"Bipartisanship" is in the eye of the beholder. For example, I believe strongly in bipartisanship- as long as it comes down on my side of the issues 100% of the time. Another example- What independent, amoral, unemotional entity gets to decide on which side the "bipartisan" agreement falls?

Bottom line is Congress, and government in general, is there to represent its citizens. If they had truly done that the past 2 years, we would've had "bipartisan" no votes on the Stimulus bill, Obamakare, Cap & Trade, etc. We would've had a bipartisan agreement enforcing immigration laws and dealing with illegals in Arizona. Since those things didn't happen, elected officials will be held accountable starting tomorrow.

jhay78;540866 wrote:"Bipartisanship" is in the eye of the beholder. For example, I believe strongly in bipartisanship- as long as it comes down on my side of the issues 100% of the time. Another example- What independent, amoral, unemotional entity gets to decide on which side the "bipartisan" agreement falls?

Bipartisanship is not getting your way 100% of the time. That is wrong and is one thought rational (of many) that has led us into this awful period. Also, it is not a tit-for-tat, it is agreeing to drop certain hardcore issues to come to a sensible solution to a problem. So, one example off the top of my head would be on healthcare, for the government to close the gap between Medicaid levels and level picked up by private insurance so there is no hole for people without insurance. In order to get this, healthcare would also open up borders across state lines, strengthen Tort reform, give people incentives to go to private insurances, and start a plan in motion to reform Medicare and Medicaid. That way both sides may give up a little, but the problem is solved.

Saying, bipartisanship is my way 100% of the time is the exact problem Stewart stated.

Bottom line is Congress, and government in general, is there to represent its citizens. If they had truly done that the past 2 years, we would've had "bipartisan" no votes on the Stimulus bill, Obamakare, Cap & Trade, etc. We would've had a bipartisan agreement enforcing immigration laws and dealing with illegals in Arizona. Since those things didn't happen, elected officials will be held accountable starting tomorrow.

Agreed, but cap and trade never made it to a vote, and the immigration bill submitted by Bush in 2005 was middle of the road, yet got killed by R's and D's.

Ptown, I don't think that jhay meant those examples as what he believed. Rather, he meant to say that that is how it literally is.

I Wear Pants;540851 wrote:But you think that way because you're heavily invested in the Republican's interest. They both need to reach across the aisle more and with more genuine acceptance that compromise does not equal failure. They both need to stop sucking.

Agreed.

The problem the past two years has been: The dems holding private meetings, not inviting the repubs, and then turning around playing the victim card, wondering why the R's are saying "no" on everything.

DERRRRR!!!!!!!

Wonder what the democrat/republican/independent/other ration at the rally was?

ptown_trojans_1;540913 wrote:Bipartisanship is not getting your way 100% of the time. That is wrong and is one thought rational (of many) that has led us into this awful period. Also, it is not a tit-for-tat, it is agreeing to drop certain hardcore issues to come to a sensible solution to a problem. So, one example off the top of my head would be on healthcare, for the government to close the gap between Medicaid levels and level picked up by private insurance so there is no hole for people without insurance. In order to get this, healthcare would also open up borders across state lines, strengthen Tort reform, give people incentives to go to private insurances, and start a plan in motion to reform Medicare and Medicaid. That way both sides may give up a little, but the problem is solved.

Saying, bipartisanship is my way 100% of the time is the exact problem Stewart stated.



Agreed, but cap and trade never made it to a vote, and the immigration bill submitted by Bush in 2005 was middle of the road, yet got killed by R's and D's.

I agree with most of that, but bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake is not the solution. The solution is an intelligent, informed electorate/citizenry holding their elected officials accountable so that problems can be solved. Sometimes that includes reaching compromises and "getting things done" (a la the immigration issue), and sometimes that involves derailing horrible legislation advanced by the fringe wackos in government (a la Obamacare).

My point was that both sides have essentially said, "We're for bipartisanship, but the other side needs to cave and come down on our side of the issue." That's where the "intelligent, informed electorate" thingy comes in. I guarantee you if 75% of voters in Democrat X's district said "No way you vote for Obamacare," and if that happened in enough districts, that piece of trash never passes. Same is true if voters in Republican districts had been clamoring for it to pass, there would've been bipartisan support for Obamacare.

So it's not quite as simple as Stewart makes it sound. Maybe if he were more interested or devoted to building up an intelligent, informed electorate instead of being a clown then yes, things would get done.

I Wear Pants;540851 wrote:But you think that way because you're heavily invested in the Republican's interest. They both need to reach across the aisle more and with more genuine acceptance that compromise does not equal failure. They both need to stop sucking.

Fair enough....YOU stop sucking first!

Well played sir.

believer;541244 wrote:Fair enough....YOU stop sucking first!

I think the proper comeback to this would be to say the reason we're sucking is because you really sucked when you were in power, so we'll just gradually suck less and less until all traces of your suckitude are gone. So, if you wouldn't suck, we wouldn't suck!

Man...all this talk about sucking...time to find a hooker.

This made me chuckle. Thank 8lb 6oz Baby Jesus for the "enlightened moderates," huh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU&feature=player_embedded#!

fish82;541822 wrote:This made me chuckle. Thank 8lb 6oz Baby Jesus for the "enlightened moderates," huh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU&feature=player_embedded#!

Good one, fish. Let's hope these brain-deprived poor souls can't find their way to the voting booth today since spelling and word comprehension are clearly beyond them.

fish82;541822 wrote:This made me chuckle. Thank 8lb 6oz Baby Jesus for the "enlightened moderates," huh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU&feature=player_embedded#!

LOL, SMH!

The sad thing is, I'm not an economics buff, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing the "definition" of some words.

That was pretty funny. Stupid liberal videos and stupid conservative videos always make me laugh.