Let's do this another way...

I DON'T want to hash out the whole New Deal era again... the stats and figures that have been quoted here already are enough to have filled numerous books... yet nothing has changed. You don't accept my presented information as valid, yet without it... I have no case to make.

Why don't we look at what FDR did WRONG... exactly... rather than try and defend what he did or didn't do right. Then, once we have determined exactly what it was that he did to "fundamentally alter" the fabric of Federal authority from what it had been in 1929 to what it was in 1945 and beyond... perhaps I will see where you equate him as such a despot in disguise.

You seem to think that I am revolted by the thought that someone would think FDR a "bad" President, and you have used terms and phrases in the past to show this opinion of me... but it simply isn't true. I simply don't see anything that FDR did to fundamentally change the Office of the President (and every President brings something to the job... I believe this firmly) that compares to what others have done before and since that you call GREAT Presidents. My revulsion stems from the seeming hypocrisy in your two positions... not in your distaste of FDR and his policies.

You have said in the past that FDR was a man bent on changing the Executive Branch to something it was never intended to be, and if we can show that was, indeed, the case... then I will concede that FDR WAS a bad President. However, I will need to know that you are just as willing to look long and hard at the REST of the Presidential pantheon and hold all of their names to the same yard stick as you are holding FDR to... and believe me when I say that there have been some pretty "good" Presidents in our past that have played awfully loose with the parameters of the Executive Branch, as defined in the US Constitution.

Does this seem like an acceptable path to finally resolve this question?