Jump to content
JKane

Seriously, how is it not 25th amendment time?

Recommended Posts

  • Members
23 hours ago, tassojunior said:

What worked was war. Been working ever since.

Franklin Roosevelt enacted The New Deal which included social security.

 

He was re-elected in a landslide in 1936.

 

I suspect he doing many things right long before the Second World War.

 

Also the economy prosperity during the Eisenhower Administration had nothing to do with wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, Buddy2 said:

Franklin Roosevelt enacted The New Deal which included social security.

 

He was re-elected in a landslide in 1936.

 

I suspect he doing many things right long before the Second World War.

 

Also the economy prosperity during the Eisenhower Administration had nothing to do with wars.

lol....Eisenhower is the one who warned us in his farewell speech that during his administration the military-industrial complex had taken over the country and our economy. Today half our discretionary US budget is military corporations and they are careful to manufacture worthless "weapons" they charge the government small fortunes for in every state and Congressional district they can to get pork barrel support. (Elizabeth Warren is a huge military spender because of her state). A big part of the US budget is the F-35 garbage who's fuel supply planes would be shot down by China within minutes rendering them useless.  (The expensive weapons systems are mostly garbage solely for pork barrel. The future is low-cost cyber warfare and drones.) Our military production has almost nothing to do with defense and everything to do with keeping our war industry economy going). 

 

and btw- The Great Depression dragged on throughout the 30's New Deal and even got worse in '38. The New Deal was mostly social programs to give people money and benefits plus a dam or two. War preparation got everyone working. 

Edited by tassojunior
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
46 minutes ago, AdamSmith said:

War generates far more debt than growth.

War is usually nothing but debt. Economic growth is building and investing in things that produce wealth, not things that produce nothing. But war industry is a quick fix to employ tens of millions of people at decent jobs and funnel taxpayer money to the wealthy in war businesses. (and the borrowing makes a dime for the bankers too). Socialism for the rich.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
55 minutes ago, tassojunior said:

lol....Eisenhower is the one who warned us in his farewell speech that during his administration the military-industrial complex had taken over the country and our economy. Today half our discretionary US budget is military corporations and they are careful to manufacture worthless "weapons" they charge the government small fortunes for in every state and Congressional district they can to get pork barrel support. (Elizabeth Warren is a huge military spender because of her state). A big part of the US budget is the F-35 garbage who's fuel supply planes would be shot down by China within minutes rendering them useless.  (The expensive weapons systems are mostly garbage solely for pork barrel. The future is low-cost cyber warfare and drones.) Our military production has almost nothing to do with defense and everything to do with keeping our war industry economy going). 

 

and btw- The Great Depression dragged on throughout the 30's New Deal and even got worse in '38. The New Deal was mostly social programs to give people money and benefits plus a dam or two. War preparation got everyone working. 

 By the late 1940s and 1950s, The Soviet Union was thought about as an expansionist power spreading communism,  and not just by the United States. Western Europe as well.

 

Hardly surprising given the Allied powers were mostly unprepared for the Second World War.

 

I have no response to your sarcasm in the lol, but I studied politcal science after college, and, unlike you, never considered law school. However, I doubt law schools included foreign policy courses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 minutes ago, Buddy2 said:

I have no response to your sarcasm in the lol, but I studied politcal science after college, and, unlike you, never considered law school. However, I doubt law schools included foreign policy courses.

Where do you think international law is taught? And I mentioned before having a US graduate law degree in international law, diploma in international public law from the Hague Academy, certificates from Paris 2 (Sorbonne) and Brussels in civil and EU law, and plenty of that included "foreign policy".

None of which matters because realizing the US as being a military-corporate-welfare state shouldn't take much more education than a person of normal IQ has.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
33 minutes ago, tassojunior said:

Where do you think international law is taught? And I mentioned before having a US graduate law degree in international law, diploma in international public law from the Hague Academy, certificates from Paris 2 (Sorbonne) and Brussels in civil and EU law, and plenty of that included "foreign policy".

None of which matters because realizing the US as being a military-corporate-welfare state shouldn't take much more education than a person of normal IQ has.  

I am confused by what you did for the government I Washington. 

 

Perhaps I should remind you,, I know a lot about war from direct personal experience in Vietnam in 1968 and 1969 in the Army

Edited by Buddy2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
22 hours ago, Buddy2 said:

I am confused by what you did for the government I Washington. 

 

Perhaps I should remind you,, I know a lot about war from direct personal experience in Vietnam in 1968 and 1969 in the Army

I made up the list of Americans to be assassinated for Obama. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
18 hours ago, tassojunior said:

I made up the list of Americans to be assassinated for Obama. 

You make up a lot of things. So why would one fact check your posts. On the other site, you told us a lot of interesting information.. Many came true, some didn't, partly because it is difficult to predict primary elections

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wrote earlier that my friend and politcal science professor, Ruth C. Silva, testify in Committee about the 25th amendment.

 

She believed the amendment was successful when Ford replaced Agnew and Ford named Nelson Rockefeller as vice president of the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...