To the GOP bipartisanship means "Do it my way or I'll scream and cry and whine like a 4 year old babay"

The desire to seem reasonable and open minded doesn't sit well with the desire to beat your opponents at any cost. You may end up fooling yourself, but that's about it.

You just don't see the word "pernicious" used enough around here.

after decades of vitriolic hyperpartisanship when in the majority and after bullshiat grandstanding tactics like voting "no" en mass against the ARRA before even hearing the president's concessions... the GOP does not have the right to cry about partisanship. ever. so fark you. choke on a dick. die in a fire. etc. etc. fark the GOP. fark republicans. fark mitch mcconnell. fark john boehner. fark eric cantor. fark them all*

*except sens collins and snowe. please jump ship. go I or D. the GOP left you years ago.

Clinton won by the biggest margin over an incumbent in recent history. What did the GOP Congress do? Fought him (meaning us) every step of the way.

Bush won by around 1% and many people thought he lost. A lot of people thought he lost both times. In 2000 it's a goddam fact that he lost the popular election. In other words, he barely won both times and yet he, and the GOP, thought he had a "mandate". They had 6 years where one party controlled the Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House. What did we get during that time? War, a shiatty economy, huge deficit spending, lower taxes for the rich (during a farking war that benefited the rich), and shiat like the Schiavo debacle and a ban on science.

After 6 years of gross incompetence the voters gave Congress to the Dems. Just barely, but a lot of GOP incumbents went bye bye. Then the voters elected Obama (he beat McCain like Duyet) and essentially told the Republicans to STFU and let the Dems try and fix the horrible messes you assholes created.

NOW they want bipartisanship? There aren't enough vulgar words for me to use to convey what I think of these arrogant shiatstains. We need even more of them to be removed from Congress after the next election because from what I've seen from them lately they STILL DON'T FARKING GET IT...

pwhp_67: Clinton won by the biggest margin over an incumbent in recent history. What did the GOP Congress do? Fought him (meaning us) every step of the way.

Bush won by around 1% and many people thought he lost. A lot of people thought he lost both times. In 2000 it's a goddam fact that he lost the popular election. In other words, he barely won both times and yet he, and the GOP, thought he had a "mandate". They had 6 years where one party controlled the Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House. What did we get during that time? War, a shiatty economy, huge deficit spending, lower taxes for the rich (during a farking war that benefited the rich), and shiat like the Schiavo debacle and a ban on science.

After 6 years of gross incompetence the voters gave Congress to the Dems. Just barely, but a lot of GOP incumbents went bye bye. Then the voters elected Obama (he beat McCain like Duyet) and essentially told the Republicans to STFU and let the Dems try and fix the horrible messes you assholes created.

NOW they want bipartisanship? There aren't enough vulgar words for me to use to convey what I think of these arrogant shiatstains. We need even more of them to be removed from Congress after the next election because from what I've seen from them lately they STILL DON'T FARKING GET IT...

Your newsletter. Sign me up.

They had 6 years where one party controlled the Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House. What did we get during that time? War, a shiatty economy, huge deficit spending, lower taxes for the rich (during a farking war that benefited the rich), and shiat like the Schiavo debacle and a ban on science.


Sure, if you look at the actual results then you're bound to come to such a conclusion. But what about the simple fact that everything bad that ever happens to conservatives is actually the fault of libs ? You conveniently ignore how persecuted they were in your rush to declare that they were "in control" without even considering the fact that the people who put them in power were just as wrong for doing so. Like Homer once said to Marge, "It takes two to lie, one to lie and one to listen". So instead of engaging in the blame game now why not accept a fair share of the blame (like, all of it for example) and move on ?

Having created most of the problems we now face, don't you think that Republicans are best suited to solve them ? Don't you think that they are uniquely qualified to speak out about things that are being done wrong considering how often they are wrong ?

pwhp_67: NOW they want bipartisanship? There aren't enough vulgar words for me to use to convey what I think of these arrogant shiatstains. We need even more of them to be removed from Congress after the next election because from what I've seen from them lately they STILL DON'T FARKING GET IT...

To your newsletter, sir, I wish to subscribe.

pwhp_67: Clinton won by the biggest margin over an incumbent in recent history. What did the GOP Congress do? Fought him (meaning us) every step of the way.

Bush won by around 1% and many people thought he lost. A lot of people thought he lost both times. In 2000 it's a goddam fact that he lost the popular election. In other words, he barely won both times and yet he, and the GOP, thought he had a "mandate". They had 6 years where one party controlled the Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House. What did we get during that time? War, a shiatty economy, huge deficit spending, lower taxes for the rich (during a farking war that benefited the rich), and shiat like the Schiavo debacle and a ban on science.

After 6 years of gross incompetence the voters gave Congress to the Dems. Just barely, but a lot of GOP incumbents went bye bye. Then the voters elected Obama (he beat McCain like Duyet) and essentially told the Republicans to STFU and let the Dems try and fix the horrible messes you assholes created.

NOW they want bipartisanship? There aren't enough vulgar words for me to use to convey what I think of these arrogant shiatstains. We need even more of them to be removed from Congress after the next election because from what I've seen from them lately they STILL DON'T FARKING GET IT...

Bravo! Newsletter here as well. Excellent rant.

I have deleted my own rant, and will instead throw my full support behind pwhp_67's.

Calmamity: I have deleted my own rant, and will instead throw my full support behind pwhp_67's.

I will not stand for this assault on democracy! FILIBUSTER!

Wow. I did that for my own sanity but I'm glad it was so well received...



nice filibuster too

When Republicans are interested in helping fix our problems instead of just name calling and standing in the way of fixing our problems, bipartisanship could be a very real possibility. As long as their plan is to just disrupt and circumvent anything that might make the Democrats look good, bipartisanship would simply be impossible...

It is up to Republicans to prove to me that they give a shiat about anyone other than themselves. Why me? Because I'm a voter. In particular, I'm an independent voter. I vote based on how honest you are, how hard you work to better the lives of all Americans, and how much you respect and protect the rights of all Americans. Thing is... they need my vote. But unless they're willing to achieve the minimal of my requirements, they won't even be a consideration.

As it currently stands, right at this moment, Republicans stand zero chance of getting my vote. They have NONE of the qualities I find respectable in an elected official. I'm not saying all Democrats have that respect, because they don't. But considering NO Republican has my respect (maybe Ron Paul to some degree, but he isn't really a member of the modern day Republican party), it doesn't bode well for them at the moment.

Essentially, Republicans have not earned my vote and seem to be on a continual and unrelenting mission to ensure that they never will. Unless something drastically changes at the core of the Republican party, I highly doubt my opinion of them is going to change for the better. But yeah... it has changed since the election... it has gotten worse.

Bipartisanship means something when two political parties want to work together, and a leash when one political party is a bunch of redneck assholes who merely want to be back in power after thirty years if mismanagement on their behalf (excluding eight years where everything got BETTER). fark the Republicans. The best thing the country can do is vote those assholes out and put in a new political party that wants a better America, not a bunch of powerhungry little jackasses that can't even do their farking jobs.

chemical_angel: You just don't see the word "pernicious" used enough around here.

I say my good fellow, how peculiar it is that I have spotted the word "vexed" used thrice in the past fortnight.

Yes aren't we all happy that ethical team of Pelosi, Rangel, Reid, Boxer, Murtha, Conyers and Dodd are running Congress. There is no need for bipartisanship when you have this dream team on the scene.

Dinki: To the GOP bipartisanship means "Do it my way or I'll scream and cry and whine like a 4 year old babay"

Strangely enough, it means the same things to the Dems.

pwhp_67: Clinton won by the biggest margin over an incumbent in recent history. What did the GOP Congress do? Fought him (meaning us) every step of the way.

Clinton got 43% of the vote and he claimed a mandate. The GOP was right to fight him, and in fact they ended up in control of Congress just 2 years later precisely because they fought him.

To the Republicans using the word bipartisanship, I don't think it means what you think it means.

The party that gave us "the majority of the majority" is indeed reaping what they hath sewn

Mordant: They had 6 years where one party controlled the Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House. What did we get during that time? War, a shiatty economy, huge deficit spending, lower taxes for the rich (during a farking war that benefited the rich), and shiat like the Schiavo debacle and a ban on science.Sure, if you look at the actual results then you're bound to come to such a conclusion. But what about the simple fact that everything bad that ever happens to conservatives is actually the fault of libs ? You conveniently ignore how persecuted they were in your rush to declare that they were "in control" without even considering the fact that the people who put them in power were just as wrong for doing so. Like Homer once said to Marge, "It takes two to lie, one to lie and one to listen". So instead of engaging in the blame game now why not accept a fair share of the blame (like, all of it for example) and move on ?Having created most of the problems we now face, don't you think that Republicans are best suited to solve them ? Don't you think that they are uniquely qualified to speak out about things that are being done wrong considering how often they are wrong ?

But the GOP is incapable of admitting when it's wrong. The best they've been able to manage is shouting, "LIBRULS!"

pwhp_67: Clinton won by the biggest margin over an incumbent in recent history. What did the GOP Congress do? Fought him (meaning us) every step of the way.

Bush won by around 1% and many people thought he lost. A lot of people thought he lost both times. In 2000 it's a goddam fact that he lost the popular election. In other words, he barely won both times and yet he, and the GOP, thought he had a "mandate". They had 6 years where one party controlled the Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House. What did we get during that time? War, a shiatty economy, huge deficit spending, lower taxes for the rich (during a farking war that benefited the rich), and shiat like the Schiavo debacle and a ban on science.

After 6 years of gross incompetence the voters gave Congress to the Dems. Just barely, but a lot of GOP incumbents went bye bye. Then the voters elected Obama (he beat McCain like Duyet) and essentially told the Republicans to STFU and let the Dems try and fix the horrible messes you assholes created.

NOW they want bipartisanship? There aren't enough vulgar words for me to use to convey what I think of these arrogant shiatstains. We need even more of them to be removed from Congress after the next election because from what I've seen from them lately they STILL DON'T FARKING GET IT...

LOL awesome

pwhp_67: Clinton won by the biggest margin over an incumbent in recent history. What did the GOP Congress do? Fought him (meaning us) every step of the way.

Bush won by around 1% and many people thought he lost. A lot of people thought he lost both times. In 2000 it's a goddam fact that he lost the popular election. In other words, he barely won both times and yet he, and the GOP, thought he had a "mandate". They had 6 years where one party controlled the Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House. What did we get during that time? War, a shiatty economy, huge deficit spending, lower taxes for the rich (during a farking war that benefited the rich), and shiat like the Schiavo debacle and a ban on science.

After 6 years of gross incompetence the voters gave Congress to the Dems. Just barely, but a lot of GOP incumbents went bye bye. Then the voters elected Obama (he beat McCain like Duyet) and essentially told the Republicans to STFU and let the Dems try and fix the horrible messes you assholes created.

NOW they want bipartisanship? There aren't enough vulgar words for me to use to convey what I think of these arrogant shiatstains. We need even more of them to be removed from Congress after the next election because from what I've seen from them lately they STILL DON'T FARKING GET IT...

loser_death_spiral: Clinton got 43% of the vote and he claimed a mandate.

That he beat Bush by 5.5% was seen by many as a repudiation of Bush's handling of the economy. By extension this did put the Republicans on the defensive. Moreover, had the Foley managed their procedures as did Hastert, NAFTA would have never become law.

clinton had 43% of the vote. in my opinion, the people rejected bush, but the 19% of the vote going to perot was also a fairly signifigant rejection of clinton. therefore, i won't be needing the newsletter

/of course, clinton went on to enjoy immense popularity

pwhp_67: Clinton won by...



Well said.

pwhp_67: and a ban on science.

Meh, it would have been a good troll, but you got really greedy with that one.

1/10.

proteus_b:
/of course, clinton went on to enjoy immense popularity

Yeah, the interns really loved the dude.

Pajamas Media is a sudden hit on the Politics page.

Dr. Pepper, anyone?

Hick: proteus_b:
/of course, clinton went on to enjoy immense popularity

Yeah, the interns really loved the dude.

And boy did he enjoy it!

The role of the opposition party is to oppose.

If two partners always agree one of them ain't necessary!

They have a point. Of course, the right told the left "Sit down and shut up, you lost" for 8 years. Why doesn't Pajamas Media mention that too?

pwhp_67: Clinton won by the biggest margin over an incumbent in recent history. What did the GOP Congress do? Fought him (meaning us) every step of the way.

Bush won by around 1% and many people thought he lost. A lot of people thought he lost both times. In 2000 it's a goddam fact that he lost the popular election. In other words, he barely won both times and yet he, and the GOP, thought he had a "mandate". They had 6 years where one party controlled the Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House. What did we get during that time? War, a shiatty economy, huge deficit spending, lower taxes for the rich (during a farking war that benefited the rich), and shiat like the Schiavo debacle and a ban on science.

After 6 years of gross incompetence the voters gave Congress to the Dems. Just barely, but a lot of GOP incumbents went bye bye. Then the voters elected Obama (he beat McCain like Duyet) and essentially told the Republicans to STFU and let the Dems try and fix the horrible messes you assholes created.

NOW they want bipartisanship? There aren't enough vulgar words for me to use to convey what I think of these arrogant shiatstains. We need even more of them to be removed from Congress after the next election because from what I've seen from them lately they STILL DON'T FARKING GET IT...

This. And you just got faved.

Christian Bale: Pajamas Media is a sudden hit on the Politics page.

Dr. Pepper, anyone?

Depends. Is it Dublin Dr. Pepper?

Party out of power wants bipartisanship. Party in power doesn't care what Party out of power wants.

This is news to who?

It's a language war. Take the following sample statement by a Republican operative:

"Democrats are abusing their power."

A normal person reads this as

"Democrats are abusing their power against us Republicans, which is not fair of them. We are for fair play."

A Republican reads this as

"Democrats are abusing their power....we should be the ones abusing their power."

Understand the target, you crack the code.

Bestbank Tiger: They have a point. Of course, the right told the left "Sit down and shut up, you lost" for 8 years. Why doesn't Pajamas Media mention that too?

Because this is Pajamas Media, whose first logo was a bathrobe, not pajamas, and who sent Joe the Plumber to Israel as a war correspondent.

pwhp_67: Clinton won by the biggest margin over an incumbent in recent history.

That would be since Roosevelt handed Hoover his ass. Since most people blamed Hoover for the farking great depression, I'd agree Clinton's victory was pretty darn significant.

helix400: Meh, it would have been a good troll, but you got really greedy with that one.

1/10.

Were scientific reports edited? Were promising research avenues shut down because of non-ethics questions? Were budgets cut? Were any serious initiatives begun?

"War on Science" might be a troll, but the intent of the statement is valid.

So how is that "I will reside over the most OPEN, honest and ethical congress in HISTORY" going for you? Seriously, lose the talking points and critique this promise...

The author of the attached article is spot on. The dems cried for "bipartisanship" when they were the minority and yet when they get power, they have reigned over a government that is more closed than any congress in my lifetime... If you have ever begged for bipartisanship when in the minority, yet cheer the behavior of these thugs, go fark yourself.

chemical_angel: You just don't see the word "pernicious" used enough around here.

I don't know why, it's a perfectly cromulent word

Just wait another 18 months and bipartisanship will be popular again.

Message to Nancy, "You go girl!"

So, in summation, to a call for bipartisanship we have partisan idiots saying "Fark Republicans! They're stupid and evil! And Person X did this at Point Y in the past, so therefore now we're going to!"

A circle-jerk and echo chamber then commences, as they self-congratulate one another.

pwhp_67: Clinton won by the biggest margin over an incumbent in recent history. What did the GOP Congress do? Fought him (meaning us) every step of the way.

Bush won by around 1% and many people thought he lost. A lot of people thought he lost both times. In 2000 it's a goddam fact that he lost the popular election. In other words, he barely won both times and yet he, and the GOP, thought he had a "mandate". They had 6 years where one party controlled the Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House. What did we get during that time? War, a shiatty economy, huge deficit spending, lower taxes for the rich (during a farking war that benefited the rich), and shiat like the Schiavo debacle and a ban on science.

After 6 years of gross incompetence the voters gave Congress to the Dems. Just barely, but a lot of GOP incumbents went bye bye. Then the voters elected Obama (he beat McCain like Duyet) and essentially told the Republicans to STFU and let the Dems try and fix the horrible messes you assholes created.

NOW they want bipartisanship? There aren't enough vulgar words for me to use to convey what I think of these arrogant shiatstains. We need even more of them to be removed from Congress after the next election because from what I've seen from them lately they STILL DON'T FARKING GET IT...

They still don't farking get it? Oh, both sides get it, they get it very well. They pander to their side, denounce the other side, make symbolic gestures of peace every so often if we're lucky. They don't care, they have their power and prestige, their publicity and fame. That's what they care about, not us, not our country. They care about grandstanding on C-SPAN broadcasts, saving volatile information so it can be released when it's the most politically damaging time, and stalling important bills because they try to sneak other unrelated projects along with it only to denounce the other side when they object.

Get your head out of your ass, they're politicians, not friendly neighbors.

It's essentially a matter of the overall philosophies of the two parties. Democrats generally believe that the government can be a force for good and should play an active role in society. It essentially leads them to be more willing to work with the other side when they're in the minority because they feel like getting something done, even when it's not exactly what they wanted, is better than nothing. Of course, this can have some disastrous results, but its how they operate.

Republicans, on the other hand, generally believe that the government should stay out of things and let the private sector do most of the works. This naturally leads them to become strict obstructionists when they're in the minority because they really have no problem with a do-nothing federal government. It's not as good as getting everything they wanted, but its certainly preferable to letting the Democrats get something done. And with any luck, they can turn public opinion against the majority by saying they haven't accomplished anything and playing their beloved persecution card.

As the minority party, the GOPs approach has been to demand that all bills get passed as written by them, or they'll filibuster and accuse the Democrats of not being bi-partisan.

Seriously, has anyone seen the increase in the number of filibusters since the GOP moved to the minority, and all of this after they were going to take away the filibuster because they said using it was undemocratic. So much hypocrisy on the right.



We've seen this tactic dozens of times, accuse your rivals of not being bi-partisan while being 100% partisan and so unreasonable that there is no choice but to not agree with you.

Thats an 827: The role of the opposition party is to oppose.

If two partners always agree one of them ain't necessary!

Good point. I propose the Democratic Party immediately take a strong stand against child pornography.

All Apologies:

We can circle back come the end of this congress and see how close the Republicans have come to the "projected 152 fillibusters," but what you seem to miss, the number of Democrat fillibusters were greater than the current Republican fillibusters since the Dems took over... But hey, don't let that slow you down.

tnpir: Clinton won by the biggest margin over an incumbent in recent history

Actually that is incorrect. Using popular vote Reagan carried 50.96% of the popular vote and Carter carried 42.37%, so Reagan won by 8.59%. He carried 489 to 49 in Electoral votes.

Clinton carried 43.28% of the popular vote and Bush carried 37.68% thus Clinton won by 5.95%. Clinton carried 370 electoral votes to Bush Sr 168.

Just pointing out that it's not quite the historic landslide you may have been led to believe.

Dinki [TotalFark] Quote 2009-06-20 02:41:36 PM
To the GOP bipartisanship means "Do it my way or I'll scream and cry and whine like a 4 year old babay"


The only ones I ever heard scream like 4 year olds were Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.......I mean there was foam drool AND spittle....

as for Democrat partisanship......I prefer they make all of the decisions with no support from Republicans. This way, when the economy is 100% worse, and the world is more dangerous and we've been attacked a few times.....they will own it lock stock and barrel and it'll mean they'll be out of power that much sooner.