decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Bipartisanship as Democrats define it | 258 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Now here is one problem:
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 02:28 PM EDT
Too bad you're too blinded by party affiliation to see what's really happening.

The Republicans are not being contrary just for the sake of contrariness, and
yes, Obama's policies are decidedly socialist in nature, often to the extreme of
flipping left to right and appearing quite fascist.

The US government owning what should be private business is fascist. The GM buy
is an example of fascism at work.

I digress. The problem is in the viewpoint - you see Republican obstructionism,
most normal people see an obstinate and arrogant president ignoring
bipartisanship in favor of pushing his ideas and policies with no compromise,
sometimes without regard for constitutionality, and the opposition party saying
"you can't do that in America."

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Bipartisanship as Democrats define it
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 02:44 PM EDT
Funny how when Bush II was in office, you folks on the left were defining
bipartisanship as the president needing to compromise his principles and work
together with the Democrats in Congress, changing the end result to suit what
the Democrats wanted.

Funny how, now that Obama's in office, it's the other way around -
bipartisanship now means that the Republicans in Congress now are expected to
compromise their principles and accept whatever Obama wants, no discussion.

Too bad real life doesn't work that way. In real life there is compromise on
both sides of a discussion when the goal is bipartisan accord, without
compromising either side's principles.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )