Save Julian Assange!

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by Karfield

And now your saying I'm racist because I don't agree with the government forcing banks to make loans to people who can't afford them? That makes no sense.

I never said anything about anyone's color. Stop putting words in my damn mouth. It's insulting.

OK. What regulations force lenders to make loans? The main ones I can think of are anti-discrimination laws, specifically the CRA and its revisions over the years. If not those, what legislation are you referring to? Name it and I'll apologize.

Originally Posted by Karfield

Because anyone who remotely thinks the New Deal helped us is either daft or mad because what really saved us was WWII. So I'm just going to ignore the thread now.

The New Deal was a huge package of reforms over the course of several years. There were some missteps (like the anti-trust exemptions the UCLA article cites) but the success of the TVA, FDIC, banking reform and Social Security speak for themselves.

I'd also like to point out that the main issue in the article you cited was anti-trust exemption. The problem occurred because the government agreed not to enforce a regulation.

@liveordie83: It's not so black and white. FDR ordered the Japanese internment camps and tried to pack the Supreme Court. He also allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to mobilize the American people to war against Japan.

[Karfield]

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...sion-5409.aspx


Bull pies.

[Karfield]

Anti-discrimination laws have nothing to do with being black at all.

That's insulting to all races.

The regulations for loans were open to all people who were to poor to afford the loans to afford a home. The right to have a home initiative...which is bs no one has a right to a home. They have a right to earn a home.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by Karfield

Anti-discrimination laws have nothing to do with being black at all.

That's insulting to all races.

In theory. In practice blacks tend to get discriminated against in the most entrenched and systematic ways of any minority. The CRA was originally designed to prevent redlining, which affected blacks more than any other group.

Originally Posted by Karfield

The regulations for loans were open to all people who were to poor to afford the loans to afford a home. The right to have a home initiative...which is bs no one has a right to a home. They have a right to earn a home.

Exactly what legislation are you talking about if it's not the CRA or similar equal lending or housing legislation? Like I said, I'll apologize if you can point me to it.

[LOD]

I hope OhZone doesn't mind if I borrow his graphs, but it was the Conservative Congress that lengthen the Great Depression when they tried to balance the budget back in 1937.





And if we didn't retaliate after we were attacked do you really think the Allies would have been able to defeat The Nazis and the Japanese? Would you really like to live in a world were The Axis crushed Europe and Russia and set it's sights on North America because they knew we would cower and fold just like we did after your ideal version of Pearl Harbor?

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by liveordie83

And if we didn't retaliate after we were attacked do you really think the Allies would have been able to defeat The Nazis and the Japanese? Would you really like to live in a world were The Axis crushed Europe and Russia and set it's sights on North America because they knew we would cower and fold just like we did after your ideal version of Pearl Harbor?

I think you misunderstand. America had interests in the South Pacific and it was only a matter of time until Japan's expansion clashed with US interests. The US was already helping Britain against the Germans, like the Lend-Lease act in 1940 and the Atlantic Charter agreement in Aug 1941. The draft had already started in 1940. War with the Axis Powers was inevitable, but there was a tremendous amount of debate and a strong isolationist sentiment, particularly after the last war.

The Japanese were allowed to complete their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor as a galvanizing moment for the American public. The debate over whether we should get directly involved in the war evaporated and war was declared the next day. I wasn't advocating isolationism or even criticizing the aims of the war, just noting that soldiers were purposefully sacrificed to allow our smooth entry into the war.

[sodacat]

Originally Posted by Drachen

The Japanese were allowed to complete their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor as a galvanizing moment for the American public. The debate over whether we should get directly involved in the war evaporated and war was declared the next day. I wasn't advocating isolationism or even criticizing the aims of the war, just noting that soldiers were purposefully sacrificed to allow our smooth entry into the war.

I knew I should have continued to ignore this topic. Do you have any more evidence to back up this ludicrous claim than 911 Truthers have to back up their's? 'It would have been a good idea' is not evidence, BTW.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by sodacat

I knew I should have continued to ignore this topic. Do you have any more evidence to back up this ludicrous claim than 911 Truthers have to back up their's? 'It would have been a good idea' is not evidence, BTW.

If you're looking for a memo from FDR to his secretary to "Tell Henry [Wallace] that the Japs fell for it. We're going to war. Pop the champagne." then no. What we do have are the McCollum memo acknowledging the political difficulty in going to war and advocating strategies to provoke the Japanese as well as things like a diary entries by Sec of War Stimson on discussions with FDR about how to maneuver the Japanese into taking the first shot. It's also clear that the US had cracked at least some Japanese cryptographic codes and obtained Japanese war plans by this time. The "Hull note" was an agreement plainly designed to incite the Japanese to attack and war warnings were sent out the next day (Nov 27).

The point is conceded. I overstated it saying that FDR definitely knew that Pearl Harbor would be attacked. Given that the US had cracked Japanese codes, it's possible that they did. There is no direct evidence that they did. It's evident that the US was deliberately provoking Japan and did know that an attack was imminent, one with a highly beneficial political result.

[OhZone]

Originally Posted by Drachen

If you're looking for a memo from FDR to his secretary to "Tell Henry [Wallace] that the Japs fell for it. We're going to war. Pop the champagne." then no. What we do have are the McCollum memo acknowledging the political difficulty in going to war and advocating strategies to provoke the Japanese as well as things like a diary entries by Sec of War Stimson on discussions with FDR about how to maneuver the Japanese into taking the first shot. It's also clear that the US had cracked at least some Japanese cryptographic codes and obtained Japanese war plans by this time. The "Hull note" was an agreement plainly designed to incite the Japanese to attack and war warnings were sent out the next day (Nov 27).

The point is conceded. I overstated it saying that FDR definitely knew that Pearl Harbor would be attacked. Given that the US had cracked Japanese codes, it's possible that they did. There is no direct evidence that they did. It's evident that the US was deliberately provoking Japan and did know that an attack was imminent, one with a highly beneficial political result.

The difference between Pearl Harbor and 911 was that our involvement in WW2 was probably inevitable and it was a real declared war with real countries declaring war on us.

Back On Topic, however, enjoy this:

WikiLeaks' Brilliant MasterCard Commercial Parody



OHYEAH!