have mine. He has done some good things but no where yet in the ballpark of FDR. Hopefully he will get there before the end of his presidency. If we get the house back he will have a chance to really shine and be able to move the country into the future.

[PeteSelman]

4. :sigh: Obviously, socially he was a product of his time and circumstances.

I'll bet he wasn't for marriage equality either. None of that is what people mean when they pine for a new FDR. They want someone who welcomes the hatred of the banks and the robber barons and the criminals on Wall Street instead of cowtowing to them. Someone interested in creating massive public work programs to end unemployment. Someone that will make the fat cats pay their fair share instead of making cuts for them permanent.

You know exactly what people mean by it. Suggesting that people are pining for bigotry is absurd.

[geek tragedy]

8. FDR wasn't a bigot. He was a coward who caved to Congressional bigots though,

at least on the subject of race.

FDR didn't bother trying to overcome Dixiecrat filibusters over anti-lynching laws. He laughed at those who suggested he do so.

[PeteSelman]

23. Yes, at a time where black people were still considered less than human.

In general, across the board. Yeah, it was a personal failing for him and for 90% of white America at the time. It just wasn't a priority for most people back then. You can scorn him for having the basic values of everyone at the time he lived and ignore the qualities those of us want to see in a modern President if you want. By all means, have at it.

I wish we had a cross between FDR's evonomic/labor policies and MLK's social policies. Basically, we need Bernie Sanders. Then we'd be cooking with gas.

Henry Wallace is who we needed to succeed FDR. We really got screwed on that one.

[geek tragedy]

31. This was 1940, not 1840.

The #1 quality FDR had that Obama doesn't have is a cooperative Congress.

Everything else is window dressing.

[noiretextatique]

59. 1940 was not that different than 1840 re: race

do you think a majority of white people supporting de-segregation in 1940? i don't.

[geek tragedy]

60. We're talking about anti-lynching laws. FDR caved to filibusters from southern

Dixiecrats on anti-lynching laws.

They had the votes to pass, but there wasn't sufficient political courage.

[noiretextatique]

66. dixicrats...ok. did the majority of white citizens in america agree with the dixiecrats?

i wager: YES.

[geek tragedy]

69. No, they didn't since there are majority votes in both houses to enact anti-lynching

legislation, so the majority of white people did support a ban on lynching.

[JI7]

71. and there are some white people who aren't that different now, including in Congress

[BlueCaliDem]

72. Hear! Hear!

That's exactly the #1 quality FDR had and what Obama doesn't have - a cooperative Congress. And yes, I totally agree, everything else is just window dressing.

[PeteSelman]

116. Bullshit.

President Obama, by his own words and his actions, is a Reagan republican. He doesn't welcome the hatred of Wall Street, he appoints them to the cabinet. He doesn't fight for labor, he pushes the TPP.

What nonsense.

[geek tragedy]

119. That's the view from the leftwing analog to the Tea Party.

Saying Obama=Reagan is like the Teapartiers saying that Mitch McConnell is a big government liberal.

Those who live in reality know that Obama is not anything near Ronald "Government is the problem" Reagan.

Unless I missed that massive expansion of Medicaid under Reagan.

[fascisthunter]

133. no, it's a realistic view based on views of Reagan of his time

and your attempt to make this some left-wing only sentiment while at the same time lumping them in with tea-baggers is a simplistic dumb dumb response.

[PeteSelman]

135. That is also bullshit.

His own words.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=17973080

There is no left wing version of the Teabaggers. There are only what used to be standard, run of the mill, New Deal/Fair Deal/Great Society Democrats. The center has moved so far right that these standard Democrats, of which I am one, are called fringe.

That's reality.

[quinnox]

5. Ok. ok. Obama is the best human being that has ever lived, and outshines all other presidents

like Lincoln and Washington and JFK and FDR put together!

[cali]

7. Pathetic. and none too swift.

not to mention that you're just playing lame copycat.

Says a lot.

[geek tragedy]

11. None too swift like pretending that FDR had some magic mojo

by which he could have rammed through his agenda through the Congress Obama had to deal with.

[cali]

12. no. none too swift as in making the false claim you just made, geek

[geek tragedy]

15. Why the pining for FDR if he would have had no better success

getting his agenda enacted?

Because he trash-talked the opposition more?

[brush]

36. FDR did have a secret weapon though

He learned about and blocked the secret coup attempted by the American Liberty League (google it).

Prescott Bush, W's grandfather was a prime mover in the group which tried to pull off a coup of FDR's government in the 1930s but were exposed by Gen. Smedley Butler (pls Google "American Liberty League&quot . They wanted to instill fascism here as they were enamoured with Hitler and Mussolini's governments. They were traitors who could have been jailed but FDR basically used their treachery against them to pass many New Deal bills. He threatened to expose them all (its funding came mostly from the Du Pont family, as well as leaders of U.S. Steel, General Motors, General Foods, Standard Oil, Birdseye, Colgate, Heinz Foods, Chase National Bank, and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company) if they opposed the New Deal legislation.

If our mainstream media wasn't corporate owned and did the job they are supposed to by labeling the Ted Cruzes and teabaggers as seditionists who tried to basically pull their own coup last week, maybe President Obama could actually get a jobs bill passed.

Building the high-speed rail system would provide decades of good jobs in just about every state in the country. The economy would take off.

The repugs obstructionists want no part of that though so our economy limbs along with 2 steps forward and 1 step back.

Would that the President had the leverage FDR had.

[Cali_Democrat]

62. FDR was also a war criminal who killed far more civilians than Obama ever did. n/t

[Cleita]

9. I don't consider interning the Japanese an act of bigotry but of fear.

Funny they never interned the ethnic Japanese in Hawaii. We also had POW camps across the USA that held Germans in them. He may not moved as quickly on civil rights as you may like today, but it was the times. Also his New Deal policies included all poor people not just white people.

[geek tragedy]

13. So as long as people persecute racial minorities out of fear, it's not bigotry? nt

[bluestate10]

113. Yeah, that one put me on my ear too. People who hate Gays can be excused because they are

fearful. Same for those who hate Muslims, or Blacks, or Hispanics, or Chinese Americans, hell, all of us need to be excused because all of us are fearful of something.

[Scurrilous]

10. 80,000 French civilians were killed by Allied bombing during WW2.

And they were on our side!

Talk about your war criminals...

[cali]

14. fucking ridiculous.

first of all, the comparison to WWII is just dumb. Secondly, we aren't at war in the places that we're drone bombing.

[geek tragedy]

17. How is FDR's wanton, indiscriminate massacring of civilians a dumb

comparison to make?

Tokyo killed 10X the number of civilians in one night than have died from all drone strikes combined.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. So you think he should have surrendered day after Pearl?

Or what?

[geek tragedy]

25. Just like Obama should just let Al Qaeda and the Taliban win?

Dresden and the fire-bombing of Tokyo were war crimes.

So said noted peacenik Curtis LeMay, the guy who ordered the Tokyo bombing.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. And that is supposed to mitigate the droning of civilians during a 'sort of war'

based on hunches and rumors in what way?
How do the actions of one person absolve the actions of another?
Explain how that works. 'Mommy, Franklin did it too!'. What an insult to the real people involved.

[geek tragedy]

33. So you would agree that cross-generational comparisons of politicians

are largely, if not entirely, idiotic?

[Bluenorthwest]

48. I think crazed simpistic hyperbole about any subject is idiotic.

I responded to a post of yours in which you made such comparisons.
" How is FDR's wanton, indiscriminate massacring of civilians a dumb comparison to make?" you asked.

[geek tragedy]

56. The same person who had called the comparison 'dumb' was yesterday

talking about how we need an FDR instead of Obama.

Dresden killed more civilians--intentionally and willfully--than drones have in their entire history. I wonder about people who get outraged over drones but shrug their shoulders over the firebombing of civilian population concentrations. Maybe it's innumeracy.

[bluestate10]

115. You really need to read up on the Japanese cities that the USA bombed with munitions that

included bombs that packed white phosphorous. The bombings were purposely AIMED AT civilians. If you stomach hasn't turned after reading about fire bombing of Japanese cities, read about what was done to Dresden, Germany and two other German industrial cities where civilians were purposely attacked and killed on purpose.

