First of all, who said I would shoot him? The OP mentioned killing someone in the past, but I’ll choose the method is you don’t mind.
Second of all, I don’t give a rats ass what non-Americans think of our President. I think he royaly screwed up this country, and unfortunately a large majority of idiots in this country can’t see that and instead praise him!:rolleyes:
Oh, well! When I get back to 1928 he’s dead!!!
Right after I make certain investments in the stock market!
"Kill Julius Caesar. " “Preserve the Republic”
And that way you keep the legions with the join us or die attitude.
Rod Stewart. . .oh wait he’s still alive . . .can I kill him anyway? Just think about how greatful future generations would be.
DaLovin’ Dj
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of the greatest human beings who ever graced this earth. He wasn’t flawless and made big mistakes, but he lead this nation through the two greatest crises of the 20th century. And he did it well.
He gave his all for us, and I’ve always thought anyone who has an overall low opinion was and is lower than steaming dog waste on a sidewalk. It is a sure sign of a loser nobody to express bitterness about FDR, particularly six decades later. You can bet that person never did anything significant in their life except emotionally abuse their spouse and children, a sign that they measure themselves by the failures of others. It is a sure sign that their patriotism only holds for administrations they agree with.
Hey PK, thanks for introducing yourself to us so thoroughly.
Ok i know you said no religous figures but Oh hell with it. POINT. IMAGINE NO RELIGION JOHN LENNON with no relgion most wars would not have been fought. I guess this would bring a over-population issue wouldnt it. My vote still goes for jesus or mohhamed.
Um, didn’t somebody already do that?
I find your theory flawed. You imply that the removal of religion would prevent wars. Not a chance. We as Humans have always fought and had wars. Were they all caused by religion? No, They may have claimed religious reasons to justify their actions.
Wars are fought to protect and or promote ideas and a way of life. Let’s look at some of the wars the US has participated in.
Gulf war: Iraq attacked for the oil fields, we fought to attempt to promote an economic stability in the region (to our advantage)
Vietnam: We fought to “defend democracy” of course calling them “godless Commies” made a good sound bite.
Korea: more of the same. (I am not real familiar with the Korean war)
WW2: We fought an expansionist tyrant.
WW1: can’t see religion being a large cause of this one either.
Civil War. Oh yeah, religion was a Big factor here :rolleyes:
Anyway, Religion is not the cause of war, Human nature is.
It does on the other hand make a nice rallying cry.
Osip
Given that this whole thread is just a lot of academic tail-chasing, because a time machine will always uninvent itself…
And postulated that things done by the person you erase are not undertaken by another (so many things are expressions of political, economic, academic, or scientific pressure) my candidate is:
Dr. Richard Jordan Gatling.
Constantine. He made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, and Christianity has been the worse for it ever since. Because of Constantine, we have fundies who believe America should be a theocracy.
I don’t think it would accomplish anything to go back and eliminate someone because of their ideology. There’s a saying that nothing is harder to stop than an idea whose time has come, and the culture would just spawn other similar figures until people outgrew that way of thinking.
I would kill someone non-political, like Jack the Ripper, so that those poor women would have lived.
Oliver Cromwell
He took it as a personal duty to God to wipe out the entire
culture of Ireland and anything remotely Catholic.
(Thank God he failed).
He was the Hitler of the Renaissance.
:rolleyes: FDR’s prgrams didn’t do much to remedy the economy at the time. Remember, we were still in a depression when WW2 came, and there is evidence he knew the Japanese were coming on 12-07, making him a traitor if he knew. My opinions on the harm I feel he did to this country warrant you making comments and libelist attacks that may even be too strong for the pit? Emotionally abuse my spouse & children? Because I don’t like FDR?
**Hey Mods! Where the hell are you on this? DPWhites comments here are totally inappropriate for this forum!
While I don’t approve of this shameless retrospective homicidal bloodlust…
To expand on something sirjamesp brought up, you could positively alter history and save millions of twentieth century lives by aborting WWI. But to do this, my candidate for elimination would be Count Leopold von Berchtold.
von Berchtold was the Austrian Foreign Minister whose devious and unprincipled backstage maneuvering is thought by many to have precipitated the war.
Plus, anyone with that pretentious a name (check out the full version, it’s a doozy) deserves to be iced on general principles.
president bush
i know hes not dead but if he were why would i bother going back in time to kill him again
anything to save the world from listening to him talk
Hey! My wife’s parents only got married because of the cultural revolution. Be careful whom you kill!
Although I agree he was an absolute smeghead.
Christopher Columbus
But just for intrests sake, to see how the world would turn out.
…and yes i realise that i probably wouldn’t have been born, but that could be true for any of the aformentioned people. Anyways, i live in Canada and he didn’t discover Canada.
I did not say all wars. I said most wars. If you look into it closly you will find religion lurking behind most motives.[Moderator Hat: ON]
pkbites said:
Here’s a clue: If we haven’t noticed something in a thread, writing us a note in that same thread probably isn’t going to make us notice either. Writing a follow-up note in the Pit will only serve to annoy us. We have e-mail addresses. Feel free to use them if you think there has been a rule violation.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Oh, and by the way, BOTH of you cool it.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Well, regarding us still being in a depression when WW2 came (I’m assuming you mean at the time of US entry in 1941), that’s debatable. The Dow finished '29 17% down for the year, and continued to drop for the next 4 years, in '32 hitting a low of 59.93. However, after that, the Dow increased every year after. While it didn’t break the 200 mark again until 1949, it almost reached 100 by the end of '33. In fact, after '32, it posted gains in every year except for '37, '39, '40, and '41, and at the height of the war boom in '44, it was at about the same level as it was at '38. While the Dow is only a rough approximation of the status of the economy, it still is significant.
If you look at the unemployment rate, it’s at 8.7% in 1930, and increases till it hits a high of 24.9% in 1933. It then dropped to 14.3% in 1937. (it was to jump up again to 19% during the recession of '38). The GNP experienced growth every year from '34 to '39, with the exception of '38 (see above), with the greatest increase in '36 of 14.1%.
I also have some commercial bond yield info that I can share if you’re interested, but to summarize, yields peaked in the spring of '32, then decreased consistantly till they were below pre-crash levels. This is true of both Moody AAA and AAB seasoned bonds. (Bond yields have an inverse relationship to the economy. In poor economic conditions, or if there’s financial uncertainty, the bond market is active.)
In short, a lot of the data seems to suggest that the depression was over by 1937, and that the economy, while still below 1929 levels, was improving.
Also, as I said previously, assuming no FDR, a Democrat would probably still win in '32, because, with the condition of the economy, Hoover was practically unelectable, and that Democrat probably would have been Al Smith. While Smith was later anti-New Deal, it’s likely that he was more anti-Roosevelt (for taking “his” nomination), and Smith had, himself, during the primaries, proposed large public works and government welfare and assistance programs. Also, in the real world, Roosevelt was able to take the nomination from Smith by an alliance with the conservative Democrats (which was why Garner was picked as his running mate), having split the “left” wing of the party with Smith. With no Roosevelt, Smith would have gotten the majority of the progressive and socialist Democrats and wouldn’t have had to compromise with the “right” wing of the party, meaning that a Smith presidency wouldn’t be beholden to the conservatives the way that Roosevelt was in his first term.