I can neither agree nor disagree with you, because you are right, he did the things you say; however, in my opinion, these things, on top of his wildly Communistic views, are what made him so great. I am American, born and raised, but I am also a scholar and have done my share of research in governments and their people, and I can say that I would rather live under Communist rule.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So let's say you're a highly-trained doctor, and that guy over there is a cashier at Burger King. You both get paid the same, mmkay?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How does money matter in a society where everything is provided? I'm not saying "Go Communism!" I just hate that argument.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

...Are you saying that in a communist society, money isn't important? How exactly is it fair that someone who never worked hard gets to make the same as someone who did? It's that idea, among others, that makes communism a bad idea.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Again I'm not saying I'm Pro Communism. And I haven't exactly done the research to feel like I'm suited to debate. But why do people feel like everyone needs a job, however mundane and meaningless, just to somehow justify his right to live comfortably.At this point most jobs can be done by robots. And the ones left over are the ones people do because they love doing it. Not because of the money. So what if person A gets paid the same as person B without doing "work". Person B is doing something they love to do. I would take my dream job with no pay. It really doesn't matter to me. Money is just something I use to survive in a society that demands that I have it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I highly doubt that the only jobs left are done because people love doing them.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The only jobs after robotic are put in place. Factories can be run almost entirely robotically already. And at the rate technology advances there's no telling where it will be in only 5 years. I know my statement isn't perfect. What about waiters and waitresses? People prefer human customer service. And there aren't many people who enjoy those jobs. It was just a quick idea for this comment thread. My main problem is that people shouldn't need to justify their own existence with a pointless job.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Communism relies completely on either human ignorance or nationalism. If you devote your life to your country, you don't really care about whether the cook earns as much as the brain surgeon, because both are contributing in different ways to the whole. However, this removes incentive, competition, and the other things that drive any normal economy.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It removes incentive for financial reasons, yes. But not everyone is driven by money. I really don't see a problem with removing competition either. At least in the sense of lower prices to bring in customers to maximise profits. Without fear of going out of business we wont have to resort to sly tricks and deception. If two bakeries are on a street and everyone is going to one of them then, even without fear of closing, the other will change. Happy customers would be its own reward.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Like I said from the start. I'm not saying I'm pro-communism. And you're right. Communism has many many flaws due to it's incredible knack for having a terrible, selfish, power hungry leader. Would communism with a leader who cared for it's people actually work? I don't know. It's never really happened and again I don't know enough about economy. But I do know that I'm against a society that both encourages and requires me to pay $20,000 a year for four years just so I can get some job so that I can afford to raise children to do the exact same thing. I'm against any system that tells its people they can't be truly happy unless they have the best this or the nicest that. I'm against a system that tells its people it is working for it, yet thrives on the idea of at least some poverty. I'm against any system that ignores ecological benefit for the sake of financial profit. A system that will destroy the planet it lives on so that its leaders can live "better" lives. Our current system profits from war. Do you know how fucked up that is? That anyone would be pro war because it could gain them money? So no. I'm not a Communist. But I'm damn sure not okay with what we've got going on.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well, I was going to perhaps rephrase what I said, but Chasing_Echos did that for me (and I thank you!). I said what I said in the wrong way. I would not want to live in a communist country that has a tyrant as a leader, but I do feel that the "idea" of communism needs to be accepted a little more in the United States. A country where we are supposed to be "free", and yet we have to work our asses off at shitty jobs for pay that isn't enough to feed our family because the economy is so demanding; while assholes who hardly work at all have millions. If things were only divided a little more equally among the people, we would be much better off, as a whole.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Capitalism would not support war because their is no need tO go to war, think about it. Ppl go to war because they want something.if there is no trade barriers and this something can be traded btw countries without interference, then ppl could get what they want without going to war.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Mark Zuckerburg didn't "already work" and he us the youngest person to make a billion dollars. Do you realize how much a Billion dollars is? Men work their entire lives with dreams of making just 1 Million dollars... A billion is 1000 times 1 million.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And Bill Gates has over 50 times that...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't understand a word of what you said, but what I learned about him from my history class has made my opinion that he was a good president. We were taught by a neutral standpoint, and had to do a project on why he was good/bad. I think he was decent.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If you only know what you've been taught in school, you can be pretty sure that you know of only half truths or less.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm sure we are being taught neutrally, my school system is excellent, and they took us through the good and bads of him, and they wanted us to pick what he was. I never said I know everything about him, because I doubt any of you do. But now I've reread all which you've said, and it makes more sense. But every president has dirty stuff, but I think he did bring good to the United States.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm pretty sure my teacher didn't start going ADD on what she was teaching.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If you read my previous comment that followed after somebody pointed it out, I did re-read until I understood it. But what you're saying is not necessarily true. Every source can be partially bias, but people can be neutral. If she claimed to be neutral, why lie? So sure, she could be a little bias towards one way, or the other. But my opinion is different from yours, so you can't simply say that I could be wrong because my teacher subtly underlined certain teachings more to get me pro-FDR.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Abraham Lincoln also trampled on the Constitution but they both did it to do what was necessary in order to preserve the nation in times of dire need.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If everything such as culture and law stayed the same, nothing would improve. The Constitution approved of slaves, but it allowed for an amendment to abolish slavery. Traditions may be good for a culture, but culture will still evolve and change, just like laws do. When crises arise, we don't throw laws out the window. We change certain ones in order to survive. As a nation, laws must adapt to the cultures and morals that are constantly changing as time goes on. "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No. Moral standards change. They are different throughout cultures and they are different throughout time. You can't have one set of morals as a one size fits all. It won't work.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And in summation, he was a boss.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, the NRA did go against the interstate-commerce clause, but the Supreme Court shut it down, deeming it unconstitutional, and the program had good intentions. As for court-packing, that was blocked, and FDR only wanted to get rid of the old stubborn justices who were trying to get rid of Social Security. They finally left on their own. I think he did a lot of good, and this is the Depression we're talking about. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Besides, the necessary and proper clause it very vague, and it gives governments more power in times of war and such. I wouldn't say "trampled."

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Almost every president does something that pushes the envelope. Look at Bush and the PATRIOT ACT, or Obama's healthcare, or Lincoln suspending habeus corpus. I guess FDR went a little far because the NRA was actually deemed unconstitutional, but a lot of it really depends on which justices are sitting on the Court at the time.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay, that's fair. The Constitution is bound to change, though, and that happens through court cases, amendments, laws, etc. I don't think it's losing its effect. You could think of it as adapting to the times. The founding fathers couldn't predict things that we're dealing with today. The US Constitution is the oldest constitution still in use today, worldwide. That must mean something.

by Anonymous 11 years ago