DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Bleacher Bums Forum
*****************************************************
#Post#: 149092--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 16, 2013, 12:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
FDR's position in 1932 is irrelevant. War was not even an issue
in the campaign. His position in 1940 is the relevant one, and
in 1940 he RAN on the promise of keeping the U.S. out of war, at
the very time he was asking his advisers what he needed to do to
provoke Japan to attacking first and giving him the
justification for entering.
On Wilson, are you really going to suggest that the sinking of
the Lusitania, in 1915, a year and a half before Wilson won
re-election on the assurance of keeping the U.S. out of WW I,
DID make sense as a reason to enter the war in April of 1917?
The others are similar -- the reasons make no sense. But,
again, even with Wilson, it is not a question of what his
position was when initially ran in 1912 -- war was on no one's
horizon at that time. His campaign position in 1916 is
relevant, and he ran as a peace candidate, and then promptly
move to enter the war, citing reasons which simply make no
sense.
#Post#: 149104--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: davep Date: September 16, 2013, 2:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea what caused Wilson to enter the war. But the
decisions of a man who bears responsibility are often different
than a man who can indulge his principles in a vacuum. I have
no reason to believe that Wilson lied when he said that he
wanted to keep the country out of war, although I admit the
possibility.
But possibility is not proof.
I have heard it said that Wilson believed that the only way to
ensure world peace was to create a world government, and the
only way to do that was to form a united nations, and the only
practical way to do that would be to have a "War to End All
Wars".
I think that is idiocy, but then, most pacifists are idiots.
#Post#: 149126--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 16, 2013, 6:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
davep, let's try to quickly run through something. Simple
yes/no questions, though certainly you could explain why you
answered that way if you would like.
Do you personally believe FDR when he campaigned for re-election
in 1940 sincerely planned and expected and intended to keep the
U.S. out of WW II?
Do you personally believe FDR at that time did not plan or
expect to look for an opportunity or excuse to enter the war and
to try to shift public opinion to allow him to do so?
And do you personally believe Wilson when he campaigned for
re-election in 1918 sincerely planned and expected and intended
to keep the U.S. out of WW I?
Do you personally believe Wilson at that time did not plan or
expect to look for an opportunity or excuse to enter the war and
to try to shift public opinion to allow him to do so?
#Post#: 149132--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: davep Date: September 16, 2013, 7:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Jes - you need to read my posts. I never said anything about
FDR being a pacifist in 1940. He did not seem to be by that
time. What I said was that he seemed to be a pacifist BEFORE he
took office in 1933. So your first two questions are
meaningless to the discussion.
Similarly, your next two questions are meaningless to the
discussion, since what I said was that Wilson seemed to be a
pacifist before he entered office in 1913.
It would be helpful if you stuck to the original argument.
By the way, even if I believed both of them to be liars during
their original campaign, that would not prove anything. So I
ask you again. Do you have any evidence that either FDR or
Wilson were NOT pacifists prior to taking office.
#Post#: 149138--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 16, 2013, 7:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=davep link=topic=96.msg149132#msg149132
date=1379377929]
Jes - you need to read my posts. I never said anything about
FDR being a pacifist in 1940. He did not seem to be by that
time. What I said was that he seemed to be a pacifist BEFORE he
took office in 1933. So your first two questions are
meaningless to the discussion.
Similarly, your next two questions are meaningless to the
discussion, since what I said was that Wilson seemed to be a
pacifist before he entered office in 1913.
It would be helpful if you stuck to the original argument.
By the way, even if I believed both of them to be liars during
their original campaign, that would not prove anything. So I
ask you again. Do you have any evidence that either FDR or
Wilson were NOT pacifists prior to taking office.
[/quote]
davep, I have read your posts, and have repeatedly pointed out
that your reference to the original campaigns is irrelevant. In
the original campaigns war was not even an issue, and that is
why my first response addressed the campaigns which were
relevant to your position -- 1916 and 1932.
This was your original post in the thread:
[quote author=davep link=topic=96.msg148747#msg148747
date=1379085219]
Wilson was as much a pacifist as you could find in his campaign
days. Roosevelt was antiwar. Nixon campaigned on ending the
war.
Once you actually have the responsibility, you take a more
realistic view of things.
[/quote]
Wilson was not a pacifist in 1912, because the issue simply did
not come up in 1912, and FDR was similarly not "antiwar" in
1932, because there was no war for him to oppose. The pacifism
and anti-war positions they took were in 1916 and 1940,
respectively, when both of them were lying through their teeth
to voters in order to remain in office.
So, to try to actually advance the discussion, let me ask again,
simple yes/no questions, though certainly you could explain why
you answered that way if you would like.
Do you personally believe FDR when he campaigned for re-election
in 1940 sincerely planned and expected and intended to keep the
U.S. out of WW II?
Do you personally believe FDR at that time did not plan or
expect to look for an opportunity or excuse to enter the war and
to try to shift public opinion to allow him to do so?
And do you personally believe Wilson when he campaigned for
re-election in 1918 sincerely planned and expected and intended
to keep the U.S. out of WW I?
