Author Topic: Politics, Religion, etc.  (Read 99445 times)

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #90 on: September 16, 2013, 12:52:48 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.

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #91 on: September 16, 2013, 02:44:40 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.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #92 on: September 16, 2013, 06:32:01 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?

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #93 on: September 16, 2013, 07:32:09 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.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #94 on: September 16, 2013, 07:59:18 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.

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:
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.

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?

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #95 on: September 16, 2013, 08:19:17 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.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #96 on: September 16, 2013, 08:53:42 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?

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #97 on: September 20, 2013, 12:48:52 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.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #98 on: September 20, 2013, 04:07:45 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.

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.

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #99 on: September 20, 2013, 11:35:26 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.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #100 on: September 21, 2013, 12:19:55 pm »
This is silly.  You refuse to stick to the original discussion, while accusing me of that.

This is why things get tedious....

The following, from you, is the first post to reference Wilson or FDR:
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.
[/color]

No one previously had mentioned Wilson, FDR or Nixon.  Your post quoted no one, but did immediately follow a comment from Tico about how Obama's presidency in many regards was a continuation of the Bush presidency:
Sorry, but there's not as big a difference between Bush and Obama as you'd like to pretend. All the major stuff that Obama campaigned against Bush on... can you tell me what's changed?

Now, let's look again at what you wrote:
  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.
[/color]

War was not an issue at all in the 1912 election, nor in the FDR elections of 1932 or 1936.  The only elections for either of them where they were "anti-war" or "pacifists" was the election immediately before they asked Congress to declare war.  THAT is what I have focused on in every post.  You now contend that I "refuse to stick to the original discussion."  Could you cut and paste any quote any language from me in this exchange where I have done that?   Now, while I did focus my initial comments entirely on the elections when each of the presidents you mentioned did campaign as anti-war (the elections of 1916, 1940 and 1968) and the year or in Nixon's case the years immediately after that election, YOU came back with your second comment in the exchange saying you saw "
no evidence that either Wilson or FDR wanted to go to war when they were first elected,
" and asking if I could cite any.  Knowing that you are prone to typos, but generally think straight, I continued to focus my response on the elections when FDR and Wilson actually took campaign positions on war and peace and not to the utterly irrelevant elections of 1912 and 1932, and I also made clear what I was doing and why.

While I would still like to see your reference to why I was straying off topic, the only way YOU were staying ON topic was if in your original post you actually were referencing the elections of 1912 and 1932.... in which case you were utterly wrong about Wilson running as a "pacifist" and FDR as "anti-war" and your entire comment was nonsense.

I will let you sort out which it was.  Forgive me for assuming you actually knew what you were talking about and were making sense but had made what amounted to a typo if in fact you did not know what you were talking about and were not making what amounted to a typo.


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.

Excuse me, but I DID submit evidence that each changed their positions from the ones they campaigned on in the relevant elections, the elections less than a year before they asked Congress to declare war.  Their positions in 1912 and 1932 are both irrelevant and unknown, at neither time was war even an issue.


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.

You want to discuss a change in their positions from 1912 and 1932?

REALLY?

Let's start by offering anything from 1912 or 1932 to establish their positions in those years.

I have responded to your original post in the only form in which it offered a modicum of sense, applying your contention to the elections of 1916 and 1940 when each did make their war and peace positions central to their campaigns.  Actually applying your contention to the years of 1912 and 1932 makes no sense whatsoever, though I will be very happy to look at anything you can find which suggests otherwise, that either of them actually ran as a "pacifist" or "anti-war" candidate in their initial campaigns as presidential candidates, the campaigns when they were elected to office.

buff

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #101 on: December 30, 2013, 08:42:43 am »
Im rebuilding so if anyone has interest in josh hamilton or jose bautista make me an offer

Playtwo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8788
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #102 on: December 30, 2013, 09:15:51 am »
I pray this will work out for you.

CurtOne

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27253
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #103 on: December 30, 2013, 09:23:22 am »
Josh is going into politics and Jose is becoming a priest.

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #104 on: December 30, 2013, 10:26:10 am »
Isn't Jose the current Pope?