Comments
on Jan 13, 2010

Democrats are. Politicians aren't. Democratic politicians are far more politician than democrat (no less so than republican politicans), if they weren't we'd have a single payer healthcare bill on Obama's desk as we speak.

I would like to think that restrictions on lobbyists and corporate influence is something on which both democrats and republicans could agree. At least the voters themselves if not the politicians.

on Jan 13, 2010

Democrats are. Politicians aren't

Well that explains it then, there must not be any "democrats" in the government then... all those people calling themselves democrats are just a bunch of liars who don't represent the true democrat values.

Thanks for clearing it up for me.

on Jan 14, 2010

Just another example of hypocrasy 101.  Democrats did not invent the word, but they are bound and determined to make it their own.

on Jan 14, 2010

I would like to think that restrictions on lobbyists and corporate influence is something on which both democrats and republicans could agree. At least the voters themselves if not the politicians.

I thought Obama said corporations and lobbyists wouldn't be a part of this process?  Another liar, imagine that.....

 

on Jan 14, 2010

I thought Obama said corporations and lobbyists wouldn't be a part of this process? Another liar, imagine that.....
It's not as if republican politicans aren't even further in bed with "corporations and lobbyists". If you want to make a case for hypocrasy and lying go right ahead but at least the democrats make some effort to address this and not *all* democrats are on the take ... unlike the republicans.

It's tough to be too concerned about people throwing stones when they themselves live in glass houses.

on Jan 14, 2010

It's not as if republican politicans aren't even further in bed with "corporations and lobbyists".

nice try at mis-direction.  Did the republican President (oops!  There is not one) - Ok, did the republican Speaker (damn!  Not one either) - alright did the Republican Leader of the Senate (Oops again!  Not one!).  Ok, did the republican leaders on Health Insurance Deformation say they would exclude corporations and lobbyists?  No?  Liars.

Oh damn!  There are no republican leaders on Health Insurance!  It is all democrat, and all a bunch of lies, and broken promises.

on Jan 14, 2010

Democrats are. Politicians aren't.

So if you are a politician, the party title means nothing then? So in reality we don't have a Democratic controlled House, Senate and White House. We simply have a politician leading these Houses. So they basically lied when they claimed to be Democrats while running for office. Hmmm.

I would like to think that restrictions on lobbyists and corporate influence is something on which both democrats and republicans could agree.

Politicians or voters? Now you have me confused with your Politician and non-politician excuse, I mean discription.

It's not as if republican politicans aren't even further in bed with "corporations and lobbyists".

So 2 wrongs do make a right then. Funny how Republicans are bad for using lobbyist but Democrats (politicians that is) not only can use them but can even lie about not wanting to use them and still get excused. Amazing, it's worth being a Democrat these days. I can commit murder and get away with it so long as I'm a registered Democrat.

If you want to make a case for hypocrasy and lying go right ahead

We need not to make cases, Democrats make themselves guilty within 3 seconds of opening their mouths.

at least the democrats make some effort to address this and not *all* democrats are on the take ... unlike the republicans.

So lying is making an effort? Gosh, not only do Democrats have lying down to a science (as oppose to a religion) but they are also masters at excuses and hypocrisy. And I mean both politicians and voters.

on Jan 15, 2010

It's not as if republican politicans aren't even further in bed with "corporations and lobbyists".

1. Who exactly?

2. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

at least the democrats make some effort to address this and not *all* democrats are on the take ... unlike the republicans.

Lets seperate your claims, they are:

1. Democrats are "making some effort" to address the problem of lobbyists.

2. Not *all* democrats on the take from lobbyists

3. ALL republicans are on the take from lobbyists.

To this I must say:

1. So making an effort against lobbyists means taking their money to give them the laws they want?

2&3. You are basically claiming that the vast majority of all politicians are on the take, with a few shining rare exceptions who stand against it... and that every last one of those is a democrat. That is simply bull.

Do you really believe not a single republican is unbought? does that mean that we just have to name one single republican who is not on the take to disprove everything you said?