the sheeple still rate FDR #1 pres

I would rather have had Hitler in the world than Stalin if given the only options between the two. Stalin was far worse than Hitler. So, that mythos doesn't even make sense if we give to them that. Communists never acknowledge that Stalin is the worlds biggest mass murderer ever.
 
Last edited:
Of course they voted FDR the top. In the American Mythos, he went to Mount Berlin with his buddies Churchill and Stalin to slay the evil Lord Hitler, bringing peace to the land forever after.

It may not be very true or so glorious, but it makes a good story and it puffs up everyone's egos, so it may as well be the truth.

LOL @ the idea of FDR and Churchill being "buddies"
 
I think you're a British Imperial Sympathizer that subscribes to the Imperial "Free Trade/Market" Policies of Adam Smith of London School of Economics, contrary to the American System.

I think you like guessing what others believe having no conclusive evidence, and also that you reached an incorrect conclusion when you guessed my beliefs.
 
As the king's business will always be deemed official, thus being one that he can mind, the little prostitute's business will always be one that is deemed illegal.

As if to imply the archetypal false dichotomy. If you have a point to make, at least be clear about it.

In other words, we don't have to do anything to avoid being deadbeats. The true deadbeat is the corporate dad. He is the one with many wives and lots of children. He works hard at creating inequity. He is the one the courts have to just shrug their shoulders at. What can they do with a man who has so many children? Still, in the back of their minds, the courts have to marvel at his business. Wow! What a man!
What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand? If you're trying to be oblique you have, perhaps, succeeded beyond your wildest expectations because if I didn't know better, I would think you were very stoned on acid.

So once again, if you have a point to make, how about some plain English, because what you posted is not even good as gibberish, no offense.
 
Last edited:
If an evil leader is elected and is just doing the will of the people, why lay all the blame with the evil leader? Are not the evil people equally, if not more, at fault?

Regarding Hitler, he did a lot of bad stuff that the voters approved of. Of course Hitler went far beyond what the people wanted or expected.

But Andrew Jackson didnt do shit that the people didn't want. American citizens in the 1830s didn't like Indians. They wanted the Indians out of Georgia.

Modern Jackson bashing is just more liberal BS that is trotted out by people who want a central bank.

The trail of tears has to be one of the worse abuses of the consitution up to that time. This has to be one of the worse arguments for a president there is. If the people supported it it isn't the presidents fault? FDR then bears no blame because he was elected by some of the highest majorities of any presidents. The people wanted it.
 
The trail of tears has to be one of the worse abuses of the consitution up to that time. This has to be one of the worse arguments for a president there is. If the people supported it it isn't the presidents fault? FDR then bears no blame because he was elected by some of the highest majorities of any presidents. Some people wanted it.

ftfy.
 
The trail of tears has to be one of the worse abuses of the consitution up to that time. This has to be one of the worse arguments for a president there is. If the people supported it it isn't the presidents fault? FDR then bears no blame because he was elected by some of the highest majorities of any presidents. The people wanted it.

No, the trail of tears was about states rights. The Cherokee tried to get big government man John Marshall to intrude upon the sovereign right of Georgia to get rid of her enemies. If you are upset with the trail of tears, then blame the state of Georgia, not Jackson.

FDR wasn't about state rights. He also had Huey Long murdered in 1935 by a "lone nut" to ensure re-election. Jackson, on the other hand, was a victim of a "lone nut".
 
No, the trail of tears was about states rights. The Cherokee tried to get big government man John Marshall to intrude upon the sovereign right of Georgia to get rid of her enemies. If you are upset with the trail of tears, then blame the state of Georgia, not Jackson.

FDR wasn't about state rights. He also had Huey Long murdered in 1935 by a "lone nut" to ensure re-election. Jackson, on the other hand, was a victim of a "lone nut".
Actually I am getting really sick of hearing how states rights should trump individual rights.
Maybe you should also research what Jackson was going to do when SC threatened to secede. He threatened them with the invasion of the federal army. If it was a states rights issue why did he use the federal army to force the indians into another state?
 
Last edited:
Actually I am getting really sick of hearing how states rights should trump individual rights.
Maybe you should also research what Jackson was going to do when SC threatened to secede. He threatened them with the invasion of the federal army. If it was a states rights issue why did he use the federal army to force the indians into another state?

If South Carolina secedes, then it is none of their business what Jackson does in regards to the US Constitution.
 
If South Carolina secedes, then it is none of their business what Jackson does in regards to the US Constitution.
That's not what Jackson thought and without a doubt he would have forced SC back into the union had they tried to secede.
 
Why do people amuse the troll? Have we learned nothing (and yes, I include myself in this), with this poster? I have tried my patience.
 
Why do people amuse the troll? Have we learned nothing (and yes, I include myself in this), with this poster? I have tried my patience.

South Carolina used nullification in 1830 because of a tariff rate. A high tariff rate in not unconstitutional. And this was in a time with no income tax! Using nullification for a tariff rate makes a joke of nullification. That's why even James Madison, an advocate of nullification, came out against South Carolina in 1830. No wonder people today have trouble getting off the ground when trying to use nullification for the war of drugs, war on terror, and other tyrannical outrages. I am not a troll. I am a constitutional scholar.
 
South Carolina used nullification in 1830 because of a tariff rate. A high tariff rate in not unconstitutional. And this was in a time.

The taxes under King George were close to nothing. So according to your reasoning, protesting about them in the Declaration of Independence makes the declaration and the Revolution a joke.

I am a constitutional scholar

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!


I am not a troll

I do agree that we shouldn't call RP supporters troll. If we relax those standards, I'd call Austrian Econ Disciple a troll, as he often says false things, like that there is a myth that Reagan was a Nozickian.
 
Last edited:
what if there was no conspiracy around william mckinley...

Is it false that the Confederacy was backed by, and capitulating with the same Empire we declared Independence from, and were at war with not even 30 years prior to the Civil war? They were forced to stay a part of the Union b/c Lincoln won a war which was really against the British Empire and the United States remained Soveriegn and not subject to British Control, up unto the point of the assassination of President William McKinley, which was also at the hand of London.

I think you're a British Imperial Sympathizer that subscribes to the Imperial "Free Trade/Market" Policies of Adam Smith of London School of Economics, contrary to the American System.

the 25 year old lone wolf assassin had stalked emma goldman
before he fixated on the sitting president...
 
Back
Top