Bipartisanship = lack of principled debate

Purple Hawk

I really don't fault Dem leadership here...because they have their beliefs (although, it would have been nice if they RAN on them in the close races). But it's laughable that anyone who disagrees with Dems are dividers.

Personally, I like partisanship, because it means we are expressing our true beliefs...it would be refreshing to hear more partisanship during election time.


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_010507/content/anchorman_2.guest.html

Bipartisan? Pelosi, Reid Demand No Iraq Troop Surge

January 5, 2007

RUSH: All right. Dingy Harry and the QBN, Queen Bee Nancy, have both signed a letter, joint letter that they -- this is being reported by PMSNBC, by the way, that queen bee Nancy Pelosi and Dingy Harry have sent a letter to President Bush demanding no troop surge in Iraq. Not requesting, not suggesting, demanding. No troop surge in Iraq. Now, this is an example -- can we go back to audio sound bite -- let's see, find this for me. What is it? Number six. A montage of Pelosi and her remarks yesterday, want you to listen to this, after hearing that she has joined Dingy Harry with a letter to President Bush demanding no troop surge in Iraq.

QUEEN BEE NANCY: I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship. We may be different parties but we serve one country. In this Congress, we must work together.

RUSH: Yeah.

QUEEN BEE NANCY: -- to work together.

RUSH: Yeah.

QUEEN BEE NANCY: With the highest ethical standard and with civility and bipartisanship.

RUSH: Off to a great start.

QUEEN BEE NANCY: Openness requires respect for every voice and obligation to reach beyond partisanship. Let us stand together to move our country forward, seeking common ground for the common good.

RUSH: See, you gotta know how to define bipartisanship when the Democrats talk about it. Bipartisanship is the way feminists deal with men. You must change. Bipartisanship for the Democrat side is, you got to stop being who you are, you Republicans and conservatives. It's just that simple.

kenny olav

Seems to me referring to the Speaker as "Queen Bee Nancy" and the Senate Majority leader as "Dingy Harry" exemplifies a lack of principled debate.




I personally would like to see the end of political parties.

Abookamongstthemany

Sometimes, bipartisanship will involve compromise esp when no ground is being made and things continue to go down hill. Other times though, it is still an option to voice your opposing view in an effort to persuade the otherside and gain support. Only hard headed, narrow minds never change their stances. If both parties didn't act like fools on silly sport teams where they have to be bitter rivals pitted against each other, bipartisanship could work. All you need are listening skills, an open mind, and understanding.

flywallyfly

Bush declared himself a "Uniter, not a divider" and would work with both parties for the good of the nation. What did he really do? Pushed the democrats out of any dialogue or policy ideas his entire 6 years in office. It'sd laughable that he and the republicans are crying fowl over this. More laughable that posters on this board are doing the same.

El_Kabong

Purple Hawk wrote:

I really don't fault Dem leadership here...because they have their beliefs (although, it would have been nice if they RAN on them in the close races). But it's laughable that anyone who disagrees with Dems are dividers.

Personally, I like partisanship, because it means we are expressing our true beliefs...it would be refreshing to hear more partisanship during election time.


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_010507/content/anchorman_2.guest.html

Bipartisan? Pelosi, Reid Demand No Iraq Troop Surge

January 5, 2007

RUSH: All right. Dingy Harry and the QBN, Queen Bee Nancy, have both signed a letter, joint letter that they -- this is being reported by PMSNBC, by the way, that queen bee Nancy Pelosi and Dingy Harry have sent a letter to President Bush demanding no troop surge in Iraq. Not requesting, not suggesting, demanding. No troop surge in Iraq. Now, this is an example -- can we go back to audio sound bite -- let's see, find this for me. What is it? Number six. A montage of Pelosi and her remarks yesterday, want you to listen to this, after hearing that she has joined Dingy Harry with a letter to President Bush demanding no troop surge in Iraq.

QUEEN BEE NANCY: I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship. We may be different parties but we serve one country. In this Congress, we must work together.

RUSH: Yeah.

QUEEN BEE NANCY: -- to work together.

RUSH: Yeah.

