What I actually wish for is more than two parties…the range of problems/issues and scope of each problem/issue as well as methods for solving them is too broad and complicated for two parties to embody all ideas. Besides, each party has a set ideology, so you don’t find all that many Republicans who support even a few Democratic ideals, and the same for Democrats: very few of us (at least in my experience) are more than just a little conservative.

But given the current state of things, I cast my lot with Obama, and don’t really care how compromising he is or not, as long as I like what the government’s doing. I say the same thing for Bush– but I didn’t like what his government did at all. Am I making sense?

A couple, but I’m more into brown coats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browncoat

It was the only response merited by your inane and unfounded assertion. Unless you actually thought that was an enlightened comment, which wouldn’t surprise me.

It is interesting to note that, with bipartisanship, a president can be both criticized and praised by the same person at the same time.

If he truly does compromise, praise Obama for reaching across the isle and being above touting the party line and all that, while at the same time chastising him for giving in to foolish wishes of the other side and not living up to expectation. If he does not compromise, praise him for being true to his virtues or whatever, while at the same time label him a partisan hack and tool of the corrupt two-party system. Same thing can be said for Bush. You cannot win on this.

Which duality of ideas do you hold?

But cluster, what an eloquent and persuasive defence of conservatism you offer there. You’ve totally converted me, given your irrefutable logic, and clear results from past policies.

(Not)

Again, how many brown shirts do you own tool?

“”Tell me, do you really believe Bush was non-partisan?”

–fr00tn00b

Well Obama blah blah blah.

–you”

Bush made non-partisan efforts to “reach across the aisle” with legislation that I listed and which you added to with your PS. Now, you want to leave Obamateur out of it, when you claimed that Obamateur was more compromising than Bush?

It doesn’t work that way. But when can we expect liberals to be fair when history has shown us otherwise? Obamateur has shown us nothing but his hard left ideology and the desire to grow the power of the federal government. His “compromises” are in name only and has labeled the Republicans as the “Party of No”. When the Obamateur was in the “party of no” he and his fellow obstructionists were only “looking to protect the rights of the minority party”.

The liberals, as in the case of Conyers, play by their own rules. When the other party does the same as they did, they are another set of rules entirely for them. If there was ever any consistency in DC, many liberals would be out on the streets looking for another job.