Well Well Megyn Kelly turns out to be a liberal after all.

[BigRob]

once again you have this warped idea that you can compromise with a party who says...No, and nothing by no and offers nothing in return...

If the Dems had realy done what the left wanted..we would have single payer or at least the public option..we lost both of those and had to settle for the plan we got. Also the basic main idea behind the health care bill...WAS the Republican health care plan just a few years back Under Bush H W and Dole.

In terms of the latest spending debate, you just described exactly how Senate Democrats acted...they said no to everything, and offered nothing in return. As for the public option, it was Democrats that ultimately killed that, not Republicans.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

In terms of the latest spending debate, you just described exactly how Senate Democrats acted...they said no to everything, and offered nothing in return. As for the public option, it was Democrats that ultimately killed that, not Republicans.

Yes it was, due to republican Filibusters...And it was Moderate Dems who killed it..but the key was they moved and made deals...they compromised. Republicans flat out said we will not vote for it...regardless of what you do...

Its like a customer walking in to my work and telling me I will not buy X no matter what you offer me....I am not going to try to make a deal with them, I am going to say fine, leave and deal with the next guy who actually will listen and we can find a workable deal.

What is the negotiated deal for...We will not vote for it...no matter what and we need a major reform of the health care system. And the side that was Just elected to hold all 3 branches is the one for the health care reform, a key platform they where just elected for. If republicans wanted anything in the bill...( and they got alot of republican ideas even if they did not get there votes anyway)...then they had to at least start with the ...if you can do X then Maybe I can vote for it...They did not...they said I will not vote for this bill ever...Now change this....well who the heck changes a bill for someone when they tell you its not going to change there vote...So I should give up what I want...and get nothing in return and call that a compromise...when I am the one who holds the power?

 

[Rick]

once again you have this warped idea that you can compromise with a party who says...No, and nothing by no and offers nothing in return...

The above is an exact description of the congressional democrats and obozo, 2009-2010. The claim that the republicans have offered nothing in return is a bald-faced lie - they offered budget cuts, they offered a national debt reduction plan. Leftwing reply: NO.

If the Dems had realy done what the left wanted..we would have single payer or at least the public option..we lost both of those and had to settle for the plan we got. Also the basic main idea behind the health care bill...WAS the Republican health care plan just a few years back Under Bush H W and Dole.

Substitute "the gene-missing, foaming at the mouth leftwing fringoids" for "left" above, and you have a correct statement.

 

[steveox]

Well the Tea Party said STOP SPENDING!!!

What part of english you dont understand?

 

[Dr.Who]

Just the type of non thinking idea we expect from many in the tea party....that somehow DC should be ruled by your ideas and your ideas only...and there should never ever be compromise.

If you want 61 Billion in cuts...and the other side does not...and they have 2 of the 3 branches...News Flash...your not getting 61 Billion.

Funny how republicans supported so many large spending increases, and income reductions for years....yet when Dems have the white house...but Cry about a 38 Billion reduction.

I suspect the two forces causing the "change of heart" are the politics of denying the administration power and the suddenly bloated deficit caused first by Bush then tripled by Obama.

Is it true that they don'tt support spending increases or do they just not support funding obamacare which is presently not a law? So far we have seen that they are not willing to support cuts high enough to balance this years budget.

 

[Dr.Who]

Just the type of non thinking idea we expect from many in the tea party....that somehow DC should be ruled by your ideas and your ideas only...and there should never ever be compromise.

There will always be two parties. One evil and one good.

Since 50% of the laws coming from congress must be evil the only way you can reduce this evil is to reduce the total number of laws passed.

Since 50% of the powerful elite are evil the only way you can reduce the evil influence in govewrnment is to reduce the total power of government.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The liberals are all about "compromise" when they are the minority party, but when they are the majority party, compromise is non-existent.

The same hypocrisy applies when the Republicans control the Presidency and the Senate and House. One party rule is "dangerous", and "not what the founding fathers envisioned", and "there are no checks and balances", according to the liberal politicians and talking heads.

But, if the Democrats have one-party rule, which they had for Obama's first two years in office, it is a great thing. On the other hand, as the moron Chris Matthews stated last week, a "split" government is a really bad thing.

The liberals believe in one party rule, their party, and their party alone.

The liberals believe hypocrisy is a virtue. Mental illness reigns supreme on the left side.

 

[steveox]

Martha McCallum did a good job filling for Megyn Kelly on America Live. Why dont Fox News just fire Megyn Kelly like theyre going to do with Glenn Beck and replace her with Martha McCallum?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Martha McCallum did a good job filling for Megyn Kelly on America Live. Why dont Fox News just fire Megyn Kelly like theyre going to do with Glenn Beck and replace her with Martha McCallum?

Firing a female for taking time off of work to have a baby went "out of style" back in the 60s, I believe.

So what do you have against Megyn Kelly, steveox? Does she intimidate you with her "in your face" attitude and her intelligence?

 

[steveox]

No,,, She belongs on a differant type of fox show. Why dont they create Pirro and Kelly. Its a debate with Jeanine Pirro on court trials all over the country. Judge Jeannie and Attorney Megyn Kelly debates all kinds of trials going on the nation today. Martha McCallum should take over America Live.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The liberals are all about "compromise" when they are the minority party, but when they are the majority party, compromise is non-existent.

The same hypocrisy applies when the Republicans control the Presidency and the Senate and House. One party rule is "dangerous", and "not what the founding fathers envisioned", and "there are no checks and balances", according to the liberal politicians and talking heads.

But, if the Democrats have one-party rule, which they had for Obama's first two years in office, it is a great thing. On the other hand, as the moron Chris Matthews stated last week, a "split" government is a really bad thing.

The liberals believe in one party rule, their party, and their party alone.

The liberals believe hypocrisy is a virtue. Mental illness reigns supreme on the left side.

this just in...DEMOCRATS ARE THE MAJORITY! Senate, and White house...Last I checked having power of one of 3 branches does not make you the majority.

And I am not a Democrat

 

[TruthSeeker]

this just in...DEMOCRATS ARE THE MAJORITY! Senate, and White house...Last I checked having power of one of 3 branches does not make you the majority.

And I am not a Democrat

Read what I wrote very slowly, PFOS. I talked about one-party rule. I talked about the Democrats controlling the Presidency, the Senate, and the House. I said nothing about the Democrats being the majority.

Next time you have a thought, just hold on to it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Read what I wrote very slowly, PFOS. I talked about one-party rule. I talked about the Democrats controlling the Presidency, the Senate, and the House. I said nothing about the Democrats being the majority.

Next time you have a thought, just hold on to it.

you forgot that little filibuster rule making it so the could not pass anything without 60 votes, making anything very hard.

 

[TruthSeeker]

you forgot that little filibuster rule making it so the could not pass anything without 60 votes, making anything very hard.

What exactly does the filibuster have to do with anything?

The filibuster applies to both parties, by the way. Scary Reid used it like a hammer when the Repubs controlled the Presidency and Senate and House.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

What exactly does the filibuster have to do with anything?

The filibuster applies to both parties, by the way. Scary Reid used it like a hammer when the Repubs controlled the Presidency and Senate and House.

Republicans used on just about every bill they could , meaning Dems could not in fact pass anything they wanted. There are times it is a merited plan, when a issue you feel strongly needs more time ( but the key is when done you let it come to a vote still) Not simply as a way of saying no to everything you don't like...meaning for republicans...everything
there is no one party rule when you change the rules to make it needed 60+ votes to pass evrything...just one party obstruction.