CUT THE CRAP! Your Month in Review from the most "progressive" administration ever.

[woo me with science]

This is just this month, with impressive new Third Way efforts in the areas of mass surveillance, "Kill Lists," corporate health insurance, murdering net neutrality, right-wing appointments, warmongering, toll interstates, *and* environmental and educational assaults!

And, hey kids, the month's not even over yet!

White House colluded with House Republicans *against* Democrats to WEAKEN surveillance bill.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024984920

White House (again) Seeks Legal Immunity For Firms That Hand Over Customer Data
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024906691

Obama Administration To Reveal Justification For Drone Strikes On U.S. Citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024979665

Obama administration quietly approves new loopholes to help insurance companies gouge patients:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4970298

No single payer according to Obama's HHS nominee.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4973013

The murder of net neutrality
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4903646

Obama's Crony Capitalism will Kill Net Neutrality. *New* FCC Staff in bed with ISP's
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024906730

Democratic Opposition Lines Up Against Obama Judicial Nominee
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024945344

Secret trade memos calling for more fracking and offshore drilling
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024975916

Obama's Defense Department Refuses to Tell Senate Which Groups We’re at War With
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024985813

President Obama close to authorizing mission led by the US military to train moderate Syrian rebels
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025005755

Syrian rebels describe U.S.-backed training in Qatar in new documentary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025004518

Ethics watchdog calls for investigation of EPA assault on renewable fuels.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024987371

This Trade Deal Will Make You Sick, Maybe Give You Mad Cow
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024979506

Why do we bother: Feds Ever-So-Gently File Criminal Charges Against Credit Suisse
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024974240

Too Big to Jail: DOJ Charges Two Banks with Criminal Acts, But Will Not Hold Them Criminally Accountable
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024906501

College presidents upset. Obama's Ed Dept says rating colleges will be like "rating a blender".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025004676

Opening the US interstate system to tolling
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024894570
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024892605

And after all that hard work, it's no surprise that Our President put on his comfortable walking shoes and headed out for some golf:

White House downplays golf outing with Bain Capital lobbyist
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4977762

[Puzzledtraveller]

1. K&R

[Doctor_J]

2. you are contributing to the meh attitude that has the president worried about Nov

Last edited Tue May 27, 2014, 03:29 PM - Edit history (1)

I'll bet you're a racist . He's not a king you know . He doesn't have the votes . Do you have boxes in your garage ?

Rec

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. I would say the President is contributing to the "meh" attitude, not the poster.

After all, it's the President who's doing those things.

The poster is just pointing them out.

[jeff47]

5. Nah, the poster is doing a lovely job of blaming the President for

lots of things that aren't the Executive branch's doing.

For example, Reid is the one who went back to allowing a state's senators to put forth judicial nominees, resulting in the terrible nominee from Georgia. Somehow, Reid's actions are Obama's fault.

Unfortunately, posters like the OP are so concerned about building up a lengthy laundry list that they're blaming the wrong person.

[SidDithers]

11. It's pretty much all the poster ever does...nt

Sid

[Bobbie Jo]

26. Closer to exclusively. nt

[blkmusclmachine]

223. THE BUCK STOPS HERE

[okaawhatever]

356. +10,000 nt

[sabrina 1]

370. And yet, you cannot refute anything in the OP. Or maybe you can, so I'll wait, before deciding

whether it's a case of 'I can't refute anything in the OP' or 'let me just try to discredit the OP because we can't have all that truth out there where people can decide for themselves' kind of thing.

As always, I look forward to your wise comments on the actual OP rather than on the 'messenger'.

[stupidicus]

41. well, then you and your fellow ____ here can point out which

ones he is powerless to act upon, no?

Oh that's right, that would be hard work compared to the sniping, no? Your lone example takes care of that we can all assume eh?

It might also reveal exactly how baseless your BS is too.

[rhett o rick]

89. So are you saying that the OP is making it all up? Or that some or all of the complaints arent

the fault of the President? Or are you just making an ad hominem attack on the OP?

[Autumn]

218. The usual.

[jeff47]

284. Wow that's a dumb post.

Seriously, that has to be one of your dumbest posts. You're better than that. If you're gonna "phone it in" that badly, just don't hit reply.

There is no implication that anything in the OP is non-existant. My entire point is not all of them are caused by Obama, as demonstrated with the specific example I gave.

[rhett o rick]

299. Why dont you simplify your responses here to, "None of it's the fault of the President."? nm

[jeff47]

306. Because some of them are the fault of the President

On those issues, the debate becomes whether or not those are actually good or bad. That debate requires moving beyond a headline designed to enrage. Is aid to the rebels in Syria good or bad? Going to require more than a sentence to discuss.

So while not everything on that list is the fault of Congress, the vast majority are the fault of Congress, or can be fixed by a better Congress.

So instead of laying that entire list on Obama, how 'bout we Democrats stop being fucking morons that ignore everything below the top-of-the-ticket? That way we can get better Congresspeople and actually tackle what's in the OP. Today's city councilperson could be tomorrow's House majority leader. Republicans get this, and work all up and down the ballot. We don't.

But folks like the OP really don't want to work to fix the problems. They want the problems to be fixed by others.

[rhett o rick]

310. What debate? Those that support the president are never seen in any of the threads

on important issues. OP after OP on fracking, TPP, and other important issues have zero of the supporters participating. Cant be a coincidence. And how can liberals not have opinions on these issues? Now threads about Greenwald, Snowden, OWS, and others that dare speak truth to power get the whole gang. Yet they will insist that they are liberals.

[randome]

316. Speaking for myself, I have little to contribute to those threads.

Other than 'Ditto', 'Yep', 'Yup', 'Bingo' or any of the other over-used and pointless responses. I generally join in threads where there is an honest debate rather than one where I mostly agree.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

326. I can understand when one doesnt participate, but when the whole

Anti-Greenwald Group boycotts all threads on fracking, TPP, Wall Street corruption, etc. it makes me wonder what's going on.

Are you saying that you oppose the TPP, the XL Pipeline, wide spread fracking, Wall Street corruption, etc.??

[JDPriestly]

106. Most of those horrible mistakes are on Obama's shoulders.

His appointees are doing these awful things. He sure got rid of Sibelius quickly. He needs to do that at some other agencies. That he keeps the clowns that he appointed in their positions proves that these are his policies.


Sorry. But the president appointed jerks to a lot of his cabinet and regulatory agencies. It's a shame. Hillary will do the same.

That's why I am supporting Elizabeth Warren and/or Bernie Sanders for president in 2016. I am sick of the third way crowd. They hype us into thinking they are Democrats, but then when you look at their appointments you realize they are pro-big-corporations and anti-the-American-people.

Where in the world was Obama's NSA when Rodgers posted on the internet in plain view that he was going to kill women? If they aren't looking for death threats, what are they looking for?

What does the NSA do with the information it collects?

Homeland Security spied on the peaceful Occupy groups, but not on someone who plainly threatens to kill innocent people?

Looks to me like Obama's Homeland Security department is more interested in placing political dissidents under surveillance than gun-nuts and crazy killers. Not that I think they should put either group under surveillance. But the fact that they put groups of "peaceable" (Amend. 1, Const.) political demonstrators under surveillance but not violent hate groups tells you what is really going on in the Obama administration and in some prior administrations.

[JDPriestly]

116. That's about the only item on the list that is not Obama's responsibility, sole responsibility.

It's indefensible that supposed Democrats are doing what Obama's appointees are doing in many areas. And golfing with Romney's guy? Doesn't the president have better things to do.

Probably trying to dig up something bad about Elizabeth Warren? Or were they discussing how to make Romney's tax problems go away? Why was a golf date with Romney's tax consultant necessary or helpful? Isn't the President too busy for that?

I like lots of things about President Obama, but that list reminds me of his failings.

Why don't you present a list of good things Obama has done?

[sabrina 1]

165. Is there such a thing as Executive Orders anymore? I know Bush used them 'liberally'.

What you're claiming is that the President has no power over his own party. Do you realize that people are far more informed to day than they were even ten years ago as to how all this works?

Eg, Bush never had any problem making sure that Republicans in Congress KNEW what he wanted.

So why do you think, I assume this is what you think, that this president has zero influence over his own party? He IS the head of the party, so when did position become so ineffective? Are you seriously trying to tell us that Reid would ignore the President if he got a call from him, and instead, listen to Republicans? If that IS the case, things are even worst than we thought.

You ARE blaming Reid right?

[jeff47]

285. So you want Obama to be a dictator.

See, a lot of us actually think we should follow the Constitution instead.

[bvar22]

323. BS Strawman

No one said Obama should be a "dictator" or NOT follow the Constitution.

The Head of the Democratic party and President of the US is a POWERFUL position,
and Obama uses that power to get what he wants when he wants it.
Just ask Bill Halter in Arkansas:
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10024586209

"Johnson was the catalyst, the cajoler in chief. History records him as the nation's greatest legislative politician. In a great piece on the Daily Beast website, LBJ aide Tom Johnson, writes about how his old boss would have gotten a health care reform bill through the current congress. It's worth reading to understand the full impact of the "Johnson treatment" and how effective LBJ could be in winning votes for his legislation."

http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

Honestly, this Weak President meme you are peddling doesn't do Obama any good.

[sabrina 1]

324. So you think Reid is ignoring the President then? You want a Democratic President to be powerless?

See, a lot of us vote for Democratic Presidents because it is a powerful position. Iow, a position that the Democratic Congress would respect.

I guess you believe Reid doesn't respect this President?

I think otherwise, I think Reid is not doing anything the President doesn't agree with.

As for the 'dictator' talking point, please, that particular talking point has zero impact on people with even a modicum of intelligence.

[rhett o rick]

330. "So you want Obama to be a dictator," is the sign of desperation.

If we dont agree with you, then we want Obama to be a dictator. Illogical fallacy.

Now this, "a lot of us actually think we should follow the Constitution instead." Yes a lot of us do, but not those in the disparage whistle-blower Club. Not those that are willing to give up their Constitutional right to privacy to a authoritarian like Gen Clapper and the NSA/CIA/FBI cabal. The "Hate Snowden" Group clearly are willing to give up their Constitutional rights for a mere promise of security.

[merrily]

353. And you had the nerve to post that after calling someone else's post stupid?

Yeah, Jeff, you nailed it. No one who criticizes Obama knows basic civics or ever looks down beyond the top spot on the ticket and we/they all really want a dictator. And we appreciate all those many posts of yours that put the blame on Obama when that's warranted.

And sure, it's not as though Obama is head of the Democratic Party with influence over Democratic members of Congress or that the situation is a tad more complex than they told us in 6th grade. So, you are quite right to try to pretend Obama is totally helpless in the face of Congress.

To hell with Richard III and his demand for a horse. My kingdom for a shovel.

[grahamhgreen]

372. Exactly! He should arrestt those that commit war crimes, and Constitutional crimes!

[merrily]

354. I guess you missed all the items that begin, "The White House," "The Administration" "Obama" or

are otherwise clearly Executive Branch items. Also, Obama has no further need for votes, Reid does. So, why would a good Democrat, with loyalty to the Party, as opposed to only Obama, go out of his way to ignore the bulk of the OP in order to throw Reid under the bus?

[Doctor_J]

13. sorry cp. so few of my post are NOT sarcastic that I no longer mark those

that are. Since the president declared his concerns over the meh attitude, he has continued his republican agenda. Woo pointed this out in the op, and I am dreading ass kicking the party will get this fall

[ballyhoo]

37. Me too. Is making it

hard to sleep. Two thousand ten once again.

[SidDithers]

78. Too bad we don't all have your boomer sense...

dddd


Sid

[blkmusclmachine]

224. NO MORE "THIRD WAY"

[rhett o rick]

236. Do you ever post anything other than this kind of shite? How do you feel about the

XL PIpeline or wont "The Group" let you speak about that? How about fracking? Indefinite detention? Naw, just stick with disparaging whistle-blowers and Michael Hastings.

I do realize that you probably dont give a crap about the millions of American children living in poverty while H. Clinton-Sachs is collecting big bucks from Goldman-Sachs-O-Gold and the Carlyle Group. The kids should just "get a job" right?

[SidDithers]

237. ...

Sid

[LiberalLovinLug]

246. Ah....the usual corporate dogs only comeback

=

[SidDithers]

258. ...

Sid

[Paolo123]

290. Results of Jury service

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Wed May 28, 2014, 09:55 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5010997

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Poster only posts a stupid graphic, never adding anything except disruption to conversation.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed May 28, 2014, 10:02 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stupid alert. Response is civil and more than appropriate, considering the rude, disruptive and inappropriate post it was in response to.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: So ignore him them. don't waste our time with dumb alerts.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Note to alerter: a laughing smilie is not "rude, insensitive or over the top"
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: uh...


Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I find this member extremely juvenile, generally disruptive and contributing very little of value to this site, I can't vote to remove a smilie.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[SidDithers]

307. Excellent, thanks...

I figure that laughing at the insults is better than responding in kind.

Sid

[merrily]

359. Yet, your first post on this thread was an ad hom and nothing else.

Not atypical of your posts, I might add.

And the jury result you consider excellent did include the following"

Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I find this member extremely juvenile, generally disruptive and contributing very little of value to this site, I can't vote to remove a smilie.

[LiberalLovinLug]

309. ...

Seriously though, why would anyone alert on a smiley? (it wasn't me).

And when someone is burying themselves, why dig them up just to ask others to throw dirt back on?

[merrily]

357. If he posts anything besides ad homs and smilies, I've been missing all the posts

that address issues.

[navarth]

243. please explain what you mean by 'boomer' sense

[sabrina 1]

371. Wow, the old right wing attack on the perceived 'boomer', translation 'liberal'. Why would any

DUer repeat a Right Wing attack on Liberals?

Could you actually not be aware that 'boomer = liberals'?

Seriously??

[woo me with science]

15. It says a lot about the routine level of Third Way engagement here that you took the post as serious

It's impossible at this point even to parody the Third Way attempts to deny and defend these constant assaults.

It's an impossible situation for them. They are left with attempts to smear the messenger and ludicrous protests that the President is, well....HELPLESS.

[Phlem]

31. Oh So Helpless!

Except when he's got his phone and pen!

Awesome OP and title woo. Finally quit laughing long enough so I could read it.

[Maedhros]

53. Yes - so helpless that he can decapitate the Libyan government with air strikes

in direct defiance of a Congressional vote prohibiting him from doing so (and thus touching off a wave of African instability and violence).

Would that he would try that "defy Congress" thing when working to do something actually beneficial.

[MisterP]

210. that's why I never liked Poes: de facto they only redouble the amount of fundie nonsense

and the fundies immediately top themselves a few years down the road anyway

[sabrina 1]

358. So true, 'they are left with attempts to smear the messenger and ludicrous protests that the

President is, well ..... HELPLESS.' And yet, they claim he has the power of a KING when it comes to droning American citizens, no need for even CHARGES or a Trial, a Conviction before the DP. This 'helpless' leader suddenly becomes a powerful MONARCH!.

It's hard trying to defend the indefensible, you get tied up in knots when you're not being honest even with yourself.

Which is why it is always best to stick with the truth. It never changes and you never have to try to defend what you said YESTERDAY, that conflicts with what you are saying TODAY.

[Peregrine Took]

315. Totally agree. Like so many others (!) I was snookered by the wonderful Obama rhetoric in 2007.

Our disappointment with him resulted in the debacle of 2010 but we can't let that happen again no matter what our feelings are for him.

[Armstead]

48. Boxes in your garage?

That's on I haven't heard.

But maybe I was distracted by the smoke in my hair.

[JDPriestly]

99. Obama has made terrible decisions in his appointments. This is a big country.

His appointees have made bad decisions in their turn. We should not be circumventing our Constitution via trade agreements. It's a shame Obama lowered himself to such tricks. Th TPP is a no, just a big no.

So is the loss of net neutrality. And the NSA surveillance is downright creepy. Guantanamo is still open.

I realize that Obama is not a king, but if he drew more attention to these injustices and worked harder to find ways to resolve them positively, he would earn more respect.

We have cut food stamps and refused to extend unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed, but we are thinking of going into the Syria mess. Unbelievably bad judgment.

[merrily]

381. He's not a king! But....which US Presidents were kings? Yet, they got big things done.

I have to laugh when I hear about the huge majorities FDR and LBJ had. The party was incredibly divided then, both regionally and over issues, much more than the New Democrats of today. And Republicans were not as cooperative with Democrats then as we now pretend they were.


Additionally, FDR was fighting all of US history regarding what the feds could and could not do, as well as a conservative Supreme Court that did not want to budge on the commerce clause, even though the country was circling the tank. And LBJ was dealing with the race issue, matter of great contention within the party and not exactly universally accepted by parts of the country other than the South, either. It wasn't as though Democrats and Republicans outside the South were dying to pass the Civil Rights Act and all LBJ had to do was put it before them. (And, yes, Presidents do get bills written and send them to Congress. In what alternative universe do they not?)

LBJ twisted arms, inside his own party and outside, struck deals and built a coalition. That's what all politicians are supposed to do. Or, they do it by Executive Order, which is how Lincoln freed the slaves, another first in US and colonial history; and Truman integrated the military, another first in US history.

The idea that Obama had a harder row to hoe than his predecessors, with more division within his own party and from Republicans than FDR or LBJ faced is silly.

[billhicks76]

118. Alert

People would flag me if I name called like this but I won't. Racist? That's despicable. You lost all credibility by stooping to that. Yes reality sucks. This post was spot on. I'm sorry you can't handle the truth. When Obama blows it it's never his fault. The NSA watered down provisions were specifically due to pressure from the Obama administration. I'm sorry he acts like a moderate republican but don't blame the poster for being negative. The truth is negative. I guess republicans aren't the only ones who refuse to see what's going on.

[Doctor_J]

123. Whole reply was sarcasm

going to fix it right now

[billhicks76]

235. Ahh

I should know that but I've actually had to deal with people who say those kinds of things here.

[woo me with science]

292. Bwah!

Might still be a tad subtle...

[Doctor_J]

297. Sorry. I thought the veterans and especially the old school Dems were all familiar with my politics

I didn't mean to hijack it with a faux 3rd way rant.

My observation is that the BOG and the 3rd way dems care more about how these policies affect the president than they do about how they affect the country. This is understandable and I don't hate anyone over it. I do hate being called a racist because I strongly object to the policies being implemented by people I voted for. If the party doesn't stop these things from happening, no one will. That's the problem.

[woo me with science]

318. I thought it was perfect.

A perfect parody. And the need for multiple sarcasm indicators only drives home how sad the state of corporate party messaging (and policy) really is.

You're right. We're in serious trouble if we let this garbage of circling the wagons around predation continue. We're in serious trouble already, because we let them get away with it for so long.

[historylovr]

3. Disturbing.

Even though you pay attention it's disturbing to see it all laid out in one list. And just for this month, so far, as you point out. But at least he has a "D" after his name ...

[blkmusclmachine]

225. Any guess what that "D" stands for??? I know he hangs around with Christian Dominionists, but that'd

be CD. So, what DOES the "D" stand for???

[merrily]

362. I used to think I knew the answer, but now I know

only that it's a very deep question. I'm pretty sure it doesn't stand for straightforward and faithful.

[randys1]

6. If only Mitt had won the election...

Infrastructure would never happen...

Judicial Appointments would guarantee Women would have NO power over their own bodies and would become criminals simply by being Women..

The list of differences actually is so vast, so frightening, that I tend to look on the positive side of the discussion...

[Maedhros]

56. That's not really the point. Mitt did NOT win, Obama did.

Obama is the one in office that is doing all of this reprehensible shit. Obama is the one who needs to be criticized for doing the reprehensible shit, or else he will be emboldened to do more reprehensible shit.

Criticizing Romney for what he might have done were he elected is useless.

[randys1]

61. Where to begin...

First, you are asking Obama to reverse 200 years of white mans problems, he cant do that.

Second, you do realize that to get where Obama is, politically, in America, he canNOT be a true left liberal, not possible.

The resolution ultimately isnt in DC anyway, it is in your backyard.

[Maedhros]

69. Not quite.

First, you are asking Obama to reverse 200 years of white mans problems, he cant do that.

Please don't prop up your straw men in front of my post. I am not asking Obama to "reverse 200 years of white mans problems." I am asking him to represent the interests of the Democratic base, not the interests of Wall Street and international corporations.

Second, you do realize that to get where Obama is, politically, in America, he canNOT be a true left liberal, not possible.

So that excuses him from bad policy? I don't really care about Obama the politician. I do care about the bad policies he is implementing, and I will not give him a pass just because he lacks the political courage to do the right thing.

[randys1]

83. strawman MY ASS

Why do you NOW think he and he alone is suppose to fix everything?

And alone too, no support from a dem controlled house or support from many right here at DU

[Armstead]

85. I think you are personalizing this too much

President Obama -- even with all of his positive characteristics and achievements has has done -- represents a larger problem within the Democratic Party, which is tat despite differences on social policies, they are far too much like the GOP in terms of perpetuating and helping to entrench the power of mega Corporations and Wall Street, and eroding the voice and power of the poor and middle classes.

That is a systemic problem within the Democratic Party. He can't change that himself overnight, but he CAN ally himself more with ordinary people and those Democrats who do not want to see us returning to a New Gilded Age instead of furthering the interests of Big Money and Abusive Power.

[randys1]

156. Exact opposite, half of his country almost has made it ONLY about Obama and

nothing else, because he is Black, and that includes some liberals

[Maedhros]

108. I was being polite with you. You respond with insults.

/ignore list. Bye.

[randys1]

157. It is an insult to say "My ass" in a response to your post?

that is a new one on me...

Good that you put me on ignore, if that is all it takes to hurt your feelings, you will NOT want to talk to me, that is for SURE

[JDPriestly]

124. With one exception, every item listed in the OP is the result of one of Obama's appointments

either to a regulatory agency or a cabinet position. Clearly, the policies represented in the items are Obama's policies.

The only item that might have been due to a member of Congress is the appointment of judges. The rest are executive branch policies, and they are not policies that most well informed Democrats support.

[BrotherIvan]

175. So why did he run for president

And promise to both be a liberal and fix all the problems? Is he just a ceremonial figure?

[CanSocDem]

396. Good questions.

I'll give you my opinion which in the grand scheme, ain't worth diddly, but....

He was picked to run for POTUS. The true governing apparatus of the USA felt a need to show the world that it was a liberal beacon of truth and who better than a black man to express this fantasy.

I suspect they are near to doubling down by 'picking' a woman to be POTUS. It's going to be the Republicans turn to next occupy the WH so unless they can find someone NOT batshit crazy, the 'apparatus' will hold back on picking a woman until 2024.

Does that answer your question?


.

[merrily]

363. Baloney. No asked him to reverse 200 years of problems. And it's a meme that a liberal cant get to

be President. And your last line is very naive, very disingenous or worse.

[Ed Suspicious]

66. Because the other would have been worse, the worst shit from our guy is the new norm.

So logical, ehh???

?300

[randys1]

67. When you weigh the real differences in so many areas, of course.

I dont know who was complaining about this stuff under W, some were, some werent, but you do realize there is an entire sub section of America who now are furious at all the stuff Obama is doing similarly to W but were fine with it when W did it.

You want real change? Then you get a 3 party system, eliminate money completely from elections, and get back to me

Until then George Carlin is my guide

[Maedhros]

70. Real change will not come until people stop giving bad politicians a pass

because of party affiliation.

[randys1]

72. Fuck the party, has nothing to do with that

Go ahead and create a climate where teaparty takes over the Senate while controlling the House, then get back to me about what a big problem Obama is

he will be the only thing standing between you and a dead daughter lacking a safe abortion, or any number of things I could list

[randys1]

400. I agree, now you point me to anyone capable of being President who is better

than Obama and I will support them, only if they actually have a chance

[Jackpine Radical]

73. Yes, Carlin called it. But I also need to point out that

there is an entire subsection of America who now are furious at all the stuff Obama is doing similarly to W, who were also enraged that W was doing it, and who are now furious because they voted for Obama to make it stop, and his failure to do so leaves them with a sense of betrayal.

[randys1]

81. And, they think he should fix everything that has been broken for 200 yrs

They really do think that is what he was suppose to do...

[Ed Suspicious]

88. Nope. Pushing to fast-track TPP is not a failing of 200 year old policy. TPP is a today policy and

if you believe for a moment that president Sanders or Warren would try to shove that shit sandwich down our throats, you've got another thing coming.

[JDPriestly]

128. Thank you.

[Egnever]

131. LOL

Fast racking TPP is to avoid the clowns in congress playing games with any agreement made and nothing more, CT aside.

[randys1]

154. I know, it is a problem, big one...

So you manage to piss off enough libs and defuse enough young libs so they dont vote, then what happens when Senate Majority Leader McConnell decides to do all kinds of horrible things?

[Doctor_J]

287. It is the president who pissed off the young liberals

So you manage to piss off enough libs and defuse enough young libs so they dont vote,

This also belongs on the shoulders of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi for their disastrous capitulation and impotence during 2009-2010. The new voters and young people believed that huge Dem majorities and in the white house would result in major changes. Instead they got Geithner, Paulsen, a Republican health care plan that costs a fortune and leaves millions without, extension of the Bush tax cuts, and whining about how 60 Senators and 260 Reps isn't enough.

Me bashing Turd Way dems on DU is not destroying the party and the country. That would be the Turd Way themselves and those who continue to cheer for them

[randys1]

313. Not really

When you take into consideration blue dogs and filibusters, Dems had pure power for something like 40 days...

[merrily]

379. Was the existence of Blue Dogs and filibusters a surprise to Senator/Candidate Obama?

And those things have nothing to do with how many days Dems had power in Congress during the first two years, which was a lot more than 40 days. You seem to be conflating two memes or two talking points. Also, they were letting Kennedy vote by phone for a while, so even his physical absence from the floor was not really an excuse.

But, knowing all that, including Kennedy's condition, it was certainly possible to plan. No excuse not to, really. And knowing all that, it would certainly have been possible to help Coakley against Brown a bit more.

[randys1]

399. I look forward to the constant barrage of criticism from ALL, 100% of posters

who are now criticizing Obama at every turn, to do the same thing to President Hillary Clinton

[JDPriestly]

127. Yes. He promised hope and change. I've lost hope and change has not come.

He was supposed to carry out at the very least his campaign promises. If he couldn't carry through on things like closing Guantanamo or the public option, why did he promise them?

[randys1]

153. How does he close it if he cant move the prisoners anywhere?

should he release them all?

maybe he should but NO american politician would dare release them all

[GeorgeGist]

170. He's commander-in-chief ...

and last I checked Gitmo is a military operation.

In short, I don't think he's evolved the moral fiber to do the right thing.

[randys1]

187. WHERE does he put the prisoners?

[merrily]

384. Just keep taking everything he says and everything that happens in D.C. at face value.

That will enable you to keep believing the things you seem to want so much to believe.

It won't be reality, but that is not really the issue.

[randys1]

397. So you dont know, do you.

You do understand that he has two choices, let them all go free or find a place in the US to take them, now, you should research what happened when he last tried to find a place to put them.

Personally I think they should all go free

[Liberalynn]

82. This

[merrily]

366. We have too many parties, not too few. I think we have at least 23 parties to the left of Democrats,

and that's only national parties.

One problem is that the system is rigged by law and by the willing of Republicans and Democrats to cooperate with each other to keep it rigged, both by law and by power, as when they tell a network they won't appear on that network for a national debate if others are allowed to participate.

Another part of the problem is that so many Democrats vote out of fear that their vote will help elect a Republican, rather than voting FOR a candidate. Fear driven, learned helplessness.

Another is the unwillingness of many Democrats to volunteer for and donate to any political party.

Another is that those to the left of Democrats have so many ideas about what they should do about being to the left of Democrats, from not voting at all, to voting only Communist, to starting a new party for a single issue, etc. It's worse than herding cats because you can't even get them all in one meeting to try to herd them.

But, I will not give up.

[merrily]

375. To my disappointment, even John Stewart is going that route.

As long as he can find a precedent, even if it's only something Bush the Lesser did one time, he's triumphant. When did Dimson's worst stuff become the standard? And when did two Presidents doing the same wrong thing make doing that wrong thing okay?

He did a bit on the VA a few shows ago. Another thing Obama ran on fixing. He spent a whole segment proving that America has always lacked in his treatment of vets. Did he try to say that Obama did all he reasonably could during the past five years, given his campaign promise? Nope. Not a hint of that. Just prove that Obama was not the first to do a given bad thing and that's all that seems to matter.

[rhett o rick]

90. That's really a desperate argument. You seem to intimate that we should accept anything

that Pres Obama does. Just drink the cool aid, sit down and shut up.

[randys1]

159. Nonsense, I criticize Obama all the time, you are not looking at the big picture i am afraid

The big picture is how close we are to losing the Senate, how close we are to republican or american taliban rule that would put the final nail in the coffin of everything...

[merrily]

386. Yes, and the OP is going to cause the death of all that's good on earth and in heaven, too.

And, if that isn't enough incentive to stop criticizing Obama, what is?

Thing is, Obama isn't running; other Democrats are and a lot of posters will quickly throw any or all of those other Democrats under the bus in order to defend Obama. So, maybe you should tell them the dramatic consequences of their actions.

[randys1]

398. I canNOT keep up around here LOL

In one thread I am attacked for not being nice enough about the Prez and in another I am attacked for not criticizing him enough, did this happen with Clinton?

Hmm?

[JDPriestly]

121. That is conjecture. We don't know what would have happened if Romney had won.

It would not have been good. That's for sure.

The important thing is to make sure that the next president in 2016 is neither a third way Democrat nor a Republican.

Defending third way policies of Pres. Obama is not helpful if we want to get a better candidate than Obama in 2016.

My Cong. district is securely Democratic for 2014. So I am concerned about 2016.

Not much I can do in 2014.

[pscot]

194. Using bad stuff rMoney might have done

to mitigate bad stuff Obama has actually done doesn't really seem like a winning strategy. But I guess that's all you got.

[sendero]

380. Oh the old..

... "death by a thousand cuts is better than sudden death" argument. I'm not buying it. I'm not voting for any more fake Democrats. If Republicans take over, people will just be getting what they asked for. I just don't care any more.

[SamKnause]

7. K&R x 100000000000

How disgusting !!!!!!!!!

He is achieving what no Republican president would be able to achieve.

It is the old good cop, bad cop scenario being played out.

It sickens me.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

12. Only Nixon could go to China?

This is the sort of list that points out why we need a REAL liberal or socialist in the WH. Not some DLCer who is trying to don a faux populist mantle while coyly avoiding coming out and announcing a run for 2016.

We don't need more Republican policies put forward under a (D) label.

[randome]

8. Wow. You must be worried about something.

Maybe it's the 'Greenwald Effect' that has you so disillusioned?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[wavesofeuphoria]

27. Clearly woo is "worried"

as are many when the trumpeted "most progressive" president presides over an administration being involved in so much un-progressive behavior, in a mere month.

Why such immature snark directed personally at woo?

[randome]

34. Because it sounds like shrillness instead of a thoughtful post.

Every one of the points made in the OP can be seen in a different light. That doesn't mean they are all wrong but I get the impression that the OP is not interested in debating a single topic but in painting with one specific color.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[1000words]

43. Kinda like when "The List" is posted, huh?

[merrily]

377. Except I think woome actually put the OP list together herself, rather than copying and pasting.

The list is a hoot. I used to particularly love the bit about keeping his promise to his girls about a dog. Kennedy gave them the dog. But, what do facts matter when you're in love?

I wish I had thought of randome's gambit, requiring them to narrow the list to just one item. But, even then, it would have been working off the p.r. framing.

[Armstead]

86. So how about offering -- in a civil way -- some of those differing interpretations?

[randome]

101. Pick one. How about seeking immunity for telecom companies that hand over data?

What reasonable person would hold a company liable for complying with a warrant? That evil Obama!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

110. Me.

I would be fine with a company handing over INDIVIDUAL data, on a warrant for data relating to 'person x'. I'm not fine with companies handing over basically every bit of data they have because they were handed a 'warrant' for 'everything on everyone'.

Wanting to give them immunity now is merely to backstop the initial decision to issue 'warrants' to collect far more data, and to prevent them from shying away from future big brother requests.

[randome]

120. It's a slippery slope when you say corporations can ignore legal warrants, though.

That puts them above the laws the rest of us have to live by. I think it's reasonable to see both sides of that issue so I hardly see it as indicative of Obama not being Progressive. Is it a Progressive trait to disobey the law?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

206. My problem is with 'secret' activities in that vein.

I've got no problem with keeping warrants on individuals you're investigating for criminal activity secret - you basically have to. But if LEOs are fishing for everything, I think the companies need to very publicly go to the courts to ask if they have to comply. Not 'secret courts', but actual courts in public, so that regular citizens can see that law enforcement is fishing for data.

If the open, public courts say 'yeah, you've got to comply', then fine, they comply, but at least everyone gets to know that all of their info is being handed over without a specific warrant targeting them.

[randome]

221. I agree with the secrecy part. We need more transparency.

But the metadata storage is not about fishing expeditions. At least it doesn't appear to be. It makes sense that in the event of a national emergency, LE could rapidly scan the phone records to determine co-conspirators. Carl Bernstein said it appeared to him that there are strong safeguards in place to prevent abuse.

None of that means the system is perfect or doesn't need more transparency but I hardly see it as belonging on a list of the President's 'shortcomings'. It's another subject that has more than one facet.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[dreamnightwind]

256. I see it as belonging at the top of that list

" but I hardly see it as belonging on a list of the President's 'shortcomings'."

[merrily]

378. So, Immunity was needed because some prosecutor was going to charge the corporations with

obeying a legal warrant? Or because someone was going to sue the corporations and a judge would not recognize obedience to a "legal" warrant as valid defense? Really?

BTW, what on earth is legal about a warrant for information about everyone, even though there is no probable cause to suspect everyone? That is nothing like what the Fourth Amendment says.

[jeff47]

298. How 'bout for cash?

The phone companies sell all their metadata.

I can get every phone call you made in the last month, if I pay your telephone company. No questions asked.

Phone metadata is not nearly as secret as people think.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

319. That shouldn't be legal either.

Unless I 'opt in' and get a cut of the cash, as well as information on who is buying my info.

[Armstead]

112. I'll grant you that one is open to intrpretation. But you miss my point.

I said civilly.

My civil attempt at a response is that I agree that national security surveillance is a complex issue with many shades of grey.

However, personally, I would feel a lot more comfortable if President Obama were firmer in standing on the side of protecting us against the tendency of the National Security State to go too far, and place more emphasis on truly containing their overreach, rather than making it easier for said NSS to intrude willy nilly -- and to collude with corporations to do so -- by reducing legal restraints on widespread spying and data gathering of citizens.

[randome]

125. Agree with you there.

Bush Junior (the last Republican Administration this century, perhaps?) got the ball rolling and I would have preferred that Obama stop it all dead. But there are politics involved. As well as the slow implosion of the Republican Party. I think Obama is looking at the big picture for most of his agenda. If he pushes too hard, he could easily re-power the GOP. At least I think that's where his thinking is on this.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

130. Could you please elaborate on just what the "different light" might be on each point?

I would like to have some specific answer to my question because I don't see a "different light" on these examples of Obama's appointees failed policies, policies that Obama has personally endorsed by not firing the appointees who have decided on them.

Please go down the list, one by one and explain the "different light" that the points can be seen in. Vague posts that criticize other DUers do not further intelligent discussion. Thank you in advance for posting something more helpful.

[randome]

151. Telecom immunity, for one. See above.

Helping the Syrian rebels? I know Progressives are a trifle shell-shocked from Bush, Junior but what he did is hardly in the same playing field as what Obama is proposing.

A Syrian rebel documentary? Well, how much credence can that be given?

There are others. And others I kinda-sorta agree with.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Distant Quasar]

39. Yes, clearly Greenwald is to blame for people's disillusionment

It's got to be either that, or sunspots.

[JDPriestly]

132. Or HAARP. LOL.

[stupidicus]

42. as opposed to the one whose only observable expertise

is changing the subject, like you?

[randome]

71. So what is the subject? Obama is an awful President?

I disagree. There. That is the total conversation possible with this type of OP.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[stupidicus]

163. right

thanks for conceding your impotence over contesting the charge/s posed.

The only alternative is apparently that they must all meet your approval.

[randome]

193. I said I don't disagree with some of the points made.

But a discussion is not the OP's objective, apparently.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[stupidicus]

345. no, you're merely slip-sliding away from

randome (20,692 posts)
8. Wow. You must be worried about something.

Maybe it's the 'Greenwald Effect' that has you so disillusioned?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from an effort to talk about the imaginary shortcomings of the poster, and likely in an effort to avoid addressing the veracity/validity of the claims made.

As to whether all of the offenses listed are bad, or make him a bad pres as a result is merely the discussion/debate you're dodging with the aforementioned.

[MannyGoldstein]

196. Greenwald Effect? Do you mean Greenwald's being against cutting Social Security?

Or condemning wealth inequality?

What exactly is a "Greenwald Effect"?

[randome]

219. I'm thinking that some of S&G's diehard supporters are starting to come to grips...

...with the possibility that they are talking through their hats. Especially with Greenwald's recent comments about putting on a 'fireworks display' and his little 'tiff' with Assange. Maybe disillusionment is setting in? It's just a theory.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Le Taz Hot]

9. Excellent OP.

And predictable responses from the True Believers.

[MohRokTah]

10. I love threads like this

Tells me who to put on ignore.

[woo me with science]

17. It certainly signals a problem when lists of the President's own policies have that effect. nt

[Skittles]

28. the heads in the sand crowd

can go pound sand

[woo me with science]

29. Yup. Best not to engage with commercials that rewrite history.

Remember when the Third Way crowd was all behind Obama's plan to bomb Syria, lecturing us about "humanitarian bombing"?

Then soon as pressure forced him to change his tune, they pivoted 180 degrees and hailed Obama-as-peacemaker.

On and on, ad nauseum, with every single issue.

Such a joke, this Third Way corporate "blowing in the wind" support.

[Skittles]

30. ahhhhhhhh the Tiger Beat crowd

they embarrass themselves constantly

[Phlem]

33. There's one less believer you have to deal with.

And he did it on his own, nice work.

-p

[Jackpine Radical]

76. Testing, testing.

Have I made the list yet?

[daleanime]

150. Cool....

feel free to add me.

[Leme]

14. President Obama

is still not as Republican as President Clinton was. imo

[Doctor_J]

18. when TPP passes will you relent?

It's pretty hard to tell them apart. And the party's only hope to hold the white house is HRC. We're in trouble

[truebrit71]

22. "We're in trouble"....ain't that the truth...

...

[Leme]

24. well

The TPP might make it a dead heat. Could be close. I would have to either make a guess or do some hard thinking. I might just call it a tie. The lesser of two ......

[joshcryer]

234. It won't pass under Obama with this congress.

[Laelth]

46. Ultimately, I agree.

He's giving the Big Dog a run for his money, but I don't think he can catch him.

-Laelth

[Armstead]

87. If he sits back and lets Comcast take over the Internet, and he'll be ahead of Clinton

Clinton only fucked up broadcasting and cable

Obama is about to hand them cable and the Internet in one fell swoop.

[tea and oranges]

96. Clinton. Glass-Steagall.

That's a hard act to follow, but give O credit, he's trying his hardest to best that one.

Long ago in a land I call My Childhood, we had a name for people like Obama - it was Republican.

[Armstead]

100. True -- Except the Kid Gloves and the Gifts to Big Banks and Wall St. since 2008 come close

Clinton created the scenario that led to the Disaster of 2008.

Obama chose not to really fix the mess, and instead said some nice words and stated good intetions to placate the public.

[tea and oranges]

117. Agree! Clinton totally set it up

For bush/cheney to do the rest. Although perfectly obvious we need regulated (rather than the cocaine fuelled free market) capitalism we aren't getting it.

Nor are we getting the other truly obvious things we need, like sensible gun control.

It scares the crap outta me, Armstead, but the good cop/bad cop scenario seems too utterly real.

[merrily]

392. The good cop ship may have sailed, if it ever existed.

One of the people Clinton says he admired most, who influenced him most, was Carroll Quigley, right up there with JFK.

Quigley thought that the least possible change from one administration to the other was the best thing for financial markets. And we all know that what's good for the financial markets is good for America, especially since we sent jobs to other countries and making money in the stock market became the be all and end all.

But, I am mulling over whether the differences that once seemed so great were mostly to throw us a bone now and then so we would not revolt, especially back in the early 1930s, when the memory of the Russian Revolution was fresh in the minds of government and the rest of the wealthy.

After 911, Homeland Security NSA and the general ability to do just about anything in the name of trying to prevent a terrorist attack, a revolution may seem like less of a threat to the 1%.

I am not settled on this yet, but I am turning it over in my mind.

[tea and oranges]

402. The Good Ship Cop?

I've thought about bone-throwing very much the last 6 years. ACA (that keeps getting changed to Big Insurance's advantage), gay marriage, which has been a total boon to the economy, but as you point out, poses little threat to the ptb.

You make an excellent point about the Russian Revolution & the possibility that it sparked a few concessions stateside. However, the effective tax rate on the wealthy was much higher then. Corporations were content to make profits. Now corporations expect & aren't willing to accept anything less than obscene profits. That's a huge change, plus, there's no longer regulations to contain them, they rove the planet looking for new labor markets to exploit & new places to hoard their money, w/o concern for environment or people. IOW, parasites, takers, destroyers.

Dept. of Homeland Security is nothing but a vehicle for corruption, graft, & manipulating the emotions of the public. W/ NSA & the way our local Peace Officers have been militarized, it's hard to believe a populist revolution isn't very much on the minds of our dear leaders.

[merrily]

364. No one ever expects Democratic Presidents to be in that kind of competition. Also,

[Jackpine Radical]

77. Tough call.

Both of them are more Republican than Eisenhower was, though.

[JDPriestly]

134. So true. But these young'uns can't remember Eisenhower and did not learn about him

in school. It's sad, really.

[Deny and Shred]

282. Check out the 1956 Republican Party Platform

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022406728

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. The audacity of politics as usual.

[Jackpine Radical]

138. The Audacity of Sellout.

[CrispyQ]

19. Over on Disc, someone posted a graphic that stated Obama's wealth went from

$1.2 million to over $12 million in the time he's been in office. He knows which side is bread his buttered on. He's doing just fine & his family will be just fine.

[Maedhros]

59. Source? I wouldn't be surprised by this news, but I need to see a link to the source

so I can evaluate its accuracy.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

65. A lot of that was from book sales during his Presidential runs

and investing said profits. He made 3.8mil from Audacity Of Hope alone during his first run.

http://www.yourblackworld.net/2012/09/black-news/this-is-how-president-barack-obama-became-a-millionaire/

[Distant Quasar]

20. I hadn't seen all of these stories - thanks for the roundup

None of it surprises me - it just makes me sad, and kind of sick to my stomach...

[Doctor_J]

21. You forgot the Walmart photo-op. Also another one popped up today. in Geithner's new book

Last edited Tue May 27, 2014, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Apparently the president confessed to Tim, "I never felt comfortable playing a populist"

Ouch

[woo me with science]

25. "I never felt comfortable playing a populist."

The scenery is down.

An admission of what this administration really was, and is.

Beyond the policies, which make it clear every single day.

[Jackpine Radical]

79. We dun bin

Zappa-ed.

[BrotherIvan]

40. "playing"

Correct choice of words.

I do not blame the President for anything above the marketing. He is the spokesmodel that sweetens Third Way policies: he is only delivering the message written by copywriters, focus-grouped by marketing directors, and thought up by ALEC. He played his "populist" part because they knew that is what people wanted--and in a craven twist, they got the masses to believe, to hope. No wonder they won the Grand Prix award for advertising.

I do believe now that the hands off approach of the administration in general was also part of the plan. The lack of leadership, of vision, of a guiding statement is proof enough. Perhaps laissez faire was part of the contract because the agencies have been so thoroughly infiltrated to run on their own. But it most certainly explains the inability to not get anything done without super majorities, the tanking of the midterms, the continued "bipartisanship" in the face of all evidence, fighting your own team, the lack of "a magic wand!" if you will. Because when the WH shows will, they always get what they want.

I'm sure I'll be reminded that Rmoney would have been worse. Or that Obama has done so much on social issues. Or that I love Putin. Or something. Because falling out of love is hard to do for some, even when the evidence is all in. But I do wish there was a way to stop tilting at windmills and change course even just a bit. But sigh, I'm sure I'll be reminded yet again that resistance is futile.

[Doctor_J]

55. Yeah, I am onto that now

I should not have gotten so emotionally invested in 2008. He is just the current salesman for the Koch Brothers and ALEC and the rest of the ones who actually run the country. I think those people were afraid of McCain & Palin being too stupid and loathsome to enact their agenda. They need someone likable.

I'll vote for Hillary and whatever other Dems are on my ballot, but my eyes will be wide open this time.

[BrotherIvan]

109. Statistically, any Democrat would have won in 2008

W screwed the pooch of eternal rule, so they quickly came up with another plan. I do believe Hillary had too many demands and so Obama undercut her price. Besides, they knew the economy was going to tank so they always like to give that term to Democrats. They totally took a dive in 2012 by running the smirking plutocrat because they've been getting exactly what they want and more from this administration. I do believe they might let the Democrat win this time as well because there aren't any experienced enough spokesmodels on the R bench, though they have been auditioning them.

[Maedhros]

60. He's Feyd Rautha.

After 8 years' rule by Beast Rabban, he was put in place to make us love Harkonnen governance.

(from Frank Herbert's Dune. Sorry for the geek reference).

[BrotherIvan]

103. A kinder, gentler oligarchy

David Axelrod & team are geniuses.

[noiretextatique]

169. yep...plus he is black

with an attractive, smart wife and cute kids. the perfect facade for business as usual.

[Bobbie Jo]

308. and?

What's your point?

[noiretextatique]

320. historic change

Is a distraction, when the same people are in charge...of worse ones. Arne Duncan comes to mind, but he is not the only disappointment.

[JDPriestly]

136. Yes. That is the sickest statement attributed to the President.

It's really sad. We thought we were electing a populist, and were we fooled.

Let's put it this way. Obama is no FDR, not even an LBJ. And as someone pointed out above, he isn't even and Eisenhower. All three of those presidents cared about the people. Obama? Seems to care more about the stock market and the banks. It's very sad. We were fooled.

Hillary can register her own voters if becomes the Democratic candidate. I am sick of been duped by politicians who act folksy when they run for office and then don't fight for us, the people.

It's Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders for me. Or no one.

[pa28]

213. Much to his relief he's in a second term and can quit the act.

It was a hall of fame performance during the 2008 election so let's give the man his due.

[merrily]

389. No rest for the weary. It's Presidential Library and legacy time.

[Raksha]

350. Omigod, he really said that?

If so, it's probably one of the few honest things he ever said.

[Doctor_J]

351. Well, according to Geithner anyway

But he's full of shit also

[jeff47]

23. So Obama's dictator then?

Last edited Wed May 28, 2014, 11:17 AM - Edit history (1)

So Leahy goes back to the old rules for the Senate, where a state's Senators get to pick judicial nominees. The senators from Georgia pick a terrible candidate.....and that's Obama's fault. Not Leahy's fault for going back to the old rules.

Syria? Apparently when Obama didn't actually invade, as you insisted he would, it's time to move the bar lower. Can't help the rebels at all now, or he's evil. Is Assad good, or are we supposed to not give a shit about non-Americans?

See, it's confusing 'cause here:

White House colluded with House Republicans *against* Democrats to WEAKEN surveillance bill.

White House (again) Seeks Legal Immunity For Firms That Hand Over Customer Data

you're actually giving a shit about non-Americans. Because despite the hoopla, Snowden and company have managed to leak only one program collecting data on US persons - the phone metadata program. Sure, Snowden and company spend a lot of time talking about other programs, but if you read what they actually leaked you'd discover those programs are pointed at non-US persons, and they haven't leaked anything to indicate that isn't true.

As for the phone metadata program, it's comfortably legal within an overly-broad 1979 SCOTUS decision. Wanna fix it? Then we need new law. Because Obama stopping doesn't mean some future president won't start again.

Oh, but then we're back to not giving a shit about non-US persons with this one:

Obama Administration To Reveal Justification For Drone Strikes On U.S. Citizens

'course the justification for non-citizens is pretty easy. The post-9/11 AUMF. Wanna fix it? Have Congress end the AUMF. They're the ones that gave Obama permission for military strikes, pretty much anywhere on the planet.

Net Neutrality? The old rules were thrown out by a court. Yes, the FCC could declare ISPs to be covered by the same rules as telephone service, but that would be really, really bad for us - telephone service gets a major upgrade about every 40 years. Largely because the rules are targeted at breadth of service instead of letting "early adopters" pay way to much for better service. Those "early adopters" fund the network upgrades that results in better service becoming affordable. The FCC's only options are to kill net neutrality or to ban that early adopter mechanism.

So instead of action from Obama's FCC, we need.....new law from Congress, creating a new classification for FCC to apply to ISPs.

Interstate tolls? Well, Congress has been underfunding road maintenance for quite a while now. Potholes won't fill themselves with Randian bullshit.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

You wanna fix those complaints? The fixes need to be done in Congress. Blaming Obama is just a convenient way to let Congress continue to cause these problems.

[msanthrope]

49. Thank you for one of the few posts on this thread that shows knowledge of civics. I see the OP

as illogical...at once decrying "authoritarianism" and yet, longing for the President to override the other branches when expedient.

[giftedgirl77]

63. Yea, for civics 101..

[mac56]

74. ^ THIS ^

[MohRokTah]

80. It was actually Leahy who returned to teh practice of blue slipping nominees, not Reid.

This was after Orrin Hatch controlled the Judiciary Committee without allowing blue slipping at all.

[jeff47]

296. Fixed, thanks. (nt)

[Armstead]

93. RE:Internet

The basic point regarding the internet and Net Neutrality is that it is all about who will control the Internet and who will make the rules for its operation, and in whose interest.

yes, there are a lot of technica, legal and economic complexities. But the bottom line is that we have two choices. We can say to Comcast, "Here's the Internet and we've removed all the rules. Have fun and make money."

Or we can keep the Internet as an open playing field and set a context where the specific issues can be considered on a case-by-case basis --- and based on the fundamental principle that it is a public resource and has to be operated in the public interest.

Obama can't protect the Internet single highhandedly. But he sure as hell didn't have to appoint a bedmate of Comcast as FCC Commissioner, and he sidnt have to tacitly approve (and/or remain silent) on said commissioner's proposal, which is basically opening the door to the Trojan Horse.

[jeff47]

288. No, those aren't our two choices.

Or we can keep the Internet as an open playing field

That one can't happen if we apply the telephone rules to ISPs.

Because our Internet access will remain the worst in the developed world. As the rest of the world moves on to faster and better service, we will be unable to access the new systems that come about from faster access.

For example, "basic" Internet service in Japan is 100Mbps. "Basic" Internet service in Western Europe is 10Mbps. "Basic" Internet service in the US is 1Mbps. And Japan is rolling out gigabit.

he sidnt have to tacitly approve (and/or remain silent) on said commissioner's proposal, which is basically opening the door to the Trojan Horse.

Except the proposal wasn't just turning the internet over to Comcast. The rule limited the "fast lane" such that ISPs could only slow regular Internet service to 80% of what "fast lane" got.

If that means our Internet access goes from 1Mbps to 100Mbps, it's still a huge win for us - "speed limited" is still 80Mbps. If our Internet access goes from 1Mbps to 1Mbps, but we retain net neutrality, it's a very large loss.

[Armstead]

302. Those are the basic two choices

I won't disagree that there are many possible variations and trade-offs involved, and legal and technical complexities and possible models.

But all of that flows from that basic binary choice. As with so many other industries, we can choose to keep the horse in the barn (make the bottom line the Internet as a public resource that is equally accessible and affordable to everyone) or we can let that critter get outside and eventually run away (start to give access providers the ability to discriminate, make their own rules and allow monopolies to form).

What too often happens is that a few little exceptions are made to the idea of regulation, and the floodgates open up and pretty soon the horse is miles away, and we're stuck with unregulated monopolies with a stranglehold on basic services.

That's what happened with Broadcast and cable deregulation, and the Financial System, and that's gonna happen to the Internet, unless the line is firmly drawn now about maintaining public control over access and the infrastructure.

If we ensure the public-interest standards now, service providers can still make money. Public and/or private investments can be made to improve service. But they won't be able to gouge us, force rotten conditions on use of the Internet and separate us into information haves and have-nots just so they can make obscene profits with no requirements to operate according to the public interest.

[jeff47]

312. Keeping the Internet slow, but "available to all"

means it will stop being available to all.

Higher speed already means Japan uses the Internet differently than we do. Europe is moving along in that direction.

Keeping the US slow but neutral means we lose the Internet - systems will move along to require higher speeds that we will not have. Just like Gopher disappeared in favor of the WWW, yet you really can't use the modern WWW over a 14.4 modem.

Which is why the permanent solution is for Congress to create a new category for the FCC to use that includes net neutrality, but does not include the telephone-centric regulations that would cause problems.

Public and/or private investments can be made to improve service.

We're having to make Interstates toll roads because the government will no longer "invest" in keeping the highways passable. Yet here you are claiming government will pay to run fiber to every house.

[Armstead]

314. Where I live the government did just that

With Stimulus Money (after many years of planning by advocates) the state laid a high capacity fiber-optic broadband "highway" to towns and rural areas that had not had access to broadband at all.

Ultmately, it will be private companies who will lease those lines to provide "last-mile" service. But those providers will have to meet standards and rules set by municipalities and the state to get and keep that right.

To the larger point, if we as a society decide wew ant everything privatized and run by corporations for profit -- and we're going to allow Big Corporations and the Wealthy to keep shirking their responsibility to chip in, then we're really going to be up shits creek in the not very distant future.

[Leme]

133. hmmmm

you state:

"You wanna fix those complaints? The fixes need to be done in Congress. Blaming Obama is just a convenient way to let Congress continue to cause these problems."

just wondering why President Obama cannot get things introduced.

[jeff47]

289. Because he isn't in Congress.

And even then, Congress would have to vote to pass what he "introduced". To accomplish that, we need better Congresspeople instead of blaming Obama for Congress's failures.

Apparently we need to get back to having civics class in school.

[Leme]

349. my point is that

President Obama should be able to things introduced in the Congress... he chooses not to do so. He should be able to get a few Senators or Congressman to do so. I did not say any more than that.
-
He could do a "bully pulpit" approach. And when it failed.... the votes would be there.. and he could point out who the obstructionists were.
-
If Obama wanted to fix those .. I think he might try as I suggest.

[JDPriestly]

143. The bad decisions were made by Obama appointees.

Net Neutrality?

Make the net a utility and watch Congress come around.

Underfunding for roads. Let them get worse and let Congress come around.

The phone metadata? Let's combine it with the Homeland Security's surveillance of the Occupy movement. The collection of phone metadata is a means to observe, analyze and store information about the political and social networks of Americans. It is an extremely serious violation of our rights under several Amendments to our Constitution.

The NSA surveillance of Americans is for political purposes. If it weren't, the government would have observed the misogynistic and physically threatening discussions on the website that Rodgers was visiting instead of observing the activity of the Occupiers who were one of the most peaceful groups of political demonstrators I have ever seen.

[joshcryer]

239. Historical materialism is a farce.

Letting shit go to shit before it gets better simply doesn't work. If the roads go to shit then you will get those toll roads, government will be seen as insufficient. Instead of passing budgets to pay for them you will wind up with the congress selling them to the highest bidder, etc.

Make the net a utility? I'm all for it. If you can stop this current SCOTUS from hearing it. Otherwise fuck that noise. Do you know how bad it would be if the current SCOTUS heard on making ISPs common carriers?

[JDPriestly]

254. The government should fund the roads and the basic internet structure.

The internet should be paid for out of taxes imposed on companies that make huge profits (and their owners very rich) from internet services.

Apple is an example of a company that benefits from the existence of the internet structure but pays very little in taxes to keep that structure up.

The internet should belong to the government in my opinion. It should belong to all of us.

Same for the interstate highways. The companies that use the roads for profit, for transporting their goods, etc. should pay the taxes to maintain the interstate highways.

None of this changes the fact that Obama's appointments are not the friends of ordinary Americans.

Hilda Solis was a good appointment, one of the few that was good. But she is back in LA County now.

[joshcryer]

255. The House decides taxes.

The internet should be a right, it should be free and accessible to all. The interstate and bridges and road infrastructure should be top notch.

The current House will not spend one dollar to any ends that helps society.

You see, they want to make the roads toll roads, they want to force a corporate non-neutral net.

Admittedly, Obama's appointments are shit, but he prided himself on the most bipartisan cabinet in history. Before Obama there was never so many Republicans as Democrats in a President's cabinet. But, that was what he promised. It's sort of disappointing to him that he's not getting credit for that. Hell, he was disappointed he didn't get credit for trying to cut Social Security. Dead serious.

[merrily]

361. The President sends the budget to Congress, though. Yes, they say yea or nay, but

he gets the first pass. So, if you can show that he asked his Democratic Congress for a bunch of things that his Democratic Congress denied him, you may have a point in pointing to Congress. Otherwise, you don't.

Before Obama there was never so many Republicans as Democrats in a President's cabinet. But, that was what he promised

.


I don't recall his promising to nominate lots of Republicans (and conservadems), even during his 2008. But, even if he did, why should that be the only campaign promise of his that's sancrosanct?

[joshcryer]

365. The President has the most progressive budgets in history.

They have been summarily shut down and he's been having to get continuing resolutions passed. Quite literally Obama has not been allowed to have a second budget passed his entire time in office. It's always been continuing resolutions (held back by a sequester; which, btw, he enabled when he called for cutting the deficit in his nomination speech).

As far as his cabinet, I should correct myself, he promised to rule from an Lincoln-esque POV, which would indicate an uber bipartisan cabinet. I don't think he ever said "yeah, so, I'm going to have Republicans in my cabinet." Nah, but it was deeply predictable.

[merrily]

368. I don't agree. The very first budget he sent to Congress cut fuel subsidies for the poor.

So, I guess you and I have different ideas about what the most progressive budgets in history would include and exclude.

And the Democratic Congress did go along with him quite a bit.

he promised to rule from an Lincoln-esque POV,

I don't recall that either. I don't think carrying a new book about Lincoln around is a promise to "rule from a Lincolnesque POV."

Neither was taking a train part of the way from Illinois to the capitol, which was after his election anyway. (And which I thought somewhat hubristic, anyway. And those were in the days when I was still quite, well, hopeful.

Besides, Lincoln had very different circumstances to deal with, unless one is inclined to very lame false equivalencies.

Moreover, governing like Lincoln does not automatically mean that you will appoint Republicans and conservadems, especially to the most important posts of defense and treasury while the nation is in two wars and also in economic collapse. (And someone even Joe Scarborough calls a neocon to State.)

Nor did Obama actually rule like Lincoln, either. For one thing, Lincoln was a man who used an Executive Order as Commander in Chief to free the slaves, while Obama claimed he had no inherent power as CIC to do away with DADT. And Lincoln got a Congress in the 1860s to pass the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, while Obama is supposedly helpless to get Congress to do anything, even a Democratic Congress. (So, why have any President anymore, if Congress does only what it wanted to do anyway?)

And, as stated in my prior post, he did not keep many of his 2008 campaign promises anyway. I doubt if anyone would have cried foul based on his flashing a book about a Lincoln, then appointing mostly people of his own party. You don't have to be Republican to be bipartisan. To the contrary.

Besides, it was not simply that he appointed Republicans.. It was which specific Republicans he appointed Geithner, head of the NY fed for Treasury. The guy that wrote the 2006 bill to destroy the post office and his closest counterpart to the Postal Commission, etc. And which Democrats he appointed, too.

Nah, but it was deeply predictable.

I disagree on that as well. The man's campaign slogan was change (from Bushco), for pity sake, and hope, the hope presumably coming from doing things differently.

I doubt that either of us is going to persuade the other.
"

[joshcryer]

373. LIHEAP had doubled in the year prior.

He was using that as a useful way to make some deficit point, since, after all, he campaigned on cutting the deficit. I'm not saying it was right, merely predictable.

Let's put it this way, when he chose Warren at his inauguration speech, when he picked his right wing cabinet, you know what I thought? I thought it was completely unsurprising.

[merrily]

374. I disagree.

[jeff47]

291. If your plan was going to work, it already would have worked.

Make the net a utility and watch Congress come around.

Yes, Congresspeople who have their staffers handle complexities like "email" are really going to understand why ISPs stopped upgrading service.

Underfunding for roads. Let them get worse and let Congress come around.

We've been following that plan for 30 years. Congress come around yet?

Let's combine it with the Homeland Security's surveillance of the Occupy movement.

First, you'll have to demonstrate that the phone metadata was used for anything like that. Snowden and company haven't leaked anything to indicate this happens. So far, the only uses of the metadata have been 1) Jealous ex's who are then punished, and 2) in response to a specific subpoena for a specific individual.

The data is collected because the phone companies are not storing the data long-term. And we do not want the phone companies to store the data long-term - because they are already selling the data. I can get every phone call you made in the last month for a small fee. We don't want to give the phone companies more data to sell.

The NSA surveillance of Americans is for political purposes. If it weren't, the government would have observed the misogynistic and physically threatening discussions on the website that Rodgers was visiting instead of observing the activity of the Occupiers who were one of the most peaceful groups of political demonstrators I have ever seen.

Again, you will have to demonstrate that the NSA is actually surveilling Americans. Because Snowden and company have not leaked anything that shows they are.

And "oh, you know they're doing it!!" doesn't cut it.

[JDPriestly]

339. What are your sources, your links for these statements?

'First, you'll have to demonstrate that the phone metadata was used for anything like that. . . . . So far, the only uses of the metadata have been 1) Jealous ex's who are then punished, and 2) in response to a specific subpoena for a specific individual.

The data is collected because the phone companies are not storing the data long-term. And we do not want the phone companies to store the data long-term - because they are already selling the data. I can get every phone call you made in the last month for a small fee. We don't want to give the phone companies more data to sell.'

[treestar]

176. Every one of these outrages has an explanation

or more information to show they are not real cause for outrage. The DUers who keep flogging them have lost credibility.

[Armstead]

303. The Republicans have good explanations too

[Maven]

177. Wrong...the FCC has the power to reclassify ISPs

It doesn't require legislation by Congress, it requires rulemaking by the FCC. Of course, with cable and wireless industry shill and Obama appointee Tom Wheeler at the um, wheel, that will never happen.

[joshcryer]

233. Changing the early adopter mechanism would require Congress.

But I say who cares, reclassify and let the consumers then complain and get the changes made, after the fact. He's not wrong though. And, you don't want the current SCOTUS ruling on net neutrality. There's no way. It would be a disaster.

[jeff47]

301. If consumer complaints were going to work, they already would have.

"Basic" Internet service in Japan is 100Mbps. "Basic" Internet service in Western Europe is 10Mbps. "Basic" Internet service in the US is 1Mbps.

If complaints were going to fix that, they already would have. Instead, consumers are paying more for 10Mbps service, or going without.

Virtually all ISPs are monopolies. They really don't have to care all that much about what their consumers want. My high-speed Internet options are 1) Time Warner Cable and 2) nothing else. Since there's no threat of me leaving their service, complaints aren't going to do shit.

[jeff47]

295. Read more closely.

The FCC can put ISPs under the same rules as telephone service, and ensure net neutrality.

The problem is those rules are designed over breadth of service, not speed.

The way ISPs currently upgrade their service is by competing for people who pay for very high speed service. Time Warner used to offer 50Mbps service for a crapload of money. Most people wouldn't pay the cost, but a few people will. That causes Time Warner to upgrade their network to handle the service. Which causes AT&T to upgrade their network to compete for those same high-profit people.

Once both networks have been upgraded, they start offering faster service to everyone. That really expensive Time Warner service recently changed to 100Mbps, while my "regular" service went from 10Mbps to 15Mbps for the same price I was already paying.

The telephone rules don't let the ISPs play that game. Which is why our plain old telephone service got upgraded every 40 years. We already have the slowest Internet service in the developed world. We don't want to make that worse.

Additionally, the "fast lane" proposal was limited to a 20% boost - non-fast-lane could run no slower than 80% of the top speed. If "normal" Internet service goes from 10Mbps to 100Mbps that's a huge win for all of us, even with that fast lane crap - 80Mbps is a huge boost over 10Mbps. Is that likely? Hell if I know. There's too many people spewing crap everywhere to find a reasonable analysis of likely speed effects.

[ColesCountyDem]

189. ^^^^^ This! +1. n/t

[sagat]

207. +1 keep it up.

[joshcryer]

229. You assume that OP cares about civics.

Cares about politics, cares about the bureaucracy, administration actions, etc. They actually don't care about any of that nor do they care about fixing any problems that come up. They wouldn't know how to even begin.

[joshcryer]

250. They can't even think one step ahead on anything.

I mean, literally anything.

FCC makes ISPs common carriers. What's the next step Number23? The ISPs sue the FCC. Who hears that lawsuit? It goes through the circuit courts for a year or two. Then the SCOTUS hears it. What the fucking fuck has the SCOTUS ruled with regards to corporations lately? Well, does Citizens United and Oligarchy United ring a fucking bell?

So, in one step, literally one step, they've enabled the SCOTUS to rule ISPs uncontrolled by the FCC. Forever.

[Union Scribe]

251. So you posted without reading a single word of the OP?

You just came in to insult them?

[joshcryer]

253. It's obvious they came here to see a rebuttal.

And they found a relatively simple one...

...which incidentally confirmed their correct opinion about the OP.

[brentspeak]

317. We need Congress to fix the things Obama is doing all own his own?

Note that all the links provided in the OP refer to things the Obama administration is actively participating in or even spearheading using the power of the Executive. None of it involves Congressional legislation. He's doing all this on his own accord.

To sum up your post: We must pray that the GOP-controlled House undoes Obama's handiwork.

[1000words]

32. Please make this a regular effort, woo.

Rec'd

[msanthrope]

115. absolutely... considering that jeff47's excellent post upthread remains unchallenged

one does hope there will be more threads like this.

[zeemike]

35. Please do not destroy the illusion

It will cause much butt hurt to the BOG.
And just remember, bad cop would be worse.

[bigtree]

36. he told us all that before he was elected!

. . . but, seriously, this is a subjective and misleading account of the last month, based on little more than breathless reports of mostly old news . . . certainly not occurring 'just this month'.

[woo me with science]

47. Well, it could be subjective & misleading. I know I left out a lot of important stories you posted.

Forgive me that I don't have time to go back any further than this week:

First family has beautiful smiles.
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10025005583

Presidential Hugs and Selfies for Breakfast in Chicago (Don't Tell Michelle!)
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10024991890

Prez: . . . I look like Morgan Freeman.
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10024988010

Michelle Obama: Watch out, because Malia's learning to drive!
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10024987103

A young girl hands the President a US flag
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10024985776

Prez surprises (delights) kids at WH talent show
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10024979038

[bigtree]

75. same cherry-picking bullshit about my posts that you employ with the President

. . . shameless, no less.

Each and every one of the stories you posted have been debated here on DU. Anyone can see that merely posting a cherry-picked gaggle of less than favorable press reports from the month (to the exclusion of anything else) is just a weak substitute for actually informing folks about what this administration's actually intentions are in relation to these breathless press accounts (most of the ones you posted are rehashed).

This is the standard . . . as long as it portrays the administration in a negative light, you're satisfied. I think most folks here look for better than that biased drumbeat of yours when seeking information on the issues you've presented.


'just this month', from bigtree:


War's End?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025005950


Dad wasn't a war hero; he fought a different kind of battle
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=5006801


Tired of the Boy Scout crap. Gates is just another bigot standing in the way of basic human rights
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024993144


Family of Chris Stevens - Letter to the Benghazi Show
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024986926


Cutting pensions is a despicable act of betrayal and thievery
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024978206


Judge sentences Cecily McMillan to 90 days - Less than expected...never should've been charged
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024972201


American Spring: That's 10 million people, swear to God
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024961978


Reid Backs Efforts to Unravel 9-11 AUMF - instrument of the unbridled WH 'War(s) on Terror'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024955987


U.S. district judge to right-wing activists: No, you can't use FOIA to out gay people at the DOJ
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024948397


Snowden docs never disappoint
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024948802


So, standing up to republicans worked? Who'd have thought?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024946313


Reverse Reagan - Solar Panels Return to WH Roof
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024929695


Boehner's given $22 million to the NRCC since 2005 - he knows what the 'fundraising arm' is doing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024947623


LGBT history: FIRST same-sex marriage license in the SOUTH
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024935330


Watch Boehner & Cantor desperately dodge questions about the NRCC's Benghazi fundraising
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024931354


Boehner Blatently Appoints Republican Fundraising Chairman to Benghazi Committee
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024930960


Bibiyan Family Philanthropic Foundation Pledges Support For Cecily McMillan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024928116


Holder: Big banks may face criminal cases soon... says, no such thing as 'too big to jail.'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024911779


Michelle Obama joins worldwide protest over kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024922408


Obama, Biden Push House Republicans On Immigration At Cinco De Mayo Festivities
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024913257


VP: No Means No . . . Everything Else is Rape or Assault
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024886513


Costs of Pentagon’s major weapons systems ballooned half a trillion dollars over initial pricetags
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024892560


CEO's Make 774 times more than minimum wage workers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024890712


'Profile in Courage' award for GHWBush made out of amnesia and fairy dust
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024912548


Progressive Bloggers Have President's Back
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024929474

[woo me with science]

141. Now, see that was my fault. I couldn't resist engaging.

Last edited Wed May 28, 2014, 09:20 PM - Edit history (2)

But now that you have responded to complain that my characterization of this administration and the posts in defense of it is unfair, let's take a look at your "list."

1. Misdirection and, when you look at the larger picture, pretty cynical PR. The US government has well over 100,000 paid mercenaries in Afghanistan. And now the President is escalating in Syria, too. Your attempt here only underscores by contrast my point, that this administration, like the last administration, feeds the MIC.

2-7. These have nothing to do with Obama's policies. They are distraction by pointing to Republicans.

8. Again, nothing to do with the administration. I do see familiar future tense suggestions of things that *might* be done, sometime in the future, on a *bipartisan* basis by Reid....the very same form all progressive news seems to take during an election year.

9-10. Nothing to do with Obama or this administration's policies.

11. Use of the nuclear option, which Reid deliberately avoided until the SIXTH YEAR of Obama's presidency. And for that we get....Michael Boggs.



12. Yay, solar panels for the White House roof. What a cynical PR move while the administration aggressively pushes more offshore drilling, fracking, and the most predatory "free trade agreement" in US history that will further gut environmental protections and hand over national sovereignty on environmental and worker protections to corporate profiteers.

13-17. Distractions. Nothing to do with the administration's policies or progressivism, again.

18. Future tense, SIX YEARS into Obama's presidency, AFTER most statutes of limitations have expired, DURING an election year, and qualified with the word, "MAY." Pardon us if we don't leap for joy. And my own list shows what "prosecutions" of banks under this administration, when they do occur, really mean for the banks. It's collusion, and designed to inflict just the expected cost of doing business.

19-23. Again, these posts are either irrelevant to this administration's actual policies, or actually serve as confirmation of their destructiveness. Especially striking are the pretty words on immigration, while the President's budget continues to mandate arbitrary, unconscionable levels of private prison beds that are overwhelmingly filled by immigrants, and the acknowledgement that military spending and CEO pay continue to balloon unchecked under this administration.

24. Distraction by pointing to Republicans.

and

25. Thanks for ending with a joke. And you didn't even mention Cass Sunstein and the Third Way propaganda machine.


In summary, this is actually a very good sample of the type of posting we get from the Third Way instead of substantive discussion of the administration's major policies. It certainly doesn't lend any weight to your protest that my own summary of the MAJOR actions of this administration over the past month was either misleading or selective.

Added to the fluff I got you started with, you have here a bland collection of attacks on Republicans; a couple of vague suggestions of progressive policies that might, possibly happen sometime far in the future; and celebration of minutiae that either has nothing to do with the administration at all, or is dwarfed by overwhelmingly predatory policies in the same area and serves merely as a cynical tool for PR (e.g., "withdrawal" from Afghanistan while the US continues to employ >100,000 mercenaries there *and* while the US is escalating in Syria....or "solar panels on the White House" while the US is gutting environmental protections and pushing offshore drilling and fracking....or "maybe" thinking about possibly prosecuting the banks, while dragging out the statutes of limitations for SIX YEARS and making a mockery of the prosecutions that are finally offered up as PR.

What a travesty.

[bigtree]

162. oh, man! you are wound up! I wasn't trying to reargue all of the old news you posted

. . . pretending they were this month's developments . . . I'm merely responding to your jibe that I just post pics of the First family.

The fact that I'm not echoing every poutrage post of yours or participating in your third-grade-style 'Third Way' blather doesn't make ANY of your nonsense relevant or even interesting. You are attempting to re-argue these important issues you've presented in some sort of abusive (to the reader) shorthand. It's juvenile, delusional, sophistry, and rather pathetic.

[woo me with science]

164. Lots of negative adjectives there, but you still haven't supported your contention

that my list is somehow selective or misleading.

These are major policies. Great big ones, in major policy areas.

It's hardly misleading to post his own major policies and behavior. And I have yet to see anything even remotely suggesting that it's a selective list in a sea of progressive action for the people.

[bigtree]

167. you don't get a platform from me for this rehash

. . .go back to the original threads you've linked to and debate the folks there, instead of hiding out on this circular argument of a thread you've created and pretending you're wise.

[woo me with science]

168. Of course not.

Because the Third Way parade of assaults I have reviewed here, just from the past month, is indefensible, as is the absurd, persisting attempt by the Third Way to deny and desperately distract from the obvious: that our party, historically the only thing standing between Americans and the predation of corporatists who already bought one party, has now also been largely purchased and corrupted by corporate interests.

[bigtree]

173. you're in your own *little* world

. . . enemies afoot; enemies to the right, enemies to the left!

Oh, my.

[sheshe2]

241. +1 bigtree...

to this and all of your posts above.

[Scuba]

265. Sorry bigtree, but you're losing this one bigtime.

[Tommymac]

208. [phone]

They - the 3rd Way - can obfuscate all they like - the truth of your OP shines out by itself.

Thanks wmws - You rock.

[hueymahl]

257. Thank you for this

And the rest of your posts. It is rare that someone takes the time to refute point-by-point the BS being spouted by these third-way guys. I'm still not cynical enough to think it is some kind of coordinated conspiracy (but I could be wrong). Mostly I think it is them being delusional and possibly a little hero worship mixed in.

The list you gave, combined with the "response" of "substantive" policies by this administration should be truly eye opening to anyone paying attention.

Don't stop. It needs to be said over and over.

And a thought experiment for you third-wayers out there - replace "Obama" with "Bush" in every one of those stories and see if you can keep your outrage in check.

[Egnever]

142. Awesome smackdown!

Your fathers story is incredible by the way I just wanted to thank you again for sharing it.

[berni_mccoy]

267. Thank you bigtree

[Bobbie Jo]

294. Bravo

[Capt. Obvious]

144. LOL!!!

[840high]

38. k/r

[stupidicus]

44. sad ain't it?

at one time I thought he might be a transformative pres, and it appears from some of the responses here he certainly has been, although not in the way I'd hoped for.

Apparently all the bad is easily erased by the good he's accomplished, which will likely be a shorter list than the bad.

[Laelth]

45. k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. n/t

-Laelth

[msanthrope]

50. Oh..the tolling issue is back? One of the best threads on it....

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/10024894570

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

51. Bill Clinton will never be held responsible. Only the black dude in the WH will.

It's a double standard that will never die.

"Bad economy" under Obama = Barack Obama bad, blamed for everything even if he's not responsible.

Great economy under Bill Clinton = Bill Clinton good, excused for all he did wrong.

[woo me with science]

54. Who excuses the Clintons?

Look upthread, and then take a look at recent polls asking who here wants Hillary in the White House. Our problem is all corporate, Third Way vultures posing as Democrats.

The attempt to smear with racism for criticizing the President's policies is noted, though. The Third Way machine desperately needs new writers.

[uponit7771]

58. People who post OPs like this? tia

[Enthusiast]

135. Great response!

Yeah. After NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act and Gramm-Leach-Bliley we hardly give Bill a pass.

The Third Way machine need to go away completely. Wonder how much they spend on this internet bullcrap.

Unless a mechanism is working on behalf of all the people it has no part in the Democratic Party. I'm just saying.

[woo me with science]

155. "Wonder how much they spend on this internet bullcrap."

The ironic part is that it's almost certainly our money being spent.

Remember when propagandizing Americans was illegal? Now Obama openly appoints Cass Sunstein and nobody bats an eye:

Obama taps "cognitive infiltrator" Cass Sunstein for Committee to create "trust" in NSA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023512796

We are so bought and sold.

[Enthusiast]

158. I have no doubt they are using our money to propagandize us.

And I'm sure they laugh about it and find it so satisfying.

[randome]

160. We should have more DU meetups so maybe you wouldn't have such a poor opinion of your fellows.

I'm in St. Louis and my place is good! Anyone care to take me up on it? Drinks and goodies on me!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Doctor_J]

57. See? I predicted woo would be called a racist in this thread!

See reply #2

[woo me with science]

64. You win a prize.

Your prescience is amazing.

[Enthusiast]

137. Yes. Simply amazing. Such a prediction. I'm going to ask for some lottery numbers.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

182. Who was called a racist? Is someone guilty of something? The fact that you thought

of race where race was neither mentioned nor implied says so much.

Maybe it suggests that I'm right. Maybe it suggests someone's guilty.

[Distant Quasar]

84. Do you really think progressives who criticize Obama from the left

are Clinton worshippers (and racists to boot)? What a joke.

Go ahead, take a poll. See how many of Obama's critics on targeted killings and the TPP have kind things to say about the DLC, NAFTA, DOMA, financial deregulation, and welfare "reform", and then get back to me about your supposed double standard.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

228. Yeah because I called people racist! Yeah, that's what I did. Yeah, o.k.

It's bullshit and you damn well know it!

[JDPriestly]

146. I hold Bill Clinton responsible.

That's why I do not back Hillary Clinton.

[Union Scribe]

199. I've never seen a leftist critic of this admin's policies

that "excused" Bill Clinton for the dumb shit he did. So what you're doing looks a lot more like desperate name-calling deflection than a sincere attempt at a rebuttal. But I guess that's a style that's in season for many here.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

227. Nah. What I've seen are excuses from the Left. I've seen double standards all around.

That's what I've seen. And I've seen Mr. Obama blamed for everything under the sun. He should be blamed for some bad decisions, but I've seen this man blamed for shit that has absolutely nothing to do with him.

[sendero]

382. The difference between Clinton and Obama..

... is that we were naive back then. Clinton did scads of bad shit but he had a lot of us fooled, myself included. And the negative effects of his policy mistakes (not mistakes really, what he wanted) did not arrive until he had left office. How nice for him.

After 8 years of Bush, watching a president say one thing and do the opposite over and over, we know it when we see it.

The game is rigged. Our options are really bad, and really even worse. And really, Obama has done fuck all to fix the economy. He sailed into office seemingly with the attitude that was prevalent around here at the time, ho hum another 18 month recession.

He was wrong, they were wrong, and by now you'd think the alarm bells would be tolling at full volume. But they are not. Go figure. Obviously the people who really run the country are just fine with things as they are.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

406. We are still reaping the effects of those horrible Bush-Clinton-Bush policies, but I

don't see many here, on the "professional left" or in Democratic Party establishment circles hold Bill Clinton accountable for any of it.

You say many were naive and once deceived. Fine. I can agree with that.

However, now that we are all aware of those policies. Now that we're all attuned to what happened, (for example, the complete corporate takeover of our media, thanks to the Telecommunications Act of 1996) we can no longer use naivete as the excuse. We continue to feel the pain of NAFTA policies and yet President Obama is blamed for the state of the economy. Presidents that come after this president will endure that legacy while millions of Americans continue to suffer, and yet few people blame Bush-Clinton-Bush. Instead, they point the finger squarely at Obama. Now, I realize that the economy was in much better shape when Clinton was in office, but it is absolutely and especially unfair to lay the blame at this president's feet when he *inherited* this economy which took 2 decades to destroy--the impact of NAFTA and deregulation unabated for that time.

Yes, President Obama deserves much blame for any pro-supply side policy he pushes that has failed.
Yes, President Obama deserves much blame for TPP or any NAFTA/CAFTA-like or "lite" free trade policies.
Yes, President Obama deserves much blame for giving up on the public option too soon.

However, President Obama DOES NOT deserve much of the blame for those policies set in place 20 years ago that are finally beginning to exert long-term negative impacts on this economy. He doesn't deserve blame for the lack of jobs, as we know that Republicans (aided by some cowardly conservative Democrats) have obstructed every single jobs-producing measure put forth. No, President Obama doesn't deserve the blame for the lack of a stronger Dodd-Frank bill, as we know that it is the Congress that sets the agenda, and the moderate and conservative Democrats joined with Republicans in weakening that bill. Same with the Stimulus Bill (ARRA), the ACA, and so forth.

I come on this forum and I see these threads blaming this man for everything from not closing Gitmo to the rain pouring down when the weather forecasters promised a sunny day. Really, it's fucking ridiculous around here.

Note regarding Gitmo: Some people on the Left are so angry at Obama that they can't even remember (or, they refused to remember) him proposing that each of the 50 states should accept Gitmo detainees and hold them until arrangements could be made to have a proper hearing. They don't remember that Congress kicked and screamed and didn't want to provide any money to fund the closing and/or relocation of the detainees. Now, inevitably some people will come in here yelling and screaming at me, suggesting that Obama could have closed Gitmo with a stroke of a pen via Executive Order. But through all that yelling and crying, they wouldn't be able to tell me how the prison would close, whether there would be enough funding to close and relocate the detainees (Congress controls the purse), or how we would manage and WHERE we would hold suitable hearings for these detainees. Their anger and resentment, (and some of them downright hate this man), simply won't allow them to think reasonably and be fair when it comes to this particular president. I've never seen anything like it in all my years and I do not recall ever witnessing the same level of disdain and hate for the last successful Democratic president. The level of vitriol, all the moral double standards--Bill Clinton did far worse and deserved far worse.

[sendero]

408. Thoughtful post...

.. and I agree with *most* of it.

I will try to be brief although it is not in my nature. Yes, Clinton literally set the stage for the mess our country is in as much as Reagan did. Repealing Glass-Stegall (not strictly speaking his work but he didn't seem to have a problem with it and it was heavily pushed by one of his minions, Rubin) was about the stupidest and most evil thing a politician could have done not involving killing people.

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act was not far behind in its gift to the banksters and 1% at the expense of everyone else. Both of these bits of legislation set the stage for the "too big to fail" pickle we are in now.

My beef with Obama is that he seems well on board with all this shit. He has proposed no real reforms. Dodd-Frank is a perfect example of the worst kind of legislation, that which will do nothing to stop the real abuses of the banking system but will impose a paperwork cost and a lot of petty rules that will hurt consumers more than bankers. It's a travesty.

I guess my bottom line is that I don't believe the voters, stupid as they are in aggregate, have any real power any more. When I listen to Obama make speech after progressive, logical and frankly often moving speech and then go back to his office and act as though he didn't mean a word of it, I lose faith in the entire system.

I am literally one of those maligned folks who no longer gives a shit who is in Washington. Because it doesn't make any difference. Sure, Republicans are shit on social issues. But those issues are going to be a luxury one cannot afford when you cannot feed and clothe yourself. It IS the economy stupid, and its clear that this limping recession is what we are going to have for, well essentially forever, until it gets worse. Bon Appetit!

[QC]

52. You just want President Palin!

[pa28]

62. To bad we have to spend so much effort watching and fighting the guy we voted for twice.

He's a moderate Republican through and through.

[arely staircase]

68. I am sure the president apreciates your ongoing supporlt

I know it drives you crazy that he got elected and then reelected. And that is cool. So fucking cool.

[rhett o rick]

92. That's the approach, ad hominem attacks. I think it's a "politically liberal" trait if not

a duty to hold our elected representatives accountable. Look a little deeper than "D is good, R is bad".

[arely staircase]

98. you clearly don't know what ad hominem means nt

[rhett o rick]

105. And your intentions are clear.

Deflect from the actual discussion of the OP.

Why dont you address his complaints instead of attacking him?

[arely staircase]

107. his gish gollop of obama hate would require an equal obsessiveness

To answer as it did to create.

[Capt. Obvious]

114. That's pretty fucking hilarious

since the OP is mocking DU's most prolific Gish Galloper.

[rhett o rick]

122. I think it's odd behavior for posters that call themselves "politically liberal" to

not only never question the decisions of their elected officials, but to disparage those that do.

[arely staircase]

129. and those who never have a kind word for democrats? nt

[Jakes Progress]

244. and those who slobber praise

without a scintilla of understanding.

Those in agreement with the OP have worlds of praise and kind words for Democrats. It's the third-way, ronnie-loving, shills for the neocons that find a hard time getting love from true Democrats.

[arely staircase]

264. the OP is a democrat? nt

[Jakes Progress]

405. No. A Democrat.

But I get your confusion. There are some democrats on here. But the OP is a Democrat.

[Vattel]

147. Um, your post was a perfect example of an ad hominem.

You attacked Woo instead of his position.

[arely staircase]

409. nope just surprised because I have never seen her support a democratic nominee. nr

[hopemountain]

91. me thinks thou dost protest too much nt

[progressoid]

242. hmmm

?w=300&h=200

[Union Scribe]

252. +1

I tried to find some angle where what they said made sense in re the OP, but to no avail.

[hopemountain]

410. it means exactly what i want it to mean:

Those who protest too loudly are the most guilty of what they are protesting.

[JDPriestly]

94. Thanks. I will not vote for another round of this stuff.

I will vote for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. I don't want to be complicit in the duping of America ever again.

I like Obama. His speeches are great and he treats people with respect, but his appointments and therefore many of the policies that come out of his administration are terrible.

We need to clean house. I don't want any more friends of the Clintons or Obama appointments in the government.

[Enthusiast]

139. I'm with you!

"I don't want to be complicit in the duping of America ever again."

[Rhymes With Orange]

95. I'm new here, but I think this kind of thread is anti-productive.

Looks like something that would be on one of the Pukes websites.

[Doctor_J]

119. So are the worship threads (cut the crap). So are the 30 threads on whether

the UCSB rampage was based entirely on woman-hating.

As for

Looks like something that would be on one of the Pukes websites.

Let me know when there's a post on freeperville complaining about the president being too corporate and conservative

[Enthusiast]

140. Yeah. Pukes would be angry with President Obama for pushing a right wing agenda.

That makes great sense.

[Rhymes With Orange]

161. What I'm saying, is that we shouldn't be this hard on President Obama.

He inherited a wrecked economy and crappy foreign relations. He has made great strides in both areas. Plus, we now have ACA. I think we should be focusing on the positive and let the Pukes whine and complain.

[Enthusiast]

178. I think we should be on the President's ass like white on rice.

He had a massive mandate and ignored it. His actions/inaction depressed the turnout in 2010 and damned near ruined the nation. Now he's doing the same thing for 2014.

Why do you think so many of us are so angry?

Many of us voted for the President twice only to stabbed in the back by his industry insider appointments.

A good Democratic president does not push job destroying trade deals after decades of job losses to foreign competition. And a good Democratic president does not push an industry insider that could possibly cost us internet neutrality, the last bastion of free speech in the entire fucking country!

[Rhymes With Orange]

180. Again, you're just focusing on a few negative items.

Look at all the good things happening right now. ACA, marriage equality, the economy turnaround, and on and on.

[Enthusiast]

181. Few negatives? They are NATION CHANGING NEGATIVES!

These are not things we can ignore!

It was bad enough when we allowed treasonous war criminals to get away after hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. And it was bad enough when we allowed Wall Street thieves to walk away rewarded after they destroyed the economy.

[Rhymes With Orange]

188. But look at how much better our lives are.

More people than ever now have affordable health care. Everyone is allowed to marry in almost all the states - the remaining states will soon come around. We have healthier school lunches. Bullying is being stopped. The wars are ending.

You can be a naysayer all you want - I'll focus on the good things the Obamas have accomplished almost single-handed. And wait until 2016 when we have another Progressive president take the baton. Nothing can stop us!

[Enthusiast]

192. It's nice that you are so positive.

But that's also why we still have too big to fail banks and military spending that is off the charts.

[QC]

262. But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play? n/t

[Maedhros]

149. Once one gets beyond the politics of personalities and tribes,

one can begin to work on the real problems.

[eridani]

248. Pukes wanted a public option and stricter bank regulation? In what alternate universe? n/t

[bvar22]

325. Do you REALLY believe Obama wanted a Public Option?

LOL
He ditched it like a Hot Potato in Closed Door "negotiations" with the Insurance Corps just as soon as he could get it out of his hands.


PT Barnum was wrog ONLY about the Rate at which SUCKERS are born in America.
It greatly exceeds One every Minute.

[eridani]

367. I was responding to the poster who thought the OP sounded just like a Republican opinion piece

No Republican wants universal health care or financial regulation, and the OP does.

[lamp_shade]

97. Oh... it's you.

[Enthusiast]

102. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

Such a huge disappointment. Masquerade.

[Fuddnik]

104. You used blue links!

Proof that you're a commie and a Republican Libertarian!

[Oilwellian]

111. Great post

You should do a recap each month. It's getting darn hard keeping up with The Third Way.

[Maedhros]

113. The fundamental flaw in the so-called reasoning of Administration apologists is this:

They assign the blame for electoral failure to those calling attention to bad policy and not to those who implement the bad policy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

126. Brand loyalty relieves them of the responsibilities of citizenship.

That is to hold public servants accountable for their actions no matter what party or how popular.

[noiretextatique]

171. and...it is a BIG LIE

but the meme continues....

[MisterP]

211. these are the same guys who hated the idea of allowing primaries in '72

the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
--Brecht

[Zorra]

145. Yep. And we're stuck with it; more reason to make sure another Third Way corporatist does not

get nominated for President two years from now.

[whatchamacallit]

148. Let's take Obama out of the equation

Last edited Tue May 27, 2014, 04:37 PM - Edit history (1)

People need to stop viewing events through the Obama lens. There's way too much emphasis on his image, good or bad. We need to evaluate policies based on the impact they have on our lives. K&R!

[Maedhros]

179. What good does it do to elect Democrats if they don't legislate in our favor?

We have got to start voting for more than just a Party label.

[whatchamacallit]

185. I couldn't agree more

[Maedhros]

195. This is the one subject that really distresses me,

and when I bring it up I catch hell for it.

Democrats are being taught that we shouldn't expect to get anything from our politicians because "the political environment" won't allow it. Well, Democrats, that's why we vote you in: TO CHANGE THE POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT.

[woo me with science]

240. I can't express how offensive and dishonest I find that argument, too.

As though the purpose of political office weren't to lead and change the narrative.

On what planet is being passive even a serious argument for adults who have any understanding of politics at all? Yet we hear that garbage again and again and again...

And the supreme irony is that the myth of a center-right country that is used to prop up this absurd argument (absurd even if the country *were* center-right) has been indisputably shattered in recent years, anyway. Every single poll lately shows that the country is not only receptive, but HUNGRY for legislation to scale back the wars and hold the bankers accountable and restore civil liberties and invest in people again, and that it is only the corporate-purchased politicians preventing it through their own collusion....Yet we are still fed the very same lies.

Great post. This message would make a good OP.

[bvar22]

328. This nation is HUNGRY for that Old Tyme Democratic Party Populism!

#!

[xchrom]

152. du rec.

[Progressive dog]

166. So does this mean you won't be supporting Democrats in November? eom

[rhett o rick]

172. I am supporting progressive Democrats and letting the Blue Dogs go sit with their Republican

friends. I would think a "progressive" like yourself would understand. Progressives dont worship all Democrats.

[Progressive dog]

184. That is clever, that'll show those

people who aren't liberal enough for your taste. LOL

[rhett o rick]

204. People that arent liberal enough are Republicans. Some of them pretend to be Democrats, but vote

hand in hand with the REpublicans. I guess they fool some. I like to go by principles. Like do you favor fracking, the TPP, the XL Pipeline, and cutting Social Security? Those that do and claim to be Democrats are DINO'S. When the REpublican Party went over the cliff, a lot of them crawled under our tent and brought their ideology with them. The are DINO's and vote with the REpublicans.

[Progressive dog]

300. Some of us pretend Liberals

realize that we can't separate what happens in the US from the rest of the world. FDR wanted the ability to negotiate trade agreements with individual and small groups of countries, because trade agreements are easier to achieve if there aren't too many countries involved. FDR was in favor of free trade and a fan of free enterprise.
Remember, there is no one forcing you to buy foreign made goods. I know, that requires more effort than not voting.
I'm still waiting for those votes to cut Social Security that I keep hearing about. LOL

[rhett o rick]

304. So you are claiming to be liberal (or progressive) but you favor "free trade", the TPP and NAFTA?

Why dont you post in those threads that discuss "free trade"?

You wont commit on whether you support cutting SS/Medicare or not because it hasnt happened? You wont even comment when it's being mentioned as being on the table?

How about your liberal opinions on fracking and Wall Street corruption? I never see you (or any of the "Group&quot posting in those threads. But posts that hold the Pres accountable, the "Group" shows up in force. I have to admit you are coordinated.

[Progressive dog]

311. I do post in threads that discuss free trade

but people like you change the subject, just like you've tried to do here.

[rhett o rick]

327. How does a progressive support the TPP? nm

[Progressive dog]

331. How does a progressive obsess over a

minor change in already existing policy is a better question.

[rhett o rick]

333. So you are saying that the TPP, unlike NAFTA and the other "Free" trade agreements, wont

hurt the 99%. I probably worded that wrong. Those that believe in "trickle-down" would honestly say that it would help the 99%.

Do you support "supply-side" economics?

[Progressive dog]

334. You probably worded that wrong,

Are you also obsessed about supply side economics and do you think that it has something to do with trade, or are you just unable to stay on a single subject for even one sentence?

[merrily]

360. In Massachusetts, I am okay with Warren and Markey, as well as with Lynch (seems to have

gotten right finally on gays and choice, and is very pro worker). But, I don't hold out much hope for anything but a New Democrat (whether overtly so labeled or not) at the top of the ticket and also don't hold out a lot of hope for many other states.


And I don't know how much hope I have for any of them overtly and directly bucking the head of the party, be it Obama or Hillary or anyone else. Even Sanders confines most of his negative comments to Republicans. No one wants to tell Democrat voters the truth. (In my opinion, of course.)

[randys1]

401. But, but, but you wouldnt not vote or vote in a manner that would allow a repub

to take office over a blue dog, right?

You acknowledge that the worst blue dog is still better than any repub and that to allow any repubs to be elected is insane?

Understand, this has NOTHING to do with party loyalty, it has to do with one side is a flawed, often too closely tied to Wall Street party and the other are insane motherphuckers trying to destroy all life on the planet, you do get that, right>

[rhett o rick]

403. It looks to me like we are being manipulated. The wealthy oligarchs use their

money to turn the Republican Party into the crackpot party. Still one that they could work with but not particularly appealing to the moderate conservatives. Like Ryan or Rand. Then the oligarchs put their money behind the pro-Wall Street, conservative Democrats like Pres Obama or H. Clinton-Sachs, thus cutting the left out entirely. Win-win for the oligarchs. And to some it's cool because 1. they get to vote, and 2. they didnt vote for the crazy-assed clown. Using the "lesser of evils" rationalization gets us farther and farther behind. We may end up with a Christie or Bush because they are better than Ryan or Rand.

The status quo is failing us.

[randys1]

404. Agreed, and we cant actually resolve this at the national ballot box

It has to happen locally, to the point where you begin barter coops, peace and green friendly governments city and county, one reason why I hate where I live, lots of green liberals here but the money assholes are here and in charge.

While we do all that, we take one minute out of our day every two years to DO LESS HARM by ALWAYS voting for the opposite of any republican...

Not expecting much in return really, but doing so ONLY to do the least harm...


https://twitter.com/DidTheyLetUVote

Remember, they are working day and night to take your vote away, so as little as it means now, imagine not having it.

[treestar]

174. a lot of blue links to other DU posts

I thought that was a bad thing.

[ProSense]

186. But

"a lot of blue links to other DU posts"

...they seem so ebil!!!

White House colluded with House Republicans *against* Democrats to WEAKEN surveillance bill.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024984920

Whatever happened to the Sensenbrenner love? I mean, I more suprised that a bill made it through the House.

House Passes NSA Bill

WASHINGTON – The House today passed the USA Freedom Act, a bill on NSA spying.

Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, had this reaction:

“While far from perfect, this bill is an unambiguous statement of congressional intent to rein in the out-of-control NSA. While we share the concerns of many – including members of both parties who rightly believe the bill does not go far enough – without it we would be left with no reform at all, or worse, a House Intelligence Committee bill that would have cemented bulk collection of Americans’ communications into law. We will fight to secure additional improvements in the Senate.”

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/house-passes-nsa-bill

EFF Dismayed by House's Gutted USA FREEDOM Act

EFF and Other Civil Liberties Organizations Call on Congress to Support Uncompromising Reform

Since the introduction of the USA FREEDOM Act, a bill that has over 140 cosponsors, Congress has been clear about its intent: ending the mass collection of Americans' calling records. Many members of Congress, the President's own review group on NSA activities, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board all agree that the use of Section 215 to collect Americans' calling records must stop. Earlier today, House Leadership reached an agreement to amend the bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act in ways that severely weaken the bill, potentially allowing bulk surveillance of records to continue. The Electronic Frontier Foundation cannot support a bill that doesn't achieve the goal of ending mass spying. We urge Congress to support uncompromising NSA reform and we look forward to working on the Senate's bipartisan version of the USA FREEDOM Act.

Passing the bill out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote on the House floor is an important sign that Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, and other leaders of the House are engaging in a conversation over NSA reform. We are glad that the House added a clause to the bill clarifying the content of communications cannot be obtained with Section 215. Unfortunately, the bill's changed definitions, the lack of substantial reform to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act, and the inability to introduce a special advocate in the FISA Court severely weakens the bill.

In particular, we are concerned with the new definition of "specific selection term," which describes and limits who or what the NSA is allowed to surveil. The new definition is incredibly more expansive than previous definitions. Less than a week ago, the definition was simply "a term used to uniquely describe a person, entity, or account.” While that definition was imperfect, the new version is far broader.1 The new version not only adds the undefined words "address" and "device," but makes the list of potential selection terms open-ended by using the term "such as." Congress has been clear that it wishes to end bulk collection, but given the government's history of twisted legal interpretations, this language can't be relied on to protect our freedoms.

Further, the bill does not sufficiently address Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act. We are specifically concerned that the new language references "about" searches, which collect and review messages of users who do not even communicate with surveillance targets.Congress must include reforming Section 702 in any NSA reform. This includes stopping the NSA from searching illegally collected Americans' communications, stopping the suspicionless "about" surveillance, and ensuring companies can report on the exact number of orders they receive and the number of users affected.

We are encouraged by Senator Leahy's commitment to continue with the more comprehensive version of the USA FREEDOM Act over the summer and look forward to working towards NSA reform in the Senate.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/eff-dismayed-houses-gutted-usa-freedom-act

Obama Administration To Reveal Justification For Drone Strikes On U.S. Citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024979665

Horrible, this should not happen...wait, isn't this good?

[m-lekktor]

198. they aren't links to his own posts. nt

[ProSense]

232. LOL!

"they aren't links to his own posts."

Does that seem like an absurd response to links to DU?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4970298

[ProSense]

183. You know

Obama administration quietly approves new loopholes to help insurance companies gouge patients:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4970298

...that was BS, right?

The misleading information about the "reference pricing" rule.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024972599

This:

Democratic Opposition Lines Up Against Obama Judicial Nominee
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024945344

...is a nominee picked by Republican Senators in a deal...surprise!!!

Why do we bother: Feds Ever-So-Gently File Criminal Charges Against Credit Suisse
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024974240

Well, it's only $1.8 billion more than the CFPB got from Bank of America, but who's counting?

After Credit Suisse plea deal, top U.S. tax enforcer steps down

(Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department's top tax enforcement official will leave the agency next week, after securing a $2.6 billion settlement and guilty plea from Credit Suisse over charges the Swiss bank helped Americans evade U.S. taxes.

Kathryn Keneally's last day will be June 5, the Justice Department said on Tuesday.

<...>

Credit Suisse on May 19 became the largest bank in decades to plead guilty to a criminal charge after facing accusations that it helped American clients conceal assets in secret accounts that were not disclosed to U.S. tax authorities.

<...>

Keneally is leaving amid the Justice Department's first-ever settlement program for Swiss banks that allegedly helped Americans dodge taxes.

More than 100 Swiss banks have agreed to participate in the program, announced last August, that allows them to avoid or defer U.S. criminal prosecution if they pay penalties and disclose account information about U.S. customers.

These banks have until June 30 to turn over to the Justice Department certain information about U.S. customer accounts

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/27/us-usa-justice-tax-idUSKBN0E71SV20140527

A lot can happen in 30 days.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025007788

[xiamiam]

190. if folks are happy with obama's performance, they are not paying attention

he is just one man..yet he has surrounded himself with some fairly despicable characters. 40 years I voted for a democrat for president until the last election and then I voted for the green party. That is Obamas' legacy. He showed us the truth of two sides of the same coin and the stranglehold the two party system has on our nation. I'm appreciative i didn't die under the illusion. That is the only good thing he has done in my very humble opinion.

[Leme]

212. same coin, I agree

same party...same coin.. a stranglehold

[JEB]

191. That is a lot of crap to cut for just one month and

its all rolling downhill to us little people.

[MannyGoldstein]

197. Just think what he could do with a Democratic Congress!!! nt

Last edited Tue May 27, 2014, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)

[xiamiam]

202. he had a democratic Congress for the first couple years..we saw how that worked out..nt

[ProSense]

203. Yeah,

"he had a democratic Congress for the first couple years..we saw how that worked out.."

...we did: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024802019

Of course, Obama had nothing to do with that.

[Teamster Jeff]

200. Kick & Rec

[WillyT]

201. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Phlem]

205. I've said it before and I'll say it again.

He never wanted a majority. Makes it harder to grease palms and manipulate the stage.

I think he's just like any other (third way) man, working on the gem encrusted gold retirement package.

A fence rider if you will.

The things he has done don't affect the game, It's still rigged.

But he has done a few things that needed attention and for that I'm grateful, but I can count it all on one hand.

Next!?!

HRC

-p

[merrily]

352. If it's any consolation, I agree with that, even though I was mocked by people

(IRL) whom I know and love. Later, those same people ceased being fans of his, but have never agreed with me that no one in power in the Democratic Party wanted Coakley to win. At least, they have not yet told me they came to agree with me.

(Yes, I know Coakley was a terrible candidate. Yet, she was the only one who got any party support during the primary, which boasted three other credible candidates; and her terrible, but predictably terrible performance in the general would have been all the more reason to send money, campaign consultants and every Party star to Massachusetts to campaign for her. Not reason to leave her to her own devices in fundraising and campaigning--and there was no other election going on anywhere in the country at that time. Besides, how could any party punt on the 60th seat in the Senate caucus? The Republicans sure didn't.)

[Phlem]

355. So sorry about that. I'm a survivor and we need to speak our minds.

The human thought and reasoning process is not all equal. Some can move forward at the risk of rocking the boat. I say knowledge is equal and all should partake, but some don't and instead make the case that their ignorance is just as important as your knowledge. The result is mockery of something one doesn't understand.

I've read other takes on the same situation you've speak of in other states by the DLC or DSSC, sorry it's late. It is an issue. As if there isn't enough to look out for.

Trust yourself (you know, the first voice you hear in a critical situation) and always lookout for your family.

The rest is easy.

Peace and long life to you merrily! Hold the ones you love close.



PS I guarantee Coakley is not an isolated incident.

-p.

[merrily]

376. Maybe Coakley was not isolated, but it was certainly noticeable as

any hope of cloture was lost with that election. And Kennedy was so high profile, as is the blueness of Massachusetts. And, as I said no other election was going on at the time, not even dogcatcher.

I'd love to hear about other examples someday, when you feel like it. If you prefer, feel free to pm.

BTW, my family, which I do hold close, certainly closer than politics, were the ones who used to mock me when I first mentioned my strong suspicions about Coakley. But they hold me closer than politics, too, so we could agree and stay loving and supportive. And that's just the Democrats. One of the relatives I love most is the lone Republican in the family. (His mother outed this to me, I guess in the hope that I would try to convert him.)

[rug]

209. A list!

[Baitball Blogger]

214. It's a very sad month.

[L0oniX]

215. You should apply for the job of BOG host.

I'm sure they would welcome all this wonderful info. Me? I cant wait for Hillary/Carlyle 2016.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/hillary-clinton-speech-carlyle-group-95763.html



Oh and the comments are so ...uhm ... inevitable

Hilary Clinton addressing this wealthy private equity group confirms her position as one who is opposed to the interests of the middle class Americans. She has always supported the movement of global capitalism and its jobs away from the US, resulting in the destruction of the US middle class. The wealth of the US, 95% of it, is already in the hands of the 5% who profit from global equity firms like the Carlyle Group.

The Carlyle Group is a perfect example of why there are no well paid jobs in America in manufacturing, and why our economy cannot recover. They have moved their businesses out of the US, with Hilary Clinton's total support. Those jobs are not coming back. Without manufacturing jobs, this nation faces a future of low paying jobs and no hope of economic recovery.

Hilary Clinton as guest at their meeting illustrates her uncaring disregard for the future of American citizens.

Silly people ...don't they know we really need a shining example of American exceptionalism? Camelot here we come.

[Doctor_J]

217. I thought it was Clinton/Walton

not that it will make much difference

[Bobbie Jo]

259. Perhaps you should apply

It would be good to have an outlet for this bizarre fixation.

[L0oniX]

276. Irony.

[Bobbie Jo]

293. I don't think that means

what you think it means.

care to elaborate?

[L0oniX]

329. First of all I originaly wasn't talking to you and I can't help it that you don't get the sarcasm...

without a sarc tag. Second is ...welcome to my ignore dungeon.

[Bobbie Jo]

332. First of all...

don't care, and if I see this kind of third grade obsessive nonsense, I'll say so....or not

Secondly, your response made no sense, so a "sarc tag" really wouldn't have helped here.

Third...again, don't care, I'll manage somehow.

Good luck out there.

[MissDeeds]

216. Spot on

Thanks for this, woo.

K&R

[blkmusclmachine]

220. +1,000. Truly, Inconvenient Truths about this foul legislating. The GOP must be doing cartwheels,

seeing as Elections are right around the corner.

[GoneFishin]

222. The Republics are making him do all those things.

[merrily]

388. And Joe Lieberman.

Co-founder with Bubba, Hillary, Gore and others of the DLC, which gave us New Democrats. The Senator whom Obama picked above all other Democratic Senators to be his mentor and for whom he campaigned against Lamont, then left Lamont twisting in the wind during the general.

The Senator who lost one of his chairs for campaigning against Obama, but lost absolutely nothing for allegedly blocking all the good things Obama would have done for Americans once he did get elected, but for that lousy Joe Lieberman and who got blamed for everything, even when he did vote with the Democratic Caucus (which he very often did) and the Democratic Caucus was voting as Obama wished.

[Autumn]

226. A lot can happen in 30 days.

recommended

[ProSense]

230. Wait,

that's what I said: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025007788

Are you reading my mind?

[Autumn]

231. Jinks, you owe me a coke

[Whisp]

238. but those are just a list of a bunch of BLUE LINKS!

Are they okay to use now?

[Jakes Progress]

245. So many here who just can't admit they were duped.

I'll admit it. I was conned. I was duped. I campaigned for the man. I sat in living rooms telling people what turned out to be lies so that he could be elected.

I guess if you just sat home during the election and spent five minutes at the polls, and had no real vested interest in what was going to happen you might not mind being lied to. I guess if you have it good and don't really give a crap about those who don't, you wouldn't see a reason to be upset. I guess it all you wanted was to jump up and down because you backed the "winner", that this stuff wouldn't bother you.

Besides, cons rely on people not wanting to admit they were conned.

[bvar22]

322. "cons rely on people not wanting to admit they were conned"

Absolutely.

The Mega-Churches, Casinos, Carnivals, and Politicians rely on it.
PT Barnum was wrong only about the rate at which SUCKERS are born in America.
The rate far exceeds one born every minute.

Cons also depend on Shills mixing in the crowd,
like the phoney cripple that claims to be "cured" by the preacher
or the Snake Oil being sold by Front Man.

[merrily]

385. That is no doubt true of some. But some of the the exchanges I read here are so incredible

that I must conclude that some people have an incentive, beyond their own egos, to say just about anything to defend him, even if means throwing every other Democrat in D.C., nay, every other human being, under the bus.

[PowerToThePeople]

391. I admit it, I was duped. Conned. Hornswoggled.

I canvassed. I faught for it. I still have a sticker on my vehicle.

I gave my heart and soul the the lesser of two fascists.

Now, how do I recover?

[SamKnause]

247. K&R x 10000000000000000000000

[DCBob]

260. Who said this was the most progressive admin ever??

Any idiot should realize President Obama is a centrist/moderate type. Only the wacko RW nutjobs calls him a flaming liberal.

[progressoid]

271. I've seen DUers say that he is the most liberal President in their lifetime.

Which, if you are 23, is not a big feat.

[ProSense]

274. It's not a

"Which, if you are 23, is not a big feat."

..."big feat" if you're 60 either. I mean, which President was more progressive: Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush?

Even, Presidents from LBJ and back had their negatives.

[Art_from_Ark]

369. If one is 60 years old, then they have lived through the administrations of

Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, bu$h Jr., and Obama. Obama might be a bit more progressive to varying degrees than the 4 who proceeded him, but Carter was much more progressive, as were LBJ and Kennedy. The case could even be made that Eisenhower was more progressive.

[DCBob]

348. Yeah, I agree with that statement.

[bvar22]

321. Even President Obama openly admits his policies are 1980s Moderate Republican (Reagan Era).

I voted AGAINST Moderate Republicans in the 80s.
Why should I support Moderate Republican Policy today?

I want to vote for someone who would have been considered A DEMOCRAT back in the 80s.
Why do we need these "New Democrats" and "3rd Way Democrats", and Almost Republican Democrats?
The Old Democrats were what got my fire started.
I MISS that Democratic Party.

[nationalize the fed]

261. k-r thanks for compiling these lists

Excellent work.You never know where they might turn up

[TBF]

263. Published in 1957 -

and the newest generation should read it:



It's not that he's a bad person, he's just doing the job he was hired to do (hint - peon votes mean nothing).


Further I really don't think he's the key problem - he's playing the game. None of this is going to change substantially without getting rid of the capitalism.

[Scuba]

266. Thank you woo, for this sad post. The betrayals just keep on coming.

[ProSense]

269. The "betrayals"

like wanting to hold college President's accountable. The current rating system is a scam.

Obama Dings U.S. News & World Report’s College Rankings

President Barack Obama on Thursday took a swipe at private college rating systems, singling out the U.S. News & World Report as he announced a new plan for a federal college rating system based on affordability that seeks to eventually tie taxpayer dollars to rankings.

"Right now, private rankings like the U.S. News & World Report puts out each year encourage colleges to game the numbers and rewards them in some cases for costs," Obama told students at the University of Buffalo in New York. "Are they helping students from all kinds of backgrounds succeed?"

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-dings-us-news-world-reports-college-rankings

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023513980

Making Public College Presidents Millionaires Correlates With Increased Student Debt, Study Finds
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/19/college-presidents-student-debt_n_5353665.html

Rutgers, NJIT presidents make list of highest-paid public college leaders
http://www.nj.com/education/2014/05/rutgers_njit_presidents_make_list_of_highest-paid_college_leaders.html

[Scuba]

270. Your post reminded me of another issue ...

http://www.ourworldunderwater.com/

Plan to Attend the Next Our World Underwaters!
Phoenix: December 6th & 7th, 2014
Lone Star State: January 24th & 25th, 2015
Chicago: February 27th - March 1st, 2015

It of course has nothing to do with the OP, my response to it or yours. That's why your post made me think of it.

[ProSense]

272. From the OP:

College presidents upset. Obama's Ed Dept says rating colleges will be like "rating a blender".

Yes, my post was relevant to your comment on an OP that included that.

[Enrique]

268. I would direct this at conservatives as much as to liberals

all that talk about Obama being a radical, about transforming America beyond recognition, here he is well into his second term, can we please look at the Obama that exists in this dimension?

[merrily]

390. Liberals called Obama radical? I missed that.

can we please look at the Obama that exists in this dimension?

All the links in the OP are about things Obama and his administration did in this dimension. Perhaps what you are asking is for everyone to see him as you do. That's not going to happen. Nor will everyone see him as woome does.

[Enrique]

394. i think you got what i said backwards

it's the conservatives that call him radical. They've been bending over backwards to ignore all the things he does that disproves that. For example the list in the OP.

[merrily]

395. Nope. Not even a little backwards. Your posted that you were directing your comments to

conservatives as much as to liberals. That implies that liberals were the primary target, but you were including conservatives as well. And nothing in your post said or implied that it was only conservatives who called Obama radical. Perhaps your wording of your post did not reflect what you meant, but I based my post on what you actually posted.

[ctsnowman]

273. He's just doing

Last edited Wed May 28, 2014, 09:05 AM - Edit history (1)

this to get re-elected in his second term he will show his true self and come out swinging with his liberal positions. Oh wait...

[ProSense]

275. Well,

"He's just doing this to get re-elected in his second turn he will show his true self and come out swinging with his liberal positions. Oh wait..."

...most of the people who're still trying to portray Obama as a sellout Republican didn't want him to have a second term. I suppose they're still upset that he won, and it's imperative that they cast him in as negative a light as possible in order to deny that he did anything positive.

[Armstead]

281. You're kidding right?

You know better.

Most of the people who criticize Obama for not being "progressive" enough certainly supported him last time around, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, even if it was only to avoid a President Mitt.

[ProSense]

283. If I was

"Most of the people who criticize Obama for not being 'progressive' enough certainly supported him last time around, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, even if it was only to avoid a President Mitt."

...kidding, you'd know it.

President Obama Richly Deserves to Be Dumped
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100219446

Repeat: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100251866

There are people who still haven't gotten over that he won a second term in a landslide 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206.

“Barack Obama is the first president in more than five decades to win at least 51 percent of the national popular vote twice, according to a revised vote count in New York eight weeks after the Nov. 6 election,” Bloomberg writes, adding, “The president nationally won 65.9 million votes -- or 51.1 percent -- against Republican challenger Mitt Romney, who took 60.9 million votes and 47.2 percent of the total cast, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Obama is the first president to achieve the 51 percent mark in two elections since Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, who did it in 1952 and 1956, and the first Democrat to do so since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won four consecutive White House races. Roosevelt received 53.4 percent of the vote -- his lowest -- in his last race in 1944.”

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/04/16348268-obama-agenda-first-since-ike-to-win-51-back-to-back

[NorthCarolina]

277. K&R for a great post.

Exposing the illusion of American Democracy.

[Todays_Illusion]

278. Libertarian alert. No thanks, You Libertarians can have your, both parties are the same lie.

[Armstead]

280. Libertarian?

Hardly a libertarian critique.

[neverforget]

346. That's the new critique of criticism from the left here: you don't agree with everything Obama

does, you're a Libertarian.

[MannyGoldstein]

279. Awesome post, thanks!

I hope you make this a monthly habit.

[raouldukelives]

286. K&R Only by admitting to our faults, can we hope to overcome them.

Thanks for continuing to shed light and your insight into what it truly means to think and act in accordance not with a political mind but with a liberal heart.

[Armstead]

305. Bingo

[Blue_Tires]

335. What's wrong with helping out "moderate" Syrian rebels?

Or did Assad become a "good guy" all of a sudden?

Although many of your points are valid, some of them sadly fall victim to the "Green Lantern Theory"...But I know you're an intelligent sort, so you'll be able to discern which from which...

[woo me with science]

338. Fool us once....fool us how many times?

That's a quaint effort to defend military escalation in Syria. It might be more effective...

1) if we didn't already know that the corporate MIC has been working toward going into Syria for a long time

2) if Obama had not already tried to escalate there once already before he was stopped by public outcry and Putin's intervention. Remember, that was when the Third Way insisted that strikes would be necessary or even "humanitarian"...right before they pivoted and then insisted that Obama had been playing gazillion-dimensional chess to *avoid* strikes. I swear, you can't even parody the constant pivoting-to-rewrite-history-and-support-anything-the-administration-does anymore.

and

3) if we didn't have a loooong history by which to judge these promises about how "moderate" our chosen "allies" would be this time and how short and easy the campaigns would be.


We know this neocon/neoliberal con game by heart by now. It doesn't fly anymore.


Corporate MIC is corporate, and America has had enough
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5013355

[Blue_Tires]

340. But the EU (especially France) has been balls-deep

in backing Syrian regime change for years, with Russia in opposition obviously propping up Assad...The U.S. isn't as big a player in this as you might think, but since NATO has been quietly sniffing around the Turkey-Syria border, the U.S. is sort-of obligated to get involved, at least a little...Personally, I'll take "Training and funding rebel forces" over "Direct invasion of U.S. military" any day...

If you want venture into the wider discussion of NATO outliving its usefulness and being an anvil around the neck of U.S. foreign policy, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts...

[woo me with science]

342. "the US is sort of obligated to get involved, at least a little"

No, the US is not obligated to escalate the situation. The US has already been involved. Obama is *escalating* involvement...Again.

We have been conned by this garbage too many times already. Just like the underlying goals and loyalties and overwhelmingly corporate direction of this administration become very clear when you look at the entire record in one place, the recent history of the MIC, in multiple countries and over and over again, puts the lie to these talking points in Syria. The very same neocon elements who orchestrated blood for profit under Bush still operate the MIC under Obama. The very same corrupt structure we decried under Bush still operates with impunity. Escalation in Syria has been planned for a very long time.

The country is tired of the lies and of money that should be paying for schools and colleges and (non-tolled) roads instead going into the bank accounts of the warmongers and profiteers. Tired of cynical election-year claims of ending wars, when the reality looks very much more like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5013355

[mfcorey1]

336. The campaign to conquer and divide liberals is now full blown. However, I will support

the President despite his faults. What looms ahead from the right will be catastrophic and make his imperfections seem like smooth surfaces. Monday morning quarterbacking from the internet is so easy. Proceed, Mr. President.

[woo me with science]

337. Well over 100,000 mercenaries being paid by tax dollars in Afghanistan

*And* escalating in Syria...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025005755
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025004518

*And* carrying out a massive military expansion in Africa...

The Pivot to Africa, The Startling Size, Scope, and Growth of US Military Operations on the African Continent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023624852
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023796845

*And* continuing the drone slaughters in multiple countries with which we are not at war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024377570


Blood for the corporate MIC. Human destruction for the profit of a few.

Over and over. In our name.

[ucrdem]

341. Well at least somebody still takes DU seriously

I'll give you credit for that. E for effort.

[maced666]

343. Wow. Nice RW hit job, right down to his golfing...

You may not be rw but I'm sure they don't mind the assistance.

[woo me with science]

344. You know, the very first time someone tried to label me as a "Right Winger" at DU,

it was after I had posted an article specifically criticizing Obama for continuing so many BUSH policies.

The title, the entire thrust of the article, decried his BUSH policies.

I nearly died laughing. I thought I had run across some delusional poster who didn't understand what "right-wing" meant, or who Bush was.

Later, of course, I realized that this is a Third Way talking point, like all the others that deal in utter absurdity: for example, trying to pretend that the agenda I detailed above is not right wing itself, or that opposing it is even remotely "Right Wing."

Trying to pretend that these aren't policies, across the board....mass surveillance, "Kill Lists," drilling, fracking, deregulating, corporatizing...to make a true "Right Winger" salivate.

It's a shame that posts like this OP are needed. After all, we all witness these betrayals every day with our own eyes, and our families are suffering the effects of them every day as our middle class is hollowed out and our Constitutional protections dismantled.

The only reason summaries like this are needed, is to highlight the utter absurdity of talking points like the one you just repeated.

[neverforget]

347. Funny how trying to keep Obama's feet to the fire is now a right wing or libertarian criticism

They don't debate the merits of the criticism, merely the person doing the criticizing. Thus the libertarian and right winger labels.....

[merrily]

383. Obama asked us to "make him do it." (As if we ever could.) So, I guess they doubt his sincerity.

But, second, how is a post on message board keeping any politician's feet to the fire?

Someone posted the other day that we were making it impossible for Obama to do his job. By criticizing his policies on a message board? Really?

I guess expecting things to make sense in the real world is inconsistent with posting.

[PowerToThePeople]

387. keep up the good fight.

Less and less voices here speak out for what is true and just. I read the thread you titled yours after, and it made me vommit to read it. I thought I was on freerepublic with all the right wing garbage being spewed. It was from the usual suspects, the dlc/third way crew. I no longer consider any of them democratic.

[merrily]

393. Thanks, woomewithscience.

Follow the money. It will lead you straight to the Republicans, every time. Or to the Democrats.

[Rex]

407. Hmmm...200 recs, compared to 6 recs...YEP, somebody is doing it wrong!