This truly is a waste of time...

Your advisor was correct, and if you truly do intend to go into politics you need to determine your position (politically, morally and ethically) and stick to it through think and thin. This is solid advice, no question.

I truly hope that, while you make those personal determinations, you maintain the capacity to develop opinion through personal experience and effort rather than through the experience and efforts of others. I am more than sincere here... this is me being as honest as I know how.

You last post has clearly stated that you have established the opinion that FDR did everything within his power as President to subvert American governmental process for his own personal gain in power and prestige, and that nothing about his character, actions or principles could possibly be seen as "in the best interest of the Country" rather than in his own self interest. Nothing about his policy or actions can be seen in any other light that that shining from 2010, and no consideration can be made for the demands of the voting public who were dead tired of suffering through four years of failed non-intervention White House policy that seemed to only watch as 32 million Americans went without income or means, right? No matter how loudly the people screamed for help, none should have been offered by the President because that would be contrary to modern "conservative" political ideology?

I think this is an extremely unfortunate position to take, not because it is contrary to my own opinion, but because I feel it is hypocritical in the extreme and cannot be supported by any reasonable means of specific evidence or measurable intent. I also think it is a difficult position for someone to take that is considering a move into the very theater of politics that produced such nefarious icons of socialist evil as FDR in the first place.

Maybe I'm sounding harsh here... and I guess I am trying to, to a degree... but this is important: You do need to be able to defend your stated political, moral and ethical position to anyone that asks whenever they ask, no matter how often they ask... and you need to be able to do it clearly, with tact and aplomb, each and every time. Reagan did this... so did Kennedy, and Lincoln.

You haven't done this with your "courtroom" defense of your stated position against FDR and his New Deal efforts. You make broad, unsupported generalizations about intent and motive while ignoring or dismissing any contrary opinion, position or evidence that might be presented by anyone else. You make assumptions about the purpose or principle behind policy and action that support your opinions, but refute or refuse to consider similar assumptions made by others that are contrary to yours.

I love you like a brother, and regardless of what you might think right now, I don't automatically dismiss everything you say. I do not think your arguments invalid or without merit, simply because they are contrary to my own opinions or principles... but sometimes I think you do actually dismiss and ignore arguments that are contrary to yours, rather than refute or rebut them.

For example, when I admitted that I sometimes feel there is weight to the argument that Reagan acted "unethically" in the manner in which the hostages were negotiated out of Iranian territory in Jan of 1981, but had no conclusive proof that my concerns were valid, you dismissed them as "conspiracy theory paranoia" out-of-hand. Now, however, I am supposed to take your indictment of FDR as an anti-Constitutional, fascist-sympathizing, wanna-be-socialist-dictator bent on taking, holding and abusing all executive authority within the US as a sound defense of your stated disdain for his efforts as President, with no substantial evidence to support that opinion other than your stated feelings.

When I questioned Reagan's actions in removing all US military interests in Lebanon less than four months after the October '83 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, you said it was sound strategic planning and beyond the general public's ability to question "because we weren't there, in the planning rooms, deciding the fate of thousands of American lives" (I'm paraphrasing, but I'm sure I'm close). I said it was counter to his stated, fundamental position that terror and terrorism would not dictate American foreign policy actions... but you said my opinion was based on irrational liberal indoctrination from my anti-Reagan youth. I'm supposed to take it on "faith" that Reagan's actions were pure, selfless and without contradiction... but I can't do the same for a President like FDR without "throwing my lot" in with the Marxist commies that want to destroy the Constitution as an impediment to Utopia? How is THAT rational, reasonable discourse in action?

In the early years of our friendship, I would intentionally use rather jaded derogatory terms to reference your conservative position (calling you a "fascist" anytime you referenced the need for strong executive powers to combat post-9/11 threats, for example), but this was unjust and juvenile, and I have since made every effort to NOT employ such childish and disingenuous terms in our discussions. This was not a habit you showed yourself to suffer from, but you do tend to fall into the same pattern when you are unable to convey your point of view to YOUR satisfaction. Frustration is understandable... I am a frequent sufferer myself... but we have been discussing the New Deal and the merits and short-comings of the FDR Administrations for more than a decade now, so your arguments and opinions should be much clearer by now than they are. If you haven't convinced us over the course of an entire decade, with both of us avowed "conservatives" already... then reason dictates that the flaw is not in OUR ability to understand the argument, but in YOUR ability to present your case.

If we can't reach a point where one side or the other (of this particular debate) can ask for clarification on questionable positions or opinions, then the debate should be put aside entirely and never broached again. I truly feel I have made my case, clearly and specifically, and when I have rebutted or asked for clarification of your position, I am presented with generalizations and gut feelings. This isn't productive, so why continue?