HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I am so utterly sick of t...

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 10:29 PM

I am so utterly sick of this Third Way shit.

I come home from a tough day at work, and I get to read how I'm being free-traded by Obama and Halliburton - in secret, of course:


Obama Trade Document Leaked, Revealing New Corporate Powers And Broken Campaign Promises

In late May, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chair of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, introduced new legislation that would require the White House to share trade documents with all members of Congress and their qualified staff. The move was largely a symbolic act of protest against the secrecy the White House has imposed on a new trade deal, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The agency responsible for trade negotiations -- the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative -- had denied Wyden office access to any of the draft documents involved in the trade pact, offering an unusual legal argument that only a handful of members of Congress were permitted to view them. After Wyden introduced his legislation, however, USTR partially relented, allowing Wyden to see the documents, but not his staff.

"I would point out how insulting it is for them to argue that members of Congress are to personally go over to USTR to view the trade documents," Hoelzer said. "An advisor at Halliburton or the MPAA is given a password that allows him or her to go on the USTR website and view the TPP agreement anytime he or she wants."

The general public and most nonprofit organizations have no access to the documents, although a number of corporate officials can see them.

Obama's been a tragic disappointment, but I desperately want to vote for him if only to keep the Trust Fund Bully out of the White House. But, each day, I feel like I'm rooting to be smashed with a hammer instead of being thrown in a wood chipper.

This sucks.

497 replies, 118982 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 497 replies Author Time Post
Reply I am so utterly sick of this Third Way shit. (Original post)
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 OP
tridim Jun 2012 #1
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #2
FarLeftFist Jun 2012 #6
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #8
ProSense Jun 2012 #10
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #13
ProSense Jun 2012 #18
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #19
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #346
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #42
ProSense Jun 2012 #102
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #188
Jakes Progress Jun 2012 #327
JDPriestly Jun 2012 #222
Scootaloo Jun 2012 #230
They_Live Jun 2012 #234
SidDithers Jun 2012 #236
dionysus Jun 2012 #261
They_Live Jun 2012 #263
Scootaloo Jun 2012 #245
They_Live Jun 2012 #262
Scootaloo Jun 2012 #266
They_Live Jun 2012 #281
kurtzapril4 Jun 2012 #285
Scootaloo Jun 2012 #294
They_Live Jun 2012 #300
Scootaloo Jun 2012 #321
They_Live Jun 2012 #302
They_Live Jun 2012 #291
Scootaloo Jun 2012 #305
They_Live Jun 2012 #322
Scootaloo Jun 2012 #330
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #320
Scootaloo Jun 2012 #325
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #375
Blue_In_AK Jun 2012 #274
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #297
Bobbie Jo Jun 2012 #368
They_Live Jun 2012 #233
dionysus Jun 2012 #260
tpsbmam Jun 2012 #264
SammyWinstonJack Jun 2012 #267
woo me with science Jun 2012 #307
quinnox Jun 2012 #318
JDPriestly Jun 2012 #435
proud2BlibKansan Jun 2012 #329
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #360
Poll_Blind Jun 2012 #412
Skittles Jun 2012 #80
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #93
progressoid Jun 2012 #104
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #110
Skittles Jun 2012 #450
ProSense Jun 2012 #100
Jakes Progress Jun 2012 #356
kenfrequed Jun 2012 #254
FarLeftFist Jun 2012 #12
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #15
FarLeftFist Jun 2012 #23
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #24
FarLeftFist Jun 2012 #25
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #26
MrMickeysMom Jun 2012 #28
bvar22 Jun 2012 #304
woo me with science Jun 2012 #416
truedelphi Jun 2012 #441
NCTraveler Jun 2012 #200
JDPriestly Jun 2012 #228
NCTraveler Jun 2012 #243
frylock Jun 2012 #204
sendero Jun 2012 #140
truedelphi Jun 2012 #442
JDPriestly Jun 2012 #227
woo me with science Jun 2012 #244
JDPriestly Jun 2012 #277
KoKo Jun 2012 #292
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #295
woo me with science Jun 2012 #314
WorseBeforeBetter Jun 2012 #323
Why Syzygy Jun 2012 #60
SammyWinstonJack Jun 2012 #269
bvar22 Jun 2012 #312
nineteen50 Jun 2012 #239
TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #103
JDPriestly Jun 2012 #219
Creideiki Jun 2012 #268
kurtzapril4 Jun 2012 #289
FarLeftFist Jun 2012 #14
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #17
bvar22 Jun 2012 #272
woo me with science Jun 2012 #340
hay rick Jun 2012 #31
frylock Jun 2012 #207
Luminous Animal Jun 2012 #39
UnrepentantLiberal Jun 2012 #152
FarLeftFist Jun 2012 #202
UnrepentantLiberal Jun 2012 #215
SidDithers Jun 2012 #213
Bobbie Jo Jun 2012 #369
TrollBuster9090 Jun 2012 #348
woo me with science Jun 2012 #16
russspeakeasy Jun 2012 #30
TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #38
tridim Jun 2012 #50
TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #225
tridim Jun 2012 #271
TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #449
woo me with science Jun 2012 #174
rudycantfail Jun 2012 #270
bahrbearian Jun 2012 #216
raouldukelives Jun 2012 #43
riderinthestorm Jun 2012 #49
bbgrunt Jun 2012 #54
laundry_queen Jun 2012 #55
Quantess Jun 2012 #58
joshcryer Jun 2012 #62
Luminous Animal Jun 2012 #74
joshcryer Jun 2012 #76
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #113
joshcryer Jun 2012 #115
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #128
joshcryer Jun 2012 #130
woo me with science Jun 2012 #175
bvar22 Jun 2012 #328
chervilant Jun 2012 #75
joshcryer Jun 2012 #79
chervilant Jun 2012 #432
woo me with science Jun 2012 #85
joshcryer Jun 2012 #88
woo me with science Jun 2012 #90
Marr Jun 2012 #95
joshcryer Jun 2012 #109
woo me with science Jun 2012 #176
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #315
joshcryer Jun 2012 #317
brentspeak Jun 2012 #365
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #414
truedelphi Jun 2012 #467
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #410
Mojorabbit Jun 2012 #71
Phlem Jun 2012 #89
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #99
chervilant Jun 2012 #106
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #131
AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #169
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #460
woo me with science Jun 2012 #177
tomp Jun 2012 #142
morningfog Jun 2012 #161
StarryNight Jun 2012 #173
truth2power Jun 2012 #183
liberalnationalist Jun 2012 #193
Dragonfli Jun 2012 #223
Raksha Jun 2012 #251
tpsbmam Jun 2012 #265
chervilant Jun 2012 #70
liberalnationalist Jun 2012 #185
Autumn Jun 2012 #257
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #308
Autumn Jun 2012 #337
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #339
bvar22 Jun 2012 #458
TrollBuster9090 Jun 2012 #342
Huey P. Long Jun 2012 #431
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #3
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #11
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #20
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #21
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #22
freedom fighter jh Jun 2012 #147
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #170
freedom fighter jh Jun 2012 #275
Autumn Jun 2012 #4
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #35
Luminous Animal Jun 2012 #40
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #384
bvar22 Jun 2012 #425
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #430
bvar22 Jun 2012 #447
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #445
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #455
dionysus Jun 2012 #179
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #203
dionysus Jun 2012 #237
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #241
dionysus Jun 2012 #242
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #249
Autumn Jun 2012 #206
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #211
abelenkpe Jun 2012 #5
ProSense Jun 2012 #7
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #9
WillyT Jun 2012 #27
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #29
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #33
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #34
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #36
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #44
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #47
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #57
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #61
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #65
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #78
bvar22 Jun 2012 #335
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #341
TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #466
iamthebandfanman Jun 2012 #84
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #87
chervilant Jun 2012 #105
bvar22 Jun 2012 #428
frylock Jun 2012 #209
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #212
chervilant Jun 2012 #86
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #96
chervilant Jun 2012 #98
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #114
chervilant Jun 2012 #149
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #201
Bluenorthwest Jun 2012 #184
truedelphi Jun 2012 #443
chervilant Jun 2012 #462
dionysus Jun 2012 #238
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #299
Ken Burch Jun 2012 #45
Starry Messenger Jun 2012 #51
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #59
joshcryer Jun 2012 #64
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #116
joshcryer Jun 2012 #120
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #124
joshcryer Jun 2012 #125
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #248
KoKo Jun 2012 #282
joshcryer Jun 2012 #316
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #334
joshcryer Jun 2012 #345
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #367
joshcryer Jun 2012 #370
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #374
joshcryer Jun 2012 #377
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #379
joshcryer Jun 2012 #381
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #382
joshcryer Jun 2012 #383
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #385
joshcryer Jun 2012 #387
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #391
joshcryer Jun 2012 #393
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #395
joshcryer Jun 2012 #396
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #397
joshcryer Jun 2012 #400
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #406
joshcryer Jun 2012 #408
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #434
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #392
joshcryer Jun 2012 #394
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #404
joshcryer Jun 2012 #405
truedelphi Jun 2012 #446
xiamiam Jun 2012 #247
Starry Messenger Jun 2012 #68
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #112
Poll_Blind Jun 2012 #66
joshcryer Jun 2012 #72
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #77
joshcryer Jun 2012 #83
Marr Jun 2012 #101
joshcryer Jun 2012 #107
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #118
joshcryer Jun 2012 #121
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #126
joshcryer Jun 2012 #127
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #226
joshcryer Jun 2012 #309
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #336
joshcryer Jun 2012 #351
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #355
joshcryer Jun 2012 #357
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #361
joshcryer Jun 2012 #366
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #373
joshcryer Jun 2012 #376
Kaleko Jun 2012 #474
joshcryer Jun 2012 #476
Kaleko Jun 2012 #480
joshcryer Jun 2012 #481
Kaleko Jun 2012 #487
joshcryer Jun 2012 #488
Kaleko Jun 2012 #489
woo me with science Jun 2012 #187
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #386
joshcryer Jun 2012 #388
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #389
joshcryer Jun 2012 #399
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #421
joshcryer Jun 2012 #409
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #407
iamthebandfanman Jun 2012 #82
joshcryer Jun 2012 #108
Poll_Blind Jun 2012 #117
joshcryer Jun 2012 #119
Caretha Jun 2012 #160
SwampG8r Jun 2012 #143
joshcryer Jun 2012 #144
Marr Jun 2012 #97
morningfog Jun 2012 #162
LiberalAndProud Jun 2012 #32
Zalatix Jun 2012 #37
Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #46
LiberalAndProud Jun 2012 #129
Zalatix Jun 2012 #132
truedelphi Jun 2012 #444
LiberalAndProud Jun 2012 #454
Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #41
AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #48
bbgrunt Jun 2012 #52
woo me with science Jun 2012 #180
Bonobo Jun 2012 #53
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #56
Poll_Blind Jun 2012 #69
Bonobo Jun 2012 #122
joshcryer Jun 2012 #73
chervilant Jun 2012 #91
joshcryer Jun 2012 #111
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #135
Bonobo Jun 2012 #137
joshcryer Jun 2012 #145
Bonobo Jun 2012 #146
joshcryer Jun 2012 #148
Bonobo Jun 2012 #150
joshcryer Jun 2012 #151
Bonobo Jun 2012 #153
joshcryer Jun 2012 #155
raindaddy Jun 2012 #189
joshcryer Jun 2012 #313
bvar22 Jun 2012 #437
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #290
joshcryer Jun 2012 #311
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #338
joshcryer Jun 2012 #354
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #358
ZombieHorde Jun 2012 #253
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #413
chervilant Jun 2012 #417
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #156
joshcryer Jun 2012 #138
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #258
joshcryer Jun 2012 #310
joshcryer Jun 2012 #420
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #436
chervilant Jun 2012 #415
frylock Jun 2012 #214
joshcryer Jun 2012 #401
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #451
bvar22 Jun 2012 #429
ljm2002 Jun 2012 #92
woo me with science Jun 2012 #246
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #134
Caretha Jun 2012 #163
jtuck004 Jun 2012 #63
flvegan Jun 2012 #67
Puglover Jun 2012 #166
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2012 #81
chervilant Jun 2012 #94
LiberalAndProud Jun 2012 #123
roman7 Jun 2012 #133
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #136
cbrer Jun 2012 #139
rrHeretic Jun 2012 #141
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #158
chervilant Jun 2012 #418
datasuspect Jun 2012 #172
chervilant Jun 2012 #419
SidDithers Jun 2012 #154
morningfog Jun 2012 #164
Hassin Bin Sober Jun 2012 #194
SidDithers Jun 2012 #195
dionysus Jun 2012 #240
Hassin Bin Sober Jun 2012 #256
dionysus Jun 2012 #259
morningfog Jun 2012 #205
SidDithers Jun 2012 #210
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #279
KoKo Jun 2012 #298
KoKo Jun 2012 #333
Hassin Bin Sober Jun 2012 #363
KoKo Jun 2012 #364
Puglover Jun 2012 #371
Hassin Bin Sober Jun 2012 #372
QC Jun 2012 #424
AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #461
trumad Jun 2012 #157
SidDithers Jun 2012 #168
dionysus Jun 2012 #181
Logical Jun 2012 #217
Romulox Jun 2012 #190
NYC_SKP Jun 2012 #196
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #303
JoeyT Jun 2012 #159
HughBeaumont Jun 2012 #171
Poll_Blind Jun 2012 #199
Freddie Stubbs Jun 2012 #165
woo me with science Jun 2012 #178
bvar22 Jun 2012 #273
Blue_In_AK Jun 2012 #287
sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #301
woo me with science Jun 2012 #319
Marr Jun 2012 #378
truedelphi Jun 2012 #468
rudycantfail Jun 2012 #470
inna Jun 2012 #473
Zorra Jun 2012 #349
Laelth Jun 2012 #167
Javaman Jun 2012 #182
Erose999 Jun 2012 #186
Romulox Jun 2012 #191
xiamiam Jun 2012 #250
Jamaal510 Jun 2012 #192
Poll_Blind Jun 2012 #197
stupidicus Jun 2012 #198
proverbialwisdom Jun 2012 #208
JDPriestly Jun 2012 #218
librechik Jun 2012 #220
treestar Jun 2012 #221
nashville_brook Jun 2012 #326
treestar Jun 2012 #362
nashville_brook Jun 2012 #426
treestar Jun 2012 #453
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2012 #224
porcinaalbastrucaine Jun 2012 #229
bupkus Jun 2012 #231
truth2power Jun 2012 #232
porcinaalbastrucaine Jun 2012 #235
whatchamacallit Jun 2012 #252
Theross Jun 2012 #255
woo me with science Jun 2012 #276
KoKo Jun 2012 #278
WorseBeforeBetter Jun 2012 #283
quinnox Jun 2012 #280
AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #286
quinnox Jun 2012 #288
on point Jun 2012 #284
nashville_brook Jun 2012 #324
nashville_brook Jun 2012 #293
xiamiam Jun 2012 #296
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #306
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #390
joshcryer Jun 2012 #398
Bryn Jun 2012 #331
ProSense Jun 2012 #332
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #344
brentspeak Jun 2012 #352
nashville_brook Jun 2012 #427
ProSense Jun 2012 #440
ProSense Jun 2012 #438
brentspeak Jun 2012 #472
Jakes Progress Jun 2012 #359
ProSense Jun 2012 #439
Jakes Progress Jun 2012 #452
Eastern Winds Jun 2012 #343
Oilwellian Jun 2012 #347
Zorra Jun 2012 #350
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #423
Honeycombe8 Jun 2012 #353
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #380
Cali_Democrat Jun 2012 #402
pa28 Jun 2012 #403
inna Jun 2012 #410
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #457
Hotler Jun 2012 #422
WorseBeforeBetter Jun 2012 #433
Blue_In_AK Jun 2012 #448
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #456
Blue_In_AK Jun 2012 #459
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #464
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #465
Agony Jun 2012 #463
QC Jun 2012 #469
limpyhobbler Jun 2012 #471
Kaleko Jun 2012 #475
joshcryer Jun 2012 #477
Rex Jun 2012 #478
joshcryer Jun 2012 #479
Rex Jun 2012 #482
Romulox Jun 2012 #483
joshcryer Jun 2012 #484
Romulox Jun 2012 #485
joshcryer Jun 2012 #486
Romulox Jun 2012 #491
joshcryer Jun 2012 #492
Romulox Jun 2012 #493
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #495
Romulox Jun 2012 #496
MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #497
Zorra Jun 2012 #490
unreadierLizard Jun 2012 #494

