Re: Obama to brainwash youths of America
 

People also don't understand that the economy naturally fluctuates. There's nothing abnormal about what we are experiencing - the economy will recover and eventually fantastic, before declining again.

Re: Obama to brainwash youths of America
 

Explain.

I'd ask you to post your irrefutable proof, but that would take us far off topic. My thoughts are that if there was real proof and just heresay, Holder would be going after Bush and Cheney, and not a bunch of CIA agents and lawyers over waterboarding.

How did we ever get on Bush in the first place? Is he still president?

I was sure on that, so thanks for the clarification. I concede the point. I do lknow that he was the first President to win by a 50%+ majority in a long time, though.

I never said he was the most loved, I said he won the argument. I'm not even a fan of him as a president, everything considered. I simply refuse to acknowledge that he is the original Mr Satan.

Also, for a little perspective, Bill Clinton was a popular president, but never even won a majority of votes in either of his elections. And even as popular as he was, his progressive polices were soundly defeated in the beginning of his first term. Afterwards, he became very centrist because thats where the votes are.

No, progressives aren't the ones really hurting him, centrists are, and thats why he hasn't acted and tried to push things through. Think logically for one second: Why would he be dragging his feet on progressive issues if it were the progressives that were hurting him? It makes no sense.

Re: Obama to brainwash youths of America
 

Exactly. But I think judging by your politics, you and I make far different conclusions based on that fact...

And your assertions about the inevitability of liberalism are intriguing, if not 100% accurate, but to explore that subject would take another thread and a few hours of discussion.

Re: Obama to brainwash youths of America
 

We got on the subject because someone said:

"The fact is Bush did what he did, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, and got reelected handily in 2004 well after the Iraq war started."

This completly false statement was the first mention of Bush that I can find.

Mostly because the other political parties and independants were completly flushed out that election. Same could be said for why Obama got over 50%. When there's only two reasonable people competing its hard not to win with a 50%+ majority. (Though bush managed to not even get the most votes and got in his first term.)

I never said that you said he was the most loved. I just said that Bush barely got into his seat. He has some of the lowest approval ratings in history, and he won by the smallest margins in history. Bush did not win over the American people as much as you think he did. The only thing he did right was manipulate washington into doing what he wanted.

He never won a majority of votes in either of his elections? Could have sworn I just posted how much he won by in both of his elections. We won by far more votes then Bush.

The difference between Clinton/Obama and Bush, is that bush was able to manipulate people in the house and senate to do his bidding with politics (i.e. Democrats being weak and actually following whatever he says).. and Clinton/Obama don't have as much luck manipulating the house and senate into voting for what they want because republicans simply refuse to play ball with them. The big difference is that Clinton had a real excuse for not being able to force his agenda in his first term. Obama has no excuse..

As much as the dems want to blame the republicans for watering down healthcare reform, its not the republican's fault. The Dems keep reachign out for approval that they're never going to get regardless of what the end bill looks like.

I listen to conservate and liberal media shows regularly. The talk on the conservative shows have not changed, they never have nor ever will support Obama. The talk on the liberal/progressive has changed completly to slamming Obama and the dems for being weak about how they're handling things in Washington.

I would agree with you if you said progressives aren't the ONLY ones hurting him, but they're a big part of what's hurting his approval rating.

Re: Obama to brainwash youths of America
 

A majority is more than half. You're thinking of plurality.

Re: Obama to brainwash youths of America
 

Oh I see. That's mainly because there wasn't a legitamate independant canadate when he ran against Kerry. Less then 1% of the country that year who voted, didn't vote for Bush or Kerry. Obama, won by a much larger majority, and much larger difference in actual votes, and electorial votes. And there was more non democrat/republican votes in 2008 even though they still only made up 1.5% of votes.

A two player and 3 player game are completly different. But Bush's margins of victory and approval ratings are still the worst since Jimmy Carter. So I don't really get how one can argue that he "won handily" or even won the hearts of the American people at all.

Lets also keep in mind that the same Bush you speak of won without having the majority of votes in one of his elections. And in both of his elections he was not able to top 370 electoral votes. Which was the lowest Clinton had gotten.

Bush overall popularity wise doesn't compare to any of the other presidents since Carter.

Re: Obama to brainwash youths of America
 

You didn't look very hard then... I believe we were all talking about Obama until people decided to post about Bush related Jesus camps and other nonsense comparing Bush practices trying to get the conversation off topic. I talked about Bush in response to Vamp and Teuth injecting him into the convesation. Look harder next time, Game. And I still fail to see the inaccuracy of the statement. He won? Yes? He did what he wanted? Yes. The Iraq war was on? Yeppers!

I understand that, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Clinton won with less than 50% of the vote, regardless of how popular he is perceived to be. In fact, I'd go so far as to say he would have lost the election if Perot didn't get his large percentage of third party votes, as I believe he mainly pulled from Republican/center right votes.

No, you said:
Close enough?

