Warren Stupidity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 03:58 PM
Response to Original message |
| 10. "post-partisanship" is made up nonsense. |
|
It is a word with no meaning. In practice it appears to mean: unilateral bipartisanship, and it is a manifest failure for exactly that reason - only one side is trying to work together.
I'll repeat that: only one side is trying to work together.
Do you see the problem?
|
| -From his very first national speech at the 2004 DNC. Obama signaled post-partisanship |
Perky |
Mar-11-10 03:43 PM |
#0 |
 -
too bad the GOP isn't post-partisan |
maxsolomon |
Mar-11-10 03:45 PM |
#1 |
 -
ain't that the truth. |
Perky |
Mar-11-10 03:46 PM |
#2 |
| -
post-partisanship takes at least 2 parties, which, face it, we ain't got. |
elehhhhna |
Mar-11-10 03:54 PM |
#6 |
 -
That was the exact problem. The American people wanted it but the GOP said no way. |
Pirate Smile |
Mar-11-10 04:00 PM |
#11 |
| -
How can there be bi-partisan solutions for issues about which voters are divided and polarized? IMO |
jody |
Mar-11-10 03:49 PM |
#3 |
| -
I think Obama may have overt hought his ability to transcend those lines |
Perky |
Mar-11-10 03:52 PM |
#4 |
| -
Perhaps but it will require the magical powers of the Blue Wizard. |
jody |
Mar-11-10 03:57 PM |
#8 |
| -
Sen. Carl Shurz was amazing!!! |
verges |
Mar-12-10 08:23 AM |
#40 |
| -
Note my sig line is a paraphrase as I clearly stated "a la Sen. Carl Schurz, 1872" but you knew that |
jody |
Mar-12-10 09:04 AM |
#44 |
| -
When only 1 person is "postpartisan" but the other party isn't there is no post partisanship. |
craigmatic |
Mar-11-10 03:53 PM |
#5 |
| -
There is no such thing as post-partisanship |
wryter2000 |
Mar-11-10 03:55 PM |
#7 |
| -
"People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, |
dflprincess |
Mar-11-10 03:57 PM |
#9 |
| -
Not me, I can think for myself, thank you |
treestar |
Mar-11-10 09:56 PM |
#26 |
| -
"post-partisanship" is made up nonsense. |
Warren Stupidity |
Mar-11-10 03:58 PM |
#10 |
| -
See below. |
jody |
Mar-11-10 04:01 PM |
#12 |
| -
Absolutely. It started as political rhetoric to get elected...and it works |
Oregone |
Mar-11-10 04:15 PM |
#19 |
| -
Okay, then he was a fool even back in 2004 |
Kurt_and_Hunter |
Mar-11-10 04:03 PM |
#13 |
| -
And we were larger fools to vote for him? |
Perky |
Mar-11-10 04:07 PM |
#14 |
| -
As you wish |
Kurt_and_Hunter |
Mar-11-10 04:20 PM |
#20 |
| -
But the corollary is important. |
Perky |
Mar-11-10 04:46 PM |
#23 |
| -
You are selling Obama short |
Kurt_and_Hunter |
Mar-12-10 08:09 AM |
#38 |
| -
Sure were. But there was only really Johnny Smiles, Clinton Redux, and Ol Man McCain |
Oregone |
Mar-11-10 04:20 PM |
#21 |
| -
Turned out it meant putting big money interests before the good the of the people. |
freddie mertz |
Mar-11-10 04:09 PM |
#15 |
| -
Oh, so it's voters' fault for falling for his false 2008 campaign promises. |
katandmoon |
Mar-11-10 04:10 PM |
#16 |
| -
When the other side is the party of no, then you move ahead with what you got. |
glowing |
Mar-11-10 04:13 PM |
#17 |
| -
I agree |
Proud Liberal Dem |
Mar-11-10 04:13 PM |
#18 |
| -
I really don't get why we need to be so defensive all the time |
impik |
Mar-11-10 04:22 PM |
#22 |
| -
How silly of us to have voted for him |
dflprincess |
Mar-11-10 09:43 PM |
#24 |
| -
That's exactly it - the bullshit loyalist double-bind. |
Smashcut |
Mar-11-10 10:15 PM |
#30 |
| -
It's silly of you to make up your own fantasy about the man |
impik |
Mar-12-10 01:42 AM |
#36 |
| -
I haven't made up anything about him as I was not all that impressed when he was a candidate |
dflprincess |
Mar-12-10 12:31 PM |
#52 |
| -
I knew who I was voting for with Obama, but really unhappy about what that meant |
unc70 |
Mar-12-10 10:41 AM |
#49 |
| -
I agree |
HughMoran |
Mar-11-10 09:51 PM |
#25 |
| -
A lot of us voted against McCain/Palin |
dflprincess |
Mar-11-10 10:52 PM |
#31 |
| -
I said the same thing. |
Grand Taurean |
Mar-12-10 01:09 AM |
#35 |
| -
One of his very first votes was to support Bush, Congressional Republicans & the Chamber of Commerce |
depakid |
Mar-11-10 10:02 PM |
#27 |
| -
okay, okay, we got it, we never should have voted for him |
ima_sinnic |
Mar-11-10 10:09 PM |
#28 |
| -
too bad "post-partisanship" is a FICTIONAL CONCEPT |
Smashcut |
Mar-11-10 10:10 PM |
#29 |
| -
when republicans say bipartisanship is date rape... |
RainDog |
Mar-11-10 11:05 PM |
#32 |
| -
I am not sure anyone is saying post-partisianship exists |
Perky |
Mar-12-10 07:21 AM |
#37 |
| -
George Bush had the worst approval ratings of any president |
RainDog |
Mar-12-10 09:23 AM |
#46 |
| -
You said exactly that yourself |
Bluenorthwest |
Mar-12-10 09:25 AM |
#47 |
| -
My argument is not that Post-partisanship existed... only that in his writing and rhetoric that |
Perky |
Mar-12-10 10:45 AM |
#50 |
| -
"Undoubtedly, some of these views will get me in trouble." |
Clio the Leo |
Mar-11-10 11:09 PM |
#33 |
| -
100 Obamas would not equal 1/2 of FDR. |
Grand Taurean |
Mar-12-10 01:09 AM |
#34 |
| -
post-partisanship is morphing into crony corporatism which leaves "the working people" in the lurch. |
ShortnFiery |
Mar-12-10 08:17 AM |
#39 |
| -
"Post-partisanship" is not the same thing as sucking up to sociopaths... |
polichick |
Mar-12-10 08:25 AM |
#41 |
| -
At this point does anyone really think this guy is a liberal? |
VMI Dem |
Mar-12-10 08:37 AM |
#42 |
| -
I'm a realist. And this post-partisan nonsense is just that. Nonsense. |
Raineyb |
Mar-12-10 08:43 AM |
#43 |
| -
What a crock. He ran as a Partisan Democrat |
Bluenorthwest |
Mar-12-10 09:05 AM |
#45 |
| -
I don't think you serously listsed to the 2004 speech or read "Audacity" |
Perky |
Mar-12-10 10:40 AM |
#48 |
| -
That's EXACTLY Professor Lakoff's point... |
ClassWarrior |
Mar-12-10 10:45 AM |
#51 |
| -
The overriding theme of his campaign was "hope" and "change" not post-partisanship. |
hulka38 |
Mar-12-10 01:38 PM |
#53 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread