JohnAnnArbor: Jakevol2: Nemo's Brother: Jakevol2: JohnAnnArbor: Jakevol2: Second Try: He wants to deliver Haiti to Chavez. Poor haitians, as if they haven't suffered enough.

Hugo Chavez would probably enact public and social works program that would save Haiti and make it a viable nation in the Western Hemisphere. Just because you do not like his politics does not mean he won't be good for Haiti.

Well, he'd unlikely to increase the violent crime in Haiti, at least (because it's already so high). He'll have to console himself with just doing that in his own country.

(Anyone that wants to be president-for-life is suspect, too, no matter other aspects of ideology. Includes FDR.)

When you attacked FDR I had to believe you were not serious, because the alternative would mean you were uneducated. and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt/

I'm sure the Japanese Americans would have made FDR a king.

No, their sovereign was Emperor Hirohito

Oh, a racist who believes ethnicity = citizenship.

Gotcha.

what I am saying is where there is smoke there is fire. If they had nothing to worry about from the Japanese "Americans" why did they put them in camps?

JohnAnnArbor: Jakevol2: JohnAnnArbor: Jakevol2: JohnAnnArbor: Jakevol2: Second Try: He wants to deliver Haiti to Chavez. Poor haitians, as if they haven't suffered enough.

Hugo Chavez would probably enact public and social works program that would save Haiti and make it a viable nation in the Western Hemisphere. Just because you do not like his politics does not mean he won't be good for Haiti.

Well, he'd unlikely to increase the violent crime in Haiti, at least (because it's already so high). He'll have to console himself with just doing that in his own country.

(Anyone that wants to be president-for-life is suspect, too, no matter other aspects of ideology. Includes FDR.)

When you attacked FDR I had to believe you were not serious, because the alternative would mean you were uneducated. and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt/

It's not an "attack." The idea that there is only one person to lead a nation unto death is stupid. Anyone who's enough of an egomaniac to put himself in the position of leader-for-life is suspect as a leader. FDR is a partial exception only because he was so ill he knew he wouldn't last long. But the idea that the nation would have nosedived if he'd have stepped aside in 1940, as he should have, is idiotic.

He delivered this nation from The Great Depression and assured this nation as we fought in WWII no other person at that time could have done the things he did. This nation would be no more if not for FDR. Fate, Providence, pure determination or what have you gave us the only man who could have lead this nation at its two greatest crises.

First is a matter of opinion. The war delivered us from depression by providing jobs long before Pearl Harbor. The idea that FDR was essential assumes that no other person, given the same information, would have acted in a somewhat similar way. That's stupid. If you're into hero-worship, have at it. But that's all it is. He wasn't essential. He was just the one who was there at the time.

and tell me, who would have done better?

I'll tell ya, NO ONE!

Jakevol2: JohnAnnArbor: Jakevol2: Second Try: He wants to deliver Haiti to Chavez. Poor haitians, as if they haven't suffered enough.

Hugo Chavez would probably enact public and social works program that would save Haiti and make it a viable nation in the Western Hemisphere. Just because you do not like his politics does not mean he won't be good for Haiti.

Well, he'd unlikely to increase the violent crime in Haiti, at least (because it's already so high). He'll have to console himself with just doing that in his own country.

(Anyone that wants to be president-for-life is suspect, too, no matter other aspects of ideology. Includes FDR.)

When you attacked FDR I had to believe you were not serious, because the alternative would mean you were uneducated. and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt/


FDR was in the right position at the right time, but he WAS WRONG to try to go for president for life. Yes, there was a war on, and he was fighting tooth and nail to get America involved in a war in which the majority of its citizens were saying 'let europe deal with europe' and wanted to remain completely isolationist. And in hindsight, winners are always right. Legally, he in the right. But custom wise, he was in the wrong.

It was a very bad precedent to set and I'm personally glad that the custom George Washington set in place was finally codified into an Amendment. That stepping down after two terms was one of George Washington's greatest contributions to this republic, and it's a lesson MANY politicians should be forced to learn. Sure people like it when it's their guy who is in power for ever.................................. but what happens when it's someone else who is just as popular but he's on the other side (like, say, a St. Ronnie?)


Now that's all my opinion. Why do you believe that it would be ok for someone to keep seeking re-election for the office of President, with no term limits?

JohnAnnArbor: Jakevol2: Nemo's Brother: Jakevol2: JohnAnnArbor: Jakevol2: Second Try: He wants to deliver Haiti to Chavez. Poor haitians, as if they haven't suffered enough.

Hugo Chavez would probably enact public and social works program that would save Haiti and make it a viable nation in the Western Hemisphere. Just because you do not like his politics does not mean he won't be good for Haiti.

Well, he'd unlikely to increase the violent crime in Haiti, at least (because it's already so high). He'll have to console himself with just doing that in his own country.

(Anyone that wants to be president-for-life is suspect, too, no matter other aspects of ideology. Includes FDR.)

When you attacked FDR I had to believe you were not serious, because the alternative would mean you were uneducated. and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt/

I'm sure the Japanese Americans would have made FDR a king.

No, their sovereign was Emperor Hirohito

Oh, a racist who believes ethnicity = citizenship.

Gotcha.

Japanese Americans were Americans before they were Japanese, as a choice. I, too, don't know where JakeVol2 was going with that statement 'no, their sovereign was Emperor Hirohito'. Making a statement like that is the equivalent of saying that the internment camps were proper and just. So, I agree with your assessment of his statement.

JakeVol2, are you Japanese American and in possession of unique insight into the Japanese American experience during that time period to make such a statement? Or something else?

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Jakevol2: JohnAnnArbor: Jakevol2: Second Try: He wants to deliver Haiti to Chavez. Poor haitians, as if they haven't suffered enough.

Hugo Chavez would probably enact public and social works program that would save Haiti and make it a viable nation in the Western Hemisphere. Just because you do not like his politics does not mean he won't be good for Haiti.

Well, he'd unlikely to increase the violent crime in Haiti, at least (because it's already so high). He'll have to console himself with just doing that in his own country.

(Anyone that wants to be president-for-life is suspect, too, no matter other aspects of ideology. Includes FDR.)

When you attacked FDR I had to believe you were not serious, because the alternative would mean you were uneducated. and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt/


FDR was in the right position at the right time, but he WAS WRONG to try to go for president for life. Yes, there was a war on, and he was fighting tooth and nail to get America involved in a war in which the majority of its citizens were saying 'let europe deal with europe' and wanted to remain completely isolationist. And in hindsight, winners are always right. Legally, he in the right. But custom wise, he was in the wrong.

It was a very bad precedent to set and I'm personally glad that the custom George Washington set in place was finally codified into an Amendment. That stepping down after two terms was one of George Washington's greatest contributions to this republic, and it's a lesson MANY politicians should be forced to learn. Sure people like it when it's their guy who is in power for ever.................................. but what happens when it's someone else who is just as popular but he's on the other side (like, say, a St. Ronnie?)


Now that's all my opinion. Why do you believe that it would be ok for someone to keep seeking re-election for the office of President, with no term limits?

I don't believe in term limits because it is the best way to prevent government from getting anything done. FDR got shiat done and it made this country stronger.

Jakevol2: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Jakevol2: JohnAnnArbor: Jakevol2: Second Try: He wants to deliver Haiti to Chavez. Poor haitians, as if they haven't suffered enough.

Hugo Chavez would probably enact public and social works program that would save Haiti and make it a viable nation in the Western Hemisphere. Just because you do not like his politics does not mean he won't be good for Haiti.

Well, he'd unlikely to increase the violent crime in Haiti, at least (because it's already so high). He'll have to console himself with just doing that in his own country.

(Anyone that wants to be president-for-life is suspect, too, no matter other aspects of ideology. Includes FDR.)

When you attacked FDR I had to believe you were not serious, because the alternative would mean you were uneducated. and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt/


FDR was in the right position at the right time, but he WAS WRONG to try to go for president for life. Yes, there was a war on, and he was fighting tooth and nail to get America involved in a war in which the majority of its citizens were saying 'let europe deal with europe' and wanted to remain completely isolationist. And in hindsight, winners are always right. Legally, he in the right. But custom wise, he was in the wrong.

It was a very bad precedent to set and I'm personally glad that the custom George Washington set in place was finally codified into an Amendment. That stepping down after two terms was one of George Washington's greatest contributions to this republic, and it's a lesson MANY politicians should be forced to learn. Sure people like it when it's their guy who is in power for ever.................................. but what happens when it's someone else who is just as popular but he's on the other side (like, say, a St. Ronnie?)


Now that's all my opinion. Why do you believe that it would be ok for someone to keep seeking re-election for the office of President, with no term limits?

