Is Obama dividing America even more?

People bitched all the time how Bush divided America while he was president. Lord Obama said during his campaign how bad and evil Bush was and how divided America was under Bush. I think Obama is dividing America even more than it ever was under Bush. And no I don't hate Obama. I also don't think he's the anti-Christ either. I just believe that he's a mere human like the rest of us. I bring the question up because with that report about right wing extremism on the rise, it's logical to say that America is becoming more divided. I thought Obama was going to bring people together with his cool and hip political views and ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FiveThirtyEight.com

These are highly partisan times in America. "Bipartisanship" (or, in the Obama nomenclature, "post-partisanship") makes for a catchy campaign slogan, but is difficult to execute upon in practice. The White House's aspirations (or pretense) of running a bipartisan administration died a quick and ugly death with two events: firstly, the House Republicans' decision to whip votes against Obama's stimulus package so as to produce a unanimous nay vote, and secondly, the Administration's decision to try and kneecap Rush Limbaugh.

Nonetheless, measurements of the partisan split in support for the President, as Pew Research has done here (they found a record partisan split in Obama's approval ratings, with 88 percent of Democrats but just 27 percent of Republicans approving of Obama's performance) are not quite as straightforward as they might seem. This is because partisan identification is at least somewhat fluid. The Republicans, in particular, have lost quite a bit of support over the past several years; those persons who continue to identify as Republicans are a hardened -- and very conservative -- lot. Just 24 percent of voters identified as Republican when Pew conducted this survey in March, which is roughly as low as that total has ever gotten.

We see some evidence of these effects in the comparison of Obama's numbers to those of George W. Bush's at a comparable point in his presidency. Obama and Bush had roughly the same level of support among members of their own party (88 percent for Obama, 87 percent for Bush) and roughly the same level of support among unaffiliated voters (57 percent for Obama, 56 for Bush). Bush, however, had more support from the opposition party (36 percent of Democrats versus 27 percent of Republicans). And yet Obama, not Bush, had the higher overall approval rating, because Democrats are a significantly larger constituency than Republicans.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1178-1.gif

A more telling measure might be to see a breakdown in support by voters who identify themselves as conservative, moderate or liberal. These categories are somewhat fluid too -- but less so than partisan ID.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

People bitched all the time how Bush divided America while he was president. Lord Obama said during his campaign how bad and evil Bush was and how divided America was under Bush. I think Obama is dividing America even more than it ever was under Bush. And no I don't hate Obama. I also don't think he's the anti-Christ either. I just believe that he's a mere human like the rest of us. I bring the question up because with that report about right wing extremism on the rise, it's logical to say that America is becoming more divided. I thought Obama was going to bring people together with his cool and hip political views and ideas.

---

He did.

Just not you.

Obama has made America more polarized than it ever was under Bush. Approval ratings mean nothing. If they meant something, Bush would have committed suicide while in office. I'm just saying that Obama hasn't done shit as president. That's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

Obama has made America more polarized than it ever was under Bush.

---

:lmao

Quote:

---

Approval ratings mean nothing.

---

When you don't approve of them.

Quote:

---

If they meant something, Bush would have committed suicide while in office.

---

I'm pretty sure he considers that a sin.

Quote:

---

I'm just saying that Obama hasn't done shit as president. That's all.

---

So why are you guys having tea parties and shitting your pants all the time?

I didn't have a tea party or attend one. So are you going to tell me that Obama has united America? Seriously, name one thing that Obama has done that has been for the good of the country? Name one thing. The guy promised change. What change? The guy promised a monumental amount of shit and he hasn't delivered on any of it. I know that presidential candidates lie and say whatever to get elected but Obama promised a ridiculous amount of things to get elected. I will just be glad when all Americans open up their eyes and see that Obama is not a god and that he's just a mere mortal like the rest of us. I know people that seriously thought that things in America were going to get better ASPA when Obama got elected. The economy and unemployment rate have both gotten worse since Obama's been in the White House and don't pull that shit of blaming it on Bush cause Bush ain't president anymore. Obama is president right now. It's on his plate. Obama wanted to be president so he's gotta take the good with the bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

I didn't have a tea party or attend one. So are you going to tell me that Obama has united America? Seriously, name one thing that Obama has done that has been for the good of the country? Name one thing. The guy promised change. What change? The guy promised a monumental amount of shit and he hasn't delivered on any of it. I know that presidential candidates lie and say whatever to get elected but Obama promised a ridiculous amount of things to get elected. I will just be glad when all Americans open up their eyes and see that Obama is not a god and that he's just a mere mortal like the rest of us. I know people that seriously thought that things in America were going to get better ASPA when Obama got elected. The economy and unemployment rate have both gotten worse since Obama's been in the White House and don't pull that shit of blaming it on Bush cause Bush ain't president anymore. Obama is president right now. It's on his plate. Obama wanted to be president so he's gotta take the good with the bad.

---

I think drawing conclusions about a presidency less than three months in is extremely stupid. :toast

People did the same thing under Bush. If you can criticize Bush for fucking up, then you can criticize Obama for fucking up. Obama isn't immune to criticism just because of his skin color.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

People did the same thing under Bush.

---

I gave him over two years, and his fuckup was the most egregious in my lifetime, up there with Watergate.

Quote:

---

If you can criticize Bush for fucking up, then you can criticize Obama for fucking up.

---

You said he didn't do anything.

Quote:

---

Obama isn't immune to criticism just because of his skin color.

---

I, however, am immune to straw men.

Well duh
he's black

Jacob brings up his race enough completely out of the blue.

Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

Obama has made America more polarized than it ever was under Bush. Approval ratings mean nothing. If they meant something, Bush would have committed suicide while in office. I'm just saying that Obama hasn't done shit as president. That's all.

---

so you started this thread already knowing the answer to your question...I say fuck off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

Obama has made America more polarized than it ever was under Bush. Approval ratings mean nothing. If they meant something, Bush would have committed suicide while in office. I'm just saying that Obama hasn't done shit as president. That's all.

---

What the fuck is your point? Is it that he's dividing America? Or that he hasn't done anything since in office? Or that he gets away with things because he's black? Please, pick a topic and stick with it instead of meandering when you can't back it up.

There will ALWAYS be those who oppose the sitting president and his policies. That will never change for if that were the case the president would have a 100% approval rating and that simply isn't going to happen. Sean insHannity and Rush Limpballs and FoxNews WANT the country divided and that is why they are always bashing Obama's every move and they sure are not helping to "unite" this country by their constant right-wing rhetoric and by pushing and promoting the tea parties is just another indication that they want to create as much havoc as possible to make Obama look bad. That is just a fact.
So while I never had any expectations that the USA would automatically become ONE nation totally behind him I wasn't expecting this much hate from the right.
Okay the other networks are biased too but just watch FoxNews like I am right now and there hasn't been one, not one positive story about Obama. Not one.

Radicals tend to divide.

Regardless of which side they represent.

The good stuff hasn't even entered the fire yet. More fun is yet to come :lol

You can't bullshit Natural Law forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

I didn't have a tea party or attend one. So are you going to tell me that Obama has united America? Seriously, name one thing that Obama has done that has been for the good of the country? Name one thing. The guy promised change. What change? The guy promised a monumental amount of shit and he hasn't delivered on any of it. I know that presidential candidates lie and say whatever to get elected but Obama promised a ridiculous amount of things to get elected. I will just be glad when all Americans open up their eyes and see that Obama is not a god and that he's just a mere mortal like the rest of us. I know people that seriously thought that things in America were going to get better ASPA when Obama got elected. The economy and unemployment rate have both gotten worse since Obama's been in the White House and don't pull that shit of blaming it on Bush cause Bush ain't president anymore. Obama is president right now. It's on his plate. Obama wanted to be president so he's gotta take the good with the bad.

---

We have the minority party acting as if they won the election. They are catering to the far right nuts. Obama won a mandate to push through his legislation (just as Bush did in 04) like it or not. Obama has the right to pursure his agenda so to say he is dividing America is stupid. Right wingers will never like or support him, is that his fault?


Karl Rove's strategy from day one was to govern to the 51% conservative majority. So you look really stupid for trying to claim this is an Obama issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

People did the same thing under Bush. If you can criticize Bush for fucking up, then you can criticize Obama for fucking up. Obama isn't immune to criticism just because of his skin color.

---

It would shock me if you were over 15 years old.

Bush's approval rating in October of 2001: 92%.

You're wrong. Shut up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

People did the same thing under Bush. If you can criticize Bush for fucking up, then you can criticize Obama for fucking up. Obama isn't immune to criticism just because of his skin color.

---

BUsh divided America by starting an unecessary war. Right wingers attacked Obama on day one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

BUsh divided America by starting an unecessary war. Right wingers attacked Obama on day one.

---

I concur. Saying you want a president to fail on day one is no way to unite this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

BUsh divided America by starting an unecessary war. Right wingers attacked Obama on day one.

---

Lest we forget, a LARGE number of Democrats gave approval for that unnecessary war and also said Saddam had WMD.

I don't have to break out the quotes, do I?

I guess in politics, it's good to have a short memory.


As to the OP, I don't really think Obama, the man, is dividing America, but, perhaps, his policies are. I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not crazy about the direction I see the country headed. I'm especially worried about what will happen when they start taxing that hazardous gas, CO2 -- you know, the one, without which, there would be no life on Earth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Lest we forget, a LARGE number of Democrats gave approval for that unnecessary war and also said Saddam had WMD.

I don't have to break out the quotes, do I?

I guess in politics, it's good to have a short memory.


As to the OP, I don't really think Obama, the man, is dividing America, but, perhaps, his policies are. I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not crazy about the direction I see the country headed. I'm especially worried about what will happen when they start taxing that hazardous gas, CO2 -- you know, the one, without which, there would be no life on Earth?

---

I, like the majority of this country, supported Bush's Iraq ar because we were told they were an imminent threat. They had mobile bio labs. Rummy told us we knew where the wmds were, around Tikrit he said. Condi told us that we could see a mushroom cloud from all f Saddam's wmds.... S yeah he lost me when most of the stuff to justify the war was bull shit. My intial thought was it was too soon after 9/11 but Bush told us that we couldn't wait...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Lest we forget, a LARGE number of Democrats gave approval for that unnecessary war and also said Saddam had WMD.

I don't have to break out the quotes, do I?

I guess in politics, it's good to have a short memory.


As to the OP, I don't really think Obama, the man, is dividing America, but, perhaps, his policies are. I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not crazy about the direction I see the country headed. I'm especially worried about what will happen when they start taxing that hazardous gas, CO2 -- you know, the one, without which, there would be no life on Earth?

---

Also don't forget that many, democrats and republicans, were not told the truth and were sold the same story that the people were and that was that Saddam was responsible for 911 and WMD's ready to fire and that a mushroom cloud was inevitable...which it is but wasn't then...but that can be hashed and re-hashed to suit your own needs.
This country was headed down the wrong direction under the Bush administration and I don't think we will ever agree that it is depending upon who is in the White House and how you feel about the sitting president. I didn't expect all the republicans and conservatives to suddenly embrace a democrat as president but the total lack of an honest effort to give the guy a chance, while not shocking, did come quicker than I expected.
Hopefully things will change in the months and years to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

I, like the majority of this country, supported Bush's Iraq ar because we were told they were an imminent threat. They had mobile bio labs. Rummy told us we knew where the wmds were, around Tikrit he said. Condi told us that we could see a mushroom cloud from all f Saddam's wmds.... S yeah he lost me when most of the stuff to justify the war was bull shit. My intial thought was it was too soon after 9/11 but Bush told us that we couldn't wait...

---

So, when a Democrat says Iraq had WMD, they were just misinformed, but when someone from the Bush admin said Iraq had WMD, they were liars?

Ok, I see how this works.

I'll admit, we (the U.S.) have egg on our face for that whole debacle, but you can't blame only those with an (R.) after their name because of an intel failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

So, when a Democrat says Iraq had WMD, they were just misinformed, but when someone from the Bush admin said Iraq had WMD, they were liars?

Ok, I see how this works.

I'll admit, we (the U.S.) have egg on our face for that whole debacle, but you can't blame only those with an (R.) after their name because of an intel failure.

---

one question. Who gave the democrats the intel? Before you respond with what Clinton said in 98, I would hope that Bush was not relying on 3 yr old intel to go to war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

I didn't expect all the republicans and conservatives to suddenly embrace a democrat as president but the total lack of an honest effort to give the guy a chance, while not shocking, did come quicker than I expected. Hopefully things will change in the months and years to come.

---

Well, a few of his initial cabinet appointees and their tax problems were an embarrassment. There's also been a few diplomatic blunders.


I think more people would be behind him if he was trying to do so much so soon. People are only ready for change in small doses. All of this unprecedented spending during an economic downturn has people worried, and rightfully so, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

So, when a Democrat says Iraq had WMD, they were just misinformed, but when someone from the Bush admin said Iraq had WMD, they were liars?

Ok, I see how this works.

I'll admit, we (the U.S.) have egg on our face for that whole debacle, but you can't blame only those with an (R.) after their name because of an intel failure.

---

You think Iraq is the only reason Republicans have been collectively shitcanned by a sizable majority of Americans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

one question. Who gave the democrats the intel? Before you respond with what Clinton said in 98, I would hope that Bush was not relying on 3 yr old intel to go to war.

---

Bush and Cheney made it all up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PixelPusher

You think Iraq is the only reason Republicans have been collectively shitcanned by a sizable majority of Americans?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Bush and Cheney made it all up.

---

Or maybe they fudged it a bit. Why don't you accept that as a possibility?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Or maybe they fudged it a bit. Why don't you accept that as a possibility?

---

Doubt they fudged it. Do you have any idea what a massive conspiracy that would be? To falsify records that a country has nuclear weapons. Do you understand how many people would have to be involved on every single level, in the military, government, UN, private sector, etc. You liberals are crazy. Guess the Clinton Administration was in on it too.

Its a false hope for liberals to think that it was a conspiracy, and the fact that some of you push it speaks volumes of your lack of intellect. Im sure you are an American who enjoys living in this country, but the misguided, idealogical, anti-American in you would love for that conspiracy to be true wouldn't you............wouldn't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

People bitched all the time how Bush divided America while he was president. Lord Obama said during his campaign how bad and evil Bush was and how divided America was under Bush. I think Obama is dividing America even more than it ever was under Bush. And no I don't hate Obama. I also don't think he's the anti-Christ either. I just believe that he's a mere human like the rest of us. I bring the question up because with that report about right wing extremism on the rise, it's logical to say that America is becoming more divided. I thought Obama was going to bring people together with his cool and hip political views and ideas.

---

Who knows what's really going on? Perhaps the people who put this turtle on the post want him to divide america. I mean I wonder how much money Soros would stand to make on currency speculations during this economic crisis, as the Obama administrations has so often told us"a good crisis is a terrible thing to waste" Chaos can be quite profitable.

