"First of all, that's a lie. Your article said FDR made the depression worse and longer. You now concede he presided over a recovery."
Your post needs a little clean up: 1) I didn't write an article. 2) I posted an article by an author who challenges some of your views. 3) I made no comment, although I selected comments from that author which conflict with your views and placed them at the top for your attention. None of that was in my words or stated as my opinion. Personally I don't give a crap, except that I like to see a balance in the presentation of historical events. When I don't, my crap detector starts to ring and that is annoying.
Here is my entire post which you labeled a lie. I don't know what lie you are referring to, so maybe its just another one of your improper uses of invective.
"All informed persons recognise the recovery from the great depression. (Are there informed persons who don't know we have recovered from the great depression)
Yet there remains a controversy.(is this a lie) The controversy is not about whether or not we recovered, so your 'facts' are not under dispute.(I didn't dispute your facts, and it is generally agreed upon even by FDR critics that the recovery had begun) The controversy stems from a suggestion by critics of FDR that the recovery was occurring anyway and that FDRs programs may have done more harm than good in the overall scheme of things. (we did recover and some critics think it would have happened anyway, some think faster, and some don't think the social programs were beneficial... what's the lie)Personally, I don't look at things as you do. (that's obvious)You see things as an either/or, good vs evil, forced choice. (definitely true)That doesn't adequately represent circumstance, which is complex and wholistically blended with benefits and messes.(my opinion/view) It's ok with me if chose to worship FDR, I prefer not to. (no lie here)
No lies found ... I will await your apology.
Best regards,
Gem |
