Re: [Fwd: Theos-World Re: What Is Happening In America?]
Jul 12, 2003 10:48 PM
by Bart Lidofsky
stevestubbs wrote:
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:
Bart: "Just because something is on the Internet doesn't make it true.
Does that apply to your comments?
I am not using the fact that my comments are on the Internet as
evidence of their truth.
Under FDR,
there were massive social programs enacted, including an attempt to
override the Supreme Court by packing it with justices.
Some comments:
(1) Packing the supreme court is not a massive social program
It was part of enacting them, however.
(2) Packing the supreme court is a part of the constitutional system
of checks and balances
And so was the Bush election.
(3) There was no attempt to pack the supreme court, else we would
have 100 justices today, with numerous seats "owned" by powerful
constituencies instead of just a few as at present. FDR threatened
to pack the court as a negotiating tactic.
Not having access to FDR's mind, I have no idea about that.
(4) there was a widespread belief in the thirties that the US had to
choose between communism and fascism. As a beneficiary of the
existing system of privilege, Roosevelt tried to preserve those
privileges for himself and other patricians by means of social
programs and thereby avoid both fascism and communism. He combined
those programs at home with wars abroad which shattered fascism and
contained communism. I am glad he was at the helm when we needed him.
I never said he was wrong. Just that his administration was more
radical than Bush's.
Under Kennedy, civil rights violations by federal agencies were
routinely greater than even the Patriot Act would allow now.
Are you talking about federalizing the National Guard and telling
Lester Maddox to put down his axe? No Patriot Act was required for
that.
No, I was referring to the power exercised by federal agencies,
including the FBI, the CIA, and the Attorney General's office.
Nixon and Clinton routinely used federal agencies for strictly
personal purposes.
Not likely, since both of them were under impeachment proceedings and
would surely have been removed from office had those charges been
proved.
You well know that there is a difference between knowing something an
proving them, as many Mafia crime bosses know. However, chance that the
number of opponents of both administrations who were put under unusual
federal scrutiny was coincidence is remarkably close to zero. On the
other hand, that was not uncommon by presidents; my uncle was
instrumental in embarrassing the Carter administration, and found
himself in court on trumped up charges. Nixon and Clinton were just a
bit more blatant about it.
Truman used nuclear weapons, and got the United
States involved in an undeclared war.
There is a Russian writer named Tolstoy (not Leo) who claims Truman
was right. Had he not intervened in Korea Stalin would have invaded
Western Europe. Tolstoy claims furthermore that Stalin would have
invaded anyway had he not been murdered by the Kruschev clique.
Once again, I said radical, not wrong. They are not the same thing,
after all.
>>Bobby Kennedy was responsible for a lot of it; he made Ashcroft
look like a piker.
Are you saying you are a Sam Giancana supporter?
Nope.
As legal counsel represents the very system, it is only
natural that legal counsel is a shortcoming too and one better
avoided, as countles innocent citizens who are in US jails can
testify.
I have to say, Bart, that's not fair.
I quoted it, didn't say it, nor do I agree with it. Actually, I am not
sure I even understand it.
Bart
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
