Dems Viciously Blame Obama As Era Of Compromise Begins
"Democrats dismayed with the loss of the Senate are pointing the finger squarely at President Obama. In race after race across the country, vulnerable ...
LOL. Dems fought tooth and nail to keep Obama away from the elections in
every respect, then they want to blame them? UGH. I really wish us lefties
had some REAL liberals to vote for in this fucking country ... There's
actually some pretty valid arguments for why the Republicans are better for
the country, despite the fact that I'm a liberal and disagree with almost
all of their policies. The Dems are just so fucking incompetent.
i wish both the rightwing and leftwing would just pipe down for maybe 10 years and reconcile with the fact that both sides are full of shit... so we can get a canndidate in office who MIGHT actually bring positive change while the left and right stop their 1000-year bitchfest just long enough for someone with a sense of duty to get in
Cenk is right about Dems not running on minimum wage! Also, under thirty
people didn't vote! Shameful! WTF is going on in America? You let the
Teavangelicals solidify their Conspiracy Paranoid, Fox News base! The
wacko's run Congress now!
As much as I disagree with republicans, they know how to win. It's becoming
increasingly difficult to vote for whiny apologetic democrats that are
constantly getting their lunch money taken by schoolyard bully republicans.
Cenk is absolutely right. The Democrats pissed off a lot of liberals by
trying to start a national gun registry, while we have indefinite
detentions without trial. So lets ditch the phony party line bullshit.
Wolf-Pac doesn't go far enough. Let's get politicians out of politics!
+Bob JonesI SAID LIBERAL VOTE. Liberal=/=Progressive.My biggest priority as a liberal is civil liberties. Democrats are quickly losing credibility. They're starting to ban every petty little thing they find displeasing, from outdoor smoking to plastic bags. That's not liberal by any sense of the word.
+kirpid You're confusing true immigration, which is done in accordance with the law, and illegal entry, which is what illegal aliens do, and is definitely not "immigration".Who said anything about the "liberal vote"?I'm talking about rank and file Americans, and don't limit my thinking to the constraints imposed by the left vs right dogma paradigm.You're stuck in the two party box.
+Bob JonesActually, I'm going to have to disagree with amnesty losing the liberal vote. That's a strictly paleoconservative wedge issue. Very few liberals oppose immigration.
To any republicans, what will GOP do to make our country better? This is
literally just a question im not that politically inclined. I want to be
more informed.
The democratic userbase is confused and bitter after various decisions
during this presidency.
I dont mean to fingerpoint, just saying...we need a third party - A real
progressive political party.
Canada has five parties just so we're not choosing from a turd and shit sandwhich. Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! Why isn't Michael Moore making a film on this???
that's why Canada allows 5 main political parties that way ur not just picking between a turd and a shit sandwich, a better system imo the states need to adapt the same system
MOOC | The Compromise of 1850 | The Civil War and Reconstruction, 1850-1861 | 1.4.4
Discover how the issue of slavery came to dominate American politics, and how political leaders struggled and failed to resolve the growing crisis in the nation.
American Presidents - Rutherford B Hayes 19th US President
Rutherford Birchard Hayes (October 4, 1822 – January 17, 1893) was the 19th President of the United States (1877–1881). As president, he oversaw the end of ...
Eric Bolling: GOP Shouldn't Compromise
Despite the ongoing political narrative that the new Republican Senate Majority will attempt to work with President Barack Obama now that we've achieved fully ...
Fuck you Kyle. You are wrong on the taxes & the pipeline. You are nuts.
Also closing the bases abroad is not progressive or conservative issue,
it's common sense.
Why in the fuck do Americans (specifically the right wing) talk about
democracy as if its some fucking game to be fucked with? Really GOP now has
the "ball"? what the fuck is with the football reference? Were talking
about peoples lives here. I don't know how America will fair with the right
wing fascist party in control.. Good luck to all the under class and the
working class.. You're all going to need it. Also, good analysis Kyle. I
have a love-hate relationship with you, but I like this tear down :-)
+AltruisticWarrior An to take it a step further, unions hardly even fucking exist!!! Maybe 6% of our private sector workforce is unionized and 11% of our public sector is, big whoooop. That isn't enough unionization to do anything. They're really just there as a formality and a boogie man so the GOP can always have something to point at.
