Well, Republicans got their way in Congress when they had the power, now it's time for payback. Anything that got the Republicans squirming, I am for.
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, you can bring the Republican horse to the Bipartisan water, but you can't make it drink. If Republicans think that bipartisanship a synonym for obstructionism, they will get what's coming to them. The American people have spoken, and given the Democrats a mandate to govern. Republicans don't have a mandate to obstruct. They lost.
One could say the same for the Democrats for the last 12 years...but I didn't hear you saying that then.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, you can bring the Republican horse to the Bipartisan water, but you can't make it drink. If Republicans think that bipartisanship a synonym for obstructionism, they will get what's coming to them. The American people have spoken, and given the Democrats a mandate to govern. Republicans don't have a mandate to obstruct. They lost.
One could say the same for the Democrats for the last 12 years...but I didn't hear you saying that then.
Well, Republicans got their way in Congress when they had the power, now it's time for payback. Anything that got the Republicans squirming, I am for.
nope, most of us are smart enough to realize that Pelosi is not the wench running for President.. that's another wench altogether.Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, you can bring the Republican horse to the Bipartisan water, but you can't make it drink. If Republicans think that bipartisanship a synonym for obstructionism, they will get what's coming to them. The American people have spoken, and given the Democrats a mandate to govern. Republicans don't have a mandate to obstruct. They lost.
One could say the same for the Democrats for the last 12 years...but I didn't hear you saying that then.
Well, Republicans got their way in Congress when they had the power, now it's time for payback. Anything that got the Republicans squirming, I am for.
With all the resident Republican whining about Pelosi you would swear she is running for President.
the problem with wanting payback is that nothing last forever.Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, you can bring the Republican horse to the Bipartisan water, but you can't make it drink. If Republicans think that bipartisanship a synonym for obstructionism, they will get what's coming to them. The American people have spoken, and given the Democrats a mandate to govern. Republicans don't have a mandate to obstruct. They lost.
One could say the same for the Democrats for the last 12 years...but I didn't hear you saying that then.
Well, Republicans got their way in Congress when they had the power, now it's time for payback. Anything that got the Republicans squirming, I am for.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, you can bring the Republican horse to the Bipartisan water, but you can't make it drink. If Republicans think that bipartisanship a synonym for obstructionism, they will get what's coming to them. The American people have spoken, and given the Democrats a mandate to govern. Republicans don't have a mandate to obstruct. They lost.
One could say the same for the Democrats for the last 12 years...but I didn't hear you saying that then.
Well, Republicans got their way in Congress when they had the power, now it's time for payback. Anything that got the Republicans squirming, I am for.
it must be hard to work together with a bunch of immorral criminals. (R)Originally posted by: jrenz
So you're saying all that stuff about Democrats being better than Republicans and how they were going to usher in a new era of cooperation and progress was just a lie, right?
No honor among thieves?Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
it must be hard to work together with a bunch of immorral criminals. (R)Originally posted by: jrenz
So you're saying all that stuff about Democrats being better than Republicans and how they were going to usher in a new era of cooperation and progress was just a lie, right?
its gonna take a whole lot more then just a change of Congress to fix this country. at the very least tho the Dems have slowed down the Reps agenda and bought us some time.Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
No honor among thieves?Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
it must be hard to work together with a bunch of immorral criminals. (R)Originally posted by: jrenz
So you're saying all that stuff about Democrats being better than Republicans and how they were going to usher in a new era of cooperation and progress was just a lie, right?
Dems and Rep in Congress can steal with the best of them. How would you tell the difference.
Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
its gonna take a whole lot more then just a change of Congress to fix this country. at the very least tho the Dems have slowed down the Reps agenda and bought us some time.Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
No honor among thieves?Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
it must be hard to work together with a bunch of immorral criminals. (R)Originally posted by: jrenz
So you're saying all that stuff about Democrats being better than Republicans and how they were going to usher in a new era of cooperation and progress was just a lie, right?
Dems and Rep in Congress can steal with the best of them. How would you tell the difference.
time to potentialy fix this mess, time to make it to the next president, time for more ppl to wake up and realize the real situation and that it needs to change, time for education, time for hope.Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Time for what???
have they really accomplished anything? All I see is the same old game of ego-centric chess being played out on the Hill every day...Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
im not saying the Dems have done anything wonderful, but our decline has slowed.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
have they really accomplished anything? All I see is the same old game of ego-centric chess being played out on the Hill every day...Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
im not saying the Dems have done anything wonderful, but our decline has slowed.
