So, no actual deal. No final decisions. No bills signed. Yet Obama bashing. SHAMEFUL !

[RBInMaine]

First, before the hyperbolic Obama bashing, why not consider the REALITY, for a change, once again if at all possible, of having to GOVERN, like it or not, with a House of Reps that, THANKS TO WAY WAY WAY TOO MANY "PROGRESSIVES" staying home and bitching about lack of purity in 2010 got taken over by the RePUKES (along with TONS of states) allowing them to gerrymander the districts and allowed them to still the control the House along with several more Senate seats than they had after the 08 election. They sat home and bitched and whined.

Well guess what, NOW THEY GOT WHAT THEY ASKED FOR ! The House is still controlled by the Pukes, there are still more PUKES in the Senate than there were after 08, so now Obama is still stuck having to govern with these people. Yes, GOVERN. COMPROMISE MUST HAPPEN in a nation founded on the very PRINCIPLE of it. Don't think so? Try reading an 8th grade history book.

Sorry, but NO ONE gets to stay home, let the Pukes take over the House, then bitch because now Obama has the Pukes to deal with. That is just ridiculous thinking. RIDICULOUS.

And, NO deal has been finalized. NO bill has been passed. Let's just let this thing play out and see what happens as people continue to sign online petitions and call their reps to voice their opinions. And MOST IMPORTANTLY let's just see if in 2014 ALL "progressives" will learn the brutal lesson of 2010. Stay home and let the Pukes take over, and guess what, DO NOT THEN BITCH, because elections have consequences.

Churchill said it best: STUDY HISTORY STUDY HISTORY STUDY HISTORY (and LEARN from it !).

PS: Democrats are not and never will be, nor ever should be, allowed to become the TeaLeft.

[Fumesucker]

1. ...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

101. Wow! Rec.

[rurallib]

2. maybe you missed the three previous episodes

that were almost exactly like this one.
We trusted, we lost, we got told that's the best there is.
not waiting no more.

[Bobbie Jo]

44. Maybe it's the gratuitous hyperbole

that is objectionable:

"Liar"
"Realizing his dream"
"Evil"
"Phony"

etc,....

This isn't activism, it's pure petulance.

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. And don't forget ...

the objectionable:

"republican in Democrat's clothing"

[Bobbie Jo]

73. Classic.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to take these people seriously.

Much like.....

HE'S A KENYAN SOCIALIST!!111

Flip side of the same coin.

[villager]

76. It's the Republican policies -- like the ongoing attacks on the 4th Amendment -- that are

...objectionable.

Not the clothing, so much.

[Bobbie Jo]

90. Then object!

If you can't object without resorting to the foaming hyperbole, then don't expect to be taken seriously.

[villager]

91. Huh? I do object. People here seem to have issues when other folks object to these GOP policies.

The only thing hyperbolic -- "foaming hyperbole" -- seemed to be your reply to me.

[Bobbie Jo]

100. Outstanding!

MY point was this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2029416

If you're not doing this, then I wasn't referring to you.

[leveymg]

93. I call TOTAL BS on the OP. What good is objection if it's made after the fact?

It's just illogical to attack critics of a proposed policy because the proposals haven't been made law yet. Just utter horseshit!

[bvar22]

119. "republican in Democrat's clothing"

Better tell the Big Guy:

Obama says he'd be seen as moderate Republican in 1980s
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s




[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]

[hfojvt]

96. this OP is already telling is that horrible is once again gonna be the best there is

Because the President needs the Republican House to pass a bill allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.

It's not like they will expire if he just does nothing.

And he also needs the Republican House in order to even propose something better to the American people.

So, clearly, we should just be satisfied with keeping 90% of the Bush tax cuts.

And it's not Obama's fault for not fighting. It's not Obama's fault for not even SAYING the right things.

Nope, it's all our fault.

Obama is a totally great President, doing all the hard work of governing, with almost no reward in it for him. And we are just a bunch of whiny purists who expect him to fight for our side or something. Bush, after all, can fight for the top 5%, but Obama has to GOVERN. He cannot possibly fight for the bottom 80%, because he has to govern.

[HiPointDem]

3. The white house leaked the information. Presumably they didn't mind if people discussed the

information.

I find your idea that everybody should just shut up because Obama is negotiating kind of bizarre.

