FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=12367
Yeah, but it was only two thirds of the independents in the bluest state in the country.blueballs wrote:He'd better hope that the independents agree with the dems (the results in MA last week indicate otherwise) or he's gonna' have big problems come November...
GannonFan wrote:Can't fault Obama entirely for that - it's more so a product of the times we live in. Hard core Dems and hard core GOP'ers have never been more hard core in favor of themselves than they are today. Thankfully, we independents are the ones who really matter now - the hard core folks just cancel each other out.
And you're saying he was not polarizing? Hey, I don't think Bush was nearly as bad of a President as some people make him out to be, on the contrary, I think history will view him pretty much average. However, if you really think we didn't see a polarizing of America over the past decade then I have to wonder if you were paying attention.native wrote:GannonFan wrote:Can't fault Obama entirely for that - it's more so a product of the times we live in. Hard core Dems and hard core GOP'ers have never been more hard core in favor of themselves than they are today. Thankfully, we independents are the ones who really matter now - the hard core folks just cancel each other out.
Hate him if you must, but George Bush was less polarizing and worked far harder to reach across the aisle - for example education and prescriptions. Maybe GW's bi-partisan initiatives were not the greatest solutions, but you cannot deny that he reached across the aisle.
native wrote:GannonFan wrote:Can't fault Obama entirely for that - it's more so a product of the times we live in. Hard core Dems and hard core GOP'ers have never been more hard core in favor of themselves than they are today. Thankfully, we independents are the ones who really matter now - the hard core folks just cancel each other out.
Hate him if you must, but George Bush was less polarizing and worked far harder to reach across the aisle - for example education and prescriptions. Maybe GW's bi-partisan initiatives were not the greatest solutions, but you cannot deny that he reached across the aisle.
good one Native....not about W as much as you are claiming BS on GF's statement....just like the Dems with W, there is a certain segment of the population that will not like Obama no matter WHAT he accomplishes...he could espouse conservative principles from now until 2012 & a certain segment of population wouldn't vote for him....accept it.... 
It doesn't jive with his idealistic view of the past 9 years....Bush espoused conservative principles (didn't practice any outside of social conservatism), therefore he isn't as polarizing as the black guy....GannonFan wrote:And you're saying he was not polarizing? Hey, I don't think Bush was nearly as bad of a President as some people make him out to be, on the contrary, I think history will view him pretty much average. However, if you really think we didn't see a polarizing of America over the past decade then I have to wonder if you were paying attention.native wrote:
Hate him if you must, but George Bush was less polarizing and worked far harder to reach across the aisle - for example education and prescriptions. Maybe GW's bi-partisan initiatives were not the greatest solutions, but you cannot deny that he reached across the aisle.
No, I did not say that Bush was not polarizing! I said that:GannonFan wrote:And you're saying he was not polarizing? Hey, I don't think Bush was nearly as bad of a President as some people make him out to be, on the contrary, I think history will view him pretty much average. However, if you really think we didn't see a polarizing of America over the past decade then I have to wonder if you were paying attention.native wrote:
Hate him if you must, but George Bush was less polarizing and worked far harder to reach across the aisle - for example education and prescriptions. Maybe GW's bi-partisan initiatives were not the greatest solutions, but you cannot deny that he reached across the aisle.
Nope. As you already know, Bush was not a conservative and there are aspects of his Presidency with which I disagree.Appaholic wrote:It doesn't jive with his idealistic view of the past 9 years....Bush espoused conservative principles (didn't practice any outside of social conservatism), therefore he isn't as polarizing as the black guy....GannonFan wrote:
And you're saying he was not polarizing? Hey, I don't think Bush was nearly as bad of a President as some people make him out to be, on the contrary, I think history will view him pretty much average. However, if you really think we didn't see a polarizing of America over the past decade then I have to wonder if you were paying attention.
Congressional Republicans are better at obstruction.native wrote:GannonFan wrote:Can't fault Obama entirely for that - it's more so a product of the times we live in. Hard core Dems and hard core GOP'ers have never been more hard core in favor of themselves than they are today. Thankfully, we independents are the ones who really matter now - the hard core folks just cancel each other out.
