Obama’s thoughts on “dysfunctional” government

From an interview with Thomas Friedman:

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/laura-...ng-republican-consensus-wacky-i#ixzz3AHAfhgug

Friedman writes

http://spectator.org/articles/60233/maximalist

There are other aspects of the interview that are telling, but it's clear from Obama's stated perspective above he regards dissenting views, and those who espouse them, as intolerable and blames every problem squarely on the fact people disagree with him. In his mind our Democracy can't work "unless our two parties adopt the same outlook", which of course is his (extreme progressive) outlook that defines all HIS opposition as just "wacky ideological nonsense". This is mind set of our current president. It's chilling.

Obama, by his own admission, views our democratic system of government as a problem. He views all opposing views as the problem because to him they're just "wacky ideological nonsense", not worthy of respect or even consideration. And it's clear from his own statements he not only believes HIS views are unquestionable superior, but holds a deep seated animosity for anyone who doesn't.

Bottom line, Obama is not just a stark partisan, he's an uncompromising, intolerant, maximalist who by his own admission believes his agenda, his policies, are beyond reproach. And he believes wholeheartedly the only way for the US to advance is by both parties adopting HIS "outlook". Or in essence, everyone in Congress working to advance HIS ideology. Obviously it frustrates him that many disagree with his uncompromising, one sided, ideology (thinking), his arrogant demeanor, and see his agenda as deeply flawed. (And they should, because it is). The problem is he refuses to even consider the notion he's not always right because he truly believes they (those American's who dare oppose him) are the enemy and it is they who need to be ridiculed, demeaned, silenced & defeated. And yes, he truly believes that. He said so himself.

 

If anyone knows how to make a gov disfuctional, it is Obama!!!!!!

 

@ OP, your "unless our two parties adopt the same outlook", quote is taken out of context. He was saying that we need to stop being a country of "I win you lose" and start being a country of "Lets work together"

 

What a crock! As he talks, his nose gets longer. He is the one who never reached out his hand to Congress. He told the Republicans, "I won, you didn't." Does he a EVER tell the truth?

 

No, it wasn't out of context. What he's saying is just what he said, "unless our two parties adopt the same outlook". The "same outlook" isn't even close to "lets work together" and the obvious proof of is, as he stated, he views opposing views as "a lot of wacky ideological nonsense". He also says "ideological extremism and maximalist position is much more prominent in the Republican party", which isn't true, but it's what he believes and explains his constant demeaning and belittling of House Republican's and others who oppose his policies.
No, Marcotic, Obama's not calling for "working together" as you allude to, he's saying he wants all of Congress to share the "same outlook" (ideology) as he has and believes they should be working to advance his agenda, period. Why else would he pointedly attack Republican's by saying they are ideological extremist, maximalist who's views are just "a lot of wacky ideological nonsense"? Does that sound like someone who calling for unity or someone who intends to even consider other views? Of course it doesn't.

 

He could be lying, more likely though he knows the senate is going to go red and he's trying to pivot to a more conducive relationship with congress. And, he was telling the truth when he said "I won you didn't" cause' you know, he did win.

 

Never realized you were an expert on governmental affairs to make a statement like that.

 

Truth, in Obama's way of thinking, is optional, because the ends justify the means. He's not concerned with truth, only victory over his opposition (us)....by any means necessary.

 

This:
"we will never realize our full potential unless our two parties adopt the same outlook that we’re asking of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds or Israelis and Palestinians: No victor, no vanquished and work together"

Is a vastly different message then this:

"In his mind our Democracy can't work "unless our two parties adopt the same outlook",

I don't know how to make that any clearer, if you don't get it we're only going to be talking past each other.

Now if you feel that the second is what he believes by all means say that, theres plenty of evidence in both word and deed to support that opinion- but if you take words ascribed to him and pull them out of context and pass it off as what was said, it's intelectually dishonest, and cheapens your message.

 

I have always been puzzled by the atrocious reading comprehension of some on the right.

Generalizing of course but, in the past they have demonstrated a total lack of understanding of what a qualified statement is and how it is used. They apply all kinds of logical fallacies to their interpretations of rather simple, straightforward statements attempting to distort its true meaning.

this OP is a classic example of yet another "you didn't build that" partial quote, "if we keep talking about the economy we are going to lose" partial quote.

I guess there is a different standard of language used by the right.

 

Why do you suppose it impossible for us to move forward with energy, mass transit, healthcare, immigration reform etc???

 

It's pretty hard to come together. I mean, I think I'm reasonable enough, but no way in hell would I ever agree to live in the nation that the tea party envisions. F-that! I mean, maybe eventually the best thing would be to divide the USA into SMART PEOPLE STATES of AMERICA and STUPID HILLBILLY ********* STATES of AMERICA. Then we could all get what we want.

 

OK, since you want to repeat his entire line of thinking as the "context" to dismiss my point, lets just look at what he said. He says he's only asking for our two parties to adopt the same outlook... the same thing we're asking of 1) Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds or 2) Israelis and Palestinians. Really? After he calls republican's ideological extremist, maximalist who's views are just "a lot of wacky ideological nonsense" he expects them to have that "same outlook" and bow to his ideology? Explain how that is the same as what we're asking of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds or Israelis and Palestinians, because he sure didn't.

 

It's not "impossible". What makes you think it is?

 

Oh, so you want to live in country that demeans anyone who doesn't agree with you. OK...good luck with that, Mr. REASONABLE....

 

Yeah its called compromise and cooperate, focus on stuff the two parties can reasonably agree upon and move forward.

Apprently to many on the right have wonky dictionaries - they think the word compromise means "do it my way or no way" and co-operate seems to have been deleted.

You do know that outlook and policy are two entirely different things don't you?

A shared or common outlook as to how the democracy should actually work might be a great start.

 

Conservative propaganda obviously works.

Do you listen to conservative talk? It is the ultimate in wacky ideological nonsense.

Do you listen to conservative talk? It is the ultimate in wacky ideological nonsense. Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levine, Sean Hannity, Lars Larson, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Herman Cain, and the others are all wacky. Not a rational ideological thought between them. And these are the nut jobs that conservatives in America get their ideas from.

 

All Obama needs to do to fully and completely understand dysfunctional government is to stand in front of a mrror

 

The question in my mind isn't "we asked the Shia and Sunni to do this but we can't?" but rather "if we can't do it why would the Shia and Sunni do it."

 

sunnis and shia have been at each other's throats for a thousand years. America has been a country of compromise for the vast majority of our existence. The question on YOUR mind is pretty stupid, from my perspective.

 

I think the "country of compromise" meme is a bit mythological, there was broad agreement during WWII and the Cold War because we recognized an enemy, the Mexican-American war had a similar effect and was arguably waged in part to ease civil war tensions, the rest of the time America has been pretty divisive. How can pro-negative right Abrahamic law proponents agree with impossible to satisfy socialist-leaning liberals? At best we would increase the role of state governments but since socialist policies fail in the presence of any competition the liberals always need to take their agenda up to the federal level and seek to impose it upon the conservatives.

 

Henry Clay would beg to differ.

 

Just going off of what Wikipedia has to say, this guy was instrumental in declaring the war of 1812 against the British which sort of proves my point about Americans needing an enemy to stay together.

 

I Think you're right and the first place we have to look at is the Democratic Party majority in the Senate and the Oval Room of the White House. There have been over 500 bills passed in Congress that have been shelved and not even discussed or voted on in the Senate at this very moment. Our do nothing Congress lies in the Senate

 

Because we have different definitions for what constitutes moving forward in these areas.