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 10:34 PM

1. Congratulations, you found the loophole.

I'm voting for Obama because he's a fucking fantastic President who deserves re-election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 10:35 PM

2. Poverty, homelessness and hunger are growing daily

And the only economic bills Obama gets through are austerity, free trade, and big bucks for bankers.

That ain't what I'd consider a success. But you're entitled to see those as positive attributes, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 10:52 PM

6. Ever heard of Congress??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 10:55 PM

8. The Congress that rejected the three Bush "free" trade agreements

that Bush signed, because Democrats shut them down - but then voted to pass the same bills once Obama became their Cheerleader-in-Chief?

That Congress?

Yes I have. What of it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 10:59 PM

10. Maybe

The Congress that rejected the three Bush "free" trade agreements

that Bush signed, because Democrats shut them down - but then voted to pass the same bills once Obama became their Cheerleader-in-Chief?

...we could bring Bush back. That would make HuffPo, Burr, and Issa happy!

USTR's refusal to share documents with congressional staffers has also raised the hackles of Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who agreed to co-sponsor Wyden's bill after his own staffer was turned away.

<...>

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has been more aggressive, leaking the entire text of the draft intellectual property chapter to the public on his website. Although the document had previously been available over the internet through legally dubious channels, Issa's posting was viewed as a political shot across the bow.

Public health experts and internet freedom advocates have bemoaned both the secretive negotiation process and the actual terms of the trade pact, which they claim threaten to drive up global medicine prices and curb online innovation.

Wyden and Issa are widely viewed as Capitol Hill allies of the tech community as a result of their efforts to block the Stop Online Piracy Act and its Senate partner, the Protect IP Act. The administration's refusal to share Trans-Pacific documents with Wyden for months sparked concern that Obama was selectively freezing out critics of the deal from the talks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:01 PM

13. I totally

...we could bring Bush back. That would make HuffPo, Burr, and Issa happy!


...fail to see what that has to do with anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #13)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:04 PM

18. Suggestion:

I totally

...we could bring Bush back. That would make HuffPo, Burr, and Issa happy!


...fail to see what that has to do with anything.

Ask Issa. He's searching for gullibles!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:05 PM

19. Now THAT was funny!

You got me this time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 10:13 PM

346. He found plenty of them when he introduced his bill to defend ACORN

So yes, there are lots of 'gullibles' in Congress, which is why we must do our job and make sure they know how the people feel about important issues like, otherwise they could end up being influenced by Republicans on policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #13)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:48 PM

42. It's: "I accept the 20 lashes because it is sooo much better than 40. Thank you master." nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #42)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:41 AM

102. No, it's: I'm not gullible to RW bullshit tactics. n/t



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #102)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 10:05 AM

188. When I say I dont like our government's free-trade agreements,

and the response is "would you rather have George Bush back". That response is clearly, "I should be happy because it could be worse". That is not an argument and it has nothing to do with the RW.

The fact that I dont like my government's actions related to free-trade, the Patriot Act, domestic spying, drone killing, indefinite detentions, does not mean I am not a Democrat nor does it mean that I wont support Pres Obama for another term in office as some here want to believe to justify their vitriol (present company excepted).

I will support Pres Obama 100% but wont guarantee that I will agree with him 100%. And to ask otherwise is not very Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #188)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:11 PM

327. Now rick.

If you are going to go and be all logical and honest, why do you bother to post here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #102)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:37 PM

222. Then there are a couple of DUers who appear to be Obama-shills.

You can tell a right-wing shill because they never deviate from the party line, even when the party line is hard to defend -- like some fascist act like allowing corporations to have access to "secret" government information about international negotiations but denying that access to the representatives of the people who are part of the people's government.

Same for Obama-shills. They never deviate from the party line, and they always, always, recite the party line -- in perfect talking points -- even when the party line, such as the defense of giving corporations access to information that the people's representatives are not allowed to have -- is reprehensible and incompatible with even a facade of democracy.

It's as if the shills' posts were written for them by some professional or maybe even some public relations group.

And nary a word of doubt. They have an answer for everything.

Somehow, you would expect that if the shills were actually ordinary citizen DUers, they would disagree with the party line just once in a blue moon. And what is more, they would express opinions about things other than those that concern Obama and the party line -- like the latest gossip scandal.

I put one of these shills on Ignore/Do Not Disturb for a while but then I decided I would do other DUers a favor if I read his/her posts and responded. But sometimes it is very hard to respond without pointing out to other DUers just what the shill is doing and what he/she is. Very hard.

What do other DUers think should be the response to obvious shills, Democratic or Republican? Should we put them on ignore or ?????? It's easier to spot the Republican trolls. What about the Democratic shills?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #222)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 02:32 PM

230. And what about dipshits who will fall over themselves to launch hate at Obama?

Because, if you read the article instead of just the title, you will find that the problem isn't with Barack Obama, it's with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. While this office does act as adviser to the president, they are not one and the same; and the president is actually the good guy here, in opening up transparency on what's going on in the USTR.

Look buddy. I know you're still butthurt that Ron Paul or Vermin Supreme or whoever your too-hip-for-you candidate was didn't win the election in 2008. I'm understanding of the fact that when you see the president, your first instinct is to think "that boy better get my order right, or no tip!" I even understand that despite spending time on a site called "DemocraticUnderground," your main interest seems to be in making sure to spread bullshit against democrats - which I'm certain will go far towards you getting whatever the hell it is you want (which you have thus far failed to express)

But I think maybe it's time you either jump those hurdles, or get off the track. 'Cause you're not going to make the team if your entire focus is on reading bullshit titles from the Woo-woo section of the internet and screeching about how godawful Obama is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #230)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 02:48 PM

234. Your post is way off and

offensive. Alerted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to They_Live (Reply #234)


Response to SidDithers (Reply #236)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 05:15 PM

261. Sid you shill...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #236)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 05:17 PM

263. bout the same

as your smug. I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to They_Live (Reply #234)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 03:44 PM

245. I'm happy for you

I notice that it seems to be whenever someone points out how absolutely ridiculous the raging, senseless Obama-hate gets around here, folks like to run out and wave their arms about how "offensive" it is to have that pointed out. They're especially quick on the draw when facts that counter the original nonsense are brought out.

Why, it reminds me of how people respond when you point out their joke about two 'chinamen' walking into a bar is racist; Apparently, you noticing their lack of goddamned common sense is vastly more offensive than their display of that lack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #245)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 05:15 PM

262. Absolutley GODDAMN DIPSHIT

right. I will vote D and ask no questions. Why even bother reading about ANYTHING.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to They_Live (Reply #262)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 05:30 PM

266. And here comes the hyperbolic pants-wetting

Yes. I'm telling you to never ask questions, Mr. beck. I'm terrible, aren't I, demanding you blindly vote without a peep. I love that you ascertain my motives simply from seeing me call out someone who is demonstrably telling bullshit tales about Barack Obama and making the old "THEY'RE ALL THE SAME OMGWTFBBQ!" argument that has served the progressive cause so well in the past (assuming the 'progressive cause' is to get more far-right lunatics elected which I'm starting to think may be the case)

Very astute, Mr. Beck. You may now go back to "just asking" your questions now. I won't scribble fact-checks on your chalkboard anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #266)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 07:23 PM

281. I really have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here.

Last edited Thu Jun 14, 2012, 07:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Are you just trying to insult everyone? You are succeeding in that. You are condescending, belligerent, and interested in accelerating provocation. Your attitude absolutely shows that you have little in common with me, even though, in theory, we are on the same "side".

I know we're complete strangers in cyberspace, but is it really that difficult to have a little common respect?

I didn't come out of the gate calling you Professor Poopypants, Shit-Eater, Dick Nose, or FuckFace. YOU did. Even worse, you compared me to Glenn Beck. That. Is. Not. Acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to They_Live (Reply #281)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 07:31 PM

285. Excellent!

You are correct, sir!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to They_Live (Reply #281)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 07:57 PM

294. I'm sure we have little in common

For instance, I don't rush to the defense of people posting bullshit, nonsense, fabrications, misinformation, and - well - lies. In fact I rather do the opposite. I understand that among the extensive Obama-hating community here on DU, this goes against standard etiquette - I'm supposed to never challenge or call you guys out when you start your wild-eyed gyrations about what absolute utter shit the man is - but I've never been really good at respecting 'peculiar institutions' such as that.

if I wanted to see someone setting a torch to Obama and all democrats on principle, as JDPriestly did and as you are defending then I would go to right-wing sites, where I can get it in undiluted form. I don't come to DU to see people hawking lugies all over anyone who votes Democratic, much less on the basis of a misleading headline from a fucking woo-woo website like Huffpo.

You don't like it when you or others in the Obama-Basher subculture here on DU get called out on your nonsense? Then I'll tell you what; don't engage in nonsense. There's legitimate shit to criticize. Hell, fill up a dozen posts on that drone bullshit he's pulling, I'm with you. Clutch your head and rant about our new best-friends-again down in Colombia; right on! But you don't need to freak the fuck out when some tabloid rag that's been hating his ass since before the primaries gives you a misleading title with his name in it, kay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #294)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:10 PM

300. I'm not sure I understand where you draw the line

between Obama Hating and questioning his motives and actions, as well as how he has misrepresented himself to those of us who have voted for him. I guess I never got the meme that Huff Post = bad. Sorry about that. You are apparently familiar with the list of top Obama disappointments, though. And you do seem to agree with some of it, just as I do, but somehow you've placed yourself in a different class than me. Curious, that. Maybe you can let me know which subjects are approved for our mutual criticism of the President of the United States and which ones are not approved, and would automatically make me a Obama-Basher (or is it hater?). I guess I'm getting confused again. Anyways, yeah, just let me know. Because I sure don't don't want to step on any toes.

Oh, concerning the primaries, he's seems to be the ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to They_Live (Reply #300)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:58 PM

321. Huffpo is kind of the online lefty version of the National Enquirer

The occasional actual news story can be found in there... right next to page five gossip, celebrity wedding fashions, and love advice from Deepak Chopra (who will also be doing horoscopes this week!) It's not a publication that impresses me, except insomuch that i'm impressed people will accept it around here and not, say, prisonplanet, when the difference is a matter of spin.

Questioning motives is one thing. But when "I'm just asking questions" becomes a cover for "THAT FUCKING FUCKER OBAMA IS SUCH A FUCKING SHIT-FUCKER THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING THE FUCK ON AND ALL DEMOCRATS ARE SHILLS FOR SUPPORTING THAT FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT FUCKER AAAAAAAARRRRGHHH!" as was the case for JDPriestly - among many, many others - then I have my doubts over how much of your criticism is policy-based... much less lucid and free of intravenous dayquil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #294)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:15 PM

302. ...and another thing

could you be more specific about the "bullshit, nonsense, fabrications, misinformation, and - well - lies" of this particular story?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #266)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 07:50 PM

291. oK.... as far as those points you made,

they're good, but we still don't have a candidate progressive ENOUGH to undo the massive shitstorm of a knotted mess that the Bush/Cheney folks left us with. That flurry of terrible legislation has set our country back 50 years (except for the tax rate for the wealthy), and we really needed someone to start unknotting it or cutting the knot at least. I don't see that happening. With both the Dems and Repugs on the side of MONEY, we aren't going to see any Progress until MONEY is no longer part of the equation. Many of us Dems don't see much of a choice, except between getting the thumbscrews, or a hot poker in the eyeball. Not much of a choice. And when a man no longer has a choice, he ceases to be a man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to They_Live (Reply #291)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:22 PM

305. Now we can attempt a conversation

You're right. Obama isn't really "good enough." He's not as progressive as you'd like; he's certainly not the hard leftist I'd like. But it's honestly time to face reality.

That is; tough shit. Look, neither of us are going to get our personal supercandidate, and we're damned sure not going to see such a person appear between now and November. Unfortunately that's just the way reality works. Can't please everyone. But I'll tell you something, and I want your fellow progressives to listen up.

I understand that Obama's not "good enough." But he is good. Look at our past thirty-two years of presidents. That's a third of a century we're looking at, and what do we see? We see thirty years of republican policy dominating everything, don't we? Reagan for eight years, Spook Bush for four, Bill "I signed NAFTA and welfare reform!" Clinton for eight, AWOL Bush for another eight. We are living in that legacy.

No, Obama is not my dream president just as he's not yours. But he's a damned sight better than what's come before, and most definitely better than option B. I look at him as a toehold for our goals and principles; he's not likely to take us there himself, but he can extend our reach by that much.

You had to have Teddy before we could get Franklin, basically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #305)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:00 PM

322. Oh..

Agreed. You used the word "progressive" first, so I thought that I might use it in a sentence. I'm pretty hard left actually. I like nature and the ability for humans to live with nature. They're are very few ideal candidates for me. At any level. Good summation of presidential history, but I need more results from him besides pressing the pause button every now and then on the tape player blasting out hellfire and damnation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to They_Live (Reply #322)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:15 PM

330. Or you'll what?

Again, reality check. I know that people who grouch and rumble about how awful Obama is really don't like being reminded that everyone else out there really is worse. But... that's the fact of our current reality. "Substandard" is at least a few grades better than "completely defective and dangerous," y'dig?

By all means, keep up pressure to push him to the left. The further we can get him to go in the next four years, the better our chances of a much-improved selection in 2016. But bitching and kicking and declaring "I'll let the Republicans win to teach the Democrats a lesson!" as some have done in the past... isn't going to help.

Like I said. Obama's probably not going to take us all the way to the finish line. I for one had no expectations that he would - your mileage may vary. However he'll at least get the baton yea far down the track towards that finish line. I would be happy as hell if he did accomplish the finish line - I'd expect him to change his middle name to Usain, if so - but in the meantime I'm willing to accept that he's at least making a better go of this project than any of the previous guys did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #245)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:55 PM

320. So the president has no power is what you're saying?

He has no influence at all over policies that will, whether or not you disagree, reflect on his administration?

Where are you seeing 'Obama-hate? I see 'policy disagreement'. Does Obama agree, not agree with what is in the OP? You are defending him, so you must know. And if he has not yet decided then what objection do you have to having hear how the people feel about these policies so that WE the PEOPLE get to influence him before the Corporate lobbyists descend upon the WH.

What you seem to be objecting to is the Democratic process where when the people hear about policies that will be harmful to them, they speak out before those policies go into effect.

Obama is a tough guy, I supported him, for Senate and for POTUS, I think told us to let him know when he was not on the right track and he seemed to mean it, understanding the bubble he would be in once he got to DC.

Helping avoid making a decisions that would be so bad for this country seems to me is not Obama hate at all. To remain silent and let the Corps influence him, looks more like that to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #320)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:06 PM

325. You can see what I'm saying, in my post

I state it rather plainly. Maybe try reading it, instead of attempting this huffy, passive-aggressive stuff that you filled that poor text box with before hitting "post my reply!" Seriously, it's all right there.

matter of fact, since I guess you might need your hand held, here's what I said;
Because, if you read the article instead of just the title, you will find that the problem isn't with Barack Obama, it's with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. While this office does act as adviser to the president, they are not one and the same; and the president is actually the good guy here, in opening up transparency on what's going on in the USTR.


Am I saying he has no power? No, I'm not. However, he certainly isn't omniscient, and I'm sure - I'm also sure that you're sure - that a lot of stuff goes on without his direct approval.Can you imagine the bureaucratic nightmare of trying to get the president to personally sign off on everything

I'm saying that the spitting and the outrage is misplaced. What he's done is opened up the curtains so that you can look at what's going on and do exactly what you're talking about - "I think told us to let him know when he was not on the right track and he seemed to mean it, understanding the bubble he would be in once he got to DC. "

This is different from what I was responding two from JDPriestly, and which That_Guy chose to defend - raving, wild-eyed denigration outside a basis of reality not just of Obama, but also anyone who still supports the guy.

That is, he was calling YOU a shill and saying you should be shunned from DU owing to your continued support for Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to They_Live (Reply #234)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 11:22 PM

375. Thank you, I've never seen an uglier post.

Last edited Fri Jun 15, 2012, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #230)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 06:43 PM

274. Somewhat proving JD's point, I would say. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #230)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:03 PM

297. And who does the USTR report to?

Or are they a non-government agency?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #230)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 11:01 PM

368. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #222)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 02:42 PM

233. Thank You.

spot on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #222)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 05:14 PM

260. ...typed a Smoove Johnny-shill, with a straight face...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #222)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 05:22 PM

264. JDP, I truly wish I could recommend this reply

It's incredibly on point and very, very well said!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #222)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 05:59 PM

267. +1000!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #222)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:27 PM

307. Yep. Yet we're not supposed to mention the obvious...



It is unfathomable that advertisers would not be expected to identify themselves as such...unless you accept that the site prefers it that way.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #222)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:48 PM

318. yep, bullseye. What I do is usually ignore them

figuratively. They are so boring, its always the same thing, like a broken record. THey never have anything interesting to say, its always empty headed cheerleading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #318)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 01:21 PM

435. It isn't so much that I disagree with them but that, as you explain, their posts

are terribly boring and detract from the value of DU on the whole.

I think some DUers thought I was criticizing those who say positive things about Obama, but I think you understand that I really am talking about one or two people who post here and who appear to post public relations items rather than real contributions to our thought and discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #222)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:15 PM

329. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #222)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 10:44 PM

360. Looks like you incurred the longest swarm yet. But tread lightly. The Neighborhood Watch

has their eyes on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #222)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 02:09 AM

412. +1

Interesting question, indeed!

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:05 AM

80. OH COME ON, MANNY!!!

you HAVE to be used to it by now, being accused of secretly wanting DUBYA TO RETURN every time you point out the truth about Obama!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #80)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:26 AM

93. Not entirely true.

Sometimes I want Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney to win. And sometimes I'm a PUMA - see the fun down thread.

Quite a shape-shifter, I am.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #93)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:42 AM

104. You're just mad cause you didn't get your pony.

Lighten up Francis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #104)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:53 AM

110. LOL

Well done!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #93)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 04:59 PM

450. HEHE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #80)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:39 AM

100. Actually

you HAVE to be used to it by now, being accused of secretly wanting DUBYA TO RETURN every time you point out the truth about Obama!!!!


...some people do want that (or similar, specifically the leaker) http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002806854

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #100)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 10:41 PM

356. Really? All sense of honest discussion out the window

just because it is election season? No bottom to your bucket?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 04:27 PM

254. False choice

It was a false-choice based argument. And not a very good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:00 PM

12. No not that one, the Tea Party one that is obstructing everything and took America hostage.

You were asking why others bills can't pass, so I figured I'd give a quick civics lesson about why bills aren't being passed and progress isn't being done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:02 PM

15. So you don't want to talk about the one

whose Democrats turned on a dime when Obama started shilling for Bush's "free" trade agreements?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:15 PM

23. Why, it only advances RW causes and fuels the fire for discouraging voter turnout for Obama.

After all, this IS a public forum & threads like this seem counter-productive to advancing our goal of getting Obama re-elected and stopping us from becoming a RW Fascist-Theocracy. Maybe channel that frustration into something positive i.e. Electing progressives, voter registration drives, canvassing, donating time/energy, feeding the homeless, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:17 PM

24. What if... Obama just stopped doing this awful shit

so you wouldn't have to fear speaking openly about what he's done?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #24)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:20 PM

25. I'm not the one in fear, I'm the one voting for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #25)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:21 PM

26. Seems like I misread your post then.

I must need some sleep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #24)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:22 PM

28. Now...

THAT is hope I can believe in...

We are (wink) promised that he wouldn't do this awful shit anymore, after he's re-elected, and meanwhile, we have this more awful Romney shit that somehow is polling well.

Yes, we got a lot of shit in the pot here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #24)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:21 PM

304. Absolutely nailed it, Manny!

"What if Obama just stopped doing this awful shit so you wouldn't have to fear speaking openly about what he's done?"





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #24)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 08:40 AM

416. "WHAT IF...OBAMA JUST STOPPED DOING THIS AWFUL SHIT

SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO FEAR SPEAKING OPENLY ABOUT WHAT HE'S DONE? "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #24)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 03:41 PM

441. I, for one, would be quite happy to be all "forward"

And into forgiveness and shit if HE JUST FUCKI*NG STOPPED IT!!

His main guy, Rahm Emanuel is in Chicago right now saying it is time to de-criminalize marijuana. Maybe Rahm wasn't as bad as I believed him to be. Maybe Obama wouldn't have gone after the Marijuana clinics here in Calif. if Rahm was still around.

All I really know is the guy who campaigned in Oct 2008, using Edwards and Kucinich talking points, is not the guy in the WH.

And I love your wood chipper hammer smash analogy. I dn';t jsut love it - I feel it.

If you think it is bad now, just wait till the Trans Pacific trade Agreement takes effect, and we can all be put into Chinese run jails for the second our credit card debt receives a bad rating, with Chinese overseers, and the opportunity to provide some One Percenter a free organ of their choosing without their having to travel to Bejing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #23)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 11:20 AM

200. The RW causes being advanced were/are the Free Trade Agreements.

That is what lurches the country to the right. Not Manny on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #200)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 02:05 PM

228. Isn't it Hillary's State Department that does the nitty-gritty negotiations

on trade agreements? Aren't the Clintons a lot of the rightward drag on Obama's administration?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #228)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 03:33 PM

243. I don't think Obama is left of the Clinton's. I also don't view the Clinton's themselves as being left

at all. So no, I don't think they drag the Obama administration to the right. How can they drag Obama to the right when they are two peas in a pod.

Do you think Hillary's negotiations are in opposition to what Obama wants?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #23)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:06 PM

204. why trouble your beautiful mind?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #12)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 05:59 AM

140. As soon as I see Democrats actually fighting ..

... the tea party assholes, I'll buy into your story.

In the meantime, we've all been "Third Way-ed", sold into a New Democrat paradigm that is nothing but Old Republican.

Not that I give a shit really, anyone paying any attention whatsoever can see that our entire political system has been hijacked, and it really doesn't matter a whole helluva lot who is in office - the same bullshit is going to continue until it can't.

Propping up the rich at the expense of he poor and middle class. Pointless wars and military police actions. Gutting of the Constitution. Put them all on your calendar, they're what's for dinner for a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #140)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 03:42 PM

442. Thank you. I agree with your logical statements. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #12)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 02:02 PM

227. Again, if Congress is the problem,

why has Obama used his veto only twice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #227)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 03:37 PM

244. *crickets*

Failure to see reality at this point is a willful act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #244)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 06:58 PM

277. I remember the Truman and Johnson administrations.

Franklin D. Roosevelt used his veto (pocket and regular) 635 times. He was president for 2 and more than 1/2 terms.

Harry Truman used his veto (pocket and regular) 250 times in a little over eight years.

Johnson used his veto (pocket and regular) 30 times in close to six years.

Obama has used his veto only twice in 3 1/2 years.

Ronald Reagan used it 78 times in 8 years.

GWB used it 12 times in 8 years, and he had a supposedly Democratic Congress part of that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

The veto is one of the constitutional powers of the president. If Obama didn't like what Congress was doing it, he should have used his powers to veto what they wanted to do. Instead he uses his power to decide who gets droned.

Obama knows how to use power when he wants to. He just does not want to use the veto because then he would have to take a stand and maybe offend the Republicans and Blue Dogs. Yet he wants liberal Democrats to support him in November.

A certain portion of politics is about the theater of it, and Obama is a great speaker but not good at the theater of politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #277)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 07:51 PM

292. Well...to be charitable...Obama had just never seen things the way many of us see them......

He was very young and helped along the way. It's hard to look at "who helped you" and not be grateful.

That's the only thing that makes sense to me...but, I'm open to argument about my opinion...but don't want "Troll Trashing" because that stuff just turns me off.

I think some of us have reasoned opinions and you are one of them...who can see from both sides.

If one reads like the "serious of us" across ...trying to make sense and understand...WHY Obama seems to some of us like some kind of TRAGIC morph of Bush II back to Reagan Administation...we see that there are NO ANSWERS...just PUSH BACK...PUSH BACK...not taking into consideration that most of us here that I reply to are LIFE LONG VOTING DEMS...who back in the OLD DU DAYS...used to think we were trying to HOLD THE FORT FOR DEMS...

It's gotten ALL SCREWED UP!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #277)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 07:58 PM

295. Those numbers speak volumes, JD

Thanks for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #277)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:43 PM

314. What a great post.

There it is, clear as glass...again. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #277)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:00 PM

323. Wow, those are some sobering numbers.

I'm worried about Social Security and don't trust Obama at all on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:38 AM

60. Seeds of its own destruction..

I have to ponder whether or not the current deadlock positions were not, at least in part, set up from the beginning by POTUS bending over backwards to soothe and massage the pukes. He really did sort of give them the idea that they had the run of the place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Reply #60)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 06:06 PM

269. heh.

He really did sort of give them the idea that they had the run of the place.


Yeah, he sort of did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Why Syzygy (Reply #60)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:38 PM

312. I don't wonder anymore.

When the White House openly campaigned in the Democratic Primaries for the Blue Dogs who "derailed" ObamaCare, I ceased to wonder, and moved on to knew for sure.

SEE: White House endorsement and support for Blanche Lincoln,
Arkansas Democratic Primary 2010.

The White House is actively working to keep the obstructions in place
because it lends them Plausible Deniability and an excuse for failure,
at least for the shallow thinkers.

"We never had 60 votes."



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 03:11 PM

239. The only time the whitehouse changes hands

is when the 1%ers legislation can't get passed under that sitting party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:41 AM

103. Tough to hide behind the Congress skirt when they are cut out of the loop

They aren't even fake writing it, members of the relevant committees can barely see the damn thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:26 PM

219. Obama has only used his veto twice.

Compare that to other presidents. I have posted the link to Wikipedia's page on the presidential veto many times. It's easy to find.

When a president is unhappy with Congress, he vetoes bills that contain provisions he disagrees with.

The veto is the tool the president uses to get Congress to work with him, to bargain with him.

Obama's failure to use his veto is a giveaway that he supports what Congress is doing.

Will I vote for and work for Obama? Yes. Because, in spite of his failure to stand up for what is wrong, he is the lesser of the two evils.

If Romney is elected, we won't have even the pretense of the third way. We will have Fascism, outright and direct.

I would like to know how many Republicans in Congress know the details of the negotiations. It's may be just liberals who are kept in the dark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 06:01 PM

268. The Congress that keeps Obama from going to Wisconsin?

The Congress that keeps Obama from signing executive orders?

Which Congress? Just so we're sure.

Because it's not fair to blame Obama for things that are out of his control. However, there are plenty of things that are in his control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Creideiki (Reply #268)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 07:44 PM

289. No no no no no!

You have it all wrong. OBama is the most powerless president in the history of the world! He can't do ANYTHING because of Congress! He can't stand up to the Republics because......I forget, but I'm sure there is a good reason! He can't use veto because.....the Republicans don't approve! See, his hands are tied! What do you expect him to do, lead?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:01 PM

14. Also, 2 possible Supreme Court nominees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:03 PM

17. Actually, that's about all I have left to be hopeful about nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 06:17 PM

272. Even THAT Silver Cloud comes with a dark lining.

President Obama replaced Liberal JP Stevens with a "Moderate Centrists", Elena Kagan.
The make up of the Supreme Court is MORE conservative NOW than when Obama was elected.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justices-side-police-warrantless-search/story?id=13613343



...but not as bad as the Republicans!
Yeah... I'm ALL fired up.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #272)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:55 PM

340. Yep, and considering his administration

already went all the way to the SC to argue FOR more warrantless surveillance of Americans and FOR strip searches for any arrestee...

...and given his positions on issues ranging from indefinite detention to "kill lists" to spy centers to internet control, any of which could reach the Supreme Court during his second term...

there is even less reason to be sanguine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:29 PM

31. More hostages.

So inspiring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hay rick (Reply #31)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:09 PM

207. yes, very cheneyesque

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:43 PM

39. Supreme court and abortion. That's all we've got left from "The Great Society".

Yay!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 07:25 AM

152. Since Obama deadenders here claim he has no power

 

to do anything but that, Supreme Court pics are the only reason to vote for Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #152)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:04 PM

202. And a damn good reason as any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #202)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:39 PM

215. I agree.

 

And that's why I will be voting for him this November and may even canvas for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #152)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:23 PM

213. "Obama deadenders"?...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #213)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 11:05 PM

369. Exactly.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 10:14 PM

348. What do you mean "also?" That's more than enough reason in and of itself.

And I don't care if Kagan isn't as liberal as Stevens. Three more Stevens' will be a lot more liberal than three more Alitos, which is exactly what we'll get if we don't support Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:03 PM

16. Yeah, yeah, we know. Every criticism is perceived as an attack on Obama,

And so the response is about Obama, personally.

Actually, that's one of the scariest parts about what is being done to us now. What's happening to our country is not because of one man. It's not about a crazy leader or despot. It is structural and systemic, and that helps it grow unchecked. People raise these alarms about the infestation of our government with corporate money and corporate goals, and people start whining or defending or accusing them of being mean to Obama or thinking the worst of him. They make it personal.

But this is systemic. This has to do with the infestation of corporate money into the heart of our government and political system, with tentacles so deep that we can't even track them all anymore. It's about corporate money, corporate power growing this corporate empire and police state and war machine, and increasingly co-opting government to strengthen and protect itself, while bypassing the people and taking steps to weaken their resistance....because that is what corporations DO. Corporations, by definition, exist to grow and profit. Guiding principles of empathy or compassion or moral responsibility have no role in that, if they interfere with the profit motive.

We have little to do anymore with much of anything our government does.

We are losing our country to these vultures, and it is happening in a million small and not-so-small ways every day. Every day there is a new one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:26 PM

30. Thanks for the sanity, woo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:40 PM

38. This is run away from like Godzilla, Woo.

At all cost the systemic issues and even actual policy are ignored in favor of personality. It is all who because they want, are acting as pawns of those who profit from and who are empowered from things as they are, or are the rubes who think they will profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #38)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:16 AM

50. Don't bother playing the cult of personality card on me.

It's fucking idiotic and childish.

I vote on policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #50)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:52 PM

225. I do not monitor the thoughts of individual voters at the polls and hadn't seen you post so I wasn't

calling you out.

I will say since you felt your ears burning or whatever that dictates yours and other folks votes that the conversations tend to focus on personalities be it defense of politicians or indictment of critics and turns that way during about any policy discussion. That may or not be your MO but let's not even pretend that it doesn't happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #225)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 06:13 PM

271. It's idiotic to assume that adult Democrats vote on personality alone.

You called out most of DU with that comment.

The claim is being made here repeatedly that anyone who doesn't trash Obama daily is just in love with him and can't possibly have any real reasons to support his candidacy. It's 100% pure bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #271)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 04:06 PM

449. My claim is that the dialog is fixed on personality. Internal thought may vary, observable reaction

is what it is.

Don't like the charge then folks can discuss the issues and policies instead of the personalities.

No sense bellyaching when the private thought and the dialog mismatch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #38)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:10 AM

174. You are spot on. There is *always* a diversion from the policy.

Last edited Thu Jun 14, 2012, 10:46 AM - Edit history (1)

A disgusting new disclosure about secret deals for free trade agreements is met with insults and accusations of seeking to depress the vote. News of yet another family slaughtered by drones leads to predictable and despicable attacks on the messenger.

Discussion of these corporate, right-wing, and neocon policies is *always* met with bids to distract, insult, and divert, because the policies are indefensible. It happens over and over and over again, relentlessly. We watched it happen in the corporate media, as serious news and reporting of what the corporatists are doing were systematically replaced with faux news...the latest fluff and gossip or breathless hyping of some inconsequential gaffe or dramatic exchange between the two "stars" of the political horse race. It is very sad to see the same infiltration and diversion happening even in small venues like this, where there used to be limits on that type of behavior, because it was assumed to come from trolls.

This is the mess the Third Wayers have made of our party and our political message. What used to be right-wing talking points and tactics are now bipartisan and mainstream, and we have self-proclaimed Democrats mocking attempts at change and calling the outrage over the impoverishment of millions of us "amusing."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #174)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 06:08 PM

270. +1!

 

Keep posting the truth woo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #38)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:51 PM

216. There are no more pawns left on our side, they were taken out of the game early.

That leaves only Rubes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:49 PM

43. The silence is deafening.

But we still do have some effect. Our own personal choices will have to speak even louder as our rights and even votes are silenced. You can feed and oil the machine. Resign yourself to being a cog at its disposal or stand up for something you believe in. The catch is making the value of upholding that belief worth more than a stock statement or a lucrative career opportunity.
"Well, I stand totally against what the corporation does and bring it up sometimes in the lunchroom when I'm refueling to help accomplish its mission."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:16 AM

49. No more true words have ever been spoken, woo. Thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:30 AM

54. great post. You nailed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:34 AM

55. Can't let this post go

without a huge

******GREAT POST***********

comment.

Nail, meet head. Needs to be an Op.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:37 AM

58. + a million

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:41 AM

62. This is nothing new. Anyone who thought Obama would be immune from it is kidding themselves.

That's why it's so amusing for me to see the outrage, it never really gets old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #62)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:58 AM

74. You are right. We should just accept it. Because voting is the only viable

outlet for political expression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #74)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:59 AM

76. Nah, just lower your expectations. Then you get surprised once in awhile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #76)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 02:07 AM

113. Ever heard of 'aim for the sky and you might hit a tree'?

None of mankind's great achievements were ever accomplished by low expectations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #113)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 02:10 AM

115. Hit me up when we have politicians who are worthy of high expectations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #115)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 03:57 AM

128. We will get closer to what we want when we aim for what we want. Low expectation voters

are why we have we have. You have laid out why nothing ever changes and why we fail to get better representation. Being silent so Politicians do not have to work for votes is a failed strategy as we know now after three election cycles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #128)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 04:08 AM

130. I know of no single politician who is worthy of my expectations.

The system does not allow for such things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #115)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:11 AM

175. Yes, let's just wait for them...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #76)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:14 PM

328. "just lower your expectations"

That is a FAR cry from
Yes. We. CAN!

Obama's Army, Jan. 21, 2009

"Oh, What could have been."


Ok everybody.
Lower your expectations,
and you won't be so disappointed,


The Republicans had HIGH expectations in 2000.
They Hit the Jackpot with George-the-Lesser,
and they NEVER had 60 votes.




"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."

--- Paul Wellstone


photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed


Solidarity!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #62)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:59 AM

75. Does it help

you feel better to make fun of those of us who continue to 'rage against the machine'?

We are facing a global socio-cultural reordering. The last time anything like this happened, heads rolled (and, their obscene wealth did NOT protect them).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #75)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:04 AM

79. Not makig fun. I come here for political discussion.

I have other sites where I "rage against the machine." This site is more for interesting political discussion. The outrage that Obama wasn't some FDR got stale, maybe 3 months after he installed his "post-partisan" cabinet, just as he said he'd do. Each little thing from then on was just predictable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #79)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 12:24 PM

432. hmm...

I'm not sure why you make the broad-brush suggestion that 'outraged' Obama supporters expect him to be 'some FDR.' I haven't seen much to support your assertion.

I know what I personally DIDN'T expect from Obama. Many of his missteps have exacerbated the global economic distress, but it's hard to predict how he might have been more effective in opposing the Corporate Megalomaniacs who've usurped our media, our politics and our global economy.

I try to focus on Obama's courage: to run for office after the vile and destructive Bush cabal was certainly impressive. But, I wish that his courage was more in evidence with regards to Afghanistan, Guantanamo, prosecuting war criminals, eliminating electronic voting machines, legalizing pot, equal rights, job creation, and reining in the "Just Say NO" Republicans (Tom Rall has a spot-on strip about this).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #62)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:16 AM

85. No, the outrage is not "amusing."


It is desperately needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #85)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:20 AM

88. It's inconsequential.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #88)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:22 AM

90. You need to study history. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #88)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:30 AM

95. So today, criticism of Obama does not mean risking a Romney presidency.

Things change so quickly from day to day, and even thread to thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #95)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:51 AM

109. No, forum posts have little effect on certain policies.

But they can have an effect on the overall narrative which later impacts the vote. It just takes a lot of them to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #95)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:12 AM

176. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #88)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:44 PM

315. So you've changed your mind then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #315)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:47 PM

317. Nope.

You can demoralize voters if you have enough numbers. You can't change policy after you've elected someone to do something that you don't like even though they told you they were going to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #317)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 10:53 PM

365. Obama said he WASN'T going to do it

Did you read the article?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #365)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 04:07 AM

414. Most likely not.

This poster blames the voters for the broken promises. And no amount of proof that he 'said he wouldn't do it' will change his mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #365)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 11:41 PM

467. Oh so he said he ain't going to do it.

Good to know.

I'll add that one to my list when he then turns around and does it, just like the other 4,111 times he has betrayed America's middle incomed folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #88)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 02:06 AM

410. Because there isn't enough outrage, yet. But it's building.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:56 AM

71. +1000 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:21 AM

89. Corporation's

(according to Thom Hartmann) sole goal of profits first and the detachment of the corporations/CEO's from it's employees, qualify it as a sociopath.

I tend to agree.

I've worked for a few over time now that I think about it.

But what is truly scaring me is the spread of fascism so easily and silently across the nation. Seems to be the point your making and I commend you.

Forever vigilant brother/sister.

-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:38 AM

99. Thank you for this post. And it is happening because, up to now, we too have gone along with the

insane idea that the time to be silent is 'when an election is coming up'. I don't think there has ever been a worse strategy than for the people to be silent at the only time their Representatives are likely to listen to them or remember their existence at all. Once the election is over, we all know what happens if the people try to talk to their Representatives. All I ever got was either no response (thanks Chuck Schumer) or an automated 'thanks for contacting us' email with no follow up ever, from Clinton.

Now IS the time for the people to tell them what they want. And the complete idiocy of trying to silence people on issues that a MAJORITY of people agree on, such as create and keep jobs here, tax the rich, no more bailouts for the banks, a huge stimulus for the people etc. is beyond comprehension.

If we Democrats get these messages across to DEMOCRATS and they start talking about them in the campaign, then the people will see a difference between both parties. Right now everyone I talk to, no matter where it is, says the same thing 'they are all the same'.

The public votes for its own interests. Democrats need to make a distinction between their message and Republicans by forcefully supporting the issues that the majority of the people want. And they won't do that if they do not hear from the people.

They sure will not hear it from the scores of Corporate Lobbyists drowning out the people in DC where the people have zero representation.

Thanks for reality, Woo. Sick of the fantasy that if we just shut up and vote all be well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #99)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:48 AM

106. + a gazillion.

Sick of the bashing we get for pointing out that the vile Corporate Meglomaniacs have usurped our media, our politics, AND our global economy. (And, HOW does this awareness equate with 'we want a perfect president'?!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #106)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 04:41 AM

131. Those are just talking points, intended to distract. You notice those who disseminate

those talking points, never, ever discuss the issues themselves.

Best to ignore them, if they are not going to be part of the solution, they should just be left to their own devices, imo. We let them run the show for far too long, reluctantly because we knew they were wrong, and look at the mess the world is in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #99)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:47 AM

169. You only get either no response or emails with no follow-up? How do the fund raisers overlook you?

 

Maybe they are responding. Just not in the way that you were expecting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #169)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 08:59 PM

460. Lol, no, we are not overlooked by the fundraisers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #99)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:25 AM

177. Amen.

The message of silencing and false hope and passivity IS a corporate message. You can tell because it so predictably and relentlessly appears whenever the news and revelations become so egregious and damaging to what people want to believe about their government, that it threatens to push them to stand up and demand something different.

Thank you for this wake-up call and reminder that we *do* have the power and the responsibility to demand change, and that election season is the most effective and critical time to do it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 06:26 AM

142. it's the system, the game, theater.

the only reason i will vote for democrats is to oppose the violence and threats of violence against them and the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:36 AM

161. Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:51 AM

173. precisely; there's really only One Way- the Money Way. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:42 AM

183. Thank you, woo. Very well said. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 10:33 AM

193. its Facism

 

thats exactly what is happening to this country

and we have these Sunday goin to meetin idiots eating it up like its the latest craze.

for the sake of our Constitution, our national security, our domestic tranquility, our way of life...the Federal government should take a long hard look at the churches.

Are they churches, or propoganda machines for Facism? It is obvious that a good amount of the churches out there, especially the Catholic Bishops, the Southern Baptists, the penicostals, and others are just that. Propoganda machines for a Hitlerarian Theocracy where we corporatly and religiously ruled. Where the laws of commerce intermingle with ecclesiastical law.

the question is...what are we going to do about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:38 PM

223. "This agreement would reinstate important reforms like expansion of the program to cover

service-related workerseer paths. benefits for job losses from overseas production unrelated to free trade agreements, and increased funding for worker retraining. By doing so, this deal would help to ensure that even as the United States aggressively pursues access to foreign markets and the broad benefits of free trade, displaced workers will have the tools and resources to find new carreers in the service related industry."


The Third Way has a plan for our future, we will be the happiest service related workers in the entire world!!!

Let those that know how to get around safety and quality issues have all the manufacturing jobs, They will not need pesky unions and will free us up for what we were born to do, service related work.

It will strengthen the country, just ask Chairmen Baucus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 04:10 PM

251. You are so right. Making every issue "about" Obama personally,

whether pro or con, is just another tactic to disempower the American people even more than they've been disempowered already. The Obama-hating Tea Party racists and the Obama shills on DU and elsewhere are both playing their assigned roles in the same game.

Excellent post - thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 05:30 PM

265. Brilliant post, woo. Thanks! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:52 AM

70. Yeah,

it's all that 11 dimensional chess, and Teh Bad Ol' Republicans who always Just Say No, and the big mess Bush left, and he can't do anything until after the election, and we're all racists...



Patriotism...last refuge...etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:59 AM

185. do you want Raw Money in there

 

are you going to wallow in self pitty?

I didn't vote for Obama last time..why? I didn't think he was ready and I though McCain was.
I will vote for Obama this time because he proved me wrong.

Now if dumb Americans would have voted in 2010 or not have voted for that traitor "tea potty" Obama would have gotten more done.

quit complaining about Obama, call Raw Money a LIAR and his party traitorist bunch of bastards...get out there and vote for Obama, straight ticket this time with no apologies.

We have to vote liberal as we can and shove it right in peoples faces.

I say we vote and give a big middle finger FU to the rightwing, their corporations, thier churches, their candidates, and their Slick Willard Shit Raw Money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalnationalist (Reply #185)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 04:37 PM

257. You voted for McCain in 2008? Because Obama wasn't ready?




As soon as a liberal runs I'll run right out and vote for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalnationalist (Reply #185)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:32 PM

308. Lol!

Palin appealed to you too? One heartbeat away from the presidency and you took that risk just three years ago?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #308)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:48 PM

337. A McCain voter coming to lecture us to vote for Liberals.

I think someone outed themselves. Because Obama wasn't ready .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #337)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:53 PM

339. I know, but at least s/he was open about it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #339)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 08:34 PM

458. ...and showing more honesty and willingness to Face the Truth...

...than many in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 10:01 PM

342. Whatever he is, I have just five words: three more Supreme Court Justices.

The next occupant of the White House will probably get to nominate three judges to the SCOTUS who'll sit there making rulings for 20 years. This is not about four more years of Obama, it's about TWENTY more years of crackpot reactionary corporate whores on the Supreme Court, handing over the American Democracy to plutocrats and multinational corporations.

Obama has already nominated Kegan and Sotomayor. He has a proven track record about the kind of justices he nominates. Romney we can only guess about, but the guesses aren't very pretty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 12:17 PM

431. 'Loophole'? Take off the blinders.

 

Treaty Negotiated In Secret – Hidden Even from Congressmen Who Oversee Treaties – Threatens to Destroy National Sovereignty
Submitted by George Washington on 06/14/2012

Democratic Senator Wyden – the head of the committee which is supposed to oversee it – is so furious about the lack of access that he has introduced legislation to force disclosure.
Republican House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is so upset by it that he has leaked a document on his website to show what’s going on.
What is everyone so furious about?


An international treaty being negotiated in secret which would not only crack down on Internet privacy much more than SOPA or ACTA, but would actually destroy the sovereignty of the U.S. and all other signatories.

It is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Wyden is the chairman of the trade committee in the Senate … the committee which is supposed to have jurisdiction over the TPP. Wyden is also on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and so he and his staff have high security clearances and are normally able to look at classified documents. And yet Wyden and his staff have been denied access to the TPP’s text.

This is similar to other recent incidences showing that we’ve gone from a nation of laws to a nation of powerful men making laws in secret.
-
As University of California Berkeley Professor Emeritus Peter Dale Scott warned:

If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing.

To put it another way, if the White House is successful in frustrating DeFazio, then Continuity of Government planning has arguably already superseded the Constitution as a higher authority.

-
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-06-14/international-treaty-negotiated-secret-%E2%80%93-hidden-even-congressmen-who-oversee-

=============

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2012
Obama Plans to Put Foreign Companies Above the Law
Yves Smith

Zach Carter has a must-read new article up at Huffington Post on leaked documents from trade negotiations that have been posted at the website Public Citizen. You should read his entire article, pronto, but here is the money quote:

The newly leaked document is one of the most controversial of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. It addresses a broad sweep of regulations governing international investment and reveals the Obama administration’s advocacy for policies that environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for eroding key protections currently in domestic laws.
-
This is an active effort to undermine US laws and make certain US laws subordinate to non-US tribunal that sits outside any democratic process. President Obama took an oath to uphold the land. I’d like to throw this out to readers. As much as trade agreements (which were approved by Congress) have sometimes run into friction with existing laws, this move by Obama looks to be a far more radical effort to increase the power of multinational companies. And US companies would argue for, and likely eventually get, similar breaks, assuring a legal/regulatory race to the bottom (if you think what we have is bad now, do not underestimate how much worse it could get).
-
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/06/obama-plan-to-put-foreign-companies-above-the-law.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 10:47 PM

3. Land mines, Manny, land mines.

We talked about this prior to electing President Obama. Hell, we talked about it before the primaries.

The USTR can do only that which is in its regulations, policies, any legislation, and various other directives.

Let me translate a bit of government-speak in the article to which your link, linked.

USTR told HuffPost that members of Congress can "be accommodated at an appropriate location on Capitol Hill" and said, "We are continuing to work directly with Senator Wyden and his staff to be responsive to the concerns he raises about TPP transparency, and are glad to be doing so; this is an important conversation."


Translation, because that bolded piece didn't need to be included:

"We are under some (policy or information memo or directive or regulation) that doesn't allow us to do what we desperately want to do so please, please, please let us have this conversation. Please."

And this part: "be accommodated at an appropriate location on Capitol Hill". Very specific word choice. Somehow, they are being shackled from doing what they want to do.

shrub left behind some interesting directives and memos. Federal agencies have to operate under the exact letter of the law and are not allowed to speak up for fear of retribution.

Land mines.






eta: left out a word

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 10:59 PM

11. So who's in charge of that agency now?

Shrub, still?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:05 PM

20. Manny, the laws and resultant policies and directives

and instruction memos are already "on the books." Do you know the volume of "paper" flowing around the federal government? If someone can't get to "who's in charge," they are stuck in the ditches trying to get the information out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #20)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:09 PM

21. Senators are yelling about this, and

it happens to be awful.

How much time would it take for the President to tell someone to fix it? Less time than it takes to have dinner with bankers, I'd think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:13 PM

22. "Less time than it takes to have dinner with bankers, I'd think."

Think harder.

Have you ever worked in a bureaucracy? Especially one that "made it up" as it went along?

Now imagine that and how it would look if someone had 8 years to sabotage it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #22)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 07:09 AM

147. I've worked in the federal bureaucracy. We knew where the rules came from.

Last edited Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:34 AM - Edit history (1)

If the rule limiting Congress's access to info came from an executive order, Obama can fix it with the stroke of a pen -- in a small fraction of the time it takes to have lunch with bankers.

Any other source -- legislation, regulation or policy (which implement regulation), or an existing treaty -- would have had to be approved some part of Congress (either all of Congress or, for a treaty, just the Senate) in the first place and is therefore not likely.

Edited for spelling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedom fighter jh (Reply #147)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:47 AM

170. Information memos, instructional bulletins, Solicitor's Opinions,

court orders and many more "pieces of paper" are implemented without going through congressional approval as they are interpretations of legislation, policies, EOs, and regulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #170)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 06:46 PM

275. Yes, you're right, I forgot about court orders.

It's possible, I suppose, that a court ordered the executive branch to restrict the way in which it (the EB) shares info on this matter with the Senate. But with less restriction to "a number of corporate officials"? Doesn't sound right.

I don't buy your argument about the bureaucracy, or lots of pieces of paper, being a barrier. The poor taxpayer on the phone with the IRS finds the system impossible to navigate because he or she hears about different rules and directives from different people and there is no one person who has the time to explain how the whole thing works. That's not good but that's the way it is. On the other hand, a senator who will have to vote on a treaty should get priority. (When I worked at EPA, Congressional correspondence was top priority.) Though the rules may be many, I repeat, the people who follow them know what they are and where they come from; understanding that is not rocket science, as much as it may seem so to someone outside the system.

Any USTR rule must come from the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of government. If President Obama wants to ease the Senate's access on information, he can ask USTR the reason for the restrictions. If it's the executive branch, then President Obama can change the rule. If it's the legislative branch, then Senator Wyden can see what he can do. And if it's the judicial branch then I suppose there's not much he can do.

But there must be a reason for it, and it should not be hard for President Obama to find out what his government is doing. Most likely he does have the power to change it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 10:47 PM

4. Sucks, yes it does.

This, "The general public and most nonprofit organizations have no access to the documents, although a number of corporate officials can see them." is what really pisses me off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #4)


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #35)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:47 PM

40. The nerve to support a Democrat? Horrors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #40)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 12:19 AM

384. The post you were responding to got hidden yesterday, yet the poster continued to post in this

thread today? I thought after you get a post hidden you couldnt post again in that thread? Do I have that wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #384)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 11:23 AM

425. Whats up with THAT?

Are some DUers "more equal" than others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #425)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 12:14 PM

430. Not sure. I also noted in another OP that the OP author rec'd his own OP.

If I had known that option existed, my OP's would have gotten at least one rec.

Weird times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #430)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 03:56 PM

447. Some "more equal" than others?

Are there exceptions to the rules for a privileged few?
That particular poster seems to be gloating about some special status he enjoys at DU.
See Post #87.


"And there's nothing I can say on DU that can "get me into trouble".
Nothing.
Bank on it!"


WOW.
Maybe some ARE more equal than others.
That would explain a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #384)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 03:48 PM

445. If you click on the hidden post it wasn't hidden until the day after it was posted.

Don't think they were posting after it was hidden according to the time stamp on the jury's decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #445)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 08:04 PM

455. I was wrong. you are absolutely correct.

Thank you for correcting that. I looked at the wrong date.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #35)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:34 AM

179. oh shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #179)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:05 PM

203. Help me dion. They're starting to become a blur. They've converted from "Third Way" to uber-libera

right before our very eyes. Someone make it stop!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #203)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 03:02 PM

237. yes, watching stone DLCers "morph" into Kucinizens to cover for the poutrage is priceless...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #237)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 03:21 PM

241. I think it's even worse than that. I think they're, somewhere, magically to the left of Chavez now.

Whodda thunk it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #241)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 03:24 PM

242. do note however... some people really are just Naderites. the only reason you

couldn't tell they hated dems before was that we were all too busy hating Bush to notice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #242)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 04:02 PM

249. It really is that simple, isn't it? Mutual hatred for Bush united us, which is another reason I'll

never forgive him. Just kiddin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #35)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:09 PM

206. I have plenty of nerve. And a lot more than just nasty snark which is all you post.

You have nothing else or any opinions on anything except nastiness to other posters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #206)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:21 PM

211. "I have plenty of nerve". I knew we could find a point of agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 10:50 PM

5. MPAA?! Wtf?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 10:52 PM

7. Oh my!

Obama's been a tragic disappointment, but I desperately want to vote for him if only to keep the Trust Fund Bully out of the White House. But, each day, I feel like I'm rooting to be smashed with a hammer instead of being thrown in a wood chipper.

Obama 2012!

Oh, and fuck Third Way!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 10:57 PM

9. Seems apropos:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:22 PM

27. Well... The Wood Chipper WOULD Be Faster...

Somebody here posted the other day...

"Would you rather have 40 major hard slaps to the face/jaw... or one major knock out punch?"

Still pondering that one.





& Rec !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:25 PM

29. Says the guy who supported Hillary, Queen of the DLC. Just too funny. Third Way?

You have got to try harder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:30 PM

33. $50 if you find evidence of that.

How about an apology if you don't?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #33)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:35 PM

34. Not looking for it, but I have a long memory. How's that "cleansing" coming?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #34)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:39 PM

36. Long and really shitty.

Try doing the right thing, instead.

"A good conscience is a perpetual Christmas"
- Ben Franklin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:49 PM

44. You have an agenda Manny. Why don't you fess up, and let us all in on it. Frankly, I don't....

think it's the noble cause some may attribute to you, but please tell us what we should do, given the two choices before us in November.

I realize there are a couple of loser parties vying for the White House, but surely you're not using DU for such nefarious purposes, right? I'm really curious why you and a handful of the more prolific anti-Obama posters continue to scour the internet for the anything that you feel will suppress the vote? I might add, that none of these posters seem to care about Mitt Romney, it just appears to be an all out ABO campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #44)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:57 PM

47. Find a post where I support Hillary for Prez, I'll confess all

By the way, the record shows that I was an early Obama supporter and contributor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #47)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:35 AM

57. Not looking in the archives, but if you say so. Then it's so.



Now, will you answer the questions in the post you just responded to?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #57)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:40 AM

61. Well the works been done for you, down thread

In all seriousness, you should do some research before making accusations, don't you think?

Ask specific questions and I'll answer them, probably tomorrow - I'm off to bed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #61)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:46 AM

65. Don't know what's going on "downthread", but I think my questions were pretty clear?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #65)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:03 AM

78. You can't even take the time to read the clear refutation of your awful charge.

Wow. You must be a busy person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #78)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:42 PM

335. New Rules for DU3:

Everything you need to know about Discussion and Debate at DU3 can be found in the Beavis & Butthead Chat Room at AOL, including making absolutely false accusations about other members of DU.

Forget everything you have learned about logic, debate, presenting you argument, and supporting your position.
All you need to remember is THIS:

1)Never, ever admit you might have been mistaken,
especially when you realize you have really fucked up.

2)Never hesitate to jump into a thread even if you know absolutely nothing about the topic.

3) A one line posts that addresses nothing in the content of OP is the best,
especially if it attacks the messenger.

4)Add lots of these to you post for emphasis:

5)Repeat step 4.

See how EASY that is?
You expect way too much from DU3 and 21st Century America.
Get used to Dumbed Down.
That IS The New Normal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=107392

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #335)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:56 PM

341. Dear Lord that's awesome!

Spot on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #335)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 11:21 PM

466. Day-Yum!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #57)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:11 AM

84. LMAO

more classic head in the sand right wing tactics from someone who has told others their votes didnt count if they lived in a red state so it didnt matter if they voted.

ILL NEVER FORGET YOU WRITING THAT TARHEEL!
ill remind ya til i die or this forum dies, i promise!


choosing to be ignorant because you have a massive ego is going to get you into trouble one day friend!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iamthebandfanman (Reply #84)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:18 AM

87. I may have been wrong about Manny's primary support, but you're still in fuckin' Kentucky!

Good luck with that!


And there's nothing I can say on DU that can "get me into trouble". Nothing. Bank on it!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iamthebandfanman (Reply #84)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:43 AM

105. "Massive ego"

That explains a lot...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iamthebandfanman (Reply #84)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 11:41 AM

428. That type of posting behavior in NOT spawned by a massive ego.

It IS compensation for deep inferiority and inadequacy hiding behind the curtain of an anonymous Internet Discussion Board.

People who behave that way in public are held accountable for their childish outbursts,
especially when the make outright false accusations about others.
They usually walk home with their ass in their hands.
Thus, they seek the anonymity and protection of the Internet to compensate for their inadequacies in REAL Life.
Not a "Massive Ego" at all.
Quite the opposite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #57)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:19 PM

209. and you were an avid bush supporter..

i have no evidence of that, nor am i going to bother searching the archives. i'll just trust my long memory and go with that assertion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #209)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:23 PM

212. Touche!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #44)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:16 AM

86. Wow...

Very few US citizens are aware of DU, Tar. The concept of random anti-Obama posts on DU suppressing the vote is laughable.

Moreover, I had issues with Mr. Obama before he became 'our guy,' the sole contender for the Democratic vote. Then, I had issues with his adjuration that we must move forward, and stop dwelling in the past (a trite justification for avoiding the prosecution of the war criminals from the Bush cabal). Then, Obama appointed a Confederacy of Dunces to key posts in his administration, including Arne "I play basketball" Duncan as SecEd. I'm certain I am not the only person in the nation (or on DU) who feels this way.

Obama's lackluster performance as POTUS is not surprising. I doubt there's a 'leader' on this planet who could stop the speeding bullet of corporate megalomania. Still, I am among those who have noticed that MANY of Obama's decisions warrant the increasingly vociferous adjurations from progressive democrats that he NOT be a sock puppet for the uber wealthy (or the M/I hawks).

Blind allegiance predicated by party affiliation epitomizes the kind of 'patriotism' Samuel Johnson called 'the last refuge of a scoundrel.' We can ill afford such arrogance within our own ranks, even as we struggle to expose this false patriotism among the rank and file Republicans (Eric Cantor comes readily to mind).

In short, dismissing the concerns of Obama's critics is both demeaning and disingenuous, and it will not help us regain our footing in these perilous times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #86)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:30 AM

96. In case you didn't notice, we didn't have a primary. The incumbent is our candidate.

And I, for one, could not be happier. And if you wanna talk about disingenuous, it's the fools who keep trying to equate both parties, and who balk at the suggestion that there's an element on the left, every bit as fucked up in the head, as the teanutters. That's disingenuous.

And as perilous as these times may be, I'd vote for a dead dog, with a "D" on his chest before I'd throw my vote away on some third party loser with high ideals, and not a chance in hell of winning, or having anyone in Congress to work with. You can call my allegiance "blind", or any other demeaning terms you can come up with, but I'm a fucking DEMOCRAT, posting on what used to be a DEMOCRATIC political forum, and I'm damned proud of it.

It was folks like you and Manny who gave us the 2nd Bush. Al Gore, who ironically, is now heralded as a liberal giant, wasn't pure enough. The purists among us needed Sir Ralph.
Fuck Ralph Nader! Fuck Rocky Anderson! Fuck Gary Johnson!, and any other loser mf'er, and their internet moles, who are attempting to split the vote again.

As far as "lackluster", I'd re-read your post for a perfect example.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #96)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:38 AM

98. OMG!

WHERE did I say anything about a primary?! Or, equating both parties?!?

I see that you are mired in your obstinacy. I bet you believe that your vote actually counts.

(The Democratic Party du jour is a pale semblance of the Party of my youth. Again, blind allegiance...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #98)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 02:09 AM

114. A lot of things are a "pale semblance" of my youth. Rotary phones, B&W teevee, whooping cough....

and I don't miss 'em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #114)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 07:21 AM

149. Yeah,

you just keep telling yourself that, Tar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #149)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:00 PM

201. !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #96)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:55 AM

184. Not sure what Party you are in, the Democratic Party held primaries this year, I voted Obama.

as did 88.87% of Democratic Oregonians voting. Now in NC Obama got less than here, just 79.2% of Democrats voted for him there. I wonder if many NC voters suffered from the incorrect impression you put forth here, that there was no primary?
Of course, that primary also involved your House Rep, local issues, and other candidates. No primary is 'one candidate'.
Only 435,000 Democrats in your State bothered to vote for a Democratic opponent to Burr. I hear your turn out was under 20%. Again, this 'we had no primary' crap harmed our turnout. Our low turn out energizes the other Party. The GOP celebrated our low turn out in the Tar Heel State. Their turn out was up. Ours was down.
I voted in my Democratic Primary. For Obama. Did you take a pass on voting this time around? Sounds that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #86)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 03:43 PM

443. Brilliantly stated. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #443)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 09:30 PM

462. Thank you.

I'm afraid the person I was addressing (now on my IL) doesn't agree...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #44)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 03:04 PM

238. boom goes the dynamite...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #44)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:07 PM

299. Do you think I'm a Republican shill? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:49 PM

45. Where the hell did you come up with THAT?

Manny never backed HRC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #51)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:37 AM

59. I am blown away that someone would actually check that out and come to my defense

Thank you!

I expect we'll see an apology from Tarheel shortly. Any minute now.

Yep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #59)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:46 AM

64. Ahaha, I did some digging, too. It's all so clear.

I totally remember you.

Now it makes sense. Super Obama supporters have, in my experience, have shown to have the most painful reaction to him ... being a politician.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #64)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 02:40 AM

116. No, that makes no sense. No more than the other false claim made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #116)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 03:10 AM

120. All in my experience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #120)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 03:26 AM

124. Certainly not your experience on DU. I think DUers have been very clear about what exactly

it is they are concerned about and despite the attempts to distract from the facts, there really is no way to misunderstand, unless someone wants to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #124)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 03:28 AM

125. You can't pretend to know my experience of DU.

I think a lot of DUers had rose colored glasses on when it came to Obama. That's fine. And I think it helps quite well to explain their current reactions to him. They just didn't know he was going to do the stuff that he has done, they tuned it out. That's fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #125)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 03:57 PM

248. You can think whatever you want, the only people with rose colored glasses on are still wearing them

Here's your 'logic' in a nutshell:

WH pushes bad policies harmful to the working class. American people express opposition to those policies.

Partisans desperately seek rationale for the American people's reaction:

Okay, try:

1) They are bitter Hillary supporters!

Note lack of acknowledgement of the policies themselves. But, oops, wrong, okay move to second illogical rationale :

2) They are disappointed Obama supporters

Note again the lack of reference to actual reasons for reaction and, oops wrong again.

3) Move to false assumption the people are stupid, wearing rose-colored glasses, unrealistic expections etc. etc. But still wrong, and note again the refusal to address the actual reasons for the people's reactions.

Republican strategy almost identical btw. People react negatively to bad policies, Partisans go on the attack:

1) Bitter anti-Bush Liberal, commie, morons and again, no reference to the policies themselves. No? Okay on to next irrational excuse:

2) Never got over McCain's loss to Bush in 2000. Still no reference to the policies themselves.




Right/Left partisans are barely distinguishable in their zeal to silence the people. But thank god for for the majority who care about this country and are honest enough to not allow themselves to become blind, painful as it may be, to the fact that politicians must be held accountable by the people when they are on the wrong path even if, no especially if, it is their own party that is on the wrong track.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #248)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 07:25 PM

282. Good Points Sabrina 1.......

What you say rings true with so many of us Democrats who worked for years..voted "got involved" and have worked for candidates, signed Petitions, given Money...been out on the streets....

and yet.........and yet........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #248)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:46 PM

316. Those are all valid reasons people push back against Obama for keeping campaign promises.

I'm not saying don't hold them accountable.

I'm saying good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #316)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:40 PM

334. You mean like Offshore Drilling? And Mandated Insurance?

We are familiar with your denial of broken campaign promises. Fortunately most of us remember what we supported and why.

Unless you're saying Obama was wrong on offshore drilling in the campaign, and McCain, who he very efficiently eviscerated on that issue, was right after all.

To name just a couple of reasons Democrats supported him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #334)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 10:12 PM

345. I'm sorry you don't remember, but Obama was for offshore drilling.

You just show that some people are still in denial after all this time.

After he was nominated he said he would be open to offshore drilling. (If you search for Hillary and 2008 and offshore drilling you will find thousands of PUMA hits bashing him for that one! Which makes one wonder...)

As far as mandates, Krugman predicted he'd have to have one for adults (Obama already had one for children, but many people forget that one). And anyone with any political sense knew he'd have his wrists held behind his back otherwise the cost projections would've been beyond control.

Of course, Obama was a moderate, he never showed any significant liberal policies, and after elected he surprised me with a few liberal things, like expanding Pell Grants, food aid to schools for impoverished children, expending unemployment. Of course, these things came at a great cost, and it is arguable whether they were worth it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #345)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 11:00 PM

367. "Obama Slammed Opponent McCain’s Offshore Drilling Plan as ‘Political Posturing'"

Presidential Candidate Obama Slammed Opponent McCain’s Offshore Drilling Plan as ‘Political Posturing from Washington’

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama’s announcement to lift the ban on offshore drilling for oil along some of the U.S. coastline contrasts sharply with what he said as a candidate on the campaign trail in the summer of 2008.

In June 2008, Obama slammed his Republican rival John McCain (Ariz.) for his support of opening the nation’s coastline for oil exploration and drilling, calling it “political posturing” and an ineffective way to gain energy independence.

He also accused McCain of flip-flopping on his support of a moratorium on offshore drilling in 2000, a position Obama said was “certainly laudable.”

......

“Much like (McCain’s) gas tax gimmick that would leave consumers with pennies in savings, opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on gasoline prices would be negligible at best since America only has three percent of the world's oil.

“It's another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil,” Obama said.

On a campaign swing through Florida, Obama spoke out against offshore drilling as ineffective and political.


Edited to include link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/31/barack-obama-drilling-offshore-approves

Barack Obama reverses campaign promise and approves offshore drilling

Obama took the Republican slogan "drill, baby, drill" as his own today, opening up over 500,000 square miles of US coastal waters to oil and gas exploitation for the first time in over 20 years.

The move, a reversal of Obama's early campaign promise to retain a ban on offshore exploration, appeared aimed at winning support from Republicans in Congress for new laws to tackle global warming. Sarah Palin's "Drill, baby, drill" slogan was a prominent battle cry in the 2008 elections.


And there's lots more including video of Obama's own words. No Democratic Presidential Candidate has ever promised to lift the ban on offshore drilling.

There is also his explanation on why he reversed that promise, claiming he had learned 'new things' since entering the WH and basically called those who opposed it for so long as old-fashioned, not in possession of the latest information of how safe rigs were now. 18 days after he made those unfortunate statements, he was proven to be tragically wrong. 11 men died on a rig what was by no means safe. I hope he fired those who changed his mind, I know I would have.

Obama opposed offshore drilling slamming McCain and showing he understood why it would not help lower the price of oil, the false claim made by Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #367)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 11:06 PM

370. Obama flipped after he was nominated but before we voted for him.

It is a campaign promise. Please do not try to pretend otherwise.

He was against offshore drilling during the primaries because Hillary was against it (she voted no on ANWR and many other offshore drilling things). Once he got the nomination he "evolved" his position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #370)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 11:19 PM

374. He evolved about a lot of things once he got the nomination. So what is your point?

That is precisely the problem people are having with him, do you understand? He says one thing, then does another. All this for you to finally get to say what people have been saying all along. It was a bit late for us to do much about it by then.

What a waste of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #374)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 11:52 PM

377. My point is that he's been consistent and done everything he said he do within his power.

Some things are beyond his power, however, and those things congress has prevented him from doing the progressive things and then sided with him with the right wing things.

The problem I think is that too many people thought he was a liberal, and no one here wants to admit that they were wrong when they thought that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #377)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 11:58 PM

379. "Any bill I sign must include... a public option..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #379)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 12:01 AM

381. Krugman pointed out that naivety.

And it sold well to the masses. Remember his Harry and Louise ads?

edit: Krugman pointed out that he didn't have the power to pass that legislation without a mandate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #381)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 12:05 AM

382. Can you provide a link?

Obama's words are unequivocal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #382)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 12:14 AM

383. Sure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html

Obama was powerless to do health care without mandates and because he didn't have mandates he had to sacrifice the public option. It was junior level political shit there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #383)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 12:21 AM

385. I get the mandate - but what does that have to do with a public option?

Although now that you bring it up... was candidate Obama unaware that he needed a mandate, or was he lying that he wouldn't have one in his plan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #385)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 12:31 AM

387. It was a political miscalculation.

He couldn't have predicted that Scott Brown would be seated thus forcing him to dump the public option in order to get "bi-partisan" support.

Had Ted Kennedy lived a little longer we would probably have the public option plus a mandate.

The mandate was necessary because all CBO projections without the mandate showed costs of health care going out of the roof.

Obama could not have those cost projections in his 2012 political campaign ads. The public option had to be the sacrifice.

I call it naivety, as I think he thought he could get by with both and which is why he made such strong proclamations about the public option.

Had he been for both he could've argued for both and likely got both, but because so much time was spent 1) getting the mandate put in there and 2) wrangling over the public option during that time (death panels, anyone?), there was no time to get it passed while Kennedy was still alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #387)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 12:48 AM

391. So Scott Brown was elected before Obama deep-sized the public option

In a secret back room deal with Pharma and docs?

Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #391)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 01:03 AM

393. Yep, and they said "we'll try again next year." Of course, then we let the teabaggers win.

So there's that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #393)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 01:07 AM

395. Scott Brown was elected many months AFTER Obama agreed to drop the public option

In secret back room deals with Pharma and hospitals. Do I need to provide references?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #395)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 01:12 AM

396. The Public Option was still alive Nov. 8th. 2009. Scott Brown got elected on Jan. 28, 2010.

Obama's new proposal had exchanges on Feb. 22, 2010, with the public option dropped.

I'd be interested in your sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #397)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 01:19 AM

400. Ted Kennedy was on his death bed when that article was written. What are you saying?

Next? This is a far sight from Obama having back room deals with pharma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #400)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 01:32 AM

406. So? In June of 2009, when Obama ceded a meaningful public option to Pharma and Hospitals in

a secret back room deal, Obama knew Brown would be elected?

Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #406)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 01:46 AM

408. He didn't do that. He merely opened up the door for the possiblity of wrangling.

Simple politics. It's hard, I know, it's really hard. But the public option was still alive. The "death panel" shit was getting a lot of sway and the teabaggers were showing their rise.



It's like people totally forget the history. Then again, maybe not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #408)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 12:58 PM

434. So you're claiming that the NY Times is wrong?

That the secret back room deal was never made?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #377)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 12:54 AM

392. Sen. Barack Obama ex­plains his op­po­si­tion to lift­ing the ban on off-shore drilling.

http://wn.com/Obama_Lifts_Ban_on_Offshore_Drilling

Excellent argument from Obama againstOffshore Drilling.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #392)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 01:06 AM

394. I think you linked the wrong thing.

Or failed to actually watch the video linked:



Of course, that's from 2010 and doesn't address that he flipped his position after he got nominated but before the elections...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #394)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 01:27 AM

404. Go to the first video on the left under the one you posted.

All links go to the main page apparently. It is a great speech, the kind of speech you expect from a Democrat, clear, concise, and obviously he understood the reasons why the ban had remained in place for 29 years. Too bad he evolved to the Republican position, although even Bush Sr. kept the ban in place.

And as we saw, the Republican position, McCain's position, was demonstrated to a tragic disaster, proving once again, that Liberal ideas are superior, based on what is good for people.

11 men died that summer, already forgotten, the supposed benefits of lifting the ban are nowhere in sight, nor will they be. The Gulf is environmentally destroyed for years to come, maybe forever. But the oil guys got what they wanted finally, after 30 years of fighting them off. But it is the voters who are stupid according to you.

Oh, and fyi, when you change your position from being right to being wrong, that is not called 'evolving'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #404)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 01:32 AM

405. Yep, it is too bad, glad he did it before the elections.

That way at least some people with rose colored glasses would know what they were getting in to.

I think next time we should show more scrutiny toward the candidate once they get elected there's little you can do to change their minds (unless what they want to do is beyond their power, such as electing a congress to over-ride, etc, but then that requires voting).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #248)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 03:55 PM

446. All I want of Obama/Biden is the same level of government

I got back during Eisenhower/Kennedy.

One: Faced with the prospect of massive unemployment created by the hordes of returning GI's, Eisenhower saw to it that:
the nation built up a free way system, which meant that local people got employed to build these highways. One of the biggest, non-military tasks that this nation has ever undertaken.

Other projects that the Eisenhower Admin took on was that of building community hospitals, and community colleges. With all the construction jobs available, American families were employed and had sufficient incomes to demand housing. They left their cramped one bedroom homes for houses with two and three bedrooms.

Two: Remain totally confident that the banking system needed the regulation of Glass Steagall. No one in either of these Administrations ever did anything but praise Glass Steagall. And certainly, a Tim Geithner-type, who manipulated the monies offered by the government to his Best Buddies on Wall Street would not have been offered up the position of Secretary of the Treasury. In fact, had there been a Geithner-type around during the Kennedy Administration, Bobby K would have made quick work of the guy using RICO styled prosecutions.

Few people are aware of it, but Kennedy was of the mindset of removing the Federal Reserve from being the secretive, protected institution that it is, and perhaps that is one of the reasons he was done in that fateful day in Dallas.

There are also indications that Kennedy would have pulled us out of the war in Vietnam, saving us from another twelve years of fighting it. But no one I know is afraid that Obama will even touch the MIC's plans for another one hundred years of war.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #64)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 03:54 PM

247. agreed..its because he had such an opportunity to be a hero when we needed one..and he chose

yes chose, to be mediocre and much further to the right than anyone in America expected..excepting great speeches and great smile...and babies like him. Other than that, he is a disappointment and voting for him is going to be difficult if you are truly have democratic principles at heart or if you give a rats ass about humanity and ending the never ending war on terror. We are in a trainwreck together and none of us imagined we would be here when we voted for him in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #59)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:50 AM

68. I remembered, but felt some links for back up would be effective. :)

Not that anyone should have to apologize for supporting any Democrat in '08. That's why we have primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #68)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:58 AM

112. We need to apologize for everything these days.

Sigh.

Thanks again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #29)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:47 AM

66. You're a liar. Manny NEVER supported Clinton in the primaries. nt

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #66)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:56 AM

72. Not necessarily a liar, but it would've been easy to check before alleging it.

The poster could've legitimately remembered wrong, that wouldn't make them a liar, merely miisinformed. But it was really easy to check. Manny was a big Obama supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #72)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:01 AM

77. Don't you think that attempting character assassination without checking the facts is pretty awful?

This disrespect for facts is a huge part of our problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #77)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:10 AM

83. Yes, it was horrible, no doubt.

For instance, when I say Jane Hamsher was a Hillary shill, it is a fact. I would never allege someone was a Hillary shill or supporter without checking the facts, as that was a big deal on DU. The PUMA purge and all.

But I do see how that poster could've legitimately misremembered a sarcastic comment you made. I personally don't recall you much during the primaries (though I spent a lot of time defending Hillary).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #83)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:40 AM

101. And the lack of an apology?

Did they just 'miss' the part where the lie-- excuse me-- the "misremembered" information, was posted, do you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #101)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 01:48 AM

107. Eh, most of that exchange happened before the post was made.

The poster said they'd take their word for it.

I'd apologize for making such a misinformed statement, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #107)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 02:45 AM

118. Most people wouldn't make such a misinformed statement about another DUer, would they?