““bipartisan” to any Republican leader means the Democrats agree to the GOPs terms.”
Hey look at that, a simple word swap and it’s equally true.
Especially when he’s bipartisan to the guys [GOP] who came in saying their #1 priority is to wreck his administration (Mitch McConnell) and multitudes of GOP leaders said there would be “no compromise on anything.”
senor - what are you talking about???? Don’t understand a word.
Rocky - a bad day on the golf course is better than a good day at work. Can’t argue that. I can, however, argue that Republicans want to destroy the country. First, the premise that your platform is built upon is that all Republicans are alike. Sounds like saying all African Americans likes watermelon! Guess what…I like watermelon too, and I’m European American!
Second, if all Republicans ARE rich, why would they want to destroy America? America is what MADE them rich. And, if all Republicans are NOT rich, they are Republicans because America can MAKE them rich. The difference is that Democrats are Democrats in America because they can suck the life out of Republicans in order to survive without earning it themselves Woops, I made a generalization, just like you did. Sorry. I feel bad for you. I think thay you are among many Democrats who earn their way, but don’t understand that there is greed among most humans. Those who can earn it want to hoard it, and those who don’t want to work for it want it taken from the rich and given to them by the government. Woops, another generalization. See, this is more difficult than you seem to think. It is easy, though, if you imagine that your side is perfect, and the other side is completely evil. That is never the case, though.
neither Prez O or the Democrat congress has acted in a “bipartisan” way to the elected GOP in congress, since day one of the 111th session.
am I the only poster here that watches the House and Senate sessions on C-SPAN?
the GOP members who represented a large part of the citizens of the USA were shut out and Reid and Pelosi and Obama rejected any input from the GOP…how can any of you claim otherwise? to do that, you fly in the face of FACTS.
the leftist AGENDA was what the GOP tried to defeat…not the president or his administration.
Despite some of the other blatherings above… I think Jade actually has a good point, again.
Weird having a nutty conservative agree with you isn’t it?
But to make the point a little more accurate, I would posit a theory that which ever party has the most control tends to expect “bipartisanship” to lean in their favor. Frankly, I don’t see how that’s unreasonable (however distasteful the idea is when my ideology isn’t favored).
The oddity in this current administration is Republican support is completely unnecessary to pass ANYTHING, so long as Dems are united. So why not, from a Republican point of view, make a principled stance in opposition to the supreme power of the opposition (especially when Congress has the lowest rating in all of history of Gallup and is primarily Democrats)? Wouldn’t liberals (etc.) want their Democratic reps to do the same if the situation were reversed? Let’s just be a touch fair and honest of a millisecond.
But the question is which statement is more true? The fact that “bipartisanship” means favoring Dems or Reps or means give and take… and if the latter then by whom?
There is, actually, an objective method to solve that question set with unquestionable facts… it’s called a voting record and a record of the debates/results in the Legislature. Match that with the comments made by those Congressmen in that time for those bills and how much was given/dropped for the opposition AND who had the favor of the Executive branch and/or the House/Senate? It certainly can be done if it hasn’t already been done.
But that result should end such a debate… so long as the members in the debate are honest in the slightest.
Wraithkin over 13 years ago
Because this is better than agreeing on something. Heaven forbid… /sarcasm
disgustedtaxpayer over 13 years ago
“bipartisan” to the GOP means debate and compromise on both sides.
“bipartisan” to any Democrat leader means the GOP agree to the Dem’s terms.
so, first, the Referee must make both R and D use the same dictionary!
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
““bipartisan” to any Republican leader means the Democrats agree to the GOPs terms.”
Hey look at that, a simple word swap and it’s equally true.Especially when he’s bipartisan to the guys [GOP] who came in saying their #1 priority is to wreck his administration (Mitch McConnell) and multitudes of GOP leaders said there would be “no compromise on anything.”
rockngolfer over 13 years ago
The Republican agenda is to defeat Obama at all costs. Even if it destroys the country. Plain fact.
Loco80 over 13 years ago
senor - what are you talking about???? Don’t understand a word. Rocky - a bad day on the golf course is better than a good day at work. Can’t argue that. I can, however, argue that Republicans want to destroy the country. First, the premise that your platform is built upon is that all Republicans are alike. Sounds like saying all African Americans likes watermelon! Guess what…I like watermelon too, and I’m European American! Second, if all Republicans ARE rich, why would they want to destroy America? America is what MADE them rich. And, if all Republicans are NOT rich, they are Republicans because America can MAKE them rich. The difference is that Democrats are Democrats in America because they can suck the life out of Republicans in order to survive without earning it themselves Woops, I made a generalization, just like you did. Sorry. I feel bad for you. I think thay you are among many Democrats who earn their way, but don’t understand that there is greed among most humans. Those who can earn it want to hoard it, and those who don’t want to work for it want it taken from the rich and given to them by the government. Woops, another generalization. See, this is more difficult than you seem to think. It is easy, though, if you imagine that your side is perfect, and the other side is completely evil. That is never the case, though.
disgustedtaxpayer over 13 years ago
neither Prez O or the Democrat congress has acted in a “bipartisan” way to the elected GOP in congress, since day one of the 111th session.
am I the only poster here that watches the House and Senate sessions on C-SPAN?
the GOP members who represented a large part of the citizens of the USA were shut out and Reid and Pelosi and Obama rejected any input from the GOP…how can any of you claim otherwise? to do that, you fly in the face of FACTS.
the leftist AGENDA was what the GOP tried to defeat…not the president or his administration.
DjGuardian over 13 years ago
Despite some of the other blatherings above… I think Jade actually has a good point, again.
Weird having a nutty conservative agree with you isn’t it?
But to make the point a little more accurate, I would posit a theory that which ever party has the most control tends to expect “bipartisanship” to lean in their favor. Frankly, I don’t see how that’s unreasonable (however distasteful the idea is when my ideology isn’t favored).
The oddity in this current administration is Republican support is completely unnecessary to pass ANYTHING, so long as Dems are united. So why not, from a Republican point of view, make a principled stance in opposition to the supreme power of the opposition (especially when Congress has the lowest rating in all of history of Gallup and is primarily Democrats)? Wouldn’t liberals (etc.) want their Democratic reps to do the same if the situation were reversed? Let’s just be a touch fair and honest of a millisecond.
But the question is which statement is more true? The fact that “bipartisanship” means favoring Dems or Reps or means give and take… and if the latter then by whom?
There is, actually, an objective method to solve that question set with unquestionable facts… it’s called a voting record and a record of the debates/results in the Legislature. Match that with the comments made by those Congressmen in that time for those bills and how much was given/dropped for the opposition AND who had the favor of the Executive branch and/or the House/Senate? It certainly can be done if it hasn’t already been done.
But that result should end such a debate… so long as the members in the debate are honest in the slightest.