Yes he has.
No it's the same no matter who the president is
It would be a rare statesman that could overcome the political poison therein.
You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
the country is as polarized as i've ever seen it. it's not completely because of Obama, though. i left the right wing a little before he was elected. the right's absolute insanity about all things Obama was part of it.
i'm fairly disgusted with the level of partisanship on both sides. before Obama, the left was calling for Bush to resign every night on MSNBC and was making fictional snuff films about him. both sides devote most of their energy to hating each other, and it's ****ing up the country.
Hm. Hard to say.
Johnson was pretty polarizing, but that was before my time. I remember Nixon... he was extremely polarizing as well. Carter was originally widely popular on both sides, but by the end of his presidency he was almost universally viewed with contempt.
Reagan was extremely polarizing as well. Many people all but worshipped him, but the haters were VERY hateful.
Bush I was kind of vanilla ice milk, not much to polarize there really.
Billy Boy... that is, Clinton... well, there were a lot of mixed feelings about him, some hated him, some loved him, many just kind of thought he was "okay but DAYUM what a hoe-dawg".
Dubyer (Bush the Second) was very polarizing.
Obama... well he's UP there on the scale near the top to be sure, but I don't know if I can honestly say he's the MOST polarizing Prez as of yet. Have to wait until the final curtain call to say.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
The poll is a little simplistic, but I'm not in the mood for splitting hairs, so "no" is good enough for now. Of course he's not the most polarizing president. He doesn't regularly call into question the patriotism of his political opposition, and certainly didn't make comments about being with us or against us. The most overtly partisan hackish thing he said was that comment about certain people clinging to their guns and their bibles, but that's about it. The most polarizing elements in this country I believe are the tea party, and regular talk show hosts on am radio that paint the Left not merely as political opposition, but as enemies of the state.
The ramped up rhetoric by the Democrats and the Republicans are what is polarizing this nation. Obama being a Democrat is just as guilty of such rhetoric. It is nothing more than a bunch of self centered feeble minds that think that their way is the only way. There are many people that equate Obama with Stalin/Lennin/Marx and just as many that equated Bush with Hitler. But both are nut jobs that believe that such labeling will win support for their ideologies. Rationaly it just makes them the cheerleaders for dying ideologies. I mean who wants to support or join a bunch of lying propagandists? Bush wasnt a dictator and neither is Obama. With that established people that made such accusations are exposed as fools. Hence my position that the Democrat and Republican parties are full of fools, a out of touch in your face fear mongering bunch of whining babies, that want nothing less than a polarized nation in order to conquer the opposition through lies and deciet. The cries of impending civil war and revolution are the cries of desperation in the realization that most Americans are not listening to them.
Would any of you say that 24 news networks take a huge share of the blame?
‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).
"...The Bork fight, in some ways, was the beginning of the end of civil discourse in politics. For years afterward, conservatives seethed at the “systematic demonization” of Bork, recalls Clint Bolick, a longtime conservative legal activist. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution coined the angry verb “to bork,” which meant to destroy a nominee by whatever means necessary. When Republicans borked the Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright less than two years later, there wasn’t a trace of remorse, not after what the Democrats had done to Bork. The anger between Democrats and Republicans, the unwillingness to work together, the profound mistrust — the line from Bork to today’s ugly politics is a straight one."
no, he about equal to bush junior.
in both cases the blame lie primarily in the maturity of the citizenry