Blog Home |  Email Author  |  About this Blog       Welcome to Community Server Sign in | Join

What the ?

Never Politically Correct! Terms and conditions apply; read the prospectus carefully; void where prohibited. Side effects have included, but are not limited to side aches, nauseau, baldness, dry mouth, munchie desire, hallucinations, male urinary disfunction and drowsiness. Do not drive after reading. If erection lasts longer than 4 hours, you're reading too much into this.

Obama Knows Not Bipartisanship

By Ed Furey
Sunday, Feb 1 2009, 02:08 AM

Somebody needs to teach President Obama what bipartisanship means.  It usually means two sides coming together in agreement, often with some sort of compromise being reached.  It always means, however, that both sides agree.  It does not mean telling the other side "It's my way or the highway".

In a meeting this week with Republican congressmen, that is in effect what the President told them.  The Republicans had brought to him their ideas for an improved Stimulus Plan.  At least the President sounded like he was willing to listen, while the Democrats in Congress, who created this pile of pork and goodies, would have nothing to do with any input from Republicans. 

Too bad the President that promised bipartisanship isn't willing to work for it and has no idea what it means.  Both its leader and his party are destroying a Presidency that was supposed to be about so much hope and people coming together.

Comments

Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer   

Barack Obama doesn't know the meaning of the word "bipartisan."

From the L.A. Times (1/25/09): www.latimes.com/.../la-na-obama-stimulus25-2009jan25,0,6466321.story

"And some Republicans rejected Obama's claim that he is open to their initiatives, renewing complaints that GOP proposals were being brushed aside as the administration and congressional Democrats hammered out details of the massive legislative package."...

Obama showed no willingness to budge. "I won," he said."

Face it.  Democrats are not going to work with Republicans.  They have no desire to - never had and never will.  President Bush made honest attempts to "reach across the aisle" - and was continually stabbed in the back and never seemed to learn his lesson.  Yet, Obama, who has obviously no desire to let Republicans have a say (after all, HE WON!), is said to be "bipartisan?".  By whom?  The mainstream media - and they are clearly on Obama's payroll.

February 1, 2009 8:18 AM

Victor Ponelis   

Wrong, wrong, wrong...and remember, it's the Congress that proposes and the President that disposes.  Obama cannot control what the content of bills are...he can only influence.  And his influence added tax breaks that the Republicans wanted.  As I recall, the frequent mantra of the Republicans in the early 80s in defense of Reagan and the budgets he signed was that the President doesn't make laws, Congress does.  The President can sign, or veto.  You can't say that then, and say what you are saying now, and not be...a hypocrite.

February 1, 2009 10:35 AM

Ed Furey   

Actually since I didn't say that in the early 80's, I can speak about now and feel that Obama was not truthful in saying that he wants to work together.  In fact, the further we go with his administration we seem to be seeing nothing but contradictions in statements and actions.

February 1, 2009 11:00 AM

seektruth   

Victor...do you really want to talk about hypocrisy and congress?

Recently President Barack Obama issued a critique of the $18 billion in bonuses paid by Wall Street calling it "the height of irresponsibility".  Later that evening, President Obama demonstrated his idea of restraint and responsibility by throwing an extravagant party at taxpayer expense to celebrate one of the most irresponsible “pork” bills ever passed by the House of Representatives.

Never mind this; what is really shameful is the use of hypocritical rhetoric that does nothing but further divide our nation.  

Why would President Obama ignore the fact that Wall Street bonuses fell by 44% in 2008, the largest dollar decline ever and the biggest percentage drop in more than 30 years (Source: http://money.cnn.com/)?  

Second, who is Obama to cast stones?  He has been an active participant in this nation’s most irresponsible fiscal government ever.  Since the democrats took control of congress in 2006, our debt has expanded by $1.5 trillion, by far the greatest expansion of debt in any two year period in the history of this nation (Source: treasurydirect.gov). This doesn’t even include the $1 trillion additional debt being proposed by President Obama under the fraud of economic stimulus.  And you want to lecture us about hypocrisy. Spare us all.

February 1, 2009 1:47 PM

Victor Ponelis   

No.

February 1, 2009 3:36 PM

Jim Hayett   

Victor...I'm surprised at your comment. You blame Bush for all the ills of the earth especially over the past two years of his term. But it was the democrats that controlled everything. Here's your comment: "it's the Congress that proposes and the President that disposes."

February 1, 2009 3:54 PM

Jeff Blackwell   

Bipartisanship is pointless when one side has nothing to offer. The R's have not presented a single idea to get this economy going.

I get that they want to eliminate the income tax. That is not a valid idea. The R's have well earned their banishment.

They really need to stop whining and pitch in, or they will dwell there for many elections.

February 1, 2009 7:40 PM

jmark   

"DiNapoli said the average Wall Street bonus fell 36.7% to $112,000 in 2008." Must be tough getting by on such a paltry sum;-)

money.cnn.com/.../index.htm

February 1, 2009 7:47 PM

Jim Hayett   

Jeff...you first need to open up your eyes and your mind and then watch or read anything that's factual and accurate. Start by listening to something non MSM like FOX or Rush. You then just might be able to debate some of these issues

February 1, 2009 9:40 PM

Jim Hayett   

jmark...fact is a fact. But put thinks into perspective. And do you know what free enterprise means or capitalism? It might be your boss Mss. jmark

February 1, 2009 9:41 PM

jmark   

capitalism  (kāp'ĭ-tl-ĭz'əm)

A newly modified economic system whereby profits are privatized and losses are socialized.

Banker  (bang-ker)

Filthy stinking rich welfare recipient.

bonus (boh-nuhs)

A subsidy from the taxpayers to a failing capitalistic industry.

Hayett (hahy-uht)

Supporter of new capitalism.

February 2, 2009 9:50 AM

Leave a Comment

Please Sign In to post comment.

About Ed Furey

My name is Ed Furey.  I am a married, father of two boys that lives in the Town of Eagle and the Mukwonago Area School District.  I am very involved with youth sports.  I design and sell wireless systems that allow companies to communicate voice, data and video wirelessly. I will be writing about national and local items that irritate, interest or excite me. I am opinionated and not always politically correct, but I don't take everything too seriously either.

Posts

Your browser must support javascript to use the posts pager. Please enable javascript or return to the home page to page through posts.
Newer Older

Tags

Search the Blogs