He was our Star player and we sent him on the playing field to win the game.

[alberg]

But something strange happened. He forgot what he was there to do.

Maybe he never knew.

Instead of playing to win, instead of playing for the citizens that sent him on the field, instead of working to defeat the strategies and maneuvers of the other team – he decided to become the referee.

We don’t need a referee – we need a President who will fight for the benefit of the majority of the citizens.

For some reason he doesn’t understand that.

[Motown_Johnny]

1. says the guy eating potato chips in his lounge chair

[BeyondGeography]

6. Hey, he never asked to be a global icon either

[Missy Vixen]

22. The guy eating potato chips in his lounge chair is subsidizing the game

It's unfortunate that that's not a valuable thing now.

[JackRiddler]

40. And where are you? In the White House?

[leeroysphitz]

66. says the other guy eating potato chips in another lounge chair

says still yet another guy eating potato chips in still yet another lounge chair...

[alberg]

73. I love recursion, what a great response!

[elehhhhna]

2. bullshit you are too kind. he THREW the game.

[Demeter]

3. Worse yet--scored goals for the other side

[Erose999]

79. How about this one - he bet against himself and took a dive.

[Joe the Revelator]

4. More pointless piling on.....if you make a thread like this, bring something new to the table......

[Armstead]

83. It is actually a very good comparison -- Obama is being the referee

he himself basically casts himself in that role.

Which is an abdication of the leadership role he was hired for.

[alberg]

98. Thanks for getting the point. We need him to "play" and he keeps trying to mediate the other players

[Horse with no Name]

5. Kind of off-topic but I was in a basketball game once

and got turned around and made a basket for the wrong team. It counted too! I couldn't understand why when I was running down the court, my teammates were yelling "NO!"...I just thought they were jealous!

Was pretty embarrassing but luckily, the coach let me sit down after that so I could hide a little.

True story.

[99th_Monkey]

14. I did that too!! My coach nearly had a heart attack, throwing a towel, etc. funny now. nt

[Horse with no Name]

15. I remember being so proud when I landed the layup

it didn't dawn on me WHY the other team wasn't defending "their" court,lol.

[99th_Monkey]

90. Definitely one of my more awkward childhood moments.

Thanks goodness for the healing miracle of Father
Time, cuz now I can just laugh about it.

I love it when that happens.

[patrice]

16. LIKE!! your screen-name!

:hi:

When the 100th monkey arrives will you all set about typing that book of NEW Knowledge that ALL of the rest of us need, ASAP, please!

[99th_Monkey]

82. Thank you.

I'd like to think that's a distinct possibility re: my writing new knowledge. But I'd better hurry
cuz I'm not getting any younger, maybe some 100th monkey will kick-start the writing, like you say.

So many possibilities, including that the entire human race will be caught up in a torrent of Nirvana,
drenched in pure consciousness; and we'll all wonder WTF just happened, like we had just awakened from
a collective nightmare, which is precisely what just did in fact happen. So many possibilities.

Thanks too for dropping a line. :hi:

[patrice]

7. Reality check > "... onto the playing field to win the game ALL BY HIMSELF."

Either the system is AS "YOU" SAY corrupt or it is not.

Your statements reveal that you think the system is NOT corrupt and President are KINGS. Both implications are much more characteristic of those who fucked us in the first place than they are of anyone trying to deal with reality and actually identify solutions.

[alberg]

12. It's a metaphor.

In a team sport, like Democracy, no one player can win the game. It's a team effort. But on most teams there are team leaders and star players who, by nature of their skill, position and experience are capable of disproportionately effecting the outcome of the struggle. And if one of the star players on your team decides that they don't actually want to fight for your side's victory but would rather play the role of the conciliator in chief, the referee in the contest - well then, your team is put at a significant disadvantage.

And yes, I think the system is corrupt.

[madamesilverspurs]

23. You beat me to it.

He ran onto the field, and after a few minutes the rest of the team had run back to the dugout. And the fans in the stands started berating him for failing to play all positions simultaneously, all this to the great glee of the other team.


-

[patrice]

32. His opposition on "the Left" and the Right bear similar traits: #1 = Oversimplification.

For all of the ways we have legitimate justification to call FRAUD on how the Right has fucked the rest of us up financially,

if "the Left" leaps too early (as they did with that vote last Fall to extend the MC BTC's) - even if they achieve somekind of foothold, they'll end up WITHOUT ENOUGH RESOURCES . . .

such that, though it may or may not be FRAUD that causes our future suffering, OUR commonly held resources will be reduced to the SAME LEVEL as that resulting from the Right's fraudulent means and processes.

IOW, people will continue to suffer and die under a different form of the same OPPRESSOR, with ALL of the exact same justifications, i.e. "There's not enough for everyone", only we will in fact be just that much later on EARTH's clock and that much closer to "There's not enough . . . " being MORE TRUE.

Thanks for reading this rant!

:hi:

[Armstead]

86. No, players were out there. But Obama walked off the field to don a referees outfit

He put himself out there as a leader when he ran for President. And in our system, that means when he got the job he should have led.

[alberg]

99. He brought flowers to a knife fight.

[CakeGrrl]

8. Says the armchair pundit. Who are you bringing in from the bench?

[patrice]

13. Makes you kind of wonder where all of these great "Lefties" have been for 10 years doesn't it? nt

[LaydeeBug]

72. we've been helping him get into office. See, WE brought HIM to the bench, and now he works for US,

not the other way around.

[Armstead]

87. You obviouslty have not been paying attention

[JackRiddler]

42. Is this the new talking point?

Citizens write their opinions on the Web. You have no right to project who or where you think they are. Where are you? Where are you sitting as you type these low-grade, childish insults?

[sabrina 1]

63. But can you refute what the OP says?

It's easy to throw out insults, but since so many, many people have observed exactly what the OP has observed, if you think it is not a fair assessment of this President, then please, present your case.

All you have done so far, is confirm the OP's observations. When there is no defense, 'defenders' generally resort to insults. So, I am assuming you actually agree with the OP, but you would prefer no one notice??? Of course I could be wrong.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Armstead]

88. Nothing to see here citizen. Move on. Nothing to see here citizen....

[Swede]

9. His team turned on him before 1/2 time.

He needs them for the whole game.

[patrice]

11. That HuffHo-Pelosi engineered bullshit about extending MC BTCs last Fall is PROOF positive. nt

[patrice]

17. But I guess that's what happens when power out ranks solutions. nt

[we can do it]

74. More Like He Gave the Other Team the Playbook In the First Quarter

then told them which plays we wouldn't be using and gave them a 20 point spot.....We who got him elected did not turn on him- he has abandoned us to help the other team.

[Bluebear]

84. But the cheerleaders still drool over their big stud athlete!

[Armstead]

93. I'd say it was the other way around

But I'm just part of the "professional left" so what do I know?

[patrice]

10. P.S. This IS what happens when you pledge not to support someone who is NEGOTIATING a complex situat

ion for people who include folks like Arianna-the-pony-fairy and her HuffHo serfs.

[Pisces]

18. Blah blah blah I hate Obama blah blah blah is all I read.

[Fire1]

20. Yeah this OP is pretty much bullshit. n/t

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Armstead]

94. No that's all you see in your own mind because you don't bother to read or think

[Fire1]

19. I certainly disagree with that analogy. Every time he called

a meeting, something like an entire weekend starting on Thursday through Sunday, they walked out on the man, TWICE. It seemed like the only time they ever got anywhere was when he wasn't in the room. They even have photos of him "in the meetings." What "exactly' was he supposed to be doing that he 'did not' do?

[alberg]

21. He keeps trying to compromise when he should be fighting for the principles of the Democratic Party.

He does not negotiate effectively. He gives away too much in the early stages of the negotiation before ever testing the resolve of the other side. He adopts the language and framing of the other side (Supply Side Economics) which seriously undermines his (our) position. He does not effectively use the Bully Pulpit to shape public opinion. He should have threatened to use the 14th Amendment as part of his negotiation position.

These are just a few examples from the last few weeks. The same pattern was repeated in the Health Care negotiations, extension of the Bush Tax cuts etc.

[Fire1]

25. You've got alot of misinformation here.

It is widely known and reported that he put "everything" on the table to show the american public just how unreasonable the teabaggers are. There was never any intention, on his part, to cut spending by dismantling the big 3. He used the bully pulpit on at least TWO occasions, so, THAT is an outright LIE! On one of those occasions he specifically asked the american people to call and e-mail their congress people, at which time the congressional websites crashed. http://www.techweb.com/news/231002765/obama-talks-congressional-websites-crash.html

Using the 14th amendment would have in all likelihood created even more of a distraction if the republicans started impeachment proceedings, REGARDLESS if the constitution gives him that power or not! Those people don't give a rat's ass about the constitution! The bush tax cuts were extended for ONE year and that was done in an effort to encourage corporations to hire workers. Now, that he sees the black heartedness of these people, he will allow them to expire, as part of that negotiation to balance the budget. That's 4T that will go back into the coffers.

I don't agree with ANYBODY 100% of the time but I certainly don't lie to prove a point!

Unrec for lying.

[madfloridian]

28. So you admit he put "everything" on the table as a ploy to show them up?

Well, hell, it sure as hell did not work. But it got seniors riled up at him.

[Fire1]

30. I don't know what you mean by ploy to "show them up."

He did it to do exactly as I stated. Show the american public how unreasonable AND racist they are. Yeah he got alot of senior s riled up but at this point they should know better.

[LooseWilly]

37. "they should know better"?...

Would you care to "explain" that?... Sounds like you're saying that they should know that Obama wouldn't actually negotiate away the "big 3"... that the offer he made was a ploy. Is that what you are saying?

If the "super congress" proceeds to negotiate away sizeable portions of the benefits offered by the "big 3", are you going to try to claim that it isn't Obama's doing?... despite the fact that he's the one who "put them on the table" (part of the "everything" you mentioned)? Despite the fact that Obama is the one who led the Democratic side of the negotiations that determined that a "super congress" should determine the "rest" of the cuts to be made to satisfy Wall St.?

When the medicare and social security cuts come... remember this... it will be Obama's doing. He calls it "entitlement reform", just like the Republicans do.

And... when that happens... will you be so audacious as to repeat that seniors "should know better"?...

[Fire1]

39. Let's see that happen first. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

67. Seniors "should know better" but the world has to shown that the TeaPubliKlans

are unreasonable?

The party whose highest elected officer bluntly and stated that in the midst of a financial meltdown and two wars that is number one priority was making sure the President was a one termer?

The party that wouldn't fund unemployment for a year without at least two more years of tax cuts for the rich?

The party that originally wanted the deficit commission who had seven or eight co-sponsors fall off because Obama stupidly support it.

The party who decided their own last health care bill was Marxism and unconstitutional?

The same party who abandoned and now curse "the Dream Act"?

The same party whose last VP declared "deficits don't matter"?

The same party who was rejected by the American people who just doubled down on what got them tossed rather than reevaluating?

Why do you think a public that can't grasp that the TeaPubliKlans are unreasonable should understand that their safety net is not really in danger but was being used as a feint to show the nature of the opposition?

It seems odd that such dramatics would be required when the party in question publicly and boldly states their mission is obstruction and political destruction.

It also seems strange that one would continue to state that such people are well intentioned, have legitimate concerns, and have workable solutions.

Your version of "common sense" is a mess of raggedy logic and faith. This wasn't a forced hand, he pulled the Catfood Commission out of the recycling bin and appointed devils and corporate hacks, he approved of the direction of the "Gang of Six", and here we go again were will either finally get these cuts or we'll suck another 2.5 trillion or so ut of the economy and absolutely savage discretionary spending.

[Fire1]

68. When I referred to common sense, republicans and especially

teabaggers did not come to mind. In fact, I don't think anyone can explain the thought processes of that group. The probability that he would risk losing the election by cutting from programs that sixty million people depend on, defies all reason and logic, as far as I'm concerned and I don't see anything "messy and raggedy" about that kind of logic.

[TheKentuckian]

100. Why would he play into that fear at all? Why would he not set a clear path for those down ticket?

Medicare and Social Security will be the hill we die. Attack the Ryan plan. Explain the solvency of Social Security. Explain the Medicare hasn't had a revenue enhancement in a generation and there will be winter forever in Hell before we allow this programs to be cut and in fact we are determined over the long term to reduce the retirement age to 65 and wish to make Medicare available to every citizen which would strengthen the program by diversifying the pool?

If you are worried about 60 million seniors, you ought to understand they haven't any patience for chicken or trimming. You'd probably wouldn't have gone all Lazarus on the deficit commission, and you sure as shit wouldn't have selected Simpson and Bowles.

Your logic is raggedy because your "ifs" and "thens" don't rationally correlate.

[alberg]

70. Your points are all assumptions, that's ok but dont' accuse somebody of lying

just because you disagree with them.

I'm not arguing any of the points about the Right Wing, the Tea Party, the Oligopoly etc. . I'm in agreement with you about how bad the other side is.

My point is a simple one: our President is not playing this game to win. His behavior has contributed to the other side's success. He need's to toughen up and get better at negotiation.

You may not agree with me - that's ok - but that doesn't make me a "liar" just becuase I interpret events differently than you.

[Armstead]

89. Think about the signal Obama sends when he asks for BIGGER cuts that the GOP

You CAN'T publicly propose a policy, and then go lout and attack it. That is exactlty what Obama did with his plan to cut MORE than the GOP. It means he WANTS to cut more than the GOP. That is how it is interpreted.

And all that does is reinforce the GOP message.

It is very hard to go out and campaign on a message that says: "The GOP wants to cut the programs that are necessary" when you want to cut more.

It's not 3D Chess. It is either political stupidity or a deliberate selling of the Conservative GOP ;position.

[patrice]

36. These are just a few examples of you ASSUMING you know enough to make these conclusions.

Some of us could live with such ASSUMPTIONS if others would just admit that's what they are in the first place and begin from that point, rather than PRETENDING that they know enough without any assumptions at all. FALSE. Assumptions are to some extent necessary, so the real questions are about which assumptions are what and revealing that collaboratively, up front. Because pretending those assumptions are not there happens to be the basic logical form of the FRAUD that the Right has just accidentally-on-purpose destroyed a big chunk of America with.

[Fire1]

38. I'm not ASSUMING anything. At some point common sense

should take over. I posted what was 'reported' by the media and from those reports came up with a conclusion that can only be deemed 'logical.' Case in point, in putting 'everything' on the table and knowing there are approximately 60 million retirees dependant on the big 3, the logical conclusion is that he had no intention of compromising away those entitlements to cut spending. Certainly not if he intends to run again.

[patrice]

45. You are assuming that you know everything about everything. I don't and I admit it. You don't & you

don't admit it.

What the fuck is "common sense" when you don't know extremely vital PRIVATE traits of the very thing that you claim "common sense" about?

[Fire1]

52. That's rich! Each and every poster has their own

interpretation of current events, that's true, but seldom do I run across anyone willing to lie to TRY and prove a point. That's not saying I know everything, that's calling out a lie.

[patrice]

56. You form absolute conclusions without knowing whether you have enough or even the right information

to do so.

Do you know what probabilities are and ALL of the sorts of things that CAN determine them in a situation like this?

You speak in absolutes as though there is NO probability of being even slightly WRONG in your conclusion, as OP does in saying there is a LIE about stuff that you ASSUME you know enough about to form that conclusion.

You are assuming you not only know enough and but also whatever you do know is what you NEED to know, neither of which is NECESSARILY true . . . You are saying you know absolutely that there is dishonesty on the part of others, when you yourself may not know what you need to know in order to come to that determination.

It's exactly the SAME bullshit that the Right pulls on us and we're all just supposed to believe.

[Fire1]

58. Don't attack me b/c your little friend got called out. Just

because they got countered with FACTS isn't my fault. If you don't want to get called out then be mindful of what you write. And you're WRONG again! Democrats pull the SAME bullshit on this very board every fuckin day.

[patrice]

59. Same is true of those who BLINDLY oppose this President. nt

[patrice]

61. When did it become an attack to defend from an accusation of "LIES". Is defense not permitted?

What have I said that is untrue?

Do you in fact know enough and know what you need to know about ALL of the issues?

Who, in the situation all of us are referring to, gets closer to that standard than either one of us?

[Fire1]

69. Just like everybody in the bash-Obama group. Sucks

doesn't it.;-)

[patrice]

46. You're assuming what is "common sense" to you is common sense to EVERYONE. Since this IS about resou

rces, ALL kinds of resources, that is not the case.

[Fire1]

49. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt in assuming most people

have common sense. Common sense doesn't come in a variety of forms. You either have it or you don't. In terms of all kinds of resources etc., I have no idea what you're talking about.

[patrice]

53. wow. Another seemingly "rightie" trait. All-or-nothing false dichotomies.

Please never negotiate anything important for anyone in need.

[we can do it]

75. [phone]

making consessions at the beginning of debate is not a winning strategy

[animato]

34. They walked out and people forget that.

They didn't want to give Obama a win on that negotiation

[Safetykitten]

24. You are way too kind. He is now at this time unelectable. His stupifying

moderation and missed opportunities to call out evil, yes evil, will have us mired in a republican freak-show nightmare for many years to come.

I truly doubt he really understands the concept of us and them.

He is now in the position of being in that rowboat, batting away the deficit bunny rabbit and he looks useless doing it.

[madamesilverspurs]

26. Excellent Rovian rant.

Way obvious, but just the same . . .


-

[Safetykitten]

27. Thank you, and those buttons are Newspeak icons.

[we can do it]

77. They Should Say Yes WE Did, Now Why Don't You?

[Lorien]

97. He could have buried the GOP once and for all with the material that they've given him

instead he's adopted their ideas and framing and is making them even stronger and bolder!

[democracy1st]

29. No way is he a ref,he threw the game!

[patrice]

35. Some people assume they know the game, when they frequently demonstrate that they don't. Clues >

If we go as "the Left" wants us to and turn on this President, even if we "win", we'll end up with as little or less resources than we would have had if we had stayed together FOR SOLUTIONS instead of SOLELY for power.

[democracy1st]

50. If you really believe that don't let the criticism bother you.

[Erose999]

80. So tell us more about these "solutions" we can achieve by working with the Teabaggers. I for one, do

not understand how "compromising" with the Right Wing and their coalition of racists, sexists, homophobes, religious zealots, and the willfully ignorant is going to solve any problems.

[stevenleser]

31. You missed it completely despite the fact that you were almost there...

Like any team sport, no star player can do it all by themselves. We need a full team of all stars, that includes Congress, the DNC, state legislatures, Governors, state party infrastructure and the Grass roots.

Reliance on one person to carry a team is a prescription for failure.

[patrice]

33. 1+++

[Armstead]

91. You are missing the point

Sure no star player can do it themselves. But teams need leaders, and that's what is hired in a Presidential election.

When the guy you hired as the quarterback walks off the field and decides to become a referee, it leads a void in leadership.

[GSLevel9]

41. If he were a starting pitcher...

He just gave up 11 earned runs in 4 innings and some here want him to continue pitching a complete game.

[patrice]

47. In a game with no one else on the field. & in which sunsetting the BTCs, 1st base, was

picked up and taken away to be a door stop in a pony-fairy castle known as HuffHo.

[patrice]

48. So, when his own troll-infested team came to bat, they had further to run.

[patrice]

51. And when the opposition came to bat, ON A DIFFERENT FIELD, they had 1/2 as far to run. nt

[Swede]

43. The refs and broadcasters are cheering for the other side.

But the game isn't yet over.

[LaydeeBug]

71. so then he gets confused at to which end of the field is his goal? nt

[JoePhilly]

44. I heard he kicks puppies competitively, for distance!!!!

The Bastard!!

[Fire1]

54. LOL!! Good one. n/t

[Armstead]

92. NO -- That would require gumption

He lets the GOP kick him competitively.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. He confused embracing with tackling the opponents.

[patrice]

57. It is my experience, yesterday, that some people like to have those tacklers around, but not if they

don't know the game so bad that they tackle their own quarterback instead of the opposition.

Yesterday = at the Capital Building in Topeka with Dan Manning.

[cherokeeprogressive]

60. If he were the only football player on the field, for EITHER team...

it would take him three plays to score.

:rofl: :rofl:

[patrice]

62. More unfounded assumptions. Guess what, it's not as SIMPLE as football. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

65. It wasn't an assumption. It was an F'ing joke. Lighten up Frances.

I have some news for you: Football isn't a game that can be played by a single player, under any circumstance.

[JVS]

85. Are you sure he wouldn't have to punt?

[patrice]

64. Gotta go make dinner. Thanks for the fun, All.

:hi:

[autorank]

81. He's on the other team n/t

[WCGreen]

95. Great analogy!

KnR

[Lorien]

96. He's not confused; he's throwing the game to the other team

gamblers have big bets, after all.