You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #19: Intended Consequences... [View All]

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
Riktor Donating Member (476 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-24-07 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
19. Intended Consequences...
1) Republicans spend like crazy, driving the nation into debt.

2) Republicans invariably screw up and get booted out of office.

3) Democrat takes office.

4) Democrat looks at the budget and screams, "HOLY SHIT! We gotta pay this off before the interest kills us!"

5) Democrat raises taxes.

6) Republicans immediately take to the air to condemn yet another "tax and spend liberal", who "raised taxes to pay for social programs."

7) Media outlets jump on the buzzword, which spreads like a virus through the homes of centrist and right wing Americans across the country.

8) People turn on the Democrats and elect another Republican disaster for another eight years.

9) Sensible Democrats take a look at said Republican's disastrous proposals, knowing full well they are, in fact, disastrous, and refuse to jump on board.

10) Opportunistic Republicans seize the day yet again, and point fingers at the Democrats for being "partisan".



After all, when Bush doesn't budge, regardless of the mountains of factual evidence which proves his "opinions" groundless, he is "STICKING TO HIS GUNS". Whenever the Democrats don't do exactly what the Republicans want them to do, they are being "partisan".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Bi-Partisanship? Are you KIDDING me? Mythsaje  Dec-23-07 04:39 PM   #0 
  - Great post! I'm with you, I don't want to work with these people-  asdjrocky   Dec-23-07 04:42 PM   #1 
  - what, that was a headline? n/t  HuffleClaw   Dec-23-07 04:44 PM   #2 
  - Amen, Mythsaje!  smokey nj   Dec-23-07 04:46 PM   #3 
  - Note how the media suddenly shills for bipartisanship--now that the Democrats are in the ascendency.  Perry Logan   Dec-23-07 04:47 PM   #4 
  - "...reaching a friendly hand across the aisle."  Snarkoleptic   Dec-23-07 05:01 PM   #10 
  - It's just that Limbaugh, Coulter, and their slimy ilk slandered the left with  Lydia Leftcoast   Dec-24-07 09:01 AM   #25 
  - Bi-partisanship is usually promoted only by the party not currently in power.  TwilightZone   Dec-23-07 04:49 PM   #5 
  - During the Reagan administration, the REPUBLICANS were constantly  Lydia Leftcoast   Dec-24-07 08:57 AM   #23 
  - Maybe with a new Democratic President to suck up to, they'll change their tune  gateley   Dec-23-07 04:52 PM   # 
  - I do not cooperate with FASCIST . PERIOD  Vincardog   Dec-23-07 04:52 PM   #6 
  - Great post Mythsage, I agree 100%.  MN Against Bush   Dec-23-07 04:54 PM   #7 
  - This is why Obama scares me.  sellitman   Dec-23-07 04:55 PM   #8 
  - I'm tired of the partisanship in Washington myself  Kucinich4America   Dec-23-07 04:55 PM   #9 
  - Sorry, I don't negotiate with terrorists nt  Greeby   Dec-23-07 05:06 PM   #11 
  - I don't share values with the person who wants to send my job overseas  Hydra   Dec-23-07 05:09 PM   #12 
  - Bipartisanship is the LAST  caseycoon   Dec-23-07 05:22 PM   #13 
  - Your post says YOU are tired of it  sandnsea   Dec-23-07 05:24 PM   #14 
  - Indeed...which is why I support the only one with a history of fighting  Mythsaje   Dec-24-07 02:30 AM   #20 
     - The only one who loses more than Hillary  sandnsea   Dec-24-07 10:04 AM   #27 
        - Hey...a record for winning is a record for winning.  Mythsaje   Dec-25-07 12:32 AM   #29 
  - I'm mostly with you, but I want to throw something out there:  rucky   Dec-23-07 05:30 PM   #15 
  - Most of the rest of the world is already on our side and opposed to the neo-cons...  MN Against Bush   Dec-23-07 06:00 PM   #16 
  - I don't want no stinking bipartisanship--it doesn't exist. As the pugs have  diane in sf   Dec-23-07 08:13 PM   #17 
  - We need a greater majority in Congress to put them firmly in the corner.  onehandle   Dec-23-07 11:14 PM   #18 
  - If so, that needs to include a lot of wimpy Dems being replaced by  Lydia Leftcoast   Dec-24-07 08:59 AM   #24 
  - Intended Consequences...  Riktor   Dec-24-07 01:48 AM   #19 
  - If you really gave a shit you would put winning ahead of ideological purity...  ellisonz   Dec-24-07 04:08 AM   #21 
  - No, I won't "deal with it."  Mythsaje   Dec-24-07 10:10 AM   #28 
  - America has been in a state of civil war ever since 2000. Bipartisanship is treason.  Perry Logan   Dec-24-07 05:43 AM   #22 
  - We DO need bi-partisanship. We need at least 3 active  laureloak   Dec-24-07 09:17 AM   #26 
  - A reason not to support Obama.  western mass   Dec-25-07 02:19 AM   #30 
  - You know this argument is complete and utter BS  hnmnf   Dec-25-07 02:31 AM   #31 
  - Sometimes you have to do what is right....  WCGreen   Dec-25-07 02:56 AM   #32 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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