Rahmbo Pledges Bipartisan Approach

Discussion in 'Congress' started by The Paperboy, Nov 9, 2008.

  1. The Paperboy
    Offline

    The Paperboy Times Square

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,837
    Thanks Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Times Square
    Ratings:
    +116
    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

    Now maybe Obama will govern in a bipartisan fashion but I wouldn't look at his career in the state senate or US Senate for affirmation of that.

    At least Obama chose a Chief of Staff with a sense of f***ing humor!

    Link here
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I'm not sure, Emanuel and bi-partisan certainly would be an oxymoron, however I don't think he's there for the severely curtailed opposition party, rather the leadership of a very unpopular Congress:

    Rahm Emanuel: 'Do What You Got Elected to Do' - WSJ.com

     
  3. DavidS
    Offline

    DavidS Anti-Tea Party Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,811
    Thanks Received:
    766
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Ratings:
    +767
    Really? Obama's been in the Senate since 2005, and he's voted on over 200 bills. Which bills do you feel that he's voted on since his career in the US Senate started that make him to be non-bipartisan?

    Please don't provide for me what some "independent study group" has said. I can find independent study groups that tell me the sky is green if I wanted to. I want to know what bills you, Paperboy, feel that Obama has voted on that makes him to be very bipartisan.
     
  4. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,174
    Thanks Received:
    10,170
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,747
    didn't that scrawny Pelosi woman promise the same thing? How did that work out doyathink?
     
  5. The Paperboy
    Offline

    The Paperboy Times Square

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,837
    Thanks Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Times Square
    Ratings:
    +116
    Obama voted with his party 98% of the time as did Rahmbo. Enough said.

    Obama Speak: Bi-Partisanship means Republicans vote for Democratic bills.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Isolde
    Offline

    Isolde Knucklehead

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    605
    Thanks Received:
    121
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +121
    Snicker, who are they trying to fool? Oh, that's right, their über-intelligent base who graciously consumes their bullshit without question. :rolleyes:

    If bi-partisanship was their thing then why the need for a fillibuster-proof majority? They don't know the meaning of the word compromise.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,417
    Thanks Received:
    12,697
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,846
    Maybe this is too nuanced for you to grasp, and perhaps I'm not explaining it correctly...but most of Bush's positions were not bi-partisan, so voting against them doesn't automatically make someone partisan. It's more likely that voting against them made someone CORRECT...which could be considered moderate, rational, liberal, or even conservative.
     
  8. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,417
    Thanks Received:
    12,697
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,846
    I don't think need has anything to do with, it seems to be what the electorate wants.
     
  9. Isolde
    Offline

    Isolde Knucklehead

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    605
    Thanks Received:
    121
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +121
    Oh really? I am fortunate enough to be from Minnesota which is about to be the next election spectacle.

    I received several mailings in which Obama begged me to vote for Franken. Here is a direct quote from one such mailing: "But 60 democratic senators can end a filibuster. That's why every Democcrat is needed - and that's just another good reason why Barack Obama needs Al Franken to join Amy Klobuchar in the US Senate."

    Sounds like he needs Democrats to me. Is it because he is unwilling or unable to reach a consensus with the other side? Either way, it should reflect on his ability or inability as a leader.

    Personally, to borrow a catchphrase, I embrace diversity and I think our government runs better when there is a balance. Even when one has to suffer through all the liberal whining that inevitably occurs, I do think the end negotiated bill is better.
     
  10. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,417
    Thanks Received:
    12,697
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,846
    I googled your email and couldn't find anything on it so I'm not sure if you are telling the truth or not.

    Regardless, I also agree balance is good. But your comment about liberal whining makes you a partisan hack...:eusa_whistle:

    You seem to belie the saying with age comes wisdom.

    :cool:
     

Share This Page