Yes he has.
No it's the same no matter who the president is
"Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her." -- G.K. Chesterton
Eisenhower sending troops down to Little Rock was polarizing but not to the degree of Obama's actions - Ike had support across party lines, Ike wasn't imposing government presence into EVERYONE's lives. Look at the Hobby Lobby case, the nuns who are suing - this is draconian stuff.
Polarizing ≠ enemies of the country.It's extreme but it's not treasonous.
Treason/traitor = enemies of the country.
Your definition is far outside the scope of this issue.
Well, I really didn't pay attention to the political situation before Obama became president so I couldn't say.
Eat me, drink me, love me;
Laura make much of me
Now him being elected has made some cry babies cry even louder and cry babies are what gets covered in the news no matter how they identify themselves
but the fact is, percentage wise, he got more moderates/independents and conservatives/republicans to vote for him more so than any other democratic president for the last 30 years
he makes the NUTBALLS extra mentally retarded and crazy but normal people are about the same and more together
Obama is a right wing moderate. The people that caused the polarization were idiots like this
☮★★☮ Just a democratic-socialist in the heartland of America.CHECK OUT MY TUMBLR(BLOG)HERE "Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
It seems fewer and fewer people actually challenge themselves intellectually by researching issues independently. You see it here. People, on both sides of an issue seem to simply reiterate things they hear on political porn sites. Rarely to you see a post with a "I didn't know that" or "thanks for the information; I see it differently". More often than not you see posts that support positions based upon articles or links to political porn sites. Even the evidence, in those rare cases here where people actually post such, is tainted. You would expect people on this site to want to learn, but no we just get polarizing shout downs with the lines clearly drawn and rarely crossed.
In the old days of news, you had but few options and those options tried to play things down the middle. There once was a commitment to journalistic integrity. Journalists in the pre-Internet (and pre-cable) era did not try to make the news or have 4 hours of prime-time editoralizing... they reported the news. Now, its easy to opinion shop: just hear what you want to hear. The Internet CAN be a powerful source of information OR a powerful reinforcer of prejudice. Far too many use it for the latter.
Last edited by upsideguy; 03-15-14 at 04:56 PM.
I also wouldn't call President Obama a moderate or right-wing. The one thing I can hopefully say I maintain is my credibility, something nearly all of the right-wing pundits have decided to flush down the toilet in the interest alarmism, political tribalism and polarization. Obama is in fact a liberal on most issues but there have been other liberals in government before. At the same time his policies do tend to remind me most of Presidents W. Bush and Reagan.
Patriot Act - NSA monitoring
Record deficit - Record deficit
Corporate bailouts - Corporate bailouts
GITMO - GITMO
Increase the debt ceiling - Increase the debt ceiling
Odd relationship with the Saudis - Odd relationship with the Saudis, just not as odd with Obama
Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011
In my politically conscious lifetime every President going back to Nixon... possibly excepting Ford... was polarizing in their own way. With the exception of the Nixon pardon, I don't recall anything controversial regarding Ford's tenure in office.
Much of the polarization for any President is simply the nature of politics and the office. Whomever is in office, the other party feels obligated to thwart them and be contrarian. But, if you think about it, this is how we have it set up and how we want it. No candidate or party gets elected by agreeing with the incumbent or opposition. They get elected by convincing the voting populace that the person and/or party in office right now is evil incarnate and our last desperate hope is to elect them as a replacement.
If, when defending your support for Donald Trump, and your response is,
"But but but... HILLARY!!!", then you lost the argument before you even began.
I agree with you to a point. Yes, there is lots of linking to biased sources. The problem is that there are few unbiased sources available, so there really isn't a solution available to fix this problem.
The problem that develops is when posters on a debate board feel that a link or copy/paste is all that is needed to make their argument. Those who go beyond a copy/paste and make a case for a position neutralize your criticism for now you can engage with them on the basis of ideas and arguments rather than bashing each other with appeals to favored authorities.
What alternate universe did you just pop in from? Those old Cronkite days were plenty bad in terms of biased reporting, it's just that they had a stranglehold and so their liberal bias looked like it was middle of the road. Test this yourself. Find some polarizing event. Say the 1964 Civil Rights Act passage. Can you find Cronkite or Brinkley or Huntley talking about how nasty and awful and disgraceful the passage of this legislation was while also acknowledging how great, inspiring and hopeful the new reality was? I've never heard of any reports like that - maybe some folks who lived through that era could recount their memories of how that news played out on TV.In the old days of news, you had but few options and those options tried to play things down the middle.
This I agree with. Their bias was far more subtle. They exercised it by lies of omission. They'd shape their stories to comport with their liberal bias but wouldn't interject themselves into the news. That was certainly preferable to the current modus operandi of journalism.There once was a commitment to journalistic integrity. Journalists in the pre-Internet (and pre-cable) era did not try to make the news or have 4 hours of prime-time editoralizing... they reported the news.