I am SICK of hearing Cave Cave Cave! Anyone else?

[sheshe2]

IMHO.There is a world of negativity swirling around here this morning. What's up with that?

It's chicken little time. The president is caving! Is it possible to just take a little breath of air and calm down a bit.

If you truly believe that is the case then Why did you vote for him!

I support My President. I trust him to do what's right.
These are all very difficult and sensitive issues that are being addressed. We need a calm voice and a level headed approach.
I for one am glad that we have that in Our President.

I will take your back Sir!

Anyone else?

[still_one]

1. blind Allegiance to anyone is not critical thinking. If he supported raising the age of Medicare,

would you feel the same way?

Just as you are expressing your frustration with those that are concerned about the President "caving", they are expressing their frustration

To answer your question why did I vote for him?

The Supreme Court. I had no illusions about anything else, however, that would not negate my anger if they raise the Medicare age, and it would be a "cave" in.

[sheshe2]

3. My Allegiance is not blind...

However He can not do this alone.

Would post further but am late for work>

[JaneyVee]

8. What I don't get is that Medicare cuts aren't in sequestration, so why would it be in negotiations?

I'm not saying it is, I'm addressing the rumors.

[still_one]

15. They shouldn't be. Problem is a lot of things we hear from the media are trial balloons thrown out

by politicians I think to sense the mood of the country

[Honeycombe8]

62. Of course Medicare cuts are in negotiations. It was part of Obama's initial offer to Boehnerrecently

Depending on yur definition of cuts. I think it was $400 billion off Medicare. Not sure if it specified how...fraud, change in how providers are paid (from payments for services to something else). It did not involve raising the eligibility age.

Medicare is in trouble financially, is part of the budget, so it makes sense to include it in the negotiations.

This is not the case with Social Security.

[sheshe2]

117. Seriously? No Illusions about anything else? Do you even know the list he did first term?

If you think President Obama's been a "disappointment," my condolences that you didn't get your unicorn. But we can't just elect him to a second term, and expect everything will take care of itself. We need to put pressure on the GOP, and stop obsessing over Blue Dogs. We cannot keep allowing Republican to rip apart the social fabric of the country. WE have to focus on the good things Obama and the Democrats have done, and stop busting on them for not being perfect.

What makes the "disappointment" argument so insipid is that it's just not true. He's done nearly everything we elect a president to do, and he's done it all with little support from the left and massive obstruction from the right.

Is he perfect? No, he's human. Does he deserve some criticism? Of course. But does he deserve the level of criticism that's been leveled at him? Hell no.

President Obama has compiled a STELLAR record under the circumstances. This list of accomplishments is nothing short of amazing, especially given the complete lack of support from the left side of the aisle. And no, lefties; "He's better than Romney and the right wing" does not qualify as "support." .

Pass this list around to everyone you know who whines that Obama's done nothing. Then note that a large proportion of these accomplishments came with a Democratic Congress, and if they want more, they'll have to help him achieve it. And if anyone tries to claim this is all bunk, point out that, unlike many such lists, every item includes a citation supporting it.

Also read my post #111 to Ann. I was at work and unable to answer until this evening. Not one poster has answered my rebuttle yet. I answered all respectfully, with some heat, However I did it respectfully. We are all allowed our voices to be heard.


http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. Why? The first time, I was fooled. The second time, I was told that Romney was worse.

[still_one]

10. The Supreme Court was the one reason to vote for Obama.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

23. Is Kagan a liberal?

[still_one]

45. Compared to Thomas, alto, Scalia, Roberts, yes

[AnotherMcIntosh]

47. Because of her gender? Or because she has a big "D" after her name? When the Miranda rule was gutted

in 2010, she participated as the U.S. Solicitor General.

See "Kagan and the Death of Miranda"

"On June 1, the U.S. Supreme Court finally dealt Miranda a death blow. Elena Kagan, Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, was complicit in Miranda's demise. Her participation may give some insight into her views on the rights of criminal defendants, and her understanding of how the law affects ordinary people."
...
"So what was Kagan's role? As Solicitor General, she filed a brief in Berghuis v. Thompkins for the United States as amicus curiae (friend of the Court). The U.S. was not a party in the case since Thompkins had been convicted in state court and it was the State of Michigan that challenged the lower court's ruling. Kagan did not have to enter the fray and take a position, but she decided to do so.

"Kagan's brief was even more aggressive than Michigan's. ..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-weisselberg/elena-kagan-and-the-death_b_596447.html

We do not have a sufficient track record to say that "Compared to Thomas, alto, Scalia, Roberts, ...", she is more liberal than them. We know what she did in the Berghuis v. Thompkins case. Since she has been on the bench for only a short time, we cannot compare her in a meaningful way with Thomas, et al.

[tabasco]

63. Vote for the utopia party candidate

See who they put on the court.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

68. Your statement would not have made any sense before the election. It doesn't make any sense now.

You do know that there was an election, don't you?

It's been in the news.

Even the OP referred to it.

Maybe in four years you will be able to follow your own advice and "Vote for the utopia party candidate" (whatever that means).

[tabasco]

71. You do know there will be more elections, don't you?

Please try to keep up.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

110. You meant a future election? Then you should wait 4 more years before making more silly statements.

[Fumesucker]

4. This ain't our first rodeo, ma'am

The squeaky wagon wheel gets the grease, if you catch my drift.

[patrice]

11. I wonder if you could explain to me exactly how that works. With the opposition WAITING

in the wings as this whole histrionic theater bit goes down AND SIPHONS SUPPORT (money, activists, public perception, votes) AWAY from our negotiators, all they need to do is hold their position AND WE HAND THEM THE WHOLE FIELD, because we don't understand fucking diddly fuck about what solidarity actually is and precisely HOW it is created.

I REALLY would like to know exactly how you know, how you can predict, precisely WHAT KIND of grease this "squeaky wheel" is going to end up getting and whether that grease is going to be anything even remotely like what we actually need, when we can't stick together long enough to make even the first steps in that whole complex process happen.

[Fumesucker]

28. It takes two to disagree

You disagree with me just as much as I disagree with you.

Which kind of leaves your whole lecture about sticking together a bit flat.

One thing I've noticed in life is that those who continually ask for stuff sometimes get it, far more often than those who keep quiet.

[patrice]

31. There is disagreement and then there are assumptions about disagreement. I ASKED

you to tell me more and you refused, so who disagrees with whom more?

Another assumption, "those who keep quiet" you assume disagreement with something about me that isn't even characteristic of me in any way shape or form.

Not all dichotomies are false, but the assumptions that all of them are true IS false. Now, why would someone MAINTAIN a possibly false dichotomy, when asked to clarify, except to maintain disagreement?

And that's an honest question.

[Fumesucker]

36. If the wheel ain't squeakin' ain't no one gonna grease it

That's the way politics works, no politician is going to do anything for a constituency that doesn't make their wishes known, why would you want people to keep quiet about their honest desires?

I took your question as rhetorical rather than serious and one requiring more trouble to properly parse than I care to invest in the matter.

[sheshe2]

103. Aaah Patrice...

Sorry I was not here for the firestorm... I knew there would be a pig pile. However I posted anyway! I was late for work and had go.

I have only just finished reading it all.

Thanks for your posts here.

I REALLY would like to know exactly how you know, how you can predict, precisely WHAT KIND of grease this "squeaky wheel" is going to end up getting and whether that grease is going to be anything even remotely like what we actually need, when we can't stick together long enough to make even the first steps in that whole complex process happen.

The sine qua non of negotiation is not to show your hand and yet just about everyone criticizing this effort is very busy REVEALING and thus throwing away every card they can. Once the opposition knows, even by the process of elimination, what cards are most likely to be played, the game is over. And we're talking about an opposition here who knows a great deal more about this and has much more power over it than just going by the process of elimination.

I could not agree with you more! We vote and then the shit storm happens. Now and in 2008. My faith is not blind. However my confidence is strong. Will the outcome be 100% for all? No it will not.

Peace

[treestar]

5. for some people compromise is "caving"

There is plenty of criticism of the President's negotiating skills when the real problem often is that the critic doesn't really know how to do it al all and is simply disappointed in the outcome.

[still_one]

12. I have criteria. Raising the age of Medicare would be "caving" in my book. We shall see

[patrice]

17. When the real problem is that the people doing the criticizing don't seem to mind UNDERCUTTING

THEMSELVES with EVERY WORD. They work against their own putative case(s). What the fuck is up with that?????

The sine qua non of negotiation is not to show your hand and yet just about everyone criticizing this effort is very busy REVEALING and thus throwing away every card they can. Once the opposition knows, even by the process of elimination, what cards are most likely to be played, the game is over. And we're talking about an opposition here who knows a great deal more about this and has much more power over it than just going by the process of elimination.

[John2]

35. The game

is never over when you have the people behind you. We can tap dance all we want, but the game only ends when you face the people again. And I do not think people voted for President Obama to compromise or cave on anything. Maybe the people that he is compromising think so, but don't miscalculate their real intentions. No one of them voted for him to touch Social Security or Medicare. They did vote for raising taxes on the top percent and reducing military expansionism. And leaving 14,000 troops in Afghanistan or spreading the War in Africa, doesn't mean getting out. People voted for him to get out period. people are watching his every move too. He needs to respect the people that voted for him period, no ifs,ands or buts. It is not just the Republican Party in trouble. Boehner is not just talking to Obama, he is talking to us, through Obama. And the answer is no compromise period on those programs. The electorate was very specific on what to cut. The military spending needs to stop period. Liberating every country in the World is unrealistic period. The rebels in Syria are just as no good as the Government the U.S. is overthrowing. It is wasteful spending period!

[patrice]

64. Agreed, but most people you're talking about don't know *H*O*W* what they want is to be

accomplished. All most of them know is that they want/need it, so their immature under-developed assessment of what is going on could very definitely in fact "cut their own nose off to spite their face", because most of them are completely ignorant on the actual steps and alternatives in the various process that result in __________________ , not to mention that the huge majority of them are practically completely inert in doing anything honest about their own ignorance and the necessity of acting in RESPONSIBLE ways in their own roles as all of this goes forward.

Result? Tail wags dog and nothing changes in the way that it does need to change.

Yes, I know there is a different sort of cohort(s) out there that is not characterized by anything that I just said; those cohorts are one one side of the issue or the other, but what will actually happen will be determined by where the MOST inertia, political mass, is and if that mass doesn't change, there won't be enough backing behind real, effective, change in American "health" "care" to make it happen.

[treestar]

58. Yes, I would say the opposition and the President's staff know

so much more about the whole thing. The idea of cutting benefits seems to be in the imaginations of the critics. Plus they don't get that cutting waste or the like could make it seem to the Rs they are getting something when they aren't.

Plus the critics I don't think ever really understand the effects of their being no agreement. It's all very well to have "balls" and "not cave" but then if there is no agreement, there is usually a down side to that, too. One the same people are likely to blame the President for, too, if it came along.

[patrice]

60. I don't agree the idea of "cutting benefits (is necessarily) in the imaginations of the critics"

What I'm trying to get at here is disagreeing for disagreeing's sake, BASE BUILDING, over problem solving.

We should be diligent on our own behalf in regard to benefits, including increasing benefits.

Benefits need to be managed in new more cost effective ways. We're getting the worst results for the highest prices in the World (or something close to that).