[Fumesucker]

35. We have been at war in Afghanistan for twelve years now

The US took on the entire armed might of the Wehrmacht, the Luftwaffe, the Kriegsmarine, the Wafffen SS, the Imperial Japanese Army, the Imperial Japanese Navy, the Imperial Japanese Air Force and random other military organizations and fought them to unconditional surrender in four years.

How far the mighty have fallen that we cannot now prevail against a few twelfth century goatherds in Afghanistan in a span of years three times that of WWII.

[geek tragedy]

42. We had our equivalent military victory within a few months there.

Nation-building is a much different enterprise than nation-defeating.

We also had a bit of help from the Red Army.

[Fumesucker]

46. Don't forget Poland

Nation building has taken a distinct backseat to corporate profits.

[geek tragedy]

49. Ain't any profits in Afghanistan. nt

[Fumesucker]

54. We spent more on air conditioning tents in Afghanistan than on NASA

Think a big chunk of that wasn't corporate profits?

And that's only one small aspect of a vast enterprise.

[geek tragedy]

57. That used to be true, but only when you throw in Iraq.

Gonna go out on a limb and suggest air conditioning in Iraq was the biggest part of that.

[Fumesucker]

78. Afghanistan is a logistical nightmare, far more so than Iraq

The longest major logistical tail on the planet.

http://www.answers.com/topic/logistics

3. Increasing proportion of manpower required in the logistical “tail.” The increasingly logistical demands of modern warfare have required that an ever‐increasing proportion of total manpower be dedicated to the task of supporting combat forces. Indeed, the adequacy of logistical support has proven critical to the success of combat operations, and a nation's ability to mobilize and support its combat forces has become equal in importance to the actual performance of such forces on the battlefield.

[geek tragedy]

79. True, but it's a lot cooler there. Logistical support isn't something that can

be outsourced the way A/C can.

[Fumesucker]

82. Fuel to run the generators to power the A/C is part of the logistical support

Getting the generators and the A/C there in the first place is also part of logistical support.

[geek tragedy]

83. But, there is a LOT less A/C needed in Afghanistan.

http://weatherspark.com/averages/32750/10/Kabul-Afghanistan

http://weatherspark.com/averages/31421/10/Baghdad-International-Airport-Al-Anbar-Iraq

[Fumesucker]

90. You aren't doing yourself any favors quibbling over details

Obama called Afghanistan "The Right War" and it has turned out to be an ongoing, bloody and ruinously costly disaster for America, not quite as bad as Iraq but Afghanistan is now Obama's war, either he or one of his successors is going to lose it eventually.

We could have *bought* the entire nation of Afghanistan for far less than we have spent rearranging the rubble from when the Soviets got their asses handed to them there.

[geek tragedy]

95. That's true, because we decided to engage in nation-building

and pay attention to stuff like child mortality and education for girls.

[Fumesucker]

100. All of which has been masterfully mismanaged

And that's the charitable explanation.

FDR wasn't loath to sack generals when they couldn't produce results.

WTF is Betrayus doing these days?

[geek tragedy]

101. FDR didn't live to see attempts at rebuilding.

Also, rebuilding countries like Germany and Japan with a pre-existing social order, institutions, and general tendency to obey a centralized authority was a damn sight easier than trying to nation build where the building blocks are tribes instead of a state.

[Fumesucker]

103. No one could have predicted

AKA: Hoocoodanode?

[geek tragedy]

104. I opposed the invasion of Iraq for that among many other reasons.

Afghanistan should have been "kill the bastards and leave."

[brush]

55. Ahhh . . . we had a little help in that.

A lot of help actually: Britain, France, USSR, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland . . . hell, Russia lost over a million people but had a huge hand in defeating Hitler on the eastern front.

So your post is not accurate in claiming that we took all of those forces on single-handedly.

[Fumesucker]

80. Don't forget Poland

The US has not been single handed in Afghanistan either.

[bluestate10]

118. Maybe we should bring back carpet bombing like was used by Allies in WWII. Your case

is distorted because there is no way that wars can be fought today like fought in WWII.

