Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts

Saturday, July 11, 2015

Human Rights Report That Ted Cruz Demanded Reveals Republican Hypocrisy


It is mind-boggling, really, why Republicans so desperately wanted a human rights violation report released that features human rights violations they are guilty of perpetuating on Americans. Yes, they certainly want a reason to criticize nations like Iran and Cuba, but they also are well aware that the entire world knows that those nations are guilty of the same violations Republicans support, and argue to continue unabated, against people of color, women, gays, and peaceful protestors. The rest of the world, including Iran and Cuba, are aware that Republicans have championed legislation “limiting citizens’ ability to change the government through free and fair elections” at the behest of the Koch brothers and their legislative arm the American Legislative Exchange Council.

America can hardly criticize any nation’s human rights violations when it is guilty of the same violations even if they are not “as violent or severe;” particularly when this ‘exceptional nation’ is supposed to be a human rights leader. It is true that most Americans are appalled when they learn their fellow citizens are victims of human rights violations, and if they were not so entrenched in the idea that America is a human rights leader, they may pay heed to who is responsible for perpetuating this exceptional nation’s human rights violations against their fellow citizens; hypocritical Republicans.

Human Rights Report That Ted Cruz Demanded Reveals Republican Hypocrisy

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Idaho Republican Party Considers Proposal Supporting “Bible Use” in Public Schools


So,,,

If I am reading Hemant correctly, this is what we got: "Militant control over life in Mosul extends to education, where schools have been shut down or replaced with IS-approved teachings aimed at indoctrinating students, sources in the city revealed to the BBC. Science subjects have been removed from the curriculum, one resident told Al Jazeera."
 
Wait, sorry, wrong article,,,

According to Mehta, Republicans in Idaho have published a set of proposed resolutions, one of which is entitled “A Resolution Supporting Bible Use in Idaho Public Schools.”  It is a resolution put forth by Republican party chairperson for Idaho County, Marge Arnzen to include within the state’s curriculum biblical teachings. As Hemant points out,
The GOP controls the House and Senate by large margins and the Governor is also a Republican. So bad ideas can become law without much opposition.
And,
,,,there’s no law banning the Bible from being used as a point of reference in class. There’s good reason to discuss the impact of the Bible in world history, just as there would be in philosophy and comparative religion classes. You can even talk about it in a “Bible as literature” class. If students want to write about the Bible, that’s fine, too, assuming it follows all the other guidelines for the assignment. And certainly, no atheist group has ever tried to ban students from bringing the Bible to school.

But what justification could anyone possibly have for the relevance of the Bible in astronomy, biology, geology, etc? There is none whatsoever.
In other words, as a supplement or "a point of reference", the Bible is allowed in the public school setting making this resolution redundant.  Which leads me to wonder, along with numerous comments, what the agenda may actually be. 

Will they also allow the use of the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita or the Popol Vuh in that same way?  According to Melissa Davlin
Some members of the committee expressed concern with other religious texts, such as the Quran, being used in the same way, while others questioned whether a change would violate the Idaho State Constitution. Ultimately, the divided committee amended the resolution to take out a phrase supporting classes on the Bible in school.
Which means the Idaho Republicans are state sanctioning one religion over another.  Which as we all know is unconstitutional.

Resolutions aren’t legislation, but sometimes plant the seeds for future bill proposals.

Idaho Republican Party Considers Proposal Supporting “Bible Use” in Public Schools

Friday, May 8, 2015

Republicans Are Now Trying To Pass Obamacare Extension To Save Their Own Asses

An issue to key our eyes on in the coming months,,,
It’s no secret that Republicans have opposed the Affordable Care Act since the very beginning. From death panels to economic Armageddon, the GOP has said and done just about anything they possibly could to make people as irrationally terrified of this law as possible.

But despite their incessant fear-mongering, basically none of their apocalyptic warnings have come true. The “worst” factual talking point they’ve had against “Obamacare” is that around 5 million Americans were forced to switch insurance plans because their previous plans were inadequate.

Oh, the horrors!

So, when I read that Senate Republicans were desperately trying to pass legislation that would extend the subsidies for the Affordable Care Act through 2017, I was a little caught off guard. After all, aren’t these the same subsidies many of them have been pushing the Supreme Court to strike down for years? So, why would Republicans want to pass legislation that guarantees the subsidies through 2017?

Oh, I know why – to avoid having millions of Americans, many of whom are conservative voters, blaming the Republican party for losing their health insurance just before the 2016 elections.

[,,,]
If the Supreme Court rules against the subsidies, there’s not going to be anyone else to blame but the Republican party – and they damn well know that. That’s why they’re trying to pass this temporary fix so that they won’t have to suffer any sort of political ramifications for being the ones responsible for millions of Americans potentially losing their health insurance.
Republicans Are Now Trying To Pass Obamacare Extension To Save Their Own Asses

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Jeb Bush: Gay couples’ rights should depend on where they live - Salon.com

Notice Bush's reference to "mob rule." As I have stated before, the rights of a minority cannot be impinged upon by the rights of a majority. Just because the "community" believes its views are correct and proper, does not make it the "law of the land."
__
Listen to the Beltway chattering class, and you could be forgiven for forming the impression that Jeb Bush will be the courageous centrist in the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential field. He’s the guy who will absolutely refuse to pander to the party’s rabid right-wing base, rising or falling without backing down from his heretical positions on issues like education and immigration reform. Of course, the meme of Bush the Moderate conveniently glides over his thoroughly conservative views on issues like abortion, taxes, climate change, and government regulation; that he is considered a centrist says far more about the ever-rightward march of the Obama-era GOP than it does about Bush’s worldview.

On Sunday, Bush offered further evidence that he’s hardly a moderate, criticizing a recent federal court decision to allow marriage equality in Florida, where Bush was governor from 1999 to 2007. Echoing previous comments, Bush essentially argued that same-sex couples’ rights should be contingent on where they live.

“It ought be a local decision. I mean, a state decision,” Bush said in an interview with the Miami Herald. “The state decided. The people of the state decided. But it’s been overturned by the courts, I guess.”

Jeb Bush: Gay couples’ rights should depend on where they live - Salon.com

Thursday, January 8, 2015

10 Dynamics That Will Shape the Next Two Years of American Politics | BillMoyers.com

What’s past isn’t necessarily prologue, but the outcomes of some recent political battles – and a look at who will be coming and going when Congress reconvenes in January – give us a pretty good sense of the dynamics that will shape the next two years of American politics.

So while we don’t have a crystal ball, here’s our preview of what you can expect in the final quarter of Barack Obama’s presidency.
1. Gridlock, and an Endless Game of Chicken
2. The Clash of the Republican Establishments
3. A Smaller, More Progressive Democratic Caucus
4. A Not-So-Lame-Duck
5. Republicans Will Continue to Overpromise, and the Tea Party Base Will Be Furious
6. Democrats Will Make Concessions, and Their Progressive Base Will Be Furious
7. Fewer Backroom Deals
8. BenghaziGruberFastandFuriousGate
9. The Issues -Immigration, the Keystone XL pipeline, new EPA regulations,,,
10. The Wildcard: King v. Burwell
10 Dynamics That Will Shape the Next Two Years of American Politics | BillMoyers.com

Friday, January 2, 2015

My horrible right-wing past: Confessions of a one-time religious right icon - Salon.com

I am a white, privileged, well-off, 61-year-old former Republican religious right-wing activist who changed his mind about religion and politics long ago. The New York Times profiled my change of heart saying that to my former friends I’m considered a “traitorous prince” since my religious-right family was once thought of as “evangelical royalty.”

You see, only in the Mafia, the British Royal family and big time American religion is a nepotistic rise to power seen as normal. And I was good at it. And I hated it while hypocritically profiting from it — until, that is, in the mid-1980s, I quit. These days I describe myself as an atheist who believes in God.

Ironically I helped my father become famous in the religion sector. In the 1970s I directed and produced two film series featuring Dad with book companions that became evangelical bestsellers: “How Should We Then Live?” and “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” By the time Dad and I completed two nationwide seminar tours launching those projects, I was being invited to speak at the biggest religious gatherings, including the Southern Baptist Convention and the annual meeting of the National Religious Broadcasters.

