LOL. The definition of "bipartisan" is clearly open to interpretation. Yours is one, though not grounded in the reality of politics. "It's our way or the highway, and if you don't vote for it, you're refusing to be bipartisan!" To me, bipartisan wouldn't be a few crossover votes from either side, but one where the bill gets out of committee with at least half the votes from each side and then gets a lot of votes from both sides. Consider that one side may not want national health care in any shape or form and the other had the votes to pass it (as a bloc!) so they didn't bother seeking much republican support. So why should republicans vote for it if it's not something they honestly want to vote for?
Hey barfo, this is interesting, too! http://www.cnbc.com/id/40233691 Despite a long and deep recession, the collective personal wealth of congressional members increased by more than 16 percent between 2008 and 2009, according to a study released Wednesday by the Center for Responsive Politics. The study also indicates that a significant number of members owned shares of major players in the health-care and financial-services sectors, which were the subject of major reform legislation during the period. In contrast, U.S. median household income dropped 3 percent to $50,221 between 2008 and 2009, the second straight decline, according to the Census Dept. In terms of millionaires, only about 1 percent of the overall population qualifies.
Bagged it with a guy who has problem with telling the truth. Is that really good enough for you? barfo
"I'm not a witch" got defeated by "I lied about serving in Vietnam" Is that really good enough for you? You seem happy with the result.
I think you skipped the part about how your democratic elected officials enriched themselves through the health care bill by owning stock in those companies the bill favored.
Coons lied about Vietnam? That's news to me, actually. I thought the Vietnam liars this cycle were Blumenthal and the aforementioned Kirk. barfo
hey barfo Here's another one of your kind. So do you favor government controlling political speech and dissent? http://www.rtdna.org/pages/posts/sen.-rockefeller-suggests-eliminating-fox-msnbc1143.php Sen. Rockefeller Suggests Eliminating FOX, MSNBC By Ryan G. Murphy, RTDNA Digital Media Editor I was very disappointed to wake up this morning and see a video of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) blasting both FOX and MSNBC during a Cable & Broadcast subcommittee hearing on Wednesday with what appeared to be a request for government intervention if the network's content is not cleaned up. Here's part of Rockefeller's statement: "There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to FOX and to MSNBC: 'Out. Off. End. Goodbye.' It would be a big favor to political discourse; our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and more importantly, in their future." ... Suggesting censorship is not only the easy way out but it also undermines the point you were trying to make, senator. Healthy political discourse requires diversity of opinion, not no opinion at all. If there's something on television you don't like, please just change the channel.
No. But I can understand the desire to end the stupidity. But you can't outlaw that. Because then only outlaws would be stupid. barfo
Maybe we can agree it's time for this guy to go. His way of thinking might be contagious. A bill of the sort he describes could be passed as a 2000 page bill that nobody reads and by some parliamentary gimmick, after all.
Past meets future. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...d-in-house-as-republicans-balk-over-cost.html Unemployment Aid Extension Blocked in House Over Cost Concerns A bill to extend jobless benefits for three months was defeated today in the U.S. House, increasing the odds that some of the nation’s long-term unemployed will start losing aid. The measure fell short of the two-thirds majority needed for approval under an expedited process. The vote on the bill was 258 in favor, 154 opposed. Republican lawmakers complained that the bill’s $12 billion cost would be added to the government’s budget deficit. They demanded offsetting savings elsewhere in the budget.
But he wasn't describing a bill. He was describing something that "a little bug in him" wanted. There's no indication in what you quoted that he has any intention of introducing legislation to that effect. barfo
It is a political cartoon. I find it as only slightly less offensive than Colin Powell being called a house n***** by democrats.
