Those don't look like divisive issues. Just a matter of disagreement. I don't think of having differing opinions as necessarily having to be divisive. But if you think those issues are then I think we have lowered the bar.
The Two Most Divisive Presidents?
- Thread starter Minor Axis
- Start date
You and Fox both bring up good points. How would you define divisive? In the realm of politics I'd agree that any decision you make as President is going to piss someone off. So in the context of being labeled the "most divisive" President, I would assume that the definition would be who, by their leadership decisions, is polarizing the most people, dividing the country into those "for" and those "against".
You know where I'm coming from and it's an easy choice for me to name Bush Jr as the most divisive. Clinton came into office dogged by some personal enemies and the Rabid Righties.
But I just don't see any decisions he made as Commander in Chief that polarized the country. Things were too good then. The only ones gnashing their teeth were the hard core conservatives because a Democrat was occupying the White House.
Axis from what I can tell any decision Bush makes that doesn't go along with liberal views is considered divisive by you.
And tell me do you feel pro-liberal choices are divisive?
The definition of divisive should have something to do with how many people are polarized.
The problem with US politics today is almost everybody is polarized one way or another. You get a liberal president in there then his decisions will be considered divisive by the right just like the left tend to think Bush is divisive simply because he doesn't do things their way.
Liberals don't like Bush because he doesn't cave or compromise on the pet liberal issues./QUOTE]
I'm more liberal than you, but I'm still moderate.
I don't like Bush mostly because he is an idiot. But specifically he makes bad decisions and before he makes the bad decisions, he does not look for the "what ifs". Being tough is not the same as being smart and this administration has proven it over and over.
President Reagan reported wanted and actively asked for contrary opinions to any plan of his. The Bush Admin just wants "yes" men servicing them...
Generally, no but always stupid.
watching two yellow dogs go at it is entertaining, albeit slightly disturbing...
{edited a bit for effect}Seriously--can you imagine if today's liberals were around at the time of Lincoln? Their heads would probably explode because they'd be so torn up as to whether to support Lincoln and the move to abolish slavery or to villainize him for trampling the Constitution!
..... unlike todays Liberals (Clinton and Obama are perfect examples), had the balls to make unpolular decisions and to do what he thought was right regardless of whether it made him popular or not. His divisiveness was a great thing and absolutely necessary at the time.
neat trick there, fox.....you have diverted this thread from ITS intention, to yours....which is apparently
1. to equate the junior bush's convictions to lincoln's
2. to infer that liberals don't have the gumption to make the hard choices....and that is at the heart of any discussion of divisiveness.
but i'll run with it for abit2. to infer that liberals don't have the gumption to make the hard choices....and that is at the heart of any discussion of divisiveness.
i take no issue with your applause of the junior bush for the strenght of his convictions (certainly he believes he's done the right things, and -more than likely- didn't arrive at his decisions without some soul searching)....and "strenght of conviction" is a necessary quality for a leader.
but while those three words describe a quality that is necessary for a leader....the quality alone is not sufficient to justify the devisiveness that usually follows on the heels of a tough decision.
it is the motivation for the decision.....and self-righteousness alone (lincoln's or jr. bush) don't make it so, either.
lincoln's motivation was concise....damn hard to miss....slavery in a country of free people (regardless of its economic benefits) was just wrong......end of story.
jr. bush's motivations?(particularly wrt iraq)....it's boiled out to kind of choose your own adventure, hasn't it? was it terrorism?...was it wmd?....was it bringing democracy to the freedom starved iraqis?.....was it oil (economic opprotunity)?....not once did he state the obvious....the region is fucked up, and we mean to do something about it. (could it be that he didn't say that because it dovetailed a bit too closely to hussein's own opinion?)
as you said, lincoln didn't care what people thought....he abolished slavery because he saw it as the right thing to do.....but he was honest about his motivations....and that's why he is a great president...politics was secondary.....
bush however, tried desperately to make his reasoning palatable....to play the game of politics.
imo, you cant lay all the political bs at jr. bush's feet -times have changed (we're so accepting of "career politicans" nowadays that we EXPECT politics to play a role in every decision -that's our fault)....but you can lay his lack of honesty at his feet....."strenght of conviction" demands that, imo, if it is to mean anything going forward.
Hi Bob 
"location: none of your business
gotta be the IPN
:cool...hi ya bill
Welcome Bob :thumbup
Looks like Mulder got to kick Iltos' ass all over another forum. Man--are they checking credentials--can't believe all the liberals they are letting in this forum!!!
others might say i skeered you off
but one thing's for sure.....the quality of conservative thought has definitely degraded there (if that's possible
)i remain a non-aligned nation :ninja
Welcome Bob :thumbup
thank ya, bill...seems like a friendly place.....'cept i keep getting logged off :mad.....there a setting for that someplace?
Your lack of historical knowledge is showing. You forgot that Lincoln suspended habus corpus and locked up Francis Scott Keys' grandson doing it. Bush has never done that.
Lincoln censored the northern newspapers. (That First Amendment was just a restriction to avoid.) Bush never did that.
Lincoln justified all his actions as the ends justifying the means. Bush has never done that.
Yup Lincoln did a lot of things that tested if not arguably defied the constitution.
Had he not been assassinated I am guessing he would not be looked on quite as favorably.
well, of course not....the guy's dead......but bush has never locked up chelsea clinton, which i guess would be close enough.....so ya got me there
but the jr. bush also had the big scary monster of terrorism to act for him....for a while there, anybody with the shadow of it looming in their life could just be thrown in the clinker until....justice was served....same thing, just less well defined.
well, it was the CIVIL war....it was all about america....and "war correspondants" had only been around for 2 or 3 decades....lots of stories of wierd allegiances, "aiding and abetting", etc., etc.....given the "strength of conviction arguement" it makes a certain amount of sense.....one of those things he didn't just do because of the war, btw.....it took a number of years 'til he thought it prudent....so i'm doubting the whole insinuation that the first amendment was secondary to him.
besides, this is the electronic age.....much, much, MUCH more "news" out there, and better (or at least much more pervasive) intelligence gathering techniques
i hear what you're saying, but i don't think a simple parallel is worth jack.
no?.....how can anybody even hazard a quess?.....if we had a clue which adventure jr. bush was really pursuing, we'd probably have a better concept of the whole means and ends thing.
Yeah I guess those people jumping out of the 110th floor of the World Trade Center were running from the "big scary monster of terrorism" because as we all know there isn't any terrorism left in the world to be concerned about.
I sorry I didn't understand that the First Amendment was situational. Please enlighten us, when is it okay for a president to ignore the First Amendment?
I'll agree with your lack of thinking. There is no parallel, which is the point, Bush has never engaged in the same unconstitutional behavior as good old Abe. Now don't read that as a condemnation of Abe, I'm just pointing out the facts.
You suffer a severe case of BDS.