Republican Whiners

I think it's just you.

Do you really want to start a thread inviting others to trash Republicans? Do you want others to get started on what they think about whenever a Democrat opens their mouth?

Probably wouldn't be pretty or smart. Or, am I whining?

I could not agree more. I feel the same way, and I am just so sick of it, that I just avoid political topics with republicans..
They just flat out refuse to hear the other side, and in their desperation they do nothing but whine...
I don't know how every single Republican (well except 2 who didn't vote) in the house of representatives voted against the bill, that is just sad..
All they could say was that it isn't what the American people want..well if it was up to the American people we would have a pure democracy where the American people could vote on every single issue, but we don't...they can't just make a judgement about what the American people want without having any actual facts where they asked their constituents and recorded what they said..It's all just BS..

From my standpoint, just about any thread could be titled Dishonest Politicians. I have very little faith left in some and none-what-so-ever in others.

Whether to disagree is to whine I guess depends on which side you're on, winning or losing. But when someone speaks for me, because I absolutely did not support that bill, I don't consider them as whining.

It's going to be a long eight months.

After the previous health care bill failed there was talk from both sides of the aisle about the need for bipartisanship- which was all a load of bunk. That lasted about a day before the Republicans went back to playing their games, and the Democrats pulled out the "my way or the highway card just because we have a majority and we can" nonsense. The only thing these self-serving ingrates care about is money, money, money, and being a shill for the party. There's no such thing as an independent thought in Congress. "To hell with constituents, we know what is best for you." Yeah...right.

Looking forward to November to run some of these imbeciles out of office.

Maybe if there weren't any lobbyists then there would be better results on both sides of the political aisle.

I'm not really sure that we'll see that happen. The thing about congressman is, they are elected entirely by their home states. The majority of 49 other states may consider one of them an idiot and an rapscallion...but if they "bring home the bacon" in their home state, that's all that counts. And a lot of them do just that.

As for the whining part; after several decades of watching politics, I've observed that the winners gloat, and use the win to grub for votes and money, while the losers whine, and use the loss to grub for votes and money...and it's never made any difference what party held what position.

Really? You don't want AARP to be able to lobby any more? Or PETA? Or the AMA? Or anything?

While that's an interesting idea, it wouldn't work. In fact, it's never been like that. There have always been paid representatives going to the politicians to represent large groups of people. And I mean, from before we were even a country.

The health insurance bill (note that it is NOT a "health care" bill) may be a great thing. Or it may all crash to the ground of its own weight. Or it might help a few people. I'm sure it's going to make some lawyers rich. The Republicans passed up on their chance to do it...mainly because the Democrats filibustered everything they tried. I guess they could have use all the tricks used by the Democrats now...but they didn't, at least not on health insurance.

By the way, does anyone remember that there was actually a solution passed for much of this problem, called the Catastrophic Health Insurance Bill of 1987? Never heard of it? It's because AARP and others managed to get it repealed before it ever took effect.

Which is why I don't trust ANY politician, regardless of party. I suppose there are some "honest" ones who truly want to accomplish something for the country, but it seems the majority have two goals (1) to get re-elected and (2) to get their party in the majority. If any of them really cared to make a health care bill that would benefit everyone, they would work together instead of just whining about each other and spreading disinformation.

I don't know if this bill that just passed is good or bad, but I guess the insurance companies have 4 years to stick it to us anyway before it takes affect.

As long as there are "special interests" and politicians willing to do anything to get re-elected, it wouldn't really matter anyway.

I personally believe that it's the large corporations that lobby much more than the special interest groups like AARP, PETA and AMA. The fortune 500 company that I used to work for had a lobbiest group, and tried to engage their employees in it by holding meetings and asking for donations. None of the employees wanted any part of it, so the company funded it and sent the lobbiests to Washington anyway. The company was lobbying for things that would ultimately cause their employees to lose their jobs (such as tax reductions for hiring offshore contractors) and did it because it helped their stock holders. It's a rare company that lobbies for things that actually help their employees, as to do so would impact their bottom line dollar.

What disappoints me about the republicans is the fact that they are so blindly loyal to their party that none of them had the nerve to stand up and vote for what their constituents need. There are tax reductions and school improvements in the health care bill also. It tells me that their loyalty is to big corporations that ultimately don't care about the welfare of their employees. And while a very large percentage of democrats voted for the bill, there were still that had enough of a mind of their own to vote against it.

So I wonder why the democrats make attempts to conceed points to the republicans when they don't bother to vote for those concessions once made.

I've been on the site long enough to see what types of political threads are opened here. Most of them are on the line of the "dishonest democrats". I wonder what would happen if someone opened up an "obstructionist republicans" thread.

But the point of my previous post is that we are all part of a "special interest."

I suspect for most Republicans (a party to which I do not belong, by the way), after listening to 8 years of of "Selected, Not Elected," and "Not MY President," and 7 years of "Bush Lied, People Died," and "Not In MY Name" and "Impeach George Bush," payback is sweet. None of those phrases was true, just as very little that is floating around the internet about President Obama is true.

Somehow, we need to get away from the "All Or Nothing" attitude prevalent in politics today. It's all about compromise, but no one seems to realize it.

1. How much do ANY of us "hear the other side?"


2. Ummm, just so you know, that is what politicians are supposed to do. Politicians are supposed to work for us, they are supposed to vote the way the majority of their constituents want them to vote.

2A. Lol, this is classic, I am sooooooo putting that on my FB Wall, I love it.
Thank you, I needed that, I really did.
Oh yes, that would be a most horrible thing, we can't have that, after all voting isn't fair.


3. Ummm, you do realize there were dozens of polls done on this issue don't you? You do realize that there were hundreds of Town Hall Meeting held by the Representatives for their consitutents for the past eight months? You do realize voter's have been writing letters, sending emails and calling their rep's for the past eight months or more?
If you are an elected representative is is your RESPONSIBILITY to KNOW how your constituents feel. If they don't have, "any actual facts" then they are not doing their job. I have to ask, just what do YOU think their job is Ut0pia?

Or Nixon's Health Care plan.

1. Here is a link for the Top Ten Lobbyists in this Country.
You may want to reconsider your belief Momofmany. Guess who Number 1 is?
http://www.toptenlinks.com/cat.php/S...obbying+Groups
2. I agree with your statement of tax credits for off shore contractors, I think that is wrong also. But there is another side to that, the greed of the American People and of the Unions. Unions have made it so many business cannot compete in a global market and make any kind of profit. We all want the big, fat wages and the cheapskate prices.

3. Why do many liberals have this mindset that our representatives, that we ELECT, are supposed to vote for what, you feel, we "need" as opposed to the way it was designed to be, representatives vote the way the majority of their constituents want them to vote? They work for US, at least they are supposed to.

4. You say Republican's, Isn't that a tad disingenuous seeing as how Barack Obama has taken over General Motors, which is now, Government Motors, bailed out banks that in turn gave the CEO's big, fat bonus' with the bail out money and made sweetheart deals with Pharma and others. And we won't even mention health care insurance. You don't consider GM, Banks, Pharma "big corporations?" Really?

5. I think you should open an, "obstructionist republicans" thread, I will civilly debate with you on it.
FTR, you do have a point, I should have added the word, "Politicians" to the title of that thread.

By the way, that Catastrophic Health Insurance Plan was under Ronald Reagan, and it was repealed due to extremely heavy lobbying by the AARP, an almost entirely Democrat lobbying group. It essentially provided catastrophic health insurance to everyone in the country, and it would have held off the stories you hear about people getting sick and going bankrupt.

The Nixon Health Care Plan was actually a better plan than the Obama plan, but it was killed by Ted Kennedy--a mistake he regretted to his dying day. We could have had better insurance 35 years ago, but it was refused by Democrats.

Do those two facts put a different spin on this whole debate? We could have had this 35 years ago, but the Party of NO (Democrats, at that time) refused to go along with it!

Thanks ALOT mrblanche, I have a feeling you just killed this thread.

Maybe something has changed, namely the interest of the AARP membership. Back then the nation was riding high, and the boomers were either employed, able to get good private coverage, or just plain thought they didn't need it. Now we have boomers dominating AARP, and member who are between 50-65 and getting reamed by private health insurance, so AARP is representing a different interest. At any rate yes it is a darn shame that it didn't get passed back then but there isn't much we can do about it now.

You are so wrong, it is not the "Boomers" who are in favor of this government take-over. It is the "Boomers" who are against this govt take-over.

Many have left AARP because of their endorsement of the government tak-over of health care.

And what excuse for the killing of the Nixon Health Care Plan by democratic politicians.

I can understand why many liberals want these two tidbits swept under the rug and fogotten about.

They did it the exact same way as the 30+ Democrats who voted against it - they said no because they don't agree with it, the same way 50% of their constituents don't agree with it

Not all of us call it a government take over. As a fellow "Boomer" I have to say I want a health care plan. My family is desperate for it.

I know quite a few Boomers who are in favor of it, and aren't fooled by the "government takeover" or "socialism" scare tactics. They know obstructionists when they see them (keep in mind that most of them recall the Civil Rights Act).

I don't mind the whining so much as the total disregard the Republican Party has shown for the millions of people who haven't been able to afford health insurance, or whose coverage has been so inadequate as to be laughable.

I usually split my votes, but it'll be payback time come November, and probably for the next couple of elections as far as my votes are concerned.

Actually, as far as the "Bush lied, people died" one, this fellow makes a very, very good case for that one actually being true.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03...dle-the-truth/

Though it wasn't worded quite properly, I have to agree with the idea of her post. A pure democracy would be bad. Our being a Constitution based Federal Republic instead creates protections for "the little guy", something that a democracy would not do at all.

No new spin really. I would have been ok with it if it had been spearheaded by Republicans...it is simply time someone did something.

So, Reagan's Catastrophic Health Insurance Plan and the Nixon Health Care Plan don't count because they came from Republican's?

My favorite so far has been the "Republican math". Even though nearly every poll I've seen on the subject has the two camps divided within 10 points of one another every time, you still hear Republicans speaking of the "vast majority of Americans want...".

I just got this email from the McCain camp a short while ago, that included this line;
...and I can't help but to wonder if he isn't just making his numbers up, because I've not seen such numbers on one poll yet.

And you DO see the irony that had not the "champion of health care," Ted Kennedy, stopped it, we would have had it over 35 years ago, right?

Absolutely correct. If we were a pure democracy, we would probably still have slavery. Or we would have banned it 40 years earlier. Who knows?

The biggest mistake we have made, some say, was to change how our Senators were elected. They were originally not elected by popular vote (in most states), but appointed by the state government, usually by the state legislature. That way, the Senate represented the states, and the House represented the people.