www.salon.com/2012/06/14/...a/singleton/
President Obama campaigned in 2008 as a strong pro-labor candidate, and this year he will again. But for union activists who’ll be working hard for his reelection, a newly leaked document represents yet another bitter disappointment.
The document contains draft text of a chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement currently being negotiated between the U.S. and eight Pacific countries. The Obama administration has shrouded the negotiation in secrecy, but the document, published by the consumer group Public Citizen, sheds a light on the process — and the view isn’t pretty.
“The leaked document,” says Todd Tucker, the research director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch division, “shows that in all of the major respects, this is exactly the same template that was used in NAFTA and other agreements that President Obama campaigned against.” Public Citizen warns that the provisions of the agreement would allow other countries to join in the future, giving it the potential to become a new global trade agreement, larger than NAFTA.
Consumer groups and unions are particularly outraged over the Obama administration’s plan that would allow corporations from TPP countries to bring suit before a multinational tribunal when laws or regulations in another member country harm their profits.
Tucker warns that such language means that an individual company “that’s not necessarily pursuing the national interest as a whole can attack environmental regulations without first having to go through any kind of diplomatic process.” He notes that “We’ve seen over $300 million paid out to investors as a result of NAFTA cases” challenging environmental and financial regulation. Tucker gave the example of a Mexican municipality forced to pay $15 million to a U.S. investor who had bought a landfill that was being subjected to regulation. Tucker said companies are also “using it preemptively to cast a chill on regulation that might be coming down the pike.”
While he isn’t aware of a NAFTA case specifically targeting labor regulations, Tucker said that the “pretty broad” language of the draft TPP proposal could be used, for example, to attack an increase in labor inspections, as well. Tucker added that the current TPP proposal confers no equivalent power for labor unions to challenge anti-union or anti-worker policies in other countries.
Celeste Drake, a trade policy specialist for the AFL-CIO, said the federation has voiced concerns with U.S. officials that the language could be used to attack labor regulations like mandatory overtime or maternity leave. She says “they have not shared our concerns, but have also not presented a compelling argument regarding why such challenges could not happen under our existing investment language.” Given Obama’s campaign rhetoric about reining in over-broad investor rights like those in NAFTA, said Drake, “definitely, it’s a disappointment.” She said the AFL-CIO hopes that negotiators from other countries will seek “to put in text that would be friendlier to human beings than what the traditional U.S. text is.”
While Obama disappointed many progressives by backing trade deals with Korea and Panama that had been drafted during the Bush administration, Tucker said he finds the TPP draft more disturbing because the substantive work on it happened under Obama.
Reached over email, Deputy Assistant United States Trade Representative for Public and Media Affairs Nkenge Harmon said that she could not comment on purported leaked documents, but defended the administration’s approach: “This administration is committed to ensuring strong environmental, public health, and safety laws. Nothing in our TPP investment proposal could impair our government’s ability to pursue legitimate, non-discriminatory public interest regulation.”
Tucker called that response “a misrepresentation of what’s at issue here. No one’s saying that the government won’t be able to pass public interest laws in the first place.” But “once public interest laws are passed, they are susceptible to attack by multinational companies, and taxpayers could be on the hook to pay multinational companies for the privilege of passing that public interest law.” Tucker said that in pushing for consumer protections, Public Citizen already gets push-back from legislators who say they worry proposed legislation would trigger a suit under NAFTA.
Union officials also expressed outrage over the leaked info or distress over the state of the negotiations. Joseph Nigro, the president of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air Rail and Transportation Workers, said over email that the leak showed that “this Administration would seek to extend the worst parts” of “horrible trade agreements like NAFTA.” Nigro said the leaks offered an example of why his union “will only support and work for those candidates and parties that serve to support working people.” Without mentioning Obama by name, Nigro urged “supporters of this measure” to “cut out the caviar, celebrity photo ops and cocktail parties and spend a day in the shoes of the average working person and seeing the damage it will cause.”
“This is what happens when you get an administration that is pretty much in the lap of corporate America,” said Chris Townsend, the political action director for the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and a longtime Obama critic. “That’s who they perform for, and that’s who most of them will go to work for after they lose the election in November.”
Josh Eidelson is a freelance journalist and a contributor at The American Prospect and In These Times. After receiving his MA in Political Science, he worked as a union organizer for five years.
My suggestion would be to work even harder to make sure that Obama is beaten, and then that'll show the Dems that you mean business! I mean, who cares what happens as long as these fucked things by Obama are shown to be unacceptable, and even if it takes losing two more seats on the SCOTUS, and a total destruction of our environmental & tax policy (amongst other things)?
We need to teach Obama and the Dems a lesson!
Keep posting this stuff, hopefully, enough people will listen to you and Obama will be defeated and we'll get Romney in the White House to teach the Dems, the Americans & the world a lesson!
YOU CAN DO THIS! Be tireless in your efforts to put Mitt Romney in the White House!
oh for fuck's sake, i can't criticize the president? my apologies. he's the angel of light. he's infallible. he's more infallible than the pope. everything he touches turns to gold. i wish he was my godfather. i wish he was my father. i wish he was everyone's father. he turns water into wine. he heals the sick and allows the blind to see. he raised lazarus from the dead. etc., etc., etc.
besides, your post is a strawman or some fallacy. you choose your poison. the point is that criticism of the president is healthy and i want him to change. it doesn't mean i want a republican in office. though, if obama continues down some of the roads he's going, we might as well have a republican. there's not much sunlight between the policies. not across the board, but plenty.
<oh for fuck's sake, i can't criticize the president?>
Of course you can. AND, you should. The difference? The difference is that some will do it to convince people to NOT vote for him, and you will have to understand that during an election cycle, as you criticize him, you are assisting Romney. That's just a reality, Gerbil.
<the point is that criticism of the president is healthy and i want him to change.>
I want him to change, also - but that's not going to happen during an election cycle, and it SURELY is not going to happen when you are one of the people out there working in-effect to make it easier for the R's to fuck up his presidency. Make a choice - attack him from the outside and get nothing in return but some kind of warm feelings of a flaccid revolution or from the inside where change actually HAPPENS.
<if obama continues down some of the roads he's going, we might as well have a republican.>
So, you're saying that the SCOTUS justice that Romney will put on the bench is the same as Obama? Oh, Gerbil. Gerbil gerbil gerbil. You used to think through issues. You're saying that Obama will be for fracking and for all the non-environmental issues as much as Romney is? You're saying that Obama will get rid of abortion? Is that what y'r saying, Gerbil?
<< even if it takes losing two more seats on the SCOTUS, >>
Just how much shit do you expect millions of people to eat just so two liberal sellouts can get lifetime jobs on the federal bench?
No, don't start whining about somebody else's "immaturity." You do that all the time and it's unpersuasive and weak. Just tell us all how you *personally* will benefit from these two magic judicial liberals. Extrapolate outward as to how America will benefit from this unlikely miracle.
<< The difference is that some will do it to convince people to NOT vote for him, and you will have to understand that during an election cycle, as you criticize him, you are assisting Romney >>
Who can't possibility win if you keep your mouth shut and accept everything Obama tells you.
Tell that shit to John Kerry and Fritz Mondale.
<< from the inside where change actually HAPPENS. >>
You seem to have politics confused with digestion.
All we need to wrap this is a flurry of nonsensical questions in three...two...
<< You're saying that Obama will be for fracking and for all the non-environmental issues as much as Romney is? You're saying that Obama will get rid of abortion? Is that what y'r saying, Gerbil? >>
This is beginning to look like open-call auditions for "The Nutty Inquisitor"...