The second election wasn't one of the closest in history. It wasn't overwhelming, I'll give you that, but in terms of actual votes I wouldn't rate it as such. Electorally? Much closer.

Exactly, he won the argument. He won two terms and basically did whaht he did with little of the hubbub you see happening now.

Exactly, Bush won the argument.

The dems are also refusing to play ball the Republicans. Have you heard about any of the Republican ideas being incorporated into any of the bills? Tort reform? Opening up competition nationwide, and not just in-state? No, so there is little to discuss, because there is no compromise. Besides, if the dems wanted to push through the bill, they could. They have the votes to push through anything they want. But they won't, because they're not stupid and they like their jobs. You really haven't posted anything that counters this obvious point.

I know. Like I said, he's failing as a leader. What do we disagree on here?

...because they like their jobs and want to keep the majority in 2010. You keep leaving that part out. We do have elections in this country, and if the dems were to push through their policies with how the public feels right now, they would be rode out of office on a rail. It would be the 2004 mid-terms all over again, IMO.

They are weak because they are scared.

Yes, but it's the center that wins elections. Once again, why would a progressive politician not push through progressive policy? Answer: They think they'll lose the election.

I'll say that centrists aren't the only one's hurting his approval, but they are the group that is keeping the dems frozen right now, because they realize that it's the center that wins elections. The center doesn't like whats going on right now on either side.

Re: Obama to brainwash youths of America
 

I was refering to within our conversation. I've been indiferent and never even commented on that post.

Losers always say independants cost them the election. What is your point?

No its not close. Unless you are implying that you originally meant to say Bush was the "most loved". Which would make your own reply of saying he's not the most loved wrong.

But lets stick to facts here, you never called him the 'most loved' nor did I say that you called him the 'most loved'. I just said he wasn't as loved as you think he was and didn't win by some big margin.

I'll correct my statement, and say, in Recent History. Since 1972 there's only been one Election (besides his own 2000 one) with a closer margin thin his 2004 victory. I might just be lazy, but I can't find a president who got into office without the popular vote before except for Bush in 2000.

That's 10 elections, and he lands at #8 and #10 for vote win margin.

Here's the problem, our arguements are a difference in perception in why his approval rating is dropping. Right now, the GOP's approval rating is below 30%. The Republican party is NOT leading some type of intelegent debate on the subject that is winning over centrists. Obama from the gate was weak about pushing the public option out, its not like he's back peddaling, he never forced it through to begin with.

And he's compromising the biggest part of the bill that republicans are against... the public option. You consider that "Not playing ball"? I consider "Not playing ball" what the republicans are doing. Saying that they won't even talk with the dems unless there's no public option. Saying "I won't even have a discussion with you unless you do exactly what I want" is not playing ball.

And polititians in general are weak about making the healthcare insurance industry have competition because they fund their campaigns. The reason there's all this talk saying "Dems don't have enough votes in the senate to pass the public option" is because Dems won't vote against the people who funded their campaigns (Nor will republicans).

I'll leave it at this though, we'll see what happens in 2010, and 2012. We'll really see if those approval rating numbers are really dropping because of people who would actually vote against him.

I believe the healthcare debate is hurting him more with his base due to false promises. You belive its hurting him more with centrests because of how he's reacting to it. That's our fundamental disagreement.. I'm right if Dems manage to get more seats in the house/senate and Obama gets a second term. You're right if Dems lose a lot of seats and Obama is finished after 4 years.

We'll see... and you can feel free to bring this thread back up when the time comes.

I just don't think its accurate to say he's losing some type of arguement when his approval rating is still 30% higher then the GOP's.

Re: Obama to brainwash youths of America
 

Transcript: http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResou.../?source=email

Re: Obama to brainwash youths of America
 

and best quote from Digg:
"HOLY FUCK.... STAY IN SCHOOL? LISTEN TO YOUR PARENTS? THIS IS DICTATOR TALK!!!!"

Re: Obama to brainwash youths of America
 

That was a really good speech.

Re: Obama to brainwash youths of America
 

And I wasn't responding just to you. There are other voices in this conversation than yours.

Ok, if you want to ignore the point and dismiss is s "loser talk", then we'll drop the subject. I can only argue facts, not derisive statements.

No, not at all.:mischief: If you don't want to recognize our own statements for what they are, or the fact ou continually try and put words in people's mouths and restat their arguments to your liking (a bad habit of yours), I can't continue with the discussion. I consider the point closed.

Now you're confusing the argument. No one mentioned 2000 in this entire discussion. We're discusing the reaction that people have to policy and why President Obama and the dems are frozen right now. The reason why Bush felt vindicated and felt empowered was his victory in 2004, as he looked at it as approval from the American people. I think it's safe to say that the dems and President Obama aren't feeling that confident about the American people's opinion of their policies, and therefore they are still trying to convince people. The 2000 election has nothing to do with this argument.

Quite frankly, President Bush doesn't either, but I let people sucker me into the conversation, changing the point from where it should be.

I won't be entertaining argument about Bush in the thread any longer, as it's off topic. Continue if you want to, but I see no reason to respond.

I never really said they were. You're the one that said they were strong, I said they were weak. Lets focus here, and keep our conversation to one restatement of opinion at a time.

I said Obama is losing the argument. The argument isn't necessarily one party to another, its a discussion amongst the American people. The American people can smell a rotten egg for what it is. By the way, I doubt conservatives/republicans would give the Republican party above a 30% approval right now. They have no leader, and their message is pretty much fractured into Social Conservative vs. Fiscal Conservative.

This actually makes Obama's failure to this point all the more telling.

No argument here. He likes to let the Congress do the dirty work for him, that way he never has to stamp his name on policy that might be deemed as unpopular or fails to get passed, and therefore avoids accountability which will be in his advantage for the future election. It;s called being "teflon". Nothing sticks to him. The problem is, the Congress is failing to make his argument for him, putting President Obama in a difficult situation.

This week's speech will be telling. If he actually lays down a specific agenda, the people's reaction will be far more telling and little guessing will need to be done by either of us as to who was more accurate.

No, I don't consider it playing ball at all. I consider actually entertaining ideas from the other side as playing ball. He and the dems refuse to do so. I mentioned specific items, with no response or really acknowledgement from the dems at all.

Not only that, but for all the bluster about being flexible on the public option, I have yet to see a bill without one, or without government run "non-profit co-ops", or more accurately... a public option.

I consider not entertaining any alernatives as not playing ball. And what you have in Congress is exactly what you see in our conversation: A stalemate with neither side budging because neither side reallt cares for their other's ideas or their version of compromise.

True, and thats the main reason why you'll never see tort reform from democrats, because of the money they get from lawyer groups to keep it from happening, just as many Republicans would never go for an option that would hurt Pharma.

Also, a lot of the dems that won in 2006 were "Blue Dogs" who ran on keeping spending down. The real problem is that no plan that has been devised, public option or not, has been deficit neutral. Instead, all accounts are it would blow it out of the water. Blue Dogs can't vote for that because it's against their entire campaign policy and they'll quickly lose their next election because they represent traditionally Republican areas.

And we're back to representatives not wanting to lose elections.

Well, this story is not over. Opinion polls are fickle. Lets see how far the dems are willing to take this. I can only make judgements based on whats going on right now. All this can change in a week or a year. Just because President Obama is failing now, doesn't mean he always will. Right now? It looks pretty bad and we're seeing that reflected in politial hesitancy and continued messages to the public instead of action. If the opinion tides change, you'll see action pretty quickly, IMO.

I think you're being a little rediculous in those terms for validation. Like I said, things can change, but with whats going on RIGHT NOW, I can't see how anyone can think it's President Obama's progressive base that is the main force hurting his poll numbers and pushing dissent.

I leave this conversation repeating the same challenge Ive repeated several times in this thread, and that you've largely ignored (the campaign funds argument is not legitimate as the dems don't get much money from orgs that are against the policies currently derailed): IF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S AND THE DEMS DIFFICULTIES ARE WITH THEIR PROGRESSIVE BASE, WHY WOULDN'T THEY PUSH THROUGH A PROGRESSIVE AGENDA?

Re: Obama to brainwash youths of America
 

From all accounts I'm sure it was... but then again the objections to the speech were never really with the speech itself, but everything surrounding it.

Once again, this was not that big of a deal, but I'm glad that they made the changes that they did regarding the essay and such. Hopefully it will keep a lot of these "Obama's a NAZI" overreactions to a minimum and people can return to arguments based on real policy.

EDIT: KG, thanks for posting it. It was a very good speech indeed.

Re: Obama to brainwash youths of America
 

We can just stop talking about Bush. He's irrelevant now, and was not a good example for you to use. And with that, I'll reply to your point again.

Because he wants to hold onto the center.

Shocking answer huh? :)

I don't disagree with you when you say the center is important. I disagree when you say that the center is the main cause the drop in his approval rating.

The reason he won't push through a progressive agenda, on the healthcare front, is because democrats won't sign onto it. Democrats won't sign onto it because they get paid by the healthcare insurers.

People in the Center see that Obama is not forcing anything, and is open to discussion about healthcare reform. That's what wins over center votes, being open minded and using caution before making any major changes (even with having a majority that can't be stopped). People on the left, however, have a reason to be upset about Obama not being strong and pushing things through, which is why on those polls he was greeted with a negative reaction by them.

The reason Obama is staying consistant, and staying open to ideas from the conservatives (Even if you think its just an illusion).. Is because he still has support from the center when he works in this fashon. Just because he's losing progressive support when it comes to his approval rating, doesn't mean that they're going to suddenly vote for someone else.

That's why I say the actual elections will be what matters most. If the centrists are really put off by Obama, then its going to hurt the whole party and he's not going to have much of a chance of winning. If the left is put off by Obama, then its not going to affect things much.

Re: Obama to brainwash youths of America
 

Thank you.