Obama to brainwash youths of America

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[KillerGremlin]

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

Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama
Back to School Event

Arlington, Virginia
September 8, 2009

The President: Hello everyone – how’s everybody doing today? I’m here with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. And we’ve got students tuning in from all across America, kindergarten through twelfth grade. I’m glad you all could join us today.

I know that for many of you, today is the first day of school. And for those of you in kindergarten, or starting middle or high school, it’s your first day in a new school, so it’s understandable if you’re a little nervous. I imagine there are some seniors out there who are feeling pretty good right now, with just one more year to go. And no matter what grade you’re in, some of you are probably wishing it were still summer, and you could’ve stayed in bed just a little longer this morning.

I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn’t have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday – at 4:30 in the morning.
Now I wasn’t too happy about getting up that early. A lot of times, I’d fall asleep right there at the kitchen table. But whenever I’d complain, my mother would just give me one of those looks and say, "This is no picnic for me either, buster."

So I know some of you are still adjusting to being back at school. But I’m here today because I have something important to discuss with you. I’m here because I want to talk with you about your education and what’s expected of all of you in this new school year.

Now I’ve given a lot of speeches about education. And I’ve talked a lot about responsibility.

I’ve talked about your teachers’ responsibility for inspiring you, and pushing you to learn.

I’ve talked about your parents’ responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox.

I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren’t working where students aren’t getting the opportunities they deserve.

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.

And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.

Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide.

Maybe you could be a good writer – maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper – but you might not know it until you write a paper for your English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor – maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine – but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.

And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.

And this isn’t just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.

You’ll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You’ll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy.

We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country.

Now I know it’s not always easy to do well in school. I know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork.

I get it. I know what that’s like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn’t fit in.

So I wasn’t always as focused as I should have been. I did some things I’m not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse.

But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams. My wife, our First Lady Michelle Obama, has a similar story. Neither of her parents had gone to college, and they didn’t have much. But they worked hard, and she worked hard, so that she could go to the best schools in this country.

Some of you might not have those advantages. Maybe you don’t have adults in your life who give you the support that you need. Maybe someone in your family has lost their job, and there’s not enough money to go around. Maybe you live in a neighborhood where you don’t feel safe, or have friends who are pressuring you to do things you know aren’t right.

But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse for not trying.

Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.

That’s what young people like you are doing every day, all across America.

Young people like Jazmin Perez, from Roma, Texas. Jazmin didn’t speak English when she first started school. Hardly anyone in her hometown went to college, and neither of her parents had gone either. But she worked hard, earned good grades, got a scholarship to Brown University, and is now in graduate school, studying public health, on her way to being Dr. Jazmin Perez.

I’m thinking about Andoni Schultz, from Los Altos, California, who’s fought brain cancer since he was three. He’s endured all sorts of treatments and surgeries, one of which affected his memory, so it took him much longer – hundreds of extra hours – to do his schoolwork. But he never fell behind, and he’s headed to college this fall.

And then there’s Shantell Steve, from my hometown of Chicago, Illinois. Even when bouncing from foster home to foster home in the toughest neighborhoods, she managed to get a job at a local health center; start a program to keep young people out of gangs; and she’s on track to graduate high school with honors and go on to college.

Jazmin, Andoni and Shantell aren’t any different from any of you. They faced challenges in their lives just like you do. But they refused to give up. They chose to take responsibility for their education and set goals for themselves. And I expect all of you to do the same.

That’s why today, I’m calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education – and to do everything you can to meet them. Your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework, paying attention in class, or spending time each day reading a book. Maybe you’ll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity, or volunteer in your community. Maybe you’ll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look, because you believe, like I do, that all kids deserve a safe environment to study and learn. Maybe you’ll decide to take better care of yourself so you can be more ready to learn. And along those lines, I hope you’ll all wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don’t feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter.

Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it.

I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work -- that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things.

But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won’t love every subject you study. You won’t click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.

That’s OK. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who’ve had the most failures. JK Rowling’s first Harry Potter book was rejected twelve times before it was finally published. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, and he lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during his career. But he once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."

These people succeeded because they understand that you can’t let your failures define you – you have to let them teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently next time. If you get in trouble, that doesn’t mean you’re a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to behave. If you get a bad grade, that doesn’t mean you’re stupid, it just means you need to spend more time studying.

No one’s born being good at things, you become good at things through hard work. You’re not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. You don’t hit every note the first time you sing a song. You’ve got to practice. It’s the same with your schoolwork. You might have to do a math problem a few times before you get it right, or read something a few times before you understand it, or do a few drafts of a paper before it’s good enough to hand in.

Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Don’t be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day. Asking for help isn’t a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of strength. It shows you have the courage to admit when you don’t know something, and to learn something new. So find an adult you trust – a parent, grandparent or teacher; a coach or counselor – and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals.

And even when you’re struggling, even when you’re discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you – don’t ever give up on yourself. Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.

The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things got tough. It’s about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best.

It’s the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and found this nation. Students who sat where you sit 75 years ago who overcame a Depression and won a world war; who fought for civil rights and put a man on the moon. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google, Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other.
So today, I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?


Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.

[KillerGremlin]

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

[TheGame]

That was a really good speech.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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

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

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

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 its not close.

No, not at all. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And he's compromising the biggest part of the bill that republicans are against... the public option. You consider that "Not playing ball"?

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 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

That was a really good speech.

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.

[TheGame]

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.

IF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S AND THE DEMS DIFFICULTIES ARE WITH THEIR PROGRESSIVE BASE, WHY WOULDN'T THEY PUSH THROUGH A PROGRESSIVE AGENDA?

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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Because he wants to hold onto the center.

Thank you.