[Fumesucker]

121. Maybe we should bring back Congress declaring actual war

The difference between WWII and today is that there was an actual objective in WWII, the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers.

Now we have defined the unconditional surrender of an idea to be our objective.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

68. they should have negotiated with Japan. Why lob bombs or attack them?

Clearly, a violent act in response to violent acts isn't the answer according to DU.

[Fumesucker]

124. WWII wasn't done on the cheap and in order to enhance corporate profits

There were no civilian cars produced during WWII among many other difference from our current state of "war".

Long ago I read the complete war years editions of National Geographic, the war both abroad and on the home front was in every issue with photos, maps and in depth reporting.

Frankly it takes manpower to win such a war as we are fighting, boots on the ground, ,many many many boots on the ground and we are too cheap to do it that way, cheap in terms of the money it would take and cheap in terms of American lives it would take.

The US could win in Afghanistan still, but it would take an effort the nation would never stand for these days.

[treestar]

74. Distinction without a difference; if Obama is wrong for the drones FDR was wrong for that

It is annoying to keep bringing FDR up to find Obama wanting. Divisive and very strange. They are both Democratic Presidents for different times. Crap like "We need an FDR/or LBJ or Truman" rather than Obama is just that - pitting one Democrat against another has no purpose other than divisiveness.

We don't have FDR and we don't have LBJ. We have Obama.

And we have no fucking idea whatsoever what FDR would have done with present conditions.

[bluestate10]

114. Dresden leveled, killing men, women and children by the tens of thousands and starving those that

were fortunate enough to survive the bombings. And all of that was done by design.

[dflprincess]

136. Churchill pushed for Dresden

and the RAF was heavily involved in the bombing as was the US Air Corps.

In the effort to make Obama look better by tearing FDR down, do we just forget about Nazi Germany and the crimes it committed when it bombed civilian population centers?

[el_bryanto]

16. That's a simplistic analysis of a complex President

I think maybe you should study him a bit more rather than just write him off.

Bryant

[geek tragedy]

18. Reductio ad absurdem. FDR is treated as a demigod who could do no wrong

and the standard by which VichyDemQuislingcowardappeasenik President Obama is judged.

[el_bryanto]

20. I'm not sure what you are saying here

Simplistically deifying Roosevelt is bad, but so is simplistically condemning him.

Bryant

[geek tragedy]

21. They're equally stupid, which could/should be the takeway from this thread

and its companion piece from yesterday.

Even successful presidencies are complicated stories to tell.

[ecstatic]

41. + infinity nt

[JoePhilly]

47. +1

[Pretzel_Warrior]

70. which was the point of the post. Obama detractors always go to the FDR well

without much nuance on what was happening and FDR's circumstances as presiden vis a vis congress versus Obama's.

[longship]

53. And your post is a bit of a straw man.

But I get your point, GT. Apparently it was deliberate.

My opinion. The whole FDR vs Obama chair throwing thingie here is just silly.

All presidencies are flawed, even the best ones. The reasons are obvious. They make mistakes and are creatures within their historic and cultural contexts both of which which change throughout time.

In the end, these arguments are a bit silly and pretty much unproductive. IMHO.

[geek tragedy]

58. +1000 to your last sentence nt

[YoungDemCA]

102. Meanwhile, others treat Obama as a demigod who could do no wrong...

nt

[geek tragedy]

106. are very few in number, compared to the naysayers.

Hard to find anyone who would defend the 2011 Debt Capitulation to Boehner, for instance.

Boehner took him to the cleaners on that one.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. What do you claim are the difference in the German and Japanese internments?

I don't expect an answer because clearly you know nothing about history of the time and only care for hyperbole and attacking liberal Democrats for the sake of a Centrist agenda.
Obama as a 21st Century person has looked me in the face and said 'God says you are not Sanctified'. He's never apologized for that shite either. Claimed God told him straights are superior. In 2010.

[Cali_Democrat]

28. See upthread:

Japanese-Americans were detained in far greater numbers.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. But that was a function of geography, there was a Pacific Coast Exclusion Zone

declared. Japanese in other places were not interned. Not in Hawaii either. This makes your OP rather off base.