I don't believe in term limits because it is the best way to prevent government from getting anything done. FDR got shiat done and it made this country stronger.

So you would be okay with Ronald Reagan having three or more terms?

/Really ought to think things through, mister.

Marshal805: Jakevol2: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Jakevol2: JohnAnnArbor: Jakevol2: Second Try: He wants to deliver Haiti to Chavez. Poor haitians, as if they haven't suffered enough.

Hugo Chavez would probably enact public and social works program that would save Haiti and make it a viable nation in the Western Hemisphere. Just because you do not like his politics does not mean he won't be good for Haiti.

Well, he'd unlikely to increase the violent crime in Haiti, at least (because it's already so high). He'll have to console himself with just doing that in his own country.

(Anyone that wants to be president-for-life is suspect, too, no matter other aspects of ideology. Includes FDR.)

When you attacked FDR I had to believe you were not serious, because the alternative would mean you were uneducated. and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt/


FDR was in the right position at the right time, but he WAS WRONG to try to go for president for life. Yes, there was a war on, and he was fighting tooth and nail to get America involved in a war in which the majority of its citizens were saying 'let europe deal with europe' and wanted to remain completely isolationist. And in hindsight, winners are always right. Legally, he in the right. But custom wise, he was in the wrong.

It was a very bad precedent to set and I'm personally glad that the custom George Washington set in place was finally codified into an Amendment. That stepping down after two terms was one of George Washington's greatest contributions to this republic, and it's a lesson MANY politicians should be forced to learn. Sure people like it when it's their guy who is in power for ever.................................. but what happens when it's someone else who is just as popular but he's on the other side (like, say, a St. Ronnie?)


Now that's all my opinion. Why do you believe that it would be ok for someone to keep seeking re-election for the office of President, with no term limits?

I don't believe in term limits because it is the best way to prevent government from getting anything done. FDR got shiat done and it made this country stronger.

So you would be okay with Ronald Reagan having three or more terms?

/Really ought to think things through, mister.

Ronald Reagan was not a Democrat.

Jakevol2: Marshal805: Jakevol2: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Jakevol2: JohnAnnArbor: Jakevol2: Second Try: He wants to deliver Haiti to Chavez. Poor haitians, as if they haven't suffered enough.

Hugo Chavez would probably enact public and social works program that would save Haiti and make it a viable nation in the Western Hemisphere. Just because you do not like his politics does not mean he won't be good for Haiti.

Well, he'd unlikely to increase the violent crime in Haiti, at least (because it's already so high). He'll have to console himself with just doing that in his own country.

(Anyone that wants to be president-for-life is suspect, too, no matter other aspects of ideology. Includes FDR.)

When you attacked FDR I had to believe you were not serious, because the alternative would mean you were uneducated. and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt/


FDR was in the right position at the right time, but he WAS WRONG to try to go for president for life. Yes, there was a war on, and he was fighting tooth and nail to get America involved in a war in which the majority of its citizens were saying 'let europe deal with europe' and wanted to remain completely isolationist. And in hindsight, winners are always right. Legally, he in the right. But custom wise, he was in the wrong.

It was a very bad precedent to set and I'm personally glad that the custom George Washington set in place was finally codified into an Amendment. That stepping down after two terms was one of George Washington's greatest contributions to this republic, and it's a lesson MANY politicians should be forced to learn. Sure people like it when it's their guy who is in power for ever.................................. but what happens when it's someone else who is just as popular but he's on the other side (like, say, a St. Ronnie?)


Now that's all my opinion. Why do you believe that it would be ok for someone to keep seeking re-election for the office of President, with no term limits?

I don't believe in term limits because it is the best way to prevent government from getting anything done. FDR got shiat done and it made this country stronger.

So you would be okay with Ronald Reagan having three or more terms?

/Really ought to think things through, mister.

Ronald Reagan was not a Democrat.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

Marshal805: Jakevol2: Marshal805: Jakevol2: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Jakevol2: JohnAnnArbor: Jakevol2: Second Try: He wants to deliver Haiti to Chavez. Poor haitians, as if they haven't suffered enough.

Hugo Chavez would probably enact public and social works program that would save Haiti and make it a viable nation in the Western Hemisphere. Just because you do not like his politics does not mean he won't be good for Haiti.

Well, he'd unlikely to increase the violent crime in Haiti, at least (because it's already so high). He'll have to console himself with just doing that in his own country.

(Anyone that wants to be president-for-life is suspect, too, no matter other aspects of ideology. Includes FDR.)