The only lives they care about are the wealthy ones paying for their next election ticket. They accuse Dems of having these big bad union backers but if you look at the numbers, union funds fall drastically behind compared to what the opposition receives. If it were up to me, we would remove parties and institute a publicly funded election system on a federal tax of .5%. That is so marginal that anyone fed up with the way things are would happily pay.
they didnt compromise on obama care regardless if you think its the same
plan as the republican plan. which its not the same bill this bill has a
open door for medicare patients which throws the whole bill out of wack.
the republicans wanted minor things in the beginning(conception/medicare
expansion) fixed when obama said he wont change a word in the bill is why
we have so much partisanship and obama hate. regardless who originally
wrote the bill it has been significantly tweaked and is not the same bill
nixon heritage or any of them sponsored.
but really you call that a compromise zero republicans votes then says he
wont change a word on the bill after he mangled it. bullshit thats
compromise
even though i disagree with the way it was done medicare part d was suppose to reign in big pharma by having lower payments through contract. the problem being medicare doesnt lower cost it just lowers what an individual pays. also the cbo budgets must be done by toddlers who just cought grasp of what numbers are.the right have always been for privitizing medicare. its been a long standing talking point that republicans want to take it away when what there really doing is replacing an antiquated law for 90 years ago.the point of reigning in cost was the gov would have multiple plans and multipule options on those plans. with the mandate of insurance the government cost would be less allowing people to keep money and buy insurance. there was a medicare clase on the original but it would only of covered maybe 5 percent of people.ill say this the moral conservatives are not real republicans. they have no republican values no republican arguments. think about it all there dislikes (gays,other religions that arnt jewish.abortion.birth control ect.) are based on theocracy not republican ideology so i dont agree with them on like 90 percent of things.its not misrepresenting the original i laid out how the original works. the reason its shot in the ass is the government is paying for the insurance for a large percentage of people with little negoation wall between them. with the insurance compnies taking money directly from the government it will be no time till those insurance co lobyist gets tat companys hand farther into taxpayers wallets. a one size fits all plan basically makes insurance a monopoly . no competition no option.and yea a few people did rand paul had a plan paul ryan had a plan im thinking there was at least on more big time republican that had a plan. paul ryans plan was to privitize which would of made billions for the tax payers instead we had to borrow money. and it was killed by hiding behind old people again because all the democrats said there going to take away old people healthcare which were lies.
+tommy g The GOP has zero interest in reigning in big phama and Bush's medicare give away proved it. The right would crush medicare and have been the ones who vowed not expand it in their states. There was no public option there is no provision to reign in costs because that was never part of the heritage foundations plan.Both sides of the isle are corrupt but we need to stop pretending the gop ever wants to do anything for anyone except big donors. They fought against their own plan by misrepresenting it and never once have I heard a gop leader share your spin why they turned it down. This is pretty surprising from a group who is so well focused on their messaging. I have only heard kill it, kill it, kill it and have never seen them propose anything to make it better.
no they wanted changes in the bill thats why it got 0 republican votes.yea it was a republican plan till they added the expanded medicare in the law which gives around 80 percent of people on it free or below market value. which shits on the point of the bill which is to be a low gov cost plan which is thrown out the window.instead of medicare for all or most we need to rein in hospitals big pharma and the rest.i agree with the warrior on this all the gov has done is open the public coffers to pharma monopoly hospitals and medical device make/producer. nothing in the law stop price gauging. which means we just did them a big favor by expanding medicare which was not a republican part of the bill
They wanted to kill it and they did nothing to sign on. This was not a liberal plan and it was the weak option proposed by the gop. It is better than nothing but we should not pretend it was anything but a right wing solution to the problem. The parts people hate are lifted right off the original plan.
If it leaves big pharma and insurance able to increase profits, it is compromise. Any true blue blood like Sanders would've went with a true public option.
The Compromise of 1877
We demand FIR against Badal, they offer compromise, says Moga molestation victim's father
The family of 13-year-old Arshdeep Kaur who died after being pushed out of a bus here late Wednesday while resisting an alleged molestation bid has refused a ...
Lincoln speaks on the Compromise of 1850 that led to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Michael Krebs portrays Abraham Lincoln in reenactment at the lone surviving ...
I got to agree with the caveman- and therefore disagree with you 100%.
America 'is' an on going experiment. But, just as prior to the Civil War,
this country will live on in one shape or condition. It may not be united
as we know it today- but it will live on, change, eradiate itself, cleanse
and rise up just as it did during the 'reconstruction period.' That's the
beauty of this nation- free speech- not all will agree and that's what
makes us damn Yankees 'One Nation Under God.' USA!
The media has been bought and sold in the marketplace as the pols. are. It
is all propaganda now. After replying to you beofre I thought of Biill
Moyers Journal on modern media and how free speech is gone. Watch this and
learn as I did. There is hope as long as we know.
Wow, I didn't know they had C*Span back then! hee hee. I remember seeing
the full re-enactment in '94 when it first ran on C*Span. I was really
impressed with Mr. Krebs. I sat through the whole thing three times. I'd
give anything for a DVD.