Even as someone who opposed them in November, I still had a small part of me that bought into their promises of change, cooperation, effectiveness in Iraq, etc. Part of me genuinely believed that change might be a good thing. That illusion has since been shattered on a daily basis.
they're no different or better than the idiots they replaced. Same story, different day...
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, you can bring the Republican horse to the Bipartisan water, but you can't make it drink. If Republicans think that bipartisanship a synonym for obstructionism, they will get what's coming to them. The American people have spoken, and given the Democrats a mandate to govern. Republicans don't have a mandate to obstruct. They lost.
One could say the same for the Democrats for the last 12 years...but I didn't hear you saying that then.
Well, Republicans got their way in Congress when they had the power, now it's time for payback. Anything that got the Republicans squirming, I am for.
So you're saying all that stuff about Democrats being better than Republicans and how they were going to usher in a new era of cooperation and progress was just a lie, right?
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, you can bring the Republican horse to the Bipartisan water, but you can't make it drink. If Republicans think that bipartisanship a synonym for obstructionism, they will get what's coming to them. The American people have spoken, and given the Democrats a mandate to govern. Republicans don't have a mandate to obstruct. They lost.
One could say the same for the Democrats for the last 12 years...but I didn't hear you saying that then.
Well, Republicans got their way in Congress when they had the power, now it's time for payback. Anything that got the Republicans squirming, I am for.
So you're saying all that stuff about Democrats being better than Republicans and how they were going to usher in a new era of cooperation and progress was just a lie, right?
You got owned in the election. There are consequences to being losers. When Democrats lost, they and this country suffered the consequences. Now it's time for the GOP to suffer the consequences of mismanaging this country and losing the voters' trust. If the voters wanted the Republicans to have power, they would not have thrown them out of power last election.
I am all for bipartisanship, if Republicans want to join the Democrats in implementing the will of the American people, who spoke loud and clear in the last election. But if the Republicans think bipartisanship means they get to obstruct the Democrats from doing what they have a mandate from the electors to do, then they will soon find out they are very very mistaken. Republicans are not equals, they are a minority. They get a vote, not a veto in Congress. That is the will of the voters.They still have Bush to veto things, for a few more months.
Originally posted by: Corbett
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/05/16/20070516_184710_flash.htm
After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.
The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.
In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.
Of course, no mention of this on ATPN yet...
So what ever happend to all the crap about bringing back bipartisanship and "It's all about the children" like Pelosi was spewing out when the dems retook the house and senate?
I realize she has since withdrawn the motion but what was she thinking in the first place?
Originally posted by: jrenz
So how does your support of bipartisan cooperation go hand in hand with "t's time for payback. Anything that got the Republicans squirming, I am for."?
And the slim victory the Democrats got was not a mandate for a liberal agenda, it was a protest against Bush and his policies. The country is still very much conservative, so maybe the Democrats should practice what they preached, instead of doing the same thing that caused the Republicans to fall out of favor.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: jrenz
So how does your support of bipartisan cooperation go hand in hand with "t's time for payback. Anything that got the Republicans squirming, I am for."?
And the slim victory the Democrats got was not a mandate for a liberal agenda, it was a protest against Bush and his policies. The country is still very much conservative, so maybe the Democrats should practice what they preached, instead of doing the same thing that caused the Republicans to fall out of favor.
That is your opinion. If this country was conservative as you claim, it would not have made a San Francisco Liberal the speaker of the House.
The voters have spoken, and they want the Democrats in power.
If Republicans want to be bipartisan in that context, they are more than welcome to join the Democrats, but losers don't get to call the shots, and face it, Republicans are losers.
The longer you persist in the denial that the voters really wanted Republicans in power, but they didn't vote for them to send a message to Bush, the longer your party will be on the losing end of elections.
The concept of bipartisanship has the Republicans squirming too. I didn't see them being bipartisan when they were in power.
Now they will have to be bipartisan on the Democrats' terms. And that means, a junior partner, not a co-leader.
umm, just so you know, "the country" has nothing to do with the selection of Speaker of the House.Originally posted by: senseamp
That is your opinion. If this country was conservative as you claim, it would not have made a San Francisco Liberal the speaker of the House.
First, I believe the voters yelled "not Bush" with their votes, and not so much "yay Dems!" Second, bipartisan does not mean being forced to agree on everything the Dems do. Bipartisan would mean compromise on the part of both parties. In other words, it's impossible for only one party to be bipartisan. This is an all or nothing thing that would involve compromise and cooperation on both sides. I remember hearing many of the Dem candidates preaching just that during the run-up to November. What we ended up with, however, is just more of the same crap we saw from the Republican idiots they replaced. Swell.The voters have spoken, and they want the Democrats in power. If Republicans want to be bipartisan in that context, they are more than welcome to join the Democrats, but losers don't get to call the shots, and face it, Republicans are losers.
uhh, I think the "send a message to Bush" description is entirely accurate in describing last November's elections. After all, that was pretty much the entire Democrat platform, wasn't it? Every single one of their seats was won on that very premise! It is the Dems who seem to have forgotten their own message since they won. It's almost as though they are saying "We were just kidding! What we really plan to do is..."The longer you persist in the denial that the voters really wanted Republicans in power, but they didn't vote for them to send a message to Bush, the longer your party will be on the losing end of elections.
uhh, which is why they lost, right? So if the Dems continue refusing to compromise and act bipartisan, what do you think will happen to them in the next elections? and the next? and so on..?The concept of bipartisanship has the Republicans squirming too. I didn't see them being bipartisan when they were in power.
once again, you need to learn the definition of the word bipartisan. This is not an approach that can be done by one of the two parties involved. In order for it to work, both sides needs to cooperate and compromise on everything.Now they will have to be bipartisan on the Democrats' terms. And that means, a junior partner, not a co-leader.
Maybe in the states you care about, but the outcome of this election is that an SF liberal is the Speaker of the House. That should tell you something about the voters intent.Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: jrenz
So how does your support of bipartisan cooperation go hand in hand with "t's time for payback. Anything that got the Republicans squirming, I am for."?
And the slim victory the Democrats got was not a mandate for a liberal agenda, it was a protest against Bush and his policies. The country is still very much conservative, so maybe the Democrats should practice what they preached, instead of doing the same thing that caused the Republicans to fall out of favor.
That is your opinion. If this country was conservative as you claim, it would not have made a San Francisco Liberal the speaker of the House.
My proof is in the majority of stateside initiatives in which the results were overwhelmingly conservative. The fact that almost every time there is some sort of vote in this state or that on issues, the outcome is mostly conservative.
Slim win? Republicans got a beating. They'll get another one next year. With all the incumbent protection and redistricting and money the GOP raised, they got a pretty good beating. Congress has a lower approval than president, because they haven't yet done what the voters sent them there to do. Which is exactly why the Democrats need to put Republicans into their place. Their job is to act on the wishes of the voters, not be bipartisan at all cost.The voters have spoken, and they want the Democrats in power.
Then why such a slim win? I won't argue that people want the Democrats in congress, but that is not a mandate for a liberal agenda, it's a mandate against the current administration. The Democrats are going to be their own undoing by trying to use their new power to push an agenda which the country doesn't want. Why do you think that congress now has a lower approval rating than the president?
They are totally different. Republicans were completely and thoroughly corrupt. There is a difference between being tough and being corrupt. Democrats need to be tough to get the will of the voters enacted. Voters are waiting on action on healthcare, Iraq, energy, environment, etc. This is no time to let the Republicans obstruct the will of the people. They are however welcome to join the Democrats in a bipartisan matter in getting those issues enacted. A voice, not a veto.If Republicans want to be bipartisan in that context, they are more than welcome to join the Democrats, but losers don't get to call the shots, and face it, Republicans are losers.
So stop pretending that the Democrats are any different from the Republicans in terms of cooperation and progress, contrary to what they've been claiming for the last 6 years.
Well, that's what Pelosi is working on. Americans want the Democrats to do what they were sent to do, not play "bipartisanship" while the Republicans obstruct the voters' will with procedural tricks.The longer you persist in the denial that the voters really wanted Republicans in power, but they didn't vote for them to send a message to Bush, the longer your party will be on the losing end of elections.
Why don't you work on getting your Democratic congress's approval rating above that of the failing Republican president's, and we'll revisit your theory.
Noone is stopping the Republicans from joining the Democrats to get things done that the voters sent them to congress to do. But watering down and blocking the will of the people for the sake of bipartisanship is not what the American people wantThe concept of bipartisanship has the Republicans squirming too. I didn't see them being bipartisan when they were in power.
Isn't that exactly why the Democrats promised bi-partisan cooperation? A "new era" or compromise and working together in congress? Or does that really mean "The exact same thing the Republicans did"?