When you attacked FDR I had to believe you were not serious, because the alternative would mean you were uneducated. and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt/


FDR was in the right position at the right time, but he WAS WRONG to try to go for president for life. Yes, there was a war on, and he was fighting tooth and nail to get America involved in a war in which the majority of its citizens were saying 'let europe deal with europe' and wanted to remain completely isolationist. And in hindsight, winners are always right. Legally, he in the right. But custom wise, he was in the wrong.

It was a very bad precedent to set and I'm personally glad that the custom George Washington set in place was finally codified into an Amendment. That stepping down after two terms was one of George Washington's greatest contributions to this republic, and it's a lesson MANY politicians should be forced to learn. Sure people like it when it's their guy who is in power for ever.................................. but what happens when it's someone else who is just as popular but he's on the other side (like, say, a St. Ronnie?)


Now that's all my opinion. Why do you believe that it would be ok for someone to keep seeking re-election for the office of President, with no term limits?

I don't believe in term limits because it is the best way to prevent government from getting anything done. FDR got shiat done and it made this country stronger.

So you would be okay with Ronald Reagan having three or more terms?

/Really ought to think things through, mister.

Ronald Reagan was not a Democrat.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

and what suspicion is that?

Jakevol2: Marshal805: Jakevol2: Marshal805: Jakevol2: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Jakevol2: JohnAnnArbor: Jakevol2: Second Try: He wants to deliver Haiti to Chavez. Poor haitians, as if they haven't suffered enough.

Hugo Chavez would probably enact public and social works program that would save Haiti and make it a viable nation in the Western Hemisphere. Just because you do not like his politics does not mean he won't be good for Haiti.

Well, he'd unlikely to increase the violent crime in Haiti, at least (because it's already so high). He'll have to console himself with just doing that in his own country.

(Anyone that wants to be president-for-life is suspect, too, no matter other aspects of ideology. Includes FDR.)

When you attacked FDR I had to believe you were not serious, because the alternative would mean you were uneducated. and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt/


FDR was in the right position at the right time, but he WAS WRONG to try to go for president for life. Yes, there was a war on, and he was fighting tooth and nail to get America involved in a war in which the majority of its citizens were saying 'let europe deal with europe' and wanted to remain completely isolationist. And in hindsight, winners are always right. Legally, he in the right. But custom wise, he was in the wrong.

It was a very bad precedent to set and I'm personally glad that the custom George Washington set in place was finally codified into an Amendment. That stepping down after two terms was one of George Washington's greatest contributions to this republic, and it's a lesson MANY politicians should be forced to learn. Sure people like it when it's their guy who is in power for ever.................................. but what happens when it's someone else who is just as popular but he's on the other side (like, say, a St. Ronnie?)


Now that's all my opinion. Why do you believe that it would be ok for someone to keep seeking re-election for the office of President, with no term limits?

I don't believe in term limits because it is the best way to prevent government from getting anything done. FDR got shiat done and it made this country stronger.

So you would be okay with Ronald Reagan having three or more terms?

/Really ought to think things through, mister.

Ronald Reagan was not a Democrat.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

and what suspicion is that?

That you are a committed partisan.

Nothing wrong with that, BTW.

Marshal805: Jakevol2: Marshal805: Jakevol2: Marshal805: Jakevol2: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Jakevol2: JohnAnnArbor: Jakevol2: Second Try: He wants to deliver Haiti to Chavez. Poor haitians, as if they haven't suffered enough.

Hugo Chavez would probably enact public and social works program that would save Haiti and make it a viable nation in the Western Hemisphere. Just because you do not like his politics does not mean he won't be good for Haiti.

Well, he'd unlikely to increase the violent crime in Haiti, at least (because it's already so high). He'll have to console himself with just doing that in his own country.

(Anyone that wants to be president-for-life is suspect, too, no matter other aspects of ideology. Includes FDR.)

When you attacked FDR I had to believe you were not serious, because the alternative would mean you were uneducated. and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt/


FDR was in the right position at the right time, but he WAS WRONG to try to go for president for life. Yes, there was a war on, and he was fighting tooth and nail to get America involved in a war in which the majority of its citizens were saying 'let europe deal with europe' and wanted to remain completely isolationist. And in hindsight, winners are always right. Legally, he in the right. But custom wise, he was in the wrong.

It was a very bad precedent to set and I'm personally glad that the custom George Washington set in place was finally codified into an Amendment. That stepping down after two terms was one of George Washington's greatest contributions to this republic, and it's a lesson MANY politicians should be forced to learn. Sure people like it when it's their guy who is in power for ever.................................. but what happens when it's someone else who is just as popular but he's on the other side (like, say, a St. Ronnie?)


Now that's all my opinion. Why do you believe that it would be ok for someone to keep seeking re-election for the office of President, with no term limits?

I don't believe in term limits because it is the best way to prevent government from getting anything done. FDR got shiat done and it made this country stronger.

So you would be okay with Ronald Reagan having three or more terms?

/Really ought to think things through, mister.

Ronald Reagan was not a Democrat.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

and what suspicion is that?

That you are a committed partisan.

Nothing wrong with that, BTW.

what pisses me off is the likes of Glenn Beck and the Teabaggers who have attempted to paint FDR as some sort of piss poor president when he was far from being piss poor.

^^^^^^

That's a fair point.

Jakevol2: Marshal805: Jakevol2: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Jakevol2: JohnAnnArbor: Jakevol2: Second Try: He wants to deliver Haiti to Chavez. Poor haitians, as if they haven't suffered enough.

Hugo Chavez would probably enact public and social works program that would save Haiti and make it a viable nation in the Western Hemisphere. Just because you do not like his politics does not mean he won't be good for Haiti.

Well, he'd unlikely to increase the violent crime in Haiti, at least (because it's already so high). He'll have to console himself with just doing that in his own country.

(Anyone that wants to be president-for-life is suspect, too, no matter other aspects of ideology. Includes FDR.)

When you attacked FDR I had to believe you were not serious, because the alternative would mean you were uneducated. and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt/


FDR was in the right position at the right time, but he WAS WRONG to try to go for president for life. Yes, there was a war on, and he was fighting tooth and nail to get America involved in a war in which the majority of its citizens were saying 'let europe deal with europe' and wanted to remain completely isolationist. And in hindsight, winners are always right. Legally, he in the right. But custom wise, he was in the wrong.

It was a very bad precedent to set and I'm personally glad that the custom George Washington set in place was finally codified into an Amendment. That stepping down after two terms was one of George Washington's greatest contributions to this republic, and it's a lesson MANY politicians should be forced to learn. Sure people like it when it's their guy who is in power for ever.................................. but what happens when it's someone else who is just as popular but he's on the other side (like, say, a St. Ronnie?)


Now that's all my opinion. Why do you believe that it would be ok for someone to keep seeking re-election for the office of President, with no term limits?

I don't believe in term limits because it is the best way to prevent government from getting anything done. FDR got shiat done and it made this country stronger.

So you would be okay with Ronald Reagan having three or more terms?

/Really ought to think things through, mister.

Ronald Reagan was not a Democrat.

Well, if you're going to claim that FDR is anything like a modern Democrat, then I'll just go ahead and point out that Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were both Republicans.

Jakevol2: If they had nothing to worry about from the Japanese "Americans" why did they put them in camps?

Nice show

Mugato: Kitwilly: not to be a Sean Penn defender, but if you read the Vanity Fair article on him, he is apparently the legitimate de facto leader of the Haiti refugee camps. it isnt some Hollywood bullshiat, he had organized most of the stuff there

He's a pretentious douchebag but at least he's trying to do something. Even if it's misguided, like when he took a canoe to New Orleans. Most celebrities are loads. At least he's interested in something other than flashing his vagina to the paparazzi.

This. His politics are considerably to the left of mine and I disagree with most of what he says. However, he puts his money and effort where his mouth is and this country needs more people like that, regardless of political affiliation.

I just came back from Haiti. the reason a lot of checks aren't being cut is because of the corruption. In late August I unloaded a container sent in January full of antibiotics and tents. the antibiotics had to be destroyed because they shouldn't have been left in 100 degree heat on the dock in Port Au Prince until someone came up with a $3g bribe to get the container released. The tents can still be used but they should have been set up 7 months ago.
Sending money to the current government will make that corrupt government richer and more powerful while very little will make it to the people in need. Sending stuff the people need rather than money is a better solution but getting it past the graft is an issue.
The current government cares less about the people than they do about power. The people on the other hand are ignorant (2% get through primary school)and are easily manipulated.
I was at Sean Penn's camp, 50,000+ people living in tents on what used to be an 8 hole golf coarse, it was too small to be a 9 hole. He is doing some good.