Criticising cuts to social programs can only strengthen obama's hand. Unless his hand is different from what it's said to be.

[eShirl]

4. maybe Obama needs us to cry holy hell

so he can say, look my hands are tied, people won't accept this

[HiPointDem]

7. Exactly. which is why the line "shut up while he's negotiating" seems frankly bizarre. Make the

republicans own it. That would go a long way to diminishing any credibility they have, since republican voters don't support cuts to SS either.

[Skidmore]

8. Then make the Republicans own it. Just don't come

to a Dem board and expect all of us to join in relentless bashing of the President. I prefer to focus on Congress since that is where the votes actually occur.

[HiPointDem]

12. When it's obama who put it on the table, then it's obama who owns it. Not a good way to make

the republicans own it.

[renie408]

71. Individual interpretation is a strange thing.

Cause I didn't read 'shut up', I read "quit threatening to stay home and stop being so damn dramatic until there is something to be dramatic about". I also think the OP makes a good point about Obama having to deal with the realities in the House. If we don't want him to have to deal with a Republican majority House, maybe we need to work harder to get them out. The make up of the House and Senate and who sits in the White House is up to US, after all.

Maybe we all just see and hear what suits us.

[HiPointDem]

114. so what? what does that have to do with people criticizing chained cpi? and who threatened

to stay home if the party stands firm on SS?

no one, that's who.

[renie408]

115. Actually, I have seen several posters in the past couple of days say

that if this deal goes through this way, they will not support anyone who votes for it in 2014. In fact, there was this long, breast beating post about having been betrayed, blah blah blah, and not voting Dem because Dems were all backstabbers (nutshelling a lot there) just yesterday.


What I was trying to say was that I didn't hear 'don't criticize the chained CPI' in the OP. I got more of a 'don't panic and threaten to stay home before this even openly gets discussed' thing out of the original post.

[HiPointDem]

117. why would people who don't want SS cut vote for someone who'd voted to cut SS? It's not

a minor betrayal, it's part of the heart of the post WW2 democratic coalition.

it's one of the main things that used to distinguish democrats from republicans.

[democrattotheend]

116. Agreed

Which is why I sent him and my senators an e-mail and have been active on Twitter protesting the cuts. But I don't see what good it does to bash the president personally, which does nothing but divide us. I also don't understand those who are acting like they were snookered and deceived when the president has always said he favored some form of entitlement reform.

[bigtree]

20. bullshit

you can't show ANY evidence that the latest 'offer' came from the WH. Neither could or did the media. The ONLY 'person' they named was a 'source familiar with the negotiations.

But you go on, apparently you don't need any actual facts to continue your tear at our Democratic President. The level of dishonesty in this thread is astounding. Compound that with your other efforts over the past few days, and you have an amazingly transparent opposition to the President and Party. Not on issues, because you have absolutely no regard for the truth. This is just a sustained attack of bullshit. I'm surprised you're still here.

[HiPointDem]

21. actually, the source cited is a democratic senate aide. maybe it's a lie, but that's what was

reported.

is paul krugman trying to destroy obama too? because his was the first report i saw.

and how obama will be destroyed by the public criticizing chained cpi, i don't really see. perhaps you could explain the mechanism to me.

[Bake]

32. I believe it was Jay Carney, the WH Press Sec.

Wasn't he the one who said the chained CPI is just a "technical" adjustment? What he didn't say is that it results in cutting SS benefits.

Hell yes we can criticize when our Negotiator in Chief is giving away the store!

Bake

[Liberalynn]

41. YES

and Nancy Pelosi saying she could get Dems to vote for it.

[tjwash]

43. So in other words you have nothing but rumor and innuendo as usual.

And the occasional link drop from unreliable sources.

[renie408]

67. Rational discussion is one thing.

The gnashing of teeth and passionate speeches about having been stabbed in the back one too many times by Obama are something else. Maybe now that most soap operas have gone off the air there are a lot of daytime serial writers hanging out here, but OH MY GOD!! The DRAMA!!

You can't have a conversation with someone who is so wrapped in their own position they can't HEAR anything else. And the OP makes a good point. If we don't want Obama to have to deal with repukes, we need to stop helping them get elected with all that nauseating breast beating and drama-filled voting abstention.

[fasttense]

5. Waiting until after a deal is signed to object is really too late.

People must object loudly and clearly to Obama's Austerity program before it is too late.

[newfie11]

6. Exactly. Nt

[hay rick]

17. People who didn't object

can then explain how chained CPI was the best deal we could get.

[OnionPatch]

28. +1000

[GreenPartyVoter]

109. Very true. While it might be kinder to the president to hold our tongues, we have

to ask whether we value his feelings over the wellbeing of millions of others.

[kentuck]

9. Just one small point...

President Obama would not be sitting in the White House right now if not for the "progressives". Thank you very much.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

35. I'm not so sure about that.

Most of the country lives in the center/left or center/right. Voter turnout was a bit lower than 2008 but Obama won because he had a tremendous TOV operation. Romney lost because many hardline right wingers refused to give him their vote. 1.6 million 'evangelicals' signed a pledge to not vote for him...we'll never know how many kept that pledge nor how many stayed home just because they didn't like or trust him. Romney's TOV operation was a failure.

Many progressives stayed home in 2012 or voted Green. Obama won the first time voters by a margin of 2 to 1. Low income voters went for Obama by the same margin. You can't claim they are all 'progressives'

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-usa-campaign-exitpoll-idUSBRE8A601520121107

[kentuck]

47. "You can't claim they are all 'progressives' "

But you can't claim that they are all center right or center left either, can you?

[Sekhmets Daughter]

69. No, but it is safe to say

that most of those who voted for Obama are center left. It's just mathematics.

My point is that you really can't make a claim that "progressives' carried Obama to victory. We can never know the outcome, but if Obama was not our first African American president, do you really think so many AAs would have waited in line for up to 9 hours to vote for him? I'm happy they did, but I don't have any confidence that they will do so for a white candidate in a future election and I don't think progressives, on their own, have the numbers to deliver a national victory.

[Bonobo]

10. Balloons were floated. Shoot them down or else. nt

[reformist2]

15. Yep. Let them know that we didn't re-elect them to be sellouts.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. I hear ya about the alleged "progressives" and their Obama bashing, but...

that's just here and a few other largely irrelevant places.

I don't know who those "progressive" bashers are, or if they are really Democrats, progressives, trolls, or just random nutcases who found this place by chance. I assume some of them are serious, but they don't understand that, as you say, the Democratic Party can't be held hostage by it's most liberal wing any more than the Republicans should be held hostage by the teabaggers.

I can't get upset about them, though, since (like myself, btw) they are anonymous windbags spending time whining on an internet board when they could be out actually helping solve the problems they are bitching about.

[KharmaTrain]

13. Governing Vs. Politicking...

That's the major differences between the parties. Democrats want to govern and lead. Rushpublicans want to play rhetorical games and play politics with everything. The result were 8 years of government corruption and the messes this President spent a vast majority of the past 4 years trying to clean up.

Like it or not there's gonna be some kind of compromise here...to force rushpublicans to vote for tax increases for the rich (no I'm not happy with the 400k number...but if it means 1.5 million unemployed retain benefits then something has been won. I doubt there are many on DU that earn 400k so their taxes will not go up and at least we'll see an increase...a far greater option than had Willard won :shiver: and turned the government into a kleptocracy.

I fully agree about the Democrats playing purity games and letting 2010 turn into the year of the teabagger...and warn about this happening again in 2014. Also that there's a big lack of understanding how government works by some who opine here...all but demanding their way or the highway. To rushpublicans, raising taxes are equivalent to getting kicked in the "privates"...unless Democrats can attain super majorities in both houses, they're gonna have to deal...and let's see what shakes out.

[Prometheus_unbound]

14. .

What's your plan, complain after the damage is done?
Obama was not elected to do Romney's policies.

[GoCubsGo]

16. Thank you.

Anything he and Boehner agree upon will have to pass both the House and the Senate. Cuts to Social Security and Medicare WILL NOT pass in the Senate. Especially not this current Senate that still requires 60 votes to pass anything.

[JHB]

18. I belive the technical terms include "holding his feet to the fire" or "making him do it"

NOT "shameful".

I think your premise is a bit blinkered, but even if everything is exactly as you say, then perhaps you're missing another lesson of 2010:

Be seen putting up a fight, and make sure the blame falls squarely on the Republicans. If progressives (or the "progressives" you're trying to scold) are a necessary part of your coalition, then take action to make sure they're on board and pointed in the right direction.

[jberryhill]

26. That's not the same thing as "Obama is a turncoat" etc.

If you cannot distinguish between objecting to a hypothetical policy, and attacking a person, that's unfortunate.

[Bake]

37. Not exactly "hypothetical"

In a negotiation, once you've offered something (e.g., chained CPI), it's hard to go back from that.

Even the baggiest of the teabaggers, Rand Paul, said the Pukes should just give Obama what he wants. He knows the Pukes have to do it. They have no choice. So let's take him at his word, and make them agree to OUR terms.

Bake

[Logical]

19. Are you worried about obama's feelings being hurt?

[HereSince1628]

22. So tell me, how does Obama pull that back and not look like bad faith negotiator?

You think the Dems are organized enough to play a good cop-bad cop ruse?

You think Obama was just rallying the base? Working us up so Boehner would hear the people?

I don't. Obama has been leaking out this willingness since last summer,
we just got the filled in version of what was previously an outline in the coloring book.

[patrice]

65. k, so how many things are in that "coloring book" picture & what would the same picture look like

if it were a wide-angle, high-resolution lens, large-format photograph?

There's one holy hell of a lot more on this table than just SS CPI.

[HereSince1628]

75. You've very cleverly not answered the question I posed.

[patrice]

95. I didn't "answer" because the question is flawed by oversimplification, you asked "how" about

something that is not a valid representation of what is actually going on and it's not a valid representation of the reality, because you represent the ENTIRE process as one single false dichotomy that you have somewhat artificially extracted from what is real.

If you really want to talk about "how", I need you to begin by admitting everything that is actually and/or could be on this table, not just SS CPI or no SS CPI.

[HereSince1628]

99. I appreciate it's a 'complex' negotiation.

I don't think _honest_ negotiators taunt their opposites with fake offers.

[patrice]

102. If the other side is offering something fake, I would consider the same tactic, BUT I

wouldn't necessarily and absolutely decide to do that and if I did decide to feint back, I'd try to be extremely careful about exactly what I hope to accomplish by doing so and, hence, exactly what that maybe-a-feint-maybe-not-a-feint consisted of and the context in which it is "offered".

[HereSince1628]

103. You can never offer what you won't really offer.

IF you are an honest negotiator.

No matter how complex the negotiation.

When you make an offer it's one you're willing to do, even if it's an offer you don't think is the endpoint of the negotiation.

Consequently this _does_ reveal where the Administration is in its thinking as they move the levers behind the big green curtain.

[patrice]

123. Since the other side is not negotiating in good faith, what would be the point of offering what

you're really offering? All that would do is reveal to them what it would be most necessary to say "No" to, or to attach an even higher price too (and also what to work behind the scenes to prevent or to co-opt out of the possibilities), which is what they are most interested in finding out because they are not negotiating in good faith anyway. It'd be foolish to offer something real to anyone who does nothing but lie.

And if you can find out enough about them, from the various rounds of negotiation, even if they gave you a maybe on something you offered, you could always attach that thing that they have kind of sort of indicated that they want to something else that you want from them, which, if your research has been good enough, could be anything up to and including a real poison pill to kill the whole "deal" up to that point.

This is a lame duck Congress; all we are seeing at this point is theater done for the purposes of information collecting on the opposition.

[Enrique]

23. i'm so ashamed

<----me

[truebluegreen]

24. If we don't make a racket when something stupid or evil is proposed

When would be a good time? After it is passed?

[One of the 99]

25. Well said

I can't believe the number of people here setting their hair on fire over an agreement that doesn't yet exist.

[Bake]

38. It's because SOME of us understand how to negotiate.

Offer up chained CPI? Sure. We can walk that back later.

Remind me never to have you negotiate on my behalf.

Bake

[One of the 99]

42. Histrionics is not a good negotiation tool

Those who've actual done negotiations understand that.

[Bake]

45. I do actual negotiations every day. I'm a lawyer.

Sad to say, but as a negotiator, our President needs some remedial training. Unless, of course, he's doing what he wanted to do all along.

Histrionics? Show me the histrionics in my post. There are none.

Bake

[One of the 99]

48. Sure you do.

I love how some claim things that can't be verified to try to make their point. Pathetic.

[Bake]

50. You know what, Mr/Ms 590 posts?

Those who have been here longer than you know me and know I'm telling the truth. You, on the other hand, can blow me. I've been here since 2001. You've been here, what, 2 weeks?

Don't you DARE call me out. Go back to whatever bridge you crawled out from under.

Bake

[One of the 99]

54. So now number of posts

is a test of veracity. Keep telling that to yourself. By that logic Republicans who appear more times on Sunday talk shows are more truthful.

And I will call out anyone who makes a claim they can't prove. You're tantrum about it shows that I hit a nerve.

[Bake]

57. You want my bar ID?

Those who know me know I'm telling the truth.

For the record, no, you can't have my bar ID, because this is a discussion board and I don't know YOU. You haven't been here long enough for me to TRUST you.

Now, argue with the substance of what I posted. But you can't do that, can you?

Bake, ESQ.

On edit: And yes, that's how it works when you come to a forum like DU. Newbies like you aren't trusted until they've been around a while. Coming in like you have and throwing bombs at long-time members is a good way to get a taste of pizza.

[One of the 99]

118. Why not argue based on the facts of the issue alone.

But you can't because you don't have the facts to do so. That's why you have to resort to making claims that you can't verify.

[treestar]

52. You do not deal with negotiations on that same level

Yours are concrete cases of particular people with only two sides. You have no idea what Washington deals with.

[Bake]

55. Bullshit. Negotiating is a skill. There are some things you cannot do.

Once you make an offer, it's damn near impossible to walk it back.

For example, let's throw chained CPI out there. Gonna go back and say oops, we didn't really mean that? No. You only offer up something you are willing to give away in the first place. Did Boehner DEMAND chained CPI?

No.

Bake

[treestar]

59. Again, it's not a two way deal

There are many factors.

It's not the same culture at all.

There is no media involved in ordinary one-case negotiations, either. There are only the people immediately involved.

The average lawyer cannot advise Obama on negotiations. He already has teams of them - with experience in the fields at hand. And teams of other advisors.

[jberryhill]

82. So do I and so am I

And there is a huge difference between making an offer and trying to figure out "just what is it you WOULD accept" as a hypothetical.

Oh... and PA #83911 and USPTO #36452

[Bake]

106. I'm not posting my bar ID on an anonymous message board.

But I'm admitted in KY and MS.

My understanding is that Obama OFFERED the chained CPI. Yes, there's a difference. If he offered it, it's hard to walk that back.

Bake

[forestpath]

27. Funny how when President Obama doesn't act like a Democrat, a lot of people don't vote

for Democrats.

He acted like a real Democrat in 2012 was was reelected resoundingly.

Now, he is acting even less like a Democrat than he did in 2010.

You do the math. As a retired person, my voting days are done since I have a big target on my back from both parties.

And if you don't like that, tough shit. I don't vote for people who screw me over. YMMV.

[Bake]

46. Sooner or later they'll get the message. Maybe.

Goddammit, just do what we elected you to DO!!

Bake

[byeya]

68. My nomination for dumbest post of the day(so far)

[forestpath]

83. I'm honored.

[RomneyLies]

72. I'm a "never will be able to retire" person

[forestpath]

79. I am truly sorry. But after President Obama is done with us....

retired people will have to start looking for jobs. I just lost a part time one myself.

[rso]

29. Obama

Problem is that the republicans' ethics and sense of fair play are virtually non-existent. They are not a reliable or trustworthy partner. Unfortunately, you have to play hardball with them.

Consequently, we need to go over the cliff and on Jan. 3, democrats need to introduce legislation lowering taxes ONLY on those people making UNDER $ 250,000. I would like to see the republicans oppose that legislation.

Come on Mr. President, show them that elections count !

[Autumn]

30. SHAMEFUL is the President having SS on the table in the talks.

SS does not have a damn thing to do with the deficit. Nothing. Nothing. NOTHING. If he doesn't want criticism he should make it clear that SS is not on the table, instead the White House let it out that it is on the table. That's what is SHAMEFUL.

[marew]

77. Exactly!

[Exen Trik]

31. I wonder

If that proposal was put forth not only knowing that it wouldn't be accepted, but as a trial balloon to show democrats who favor entitlement cuts that yes even this much would raise some hell.

I could also see, because these cuts take a while to hurt, that they expect to be able to fix it later with a democratic house. That'd be a foolish plan, though.

