Despite bipartisan efforts, NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN votes for Stimulus bill.

President Obama went above & beyond the call of duty trying to court Republican Congressmen into voting for his $825B Stimulus Bill. But despite all his efforts, NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN CROSSED PARTY LINES to vote for the bill. It passed anyway because they don't have enough votes, even with ten Democrats voting with them. Obama TRIED to work with Republicans, made concessions, and tried to make them feel like their concerns were being addressed, but STILL they voted in lock-step against the bill.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Conservative
• GOP
• Republicans
• partisan
• economic
• recovery

[armyofonerd]

Wow, couric looks like an idiot - "why what more could obama do"? Gee couric, how about get rid of some of the pork and consider giving tax breaks to those who would actually stimulate something. Or, I'm not sure if having obama show up to yell we won and then demand their support was such a good idea. You don't hear much more of that ranting any more do you and wow, look at how much better the ecomony is today . . . . wait, it's not better - amazing.

[QuantumMechBot]

I seemed to remember the phrase "We won" as the excuse when it was stated Pelosi did not allow a single republican any input on the bill.

Gee I wonder why they got no votes. IT's a Mystery.

[cagwa]

My how time changes your feeble rant. This bill will be passed this week. Sit back, eat some popcorn, and watch.

[BI30]

If your argument is that "Soviet Communism wasn't PURE Communism", you're desperate.

We call America a "Democracy", though "technically" we're a Republic (not every citizen votes on every issue).

But your argument was Soviet Russia wasn't "Communist, it was Socialist", and it clearly wasn't. If you had to pick the system is most closely resembled, it was Communism.

True there was inequity, but that didn't make them "Socialist". You clearly had no clue of the difference.

[gmoney66]

Also, it does hurt your argument that USSR stands for United Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, yes? Or how about another name for Soviet Russia, Russian Soviet Federative SOCIALIST Republic.

[gmoney66]

It may have been close to communism, but it wasn't communism. In a communist society, EVERYONE IS EQUAL! Was Stalin's power equal to that of a poor Russian farmer? No. Therefore, it was not communism, and you are an idiot. Stalin was supposed to take power to ease the country into communism, but he never gave it up. Oh, and in communism, the government owns nothing. You see, it's public ownership, owned by the people. Why is that? Because in communism, there is no strong centralized government.

[BI30]

Can I prove you're an idiot? I believe so.

Socialism only Federalizes "certain" industries, like realestate & healthcare. Private industry is still permitted.

Communism has NO private ownership of ANY business. Nada, zip, zero. EVERY business is government owned and operated. This was Soviet Russia and Red China. Both has since permitted "private industry".

Under The New Deal, GNP grew by over 8% every year except 1939, the year Hitler invaded Poland.

Tada! You're an idiot!

[gmoney66]

Can you prove it, or, like most liberals, are you just gonna make a claim and hope no one calls you on it?

[BI30]

So foolishly wrong on one, it's no surprise you're wrong on the other.

I'll let you figure out which is which.

[gmoney66]

Russia was, by definition, not communist. They had a leader. In communism leaders are only there to make sure no one takes power. And, if anything, the New Deal (or Raw Deal, as I call it) kept us in the depression LONGER than we should have been.