Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An Imperial President is someone that expands the constitution beyond the scope of the constitution. You bringing up foreign policy is off topic unless you can refocus it to the previous statement.
So Imperialism has nothing to do with Imperial?
Wow, thanks for the lesson, did Glenn Beck teach you that on his chalkboard
Stop being a hyperpartisan child, tossing out juvenile insults.
Your posts in this forum are uniform and invariant: Obama hatred.
Yet you pretend to desire "serious debate."
Grow up.
You are the one acting like a child.
I correctly pointed out that Obama has an Imperial Presidency. You then attacked me falsely as someone who is a birther, someone who thinks Obama is a communist, someone who thinks he was born in Kenya, etc...
You are the one who avoided an honest intellectual discussion. I then invited you to read the article and then tell me why you agree or disagree and you chose not to. I knew you wouldn't. I don't think you can intellectually debate this topic...which is why you are diverting yet again.
So, Skoro, I challenge you, for a 2nd time. I want you to use your brain. Read the article. Is Obama an Imperial President - someone that expands government power beyond the scope of the constitution. And is this bad for liberals, as it sets a precedent for future presidents, some of which will be conservatives. Put together an argument of why you agree or disagree...
All I am asking you to do is be an adult and use your brain. You attacked me under false claims...and avoided the article's intellectual argument. I honestly don't think you can debate this. You are avoiding a debate, because you can't.
Wow, thanks for the lesson, did Glenn Beck teach you that on his chalkboard
I have already explained on this thread what the term Imperial President refers to...why don't you try reading before you respond with more ignorance?
An Imperial President refers to Arthur Schlesinger's book The Imperial Presidency, in which an Imperial President is a president that expands presidential power beyond that of the constitution, a president that violates the law for political ends. This is a very common term with modern American Historians and Political Scientists, I suppose that is why you didn't know of it, however, I did previously post this on this thread.
So you ignore the fact that I have already described the term, then you falsely accuse me (lie) of being a Glenn Beck fan (I think I have criticized him on here before, because I also he think he is a bit nuts)...is it really that much to ask you to read my comments, respond intellectually and to not lie?
I have already explained on this thread what the term Imperial President refers to...why don't you try reading before you respond with more ignorance?
An Imperial President refers to Arthur Schlesinger's book The Imperial Presidency, in which an Imperial President is a president that expands presidential power beyond that of the constitution, a president that violates the law for political ends.
So you ignore the fact that I have already described the term, then you falsely accuse me (lie) of being a Glenn Beck fan (I think I have criticized him on here before, because I also he think he is a bit nuts)...is it really that much to ask you to read my comments, respond intellectually and to not lie?
So we are using your definition and ignoring Webster's, excuse my ignorance.
So we are using your definition and ignoring Webster's, excuse my ignorance.
I didn't realize we were inventing definitions
Webster's Dictionary doesn't typically describe terminology within fields. When you type in "Imperial Presidency" you get nothing. Also, if you take just the word Imperial into Webster's the first definition suits why Schlesinger called Nixon an Imperial President...Nixon was acting above the law, as an 'emperor' does.
Within the field of history and political science, this term is well known. This is the field the original article is within. I am sorry that you are ignorant to common terms within the fields that you discuss, even after I described the term for you the first time you still were ignorant of the term.
Perhaps, as you mature within this field, you will pick up more of the terminology.
So back to the topic at hand.
Is Obama an Imperial President?
Does this set a bad precedent that could be used by a future conservative president against the wishes of liberals that currently approve of Obama's Imperial Presidential actions?
We had the Patriot Act and illegal wire taps under Bush, invaded two countries that never did a thing to us, I believe we have already seen imperialism at it's best.
We had the Patriot Act and illegal wire taps under Bush, invaded two countries that never did a thing to us, I believe we have already seen imperialism at it's best.
Yes, bad president. And then the anti-Bush vote, that ran against that Imperial Presidency stuff - has expanded it. Imperialism at it's best 2.0
Of course it is! Unless you think Obama and his entire admin are freaking ignorant of this crap as well.
Obama has been president for almost five years, if he did not approve of what the NSA is doing, he would have ended it, in fact, some news reports claim Obama has only expanded the scope and reach of the Patriot Act and the NSA's data mining.
You can argue that the policy is unwise and undermines democracy. What you can't argue is that it is illegal or presidential overreach, as Congress granted the president these powers and this President conducted these actions under judicial oversight.
Bush specifically conducted his actions without judicial oversight.
1. The source isn't valid
2. That's racist
3. GOP obstruction
4. But...but...but George W. Bush
5. Haters gonna hate
6. Repeat 1,2,3,4 and/or 5 as needed then insult the opposition for failing to support this great man, declare victory, and move on
Yes, bad president. And then the anti-Bush vote, that ran against that Imperial Presidency stuff - has expanded it. Imperialism at it's best 2.0
Expanded?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