Now they will have to be bipartisan on the Democrats' terms. And that means, a junior partner, not a co-leader.
Thanks for confirming my point.
uhhg, once again, "the voters" have nothing to do with the selection of the Speaker.Originally posted by: senseamp
Maybe in the states you care about, but the outcome of this election is that an SF liberal is the Speaker of the House. That should tell you something about the voters intent.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
umm, just so you know, "the country" has nothing to do with the selection of Speaker of the House.Originally posted by: senseamp
That is your opinion. If this country was conservative as you claim, it would not have made a San Francisco Liberal the speaker of the House.
First, I believe the voters yelled "not Bush" with their votes, and not so much "yay Dems!" Second, bipartisan does not mean being forced to agree on everything the Dems do. Bipartisan would mean compromise on the part of both parties. In other words, it's impossible for only one party to be bipartisan. This is an all or nothing thing that would involve compromise and cooperation on both sides. I remember hearing many of the Dem candidates preaching just that during the run-up to November. What we ended up with, however, is just more of the same crap we saw from the Republican idiots they replaced. Swell.The voters have spoken, and they want the Democrats in power. If Republicans want to be bipartisan in that context, they are more than welcome to join the Democrats, but losers don't get to call the shots, and face it, Republicans are losers.
uhh, I think the "send a message to Bush" description is entirely accurate in describing last November's elections. After all, that was pretty much the entire Democrat platform, wasn't it? Every single one of their seats was won on that very premise! It is the Dems who seem to have forgotten their own message since they won. It's almost as though they are saying "We were just kidding! What we really plan to do is..."The longer you persist in the denial that the voters really wanted Republicans in power, but they didn't vote for them to send a message to Bush, the longer your party will be on the losing end of elections.
uhh, which is why they lost, right? So if the Dems continue refusing to compromise and act bipartisan, what do you think will happen to them in the next elections? and the next? and so on..?The concept of bipartisanship has the Republicans squirming too. I didn't see them being bipartisan when they were in power.
once again, you need to learn the definition of the word bipartisan. This is not an approach that can be done by one of the two parties involved. In order for it to work, both sides needs to cooperate and compromise on everything.Now they will have to be bipartisan on the Democrats' terms. And that means, a junior partner, not a co-leader.
I don't see the level of maturity required for true bipartisanship on either side of the aisle.
They're all douchebags.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
uhhg, once again, "the voters" have nothing to do with the selection of the Speaker.Originally posted by: senseamp
Maybe in the states you care about, but the outcome of this election is that an SF liberal is the Speaker of the House. That should tell you something about the voters intent.
second, for the last time: it takes both parties to have true bipartisanship. Telling the Republicans to get in line indicates that the Dems have no real interest in bipartisanship.
IOW, they're the same damn breed of idiot as those they replaced last November - and their entire campaign platform was apparently bogus.
that is not "bipartisanship." So please stop using that word to describe anything the authoritative Democrat majority does. Thank you.Originally posted by: senseamp
Yes it does take two parties to have bipartisanship. Majority party to lead and the Minority party to follow.
Who said anything about veto?What I am seeing now is Majority party leading and Minority party obstructing. Are you saying the Democrats should give the Republicans a veto over their agenda for the sake of bipartisanship? No, that's not how it works. The losers in elections don't get to call shots over the winners. Republicans are welcome to join the Democrats in helping shape the legislation, but as losers, they don't get to block those bills. Voice, not a veto.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
that is not "bipartisanship." So please stop using that word to describe anything the authoritative Democrat majority does. Thank you.Originally posted by: senseamp
Yes it does take two parties to have bipartisanship. Majority party to lead and the Minority party to follow.
Who said anything about veto?What I am seeing now is Majority party leading and Minority party obstructing. Are you saying the Democrats should give the Republicans a veto over their agenda for the sake of bipartisanship? No, that's not how it works. The losers in elections don't get to call shots over the winners. Republicans are welcome to join the Democrats in helping shape the legislation, but as losers, they don't get to block those bills. Voice, not a veto.
Actual bipartisanship would work like this: If the Dems want 20 balloons, and the Reps want 10, then the final bipartisan bill could say 15. Or, since the Dems hold a slight majority, the bill could lean slightly in their favor and say 17.
See how that works?
It's called compromise. Please look it up and you might begin to understand the concept of bipartisanship. Once it sinks in, please explain it to the rest of your apparent party of choice.