What Does Bipartisan Really Mean?
from the not-what-Congress-wants-you-to-believe dept
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bipartisan, politics, public
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Can't wait for him to keep posting mindless ad homs at nina/mike and persist with saying retarded shit
or not
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
These trolls just aren't as dedicated as they used to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
She is, busy with her new movie "Seder Masochism".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It means...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What Does Bipartisan Really Mean?
Adjective. Abbreviation for: "One can buy both major US parties off for insanely low prices".
Definition(s): Firesale on democracy; Fucked beyond all repair (FUBAR).
Typical Usage: The US political system is completely bipartisan.
Synonyms: useless, dead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bipartisan is an outdated term
I'm neither a Republican or Democrat... what good does it do to "sell" me a bill that only has support from the two worst political parties in the world?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It means...
Also, republicrats? Wasn't it republicunts? Damn name changs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What Does Bipartisan Really Mean?
Taking Big Money and screwing the Public is their Business of Choice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bipartisan is an outdated term
You can lead a member of the voting populace to the kool-aid but you can't make them drink...until we get this legislation passed outlawing water in favor of Brawndo!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I have to say I am suspecting that this is just Mike / Nina trying to look smart by answering my observations.
Carry on. The cartoons aren't any better (smarter), still the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
You poor deluded troll. You really think the world revolves around or gives a shit about your "observations"? I got some bad news for you, Sunshine. It doesn't.
Carry on indeed. We know you will. With the incessant comments that state nothing factual.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Gotta love over inflated ego
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike is so obvious it's painful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It usually means the public is bent over and given what for...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Congressional approval ratings
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are you even on this site? It's blatently clear you're a rabid ideologue with an anti-techdirt bais
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rabid idealogue? Have you looked around this place? Mike is still harboring the idea that the silly first amendment challenges to copyright are valid - even after the court slapped Lessig down so hard that he hasn't been heard from on it since.
Techdirt is an idealogue blog, plain and simple. Anyone who disagrees gets treated as you treat me: insults, name calling, and derogatory statements about my opinions.
So much for free speech, right? You would rather shout down those who object and exile them from the site, rather than deal with the issues.
Mike is proud of you. You ate his shit whole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike himself debates people on the issues and it's usually him who is on the recieving end of namecalling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike talks a good game, but rarely addresses key issues.
One of the good ones: You know that whole idea of infinite distribution, right? He says it takes the "supply demand" calculation down to the point where things have zero marginal costs. However, he rarely mentions that one of the things that comes with that supply / demand theory is a big asterix that says "this does not work properly with items that have no real marginal costs". In other words, the very theory he uses to support his views doesn't work. He knows it, he ignores it.
First amendment and copyright - Mike's stand has always been that copyright should be knocked down by the 1st amendment. He learned that idea from Lessig, I think. Well, Lessig got his dick slammed in the dirt in the courts over this one, nearly a unanimous decision to send him packing. Yet, Mike has never come out and said "that is a dead issue, copyright is consitutional". He just let's it linger, because it doesn't work for him.
Mike does have one very important skill. He knows how to baffle them with bullshit. He piles it so high, so wide, and spikes it with just enough verifiable fact as to make it look whole. It's not, but he's good at it, and good at presenting it.
I bow down to his shit shoveling skills. They are near the top.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bipartisanship...
........Something only the public can maintain
........Gives one side the power to endorse a weak candidate for the other to keep their pockets lined and thenselves in power (most republicans actually wanted Santorum, not Romney).
........'s true meaning is both public and congressional approval.
Nina's cartoon depicts exactly how I feel about my government right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But take it from me:
I see a few people who post here and who have ideas that disagree with Techdirt (and I assume you are one of them, at least in the context of thread).
What I rarely if ever see from the people is constructive criticism. What I mostly see is name-calling, personal attacks, ignoring the other party's arguments instead of responding to them and in some cases complete lies and made up facts.
Your posts in this thread are no different and I'm going to support this with a few examples:
"Techdirt is an idealogue blog, plain and simple. Anyone who disagrees gets treated as you treat me: insults, name calling, and derogatory statements about my opinions."
--- You are trying to make a point, which I am fine with, but you offer no evidence, not a single quote from other comments. It just doesn't persuade me so I see this discussion as nothing more than a verbal fight between you and the other posters. ---
"So much for free speech, right? You would rather shout down those who object and exile them from the site, rather than deal with the issues."
--- Now here, as a neutral observer of the regular exchanges between Pro- and Anti- Techdirt folk (or whatever you want to call yourselves), I have to disagree with your assertion. I've seen a lot of stuff posted here by the anti-Techdirt folk that was not constructive and sometimes offensive (personal attacks) yet none of it was deleted, removed or otherwise censored. To hear you say that people here are trying to censor you is absolutely not convincing to me and makes it harder to take you seriously. ---
"Mike is proud of you. You ate his shit whole."
--- Vulgarity really doesn't help me take you seriously. ---
I was recently visiting another website where I heard the arguments of people who have opinions that are opposed to Techdirt's, and I found that some people were making really good points and this led me to rethink about copyright and related issues. However, nobody who has been posting on Techdirt has managed to do that yet, so maybe there's actually a problem with the way the anti-Techdirt folk are arguing.
Now I'd like to clarify a few things:
- I'm not trying to prove you wrong or argue against you. I'm only trying to offer you some feedback, because I think it would be great if we could have constructive discussions on Techdirt and hear both sides' ideas and arguments. And my feedback is: the people who disagree with Techdirt just aren't convincing even to a neutral party like me. And it's not your position that is the issue, it's the way you argue. Hopefully you will take this into consideration and things will change for the better.
- There are pro-Techdirt folk who do the same mistakes I've said you're doing, however the reason I'm not calling them out is because there are enough pro-Techdirt folk who debate constructively. The issue with the anti-Techdirt folk is that ALL those who post here are not constructive, at least from what I have seen. And before accusing me of bias, please remember what I mentioned above: I've seen very interesting arguments supporting your opinions on other websites. Arguments which gave me something to think about. My problem is, I don't see those arguments or the same constructive debate here on Techdirt.
- Finally, I'm aware that you feel persecuted here and thus it's normal for you to be quite defensive. However, you've reached a point where you no longer even convince neutral folk like me who want to hear both sides of the story and don't want to be biased. It would be good if you could get over the attacks you are receiving and remain constructive in your discussions so that neutral people could learn from you; but if you cannot do this, then perhaps it's time to give up and stop posting here - after all, if you've become so defensive that you can't convince anyone anymore, then why keep it up? It won't achieve anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What Does Bipartisan Really Mean?
It's an honest question by the way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What Does Bipartisan Really Mean?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
When the reps do something it's usually evil.
Bipartisan means it's both dumb and evil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or posts links to when he explained it in an earlier post.
Or links to where some else explained it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]