pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 11 Feb 2009 22:41:31
From: Clave
Subject: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
Written by a former life-long Republican:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

<... >

There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President, you need
to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the business of governing by
winning each battle. You will never be able to work with the Republicans
because they hate you. Believe me, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are the
norm not the exception. James Dobson and the rest are praying for you to
fail. The neoconservatives are gnashing their teeth and waiting for you to
"sell out Israel" or "show weakness" in Afghanistan, whatever, so they can
declare you a traitor.

The problem is that when you deal with the Republican Party you're talking
to the polished characters in Washington. I wish you could see the hate
e-mail's that I have received over the last two years because I supported
you, letters calling for God to kill me, telling me that I hate God because
I supported you and that I am "an abortionist" and worse a "fag lover"
because I've written that I believe that you will be a great president.

What those senators and congressmen are telling you is not what their rabid
core constituents are telling them. Their loyalty is to a fundamentalist
Christian ideology on the one hand and American exceptionalism of perpetual
warfare and hatred and fear of the "other" on the other hand. Between the
neoconservatives and evangelical Religious Right Republicans you have no
friends.

The good news is that most Americans support you. And if you will just get
in the face of the Republican Party and call their bluff you'll be surprised
how many individual ordinary Republicans will support you, not to mention
the rest of us. America is sick of the Republicans.

<... >
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Read the whole thing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/an-open-letter-to-preside_b_165359.html

Jim







 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 10:24:11
From: Mike Franklin
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
On Feb 13, 8:03=A0am, "JerseyRudy" <a44f...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Feb 12 2009 5:41 PM, Mike Franklin wrote:

> > You realize, of course, that the article you quoted used the word
> > "partisan," in the description of a democrat, as a *good* thing.

> No it didn't. The story was about Obama struggling to find his identity a=
s
> President. It specifically contrasted being a partisan Democrat with bein=
g
> a bi-partisan negotiator. Are you saying that the article is using the
> term "bi-partisan negotiator" as a "bad" thing?

I disagree with your interpretation of that article. Here are the
relevant parts again.


Here the author is stating what a new Presisdent should do and be.

"But once a president becomes president, we expect other things. We
expect him to keep his promises (particularly if we liked them). We
expect action and decision. And, most of all, we expect to come to
learn who he is, and where he really stands -- by virtue of what he
decides."


Here the author is saying that what Obama has done is what was
outlined in the above paragraph.

"And what we've been watching over the last few weeks is just that:
the very public development of a new president who is more pragmatic
than ideological by nature, testing his instincts against the divided
realities of Washington."


Here the author is being more specific in how Obama has behaved the
way we want a new President to behave.

"It's been a balancing act -- in which we've seen President Obama as
both cheerleader and Chicken Little, as a partisan Democrat and a
bipartisan negotiator and, finally, as both an insider leading a well-
worn Washington-dominated Cabinet and an outsider railing against
Washington's business as usual."


It's possible I overstated my case, but I still believe my point is
valid. The word "partisan", as used by journalists, is more often
than not a negative quality when describing a republican. It is more
likely to be used in a positive way when describing a democrat.

Mike



 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 05:32:42
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
On Feb 13, 2:28=A0am, Mark Stringer <ui...@victoria.tc.ca > wrote:
> Clave wrote:
> > Mark Stringer wrote:
>
> >> The only time he needs to bother with "bipartisanship" is when he's
> >> looking for political cover. =A0When he doesn't need any cover, he
> >> won't bother with the charade. =A0Bank on it.
>
> > =A0The point of the article seems to have escaped you. =A0He shouldn't
> > bother trying to work with the Republicans because he's not going to
> > get anything but backstabbing and treachery in the first place.
>
> > Ever.
>
> =A0My point is he's not interested in "bipartisanship" to begin with.
> He'll only take part in the charade when it's politically expedient
> for him to do so.
>
> =A0So don't worry yourself, when the Pres is bothering with
> "bipartisanship" he's not doing for the Reps' benefit, he's doing it
> for his benefit.

Has it ever occurred to you that he might just be trying to run things
for _the country's_ benefit? At this point, if Obama does things that
work, it will benefit both him and the country.

>=A0That's the way it is when you hold all the power and it'd be the same i=
f the Reps held all the cards.

Not so much. When the "Reps held all the cards" just a few years ago,
they didn't even bother with a facade of bipartisanship.

- Bob T.



 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 05:25:00
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
On Feb 12, 1:52=A0pm, "Jason Pawloski" <a679...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Feb 12 2009 12:45 PM, Bob T. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 11:38=A0am, "Jason Pawloski" <a679...@webnntp.invalid> wrote=
:
> > > On Feb 12 2009 11:39 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
> > > > "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:a2429130-5bcc-4ac2-aa8e-8c88f7523347@o6g2000pre.googlegroups.co=
m...
> > > > On Feb 12, 8:41 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > > > > "Mark Stringer" <ui...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0902120201180.24241@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
>
> > > > > > Clave wrote:
>
> > > > > >> Written by a former life-long Republican:
> > > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------=
---
>
> > > > > >> There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. Presi=
dent,
> > > > > >> you need to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the
> business
> > > > > >> of governing by winning each battle. . .
>
> > > > > > The only time he needs to bother with "bipartisanship" is when =
he's
> > > > > > looking for political cover. When he doesn't need any cover, he=
won't
> > > > > > bother with the charade. Bank on it.
>
> > > > Welcome to Lie Count '09 with our special guest, Irish Mike.
>
> > > > > Obama knows damn well that this pork barrel social welfare spendi=
ng
> plan
> > > > > will do little to actually stimulate the economy.
>
> > > > "Lie #1."
>
> > > > Why is it a lie Bob?
>
> > > It's a lie because Bob, like all other enlightened leftists types, ha=
ve
> > > evolved so much further than us stupid non-leftists that they can act=
ually
> > > telepathetically know what other leftists are thinking. So he looked =
deep
> > > into Obama's soul, determined what Obama knows and doesn't know, and
> > > ascertained that your statement is a lie.
>
> > You have it exactly backwards. =A0Mike was the one who claimed he knows
> > what Obama is thinking - I called him out on it.
>
> > - Bob T.
>
> Not quite, champ. By proclaiming Mike's statement a "lie" you are
> proclaiming that you know what Barack Obama is thinking. If you didn't
> know what Barack Obama was thinking, you wouldn't have been able to assig=
n
> a truth value to his statement.

"Obama knows damn well (1) that this pork barrel (2) social welfare
(3) spending plan will do little to actually stimulate the economy.
(4)"

I find it hard to assign the "truth value" to Mike's posts because
there are so many lies you need a calculator. I forget, when there
are four lies in the same sentence, is the "truth value" negative four
or negative sixteen?

- Bob T.

>
> --
> "Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. =A0He's smart also." - Paul
> Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
>
> -----=A0
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com- Hide =
quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 02:28:31
From: Mark Stringer
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
Clave wrote:

> Mark Stringer wrote:
>>
>> The only time he needs to bother with "bipartisanship" is when he's
>> looking for political cover. When he doesn't need any cover, he
>> won't bother with the charade. Bank on it.
>
> The point of the article seems to have escaped you. He shouldn't
> bother trying to work with the Republicans because he's not going to
> get anything but backstabbing and treachery in the first place.
>
> Ever.

My point is he's not interested in "bipartisanship" to begin with.
He'll only take part in the charade when it's politically expedient
for him to do so.

So don't worry yourself, when the Pres is bothering with
"bipartisanship" he's not doing for the Reps' benefit, he's doing it
for his benefit. That's the way it is when you hold all the power and
it'd be the same if the Reps held all the cards.


  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 17:51:57
From: Clave
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
"Mark Stringer" <ui337@victoria.tc.ca > wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0902130120420.26661@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
> Clave wrote:
>
>> Mark Stringer wrote:
>>>
>>> The only time he needs to bother with "bipartisanship" is when he's
>>> looking for political cover. When he doesn't need any cover, he
>>> won't bother with the charade. Bank on it.
>>
>> The point of the article seems to have escaped you. He shouldn't
>> bother trying to work with the Republicans because he's not going to
>> get anything but backstabbing and treachery in the first place.
>>
>> Ever.
>
> My point is he's not interested in "bipartisanship" to begin with...

Despite three weeks' evidence to the contrary.

Fine.

Jim




  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 07:17:47
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
"Mark Stringer"

> My point is he's not interested in "bipartisanship" to begin with.
> He'll only take part in the charade when it's politically expedient
> for him to do so.
>
> So don't worry yourself, when the Pres is bothering with
> "bipartisanship" he's not doing for the Reps' benefit, he's doing it
> for his benefit. That's the way it is when you hold all the power and
> it'd be the same if the Reps held all the cards.

Clave only thinks one direction. Now that the party he "likes" holds all
the power strings, anything they do is "just great" and any dissent is just
trying to hurt the country. He does not believe that power corrupts and
absolute power corrupts absolutely. He does not believe in the separation
of powers while "his party" is in control. His world view is a one way
street.

The current situation is the one our founders tried so very hard to avoid.
Dictatorship is a very powerful form of government. If the dictator is
"benevolent" ... things are really good. (It's good to be king.) Those
that like the way things are going like dictators. The problem is that once
"in power" ... it becomes especially difficult to get them out of power.

Clave favors no opposition to his choice of supreme leader ... he is not
alone ... there is a very large group of people who believe that dissent
from this new administration is heretical and should be stomped out ... they
have forgotten the history of those who think that way.




   
Date: 13 Feb 2009 16:36:29
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:17:47 -0600, "da pickle"
<jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com > wrote:

>Clave favors no opposition to his choice of supreme leader ... he is not
>alone ... there is a very large group of people who believe that dissent
>from this new administration is heretical and should be stomped out ... they
>have forgotten the history of those who think that way.

I'd take your tears and gnashing of teeth more seriously if I'd heard
the same thing when your King, Busholini, was in power.


    
Date: 13 Feb 2009 17:03:03
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
"A Man Beaten by Jacks"
>
>>Clave favors no opposition to his choice of supreme leader ... he is not
>>alone ... there is a very large group of people who believe that dissent
>>from this new administration is heretical and should be stomped out ...
>>they
>>have forgotten the history of those who think that way.
>
> I'd take your tears and gnashing of teeth more seriously if I'd heard
> the same thing when your King, Busholini, was in power.

If Bush had been in the same situation, I would have the same opinion.

The thing that is misunderstood is that the situation can reverse quite
easily and that would be equally bad.

King Busholini ... pretty good ... funny.




   
Date: 13 Feb 2009 07:06:47
From: risky biz
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
On Feb 13 2009 6:17 AM, da pickle wrote:

> "Mark Stringer"
>
> > My point is he's not interested in "bipartisanship" to begin with.
> > He'll only take part in the charade when it's politically expedient
> > for him to do so.
> >
> > So don't worry yourself, when the Pres is bothering with
> > "bipartisanship" he's not doing for the Reps' benefit, he's doing it
> > for his benefit. That's the way it is when you hold all the power and
> > it'd be the same if the Reps held all the cards.
>
> Clave only thinks one direction. Now that the party he "likes" holds all
> the power strings, anything they do is "just great" and any dissent is just
> trying to hurt the country. He does not believe that power corrupts and
> absolute power corrupts absolutely. He does not believe in the separation
> of powers while "his party" is in control. His world view is a one way
> street.
>
> The current situation is the one our founders tried so very hard to avoid.

