General Discussion

whathehell

(30,315 posts)

89. Yeah, I'm sure it would, so it

Reply to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #81)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 11:30 AM

Feb 2015

might be best if we just go "bye bye".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Simply put, we need another Roosevelt [View all] AZ Progressive Feb 2015 OP

Roosevelt wouldn't have succeeded like that without a Democratic Congress. He also packed SCOTUS. pnwmom Feb 2015 #1

Roosevelt did not "pack" the Supreme Court Art_from_Ark Feb 2015 #7

That's not quite right... Blanks Feb 2015 #94

No, he tried to pack the supreme.court, but he didn't succeed. whathehell Feb 2015 #8

You don't know that he tried it. You know he threatened it. You don't know merrily Feb 2015 #77

No President could make that threat today because the Constitution doesn't allow it. n/t pnwmom Feb 2015 #91

So? FDR made it. Not sure the Constitution doesn't allow it, either. Which provision forbids it? merrily Feb 2015 #97

His Democratic Congress was bitterly divided and he did not pack the SCOTUS. merrily Feb 2015 #78

For example, Senator Carter Glass (D) of Virginia opposed many of FDR's reforms, Art_from_Ark Feb 2015 #95

A wealthy scion of an elite political dynasty, who's well versed in party crony politics... MrScorpio Feb 2015 #2

Nicely done. cheapdate Feb 2015 #6

You have a problem with someone born into wealth "betraying" their own economic class? whathehell Feb 2015 #14

Is that what you took from that post? n/t 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #18

What did you take? whathehell Feb 2015 #19

The entire description of the circumstances that led to FDR's success ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #22

Yeah, sure.. whathehell Feb 2015 #28

Yes ... And? n/t 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #71

No "and" needed by most. whathehell Feb 2015 #72

What? n/t 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #73

I'm sure you'll figure it out.. whathehell Feb 2015 #75

No. I probably won't ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #81

Yeah, I'm sure it would, so it whathehell Feb 2015 #89

I got an attempt at a massive false equivalency between FDR and Hills. merrily Feb 2015 #82

I still don't understand ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #84

No worries. I just gave an interpretation of the same post that was different from the merrily Feb 2015 #85

My, my, aren't you touchy. MrScorpio Feb 2015 #24

Nah, I just asked a question whathehell Feb 2015 #27

Actually, you asked me two questions, with just this last third… Yeah, I'll try again. MrScorpio Feb 2015 #30

Your skepticism is duly noted. whathehell Feb 2015 #38

The Roosevelts were not saints, they were pragmatists... MrScorpio Feb 2015 #49

Who said they were? whathehell Feb 2015 #53

It appears to me that you're offended by my lack of worshipping them MrScorpio Feb 2015 #56

It appears to me that you're trying to start a fight, and whathehell Feb 2015 #57

You go out of your to confront me... MrScorpio Feb 2015 #59

HAHAHAHAHA! whathehell Feb 2015 #61

Dude, you're the ONLY person in this entire thread that's having a beef with anything I've posted. MrScorpio Feb 2015 #64

They may have a beef, whathehell Feb 2015 #66

My apologies about calling you "Dude" MrScorpio Feb 2015 #68

No need for apologies, it was just a "heads up" whathehell Feb 2015 #70

I'm not disregarding his ailment and how it affected him... MrScorpio Feb 2015 #83

LOL.. whathehell Feb 2015 #88

His prick period was an albeit short one during his college years... MrScorpio Feb 2015 #90

Um, yeah, very short.. whathehell Feb 2015 #93

Do you think it can't happen again? joshcryer Feb 2015 #33

You may be addressing the wrong poster. I'm not the one expressing skepticism. whathehell Feb 2015 #35

I am asking about a wealthy Roosevelt type. joshcryer Feb 2015 #36

Okay.. whathehell Feb 2015 #39

NLRB = legitimized Norris–La Guardia joshcryer Feb 2015 #43

Aw gee.. whathehell Feb 2015 #46

I appreciate his flaws. joshcryer Feb 2015 #48

+1, it's like nobody ever saw The Roosevelts. joshcryer Feb 2015 #29

I know... MrScorpio Feb 2015 #31

"The Roosevelts" is a great documentary. joshcryer Feb 2015 #34

I have that series on DVD now. RiverLover Feb 2015 #40

Yes, agreed, his view on southern lynching is important. joshcryer Feb 2015 #47

The Roosevelts were American Economic Brahmin MrScorpio Feb 2015 #41

Yeah, they'd be seen as Koch Bro's this day and age. joshcryer Feb 2015 #50

My ass, they would be...Kochs are not noted for their liberal views or actions whathehell Feb 2015 #55

I'm saying the Buffet's try to benefit the world. joshcryer Feb 2015 #62

Is that what you were saying? whathehell Feb 2015 #65

Aw gee.. whathehell Feb 2015 #52

You'll be endorsing Hillary then? joshcryer Feb 2015 #58

Yeah..uh huh..sure..whatever. whathehell Feb 2015 #67

Yeah, these days people like that are are called.. whathehell Feb 2015 #42

Or George Soros. joshcryer Feb 2015 #45

I hear that response from conservatives all the time.. whathehell Feb 2015 #54

They're top 0.001%ers. joshcryer Feb 2015 #60

Uh huh whathehell Feb 2015 #63

FDR's political dynasty was not Third Way. FDR got Glass Steagall enacted rather than repealing merrily Feb 2015 #80

Maybe without the detention of Japanese-Americans in camps this time? nt msanthrope Feb 2015 #3

And, maybe, a re-thinking of that opposition to the Anti-Lynching Bill.n/t 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #23

Yes.....have you noted the rose-colored glasses modern msanthrope Feb 2015 #26

"Pre-Civil Rights era"??? 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #69

+1000 nt F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #92

Roosevelt was unintentionally 'liberal' ColesCountyDem Feb 2015 #4

Initially, perhaps. He certainly wasn't when he proposed a National Healthcare system. whathehell Feb 2015 #10

I agree. ColesCountyDem Feb 2015 #11

He certainly did evolve, and what he meant by whathehell Feb 2015 #12

In a very real sense, he did whatever it took to preserve/conserve, much like Lincoln. ColesCountyDem Feb 2015 #20

Sounds good to me. n/t whathehell Feb 2015 #21

You forgot they are also anarchists. cstanleytech Feb 2015 #16

From what I read most of it was Eleanor not him marlakay Feb 2015 #96

We need to get rid of some tea party governors! Sancho Feb 2015 #5

Or Another Revolution charles d Feb 2015 #9

"Something very serious" to me means. . .well. . . DinahMoeHum Feb 2015 #25

Not Something I Would Choose charles d Feb 2015 #32

No, what we need is to kick the asshole Republicans across the nation out of office both cstanleytech Feb 2015 #13

If we'd had anything close to a Roosevelt in the last 30 years whathehell Feb 2015 #17

I don't see how anyone could call themselves a Democrat & not support the amazing work of FDR RiverLover Feb 2015 #15

I wish theyd bring back the CCC Telcontar Feb 2015 #37

Teddy and the Bull Moose 2016!!! NightWatcher Feb 2015 #44

That's why I support Bernie Sanders! B Calm Feb 2015 #51

Yep because all we need is the right President treestar Feb 2015 #74

FDR pisses off all the right people. L0oniX Feb 2015 #76

At this point in history, I agree. mmonk Feb 2015 #79

FDR had massive faults. However, he was genius in the way he saved the nation and the speed with merrily Feb 2015 #86

And made things better at it madokie Feb 2015 #87