|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
![]() |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 10:46 PM Original message |
"SS cuts will be voted without hearings or open debate" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tabatha
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 10:48 PM Response to Original message |
1. Is this being reported by anyone else? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 11:34 PM Response to Reply #1 |
15. Uh, the story published at SW is from the Harvard journalism review (Nieman Watchdog). Then it went |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tabatha
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 11:51 PM Response to Reply #15 |
20. Ok, thank you. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadBadger
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:10 AM Response to Reply #15 |
27. If Jane Hamsher says it, it must be true |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:13 AM Response to Reply #27 |
29. jane hamsher didn't say it, either. the harvard journalism review did; she merely commented on |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
girl gone mad
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 04:58 AM Response to Reply #27 |
57. Way to make yourself look foolish in less than 10 words. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
glitch
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 09:03 AM Response to Reply #57 |
65. +9 nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
inna
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:13 PM Response to Reply #65 |
77. +10 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dr.Phool
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:29 PM Response to Reply #57 |
87. +100 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Individualist
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 10:31 PM Response to Reply #27 |
172. Wipe the egg off your face. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JackRiddler
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 04:18 PM Response to Reply #1 |
215. You can watch it on C-SPAN, for chrissakes. I just did, yesterday. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cha
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 10:50 PM Response to Original message |
2. mediawhores are everywhere. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warpy
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 10:50 PM Response to Original message |
3. When are these boobs going to realize that forcing austerity |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DJ13
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 10:56 PM Response to Reply #3 |
9. +1 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Enthusiast
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 04:46 AM Response to Reply #9 |
56. That's a fact! nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WinkyDink
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 06:24 AM Response to Reply #3 |
60. They're counting on the old to just die, and the young to not care until The Deciders are long gone |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:35 PM Response to Reply #60 |
90. True. As one of the old (55), I'm worried. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bobburgster
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:45 PM Response to Reply #90 |
115. Ditto! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
proReality
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:00 PM Response to Reply #90 |
128. As an older one (65), I'm worried too. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:06 PM Response to Reply #128 |
129. Deleted message |
William Z. Foster
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 03:07 PM Response to Reply #129 |
209. that is why it will all collapse |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 04:49 PM Response to Reply #209 |
216. Deleted message |
William Z. Foster
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 04:55 PM Response to Reply #216 |
217. none of those are true |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 05:09 PM Response to Reply #217 |
218. Deleted message |
William Z. Foster
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 05:17 PM Response to Reply #218 |
220. "they" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 05:47 PM Response to Reply #220 |
221. Deleted message |
William Z. Foster
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 10:20 PM Response to Reply #3 |
171. gasoline on a raging fire |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RandomThoughts
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 10:51 PM Response to Original message |
4. heh, you would expect them to say that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
elleng
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 10:51 PM Response to Original message |
5. Somehow I doubt that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 10:53 PM Response to Reply #5 |
7. so the deficit committee's recommendations will be fully debated before they're voted on? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Lasher
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 11:02 PM Response to Reply #7 |
12. I think she's right. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 11:19 PM Response to Reply #12 |
14. april 26, 2010 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Lasher
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:26 AM Original message |
An up-or-down vote is one that is not subject to procedural maneuvers like the filibuster. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:31 AM Response to Original message |
37. why would they worry about filibuster if they have the votes in hand before the process? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Lasher
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:45 AM Response to Reply #37 |
40. In January The Senate rejected a proposal to create a bipartisan commission. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:48 AM Response to Reply #40 |
42. your assumption is that votes would line up similarly. i don't share that assumption. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Lasher
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:58 AM Response to Reply #42 |
45. Yes, I am going on an assumption as I said. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:09 AM Response to Reply #45 |
46. my belief is based on the fact that it's a long, long way from may to december. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Lasher
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:16 AM Response to Reply #46 |
48. I already said why I'm making my assumption. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:42 AM Response to Reply #48 |
49. So to restate: you assume that people who voted against an up/down vote would also vote against the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Lasher
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 08:31 AM Response to Reply #49 |