The leaders of the new religious right were gleefully betting on American failure. If secular, democratic, diverse and pluralistic America survived, then wouldn’t that prove that we were wrong about God only wanting to bless “Christian America?” If, for instance, crime went down dramatically in New York City, for any other reason than a reformation and revival, wouldn’t that make the prophets of doom look silly? And if the economy was booming without anyone repenting, what did that mean?

What began to bother me was that so many of our new “friends” on the religious right seemed to be rooting for one form of apocalypse or another. In the crudest form this was part of the evangelical fascination with the so-called end times. The worse things got, the sooner Jesus would come back. But there was another component. The worse everything got, the more it proved that America needed saving, by us! Plus, it was good for fundraising.

Some 30 years later, what we helped start — I am sorry! — continues. With the Republicans in control of the House and Senate the question arises — again — Where does the American far right find the energy to oppose everything and everyone again and again?

[,,,]
The difference between now and then is that back then we were religious fanatics knocking on the doors of normal political leaders. Today the fanatics are the political leaders.

You can’t understand why the GOP was so successful in winning back both houses of congress in 2014, and wrecking most of what Obama has tried to do, unless you understand what we did back then.

[,,,]
And that strategy was simple: Republican leaders would affirm their anti-abortion commitment to evangelicals, and in turn we’d vote for them — by the tens of millions. Once Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency, “we” would reverse Roe, through a constitutional amendment and/or through the appointment of anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court or, if need be, through civil disobedience and even violence, though this was only hinted at at first. In 2016, the dream we had will become a reality unless America wakes up. The Republicans are poised to destroy women’s rights. They have a majority on the Court to back them up.

My horrible right-wing past: Confessions of a one-time religious right icon - Salon.com

Monday, December 15, 2014

New Study Finds The KKK Was Instrumental In Switching Southern Voters From Democrats To Republicans | If You Only News

A press release from the American Sociological Association on “Newswise” says that a new study finds that the KKK has had a “lasting impact” on politics in America. Specifically, the study, conducted by David Cunningham, chair of the Department of Sociology at Brandeis University, Rory McVeigh of Notre Dame, and Justin Farrell of Yale University, found that the KKK was instrumental in switching southern voters from Democrats to Republicans, beginning in the 1960s. The study also found that the KKK’s influence over southern politics has continued into the 21st century.

According to the ASA’s press release, the researchers looked at ten southern states where the KKK was actively recruiting during the 1960’s. They examined the county voting records, and discovered that, in the presidential elections between 1960 and 2000, counties with active KKK chapters showed a “statistically significant increase in Republican voting compared to counties with no established KKK chapter.”

New Study Finds The KKK Was Instrumental In Switching Southern Voters From Democrats To Republicans | If You Only News

Monday, September 1, 2014

Florida GOP's Quasi-Obamacare Alternative Has Signed Up 30 People

If this is the Repugs idea of repeal- and-replace, we are in deep shit,,,

This March, as an alternative of sorts to the Affordable Care Act, Florida's Republican-led government launched a health insurance website called Florida Health Choices. It had no relation to HealthCare.gov, the federal Obamacare website, and offered limited-benefit options that cover things like prescription drugs and dental or vision services.

But since the launch of the Republican alternative, Florida Health Choices has signed up 30 people, the Tampa Bay Times reported Friday. By comparison, 984,000 Floridians enrolled in private coverage under Obamacare and 764,000 low-income residents were unable to obtain any kind of coverage through the federal law because the GOP- controlled state legislature refused to expand Medicaid.

As the Associated Press reported at the time of the website's launch, it was hoped that those stuck in that Medicaid expansion gap would use Florida Health Choices. The concept actually dates back to 2008, the brainchild of then-Florida House speaker Marco Rubio, now U.S. senator. Rubio had secured $1.8 million in start-up funding at that time, according to Reuters, and the state legislature then authorized $900,000 last year to fully launch the website.

Florida GOP's Quasi-Obamacare Alternative Has Signed Up 30 People

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

VFW attacks the three Republicans who voted against Senate VA bill - The Washington Post

 So remember yesterday when I posted this little gem (summarized):
"At this point, congressional Republicans no longer even try to justify the rhetorical contradictions. When Democrats want to make any kind of public investment, even after a natural disaster, GOP officials insist every penny must be fully paid for without raising anyone’s taxes by any amount at any time."  But yet the House went on to  pass two bills to permanently extend tax credits that expired at the end of 2013 with ZERO offset.  In other words, "if Democrats want to invest in the public, the deficit is paramount. When Republicans want to pass a tax break, the deficit is irrelevant."
Well it seems that Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) have held fast to that mindset in a vote against a bipartisan veterans’ benefits bill this week. Sessions going so far as to say, "I feel strongly we've got to do the right thing for our veterans. But I don't think we should create a blank check, an unlimited entitlement program, now."

Also arguing,
We need to resist the temptation to create more entitlements and more entitlements, which is one of the reasons we are heading recklessly toward fiscal crisis,” Sessions said on the Senate floor before the vote.  He said Congress should instead focus on “reforms and solutions that improve the quality of service and the effectiveness that is delivered.”
Now bare in mind, the purpose of this entitlement program bill is to ease "healthcare delays for veterans by giving them more access to private care and allowing the Department of Veterans Affairs to open more clinics and hire more medical staff."

As Steve Benen writes, and I agree,
So, on the one hand, politicians routinely say the nation must do “whatever it takes” to care for our veterans. On the other hand, here are three conservative Republicans effectively arguing, “But let’s not go overboard.”
I am sorry but no amount of money should be spared when it comes to the health and well being of our military personnel.  Combat loss is one thing, but when you have veterans dying while in the que for help, that is a sad commentary on what we as a nation value.  This should not be happening:
The "cost of war" for me: Missing 1/2 of my left ham string, permanent nerve damage, diabetes from Agent Orange, joints shot from humping super heavy ruck sack, PTSD (nightmares, night sweats, 5 failed marriages, alienated from my family and friends, flashbacks, depression, unable to hold a job because of anger), feet drawn to hammer toes from being shot through both legs, constant pain, two shoulder surgeries, three stomach surgeries. Even after 40 years I am still not considered 100% disabled by the VA even though the Social Security administration does. I am still trying to get a higher disability rating after being denied 4 times. These requests take over a year to get an answer. Currently I am waiting a year on my latest request. (Spitzerone)


VFW attacks the three Republicans who voted against Senate VA bill - The Washington Post

Monday, May 12, 2014

How Hypocrisy Is Simply Not a Factor in the Right-Wing Mind | Alternet

While acknowledging “government isn’t the solution to every problem,” Warren says that she hopes to one day ask Grimm: “Would you rather fly in an airplane without the Federal Aviation Administration checking air traffic control? Would you rather swallow a pill without the Food and Drug Administration testing drug safety? Would you rather defend our nation without a military and fight fires without our firefighters?”

Warren nails it. The collective thinking of today’s conservatives accounts for little more than magic wand waving, the dangerous belief that if we eliminate all forms of the federal government, all our problems will vanish into thin air. Rarely does campaign rhetoric move policy, no matter how soaring its high notes, but campaign words do have the ability to wreak immeasurable havoc on a country, and it’s arguable that the most damaging 11 words ever uttered by a U.S. president are Reagan’s “government is not part of the solution, government is the problem.” Or how about Reagan’s other famous line: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Those two phrases have blanketed an entire generation of Republicans with hypocritical habits

[,,,]
Hypocrisy allows Republicans to ignore that it was the federal government that built the great American middle class through labor laws, reforms in the financial and banking industry, and a progressive tax code that shared the prosperity. It was also the federal government that created the interstate highway system, so that private enterprise could deliver to expanded markets. We tackled poverty with Social Security and Medicare, and on and so on. But instead of trying to starve the government or drown it in the bathtub, “we need to tackle our problems head-on, and that will require better government.”

How Hypocrisy Is Simply Not a Factor in the Right-Wing Mind | Alternet

Monday, March 17, 2014

5 of the Christian Right's Favorite and Most Dangerous New Recruits Running for Congress | Alternet

Today, the Christian Right is armed with networks and pipelines of unprecedented levels of campaign financing. Its consortium of donor channels includes the Club for Growth, Senate Conservatives Fund, FreedomWorks, and a cadre of hyper-religious organizations such as the Christian Coalition, Christian Broadcasting Network, American Values, and the Family Research Council.

The Christian Right can now raise enough cash to compete and win in Republican primaries against Chamber of Commerce-sponsored establishment candidates. According to the Federal Electoral Commission, Tea Party and social conservative groups raised nearly three times as much as GOP establishment groups in 2013.

The Christian Right is not only an existential threat to the future of the Republican Party, it’s also an existential threat to our secular democracy, for it wishes to transform America into a tyrannical theocracy governed by biblical law. With the warring Republican factions preparing to square off in a series of Senate and House primaries, here are the Christian Right’s most favored candidates for the 2014 election cycle.

5 of the Christian Right's Favorite and Most Dangerous New Recruits Running for Congress | Alternet

Monday, February 10, 2014

Meet the Next Michele Bachmann | Mother Jones

Liberals rejoiced when Michele Bachmann announced her intention to retire from Congress at the end of 2014. Bachmann will no longer be around to carry the tea party banner in Congress. But she's almost guaranteed to be replaced by another far-right conservative. Minnesota's 6th District skews heavily Republican—voting 56 percent for Romney in 2012. Whichever GOPer emerges from the primary should easily waltz to a general election win in November. And that successor could either be a Bachmann clone or Minnesota's own version of Grover Norquist.

The race is between two candidates from diverging wings of the Republican Party: There's Tom Emmer, the social conservative who hews closely to Bachmann, and Phil Krinkie, a small-business owner whose mission in life is to block tax increases,,,

Emmer, a failed gubernatorial candidate from 2010, closely replicated the Bachmann model. For his first major bill after he entered the Minnesota House in 2005, Emmer proposed that the state medically castrate sex offenders. That was just the beginning of a career defined by extreme views. He's unsure when quizzed about evolution. He favors harsh immigration laws—Arizona's punitive 2010 law was a "wonderful first step." He thinks a minimum wage for restaurant staff is a silly concept: "With the tips that they get to take home, they are some people earning over $100,000 a year," Emmer said during his 2010 campaign.

[,,,]
His main opponent might present an appealing alternative for a state Republican Party trying to repair its image after major losses in 2012. Phil Krinkie, a fellow former House member, is equally conservative but emphasizes a different agenda. Where Emmer is the descendant of Jerry Falwell, Krinkie takes his cues from Grover Norquist—with his obstinate opposition to tax increases,,,

Meet the Next Michele Bachmann | Mother Jones

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Two More States Introduce 'Right to Discriminate' Bills | The Bilerico Project

Remember earlier this month when legislators in Arizona advanced a bill that would create a special "right" for individuals and businesses to refuse to serve LGBT people, as long as they claimed Jesus told them to? Well, similar bills could become law in two more states, if Republican legislators have their way. In Kansas, House Bill 2453 would allow both people and private businesses to deny a long list of services to LGBT couples, just as long as the person or business is "operating consistently with its sincerely held religious beliefs." (Funny, I wasn't aware that businesses had religious beliefs...)

[,,,]
The bill has a decent chance of passage, since the Republican Party controls both houses of the Kansas Legislature and notorious homophobe Sam Brownback sits in the governor's mansion.

Sounds bad, right? That's because it is. But believe it or not, South Dakota's bill could be even worse.

The relevant portion of South Dakota's "right to discriminate" bill, Senate Bill 67, reads as follows:
No person or any personal business may be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of any marriage, or treat any marriage as valid for any purpose if such action would cause any such person or personal business to violate the person's sincerely held religious beliefs.
Two More States Introduce 'Right to Discriminate' Bills | The Bilerico Project

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Indiana GOP Leader Moves Failing Marriage Equality Ban To More Conservative Committee (UPDATE)

WASHINGTON -- With a proposed state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on life support, Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma (R) suddenly gave it new life Tuesday, moving the legislation from the skeptical committee that was reviewing it to a friendlier, more conservative panel that is likely to vote it through to the full chamber.

"I responded to the overwhelming majority of the Republican caucus who have extensively lobbied me to bring this to the floor in one fashion or another," Bosma told the Indianapolis Star.

Marriage equality is already illegal in Indiana. But HJR-3 would make the ban more permanent by amending the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Once it passes out of the House, it would need to clear the Senate before the public votes on it as a ballot measure.

Bosma's move took opponents of the ban by surprise. The bill was on track to receive a vote in the state House Judiciary Committee, which would normally review such legislation. But when three Republican members expressed reservations about the language in the amendment, Bosma decided to instead move it to the House Elections and Apportionment Committee, which crafts election law. It's scheduled to receive a vote Wednesday afternoon.

"I strongly suspect that the move to the Elections Committee was done to ensure that the legislation would be approved and sent on to the full House," said House Democrats spokesman John Schorg.

[,,,]
UPDATE: 10 p.m. -- After hours of testimony Wednesday afternoon, the elections committee voted 9-3, along party lines, to advance HJR-3. (One Democratic representative was out because his child was ill.) It now heads to the full House, where it may get a vote next week.

Indiana GOP Leader Moves Failing Marriage Equality Ban To More Conservative Committee (UPDATE)

Friday, January 24, 2014

Republican Insiders Fret That Right-Wing Crazies Will Upset GOP's Election Chances | Alternet

With the Republican Party being torn apart by its internal civil war, an ideological battle that pits establishment Republicans against the no-compromise Tea Party/Christian Right, party backers are doing their best to suppress the craziness as the 2014 midterms approach. But are they succeeding?

[,,,]
The establishment wing is discovering that it’s hard to keep the crazy quiet when your party’s voter base consists of neo-confederates, white supremacists, know-nothing libertarians, and evangelical theocrats. Moreover, social conservatives are no wilting wallflowers when it comes to raising campaign money. A recent Politico piece reported that roughly 25 socially conservative groups combined to pull in more than $280 million in 2011 and 2012. Notwithstanding the fact that much of the Koch brother’s political spending goes to the ideologically insane, too.

[,,,]
"This election is when the Tea Party movement will professionalize how it engages in politics," says Drew Ryun, the political director of the Madison Project, a conservative campaign group. "We are getting a game plan."

All in all, seven of the 12 GOP senators up for reelection in 2014 are facing primary opponents, which is a record number of challenges. The far right also plans to target 25 House races, highlighting the deep divisions within the Republican Party. Tea Party Express says, “The false narrative continues to be written that the Tea Party is dead and that 2014 will not be like 2010, but every month we see a strong example to the contrary.”

Republican Insiders Fret That Right-Wing Crazies Will Upset GOP's Election Chances | Alternet

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Congressman's New Jobs Plan: Deny Women Access To Abortion So They Can Make More Babies | ThinkProgress

",,,carrying pregnancies to term “very much promotes job creation.” Seriously? I have heard som dumb shit come our of the Reich, but I think this one takes the cake,,,

During a debate over an anti-abortion bill currently advancing in Congress, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) suggested that Republicans support restricting access to abortion because it will ultimately benefit the economy if women have more children. Goodlatte noted that carrying pregnancies to term “very much promotes job creation.”

Goodlatte made the comments while presiding over a committee mark-up of the “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act,” or HR 7, on Wednesday afternoon. That legislation would dramatically restrict women’s access to affordable abortion care by imposing restrictions on insurance coverage and tax credits for the procedure. Goodlatte, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, advanced HR 7 by scheduling it for a full committee mark-up on Wednesday.

Explaining his support for the measure, Goodlatte made both a moral and an economic case for anti-choice laws. “I would suggest that it is very much the case that those of us in the majority support this legislation because it is the morally right thing to do but it is also very very true that having a growing population and having new children brought into the world is not harmful to job creation,” he said. “It very much promotes job creation for all the care and services and so on that need to be provided by a lot of people to raise children.”



Congressman's New Jobs Plan: Deny Women Access To Abortion So They Can Make More Babies | ThinkProgress

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

I guess someone felt left out of all the craziness.

Also many wonder why not single-payer, this is why. It would have been opposed from the get go, just as the ACA.
Coulter blasted the health care law, suggesting it was “designed to fail so they can move it to a single-payer system,” and said that now it’s very clear how effective the shutdown was. She said, “The shutdown was so magnificent, run beautifully, I’m so proud of these Republicans.”

[,,,] Coulter even lamented how some of “our media” was too busy going after Cruz, and argued the liberal media wouldn’t be this critical if a House Democratic majority attempted what the Republicans did.
Must be the early signs of dementia (btw - hope she has good insurance), given that the Dems had the same opportunity in 2003 when Medicare D came out, but neither party tried to repeal it 42 times, then when that was not accomplished, shut the government down. And why is ACA considered a socialist mandate and Med D not, both are reforms to better our health care system?

So are the Repukes now taking credit for the shutdown now that the pundits thinks it was so "beautifully" executed? Thought it was the Dems fault?

Anyone else confused??

Monday, October 21, 2013

Are you ready for round two?

All the while "he" made $900,000 while costing the US $24,000,000,0000,,,

“I would do anything, and I will continue to do anything I can to stop the train wreck that is Obamacare."




The Tea Party and Ted Cruz Getting Ready for ‘Shutdown: The Sequel’

Again, I have to ask: if Obamacare is a trainwreck with an approval of 38 percent, what kind of wreck is the tea party with an approval of 21 percent? The interview continued:

KARL: So you might do it?

CRUZ: What I intend to do is continue to stand with American people to stop Obamacare.

[,,,]
It’s difficult to fully encapsulate in words the dangerous repercussions of the whimsical, nihilistic behavior of this faction. American politics and government hinges upon a basic respect for certain unwritten rules and traditions. The tea party, as we’ve witnessed for years and most prominently this month, is actively engaged in a contemptuous effort to rewrite those rules. We’ve witnessed signs of this trend early on when yokels like Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted “You lie!” at the president during a prime time joint session address. We’ve seen it when tea party members of Congress embraced Birthers and endorsed wild conspiracy theories. And since 2011, the brinksmanship with the debt ceiling has allowed a small, fringe congressional minority to not only have a staggeringly loud voice but also to be granted latitude to shove the entire economy to the edge of disaster in the name of its pet peeves and political action committees.

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Cruz: GOP Lost Because They Didn't Accuse Dems of Holding Children 'Hostage' | Video Cafe

Am I the only one confused by Rafael's circular logic?? Cruz et al is all for people receiving government subsidized healthcare except when he is against people receiving government subsidized healthcare. Let's see,,,

Cruz and his merry band of idiots caused the government shut down since they wanted to kill ObamaCare, which is intended to help 30 million Americans obtain health care insurance (with the aid of government subsides.) However, it had been pointed out that shutting down the government, also closed NIH which gives healthcare to small number of patients through its various research programs. Cruz wished to restore NIH funding (to help a couple of thousand patients receive on going care paid for by the government. And since the Democrats would not accept a piecemeal funding solutions, it is therefore the Democrats fault that children being treated by NIH were no longer receiving treatment. So, the Republicans should have used children with cancer as a bargaining point to win the fight against health care reform.

Any one else have a problem with that tactic??

Cruz: GOP Lost Because They Didn't Accuse Dems of Holding Children 'Hostage' | Video Cafe

Saturday, October 19, 2013

62 percent of House Republicans oppose deal - Ginger Gibson - POLITICO.com

Two things that are apparent:

1] The 144 Republicans who opposed re-opening the government need to be "removed" from office whether by charges of sedition, recall vote, or the standard election process

2] The so-called Hastert Rule, needs to go. It is a bully rule, a "majority of the majority" dictate. Although I give Boehner credit as he has bypassed the Hastert Rule 4 times. My contempt to this "rule" is that it leads to a breakdown of the legislative process under the false assumption that it is something official when in fact it is an artificial concept.

Not a single House Democrat voted against the plan to reopen the government and extend the debt ceiling, a stark contrast to the 144 Republicans who opposed the bill despite urging from their leadership.

A full 62 percent of House Republicans voted against the deal — a clear violation of the so-called “Hastert rule,” which mandates a majority of the Republican Conference support any bill that hits the floor.

But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) delivered 198 Democrats to back the bill, joining 87 Republicans.



62 percent of House Republicans oppose deal - Ginger Gibson - POLITICO.com