[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.