<Just how much shit do you expect millions of people to eat just so two liberal sellouts can get lifetime jobs on the federal bench?>
Well, you have two choices of what to "eat":
1) Better tasting "shit" that won't make you as sick
2) Worse tasting "shit" that will leave you MORE sick
If those were your two choices, which one would you eat if you had the power to choose? Oh, I know - you'll just not answer that question because we all know the obvious answer, but truth is that you'll just put us all in a position to have to have #2 chosen for us. Thanks.
<Just tell us all how you *personally* will benefit from these two magic judicial liberals.>
Um...if there was not a Justice Roberts, Citizen's United would have been voted down. It was a 5-4 ruling, and it's coming BACK. Well, is back, actually. So, if there was no Justice Roberts, it'd not have gone that way in the FIRST PLACE... So, next time, if there are two new more liberal justices, then we can assume that it'd not go 5-4 in that direction, right? And, abortion, too. That'll be up on the docket probably next term.
But, not to worry, Mr. Ostrich. I'm sure that it'll all be fine with a Romney appointee. I mean, that appointee will only be there for 20 or so years. I'm sure that it won't matter.
<This is beginning to look like open-call auditions for "The Nutty Inquisitor"...>
Yes. As long as you think that such of what you imagine is a clever quip will suffice instead of actual THOUGHT - go man go!
Secret Obama Trade Agreement Would Allow Foreign Corporations to Avoid U.S. Laws
www.allgov.com/Top_Storie...Laws_120615
Under this logic, the "election cycle" would be the best time for Obama to come down hard against his "progressive" constituents. He could endear himself a bit to the "right" by pushing back against the "hippies/greenies/unions/communists/socialists/whatever," and any of them that complained could just be shouted down as "helping the Republicans." And so what if they don't like it... what're they gonna do... vote Romney?
-sigh-
Ain't fake-ass Republicrat one-party politics grand?
"The two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shift in policy.”
~Tragedy and Hope, by Carroll Quigley (Clinton mentor, professor of history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University, formerly taught at Princeton and at Harvard)
<Well, you have two choices of what to "eat" >>
You're confused. I don't have to abide by *your* concept of *my* choice.
<< Oh, I know - you'll just not answer that question because we all know the obvious answer, but truth is that you'll just put us all in a position to have to have #2 chosen for us. Thanks.>>
1) Who's this "us"? 2) You may feel free to play this-widdle-piggie with as many or few toes as you wish, bub 3) What is choice between less than nothing and not enough to be something?
<Um...if there was not a Justice Roberts, Citizen's United would have been voted down. It was a 5-4 ruling, >>
Did this Roberts vote *five* times? No? Thought so.
Seems to me like Democrats following your work-from-within, compromise-uber-alles, sell-out-your-pals policy put liberals (and everybody else) into one Hell of a stupid and fucked-up position. Following your advice has crippled the Democratic party long enough for most people, but not long enough for you or Republicans, it seems.
<< So, if there was no Justice Roberts, it'd not have gone that way in the FIRST PLACE... >>
Yes. It would've been a 0-4 vote.
<<So, next time >>
Um, *what* "next time"? Ever hear of "Stare decisis"?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis
That's Latin for "Eat it, Charlie."
Tell me, Andrew. Did the Supremes ever overturn "Dred Scott"?
<< if there are two new more liberal justices >>
And if Santy gives Obummer a Senate supermajority and if Tea Baggers don't wreck America's credit and if monkeys fail to fly out of Tim Geithner's butt.
Don't stop thinkin' about tomorrow....
<< then we can assume that it'd not go 5-4 in that direction, right? >>
What is this, a crap game?
<< And, abortion, too. That'll be up on the docket probably next term. >>
Yep. Probably the right to breathe as well.
You scare everybody into accepting half, quarter, eightth and sixteenth measures and you blame "Leftists" for how fucked up everything is?
Clearly, your give-the-store-away approach to dealing with wingnuts and corpo-fascists hasn't worked any better than your "guilt trip the Left" tactic did at halting the OWS movement. You ought to give up while you're still only far behind.
<Under this logic, the "election cycle" would be the best time for Obama to come down hard against his "progressive" constituents.>
Obama spends much of his time moving center/right, because that's where the country is going. My point all along is that I do not like much of what he does but I strongly dislike MOST of what Romney would do... SO, I am making the intelligent decision in self preservation and encouraging people to make sure that the better person is in the Oval Office. It's not that tough to understand.
<<We need to teach Obama and the Dems a lesson!
Your sarcastic and knee-jerk response to Gerbil is unswarranted being that Gerbil was not even suggesting that we should make sure Obama is "beaten". You say above that is ok to be critical of the President, but your response to Gerbil simply sharing the information says otherwise.
<<Of course you can. AND, you should. The difference? The difference is that some will do it to convince people to NOT vote for him, and you will have to understand that during an election cycle, as you criticize him, you are assisting Romney. That's just a reality, Gerbil.
But that is not what Gerbil was doing or suggesting. So why respond to him in such a snarky manner?
<<<< You're saying that Obama will be for fracking and for all the non-environmental issues as much as Romney is? You're saying that Obama will get rid of abortion? Is that what y'r saying, Gerbil? >>
This is beginning to look like open-call auditions for "The Nutty Inquisitor"...>>
No kidding, Gerbil did not even hint at any such thing. Andrew, try the dictionary so you understand what "some" means. A hint, it does not mean 'all' or even 'most'.
Jeff, shhh. White man talking here.
<But that is not what Gerbil was doing or suggesting. So why respond to him in such a snarky manner?>
I am not responding to just Gerbil, but all that do the same thing. I just happened to respond to HIS post.
Hey, you can all circle your wagons and rationalize how you are doing nothing to hurt Obama's chances to remain in the White House. I really don't care.
But, know if he loses by a few votes here and there in important swing states, you will just have to wonder how many statements like the one that y'all are making hurt him in those states. I'm not saying that YOUR statements did that, but that we should all be aware that in an election cycle, everything that we say matters.
<<Jeff, shhh. White man talking here.
What? WHITE MAN talking here? What kind of racist sounding B.S. is that?
<<I am not responding to just Gerbil,
Big deal, it changes nothing regarding the fact that the tone of your response to Gerbil was unwarranted.
<<you will just have to wonder how many statements like the one that y'all are making hurt him in those states.
Are you really under the impression that a little used tribe on a little used social network is going to somehow turn the election? Exaggerate much?
In other words, try to convince people by way of the veracity of your argument, rather than thinking you are going to convince anyone by way of insults and a constant snarky tone.
<The difference is that some will do it to convince people to NOT vote for him, and you will have to understand that during an election cycle, as you criticize him, you are assisting Romney. That's just a reality, Gerbil.>
so fucking what? welcome to politics. a game where you try to gain more votes than the other guy.
<I want him to change, also - but that's not going to happen during an election cycle>
gay marriage, immigration. those two issues he has changed on in an election cycle in less than TWO MONTHS! holy shit, the world is going to come to an end in december, isn't it? it truly must!
also, when an election "cycle" lasts from the wednesday after election day until the first tuesday in november, when exactly does change occur outside of an election "cycle"?
<it SURELY is not going to happen when you are one of the people out there working in-effect to make it easier for the R's to fuck up his presidency.>
am i? this is a disappointing policy by the president. why shouldn't i bring it to the attention of others. obfuscation? that's your solution to problems you face? stick your head in the sand and hope it doesn't turn out as shitty as it might?
<Make a choice>
oh, i've made my choice. i've made the choice not to become a balls-in-his-hands yes-man and actually criticize him when i think he's wrong.
<So, you're saying that the SCOTUS justice that Romney will put on the bench is the same as Obama?>
nope, i don't believe i am saying that.
<You're saying that Obama will be for fracking and for all the non-environmental issues as much as Romney is?>
nope, i don't believe i am saying that.
<You're saying that Obama will get rid of abortion?>
nope, i don't believe i am saying that.
<Is that what y'r saying, Gerbil?>
nope.
<Big deal, it changes nothing regarding the fact that the tone of your response to Gerbil was unwarranted.>
He's a big boy. He can handle hisself.
<What? WHITE MAN talking here? What kind of racist sounding B.S. is that?>
You have no sense of humor. None. I think that this is symptomatic of something.
<Are you really under the impression that a little used tribe on a little used social network is going to somehow turn the election? Exaggerate much?>
I don't know what else you do in the other 3 hours that you're awake that you don't spend here.
<go stub a fucking toe.>
That would hurt. I'd surely not do that on purpose.
<so fucking what? welcome to politics. a game where you try to gain more votes than the other guy.>
Yup. And you/yours/people in your position are helping Romney. I don't know where else you espouse your political beliefs rather than here, but if you do it in a more public setting, that's where the harm will follow.
<gay marriage, immigration. those two issues he has changed on in an election cycle in less than TWO MONTHS! holy shit, the world is going to come to an end in december, isn't it? it truly must!>
So what? Those were issues that were going to make SOME people stick with him, surely very few change sides. What I am concerned about is those on the fence, those that are chased OFF, even though those two examples exist.
<also, when an election "cycle" lasts from the wednesday after election day until the first tuesday in november, when exactly does change occur outside of an election "cycle"?>
A small % of undecideds go back & forth during every few months BEFORE the election. And, in five states, that few % are the kingmakers. You wanna convince them of what? To not vote? And, when I say "you", I of course mean you or those LIKE you. Those that are in your sphere of influence.
<am i? this is a disappointing policy by the president. why shouldn't i bring it to the attention of others.>
Because...as I pointed out, in this election cycle, talking him down could be far far far more counter-productive to your LARGER care, which is what HAPPENS past our arguments. Do you care more to argue than to get him back into office?
<stick your head in the sand and hope it doesn't turn out as shitty as it might?>
No. I am working from the inside. I hope that from the inside, I can help change policy. BUT! If you are one of the people that the Dems see as just whiners, they will ignore you and those that are in the rooms will make the decisions. I wanna be in the rooms.
<oh, i've made my choice. i've made the choice not to become a balls-in-his-hands yes-man and actually criticize him when i think he's wrong.>
Fine - that's what America is about. But if people like YOU convince those in swing-states to not vote, and Romney wins, you DO understand though that things will get WORSE, right?
<<Is that what y'r saying, Gerbil?>
<nope.>
Then make a choice, Gerbil. Work WITH or AGAINST your best interests. Seems stupid to actively work AGAINST your best interests.
Obama's reality vs. perception:
people.tribe.net/frozensta...aae27702b6
<So what?>
you claimed no change occurs during an election cycle. i proved otherwise. that's what.
<Do you care more to argue than to get him back into office?>
in a forum such as this, where the point is to debate ideas, yes i'm going to argue the merits of policy decisions.
<Those were issues that were going to make SOME people stick with him, surely very few change sides.>
and that's the whole point. there was rumbling from both camps (gay marriage supporters, Latinos) and there were real-world consequences to obama's dithering around:
#1) rich gay donors were withholding donations because of obama's stance both on gay marriage and the gay contracting ban.
#2) latinos may not go out in droves for romney but they'll stay home. this only energizes them to not stay home and to actively support obama's campaign.
this whole idea that it's all-in or you're in the other camp is mccarthyite shite.
I dream to speak nice like Obama
look like all idiots are so impress and will be elect again
<<<Big deal, it changes nothing regarding the fact that the tone of your response to Gerbil was unwarranted.>
He's a big boy. He can handle hisself. >>
I am quite certain he can, that changes nothing regarding your knee jerk response.
<<<What? WHITE MAN talking here? What kind of racist sounding B.S. is that?>
You have no sense of humor. None. I think that this is symptomatic of something. >>
I don't see anything funny about your racist comment, and I don't think anyone else does either.
<<<Are you really under the impression that a little used tribe on a little used social network is going to somehow turn the election? Exaggerate much?>
I don't know what else you do in the other 3 hours that you're awake that you don't spend here.<<
How much time I spend on tribe.net is irrelevant to my point, namely that this tribe is going to have very little influence over the elections.
In the end without a Congress sympathetic to Obama, how much can he accomplish?
He has to trade with an obstinate opposition that want to see him replaced...
<you claimed no change occurs during an election cycle. i proved otherwise. that's what.>
Gerbil, you are taking me too literal. I'm not talking about individual issues that he MAY change or act upon because of the positive political ramifications. He's not going to change the formative things that upset you about his presidency. But, your speaking out AGAINST him harms YOUR best interests. It's in YOUR best interests to KEEP OBAMA in the oval office, right? There's NO QUESTION that having Romney in the White House would be far worse for all of us.
<in a forum such as this, where the point is to debate ideas, yes i'm going to argue the merits of policy decisions.>
But, I would bet that people like you - not necessarily you - carry this exact kind of conversation throughout their real lives. In fact, I highly doubt that you do not say these things to people in your real world. Thus, you and everyone else that is bitching about Obama who is a Liberal is suicidally working against their own best interests. Stupidly and suicidally.
<I don't see anything funny about your racist comment, and I don't think anyone else does either.>
Jeff...shh.
<He has to trade with an obstinate opposition that want to see him replaced...>
Yup. Which explains why he has to move to the center. The country is center-Right, the R's are better manipulators and if he did evertyhing that the Loony Left wanted him to do, he'd be a Carter - rich on feeling of personal integrity, but with a following Republican presidency.
How'd Reagan do for us? Did that work WITH or AGAINST the Left's best interests? Will Romney work FOR or AGAINST your best interests?
In the end I see little political distance between Romney and "W", be it economic or ideological?
And with a Congress foiling Obama at nearly every turn -- he is not going to get anywhere in his objectives that even sightly lean's to the left.
We are just going to have to endure this Hobson's Choice, somehow?
<In fact, I highly doubt that you do not say these things to people in your real world.>
even if i do, if an obama supporter isn't able to rebut or offer an alternative, then we are truly fucked. your solution is to just ignore and put your head in the sand if someone, on either side of the spectrum, criticizes obama? that's total weak sauce.
so what about the left? encompassing the entire left as "loony" is counterproductive and offers no wonder why they constantly criticize the rest of the party.
<He has to trade with an obstinate opposition that want to see him replaced...>
Yup. Which explains why he has to move to the center. >>
<< encompassing the entire left as "loony" is counterproductive >>
Not to mention dumb and chickenshit. Just how smart *is* it even by Andrew's own tortured and contradictory logic for (alleged) Democrats to castigate "liberals" while cutting deals and getting cozy with the Screwhead Right, who will never, ever support anything Democrats do?
Basically, he's counseling defeatism and throwing in the towel and it isn't even *July* yet!
This kind of lame bullshit is what gets marketed every four years to Democrats as "pragmatism." It's basically advocating Dems cut their own throats on Election Day.
Note Obama didn't get elected in the first place by following Andrew's sage don't-upset-Republicans advice.