The Pacific Coast was shelled during the war, bombs killed civilians in Oregon, territory in Alaska was occupied and occupation of West Coast places was seen as an ongoing threat. People, including the leadership, were scared shitless and at actual war.

[Cali_Democrat]

50. Trying to justify the bigotry of FDR, eh?

Why does that not surprise me?

[geek tragedy]

51. So these were carefully considered racist concentration camps? nt

[bluestate10]

122. Sorry, you're desperately trying to keep FDR on the "god" pedestal. FDR was a human who was

reacting to the conditions of his time. He made some horrid decisions and allowed innocent people to be victimized. And FDR did some policy that stood the test of time. But to say that FDR would outperform President Obama given the Congress President Obama had from Day 1 is complete fallacy. Even when Democrats were the majority in 2009, there was no close to the margin that FDR had during his ENTIRE Administration. How can one equate 70 Senators that didn't have to contend with a 60 vote super majority rule to one that does? How can one equate a Democrat majority in the House, riff with southern Democrats who voted with republicans more than with their party to the enormous Democratic House FDR had?

The point that I made on the post yesterday was that FDR had serious spots on his record and was not, in actuality, the great saint that his admirers who always call him up to prove how small President Obama is.

[cthulu2016]

24. This OP really makes me want to vomit.

So hooray for you.

I doubt there is anyone alive who is actually stupid enough to think about history the way you pretend to, which makes it even more shocking... that you pretend to be this horrible for some sort of effect.

By your idiotic standard, George W. Bush was a hell of a lot better on race than Abraham Lincoln. Vastly better. Do you understand that? Do you understand why and how that is?

Do you understand anything?

[BluegrassStateBlues]

26. FDR and his policies were great for his time and Obama and his policies are great for this time.

Pitting modern figures against historical figures doesn't really work.

[frazzled]

27. Every president has done his good and not good things

(Note: I say "his" because we have not yet had a woman president.) It's the balance of good to bad, and the lasting importance of their accomplishments, that counts. I think that on balance, FDR stands as a great president because he brought the country out of the Depression and instituted the social safety net we have today. The beginning of Social Security was not perfect by any means (it excluded whole segments of women and African Americans), but it was the foundation to build on.

Even Richard Nixon had his good points: he expanded support for the arts very generously, he opened the world to China, etc. And yes, even old GW Bushie, too: he at least tried to pass immigration reform, was strong on AIDS funding in Africa, and I guess he gets half brownie points for the prescription drug benefit in Medicare (though the way he achieved it was bad--leaving a huge hole in the deficit because it wasn't paid for).

At any rate, I think we all know that our Democratic presidents since the post-World War II era have on balance been far, far better than the Republican ones, but each one has had his flaws in policy, too. That includes everyone from Truman to Obama.

[avaistheone1]

29. There were detention camps for Italians.

[Cali_Democrat]

43. See upthread

So many more Japanese-Americans were detained.

Also, I never said they weren't detained. I said they weren't detained in the same way as Japanese-Americans.

[Smarmie Doofus]

34. By that logic George W. Bush was a better president than Lincoln or Jefferson. n/t

[bullwinkle428]

44. BINGO! Some of the stuff that Lincoln wrote would absolutely make

one's hair stand on end as far as bigoted attitudes, when looking through the prism of today's society.

"WAIT A MINUTE...I DIDN'T HEAR DANIEL DAY-LEWIS USE THE N-WORD!!1!"

[leftstreet]

45. +1

What a stupid thread

[Waiting For Everyman]

38. Yeah, and the cavemen were a-holes for not landing on the moon.

Judging the past by the present is absurd. Yet some do it, over and over again.

[JaneyVee]

52. Obama IS the new FDR, except he doesn't have 300+ in the House and 70+ in Senate

So Obama is forced to play nice. FDR basically had free range of all policy.

[noiretextatique]

61. what a ridiculous post

you BOG people are getting more and more desperate.

[Cali_Democrat]

63. I'm a BOG people?

Even though I've never posted there...at least not that I can recall.

Hooray!

