Maxprop wrote:
Bipartisanism: (GOP version) Both sides cooperating in such a manner as to
achieve common goals.

While screaming about how the libby-rull fag traitor
terrorist-lovers are destroying Ammurica.



The two sides can't agree on how to fix social security.

That's because one side wants to fix it, the other side
wants to get rid of it (after looting it, of course).


... The two sides are
diametrically opposed w/r/t amnesty for illegals (of course Bush is behaving
like a Democrat on this issue).

Not really. His agenda is based on maximizing profit for his
contributors, ie drive down the cost of labor as far as
possible.



And why do you think gridlock is automatically a bad thing? Do we need
another 300 laws and spending programs each session of Congress?

I think we should consider a 2nd Congress, a parallel one,
with the responsiblity to repeal all the dated or
impractical legislation of the regular Congress.



.... Do we need
to amend those laws and rules that have functioned adequately for the past
200 years. The old saying, "idle minds are the Devil's workshop," applies
to Congress in spades.


Lobbying is a HUGE part of the problem. Nobody ever goes in
front of Congress to ask them to spend less money on a given
item or program.

DSK

You can read it yourself at http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-clinton

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
news

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 03:59:49 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:

Bush senior had a Democratic controlled congress and he couldn't deal
with it.
He just kept whining about GRIDLOCK. He campained for re-election telling
people
that if they would just give him a Republican congress, he'd be able to
get
things done.

Well... The voters essentially ran him out of town on a rail. They did
elect a
Republican dominated congress, and the new Democratic president had no
problem
passing more legislation in his first year, than the previous
administration
passed in it's full term. Clinton never once whined about GRIDLOCK when
faced
with a congress that was controlled by the other party. He worked with
them
effectively. Thats what a good president does.

Would you care to cite some of the meaningful pieces of legislation that
were passed *after* the 1994 midterm elections during the Clinton
administration? Please feel free to highlight those items that were
either Clinton or Democrat initiatives, Charlie.

Anyone who cries "GRIDLOCK" as an excuse is simply declaring their
incompetence,
and inability to act in a bi-partisan manner.

Bipartisanism: (GOP version) Both sides cooperating in such a manner as
to achieve common goals.
Bipartisanism: (Dem. version) Republicans thinking like us Democrats.

The two sides can't agree on how to fix social security. The two sides
are diametrically opposed w/r/t amnesty for illegals (of course Bush is
behaving like a Democrat on this issue). And the far right wing isn't
going to give in on abortion or embryonic stem-cell research. So exactly
where do you see "bipartisan" cooperation, CWM?

And why do you think gridlock is automatically a bad thing? Do we need
another 300 laws and spending programs each session of Congress? Do we
need to amend those laws and rules that have functioned adequately for the
past 200 years. The old saying, "idle minds are the Devil's workshop,"
applies to Congress in spades.

Max

DSK wrote:
Maxprop wrote:

Bipartisanism: (GOP version) Both sides cooperating in such a manner
as to achieve common goals.

While screaming about how the libby-rull fag traitor terrorist-lovers
are destroying Ammurica.


"Bipartisanship is another name for date rape."

- Grover Norquist, spiritual father of today's
anti-tax Republicans, and close confidant to
the Bush White House.


IOW, cooperation is not in their playbook. How else does one explain
Bush sending John Bolton's nomination back to the senate after losing
the midterm elections in a rout?

// Walt

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...iewed-homepage

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061112/...democrats_dc_1

"Gilligan" wrote in message . ..
| http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061112/...democrats_dc_1
|
|

We shall see. Personally I think there are enough sensible people in the House who realize
a time table like that is tantamount to defeat. I doubt they can get it passed. But, we shall see . . .

Those Democrat leaders (leftists) will do anything they can to hurt this country. Losing another war
like they caused us to lose Viet Nam would suit them just fine. That is exactly what the leftists want.
They would like nothing better than to see the United States defeated and then destroyed.
The United States is all that stands in the way of world socialism. They know it. They are socialists
first and citizens second.

Paladin
(Have Blue Water, Positive Flotation Yacht - Will Travel - Thank God!)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message ...
| http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...iewed-homepage
|
|

I hope they go for the most leftist agenda possible. If they bow to the wishes of the moveon.com fanatics
they will be in for a very big surprise come 2008. They actually think Democrats came out in droves to vote
them in. Bwahahahahahhahahahhahahah! And what about all those conservative Democrats they ran against
Republican incumbents? They tide will turn quickly against the Democrat party should they go way left.
Probably the best thing that can happen for Republicans. It will assure Republicans retaking the House and
Senate and the Presidency in 2008. Less than 30% of Americans call themselves liberals. 50% call themselves
conservative. The rest are moderates and independents.

Paladin
(Have Blue Water Yacht - Will Travel)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Paladin" noneofyourbusiness.www wrote in message
.. .

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..
| http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061112/...democrats_dc_1
|
|

We shall see. Personally I think there are enough sensible people in the
House who realize
a time table like that is tantamount to defeat. I doubt they can get it
passed. But, we shall see . . .

Those Democrat leaders (leftists) will do anything they can to hurt this
country. Losing another war
like they caused us to lose Viet Nam would suit them just fine. That is
exactly what the leftists want.
They would like nothing better than to see the United States defeated and
then destroyed.
The United States is all that stands in the way of world socialism. They
know it. They are socialists
first and citizens second.

Paladin
(Have Blue Water, Positive Flotation Yacht - Will Travel - Thank God!)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


First they said they wouldn't cut and run. Now elected and not even in
office they're talking cut and run. By January will they have the surrender
papers drawn?