Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:22 AM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
Cenk is over at Daily Kos calling for a vote against Obama (updated)Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:19 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
Vote Against Obama in Iowa
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/29/1049662/-Vote-Against-Obama-in-Iowa What a silly clown this guy has become. Al Gore should snatch the platform from under this moron. I seriously believe these assholes want a Republican to win. Maybe he's longing for his idol Reagan. Here's why Cenk really wants a protest vote against the President: <...>
I follow politics for a living; I'm not unaware of how hideous the Republican choices are. But that doesn't mean that we should pretend that President Obama has been brilliant because we're scared of the big, bad Republicans. That would be fundamentally dishonest. And to be honest, I'm really disappointed that he does not have a primary opponent. This country is dying for someone who is going to take on the establishment. Who is that going to be on our side - Barack Obama? On that, I know whether to laugh or cry. Every time I think about the idea that President Obama might be against the establishment, I laugh and laugh and laugh. There is never been a guy who was this enamored with the establishment. If he had wrestling nickname it would be The Establishment. The guy who appointed Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley (and a list of hundreds of others, including two new Fed appointments, one of which is a Republican who worked for the Carlyle Group) is not a guy who is interested in changing the system at all. Change was a cutesy slogan he used to trick us into thinking he was on our side. I would have loved a progressive alternative, but apparently we are not going to get one (except for Rocky Anderson running on the Justice Party ticket). Primaries are the perfect place to send a message without taking away votes in the general election. But it didn't happen because the Democratic establishment says we must fall in line because we wouldn't want to hurt the agenda of the president. The agenda of the president sucks and is deeply Republican. I'd love to at least get him to reconsider that agenda for a second. This moron's fact-free screed is simply designed to stir up anti-Obama sentiments. Let's take a look at the President's "deeply Republican" agenda: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100219885 http://www.democraticunderground.com/100233108 Repeat: Anyone who wants to consider the first President to finally enact health care reform, the President who repealed DADT and ended the ban on gays in the military, the President who ended the Iraq war, who strenghtened the NLRB, who reregulated the financial industry, creating a the first-ever consumer bureau and giving the FDIC new powers, enacting some of the toughest environmental rules in decades, including the first-ever rule on mercury, and appointing two liberal women to the Supreme court...anyone who sees this President as a "deeply Republican" is a moron! Cenk qualifies.
|
336 replies, 7161 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | OP | |
| surfdog | Dec 29 | #1 | |
| pleiadian candidate | Dec 29 | #131 | |
| spanone | Dec 29 | #2 | |
| pleiadian candidate | Dec 29 | #130 | |
| spanone | Dec 29 | #234 | |
| Phx_Dem | Jan 2 | #327 | |
| Capitalocracy | Dec 29 | #147 | |
| NNN0LHI | Dec 29 | #3 | |
| Richardo | Dec 29 | #19 | |
| SidDithers | Dec 29 | #164 | |
| flamingdem | Dec 29 | #173 | |
| pocoloco | Dec 30 | #275 | |
| NNN0LHI | Dec 30 | #276 | |
| Enrique | Dec 29 | #4 | |
| boston bean | Dec 29 | #10 | |
| Mr Dixon | Dec 29 | #25 | |
| boston bean | Dec 29 | #28 | |
| bluestate10 | Dec 29 | #210 | |
| stevenleser | Jan 2 | #324 | |
| Phx_Dem | Jan 2 | #328 | |
| FarLeftFist | Dec 29 | #5 | |
| ElboRuum | Dec 29 | #129 | |
| UnrepentantLiberal | Dec 30 | #264 | |
| ElboRuum | Jan 1 | #314 | |
| UnrepentantLiberal | Jan 1 | #317 | |
| ElboRuum | Jan 1 | #321 | |
| UnrepentantLiberal | Jan 2 | #322 | |
| surfdog | Dec 29 | #6 | |
| boston bean | Dec 29 | #7 | |
| Javaman | Dec 29 | #9 | |
| frylock | Dec 29 | #127 | |
| UnrepentantLiberal | Dec 30 | #265 | |
| PassingFair | Dec 29 | #17 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #20 | |
| hfojvt | Dec 29 | #39 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #89 | |
| PassingFair | Dec 29 | #50 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #87 | |
| hfojvt | Dec 29 | #99 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #110 | |
| PassingFair | Dec 29 | #126 | |
| Sherman A1 | Dec 30 | #262 | |
| PassingFair | Dec 29 | #106 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #109 | |
| PassingFair | Dec 29 | #112 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #115 | |
| TheKentuckian | Dec 29 | #185 | |
| hfojvt | Dec 29 | #119 | |
| sabrina 1 | Dec 29 | #137 | |
| fascisthunter | Jan 1 | #312 | |
| A Simple Game | Dec 29 | #166 | |
| Maven | Dec 29 | #197 | |
| fascisthunter | Jan 1 | #311 | |
| karynnj | Dec 29 | #48 | |
| YvonneCa | Dec 29 | #190 | |
| treestar | Dec 29 | #58 | |
| fascisthunter | Jan 1 | #308 | |
| Javaman | Dec 29 | #8 | |
| Union Scribe | Dec 29 | #11 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #13 | |
| Javaman | Dec 29 | #41 | |
| girl gone mad | Dec 29 | #83 | |
| sabrina 1 | Dec 29 | #139 | |
| cherokeeprogressive | Dec 29 | #199 | |
| CreekDog | Jan 4 | #332 | |
| NNN0LHI | Dec 29 | #14 | |
| Javaman | Dec 29 | #44 | |
| Whisp | Dec 29 | #114 | |
| Javaman | Dec 29 | #163 | |
| Maven | Dec 29 | #198 | |
| dawg | Dec 29 | #12 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #16 | |
| boston bean | Dec 29 | #21 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #24 | |
| dawg | Dec 29 | #29 | |
| theaocp | Dec 29 | #32 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #42 | |
| theaocp | Dec 29 | #47 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #51 | |
| U4ikLefty | Dec 29 | #205 | |
| ProSense | Dec 30 | #252 | |
| truebrit71 | Dec 30 | #285 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #38 | |
| dawg | Dec 29 | #55 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #62 | |
| dawg | Dec 29 | #78 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #93 | |
| dawg | Dec 29 | #100 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #104 | |
| dawg | Dec 29 | #108 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #113 | |
| dawg | Dec 29 | #121 | |
| treestar | Dec 29 | #60 | |
| dawg | Dec 29 | #69 | |
| hfojvt | Dec 29 | #52 | |
| toddaa | Dec 29 | #72 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #76 | |
| Javaman | Dec 29 | #43 | |
| Spazito | Dec 29 | #15 | |
| theaocp | Dec 29 | #35 | |
| Spazito | Dec 29 | #65 | |
| theaocp | Dec 29 | #68 | |
| Spazito | Dec 29 | #75 | |
| theaocp | Dec 29 | #79 | |
| Spazito | Dec 29 | #84 | |
| theaocp | Dec 29 | #88 | |
| Tierra_y_Libertad | Dec 29 | #18 | |
| MineralMan | Dec 29 | #22 | |
| theaocp | Dec 29 | #37 | |
| Iggo | Dec 29 | #23 | |
| bahrbearian | Dec 29 | #27 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #31 | |
| theaocp | Dec 29 | #40 | |
| MilesColtrane | Dec 29 | #107 | |
| JustAnotherGen | Dec 29 | #26 | |
| treestar | Dec 29 | #64 | |
| bigtree | Dec 29 | #30 | |
| JoePhilly | Dec 29 | #33 | |
| theaocp | Dec 29 | #45 | |
| Javaman | Dec 29 | #46 | |
| JoePhilly | Dec 29 | #189 | |
| fascisthunter | Jan 1 | #315 | |
| LiberalAndProud | Dec 29 | #34 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #71 | |
| LiberalAndProud | Dec 29 | #118 | |
| abelenkpe | Dec 29 | #36 | |
| A Simple Game | Dec 29 | #184 | |
| abelenkpe | Dec 29 | #186 | |
| Zorra | Dec 29 | #49 | |
| Bobbie Jo | Dec 29 | #53 | |
| Tarheel_Dem | Dec 29 | #54 | |
| theaocp | Dec 29 | #56 | |
| Tarheel_Dem | Dec 29 | #66 | |
| theaocp | Dec 29 | #70 | |
| Tarheel_Dem | Dec 29 | #85 | |
| theaocp | Dec 29 | #91 | |
| Tarheel_Dem | Dec 29 | #92 | |
| theaocp | Dec 29 | #94 | |
| Tarheel_Dem | Dec 29 | #101 | |
| LanternWaste | Dec 29 | #143 | |
| Tarheel_Dem | Dec 29 | #149 | |
| girl gone mad | Dec 29 | #116 | |
| Tarheel_Dem | Dec 29 | #117 | |
| girl gone mad | Dec 31 | #303 | |
| sabrina 1 | Dec 29 | #145 | |
| slay | Dec 29 | #183 | |
| Tarheel_Dem | Dec 29 | #230 | |
| slay | Dec 29 | #232 | |
| Tarheel_Dem | Dec 29 | #240 | |
| slay | Dec 30 | #244 | |
| Tarheel_Dem | Dec 30 | #248 | |
| Number23 | Dec 30 | #299 | |
| Tarheel_Dem | Dec 31 | #304 | |
| Number23 | Dec 29 | #235 | |
| Tarheel_Dem | Dec 30 | #242 | |
| slay | Dec 30 | #245 | |
| Tarheel_Dem | Dec 30 | #249 | |
| MjolnirTime | Dec 29 | #57 | |
| Tarheel_Dem | Dec 29 | #67 | |
| Bucky | Dec 29 | #153 | |
| TheKentuckian | Dec 29 | #193 | |
| JTFrog | Dec 29 | #59 | |
| theaocp | Dec 29 | #63 | |
| JTFrog | Dec 29 | #74 | |
| theaocp | Dec 29 | #77 | |
| toddaa | Dec 29 | #61 | |
| jenmito | Dec 29 | #73 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #82 | |
| jenmito | Dec 29 | #90 | |
| Major Hogwash | Dec 29 | #86 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #95 | |
| jenmito | Dec 29 | #98 | |
| Major Hogwash | Dec 29 | #80 | |
| CakeGrrl | Dec 29 | #81 | |
| fascisthunter | Dec 29 | #124 | |
| phleshdef | Dec 29 | #96 | |
| Tarheel_Dem | Dec 29 | #103 | |
| book_worm | Dec 29 | #97 | |
| MilesColtrane | Dec 29 | #102 | |
| frazzled | Dec 29 | #105 | |
| Whisp | Dec 29 | #111 | |
| Motown_Johnny | Dec 29 | #120 | |
| fascisthunter | Dec 29 | #123 | |
| Motown_Johnny | Dec 29 | #134 | |
| treestar | Dec 29 | #141 | |
| fascisthunter | Dec 29 | #122 | |
| Major Hogwash | Dec 29 | #128 | |
| fascisthunter | Dec 29 | #160 | |
| Major Hogwash | Dec 29 | #176 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #133 | |
| MineralMan | Dec 29 | #125 | |
| flamingdem | Dec 29 | #132 | |
| DesMoinesDem | Dec 29 | #135 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #136 | |
| DesMoinesDem | Dec 29 | #138 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #140 | |
| Tarheel_Dem | Dec 29 | #151 | |
| DesMoinesDem | Dec 29 | #154 | |
| fascisthunter | Dec 29 | #161 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #175 | |
| bluestate10 | Dec 29 | #203 | |
| fascisthunter | Jan 1 | #307 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #174 | |
| Ikonoklast | Dec 29 | #150 | |
| DesMoinesDem | Dec 29 | #155 | |
| Ikonoklast | Dec 29 | #157 | |
| CherylK | Dec 29 | #156 | |
| slay | Dec 29 | #182 | |
| LanternWaste | Dec 29 | #142 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #144 | |
| LanternWaste | Dec 29 | #146 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #148 | |
| LanternWaste | Dec 29 | #152 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #158 | |
| gulliver | Dec 29 | #159 | |
| tishaLA | Dec 30 | #267 | |
| gulliver | Dec 30 | #295 | |
| Rex | Dec 29 | #162 | |
| yodermon | Dec 29 | #165 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #167 | |
| Fantastic Anarchist | Dec 29 | #168 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #170 | |
| Fantastic Anarchist | Dec 30 | #256 | |
| limpyhobbler | Dec 31 | #301 | |
| girl gone mad | Jan 1 | #320 | |
| DeathToTheOil | Dec 29 | #169 | |
| Hissyspit | Dec 29 | #222 | |
| Pisces | Dec 29 | #171 | |
| BlancheSplanchnik | Dec 29 | #172 | |
| tavalon | Dec 29 | #177 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #178 | |
| tavalon | Dec 29 | #180 | |
| slay | Dec 29 | #179 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #181 | |
| Roland99 | Dec 29 | #187 | |
| lillypaddle | Dec 29 | #188 | |
| woo me with science | Dec 29 | #191 | |
| Spazito | Dec 29 | #192 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #194 | |
| slay | Dec 29 | #201 | |
| Spazito | Dec 29 | #202 | |
| slay | Dec 29 | #207 | |
| Spazito | Dec 29 | #211 | |
| slay | Dec 29 | #214 | |
| Spazito | Dec 29 | #217 | |
| slay | Dec 29 | #218 | |
| Spazito | Dec 29 | #219 | |
| sabrina 1 | Dec 29 | #204 | |
| slay | Dec 29 | #208 | |
| sabrina 1 | Dec 29 | #213 | |
| slay | Dec 29 | #216 | |
| Spazito | Dec 29 | #209 | |
| sabrina 1 | Dec 29 | #212 | |
| Spazito | Dec 29 | #215 | |
| sabrina 1 | Dec 29 | #220 | |
| Spazito | Dec 29 | #221 | |
| Number23 | Dec 29 | #237 | |
| Spazito | Dec 30 | #287 | |
| penguin7 | Dec 29 | #195 | |
| WillyT | Dec 29 | #196 | |
| bluestate10 | Dec 29 | #200 | |
| LoisB | Dec 29 | #206 | |
| WillyT | Dec 29 | #223 | |
| Major Hogwash | Dec 29 | #226 | |
| WillyT | Dec 29 | #229 | |
| Major Hogwash | Dec 30 | #277 | |
| fascisthunter | Jan 1 | #310 | |
| NorthCarolina | Dec 30 | #269 | |
| BklnDem75 | Jan 4 | #336 | |
| TheDirectPath | Dec 29 | #224 | |
| JDPriestly | Dec 29 | #225 | |
| nadinbrzezinski | Dec 29 | #227 | |
| ProSense | Dec 29 | #233 | |
| nadinbrzezinski | Dec 30 | #243 | |
| ProSense | Dec 30 | #247 | |
| nadinbrzezinski | Dec 30 | #250 | |
| ProSense | Dec 30 | #251 | |
| maximusveritas | Dec 29 | #228 | |
| Festivito | Dec 29 | #236 | |
| got root | Dec 29 | #231 | |
| Agony | Dec 29 | #238 | |
| thesquanderer | Dec 29 | #239 | |
| Better Believe It | Dec 29 | #241 | |
| JI7 | Dec 30 | #246 | |
| gateley | Dec 30 | #253 | |
| garybeck | Dec 30 | #254 | |
| Douglas Carpenter | Dec 30 | #255 | |
| JNelson6563 | Dec 30 | #257 | |
| highprincipleswork | Dec 30 | #258 | |
| Tx4obama | Dec 30 | #259 | |
| highprincipleswork | Jan 3 | #329 | |
| Tx4obama | Jan 3 | #330 | |
| JVS | Dec 30 | #260 | |
| limpyhobbler | Dec 30 | #261 | |
| Vestigial_Sister | Dec 30 | #263 | |
| Sienna86 | Dec 30 | #266 | |
| NorthCarolina | Dec 30 | #268 | |
| Better Believe It | Dec 30 | #271 | |
| ProSense | Dec 30 | #273 | |
| ProSense | Dec 30 | #272 | |
| deacon_sephiroth | Dec 30 | #270 | |
| ProSense | Dec 30 | #274 | |
| WI_DEM | Dec 30 | #278 | |
| dsc | Dec 30 | #279 | |
| ProSense | Dec 30 | #281 | |
| dsc | Dec 30 | #291 | |
| ProSense | Dec 30 | #292 | |
| truebrit71 | Dec 30 | #280 | |
| ProSense | Dec 30 | #282 | |
| truebrit71 | Dec 30 | #283 | |
| ProSense | Dec 30 | #284 | |
| truebrit71 | Dec 30 | #286 | |
| ProSense | Dec 30 | #288 | |
| truebrit71 | Dec 30 | #289 | |
| ProSense | Dec 30 | #290 | |
| truebrit71 | Dec 30 | #296 | |
| Betty Karlson | Dec 30 | #293 | |
| ProSense | Dec 30 | #294 | |
| truebrit71 | Dec 30 | #297 | |
| Matariki | Dec 30 | #298 | |
| ProSense | Dec 30 | #300 | |
| 1stlady | Dec 31 | #302 | |
| Douglas Carpenter | Dec 31 | #305 | |
| PA Democrat | Dec 31 | #306 | |
| fascisthunter | Jan 1 | #309 | |
| ProSense | Jan 1 | #316 | |
| girl gone mad | Jan 1 | #318 | |
| ProSense | Jan 1 | #319 | |
| fascisthunter | Jan 2 | #326 | |
| mmonk | Jan 1 | #313 | |
| MrMickeysMom | Jan 2 | #323 | |
| Bonobo | Jan 2 | #325 | |
| 1stlady | Jan 3 | #331 | |
| Erose999 | Jan 4 | #333 | |
| mmonk | Jan 4 | #334 | |
| BklnDem75 | Jan 4 | #335 |
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:24 AM
surfdog (460 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
1. I agree
|
The guy isn't very grounded
|
Response to surfdog (Reply #1)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:36 PM
pleiadian candidate (24 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
131. This guy is, though!
![]() |
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:25 AM
spanone (62,532 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
2. i wonder who he's planning on voting for?
Response to spanone (Reply #2)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:36 PM
pleiadian candidate (24 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
130. Who do you plan to vote for?
|
The guy advocating for national drones?
|
Response to pleiadian candidate (Reply #130)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:20 PM
spanone (62,532 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
234. fucking a
Response to pleiadian candidate (Reply #130)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:36 PM
Phx_Dem (11,058 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
327. You betcha!
|
Those drones have killed a lot of terrorists while keeping soldiers safe.
|
Response to spanone (Reply #2)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 03:51 PM
Capitalocracy (4,307 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
147. Obama, obviously.
|
Just not in the primary. From the excerpt in the OP:
"Primaries are the perfect place to send a message without taking away votes in the general election." |
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:27 AM
NNN0LHI (64,496 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
3. I knew he was an asscarrot first time I heard him
|
Sometimes you can judge a book by its cover.
Don |
Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #3)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:40 AM
Richardo (37,515 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
19. ..
|
|
Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #3)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 04:57 PM
SidDithers (19,689 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
164. Yup...
|
Sid |
Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #3)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 06:05 PM
flamingdem (13,193 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
173. Thanks for the new term
|
asscarrot is indeed an addition to the English language. First I've heard of this one.
|
Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #3)
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 10:37 AM
pocoloco (2,653 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
275. Do all trolls think the Constitution is
|
just "a god damned piece of paper" too?
|
Response to pocoloco (Reply #275)
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 10:40 AM
NNN0LHI (64,496 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
276. Just to be sure here who are you calling a troll?
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:27 AM
Enrique (16,926 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
4. Cenk is wrong in this part:
|
But if all of those people were to go and participate on the Democratic side they might have an effect. If "uncommitted" beat President Obama on the Democratic side in Iowa that would make some news. That might even get the attention of The Establishment. So far, he has only responded to right-wing pressure. He is the consummate politician, so if there was actually a little bit of pressure on his left he might have to respond to it, especially during an election season. Wouldn't it be amazing if President Obama acted like a progressive on some issue because he was worried about the voters?
There are at least two major examples of Obama responding to pressure from the left, and it does no good to ignore these successes. : first, there was Don't Ask Don't Tell, second, there was the reversal of the high rate of deportations. |
Response to Enrique (Reply #4)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:33 AM
boston bean (12,075 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
10. could you imagine what Obama might do, if people weren't telling others to STFU?
|
I think that is the point. Make a statement. Make a politician do what is right and what the people want.
Unless of course Obama rank and fil democrats don't want bankers held accountable, and like the NDAA, and love more war and drone attacks on innocents. |
Response to boston bean (Reply #10)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:55 AM
Mr Dixon (151 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
25. SMH
|
Bait much?
|
Response to Mr Dixon (Reply #25)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:00 AM
boston bean (12,075 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
28. no.
|
you?
|
Response to boston bean (Reply #10)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 08:30 PM
bluestate10 (4,892 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
210. Continue to make the assumption that other democrats agree with your positions.
|
You obviously didn't watch Tweety's show tonight. There was serious love for President Obama in that big crowd. So much love that when Tweety did his usual negative tweaking of Obama, the crowd started to mumble in the background, a couple of times that forced Tweety to whiplash on his statements instantly.
|
Response to boston bean (Reply #10)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:21 AM
stevenleser (8,362 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
324. You mean like the people telling Greenwald critics to shut up all over GD?
|
Cant have it both ways. Either criticism means you are telling people to shut up, or it isnt.
|
Response to boston bean (Reply #10)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:40 PM
Phx_Dem (11,058 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
328. Drone attacks on innocents!??
|
That's the biggest whopper I've read here in quite some time. I have never read once of a drone intentionally attacking civilians.
Sadly, civilians get killed in combat by ACCIDENT. Sometimes our own troops get killed by friendly fire. I suppose we should ban them as well. |
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:28 AM
FarLeftFist (5,373 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
5. Sometimes I think they DO want an R to win so they can go on the offensive
|
There's not much ratings in pro-govt media but with an R in the WH they (leftist journalists) can go all "Hannity" on the R president.
|
Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #5)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:26 PM
ElboRuum (3,696 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
129. Sorry...
|
But I do not want to suffer 4 years of any p(R)esident just so Cenk can have cannon fodder for the foreseeable future.
And the same old crap about he lied to me, he roped me in, he promised this change etc... Bullshit, Cenk put on his rose-colored glasses and saw what he wanted to see just like every other person who "thought" (read hoped) he'd be some progressive avatar. The wounded acolyte bit is nonsense no matter who is wearing it. |
Response to ElboRuum (Reply #129)
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 05:56 AM
UnrepentantLiberal (2,445 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
264. Yeah, we should have never put on those
|
"hope" and "change" glasses. That was silly. Silly, naive us.
|
Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #264)
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:39 PM
ElboRuum (3,696 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
314. Interesting.
|
The one phrase that was known to every thinking person as campaign puffery is the one that intelligent progressives hung their hats on.
That was pretty naive. |
Response to ElboRuum (Reply #314)
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:54 PM
UnrepentantLiberal (2,445 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
317. Yes, every thinking person should have known
|
that he is a liar. I feel so stupid.
|
Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #317)
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:43 PM
ElboRuum (3,696 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
321. That's the point.
|
He isn't a liar. The narrative many progressives embraced "made" him into one. The error was painting over reality with a chosen narrative and then expecting reality to bend to the narrative.
Not once during the campaign did he ever show himself to be particularly (if at all) progressive, but somehow, "hope and change" got conflated and transmogrified in a lot of people's minds as "progressive". He went from centrist to left in three words. Who does that without quite a lot of help from the listener? Thinking people know the difference between a campaign slogan and a campaign promise. |
Response to ElboRuum (Reply #321)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:29 AM
UnrepentantLiberal (2,445 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
322. Yep, I should have known he is a Republican
|
who had no intentions of changing anything. The offshore drilling is awesome. Wasn't the oil spill fun? Can't wait to vote for him this November.
|
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:29 AM
surfdog (460 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
6. Cenk is one of those idiots
|
That feels the current problem in Washington is that the president isn't liberal enough
|
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:30 AM
boston bean (12,075 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
7. He asked Iowa caucus go'ers to use an Occupy strategy
|
and vote un-committed. Not to vote against him.
It wouldn't hurt Obama's re-election at all, and might get him to take notice of what people in this country want. |
Response to boston bean (Reply #7)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:32 AM
Javaman (35,866 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
9. Exactly right.
|
It seems as if the OP hadn't read the article themselves.
|
Response to Javaman (Reply #9)
frylock This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Javaman (Reply #9)
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 05:59 AM
UnrepentantLiberal (2,445 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
265. Too busy writting a reponse
|
that said "untrue" and "no facts".
|
Response to boston bean (Reply #7)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:37 AM
PassingFair (19,574 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
17. There are people on "our side" who want to "control the message" every bit as much as Karl Rove...
|
wants it controlled on "his side".
They are craven enough to be afraid of any light being shined on problems within our party. Transparency is anathema to these people. |
Response to PassingFair (Reply #17)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:42 AM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
20. Actually,
|
Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:42 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) "There are people on "our side" who want to "control the message" every bit as much as Karl Rove..."
...there are people using Karl Rove tactics on "our side." There primary goal is to create the impression that the President is lacking, weak, a "trojan horse" <...>
I follow politics for a living; I'm not unaware of how hideous the Republican choices are. But that doesn't mean that we should pretend that President Obama has been brilliant because we're scared of the big, bad Republicans. That would be fundamentally dishonest. And to be honest, I'm really disappointed that he does not have a primary opponent. This country is dying for someone who is going to take on the establishment. Who is that going to be on our side - Barack Obama? On that, I know whether to laugh or cry. Every time I think about the idea that President Obama might be against the establishment, I laugh and laugh and laugh. There is never been a guy who was this enamored with the establishment. If he had wrestling nickname it would be The Establishment. The guy who appointed Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley (and a list of hundreds of others, including two new Fed appointments, one of which is a Republican who worked for the Carlyle Group) is not a guy who is interested in changing the system at all. Change was a cutesy slogan he used to trick us into thinking he was on our side. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/29/1049662/-Vote-Against-Obama-in-Iowa?via=siderecent Cenk is a dishonest clown. |
Response to ProSense (Reply #20)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:10 AM
hfojvt (28,039 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
39. what's dishonest or clowning about that?
|
Okay, he is trying to be funny in several spots, but nothing wrong with that. The bottom line that Obama is not on our side, has not been on our side, seems as right as rain to me.
But part of that depends on what "our" side is. |
Response to hfojvt (Reply #39)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:56 AM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
89. So
|
"Okay, he is trying to be funny in several spots, but nothing wrong with that."
...moronic is now "funny"? |
Response to ProSense (Reply #20)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:18 AM
PassingFair (19,574 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
50. I agree with him.
|
"I follow politics for a living; I'm not unaware of how hideous the Republican choices are. But that doesn't mean that we should pretend that President Obama has been brilliant because we're scared of the big, bad Republicans. That would be fundamentally dishonest.
And to be honest, I'm really disappointed that he does not have a primary opponent. This country is dying for someone who is going to take on the establishment. Who is that going to be on our side - Barack Obama? On that, I know whether to laugh or cry. Every time I think about the idea that President Obama might be against the establishment, I laugh and laugh and laugh. There is never been a guy who was this enamored with the establishment. If he had wrestling nickname it would be The Establishment. The guy who appointed Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley (and a list of hundreds of others, including two new Fed appointments, one of which is a Republican who worked for the Carlyle Group) is not a guy who is interested in changing the system at all. Change was a cutesy slogan he used to trick us into thinking he was on our side. " Many of us voters felt that we had a choice between Obama and Clinton. We were duped. They were and are playing from the same book. Your "team" may choose to ignore our awareness at your own peril. Luckily, the republicans are in COMPLETE disarray and unless they wise up and coalesce behind Romney, the Democrats don't have a worry in the world. |
Response to PassingFair (Reply #50)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:55 AM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
87. I know
|
"Many of us voters felt that we had a choice between Obama and Clinton. We were duped.
They were and are playing from the same book." ...Hillary makes Obama look like a RW Republican, right? I mean, if Hillary had become President we'd have single payer and pot legal. |
Response to ProSense (Reply #87)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:22 PM
hfojvt (28,039 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
99. no, silly, Hillary is DLC
|
But we thought, we hoped, that Obama was not DLC. So we got all fired up and hopeful and we ran down the field to kick that football to the moon, but Lucy Obama yanked it away and said "Haw haw, I am DLC too." and we went flying into the air and slammed on the ground.
Now, we are just a wee bit peeved. |
Response to hfojvt (Reply #99)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:58 PM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
110. Funny,
|
"But we thought, we hoped, that Obama was not DLC. "
...I knew exactly who Obama was, and he wasn't DLC, still isn't. See, anyone who feels they were duped wasn't paying attention, IMO. |
Response to ProSense (Reply #110)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:06 PM
PassingFair (19,574 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
126. His cabinet was almost completely comprised of DLC bigwigs.
|
Some of us who were paying attention got duped.
Some of us who weren't paying attention got duped. We were all duped into thinking that Obama offered an alternative to the 3rd Way, DLC powers-that-be. |
Response to ProSense (Reply #110)
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 05:26 AM
Sherman A1 (8,525 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
262. I knew exactly who Obama was
|
and I knew that we were not electing a progressive. It was the best of two bad choices, but it was the best available at the time.
I had "hoped" for more "change", but I was pretty sure that we were going to get just more of the same and in fact we have done so. I believe the primaries are a good place to send a message, yet I suspect that even if it were a strong "we are not happy", it will be dismissed. Romney will be the GOP nominee, Obama will win in the General Election and we will see what comes around in 2016. |
Response to ProSense (Reply #87)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:37 PM
PassingFair (19,574 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
106. You don't understand at all.
|
Things would be NO DIFFERENT.
The economy would still be rigged by the same protected players. There WAS no choice between Clinton and Obama. It was a Hobson's Choice. Which means NO choice. Still, you would think that it would have taught them a lesson. That they should at least pay lip-service to a progressive agenda....but all they took away was that we could be duped into voting for something that didn't exist and now they don't even have to pretend that we have choices within the party. I continue to support the Progressive Caucus in the House. |
Response to PassingFair (Reply #106)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:56 PM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
109. No
|
"There WAS no choice between Clinton and Obama.
It was a Hobson's Choice. " ...you don't understand. There was a choice between Hillary, Obama and a few other Democrats. People made their choices, and it came down to Hillary and Obama. |
Response to ProSense (Reply #109)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:10 PM
PassingFair (19,574 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
112. The "choice" between "Hillary" and "Obama" was NO choice.
|
Same team, same players, no choice.
|
Response to PassingFair (Reply #112)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:19 PM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
115. Um
|
The "choice" between "Hillary" and "Obama" was NO choice.
Yes, it was. Go and take a look at the candidates, all of them. If people wanted to choose one of the others, they would have. It came down to two candidates, and you got to choose one. In fact, if you didn't want to choose one of those candidates, you didn't have to. |
Response to ProSense (Reply #115)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 06:45 PM
TheKentuckian (14,787 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
185. Different names, faces, and gender
|
Little substantive difference between policies which means no real choice and what little differences there were blew away like dust in the wind as the cabinet was staffed with the Who's who among DLC'ers.
The "choice" was superficial and sure as hell not worth flogging three and four years down the line. |
Response to PassingFair (Reply #112)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:25 PM
hfojvt (28,039 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
119. Well I caucused for Edwards, even though he had dropped out
|
but there were only five of us, and in the 2nd round, we all went with Obama. So the DFA and Ted Kennedy, presumably thinking we were defeating the DLC wing of the party. Well, we seem to have won the battle and lost the war.
|
Response to ProSense (Reply #20)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 03:19 PM
sabrina 1 (24,149 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
137. Where is the dishonesty there? Did Obama NOT appoint all those Wall Street
|
people to his cabinet? And that is a serious issue for his next election. Who is he planning to put on his cabinet next time?
Cenk is using a strategy to get the attention of those in charge. Since politics is all about strategy, why do you object to the people most affected by politics using it also, for a CHANGE? |
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #137)
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:53 AM
fascisthunter (26,190 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
312. no response to your question....
Response to ProSense (Reply #20)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 05:27 PM
A Simple Game (3,081 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
166. You think Cenk is a dishonest clown?
|
Seems to me that everything he said is mostly true, care to provide some proof of his dishonesty?
|
Response to ProSense (Reply #20)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:58 PM
Maven (7,398 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
197. Everything in those three paragraphs is 100% true.
|
Sorry it doesn't fit with the Circle D (TM) agenda.
|
Response to PassingFair (Reply #17)
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:52 AM
fascisthunter (26,190 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
311. Oh yes indeed... and it is CREEPY!
Response to boston bean (Reply #7)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:17 AM
karynnj (44,668 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
48. Do you believe the media will see it as not against Obama?
|
What I would prefer is if Obama gets a large number of Iowans out to caucus for him with no opposition. The best story would be if Obama gets more caucus goers than the sum of the Republicans. The caucus could then act as a really cool Democratic victory rally to start the reelection campaign.
I wonder if - under the radar - the Obama organizers are doing what they can to get people to come out and be with fellow democrats to reelect a President who faced really horrendous problems and has made good (but not enough) progress even with the anklebiting Republican Congressmen trying to stop him every second. Maybe they can provide good refreshments. |
Response to karynnj (Reply #48)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:21 PM
YvonneCa (8,277 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
190. I love this post! "...anklebiting Republican Congressmen"
|
...is the perfect visual description.
|
Response to boston bean (Reply #7)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:26 AM
treestar (31,635 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
58. Haven't they been screaming about what they want for three years?
|
We know what they want. They want "balls." They want an all powerful Presidency with no input from Congress. They want a President who will act as if Republicans don't exist and have no rights. As if the Republicans cannot get any votes. They think that if the President demands something, the bully pulpit magically gets everyone on the President's side immediately, not daring to oppose him.
They've screamed and stomped their feet for three years, and guess what - we still have a government with three branches and one that does not do vague things like "prosecute bankers" - no, it still insists on prosecuting particular individuals against whom there is enough evidence - probable cause - to bring that individual to trial. |
Response to boston bean (Reply #7)
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:48 AM
fascisthunter (26,190 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
308. That's my take on this as well
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:30 AM
Javaman (35,866 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
8. Where exactly does it say that in the article? I just read it.
|
Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:31 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) From the article...
But there is one thing we can do right now that doesn't really hurt the chances of the president getting re-elected and doesn't help Republicans one bit. It is an idea that Occupy Iowa came up with. In the Iowa caucuses you can vote for "uncommitted." In fact, since the 1970's "uncommitted" has won twice on the Democratic side and it beat Bob Dole in 1980. Of course, the Republican Party has shut down this option on their side. They say you can vote that way in the GOP field but they will not register those votes or send those delegates. Of course, they're the GOP; they have no interest in your dissent. But if all of those people were to go and participate on the Democratic side they might have an effect. If "uncommitted" beat President Obama on the Democratic side in Iowa that would make some news. That might even get the attention of The Establishment. So far, he has only responded to right-wing pressure. He is the consummate politician, so if there was actually a little bit of pressure on his left he might have to respond to it, especially during an election season. Wouldn't it be amazing if President Obama acted like a progressive on some issue because he was worried about the voters? By the way, this strategy also has the benefit of being accurate. I am "uncommitted" toward Obama. I'm uncommitted from supporting a guy that has walked all over our civil liberties, that thinks tax cuts are the only answer, that gave all of the money to the bankers and asked for nothing in return, that thinks the right-wing establishment has all of the answers. Uncommitted is the kindest word I have. If you live in Iowa, please send a message to the President for the rest of us. We voted for change last time, apparently you didn't hear us. If you don't hear us soon, you might be the one that gets changed. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/29/1049662/-Vote-Against-Obama-in-Iowa ------------------------------ What he's stating is all about Iowa. It's about sending a message to the President that we want him to change his policies to stop favoring the center right. That's all. If you think a strategy to hold a president responcible to his base is bad, well then, that's a pretty odd perspective. |
Response to Javaman (Reply #8)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:33 AM
Union Scribe (2,497 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
11. Thanks for posting that.
|
It's rather different from what the OP claimed.
|
Response to Javaman (Reply #8)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:34 AM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
13. He's
|
"But there is one thing we can do right now that doesn't really hurt the chances of the president getting re-elected and doesn't help Republicans one bit."
....a bigger moron for that statement. For someone in TV he appears absolutely clueless about messaging. In fact, I don't think that. I think he's dogwhistling for trolls. His entire argument is specious. His timing, a weak before the Republican caucus, is not accidental. |
Response to ProSense (Reply #13)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:10 AM
Javaman (35,866 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
41. I think you are lost.
|
or have read an entirely different article.
All he is saying, as I stated in my first reply is, that we are to hold the president responcible for his actions and to listen to the base. I honestly don't know how you interpreted it any other way than that. It seems as if you are more concerned with the beltway concept of "messenging" rather than using common sense as a way to get the president to listen to us. It's about the people, remember? |
Response to ProSense (Reply #13)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:49 AM
girl gone mad (19,240 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
83. Do you honestly believe that repeatedly calling someone a "moron" is an effective strategy?
|
And it's a week before the Republican caucus, not a "weak".
|
Response to ProSense (Reply #13)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 03:25 PM
sabrina 1 (24,149 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
139. 'Messaging'. Is that what politics is all about now?
|
We don't want 'messaging', that is for political operatives who get paid for their efforts, NOT for the American people. We want facts and truth not obscured by Karl Rove-type 'messaging'. 'Messaging' is a deceptive tactic and sorry if the people are now fed up to the teeth with these political games and are getting in the way of all this 'messaging' and demanding straightforward plain talk from those they elect. It might put some political operatives out of business, but that won't destroy the country imho.
We've had enough 'messaging' and too little direct talk about serious issues from those who are asking for our support. |
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #139)
cherokeeprogressive This message was hidden by Jury decision.
Response to ProSense (Reply #13)
Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:36 AM
CreekDog (30,464 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
332. are you calling someone "Republican" for not supporting the President's "messaging"?
|
jeez.
way to win over another voter you probably pushed away several months ago. |
Response to Javaman (Reply #8)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:35 AM
NNN0LHI (64,496 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
14. The headline reads "Vote Against Obama in Iowa"
Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #14)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:11 AM
Javaman (35,866 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
44. so you only read headlines?
|
that's really sad.
|
Response to Javaman (Reply #8)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:11 PM
Whisp (11,693 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
114. and who will persuade the boner and mr. turtling
|
to change their minds and act like human beings?
all this angst is way off target. if some would spend all this bile on those cretins instead of the President it might have some sort of positive effect. |
Response to Whisp (Reply #114)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 04:54 PM
Javaman (35,866 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
163. I think we spend a lot of bile on the repukes.
|
I also believe that the president isn't a cult of personality. He's an elected official that has to listen to the people just like any other politican....
I almost believed all that about politicians listening to us for a second! LOL I crack me up. |
Response to Whisp (Reply #114)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 08:01 PM
Maven (7,398 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
198. Certainly not the Conciliator-in-Chief.
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:34 AM
dawg (3,691 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
12. Cenk is calling for a protest vote in Iowa.
|
He's not advocating support for Republican candidates and he's not advocating *not* voting for Obama in the general election. He's merely espousing a way for those who are digruntled on the left to make their voices heard.
I'm not ready to throw Cenk under the bus. |
Response to dawg (Reply #12)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:36 AM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
16. Here's
|
"Cenk is calling for a protest vote in Iowa."
...my favorite comment: I "protest voted" in one Senate primary....I'm now represented by Senator Ron Johnson.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1049662/44403925#c47 Cenk is a moron. I wish I could find a strong word. |
Response to ProSense (Reply #16)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:42 AM
boston bean (12,075 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
21. uncommitted in Iowa won't make Obama not the Dem nominee
|
unless of course, you are very afraid that un committed can beat Obama...
pretty sad if you ask me. have a little faith. |
Response to boston bean (Reply #21)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:46 AM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
24. You know
|
uncommitted in Iowa won't make Obama not the Dem nominee
unless of course, you are very afraid that un committed can beat Obama... pretty sad if you ask me. have a little faith. ...what's sad: the vultures who get their kicks off people like Cenk. His post has nothing to do with a protest vote and everything to do with his anti-Obama agenda. <...>
I follow politics for a living; I'm not unaware of how hideous the Republican choices are. But that doesn't mean that we should pretend that President Obama has been brilliant because we're scared of the big, bad Republicans. That would be fundamentally dishonest. And to be honest, I'm really disappointed that he does not have a primary opponent. This country is dying for someone who is going to take on the establishment. Who is that going to be on our side - Barack Obama? On that, I know whether to laugh or cry. Every time I think about the idea that President Obama might be against the establishment, I laugh and laugh and laugh. There is never been a guy who was this enamored with the establishment. If he had wrestling nickname it would be The Establishment. The guy who appointed Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley (and a list of hundreds of others, including two new Fed appointments, one of which is a Republican who worked for the Carlyle Group) is not a guy who is interested in changing the system at all. Change was a cutesy slogan he used to trick us into thinking he was on our side. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/29/1049662/-Vote-Against-Obama-in-Iowa?via=siderecent |
Response to ProSense (Reply #24)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:01 AM
dawg (3,691 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
29. People would do better to try and understand their opponents on the left.
|
Listening is better than spewing propaganda, or counter-propaganda from your point of view. People have legitimate grievances against the President. Cenk is not entirely wrong here.
There are two main issues in play here: the direction of the country, and the direction of the Democratic Party. Re-electing President Obama is essential if we are to move the country leftward (or at least keep it from lurching rightward). But there are many among us who feel that the Democratic Party itself is too far to the right, too captive by corporate donations and wealthy special interest groups. What are those people supposed to do? Just shut up and get with the program? |
Response to dawg (Reply #29)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:06 AM
theaocp (1,304 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
32. You're arguing with Prosense.
|
As Barney Frank said, it's like trying to argue with a table leg. His mind is made up, already.
|
Response to theaocp (Reply #32)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:10 AM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
42. Moronic! n/t
Response to ProSense (Reply #42)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:14 AM
theaocp (1,304 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
47. Very clever.
|
Have a good Thursday. I know I will.
|
Response to theaocp (Reply #47)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:18 AM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
51. Yeah,
|
"Have a good Thursday. I know I will."
...I will too, and the comment was still moronic. |
Response to ProSense (Reply #42)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 08:25 PM
U4ikLefty (2,669 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
205. Stop shouting at the mirror.
|
Oh, yeah welcome to my list.
Bye |
Response to U4ikLefty (Reply #205)
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 01:16 AM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
252. Cenk?
|
|
Response to theaocp (Reply #32)
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 11:25 AM
truebrit71 (15,081 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
285. Amen to that!!!
|
|
Response to dawg (Reply #29)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:09 AM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
38. I
|
Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:10 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) People would do better to try and understand their opponents on the left.
Listening is better than spewing propaganda, or counter-propaganda from your point of view. People have legitimate grievances against the President. Cenk is not entirely wrong here. There are two main issues in play here: the direction of the country, and the direction of the Democratic Party. ...see your point. Cenk: "Change was a cutesy slogan he used to trick us into thinking he was on our side... The agenda of the president sucks and is deeply Republican." I think I understand Cenk: He's a moron. |
Response to ProSense (Reply #38)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:22 AM
dawg (3,691 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
55. He's a pundit, so naturally his words are over the top, but ...
|
Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:26 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2) Who of us in 2008 thought the Bush tax cuts would have been extended? All Congress had to do was nothing.
It was doubtful the cuts would have been extended even had McCain won the election. Without 51 Republican votes in the Senate, an extension would have been impossible without some Democratic votes. I'm an investor. I watched in horror as the world economy nearly unraveled in 2008. It was a historic thing, like Pearl Harbor or 9-11 - something I had previously thought was not possible in my lifetime. And I'm so very underwhelmed by the President's response. It has very much been Republican-lite, and literally nothing has been done to prevent another such crisis from taking place within a few short years of now. It's debatable how much more change the President could actually have accomplished in regulating Wall Street, but he certainly could have done more to advocate such changes. Look at his appointments. He rolled over Bush's Secretary of Defense. He might as well have rolled over Paulson as Treasury Secretary - Hell Paulson might have done a better job than Geithner. I've seen some argue that these appointments don't matter and that cabinet secretaries are "number crunchers" who don't make policy. Yeah, right. Cenk is over the top. He's a little hysterical. But a moron he is not. |
Response to dawg (Reply #55)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:27 AM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
62. Really?
|
He's a pundit, so naturally his words are over the top, but ...
Who of us in 2008 thought the Bush tax cuts would have been extended? All Congress had to do was nothing. It was doubtful the cuts would have been extended even had McCain won the election. Without 51 votes in the Senate, and extension would have been impossible without some Democratic votes. I'm an investor. I watched in horror as the world economy nearly unraveled in 2008. It was a historic thing, like Pearl Harbor or 9-11 - something I had previously thought was not possible in my lifetime. And I'm so very underwhelmed by the President's response. It has very much been Republican-lite, and literally nothing has been done to prevent another such crisis from taking place within a few short years of now. It's debatable how much more change the President could actually have accomplished in regulating Wall Street, but he certainly could have done more to advocate such changes. Look at his appointments. He rolled over Bush's Secretary of Defense. He might as well have rolled over Paulson as Treasury Secretary - Hell Paulson might have done a better job than Geithner. I've seen some argue that these appointments don't matter and that cabinet secretaries are "number crunchers" who don't make policy. Yeah, right. A vote to extend the Bush tax cuts that was the result of negotiating to get Republican support in the Senate to extend unemployment for a year, the ETIC, Medicaid expanded funding, and other aid for poor and middle-class Americans is cause to vote against the President? In 2008, most of people didn't believe health care reform would pass and DADT would be repealed. Cent is over the top. He's a little hysterical.
But a moron he is not. No, he's a moron. |
Response to ProSense (Reply #62)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:44 AM
dawg (3,691 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
78. Political brinksmanship is a game the President must be prepared to play.
|
Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:53 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Would the Republicans really have blocked unemployment benefits just to protect tax cuts for the wealthiest? We'll never know for sure since the issue was never pressed.
But it certainly should have been shouted from the rooftops that they were willing to do so. Personally, I think they would have been forced to cave. It would have been too politically unpopular for them to have done otherwise. Look at the recent situation with their obstructionism with regard to the payroll tax cuts. When push came to shove, they caved. I think the Democrats handled this one much better. Is any of this cause to vote against the President? Not in a general election, no. But if I think he needs to move further left on economic issues, it's my duty to express those feelings any way I can. Especially since I think a move leftward would not only be good for the country, it would also be good for the Democratic party's long-term electoral prospects. |
Response to dawg (Reply #78)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:10 PM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
93. Yeah
|
"Political brinksmanship is a game the President must be prepared to play.
Would the Republicans really have blocked unemployment benefits just to protect tax cuts for the wealthiest? We'll never know for sure since the issue was never pressed." ...I'm fairly certain everyone, including Cenk. know how to play it better than Obama. You see, they would have let all the aid expire, and then negotiated with a Republican House majority to expand it. "Look at the recent situation with their obstructionism with regard to the payroll tax cuts. When push came to shove, they caved. I think the Democrats handled this one much better." Fascinating! How on earth did that happen? Could it be that the Republicans had nothing left in their arsenal, that the President let them exhaust all their options? They lost the debt ceiling debate to a trigger they didn't want. Last year the President said it would be a fight he would welcome. His comment was met with: He'll cave. He didn't, and now it's being used as an example of not caving. Fascinating! |
Response to ProSense (Reply #93)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:23 PM
dawg (3,691 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
100. I'm sorry, I must be too much of a red to understand what you just said there.
|
Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:24 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) To be clear, I'm praising Obama for the way he and Congressional Dems handled this recent confrontation with the Republicans over the payroll tax cuts. To me, it proves that the Republicans will respond to pressure.
I'm also criticizing the way the tax-cut extensions were handled. I would have hated it had those benefits been allowed to expire, but that may have been prefrerable to what actually happened. It would, of course, have caused severe pain for lots of people. But the budget cuts that are being debated for deficit reduction purposes will also cause lots of pain. And in the end, they got two years of tax cut extensions for one year of benefits. And we didn't even get a debt-limit increase as part of that deal. So, no, this was not handled well by the administration. I actually think the President has been moving in my direction for the last six months or so. I don't know if loudmouths like Cenk or Paul Krugman or Robert Reich had anything to do with that or not. But just in case they did, I hope they continue speaking out. |
Response to dawg (Reply #100)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:29 PM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
104. Well,
|
Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:30 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2) I actually think the President has been moving in my direction for the last six months or so. I don't know if loudmouths like Cenk or Paul Krugman or Rober Reich had anything to do with that or not. But just in case they did, I hope they continue speaking out.
...I think Krugman and Reich's opinions are valuable, even when I disagree with them. They are not "loudmouths," but Cenk is a moron who should never be mentioned in the same sentence with them. |
Response to ProSense (Reply #104)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:44 PM
dawg (3,691 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
108. Well, then that's our biggest disagreement.
|
I think Cenk is a smart guy, and basically well-intentioned. I certainly don't agree with everything he says, but I can ususally at least see where he is coming from.
I think Cenk's experience at MSNBC has radicalized him to some extent. I think he very much feels he was "silenced" because he dared to speak out against mainstream Dems. And whether that is true or not, I can understand the way he feels. |
Response to dawg (Reply #108)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:10 PM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
113. Well,
|
I think Cenk is a smart guy, and basically well-intentioned. I certainly don't agree with everything he says, but I can ususally at least see where he is coming from.
I think Cenk's experience at MSNBC has radicalized him to some extent. I think he very much feels he was "silenced" because he dared to speak out against mainstream Dems. And whether that is true or not, I can understand the way he feels. ...I think he's an opportunist who is confused. Anyone trying to compare Reagan favorably to Obama isn't all there. "Radicalized"? Cenk still supports some Republicans, and he certainly isn't a progressive radical. It's almost certain that this latest anti-Obama rant was an act of desperation and not "smart," especially for someone desperate for an audience. He isn't winning any friends, and in fact is losing many. |
Response to ProSense (Reply #113)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:32 PM
dawg (3,691 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
121. I think if he was desperate for an audience, he would have stayed at MSNBC ...
|
and done what he was told.
|
Response to dawg (Reply #29)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:27 AM
treestar (31,635 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
60. The left never listens either
|
The left seems to feel so entitled. Why not listen to your 'opponents' in the middle, then?
|
Response to treestar (Reply #60)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:35 AM
dawg (3,691 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
69. I can only speak for myself, and I think I do listen.
|
I think the ACA was the best change to the U.S. healthcare system since the creation of Medicaid. I would have preferred a public option, and I think the President should have tried harder to make that argument, but the legislation we finally got is historic and will help lots of people. The President deserves lots of praise for this.
Likewise, I think arguments from the left that the payroll tax cut somehow endangers Social Security are spurious. The payroll tax cuts are all about short-term stimulus to the economy and they are funded from the general fund. This President oversaw the end of don't ask don't tell, and he handled the situation masterfully. I try to give credit where credit is due. But there needs to be more understanding on both sides, and I hope that eventually happens. Fracturing of the Democratic Party would be a disaster, but it will take understanding on both sides in order to prevent that. |
Response to ProSense (Reply #16)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:20 AM
hfojvt (28,039 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
52. What Senate primary was there for Feingold?
|
That comment does not make any sense.
|
Response to hfojvt (Reply #52)
toddaa This message was hidden by Jury decision.
Response to toddaa (Reply #72)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:41 AM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
76. Are you having fun in your fact-free world?
|
You seem intent to focus on me. Why?
|
Response to dawg (Reply #12)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:11 AM
Javaman (35,866 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
43. +1 nt
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:35 AM
Spazito (24,054 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
15. I never cared for him...
|
He would go on a rant against something only to completely reverse himself on the same issue very shortly after all the while pretending he never ranted in the first place.
He can't quite decide which he dislikes more, Republicans or Democrats, imo. |
Response to Spazito (Reply #15)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:08 AM
theaocp (1,304 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
35. Apparently, you know nothing about Cenk.
|
He never pretends he didn't rant about something in the aftermath.
|
Response to theaocp (Reply #35)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:28 AM
Spazito (24,054 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
65. Ummm, yeah, I do, I watched him do the rant one day....
|
and completely reverse his opinion the next without any acknowledgment he had ranted on the other side the day before. After that, I stopped watching him.
He is a talking head who, not unlike those on CNN, go for the ratings instead of discussing issues using facts and reason. You may well like that, I do not. |
Response to Spazito (Reply #65)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:33 AM
theaocp (1,304 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
68. I'd love to follow this up.
|
He's not a monday-morning quarterback. You said you watched two shows and that was enough, yes? Perhaps a larger sample size would help with your understanding. Cheers.
|
Response to theaocp (Reply #68)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:41 AM
Spazito (24,054 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
75. LOL, thanks but no thanks,
|
I have watched the odd clip on DU and, gosh, same Cenk, nothing different from when I watched those two shows originally.
You and I have a different take on him, both of us entitled to our opinion. Cheers to you. |
Response to Spazito (Reply #75)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:47 AM
theaocp (1,304 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
79. No worries.
|
However, you can't say he doesn't correct himself without actually watching/reading his work. At least, you can't do so honestly.
|
Response to theaocp (Reply #79)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:50 AM
Spazito (24,054 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
84. LOL, calling me dishonest...
|
doesn't make me so. Keep trying, tho, it is amusing in a Cenk kind of way.
|
Response to Spazito (Reply #84)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:56 AM
theaocp (1,304 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
88. LOL, you're right, I am apparently rubber and you're glue.
|
What rot. Your evidence for your opinion of Cenk is sorely lacking, but you're still willing to forge your opinion anyway. However, that's a bridge too far. Your mind is made up. How myopic.
|
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:39 AM
Tierra_y_Libertad (33,285 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
18. So? It's a primary and he's "working within the system" as the moderates advise us to do.
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:43 AM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
22. Cenk is an Asshat. nt
Response to MineralMan (Reply #22)
theaocp This message was hidden by Jury decision.
