RE: Isn't bipartisanship what we said we wanted?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Isn't bipartisanship what we said we wanted?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Isn't bipartisanship what we said we wanted?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Isn't bipartisanship what we said we wanted? - 10/24/2008 6:37:55 PM

LookieNoNookie

Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Hi All,

With all the new endorsements from both parties, most in favor of Barrack Obama, citing his ability to inspire and unite----

---Isn't that what we've been saying we needed? Someone who can work across party lines, listen to and consider all points of view?

Or is the problem not the lack of such a leader, but entrenched stances?

You lead the question.

(Next time, just give us the answer).

< Message edited by LookieNoNookie -- 10/24/2008 6:38:39 PM >

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Isn't bipartisanship what we said we wanted? - 10/24/2008 6:38:17 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

Here we are again.

You are voting for _________ ?

And why?

Criticize all you want. You still have taken no position.

Whom will you support to buck the status quo, as you put it?

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Isn't bipartisanship what we said we wanted? - 10/24/2008 6:41:22 PM

OrionTheWolf

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

At this point voting any third party bucks the status quo. Personally I do not believe there is a perfect candidate out there, and I would have prefered to vote for Ron Paul, but I will settle for Bob Barr. My vote is mainly going to throw more support to a third party, and more specifically to the Libertarian party. Now that I have qualified my position:

Does someone have to take a specific position to state their opinion on flaws that they see?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Here we are again.

You are voting for _________ ?

And why?

Criticize all you want. You still have taken no position.

Whom will you support to buck the status quo, as you put it?

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Isn't bipartisanship what we said we wanted? - 10/24/2008 6:42:31 PM

LookieNoNookie

Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Here we are again.

You are voting for _(Obama)_ ?

Feed your comments next time with a slight edge towards something equivalent to objectivity.

< Message edited by LookieNoNookie -- 10/24/2008 6:43:32 PM >

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Isn't bipartisanship what we said we wanted? - 10/24/2008 6:47:02 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

We saw it the first time.

When you're done playing for attention, perhaps the person addressed will answer the question.

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Isn't bipartisanship what we said we wanted? - 10/24/2008 7:39:23 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
have you researched any of the Independents to even know what they stand for, what sort of answers they have to the issues our country faces?

         I have to jump in here, Beth. It's a complete denial of the reality that we are dealing with people who mostly just vote for the taller candidate. Research??? C'mon...

       Get somebody famous already, and richer than God (not Soros, please). Build a base that take showers and aren't just creepy somehow.

       Research? The American voter as a whole? Raise enough money to put a really good commercial in the first quarter of the superbowl, maybe a few will remember.

        Research?

      <sings> What a wonderful world it would be

< Message edited by TheHeretic -- 10/24/2008 7:40:05 PM >

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Isn't bipartisanship what we said we wanted? - 10/24/2008 9:32:52 PM

rexrgisformidoni

Posts: 578
Joined: 9/20/2008
Status: offline

Neither party is worth a pile of dogshit. Bi-partisanship is a joke. I'm going to piss my vote away and vote for Bob. Obama is not a leader, he's a damn mouth piece. McCain is old, he has no good ideas, but at least he did somethings like crash some jets, which in my opinion is pretty damn cool. Alot cooler than being a "community organizer". BUt in the end, they are both part of the most elite club on earth, the US congress, a corrupt den of vipers. Mercnbeth have the perfect name republicrat. its not so much the donkey riding the elephant, its a horrid mutated monstrosity with dna from both parties, mixed with goo from lobbyists. And who ever told someone to take the rose tint off, amen. too many people have the funky colored lenses.

_____________________________

when all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like nails

“I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”

Genghis Khan

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Isn't bipartisanship what we said we wanted? - 10/24/2008 10:41:21 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Here we are again.

You are voting for _________ ?

And why?

Criticize all you want. You still have taken no position.

Whom will you support to buck the status quo, as you put it?

Now see, you've gone from wanting focus on your OP, bipartisanship, to now asking who I am supporting with my vote! Isn't that hijacking your own thread? Why change the subject? Is bipartisanship not so critical based upon what has occurred with bipartisan support, or is my specific vote going to sway you?

