Obama to brainwash youths of America

[Angrist]

Haha, I always love seeing the culture differences between America and Europe. When's the last time we cared what our prime minister said? We only like to chuckle about him because he looks like an adult Harry Potter.



Also another interesting thing I noticed... American presidents always tell people to pray when something bad happened (Colombine shootings etc.). If our political leaders told people to pray, I think they would get sued or something.
So why is there a huge discussion on whether evolution should be taught in schools, and whether the president can encourage kids to go to school.. but not about whether the president can ask people to pray?

[Teuthida]

Brainwashing:


I have to assume these are the sort of folks that are against Obama talking to their kids. No matter what he does they'll be against it. Which really makes the whole argument null.......and very very scary.

[Jonbo298]

The Internet has made such a huge difference now even compared to 4/8 years ago when Bush was around. Cable news takes anything and everything and throws it at us regardless if factual or not. Hell, with the supposed amount of disdain for Obama, it surely must be making Bush look like a saint. He certainly never screwed up, did he?

Politics as they have evolved since 2000 (and before also but not as heavily as now) from my perspective is on a slippery slope to pushing the country to collapse. Between politicians in bed with every industry (with great results on our economy eh?), so much bias that it seems like nothing is ever achieved for the greater, to denouncing our President for telling kids to stay in school? Grow up.

I'm not advocating 100% equality on everything because its impossible. But once party lines are so divided that when any bill is started, if a Republican(s) is sponsoring it, Democrats are totally against it. If a Democrat(s) sponsor it, Republicans are against it by default. Think outside the box and not just based on your party affiliation. Who knows, maybe all this political divide will cause new parties to actually get some room on the stage. Though then begins the inevitable cycle that a new party once in power just becomes divided again it seems.

[TheGame]

I'll completely agree with you there, and thats because at that point he had lost the argument (and stopped caring, IMO). But in 2004 he won that argument and that was my point. Bush swayed the will of the American people, and that is what Obama has failed in doing.

Hardly.

There is no proof, ZERO, that anyone lied. There is a ton of here-say and logical leaps based on truth that have no real connections, but no real evidence. Misinformed? Incorrect? Negligent, even? Sure. But the rest of the world was misinformed as well. To claim that Bush "lied" is an opinion with little to support it. I'll end my debate on Iraq there, as it's ludicrous to rehash it at this point.

There is plenty of proof that Bush is a liar, you just refuse to acknowlege it. He even lied about where he was on the morning of 9-11. And the reasons for the war were misleading. The rest of the world belived America because America was trustworthy at that point, but now we're not trustworthy.

You're wrong on two counts. 1) It was Ohio not Florida that was in contention in 2004 and 2) When Bush won in 2004 it was close in electoral votes, but at the time he won by the largest margin of actual votes in history. Obama did break that record, I believe.

You're right about Ohio, I got the 2000 and 2004 elections confused. However you're wrong about bush winning by the largest amount of actual votes in history. He won my 3 million votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2004

Regan won by 7.5 million votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1980

Obama won by 10 million votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2008

Clinton won by 7 million in 96, and by 5 million in 92, old bush won by 6 million in 1988, Regan won by 15 million in 84... I could go on and on.

Bush wasn't as loved as you might think he was. For a guy who served 8 years, he BARELY got approved for his office. His two terms margin combined is lower then anyone in the last 2 decades. Jimmy Carter is the only president Bush is compareable to.

You really think progressives are the ones who got him elected? Progressives will generally vote for whoever is in a democrat suit, just as conservatives will generally vote for whoever is in a Republican suit. Its the center that wins elections.

I think progressives are the ones who are hurting his approval rating now. When election time rolls around he's still going to get their votes, however.

His base didn't get him elected, and his base isn't what has him in trouble now. What he's losing is the center, who voted for hope and change without really knowing what that meant, and now that they're seeing it in action, and argued terribly at that, they've retreated. If there was any kind of real leader on the Republican side, he'd be in even worse trouble.

I guess this is a half empty and half full glass type issue. The people who voted for "Hope and Change" voted for it, because they wanted it. And they're not getting it outside of forgien policy.. so they don't approve of him. That's the way I see it.

[Vampyr]

I think the people who don't approve of him because of change not happening fast enough don't realize how long and slow the legislative process is. He has been an extremely active President - he's pushing things as much as he can.

And reality has a well known liberal bias. We can look back through history and see that, in every circumstance, liberals have gotten their way in the end. It will happen again. I believe that society in general has always been a slope towards being liberal - it just takes time. For some reason there are always conservatives who can't understand that they have been and always will be wrong.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I think the people who don't approve of him because of change not happening fast enough don't realize how long and slow the legislative process is. He has been an extremely active President - he's pushing things as much as he can.

And reality has a well known liberal bias. We can look back through history and see that, in every circumstance, liberals have gotten their way in the end. It will happen again. I believe that society in general has always been a slope towards being liberal - it just takes time. For some reason there are always conservatives who can't understand that they have been and always will be wrong.

Well I look at it like this.. A big thing Obama ran on is blaming the president for how the economy is now. In all reality, it hasn't been enough time for everything to recover, but people want results now. They see that they're still unemployed, the stock market is still hardly worth gambling in, and Obama himself has been center-right on social issues and refuses to really ignore the republicans and push for the agenda they voted for.

So the longer the economy stays bad, the less people will approve of him. But I really can't picture the republicans offering up someone who can beat Obama, because that party in general has too many issues right now.

The Republican party's approval rating, last I heard.. is the lowest it has been in 25 years.

[Vampyr]

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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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.

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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Hardly.

Explain.

There is plenty of proof that Bush is a liar, you just refuse to acknowlege it. He even lied about where he was on the morning of 9-11. And the reasons for the war were misleading. The rest of the world belived America because America was trustworthy at that point, but now we're not trustworthy.

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?

You're right about Ohio, I got the 2000 and 2004 elections confused. However you're wrong about bush winning by the largest amount of actual votes in history. He won my 3 million votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2004

Regan won by 7.5 million votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1980

Obama won by 10 million votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2008

Clinton won by 7 million in 96, and by 5 million in 92, old bush won by 6 million in 1988, Regan won by 15 million in 84... I could go on and on.

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.

Bush wasn't as loved as you might think he was. For a guy who served 8 years, he BARELY got approved for his office. His two terms margin combined is lower then anyone in the last 2 decades. Jimmy Carter is the only president Bush is compareable to.

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.

I think progressives are the ones who are hurting his approval rating now. When election time rolls around he's still going to get their votes, however.

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.

[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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.

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!

Mostly because the other political parties and independants were completely 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 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.

I never said that you said he was the most loved.

No, you said:

Bush wasn't as loved as you might think he was.

Close enough?

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

Exactly, Bush won the argument.

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 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.

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..

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

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.

...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.

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.

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 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.

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.

[TheGame]

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.

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

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.

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

"I never said that you said he was the most loved. "

No, you said:

"Bush wasn't as loved as you might think he was. "

Close enough?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.

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

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Bond

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

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.

[Bond]

I know I am late, but just wanted to add my two cents:

The President giving a speech on education to students shouldn't be a partisan issue, it should be a patriotic issue. Perhaps if the speech were on the liberal perspective of abortion or health care reform that would be inappropriate. But, if the speech is on the tenants of studying hard and receiving a solid education, there should be no issue.

It's really a question of why this is even an issue at all? My answer would be the deteriorating respect for the office of the Presidency, beginning with Bush. "He's not my President!" Etc. Etc.