Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (234726)	5/26/2005 11:39:59 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576627

JF, from the New York Times: nytimes.com B.S. like that 90% "statistic" that Harry Reid repeats over and over again makes me less optimistic of any bipartisan solution. Of course, each side always says, "It's THEIR fault." Tenchusatsu

To: Road Walker who wrote (234726)	5/26/2005 1:26:53 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576627

re: It's despicable how the word "bipartisan" has been tossed around like a buzzword for years now. It's just another way politicians are giving lip service to voters' frustrations with political gridlock. Maybe you are too young to remember when there was bipartisan support for bills that actually benefited the population. The old days when governance meant running the country in it's own best interest, instead of strict adherence to an ideology. Some guy Bork was on Fox last nite. It was hilarious........he said he has never seen Congress so divided and then proceeded to blame it all on the Dems. How these pigs can say such stuff with a straight face and feign serious indignation at the same time is beyond me. ted

To: Road Walker who wrote (234726)	5/26/2005 1:29:13 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1576627

"In the pragmatic view, the nonpartisan view, you say OK, let's find a few different folks that are acceptable to everyone." In the past more pragmatic presidents, knowing that a candidate could be filibustered, sent around a list of prospective appointees to see what the Senate thought about them. This is why there were so few filibusters in the past, and why the Republicans had to resort to tricks like the "blue slips" to allow a small minority to block Clinton's appointees, despite wide support in the Senate. Unfortunately, Smirk feels that such things are too much work, so here we are...

To: Road Walker who wrote (234726)	5/26/2005 1:38:46 PM
From: Alighieri	Respond to of 1576627

Is that what you want? He won't answer that question... Al

To: Road Walker who wrote (234726)	5/27/2005 3:35:36 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576627

John, I think you're hearkening back to a time that never happened... Just in the last 75 years - the New Deal and the rest of the wrangling under FDR, McCarthyism, 'nam, Watergate, O'Neill vs. Reagan, Watergate, Lewinskygate.. My boss, who held a pretty high position under Bush I and was involved in the DC world for years, says that the difference between today and Pre-Newt is that the two parties fought just as much before, but they'd end the day and then members of both parties would go out together for a beer. That's uncommon now. -Z