QUEEN BEE NANCY: With the highest ethical standard and with civility and bipartisanship.

RUSH: Off to a great start.

QUEEN BEE NANCY: Openness requires respect for every voice and obligation to reach beyond partisanship. Let us stand together to move our country forward, seeking common ground for the common good.

RUSH: See, you gotta know how to define bipartisanship when the Democrats talk about it. Bipartisanship is the way feminists deal with men. You must change. Bipartisanship for the Democrat side is, you got to stop being who you are, you Republicans and conservatives. It's just that simple.

rush??

anyways, here's what the merriam webster defines partisanship as:

1 : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

if you like that sorta thing....

El_Kabong

flywallyfly wrote:

Bush declared himself a "Uniter, not a divider" and would work with both parties for the good of the nation. What did he really do? Pushed the democrats out of any dialogue or policy ideas his entire 6 years in office. It'sd laughable that he and the republicans are crying fowl over this. More laughable that posters on this board are doing the same.

aw come on, don't go makin them explain why they say one thing and do the exact opposite! accountability is not their forte'

flywallyfly

El_Kabong wrote:

aw come on, don't go makin them explain why they say one thing and do the exact opposite! accountability is not their forte'

I know, I know. Just in a pissy mood right now. I figured out that with the 6 years I had Bush as governor I've had that jerk as some sorta "leader" for 12 years now. Twelve...long....years.....

PaperPlates

El_Kabong wrote:

aw come on, don't go makin them explain why they say one thing and do the exact opposite! accountability is not their forte'

the irony in you making a statement like this is so..............well.......actually, sickening.

El_Kabong

PaperPlates wrote:

the irony in you making a statement like this is so..............well.......actually, sickening.

feel free to explain

El_Kabong

El_Kabong wrote:

feel free to explain

guess an explanation was too much to ask for :(

Cosmo

Bi-patrisanship means reaching a compromise solution after debating your views and agreeing that your opponent has valid points... and your opponent does the same. You drop your hard line points in order to progress a solution through the political process.
...
Partisanship means you hold your view and refuse to believe anyone who counters your points has any valid points. Therefore, no solution is reached.
...
Bi-partisanship means that things are done... partisanship means grid-lock and nothing gets done.
...
If you believe that partisan politics are good... then you believe that Congress does what it does best when faced with a problem... nothing.

soulsinging

was that rush limbaugh speaking?

or was it the oxycoten?

why is he on the radio instead of in jail? doesnt he claim that drug addicts are weak and worthless and belong in jail instead of being coddled with rehab by wussy democrats?

norm

soulsinging wrote:

was that rush limbaugh speaking?

or was it the oxycoten?

why is he on the radio instead of in jail? doesnt he claim that drug addicts are weak and worthless and belong in jail instead of being coddled with rehab by wussy democrats?

Don't ask me to explain why, but about a month ago I was listening to rush and he was talking about his hearing loss.

I shit you not, he blamed his hearing loss on a auto immune problem. Not once did he EVER mention how the ingestion of handfuls of oxycotin was the actual cause of his deafness. The man is a hypocrite wrapped in a jackass.

Purple Hawk

El_Kabong wrote:

rush??

anyways, here's what the merriam webster defines partisanship as:

1 : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

if you like that sorta thing....

it was a slow news day, i figured rush would get things going

merriam may define partisanship as a blind, unreasoning allegiance, but i view it as adhering to strong principles.

you, me, commy, abook, a lot of the serious posters here, I disagree with you all on just about everything but i respect you all because you have firm beliefs, stick by them, and don't waver b/c it's the socially acceptable thing to do.

i don't think being ideological, partisan, is a bad thing at all..what is a bad thing in my view is to be bi-partisan for the sake of being bipartisan, compromising your beliefs for the sake of being accepted.

the people i talk to...bipartisanship is a way to make them feel better about themselves.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

Most people like partisanship because they don't have to think for themselves so much...they just have to pick left or right.

Purple Hawk

Saturnal wrote:

Most people like partisanship because they don't have to think for themselves so much...they just have to pick left or right.

i think most people oppose partisanship because they don't like to think for themselves...they can pick an choose what position is most popular, and then go from there.

Purple Hawk

Kenny Olav wrote:

Seems to me referring to the Speaker as "Queen Bee Nancy" and the Senate Majority leader as "Dingy Harry" exemplifies a lack of principled debate.




I personally would like to see the end of political parties.

rush's nicknames are pretty well thought out.

queen bee nancy refers to her relationship with jane harmon. it's really petty...

El_Kabong

nevermind, misread post

Abookamongstthemany

Purple Hawk wrote:

it was a slow news day, i figured rush would get things going

merriam may define partisanship as a blind, unreasoning allegiance, but i view it as adhering to strong principles.

you, me, commy, abook, a lot of the serious posters here, I disagree with you all on just about everything but i respect you all because you have firm beliefs, stick by them, and don't waver b/c it's the socially acceptable thing to do.

i don't think being ideological, partisan, is a bad thing at all..what is a bad thing in my view is to be bi-partisan for the sake of being bipartisan, compromising your beliefs for the sake of being accepted.

the people i talk to...bipartisanship is a way to make them feel better about themselves.

People are free to hold certain idealogies, of course. But when it comes to policy making and working with constituents with others ideas you have to compromise or you'll gain no ground at all. Some progress is better than none. If we all had to bend to one idealogy we'd live in a dictatorship.

trappedinmyradio

Kenny Olav wrote:

Seems to me referring to the Speaker as "Queen Bee Nancy" and the Senate Majority leader as "Dingy Harry" exemplifies a lack of principled debate.




I personally would like to see the end of political parties.

you know what you get with that? the people with the money RULING THE COUNTRY...

Abookamongstthemany

trappedinmyradio wrote:

you know what you get with that? the people with the money RULING THE COUNTRY...

You mean like they do now, except they're still keep keeping the illusion alive. But I guess there is still room to get worse.

trappedinmyradio

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You mean like they do now, except they're still keep keeping the illusion alive. But I guess there is still room to get worse.

with no checks and balances it would be a free for all...imagine ENRON times a billion...without political parties there could be no law...they are the entity that makes laws...with no laws you have chaos - human nature as showed you what people will do when they are not governed by some sort of law - yes, the rotten apple really does spoil the bunch...

Abookamongstthemany

trappedinmyradio wrote:

with no checks and balances it would be a free for all...imagine ENRON times a billion...without political parties there could be no law...they are the entity that makes laws...with no laws you have chaos - human nature as showed you what people will do when they are not governed by some sort of law - yes, the rotten apple really does spoil the bunch...

Fair enough. I'm torn with this myself. Too many laws, not enough needed ones...You gotta wonder if maybe we couldn't do a better job of taking care of ourselves. Because I know they don't have our best interests at heart. They just need us to keep buying into this, paying them our tax money and letting them keep power. Things have got to change.

soulsinging

Purple Hawk wrote:

it was a slow news day, i figured rush would get things going

merriam may define partisanship as a blind, unreasoning allegiance, but i view it as adhering to strong principles.

you, me, commy, abook, a lot of the serious posters here, I disagree with you all on just about everything but i respect you all because you have firm beliefs, stick by them, and don't waver b/c it's the socially acceptable thing to do.

i don't think being ideological, partisan, is a bad thing at all..what is a bad thing in my view is to be bi-partisan for the sake of being bipartisan, compromising your beliefs for the sake of being accepted.

the people i talk to...bipartisanship is a way to make them feel better about themselves.

i think that bipartisanship means putting the interests of the country ahead of your own personal wants and desires. it means compromise and meeting people halfway to get things done. the fact of the matter is, both parties are always right and always just as wrong. bipartisanship means putting forth your ideals then listening to the other side's critique of it to try and fashion an effective course of action that corrects the blind spots we all have when we adhere unswervingly to personal ideology. partisanship means putting forth your ideals and refusing to even listen to the other side's views or consider that maybe your ideals don't chart the best course of action or response to a problem even if they are well-intentioned.

SweetHarmonics

^^^ excellent points

I really tire of the self-centered, first-person view that many mistake for having some kind of political rationale. It shouldn't have to directly affect somebody for them to be concerned about certain issues. The character trait that allows us to empathize with individuals outside of our peer group is a great thing and we need more of it.

trappedinmyradio

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Fair enough. I'm torn with this myself. Too many laws, not enough needed ones...You gotta wonder if maybe we couldn't do a better job of taking care of ourselves. Because I know they don't have our best interests at heart. They just need us to keep buying into this, paying them our tax money and letting them keep power. Things have got to change.

well, the true belief of conservatives is LESS politicians...that's why i hate the party in power now...they aren't true conservatives...anyway...good laws are great...but, bad laws and bad lawmaking is what causes the problem. true compromise rarely happens...and, then, there are issues of laws where no compromise needs to be struck, like with OSHA regulations.

Purple Hawk

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

People are free to hold certain idealogies, of course. But when it comes to policy making and working with constituents with others ideas you have to compromise or you'll gain no ground at all. Some progress is better than none. If we all had to bend to one idealogy we'd live in a dictatorship.

well, we have elections that allow us to reward or punish leaders for their ideological choices. my point is, is that i'd rather have leaders pursue their true beliefs, no matter what public opinion says. that's not a dictatorship, it's leadership. as long as we're offered clear choices, we can reward or punish them at the polls, depending on their performance.

trappedinmyradio

Purple Hawk wrote:

well, we have elections that allow us to reward or punish leaders for their ideological choices. my point is, is that i'd rather have leaders pursue their true beliefs, no matter what public opinion says. that's not a dictatorship, it's leadership. as long as we're offered clear choices, we can reward or punish them at the polls, depending on their performance.

the biggest problem with politics is a word contained in the thread title - bipartisinship...instead of bi it should polypartinship where the limit is greater than, oh, say, 4...the problem with your "definition" of leadership is that it fails to consider REPRESENTATION...because that's what our lawmakers are there to do...the sad thing is the lack of interest is a real election where the PEOPLE GET OUT AND VOTE so that a true representative government is in place.

Jeanwah

Partisanship is what's gotten our country to the point it is today. One party, one way. We need bipartisanship to balance the left and the right, otherwise we'll end up like we have been for the last 6 years. We need voices from both sides to come up with fair and equal solutions; i.e. the People's voice, not just stupid self-centered politicians.

Frankly, I think the country should be run like a business, and not with politicians at all. Because deep down, we know they're all crooks.

Cosmo

Purple Hawk wrote:

it was a slow news day, i figured rush would get things going

merriam may define partisanship as a blind, unreasoning allegiance, but i view it as adhering to strong principles.

you, me, commy, abook, a lot of the serious posters here, I disagree with you all on just about everything but i respect you all because you have firm beliefs, stick by them, and don't waver b/c it's the socially acceptable thing to do.

i don't think being ideological, partisan, is a bad thing at all..what is a bad thing in my view is to be bi-partisan for the sake of being bipartisan, compromising your beliefs for the sake of being accepted.

the people i talk to...bipartisanship is a way to make them feel better about themselves.

...
Well... I believe Merriam has a clearer view on the definition here.
Political partisanship, which is what we are talking about, is sticking to the outline and agenda of Political Party leadership and voting along those lines as not to go against your own political party, not necessairly your beliefs.
If you believe in partisanship in our Congress... then you believe in the political parties and the ideals they adhere to. You are not compromising your personal beliefs... you are basically voting for yourself and your constituants, rather than the letter in paranthesis next to your name.

soulsinging

Purple Hawk wrote:

well, we have elections that allow us to reward or punish leaders for their ideological choices. my point is, is that i'd rather have leaders pursue their true beliefs, no matter what public opinion says. that's not a dictatorship, it's leadership. as long as we're offered clear choices, we can reward or punish them at the polls, depending on their performance.

personally, i prefer politicians who WILL listen to public opinion. they are supposed to represent the majority of people in their district. id rather have a rep who will listen to me and my fellows than a party line man who will tell me what i want to hear until election day and then do whatever he damn well pleases in the name of his personal beleifs.