Personally, I think there are tooooooooooo many middle-people in between care givers and care receivers and those middle-wo/men have powerful economic forces at their command that CAN define cuts to those middle-wo/men as "cuts to benefits" and most of the people doing the screaming about cuts to benefits would be no the wiser about what is actually going on and yet their screaming will affect the whole process, including the fact that the benefits they receive ARE, in fact, limited by all of the middle-wo/men that they themselves are protecting by screaming about PO "caving" on Medicare/Medicaid "cuts to benefits", and this applies especially to Medicaid since there's a BIG push by Republican governors to privatize it.

[patrice]

61. IOW every assumes we're all talking about exactly & precisely the same thing with the word: benefits

and WE ARE NOT.

[eridani]

113. If I want to sell my used car for $3000--

--I am sure the hell going to ask for $6000 as an opening offer. Capitulation is not the same as compromise.

[sabrina 1]

70. For some people we'd like to see Republicans compromise. For once. Just once.

Why do we always see calls for Democrats to compromise especially since over the past several decades they have compromised away so much of their own platform we are now down to the Social Safety Net programs.

So, how about Republicans finally learn about the act of Compromise in Politics? I live to see that day.

[treestar]

112. They do

Check freeperland or any right wing site or talk to any right winger. They too call "RINO" and get pissed off that they didn't get all they wanted.

[sabrina 1]

114. Lol, well I wouldn't go by what the paranoid Freepers have to say. If

they don't see the end of the Democratic Party and a complete takeover by the Tea Party, they call that 'not getting what they want'.

The truth is that even the President has stated that even after giving them everything they wanted, they still want more.

What compromises have they made over the past two decades?

[treestar]

128. The Republicans don't get everything they want either

Or we'd have no income tax at all by now. They still have to live with medicaid, they may want to cut it, but they would rather it not exist at all. They have to settle for trying to minimize it. They'd like to see no regulation of business at all, but they know that isn't realistic in this day and age. So they settle for trying to minimize it.

Even in Bush's terms where they had an R Congress, they didn't get gutting of all regulation, ending all social programs, prohibition of gay marriage everywhere, prohibition of everything else they'd like to prohibit as to people's bedrooms - they are far from getting what they want, just as far as we are from getting a lot of things we would ideally like to have.

[sabrina 1]

136. They got their wars, they got away with war crimes. They got away with

Wall St corruption. They got the their legislation that tore apart the Bill of Rights. They got bailed out after gambling away this country's economic future. They got an extension on the Bush tax cuts.

They prevented anything being done to stop the fraudulent foreclosures on millions of Americans. They continue to get their illegal wars funded and their Corporate buddies continue to profit from them as people continue to die.

They got most of what they wanted over the past decade and more. They got their bill to let the Telecom Corps off the hook for violating the FISA bill.

There is very little that they wanted that they did not get.

And everything they got, was something we did not want, something we lost. And they got it all because they do not back down when they want something.

Now, they have succeeded in putting the Social Safety Net programs on the table in a Deficit Discussion that those programs had nothing to with creating.

We will see if they succeed in what they want this time, cutting benefits for the most vulnerable Americans.

I'm trying to think of all the big things over the past decade that they wanted that they did not get, and I can't think of a thing.

[treestar]

137. Look at it from where they stand

We have many social programs, the EPA, gay marriage, premarital sex, children out of wedlock and it is accepted in society now, women who work or do whatever they damn well please, abortion rights, TV shows with curse words and sexual situations, black people and other minorities in positions of power, the UN, political correctness (they no longer feel comfortable saying racist or sexist things); anti-discrimination laws, the civil rights acts, the voting rights acts, regulation of businesses, worker protection laws, taxes, people saying Happy Holidays and thus not deferring to their religion, and many other things that impose on their "freedoms".

[sabrina 1]

138. Yes, I know they oppose most of those things and have and still are trying

to chip away at some of them. But most of those accomplishments were achieved long ago and people died to make them happen.

And it probably was their failure to stop the progress we made that caused them organize as they have, over the past couple of decades to try to reverse that progress, and to stop any more.

I am talking the current Republican Party who have succeeded in rolling back Women's rights in many states eg.

They have succeeded in most of their goals over the past 15 years or so, including deregulating Wall St. which led to the Global Economic collapse. They have been very successful by simply refusing to back down on what they want.

Now it should be clear that appeasing them has had disastrous effects for this country.

We need to learn what they learned, that you do not back down when you know you are right especially when you have the support of the people.

Do you think that today's Republican Party would have ever allowed the Civil Rights Act to pass eg?

[patrice]

76. True! Most people don't have a very good guess at all about how that whole process works,

especially in the extremely complex and uncommon atmosphere that we're referring to here.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

6. You said "I will take your back". Are you an American and eligible to be a Democrat and vote?

There are people who are not eligible to be Democrats and vote because they are foreigners. Some post from Canada, England, Australia, and possibly even India and China.

Is this phrase "I will take your back" a common one in your community?

[sheshe2]

116. Is it a common phrase in my community ? That is a bit Snippy!

What the hell is that suppose to mean???

I will defend and support my President, I will take his back...does this by your definition make me a foreigner? Seriously?

Well let's see, I was born and raised in Massachusetts. Us BLUE Ma. Stater's are a crazy lot I know, However being born in Ma does not make me foreign. You need to see my birth certificate?

My parents were both raised in The US of A. Grandparents, sure they were foreign one from Canada...one from Switzerland. Is that scary enough for you?

Your Earlier post to me you said that you were fooled the first time around for voting for Obama...please read post# 111. My reply to Ann. You also stated that you were told RMoney would be worse. I truly believe that you figured that out for yourself...at the very least I hope you did.

Respectfully
She

[AnotherMcIntosh]

119. A simple "yes" would do. When there are people on this board who are not eligible to be Democrats

and vote in US elections because they are foreigners in foreign countries, and when someone uses a relatively odd phrase which indicates that they might be a foreigner and ineligible to be a Democrat, it is certainly appropriate to ask the two questions that I did.

