The Opera Begins: House Starts Debate On Healthcare Repeal Today

Tyler Durden's picture

Behold your Wall Street marionettes at work: instead of focusing on what is actually important for the survival of the middle class, what has a chance of actually reducing the now $14+ trillion in debt, and has a chance of actually passing, the Congressional pissing match is back, and while guaranteed to have absolutely no impact, will result in a lot of sound and fury signifying not only nothing, but just what a posse of jokers represent this country's wealthiest social strata, if nobody else. Because who cares that, as Ron Paul made all too clear, America is now beyond bankrupt: let's spend a few weeks debating a moot point, all the while Rome burns, the violins on the Titanic deck hit a crescendo, Wall Street accrues another record bonus year, and the politicos collect indulgences from their Fed subsidiary masters.

From the Associated Press:

The House opens a largely symbolic debate Friday on whether to repeal President Barack Obama's landmark health care overhaul, the culmination of the first week with Republicans back in charge.

A procedural vote around midday will set the rules for formal debate and final action next Wednesday.

House Republicans want to repeal Obama's plan to expand coverage to more than 30 million uninsured and start over again with a more modest, less costly approach. But Democratic leaders in the Senate say they'll block repeal.

Both sides are preparing for a standoff. They'll probably take the big issues in the health care debate back to the voters in 2012, when Obama is expected to run for re-election and the House and Senate are up for grabs again.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
westboundnup's picture

Hey everybody!  We're all goin' get laid!

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

House Republicans want to repeal Obama's plan to expand coverage to more than 30 million uninsured and start over again with a more modest, less costly approach. [...]


Do they not realize that the health care act actually reduces the deficit down the line, and rather significantly so, so "repealing" it would increase the deficit?

Do they realize that they had the chance to vote for an even more progressive versions of the health care act when it was being voted on, but they chose to vote "no" on every single issue?

Republicans, the party that knows two types of deficits: the good deficit, which gives benefits to the rich, and the bad deficit, which gives insurance to the middle class.

Republicans, the party of rich liars and hypocrats.


ConfederateH's picture

Do they not realize that the health care act actually reduces the deficit down the line, and rather significantly so, so "repealing" it would increase the deficit?


A liberal who claims that Obama's propaganda is true is as obnoxious as a narccisist who revels in the odor of his own farts.

The fireworks start with battle over the raising of the budget ceiling.  This will be the litmus test to determine who are the real Republicans and who are the closet Democrats (Rinos).

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

Not sure I get your argument - did you make any?

Republicans used estimations of the Congressional Budget Office to argue against health care reform.

So since the CBO estimates that the health care act reduces the deficit significantly, how can the Grand Old Party now argue with a straight face that it should be repealed? Do they want the deficit to go up?

I.e. the Republican leadership are hypocrites to the core.

They should act like men and submit their version of health care reform, not this faux "repeal first, then fix it (maybe, sometime ...)" brouhaha. You know it, I know it that it wont be accepted by the Senate or the President, so all they want to do is a political grandstanding, without really risking of having to do something constructive for America.

Judging by their actions the GOP is the "party of no", they are skilled saboteurs and hypocrites, not much else.

Not to mention the fact that 'repealing' this law will put millions of americans at health risk again after the health care act goes into full effect in 2014.

Every other modern economy in the world provides health security to its citizens as a birthright: Canada, Germany, you name it.

It's a simple concept: every citizen gets universal coverage and you dont ever again have to worry about not getting proper care (doctors tell which treatment you will get, not health care insurance administrators), and health care costs wont bankrupt you ever again.

Why is that such a difficult concept to understand? Why should the USA not strive to provide essential personal security to its citizens, like it provides military protection, a working judiciary system, police protection, etc.?

Health is not some fancy, optional social benefit, it is a basic human right, and an attribute of basic, essential personal security. Experience in other countries is that people think of it as insurance, not as free benefits: freeloaders are emphatically not flocking to have extra heart transplants just because it's "free" ... :-)


ConfederateH's picture

every citizen gets universal...Health is not some fancy, optional social benefit, it is a basic human right, and an attribute of basic, essential personal security.

You liberals really are fucking idiots.  You think just because you don't want to work to earn enough to take care of yourselves someone else should. 

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


So you want to take care of national security as well, and of the judicial system as well?

You anarchists are idiots :-)


DosZap's picture

So you want to take care of national security as well, and of the judicial system as well?.


Hell yes!, that way we know the REAL Law of the land will be followed,and we are more than capable of our own Natl Security.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Like the private security men at bars who dont bother about people taking drugs, right? Fantastic vision of selective law enforcement :-)

Let those who can bribe best win, right?


morph's picture

Drugs, you mean alcohol right? I mean how can alcohol be legal but 10 other substances that do far less harm be illegal?

The objective of law is not to protect not criminalise. If people using drugs are causing no harm, why make a fuss?

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


You fancy a wonderful world in which a car driver may legally pay a "private security" policeman to enter into a "private contract" with him that he may drive after having a 6-pack of beers? Do you really think that no harm is done to the rest of society?

Are you really so daft to want to see more of this:


Keith Bridges, 49, was twice over the alcohol limit when he lost control of his Jeep as he drove two families home from an evening out in the Dordogne.

The car hit two trees and rolled into woodland. It took fire crews six hours to cut the dead and injured from the wreckage.


Mr Bridges's daughter Bethany, ten, and 43-year-old wife Julianne died instantly.

Two members of another family, who had been visiting the Bridges at their home in the region, also lost their lives. Gabriella Dyer, ten, and her father Andrew, 41, were killed and Mr Dyer's wife Tracey, 38, was flown to hospital in Bordeaux, where she is in a coma.

Victim-less crime my ass ... There's strong observed correlation between the strength of DUI law enforcement and reduced deaths of innocent victims.
Bearster's picture

And they think that having the Post Office run a major chunk of the economy will make it more efficient, which is why they think that adding tens of millions of people to get a major new entitlement will reduce spending--all that "efficiency" that gov't brings to the equation.

While I agree with TD that this is theater because with a majority of Dems in the senate and Obama in the white house they cannot repeal Obamacare, I don't think trying to repeal a multitrillion dollar new entitlement program is fiddling while Rome burns.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


So I take it you consistently stand behind the everyday consequences of your ideology? There should be no public roads, no public education, no police force, no military, no Coast Guard? All those are just inefficient 'benefits' in your view?

Also, how do you explain that the 'free market' health care system in the US is the most expensive one in the developed world and still manages to not cover tens of millions of citizens?

Not to mention the tens of thousands of recissions - I mean, the absolutely best moment to lose coverage is when you are really ill and when you need a really severe operation, right?

You need to answer all these issues for your opinion to be logically consistent. But when I ask such inconvenient questions it's usually just the cricket chirp ...


GreenSideUp's picture

We don't have anything that even vaguely resembles a free-market in health care.  What we do have is run by 3rd parties who effectively own CONgress, cumbersome rules and regulations, many of which are designed to keep out competition, the very thing that would SIGNIFICANTLY reduce health care costs.  Throw in the tort system for icing on the cake. 

I've discussed this with my doc extensively; she says, and I agree that we need to go back to more freedom and less controls.  She suggests an inexpensive catastrophic care policy and pay out of pocket for the rest; remove the 3rd party altogether.

In short, if we did have a free market, health care would be affordable. 



More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Apparently you did not read my point.

The situation the health-care industry is now in is the natural consequence of unfettered, unregulated free markets. Monopolies are the end game of free markets: the big fish have eaten all the small fish and they have divided up the market geographically.

But I could mention other examples as well: big oil, big pharma, TBTF banks or energy companies?

If you have idiots like Ron Paul who does not want there to be any regulation over market participants, this is the end result.

It starts out as a free market, but then once the (naturally increasing) size of participants gets comparable to the size of the market, it breaks down and does not work anymore. You get Enron faking electricity shortages artificially, to get californians to pay for more expensive emergency sources of electricity.

Ideal free markets do not work over a certain size, they never did. Even historically a good number of governments/countries formed out of big corporation-alike merchant family structures in essence. Monopolies are the ultimate end game of free markets.

And the other thing is, insuring for a common good like personal safety and healthcare benefits is better done by a non-profit, by a nation-state financed insurance entity. It's rarely more expensive: while buerocrats certainly have overhead, greedy executives have even more overhead, as the sky-high per capital medical costs of the US are showing it.


Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

Monopolies are the ultimate end game of free markets

Absolutely, 100%, spot-on.

All these survival-of-the-fittest, anti-Fed, pseudo anarcho-capitalists have never reasoned their ideology to its natural conclusion.  It just sounds cool.  It sounds tough.  It sounds educated.  And all it really is is a smokescreen to hide their us verses them bigotry.  


GreenSideUp's picture

No, actually, I've watched carefully what's happened over my lifetime and I've been around a while.  The more the intervenes and gets in bed with Big Biz and either protects or subsidizes it, the bigger and more expensive it gets.  

Go look at the cost of a college education these days.  


More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


I always found it fantastically perverse why citizens of the USA accept such sky-high tuition fees.

Check out most of Europe, they have extremely strong public education systems. There's barely any private school in Finland or Germany, and they are producing very well-educated and innovative people.

Subsidized student loans that allow you to learn and live at the very best universities is the norm. In Europe a family does not have to 'save for the kid's college'. Why should a family have to do that?? It's a very basic interest of society to pick up smart people and educate them, regardless of background.

The US is sacrificing its future by allowing Ivvy League like constructs which basically are breeding mediocre students into the next elite, financed by the current elite.


GreenSideUp's picture

Um, I read it; I thoroughly disagree.  Read up on the history of how we got where we are now.  Free markets?  LOL  Unfettered and unregulated?  Surely you jest!

Monopolies and the monopolies you mentioned are a result of legislation, regulations and controls passed by CONgress because these entities bought the congresscritters so they'd pass legislation, etc. that favors them, and gives them an advantage in the marketplace, thus stifling competition. It's protectionism for the select few at the expense of all others.  NONE, zip, zero, nada; no Big Oil, Big Agra, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big ______________, or the TBTF banks would exist were it not for their incestuous relationship with CONgress.  

These disgusting Bigs have nothing whatever to do with free markets.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


If you've ever seen a single history book I encourage you to open it again and look up the archeotype of all monopolies that deregulated free markets will naturally turn into: Standard Oil.

There was barely any legislation (let alone regulation) when it grew to its massive size by brutally cornering the oil market and extending that monopoly power into other markets.

At its height Standard Oil was even engaged in assassinating or sabotaging smaller competitors. You must be out of your mind if that is the world you want to live in again ...


More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


the TBTF banks would exist were it not for their incestuous relationship with CONgress. [...]

Of course they would not exist.

There would only be a single "Standard Bank" - just like a good hundred years ago the oil business quickly concentrated into a single big fish (Standard Oil) that ate all the small fish.

That was back in the good old Gilded Age days when there was no pesky regulation that kept Standard Oil from blowing up the pumps of competitors or buying up all land around their fields and charging them sky-high 'transit fees' (!).

Standard Bank would certainly be more subtle: it would introduce dumping prices and special deals in every town that was so silly to attempt to try to open its own banking corporation.

Totally legal in a 'free' market. Free market extremists do not realize that the natural end game of naive free markets is Socialism: only a single provider in every major product category.

What a brilliant, idiotic idea.


DosZap's picture


Bingo, Dude, SHOW me where in the Constitution where it says this.I so fuckin utterly despise libtards,they are nothing but socialistas,communists.

They love to spend OPM,as long as its not their own.

So far this Health Scam, is going to cost anyone who sells their homes a 4% sale tax(in a year or two).

Sell a $400k home, pay $16k in extra tax.( What the hell does this have to do with Health Care???)

Its cost ALL of us, at least a NET 10% out of pocket increase as of 2011,I was paying 15%, Corporation balance, now I am nailed with 25%.

Either way it matters not we are screwed.

The Bernank, has 2 choices, and both END it for us.

Hold interest rates artificially low and destroy the US dollar in a hyperinflation.

Allow the markets to achieve its natural interest rate and bankrupt the US Government, destroying the dollar.

Either one of the  Bernanks options end up in the destruction of the US dollar.



More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Erm, so if it's not in the Constitution it does not exist?

I guess public roads go out the window then too, in your world, right?

You might want to check out the "absolutely zero taxes, sir!" land for free people one of these days (Somalia).


DosZap's picture

No,if you KNEW the Const you know the power to levy taxes, and provide for the common good clauses colud be used for that.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Oh, so using the power to levy taxes, and to use them to "pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" does not cover general Welfare items like .. not dying due to a treatable but expensive to treat illness?

Had the founding fathers known how much medical sciences would advance in the 200 years to come, they'd have listed it explicitly as an essential and required item of personal safety I'm sure.

Anyway, I suspect you are not making the argument that because medical sciences were sub-par 200+ years ago we should never consider them in a modern society?


Common_Cents22's picture

obummer care has nothing to do with efficient health care.


the "surplus" comes from collecting unconstitutional full mandatory taxes upfront for a few years before the real costs hit in 2014.    So DUH to reducing the deficit.  Nothing to do with efficient health care.

Tax increases in the bill.  DUH.   Nothing to do with efficent health care.


Cutting medicare $500b?  Where the fuck do you think they can cut $500 BILLION out of medicare?     If there is that much waste in medicare why aren't they doing it already?    nothing to do with efficient health care.

$200 billion doc fix was pulled OUT of the obummer care bill and put elsewhere.  nothing to do with efficient health care.


There is nothing in this bill that pursues cheaper more efficient health care delivery.  Nothing to drive out real costs.  


Our discussion should be how do we provide efficient health care to Americans, via private/public means.    Not a federal takeover of a huge chunk of our economy.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


The fundamental question is, do you support what every other developed nation on the planet implements, that health is a basic human right, attached to free citizens by birthright?

Just like it's a birthright that citizens get protected by the military from other involuntary forms of bodily harm, like it's a birthright that citizens get protected by the police and that contracts get interpreted and enforced by the judicial system.

Do you support that view, or do you aim for an "absolutely no taxes" solution like Somalia?


DosZap's picture

Dude all that went out the window............we are targets now.

Where do you get Health is a right?,where do you get life is a right?, your next breath could be your last(who's fault would that fall on, after all, you had a right to Health!)

My problem with Obumma Care is 2000+ pages of TAKEOVERS,and exclusions for special groups,and taxation on shit, and control over us NEVER allowed under the Constitution.

Can the System be better?, yep.............But not at the expense of FASCISM.

70% of Americans said NO to this shitball.............we never got a chance to vett it, read it, neither did ANYONE who signed it.

Why is that?, we're finding out, and the best is yet to come(as in bend over baby!!!).

A bunch of fascists slammed down our throats, against our WILL,that's Tyranny,

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

where do you get life is a right?

I've got some news for you: were you of the idea to take the life away from a US citizen there's a very well resourced law enforcement machinery in place that will do everything in its might to catch and punish you.

Just like there's a well resourced medical profession in place in various developed countries that does everything in their might to preserve the health of every citizen, should they fall ill and should they opt to see these professionals.

Every citizen - not just those able to pay.

It's a fundamental right almost everywhere - why not in the US? Seriously - have you really thought your arguments through?


Common_Cents22's picture

Nice straw man. Support this BS obummer care or be like Somalia?   We are working on becoming somalia with ripoffs like obummercare.


Of course the goal is to provide health care either privately or via govt but in an efficient manner.   This bill did nothing to drive out cost of health care, but rather add cost and spread out the cost.  It will balloon to costs you've never imagined.   Look at all the past programs some began as temporary, but became eternal entitlements. 


how does obummer care drive out cost and provide efficient health care?


dailykos might be a better forum for you.  And i think Ed Schultz show is coming up on MSNBC.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Per capita (and even GDP proportional) health care costs are noticeably lower in other, "as a citizen I have the right to not die due to a treatable illness" universal health care countries.

The US might get cheaper health care once the private company, rent-seeking health care parasites are replaced with a single general insurance agency.

So I'd expect that once US citizens see that it's actually ... really productive to have health care insurance that actually insures against the extreme case of falling chronically ill, more progressive changes will follow.

Seriously, were you personally ever worried about health care costs, and about the possibility of your policy being rescinded? Have you ever wondered whether an insurer will insure you fairly, no questions asked, even if things turn bad, very bad for you or for any member of your family?


