FDR did handle things differently that I would have wanted. However I still believe he and Democrats back then were a different breed of Democrat. I think this article is accurate of those long, long ago (1940's) and far away.
To: K-oneTexas
FDR vs. Harry Reid
Harry Reid: Spineless nanny statist communist
FRR: Destroyer of our nation and perverter of our vocabulary, may he rot in hell (he probably runs the place).
2 posted on
04/28/2007 11:39:13 AM PDT by
Still Thinking
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
To: K-oneTexas
How I wish I had the audio of both men!
3 posted on
04/28/2007 11:43:30 AM PDT by
Bommer
(Global Warming: The only warming phenomena that occurs in the Summer and ends in the Winter!)
To: K-oneTexas
Scott Beamer; Let’s Roll!!!!!
Harry Reid; Let’s Roll... over.
4 posted on
04/28/2007 12:03:36 PM PDT by
umgud
("When seconds count, the police are just 10 minutes away!")
To: K-oneTexas
This comparison is ludicrous. FDR was governing a country that was willing to commit whatever resources were necessary to win that war. Harry Reid is the Senate majority leader in a country that is using military resources in a police capacity to prop up a fictional some Third World sh!t-hole called "Iraq."
The fact that this idiocy in Iraq has now been going on for a period of time that exceeds the duration of our involvement in World War II may explain why more and more Americans now find themselves agreeing with Reid.
To: K-oneTexas
“I believe the war at this stage can only be won...economically.”
What does that mean? How much will that cost? Is he suggesting a bribe? Maybe the war is cheap compared to his agenda!
7 posted on
04/28/2007 12:08:54 PM PDT by
raftguide
To: K-oneTexas
FDR was a master of the bully pulpit.
W is not.
8 posted on
04/28/2007 12:37:51 PM PDT by
Quick or Dead
(Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms - Aristotle)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson