Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

In 2006, when the dems took back Congress,the first word out of their mouth was bipartisanship.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
European Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-20-09 06:08 AM
Original message
In 2006, when the dems took back Congress,the first word out of their mouth was bipartisanship.
I didn't understand it until now--bipartisan is just a code word for we are open for business to wealthy special interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-20-09 06:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. why don't repukes use it then
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
European Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-20-09 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. No need to advertise the obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-20-09 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. They do. Like this:
Grover Norquist said, "Bipartisanship is just another name for date rape."

That's how Rethugs use the word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-20-09 06:14 AM
Response to Original message
2. I think people who still believe in bipartisanship are naive about how corrupt Repubs are.
This health care bill could get just one or two Republican votes in the Senate, or it could even get no votes from Republicans at all, yet some would still insist we try bipartisanship.

When dealing with a negotiation between a person trying to help you and a person trying to put a bullet in your head, the compromise would end up being a bullet fired into your stomach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-20-09 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. I think people are naive about how corrupt capitalism is . . .
in fact, how suicidal capitalism is --

PLUS, the only way the right wing rises is on violence -- assassinations -- stolen elections --

lies -- deceptive propaganda --

Not something we see discussed in our corporate/CIA press where these subjects are taboo and

the cover ups are protected.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-20-09 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. They're at least naive about how to get the Repeblicans to simple act bipartisan...
You're not going to get bipartisanship from the congessional Republicans as long as the only real threat to them comes from drawing the ire of the RW gurus (Rush, Beck, Dobson, etc. Those "trused sources" who can get their audiences moving for or against something or someone.).

You could create some countervailing pressure by attacking their conformity: a "Lockstep Watch" that gets pointed to every time a Democratic congressperson or Administration official gets some face time with a reporter (interview, talking head show appearance, etc). Embarass them for voting for the Party Line in Soviet-like proportions.

But that would require going on the attack, which isn't Village-speak for "bipartisanship", so it isn't considered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-20-09 06:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. It's all fakery . .. PLEASE DU, move your BS meters up a few notches . .. !!!
And, the message coming out is that you are powerless before this corporate fascism --

if we keep doing the same thing we've done for 40 years, then maybe we are.

On the other hand, we do know that what they really fear is the power of the powerless!!!

Stay together and decide on a Plan B -- !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-20-09 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. I wish you would make this an OP so I could Rec it.
If we don't fire up the progressives and start fighting this corruption, things are only going to get worse and worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-20-09 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Agree . . .
Edited on Sun Dec-20-09 09:01 AM by defendandprotect
and there is so much more of this fakery to understand --

from the GOP having given start up funds to the Christian Coalition -- to Scaife financing

Dobson's organization and to other wealthy GOP financing Bauer's organization. True, there

are always religious fanatics to be found, but not on this scale!

From their think tanks to their FreedomWorks -- it's all fake --

Including the fact that the US/CIA created the Taliban/Al Qaeda --

PLUS we also created the VIOLENT Islamic farce -- and pushed it into the Middle East.

Down with a cold -- but here's some info on all of that -- if you're interested--

:)


During the Carter Administration -- unbelievably -- we went into AFghanistan 6 months before

the Russians came in . . . in order to BAIT the Russians into Afghanistan in hopes of giving

them a Vietnam type experience! Details below -- Brz has discussed this in his book and openly

on TV - notably with O'Reilly. Info on that about three/four years old.

Keep in mind, Carter took us out of the Russian Olympics because the Soviets "invaded

Afghanistan" . . .!!!

REQUOTED FROM MY JOURNAL --
------------------------


FIRST PART OF THIS DEALS WITH HOW US/CIA CREATED TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA . . .
TO BAIT RUSSIANS INTO AFGHANISTAN . . .!!!


SECOND PART DEALS WITH THE TEXTBOOKS --



The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_i... ...



---------------------------------------------------

SECOND PART --


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.h...



Also keep in mind that the right wing can only arise on violence -- stolen elections --

deception. John Mitchell told us that "this country was going to move so far to the right

that it will make your head spin!"

A lot of sad news with Obama back war -- and the health care DEFORM -- but I hope that people

will come together and not wander off separately. This is an overwhelmingly liberal nation...

proven by the fact that the right wing has to control all communications/press --

any small pebble of real truth will shatter their mirror of myths!!

Best wishes -- good luck to us all in this coming New Year!!!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-20-09 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. +1 mill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC