General Discussion

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)

51. I'm in a warm mood so I'll make an excuse

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 05:40 PM

Jun 2013

Our system of government has become incredibly dysfunctional and those with money are calling the shots in a larger way than ever.

They will sabotage everything this administration tries to do for the people just to set the stage for them getting more influence on government.

To get any traction on progress for the economy the administration is compelled to cut the monied interests in and shut out the public.

It's either that or announce the fact that class warfare has indeed broken out and in a major fashion.

I don't see our party as having the gumption to fight that fight. We need to compel them to be willing to do so.

So, yeah, the President had a premonition of something like this becoming the case when he told the public to be prepared to force him to do things.

So, keep yelling. As much as I do get disappointed, again and again, by this administration and the Democrats we have elected to Congress I still try to remember just how vicious and virulent are the bought and paid for forces that they face against.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

132 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here is Obama's "most transparent White House in history" for you: [View all] brentspeak Jun 2013 OP

It's encouraging that CongressPeople actually want to read it leftstreet Jun 2013 #1

Congress should try here: JaneyVee Jun 2013 #2

What fun would that be? No, it's much more enjoyable to complain about being uninformed... Blanks Jun 2013 #11

So I take it that you support the Trans-Pacific Partnership. nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #30

What "Trans-Pacific Partnership"? When did it go into effect? George II Jun 2013 #43

I knew you wouldnt commit yourself. You guys never do unless you are certain rhett o rick Jun 2013 #47

you've noticed that too? Skittles Jul 2013 #62

God, that's the truth. Marr Jul 2013 #78

It's one of the tells. nt woo me with science Jul 2013 #114

2005, but these negotiations, from what's been leaked (the negotiations have been going on cali Jun 2013 #49

I didn't say that. Blanks Jun 2013 #55

Wow! A whole webpage chock-ful of nebulous TPP stuffff! brentspeak Jun 2013 #15

"No text of the deal itself, though."? Maybe because there IS no deal.... George II Jun 2013 #44

There's a full negotiation text brentspeak Jun 2013 #60

Actually Grayson is correct nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #17

??? secondvariety Jun 2013 #19

Some here are ok with "fluff". Easier reading. nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #33

Yeah, once it has been finalized (in secret), THEN we can complain. progressoid Jun 2013 #20

It is the old "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" gambit. nt bike man Jun 2013 #21

No, it's not like that at all. cheapdate Jun 2013 #23

What I typed is quite similar to what you typed, don't you think? Not exactly the same, bike man Jun 2013 #26

There's a pretty big difference cheapdate Jun 2013 #46

Not really lark Jul 2013 #96

Maybe so. cheapdate Jul 2013 #104

Only after getting Obama's permission. nineteen50 Jun 2013 #25

Can you spell rhetoric? nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #29

Doh! I just now got your name!!!! Vinnie From Indy Jul 2013 #86

Thanks for that link....I think you save a lot of "progressives", if they read the AVAILABLE(!!).... George II Jun 2013 #36

Here come the Adminsitration cheerleaders mick063 Jun 2013 #3

does that mean if anyone leaks details of tpp, they can be chrged with being an enemy of the HiPointDem Jun 2013 #4

+1 leftstreet Jun 2013 #9

Just about every law? hootinholler Jun 2013 #5

This is corporate fascism. woo me with science Jun 2013 #6

X 1000 ctsnowman Jun 2013 #35

As Ron Kirk, the chief negotiator, alluded to. If we knew what was in it we'd stop it. pa28 Jun 2013 #7

These may be "the good old days." AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2013 #10

President Obama is a hypocrite. AndyA Jun 2013 #8

I had to lol when I heard Obama say something about govt respecting the rights of its citizens. Apophis Jun 2013 #12

It's a good thing you didn't hear the whole speech, then... KoKo Jun 2013 #13

It made a swell, if empty, campaign slogan. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #14

But it is transparent. Fuddnik Jun 2013 #16

The little people can't be trusted n2doc Jun 2013 #18

Kick. Rec. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #22

is this for real?? Why the hell would a trade deal be classified? cali Jun 2013 #24

Yes, members of congress have been complaining. nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #27

Our government is very handy at classifying anything that might not go well with the public. rhett o rick Jun 2013 #34

It's 'classified' because if the public knew what was in it, it wouldn't pass. X_Digger Jun 2013 #37

That's my question too. blackspade Jun 2013 #39

I'd love to know the justifcation cali Jun 2013 #48

That's classified.... blackspade Jun 2013 #54

NAFTA had the same "loss of sovereignty" Kolesar Jun 2013 #28

Yes. polly7 Jun 2013 #31

No doubt in my mind that Congress will pass it by a large majority. They're all in it together forestpath Jun 2013 #32

If it's a "secret" pact, how will Congress be able to vote on it? George II Jun 2013 #41

Here is how cali Jul 2013 #85

DemocracyNow! on the TPP "Leaked Doc Shows Obama Wants to Help Corporarations Avoid Regulations" Catherina Jun 2013 #38

I'm wondering how long it will be for DemocracyNow to get thrown under the bus by the worshippers. L0oniX Jul 2013 #94

I was told by another poster Puglover Jul 2013 #125

See posted link in post #2....... George II Jun 2013 #40

So you're calling Alan Grayson and Elizaeth Warren liars, are you? muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #65

Grayson and Warren offered OPINIONS on the still-not-completed "agreement"... George II Jul 2013 #77

They described how access to the draft is severely restricted muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #79

Restricted permanently or just while the agreement is still under negotiation? George II Jul 2013 #83

So, in other words, we have to wait until it's too late to change anything appal_jack Jul 2013 #87

How many negotiators do we want? A handful or 535? randome Jul 2013 #98

What possible motive would the "left" Enthusiast Jul 2013 #81

It is no secret that the Obama administration has been criticized by both sides..... George II Jul 2013 #84

Many of us would be eager to praise Obama Enthusiast Jul 2013 #90

I seem to recall that secret meetings between Cheney and corporate leaders Maedhros Jul 2013 #95

"eager to criticize Obama any chance they get" navarth Jul 2013 #102

shhhhh... nashville_brook Jun 2013 #42

His deeds so frequently belie his words... MotherPetrie Jun 2013 #45

Chilling. woo me with science Jun 2013 #50

That window of opportunity gets smaller every day. n/t LuvNewcastle Jul 2013 #105

I'm in a warm mood so I'll make an excuse Babel_17 Jun 2013 #51

CTC = good source for info imo lunasun Jun 2013 #52

I didn't know the President could approve treaties Progressive dog Jun 2013 #53

Yes, this is one they keep trying to make something of treestar Jun 2013 #57

I understand he wants it fast-tracked. Buns_of_Fire Jun 2013 #58

Yeah, that transparency crap is pretty annoying. pa28 Jun 2013 #61

You have any names of these 600 or Progressive dog Jul 2013 #64

Post #65 contains a quote from Elizabeth Warren. I hope she is trustworthy enough for you? idwiyo Jul 2013 #66

I still don't see the names of the 600 corporate stakeholders nt Progressive dog Jul 2013 #69

If you read the entire quote in post #65 you would know why you don't see those names. idwiyo Jul 2013 #72

I asked for names, not why you don't have any. Progressive dog Jul 2013 #76

So you didn't read the quote or you are calling Elizabeth Warren a lier. Which one is it? idwiyo Jul 2013 #91

I read the quote, didn't see any names in it, didn't Progressive dog Jul 2013 #103

That quote clearly explains why you don't see any names in it. Or why you don't see any names idwiyo Jul 2013 #108

600 corporate stakeholders per Elizabeth Warren is what you read Progressive dog Jul 2013 #109

What I read is quoted below, together with a link to definition of "corporate stakeholder" idwiyo Jul 2013 #110

Oh, I see labor and NGO's are corporate stakeholders Progressive dog Jul 2013 #111

Which part of Elizabeth Warren's statement are you questioning? idwiyo Jul 2013 #112

None of hers. Progressive dog Jul 2013 #113

I am looking forward to reading your apology to pa28! Now that you know where the 600 number came idwiyo Jul 2013 #115

No. no. no. Don't ask for that. pa28 Jul 2013 #117

I doubt my opponent would apologise, so please accept my apologies for their rude behaviour. idwiyo Jul 2013 #118

You are very confused , aren't you? Progressive dog Jul 2013 #119

I knew it was very unlikely you would apologise. That's why I apologised for you. :) idwiyo Jul 2013 #124

Since you think you speak for Elizabeth Warren Progressive dog Jul 2013 #127

I am sorry you feel hard done by! :) idwiyo Jul 2013 #130

The story plays on ignorance of the treaty process jberryhill Jul 2013 #88

yeah, the secrecy over this is just so normal cali Jul 2013 #122

bull. cali Jul 2013 #123

Actually the Congress has delegated Progressive dog Jul 2013 #126

yes it has. doesn't change the Constitution though cali Jul 2013 #128

Secrecy over TPP is not unprecedented Progressive dog Jul 2013 #129

This is terrible. Harmony Blue Jun 2013 #56

Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #59

K&R. (nt) Kurovski Jul 2013 #63

Grayson has been speaking out on this and many other issues Savannahmann Jul 2013 #67

Obama is a howling liar and hypocrite. Fire Walk With Me Jul 2013 #68

Jury results. galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #80

There are some who want things to remain exactly as they are, despite the problems Fire Walk With Me Jul 2013 #106

Why the hell is the president selling us all out? Ilsa Jul 2013 #70

I guess Alan Grayson is a racist now. PDittie Jul 2013 #71

Don't forget Elizabeth Warren. Tseko Jul 2013 #73

A woman on KTNF in Minneapolis yesterday explained part of it yesterday. Puglover Jul 2013 #74

Why should he care if he never has to be reelected again. gtar100 Jul 2013 #75

There is nothing but nothing, more important than stopping this cali Jul 2013 #82

Probably because of the sweeping climate change regulations Obama has demanded be inserted in it. nt raouldukelives Jul 2013 #89

Good point. Imagine the Republican grenades they would insert if possible. randome Jul 2013 #101

Transparent like a bucket of mud kenny blankenship Jul 2013 #92

TERRORISTS! Egalitarian Thug Jul 2013 #93

Giving up some of our sovereignity to court rulings would be a good thing, IMO. randome Jul 2013 #97

We have, Bush v Gore, 5-4. Octafish Jul 2013 #107

Why in the hell should a TRADE AGREEMENT be classified??? Bake Jul 2013 #99

It's not even a final draft yet. randome Jul 2013 #100

The only nonsense is contained in your post brentspeak Jul 2013 #116

no kidding. cali Jul 2013 #121

jaysus. you're actually defending this? cali Jul 2013 #120

Mebbe ya should effin read the Federal Register struggle4progress Jul 2013 #131

kick woo me with science Jul 2013 #132