[Egalitarian Thug]

33. Blah, blah, blah. Mustn't complain until it's to late to do anything about it. When we lose

elections because we favor our enemies over our supporters, it's the voter's fault. We're powerless and nothing can be done anyway.

SSDD.

[patrice]

63. It's not about complaining, per se. It's about how that's done & not admitting the limitations in

one's own case, because not admitting the "cons" and going blindly "pro" just sets us up for a LOSE. This is about relevance and if you make yourself ir-relevant, by not understanding your own liabilities/vulnerabilities, you get used no matter how fucking right you are otherwise.

[Egalitarian Thug]

121. And lose you will. Every time. And after you get your well-deserved beating, you will come crawling

back to your abuser, and once again, pledge your fealty to the people that cost you everything.

With each passing year I find it harder and harder to have any sympathy for your ilk. It would be excusable if you were merely destroying yourselves, but you drag millions of others down with you.

Knowing what is right is important. Standing up and fighting for it, win or lose, is what matters.

I'm already down, two months before the inauguration, with a prediction that these feckless turncoats and criminals are going to give the republicans a veto-proof majority in the House and a majority in the Senate in 2014 because they will and are abandoning the people they are supposed to work for.

How about you? What Democratic gains are willing to bet will be made by betraying their constituency?

[patrice]

122. I really don't understand, honestly I don't. Why don't you consider "lose you will" a possibility

that applies as much to your cohort as it does/could to almost any other at our level in this thing. Is winning ONLY the actions as YOU and yours alone define them? What about actual concrete outcomes? Are you telling me that none of that matters as long as you get your way?

I agree with some of what you're saying more than you give me credit for. We disagree about how to fight this fight. The ends do not justify the means, because there's nothing egalitarian about thugery. Opposition for opposition's sake alone hurts people, which would be your choice if you choose it and its consequences, but it isn't the choice of those who do not choose it and they have their own rights to their own choices too, or are those who agree with you and your ways the only ones who have rights?

I have concerns about how blindly, apparently uninformed, reactionary opposition for opposition's sake alone finds us in positions like supporting a serial OIL WAR SUPPORTER, Susan Rice, an American Exceptionalist cheer-leader for Israel, supporting THAT because of the mistaken notion that PO favored her for SoS. Reactionary politics that supports ties to XL Pipeline development, just to say fuck you to Obama, is wrong. It is an evil that affects everyone and it is harmful to young environmental activists and alternative energy advocates I know who are coming out of the Occupy cohort and who adamantly oppose the XL pipeline project. And, yet, what calls itself "the Left" pushed the Rice for SoS course of action on this board and likely all over the internet, solely to say fuck you to Obama. Were we all just supposed to go along with that? Isn't "going along" with the wrong thing that way your critique of others' support for PO? Is it okay if what calls itself "the Left" goes along and LOSES a bunch of concrete outcome objectives at stake right now in implementation of the health insurance exchanges that CAN dovetail into Medicare for all, but others must not make the same types of strategic decisions for themselves?

That's just a couple of examples of the sort of things that are lost when EVERYTHING is expendable for the sake of a slave mentality confined to its own imbalanced narrow conception of what opposition is and what it looks like. A single EXCLUSIVE definition of "liberation", which very possibly isn't liberation at all, and that dominates ANY other consideration. NO diversity.

That's fascism and I oppose it no matter what labels/colors it wears, because it hurts people for its own self-referential identity to the exclusion of ALL others and that, btw, is a guaranteed recipe for losing on track for producing its own "Adam Lanza"s at the expense of millions who are given no choice about the who/what/when/where/why/how of any of that and those of us who ARE trying to make those kinds of PERSONAL decisions are vilified and characterized as evil by those who have crowned themselves with permission to be thugs in the name of outcomes that they alone define and for people who were not asked if they even KNOW what the price of that thugery is, let alone whether they CHOOSE to pay it.

To me, you're not egalitarian at all, because you have become the thing that you hate.

[Egalitarian Thug]

124. You completely miss the point. Losing is always a possibility, but every time our way has been

tried, it has succeeded wildly. It is what Americans across the spectrum want and consistently vote for, and that is why it is invariably removed from available options before any discussion is allowed.

As to the rest of your post, I can't even make out what you're trying to say, except that you don't understand the meaning of the word egalitarian. Look at my profile for an explanation of my username.

[snooper2]

34. you haven't been around very long, oh, and Old Elm Tree

Sent emails out, they need people and money LOL

[SidDithers]

36. Huge K&R!!...nt

Sid

[Safetykitten]

39. Naughty, NAUGHTY Democrats! Stop this instant! Wait till we hear the final word, and then be told,

Well, you do not get it, it was not that bad, it's the long game, who needs that stuff anyhoo, and generally you were wrong, well right, but WRONG about how he capitulated and you are too stupid to get it.

[Hotler]

40. It is NOT bashing........

It is called holding his feet to the fire. Didn't he say that we the people need to put him on the rifgt path and do what is best. Didn't he say tell me what you want and hold me to it?

[RomneyLies]

49. so what you're saying is it will be FINE to bash Obama

after he steals our Social Security.

Gotcha.

[treestar]

53. It would be fine in that event

So wait for it to happen first. If people are so certain, why can't they wait?

Answer: they know it won't happen and are using this time period to bash over something that the President will never do.

[treestar]

51. There is no excuse for it

They are hoping to sabotage 2014 as they did 2010. And this time there is no excuse for it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. Well Said ...

I bet no one will pause to think about what you wrote, in order to launch their "Not me", "He got what he deserved" responses.

But I'll also bet you feel much better for writing it.



{Okay ... I'll read the thread now}

[WI_DEM]

60. It's like all the critical posts about appointing Kerry or Hagel to the cabinet

when in fact no such appointments have yet taken place.

[patrice]

61. An aweful lot of people around here cutting ground out from under THEIR OWN positions. Strange, huh?

[patrice]

62. Rational critique is good, but HORSESHIT HURTS YOUR OWN CASE. Why are people doing that?

[Coyotl]

64. SHAPEFUL, and hopeful that the end result can still be shaped as Obama promised.

The Rs need to conside that the House of Representatives represents more than 50% Dem voters!

[think_critically]

66. just like republicans

folks act just like republicans do. I thought we were supposed to be the party of reason. I even got a thread hidden
for saying that folks in the middle class want things but don't want to pay for it or sacrifice anything. I wasn't even talking about
poor people. I'm talking about folks making 50k to 200k. I've been on right wing forums that are no where near as bad when it comes
to accepting opposing viewpoints. I'm relatively new here but sheesh.

[DireStrike]

70. I've seen this act before.

1) Complain about people discussing rumors. On a discussion board.
2) "No bill has been passed!"
3) When the bill HAS been passed, tell everyone that this was a good compromise, the best we could get. No, fuck that, tell everyone that this is the BEST bill EVER! Point out all the raisins in the feces. Wipe them off and eat them with a straight face. FDR couldn't have done better!

[patrice]

74. ALL true. . . . SO! this is about how what happens between 2) and 3) happens & telegraphing YOUR OWN

response to what's going on fucks you up, because you become a KNOWN quantity/entity at the table that the rest of the players then USE you however THEY want to.

[still_one]

81. He is speaking live now and would not say he would not cut ss

It was a direct question

[DireStrike]

107. Well that's good.

Makes me feel a LITTLE better, but not entirely. Reasons:

Wiggle room: "A chained cpi is not really a cut!" could be said.
Previous record: Obama has about-faced on things he has said before.

But given the context this is a bit better.

[still_one]

113. I am not sure if I feel better

[GreenPartyVoter]

110. Yes, very frustrating.

[still_one]

78. He is talking right now and was asked about ss. He is saying

He refused to say he would not cut, and in fact implied strongly he will

[Marr]

80. Bookmarking this so I can easily compare it to the inevitable lame excuses later.

My personal favorites from the past have been posters who made posts like this *before* unpopular White House moves, then blamed liberals afterwards for 'not holding his feet to the fire'.

[still_one]

84. Even when the cuts are made to ss they will still deny

[Marr]

86. "He had no choice!"

"It was the best deal possible!"

Yep. I've seen this show.

[patrice]

85. To get some concept of what this process is like, try this FUN party game. link:

http://www.eblong.com/zarf/werewolf.html

[markpkessinger]

87. I am listening to the President right now . . .

. . . and he's defending putting Social Security and Medicare on the block, while insisting that middle class taxes must not rise. So he's advocating addressing the deficit, at least in part, on the backs of the most vulnerable.

And since when does disagreeing with a President constitute "bashing?" As someone who was the recipient of a gay bashing once, let me tell you, disagreeing with someone does not constitute "bashing." And to be perfectly frank, if we wait until a bill is signed to speak out and to speak out LOUDLY, it will be too damned late!

[tazkcmo]

111. Friggin A right!

I respect Obama and am glad he is our prez and not Mittens but just TALKING about SS cuts (Chainrf CPI is a cut) freaks me out. I worry for my father on SS, my cousin that is deaf, my best friend in the Army with two cerebalpalsy children and the 200 some elderly I helped feed everyday at a non-profit retirement community as well as the millions of others that depend on SS to live that I don't know. It wouldn't matter to me who the president was at the time, I'd still be writing and calling Washington to voice my opposition. No bashing, just a simple and emphatic opposition to this "technical change" no matter who proposes it.

[Kelvin Mace]

88. I have seen this scenario play out many times

in the last four years.

If it plays out differently this time, I'll apologize, but at the moment I think we are being sold out

[JimDandy]

89. F*** this. Are you listening to the cowardly words

of Pres Obama. What a collosal sell out. And to think all those hours I spent helping to get him elected and persuading center repub family members to vote for him BASED on his position that he would protect Social Security and Medicare. I vouched for him and now he has made all of us look like liars.

[coalition_unwilling]

92. I agree with the substance of your post, but I take issue with your history of the

2010 mid-terms.

Progressive Dems in the House came out of the 2010 mid-terms just fine. Blue Dogs in the House were the main victims in 2010. I think they were victims because when voters are given a choice between Rape-publi-scum and R-lite, i.e., Blue Dogs, they'll go for the genuine article 9 times out of 10. (Props to Harry S. Truman for that insight, IIRC.)

Progressives tried to primary some of those Blue Dogs, only to be told by Rahm Emmanuel that we were 'retarded.' So much for rallying your base.

[bvar22]

120. The claim that The Left sat home in 2010 has been de-bunked ...

.. too many times to count,
but some keep catapulting that fiction back into circulation at DU because it makes them feel good to blame somebody else.
What happened in 2010 was correctly predicted by Harry Truman.

[font size=4]
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010[/font]


[font size=4]Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses![/font]



In 2010, the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party did what it always does,
turned out and did the Heavy Lifting despite being continually insulted and marginalized by the Party leadership.
It was the Low Information Centrists and Not Brave Enough the STAND for Anything "Moderates" who stayed home,
or voted Republican, as Truman explained above.


It is the JOB of LEADERSHIP to motivate the Troops.
If the voters do NOT turn out
It IS a Failure of Leadership, and nothing else.
For those lacking Maturity and Ego Strengths, Blaming the Voters is an easy masturbation fantasy, but that is ALWAYS a complete Waste of Time.
We will ALWAYS have "stupid voters".
They ain't going away.
Competent Leadership WILL account for that.
That IS THEIR job.


.....but lets just BLAME somebody else.
It is SO much Easier.



CENTRISM....because its so EASY!!!!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to blame those who DO!

[JimDandy]

94. Oh I'm so incensed I'm posting again: What a cowardly

sell out! I'm not supporting another corporateer candidate like Obama EVER again, no matter what!

[NYC Liberal]

97. If anyone saw the "Impeach Obama" thread last night: THAT is the kind of shit this OP

is talking about.

Criticisms and different opinions should be welcomed and encouraged. Hair-on-fire hyperbole should not be, and there IS a difference. A big difference.

[winetourdriver]

98. Compromise

Most of our problems stem from the house being turned over to the repubs. Vote like your life depends on it. However, PBO has to deal with it, we've hired him to do just that, and he is very good. Keep up the pressure on congress and let PBO do his job.

[Sirveri]

104. No point in compromise if you get a better deal doing nothing.

We go off the cliff and we get massive revenues and defense spending cuts.

[truebrit71]

105. ^^^This^^^^

[MNBrewer]

108. Rightfully bashed because of proposing it

“This is something that the Republicans have asked for and as part of an effort to find common ground with Republicans, the president has agreed to put this in his proposal,” replied Carney. “He has agreed to have this as part of a broad deficit reduction package.”

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

112. Do we get to talk about it after we're screwed? And, the Prez doesn't have to compromise.

That's why the president has the veto.