<We are just going to have to endure this Hobson's Choice, somehow?>
Yes, and if we're smart, we'll help get him elected in order to slow down the final & disastrous deterioration.
<even if i do, if an obama supporter isn't able to rebut or offer an alternative, then we are truly fucked.>
No, Gerbil. Most people are not thinkers. Most people are idiots, who are pushed by the winds of propaganda.
<your solution is to just ignore and put your head in the sand if someone, on either side of the spectrum, criticizes obama? that's total weak sauce.>
That's not my "solution". My solution; as I have stated 50 times, is to help Obama win the election, and then work form the inside to change the system, one small step at a time. That's the intelligent thing to do.
<so what about the left? encompassing the entire left as "loony" is counterproductive and offers no wonder why they constantly criticize the rest of the party.>
I did not mean the "entire left". I meant the "Loony Left", which encompasses those that are more dogmatic than intelligent & self-preservative.
<Not to mention dumb and chickenshit.>
No kidding. Luckily for me, I never thought that.
<Just how smart *is* it even by Andrew's own tortured and contradictory logic for (alleged) Democrats to castigate "liberals" while cutting deals and getting cozy with the Screwhead Right, who will never, ever support anything Democrats do?>
Again, lucky for me - I never supported such a thing. Man, your brain works in strange & broken ways.
<Basically, he's counseling defeatism and throwing in the towel and it isn't even *July* yet!>
Change your name to 'Strawman', because it's a lot more relevant than "Rockstar". Ha. "Rockstar". I still find that humorous. Why not choose "Tennis Star"? Or, "MMA Star"? Why? Because there's an added panache added to oneself if they associate themselves with a rockstar. When mentioning this to an ACTUAL rockstar, their response was, 'Well, most people try to attach themselves to our tits one way or another.' What does he know though? He's only sold more than 10 million records. Y'r the REAL "Rockstar".
I'd say we give Obama another 30 years for his grand plans to come together, we don't mind waiting for him.
I stopped voting for Democrats, long ago. They just started doing dirt, like when they infiltrated Nader 2004 to suppress the signature drive, and they sued the Nader campaign, to keep Ralph off ballots, when they needed to recruit Ralph Nader, instead of pissing him off, since Carter was President.
8 of 15 responding occupations reported Democrats tried to co-opt the occupation, but the story of all this was removed, from the OWS-DC blog, since OWS is just a Democratic Party version of The Tea Party, for pubs. Democrats didn't learn, from Nader, but from E. Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy and Karl Rove and GW and Cheney.
So along comes black Obamney, he pushes private insurer health care, he forgot about Gitmo going back to Cuba, he killed more people with drones and busted more pot clubs, in four years, than GW did, in eight years, and after the Democrats lost the House, they tried to pass CO2-neutral biomass research, which lost, 2012. No good energy policy issued, but look what the economy will finally do, when defense gets cut!
Black Obamney promises to make climate change important, IF he gets re-elected. He can go fuck himself, for not leading his damn cult of geeks. What is as bad or almost as bad as a gaggle of pubs? A flock of rat-geeks, who can't fly because black Obamney won't lead them.
Black Obamney got outed, in favor of same-sex marriage, only as an afterthought, when the Democrats found out Bullygate would break, in the Post. White Obamney then claimed to have CRS, and don't ask him, about Bain, or Massachusetts, or Mormonism, or anything, since he sucks.
<Just how smart *is* it even by Andrew's own tortured and contradictory logic for (alleged) Democrats to castigate "liberals" while cutting deals and getting cozy with the Screwhead Right, who will never, ever support anything Democrats do?>
Again, lucky for me - I never supported such a thing.>>
Yes, you did. When you ask us to support this Administration, you're asking us to support screwing our friends, rewarding our enemies and cutting deals with scum all for no better reason than you "think" (if that's what you can be said to do) that course is pragmatic no matter how many times it fails.
I'd say experience doesn't teach you much but *nothing* seems to teach you much.
<< Because there's an added panache added to oneself if they associate themselves with a rockstar >>
Please. Spare us details of your night of joy with Rick Ashtey...
<That's not my "solution". My solution; as I have stated 50 times, is to help Obama win the election, and then work form the inside to change the system, one small step at a time. That's the intelligent thing to do. >
which is basically the same thing as saying, "ignore any negative thing obama does as president. if you criticize him then you are obviously in favor of romney for president."
<which is basically the same thing as saying, "ignore any negative thing obama does as president. if you criticize him then you are obviously in favor of romney for president.">
No. No it is not. I am not saying "ignore any negative thing obama does as president.". I am saying, do not speak out against him so vociferously during an election cycle, since his being in the oval office is FAR more in your best interests than is Romney.
Speak out all that you like, but be circumspect about it. Do it here, but for fuck's sake, don't do it in any manner which COULD cause people to change or rescind their vote. It's in your best interests to NOT do so. It's called 'winning the battle but losing the war'. You surely get more emotionally from speaking out, but - in the end, you lose more than you can POSSIBLY gain.
<No. No it is not>
yes. yes it is. i can vociferously argue against an obama decision while, at the same time, supporting many of his other achievements. just because i criticize him for one thing doesn't mean i don't support him in a plethora of others.
<but be circumspect about it.>
so, basically, mind your tongue, boy, so it's not cut out.
<<I'd say we give Obama another 30 years for his grand plans to come together, we don't mind waiting for him.
Sorry Marc, but the constitution says that Congress holds the purse strings and is in charge of passing laws. What this means is that Obama can propose a budget and propose legislation, but he can neither pass it nor fund it. Which means that any inaction regarding the economy falls squarely on Boehner and the Republicans shoulders. Bills that were once bipartisan are rejected for one reason, political purposes. We now know that Republicans gathered when Obama was first elected and made a blanket decision to block anything and everything he either proposes and/or supports. Which fits in directly with McConnel's statement at the outset of the election that the most important thing is to get Obama out of office. Not the economy, not jobs, winning power is their #1 priority. Which is why they have chosen inaction on the economy, any improvement will only help Obama's chances in November, so the Republican Congress refuses to pass any jobs bill.
<yes. yes it is. i can vociferously argue against an obama decision while, at the same time, supporting many of his other achievements. just because i criticize him for one thing doesn't mean i don't support him in a plethora of others.>
Sure. But keep in mind that if in doing so you harm Obama's re-election, you are working against your own best interests. Just saying, 'I probably won't be harming his re-election' is not the same as NOT harming his re-election.
<so, basically, mind your tongue, boy, so it's not cut out.>
What in the holy living fuck are you talking about? No. Speak up all that you want. But know that you may be harming your own best interests in order to feel better about yourself. Y'r cutting off y'r nose to spite y'r face.
keep walking it back.
criticizing someone for criticizing the president is ridiculous, plain and simple.
i never knew assassinations, kill lists, raids on marijuana dispensaries, and a lack of conviction towards gay rights for the majority of his first term were in my best interest. please enlighten me some more, oh sage of the political.
<criticizing someone for criticizing the president is ridiculous, plain and simple.>
Depends on context. If your actions (and the many thousands/millions of people like YOU) do this in such a manner that costs Obama the election, then your actions have worked AGAINST your best interests.
<i never knew assassinations, kill lists, raids on marijuana dispensaries, and a lack of conviction towards gay rights for the majority of his first term were in my best interest. please enlighten me some more, oh sage of the political.>
Sure, you can pick all sorts of things that you don't like that the Obama Administration has done - but the FACT is that Romney would have done all of those thing AND MORE. FAR MORE.
But, hey - I can't convince true believers of anything. That's you. Y'r a true believer. You are the kind of person that cares more about your ideology than all of our reality.
Reality: Romney will be worse for us.
Reality: If the thousands/millions of ideologues like you affect the vote, Romney may become president.
Realty: Romney will be worse for us.
Every president and politician has had those challenges. But sooner or later you have to look at the bottom line and you're either effective or not effective. Excuses don't matter, Obama certainly isn't the first president to deal with a hostile congress.
"We now know that Republicans gathered when Obama was first elected and made a blanket decision to block anything and everything he either proposes and/or supports"
I posted something a long time ago, with links, about how Obama insulted many republican leaders (including McConnel) in the first few months of his presidency by refusing to meet with them back when he thought he had democratic control of congress and didn't need them. Along with other instances of perceived insults and snubs. Obama's attempts to reach across the aisle was never more then lip service.
once again, all i'm saying is that the president is worthy of criticism. i will continue to criticize him for reasons i believe he should be criticized for. i will also applaud him for reasons i believe he deserves applause. i'll do the same for romney.
i've never once denied that romney wouldn't be worse, or that mccain would have been worse. they probably will be, or would have been.
that doesn't mean obama gets a free pass, or any member of congress, for pisspoor decisions just because it's an election year. otherwise, i'd end up nothing more than a partisan hack.
<<Obama certainly isn't the first president to deal with a hostile congress.
But he IS the first President in the history of the United States to have to deal with a record number of filibusters in the Senate and record numbers of appointees being blocked from an up or down vote. Neither has any President in history dealth wtih an opposition that has as their stated first order of business (over and above the well being of the American people) is to ensure that Obama is a one term President. And in making that decision they had a meeting on day one of Obama's Presidency and decided to block whatever he brought to the table for purely political reasons. The GOP has failed us, they have put winning power over and above the well being of the American people in an unprecidented manner. History will not look kindly on this era of GOP intransigence.
<<I posted something a long time ago, with links, about how Obama insulted many republican leaders (including McConnel) in the first few months of his presidency by refusing to meet with them back when he thought he had democratic control of congress and didn't need them.
Sorry, but this meeting happened BEFORE any of these percieved slights, as did McConnel's statement. As a matter of fact, they never indicated that this was the reason for their PLANNED intransigence. They indicated their reason was to win power pure and simple. Which is why they were coordinating with Karl Rove in that meeting, where he has now famously stated that their PLANNED intransigence is sewing the seeds to win the power of the Presidency in 2012. The GOP has put this over and above jobs and the economic recory, they and those voting for them should be ashamed.
"Sorry, but this meeting happened BEFORE any of these percieved slights"
I know the story and I don't like it either, but that's not really the point. Or actually maybe it helps make my point, wouldn't common sense say that the president should try to change their attitudes? Bill Clinton, for example, managed to reach across the aisle and negotiated. Obama has not been effective in the few times he has tried to do that. When Clinton met with Obama that was supposedly something they talked about.
No potential justice either candidate might support, no matter how extreme, will get rid of abortion.
At this late date, perhaps not.
However, I expect desperate pols from both major parties to keep raising this issue as a bugaboo into the next decade at least. Fewer things would delight me more than to have both sides take this one off the table, but I doubt it'll happen soon.
Remember that the ultra-far screwhead right in the GOP kept bringing up dismantling Social Security as a serious policy option as late as the Nineties. Indeed, the Ron Paul weenies *still* want it gone, tho' not for themselves of course...
There are many things that I don't like about Obama, mostly he's not liberal enough and basically is bushlite, and this trade agreement is just another one of the things that I scare the crap out of me. However if the best the GOP can come up with is Romney then I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama since not only would Romney do the pretty much the same thing he has the whole cult religion thing going and it bothers me as much as the TomKat's cult.
<No potential justice either candidate might support, no matter how extreme, will get rid of abortion.>
I don't know how true that is. Having heard of a few state's limitations on abortion, they may be able to 'get rid' of it on procedural grounds for the types of businesses or limitations on other aspects of the business that will cause the eradication of abortion in some states, a situation that is expected to go to the SCOTUS at some point. The case of law? Not sure, but the expectation is that it will be a rather standard split between the justices IF/WHEN these issues go through the system and get in front of the court.
www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01...-close.html
June 30, 2012
Cities Balk as Federal Law on Marijuana Is Enforced
By NORIMITSU ONISHI
ARCATA, Calif. — Faced with growing chaos in the state’s medical marijuana industry, this city in Northern California passed an ordinance in 2008 that meticulously detailed, over 11 pages, how the drug could be grown and sold here.
Humboldt Medical Supply, a dispensary here in Humboldt County regarded as a law-abiding model that has given free cannabis to elderly patients, became the first to obtain a permit in 2010. The Sai Center, whose owner has a history of flouting city regulations and was described by the mayor as running his business “purely for profit,” was rejected last year.
Humboldt Medical quickly closed shop after federal prosecutors began shuttering hundreds of dispensaries in October in one of the biggest crackdowns on medical marijuana since its legalization in California in 1996. The Sai Center’s owner moved locations and has defied the authorities by continuing to operate, most recently out of his mother’s house. City officials, afraid of becoming targets themselves of the prosecutors, have suspended the applications of two other dispensaries that were expected to be approved.
“We feel the federal government’s actions have had a very negative effect,” said Mayor Michael Winkler. “We’re very upset with their actions.”
Like their counterparts in many other municipalities that have regulated medical marijuana on their own, Arcata officials say the federal offensive has brought renewed chaos to the medical marijuana industry. The federal authorities, their critics say, have indiscriminately targeted good and bad dispensaries, sometimes putting the best ones out of business. The crackdown, the critics say, has made it difficult for qualified Californians to obtain marijuana for medical use and is just pushing buyers into the black market.
Acting on federal law, which considers all possession and distribution of marijuana to be illegal, California’s four United States attorneys, working with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Internal Revenue Service, have shut down at least 500 dispensaries statewide in the last eight months by sending letters to operators, landlords and local officials, warning of criminal charges and the seizure of assets. The United States attorneys said the dispensaries were violating not only federal law but also state law, which requires operators to be primary caregivers to their customers and distribute marijuana only for medical purposes.
“We’re not concerned in prosecuting patients or people who are legitimate caregivers for ill people, who are in good faith complying with state law,” said Benjamin B. Wagner, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of California. “But we are concerned about large commercial operations that are generating huge amounts of money by selling marijuana in this essentially unregulated free-for-all that exists in California.”
Because of the lack of regulation, it is difficult to know precisely how many dispensaries have shut down or even how many were in operation before the start of the current crackdown. But figures provided by three of California’s four United States attorneys totaled more than 500: “dozens” in Mr. Wagner’s district; 217 in the Southern District, in San Diego; and more than 200 in the Central District, in Los Angeles. Officials in the three districts say they have succeeded in putting out of business more than 90 percent of the dispensaries they have identified so far.
Declining to release figures was the United States attorney for the Northern District. The district includes San Francisco and Oakland, the two cities that have led the fight against the current federal offensive, as well as Arcata and other municipalities long known for their tolerance of marijuana.
Dan Rush, an official at the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, said about 650 out of the 1,400 marijuana dispensaries that existed last October have ceased operating. The union represents between 600 and 800 members working in statewide dispensaries, he said.
Except for San Francisco and Oakland, the roughly 50 municipalities with medical marijuana ordinances have suspended the administration of dispensaries, said Kris Hermes, a spokesman for Americans for Safe Access, a group that promotes access to medical marijuana. Though federal authorities have periodically gone after dispensaries since California became the first state to legalize marijuana for medical use, Mr. Hermes described the current crackdown as “unprecedented” because of its “intensity” and because of the number of dispensaries closed and federal agencies involved.
Prosecutors denied that legitimate patients were being driven to illegal sellers.
“Most often the individuals who are visiting these places have obtained sham doctor recommendations for really no purpose other than to engage in the recreational use of marijuana,” Laura E. Duffy, the United States attorney for the Southern District, said of the dispensaries. “To the extent that blatant distribution of marijuana is not available in commercial businesses throughout California, certainly in this district, I think that’s a good thing.”
Here in Arcata — a city of 17,000 people in a region of the state known as the Emerald Triangle, where the illegal marijuana trade has long been tolerated and is a pillar of the local economy — government officials worried that counterparts in neighboring communities had received letters warning them against regulating the medical marijuana industry.
“They said they could prosecute city officials and staff,” said Larry Oetker, a city official who oversaw the regulations on the dispensaries. “That was a dramatic change.”
Under the ordinance here, the city approved the permit of Humboldt Medical Supply, an “exemplary” dispensary according to Mayor Winkler. Greg Allen, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who represented the dispensary, said its staff included a nurse and rigorously screened customers to ensure that they had legitimate conditions that required treatment with marijuana.
By contrast, the city rejected the application of the Sai Center, which has violated city regulations, including advertising its services and letting customers mill around its premises. Its owner, Stephen Gasparas, exhibited “an extremely hostile attitude” at city hearings for his application, the mayor said.
“He was very contemptuous of any government regulation of this at all,” the mayor said. “He seemed really to be in it for the money. If he also had any commitments to patients, I wasn’t aware of that.”
But federal prosecutors sent warning letters to the owners of the two dispensaries, as well as their landlords, citing their proximity to a ballpark, city officials said. Humboldt Medical Supply, which had been struggling financially, ceased operating. But Mr. Gasparas moved five blocks away to a house owned by his mother and quickly resumed business.
On a recent afternoon, an employee was working out of a single room in the back of the blue, single-story house, sitting behind a large desk, surrounded by marijuana plants and three large safes. Through the employee, Mr. Gasparas declined to be interviewed.
The employee, who declined to give his name but said he was majoring in botany at Humboldt State University here, said the federal offensive was “all political.” The dispensary, he said, was helping the ill who would otherwise buy marijuana from “an unsafe source.” He said he himself first obtained a doctor’s approval to use medical marijuana because he had anxiety.
At the Humboldt Patient Resource Center, one of the two dispensaries whose application was delayed because of the federal crackdown, a steady stream of customers — young men but also middle-aged men and women — came in to buy various strains of marijuana, including those called Blue Dream, Lemon Diesel and Oh Sour Head, at $40 for an eighth of an ounce.
Mariellen Jurkovich, the dispensary’s director, said she had spent $200,000 to comply with the city’s marijuana ordinance. Federal prosecutors had not sent her a warning letter, but she remained worried.
“Even if I eventually get a permit from the city, I don’t think I’m protected as long as the federal law doesn’t change,” she said. “I don’t know who they’ll go after and why.”
KEY:
Acting on federal law, which considers all possession and distribution of marijuana to be illegal, California’s four United States attorneys, working with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Internal Revenue Service, have shut down at least 500 dispensaries statewide in the last eight months by sending letters to operators, landlords and local officials, warning of criminal charges and the seizure of assets. The United States attorneys said the dispensaries were violating not only federal law but also state law, which requires operators to be primary caregivers to their customers and distribute marijuana only for medical purposes.
<<wouldn't common sense say that the president should try to change their attitudes?
You can't change the minds of those that have already made up their minds to put power above the people.
<<Bill Clinton, for example, managed to reach across the aisle and negotiated.
And those negotiations were a two way street. The GOP plan is one way, my way or the highway.
<<Obama has not been effective in the few times he has tried to do that.
I find it interesting that you put the blame on Obama, even though the GOP made a specific decision to NOT work with him and to block anything and everything they can so as to win power. One really can't work with those that have decided to not work with you. THAT is the story.
Jeff, make note of the date - you were 3/3 today. That's gotta be some kind of record.
"<<wouldn't common sense say that the president should try to change their attitudes?
You can't change the minds of those that have already made up their minds to put power above the people.
<<Bill Clinton, for example, managed to reach across the aisle and negotiated.
And those negotiations were a two way street. The GOP plan is one way, my way or the highway."
-----
So what does all this tell you? That Obama can't get the job done. It doesn't matter why. Ok, so the GOP is trying to undermine him. I guess he is the first that has ever happened to so viciously. Whatever, this is world politics, not the blame game. I want the president who gets things done, I don't care what party he is in. I voted for Obama the first time, but I think it's pretty obvious he can't follow through and isn't close to the guy we hoped he was.
I'm not jumping on you about the comment your responding too. However as a one of then age ole liberals here on the tribe, pls excuse my draft gore nonesense, I can say with no reservation that Obama has failed to live to his promises or his potential. As his perch is one of timing and words , really the office has few constitutional powers and IMHO the expansion of exec powers under the last 5 POTUS is unchecked, unconstitutional, and unAmerican, beside the health care and switch to understanding that we can dictate who we love and that those partners have rights the same as the 49 percent of married folk that don't get divorced
Now that said the beauty of our system is that ~ since he can be elected only for 2 terms we have the potential to have someone that has half a clue as to what repression is all about in the oval office with a potential to live up to some if not just defend us from the corp take over and reclaimnation into USA, Inc.
AND on the other side we have a fellow that believes what?????? At least with Obama he might do something different then his corp master invoke him to do whereas Romney will do what every he's told to do and when it left to his personal choice there is little evident that he'll do anything other then game it for himself or his belief system which he has sworn an oath to uphold over country. See draft dodging reasons.
Come on people are you that stupid.
<Bill Clinton, for example, managed to reach across the aisle and negotiated.>
and forever pushed the democratic party to the right, basically selling out the left.
You mean getting things done. Unless no progress at the expense of sticking to a narrow path is considered the more noble thing to do.
<and forever pushed the democratic party to the right, basically selling out the left.>
You can't sell out the Left. They ain't for sell. And, they ain't a'buy'n nuth'n that will get anyone anywhere. Bill Clinton made the party RELEVANT.
The problem with most of the far-Left is that they ALL have such differing ideals that they cannot agree on anything, and ill throw out the ol' baby with the bath water if the solution to their own personal favorite issue is not met to their specifications. So, why not ignore them? They won't EVER be happy with anyone in the White House, anyway. They're irrelevant. They'd rather cut of their nose to spite their face/throw the baby out with the bath water/etc. They're i-relivant. Sadly. They could JOIN the party & force the party back to the Left, but...they'd rather just whine piteously in their indignation, instead.
<how is sticking to your principles suddenly a narrow path?>
Because it does not get you anywhere. It's noble, it's the 'right' thing to do, but it gets you nowhere. You have to go along to get along. The far-Lefties do not play well with others.
<< You have to go along to get along >>
Yes. The American public is sooooo visibly eager for yet another spineless compromiser.
<<Bill Clinton >>
Other than survive impeachment, Clintoon's achievements today don't look like much. Obama got more done in one term than Slick Willie did in two.
Obama also got elected by doing the opposite of what Andrew's suggesting, btw.
the major point is that he pushed the democrats further to the right. i'm not entirely sure how that benefits anybody except the center-right.
<<Jeff, make note of the date - you were 3/3 today. That's gotta be some kind of record.
What are you even talking about? 3/3 for what specifically?
<<So what does all this tell you?
It tells me that Clinton did not face a Republican party that had made a specific decision to vote against anything the President was supporting, compromise was not then a dirty word within the GOP. The political decision was made by the current GOP to block anything and everything they can for political purposes, there is nothing any President can do to change the minds of such an intransigent Congress.
<<That Obama can't get the job done.
No, it means that Congress is not doing their job by putting politics above the work of the people. If one side has pledged to not compromise then the blame for that lack of compromise falls squarely on their shoulders.
<<Ok, so the GOP is trying to undermine him. I guess he is the first that has ever happened to so viciously.
To this degree? Definately the first president in US history to face this level of purely political opposition. Record numbers of judicial nominees blocked, record number of filibusters in the Senate, and the first time in US history that Congress stated goal is to do nothing for purely politica purposes. Our branches of govt. were set up so that each branch would engage in their share of responsibility, the GOP has abdicated their responsibility for one reason, to win power. And nothing the President can do will change that simple fact.
<<I want the president who gets things done
The President is not a dictator, he can't work alone. It is the job of Congress to write and pass legislation, something that President can't do by himself. It is the job of Congress to approve budgets and appropriate $$, something the President can't do by himself. And when he does do something by himself, for instance his decision on the dream act type order, then he is a dictator. So tell me, in the face of this record opposition from a do-nothing congress, and their decision to block anything he supports, what specifically can the President do without Congress on board?
<<but I think it's pretty obvious he can't follow through
Follow through on what specifically? What can the President do when a intransigent Congress blocks infrastructure and jobs bills that used to be bipartisan in nature? Again, you are pretending Obama is a dictator and can just dictate jobs bills and legislation. Without Congress no bills will pass, without congress no $$ is appropriated, without congress taking action our economy will be stuck in the mud. The fault lies squarely with them for putting poltics above the people.
<<Unless no progress at the expense of sticking to a narrow path is considered the more noble thing to do.
That is the current and stated GOP preference, stick to the most narrow path in US history and block anything and everything the President supports for purely political reasons. So tell me, why blame the man who is willing to compromise, but deflect blame for the party actually responsible for blocking anything and everything for the stated purpose of winning power. You should be pissed off at the party willing to put winning power over and above the work of the people.
"So tell me, why blame the man who is willing to compromise, but deflect blame for the party actually responsible for blocking anything and everything for the stated purpose of winning power. You should be pissed off at the party willing to put winning power over and above the work of the people."
It's not the blame game. Why would you assume I'm blaming anyone or wouldn't be pissed off at the GOP just as much as anyone else if I was pissed off at all? Trying to find someone to stick the blame on doesn't accomplish anything, results are what matters, and that is all I care about. Obama can say that he can't get anything done because the GOP is blocking his way, but that explanation doesn't make anything better. Obama's one significant accomplishment was health care and in my opinion it is doomed to fail for lots of valid reasons. The two most important things when Obama got into office where the war and the economy, he hasn't helped either situation unless trading one war for another is progress. And the economic problems are just as bad.
<Obama also got elected by doing the opposite of what Andrew's suggesting, btw. >
Um, Obama came up after WHICH president? WHO was the nominee? Pretty much ANY Dem would have won over that shitty ticket, and it just so happened that we had a great candidate. Then, what happened was that Obama learned the realities of governing form the Oval Office, and his lifetime's worth of Leftist actions he learned were not going to work in the real world, just as Clinton figured that out during his first term, too.
At this point, after so much attack from the left by the Far-Lefties, the White House I am sure finds them irrelevant. Why bother even TALKING to them? Who to talk to? Each Far-Leftie has their own fantasyland issues for which they are intractable.
<the major point is that he pushed the democrats further to the right. i'm not entirely sure how that benefits anybody except the center-right.>
Or, his own ability to have a second term, instead of a Romney first term. Which one is better? If he had governed from the Left as you want him to do, he'd alienate much of the middle 10% who pick the president. He knew that. It's not a tough concept to understand.
<Obama's one significant accomplishment was health care and in my opinion it is doomed to fail for lots of valid reasons. The two most important things when Obama got into office where the war and the economy, he hasn't helped either situation unless trading one war for another is progress. And the economic problems are just as bad.>
We'll see about health care, and he's HELPED the economy in a very difficult climate, with a congress that'd rather see America fail than Obama succeed. And, Afghanistan was necessary. And, he's taking us out of it, so I don't even know if you have thought through your opinion on this one.
you're missing the point. when you move to the right every election and compromise on every single issue, eventually you move so far to the right, that sensible progressive, leftist positions become lumped in with those on the "loony left".
when you can be defined as to the RIGHT of moderate republicans like rockefeller, nixon, and eisenhower, among others, that is a problem. triangulating just makes things worse for the left, meaning the whole left, not just the "loony left".
"We'll see about health care, and he's HELPED the economy in a very difficult climate, with a congress that'd rather see America fail than Obama succeed. And, Afghanistan was necessary. And, he's taking us out of it, so I don't even know if you have thought through your opinion on this one."
How was his 100,000 troop surge in Afganistan necessary? Besides some fudged numbers, there is no evidence the economy has gotten better. All you have to do is look around the downtown area of your city for a few days and you'll start to doubt the stated unemployment numbers, for example, are anywhere close to being true. I don't know how anyone can logically claim that he has helped the economy in any true and meaningful way besides printing money and increasing debt.
"Pretty much ANY Dem would have won over that shitty ticket, and it just so happened that we had a great candidate. Then, what happened was that Obama learned the realities of governing form the Oval Office, and his lifetime's worth of Leftist actions he learned were not going to work in the real world, just as Clinton figured that out during his first term, too. "
I agree that Obama, with only a short time as a senator, being his only real experience in national politics, wasn't fully prepared for the cutthroat partisan politics to be expected once in the Oval Office and that is reflected in his results.
<when you move to the right every election and compromise on every single issue, eventually you move so far to the right, that sensible progressive, leftist positions become lumped in with those on the "loony left".>
I have a few issues with that point.
1) He has not moved "to the right every election and compromise on every single issue". That's an overstatement, to say the least.
whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
2) What I define as the "loony left" are people who are so myopic about their pet issues that they are unable to understand that when they hurt Obama, they can and do hurt THEIR OWN CAUSES. Sure, Obama ain't perfect, but he sure is better than Romney. And, also as I have stated so many times, when you make yourself irrelevant to the powers, they they...wait for it...ignore you. If the millions of "loony lefties" formed their own internal party like the tea baggers, they'd have a seat at the table. It's immaturity to just make demands with no hope for any positive resolution. It's plain stupid.
<when you can be defined as to the RIGHT of moderate republicans like rockefeller, nixon, and eisenhower, among others, that is a problem.>
Only if you don't think through your point. What was our environment 30/40 years ago has no relevancy any longer. The "problem" is that people will dig their heels in the ground and say, "when you can be defined as to the RIGHT of moderate republicans like rockefeller, nixon, and eisenhower, among others, that is a problem.", because now, you have created a situation where if someone agrees with Obama or plays along with Obama, they now are, "to the RIGHT of moderate republicans like rockefeller, nixon, and eisenhower, among others,...", which is a problem, because you have cowed them into thinking that they can't move in that direction - when they NEED to move into that direction.
Again, Gerbil - IF the "loony Left" had chosen to work WITH Obama, they would have a seat at the table, and Obama would HAVE to deal with them. But, as it stands now, Obama knows that he can and must ignore them, and who then does he have to deal with? Whomever will HELP him.
