"Details create the big picture."
–Sanford I. Weill
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Trump Hush Money Trial: Day Of The Pecker, Part 1
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Trump Hush Money Trial: Day Of The Pecker, Part 1
BY: Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS
IN: Trump Hush Money Trial: Day Of The Pecker, Part 1
BY: The realist
IN: Trump Hush Money Trial: Day Of The Pecker, Part 1
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Trump Hush Money Trial: Day Of The Pecker, Part 1
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Trump Hush Money Trial: Day Of The Pecker, Part 1
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Trump Hush Money Trial: Day Of The Pecker, Part 1
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: The Republican Field for Congress in CO-04
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: The Republican Field for Congress in CO-04
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Trump Hush Money Trial: Day Of The Pecker, Part 1
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Sen Jeff Flake (AZ-R) bills fill foundation of immigration compromise
Bipartisan group of senators agree on plan for immigration overhaul ….. http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22463305/bipartisan-group-senators-agree-plan-immigration-overhaul
Lawmakers said they were optimistic that the political mood had changed since a similar effort collapsed in 2010. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the negotiators, said he saw "a new appreciation" among Republicans of the need for an overhaul.
Nothing like a good ass-whipping to change your perspective…
Duke, you lazy and vile slackér. Senator Flake has been formally pursuing these specific programs since 2006-2007.
Big fucking deal.
Speaking for myself… First, I won't just take your word that Flake's been pursuing kinder, gentler immigration reform. Doesn't mean that you're lying, but you're not exactly credible.
Second, Duke is correct. The GOP as a whole has been uniterested in doing anything to help immigrants, and has preferred scapegoating them using tried and true baiting methods. From outrageous and trumped up charges of election fraud to dirty tricks designed to discourage Hispanic citizens from voting, the GOP has screwed the pooch on that front. Now that they've lost the everyone-but-older-white-male vote, they have no choice but to try to treat Hispanics like people.
Nothing like a good ass-whipping to change your perspective. A fucking men.
+12
Just a quick caution flag here.
My suggestion is reference Project Vote Smart on the flakester.
Of particular interest will be HR5281 12/8/10 "No".
Flake looks more vile with every vote. His "enlightenment" can be traced directly to the election results last November 6th.
"Lazy and vile slacker"? Oh ye of diapered stench, you're projecting again.
Libby,
vile?…perhaps.
lazy?…no.
ignorant about many subjects…undoubtedly.
It's all good, Taddy, my Laddy. You have probably done more to undermine your point of view (as I can make it out) than just about anyone ever on this blog. Keep up the good work. The Senate is responding to the regrowth of a spinal column in the moderate ranks of the Republican party. Think…re-think.
Bloggers like Republican36, Craig, and a handful of others are respectful of another persons' POV, if it is intelligently stated and heartfelt. That should be the deal we make with each other.
Just the same…your idiotic bullshit can be entertaining (if not convincing) on rare occasions. Thanks for playing…
Kim Dotcom is fighting the silly game called politics.
Comment edited. To insert HTML code into your comments or posts, please use the "Source" button in the editing menu.
Direct and to the point regarding labor bosses….
They say Harry Reid wimped out on filibuster reform because he only had 48 votes. Where did Mark Udall (who is up for re-election in 2014) and Michael Bennet (up in 2016) stand on the issue of real filibuster reform, such as bringing back the talking filibuster, or lowing the number of votes required to cut off a filibuster?
We're never ging to know for sure.
But you should ask Udall/Bennet.
If either is brave enough to answer, that would be illustrative. to be clear- i hate the fillibuster. But it would have been bold to get rid of it- and it's politicall nuts to answer the question now that it doesn't matter again for 2 years.
"…it's politicall nuts to answer the question now that it doesn't matter again for 2 years."
Their answer matters to me–now. And it matters to me if they don't want to talk about it. So, yeah, I want them to answer.
Same here – I very much want to know. Especially if they are going to blame cloture for not being able to pass legislation.
Here's what Sen. Bennet proposed in 2010 — it looks a lot like what finally got passed:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-michael-bennet/reform-the-filibuster_b_486635.html
If Andrew Romanoff does run for CD6, he might try the same approach as Rep. Ed Markey in Mass (from Politico http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/ed-markey-wants-outside-money-out-of-mass-race-86818.html?hp=l10):
If his opponents (primary or in the general) don't go along, he would then have the option to either stick with his no-PAC idea (if he thinks he can raise enough without it to win), or honorably back off and accept the funds realistically needed to win a statewide race.
The purity pledge does not matter if the electorate think all politicians are corrupt. We inside the political process know better, however, it is not easy to get the word out. My sister-in-law still says all politicians are corrupt even acknowledges she thinks I am not.
I do not know and I am not sure how many good polls exist to determine the voting effect of a candidate being pure of "bad" monetary support. Bad not including money from felons and such. Is it worth the loss of campaign funds? I do not know. I do know that money is the blood of politics and to say I will not take a transfusion from such and such group may mean losing an election. I easily refused money from certain groups, but only because I disagreed with them and their motives.
It worked between Warren and Brown for the most part. That's one thing I have to give Scott Brown – while there was a metric buttload of money sent to that race, it was mostly channeled through accountable campaign funding.
Can't stand having to log in everytime I want to distribute wonderful and concise comments.
Now that Hillary has to wear glasses to deal with double vision, I think they look good on her.
Self-styled "Populist" Gov. Bobby Jindahl's latest bright idea: eliminate state income tax and replace it with a higher sales tax. Reason? Income taxes give the wealthy an Owee, but the shoulders of the working class are broad and strong, thus able to bear the additional burden of taxation.
He figures if you can softsoap the illiterati with "Look Ma, no income tax", that it'll be impossible to reinstate even after the GOP is long dead and buried.
Here's Paul Krugman's column discussing the sordid details:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opinion/krugman-makers-takers-fakers-.html?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto&_r=1&