Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nicely done. I appreciate the time you took to substantiate that.
However, amending a democratically created bill is a far cry from having a seat at the table at the bill's inception. They were also not invited to the ObamaPelosiReid meetings to reconcile the house and senate versions. Just because some of the amendments to the original bill were put into place, does not therefore equate into democrat bipartisanship.
A truly bipartisan bill would include both parties at the creation, amending, and reconciling stages of a bill's progress through the legislative process. All stages of the process.
And thank you for also pointing out that we, republicans, are NOT the party of NO.
You can not in all sanity be serious. If so, then I will applaud your immediate and vigorous action to write your Senator to have the majority of bills and legislation created during the previous administration REPEALED AND OVERTURNED.
What you seem to forget, is that we have a democratic legislative process in our Republic. The party in power...gets to make the bills and then invite the minority party...or the PARTY NOT IN POWER...to offer amendments and suggestions as how to improve and/or work in a bipartisan way to work for the representation of their parties goals/fundamentals within the framework of the legislative process. Now, the minority party may also provide and initiate the same process...however since they are in the minority they do not get to set the agenda or the time/place they are marked up for vote. Hence, the idea that they are the minority party.
Your arguments are moot. They don't even make sense if you're not going to argue for the previous legislation to be overturned for teh same reasons.
And you republican's are not the party of 'NO'. Quite to the contrary.
You're the party of 'NEVER' and head in the sand 'must have it my way'. partisans. However, that's not the way the founding fathers and the framework of our Republic work. Or is that under review now as well since it doesn't fit into your view of how the world should be right of center?
I am simply in amazement that comments like this don't get the attention they deserve on this forum.
To sit there and blame complete inactivity in the congress on the republicans while painting the democrats as simply wanting republican involvment and thus holding up bills is comical. The democrats didn't want fox news in the white house, they didn't want republicans to provide input into the bill until they raised a stink. Then democrats said "well whats your input 'party of no'".
The GOP has had their plan posted on their website for quite some time now. Its there for all to see. We all know they aren't going to be invited to committee to review the currents bills or provide input, but to claim that they are stopping the show is absolutely 100% BS.
Painting the democrats as a bunch of helpless bi-partisan victims. CLASSIC.
And I read GOP plan, and it's grossly inefficient. It also fails to address root cause issues of why we're having astronomical costs imposed upon us above and beyond all other nations on the planet. So they are for all intents/ purposes veritably empty handed. No right winger on this forum has made an effort to point out the wisdom in their own plans proposed. I'd love to hear it, not to poke holes or make swiss cheese, but to encourage a better plan to arise with constructive criticism in mind.
As for bolded portion, FOX can do nothing more than heckle and incite disruptions. The tactics are not appropriate and I resent their attitude and presence undermining my government. The only fair and balanced source of media delivery is Cspan, who goes to pains to be unobtrusive. I strongly disagree that they should be closed out of sessions. I'm left wondering if the negotiations are stalled because legislators are busy policing themselves or if lobbyists want their turn to influence. Blaming the closed media sessions on a vast conspiracy against citizens... prove it.
Agree. The Dem's want and long for bi-partisanship. The Repub's couldn't give a damn. The same way it's been for the last 10 years. The Dem's don't want to seem partisan and ram things through. The Repub's don't care and want to make them do it.
The Dem's are unwilling to just realize that, and hope to recapture the Adams/Jeffersonian culture to work together to "form a more perfect union" that take ideas from both sides to make concessions that will move the Republic forward and better.
Until then, there will be more gridlock.
It took some doing to stop laughing at this post. I finally managed to stop enough to type, anyway.
You talk about bi-partisanship and that tells me that you failed to hear Leader Harry Reid when he said I now have a super majority and don't need any of your suggestions or votes. That is so bi-partisan.
Saying that the Demoncrats want bi-partisanship is about as silly as saying that boys don't start the life cycle for humans.
You say the Dems don't want to seem partisan and ram things through and I have to ask where you get your information about that. You don't know that Nancy Pelosi, the other Dem leader in the other house of Congress, refused to allow Republicans to debate on her floor and her chairmen refused to allow Republicans to enter amendments to their laws? I really do wonder where you get this info. Let me make a few guesses and see if I hit at least one. MediaMatters, TPM, Kos, HuffPo. Surely I hit at least one of your sources there.
You can not in all sanity be serious. If so, then I will applaud your immediate and vigorous action to write your Senator to have the majority of bills and legislation created during the previous administration REPEALED AND OVERTURNED.
What you seem to forget, is that we have a democratic legislative process in our Republic. The party in power...gets to make the bills and then invite the minority party...or the PARTY NOT IN POWER...to offer amendments and suggestions as how to improve and/or work in a bipartisan way to work for the representation of their parties goals/fundamentals within the framework of the legislative process. Now, the minority party may also provide and initiate the same process...however since they are in the minority they do not get to set the agenda or the time/place they are marked up for vote. Hence, the idea that they are the minority party.
Your arguments are moot. They don't even make sense if you're not going to argue for the previous legislation to be overturned for teh same reasons.
And you republican's are not the party of 'NO'. Quite to the contrary.
You're the party of 'NEVER' and head in the sand 'must have it my way'. partisans. However, that's not the way the founding fathers and the framework of our Republic work. Or is that under review now as well since it doesn't fit into your view of how the world should be right of center?
Now who's the activists'?
You completely missed the entire point of my thread. You claim that the democrats are overwhelmingly acting in a bipartisan way. I point out that they are not, nor do they have to be with their majorities in both the house and senate. Point is, there is very little, if any, bipartisanship happening in congress. To revert to the previous administration, please point out where the republicans held super-majority status? They didn't.
Absolutely they want bi-partisanship, and that's what is hamstringing them. If they locked out republicans on HCR, then how in the hell did over 200 of their amendments get into HCR bills? There are some in the Dem party causing problems for them, but continually voting strictly upon party lines is the cause for the grid-lock. In addition to the continued falsehoods of being locked out of the process, and obstruction and obfuscation.
How can you attempt to say they are "cooperating" when they are continually filibustering and refusing to even engage in any meaningful debate?
Maybe you need to spend more time watching what is going on and a little less golfing.
With the OP you were told that a super majority in the Senate, which they have had since the day that Franken was allowed to have a seat, would give them complete control. That means they have 60 votes counting two Dems who ran as Independents. They can pass any law they want and the GOP can vote no as a block and still not stop them. How in hell is it the fault of the GOP that the Dems' leadership is so far left that too many of their own won't vote with them?
I really don't think you know a lot about what is going on. You talk about all those GOP amendments but that has to be in the House since the Senate version was written in a room with locked doors by Dirty Harry Reid and a group of his leadership, along with some lobbyists who Obama said wouldn't be allowed to take part. May I suggest that one of those lobbyists would have to be Andy Stern? Ok, I said it.
Stall tactics are grounds for dismissal in the workplace. Odd how those rules don't apply to gov't.
I see that you haven't heard what Juan McCain said on Fox a couple of weeks ago. He said for all the good we have been allowed to do we would have been better served to have set up a tent and sold Persian rugs while Dirty Harry wrote the health insurance reform bill. GOP Senators were totally locked out of Reid's office while that thing was written. How many Senators do you think had any idea what was in that thing? No more than 5 or the 100, I am sure.
Both parties suck and there is hardly any bipartisanship which is what the majority of Americans want.
Every Democrat isn't liberal. You have Conservative Democrats and you have moderate Democrats.
I wish Congress could get things done rather than letting bills stall, doing all this grandstanding and opposing the other party simply because it's a bill from the other party.
I was listening to NPR today and one participant in a panel said there have been bills that members of the GOP have co-sponsored and once it came up for a vote, they voted against it because they don't want Democrats to get credit for it.
It reminds me of my favorite quote, allow me to paraphrase, "It's amazing what you can achieve if you don't care who gets the credit."
I always said that in 2005 when the Democrats refused to allow anything to be done, even to discuss, about Social Security. I think it was because they were the minority party and weren't about to let the GOP touch their "other baby" SS. That is saying that Roe v. Wade is also their baby.
So I ask you directly... how much influence should big pharma, insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, and durable goods lobbyists have relative to the majority of people who can be potentially herded into a monopoly agaisnt their will? That question answered by both parties, and by all of us as individuals, needs an answer. Go ahead an answer for yourself, and your party.
What is the answer of the Democrat leadership in both houses of Congress?
bipartisanship...indeed. Let your confusion be put to rest, let your mind not be troubled.
I see that I hit two of your favorite sources when I guessed what they were. I guess I should have thought of Slate, too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