Do you personally believe Wilson at that time did not plan or
expect to look for an opportunity or excuse to enter the war and
to try to shift public opinion to allow him to do so?
#Post#: 149140--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: davep Date: September 16, 2013, 8:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My original statement was that "Once you actually have the
responsibility, you take a more realistic view of things."
Nothing you have said or posted refutes that.
#Post#: 149143--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 16, 2013, 8:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
davep, neither Wilson nor FDR were making ANY comments about war
or peace before they first took office. Their comments came in
re-election campaigns, well after they had "the responsibility,"
and when they were simply lying.
Now, I have not been trying to "refute" what you have posted,
but instead to have a discussion with you -- refuting what
someone has written is not always required. The questions I
posed were intended to help clarify your position and to advance
the discussion.
Once more, simple yes/no questions, though certainly you could
explain why you answered that way if you would like.
Do you personally believe FDR when he campaigned for re-election
in 1940 sincerely planned and expected and intended to keep the
U.S. out of WW II?
Do you personally believe FDR at that time did not plan or
expect to look for an opportunity or excuse to enter the war and
to try to shift public opinion to allow him to do so?
And do you personally believe Wilson when he campaigned for
re-election in 1918 sincerely planned and expected and intended
to keep the U.S. out of WW I?
Do you personally believe Wilson at that time did not plan or
expect to look for an opportunity or excuse to enter the war and
to try to shift public opinion to allow him to do so?
#Post#: 149496--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: davep Date: September 20, 2013, 12:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I believe that Wilson and FDR lied, as all politicians do, when
they campaigned.
It is my contention that they changed their minds when
circumstances changes. It is your contention that they always
had those beliefs. I see no evidence that you are right, and
you advance no evidence to support your contention.
#Post#: 149527--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 20, 2013, 4:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=davep link=topic=96.msg149496#msg149496
date=1379699332]
I believe that Wilson and FDR lied, as all politicians do, when
they campaigned.
It is my contention that they changed their minds when
circumstances changes. It is your contention that they always
had those beliefs. I see no evidence that you are right, and
you advance no evidence to support your contention.
[/quote]
davep, I have really tried to have this exchange as an actual
discussion, explaining my belief and trying to understand yours,
and then discussing them, and that is one of the reasons I have
at least three times now asked you the following (and I am
asking them again now by repeating them):
simple yes/no questions, though certainly you could explain why
you answered that way if you would like.
Do you personally believe FDR when he campaigned for re-election
in 1940 sincerely planned and expected and intended to keep the
U.S. out of WW II?
Do you personally believe FDR at that time did not plan or
expect to look for an opportunity or excuse to enter the war and
to try to shift public opinion to allow him to do so?
And do you personally believe Wilson when he campaigned for
re-election in 1918 sincerely planned and expected and intended
to keep the U.S. out of WW I?
Do you personally believe Wilson at that time did not plan or
expect to look for an opportunity or excuse to enter the war and
to try to shift public opinion to allow him to do so?
But, since you don't seem much interested in a real discussion,
I will engage here in some of the typical political exchange,
starting by asking you to point to where it is that I have ever
(here or anywhere else, anytime ever) contended that FDR or
Wilson held any particular belief regarding the use of military
force when they initially ran for the presidency (I would have
to have presented such a position for there to be any truth in
your claim that it is my "contention that they always had those
beliefs").
Despite your claim that it is my "contention that they always
had those beliefs," if you had ever followed your own admonition
for more careful reading of what is being responded to, you
would have noticed that the only election positions I have
addressed for either Wilson or FDR are the positions in the
elections immediately before they asked Congress to declared
war. In Wilson's case that was less than six months earlier,
and nothing had really changed. In FDR's case it was 13 months
later and the only thing to have changed was what he had
deliberated taken steps to provoke.
You contend that is no evidence and, instead of contending that
they MIGHT have changed their minds, and simply saying you are
unwilling to go so far as to conclude they lied, you offer the
conclusion that "they changed their minds when circumstances
change[d]," but you offer no evidence to support that
conclusion. I understand that you reject the evidence I offered
leading to my conclusion, but you have presented an alternate
conclusion, have asserted it no less positively than I have
mine, and do not even offer evidence to support it, distort my
position to such a degree that it would seem you are doing so
deliberately, and repeatedly refer to the evidence I present as
"no evidence" instead of simply saying you are unpersuaded by
it.
#Post#: 149562--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: davep Date: September 20, 2013, 11:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is silly. You refuse to stick to the original discussion,
while accusing me of that.
It is my opinion that Wilson and FDR changed their minds when
faced with a changing situation. It is your opinion that they
did not. I do not submit evidence to support my position, other
than to say that it seems more reasonable than the alternatives.
You do not submit evidence to support your position, other than
to say that it is more reasonable to you than the alternatives.
There does't seem to be much to discuss, so you are probably
right when you say that I am not much interested in your idea of
a discussion. If you refuse to respond to my posts, and instead
ask questions that are irrelevant to the discussion, it is
probably time to give it up.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page