Ah yes, the fandom that even furries shun...
Needs more Sonic The Hedgehog.scoots9
Verge_6's forum posts
Words cannot describe how badly I want to punch that screeching woman in the mouth.
I guess Battle of the Bulge Jackc8Not going to say you shouldn't enjoy it (I like Behind Enemy Lines for Christ's sake), but I never could stand that one. I can handle deviation from history to add panache and cool points to a film, but BotB took it to whole new heights. The whole cannon train bit (featuring a steam locomotive going 80mph on a line with obvious guide wires for electric engines), the Kursk-style tank battle that never happened taking place in a large, open desert that's expected to pass for the Ardennes, the fuel dump scene, King Tigers making up the entirity of the armored offensive...it goes on. Also, it's the most blatant example of the "take any tank and slap on grey paint and an iron cross; insta-Tiger!" trope. And unlike most films, they make it go both ways, with M-24 Chaffees posing as Shermans.
lincon did a lot of evil in his timesurrealnumber5That can be said for just about any politician.
lincon never imprisoned people based on race, he never created a state aid act and used it to fund his political campaign, and not as the funds were intended, he never burned crops and cattle to drive up prices when people were starving,surrealnumber5
Yes, he also only allowed a certain general to go on an unstoppable rampage against noncombatants through the south, burning everything as he went. Oh, and a little incident involving federal troops and ships shooting at American civilians. In New York. Not really much seperating the two from your standards, I don't think.
he never let the country get attacked so he could retool the country for war.
You've used multiple accusations against FDR that are conspiracy theories so far, but this one takes the cake, and is not something one should use if they want to appear credible. You might as well say 9/11 was an inside job. If we're going to toss rationality and proven historical fact to the wind, there's no real point in continuing this debate (something I fully intend to follow through, because as a historian I can only bear so much). FDR did not care nearly as much about Japan as he did Germany, as evidenced by countless documents and acts, and an attack by the Japanese is not a way to get support for declaring war on said (it wasn't until Hitler declared war on the US that the public was in favor of joining the Atlantic theater). This laughable theory also belies the great lengths Japan had to go to to launch the attack, developing numerous radical tactics and designs that were needed to overcome equally numerous obstacles. And if he knew specifically Pearl Harbor was to be attacked, and when, his intelligence sources would have no problem gathering the location of a vast Japanese carrier fleet, and have a fleet of subs shadowing them and attacking right when the attack took place, eliminating Japan's greatest asset in one fell swoop. And while FDR was a navy man, it seems a bit of a stretch to assume he knew about an attack that flew in the face of every Japanese-American war plan made up to that point, don't you think? So your point against FDR relies on;
A) Roosevelt having rather dubious ideas about how to manipulate public sway
B) Roosevelt knowing Hitler would declare war on the US
C) Roosevelt having ludicrous amounts of intel, to the point that any and all prior contingency plans would be rendered obsolete after his scrutiny and he'd have a better time being an omniscient war strategist than a president.
D) Roosevelt being a cunning mastermind and simultaneously a complete and utter twit due to letting a carrier attack force that he supposedly knew about run rampant for over half a year afterwards
E) Roosevelt having an idea of Japan's capabilities, something hardly anyone in the United States could comprehend (a throwback to C), but it is particularly amusing). In fact, the notion that the Japanese were backwards goldfish breeders that couldn't bomb accurately due to having narrow eyelids was a popular belief.
F) The government swaying on the whims and fantasies of a solitary man and being competent enough to carry out massive scale conspiracies without bungling everything up and making it all public (no, your internet forums and post-2008 History Channel are not valid venues)
In short, your point requires FDR to be an all-knowing god that uses whole governments as pawns, yet somehow manages to also be a deplorable strategist.
This conspiracy theory is bad and you should feel bad for even thinking it has a semblance of credibility.
Moving on, you can't say "this depraved act isn't as bad as this depraved act, so y is a better person than x". That's not how it works. Both leaders did terrible things, but to completely overlook the reasoning behind such things (should there be any, of course), what was at stake, and other factors, is to show a total lack of understanding of history and common sense. Doubly so to stick your head in the ground and ignore the monumental achievements both men made.
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]America never had the 22nd amendment at that time.
edit: Just saw your edit. Caesar was anything but horrible and FDR is a top 3 Pres.
Yeah, calling Caesar or FDR horrible is either blatant trolling or historical ignorance on a monumental level.sticking citizens in concentration camps, what a hero...... Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. Does that mean he shouldn't be revered as well, and the whole "preserving the union" and "ending slavery" bits mean diddly?