What have YOU done to HELP him? Nothing? Why should he listen to you? He needs to get elected, not make friends of gain the respect of the "loony Left" instead of getting elected again.
<How was his 100,000 troop surge in Afganistan necessary?>
Marc, I am ont going to get into the minutia of the buildup...again. It WAS necessary. And, as a person who has a friend fighting there TODAY, it's not like I'm making an opinion out of thin air without consideration of the realities of the situation - his roomie was killed four days ago.
It WAS necessary, it was the smart & right thing to do, it helped and if we could go back in time, I'd suggest that he do it again.
<Besides some fudged numbers, there is no evidence the economy has gotten better.>
True, but then...one just has to extrapolate what would have happened WITHOUT that money. Sure, there's no way to PROVE a negative, and that only helps people like you with your argument, right? But, any half-educated person on this issue knows that without the stimulus, the job losses would have increased, whole industries would have been decimated which would have been the domino effect on our economy. Instead, slight job growth happened, which as been the base for a future growth, as opposed to just more destructive forces at work.
<All you have to do is look around the downtown area of your city for a few days and you'll start to doubt the stated unemployment numbers, for example, are anywhere close to being true.>
Lucky for me - but unlucky for reality - I am unswayed by just some layman's cause & effect argument. Plus, it's a strawman. No one ever said that it was GOOD. Just that it got BETTER, because of the stimulus.
<I don't know how anyone can logically claim that he has helped the economy in any true and meaningful way besides printing money and increasing debt.>
Have you ever taken more than just a 101 level economics course? Ever read economic theory?
<He has not moved "to the right every election and compromise on every single issue".>
i'm talking about the democratic party in general. the democrats are complicit with republicans in the destruction of the new deal and the great society. are they as much to blame as republicans? probably not, but that doesn't mean they escape criticism or responsibility. it's a two-party system and last i checked, they controlled congress for much of the past 30 years. i don't see the new deal or the great society expanding. i see it contracting.
<Again, Gerbil - IF the "loony Left" had chosen to work WITH Obama, they would have a seat at the table, and Obama would HAVE to deal with them. But, as it stands now, Obama knows that he can and must ignore them, and who then does he have to deal with? Whomever will HELP him.>
oh, that's a bunch of bullshit. from the beginning of his term, obama has turned precipitously towards the center and almost completely shunned the left. see: lukewarm support for single-payer, lukewarm support for gay rights, continuation of much of bush's foreign policy, extreme ramping up of deportations, etc. he's a center-right president in the mold of clinton. what happened to him from the time he ran for senate in 2004? i don't know, but it's a disappointment to someone who voted for him in 2004 as a senator.
<What have YOU done to HELP him? Nothing?>
i voted for him as a senator. i voted for him as a presidential candidate. there's not much else more important than that to help a candidate.
<oh, that's a bunch of bullshit. from the beginning of his term, obama has turned precipitously towards the center and almost completely shunned the left>
Gerbil, it's not like the far-Left has DURING Obama's term become what they are. They're a known quality. Obama knew that the far-Left is irrelevant and worse than unhelpful. Gerbil, it's not like Obama, "from the beginning of his term" had any illusions that the far-Left was unnecessary & a blockade to ANY progress of ANY kind.
No, he knew that they'd be as irrelevant as they have proven to be. No one could have been surprised by this reality.
<see: lukewarm support for single-payer>
The REALITY is there's too much going against it, so, because he's an incrementalist, he did what he knew that he COULD do, and he was right.
<ukewarm support for gay rights>
Sorry, bigots vote, too, you know. While the nation in general is for equality, in many swing states - you know, the states that ACTUALLY elect the president - it's the bigots that one needs to win the office.
<continuation of much of bush's foreign policy>
As if it's all wrong. He got us out of Iraq, he's getting us out of Afghanistan, and he's rightfully chasing the people that would bring back terrorism to our shores. OK - you think that we should just allow them free rein? Or, do we find them and kill them? I say kill them.
<extreme ramping up of deportations, etc.>
Um...you mean illegal aliens? That's bad because...?
<there's not much else more important than that to help a candidate.>
You can help by not harming.
<he's an incrementalist>
yes we can....unless we can't.
<You can help by not harming.>
so, basically, i just bite my tongue and pretend that everything obama does has turned shit to gold, or is it diamonds?
<Sorry, bigots vote, too, you know.....in many swing states>
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...og.html
<free reign>
www.youtube.com/watch
<so, basically, i just bite my tongue and pretend that everything obama does has turned shit to gold, or is it diamonds?>
Why do you have to get puerile about this? No, you don't have to "pretend that everything obama does has turned shit to gold, or is it diamonds". You just should be aware of the possible effects of your actions as you go day to day in your real world, and understand that if you talk like this person to person in your real life, and if you touch enough people and they then; as an effect of your interactions, affect the voting public... You have done YOURSELF and the rest of the world damage.
Yes. Bite your tongue. Make the adult decision to take the most positive path. Don't harm yourself and the rest of us to satisfy your need to express your dissatisfaction in a manner which could harm his electability.
Or, just hope that you have no effective sphere of influence & whine, whittle & complain all that you like, all the while understand that you and everyone like you are sequestering yourselves into a camp of those which will continue to be ignored.
As for your elo'rific post 'proving' your own in-set opinion, maybe that guy is right. Maybe not. If he's wrong, he'll say, 'Oops', while Obama is planning for retirement and the rest of us are planning for an accelerated pace to the end of America.
A goal of only proving oneself right only proves oneself to be an idiot.
"No, you don't have to "pretend that everything obama does has turned shit to gold, or is it diamonds".
Yes. Bite your tongue. Make the adult decision to take the most positive path. Don't harm yourself and the rest of us to satisfy your need to express your dissatisfaction in a manner which could harm his electability."
In other words, don't tell anyone that Obama can not turn shit into gold.
<Yes. Bite your tongue. Make the adult decision to take the most positive path. Don't harm yourself and the rest of us to satisfy your need to express your dissatisfaction in a manner which could harm his electability.>
what is this new age bullshit? "the most positive path". for the record, i'm not advocating against voting for obama. all i'm doing is informing whoever reads this lonely corner of a tribe that if they vote for obama, this is what they're getting. i'm not out in the streets yelling, "vote for willard!" that's not the point here.
www.salon.com/2012/07/20/...ore_auroras/
If we faced any kind of real terrorist threat, incidents like the Aurora shooting (except with a political motive) would happen all the time, since, again, there’s nothing that can be done to stop them. That they don’t illustrates the extent to which “terrorism” is a politically useful bogeyman, deployed by the national security state for reasons that have almost nothing to with actual considerations of public safety and everything to do with cultivating a sufficiently fearful and docile populace.
<In other words, don't tell anyone that Obama can not turn shit into gold.>
Yes. It seems a reasonable suggestion to provide people with reality.
<for the record, i'm not advocating against voting for obama.>
Gerbil, I am not putting you in a position to have to step back from your beliefs. I know that you are not advocating against Obama. I am saying that there are many people who are dissatisfied with Obama (as am I) who may; as an effect of a realistic expression of his failures, choose to not get out of the house and vote for Obama because of such actions. And, the more people that choose to speak ill of him will have a larger & larger footprint.
<i'm not out in the streets yelling, "vote for willard!" that's not the point here.>
Yet, I wonder if you have these same conversations at work, at y'r local bar or cafe or any other place you opine online. That's all.
Dude, you surely do not have to defend yourself & y'r actions from me. I'm just making a suggestion.
