Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if the new "future" is the current administrations goals and things like welfare = stimulus, and increasing debt makes us richer, I'll keep the past thank you...
Capitalism has consequences, such a inequality and environmental degradation. It seems you are ignorant about the past. The world is constantly changing, adapt or be left behind.
Do not understand why PBS/Ken Burns went with this "shortened" format.
Normally as with such series as the Civil War each part runs for several hours a night and shown once or twice a week. Then maybe after the whole thing ran one day may be devoted to showing the entire thing. Not this time.
At least here in NYC you got one episode of about two hours or so broadcast over and over several times a night. Why repeat something again and again after each showing. Seems to me if they had stuck with the original format would have allowed for a more deeper look at FDR and TR and their terms in office. Instead what we got was basically a few hours of progressives having orgasms after orgasms over various TR or FDR policies. Little time was spent going deeper into the affects of those policies.
For instance the internment of Japanese by FDR during WWII was just glossed over. No interviews with anyone whom was affected, the run up to and effects on those interned. What happened to them after release and so forth.
The whole thing seemed like a run up to the Democratic platform for the 2016 election cycle. All about how the *progressive* government movement is here to lift up the down trodden and save them from the abuses of the wealthy classes and corporations.
Do not understand why PBS/Ken Burns went with this "shortened" format.
Normally as with such series as the Civil War each part runs for several hours a night and shown once or twice a week. Then maybe after the whole thing ran one day may be devoted to showing the entire thing. Not this time.
At least here in NYC you got one episode of about two hours or so broadcast over and over several times a night. Why repeat something again and again after each showing. Seems to me if they had stuck with the original format would have allowed for a more deeper look at FDR and TR and their terms in office. Instead what we got was basically a few hours of progressives having orgasms after orgasms over various TR or FDR policies. Little time was spent going deeper into the affects of those policies.
For instance the internment of Japanese by FDR during WWII was just glossed over. No interviews with anyone whom was affected, the run up to and effects on those interned. What happened to them after release and so forth.
The whole thing seemed like a run up to the Democratic platform for the 2016 election cycle. All about how the *progressive* government movement is here to lift up the down trodden and save them from the abuses of the wealthy classes and corporations.
We're still catching up thanks to the DVR but definitely not as far as you!
And we've been wondering about the same things..... bad teeth, new format.
I think the 2-hour format might speak more to streaming online and 'binge-watching' episodes. Plus, they get to pad the beginning with recaps.
And you'll notice some of the fades-to-black feel a little longer than others. Makes it even easier to drop in commercials later!
We're still catching up thanks to the DVR but definitely not as far as you!
And we've been wondering about the same things..... bad teeth, new format.
I think the 2-hour format might speak more to streaming online and 'binge-watching' episodes. Plus, they get to pad the beginning with recaps.
And you'll notice some of the fades-to-black feel a little longer than others. Makes it even easier to drop in commercials later!
Methinks as with everything else PBS has had to cheap out because of funding issues. Leaving aside imported British programming such as "Downton Abbey" that they can get major corporate funding (how many Ralph Lauren and Norwegian Cruise Lines *adverts* (for that is what they are) can you cram onto PBS?
Watching streaming online programming on PBS is often a PITA due to those "sponsor" breaks. Seems like for ever fifteen minutes of programming you have a break for two minutes or so of "commercials".
Ken Burns early series were pretty good, but the format is wearing thin to us, maybe it is time for a change. As a documentary about TR and FDR as presidents this series fell pretty flat. Suppose it was well enough if the purpose was "The Roosevelts" in general, but still it seemed scattered and unfocused at times. What would have made it more interesting IMHO were interviews with those whom lived through the Great Depression and other events of the 1930's or at least remembered it from childhood. This instead of again endless fawning over FDR.
Methinks as with everything else PBS has had to cheap out because of funding issues. Leaving aside imported British programming such as "Downton Abbey" that they can get major corporate funding (how many Ralph Lauren and Norwegian Cruise Lines *adverts* (for that is what they are) can you cram onto PBS?
Watching streaming online programming on PBS is often a PITA due to those "sponsor" breaks. Seems like for ever fifteen minutes of programming you have a break for two minutes or so of "commercials".
Ken Burns early series were pretty good, but the format is wearing thin to us, maybe it is time for a change. As a documentary about TR and FDR as presidents this series fell pretty flat. Suppose it was well enough if the purpose was "The Roosevelts" in general, but still it seemed scattered and unfocused at times. What would have made it more interesting IMHO were interviews with those whom lived through the Great Depression and other events of the 1930's or at least remembered it from childhood. This instead of again endless fawning over FDR.
I agree. It is odd what gets more coverage versus the quick skim-through.
While we haven't gotten to Japanese internment yet, one example is also Quentin getting killed. That gained a lot of air-time. So dad Warm Springs.
Stalin called FDR in Dec 1933, "a decided and courageous leader." In 1934 he praised FDR's "initiative, courage and determination".
FDR defined Freedom of Religion as Stalin did.
FDR defined Freedom of Speech as Stalin did, i.e. he used the Marxist formulation 'Freedom of Information' in his speeches.
FDR pressed a bill to eliminate the right to bear arms, the guarantee of all others.
FDR told Churchill that "an unwritten Constitution is better than a written one." When reminded there was the Constitution, FDR said after his 1936 inauguration "Yes, but it's the Constitution as I understand it - flexible enough (to do what he wanted)." .......( much like Obama also stated) ....He admiringly told Churchill that Stalin didn't have to worry about Congresses and Parliaments, "he's the whole works." In a letter to a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, FDR wrote- " I hope your committee will not permit doubt as to Constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the suggested legislation." FDR did not believe in Constitutional checks and balances - he tried to destroy and was prepared to defy the Supreme Court and Congress. He did not believe in advise and consent or the rule of law - he waged war and made treaties without Congressional approval. He did not believe in representative democracy and often said that since Congress did not reflect the will of the people they should be ignored.
Probably the best exposition of FDR's procedures regarding the rule of law vs the rule of men was said by his top deputy, KGB agent Harry Hopkins, to his aides - "I want to assure you that we are not afraid of exploring anything within the law, and we have here a lawyer who will declare anything you want to do legal."
FDR defined democracy just as Joseph Stalin did - as the mere act of voting. (Of course he believed it was good to lie to the people to influence their votes. He also engaged in vote fraud - he won the 1928 NY Governor's race solely with massive vote fraud in Buffalo.) In a famous speech FDR said "The truth of the matter was that the public neither knew or understood what was involved...In other words, public opinion would be easy to manipulate." So much for the public will.
the NASI's were the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) and they are very close to the MODERN liberal
hitler came into power as the candidate of 'hope and change',, his plans slowly moved from being helpful to dreadful..........
simple things like 'nationalizing' corporations, removing the guns from the people,,blame the jews (or the modern version 'the zionists'),,duty of the state(government) to PROVIDE for the people,,division of profits (redistribution of wealth), nationalized health care, ,......,,, DO THESE SOUND FAMILIAR, YES THEY ARE THE TALKING POINTS OF THE DNC AND MOVEON.ORG...............THEY ARE ALSO PART OF HITLERS 25 POINTS of nazism
sounds like something pelosi,or reid would say...yet it was hitler who said it(chap 12 of mein kampf)
communism/fascism/socialism/nasism/marxism/american liberalism....all globalists...all born of the progressive movement of the late 1800'ss
and hitler took the guns away from ALL people..only governemt people had the ability to have a weapon
Thank you for the excellent post and link! Lots of important stuff here for readers to consider.
I think some folks don't realize when FDR and others embraced Socialism and Fascism, these were new idea that seemed to be working wonderfully in Europe - Most people weren't aware, like we are now, of all the dead bodies attached to these policies. Maybe those on the left need to read some history (not revisionist), embrace what it is, and just relax about FDR having some Socialist and Fascist policy ideas.
It is notable that the largest contributors — I.G. Farben, German General Electric (and its affiliated company Osram), and Thyssen — were affiliated with Wall Street financiers. These Wall Street financiers were at the heart of the financial elite and they were prominent in contemporary American politics. Gerard Swope of General Electric was author of Roosevelt’s New Deal, Teagle was one of NRA’s top administrators, Paul Warburg and his associates at American I.G. Farben were Roosevelt advisors. It is perhaps not an extraordinary coincidence that Roosevelt’s New Deal — called a "fascist measure" by Herbert Hoover — should have so closely resembled Hitler’s program for Germany, and that both Hitler and Roosevelt took power in the same month of the same year — March 1933.
Yet another great link - and post: An example of another person (Pres. Hoover) pointing out another real-world example, why Socialism and Fascism, with a little variation, are one and the same.
Thank you for the excellent post and link! Lots of important stuff here for readers to consider.
I think some folks don't realize when FDR and others embraced Socialism and Fascism, these were new idea that seemed to be working wonderfully in Europe - Most people weren't aware, like we are now, of all the dead bodies attached to these policies. Maybe those on the left need to read some history (not revisionist), embrace what it is, and just relax about FDR having some Socialist and Fascist policy ideas.
Lets not be naive here and act like countless ideologies haven't been used to abuse power and commit atrocities. Here in 2014, every developed country has some form of socialism so obviously a balance is needed.
Yet another great link - and post: An example of another person (Pres. Hoover) pointing out another real-world example, why Socialism and Fascism, with a little variation, are one and the same.
They aren't one in the same.... The USA and Nazi Germany took vastly different paths. Hitler was just beginning to rise in 1933, there was no possible way to know how those events would unfold. Hitler used the guise of socialism to establish right wing style dictatorship.
Do you mean that raising income taxes by over 400% from 1933 to 1944 to pay for FDR's illegal New Deal was a good thing? Or perhaps you mean delaying the recovery from the depression so that millions more could suffer was a good thing? Or maybe you meant having a fascist President who dictated his will rather than abide by the Supreme Law of the land was a good thing?
In either case, you have a very strange idea of what constitutes "much good."
More infrastructure was built under FDR's new deal than any other president. While I don't know exactly how much taxes were raised, it seems you far righties will complain if we actually fund projects or use debt. Quite frankly, we are due for another massive infrastructure investment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