[noiretextatique]

64. yes...you are one

there is no need to tear down one of the greatest presidents in US history in order kiss Obama's ass. He has the opportunity to be one of the greatest too.

[Cali_Democrat]

65. FDR was also a war criminal who killed far more civilians than Obama ever did.

Oh well....I'm off to post in the BOG for the first time...

[noiretextatique]

67. so far...

let's see how many more people he kills with his drone strikes.

[Cali_Democrat]

73. Do you know how many German and Japanese civilians were killed by carpet bombing?

Hundreds of thousands.

[cui bono]

85. That was also during war time. Drone strikes are not being done in a war.

Apples to oranges.

[Cali_Democrat]

87. It's illegal to intentionally target civilians during war

And carpet bombing was the intentional targeting of civilians.

[cui bono]

93. But it's okay to target them when there is no war???

[Cali_Democrat]

94. No.

It's never OK to intentionally target civilians.

Duh.

[cui bono]

96. Okay, so then your argument on that point falls flat since Obama does that with drones.

[Cali_Democrat]

97. Well....

Obama isn't INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians.

You fail.

[cui bono]

98. Yes he is. There is an OP posted today about "double tapping".

When the people rush in to help those injured in the first drone attack a second one is done to strike. That is intentionally targeting civilians.

Plus, when you know damn well innocent civilian bystanders are getting killed by drones then you are intentionally killing them. There is no reason for these strikes in a time of peace. Collateral damage is for war time.

"you fail." Wow. This is not a fucking game you know. I mean I get that you and others think it's all about defending Obama and trying to discredit all ciriticism of him, but some of us actually see the big picture and care about what he's doing/not doing that is failing us and our country. That's because some of us put us and our country before a person.

[bluestate10]

123. Your point on FDR falls also, because he allowed purposeful targeting of civilians. How can you

make your distinction?

[treestar]

75. Just as there is no reason to put past Presidents on pedestals

Just to put the present one down, when the situations are incomparable, and you are talking about your own candidate - the one you voted for and worked for, I am sure?

[JoePhilly]

77. The folks who use BOG as an insult are pretty hilarious.

Can you imagine DU in the future if Elizabeth Warren became President ...

"You're one of those icky EWG people, aren't you."

[Vincardog]

76. You might like to move this to the Obama group. Any criticism of the Dear Leader is Verboten there.

[joeybee12]

84. This is really pathetic...and so are some of the comments...honestly, we get it...

Obama is the only true Dem president ever...all the others sucked...Obama can do no wrong.

FFS! Get a freaking life!

[cali]

88. it's delusional. it really is. Hell, why not just say he's the greatest man who ever lived?

mindless adoration is depressing.

[Cali_Democrat]

89. No, that's FDR

or so I was told.

[cali]

86. your view of history is shockingly anachronistic and uneducated

this is revisionism of the ugliest, worst kind.

but hey, it's you. one can expect nothing else

[Cali_Democrat]

91. Two replies to the same OP from you?

I'm honored.

[bluestate10]

125. Cali_Democrat is right. FDR interred Japanese Americans in a way that he didn't

for any other ethnic group unless members of those groups were POWs or sympathizers. FDR allowed horrid, violent attacks on Black Americans. FDR firebombed Japanese cities and carpet bombed German cities, all of which targeted civilians.

[fascisthunter]

129. indeed

It's an over-reaching to dismiss a sentiment expressed here on DU about a need for an FDR. But the OP misses one verrrry important point of those expressing a want for an FDR... it was based on socio-economics. Nobody was comparing the two in regards to decisions made during a war... and if it was made, Obama would look horribly worse than what the OP mentions about FDR. It's ridiculous and desperate.

[cui bono]

92. Pfft. If you want to make a strong argument you have to take things in context.

Think about the time FDR lived in. It was much more racist than now. Blacks were legally considered less of a person. So there's that. As to the internment camps, it wasn't just based on race, we were at war with Japan. It was based on fear in a less enlightened time.

But really, I'm sure you know as well as I do that when people are bringing up FDR they are referring to the New Deal and how he stood up to the bankers and fought for the people. And economically yes, we would have done far better if Obama were more like FDR. But rather than stand up to them he installs them in the White House and praises their obscene successes.

