• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama administration greatest ever?

Do you think the Obama administration is the greatest ever?

  • Total voters
    9
One of the most treasonous Presidents ever.
Click to expand...

I'll trust that you developed that opinion out of a holistic consideration of history and not just a hyper-partisan re-envisionment.

... I'm not really going to trust that though.

I don't know to what extent FDR was underhanded, but underhandedness has been a staple part of the political process since the dawn of time.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
I'll trust that you developed that opinion out of a holistic consideration of history and not just a hyper-partisan re-envisionment.

... I'm not really going to trust that though.

I don't know to what extent FDR was underhanded, but underhandedness has been a staple part of the political process since the dawn of time.
Click to expand...

I don't care what you "trust". My opinion of FDR is shaped by his actions, policies, and conduct during his administration. I gave a book to read, if you're not just a hyper-partisan revisionist, you may consider reading it.

And just because people in the past have done bad things while in office doesn't mean that it's ok to do bad things while in office. The sins of the past do not forgive the sins of the present.
 
I don't care what you "trust". My opinion of FDR is shaped by his actions, policies, and conduct during his administration. I gave a book to read, if you're not just a hyper-partisan revisionist, you may consider reading it.
Click to expand...

I don't need to read your book. I'm already familiar with the more controversial policies of FDR and the variety of opinions people espouse toward them. It can't contribute to my understanding. However, since you are coming at this so strong, I am predisposed to believe your understanding is not holistic.

And just because people in the past have done bad things while in office doesn't mean that it's ok to do bad things while in office. The sins of the past do not forgive the sins of the present.
Click to expand...

What the hell? Underhandedness occurs because it is a useful tool when dealing with the general public and political rivals who are out of the know on a given issue. Politicians who abstain from underhandedness out of moral considerations wouldn't be recognized for their efforts any more than people who engage in underhandedness are recognized for theirs. That's also why they don't exist; because a politician who doesn't exercise some degree of underhandedness cannot maintain their power base while in opposition against those of less lofty moral dispositions. There is simply no benefit to being virtuous in politics; so far as virtue goes, fabricating its existence in your person is much easier than actually developing the psychologically and physically exhausting character qualities necessary to possess it.

And virtue really doesn't go very far. If we assumed Obama, for example, was five times more virtuous than even his most glowing proponents claim, then the 'virtue' would simply become a symbol of derision amongst his opposition, whose preexisting interests, priorities, and political frustrations would hardly be disarmed just because their rival was virtuous. That is, if they simply didn't obscure the president's virtue so that the public would not be capable of processing it, which would be just as easy. In fact, they could do both. Hence, as far as enhancing his electoral prospects go, Obama's virtue would be completely worthless from the very beginning; the people who like him would like it and the people who don't like him wouldn't like it or wouldn't recognize it.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
I don't need to read your book. I'm already familiar with the more controversial policies of FDR and the variety of opinions people espouse toward them. It can't contribute to my understanding. However, since you are coming at this so strong, I am predisposed to believe your understanding is not holistic.
Click to expand...

That's your assumption. It's probably easiest for you to take that route than to try to combat the points made or consider that those might be my rational and well thought out opinions. I think that maybe the problem lies not with my disgust of FDR but maybe on your side because you can't seem to think that such disgust could come rationally and being unable to deal with it you'd rather make assumptions about my character to provide yourself an easy dismiss of my arguments. So be it. Your choice. I don't care what you believe, I provided sources you may investigate them if you wish. Otherwise, do whatever you want. If you must assume incorrect things then that's your problem. If you can't be honest or engage in debate and must invent deflections, that's your problem. I don't care. Anyone can look up sources, read the book or the other sources listed there themselves.

But in the end, it appears more to me that you took offense to someone having such an opinion about FDR and now your grappling to come up with some way to explain such opinion and in doing so have made assumptions which are wrong, but you like because it fits into your preconceived notions. Again, those are your problems.

Morality Games said:
What the hell? Underhandedness occurs because it is a useful tool when dealing with the general public and political rivals who are out of the know on a given issue. Politicians who abstain from underhandedness out of moral considerations wouldn't be recognized for their efforts any more than people who engage in underhandedness. That's also why they don't exist; because a politician who doesn't exercise some degree of underhandedness cannot maintain their power base while in opposition against those of less lofty moral dispositions. There is simply no benefit to being virtuous in politics; so far as virtue goes, fabricating its existence in your person is much easier than actually developing the psychologically and physically exhausting character qualities necessary to possess it.