My inquiry began after you said: "I will take your back."

My two questions were:
(1) Are you an American and eligible to be a Democrat and vote?
(2) Is this phrase "I will take your back" a common one in your community?

I suggest that the questions are reasonable ones because most Americans have never heard of the phrase "I will take your back."

That phrase is not one commonly used. A Google search for the phrase shows that it is not commonly used.

Somehow I think that this is an incident where you protest too much.

[BlueCaliDem]

120. Don't mind that one.

He/she is an anti-Obamanite and has an aversion toward everything that is mildly complimentary of President Obama.

[sheshe2]

122. Thank You

[BlueCaliDem]

123. Anytime!

[leftstreet]

7. Cave is easier to spell than Comprim...compro...com...cave

[HereSince1628]

9. This is General Discussion, uniformity of thought has little place in real "discussion"

From the online etymology dictionary...http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=discussion

discussion (n.) mid-14c., "examination, investigation, judicial trial,"

from O.Fr. discussion "discussion, examination, investigation, legal trial," from L.L. discussionem (nom. discussio) "examination, discussion," in classical Latin, "a shaking," from discussus, pp. of discutere "strike asunder, break up," from dis- "apart" (see dis-) + quatere "to shake" (see quash).

Meaning "talk over, debate" in English first recorded mid-15c. Sense evolution in Latin appears to have been from "smash apart" to "scatter, disperse," then in post-classical times (via the mental process involved) to "investigate, examine," then to "debate."

[patrice]

14. True, but make that uniformity of anything, including lock-step BLIND contrarianism under

ANY label.

[HereSince1628]

16. "Lockstep contrarianism" has a somewhat unrealistic feeling...

which isn't to say that people do not unite to oppose things.

Just that the practice of being contrary seems in itself to be disintegrative and self-limiting.

[patrice]

20. Some people, and maybe the most dis-empowered would have the strongest inclination in this direction

, don't recognize how power motives outrank everything else in their thinking.

..........................................

Your point is well-taken. I know that at least some of what we are seeing isn't contrary for contrariness' sake; I just didn't include that condition in my previous post, because I was over-simplifying for brevity's sake.

[yourout]

13. I'm sick of having to say it.

[CakeGrrl]

18. Same crud, different year.

The MSM says the President will "cave", the handwringing commences.

Because everyone in the blogosphere always knows best about what's going on behind the scenes.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

67. You say, "The MSM says the President will 'cave', ..." Do you have a link to support this?

If the MSM has ever said that the President will "cave," shouldn't that be easy to find?

[CakeGrrl]

72. Actually,

I should have said the netroots rather than the actual mainstream, to wit:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/156852/obama-caves-tax-cuts-endorses-bush-mccain-philosophy#

despite the trade-off in place for UI benefits being held hostage.

There was also the willingness to take John Boehner's "I got 98% of what I wanted" claim as proof that the President 'failed' in 2010:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1627823

It doesn't take much to demonstrate that the same thing is happening two years later as far as the freakout speculation goes.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

84. Then, actually, the MSM DID NOT SAY that the President will cave.

[99Forever]

19. Why did I vote for him?

Because this shitty corporate asskissing country left me with no other decent option.


Any more stupid questions?

[sharp_stick]

22. You've got lots of options

the fact that you can't seem to figure that out is your problem.

[Fumesucker]

29. Options yes, decent options not so much

Reading is fundamental.

[99Forever]

33. Really?

Name them. Specifically.

[99Forever]

41. Well friend?

Still working up that list of decent options I had? It doesn't have to be all inclusive, just post what you've got.

[democrattotheend]

86. If we're such a shitty country, why not move to Europe?

They have much better social welfare systems there. If you really think this country is so shitty why stay?

[NuttyFluffers]

87. immigration restrictions. all countries have 'em.

they also place access restrictions on their social welfare systems and citizenship, too.

edit: capital has more freedom of mobility than labor. it's a real problem.

[libdem4life]

89. Oh my God. This???

[99Forever]

90. Just to be a ...

... a burr in the side of people such as yourself. Everyone has to have a purpose in life.

[democrattotheend]

92. People like me?

You don't even know me. How do you know what I am like?

And for the record, I don't consider you a burn in my side.

[99Forever]

93. Thw word was burr.

Did you expect a serious answer to such a stupid, fucking insulting question as you asked me? That's the kind of immature bull shit I usually hear from Teabaggers. You got what you gave.

[democrattotheend]

96. I didn't mean it to be insulting

But I can see how it came across that way, so I am sorry. I meant it seriously. It's one thing to say that you love this country but hate some of our policies and want to improve them. But if you really see it as a shitty country why stay?

I think your saying "shitty country" just rubbed me the wrong way because I have spent so much time trying to argue over the years that liberals love this country as much as conservatives do. It is because I love this country that I want to see policies that I believe are better, more fair, more just.

I think maybe you were trying to say that our current political system is shitty, which I agree with. I just took offense with your choice of words.

[99Forever]

100. Thank you for clearing that up.

No harm, no foul.

Whether this country is shitty or not, largely depends on where you view it from. Wouldn't you agree? Considering how coldly and callously it is treating millions of us in our time of need, might skew my view. We've worked hard an entire lifetime and it's been ripped from grasp, just when we are finally looking at being able retire in a few years. Am I angry? Yes, very angry and I'll be damned if I will just quietly go off to die.

[democrattotheend]

107. I would never ever say it's a shitty country

Sure, I will be very angry IF they cave on entitlements. But that doesn't mean the country is shitty. The out-of-control campaign financing and lobbying, now that's shitty.

I'm studying for my constitutional law exam right now, and it's kind of amazing to realize the pioneering role we have played in establishing fundamental freedoms like free speech and free exercise. Even in Europe, they have a much more limited conception of free speech to this day. Personally, I think it's been taken too far by extending a right that was designed to apply to natural persons to corporations. But it's still remarkable how groundbreaking our constitution was and still is.

