Saint Obama shall bring us all together...



I really don't get what the problem is. Republicans have better party discipline than Democrats. Republicans do what they are told to do or they face real consequences.

Democrats, on the other hand, are free to lose a primary, run against the Democratic nominee, remain in the Democratic caucus, campaign for the Republican nominee for President, appear at the Republican National Convention as a featured speaker, vote against the Democratic platform all while maintaining seniority and a plush committee chairmanship from which they can launch "investigations" drummed up by right-wing idiots. Republicans don't stand for any of the above.
 
I really don't get what the problem is. Republicans have better party discipline than Democrats. Republicans do what they are told to do or they face real consequences.

Democrats, on the other hand, are free to lose a primary, run against the Democratic nominee, remain in the Democratic caucus, campaign for the Republican nominee for President, appear at the Republican National Convention as a featured speaker, vote against the Democratic platform all while maintaining seniority and a plush committee chairmanship from which they can launch "investigations" drummed up by right-wing idiots. Republicans don't stand for any of the above.
Yeah, because nobody would be a Republican and vote like Olympia Snowe without facing "real" consequences.... We couldn't possibly have somebody like McCain talking about ignoring the party on border control, he'd face "real" consequences....

:rolleyes:

Just, please, look at a piece of reality without the Donkey Colored glasses on.
 
Yeah, because nobody would be a Republican and vote like Olympia Snowe without facing "real" consequences.... We couldn't possibly have somebody like McCain talking about ignoring the party on border control, he'd face "real" consequences....

:rolleyes:

Just, please, look at a piece of reality without the Donkey Colored glasses on.

Surely this is satire.

Too bad more democrats don't have Grayson's courage and just give the right the finger on healthcare.
 
Surely this is satire.

Too bad more democrats don't have Grayson's courage and just give the right the finger on healthcare.
You label your own sentence satire?

Seriously. This is inane. There is disagreement within both parties, just because you refuse to see it even with direct examples doesn't make it any less true.
 
Yeah, because nobody would be a Republican and vote like Olympia Snowe without facing "real" consequences.... We couldn't possibly have somebody like McCain talking about ignoring the party on border control, he'd face "real" consequences....

:rolleyes:

Just, please, look at a piece of reality without the Donkey Colored glasses on.


First of all, it was made abundantly clear to Senator Snowe that if she voted in favor of the health care bill she would risk losing the opportunity to be the ranking Republicans on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

As for McCain, "talk" usually doesn't come with consequences, particularly when a Republican President took the same position as McCain.
 
First of all, it was made abundantly clear to Senator Snowe that if she voted in favor of the health care bill she would risk losing the opportunity to be the ranking Republicans on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

As for McCain, "talk" usually doesn't come with consequences, particularly when a Republican President took the same position as McCain.
After voting and acting like that for years she was "threatened"... Yeah, real evidence. Seriously, you seek out reasons to believe what you want rather than just looking at what is before your face.

And yet the President and McCain weren't "punished" or should I say they didn't "face real consequences"...

It is deliberately misleading yourself into the land of make believe to pretend there is "lockstep" in the R party. All you had to do last time (as McCain was nominated) was watch the number of young delegates interrupting to support Paul to know that the "lockstep" myth is just that.

The same party that can hold Barry Goldwater and George W. Bush doesn't have "lockstep" except in your imagination.
 
I really don't get what the problem is. Republicans have better party discipline than Democrats. Republicans do what they are told to do or they face real consequences.

Democrats, on the other hand, are free to lose a primary, run against the Democratic nominee, remain in the Democratic caucus, campaign for the Republican nominee for President, appear at the Republican National Convention as a featured speaker, vote against the Democratic platform all while maintaining seniority and a plush committee chairmanship from which they can launch "investigations" drummed up by right-wing idiots. Republicans don't stand for any of the above.

Look at the NJ governors race...

Look what Perot did to Bush in 1992...and again in 1996

As for Lieberman... yeah, he 'remains' in the Dem caucus because why again? Oh yeah... 60.

sooner or later that kool-aid you are consuming will wear off... provided you have the common sense to stop drinking it.
 
Surely this is satire.

Too bad more democrats don't have Grayson's courage and just give the right the finger on healthcare.

These comments will backfire... If I were Graysons opponent, I would remind people exactly how 'open minded' this idiot is. 'If you don't agree with me, YOU ARE THE ENEMY!!!" That sounds vaguely like the Bush quote 'if you're not with us you're against us' that so many on the left mocked for years on end.
 
After voting and acting like that for years she was "threatened"... Yeah, real evidence. Seriously, you seek out reasons to believe what you want rather than just looking at what is before your face.

And yet they weren't "punished" or should I say they didn't "face real consequences"...

It is deliberately misleading yourself into the land of make believe to pretend there is "lockstep" in the R party.


You just don't really know how things work. That's your main problem. Pretty much everyone who knows anything about the way the party caucuses work in the House and the Senate knows full well that Republicans have much much much better party discipline than the Democrats.

There really is no argument about it. What Obama is doing here is just trying to spin that reality to paint the discordant and undisciplined Democrats as a good thing and the unified disciplined Republicans as a bad thing. The reality is that Obama would probably give his left pinky (that's his good hand) to have a Democratic congressional caucus as disciplined as the Republicans.
 
Look at the NJ governors race...

Look what Perot did to Bush in 1992...and again in 1996

As for Lieberman... yeah, he 'remains' in the Dem caucus because why again? Oh yeah... 60.

sooner or later that kool-aid you are consuming will wear off... provided you have the common sense to stop drinking it.


I'm talking about the congressional party caucuses. As was Obama. The NJ governor's race has nothing to do with that. Same with the 1992 Presidential election.

And Lieberman remained in the caucus long before 60 was ever thought to be a realistic prospect.
 
I'm talking about the congressional party caucuses. As was Obama. The NJ governor's race has nothing to do with that. Same with the 1992 Presidential election.

And Lieberman remained in the caucus long before 60 was ever thought to be a realistic prospect.


LMAO.... yeah, and what did Lieberman give them in 2006? oh yeah, he broke the tie and gave them the majority. Gee... first the majority, then the super majority... I wonder why they didn't 'punish' him by taking away his chair and seniority???? Whatever could be the reason?
 
You label your own sentence satire?

Seriously. This is inane. There is disagreement within both parties, just because you refuse to see it even with direct examples doesn't make it any less true.

Sorry brother. I find the arguments against healthcare reform to be mindless beyond belief.

You can but that bullshit if you choose.
 
I'm talking about the congressional party caucuses. As was Obama. The NJ governor's race has nothing to do with that. Same with the 1992 Presidential election.

And Lieberman remained in the caucus long before 60 was ever thought to be a realistic prospect.


LMAO.... yeah, and what did Lieberman give them in 2006? oh yeah, he broke the tie and gave them the majority. Gee... first the majority, then the super majority... I wonder why they didn't 'punish' him by taking away his chair and seniority???? Whatever could be the reason?

Oh, as for your other argument.... did the Reps vote unanimously on all the major issues when they controlled all three houses?
 
You label your own sentence satire?

Seriously. This is inane. There is disagreement within both parties, just because you refuse to see it even with direct examples doesn't make it any less true.

Sorry brother. I find the arguments against healthcare reform to be mindless beyond belief.

You can buy that bullshit if you choose.

Are you guys having technical problems?
 
Sorry brother. I find the arguments against healthcare reform to be mindless beyond belief.

You can but that bullshit if you choose.

the above is the strawman....

Being against THIS reform does not make one against ALL reform. Though that is what the Dem masters want their lemmings to believe. You sure you want to join their lemmings?
 
These comments will backfire... If I were Graysons opponent, I would remind people exactly how 'open minded' this idiot is. 'If you don't agree with me, YOU ARE THE ENEMY!!!" That sounds vaguely like the Bush quote 'if you're not with us you're against us' that so many on the left mocked for years on end.

I disagree my friend wholeheartedly.

Congressman Grayson Wins Another Round

Florida Congressman Alan Grayson keeps provoking congressional Republicans and their media allies with fact-based challenges to the lies being used to block health care reform.

The insurance-industry stooges keep taking the bait.

And the truth about the high cost of delaying needed changes in America's health care delivery system keeps getting the attention it deserves.

Why is Grayson so effective?

Because, unlike many other Democrats and mainstream Republicans, he refuses to be intimidated by the bullying tactics employed by the GOP's "Party of 'No' caucus" and its accomplices.

No matter how desperately Republicans in Congress and their amen corner in the media may try to the censor the dissident Democrats, Grayson is reminding America about the trail of dead left by insurance-company greed and political neglect.

The Florida Democrat who drew national attention last month when he declared on the House floor that the Republican plan for uninsured Americans was "don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly," was back on the House floor this week to announce the creation of a website to honor the victims of the current system.

Grayson, who has taken the lead in highlighting a Harvard study that shows 44,000 Americans die annually because they have no health insurance, told the House and the nation: "I think it dishonors all those Americans who have lost their lives because they had no health coverage, by ignoring them, by not paying attention to them, and by doing nothing to change the situation that led them to lose their live."

With that in mind, he announced the launch of a Names of the Dead website.

Grayson's welcoming message at the site declares:


Every year, more than 44,000 Americans die simply because have no health insurance.

I have created this project in their memory. I hope that honoring them will help us end this senseless loss of American lives. If you have lost a loved one, please share the story of that loved one with us. Help us ensure that their legacy is a more just America, where every life that can be saved will be saved.


Visitors to the site are invited to add the names and stories of people who have died. They're also asked where they stand with regard to the health-care reform debate. There are links to the Harvard study, Grayson's speeches and his congressional and campaign websites.

The last link stirred predictable objections from Republican political operatives who are not used to Democrats who take the health care debate seriously enough to try and win it.

"What is wrong with this man? Alan Grayson's morbid exploitation of ‘the dead' for personal political gain may be the most shameless stunt he's pulled yet," grumbled Andy Sere, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Sere and his compatriots -- who are paid to pull shameless stunts for political gain -- charged that Grayson had committed some kind of ethics violation. They weren't sure what kind exactly, but they wanted to get the term "ethics violation" in play.

As when congressional Republicans threatened to sanction him for bringing up the fact that people die when they are denied insurance and health care, Grayson responded with a cry of: Bring it on!

"Let them file a complaint," said the congressman, who reminded reporters that he had paid for the website with his own money. "I'm sure I'll be vindicated."

Actually, he's already been vindicated.

Opponents of health care reform are so desperately frightened by Grayson's tactics that they immediately attacked the "Names of the Dead" site and posted false names -- "Wile E. Coyote" and "Hugh G. Reckshinn" -- to mock the reality that Americans die because our insurance industry.

When your critics are reduced to making light of the innocent dead, you have won the debate.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/487061/congressman_grayson_wins_another_round

I like defiant politicians who aren't afraid to speak truth to power .. and obvilously, so do many others. His opponent can say whatever he wants .. most Americans want real healthcare reform .. and it's refreshing to see a democrat will balls.
 
the above is the strawman....

Being against THIS reform does not make one against ALL reform. Though that is what the Dem masters want their lemmings to believe. You sure you want to join their lemmings?

What reform do you propose?

Would it include Medicare for all Americans .. or do you believe the current system just needs a bit of tweaking.

All I hear from the right is what they think is wrong with democrats without ever proposing any sound healthcare reform themselves.
 
Back
Top