Dear Mr President: I'll believe you

[cali]

about how much you care about the welfare of the middle class (hey, how about the working poor?) when you let us know what's in the TPP and why you're letting lobbyists and corporate reps craft it, and when you drop trying to move fast track through the Congress.

I'll believe you when the Justice Dept goes after private prison corporations which are grossly violating civil rights.

I'll believe you when stop busting pot dispensary owners.

I'll believe you when you stop enabling corporate abuses.

I'll believe you when your DoJ actually goes after some of those "too big to prosecute" banks.

Until then? Not so much.

[bigwillq]

1. K and R

[Dawgs]

2. Your list is way too short.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

40. x2

[wildbilln864]

196. x3! eom

[ProSense]

3. What you're saying is that you never believed him, right? n/t

[cali]

5. nope. wrong again. reliably, wonderfully wrong.

I believed him through most of his first term.

[ProSense]

9. So you

"I believed him through most of his first term. "

...believed he did these things during "his first term."

I'll believe you when the Justice Dept goes after private prison corporations which are grossly violating civil rights.

I'll believe you when stop busting pot dispensary owners.

I'll believe you when you stop enabling corporate abuses.

I'll believe you when your DoJ actually goes after some of those "too big to prosecute" banks.

Or are you saying that these are new goal posts?

[cali]

11. oh dear, you are a little confused. try reading for comprehension, pro

[AnotherMcIntosh]

42. Is that good advice? That will slow things down.

[WCLinolVir]

221. Where is that in the post?

"I believed him through most of his first term. "

...believed he did these things during "his first term."
I see that you have embellished and created a false context. I also see through other posts that you have a tendency to do this.

[RobertEarl]

10. That was a personal attack on you, cali

How PS gets away with that is weird. No one here for all these years is against Obama. We all have supported him whenever he has done the right thing and held his feet to the fire when he has not.

PS needs to apologize to you. But don't hold your breath.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. cali is the one who constantly engages in personal attacks

Just take a look at that transparency page!

Holy...

[cali]

19. yes, and take a look at the innocuous posts hidden

there's a certain number of people who are trying to get me kicked off du.

how do I know that? They've said so as jurors.

and look at it this way: I also get a lot of ops sent to the top of the greatest page.

And sorry pro has engaged in personal attacks just plenty, dearie.

[scheming daemons]

22. Asking you a question is not a personal attack... sensitive much?

[11 Bravo]

182. Uh oh, you've been "dearied"! "Sweetie" and "Honey" can't be far behind.

Sure it's condescending passive-aggressive bullshit, but that's just the way some people roll.

[Number23]

199. "I also get a lot of ops sent to the top of the greatest page."

Wow. As if cutting and pasting the previous 26 OPs that got you lots of recs is all that hard.

I don't normally even post stuff like this to people. But that absurd little self-pat on the back that a web site full of fringers "really likes me!!" was just a bit too hard to resist.

[sheshe2]

34. ...

Thanks for the tip Cali_Democrat~

[jtuck004]

39. Just because a jury votes doesn't mean justice was the outcome. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

44. Forget about the jury and just read some of those hidden posts

The nastiness directed at so many people is very evident.

[jtuck004]

184. Well, the jury is how posts get "hidden", and thus a transparency page is built.

So one can't ignore it.

Sorry it took so long to answer, had to run to the farmer's market, and then take a big larry summers. I feel better now.

I read through what you pointed me to, and see a lot of passion. Don't see what you are talking about, but then what I see as "nastiness" is more along the lines of paying $85 billion a month to rich bankers which supports the assets of people like Mi$$ RobMe while leaving 50 million people to languish on food stamps, people in government profiting from student loans without throwing up, bombing innocent children and families in Afghanistan or Pakistan under a lame-ass excuse that killing 2 year old kids is necessary to keep us safe, or snooping on innocent people while real bombers kill and maim innocent people and pretending they are doing something necessary. So I tire of people playing moral majority just because they are disagreed with, because in the larger scheme of things, they are just not that important.

Then again, I come from a time when someone wasn't harassed as a pony lover for expecting more out of people who pretend to be working against injustice, when the corporate lobbyists didn't seem to own so much of what, in a just world, would be two opposing views.

Maybe our viewpoints are different, and I bet we can both live with that.

[malokvale77]

78. I've been seeing a lot of that...

nationwide and on DU.

[Fuddnik]

41. For years she was one of his most ardent supporters.

Her eyes opened to what a lot of us saw earlier.

[Blue_In_AK]

236. Indeed.

I commented on that below.

[cate94]

228. I looked at that transparency page

Guess what I saw?

"Percentage of posts hidden: 0.33% "

Holy what? Holy not a whole lot of anything?

[ProSense]

13. Asking a question is a "personal attack"?

Too funny.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. Yes, a snarky, insincere rude passive aggressive attack in the form of a question.

To make a personal attack is one thing, to refuse to own your actions is another, to respond with dismissive emoticons is very much the Third Way.

[ProSense]

87. What silliness. n/t

[YoungDemCA]

214. Thanks for proving Bluenorthwest's point

nt

[Mojorabbit]

233. I agree. nt

[malokvale77]

30. I've noticed...

certain members on here have carte blanche to attack other members.

It's an exclusive cabal. Thanks for pointing that out.

[quinnox]

50. not really, if you see any personal attacks they can be alerted on

and they will be hidden sometimes. I have noticed some of these folks doing these attacks have started getting hidden posts recently, and for good reason. Don't be shy about alerting on personal attacks if you see them.

[malokvale77]

71. I'll keep that in mind...

I've had a few attacks against me, simply by asking questions or asking for clarifications on posts.

I'm the enemy for having a functioning brain.

[quinnox]

79. yup, don't put up with it and let it slide

and if you alert and its not hidden due to a bad jury, then there are usually other posts these rude folks usually make that can be alerted on, often in the same thread. They don't know when to quit and are encouraged when they face no consequences for their anti-social behavior.

[Egalitarian Thug]

178. Treasure her. Few things in life are so consistent. n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

235. I seem to recall when you were a big Obama booster

several years ago, to the point of kind of annoying me since I didn't share your faith.

[leftstreet]

6. I never did

Lots of people probably didn't, but voted for him anyway

So what?

[EOTE]

37. LOL. You are just too precious!

You never liked Obama anyway! Hmmph! This place just wouldn't be the same without the infantile Obama worship.

[lark]

145. Obamabots

have proliferated on this board and are well represented by some frequent posters. They're the ones that hate Snowden and consider him a traitor for telling the truth about government lies. They think that the chained cpi proposal never happened because Obama certainly would never cut benefits for elderly retirees and that the fact that this proposal was included in writing in the budget Obama designed is just a typo.

[malaise]

219. Well this is still Democratic Underground when last I checked n/t

[yeoman6987]

226. Well this is still Democratic Underground when last I checked

K&T

[bvar22]

106. Cali was a strong defender & supporter of President Obama during his 1st term.

Its in the archives.
You can go see for yourself.

---bvar22
cursed with a good memory

[ProSense]

126. OK,

"Cali was a strong defender & supporter of President Obama during his 1st term."

...criticism is criticism, but don't pretend it's the same as being a "strong defender & supporter"

Obama has failed on healthcare reform.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x45860

FEMA Failing again, and where's Obama?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4950261

Of course dems could lose in November
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002971832

[pocoloco]

223. Quick response!

"word salad men" got here quick!!

[quinnox]

4. to sum up - I'll believe him when he starts acting like a Democrat

I would add.....when he starts phasing out the drone killings (its shameful Mr. President)
.

[scheming daemons]

21. Drones are simply a tool... would you feel better if it was Tomahawk missiles?

Or Delta teams?

Or B1 Bombers?



There's nothing shameful about the "tool" that is used, other than it puts ZERO American military at risk, which I am sure doesn't sit well with you.

[hobbit709]

23. What's the difference on the receiving end?

[scheming daemons]

36. There is none... that's my point.

Bellyaching about "drones" is silly.

Being against the policy or for it matters... but people talking about "drones" like they're some evil thing is silly.



Drones are a means to an end. You're either for that "end" or you're not. Whether Drones are the tool used or not is irrelevant.

[morningfog]

53. There is a difference, though.

And there is nothing silly about it. If drones were not at Obama's disposal, would he be sending piloted bombers on regular and routine missions into as many as half a dozen countries? No, of course not. The problem with drones is that they are acts of war that aren't discussed as acts of war.

For the record, I do not support the end, either.

[lark]

148. Lots of difference.

A lot more innocent civilians are killed by drones than by missiles.

[Maedhros]

25. Why present a false choice?

We don't need to be killing people in Pakistan or Yemen or Afghanistan or anywhere else, with drones or bombers or special ops teams. Doing so does nothing to make us safer.

[Marr]

26. You're right-- it isn't the tool. It's the administration's claims to a right to assassinate

US citizens abroad with no legal review.

[quinnox]

28. well, to me you are sounding like Dick Cheney with this

Killing innocent people and their babies is wrong, and these drone strikes have done a lot of that. You know, those brown babies are just as important and worthy as any of our white ones here in the USA.

[malokvale77]

47. My grandson...

who happens to be in the military, disagrees with that sentiment. Drones are seen as sinister and don't do anything to win hearts and minds. Americans are now considered suspect, now more than ever.

[morningfog]

49. How about none of the above? The waronterra is neagtive feedback loop.

We keep it going to keep it going. End it.

[zeemike]

125. No that is what is shamefull about it.

that there is no risk to us.
It makes it so much easier to pull the trigger...just like Zimmerman.

[rhett o rick]

158. Your post isnt even rational. You imply that the tool isnt shameful for the reason that it doesnt

put American military personnel at risk. Is that the only criteria? Who gets killed doesnt enter into the shameful criteria? So it's not shameful when children die at the hands of drones because American military werent at risk. That's a pretty sick criteria.

Also, to imply that anyone posting here in DU would want American military personnel "at risk" is just plain ugly and divisive.

[L0oniX]

191. Dead children don't count. Got it. n/t

[tavalon]

215. It's not an either/or for me, it's an all

I would like to see weapons of that sort and the huge people machine that run them become a thing of the past.

[sabrina 1]

229. What has that got to do with drones being used in countries we are not at war with?

By that standard, anyone can drone strike any country now, right? Supposing someone adopts this policy somewhere else and sends a drone our way? And why shouldn't they, if they feel they are 'threatened' by someone in this country?

Is it the policy you are supporting, or just when we do it? Is it Bush's 'we are at war with the world and every country is a legitimate target' you are supporting or just when our team does it?

Airc, Democrats opposed fiercely, Bush's claim that we could attack any country on the planet if we wanted to because '9/11, 9/11'. When did Democrats change their minds about that?

[geek tragedy]

7. Whether Obama is sincere isn't the point, it's whether we can get the

public to adopt those ideas as the way we need to go.

[ProSense]

18. Exactly, and

"Whether Obama is sincere isn't the point, it's whether we can get the public to adopt those ideas as the way we need to go."

...put pressure on Republicans to end their obstruction.

Boehner: Obama’s Speech ‘An Easter Egg With No Candy In It’...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023331197

[SunSeeker]

32. Putting pressure on Republicans involves actual work...

Writing your representatives, writing letters to the editor decrying GOP obstruction, showing up at rallies to support these economic initiatives, and of course voting all involve some effort.

But apparently that is too much to ask. It seems all some folks can offer is snarky comments against the President's proposals on a discussion board.

[Demit]

75. That's what discussion boards are for, comments.

I'm pretty sure you can't write your representatives, write letters to editors, go to rallies or of course vote on discussion boards. Maybe that's why it seems that you're only seeing comments on this discussion board.

I hope my pointing that out has been of some help to you.

[SunSeeker]

93. Yes, I can and I do. Do you? nt

[Demit]

105. I write letters on paper, not on discussion boards. I go to rallies in person, not on

discussion boards. On discussion boards I make comments. Because that's what discussion boards are for. Ninny. Try reading for sense next time.

[SunSeeker]

114. Good for you. We should do all of the above.

That was my point. That just sitting on a message board making snarky comments isn't going to further the President's economic proposals.

Calling a DUer names and insulting them does not serve any purpose and is a TOS violation. But I am sure you knew that.

[Demit]

163. And my point was that you are assuming something you can't know.

People make comments on discussion boards BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE FOR. You can't possibly know that they are not being activists away from DU. But you were assuming it.

And if you want to alert on me for calling you a ninny, be my guest.

[SunSeeker]

175. So you are suggesting that all the posters here are also fighting for the Dem agenda?

I said SOME not all. Some people only seem to know how to complain on internet boards. How is that a contoversial statement? If everyone who whines about Obama on this board also sent a letter to the editor, called their representative and went out to rallies to support the Dem's agenda, we would have a very different political climate.

I am not saying people shouldn't make comments on discussion boards. I am saying that it is a problem if that is all they do. I come here for ideas, not snark. I come here to be among fellow Democrats, not to have silly insults hurled at me.

[lark]

149. Hi SunSeeker

I think you are assuming too much. Just because we write on message boards doesn't mean that we aren't active in other ways. I know a good number go to marches (pictures posted), sign petitions, write letters, call, donate and work for and donate to campaigns they endorse. I, certainly do all of these and am sure others do as well.

[SunSeeker]

151. Good! I said some, not all.

I just think that hyperbolic snark aimed at the President serves no constructive purpose, not if you're a progressive anyway.

[enlightenment]

164. Shifting the goal posts a tad, aren't you?

First you make the assumption that people who make "snarky comments" couldn't possibly be writing letters, attending rallies, etc, etc.

Apparently they don't even vote.

When it is pointed out to you that posting on a discussion board has nothing to do with those activities, you shift your argument to suggesting that people who make snarky comments aren't progressives.

Which is, actually, a violation of the community standards. But I bet you know that.

[SunSeeker]

168. You are putting words in my mouth.

I did not say what you are accusing me of.

I don't see what constructive purpose inventing an argument with me serves.

[enlightenment]

172. You're funny.

Thanks for the chuckle.

[sabrina 1]

230. Sometimes happily, Republicans find they are on the same page as Democrats, such as

recently, yesterday in fact, when a bi-partisan bill was presented to Congress to end the mass surveillance, collection and storing of data. Finally we got what we wanted re Bush's 'security' policies, both parties on the same page at last.

But what happened? Democrats all of a sudden opposed that small step towards ending some of Bush's policies.

So now, what do we do? We wrote, we emailed, we called, we went to rallies, we voted to oust the Bush 'security' supporters and finally we got what we wanted after ten long years, Republicans finally seeing things our way. And Democrats cost us that one small step.

So what do you propose now that it appears Repubs are finally willing to help end Bush policies, but Dems are defending them, with their votes??

They sure know how we feel, I don't know about you but most Democrats I know have never stopped calling, writing, going to rallies, emailing their Dem Reps but all for what in the end? So what now?

[SunSeeker]

231. OFFS, Dems are not defending Bush policies. Enough with the hyperbole.

All you want to talk about is the NSA. How about middle class jobs? That is what voters care about. And no, Dems are not in the streets demanding a raise in the minimum wage, but they should be.

[leftstreet]

8. DURec

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. I believed him when he said that he was going to escalate the lost war in Afghnistan.

Up until then I was going to hold my nose. After that gem of a campaign promise, I decided to give my nose a rest..

[truebluegreen]

15. He was called a "spokesperson" for corporatists in an earlier thread...

I'm beginning to think of him as a "spokesmodel".

[michigandem58]

16. I'm sure he's concerned

n/t

[Duer 157099]

17. sort of the point no? n/t

[scheming daemons]

20. I'm sure he's concerned about what a random DU bellyacher believes....

Obama has been better for this country than any President in 40 years.

Deep down, you know it... but you continue to bellyache.

Obama would be best served by ignoring "Democrats" like you.

[cali]

31. No, I don't know it. I think he's better than either of the bushes

and Reagan, but I don't think he's any better than Clinton.

And really, that's a pretty low bar.

[HumansAndResources]

197. President NAFTA - a Very Low Bar

Remember, "Only Nixon could go to China" (to agree to jointly-support Pol Pot, etc)? Well, only a Democrat could get away with Destroying our Middle Class via horrible trade policies and deregulation - the Transnational-Corporations' stated-agenda. That's why they created and funded the DLC and made Mr. Clinton it's first director (when he was still Gov of AK) - wolf in sheep's clothing. "Left Cover" is the phrase.

I put the 'good president' mark back with Kennedy - but only after he "woke up" and started to dismantle the CIA, undo the Federal Reserve's monopoly on US-Currency, and END the War in Vietnam. Too bad that period was so short, and that all those policies were immediately reversed by Johnson.

Still, through the Carter presidency, at least Democratic presidents, and the party in general, supported American Workers - we were the 'base' back then, and many of us well-paid. "Service" workers at Wal Mart flipping burgers don't have the same 'pull' in DC, it seems.

[LondonReign2]

45. "Obama would be best served by ignoring "Democrats" like you."

Hasn't he already been doing that?

[cadaverdog]

54. Amen, brother

[Drunken Irishman]

63. Yup. And it got him reelected...

If Obama had listened to DU in 2012, he would've lost to Romney.

You guys don't know as much as you think you do.

[Dawgs]

86. Huh? Almost all of DU supported Obama in 2012.

Including many of us that are disappointed in him.

[Andy823]

171. And yet

So many here are ready to throw him under the bus after 6 months of his second term, and others are trying to encourage people to stay home next year and not vote, although I will admit a whole lot of those people are right wing trolls and Paulbots!

What so many hear seem to forget is that the president is not running again, and next year we need to really work on getting the states we lost in 2010, another year when so many wanted to teach Obama a lesson so they stayed home, back from the republicans that won because the right wing fear and smear machine used the same tactics they are using now. I don't think anyone, real democrats that is, want to see more states being controlled by republicans. They can look at Wisconsin, Maine, Florida, and the others republicans now control, and see just how bad that would be.

I really think that if all true democrats, liberals, and progressives need to understand that there is a lot of time left in Obama's second term, and he really has accomplished a lot, not matter what the trolls say, in his first term. Letting republicans stay in control of the House, and even worse taking control of the Senate also, would be a disaster for this country, and for every man, women and child in this country. Letting republicans take control of your state would be even worse. Be pissed if you want, but don't let that stop you from doing what needs to be done, and sending the republicans a message that they can't stop us from voting them out of office!

[roody]

211. I don't believe that any true DUers

encourage anyone not to vote.

[Capt. Obvious]

227. "So many here are ready to throw him under the bus after 6 months of his second term"

He's barely had time to pick out the drapes.

[malokvale77]

181. Yes, I was one of them...

My first OP was to celebrate Obama's election on my birthday. There has been little to celebrate since then.

Too little yeah.

Too much WTF.

[Dawgs]

189. Same here. n/t

[lark]

150. Where's that sharp left turn you expected?

He still governs as a Republican when there is no need to at all - except that he is that person and the campaigner is a false front. Spokesmodel indeed - for the 1% most of the time.

[Drunken Irishman]

152. I never expected a 'sharp left turn'...

[lark]

153. So you were OK all along with him governing from the right?

[Drunken Irishman]

156. I'm okay with the way he's governing.

[zeemike]

137. Yes and the clue should have been

When his spokesperson told the "professional left" to STFU.

[woo me with science]

46. Yeah, all those people out in the country are random bellyachers.

That certainly seems to be the attitude from the party and the administration.

Thanks for crystallizing the contempt so well.

[The Straight Story]

99. What one calls a random DU'er I call a voter

And I get why he might not care about what they have to say.

The little people vs royalty I guess.

I bet he cares what one voter has to say, the CEO of Chase. And am guessing some would care more about that one wealthy person than a thousand not so wealthy ones.

[malokvale77]

117. Yes...

I'm exactly one voter. I contribute at the polls. I have no money for the coffers. I don't matter, until I cast my vote.

[MineralMan]

24. Right on cue.

Thanks so much...

[cali]

33. you are cordially welcome.

I mean I have so much to learn from a great democrat like you with your sterling history.

[beemer27]

27. K&R

[woo me with science]

29. [phone]

http://m.

[whatchamacallit]

82. Haha... awesome!

[midnight]

224. Exactly.... show me the jobs-don't just talk about some notion of people needing them to buy food

shelter, health care, etc....

[Drunken Irishman]

35. I'm sure he'll be devastated to learn that cali doesn't believe in him...

Hell, cali, you haven't believed in him in a long time. How many times during the election last year did you have to crawl out of your hole to question whether he could even win reelection?

[woo me with science]

43. I agree with your sarcastic observation.

The administration's attitude toward Cali, and millions of us, appears to be exactly as you describe.

The utter contempt and disregard by this administration for what people out in the country actually want and need and think is pretty damned obvious at this point.

[Drunken Irishman]

52. With how DU has acted to the President since Day One, I'd hold most of 'em in contempt too...

DU is so isolated from reality that it's no better, at times, than the raving assholes at freerepublic. In fact, I'd wager both sides are cut from the same cloth. The irony is that they smugly look at themselves as inferior to the conservative crackpots but forget they're just as extreme and pathetic as their enemies.

[LondonReign2]

65. YOU NEVER LOVED HIM!

[treestar]

91. What does that mean exactly?

That some people don't want to admit, on DemocraticUnderground, that they do not support a Democratic President. Why don't you come out and admit it?

[woo me with science]

69. Awww.

I forgot. Obama, not the millions who have been and will be impoverished, is the *real* victim here.

How "raving assholeish," "smug," "conservative crackpot-ty," "extreme," and "pathetic," to call attention to the chasm between his rhetoric and his actual policies.

[Drunken Irishman]

72. Aww is right...

Who we kidding? Most here don't give two shits about the impoverished. It's just a quick tool to hit Obama over the head with. Well, okay, you're quick to point to what Obama isn't doing to fix the issue. Well, what the hell are you doing to fix it? Have you gotten off your ass today to help your community out? Are you working on a soup kitchen and fundraising and trying to advocate for those impoverished?

Because, whether you want to believe it or not, just sitting on your ass and pounding away on the keyboards is not going to lift someone out of poverty. lol

[malokvale77]

98. I'm impoverished...

I do give "two shits". I shelter them and feed them. I am one of them.

What do you do?

[Drunken Irishman]

101. Probably more than those who spend every waking hour posting on DU.

[malokvale77]

128. Who are you referring to?

[Drunken Irishman]

129. They know.

[woo me with science]

140. You said you know what I do.

You implied you know what everyone here does. You know enough about all of us to proclaim confidently that *most of us* are here just for political rhetorical games, yukking it up scoring points against Obama, and don't really care about poor people.

Certainly nobody here could actually care about those devastated by these predatory policies, or even even *be* one of the poor. Those living from paycheck to paycheck now are only about 75 percent of workers in this country.

Your jaw-dropping assumptions about DUers say volumes about your own attitude and role here.

[Drunken Irishman]

142. It speaks volumes for a trend I've noticed here...

Which is sad. A lot of outage, but not a lot of action. It's been like this since I started posting. Easy to claim Obama does nothing to help the poor, except, you know, fighting for food stamps, healthcare, jobs and other important issues - but what have you done?

A armchair quarterback is always undefeated for a reason.

[woo me with science]

154. You've noticed that, have you?

What I've noticed is the pattern of smearing, speculative attacks on other DUers by those desperate to divert attention from the predatory policies that are driving millions into poverty and despair.

And what makes your attempt at the "keyboard commando" attack *particularly* hilarious is that you have nearly 4,000 more posts here than I do, and I've been here three years longer.

You go right ahead and post your resume. I think I'll move on, as your comments here have certainly driven home the main point here, which is the utter contempt of our Third Way administration and its mouthpieces toward the people who try to make their voices heard.

[Drunken Irishman]

155. The difference between you and I...

I don't spend every moment on DU attacking Obama for not doing enough. A lot of DUers do - they spend their days attacking him on every issue and that's the point you so daftly ignore. It's easy to criticize Obama for not doing enough, but again, what are you doing to make things better?

It's not about post counts - it's about the message. If your message is Obama is a failure and not doing this or that and you yourself haven't done jack shit, then the failure isn't Obama ... it's you.

[woo me with science]

166. No, that's not the difference.

It is demonstrably not the difference.

But it certainly reveals a special type of lens, and outlook, to conclude that defending Obama is the most relevant point here.

Goodbye, DrunkenIrishman.

[malokvale77]

173. I've certainly noticed it.

Last edited Wed Jul 24, 2013, 07:45 PM - Edit history (1)

"What I've noticed is the pattern of smearing, speculative attacks on other DUers by those desperate to divert attention from the predatory policies that are driving millions into poverty and despair."

DU=poor means stupid. WTF

[woo me with science]

107. Wow. THIS offensive approach again? Really?

Way to drive home the point about political posturing and lack of real empathy beyond the political gamesmanship. I've responded to variations on this mantra before, so forgive me if I cut and past and edit a previous response. Your little attack here is not original enough to warrant effort on a whole new post. It is, however, illustrative of the cynical, callous gamesmanship we face from the elite and their obedient mouthpieces, and, as such, is worth shaming publicly.

You wrote:

Most here don't give two shits about the impoverished. It's just a quick tool to hit Obama over the head with.

I guess it's a natural response, when your own primary mission is advocating for the interests of a political "team," to assume that anyone responding to you is also posting merely as part of an opposing "online group or team".....to assume that the horror and anger that people express to you over these needless assaults is just "team rhetoric" like your own and could not possibly be genuine or related to their own or other actual human lives in any way.

Most here don't give two shits about the impoverished. It's just a quick tool to hit Obama over the head with.

That's an astounding assertion...astoundingly revealing of the prism through which you view DU and your own and others' roles here. DU was a discussion board for human beings on the internet before the corporate defense talking points arrived. We are people, and the vast majority of us are not paid to be here. We are out here living the policies that you so blithely assume are just rhetorical games for us. Our lives, our families' lives, are being assaulted by the one percent and their politicians who apparently also see us as just some abstract advocacy group to be defeated with clever rhetoric.

You just drove home for all of DU the real problem here, more than any of us could have. You have no idea of anyone's lives here, but you assume they are just like you: typing as part of a political game. And that immediate, reflexive, dismissive attitude, so familiar from our government and our talking heads, is a huge part of why Americans are so mad as hell at what is happening to our country and our government and our media. It is all a game of Monopoly to the one percent. The propaganda is a game. The rhetoric is a game. And the voices of Americans trying desperately to be heard by the ones wielding the ax are dismissed as just talking point scrimmages to be managed and gleefully defeated with rhetoric.

I have written several times in recent months that the Third Way mask has come off to reveal what corporate-style empathy and morality and compassion really look like. Your posts here, and those by others in the mocking propaganda brigade, are a stunning Exhibit A.

[Drunken Irishman]

109. A lot of words...

Little evidence you've done anything to help the situation. Easy to lob bombs from the sidelines, eh?

Get out and do something and then we'll talk.

[woo me with science]

119. Do you like my outfit today? nt

[Drunken Irishman]

120. You've looked better.

[woo me with science]

121. No that was just the old cameras.

The new ones have cheaper lenses, obviously. There are drones to be purchased.

[Drunken Irishman]

127. I'm pretty sure it's the subject. Always easy blaming the cameras, tho!

[malokvale77]

134. You've given little evidence yourself.

[Drunken Irishman]

135. Well I'm not the one who constantly attacks Obama for doing nothing to help the situation.

[zeemike]

147. Now that was awsome...

[NorthCarolina]

190. I agree.

Liked it so much I read it twice just to make sure I didn't miss anything.

[bobduca]

198. this.

+11,111,111

[xiamiam]

88. du gave obama a lot of time.

hell, there are still people who refuse to acknowledge what a disappointment he has been. He got a pass for most of the first term. True, there were a few questioning him, like myself, but it was not a pleasant place to be for those of us whose eyes had been opened. I came here less and less after being addicted to the place during the Bush years. You can hold me in contempt for being critical of the president, but he deserves it. He is the greatest disappointment to me of any president that I voted for in 40 years. I accept responsibility for believing him during the campaign speeches. Damn, they were convincing..and he is charismatic and has a beautiful family. So what? The things that he has done as someone whom I believed in makes me sick. Kill list, drones on innocents, secrecy and trampling on the constitution and whistleblowers, and allowing wall st crimes to go unchecked. It is disgusting and embarrassing and humiliating.

[Drunken Irishman]

92. DU didn't give Obama a lot of time...

What are you, new? They were on his ass in early 2009 and have rode it ever since. The only time they let up was during the election because they were forced to by the rules.

[Logical]

111. Once he looked gullible as hell "reaching out" it went south. n-t

[Drunken Irishman]

115. Yes. How dare the President try to reach a consensus...

[Logical]

122. Yes, the first 5 times it was fine. Then you start looking stupid. n-t

[Drunken Irishman]

123. So stupid that it got him reelected...

It's like Obama just fell into a second term!

[Logical]

130. He did. Romney won it for us. n-t

[Drunken Irishman]

131. That's right...

Obama didn't do squat. That's the same rationale Donald Trump uses to explain away Obama's collegiate success.

[Logical]

110. And the "Obama is perfect" crowd is no better than the free republic! Nt

[Drunken Irishman]

118. LOL that makes no sense. Do they believe Obama is perfect at FR?

[Logical]

124. Same way they worshiped bush! n-t

[dennis4868]

169. +1000000000000000

[obxhead]

170. That sword cuts both ways

the way rabid supporters can't see ANY fault with Obama.

[dgibby]

174. And yet, you stay. Hmmm......n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

176. Well why give up?

Someone needs to keep this place in check. It's such an echo chamber here that I can't risk ya'll believing you're a majority opinion in the real world.

[malokvale77]

183. Who are you refering to?

Never mind, "They know".

If you're not willing to put out their names here, please PM me and let me know so I don't fall into their trap. Raving assholes scare the bejesus out of me.

[burnodo]

218. ahh, the universal "DU"

does that mean you and your friends aren't actually here?

[Progressive dog]

67. I voted for him even knowing how awful some thought he was.

After 4+ years, I still like him. I like what he stands for.
This is a majority rule country and the majority of the Democrats selected him to run in 2008. He won, he got re-elected, he had Republican opposition that Lost. He had Democratic opposition that Lost. He won, I figure that entitles him to more benefit of the doubt than I give to random leakers, political opponents, and their supporters.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. I'd just like to point out that cali is not writing about 'believing in him' which is

a strangely religious phrase, cali is speaking of believing what he says when his actions match his rhetoric. 'Believe in him' is for Santa Claus. So creepy to see that sort of faith community phraseology foisted as if it was reasonable language.
It is also interesting that one after another the centrists come out and insult cali as if that makes them correct or anything other than just rude, typically rude, but rude....

[LondonReign2]

56. Thanks a really interesting catch

Goes to the belief of the person, i.e., Cult of Personality vs. belief in the actions he takes.

[Drunken Irishman]

62. Believing in the President doesn't equate to a cult of personality...

But the fact some DUers continue to suggest that, without a hint of irony over the way they've elevated guys like Eric Snowden and Glenn Greenwald, is absolutely hilarious. Let's not kid ourselves - there are many extremist liberals who hold individuals in higher regard regardless of the actions they take - and it just ain't Obama supporters.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. I disagree.

The OP is about believing his words when compared to his actions, your reaction was to speak about 'believing in him' and then of course some comments about how other Democrats are not up to your standards, faith and the failure of sinners, a fully religious set of tropes. Does not belong in the politics of a democratic government. Taunts and words of devotion are not the makings of mature and ethical policy.

[Drunken Irishman]

74. The OP has constantly posted negative crap about Obama since the election...

So, the point still stands. Cali is not some rational person here just airing concerns. Cali spent all of 2012 questioning Obama on everything and then predicting he very well could lose reelection. In fact, I can't remember a positive post from cali and that includes during periods where Obama deserves praise (like last Friday, which, let's be honest, elicited some negative responses from DUers).

The problem isn't that some feel the need to hold him accountable or are want him to do more - the problem is that some are content with just posting nothing but HATE. It's always Obama 'needs to do this' instead of, 'how can we make sure Obama does this?' and it's tiring. It's exhausting. Does that make 'em haters? No - but it does make 'em negative and even if it's justified, can't some people take time out of their day to just stop with the constant attacking of the President?

[Bluenorthwest]

85. Is this Meta just for you? Since when did DU dedicate itself to personal attack?

The fact that you see sinners and they offend you does not matter to me a bit. You are in no way more entitled to your opinion or the expression of that opinion than cali or any other Democrat on this board. I do challenge the idea that you or anyone has any form of right to launch personal, venomous attacks on others because you do not agree with them. You use the word 'hate' as you centrists always do, like a nerf ball. You who have never faced actual hate nor stood up for those who do love to vomit forth that most intense of English words at the slightest offense to your precious opinions.
It gets old. Terms like 'hate' and 'believe in him' are all about emotion, nothing about reality based politics and they have no place in a civil society.

[Drunken Irishman]

95. So are terms like cultists...

Don't see you reaming the poster who called me one.

lol

[Bluenorthwest]

102. Am I your possesion? Your bodyguard? You can't stand up for yourself?

It's a cute tactic but you again did not respond to a word I said and instead whine again about how yet another sinner has offended you.

Edited to add that I just searched the page for the word 'cultist' and your use of the word is the only use of the word on the whole page. Meaning no one in this tread called you a cultist as you claimed.

[Drunken Irishman]

104. Are you cali's?

I haven't responded to a word of what you said because much of what you said is worthless to me.