Well, needless to say neither McCain or Obama will be getting it - that is the point, and is my vote. I know going in that I won't be supporting the victor. That is the vote I want recorded. My position is voting for either of them supports the status quo, any other vote doesn't. Clear enough? If not - stated clearly my vote is NO. It's specifics whether Ron Paul or Rupual doesn't really make a difference. beth goes a bit further and actually investigates each independent candidate before choosing, but in my case I will be interested to see the cumulative total. I see those votes as collectively as 'NO'. It has been my opinion for a long time Yes or No is the only vote anyone has under the current political environment. What you apparently view as positive - bipartisanship is, in my opinion, surrender to the fact that there is no difference.

However, if nothing else I'm happy to see you no longer have an argument in support of bipartisanship in general or Obama representing a positive bipartition candidacy.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: Isn't bipartisanship what we said we wanted? - 10/24/2008 11:01:02 PM

corysub

Posts: 1492
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Isn't bipartisanship what we said we wanted?
Sure lets look at what bipartisanship has generated so far...

The War in Iraq
The Economic Bail Out
The Economic Stimulus Checks
The Campaign Spending Reform Bill

Not to mention the bipartisan support to include PORK in each and every spending Bill passed in Congress.

Based upon your premise - you're all for all of those. How did they work out?

Bipartisanship is a political buzz word that indicates that there is sooooooo much money on the table from special interest groups that both the Democrats and the Republicans are needed to carry it.

Only the naiveté of the foolhardy cause them to see it as anything more than a sound-bite which should have you sewing your wallet pocket shut.

Are you naive enough to believe Obama is a "bipartisan" candidate because some Republican's support him? He is more partisan than any prior candidate in US history. The only party lines bridged are those supported by failures - corporate, political, and personal. Hell - there's enough of them to generate a plurality - all with their hands held out.

I'm paraphrasing someone else (who I can't recall off the top of my head) but it points to Obama's chosen method of soliciting votes:

When your election promise is to rob from Peter to pay Paul - you get a lot of votes (and endorsements) from Paul.

Only a Bush Presidency could generate such partisanship and its those same polarizing, partisan position that have the race as close as it is.

Any endorsement has an agenda - wake up! Read something other than what you can 'head-bob' while doing so.

Edited to add: I think the original quote I had in mind was from George Bernard Shaw (but its based upon a failing memory)

HA! I was able to find it:
quote:

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
George Bernard Shaw

Damn...wish I had said that! Shaw said it all in a few words...

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: Isn't bipartisanship what we said we wanted? - 10/24/2008 11:19:00 PM

BitaTruble

Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Hi All,

With all the new endorsements from both parties, most in favor of Barrack Obama, citing his ability to inspire and unite----

---Isn't that what we've been saying we needed? Someone who can work across party lines, listen to and consider all points of view?

Or is the problem not the lack of such a leader, but entrenched stances?

... entrenched stances. Even if something is 'good' for the country.. if the other side wants it, then it's automatically bad to the rest. Unimity, I don't think, is such a bad thing. I'm willing to give it a shot .. for 4 years anyway. Dem house, 60 seats in the Senate, Dem prez .. see how they do. I mean, we're in such a mess right now that it seems like the risk is worth the reward and I don't see Obama as someone who's going to glass out a country so I'm giving him the shot. McCain doesn't have a snow balls chance in hell of getting unimity, so.. there ya go. Right now, I'm not willing to say 'no' automatically because I think this election is too important to our world image and will start to move us out (okay, a tiny baby step to be sure) of the dark ages of racism. Four years from now, I'm standing by Mercnbeth in the voting booth if shit don't get done. So, I'm cautiously optimistic, but not holding my breath.

_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: Isn't bipartisanship what we said we wanted? - 10/25/2008 4:56:58 AM

thishereboi

Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

It would be nice to have someone who can work across the lines. So tell me....how many times did Obama cross the line in his votes? How many times did McCain?

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert

This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: Isn't bipartisanship what we said we wanted? - 10/25/2008 7:29:17 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

Did you read the OP?

(in reply to thishereboi)

Profile

Post #: 32