Hate him if you must, but George Bush was less polarizing and worked far harder to reach across the aisle - for example education and prescriptions. Maybe GW's bi-partisan initiatives were not the greatest solutions, but you cannot deny that he reached across the aisle.
What "facts" outside of a poll subject to misinteprestation and leading questions, are you referencing?native wrote:No, I did not say that Bush was not polarizing! I said that:GannonFan wrote:
And you're saying he was not polarizing? Hey, I don't think Bush was nearly as bad of a President as some people make him out to be, on the contrary, I think history will view him pretty much average. However, if you really think we didn't see a polarizing of America over the past decade then I have to wonder if you were paying attention.
1. Bush reached across the aisle, and
2. Bush was not AS polarizing as Obama.
These facts are undeniable.
Come now, GF, you don't usually twist others' words like that! Of course I see a polarizng over the past decade, but in comparing Bush and Obama, Obama's leadership has thus far proven more polarizing and less bi-partisan.
Hey, I just don't attribute it entirely to the President, that's all. I don't think Bush should've been as polarizing as he ultimatly became, but that was a product of the times - GOP hard cores were unable to find fault (except for some of the runaway spending) and hard core Dems thought Bush was literally the devil. And it's gotten worse with Obama, just flipping who adores him and who reviles him. Neither President is really responsible for the level of polarization has occurred - they've played some part, but a small one with regards to the extent that it's become.native wrote:No, I did not say that Bush was not polarizing! I said that:GannonFan wrote:
And you're saying he was not polarizing? Hey, I don't think Bush was nearly as bad of a President as some people make him out to be, on the contrary, I think history will view him pretty much average. However, if you really think we didn't see a polarizing of America over the past decade then I have to wonder if you were paying attention.
1. Bush reached across the aisle, and
2. Bush was not AS polarizing as Obama.
These facts are undeniable.
Come now, GF, you don't usually twist others' words like that! Of course I see a polarizng over the past decade, but in comparing Bush and Obama, Obama's leadership has thus far proven more polarizing and less bi-partisan.
If only Democrats had practiced some level of obstruction a few years ago. There's a reason we have opposition parties - they are needed.kalm wrote:Congressional Republicans are better at obstruction.native wrote:
Hate him if you must, but George Bush was less polarizing and worked far harder to reach across the aisle - for example education and prescriptions. Maybe GW's bi-partisan initiatives were not the greatest solutions, but you cannot deny that he reached across the aisle.
Bush didn't give a damn what the Democrats thought. It's called leadership, and when you lead from a position of strength and decisiveness like Bush did, people will follow. Even if the decisions are bad.
Obama had his chance, but he was far too concerned with building a consensus.
I don't give a rat's ass about Obama's skin color, but he is undeniably the most rigidly ideological and partisan president of our lifetimes.Appaholic wrote:...
OK, but at this point in Bush's presidency, he was riding the high approval points courtesy of 9/11 rallying point for the nation (which, ironically, he benefitted from due to a failure in his adminstration)....heck, even the hardcore dems knew it was folly to speak poorly of Bush at this respective point in his adminstration...apples to oranges....native wrote:Nope. As you already know, Bush was not a conservative and there are aspects of his Presidency with which I disagree.Appaholic wrote:
It doesn't jive with his idealistic view of the past 9 years....Bush espoused conservative principles (didn't practice any outside of social conservatism), therefore he isn't as polarizing as the black guy....
I merely pointed out the facts that Bush was demonstrably less polarizing and more bipartisan than Obama has been to date.
BS...he's no more rigidly ideological than Reagen, you just don't agree with the ideology...it's ok...we all do this, but let's not make broad generalizations that can't be substantiated beyond your own personal feeling...native wrote:I don't give a rat's ass about Obama's skin color, but he is undeniably the most rigidly ideological and partisan president of our lifetimes.Appaholic wrote:...
Agree...they weren't even a speed bump to Bush & Cheney...GannonFan wrote:If only Democrats had practiced some level of obstruction a few years ago. There's a reason we have opposition parties - they are needed.kalm wrote:
Congressional Republicans are better at obstruction.
Bush didn't give a damn what the Democrats thought. It's called leadership, and when you lead from a position of strength and decisiveness like Bush did, people will follow. Even if the decisions are bad.
Obama had his chance, but he was far too concerned with building a consensus.
Then we agree!GannonFan wrote:...
Hey, I just don't attribute it entirely to the President, that's all. I don't think Bush should've been as polarizing as he ultimatly became, but that was a product of the times - GOP hard cores were unable to find fault (except for some of the runaway spending) and hard core Dems thought Bush was literally the devil. And it's gotten worse with Obama, just flipping who adores him and who reviles him. Neither President is really responsible for the level of polarization has occurred - they've played some part, but a small one with regards to the extent that it's become.
Wow, are you reaching. Except healthcare, virtually nothing of importance that Obama has done varies from the Bush policies. And healthcare ended up a big corporatist piece of crap full of consensus building giveaways to blue dog Democrats (aka moderate conservatives) that ultimately would benefit big Pharma and for-profit insurance companies. Are the Republicans no longer the party of big business or are they now the party of contrarianism?native wrote:I don't give a rat's ass about Obama's skin color, but he is undeniably the most rigidly ideological and partisan president of our lifetimes.Appaholic wrote:...
AgreeGannonFan wrote:Hey, I just don't attribute it entirely to the President, that's all. I don't think Bush should've been as polarizing as he ultimatly became, but that was a product of the times - GOP hard cores were unable to find fault (except for some of the runaway spending) and hard core Dems thought Bush was literally the devil. And it's gotten worse with Obama, just flipping who adores him and who reviles him. Neither President is really responsible for the level of polarization has occurred - they've played some part, but a small one with regards to the extent that it's become.native wrote:
No, I did not say that Bush was not polarizing! I said that:
1. Bush reached across the aisle, and
2. Bush was not AS polarizing as Obama.
These facts are undeniable.
Come now, GF, you don't usually twist others' words like that! Of course I see a polarizng over the past decade, but in comparing Bush and Obama, Obama's leadership has thus far proven more polarizing and less bi-partisan.
Obama's a hypocrite who learned the back-door meetings skill from Cheney.SuperHornet wrote:Obama "building consensus?" Are you cr@zy? Since when is trying to jam legislation down everyone's throat in closed session (i.e. no C-SPAN) with unrealistic deadlines "building consensus?"
This is perhaps one of the most ridiculous political comments I've ever seen in here.
Obama is much more rigidly ideological in practice than was Reagan, who worked well on a practical level with both Tip O' Neil and Mikhail Gorbachev, achieving practical results and sometimes even consensus.Appaholic wrote:BS...he's no more rigidly ideological than Reagen, you just don't agree with the ideology...it's ok...we all do this, but let's not make broad generalizations that can't be substantiated beyond your own personal feeling...native wrote:
I don't give a rat's ass about Obama's skin color, but he is undeniably the most rigidly ideological and partisan president of our lifetimes.
See FDR's attacks on the economic royalists that caused the great depression.native wrote:Then we agree!GannonFan wrote:...
Hey, I just don't attribute it entirely to the President, that's all. I don't think Bush should've been as polarizing as he ultimatly became, but that was a product of the times - GOP hard cores were unable to find fault (except for some of the runaway spending) and hard core Dems thought Bush was literally the devil. And it's gotten worse with Obama, just flipping who adores him and who reviles him. Neither President is really responsible for the level of polarization has occurred - they've played some part, but a small one with regards to the extent that it's become.
My biggest objection is the incessant moral equivalency argument when there is a clear qualitative and quantitative difference in polarization and bipartisanship between Bush and Obama.
And kalm's argument that Obama has tried to build a consensus could not possbly be farther from the truth. The idiot is STILL hyper-partisan making class warfare campaign speeches and demonizing those who disagree with his policies.