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:46 AM
Iggo (18,106 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
23. I voted "against Obama" in the last primary.
|
(I actually voted "for" someone else, but let's use the language of the headline.)
And if the same guy was running again, I'd vote "against Obama" in the coming primary. What's the big deal? How did it hurt the Democratic nominee in the general election then, and how would it hurt him now? |
Response to Iggo (Reply #23)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:00 AM
bahrbearian (10,154 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
27. Hey, don't muddy the water with Facts.
Response to Iggo (Reply #23)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:04 AM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
31. Yeah,
|
I voted "against Obama" in the last primary.
And if the same guy was running again, I'd vote "against Obama" in the coming primary. What's the big deal? How did it hurt the Democratic nominee in the general election then, and how would it hurt him now? ...look at all the prominent Democrats lining up to primary Obama. There's still hope for Hillary. I mean, Cenk is only doing this in the best interest of Democrats and democracy. How about a vote of no confidence against Obama based on his bullshit assertions? |
Response to ProSense (Reply #31)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:10 AM
theaocp (1,304 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
40. This appears to be a vote of no confidence.
|
Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:10 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) I recommend clapping louder. You might be heard.
|
Response to Iggo (Reply #23)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:38 PM
MilesColtrane (18,678 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
107. "how would it hurt him now?"
|
Another question you have to ask, how would it "move him left"?
|
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:57 AM
JustAnotherGen (3,512 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
26. No calling out
|
Of Senators in Washington that stand with a D next to their name. . .
|
Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #26)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:28 AM
treestar (31,635 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
64. Or Republicans
|
IMO the PL just wishes they had no power, and treats President Obama as if the Republicans had no power.
|
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:04 AM
bigtree (41,723 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
30. this is when the opposition becomes a threat
|
Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:10 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2) . . .to the very goals they claim to support. Undermining the Democratic nominee is just foolishness, given that the only viable alternative is the republican candidate.
I'll strongly oppose ANYONE who advocates defeating our Democratic nominee. There's no high principle in undermining President Obama's campaign for re-election. There's nothing to be gained and much to lose, in that endeavor. But, it's a primary and he can do any futile thing he wants. |
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:06 AM
JoePhilly (10,896 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
33. Poor Cenk ... "ReformedRepublican" ... now "Born Again Liberal"
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #33)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:12 AM
theaocp (1,304 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
45. The spectrum of what defined a Republican has shifted.
|
Not Cenk.
|
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #33)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:13 AM
Javaman (35,866 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
46. read #12.
|
it's glaringly apparent you didn't read the article.
|
Response to Javaman (Reply #46)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:14 PM
JoePhilly (10,896 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
189. I read it.
|
And I've listened to Cenk plenty.
His goal is EYEBALLS. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #33)
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:43 PM
fascisthunter (26,190 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
315. and Democrats used to be to the left
|
but now they are just like the republicans 20 years ago.
|
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:07 AM
LiberalAndProud (8,246 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
34. I hope this doesn't get a lot of traction.
|
While we can argue that trying to send a message to Obama (not good enough) has merit, I think of the perception this would create in the minds of the greater voting public. In the General, perception is everything. It seems akin to painting a target on Obama's chest and inviting the other party to take aim.
I am glad that Cenk is saying aloud what many are thinking, but the possible ramifications of this action are frightening. |
Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #34)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:36 AM
ProSense (80,366 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
71. Well,
|
"I hope this doesn't get a lot of traction...am glad that Cenk is saying aloud what many are thinking, but the possible ramifications of this action are frightening."
...he posted it at HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/vote-against-obama-in-iow_b_1174314.html Maximum effect! |
Response to ProSense (Reply #71)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 01:24 PM
LiberalAndProud (8,246 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
118. And you posted it here.
|
I wonder how many in the Iowa caucus will read it, and if they read it if they will be swayed. I doubt that Cenk has all that much power yet. Sadly, he just doesn't carry the kind of clout that Limbaugh wields.
|
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:08 AM
abelenkpe (4,375 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
36. I like Cenk but think he and others are offbase
|
Focusing their anger on Obama vs congress. Jesus could have been elected last time and he would have done no better dealing with conservadems that vote with republicans and republicans that have been he'll bent on obstruction to the point that they rail and vot against policies they once endorsed. Republicans willingness to throw the entire world economy into turmoil and punish the working class in order to discredit and thwart a democratic administration is disgusting. But what do we do? Focus our anger on Obama instead of concentrating on winning back congress and getting rid of conservadems.
Not that I'm not disappointed with Obamas appointments and centrism just think it's easier to push him to the left with a more liberal congress than it would be to push say any of the ignorant lunatics the right is running for office. |
Response to abelenkpe (Reply #36)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 06:45 PM
A Simple Game (3,081 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
184. Please reread what you wrote.
|
"Jesus could have been elected last time and he would have done no better dealing with conservadems that vote with republicans and republicans that have been he'll bent on obstruction to the point that they rail and vot against policies they once endorsed."
I doubt Jesus would have advocated for an old Republican health plan. I'm sure he would have kept single payer on the table for at least the first day. And why are so many on this board happy that our Democratic President got a Republican health plan passed? At least we don't have to hear about the multi-dimensional chess anymore. |
Response to A Simple Game (Reply #184)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:05 PM
abelenkpe (4,375 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
186. You're right he would have pushed to keep
|
Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:07 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Single payer in play. I am not OK with HCR. It was a fucking joke. Today families are still vulnerable to going bankrupt simply because they were unlucky enough to have one member develop a serious illness even if they do have healthcare. Healthcare costs are still outrageous. But no one would have been able to get that through this congress. Am I OK with that? No I'm pissed off and disappointed. At congress. We need to elect more progressive and liberal people to congress. That is the entire point.
|
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:17 AM
Zorra (14,839 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
49. Here's the Primary Calendar for 2012
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:20 AM
Bobbie Jo (6,193 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
53. Cenk is over at Daily Kos
|
Trolling for relevance and looking for his next gig.
|
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:21 AM
Tarheel_Dem (12,979 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
54. Cenk's a loser. I mean, he's on a network that reaches 10's of homes, nationwide.
|
This is his attempt at PR. He's hoping to use Obama bashing to raise his own insignifcant profile. I'll bet we'd all be pretty surprised at who the professional left takes monies from. Afterall, these are tough times for some, and they have to make a living too, and thanks to our wonderful USSC & Citizens United, there's lots of untraceable cash flowing to anyone willing to help take down this president, and indeed, the Democratic Party.
|
Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #54)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:25 AM
theaocp (1,304 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
56. As long as we're speculating,
|
T_D, when did you stop beating your loved ones?
|
Response to theaocp (Reply #56)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:31 AM
Tarheel_Dem (12,979 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
66. I'll stop beating them when Cenk gives back his Koch Bros. check.
|
|
Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #66)
theaocp This message was hidden by Jury decision.
Response to theaocp (Reply #70)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:52 AM
Tarheel_Dem (12,979 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
85. Yours is a "personal attack", which will likely be hidden. Mine was an attack on a public figure.
|
See the difference? You've attacked me (personally) twice now. Two hidden posts in one thread might not be good for you.
|
Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #85)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 11:59 AM
theaocp (1,304 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
91. Alert away. n/t
Response to theaocp (Reply #91)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:03 PM
Tarheel_Dem (12,979 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
92. Nope, I won't do it because I like folks to see how thin skinned Cenk loyalists are.
|
In the face of criticism, they go personal, cuz they got nothing else.
|
Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #92)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:10 PM
theaocp (1,304 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
94. Right.
|
The usual suspects really need to have their minds changed. You guys are hilarious.
|
Response to theaocp (Reply #94)
Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:25 PM
Tarheel_Dem (12,979 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
101. "usual suspects". "You guys". You just can't stop, can you?
|
|