What are your favorite drugs, pickles?

> Dictatorship is a very powerful form of government. If the dictator is
> "benevolent" ... things are really good. (It's good to be king.) Those
> that like the way things are going like dictators. The problem is that once
> "in power" ... it becomes especially difficult to get them out of power.
>
> Clave favors no opposition to his choice of supreme leader ... he is not
> alone ... there is a very large group of people who believe that dissent
> from this new administration is heretical and should be stomped out ... they
> have forgotten the history of those who think that way.

--- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 12 Feb 2009 14:41:59
From: Mike Franklin
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
On Feb 12, 12:06=A0pm, "JerseyRudy" <a44f...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Feb 12 2009 1:58 PM, Mike Franklin wrote:
>
> > My memory isn't perfect, but I can't remember the word "partisan" ever
> > being applied to democrats. =A0Maybe republicans occasionally accuse
> > democrats of being partisan, but I swear I can't think of one case of
> > a reporter ever doing so.
>
> There's only about a gazillion examples from doing a simple google search=
,
> by here's one yesterday from CNN's senior political analyst:
>
> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It is not unusual for a presidential candidate to try
> to win friends and influence voters. That's what elections are about, so
> we tend to excuse political posturing when we see it -- because we have
> come to expect a certain amount of it. Besides, we like people who pay
> attention to us.
>
> But once a president becomes president, we expect other things. We expect
> him to keep his promises (particularly if we liked them). We expect actio=
n
> and decision. And, most of all, we expect to come to learn who he is, and
> where he really stands -- by virtue of what he decides.
>
> And what we've been watching over the last few weeks is just that: the
> very public development of a new president who is more pragmatic than
> ideological by nature, testing his instincts against the divided realitie=
s
> of Washington.
>
> It's been a balancing act -- in which we've seen President Obama as both
> cheerleader and Chicken Little, as a partisan Democrat and a bipartisan
> negotiator and, finally, as both an insider leading a well-worn
> Washington-dominated Cabinet and an outsider railing against Washington's
> business as usual.

[ snip rest of article. ]

> Maybe the reason why you "swear" you can't think of one case of a reporte=
r
> ever accusing a Democrat of being partisan is because you are not
> listening for that side of it. Which would make you the partisan...oh the
> irony!

Yes, irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

You realize, of course, that the article you quoted used the word
"partisan," in the description of a democrat, as a *good* thing.

Mike


  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 08:03:26
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
On Feb 12 2009 5:41 PM, Mike Franklin wrote:

> On Feb 12, 12:06 pm, "JerseyRudy" <a44f...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > On Feb 12 2009 1:58 PM, Mike Franklin wrote:
> >
> > > My memory isn't perfect, but I can't remember the word "partisan" ever
> > > being applied to democrats.  Maybe republicans occasionally accuse
> > > democrats of being partisan, but I swear I can't think of one case of
> > > a reporter ever doing so.
> >
> > There's only about a gazillion examples from doing a simple google search,
> > by here's one yesterday from CNN's senior political analyst:
> >
> > WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It is not unusual for a presidential candidate to try
> > to win friends and influence voters. That's what elections are about, so
> > we tend to excuse political posturing when we see it -- because we have
> > come to expect a certain amount of it. Besides, we like people who pay
> > attention to us.
> >
> > But once a president becomes president, we expect other things. We expect
> > him to keep his promises (particularly if we liked them). We expect action
> > and decision. And, most of all, we expect to come to learn who he is, and
> > where he really stands -- by virtue of what he decides.
> >
> > And what we've been watching over the last few weeks is just that: the
> > very public development of a new president who is more pragmatic than
> > ideological by nature, testing his instincts against the divided realities
> > of Washington.
> >
> > It's been a balancing act -- in which we've seen President Obama as both
> > cheerleader and Chicken Little, as a partisan Democrat and a bipartisan
> > negotiator and, finally, as both an insider leading a well-worn
> > Washington-dominated Cabinet and an outsider railing against Washington's
> > business as usual.
>
> [ snip rest of article. ]
>
> > Maybe the reason why you "swear" you can't think of one case of a reporter
> > ever accusing a Democrat of being partisan is because you are not
> > listening for that side of it. Which would make you the partisan...oh the
> > irony!
>
> Yes, irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.
>
> You realize, of course, that the article you quoted used the word
> "partisan," in the description of a democrat, as a *good* thing.
>

No it didn't. The story was about Obama struggling to find his identity as
President. It specifically contrasted being a partisan Democrat with being
a bi-partisan negotiator. Are you saying that the article is using the
term "bi-partisan negotiator" as a "bad" thing?

What about the newspaper editorial?

and what about the thousands of other examples that come up when you do a
google search?

____________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 12 Feb 2009 11:45:19
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
On Feb 12, 11:38=A0am, "Jason Pawloski" <a679...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Feb 12 2009 11:39 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
> >news:a2429130-5bcc-4ac2-aa8e-8c88f7523347@o6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 12, 8:41 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > > "Mark Stringer" <ui...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
>
> > >news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0902120201180.24241@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
>
> > > > Clave wrote:
>
> > > >> Written by a former life-long Republican:
> > > >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > >> There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President=
,
> > > >> you need to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the busin=
ess
> > > >> of governing by winning each battle. . .
>
> > > > The only time he needs to bother with "bipartisanship" is when he's
> > > > looking for political cover. When he doesn't need any cover, he won=
't
> > > > bother with the charade. Bank on it.
>
> > Welcome to Lie Count '09 with our special guest, Irish Mike.
>
> > > Obama knows damn well that this pork barrel social welfare spending p=
lan
> > > will do little to actually stimulate the economy.
>
> > "Lie #1."
>
> > Why is it a lie Bob?
>
> It's a lie because Bob, like all other enlightened leftists types, have
> evolved so much further than us stupid non-leftists that they can actuall=
y
> telepathetically know what other leftists are thinking. So he looked deep
> into Obama's soul, determined what Obama knows and doesn't know, and
> ascertained that your statement is a lie.

You have it exactly backwards. Mike was the one who claimed he knows
what Obama is thinking - I called him out on it.

- Bob T.
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> "Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. =A0He's smart also." - Paul
> Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
>
> _______________________________________________________________________=
=A0
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com- Hide qu=
oted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 13:52:33
From: Jason Pawloski
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
On Feb 12 2009 12:45 PM, Bob T. wrote:

> On Feb 12, 11:38 am, "Jason Pawloski" <a679...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > On Feb 12 2009 11:39 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
> > >news:a2429130-5bcc-4ac2-aa8e-8c88f7523347@o6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Feb 12, 8:41 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > > > "Mark Stringer" <ui...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
> >
> > > >news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0902120201180.24241@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
> >
> > > > > Clave wrote:
> >
> > > > >> Written by a former life-long Republican:
> > > > >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > > >> There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President,
> > > > >> you need to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the
business
> > > > >> of governing by winning each battle. . .
> >
> > > > > The only time he needs to bother with "bipartisanship" is when he's
> > > > > looking for political cover. When he doesn't need any cover, he won't
> > > > > bother with the charade. Bank on it.
> >
> > > Welcome to Lie Count '09 with our special guest, Irish Mike.
> >
> > > > Obama knows damn well that this pork barrel social welfare spending
plan
> > > > will do little to actually stimulate the economy.
> >
> > > "Lie #1."
> >
> > > Why is it a lie Bob?
> >
> > It's a lie because Bob, like all other enlightened leftists types, have
> > evolved so much further than us stupid non-leftists that they can actually
> > telepathetically know what other leftists are thinking. So he looked deep
> > into Obama's soul, determined what Obama knows and doesn't know, and
> > ascertained that your statement is a lie.
>
> You have it exactly backwards. Mike was the one who claimed he knows
> what Obama is thinking - I called him out on it.
>
> - Bob T.

Not quite, champ. By proclaiming Mike's statement a "lie" you are
proclaiming that you know what Barack Obama is thinking. If you didn't
know what Barack Obama was thinking, you wouldn't have been able to assign
a truth value to his statement.

--
"Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)

----- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 12 Feb 2009 11:04:50
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
On Feb 12, 10:39=A0am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a2429130-5bcc-4ac2-aa8e-8c88f7523347@o6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 8:41 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mark Stringer" <ui...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
>
> >news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0902120201180.24241@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
>
> > > Clave wrote:
>
> > >> Written by a former life-long Republican:
> > >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > >> There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President,
> > >> you need to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the busines=
s
> > >> of governing by winning each battle. . .
>
> > > The only time he needs to bother with "bipartisanship" is when he's
> > > looking for political cover. When he doesn't need any cover, he won't
> > > bother with the charade. Bank on it.
>
> Welcome to Lie Count '09 with our special guest, Irish Mike.
>
>
>
> > Obama knows damn well that this pork barrel social welfare spending pla=
n
> > will do little to actually stimulate the economy.
>
> "Lie #1."
>
> Why is it a lie Bob? =A0The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said it wil=
l do
> little to jump start the economy and much of the money won't even reach t=
he
> market until 2011 or 2012.

>=A0And here is a particial list of the pork and pet
> liberal projects included in the original Obama bill - the bill that all =
177
> congressional Republicans and 11 Democrats voted against:
> =A0$2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal p=
ower
> plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year becaus=
e
> it said the project was inefficient.
>
> . A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion
> picture film.
>
> . $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
>
> . $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arcti=
c
> ship).
>
> . $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security
> headquarters.
>
> . $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
>
> . $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
>
> . $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent
> STD's.
>
> . $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
>
> . $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

I don't have much time today, so I will focus on this point. Yes, of
course the stimulus bill includes things like repairing and rebuilding
sewer systems. The dollars spent on that project will go directly to
working people and, as a special bonus, DC won't smell as bad (not
literally, anyway.)

Gotta go - busy work schedule.

- Bob T.
>
> . $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
>
> . $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $=
3
> billion.
>
> . $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
>
> . $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
>
> . $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
>
> . $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
>
> . $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
>
> . $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
>
> . $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
>
> . $500 million for state and local fire stations.
>
> . $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
>
> . $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job program=
s.
>
> . $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Servic=
e.
>
> . $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
>
> . $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health
> facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
>
> . $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and
> Community Service.
>
> . $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of
> Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
>
> . $850 million for Amtrak.
>
> . $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
>
> . $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State
> Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilit=
ies
> of other agencies.
>
> . $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
>
> . $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles fo=
r
> use on military installations.
>
> And that list doesn't even include the $400 million for global warming
> research or the tens of millions that will go to ACORN, which is currentl=
y
> charged with voter fraud in 13 states.
>
> > He also knows that the more the American people find out about the pork
> > and pet liberal projects
> > that have been hidden in this 600+ page, $ 900 billion+ pile of garbage=
,
> > the
> > less support he has.
>
> "Lie #2."
>
> =A0Why is this a lie? =A0A recent poll showed that the majority of Americ=
ans
> want a stimulus bill, but are against all the pork in the original Obama
> bill. =A0The longer this pile of fat sits there, the worse it smells to t=
he
> American people.
>
> > That's why he's playing the fear card,
>
> "Lie #3.To the extent that Obama is "playing the fear card" it's
> because we should all fear our economy collapsing around us. =A0Take a
> look at California right now - the idiots in Sacramento can't even
> pass a fucking budget and that's hurting all of us in the state
> directly or indirectly"
>
> .
>
> Yes the situation is dire but that's not why Obama is pushing the bill. =
=A0He
> is trying to get these liberal pet projects and entitlement programs push=
ed
> through to pay back the unions, trial lawyers and left wing of the Democr=
at
> party for their part in getting him elected. =A0Obama also told us that w=
e had
> to over look Tim Geithner's dishonesty because we needed him so desperate=
ly.
> Well, look at the cracker jack job he's done so far. =A0He explained Obam=
a's
> economic plan and the stock market dropped nearly 400 points because ther=
e
> were no details and no substance. =A0The Democrats accused Bush of playin=
g the
> fear card after 9/11 to get what he wanted pushed through. =A0Well Obama =
is
> doing exactly the same thing now.
>
> > that's why he's out in full campaign mode
>
> "Lie #4"
>
> =A0With due respect bucko - bull shit, =A0Obama is out doing town meeting
> because he knows he has to sell this pork barrel spending bill to the
> American people. =A0This man needs to get out of the campaign mode (which=
is
> easy) and start governing (Which is hard). =A0The time for his rock star,
> read-from-a-teleprompter stage show is past.
>
> > and that's why he's so desperate to get at least 2 or 3 Senate Republic=
ans
> > to vote for it.
>
> "Already done"
>
> You're right . =A0Two or three Republican Senators did cave in to this bu=
ll
> shit bill but that sure as hell doesn't make it a bi-partisan bill. =A0No=
t one
> of the 177 Republicans voted for the bill and only 3 Republicans in the
> Senate voted for it.
>
>
>
> > If Obama really wanted to stimulate the American economy in the quickes=
t
> > way
> > possible, he would have looked at the Republican proposal
>
> "Lie #5 - Obama _did_ look at the GOP proposal. =A0Further, Obama began
> by consulting with House Republicans and gave them much of what they
> wanted, only to have them turn around and slap him in the face."
>
> Bull shit again Bob. =A0Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid totally shut the
> Republicans out of the bill writing or amending process in Congress. =A0O=
ne of
> the Democrats who voted against the bill came out and publicly criticized
> Pelosi and Reid for excluding the Republicans. =A0This is nothing but a
> partisan Democrat social engineering, welfare and entitlement spending bi=
ll.
> Obama never even considered the Republican version of the bill.
>
> =A0which would have cost half as much and put more money in the economy i=
n
> less time. Or, if he
>
> > really wanted to "save and create" jobs quickly, he could have just cut
> > the
> > payroll tax rate. If could have been done immediately, with very little
> > administrative cost and would have had an immediate impact on the job
> > market. But that wouldn't have bought the Democrats any entitlement vot=
es.
>
> "It's hard to count the lies when they're so mixed up with half-truths,
> and I have work to do, so I hereby resign my position as Irish Mike's
> Lie Counter. =A0Some jobs are just too much work for one person.
>
> - Bob T."
>
> Again Bob, total bull shit. =A0Obama could have implemented a payroll tax=
cut
> immediately. =A0It would have cost very little administatively, had no re=
d
> tape for businesses and immediately helped the job market. =A0And he coul=
d
> have trialed it - six months, two years, etc. =A0Unlike Obama's pork bill
> which will permanently increase costs and the size of government. =A0Obam=
a
> didn't do it for one reason - it wouldn't have bought the Democrats any
> entitlement votes.
>
> Irish Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



 
Date: 12 Feb 2009 10:58:23
From: Mike Franklin
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
On Feb 11, 10:41=A0pm, "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDam...@cablespeed.com >
wrote:
> Written by a former life-long Republican:

[snip]

My memory isn't perfect, but I can't remember the word "partisan" ever
being applied to democrats. Maybe republicans occasionally accuse
democrats of being partisan, but I swear I can't think of one case of
a reporter ever doing so.

"Bipartisanship", at least how it's commonly used, seems to be
synonymous with "republicans giving democrats everything they want."

If anyone has examples of these words being used differently by a
journalist, I'd like to see them.

And if anyone cares, I haven't voted for a republican since Bush Sr.

Mike


  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 12:06:03
From: JerseyRudy
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
On Feb 12 2009 1:58 PM, Mike Franklin wrote:

> On Feb 11, 10:41 pm, "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDam...@cablespeed.com>
> wrote:
> > Written by a former life-long Republican:
>
> [snip]
>
> My memory isn't perfect, but I can't remember the word "partisan" ever
> being applied to democrats. Maybe republicans occasionally accuse
> democrats of being partisan, but I swear I can't think of one case of
> a reporter ever doing so.

Maybe Republicans "occasionally" accuse democrats of being partisan? Sort
of like maybe Richard Nixon occasionally regretted not destroying the
Watergate tapes.
>
> "Bipartisanship", at least how it's commonly used, seems to be
> synonymous with "republicans giving democrats everything they want."
>
> If anyone has examples of these words being used differently by a
> journalist, I'd like to see them.

There's only about a gazillion examples from doing a simple google search,
by here's one yesterday from CNN's senior political analyst:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It is not unusual for a presidential candidate to try
to win friends and influence voters. That's what elections are about, so
we tend to excuse political posturing when we see it -- because we have
come to expect a certain amount of it. Besides, we like people who pay
attention to us.

But once a president becomes president, we expect other things. We expect
him to keep his promises (particularly if we liked them). We expect action
and decision. And, most of all, we expect to come to learn who he is, and
where he really stands -- by virtue of what he decides.

And what we've been watching over the last few weeks is just that: the
very public development of a new president who is more pragmatic than
ideological by nature, testing his instincts against the divided realities
of Washington.

It's been a balancing act -- in which we've seen President Obama as both
cheerleader and Chicken Little, as a partisan Democrat and a bipartisan
negotiator and, finally, as both an insider leading a well-worn
Washington-dominated Cabinet and an outsider railing against Washington's
business as usual.

In many ways, the deck has been stacked against the president's instincts:
Washington hasn't been hospitable to bipartisanship for decades."


Or this editorial from today's Las Vegas Review-Journal, talking about the
threats being made by Senator Leahy and other Democrats in Congress to
investigate the crimes of the Bush administration:

"But if Sen. Leahy and company really intend to do anything here other
than partisan posturing, let them by all means put some teeth in the laws
against snooping on Americans without proper, written search warrants
accompanied by sworn affidavits of probable cause. Let them especially
publish a "hot line" through which any communications company executive
asked to do such a thing may reach a high-ranking U.S. attorney,
specifically authorized to go find the government agents who have made
such a request, placing them that very day in orange jumpsuits and leg
chains, and trooping them out for the cameras."

Maybe the reason why you "swear" you can't think of one case of a reporter
ever accusing a Democrat of being partisan is because you are not
listening for that side of it. Which would make you the partisan...oh the
irony!

----- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 12 Feb 2009 09:54:44
From: Jason Pawloski
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
On Feb 11 2009 11:41 PM, Clave wrote:

> Written by a former life-long Republican:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <...>
>
> There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President, you need
> to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the business of governing by
> winning each battle. You will never be able to work with the Republicans
> because they hate you. Believe me, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are the
> norm not the exception. James Dobson and the rest are praying for you to
> fail. The neoconservatives are gnashing their teeth and waiting for you to
> "sell out Israel" or "show weakness" in Afghanistan, whatever, so they can
> declare you a traitor.
>
> The problem is that when you deal with the Republican Party you're talking
> to the polished characters in Washington. I wish you could see the hate
> e-mail's that I have received over the last two years because I supported
> you, letters calling for God to kill me, telling me that I hate God because
> I supported you and that I am "an abortionist" and worse a "fag lover"
> because I've written that I believe that you will be a great president.
>
> What those senators and congressmen are telling you is not what their rabid
> core constituents are telling them. Their loyalty is to a fundamentalist
> Christian ideology on the one hand and American exceptionalism of perpetual
> warfare and hatred and fear of the "other" on the other hand. Between the
> neoconservatives and evangelical Religious Right Republicans you have no
> friends.
>
> The good news is that most Americans support you. And if you will just get
> in the face of the Republican Party and call their bluff you'll be surprised
> how many individual ordinary Republicans will support you, not to mention
> the rest of us. America is sick of the Republicans.
>
> <...>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read the whole thing:
>
>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/an-open-letter-to-preside_b_165359.html
>
> Jim

The funny thing is Jim "100,000 Post" Clave admonished Republicans for
posting similar things pre-election.

--
"Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)

_____________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 19:43:15
From: Clave
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
"Jason Pawloski" <a6794a4@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:4c4e66x2i6.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Feb 11 2009 11:41 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> Written by a former life-long Republican:
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> <...>
>>
>> There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President, you
>> need
>> to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the business of governing
>> by
>> winning each battle. You will never be able to work with the Republicans
>> because they hate you. Believe me, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are the
>> norm not the exception. James Dobson and the rest are praying for you to
>> fail. The neoconservatives are gnashing their teeth and waiting for you
>> to
>> "sell out Israel" or "show weakness" in Afghanistan, whatever, so they
>> can
>> declare you a traitor.
>>
>> The problem is that when you deal with the Republican Party you're
>> talking
>> to the polished characters in Washington. I wish you could see the hate
>> e-mail's that I have received over the last two years because I supported
>> you, letters calling for God to kill me, telling me that I hate God
>> because
>> I supported you and that I am "an abortionist" and worse a "fag lover"
>> because I've written that I believe that you will be a great president.
>>
>> What those senators and congressmen are telling you is not what their
>> rabid
>> core constituents are telling them. Their loyalty is to a fundamentalist
>> Christian ideology on the one hand and American exceptionalism of
>> perpetual
>> warfare and hatred and fear of the "other" on the other hand. Between the
>> neoconservatives and evangelical Religious Right Republicans you have no
>> friends.
>>
>> The good news is that most Americans support you. And if you will just
>> get
>> in the face of the Republican Party and call their bluff you'll be
>> surprised
>> how many individual ordinary Republicans will support you, not to mention
>> the rest of us. America is sick of the Republicans.
>>
>> <...>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Read the whole thing:
>>
>>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/an-open-letter-to-preside_b_165359.html
>>
>> Jim
>
> The funny thing is Jim "100,000 Post" Clave admonished Republicans for
> posting similar things pre-election.

Like what?

Jim




 
Date: 12 Feb 2009 09:51:50
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
On Feb 12, 8:41=A0am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "Mark Stringer" <ui...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0902120201180.24241@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
>
> > Clave wrote:
>
> >> Written by a former life-long Republican:
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President,
> >> you need to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the business
> >> of governing by winning each battle. . .
>
> > The only time he needs to bother with "bipartisanship" is when he's
> > looking for political cover. =A0When he doesn't need any cover, he won'=
t
> > bother with the charade. =A0Bank on it.

Welcome to Lie Count '09 with our special guest, Irish Mike.
>
> Obama knows damn well that this pork barrel social welfare spending plan
> will do little to actually stimulate the economy.

Lie #1.

>=A0He also knows that the more the American people find out about the pork=
and pet liberal projects
> that have been hidden in this 600+ page, $ 900 billion+ pile of garbage, =
the
> less support he has. =A0

Lie #2.

> That's why he's playing the fear card,

Lie #3. To the extent that Obama is "playing the fear card" it's
because we should all fear our economy collapsing around us. Take a
look at California right now - the idiots in Sacramento can't even
pass a fucking budget and that's hurting all of us in the state
directly or indirectly.

> that's why he's out in full campaign mode

Lie #4

> and that's why he's so desperate to get at least 2 or 3 Senate Republican=
s to vote for it.

Already done
>
> If Obama really wanted to stimulate the American economy in the quickest =
way
> possible, he would have looked at the Republican proposal

Lie #5 - Obama _did_ look at the GOP proposal. Further, Obama began
by consulting with House Republicans and gave them much of what they
wanted, only to have them turn around and slap him in the face.

> which would have cost half as much and put more money in the economy in l=
ess time. =A0Or, if he
> really wanted to "save and create" jobs quickly, he could have just cut t=
he
> payroll tax rate. =A0If could have been done immediately, with very littl=
e
> administrative cost and would have had an immediate impact on the job
> market. =A0But that wouldn't have bought the Democrats any entitlement vo=
tes.

It's hard to count the lies when they're so mixed up with half-truths,
and I have work to do, so I hereby resign my position as Irish Mike's
Lie Counter. Some jobs are just too much work for one person.

- Bob T.

>
> Irish Mike



  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 13:39:35
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"

"Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com > wrote in message
news:a2429130-5bcc-4ac2-aa8e-8c88f7523347@o6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 12, 8:41 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> "Mark Stringer" <ui...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0902120201180.24241@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
>
> > Clave wrote:
>
> >> Written by a former life-long Republican:
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President,
> >> you need to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the business
> >> of governing by winning each battle. . .
>
> > The only time he needs to bother with "bipartisanship" is when he's
> > looking for political cover. When he doesn't need any cover, he won't
> > bother with the charade. Bank on it.

Welcome to Lie Count '09 with our special guest, Irish Mike.
>
> Obama knows damn well that this pork barrel social welfare spending plan
> will do little to actually stimulate the economy.

"Lie #1."

Why is it a lie Bob? The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said it will do
little to jump start the economy and much of the money won't even reach the
market until 2011 or 2012. And here is a particial list of the pork and pet
liberal projects included in the original Obama bill - the bill that all 177
congressional Republicans and 11 Democrats voted against:
$2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power
plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because
it said the project was inefficient.

. A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion
picture film.

. $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

. $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic
ship).

. $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security
headquarters.

. $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

. $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

. $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent
STD's.

. $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

. $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

. $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

. $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3
billion.

. $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."

. $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

. $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

. $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

. $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.

. $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

. $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.

. $500 million for state and local fire stations.

. $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

. $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.

. $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.

. $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

. $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health
facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

. $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and
Community Service.

. $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of
Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

. $850 million for Amtrak.

. $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

. $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State
Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities
of other agencies.

. $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

. $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for
use on military installations.

And that list doesn't even include the $400 million for global warming
research or the tens of millions that will go to ACORN, which is currently
charged with voter fraud in 13 states.

> He also knows that the more the American people find out about the pork
> and pet liberal projects
> that have been hidden in this 600+ page, $ 900 billion+ pile of garbage,
> the
> less support he has.

"Lie #2."



Why is this a lie? A recent poll showed that the majority of Americans
want a stimulus bill, but are against all the pork in the original Obama
bill. The longer this pile of fat sits there, the worse it smells to the
American people.


> That's why he's playing the fear card,

"Lie #3.To the extent that Obama is "playing the fear card" it's
because we should all fear our economy collapsing around us. Take a
look at California right now - the idiots in Sacramento can't even
pass a fucking budget and that's hurting all of us in the state
directly or indirectly"

.

Yes the situation is dire but that's not why Obama is pushing the bill. He
is trying to get these liberal pet projects and entitlement programs pushed
through to pay back the unions, trial lawyers and left wing of the Democrat
party for their part in getting him elected. Obama also told us that we had
to over look Tim Geithner's dishonesty because we needed him so desperately.
Well, look at the cracker jack job he's done so far. He explained Obama's
economic plan and the stock market dropped nearly 400 points because there
were no details and no substance. The Democrats accused Bush of playing the
fear card after 9/11 to get what he wanted pushed through. Well Obama is
doing exactly the same thing now.



> that's why he's out in full campaign mode

"Lie #4"



With due respect bucko - bull shit, Obama is out doing town meeting
because he knows he has to sell this pork barrel spending bill to the
American people. This man needs to get out of the campaign mode (which is
easy) and start governing (Which is hard). The time for his rock star,
read-from-a-teleprompter stage show is past.

> and that's why he's so desperate to get at least 2 or 3 Senate Republicans
> to vote for it.

"Already done"



You're right . Two or three Republican Senators did cave in to this bull
shit bill but that sure as hell doesn't make it a bi-partisan bill. Not one
of the 177 Republicans voted for the bill and only 3 Republicans in the
Senate voted for it.
>
> If Obama really wanted to stimulate the American economy in the quickest
> way
> possible, he would have looked at the Republican proposal

"Lie #5 - Obama _did_ look at the GOP proposal. Further, Obama began
by consulting with House Republicans and gave them much of what they
wanted, only to have them turn around and slap him in the face."



Bull shit again Bob. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid totally shut the
Republicans out of the bill writing or amending process in Congress. One of
the Democrats who voted against the bill came out and publicly criticized
Pelosi and Reid for excluding the Republicans. This is nothing but a
partisan Democrat social engineering, welfare and entitlement spending bill.
Obama never even considered the Republican version of the bill.


which would have cost half as much and put more money in the economy in
less time. Or, if he
> really wanted to "save and create" jobs quickly, he could have just cut
> the
> payroll tax rate. If could have been done immediately, with very little
> administrative cost and would have had an immediate impact on the job
> market. But that wouldn't have bought the Democrats any entitlement votes.

"It's hard to count the lies when they're so mixed up with half-truths,
and I have work to do, so I hereby resign my position as Irish Mike's
Lie Counter. Some jobs are just too much work for one person.

- Bob T."

Again Bob, total bull shit. Obama could have implemented a payroll tax cut
immediately. It would have cost very little administatively, had no red
tape for businesses and immediately helped the job market. And he could
have trialed it - six months, two years, etc. Unlike Obama's pork bill
which will permanently increase costs and the size of government. Obama
didn't do it for one reason - it wouldn't have bought the Democrats any
entitlement votes.



Irish Mike




   
Date: 12 Feb 2009 11:38:23
From: Jason Pawloski
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
On Feb 12 2009 11:39 AM, Irish Mike wrote:

> "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
> news:a2429130-5bcc-4ac2-aa8e-8c88f7523347@o6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 8:41 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > "Mark Stringer" <ui...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
> >
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0902120201180.24241@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
> >
> > > Clave wrote:
> >
> > >> Written by a former life-long Republican:
> > >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > >> There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President,
> > >> you need to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the business
> > >> of governing by winning each battle. . .
> >
> > > The only time he needs to bother with "bipartisanship" is when he's
> > > looking for political cover. When he doesn't need any cover, he won't
> > > bother with the charade. Bank on it.
>
> Welcome to Lie Count '09 with our special guest, Irish Mike.
> >
> > Obama knows damn well that this pork barrel social welfare spending plan
> > will do little to actually stimulate the economy.
>
> "Lie #1."
>
> Why is it a lie Bob?

It's a lie because Bob, like all other enlightened leftists types, have
evolved so much further than us stupid non-leftists that they can actually
telepathetically know what other leftists are thinking. So he looked deep
into Obama's soul, determined what Obama knows and doesn't know, and
ascertained that your statement is a lie.

<snip >

--
"Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)

_______________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 12 Feb 2009 07:06:41
From: risky biz
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
On Feb 11 2009 11:41 PM, Clave wrote:

> Written by a former life-long Republican:

Who apparently doesn't realize that the Democrats are Republicans.

____________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 12 Feb 2009 02:10:44
From: Mark Stringer
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
Clave wrote:

> Written by a former life-long Republican:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President,
> you need to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the business
> of governing by winning each battle. . .

The only time he needs to bother with "bipartisanship" is when he's
looking for political cover. When he doesn't need any cover, he won't
bother with the charade. Bank on it.


  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 19:40:47
From: Clave
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
"Mark Stringer" <ui337@victoria.tc.ca > wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0902120201180.24241@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
> Clave wrote:
>
>> Written by a former life-long Republican:
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President,
>> you need to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the business
>> of governing by winning each battle. . .
>
> The only time he needs to bother with "bipartisanship" is when he's
> looking for political cover. When he doesn't need any cover, he won't
> bother with the charade. Bank on it.

The point of the article seems to have escaped you. He shouldn't bother
trying to work with the Republicans because he's not going to get anything
but backstabbing and treachery in the first place.

Ever.

Jim




  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 11:41:53
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"

"Mark Stringer" <ui337@victoria.tc.ca > wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0902120201180.24241@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
> Clave wrote:
>
>> Written by a former life-long Republican:
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President,
>> you need to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the business
>> of governing by winning each battle. . .
>
> The only time he needs to bother with "bipartisanship" is when he's
> looking for political cover. When he doesn't need any cover, he won't
> bother with the charade. Bank on it.

Obama knows damn well that this pork barrel social welfare spending plan
will do little to actually stimulate the economy. He also knows that the
more the American people find out about the pork and pet liberal projects
that have been hidden in this 600+ page, $ 900 billion+ pile of garbage, the
less support he has. That's why he's playing the fear card, that's why he's
out in full campaign mode and that's why he's so desperate to get at least 2
or 3 Senate Republicans to vote for it.

If Obama really wanted to stimulate the American economy in the quickest way
possible, he would have looked at the Republican proposal which would have
cost half as much and put more money in the economy in less time. Or, if he
really wanted to "save and create" jobs quickly, he could have just cut the
payroll tax rate. If could have been done immediately, with very little
administrative cost and would have had an immediate impact on the job
market. But that wouldn't have bought the Democrats any entitlement votes.

Irish Mike




   
Date: 12 Feb 2009 19:41:25
From: Clave
Subject: Re: To Hell with "Bipartisanship"
"Irish Mike" <mjostar@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:ieYkl.12834$D32.12581@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Mark Stringer" <ui337@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0902120201180.24241@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
>> Clave wrote:
>>
>>> Written by a former life-long Republican:
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President,
>>> you need to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the business
>>> of governing by winning each battle. . .
>>
>> The only time he needs to bother with "bipartisanship" is when he's
>> looking for political cover. When he doesn't need any cover, he won't
>> bother with the charade. Bank on it.
>
> Obama knows damn well that this pork barrel social welfare spending plan
> will do little to actually stimulate the economy. He also knows that the
> more the American people find out about the pork and pet liberal projects
> that have been hidden in this 600+ page, $ 900 billion+ pile of garbage,
> the less support he has. That's why he's playing the fear card, that's
> why he's out in full campaign mode and that's why he's so desperate to get
> at least 2 or 3 Senate Republicans to vote for it.
>
> If Obama really wanted to stimulate the American economy in the quickest
> way possible, he would have looked at the Republican proposal which would
> have cost half as much and put more money in the economy in less time.
> Or, if he really wanted to "save and create" jobs quickly, he could have
> just cut the payroll tax rate. If could have been done immediately, with
> very little administrative cost and would have had an immediate impact on
> the job market. But that wouldn't have bought the Democrats any
> entitlement votes.

Thank you for illustrating the author's point. I kinda had you in mind when
I was reading it.

Jim