Yes, we sorely need an FDR who would rather stand for the people and have the bankers hate him. Instead we got someone who wants so bad for his enemies to like him that he gives in to them before the negotiations even begin. And he cozies up to Wall Street execs and keeps his DOJ off their backs and doesn't bother to try to regulate them.

Oh yeah, and that's working out so well.

This is not a serious OP and doesn't really even deserve the attention given it. You completely missed the point of all the FDRD threads.

And one more thing... your last statement is implying that those of us who wish Obama were more like FDR want a more bigoted and racist president. You really believe that??? I know you don't. Well I think I know you don't. Therefore your entire OP is a farce.

[myrna minx]

105. Edit - Not worth responding.

[Cali_Democrat]

108. So we're allowed to criticize Obama, but we can't criticize FDR?

If criticizing FDR's policies is tearing him down, then criticizing Obama's policies is tearing him down.

See how that works?

[myrna minx]

109. What does your post have to do with the current President?

Not worth responding to flame bait.

[Cali_Democrat]

110. You edited because I caught your double standard

busted.

[myrna minx]

111. That's silly -What did bust exactly? I edited because this is nothing but flame bait and probably

about something else entirely. I'm done with this silly thread. Enjoy.

[bluestate10]

126. IT involves the current President because there are some on DU that INSIST on calling

up the "saint" FDR's memory up to "prove" how inadequate the current President is. The OP was laying out part of the real FDR record, and that record is nothing to be proud of.

[Jamaal510]

107. I also want to say the same thing about Reagan;

I've seen plenty of people on the left essentially with rose-colored glasses about the guy, acting like Reagan was more liberal than he truly was. People say all the time that he'd wouldn't fit in today's GOP (and some have said he'd be to the left of Obama), but I call BS on that: just like much of today's Republicans and conservatives, he was one of the biggest race-baiters around (Welfare Queens, anyone?), he was a warmonger, he decried universal access to health care, he raised taxes on the poor, he tripled the deficit, and he went after the Black Panther Party. All of that to me sounds like what a typical Republican nowadays would do.

Looking back to FDR, I agree 100%. I'm too young to remember his presidency (as are probably many other posters here), but from what I have read about him, not only was he a bigot, but it sounded like his presidency would've been nothing without a Congress willing to work with him. That's the main reason why there has been an impasse in D.C. the past few years.

[LanternWaste]

117. this was indicative of the period rather than of the man.

I think if we look closely, we'll realize this was indicative of the period rather than of the man.

For a rather objective look at his (and his wife's... and indeed, the key players of his administration's) positions on both the Japanese Internment, and Jim Crow laws, Joseph Persico's 'Roosevelt's Secret War' is wonderful book.

[bluestate10]

128. Ok, write slowly so that I can understand. Why was FDR's actions and policy indicative of his

period in history and President Obama's actions and policy not indicative of President Obama's period in history?

[Zorra]

120. Yeh, the right wing has been pushing this meme forever because they hate the New Deal

and want exterminate Social Security and Medicare, and trashing FDR is part of their game.

No one in history is more intensely hated by the RW than Franklin Roosevelt.

I automatically put anyone who claims to be a Democrat, and repeats that RW meme, on ignore.

So I won't be responding to this post, have at it.

[fascisthunter]

127. he was a war criminal and Obama in comparison isn't?

lol

[bluestate10]

132. FDR knowingly attacked civilians to KILL them. Look up firebombing of Japanese cities

and carpet bombing of German cities. Drones kill innocent people, but there is no intention to kill civilians by design. There is a case for calling one President a war criminal, but no sound case for calling President Obama a war criminal.

[fascisthunter]

134. You think Obama didn't think or know there would be collateral damage

before giving it an ok? Are drone attacks banned now that we know for fact this shit happens?

[ThoughtCriminal]

130. Worst. Thread. Ever.

And I've been here 11 years.

[senseandsensibility]

131. I won't defend FDR on race, but

it is indisputable that the policies he enacted (social security, mainly) helped minorities and continue to do so. He made life better for the ninety nine percent, and told the corporatists where to go. That's the bottom line for me.