Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The same one who wants to make sure that working people pay more in taxes so that the [insert hyperbole here]?

If that was the best you could do, you should have just stayed home.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes, I am. But it's more complicated than that. Maybe it's an issue that is more regional than partisan -- e.g., ethanol subsidies, or something to do with acid rain. If the legislation is sponsored by folks on both sides of the aisle, and reflects input from members of both parties, then it's bipartisan, whether it gets 55% or 75% of the votes.

OTOH, take a situation where one party draws up the bill, excluding the other side, and rams it through, refusing (e.g.) to allow alternatives to be considered. Maybe it'll get a number of votes from the other party, from legislators who don't like the choice presented to them but are willing to vote for the bill because they still think it's better than nothing, for whatever reason. If you start with half the Republicans, and half the Dems end up going along as well, that doesn't make things bipartisan. The word really refers to the whole process, not to the count of the final vote.

Perhaps that is a Ty definition then.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by dtb
I think she's [Portman] gorgeous.

It appears that being that close to that cold bitch Hillary brought her body temperature down so much that her nipples could cut glass.*

Turkey done!

Col(never been a big fan of Hillary)Trane

*thank you Hillary?

Do I win the Penske OTD?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I believe, though, that when the country is at war, it falls to those in power to put the national interests ahead of party interests. I take it you and the GOP disagree, and care more about getting Republicans elected.

Fucking classic. From the party that was calling "quagmire" three days into the war.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
http://www.ideaspakistan.com/

eta This stuff is great:

No kidding. IDEAS stands for International Defence Exhibition and Seminar.

"Who Should Attend?

IDEAS is targeted at top-level decision makers from the defence ministry, armed forces, airlines, transport ministry, maintenance & engineering companies, research & training institutes. The targeted audience will include the Pakistan Defence Forces, senior armed forces personnel & defence procurement experts from countries in Central Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and Africa."

I bet they blew things up as part of the exhibits. Cool.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Kerry were to actually say something that encourages a terrorist attack, I would have a real problem with that. I have no doubt that some of you guys actually believe that -- notwithstanding that we live in a democracy -- it is the duty of the rest of the country to keep quiet until the troops come home, but since most of the Republican leadership didn't see it that way when -- for example -- our troops were in harm's way in Albania and Serbia, I see things cynically.

If you really think, for example, that Kerry hurt our interests by criticizing Allawi as a puppet, then you also need to agree that Bush hurt our interests (first) by bringing Allawi to the United States to support his re-election campaign -- something that did nothing for Allawi in Iraq except make him look like a puppet -- and compounded the problem by having a campaign worker write Allawi's speeches for him. Once Bush left the barn door open, it was hardly wrong of Kerry to point it out.

Belief in the correctness of a position alone certainly doesn't make it right, as Dick Cheney did his best to illustrate for us on Tuesday.

My hope is that, after the election and no matter who wins, you very back towards the middle. Some of the stuff you've been posting recently is out there.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Fucking classic. From the party that was calling "quagmire" three days into the war.

Prescient, wasn't it?

I'm afraid it didn't take a genius to figure that one out, however.

Which is the point.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Perhaps that is a Ty definition then.

If you would use the word "bipartisan" to describe the process of enacting the example in my second paragraph, simply, because some members of the minority ultimately voted with the majority, then the word means nothing, and you can call the Bush re-election campaign "bipartisan" because Zell Miller (like roughly 10% of Democrats) supports it. John Kerry's campaign is also bipartisan because he's getting the support of a comparable number of Republicans. If you're going to use the word that way, you might as well retire it, because it means nothing.

Using the word as I do, my other points stand. I don't disagree with the vote counts you described, but I also don't understand what they have to do with anything I said, now that you understand what I meant by the word.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
If that was the best you could do, you should have just stayed home.

Indeed.
A guy you support to lead the country:
Has never done a noticeable day of work in the private sector.
Was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
Married even wealthier women.
Wants to raise taxes generally, and specifically on those far less wealthy than he.
Is a Democrat.

And your proposition is that Republicans slam the door behind them?

In short:
Democrats:
Believe in being carried up the ladder and then stepping on the hands of all those lower once they reach the top. Perfect embodiment: John Kerry.

Republicans:
Believe in being allowed to climb up the ladder. Lower taxes for those on the ladder and minimal help for anyone too lazy to climb. Perfect embodiment: Me.

And you characterize me as the one slamming the door shut on the ladder. How in the world do you conclude its the Republicans that are slamming doors shut and all that?

I know this would sound better if I threw a few insults in, but I'm just not up for it today.

Hello

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Prescient, wasn't it?

We've been there a year and a half. Less casualties than Pearl Harbor or - say - 9/11 attacks.

And you call it a quagmire.

You see, it's stupidity like this comment of yours that cause people to scroll past you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Fucking classic. From the party that was calling "quagmire" three days into the war.

This is a bullshit response, because you're both accusing me of trying to have it both ways, while having it both ways yourself. If you're bothered by the (ostensible) use of the word "quagmire" three days into the war, then you ought to have a real problem with the actions -- not statements, but actions -- taken by the Republicans who are actually running the fucking government, like holding up the creation of the Department of Homeland Security so that they could smear Max Cleland. Or the crap they're pulling in the House with intelligence reform. But you don't, as far as I can tell.

But we apparently both are willing to pay lip service to the idea that when the country is at war.

If Bush had been running the war in a bipartisan way, then it would have been too cute by half for the Democrats to take their part in running it, and to criticize its prosecution at the same time. But since Bush wasn't willing to proceed in this way, it is quite simply beyond me why you think that anyone was trying to have it both ways.

I don't recall the Democratic Party using the word "quagmire." In fact, an awful lot of Democrats, like Kerry, voted to authorize the war. Seymour Hersh used the word in a New Yorker article, and it got a lot of play, but your "argument" -- I use the word loosely -- is a little like my accusing you and the rest of the Republican Party of calling Democrats "traitors" because Anne Coulter said it. If this appears to rankle me, perhaps you remember bilmore accusing me of using the word, and then ultimately having to acknowledge that I hadn't.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
My hope is that, after the election and no matter who wins, you very back towards the middle. Some of the stuff you've been posting recently is out there.

Whiff.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I know this would sound better if I threw a few insults in, but I'm just not up for it today.

Hello

FWIW, I think you did anyway. Muscle memory is a wonderful thing, I suppose.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
We've been there a year and a half. Less casualties than Pearl Harbor or - say - 9/11 attacks.

Not if we include our coalition partners, the Iraqis.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you would use the word "bipartisan" to describe the process of enacting the example in my second paragraph, simply, because some members of the minority ultimately voted with the majority, then the word means nothing, and you can call the Bush re-election campaign "bipartisan" because Zell Miller (like roughly 10% of Democrats) supports it. John Kerry's campaign is also bipartisan because he's getting the support of a comparable number of Republicans. If you're going to use the word that way, you might as well retire it, because it means nothing.

Using the word as I do, my other points stand. I don't disagree with the vote counts you described, but I also don't understand what they have to do with anything I said, now that you understand what I meant by the word.

Doesn't your thesis obviate any difference between "bipartisan" and "nonpartisan"?