FLAprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 06:28 PM
Original message |
I'm fucking sick of "reaching out", "bipartisanship", and all that other BS |
|
Edited on Wed Dec-17-08 06:29 PM by Double_Talk_Express
When * "won".....did he reach out to any of us?
Why is it that when we have such large majorities in the House and Senate, we have to "compromise"...but when Repukes had lesser majorities, they could pass whatever they damn well pleased....no "compromise" needed.
I'll give those POSes on the right some credit....at least they got some shit done.
We won 53-45! The evangelicals, neocons, and racists deserve no "reaching out".
|
FLAprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 06:30 PM
Response to Original message |
1. And since didn't directly mention this. Fuck Rick Warren. |
Johonny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 07:05 PM
Response to Original message |
2. There's nothing wrong with it |
|
If Obama wants to reach out to Republicans before the beginning of his administration why shouldn't he? At the moment he is not president, is setting his agenda and is letting Republican have a chance to get on board with it. Republicans for the most part seem to have not interest in bipartisanship. So I imagine the attempts will end as soon as those that won in 2008 come into the white house and congress.
|
FLAprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. I'm OK if he reaches out to Olympia Snowe or another sensible Republican. But Fuck Rick Warren. |
mwei924
(990 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 07:06 PM
Response to Original message |
4. That's the Bush way. "I won so I don't have to listen to you losers. " |
FLAprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. So? Isn't it our turn? nt |
mwei924
(990 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
8. That's a very childish view. Maybe it's what you wanted, but Obama never indicated he would. |
eppur_se_muova
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 07:15 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Reach out your hand and get it bitten. Lather, rinse, repeat. |
|
Fundies don't just bite the hand that feeds them. They gnaw on it; they ingest it. And you can't threaten to abandon them -- it just feeds their martyr complex. You can't negotiate with them because it's their fundamental beliefs that are the root of the problem, and they will never change those. "Compromise" with these people is never compromise, it can only be surrender. It does NOT serve our interests.
|
FLAprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. Yup...the DLC political philosophy of "giving in" has pervaded our party. nt |
jenmito
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 07:31 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Then you shouldn't have voted for him. He didn't run as a partisan or as a |
|
liberal. The line he's been using since '04 is, "There is no red America or blue America. There is the United States of America."
|
FLAprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. So you're okay with giving in to the worst side of the right? nt |
jenmito
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
17. No. I'm ok with him picking Rick Warren to give the invocation. That has nothing to do with |
|
Edited on Wed Dec-17-08 08:06 PM by jenmito
the policies he talked about enacting when he became President. He has always said he's personally against gay marriage but for allowing the states to decide, for giving gay couples all the rights of straight couples, and for repealing DADT. I wish he was for gay marriage, but I never thought he was for it since he never SAID he was for it.
|
FLAprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
19. So if he picked David Duke you'd be OK with that too? nt |
jenmito
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:08 PM
Original message |
No. Now you're being unreasonable. Obama has spoken at Warren's church before to talk |
|
about AIDS and other things "compassionate conservatives" care about.
|
MadBadger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 07:32 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Then you voted for the wrong candidate. |
Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
20. What part of "there is no red america or blue america, just america" |
|
did some people not understand?
|
FLAprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
29. Fuck you gay America, or progressive America. You're not welcome at the table. |
|
Only "centrist" Democrats and (all) Republicans please.
|
jenmito
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
34. Didn't he appoint a couple gay people to his cabinet? n/t |
DCBob
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 07:40 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Because Obama is trying to reduce the hyper-partisanship that is polarizing this country. |
|
It is a dangerous trend that needs to be stopped. It seems to be working so far. Obama has a 70%+ approval rating at the moment.
|
frylock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
the dems will continue to capitulate and the repubs will continue to jam it up their ass. that's the new bipartisanship.
|
FLAprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
15. And I think there's a difference between old "bipartisanship" and new "bipartisanship" |
|
old "bipartianship" = working with people on the other end of the political spectrum towards a common goal
new "bipartisanship" = giving in so much to where no one really wins
|
DCBob
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
31. You seem to have lost your hope. |
|
I think you need a drink. Me too.
:toast:
|
OwnedByFerrets
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 07:42 PM
Response to Original message |
13. K and R because Im sick to my stomach of this shit. |
FLAprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:02 PM
Response to Original message |
18. And we saw what a polorized country did to us over the last 8 years |
|
You want 8 more years of that? I don't.
|
FLAprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
21. Doing things like picking Rick Warren is not "polarizing"?????? |
MadBadger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
23. Is your issue with bipartisanship, or Rick Warren? |
|
I favor bipartisanship, just not Rich Warren.
|
FLAprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
MadBadger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
32. Well then i'll say it again, you voted for the wrong candidate |
|
To quote Barack and Wolsh in this thread:
"there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America."
So I say again, looks like you voted for the wrong guy.
|
Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
26. Your screenname is fitting. |
S_E_Fudd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:03 PM
Response to Original message |
22. Well then you voted for the wrong guy.... |
|
Because that is exactly what Obama promised...
|
FLAprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
27. There's a difference between actual "bipartisanship" and appeasing the right. |
|
Traditional bipartisanship is working with the other side towards a common goal.
Pelosi/Reid-style bipartisanship is watering down goals and ideas so much to appease the minority.
|
MadBadger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
33. And He'll work with the right when he's in power. |
FLAprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #33 |
36. OK....but that doesn't mean he has to give into them. |
gravity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:04 PM
Response to Original message |
24. Well you are going have to get used to it |
LaydeeBug
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:07 PM
Response to Original message |
28. Barack Obama has, FROM DAY ONE, always said he would do this...so you shouldn't be surprised. |
|
If you all wanted a candidate that was going to beat the Republican agenda back into the stone age, you "may" have a "different" definition of "change" than Obama does.
|
Danger Mouse
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:08 PM
Response to Original message |
30. While I think Warren is a poor choice...I agree with Obama's bipartisan efforts. |
FLAprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:11 PM
Response to Original message |
35. Clarification: I do not have a problem with traditional bipartisanship, just.... |
|
....capitulation "bipartisanship" aka a "Harry Reid Special".
I have no problem with Dems and Repubs working together for a common goal. What I do have a problem with is giving into and relying on the other side to get things done......in the spirit of fake "bipartisanship".
|
cboy4
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-17-08 08:15 PM
Response to Original message |
37. No reaching out to bigots and racists. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 15th 2024, 02:03 AM
Response to Original message |