It's pretty remarkable how far we have come in terms of tolerance as well. 50 years ago, blacks were beaten to a pulp for trying to vote and now we have a black president. 4 years ago, voters were rushing to the polls to ban gay marriage; this year, three states came out to vote for it and one state rejected a ban.

So no, I would not agree that it's a shitty country. I love this country and that's why I am motivated to be part of the fight for a more perfect union.

[99Forever]

115. I only asked you if agreed...

... that one's view of this nation is determined by where they see it from. Nothing more, nothing less. Were I fortunate enough to be well off enough to afford law school, instead of facing homelessness and no healthcare, my opinion might be closer to yours. As it is, life in the country is downright shitty for me, my wife and millions of others dealing with the harsh reality while the endless talk talk goes on and on with no help in sight.

[democrattotheend]

131. Ok, that's fair

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. Yes, I agree that your situation determines where you are coming from. I am really sorry if I was insensitive. I did not know that you were in such a tough economic situation.

If it makes you feel any better, I am going to be in a lot of debt when I graduate. And since I have a disability that is getting worse, I am scared I won't be able to hold down a job and my education will all be for nothing. But you're right, I have never struggled economically to the degree that you have, at least not yet.

When you say "facing homelessness", does that mean you have a home but are facing eviction or foreclosure? If you need any legal advice, I can try to help or send out an e-mail to my law school listserv to see if anyone can help.

Like I said, it was a knee-jerk reaction from the Bush years of trying to prove that I love this country despite hating the war and the president's policies. I was also fed up about so many people on here bashing President Obama for "caving" when they don't even know if he actually has caved. But I was really insensitive, and I apologize again.

[99Forever]

133. It's ok...

... I didn't take it personally. All I ask is that your takeaway includes seeing people like me and maybe understanding how we might not see America in the same light as you do. There are millions of us, more everyday, and our nation as turned it's back to us in our time of need. I too love this country or at least did until it's showed me it's dark side.

Peace out, brother, get that degree and make a difference for We the People.

[democrattotheend]

134. I'm actually a sister

As in, I am female.

Is there anything we here at DU can do for you in this time of need? If you need legal advice I can try to help. I don't have a lot of money to give but I could send a little something if it would help. Do you have a PayPal? Maybe some other DUers would pitch in as well.

[99Forever]

135. Oops..

.. Sister, then. I couldn't take funds that way, without going into details, but please know that your generosity in offering will warm my heart tonite. Perhaps down the road I'll pm you for legal advise as things unfold.

[Oilwellian]

129. Wow

One used to only hear that coming from Republicans. That was almost an "America, love it or leave it" moment. Holy fucking shit. This place really is going onward and rightward at a much faster pace now.

[democrattotheend]

132. You're right. I didn't mean it to come across that way

See my response to the original poster. I apologized to him. My reaction was sort of a knee-jerk reaction because of all the time I have spent, especially during the Bush years, having to defend my patriotism and argue that liberals love this country as much as conservatives. But I realized that in the process I ended up sounding like one of those "love it or leave it" conservatives, which I didn't mean to do.

[sharp_stick]

21. I'm not seeing a lot of it

I must finally be getting my whiners list in the proper ignore set.

[Deep13]

24. other guy was worse nt

[Magoo48]

25. Question authority....always.

Drones, government spying and personal data collection, endless meddling in the affairs of other nations, US obstructionism in Doha, not putting on his walking shoes when he said he would, proposed Pacific-Rim agreements which could be devastating to farmer's markets, on and on....etc.
I question many things the president does and doesn't do. I voted for him; why on earth wouldn't I question what he's up to in my name?

[TheKentuckian]

26. Weird WilLIARd seemed undeniably worse. Pure lesser evilisim in probably a vain effort to buy time

Sure as hell not some high level of faith and trust. I consider the man a less antagonistic threat but even that might prove to be too generous. Too much stock put in party affiliation, personal background, and demeanor is possible.

I'm not at all sure the term 'caving' is applicable, it gives the impression that other ends were sought or at least desired and were given up in weakness when I see little such indication.
Folks that accuse the President and Democrats in Congress of caving are probably granting more credit than is deserved. I don't think our positions were ever actually in the mix at all to be folded on.

Our job is to make these fuckers do what is needed, not to trust them to do what is right.
Trusting politicians is stupid, dangerous, and irresponsible and misguided citizenship. Cult of personality or team based hero worship substituted for engagement, pressure, and accountability to the people and the rule of law.

Because politics isn't religion, sports, or a fan club is why.

[99Forever]

43. ^^This!^^

Precisely.

[bvar22]

74. Nail....Hammer.... Yadda Yadda.

Recommending Post # 26 by TheKentuckian,
who summed up my position better than I could.

Thank You.



[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]

[sendero]

83. Exactly..

.. just as folks assumed Bush was "stupid" when actually he did and got exactly what he wanted and he knew exactly why he wanted it and it had nothing to do with the average citizen.

Folks assume Obama is "caving" when actually he is doing exactly what he wants to do. The goofy center-right is really where he is.

[NuttyFluffers]

88. exactly. "Because politics isn't religion, sports, or a fan club is why."

if you don't agitate, you then get capitulate.

never rest on the cult of personality. all you'll get is a great show.

[Ligyron]

30. true, but ...

That's much less harmful a reward than oh, say...

[sheshe2]

111. Really Ann...not dependable?...

I sure would like to see some links for what you are talking about!!!

He was up against these guys and still is!

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.” The excerpt includes a special bonus nugget of Mitt Romney dissing the Tea Party.
But as we say in the sales world: There’s more! I’m going to be blogging some of the news and larger themes from the book here at TIME.com, and I’ll kick it off with more scenes from the early days of the Republican strategy of No. Read on to hear what Joe Biden’s sources in the Senate GOP were telling him, some candid pillow talk between a Republican staffer and an Obama aide, and a top Republican admitting his party didn’t want to “play.” I’ll start with a scene I consider a turning point in the Obama era, when the new President went to the Hill to extend his hand and the GOP spurned it.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/#ixzz2EcPMrZGV

and this:

Mitch McConnell has been in the limelight lately after his infamous statement about making President Obama a one-term president. This kind of statement among many others has thrown the American public into confusion about the direction the congress is taking. Personally I was left puzzled, wondering how power hungry Mitch must be, that he makes it a personal objective to oust the President. There has been differing opinions regarding the relationship between president Obama and Mitch McConnell, and questions have been raised about their ability to work together.

voices.yahoo.com/mitch-mcconnell-his-campaign-oust...


So Ann again I would like some facts...I will be happy to oblige with a list of his accomplishments!
Did we see all of what we had hoped for? No we did not. How could we have with the negativity and hate that I just linked to above. How could anyone have accomplished more!

[Comrade_McKenzie]

32. No one should be doing any complaining until they have the final product in front of them...

Speculating about speculation is beyond inane.

[99Forever]

34. Yeah right....

... 'cuz waiting to say something, till after the knife is in our back has always worked out so well in the past.

Thanks for incite.

[Tarheel_Dem]

38. Did you mean "insight"?

in·cite/ɪnˈsaɪt/ Show Spelled [in-sahyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), in·cit·ed, in·cit·ing.
to stir, encourage, or urge on; stimulate or prompt to action: to incite a crowd to riot.

Can be confused: 1. incitable, insightful ; 2. incite, insight (see synonym note at the current entry).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incite

[99Forever]

46. I meant precisely what I typed.

But thanks anyway, Captain Dictionary. (did add a "the" I missed)

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. Yeah. You stick with that!

[99Forever]

53. Thanks for your permission.

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. You are more than welcome. First rule of debate? Know how to spell, and....

more to the point, know how to define the words you've spelled.

[99Forever]

78. Since I used the word I intended and spelled it correctly...

... you must be laughing at yourself then.

So, self-deprecation is your thing. I'll keep that in mind.

[Tarheel_Dem]

79. Well, alright then. You take care, ya' hear?

[99Forever]

81. And a ...

.. last worder, too!

Isn't that special?

[Tarheel_Dem]

118. "Worder"?

[Tarheel_Dem]

37. Yes! I am sick of it! I've heard the M$M use this term when they speak of the POTUS...

& John Boehner. Do they have any idea how hard that makes real negotiation? Who wants to wake up to headlines that you "caved"? Nobody. Terms like compromise have become 4 letter words. It's ridiculous, and it's unhelpful, but this nastiness is driven by the talk radio culture, and has sadly found it's way into the national dialogue. It's sickening.

Quite frankly, I think most of us are sick to death of politicians playing chicken to please the extreme voices on the radio & teevee.

[patrice]

65. And I can guaran-freaking-tee you MSM does NOT mean the same thing by "benefits" as you & I do.nt

[Fearless]

39. If the social safety net is touched, yes, he caved.

We are looking to make sure that this doesn't happen and through it doesn't cost the lives of American citizens.

[Shankapotomus]

40. I don't feel that way myself

Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:21 PM - Edit history (2)

But there are many DUers who have waited a lifetime to see the kind of change they have hoped for only to have that hope dashed again and again. I didn't understand it when i first became a dem in 2000 but i understand it now. They are not hating on the President...they are pushing for change because they know from experience it doesn't happen as easy as some of us think.

[Egalitarian Thug]

42. No bill is far better than a bad bill. n/t

[patrice]

66. I second this motion & add a motion for a General Strike! nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

80. Seconded. n/t

[sofa king]

44. The President has our back, too.

As I have ranted ad nauseam for years now, the President has long since dispensed with negotiating with Republicans on even terms.

This is because, long since, the President secured all the agreements he is going to need to win this fight. Tax cuts for the rich expire in January, the President isn't going to allow any legislation to change that, and with the solid support of Democratic Senators, his veto cannot be overridden. End of story.

Now, he can give the GOP all the rope they need to hang themselves, exactly as he did with the automatic triggers charade.

The most important point to notice in all of this is that the expiration of tax cuts for the rich is the starting line, not the end point of the negotiations. It is highly, highly unlikely that Republicans will ever even reach the starting line.

So watch and laugh, as the President no doubt is laughing. All of this Republican storming is already firmly confined to their increasingly irrelevant teacup.

[Cha]

49. Yes, he does, sofa king.. thanks

for noticing! And, speaking out..

[sheshe2]

95. +1,000!

Thanks sofa king!

[Cha]

48. Bless your Confidence in the President we Re-Elected-Heart,

she2! I'm one of those 57% who Approve of President Obama, too.. I know.. Huge Surprise! It's going to be an Amazing Four More Years and the Last Four were grand, too.



http://theobamadiary.com/

[BlueCaliDem]

52. Sadly, no matter how progressive he will be

probably as the most progressive president in our history, he'll never get a high five from the Purists on the Left. That's ok. They make up 4% of the Democratic Party. They are a loud and obnoxious fickle minority who no one outside their like-minded group will listen to anyway.

[Cha]

55. The Beauty is..

what President Obama and his Team DO.. That's our Future!

"We'll Keep This List Going. Here are 206 Obama Accomplishments, With Citations! He's Done Plenty"

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

BlueCaliDem

[BlueCaliDem]

91. Thanks so much, Cha!

Nice site and a nice place to visit and read without FiredogBaggers hounding each and every thread that dare mentions a single positive thing about President Obama. [URL=http://www.sherv.net/santa.banana-emoticon-370.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Cha.

[sheshe2]

99. Oh Goody...

Just added it to favs!

