• 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
Do you think the Obama administration is the greatest ever?

I personally feel that Obama, Pelosi and Harry Reid are the greatest examples of leadership our country and maybe the world has seen and would really appreciate it if we could just all adhere to their superior intellect especially Obama as he is a Harvard graduate after all and knows what he is talking about when it comes to health care. You may not see it yet, but he has our best interests at heart and is just misunderstood...Thank you


:lamo

:2funny:..........:funny


Ah, heh, (chuckle, snort) ...erm, that would be a no. :think:
 
... '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.

So it is just like I thought...your whole exception to his argument amounts to a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

I stand by my original assessment of your argument. Your refusal of knowledge out of hand says about all that needs to be said.
 
No. Way to freakin early to tell. The OP must be on drugs...

I want some! :lol:
 
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.

Library. Did people really forget how to research? Your entire rant against me has been nothing more than one deflect and attack after another. I couldn't be rational because of my opinion of FDR. I told you where it came from, I gave a few examples. Still dodge dodge dodge. And then absurdities like having to buy a book or something. For gods sake, I pointed you towards the most comprehensive and documented source. There's no magical journey. FDR's blackmail of the SCOTUS is well known, he was the first to put us on the declared emergency, Congressman Beck's comments are easily found, the bank issue was chapter 1 of the book I cited. Books are acceptable forms of citation.
 
Library. Did people really forget how to research? Your entire rant against me has been nothing more than one deflect and attack after another. I couldn't be rational because of my opinion of FDR. I told you where it came from, I gave a few examples. Still dodge dodge dodge. And then absurdities like having to buy a book or something. For gods sake, I pointed you towards the most comprehensive and documented source. There's no magical journey. FDR's blackmail of the SCOTUS is well known, he was the first to put us on the declared emergency, Congressman Beck's comments are easily found, the bank issue was chapter 1 of the book I cited. Books are acceptable forms of citation.

That still doesn't address the essential reading aspect of it, which would drag on for a period of time that would likely outlast this thread. Nor is there any guarantee my local library would have it. The whole thing hinges around a lot of contingencies and requires a lot of going above and beyond on my part. Books are acceptable forms of citation, but in a online debate the burden is on you to provide the text and sources for your arguments. "Go get the book," is no different from "Use google search. I'm busy right now." If you didn't want to go to any effort at all, you should have toned down your argument.

Also, the Supreme Court was never blackmailed by Roosevelt. He failed at a court packing legislative reform and then the people on it who opposed his policies retired or died of natural causes in the years following on account of their advanced ages, both events are pretty typical of Supreme Court judges. Roosevelt never had the political capital in Congress to pass his legislative reform, so the point is moot. Moreover, the U.S. Constitution does not specify the size of the court and Article III invests Congress with the authority to set a number of judges, whose appointments shall last for life.
 
Last edited:
No, his court packing threat, which was the blackmail, worked. Because initially the SCOTUS had declared his programs as unconstitutional. He made threats against the SCOTUS (itself a dubious act), after which the SCOTUS again reviewed the case and passed the original programs which previously had been correctly identified as unconstitutional. While the bill eventually failed, the threat to the SCOTUS worked as one judge had reversed his vote and allowed passage of pieces of the New Deal previously struck down.

The very act of the threat itself is one of blackmail. He wanted the Court to do as he said, but the branches were to be separate. While the number of Justices is not specified, it's obvious that the attempt to add more justices was to be done so that FDR could get the majority of SCOTUS judges sympathetic to his cause and to pass legislation previously struck down.
 
Last edited:
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.

It's not fascist to understand that this is true.
 
I added a poll since it's in the Poll section and all...:roll:
 
I don't think the OP is being serious. I answered "no."
 
Back
Top Bottom