GreenSideUp's picture

LOL that you think this is some benevolent "right" bestowed upon us by all those who care so very much about all us useless eaters.  While I thoroughly despise what we have, this is nothing but more control, more taxes, and less actual health care for all.  I am surprised you are unable to see the down-the-road (un)intended consequences of this.

By the way, LOL too that you think we are protected my the military, the police and the judicial system.  



divide_by_zero's picture

In addition to counting 10 years taxes for a 6 year window, the Democrats stripped out most of the high spending portions and passed those separately later so as not to reflect the true cost in CBO scoring (not to mention double counting on Medicare transfers which the partisan CBO went along with).

Like every other nationalized health care the cost will bankrupt itself and eventually lead to less health care. That's why they all still come to the US for serious medical care.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Nice fantasy world you live in. The german and canadian health care systems are just fine and give the right to health to every citizen, thank you very much.

The right to be as healthy as modern science allows is just as important in a developed country as the right to not be inflicted other forms of bodily harms - this is self-evident. If you want some radical form of no-taxes, pay-as-you-go society you can certainly emigrate to Somalia.


DosZap's picture

The german and canadian health care systems are just fine and give the right to health to every citizen, thank you very much.


Yep, and how long do you wait for serious treatment, and scans?

Women w/ Breast cancer stats are off the wall, as is all other cancer deaths.

The city of Philadelphia has more MRI/CT/Pet scan machines, than the entire nation of Canada.

Get in line, if you die....fuck you.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Oh, you fell for the canadian health care myths propagated by the republican anti-healthcare propaganda machine, right?

Check this one:

That article answers these myths:

  • Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care
  • Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy
  • Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the US
  • Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it
  • Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care
  • Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the US
  • Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government
  • Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada

Also, as I mentioned it in another post, I have used four separate public health care systems in the past, and I was never rationed nor did I face excessive wait times. (And emergency care is always wait-free.)

In such a system the doctors prescribed the treatments and patients get it - no health insurance administrator has veto power over the doctor's decision.

The old US health care system is both the most expensive one in the developed world (due to 'free market' overhead), and is also the least human one (due to lack of guaranteed insurance). A special achievement I have to say ...


DosZap's picture

No, I watched interviews on the Boob Tube, of the victims, from their own mouths.

As for the old US system, WHY is it everyone in world(including Canada) with a serious,life threatening,or complicated disease comes here?.

Or a Hip replacement or knee thats debilitaing them to the point or suicide, or the inability to work, because they have to wait for 6mos to 2yrs?.

Cause we are the shitz?

Service wid a smile man.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

All answered in the "Debunking canadian health care myths" link I gave. Such as:

Aunt Betty — who lives on a fixed income and could never afford private health insurance, much less the cost of the surgery and requisite follow-up care — will soon sport a new, high-tech knee. Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life.

And yes, the rich will go to other countries where some procedure is done better or where it happens faster - they always keep freeloading and front-running the rest of society while cheating on their taxes. (What did you think that offshore LLC in Bermuda was for? "Business logistics" my ass :-)

nmewn's picture

Then there's this bit of Kos lunacy;

"So since the CBO estimates that the health care act reduces the deficit significantly,..."

The CBO is asked to grade out and make projections on what it is given by Congress.

If Congress says they expect five hundred quadrillion dollars to come via revenue vs. one dollar in outlay that is what it's judged on...assumptions.

And we know Congress cannot tell a lie right?...and we know the left are accomplished liars right?


Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

This may come as a surprise, but I'm not a fan of the Republicans either. They're hypocritical bastards.  But I've got a fairly big beef with Obama and this gutless, more-of-the-same health care bullshit that was marketed to the American people as a win against oppressive corporations, yet, in reality, it was drafted by them. 

What do you think of Liz Fowler, former VP bitch of Wellpoint, being cast as one of the chief architects of the healthcare reform? Isn't that a bit like having a former Goldman CEO as Treasury secretary, or Big Bird in charge of Federal Agency for Migratory Birds?

By the way, here's a link to the bird website. I figured if I suggested there was a government agency specific to bird watching, you'd think I was a liar.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


I think that once americans experience what universal coverage really means, the health care insurance fat will be cut down.

The problem Obama had was that he had to fight either the idiot Republicans or the greedy health care industry - he could not realistically fight both. He choose to fight the idiots, and I really cannot blame him for that.


DosZap's picture

I am discovering, and paying out the ass, and this shit is not over by a LONG SHOT.

Stealing 500 Billion from Medicare guarantees the early death of millions.That wont affect you, until your in that age group.

Remember the movie Trust No One Over 30?, well it was way cool, until the leaders got close and to 30.(Uh oh, its my ass now!!)

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


LOL @ your birdwatcher agency.

Seriously, did you know that tracking migratory birds serves an important scientific role? For example IIRC the N1H1 virus was first detected by the equivalent agency in Europe, in migratory swans.

Those are important research programs that no greedy corporation sees fit to finance.

(If you believe in scientific progress and if you believe in not dying dumb, that is.)


Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

the N1H1 virus was first detected by the equivalent agency in Europe, in migratory swans.


Since you're quite familiar with Democrat policies and you bring up the N1H1 virus, please allow me a question:

Was swine flu caused by Democrats?

While the right side of Michele Bachmann's mouth says Obama didn't start swine flu, the left side of her mouth suggests he did. 

Furthermore, since John Boehner just assigned Bachmann as overseer of the CIA and National Security Agency, I would think that her opinion on these matters is important.



DosZap's picture

Fantastic, this should be a HELL of a ride.............Michelle will make Pelosi look like a lightweight.

I can see assholes cutting O'Rings now.

Loan Gunman's picture


Well done Critical T.  But unnecessary.  We've all heard the liberal talking points many times before.  Judging from your avatar, you're spending too much time at the gym.

Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

No. Actually, I think it is necessary to pick up the Republicans and body slam them.  

Republican hypocrisy runs so deep, thick and rich that when I look at miserable fucks like Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Bachmann, Graham, Boehner, Bush et al, I feel like I'm living a menacing Kafkaesque nightmare where, one day, we all will turn on CSPAN and see nothing but cocoons hanging from the Senate.  

RockyRacoon's picture

Too bad I can't remove any of those junks.  It's the crazies running the Republican Party.  If one, lone, sane person steps forward they might have a chance.  The RNC panel for prospective Chairman was the funniest goddam thing I've ever seen.  They should have been in grease paint, rainbow wigs, and rubber noses.

Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

Hey Dos...

I'm all ears....  

If you (or anyone else here) want to defend the Republican party, go for it. I'll listen. I've been listening for a fair defense since I finally woke up a few years back.  Please don't reference archaic Republican ideologies which only exist in front of microphones and on soapboxes - I want a real defense of the modern Republican party that we've seen over the past 10, 20, 30 years.

Anyone can say that a smaller, less intrusive government is better. Anyone can say that less taxes are better.  But rhetoric means nothing. The modern Republican party that we've witnessed for a decade or more is nothing but a plutocratic-controlled, bought-and-paid-for pathetic shadow of its former self.

Just look at the fucking idiots that represent your party. You've got John Boehner with a face full of tears and boogers.  You've got newly elected CIA overseer Michele Bachmann, who thinks the Democrats started swine flu and that Obama wants to replace the US dollar with a new world currency.  You've got Sarah Palin, a snarky moose-hunting dingbat, plucked out of the Alaskan wilderness who thinks Alaska's proximity to Russia is a notable qualification for foreign relations. And Bush.  Do I need to talk about Bush?  On, and on.. A true Republican should be ashamed and embarrasses with them.  

Any Republican that has the balls to actually defend their party with all the old ideologies that formerly defined them is perhaps only slightly less hypocritical than Ted Haggard in a male whorehouse.  

By the same token, I'm not defending Democrats. They're gutless against all the powers that surround them, and I have fundamental problems with their ideologies.  But, must stand in awe of the hypocrisy that regularly spews from the Republicans, especially when considering all the information that you gather from this site daily. 

redrob25's picture

The majority here are classic liberals, libertarians, or independents who do not subscribe to a 'party'. We do not need others to do our thinking for us.

The point is both ruling parties are corrupted by the bankers. If you subscribe to either you are lost.