[bvar22]

75. "the most progressive president in our history" ???!!!

THIS ^ is the predictable result of not teaching American History in our schools anymore,
especially the history of the Labor Movement and The New Deal.

I'll let Rachel explain it to you.

[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]

[BlueCaliDem]

94. Yes, most PROGRESSIVE president in our history

not the most liberal. I know you know the difference. I also know you know that despite Senator Wellstone's very loud and very in-your-face brand of politics, he would have never, EVER, become president. Like I said, ultra-Liberals make up only 4% of the Democratic Party. The vast majority are more pragmatic, even moderate.

Here's a short list of President Obama's progressive bona fides:

Permanent repeal of DADT.

Creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Health insurance reform with a "robust public option" on its way.

The Heritage Foundation described this move as such: "Robert E. Moffit, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said he worried that “the nationwide health plans, operating under terms and conditions set by the federal government, will become the robust public option that liberals always wanted."

Got rid of bin Laden once and for all.

Expanding Medicaid.

and if you're still interested in actual facts rather than attacks (that will only get people to ignore you), and want more proof how progressive this president is, have a look here: http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html to add to his list of progressive accomplishments. And, mind you, he did all of this within his first two years when he had Democratic majorities in both chambers. If we want more progress, it's important we all come out in 2014 because it's during the mid-terms when Republicans always seem to take the upperhand in power.

[bvar22]

105. I see you didn't bother watching Rachel's piece.

At best, President Obama is a Big Business, Free Market "Centrist".
On most policy issues, he is somewhat RIGHT of Center.
Bill Clinton's crown of Best Republican President EVER is in jeopardy.
That is why the Old Dog came out of retirement.

I'm old enough to remember WHAT a DEMOCRAT sounds like,
and what a DEMOCRAT fights for.
When someone calls this old Mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ Working Class Democrat
a Fringe Leftist....
Well I know where THAT person is standing on the political spectrum.

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established [font size=3]for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being." --FDR, Economic Bill of Rights

Please note that FDR specified the above a Basic Human Rights to be protected and administered by our government of The People,
and NOT as [font size=3]COMMODITIES[/font] to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

There was a time, no so long ago, when voting FOR the Democrat
was voting FOR the above Democratic Party Values.
Sadly, this is no longer true.


---bvar22
STILL a mainstream-center FDR/LBJ Working Class DEMOCRAT.
I haven't changed,
and will keep fighting FOR the old traditional Democratic Party Working Class Values
that made our Party Great.
When politicians who call themselves "Democrat" stray from these values,
I WILL call them on it.


[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

[BlueCaliDem]

121. Those are some excellent FDR Economic Bill of Rights.

Of course, he had huge majorities of Democrats in BOTH chambers of Congress for more than two years, so that was pretty easy.

My question, though . . . did those rights extend to women, Blacks, Asians, and Latinos in his day? Remember those internment camps? With huge Democratic majorities that FDR enjoyed in BOTH chambers of Congress, did he ever try to pass and strengthen civil rights FOR ALL so that every American, despite age, color, race, gender, or creed, could enjoy those rights listed under his Economic Bill of Rights? Did women have the same rights as men or were they only for the White male voting bloc?

Both you and I know the truth.

That's the difference between President Obama and President Roosevelt. Obama didn't have the huge majorities in Congress FDR had, yet Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, making women equal. Obama permanently repealed DADT, allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve their country. Obama publicly supports marriage equality and he pushed through tax cuts for everyone making less than $250K. Obama pushed through the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, the most sweeping health care and insurance policy in our history that covers every single American citizen, and when the public option is opened in October 2013, it will blow LBJ's weak Medicare - that he himself had weakened by caving to the Republicans and some RepubliDems to add language that it would only be for "65 and older", leaving tens of millions to their own devices.

Comparatively speaking, considering the majorities FDR enjoyed and the sweeping civil rights movement that LBJ enjoyed, President Obama IS the most progressive president in our history. But I know you disagree.

[bvar22]

125. If you study your Political history,

especially the History of the Democratic Party,
AND study FDR's Economic Bill of Rights,
you WILL find something STUNNING.

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be [font size=3]established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font] --FDR, Economic Bill of Rights, SOTU, 1944

I challenge you to find such a statement by a leader of the Democratic Party that predates FDR's Proclamation of Equality.
Everything that followed, from The Civil Rights Act to Lilly Ledbetter, were built on THAT foundation of Party Principle.

I agree that President Obama has some some good things, especially in the Social arena,
but in other areas, he has moved the ball decisively to The Big Business Conservative Right.

The Big 3 on the front burner now:
*Expansion of Union Busting, Anti-American Worker "Free Trade"

*Even MORE Media Consolidation before Christmas
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021896902

*Final approval for the Keystone Pipeline


As cool as Lilly Ledbetter and the repeal of DADT are,
they don't come close to balancing out any single one of the above concessions to Big Business.
Its like he went to them and said, "Come on, you got to give me something,
a handful of beans.....SOMETHING I can frame as a "victory".

The "Grand Bargain" yet to come?
I don't have high hopes.

Raising Taxes on The RICH by an infinitesimal 3.5% is being framed as a Democratic Party "VICTORY".
Really!
....Historically LOW Taxes on the Very RICH will be a Democratic Party VICTORY?

Why YES, Alice,
You HAVE fallen down the rabbit hole.



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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[BlueCaliDem]

127. I understand what FDR's Economic Bill of Rights SAYS

but I'm referring to, aside from those wonderfully grand words, what rights were afforded minorities and women in his time? After all, he *did* have three terms to get a LOT done - and let's not forget the internment camps that might not have affected you, but it would surely have affected my family were we here during that time.

RE: FDR's Proclamation of Equality.
Everything that followed, from The Civil Rights Act to Lilly Ledbetter, were built on THAT foundation of Party Principle.

That really is a stretch, imho. I mean, sure, in the broadest sense and if willing enough, people can kind of, sort of, maybe come to the conclusion that his proclamation would lead to today's Lilly Ledbetter Act and the CRA, but, sorry to say, I just can't get those dang internment camps of his out of the equation, and they kind of put a huge damper on the credibility of that grand proclamation for me.

The Big 3 on the front burner now:
*Expansion of Union Busting, Anti-American Worker "Free Trade"

I refer you to: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/05/here-we-go-again-not-every-free-trade.html that explains why your assumption is wrong, and it does so in detail.

*Even MORE Media Consolidation before Christmas


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1902958 I would only add, again, don't panic before something really happens. I seriously doubt there'll be "more media consolidation" under President Obama that wasn't already in works before he became president. Not everything is so cut and dry with this president, as you well know (although your p.o.v. is much more negative than mine, obviously).

*Final approval for the Keystone Pipeline

Rumor. Until such time, we shouldn't set our hair on fire. However, what's your source that's gotten you convinced that the entire pipeline (without safety precautions) is inevitable? I tried to find it on the internet, but can't find anything other than that the president had approved a small portion of it ( http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/240753-us-approves-permit-for-keystone-pipelines-southern-portion ) but that the largest portion remains in contention.

So far, nothing you've put forward disproves that President Obama, based on his works and what he's working on today, is the most progressive president in U.S. history.

[patrice]

82. We have to figure out how to make ourselves relevant without abandoning our principles.

[sheshe2]

98. I am with you Cha + 1,000!!!!

I woke this morning and started reading the posts...same people same message. It pissed me off.

I knew there would be a pig pile going on...but hey a girls gotta do what a girls gotta do. Only sorry I missed it. Was late for work...but who cares!

Thanks!

[BlueCaliDem]

51. I'm with you, and just because there are posters

here on a public Democratic Party platform/Message board, doesn't mean they voted for a Democratic president. As some have pointed out to me, this is a place for "liberal debate", so there are a LOT of Dennis Kucinich, Jill Stein, FiredogLake, and Glenn Greenwald (NO Liberal - more of a Libertarian) fans here, too, as you've undoubtedly experienced by now.

[Enrique]

56. lots of reasons to vote for Obama

the Supreme Court being a huge one. I would vote for Joe Leiberman for that reason, that doesn't mean I shouldn't criticize Lieberman if he were president.

[orpupilofnature57]

57. Cooperating too much is a flaw, not enough of a flaw

to vote for Suicide, but enjoying a democracy and critical thinking ,we do have the right and duty to criticize the man we voted for .

[forestpath]

59. I was happy to vote for President Obama and thrilled he won BUT that doesn't

mean I am not concerned about SS and Medicare and I am not going to keep quiet about just because it upsets your happy little apple cart.

So, wasn't I supposed to email the White House about it? Because I have, over and over. I've tried calling, too, but I can never get through.

It's almost comical how on this board I read posts about how we're not allowed to complain if we didn't vote, if we didn't contact the White House, etc. etc.....now we're now allowed to complain if we did vote?

GMAFB.

[sheshe2]

101. I don't see anywhere in my post that said cease and desist...do you?

What I wish for is a little calm...some level headed thinking instead of nightmare scenarios.

We all need to contact the White House, our senators and congress people. I think that is great you are doing that. We all need to express our fears and concerns. We must also show support for our President. I for one most certainly do not envy him his job.

It is not blind faith of my My President, as one poster said, that I follow him. I have a confidence in him! In his calm quite way I feel he will get this job done.

Will the outcome be 100% to everyones liking? No it will not.

Peace
She

[forestpath]

106. Sure sounded like that was the whole POINT of your post to me!

[sheshe2]

109. Forestpath, I have Re read my post and my reply to you...

Nope not seeing that anywhere...

In fact in my reply I Applauded your efforts in calling the White House. Also stated that we all should be contacting Senate and House Reps.

Asking for calm is not the same as saying shut up. So no I have not and would never have said this to anyone.

Peace
She

[LWolf]

73. I am sick

of the actual caving.

[JVS]

77. Me too.

[democrattotheend]

85. I agree

I will be disappointed if he caves on the Medicare age, but I too am sick of the premature bashing based on Ezra Klein's speculations.

I am not saying that we shouldn't be vigilant and mobilize on this. But bashing the president based on speculation about a deal he might make seems premature and counter-productive.

[woo me with science]

97. I am sick of the use of the word "cave."

Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:40 PM - Edit history (1)

It implies that a different outcome was desired.

Until we can acknowledge what the real problem is here, we make no strides in fixing it.

[rudycantfail]

108. I agree.

[elleng]

102. AND its IMPOSSIBLE to negotiate in public.

Thanks, she2.

[sheshe2]

104. Just got home from work...

Just finished reading the tsunami of replies! LOL.

I knew it could get ugly. However it was worth it.

Thanks for the support elleng. And to all the others that are tired of the noise.

My hands are over my ears, and I am loudly singing LALALALALALA!

[Oilwellian]

130. Yes, that's quite obvious n/t

[nolabels]

124. I get sick of lot of things

but the one i get most tired of is people who find a subject to study on, then keep on looking at it and then complain about seeing more or about it.

Like ducks and fish can swim so why don't you just go study how that is so.


Btw. just because you have made someone feel pumped up don't think for a minute that will stop them from reverting to their own ways in the end.

I hope he doesn't cave but if he gets tired or worn we might find out that he was just human and all this while we get to watch the ducks swim.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

126. If Obama and the Democrats do cave on SS and Medicare, you better brace yourself.

It's going to ugly beyond your wildest dreams.

"Trusting" any politician (yes, Obama is a politician) is foolish. But have at it.

And for the record, I've never heard "I will take your back," either. It's an interesting phrase.