A partial list of things Democrats do

[Anarchist420]

The thing I don't get is why these socialists didn't appreciate Bush and the Republicans in Congress then for all the shit he did.

Bush and most of the Republicans should be just much the OP's friend as the Democrats. Both parties are part fascist and part communist.

 

[brencat]

Republicans want to avoid big government,... OK, then GTFO of the US.

There, we've already got a smaller government and far fewer gun shooting, coke snorting, illegal immigrant hiring, job shipping overseas, wife cheating assholes to deal with and care for.

Aren't you from Greece ?:whiste:

 

[JockoJohnson]

You mad bro?

Mad? He's fucking bat-shit crazy. Just look at some of the posts he makes:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=31865257&highlight=#post31865257

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=31866606&highlight=#post31866606

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=31870371&highlight=#post31870371

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=31871343&highlight=#post31871343

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=31872024&highlight=#post31872024

There might be a better word or phrase for his condition other than what I stated.

 

[boochi]

What a fucking retard Macapus is.

 

[boomerang]

You mad bro?

Needs clarification.

Angry mad or crazy mad?

 

[BoberFett]

LOL... Americans want smaller government. They want cheaper government. They want less government...

But they don't want to give up all the 'freebies' that come with all of that.

Catch-22... There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza.

Americans want bigger government, as long as someone else is paying and it enforces their own particular moral beliefs on everyone else.

This really is a fucked up country.

 

[werepossum]

Craig, that list is a bunch of nonsense. It's mostly nonessential spending we don't have the money for anyway. And the fellow who wrote this thinks that the Dems lost last year because their side was complaining nothing could pass??? Your side lost because a majority of the country DISAGREED with your policies! Get it through your head -- the people want a govt of the center. Not of the fringe right or loony left.

You will lose the Senate in 2012 but Obama (unfortunately) probably stays. The fact is, most of us want divided govt now because we've had 2 instances of Repub and Dem full control and it was a disaster in both cases.

I would rather nothing get done, then the American people lose any more of their liberty to yet more rules, regulations, and a larger govt that takes more of my tax money. Figure it out on your own -- you'll feel better with your own accomplishments. Stop thinking people are too stupid or ill equipped to handle life's trials and tribulations on their own.

This, completely. Not to mention, given the history of Congress in general and Democrats in particular, it's highly likely that the Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act, for example, probably does nothing to stop alien smuggling and terrorism while criminalizing the people currently trying to stop alien smuggling and terrorism. While the bill's title is selected by what the people want, the text of the bill addresses what the politicians want, and the Democrats are very much defending illegal alien smuggling.

 

[chucky2]

Craig, that list is a bunch of nonsense. It's mostly nonessential spending we don't have the money for anyway. And the fellow who wrote this thinks that the Dems lost last year because their side was complaining nothing could pass??? Your side lost because a majority of the country DISAGREED with your policies! Get it through your head -- the people want a govt of the center. Not of the fringe right or loony left.

You will lose the Senate in 2012 but Obama (unfortunately) probably stays. The fact is, most of us want divided govt now because we've had 2 instances of Repub and Dem full control and it was a disaster in both cases.

I would rather nothing get done, then the American people lose any more of their liberty to yet more rules, regulations, and a larger govt that takes more of my tax money. Figure it out on your own -- you'll feel better with your own accomplishments. Stop thinking people are too stupid or ill equipped to handle life's trials and tribulations on their own.

I understand exactly what you are saying here, and in the past I'd have agreed with you 100%, especially on the bolded. However, two things are completely clear:

1.) The US has very major issues which it needs to take meaningful action on. This, the meaningful part, is just simply not possible with gridlock in place. Each party caters to their constituency while doing what it needs to keep the 10-15% of swing voters appeased so as to get re-elected. None truly give two F's about the long term survival of the US, at least survival when viewed through say the 60% of the middle, 30% to each side.

2.) Given #1, the very best long term (I'm talking 100-200 years out) solution for the US is to have one party in complete control, so as to enact as much legislation as their party can ram through while they retain that control. This will ensure our demise ASAP, before the rest of the developing countries are truly superpowers themselves (our window is rapidly shrinking). I'd hoped the Dem's could pull this off with their O'Bummer and their supermajority, but not surprisingly, they were to imcompetent to do so. Now with gridlock, we will steam on like a boat without a rudder and a malfunctioning engine.

Chuck

 

[nonlnear]

Based on my random sampling of those synopses, I oppose at least half of them, probably a good deal more. I am also deeply suspicious of the accuracy and comprehensiveness of those summaries. Accuracy in terms of how accurately they describe the parts of the bills they purport to describe, and completeness in that federal bills are invariably crammed full of crap that has nothing to do with the bill's title. All that other stuff seems to have been omitted from these summaries. Given those two suspicions I don't see much point in going through all of these summaries to assess what is essentially meaningless.

 

[Craig234]

This, completely. Not to mention, given the history of Congress in general and Democrats in particular, it's highly likely that the Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act, for example, probably does nothing to stop alien smuggling and terrorism while criminalizing the people currently trying to stop alien smuggling and terrorism. While the bill's title is selected by what the people want, the text of the bill addresses what the politicians want, and the Democrats are very much defending illegal alien smuggling.

OK, let's test whether you care whether what you say has any truth (again? no comment).

I'll provide the info showing you wrong.

The question then is whether you can be bothered to admit you are wrong or defend your claims based on facts.

Here's the Democrats' summary of the bill (relax, the Republicans are next):

H.R. 2399, Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act (rule adds to Coast Guard Authorization)

* The rule adds H.R. 2399, Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act, which passed the House on May 22, 20907 by a vote of 412-0, to the Coast Guard bill upon passage of the Coast Guard bill.
* Provides strong new enforcement tools at the border, including increased criminal penalties for alien smuggling; human trafficking and slavery; drug trafficking; and terrorism and espionage. For example, provides for a prison sentence of up to 10 years or fines of up to $100,000, or both, for anyone convicted of trying to smuggle an individual into the United States.
* Subjects smugglers and traffickers to even higher penalties for transporting persons under inhumane conditions, such as in an engine or storage compartment, or for causing serious bodily injury.
* Directs the Department of Homeland Security to check against all available terrorist watch lists alien smugglers and smuggled individuals who are interdicted at U.S. land, air and sea borders.

Hey, note that 412-0 vote so that *even the House Republican unanimously supported it*.

Your little partisan assumptions are starting to look a bit weak.

Now, here's the Republicans' summary of the bill:

http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/1/hr1029

H.R. 1029 would require the Department of Homeland Security to conduct checks on any alien smugglers or smuggled individuals that are apprehended at any U.S. borders against all available terrorist watch lists.

The bill sets specific penalties for individuals convicted of smuggling illegal aliens into the United States of:

* Up to 5 years incarceration for smuggling;
* Up to 20 years for smuggling that results in serious bodily injury; and,
* The death penalty or life in prison for smuggling that results in death.

The bill sets mandatory minimum penalties for smugglers convicted of smuggling for commercial or personal gain and for smuggling an alien into the U.S. to commit a felony.

The bill adds up to an additional 30 years imprisonment for alien smugglers convicted of smuggling a person who intends to engage in terrorist activity.

The bill adds up to an additional life sentence if the smuggler is convicted and the offense involves kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or attempted aggravated sexual abuse, or attempted homicide.

The bill amends U.S. maritime law to add the following penalties:

* Up to 10 years imprisonment for maritime offenses committed in the course of smuggling, trafficking, shipping, stolen property, drug, and other offenses;
* Up to 15 years for offenses resulting in serious bodily injury;
* Up to life in prison for an offense resulting in death, or involving kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, or attempted homicide.

The bill limits the ability to which defendants in both alien smuggling and maritime offense cases can employ the use of "necessity" as a defense.

The bill directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to promulgate regulations in accordance with this legislation.

Hm, nothing like what you said whatsoever.

Now, here's the actual bill (it's not long):

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:3:./temp/~c111km8Cmt::

So, I've provided proof your statements are completely false.

Now it's your turn to show why the Senate Republicans were right to block this bill, since you are disputing my position that they had no good reason to block this good bill.

 

[werepossum]

OK, let's test whether you care whether what you say has any truth (again? no comment).

I'll provide the info showing you wrong.

The question then is whether you can be bothered to admit you are wrong or defend your claims based on facts.

Here's the Democrats' summary of the bill (relax, the Republicans are next):



Hey, note that 412-0 vote so that *even the House Republican unanimously supported it*.

Your little partisan assumptions are starting to look a bit weak.

Now, here's the Republicans' summary of the bill:

http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/1/hr1029



Hm, nothing like what you said whatsoever.

Now, here's the actual bill (it's not long):

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:3:./temp/~c111km8Cmt::

So, I've provided proof your statements are completely false.

Now it's your turn to show why the Senate Republicans were right to block this bill, since you are disputing my position that they had no good reason to block this good bill.

I have no idea why the Senate Republicans blocked it; probably it was for some completely unrelated procedural issue. It's also possible that the Senate bill was not the same bill; they very seldom are, with the conflicts solved in committee, and since it's not technically possible for the Senate to filibuster a House bill, the Senate bill was not necessarily the same and may well contain things the Senate Republicans find to be anathema. I didn't read the whole bill, but I certainly like it from the GOP summary. But since the House Republicans unanimously supported it, your "evil Republicans" narrative is found a bit wanting.

You also misrepresent my political position, assuming that the GOP is my party of choice. That is wrong; it is my party of last resort, to stop the Democrats and other socialists, with my preferred (well, least hated) party being the Libertarians. To paraphrase Stone and Parker, I hate the Republican Party. But I really, really hate the Democrat Party.

EDIT: Oddly enough, the official Bill Summary and Status says nothing about the bill being filibustered, or even debated. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.01029:

4/1/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

There are no Senate cosponsors, and no mention of a companion Senate bill.

 

[werepossum]

Wow, Craig just bald-faced lied to me. Who'd a thunk it?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1029
Pertinent sections bolded:

This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.
Last Action:
Apr 1, 2009: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Related:

See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.
Votes:

Mar 31, 2009: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative’s position was not kept.

Died in Committee. No filibuster is possible in committee; ergo no Republican filibuster occurred. Just so we're all clear, which party ran the 111th (2009 - 2010) Senate and failed to report this bill out of the Judiciary Committee? Can you say Democrats? I thought you could. So just for those who are counting - no Republican filibuster, no recorded vote, bill died when Democrats failed to take it out of committee for a floor vote with their 61-39 and 60-40 majorities.

Looks like we can add another thing to the list of things Democrats do - lie their fluffy asses off for political advantage.

Nope, we can add TWO things. Anyone who cannot find legitimate issues on which they can legitimately criticize the GOP without bald face lies is also exercising incompetence.

Anybody want to add THREE things Democrats do? How about add links that demolish their own arguments? This is FUN!

EDIT: I'm reading to accept my thread pwnage award now.

 

[Craig234]

I have no idea why the Senate Republicans blocked it; probably it was for some completely unrelated procedural issue. It's also possible that the Senate bill was not the same bill; they very seldom are, with the conflicts solved in committee, and since it's not technically possible for the Senate to filibuster a House bill, the Senate bill was not necessarily the same and may well contain things the Senate Republicans find to be anathema.

Wrong. The bill I linked is the version that passed the House and was sent to the Senate.

I didn't read the whole bill, but I certainly like it from the GOP summary. But since the House Republicans unanimously supported it, your "evil Republicans" narrative is found a bit wanting.

No, I can find plenty of good bills the Democrats passed that House Republicans opposed.

The issue here is that this is the bill YOU selected to make comments about - and your comments are so wrong that this is one even the House Republicans all voted for it.

So, the House Republicans voting for this contradicts YOUR statements, not mine.

Do you admit you are wrong? No.

You also misrepresent my political position, assuming that the GOP is my party of choice. That is wrong; it is my party of last resort, to stop the Democrats and other socialists, with my preferred (well, least hated) party being the Libertarians. To paraphrase Stone and Parker, I hate the Republican Party. But I really, really hate the Democrat Party.

EDIT: Oddly enough, the official Bill Summary and Status says nothing about the bill being filibustered, or even debated. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.01029:

There are no Senate cosponsors, and no mention of a companion Senate bill.

No, I didn't. I held you accountable for your comments, which are wrong, not your party. I put you on the team with Senate Republicans, because you defended their position.

But the point is your comments - I showed they are wrong. Now you can either admit they were wrong, or defend them.

I find the 'I dislike all parties' people tiresome and generally pointless to discuss that with, your accusations about the Democrats misrepresenting this bill are the issue.

You said:

...it's highly likely that the Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act, for example, probably does nothing to stop alien smuggling and terrorism while criminalizing the people currently trying to stop alien smuggling and terrorism.

That's false. You have now dodged the issue with a number of dodges. Admit you were wrong or try to defend your accusation? This is the bill YOU selected to comment on.

 

[werepossum]

Wrong. The bill I linked is the version that passed the House and was sent to the Senate.



No, I can find plenty of good bills the Democrats passed that House Republicans opposed.

The issue here is that this is the bill YOU selected to make comments about - and your comments are so wrong that this is one even the House Republicans all voted for it.

So, the House Republicans voting for this contradicts YOUR statements, not mine.

Do you admit you are wrong? No.



No, I didn't. I held you accountable for your comments, which are wrong, not your party. I put you on the team with Senate Republicans, because you defended their position.

But the point is your comments - I showed they are wrong. Now you can either admit they were wrong, or defend them.

I find the 'I dislike all parties' people tiresome and generally pointless to discuss that with, your accusations about the Democrats misrepresenting this bill are the issue.

You said:



That's false. You have now dodged the issue with a number of dodges. Admit you were wrong or try to defend your accusation? This is the bill YOU selected to comment on.

You might want to take a gander at my last post - but put your helmet back on first, 'cause your left wing and your far left wing are gonna flutter so fast that you'll sure take helical flight.

 

[Craig234]

You might want to take a gander at my last post - but put your helmet back on first, 'cause your left wing and your far left wing are gonna flutter so fast that you'll sure take helical flight.

We'll review.

Basically the same bill passed in the previous session in 2007 by the 406-0 vote; in 2009 it passed by a voice vote, which is common for bills with no or almost no opposition.

In short, the bill clearly had strong bi-partisan support in the House.

On the issue of why it was stalled in the Senate, I'm looking into that. Multiple blog sites said it was filibustered by Republicans and I've seen no other information. However, I spoke with Sen. Boxer's office and they cannot confirm what happened (other than what we already knew, it went to the Senate, was read twice and was left in the Judiciary committee). I have a call in to the Judiciary committee which is closed until Monday.

Now, the issue is not primarily the issue of it being filibustered - that's what I saw from the web, and asked you to defend it.

If it turns out that there's another explanation, that question would be irrelevant; it'd be interesting to see why anyone stopped the bill.

The main question was, as I said, repeated and repeat again, about YOUR comments about the House Democrats, that have been proven false.

We'll repeat what you said and the statement for you to admit was wrong or defend:

...it's highly likely that the Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act, for example, probably does nothing to stop alien smuggling and terrorism while criminalizing the people currently trying to stop alien smuggling and terrorism.

Are you going to admit you were wrong, or defend the statement?

That's the topic - not even your later error claiming the bill was some 'different version', for which you have also not taken any responsibility, also just dodging.

 

[sportage]

I have long suspected that both republicans AND democrats in congress are one in the same.
They talk the talk (to their base) but never walk the walk.
I really do not believe democrats actually really wanted the healthcare public option, anymore than
the republicans did. That includes Obama. Like when playing chicken, they drive close to collision with the other car, but somehow never actually hit. Like they are playing all of us for fools.
Democrats are just as "owned" as republicans. They skip together hand in hand.
Sure.... they LOVE to trash the other side. But I just have this feeling that
after the cameras and lights are turned off, they are all together in the back
room laughing their asses off at the stupid gullible voting masses.

Democrats had control of EVERYTHING for 40+ years, and who was it that gave us any healthcare movement via HMO's??? R.I.C.H.A.R.D. N.I.X.O.N.
Democrats and republicans are totally owned and servant to the corporation and business. One party admits it, the other won't. But they walk hand in hand.
Domocrats in congress are no more pro-Gay rights than Jessy Helms was, when you get down to it.
Again… talking the talk. Never walking the walk.
Look at the state of things today...
High unemployment. Massive foreclosures. Stagnant wages. Massive loss of factories and manufacturing here at home. Everything moving offshore.
And who is watching out for YOU?
While all this happened, and you tell me NOT ONE congress person seen this coming? All these years?
It all just kind of…. "HAPPENED"????

Who are the fools? We are the fools. And they, every single congress person, knows that all too well.
The current state of the nation, the economy, didn’t just "happen"....
It is like “THAT” was the plan all along. The “GOAL”....
And I have to wonder... what exactly are they really up to???
Why have they allowed the country to come to this condition?
Was this the plan, the goal all along...?

 

[werepossum]

We'll review.

Basically the same bill passed in the previous session in 2007 by the 406-0 vote; in 2009 it passed by a voice vote, which is common for bills with no or almost no opposition.

In short, the bill clearly had strong bi-partisan support in the House.

On the issue of why it was stalled in the Senate, I'm looking into that. Multiple blog sites said it was filibustered by Republicans and I've seen no other information. However, I spoke with Sen. Boxer's office and they cannot confirm what happened (other than what we already knew, it went to the Senate, was read twice and was left in the Judiciary committee). I have a call in to the Judiciary committee which is closed until Monday.

Now, the issue is not primarily the issue of it being filibustered - that's what I saw from the web, and asked you to defend it.

If it turns out that there's another explanation, that question would be irrelevant; it'd be interesting to see why anyone stopped the bill.

The main question was, as I said, repeated and repeat again, about YOUR comments about the House Democrats, that have been proven false.

We'll repeat what you said and the statement for you to admit was wrong or defend:



Are you going to admit you were wrong, or defend the statement?

That's the topic - not even your later error claiming the bill was some 'different version', for which you have also not taken any responsibility, also just dodging.

My statement was that it was "highly likely" that the bill was misleadingly labeled; I'll admit this one was not while defending the larger point.

However, YOUR issue was that Democrats did this wondrous thing and Republicans killed it via the filibuster.

Read these and tell me Democrats weren't trying really hard to make things better. Again; these are bills that were PASSED by the Democratic House, and BLOCKED by 40-41 solid votes in the Senate. Compare these to the complete SHIT the current Republican-led House is producing, and then tell us again how there's no difference between the two parties.

SNIP

H.R. 1029 – Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act – Yes, another bill that does what its title says it will do, and Republicans blocked it. With all of their phony “tough talk” regarding immigration, this should come as a surprise to pretty much everyone, regardless of your level of racism. The intent of this bill is to crack down on alien smuggling and provide for better border enforcement and stiffer penalties for violators. In other words, it does many of the things Jan Brewer is pissed off about in Arizona. So, what IS the Republican stance on immigration? They’re against going after employers who hire illegal immigrants, and apparently, they’re against stricter laws against those who smuggle people into this country. They’re apparently against anything that might actually work. If you're in favor of immigration reform and you're planning to vote Republican, think again.

Note the bolded. Note especially that the bolded is a bald faced lie. There was no vote. There was no Senate bill. The Senate Democrats never reported the bill out of committee for debate, even though it apparently has complete bipartisan support, yet you present this as Republican misuse of procedural rules. Again, just so we're straight, this is a lie.

That's the topic - not even your later error claiming the bill was some 'different version', for which you have also not taken any responsibility, also just dodging.

My SPECULATION that the blocked vote might have been a substantially different bill, like my SPECULATION that the Pubbies might have blocked it for a completely unrelated procedural matter, was in error because there WAS no vote. There was no Senate bill. There was only a BIG. FAT. LIE. A lie repeated by multiple left wing blogs merely becomes a bigger lie; it does not become the truth.

We're done here, at least until Monday when you'll no doubt have produced a reason why Republicans are responsible for Democrats not reporting out of committee a bill with complete bipartisan support.

 

[werepossum]

I have long suspected that both republicans AND democrats in congress are one in the same.
They talk the talk (to their base) but never walk the walk.
I really do not believe democrats actually really wanted the healthcare public option, anymore than
the republicans did. That includes Obama. Like when playing chicken, they drive close to collision with the other car, but somehow never actually hit. Like they are playing all of us for fools.
Democrats are just as "owned" as republicans. They skip together hand in hand.
Sure.... they LOVE to trash the other side. But I just have this feeling that
after the cameras and lights are turned off, they are all together in the back
room laughing their asses off at the stupid gullible voting masses.

Democrats had control of EVERYTHING for 40+ years, and who was it that gave us any healthcare movement via HMO's??? R.I.C.H.A.R.D. N.I.X.O.N.
Democrats and republicans are totally owned and servant to the corporation and business. One party admits it, the other won't. But they walk hand in hand.
Domocrats in congress are no more pro-Gay rights than Jessy Helms was, when you get down to it.
Again… talking the talk. Never walking the walk.
Look at the state of things today...
High unemployment. Massive foreclosures. Stagnant wages. Massive loss of factories and manufacturing here at home. Everything moving offshore.
And who is watching out for YOU?
While all this happened, and you tell me NOT ONE congress person seen this coming? All these years?
It all just kind of…. "HAPPENED"????

Who are the fools? We are the fools. And they, every single congress person, knows that all too well.
The current state of the nation, the economy, didn’t just "happen"....
It is like “THAT” was the plan all along. The “GOAL”....
And I have to wonder... what exactly are they really up to???
Why have they allowed the country to come to this condition?
Was this the plan, the goal all along...?

I suspect you are uncomfortably close to the truth. For all their differences, their similarities are much more telling.

 

[sportage]

Who are we really? We are just looking in the window. Our nose against the glass.
Congress is the mechanic. They know the engine inside and out.
A lot of them have been in there a looooong long time.
To give the impression they never seen an engine before, like they love to do,
is how they keep us all guessing and wondering.
They can stir the pot anyway they want. Tell us they are cooking stew, while
we smell and see nothing but steam. Hot water. Our nose against that window, wondering.
Few of us, certainly not one of us here, have the "inside" knowledge to understand how that engine works. We can guess, and give our opinion, but we really have no idea.
Not unless you are a serving, paid congress member.
And we "trust" these guys that have the tools to the engine?
Look around. No jobs? Why? Because the practice today, the profit, is to move jobs
off shore and pay workers pennies.
And they want us to believe the "jobs" will come back? While they worked so hard
to let these jobs move far away from home. Stirring that pot. Making the brew.
Frankly, the only possible job creation would be from what Obama tried. Government jobs. Road workers, bridge builders, ditch diggers.
No politician, not Obama, not Sarah, not anyone on either side can pull jobs out of a hat.
Not when we sold the hat long ago. The magic hat is gone.

 

[Craig234]

I have long suspected that both republicans AND democrats in congress are one in the same.
They talk the talk (to their base) but never walk the walk.
I really do not believe democrats actually really wanted the healthcare public option, anymore than
the republicans did.

That's a large exaggeration. There's a bit of truth to it. The Democrats, for example, have no small corruption from Wall Street (progressives much less so).

Neither party is innocent of 'telling its base what it wants to hear' sometimes.

But there are huge and real differences. To say otherwise is wrong and bad for policy.

That includes Obama.

I thought you were talking about Democrats.

Like when playing chicken, they drive close to collision with the other car, but somehow never actually hit. Like they are playing all of us for fools.

The Republicans have made it clear that their agenda for the rich is worth about any harm - including shutting down the government, cutting any program, harming our credit rating.

Democrats are just as "owned" as republicans.

See above on exaggeration, nugget of truth. There are big differences, and some similarities.

They skip together hand in hand.

But they can't marry.

Sure.... they LOVE to trash the other side. But I just have this feeling that
after the cameras and lights are turned off, they are all together in the back
room laughing their asses off at the stupid gullible voting masses.

Again, exaggeration, nugget of truth. Many of each party really dislike the other (Democrats for good reason). There is SOME of that 'we're all in one big club'. Sometimes, they use each other for fundraising and votes, each aware how valuable they are to the other side and vice versa. (A: don't you hate B give me money! B: don't you hate A give me money!) Part of it is simply recognizing they can get more done cooperating.

Democrats had control of EVERYTHING for 40+ years, and who was it that gave us any healthcare movement via HMO's??? R.I.C.H.A.R.D. N.I.X.O.N.

Um, Democrats regularly increase healthcare.

This was from the JFK presidential campaign as he supported increasing Medicare:

LBJ and Medicaid? Who controlled congress under Nixon?

Democrats and republicans are totally owned and servant to the corporation and business. One party admits it, the other won't. But they walk hand in hand.

Wrong. One is practically totally owned and one is somewhat less owned - with progressives a lot less owned.

Domocrats in congress are no more pro-Gay rights than Jessy Helms was, when you get down to it.
Again… talking the talk. Never walking the walk.

Which party is ending don't ask, don't tell? (While it passed under Clinton, Clinton WANTED to end discrimination, but Republican Colin Powell had a lot of clout and opposed him, and DADT was a compromise that sounded like it would be a lot closer to an end to discrimination than it ended up being. Republican solidly supported continuing the discrimination; Democrats ended it.)

Which party has taken the position that the US Government will no longer defend the law on the books, the Defense of Marriage Act, as constitutionally valid?

(And which party in response went spending big money to hire its own private law firm to take over that case, and has sponsored many anti-gay rights bills?)

Which party has submitted and is trying to pass the repeal of DOMA, with 120 co-sponsors, providing federal rights to same-sex married couples?

(It should be noted that Bill Clinton supports repeal as does DOMA's author, Bob Barr, who was a Republican but changed to Libertarian in 2006 and said he supported repeal).

Look at the state of things today...
High unemployment. Massive foreclosures. Stagnant wages. Massive loss of factories and manufacturing here at home. Everything moving offshore.

Big problems, largely from the great recession, Wall Street corruption, Republican policy.

And who is watching out for YOU?

Progressives.

While all this happened, and you tell me NOT ONE congress person seen this coming? All these years?
It all just kind of…. "HAPPENED"????

Right, progressives haven't been talking about any of it.

Who are the fools? We are the fools. And they, every single congress person, knows that all too well.

More exaggeration.

The current state of the nation, the economy, didn’t just "happen"....
It is like “THAT” was the plan all along. The “GOAL”....
And I have to wonder... what exactly are they really up to???
Why have they allowed the country to come to this condition?
Was this the plan, the goal all along...?

No, it didn't, but nor is it a big plan.

What it is is a gradual shift of wealth and power to a few people, resulting in policies that benefit them, resulting in more wealth in power, resulting in more policies for them.

The Wall Street crash wasn't 'planned'. It was the result of gradual shift the direction I mentioned. As Wall Street got more powerful, it got de-regulation, and the next thing you know, more and more complicated products are created, more leverage is demanded and obtained, 'too big to fail' is allowed to happen, and a problem that wasn't planned happens - though it could be and was predicted that the larger issues of Wall Street behavior would cause big problems - just who knows how or when.

To this day there are trillions of dollars of 'guarantees' floating around, unregulated. While Wall Street caused the crash, the top few firms are having their best years ever.

This is normal - some of the wealthiest people became far richer in the great depression, buying up the discounted assets of the country.

Learn about the progressives. They have better policies on these issues - but of course are not the choice of the corrupt interests to support for campaign donations.

They need citizens to be a bit responsible and research a bit and vote for them without big budget campaigns, to represent the public.

 

[Infohawk]

Craig, how do you feel about the success of this thread? Do you feel like you've convinced anyone of anything?

 

[BoberFett]

Craig, how do you feel about the success of this thread? Do you feel like you've convinced anyone of anything?

He has convinced himself even further that he the sole beacon of reason on this desolate rock we call Earth.

 

[nonlnear]

Craig, how do you feel about the success of this thread? Do you feel like you've convinced anyone of anything?

If Craig's faith in the benevolence of progressives ever waivered, I'm sure his posts in this thread have reconvinced himself of it. That's probably about it though.

 

[nageov3t]

things Democrats don't do:

get us out of wars
repeal reckless tax cuts
reform the healthcare system

 

[shortylickens]

At least half of the things on that list are items I specifically do NOT want to be taxed for and money spent on.

And I blame Republicans just as much as Democrats for government expansion.