63. Yes, but it's just an assumption as I've said. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheKentuckian
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:20 AM Response to Reply #45 |
52. The best basis for that is that about seven Republicans ditched (Co-Sponsors, mind you) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bobburgster
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:47 PM Response to Reply #12 |
119. I thought so,.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 11:35 AM Response to Reply #7 |
71. As I recall, the Senate's failure to create the commission by legislation put the cabash on that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:50 PM Response to Reply #7 |
123. Deleted message |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 12:39 AM Response to Reply #123 |
177. i'm not getting what you mean. what i'm suggesting will get people killed? what? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 06:25 AM Response to Reply #177 |
192. Deleted message |
tabatha
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 11:51 PM Response to Reply #5 |
19. I agree. That would be dumb beyond words. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Captain Hilts
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 10:52 PM Response to Original message |
6. The panel is already tilted to the Right. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hempathy
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 10:53 PM Response to Original message |
8. Bull. Shite. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 11:01 PM Response to Reply #8 |
11. up or down vote. no hearings, no debate. accept or reject. get it done quick |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hempathy
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 11:41 PM Response to Reply #11 |
18. I'll believe it when i see it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:00 AM Response to Reply #18 |
25. the story was taken straight from the harvard journalism review. it's not SW's story. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hempathy
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 11:34 AM Response to Reply #25 |
70. Like I said- I'll believe it when I see it... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ooglymoogly
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:27 PM Response to Reply #70 |
82. Point out a few of those instances where that has happened |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hempathy
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 09:52 AM Response to Reply #82 |
193. point out a few instances where something as big as what's being suggested has happened... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 07:19 PM Response to Reply #70 |
158. Deleted message |
William Z. Foster
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 10:17 PM Response to Reply #158 |
170. bingo |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bobbolink
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 01:45 PM Response to Reply #170 |
207. Thank you. And yet, that is why I get skewered here, and why so many |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hempathy
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 09:54 AM Response to Reply #158 |
195. people don't know about it, yet....if it happens they will. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Z. Foster
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 02:28 PM Response to Reply #195 |
208. foolish comments |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hempathy
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 04:08 PM Response to Reply #208 |
212. We. Shall. See. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Z. Foster
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 04:17 PM Response to Reply #212 |
214. what? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hempathy
![]() |
Mon May-31-10 03:42 PM Response to Reply #214 |
228. what what? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 05:11 PM Response to Reply #70 |
219. Deleted message |
madfloridian
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 08:30 PM Response to Reply #25 |
165. I have been amazed at the comments on this thread. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheKentuckian
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:23 AM Response to Reply #18 |
53. So, you resolve to close the barn door after the horses are out? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hempathy
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 11:27 AM Response to Reply #53 |
69. and what are YOU doing about it...? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Z. Foster
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:27 PM Response to Reply #69 |
139. you mean what are we doing, don't you? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
n.michigan
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 01:44 AM Response to Reply #139 |
184. May want to take a look at our rights as taxpayers. Serious issues here for American futures. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 10:01 AM Response to Reply #139 |
199. Deleted message |
Jakes Progress
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 09:25 AM Response to Reply #18 |
67. The reason that it is important to read and follow these stories |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hempathy
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 11:47 AM Response to Reply #67 |
74. Things can ALWAYS be undone. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DJ13
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:05 PM Response to Reply #74 |
76. I wish, but NAFTA shows thats not usually the case |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hempathy
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 09:58 AM Response to Reply #76 |
197. NAFTA isn't Social Security, either. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Z. Foster
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 04:14 PM Response to Reply #197 |
213. simply not true |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:25 PM Response to Reply #74 |
81. history shows they *aren't*. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hempathy
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 09:59 AM Response to Reply #81 |
198. you need to read more history. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jakes Progress
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 05:55 PM Response to Reply #74 |
151. Examples? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hempathy
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 09:55 AM Response to Reply #151 |
196. tax rates- constantly changing. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 01:41 PM Response to Reply #196 |
206. lol. you got nothing. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hempathy
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 04:05 PM Response to Reply #206 |
210. I was asked fr an example of things being undone by legislation, and gave one. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jakes Progress
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 06:52 PM Response to Reply #210 |
222. Not even a nice try. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hempathy
![]() |
Mon May-31-10 03:45 PM Response to Reply #222 |
229. It's called "The Legislative Process". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Zynx
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 11:45 AM Response to Reply #11 |
73. There's actually good reason to do it in that fashion. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:24 PM Response to Reply #73 |
80. "it will never get done." That's a good thing. There's little progressive policy expected here. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Zynx
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:09 PM Response to Reply #80 |
102. Solving long term structural deficits is not a pleasant business. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bobbolink
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 07:28 PM Response to Reply #102 |
159. So, people like me aren't suffering enough to suit you? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 12:45 AM Response to Reply #102 |
178. there is no long term structural deficit. and if there were, "solving" it could be done precisely |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
alarimer
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 10:20 AM Response to Reply #102 |
201. Except that those tweaks are not likely to be the ones included in the deficit commission. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:27 PM Response to Reply #73 |
83. It shouldn't ever be done. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Zynx
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:07 PM Response to Reply #83 |
100. Social Security will not be the only item up for discussion. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:46 PM Response to Reply #100 |
117. & no package should be bundled with a lot of stuff so people have a harder time getting |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:23 PM Response to Reply #11 |
79. That was defeated when the Senate failed to pass the bill creating the commission. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:28 PM Response to Reply #79 |
84. reported in april that pelosi & reid agreed to an up/down vote if the commission's recs were |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:45 PM Response to Reply #11 |
114. Deleted message |
dflprincess
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 11:00 PM Response to Original message |
10. Transparency - isn't it wonderful? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Mike K
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 12:57 AM Response to Reply #10 |
181. I agree completely. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
brooklynite
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 11:04 PM Response to Original message |
13. Forgive me, but I suspect SOCIALIST WORKER is putting its own spin on the story... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 11:35 PM Response to Reply #13 |
16. Forgive me, but the story is from the Harvard Journalism School. Alternet picked it up, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ShortnFiery
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 11:35 PM Response to Original message |
17. That is UNSAT. A significant "cut in pay" for Congress should be included within this bill. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 11:54 PM Response to Original message |
21. Deleted message |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 11:57 PM Response to Reply #21 |
23. uh, the story is from the harvard journalism review. and the website is not wsws. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dr.Phool
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:29 PM Response to Reply #23 |
85. You're not going to be able to force anything between those blinders. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flyarm
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:46 PM Response to Reply #23 |
141. wow how many times do you have to prove it was written by the Harvard Journalism Review? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bobbolink
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 07:34 PM Response to Reply #141 |
160. I'm glad, flyarm, that you are seeing this process at work. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Mike K
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 02:45 AM Response to Reply #160 |
186. If Obama had any real concern about being re-elected |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bobbolink
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 01:40 PM Response to Reply #186 |
205. Everything you say is exactly on target, but I will add one thing you have omitted... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheKentuckian
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 11:55 PM Response to Original message |
22. On this one I'm about 99% sure the Worker is conflating the original Conrad/Gregg travesty |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Fri May-28-10 11:58 PM Response to Reply #22 |
24. the story is from the harvard journalism review. SW didn't write it, they just picked it up. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Z. Foster
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:09 AM Response to Reply #24 |
26. unbelievable, isn't it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:12 AM Response to Reply #26 |
28. yes, it's unbelievable. and often a way to dismiss bad news without arguing it on its merits. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Z. Foster
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:15 AM Response to Reply #28 |
30. I am going to do an OP |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:19 AM Response to Reply #30 |
32. i will read it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Z. Foster
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:32 AM Response to Reply #32 |
38. thanks |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flyarm
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:52 PM Response to Reply #32 |
144. me too!! eom |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flyarm
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:51 PM Response to Reply #28 |
143. many are paid to be here to shut down the message..they play by the same rules and MO as the former |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mikita
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 07:02 PM Response to Reply #28 |
223. this has been truly stunning to follow.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
proudohioan
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:46 PM Response to Reply #26 |
116. Funny that you mention that.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Z. Foster
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 10:11 PM Response to Reply #116 |
169. I'll be right over |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
proudohioan
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 12:44 PM Response to Reply #169 |
203. Oh, just the typical Socialist fare..... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Z. Foster
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 04:05 PM Response to Reply #203 |
211. love Cleveland |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Raksha
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 06:53 PM Response to Reply #26 |
156. It wouldn't bother me in the least. I consider Socialist Worker a credible source |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheKentuckian
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:17 AM Response to Reply #24 |
31. I'm not ragging the source and only identified it to make it clear |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:20 AM Response to Reply #31 |
33. according to this source (winger), as of april, pelosi & reid agreed to hold an up/down vote |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheKentuckian
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:23 AM Response to Reply #33 |
35. Yeah, I mentioned that was a concern and this won't go through the regular committee |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:26 AM Response to Reply #35 |
36. yes, i know, i was just venting. "won't go through regular committee" = already "streamlined". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:29 PM Response to Reply #22 |
86. Thank you. They are conflating it with the original Conrad/Gregg travesty which failed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dr.Phool
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:32 PM Response to Reply #22 |
88. And the committee is stacked with people who want to privatize. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ooglymoogly
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:17 PM Response to Reply #22 |
105. + A gazillion nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheKentuckian
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:21 AM Response to Original message |
34. and K&R this needs to be visible and deficit hawks need to be busted up |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pinto
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:36 AM Response to Original message |
39. Public Meeting & Public Feedback- June 30th in Washington, D.C. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:46 AM Response to Reply #39 |
41. This public meeting (in response to criticisms of the commission's secret meetings) has nothing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:43 PM Response to Reply #41 |
93. I am opposed to the Cat Food Commission but your facts are incorrect and you are ignoring that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:16 PM Response to Reply #93 |
104. I posted an article, so they're not my facts. Also, I linked you to an april 2010 report that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:58 PM Response to Reply #104 |
126. Then we must hope the recommendations are not unanimous. There is question if anything will get done |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bobbolink
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 07:41 PM Response to Reply #126 |
161. This is going to take much more than "hope". It is going to take a mass movment, and that ain't-a- |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bobburgster
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:53 PM Response to Reply #93 |
124. Cat Food Commission..... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:25 PM Response to Reply #124 |
138. Yes, if only... :( eom |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheKentuckian
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:55 AM Response to Reply #39 |
43. Gotta hammer Congress on this on both sides because the commission don't care |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:33 PM Response to Reply #39 |
89. Thanks. Hope all the correct groups and people are mobilized for this. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jtuck004
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:55 AM Response to Original message |
44. Ya'll let me know what you figure out about the voting, In the meantime |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:43 PM Response to Reply #44 |
94. +1 nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hydra
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:09 AM Response to Original message |
47. Hey Hannah! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 12:48 AM Response to Reply #47 |
179. yep....clinton brought it up, too, btw. it's on the long-term radar for both parties. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Odin2005
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:43 AM Response to Original message |
50. We are being stabbed in the back! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Overseas
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:04 AM Response to Original message |
51. If I pretend it isn't happening, will it go away? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Enthusiast
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 04:45 AM Response to Original message |
54. Why would Obama agree to this? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WinkyDink
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 06:26 AM Response to Reply #54 |
61. Why not? SS recipients will be grand-fathered, so those votes are saved. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
glitch
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 09:01 AM Response to Reply #61 |
64. Votes from the middle-aged who've been paying into all their working lives will be lost. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dana_b
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 11:40 AM Response to Reply #64 |
72. you are right |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
glitch
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:54 PM Response to Reply #72 |
145. We weren't just paying for our parents retirement, we were paying double, for ours too. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 06:01 PM Response to Reply #145 |
152. That's what we were told. Really, we were funding projects left short by tax cuts for the wealthy. n |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
glitch
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 06:48 PM Response to Reply #152 |
153. I am going to hold them to their THEFT. And that goes for any "fixers" too. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bobbolink
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 07:44 PM Response to Reply #152 |
163. Hello....Hello? Over here.....psssttt.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 12:36 AM Response to Reply #163 |
175. It matters to me. I hate the Cat Food Commission. SS is already dreadfully inadequate |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bobbolink
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 01:21 PM Response to Reply #175 |
204. You have said it all. Yet, here "progressives" sit... all activated for so many issues, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Mon May-31-10 09:45 AM Response to Reply #204 |
225. +1000 nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Enthusiast
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 04:57 AM Response to Reply #145 |
190. Yeah. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flamingdem
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:44 PM Response to Reply #64 |
95. Can you explain what you mean? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Mike K
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 12:35 AM Response to Reply #54 |
174. Why would Obama agree to this? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheKentuckian
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 03:46 AM Response to Reply #54 |
188. Agree??? He's pushing it and HARD. Look at the fucks he appointed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Enthusiast
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 05:05 AM Response to Reply #188 |
191. I guess it's hard |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
B Calm
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 04:46 AM Response to Original message |
55. It's a damn shame they never cut military spending! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Enthusiast
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 05:02 AM Response to Original message |
58. They would do this when |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WinkyDink
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 06:28 AM Response to Reply #58 |
62. "Military spending" = the only manufacturing we do! So Obama plays the "jobs + security" card. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
xchrom
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 05:55 AM Response to Original message |
59. Recommend |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 09:07 AM Response to Original message |
66. Again, I have to ask this question, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dana_b
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 12:04 PM Response to Reply #66 |
75. there are still people here who would vote for him |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:37 PM Response to Reply #75 |
91. Absolutely. I've seen many here defending cuts to SS & spouting the lies about insolvency. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flamingdem
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:45 PM Response to Reply #75 |
96. What is Obama's motive for promoting a kleptocracy? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
proudohioan
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:54 PM Response to Reply #75 |
125. You know... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BuelahWitch
![]() |
Mon May-31-10 11:51 AM Response to Reply #75 |
227. I will be surprised if he runs for a second term |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:42 PM Response to Reply #66 |
113. Deleted message |
flyarm
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:58 PM Response to Reply #113 |
146. I have said the same thing..I used to get laughed at..not anymore! not by a long shot! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 05:45 PM Response to Reply #146 |
150. Deleted message |
blindpig
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 09:55 AM Response to Original message |
68. Restructuring: it ain't just for other people any more. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flamingdem
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:46 PM Response to Reply #68 |
97. The Harvard Communist Manifesto! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TransitJohn
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:19 PM Response to Original message |
78. Chess Move® n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Greyhound
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:42 PM Response to Original message |
92. Did the Barack Squad miss any of the standard divert and distract tactics in this thread? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:56 PM Response to Reply #92 |
99. I hope the appropriate groups are mobilized to fight once the recs are made public. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Greyhound
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:31 PM Response to Reply #99 |
107. Spot on. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flyarm
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:59 PM Response to Reply #92 |
147. nope they are in all their glory for everyone to see and experience their absurdity! eom |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flamingdem
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 01:49 PM Response to Original message |
98. Can someone explain in 2 paragraphs what this issue is about? Without anti-Obama or SWP agenda? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
noiretextatique
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:07 PM Response to Reply #98 |
101. yes nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flamingdem
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:14 PM Response to Reply #101 |
103. that's so funny I forgot to laugh nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
noiretextatique
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:30 PM Response to Reply #103 |
106. it's not funny |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
noiretextatique
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:35 PM Response to Reply #103 |
110. maybe you should read the article |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flamingdem
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:36 PM Response to Reply #110 |
111. I asked for a summary |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:49 PM Response to Reply #111 |
120. why don't you just read the article. it's from the harvard journalism review, not socialist worker. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
liberation
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:09 PM Response to Reply #111 |
131. Obviously "summary" does not mean what you think it means... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Z. Foster
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:30 PM Response to Reply #111 |
140. no you didn't |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:34 PM Response to Reply #98 |
108. Here's the scoop: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flamingdem
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:39 PM Response to Reply #108 |
112. When they raise the benefit age does that mean the age one receives full benefits? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:50 PM Response to Reply #112 |
122. It is likely they will attempt to increase it further. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flamingdem
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 04:10 PM Response to Reply #122 |
148. Nice of them to move the goal posts nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
readmoreoften
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:08 PM Response to Reply #98 |
130. What is "SWP" propaganda? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
readmoreoften
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:34 PM Response to Original message |
109. It's amazing that people won't read an EXACT REPRINT from a journal published out of Harvard because |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:46 PM Response to Reply #109 |
118. I am no supporter of red baiting but the accuracy is in question, here. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:58 PM Response to Reply #118 |
127. i've linked you to two msm reports, one from the wall street journal in march after |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:10 PM Response to Reply #127 |
133. Did you indicate above that is contingent on recs being unanimous? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 12:34 AM Response to Reply #133 |
173. that's what one article said. everything is rather vague, & to me, that's a red flag. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 12:37 AM Response to Reply #173 |
176. Yes. Better over vigilant than asleep at the wheel. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
readmoreoften
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:10 PM Response to Reply #118 |
132. Actually, by saying that, you are actually red-baiting. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:14 PM Response to Reply #132 |
135. I'm going to let that go as you probably don't know me well. :) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 02:50 PM Response to Reply #109 |
121. yeah, bomb-throwing crazies. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
liberation
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:12 PM Response to Original message |
134. So Zecke Emmanuel is getting his wish. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:17 PM Response to Reply #134 |
136. If his involvement with the administration isn't enough to curl our hair, we're not paying attention |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 01:09 AM Response to Reply #134 |
182. Deleted message |
wildbilln864
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:22 PM Response to Original message |
137. k&r! nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MissDeeds
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 03:49 PM Response to Original message |
142. K&R |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jwirr
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 05:36 PM Response to Original message |
149. Hannah, if you are correct the protest will be the biggest we have |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hannah Bell
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 12:55 AM Response to Reply #149 |
180. those already on social security will probably get to keep what they have. that's how they keep |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jwirr
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 11:29 AM Response to Reply #180 |
202. That would do it. Back in the 60-70s we would have all stood together |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GinaMaria
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 06:48 PM Response to Original message |
154. kick |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
earth mom
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 06:49 PM Response to Original message |
155. What the helll?! Do they really think they are gonna get away with this?! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dflprincess
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 09:30 PM Response to Reply #155 |
166. Yes they do and, sadly, they probably will get away with it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
earth mom
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 06:53 PM Response to Original message |
157. Here's the list of the rat bastards who are planning to screw up our Social Security: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
n.michigan
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 01:34 AM Response to Reply #157 |
183. Baucus, Conrad AGAIN. Bowles and Simpson..AGAIN .Camp of MI-a whole cast of dirty OBAMA characters |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pundaint
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 07:44 PM Response to Original message |
162. That would be the tipping point |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rhett o rick
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 09:55 PM Response to Reply #162 |
168. With respect, there will be no "tipping point". This experiment America is fucking toast. nm |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ezmerelda39
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 08:20 PM Response to Original message |
164. I suggest that we |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
unkachuck
![]() |
Sat May-29-10 09:43 PM Response to Original message |
167. K&R....n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tango-tee
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 02:14 AM Response to Original message |
185. Proud to K&R! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lib2DaBone
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 03:36 AM Original message |
Mr. Obama Commission a sinister group of Republican Ghouls & Goldman Sachs Bankers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lib2DaBone
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 03:36 AM Original message |
Mr. Obama Commission a sinister group of Republican Ghouls & Goldman Sachs Bankers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lib2DaBone
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 03:36 AM Response to Original message |
187. Mr. Obama Commission a sinister group of Republican Ghouls & Goldman Sachs Bankers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheKentuckian
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 03:59 AM Response to Original message |
189. I don't get the deflection or the doubt here. What do folks think this crew is about? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GinaMaria
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 09:54 AM Response to Original message |
194. kicking again |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yo_Mama
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 10:14 AM Response to Original message |
200. Medicare was already gutted |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sun May-30-10 07:33 PM Response to Original message |
224. Deleted message |
wildbilln864
![]() |
Mon May-31-10 11:32 AM Response to Original message |
226. kick again. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Thu Jun 20th 2024, 07:19 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC