"We have two parties for a reason," Obama said.

[asdjrocky]

I say the reason is so the politicians can fool the populace into believing they are actually voting for a difference.

If anyone with eyes or ears can see or hear that there is no compromising with people that don't know the meaning of the word compromise, then why can't you?

Read it all here-
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/11/obama-and-newly-empowered-republicans-sit-down-together-/1

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Agreed.

We've been had.

[ejpoeta]

2. i was watching me some george carlin today... and i think he is right...

the illusion of choice.

[asdjrocky]

4. "They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to belive it." -Carlin nt

[Safetykitten]

3. I have completely no idea what he is doing and why.

[Poll_Blind]

7. +1 Me either. What it ain't, though, is 11-dimensional chess.

I've run with him for a long time now under that assumption but two years is long enough.

I'm still hoping he pulls something out, something that shows this plane crash was strategically necessary for some greater, beneficial (to the People) purpose.

PB

[dave29]

8. Take a political science course

it's pretty obvious what he's doing, and no, it's not capitulation, and he's not the weak fool everyone makes him out to be.

Nor is it anywhere near as complicated as chess.

[atreides1]

14. Enlighten the rest of us

Since taking a class would take some time, why not provide us with the layman's version.

Thanks

[Leftist Agitator]

26. I've had my share of Poly Sci classes, and one thing is abundantly clear...

His behavior has been the very embodiment of capitulation, plain and simple. He's either a milquetoast, utterly ineffectual fool who is being run over roughshod in the pursuit of some fantasy "bi-partisanship", or he's complicit.

[AnArmyVeteran]

28. It's either A or B in your post. Or maybe both A and B.

His behavior is troubling, yet consistent from the day he was sworn in. As soon as he transformed from candidate-Obama to President-Obama he no longer cared what his supporters wanted. During the election we saw him facing us, but once in office all we get is his back turned to us.

[AnArmyVeteran]

27. I'm with Atreides1, please explain how showing weakness is a strength?

I don't get it and neither do 99.999999999% of those who supported him do either.

[dixiegrrrrl]

35. I see what he is doing. ( actions, remember?)

I can only speculate about the why.

[Lorien]

46. Let me give you a hint:

Bipartisanship: crappy politicians' cover for passing laws that only benefit the rich people they really work for.

[JuniperLea]

5. So, you see no benefit in trying to get people together?

No benefit at all? Not even to expose naysayers for what they are? Not even to show voters what the GOP candidates they vote for are talking out of both sides of their mouths? No benefit at all? No "do the right thing" regardless thoughts in there?

Do you want him to be a "Decider" or what?

[FiveGoodMen]

6. You would bargain with the Devil.

That is essentially what you're advocating.

The pukes are pushing for slavery, permanent propaganda on the airwaves, a police state, and never-ending war.

Whereas, you'd be willing to settle for just SOME of that.

[JuniperLea]

25. Bullshit... this is the crap that is utter bullshit...

You don't get it... fine, I expected as much.

[FiveGoodMen]

33. Anyone can say "Bullshit" and "You don't get it"

But you're wrong.

Compromising with evil is not a virtuous act.

At best, it's a horrible last resort.

[asdjrocky]

36. That's a cop out.

And you know it.

[asdjrocky]

9. They are refusing to ratify a nuclear arms treaty.

Do I need to repeat that? Also, I say fine, compromise, but I have to wonder if Obama has ever bought a pig. He doesn't seem to have even a vague recollection of what a negotiation looks like because he seems to start every single one giving up the entire store.

I don't want a "Decider" but I don't want a fool either.

[frylock]

16. he's wasted two fucking years exposing naysayers..

if people don't get it yet, they never will.

[displacedvermoter]

21. How friggin' long do you need to "expose naysayers"?

How much good did all this naysayer exposure do us during the past election cycle?

I want him to "decide" whose side he is really on, OK?

[saracat]

47. Oh for God's sake. This isn't "trying to get people together". This is capitulation.

And I heard the "expose GOP candidates for what they were" argument in the last cycle! Guess what? The voters went GOP and the Democrats didn't vote with all that "exposure! If displaying any form of Leadership is being a "decider", perhaps I do want him to be a "decider". It has to be better than being a capitulator or appeaser.

[joeybee12]

10. It's so they can raise money, because if you don't have an opponent...

you can't run against someone.

[Radical Activist]

11. After the way Bush used 9/11 how can anyone still claim there's no difference?

I don't know how anyone can make that claim and expect to be taken seriously.

[Better Believe It]

15. Not all apples are identical. We have different kinds of apples! Really!

Even green ones!

Now I know you might say they are all apples, but they are different!

So which apple is the best one for me to eat?

[displacedvermoter]

23. During his Nobel Peace Prize speech we also heard the

award winner spend an inordinate amount of time on 9/11 and the need for ongoing war.

Pretty ironic, some would say cheeky, but there you go.

Is he the same as Bush, obviously not. Has he used the same fear-driven campaign to continue various Bush-era policies and programs, yes he has.

[Radical Activist]

32. No, he hasn't.

One of the reasons public support for Afghanistan keeps going down is that Obama doesn't use the same fear based rhetoric to promote it. He refers to it as a mess that we need to finish and get out of. There's absolutely no resemblance to the kind of war-mongering rhetoric of Bush, who would be pushing for war with Iran or Syria right now.

I decided to read the Nobel speech again and you're portrayal of it is completely inaccurate. He only mentioned 9/11 once and didn't dwell on it. Maybe excessive cynicism is clouding your view.

In fact, when he referred to it only indirectly a second time, it was to denounce war in a way that applies equally to both Bush and Bin-Laden.

"Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint - no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith - for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached - their faith in human progress - must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey."

No, that isn't a Bush style campaign of fear.

[Better Believe It]

12. Because with only one party we would have a revolution. Two parties can stop that from happening.

[asdjrocky]

13. Ding.

If I had a cupie doll I'd give it to you.

[Radical Activist]

34. One party is doing a good job of stopping revolution in China.

Just ask any pro-democracy activist how one party rule is working out.

[hfojvt]

17. I am not sure what you are proposing.

So you are certain that there is no compromising with the Republicans in Congress. Okay, what now? We cannot out-vote them in the House any more. Should we just shut the Government down for two years? Should Obama tell "Boner" that he needs to move to Syracuse? What exactly are you proposing in this, "Republicans will not compromise" theory?

[asdjrocky]

19. I'm not proposing anything.

Nor do I offer any solutions, just the truth as I see it. The system is broken and we are fucked.

[hfojvt]

29. Doesn't look like truth to me

and at least Obama offers a strategy.

[asdjrocky]

30. What strategy is that?

Give the farm away before the negotiations begin? Like with the public option?

[guitar man]

18. Yeah, one to hold us down

While the other one fucks us...they switch places ever so ofthen but that's about it. :grr:

[Celtic Raven]

39. Graphic but apt

:grr:

[FiveGoodMen]

40. Nailed it.

:fistbump:

[pecwae]

44. Succinct and accurate.

[blindpig]

20. What is amazing to me....

is that some people think that we have two parties. On all issues of substance the political class is in agreement, disagreements amount to nitpicking and the histrionics are for the gallery.

[raccoon]

22. Who says we HAVE to have only 2 fricking parties (assuming we do)?

In some countries they have lots....and what's wrong with that?

What's wrong with that is the corporations would have to give contributions to all of them.

KK&R.

[Newest Reality]

24. The choice of one or the other is more of

a dilemma, (as many of us have realized) than what I like to think of as choice, these days.

No choice is more like being a robot. A choice between two, general alternatives is the dilemma concept I mentioned, e.g., the lessor of two evils. It can seem like a method to discipline children or create double-binds. It simulates choice in a black and white, either/or, simplistic manner.

Having more choices, to a certain point, can provide more freedom of choice, freedom and even flexibility, which is what our futures, (and our children's) should provide if we are to eventually become a civilization that matures beyond its vigorous beliefs in abstract, manufactured delusions of reality masquerading as choice. Powerful persuasion is what we get instead.

I consider true choice in my life and in most situations to have the criteria of at least four or five options; that is, especially in relation to the gravity and impact of the matter at hand. That's healthy and empowering.

[asdjrocky]

41. You put that all very well. nt

[democracy1st]

31. He's been a joke from the very beginning

[here_is_to_hope]

38. Nope.

Jokes are funny.
This shit ain't funny.
Obama is a pussy.

[sarcasmo]

37. Agreed. Both parties are owned by Corporate America.

[Desertrose]

42. Again...it's no longer left/right but up/down.

Left v right is merely a distraction while the money runs the whole show.

[Raine]

43. TOTALLY agree. nt

[Lorien]

45. Quote for the day:

Marsha Warfield (actress from "Night Court") wrote on FB just a few minutes ago: "Bipartisanship: crappy politicians' cover for passing laws that only benefit the rich people they really work for."