Does that mean yes, you would have rather had Joe McCarthy as President over Harry Truman?I would have rather not left Eastern Europe to 50 years of Communist domination, tyrany and mass murder under Communist Totalitarianism.
Does that mean you think we should have fought another war, just after the second World War, against the Soviet Union?
I am unclear as to what you mean by that statement, and I'm looking for you to elaborate.
That's a vague statement. Anyone can agree with that - the question is 'how would you have done that?'I would have rather not left Eastern Europe to 50 years of Communist domination, tyrany and mass murder under Communist Totalitarianism.
That's what I'm asking you.
I'm also asking, after your statements on about Truman being a collectivist with weak anti-communist credentials, if you think Joseph McCarthy would have made a better President.
I haven't gotten a clear answer on either of those.
Like "fairness"? Or "fair share"? Or "equallity"? Or "social justice"? Or "hope and change"? Or "fundamental transformation"? Etc, etc, etc.....That's a vague statement.
You're asking an accountant who never served in the millitary in any form how he would have waged a War in Europe against Communist USSR at the end of WWII.Anyone can agree with that - the question is 'how would you have done that?'
That's what I'm asking you.
I'll also guess you are not a Millitary Officer/Tactician/General/Admiral yourself, correct, and hence unqualified to determine if anything I write in reply is legitimate or not?
Think about that for a second.
Can you point out the election they ran against each other in....or is this a wholely fictional hypothetical designed specificly for you to make a point?I'm also asking, after your statements on about Truman being a collectivist with weak anti-communist credentials, if you think Joseph McCarthy would have made a better President
If so, I'll repeat, please make your point already and stop putting me to sleep.
And I'm not looking for your battle plans, as I'm also not military, but I think two citizens of a democracy can talk about war and its strategy from a civilian perspective.
The Soviets developed their atomic weapon in 1949. I was wondering how long you think a war with the Soviets would have lasted, that is if we started shortly after the second world war. I think, theres a good chance it would not have been over by the time they would have developed atomic weapons, unless we used our atomic weapons first, in which case the body counts would have been enormous, not to mention the American casualties if the war was conventional, even for a short time.
Maybe some people think the Marshall Plan and containment (the Truman Doctrine), with all of its faults, was better for America than a third world war in as many decades, this time against the Soviets.
I guess if there's any point I'm making, it's I want to see how much of 20th century American policy decisions, therefore American history and it's Presidents, that you are critical of, because the larger point would be - how much of our history are you critical of, and how does that coincide with the view that you hold of liberals, which if I'm correct is; liberals are ashamed of this country's history.
Were Truman, FDR and Teddy Roosevelt bad Presidents?
Oh, is that all. You'd just like to knwo every person, policy and PResident I take any issue with in just the 20th Century.I guess if there's any point I'm making, it's I want to see how much of 20th century American policy decisions, therefore American history and it's Presidents, that you are critical of, because blah blah blah blah blah.....
I'll get right on that, right after I cure cancer, invent cold fusion, write a bestselling Sci Fi Novel and create a universal non-vague definition everyone happily accepts for the word "fairness".
To cut the "you only hate libs through History" theorum off at the knees, as I've said many many many times, G.W. Bush (not a liberal) was the single worst President in American history.
As for FDR specificly, he was both good and bad. Depends on tthe specific item we're discussing.
I'm making the point that we've been here for a while, liberals and progressives, we've been part of the mainstream for quite some time. Teddy argued for well-regulated capitalism, environmental preservation and hefty estate taxes. FDR well, you know about FDR. Truman? Truman called for universal healthcare.
These were not yahoos, radicals or anything other than mainstream. They were not communists, nor were their Presidencies weak on international affairs.
Calling someone who wants socialized medicine and higher federal income taxes (than the current rates in 2012) a communist, is an incorrect use of the term communist if for no other reason, than by doing so, you're labeling Harry Truman a communist.
In your opinion, and in (very) general terms.These were not yahoos, radicals or anything other than mainstream. They were not communists, nor were their Presidencies weak on international affairs.
Each can be debated in turn, in specific detail, if one had the overwhelming desire. F.D.R., for example, and his socio-political policies outside of purely "fighting WWII".
Let me guess, you view his internment of an entire ethnic group not radical at all, a mainstream thing to do, and nothing like what a Communist State would do...right? You view has massive "New Deal" as a total success, I must presume, and nothign at all like Big Governement Collectivism at all, totally mainstream! It wasn;t the War thats ved the U.S. from the Depression, it was teh New Fair Square Justice Equality Deal!
Like so many arguments here, this boils down to the same old worn out "Why, if you don't agree with our Collectivism Idea of the Day, why YOU'RE A RADICAL CRAZY RIGHT WINGER and How DARE YOU CALL OUR COLLECTIVISM COLLECTIVST/SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST/WHATEVER!!! IT"S NO SUCH THING...it's...er.....um.....Libe...no.....Progres s.....um, er......It's COMMON SENSIAN, thats it, COMMON SENSIAN!!! We're the COMMON SENSIAN OF FAIRNESS Party!!!!!"
As I've said , wake me if you can summon a point that isn't old, boring and snooze inducingly Zzzzzz..........
Someone who wants Socialized Medicine is a Collectivist on the issue, by definition. It is inherant int he nature of a COLLECTIVE Healthcare System that it is, shock here I know, collective.Calling someone who wants socialized medicine and higher federal income taxes (than the current rates in 2012) a communist