Reply With Quote
I wonder if Obama's superPAC will change any GOP minds about mixing money and politics...
...probably not....
http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpictu...achine-exposed
There's a big right-wing party going down in Washington right now - it's called the Conservative Political Action Conference. It's a once a year shindig where Conservative elites cozy up to each other and denounce the evil liberals. I've done my radio show live from CPAC every year for the past five - it's amazing to see the parade, from true-believers to con men to outright shills for big polluting industries. This year being an election year, CPAC has one overriding theme today: Bash President Obama and perpetuate all the lies and misinformation they can about him.
~~I have heard some pretty far right speeches so far that is for sure but that is what they do. On both sides.
I wonder if Obama's superPAC will change any GOP minds about mixing money and politics...
...probably not....
What radio show? And is it better than your blog.
They don't need to make up lies about him to expose him for being a wimp and a complete fraud. Only thing is, they are also frauds.
lol wimp
A wimp? Dunno bout all that.
Yea, his cowardly acts are pretty laughable, then it just gets plain sad. Let's the Repubs roll over him everytime. That's wimpy. Spare me the obstructionist Congress excuse.
Funny how if Liberals had this type of organization back in the Bush days they would have been considered traitors.
While I don't support this folding, in most cases he/Dems would have accomplished nothing at all if he hadn't folded.
Do you people think aany hardass, never-fold Dem President would have done better against the Repugs obstruct-everything/never-compromise Repugs?
Here's what's up next from the Repugs:
next week Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) is expected to offer an amendment that would permit any employer or insurance plan to exclude any health service, no matter how essential, from coverage if they morally object to it:
(6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES —
“(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS. — A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Services Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this le on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because —
“(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other en y offering the plan; or
“(ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...ealth-service/
==========
And who defines which religion, which morals, which beliefs in "religious beliefs or moral convictions"??
The obvious solution is for employers to get out of the health insurance business and have the govt offer a hard-core, no-opt-out public option insurance, deducted from all income, with aggressive discounts for people who demonstrate good health.
This is BS and his folding is probably the thing I don't like most about him. The fact that he tried to work across the aisle is laudable. I have no problem with that, but as soon as it was obvious that they werent going to work with him, he should have taken all of the compromise away and passed what was originally proposed.
This is a version of what happened with the Obamacare debate.
Obama: I want "10"
Republicans: We want "0"
Obama: Well, I am going to try to work with you. I hope that we can work together to move this country forward. In that spirit, I will lower my requirement to "8"
Republicans: We want "0"
Obama: This isn't really how compromise works. I am trying to meet you somewhere in the middle here. I hope, for the good of the country, that we can find some middle ground where you may not get all you want and I may not get all I want, but the nation gets what it needs. In that spirit I will lower my requirement to "6".
Republicans: You at "0" yet? That's where we are at. Oh, and you are a .
Obama: you know what? It is obvious that you are not trying to work with me or for the country, so forget it. I am going to use my congressional majority to pass "4" suck it!
Republicans: LMAO!
"passed what was originally proposed"
He never controlled both houses of Congress 2008-2010, and that got worse after 2010.
And hard-assed Pres needs a hard-assed, like-minded party control in both houses.
59 in the senate? is that what you are talking about? did they try?
Barry effectively never had the unCons utional 60 in the Senate. Blue Dog Dems, DINOs like Ben "Horse's Ass" Nelson, and Lieberman nearly always voted with the obstructive Repugs.
Its so funny how democrats complained about republican use of a non-supermajority, yet apologize for democrats for not even trying.
false, who said Dems didn't try? If you don't have 60, you don't have 60.
What are you talking about? Code Pink and MoveOn.org were considered traitors back in the Bush day. , back in the Clinton day too.
Ask WC, I bet they still are.
If Sean Penn isn't a CIA employee then he is a traitor, JMHO
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