And virtue really doesn't go very far. If we assumed Obama, for example, was five times more virtuous than even his most glowing proponents claim, then the 'virtue' would simply become a symbol of derision amongst his opposition, whose preexisting interests, priorities, and political frustrations would hardly be disarmed just because their rival was virtuous. That is, if they simply didn't obscure the president's virtue so that the public would not be capable of processing it.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it's a tool the government likes or not. It's not the point. The People are in charge, not the government. The government can like something all it wants; but if it does disservice to the People, particularly in our ability to constrain and control the government, then it is wrong. The sins of the past do not excuse the sins of the present. Try to understand what that means in its entirety.
 
jallman said:
Well that just says it all right there...:lol:
Click to expand...

Are you here to debate or to entertain us with your "witty" observations?

It doesn't matter if it's a tool the government likes or not. It's not the point. The People are in charge, not the government. The government can like something all it wants; but if it does disservice to the People, particularly in our ability to constrain and control the government, then it is wrong. The sins of the past do not excuse the sins of the present. Try to understand what that means in its entirety.
Click to expand...

It doesn't mean anything because it doesn't address anything real. It's idealism. If anything represents a substantial risk to the ability of the people to constrain and control government, it is the people themselves.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
Depends on the day. :shrug:

Get over it.
Click to expand...

Debate or quit trolling.

That's your assumption. It's probably easiest for you to take that route than to try to combat the points made or consider that those might be my rational and well thought out opinions. I think that maybe the problem lies not with my disgust of FDR but maybe on your side because you can't seem to think that such disgust could come rationally and being unable to deal with it you'd rather make assumptions about my character to provide yourself an easy dismiss of my arguments. So be it. Your choice. I don't care what you believe, I provided sources you may investigate them if you wish. Otherwise, do whatever you want. If you must assume incorrect things then that's your problem. If you can't be honest or engage in debate and must invent deflections, that's your problem. I don't care. Anyone can look up sources, read the book or the other sources listed there themselves.

But in the end, it appears more to me that you took offense to someone having such an opinion about FDR and now your grappling to come up with some way to explain such opinion and in doing so have made assumptions which are wrong, but you like because it fits into your preconceived notions. Again, those are your problems.
Click to expand...

... nice attempt at reversal, but I haven't forwarded an opinion about FDR, so you have no grounds for that opinion.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
It doesn't mean anything because it doesn't address anything real. It's idealism. If anything represents a substantial risk to the ability of the people to constrain and control government, it is the people themselves.
Click to expand...

Quite the fascist statement there. The government isn't going to constrain and control itself, so obviously your statement is false and built upon a pretext of people on the whole being unable to properly constrain and restrict government to its proper roles. It's simply untrue, the situation can specifically exist but it's not innate to the system at all. And seeing how government will not constrain and control itself, the People are the only way by which it can be done.

Again, building on preconceived notions here. The thought that the government knows best and we should accept it as people in general are unable to constrain and control the government is rather absurd. The People are the source of all power for a government and hence are the true sovereigns. Thus it is for the people and by the people that the government must govern by. Again, sins of the past do not excuse the sins of the present.
 
jallman said:
I haven't trolled. Yet.
Click to expand...

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community
Click to expand...

A chopped analysis of one the string of sentences that constitute my post doesn't relate to the topic and is intended to incite a reaction out of --aka, inflame -- me. You're definitely trolling.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
nice deflect and dodge.
Click to expand...

I have no clear idea of what you are talking about. I'm not dodging anything. You haven't done anything except express a sentiment and an unsupported, highly reduced account of FDR's presidency. I can't dodge things which don't exist.
 
Morality Games said:
A chopped analysis of one the string of sentences that constitute my post doesn't relate to the topic and is intended to incite a reaction out of --aka, inflame -- me.
Click to expand...

Oh well. I saw it as a concisely poignant "excuse" for the rest of your argument.

But do carry on...
 
jallman said:
Oh well. I saw it as a concisely poignant "excuse" for the rest of your argument.

But do carry on...
Click to expand...

Why would I break my neck to get at the book shelves to buy a book which has knowledge I already know on the recommendation of somebody who so far is expecting me to take some pretty weighty accusations (aka, an American president committing treason) on faith and a referral which cannot be acquired or examined in a reasonable span of time, or in one which can occur in the length of this thread's life?
 
Morality Games said:
I have no clear idea of what you are talking about. I'm not dodging anything. You haven't done anything except express a sentiment and an unsupported, highly reduced account of FDR's presidency. I can't dodge things which don't exist.
Click to expand...

No, you're engaging in ad hominem. I stated something, you attacked my character. From the beginning it hasn't been about you debating or discussing something; it's been your assumptions and attacks on my character to dismiss my opinion of FDR. Going so far as to refuse the actual proof or substance which I have based that opinion on.
 
Morality Games said:
Why would I break my neck to get at the book shelves to buy a book which has knowledge I already know on the recommendation of somebody who so far is expecting me to take some pretty weighty accusations (aka, an American president committing treason) on faith and a referral which cannot be acquired or examined in a reasonable span of time, or in one which can occur in the length of this thread's life?
Click to expand...

I think you confuse the literary license taken with the word treason with the literal legal application. If that's your big exception to Ikari's post, then you are making much ado about nothing.

Most of the arguments boil down to tempests in tea cups.
 
Ikari said:
No, you're engaging in ad hominem. I stated something, you attacked my character. From the beginning it hasn't been about you debating or discussing something; it's been your assumptions and attacks on my character to dismiss my opinion of FDR. Going so far as to refuse the actual proof or substance which I have based that opinion on.
Click to expand...

WHOA. You haven't provided any immediately accessible sources for your opinion, so to prostrate yourself and make dramatic declarations of your stating "facts" is premature. And while it is possible I engaged in a modicum of ad hominem when I observed you were going a bit over the top in your enthusiasm (an accusation that a president meets the accepted criteria for treason is a difficult one to maintain), that is entirely how you are maintaining your presence in this thread.

I think you confuse the literary license taken with the word treason with the literal legal application. If that's your big exception to Ikari's post, then you are making much ado about nothing.

Most of the arguments boil down to tempests in tea cups.
Click to expand...

Treason is a legal term and notion. Any exercise of it out that context is incoherent.
 
Morality Games said:
Treason is a legal term and notion. Any exercise of it out that context is incoherent.
Click to expand...

Really? Because I think anyone who practices English as a first language would disagree with that notion.

You, sir, are just grasping now.
 
jallman said:
Really? Because I think anyone who practices English as a first language would disagree with that notion.

You, sir, are just grasping now.
Click to expand...

... 'treason' as a literary device could only be interpreted as a sign of discontentment. It is impossible to argue against sentiments. Hence its presence in a debate is incoherent. 'Treason' as a legal term addresses facts. Hence its presence in a debate is coherent.
 
Morality Games said:
WHOA. You haven't provided any immediately accessible sources for your opinion, so to prostrate yourself and make dramatic declarations of your stating "facts" is premature. And while it is possible I engaged in a modicum of ad hominem when I observed you were going a bit over the top in your enthusiasm (an accusation that a president meets the accepted criteria for treason is a difficult one to maintain), that is entirely how you are maintaining your presence in this thread.
Click to expand...

You refused to even try to look. Yeah, a book isn't directly from the internet; but it was one of the most informative books on the subject I read and itself well documented. I also provided a small list of some of the things I take issue during his administration. The only thing you've provided is ad hominem argument and dodge. That is entirely how you are maintaining your presence in this thread.
 
Ikari said:
You refused to even try to look. Yeah, a book isn't directly from the internet; but it was one of the most informative books on the subject I read and itself well documented. I also provided a small list of some of the things I take issue during his administration. The only thing you've provided is ad hominem argument and dodge. That is entirely how you are maintaining your presence in this thread.
Click to expand...

The book doesn't count because the time it would take to acquire it would probably outlast this thread's life and it isn't my job to back your claims for you.
 
Morality Games said:
The book doesn't count because the time it would take to acquire it would probably outlast this thread's life and it isn't my job to back your claims for you.
Click to expand...

blah blah blah, dodge dodge dodge. As I said, it's entirely the way you've maintained your existence in this thread. Maybe you can take some issue with the list I provided? But no, it's more easier to engage in ad hominem and deflect. Wouldn't want to actually engage in the debate, would you?
 
Ikari said:
blah blah blah, dodge dodge dodge. As I said, it's entirely the way you've maintained your existence in this thread. Maybe you can take some issue with the list I provided? But no, it's more easier to engage in ad hominem and deflect. Wouldn't want to actually engage in the debate, would you?
Click to expand...

I would love to debate. Get some links and post some text which supports your claim and then it can happen. Sending me on a magical journey which will probably require ordering a book offline with my own money, having me read it over the course of days or weeks depending on how much free time is available to me . . . not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom