Obama to brainwash youths of America

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

"One" doesn't and can't. One person can influence a society, but change cannot be imposed open an unwilling populace.

Tell that to President Bush about Iraq! Oh, wait, too late.

*Cue flaming*

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by manasecret

Tell that to President Bush about Iraq! Oh, wait, too late.

*Cue flaming*

Actually, in hindsight I'd have to agree with this statement. I think the cultural challenges associated with winning the "hearts and minds" were greatly underestimated when it came to Iraq, reflecting our natural predisposition to assume other cultures share similar values. Now it looks like it's going to actually pan out (Afghanistan, not so much), but still Iraq tends to show this as a rule and not an exception to it.

And Teuth, that Jesus camp was not run or endorsed by Bush's adminsitration nor did it take place in public schools, and the Rep leader in Florida is not the President and leader of the free world, but this is besides the point. If a Republican president were to try to endorse himself through our schools, I'd be just as uncomfortable, and uncomfortable is all I am with this. It's a minor issue, but what I find funny is that it should never have been an issue at all because it never should have happened in the first place

Overall, I'm more of an active observer watching this Presidency continually make the wrong moves at the wrong time, and unknowingly helping to foment the entire "movement" that seems to be building against him, with utterly no understanding of how it's happening. So in not understanding, they dismiss it as simply political wrangling, and get themselves in even hotter water.

This is obliviousness at it's very worst, and by worst I mean best . All jokes aside, our country has never been more fractured as I believe the two sides in conflict genuinely have no common ground whatsoever, and they genuinely have contempt for one another. This President was supposed to bring us together, but I think it's pretty obvious that his approach to law making and communicating in general has done the exact opposite. He is the leader oif our country, and in the end this is his failure, regardless of whether or not you feel there are "forces" working against him.

[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 was going to argue with Prof, since I disagree with the last part of what Jonbo and Prof said.. How quickly we forget how bush would get democrats to vote with him be just acting like its an emergency.

I just want to say, though, that the democratic party is beyond weak. When the republicans had even a slight advangage in the house and senate under Bush, Democrats bowed their heads and reached out to try to help the republicans even though the republican representatives were not even trying to reach out to or mold any type of policy around anything any democrat would want.

And now that democrats can pass things without even having ONE vote from a republican representative.. they still act weak and try to reach out to get their approval even though its not needed. All the republicans are doing is trying to water down things like healthcare reform as much as possible, and when time comes to vote on it, they will still vote against it.

It really had boiled down to voting for the lesser of two evils when it comes to politics these days. Nothing Obama has actually done in his time as president can even be called 'progressive'. Hell I'd call him a conservative before I'd call him a radical any day, because he's actually not pushing for any real change. The only thing he's done well is handle forgien policy and help clean up the countries reputation with the rest of the world.

As Jonbo pointed out Media plays both sides of the story, and are not really in pursuit of the truth anymore. For example, If Sarah Palin complains about death panels being in the health care reform bill, then its just played as news... without people stepping in and saying its inaccurate. They're just like 'Democrats say there's no death pannels, some of these random people say there are death pannels.. ok on to the next story'... seriously?

I can't even watch mainstream media anymore these days without feeling ill.

[KillerGremlin]

Obama really seems like he needs to validate his approval...Bill Maher said it best. He said if Obama wants to really get things done he needs to just go ahead, kind of like Bush. Bush's whole thing was, "Well...see, I don't really care if you disagree with me about the war in Iraq, because, you see, I am right. And I don't care what you think. I'm the President of the United States, bitches!" If Obama was less concerned about TV appearances and appealing to people and more concerned about getting his shit done...then I think he could get stuff done. Like Bill Maher said, 60% of Americans don't believe in Evolution. Why would you try to validate yourself amongst a country full of dumbasses. /not a huge Bill Maher fan but he makes me smile

Interview Part 1: http://www.hulu.com/watch/91684/the-...l-maher-part-1
Interview Part 2: http://www.hulu.com/watch/91683/the-...l-maher-part-2

Now I don't know if I necessarily agree with going ahead and doing whatever you want. But I do think in order to do things you need to offend some people. This is how the real world works. There is no such thing as making 100% of everyone happy, so sometimes you need to do what you think is best and hope for the best. And things like education give people more credibility than some people with no education. My point is....even in a Democracy, someone is going to be pissed.

I agree with Prof S though...this country is incredibly divided right now, and that is not a good thing. Civil War part 2 anyone?

[KillerGremlin]

Bill Maher's quote I like:

"This is where the President needs to be a little more like Bush. Bush had horrible ideas: torture, deregulation, massive tax cuts for the rich, preemptive war: horrible ideas. But you know what he had that swagger that said, "I'm just gonna get it through, suck on it America if you don't like it." Obama he needs to marry his good ideas with that kind of attitude.

[Professor S]

I think we're forgetting the will of the American people in all of this blaming of media, politics, etc.

The fact is more people are for tax cuts than they are for public health programs.

The fact is more people supported the Iraq war when it happened and the Patriot Act than believe in global warming (Cap and Trade).

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.

Bush's policies got approved because he was convincing in his arguments, for whatever reason you wish to attach. This isn't a statement of personal approval, it's a observation of fact.

The fact is that if Obama forced through policies with the amount of opposition he faces now, he would be rode out of office on a rail in 2012 (with possibly and attempt on his life before that, sadly), and the Dems would suffer a election holocaust in 2010, and all this work they're trying to do would be gleefully erased within 2 years. Obama isn't a wimp, he's pragmatic and he understands what he can and can't get away with if he wants to achieve his goals and make them stick.

President Obama needs to convince the American people that his ideas are the right ones. To date, he hasn't been able to do so, and that is a failure of leadership.

[Vampyr]

People are also sadly misinformed a lot. The general populace is basing their opinions on public health care on a lot of false information - and also their desire to "not pay for someone else." They may be in the majority, but the majority shouldn't always rule. Our government is actually, though you may not notice at first, set up to make sure that doesn't always happen. What the majority wants is important, but sometimes they are wrong.

For example...people supporting the Iraq war. That is another case where they were misinformed - just like other people have already pointed out.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

The fact is more people are for tax cuts than they are for public health programs.

And thats exactly why the last elections turned out the way they did right?

The fact is more people supported the Iraq war when it happened and the Patriot Act than believe in global warming (Cap and Trade).

I agree, but its hard for the american people not to support something that was justified with so many lies.

The fact is Bush did what he did, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, and got reelected handily in 2004.

Won handily? Last I checked a lot of people thought Kerry should have won with the whole fiasco in florida. Obama won by a much larger margin then Bush ever did.

Bush's policies got approved because he was convincing in his arguments, for whatever reason you wish to attach. This isn't a statement of personal approval, it's a observation of fact.

In my opinion, Bush's policies won because Democrats are weak and bow their heads to republicans whenever they get a chance. They're even too weak to use the advantage they now have in Washignton.

Obama's policies are not being approved because republicans are not weak and will not bow their heads to a liberal. And because democrats are too weak to use the power they have now dispite republican's opinions on the matter.

The fact is that if Obama forced through policies with the amount of opposition he faces now, he would be rode out of office on a rail in 2012 (with possibly and attempt on his life before that, sadly), and the Dems would suffer a election holocaust in 2010, and all this work they're trying to do would be gleefully erased within 2 years. Obama isn't a wimp, he's pragmatic and he understands what he can and can't get away with if he wants to achieve his goals and make them stick.

What policies did Obama force through? How much has Obama really changed in the last 8 months? And as much as progressives don't agree of how he's handling things now, do you really think they'd sink low enough to vote for republicans? Why?

President Obama needs to convince the American people that his ideas are the right ones. To date, he hasn't been able to do so.

Agreed, though I don't think its ideas that's hurting him. Its his lack of action that's hurting him worse with his base.

[KillerGremlin]

Bush had confidence. Confidence is an important part of winning people over if you are a public speaker. I enjoyed listening to Bush's speeches; underrated, IMO.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Bush had confidence. Confidence is an important part of winning people over if you are a public speaker. I enjoyed listening to Bush's speeches; underrated, IMO.

Bush's speeches made me feel uncomfortable. Its like watching a bad comedian.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

And thats exactly why the last elections turned out the way they did right?

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.

I agree, but its hard for the american people not to support something that was justified with so many lies.

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.

Won handily? Last I checked a lot of people thought Kerry should have won with the whole fiasco in florida. Obama won by a much larger margin then Bush ever did.

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.

In my opinion, Bush's policies won because Democrats are weak and bow their heads to republicans whenever they get a chance. They're even too weak to use the advantage they now have in Washignton.

I disagree completely. They aren't acting because they like their jobs and don't want to lose them.

Obama's policies are not being approved because republicans are not weak and will not bow their heads to a liberal. And because democrats are too weak to use the power they have now dispite republican's opinions on the matter.

This is the weakest the Republicans have been since Nixon. If the dems can't win now... maybe there are other reasons... like Americans think they have genuinely bad ideas...

What policies did Obama force through?

None. I never said he did. I was responding those who posted saying that he should.

How much has Obama really changed in the last 8 months? And as much as progressives don't agree of how he's handling things now, do you really think they'd sink low enough to vote for republicans? Why?

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.

Agreed, though I don't think its ideas that's hurting him. Its his lack of action that's hurting him worse with his base.

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.

[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.