However this administrations heavy handed antics,and arrogance has begun to bring a large group of people together, many of whom have never been involved in politics.Most of these people have been to busy earning a living and raising families and have relinqushed power to the political class.People want to take back power to their own hands.It may be that the Obamanation will wind up bringing together the American nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

So, when a Democrat says Iraq had WMD, they were just misinformed, but when someone from the Bush admin said Iraq had WMD, they were liars?

Ok, I see how this works.

I'll admit, we (the U.S.) have egg on our face for that whole debacle, but you can't blame only those with an (R.) after their name because of an intel failure.

---

You can't blame only Republicans and thats a fact. You can give Republicans and the Bush administration the lionshare of the blame considering they were pushing for the war on 9/12/2001 and thats a well documented fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Well, a few of his initial cabinet appointees and their tax problems were an embarrassment. There's also been a few diplomatic blunders.


I think more people would be behind him if he was trying to do so much so soon. People are only ready for change in small doses. All of this unprecedented spending during an economic downturn has people worried, and rightfully so, IMO.

---

You know this is like complaining about the season the Lakers just had because they didn't win every single game. Obama's presidency is off to a great start especially when you consider the circumstances under which he took office.

What the fuck is with this Jacob1983 dumbass?

Complains about Obama not being the messiah? Check
Pulls out the ###### card? Check
Recession that is at least 5 years in the making is Obama's fault? Check

I have to give this ignorant slut the title of worst poster on this site... and it's not limited to the Political forum either. You should see his bullshit in the NBA forum. I don't know what the fuck they put in the water in Dallas.

That intel failure was orchestrated by Cheney. So in effect the only thing you can blame democrats for, and it's legit to do so, is trusting that they weren't being lied to. But if you're leveling those criticisms as a republican you're a dumbass.

When republicans say it, it's like, "fuck democrats, they trusted us when we lied to them."

according to wednesday's protests, there's about 300K white people that have divided themselves from the rest of the country. in the sense that those people hate having a black president, Obama is a polarizing figure. fortunately for us sane people, nobody gives a fuck about those people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GaryJohnston

Doubt they fudged it. Do you have any idea what a massive conspiracy that would be? To falsify records that a country has nuclear weapons. Do you understand how many people would have to be involved on every single level, in the military, government, UN, private sector, etc. You liberals are crazy. Guess the Clinton Administration was in on it too.

---

All it took was a couple of Bush appointees in the defense department charged by Rumsfeld to "reinterpret" intel that had previously been discredited by other agencies.

Quote:

---

Its a false hope for liberals to think that it was a conspiracy, and the fact that some of you push it speaks volumes of your lack of intellect. Im sure you are an American who enjoys living in this country, but the misguided, idealogical, anti-American in you would love for that conspiracy to be true wouldn't you............wouldn't you?

---

Unfortunately, it is true. That's one reason why I turned against Bush so completely. You might want to read up on what actually happened.

Why is everyone arguing a bunch of straw man points?

Yes he is dividing us further, but this is the reality of the world we live in now and a consequence of how we do politics today. The media, the issues, everything has polarized people to the extremes over the past decade and a half, and they will only listen to their side.

Looking at the rest of the world, we are just following the normal trend where political parties turn into extreme platforms on certain issues. The only thing that makes us different from Europe is our two political parties as opposed to 3-6.

Maybe if people change (not happening) we would be united. The government can promise change all it wants, but the psychology of the people lends themselves to be divided. As long as we continue to elect people who are polar opposites, this will continue to occur.

Is there truly any candidate we could of elected that would not have divided us more?
Nope. And pinning the blame on solely the president just proves the point that people are partisan sheep. And goes that's for both parties, no matter how much they want to believe that they are good and the other are evil. As long as they both have human beings, they are each as guilty as the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GaryJohnston

Doubt they fudged it. Do you have any idea what a massive conspiracy that would be? To falsify records that a country has nuclear weapons. Do you understand how many people would have to be involved on every single level, in the military, government, UN, private sector, etc. You liberals are crazy. Guess the Clinton Administration was in on it too.

Its a false hope for liberals to think that it was a conspiracy, and the fact that some of you push it speaks volumes of your lack of intellect. Im sure you are an American who enjoys living in this country, but the misguided, idealogical, anti-American in you would love for that conspiracy to be true wouldn't you............wouldn't you?

---

One prime example:

Quote:

---

How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence
By DAVID BARSTOW, WILLIAM J. BROAD and JEFF GERTH

Published: October 3, 2004


n 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.

Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.

The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.

One result was a largely one-sided presentation to the public that did not convey the depth of evidence and argument against the administration's most tangible proof of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq.

Today, 18 months after the invasion of Iraq, investigators there have found no evidence of hidden centrifuges or a revived nuclear weapons program. The absence of unconventional weapons in Iraq is now widely seen as evidence of a profound intelligence failure, of an intelligence community blinded by "group think," false assumptions and unreliable human sources.

Yet the tale of the tubes, pieced together through records and interviews with senior intelligence officers, nuclear experts, administration officials and Congressional investigators, reveals a different failure.

Far from "group think," American nuclear and intelligence experts argued bitterly over the tubes. A "holy war" is how one Congressional investigator described it. But if the opinions of the nuclear experts were seemingly disregarded at every turn, an overwhelming momentum gathered behind the C.I.A. assessment. It was a momentum built on a pattern of haste, secrecy, ambiguity, bureaucratic maneuver and a persistent failure in the Bush administration and among both Republicans and Democrats in Congress to ask hard questions.

Precisely how knowledge of the intelligence dispute traveled through the upper reaches of the administration is unclear. Ms. Rice knew about the debate before her Sept. 2002 CNN appearance, but only learned of the alternative rocket theory of the tubes soon afterward, according to two senior administration officials. President Bush learned of the debate at roughly the same time, a senior administration official said.

Last week, when asked about the tubes, administration officials said they relied on repeated assurances by George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, that the tubes were in fact for centrifuges. They also noted that the intelligence community, including the Energy Department, largely agreed that Mr. Hussein had revived his nuclear program.

"These judgments sometimes require members of the intelligence community to make tough assessments about competing interpretations of facts," said Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the president.

---

Don't play stupid. It's not very hard to manipulate a message. Of course since this was used to sell the 'imminent' threat howcould anybody say no?

You can take back you the necessity of the mass conspiracy for Bush and Cheney to fudge things a bit.



forgot the linky..
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/in...st/03tube.html

Why must we keep harping on the same tired old arguments? We're never going to convince you and you're never going to convince us - you think the Bush administration lied and the Iraq war was needless; we think Bush made the best decisions possible with the intel at hand and that Saddam Hussein was a threat and needed to be dealt with.

So how about we put this to bed for good? There are plenty of other things to discuss and argue about than a 6-year old war!

pssst - I think the Iraqis are glad we took care of Saddam. They have a higher opinion of Bush than many Americans! There is absolutely no way they want to go back to life under Saddam and his sadistic, raping sons!

Eh, I think many Iraqis are just waiting for us to leave so they can get on with their ethnic cleansing and civil war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

Why must we keep harping on the same tired old arguments? We're never going to convince you and you're never going to convince us - you think the Bush administration lied and the Iraq war was needless; we think Bush made the best decisions possible with the intel at hand and that Saddam Hussein was a threat and needed to be dealt with.

---

colin powell said " the evidence that led us to war was deliberately misleading".

Quote:

---

So how about we put this to bed for good?

---

how about we put you to sleep.

Quote:

---

There are plenty of other things to discuss and argue about than a 6-year old war!

---

not from you. i listen to the same talkies you do. how do you like life as a parrot?

Quote:

---

pssst - I think the Iraqis are glad we took care of Saddam. They have a higher opinion of Bush than many Americans! There is absolutely no way they want to go back to life under Saddam and his sadistic, raping sons!

---

here you go again...........talking for all people throughout the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

Why must we keep harping on the same tired old arguments? We're never going to convince you and you're never going to convince us - you think the Bush administration lied and the Iraq war was needless; we think Bush made the best decisions possible with the intel at hand and that Saddam Hussein was a threat and needed to be dealt with.

So how about we put this to bed for good? There are plenty of other things to discuss and argue about than a 6-year old war!

pssst - I think the Iraqis are glad we took care of Saddam. They have a higher opinion of Bush than many Americans! There is absolutely no way they want to go back to life under Saddam and his sadistic, raping sons!

---

:lol @ the thought of putting the greatest blunder in American Foreign policy in my life time to bed. And yeah, they made the best decisions with the intelligence they happened to cherry pick and make up along the way.

You can actually put the subject to bed when you acknowledge what 90% of our country already has. The war was unnecessary, stupid, and hurt us in the long run.

Here are some divering lines if I've ever seen them


http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/issue-rdwt.php

Okay, here we go. I never called Obama a ######. While Bush was the president, he economy sucking was his fault. I'm not Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh. I can admit 100 percent without a doubt that Bush made a lot of mistakes during his presidency. I can also admit that he did fuck up the economy. However, I believe that Obama is making things worse. Whatever happens from January 20, 2009 and on, is on Obama.

The reason why I ask if Obama is dividing Obama even more is because he bitched so many times during campaign how bad Bush divided America. Obama made it seem like he was going to unite America. Has he united America?

DO you even have a definition of unite? When will he have united the country? What is your measuring stick of how divided we are? Please present your analysis

Iraq had nothing to do with Saddam being a threat. It was partly to scare the shit out of the muslim world into showing we are not the mortal cowards that are going to run away from a fight they had come to see us as, and partly to capitalize on a chaotic scenario and claim the most strategically important country in the middle east as our own. We pasted the deal with promises of eliminating threats and spreading democracy because they knew conservatives were stupid enough to believe such rhetoric. Republicans being republican by nature, they bit off more than they could chew, despite blatant evidence we were treading dangerous ground. Not unlike a greedy moneywhore scumfuck hedgefund manager acted throughout the course of the current financial situation.

Actually, from a non shortsighted (neocon) perspective, Saddam Hussein was the perfect leader for Iraq. He was secular, kept those barbaric fanatics scared shitless because he ruled with an iron fist, and was already our bitch in every plausible way a middle eastern secular leader of his vein could be. We never wanted to disarm him, and we never even gave him a chance to comply when we were imposing impossible to follow sanctions on his country for the decade between the two Iraq wars. No fucking way al-Sadr, Ahmedinjad, or any of those other shiite fucks get halfway head of steam if Saddam is there to neutralize their fanatic bull shit. Because he knew how to prevent leaders from using the bull shit religion of Islam as a tool to horde human cannon fodder. He controlled them with outright totally total pure brutality, far more effectively than Islam ever can. He was a pragmatic student of the Dad of his ideology, Josef Stalin. But the neocons portrayed him as some fanatic nuke-chunking threat to the US, like the one we are potentially creating in Iran after removing Saddam from the playing field.
Say what you will about republicans and the latest neocon movement, they are absolute masters of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Give me abortion, high taxes, and an overinfluential EPA any time over such stupid stupid squanderings of our global hegemony and status.

C_B_F, blitzing linebacker. Come strong or don't come at all.

Next blitzer...

When the country was united after 9/11, we did a lot of dumb things in a hurry. I'm not so sure the unity is good for us. It's overrated IMO.

Power causes division. It's unavoidable, even with the best of intentions. I don't quite understand why *creating division* is a gripe. It seems like a commonplace to me. It's a common outcome of policy..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

You know this is like complaining about the season the Lakers just had because they didn't win every single game. Obama's presidency is off to a great start especially when you consider the circumstances under which he took office.

---

What circumstances under which he took office?

He was pre-ordained to be president by the real first lady, the all-knowing, all-seeing, cult leader that is Oprah Winfrey. He was and is loved by a media who loves him just as much as they hate Bush. His questionable associations mean nothing to people because he is a "cool" presidential candidate.

You want to talk about circumstances. Try entering the office of president as two huge planes crash into the WTC and another one crashes into the Pentagon. Those are real circumstances.

Obama is handled with kid gloves. He is the new Messiah. He is King. All hail KIng Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dav4463

You want to talk about circumstances. Try entering the office of president as two huge planes crash into the WTC and another one crashes into the Pentagon. Those are real circumstances.

---

That was eight months after Bush took office, dumbass.

Quote:

---

He is the new Messiah. He is King. All hail KIng Obama.

---

The mantra of the butthurt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

That was eight months after Bush took office, dumbass.

The mantra of the butthurt.

---

Wow, a whole freaking 8 months! I guess that isn't considered to be early in the presidency.



dumbass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

When the country was united after 9/11, we did a lot of dumb things in a hurry. I'm not so sure the unity is good for us. It's overrated IMO.

Power causes division. It's unavoidable, even with the best of intentions. I don't quite understand why *creating division* is a gripe. It seems like a commonplace to me. It's a common outcome of policy..

---

so you blame unity because the leader was a moron and abused it?

nice logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dav4463

Wow, a whole freaking 8 months! I guess that isn't considered to be early in the presidency.



dumbass.

---

That's a heck of a lot longer than it took the conservatives to decide that Obama is the worst person in the world who's going to lead America to certain doom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dav4463

What circumstances under which he took office?

He was pre-ordained to be president by the real first lady, the all-knowing, all-seeing, cult leader that is Oprah Winfrey. He was and is loved by a media who loves him just as much as they hate Bush. His questionable associations mean nothing to people because he is a "cool" presidential candidate.

You want to talk about circumstances. Try entering the office of president as two huge planes crash into the WTC and another one crashes into the Pentagon. Those are real circumstances.

Obama is handled with kid gloves. He is the new Messiah. He is King. All hail KIng Obama.

---

:lmao well, well, well, are the resident forum republicans impressed with their new addition? :lmao

8 months was enough time to ignore the warning signs of 9/11. Shit - it was 9 days short of 9 months. How many times did they blow off the warnings in that time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dav4463

Try entering the office of president as two huge planes crash into the WTC and another one crashes into the Pentagon.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dav4463

Wow, a whole freaking 8 months! I guess that isn't considered to be early in the presidency.

---

It's considered eight months after he entered office.

If you need help next time, call this guy.

http://www.uncountedthemovie.com/images/goalposts.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

It would shock me if you were over 15 years old.

Bush's approval rating in October of 2001: 92%.

You're wrong. Shut up.

---

that's quite dishonest of you, i didn't know bush's term began in sept 0f 01.

until obama has had anything like 911 happened to him, then your point is moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

that's quite dishonest of you, i didn't know bush's term began in sept 0f 01.

until obama has had anything like 911 happened to him, then your point is moot.

---

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/...hrx66nttna.gif

That's pre-9/11

Bush has the interesting distinction of uniting America for and against him.

Just like his inbred father united americans against muslims and muslims against americans

He got elected because he's a ######. And guy with the stupid sunglasses avatar, you're so pretentious and defensive it's not even funny. I registered to say that, see ya.

You mean you created a sock puppet to say that. See ya next screen name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 888

He got elected because he's a ######. And guy with the stupid sunglasses avatar, you're so pretentious and defensive it's not even funny. I registered to say that, see ya.

---

ROFLROFLROFL

can i quote this and not get into trouble? i don't want to get delcidkellered again.

chumpdumper has been DUMPED. Time to move from bill gates to steve jobs avatar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 888

He got elected because he's a ######. And guy with the stupid sunglasses avatar, you're so pretentious and defensive it's not even funny. I registered to say that, see ya.

---

Well you got your one post worth. I have a feeling you were at one of the tea bag parties. Just a hunch..:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

so you blame unity because the leader was a moron and abused it?

nice logic.

---

We allowed him to abuse it, so yes.

this thread is all over the place.

are Obama haters dividing this board even more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

this thread is all over the place.

are Obama haters dividing this board even more?

---

Don't say that; you'll make them happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 888

He got elected because he's a ######.

---

So Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are really dark skinned Puerto Ricans?

Quote:

---

So Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are really dark skinned Puerto Ricans?

---

Where others see evidence of race, this man sees a suntan:

http://greatersurbiton.files.wordpre...berlusconi.jpg

Obama derangement syndrome

The president is driving some people mad. That may be to his advantage in the short term

Illustration by KAL
BY MOST people’s standards Barack Obama has had an excellent week. He enjoyed a counter-Carter moment when navy commandos rescued an American hostage, leaving three kidnappers dead. He gave a measured speech on the economy. And, to cap it all, he gave his daughters a Portuguese water dog named “Bo”. What’s not to like?

Plenty, according to some people. Mr Obama may be widely admired both at home and abroad. But there are millions of Americans who do not like the cut of his jib—and a few whose dislike boils over into white-hot hatred. The American Spectator, which came of age demonising the Clintons, has run an article on its website on Mr Obama entitled “Il Duce, Redux?” The internet crackles with comparisons between Mr Obama and various dictators (Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini) or assorted psychotics (Charles Manson and David Koresh). When Jonah Goldberg, a conservative pundit, praised Mr Obama over the dispatching of the Somali pirates, his e-mail inbox immediately overflowed, he said, with “snark and bile”.

A recent Pew poll showed that public opinion about Mr Obama is sharply divided along party lines. Some 88% of Democrats approve of the job that he is doing compared with only 27% of Republicans. The approval gap between the two parties is actually bigger than it was for George Bush in April 2001. Bush loyalists, led by Karl Rove, have duly over-interpreted this poll in order to soften their former boss’s reputation as America’s most divisive president. Today’s Republican base is significantly smaller than the Democratic base was in 2001, so surviving Republicans are more likely to have hard-core views. But there are nevertheless enough people out there who dislike the president to constitute a significant force in political life.

As The Economist went to press, the bestselling book in the United States was Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny”. Mr Levin frequently denounces Mr Obama on his radio show as an exponent of the second of those two qualities. The new sensation in the world of cable is Fox News’s Glenn Beck, who has already attracted 2.2m regular viewers since his show was launched in January. Mr Beck recently apologised to his viewers for saying that Mr Obama’s America is on the path to “socialism” when it is really on the march to fascism. Media Matters, a left-wing organisation that monitors the media, reports that, since the inauguration, “there have been over 3,000 references to socialism, fascism or communism” in describing the president.

Rush Limbaugh claims that he has seen an uptick in his audience since he announced that he hopes that Mr Obama fails. He has no time for the idea that all Americans should wish their president well (“We are being told that we have to hope Obama succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles…because his father was black”). Mr Limbaugh is not the ankle-grabbing type. He has also added Robert Mugabe to the list of people to whom Mr Obama can be likened.

Why are some people so angry? For all his emollient manner and talk of “post partisanship”, Mr Obama is just as much an embodiment of liberal America as Mr Bush was of conservative America—an Ivy League-educated lawyer who became a community organiser before launching a political career in one of America’s most cosmopolitan and corrupt big cities, Chicago. Mr Obama almost lost the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton because of his lack of rapport with white working-class voters. In the general election he did worse than Michael Dukakis in the Appalachian states of Kentucky and West Virginia.

Tough times make for tougher talk
The economic crisis has transformed this cultural suspicion into a much more potent political force. It is true that Mr Obama’s solution to the recession—spending public money in order to stimulate demand and trying to prevent a run on the banks—is supported by most economists. Mr Bush would have done much the same thing. But it is nevertheless driving many Americans crazy. April 15th—the last day on which Americans can perform the melancholy duty of filing their tax returns—saw rallies (dubbed “tea parties” after the Boston one) in every state, 500 or so in all. The protesters, some of whom dressed in three-cornered hats and waved “Don’t tread on me” flags, repeated a litany of criticisms that has been mounting since Mr Obama won the election—that he is a big government socialist (or fascist) who wants to take people’s money away and crush their freedoms.

It is hard to judge so early in the game what the rise of anti-Obama sentiment means for the Obama presidency. Bush-hatred eventually spread from a molten core of leftists to set the cultural tone of the country. But Obama-hatred could just as easily do the opposite and brand all conservatives as a bunch of Obama-hating cranks.

What is clear is that the rapid replacement of Bush-hatred with Obama-hatred is not healthy for American politics, particularly given the president’s dual role as leader of his party and head of state. A majority of Republicans (56%) approved of Jimmy Carter’s job performance in late March 1977. A majority of Democrats (55%) approved of Richard Nixon’s job performance at a comparable point in his first term. But today polarisation is almost instant, thanks in part to the growing role of non-negotiable issues such as abortion in American politics, in part to the rise of a media industry based on outrage, and in part to a cycle of tit-for-tat demonisation. This is not only poisoning American political life. It is making it ever harder to solve problems that require cross-party collaboration such as reforming America’s health-care system or its pensions. Unfortunately, the Glenn Becks of this world are more than just a joke.

http://www.economist.com/displayStor...ry_id=13496418

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuys article

Obama derangement syndrome

It is hard to judge so early in the game what the rise of anti-Obama sentiment means for the Obama presidency. Bush-hatred eventually spread from a molten core of leftists to set the cultural tone of the country. But Obama-hatred could just as easily do the opposite and brand all conservatives as a bunch of Obama-hating cranks.

---

We can only hope.

Certainly the spittle-flecked invectives I have seen here qualify for that.

Seems to me like what passes for "conservative" is coming to mean "cranky hack".

Mirror, Mirror.

http://www.lothere.com/verso/images/...ror_mirror.jpg

http://cinefantastiqueonline.com/wp-...wiht-sword.jpg

http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/blog/.../02/mirror.jpg

http://www.noiselabs.com/blog/images...pock_mccoy.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CHdtrg0hmV.../mirror-18.jpg

http://images.cnhi.zope.net/images_s...e_172234521/lg

http://members.tripod.com/makeitsoma...ENAFORBLOG.jpg

http://www.suncommunitynewspapers.co...-Threesome.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2028/...8aa42edaeb.jpg

http://trekmovie.com/images/dstmirmm.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

http://members.tripod.com/makeitsoma...ENAFORBLOG.jpg

---

lol...I wish TV would bring back some of the old cinematography cheese. Nothing says "romance" like a lens smeared with vasoline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Obama derangement syndrome

BY MOST people’s standards Barack Obama has had an excellent week. He enjoyed a counter-Carter moment when navy commandos rescued an American hostage, leaving three kidnappers dead. He gave a measured speech on the economy. And, to cap it all, he gave his daughters a Portuguese water dog named “Bo”. What’s not to like?

---

This is a great example of how you start off a powder puff piece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

This is a great example of how you start off a powder puff piece.

---

But, it was in The Economist...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

This is a great example of how you start off a powder puff piece.

---

yeah, but having to cite a poll each and every time you say "most" gets tedious after a while...

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/...as4rbgbj1q.gif

...at some point you have to assume it's common knowledge that Obama enjoys the majority of popular support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CHdtrg0hmV.../mirror-18.jpg

---

The guy on the left was gay, and the chick on the right was likely a fling of the shows creator. Nichelle was HOT. Can't blame ol' Gene for that one. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

This is a great example of how you start off a powder puff piece.

---

This is a great example of a non sequitur that completely avoids addressing anything in the article.

WTF is your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

This is a great example of a non sequitur that completely avoids addressing anything in the article.

WTF is your point?

---

My point was that the opening paragraph didn't make me want to read on.

Still waiting for Jacob to quantify the division.

I dont need to read another post beyond the OP.

One word:

No.

America *IS* divided. Obama is attempting to bring disparate sides together around common interests, something Bush did not even try to do.

But America is divided. Neither Obama or Bush is responsible for how divided we are, and only we can come together.

The primary divisions are not racial, but economic and religious. The differences between the haves and the have-nots in this country are stark. As are the differences between those who want this country to operate like a theocracy, and those who want us to retain the secular, pluralistic identity that has sustained us for hundreds of years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

My point was that the opening paragraph didn't make me want to read on.

---

Then skip ahead to the next bit, Mr. Confirmation Bias:

Quote:

---

What’s not to like?

Plenty, according to some people

---

It was simply a neutral take on American reaction to the new president, not exactly a "puff piece" on the administration, and quite relevant in its analysis to the thread topic.

I find it rather revealing that you seem to imply that you won't read any article that might say something good about the administration. Well, maybe not really revealing, but certainly sadly stereotypical.

I'm not gonna answer because I already gave an answer. You just didn't like it. You didn't like it because your blinded by Obama. Some people are so loyal and blinded by their political party and ideologies that they can't see the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

I'm not gonna answer because I already gave an answer. You just didn't like it. You didn't like it because your blinded by Obama. Some people are so loyal and blinded by their political party and ideologies that they can't see the truth.

---

and this is in response to...? Who exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

and this is in response to...? Who exactly?

---

another one of micca's sock puppets muttering to itself, probably.

cf. FaithInOne and hope4dopes.

Hell yes he is dividing our country. He says he is open to "prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost "our moral bearings" with use of the tactics."

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You seem easily excited. The last time I checked a poll about it, the majority of Americans considered waterboarding torture and thought America shouldn't practice it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You seem easily excited. The last time I checked a poll about it, the majority of Americans considered waterboarding torture and thought America shouldn't practice it.

---

I seem easily excited. :lol Well I am not.

So you seem okay with prosecuting the former administration?

Oh, I get it...the more Jacob1983 and jack sommerset's views are relegated to the minority of popular opinion, the more "divided" America becomes.