But Obama isn't? Should he be tried for treason? Of course not, jesus christ people. Is it even remotely possible, that in order to address the issues of terrorism or economic self-destruction that maybe these presidents needed more power to initiate a plan of recourse? I'd say there's a pretty good chance. And if one is guilty then both must be, and so too must every president before them that sought to expand the government for any reason. FDR, that means you too.

 

I couldn't agree more on this.

 

Where did I say he hasn't expanded government?

However, Obama has not yet expanded government control over the individual, nor has he yet infringed on our civil liberties. Until he does -- and I'm sure it's only a matter of time -- your question is flawed.

It is remotely possible, but highly doubtful. If you think that these things have been done out of altruism, you're either incredibly naive or ignorant of how power is obtained and maintained throughout history.

I find it amusing that the irony of curtailing our civil liberties to protect our civil liberties from terrorists seems to escape you. Who should we really be protecting ourselves against if our government is the one that is actually whittling away at our liberties one by one? Who is the true enemy here?

As I previously pointed out, your initial question was flawed, but even if I grant you that, I still feel compelled to say that in my opinion FDR was a ****-hair away from being a despot.