Franklin Roosevelt v. Augustine Pinochet

[MaC]

based off a response by Phillip.  I'm undecided at this point.  Help sway my vote.

[Gabu]

Help sway my vote.

Franklin Roosevelt had sexy legs.

[A18]

based off a response by Phillip.

What response?

[MaC]

based off a response by Phillip.

What response?

your thread: Opinion of Franklin Roosevelt

One of the most horrible people to ever live. If only we had a man as good as Pinochet back in the 1930s.

[Nym90]

Roosevelt.

[Max]

I of course vote for the one who did not install a military dictatorship.

[??????????]

Pinochet in a heartbeat.

[Lincoln Republican]

Augusto Pinochet headed a junta, a collective military dictatorship, which suspended the constitution, dissolved congress, imposed strict censorhsip, outlawed the leftist parties, halted all political activity, and embarked on a campaign of terror against opponents and perceived leftists.

As a result, approximately 3,000 Chilean residents are known to have been executed of "disappeared," more than 27,000 were incarcerated, and in a gret many cases tortured.  Many were exiled, and fled abroad, particularly to Argentina, as political refugees, but were followed in their exile by secret police, which linked South American dictatorships together against political opponents.

Pinochet was a vain, arrogant, vicious, brutal dictator, with no regard for human life.  He was a mini Hitler of Stalin.

He was in all respects a horrible person. 

Pinochet was not fit to tie FDR's shoes.         

   

[Speed of Sound]

Roosevelt obviously. A retarded teen on her period and taking 19 different anti-depressants while snorting drugs could run a country better than Pinochet. I hope I didnt go too far on this one.

[Nym90]

Roosevelt obviously. A retarded teen on her period and taking 19 different anti-depressants while snorting drugs could run a country better than Pinochet. I hope I didnt go too far on this one.

Not at all. If you had said 20 antidepressants, you'd be pushing your luck.

[MaC]

But at least Pinochet wasn't a socialist...

[minionofmidas]

Augusto Pinochet headed a junta, a collective military dictatorship, which suspended the constitution, dissolved congress, imposed strict censorhsip, outlawed the leftist parties, halted all political activity, and embarked on a campaign of terror against opponents and perceived leftists.

As a result, approximately 3,000 Chilean residents are known to have been executed of "disappeared," more than 27,000 were incarcerated, and in a gret many cases tortured.  Many were exiled, and fled abroad, particularly to Argentina, as political refugees, but were followed in their exile by secret police, which linked South American dictatorships together against political opponents.

Pinochet was a vain, arrogant, vicious, brutal dictator, with no regard for human life.  He was a mini Hitler of Stalin.

He was in all respects a horrible person. 

Pinochet was not fit to tie FDR's shoes.         

   

^           ^           ^


The American Right needs more people with that much common sense.

And as Winfield's already pointed out, the name's Augusto not Agustín (let alone Augustine).

[Jake]

Both were freedom fighters, but I'd vote for Pinochet.

[Max]

Both were freedom fighters, but I'd vote for Pinochet.

Who exactly was free in the Chile of Pinochet?

Is every non-socialist a freedom fighter?

[MaC]

Both were freedom fighters, but I'd vote for Pinochet.

Who exactly was free in the Chile of Pinochet?

Is every non-socialist a freedom fighter?

Being a non-socialist is a necessary condition for being a freedom fighter, though it within itself doesn't make you one.

[minionofmidas]

Both were freedom fighters, but I'd vote for Pinochet.

Who exactly was free in the Chile of Pinochet?

Pinochet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, none is.

[Max]

Being a non-socialist is a necessary condition for being a freedom fighter, though it within itself doesn't make you one.

Depends on your definition of a socialist.

I you're talking about sowjet-like communists , you are absolutely right.

If you're talking about any left-of-center politician, you're absolutely wrong.

[MaC]

There is nothing 'free' about liberal economic veiws, Max.

[Max]

There is nothing 'free' about liberal economic veiws, Max.

I don't think that is true.

Part of freedom is having enough food.
Only if you needn't worry about your and your family's survival, you are FREE to live your life, to read books, to to discuss about politics and to participate in society.
All this is necessary to call a man free!

So to me, a law that guarantees every citizen enough food to survive - which would usually be called an economically liberal law - , is a law of freedom.

[MaC]

Real freedom is spending money however you want.  By supporting government safety nets that would allow for others to have 'a bare minimum', you're only making them reliant upon others.  Nobody is free in this situation because the taxpayer isn't able to choose not to pay taxes and the recipient of the services is a slave to the welfare system.

[Gabu]

There is nothing 'free' about liberal economic veiws, Max.

I don't think that is true.

Part of freedom is having enough food.
Only if you needn't worry about your and your family's survival, you are FREE to live your life, to read books, to to discuss about politics and to participate in society.
All this is necessary to call a man free!

So to me, a law that guarantees every citizen enough food to survive - which would usually be called an economically liberal law - , is a law of freedom.

There are two options in life, Max: either you are a libertarian, in which case you can't understand how anyone can not be a libertarian, or you are not a libertarian, in which you can't understand how anyone can be a libertarian.

Keep this in mind when talking to one.

[Max]

There are two options in life, Max: either you are a libertarian, in which case you can't understand how anyone can not be a libertarian, or you are not a libertarian, in which you can't understand how anyone can be a libertarian.

Keep this in mind when talking to one.

If that's true, I'm not a libertarian.

But I can understand why people are libertarians, because it's a beautiful idea of total freedom.

And it is the same with all "beautiful, great ideas" in the history of mankind, they simply don't work.

To me, libertarianism means freedom to those who can afford it.

Freedom for the few, not freedom for the many.

[George W. Hobbes]

I'd probably take Pinochet over Allende, but in this case I'd vote for FDR.

[Nym90]

There are two options in life, Max: either you are a libertarian, in which case you can't understand how anyone can not be a libertarian, or you are not a libertarian, in which you can't understand how anyone can be a libertarian.

Keep this in mind when talking to one.

If that's true, I'm not a libertarian.

But I can understand why people are libertarians, because it's a beautiful idea of total freedom.

And it is the same with all "beautiful, great ideas" in the history of mankind, they simply don't work.

To me, libertarianism means freedom to those who can afford it.

Freedom for the few, not freedom for the many.

I agree 100%. It all comes down to what your definition of freedom is, but I don't see why the freedom advocated by libertarians is objectively better than any other sort of freedom necessarily.

[dazzleman]

FDR

While Roosevelt had a poor understanding of economics, and ultimately hurt the lower classes through his politically popular class-warfare economic policies, he was not really a socialist, in that he made no move to put productive capacity in the hands of the government.  His administration never really challenged the concept of private ownership of the means of production, and once he was forced by the need for war materials to shift his policies to make them more favorable to investment and expansion of productive capacity, the economy got a lot better.  If he'd only done it sooner, the depression wouldn't have lasted 10 long years.

While I don't fully demonize Pinochet the way a lot of liberals do (as they would never demonize a left-wing anti-American ruler with the same repressive domestic policies), there is no comparison between Pinochet and FDR.  Pinochet may have been a good cold war ally, but I wouldn't choose him as a ruler.