[Bluenorthwest]

108. I don't care for those who rewrite what anyone says and then argue with it.

Your 'believe in him' comments got my attention because it was not what cali said and the choice of your words is so indicative of your thinking.
Your continued rudeness is also indicative of your thinking. Insults and emoticons, this is the sum total of what you have offered here.
And no one called you a cultist in this thread anyway. Just another dishonest whine about the sinners from the judge of all....

[Drunken Irishman]

113. Yeah they kinda did...

It's the same shit you people have been peddling at DU since 2008 - Obama supporters buy into the cult of personality. Well what the hell does that mean if it's not calling 'em cultists? Give me a fucking break. Stop with your bullshit. You've been just as insulting to me as I was in my original post to cali. Hypocrite.

[Demit]

100. So some people post nothing but hate, but that doesn't make them haters.

They're not haters, but they are negative. And even if they're justified in being negative, they still post too often, for your taste, and it exhausts you. Lol, do I have that right, person with over 24 thousand posts?

[Drunken Irishman]

103. You have that right...

[Drunken Irishman]

57. I don't know who this centrist is...

But let's get him!

Oh wait, you were implying I was the centrist because I called cali out. I get it. If you agree and support Obama, you're automatically a centrist. Okay.



Fuck. I didn't know you knew my political beliefs and could figure 'em out so easily.

What I do know is that cali has smugly written off Obama for over a year now, constantly posting negative shit after negative shit. I mean, who really gives a fuck if some unknown on some irrelevant message board believes Obama or not? I don't care if the freeps believe him and I really don't care if cali believes him, either.

[Bluenorthwest]

66. You were not criticized for supporting Obama, but for using the phrase 'you don't

believe in him' in response to a post about not seeing his words and actions matching up very well. 'Believing in him' is not about reason, it is not about specifics, not about policy and that is definitive of the 'centrists' because they abhor specifics and clear opinions that hinder their shifting centrist positioning.
The use of the term 'believe in him' is centrist, shallow, vapid and goes well with your use of emoticons and surly vulgarities directed at other Democrats.

[Drunken Irishman]

76. Then DU is centrist and shallow and vapid...

Because I see a lot of people who seem to believe in Eric Snowden and Glenn Greenwald.

[Bluenorthwest]

81. More faith based characterizations, you on what others 'seem to believe' is just

insults of a gossipy sort. You say you see people who seem to believe in things. Do you also see the Holy Virgin in your morning porridge?

[Drunken Irishman]

97. For someone who likes to rail against personal attacks, you really have no problem lobbing 'em.

What a fucking hypocrite.

[Bluenorthwest]

112. I'm talking about your words and ideas, not about you. That's the difference.

I'm saying you make faith based characterizations. Your rhetorical tactics are certainly open for criticism. That is not a personal attack.

[Drunken Irishman]

116. There is no difference...

Keep pretending. It's how DU lives nowadays.

[malokvale77]

186. There is a big difference.

I don't hate people. I hate bad ideas. Do you see the difference?

[sabrina 1]

237. They know it is about ideas, and they know that those who are upset with the president on

policy issues have every reason to, which is why they never discuss those issues, they attack those who will not allow blind loyalty to stop them from speaking their minds, which is what good citizens are supposed to do.

[woo me with science]

188. And your exposure of those rhetorical tactics...

Spot on.

[malokvale77]

89. Thank you

It feels a lot like being "beat to submission".

No thanks, I've been there.

[Bluenorthwest]

94. This thread has many recommends from readers, and a handful of dissenters whose

posts read like this:

You HATE him, you don't believe in him! Firedog Lake! Kucinich!

[zeemike]

161. You know what I hate about that?

I like that ROFL icon and now I am not sure I want to use it anymore...the meaning has been spoiled by using it as a passive aggressive attack.

[malokvale77]

187. I agree with you on that icon... (WARNING: run on sentence)

So I'm going to use it one more time as a passive aggressive attack on those that would use it as a passive aggressive attack on any one who doesn't agree with their bullshit.



OK, I used it a dozen times. So sue me.

[Drunken Irishman]

77. If we went by what DU thought, Dennis Kucinich would be president right now...

DU is not the real world. It's never been the real world.

[totodeinhere]

136. And if Dennis were president right now at least we would have somebody who would

not kiss Wall Street's ass and I have no doubt that he would have stopped NSA spying as one of his first executive orders after taking office.

[Drunken Irishman]

138. That's a mighty big 'if'...

[totodeinhere]

143. You're the one who broached the subject of his being president. n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

144. Yes...

And?

That's the point! Kucinich would never be elected president and yet, on DU, he could easily win an election (probably head-to-head against Obama). It shows just how detached DU is from reality. That's not a bad thing, per se, but to use DU as the voice of most America is a bit ridiculous.

[HumansAndResources]

203. Big Difference between "Would Be" and "Could Be"

"Would Be" - I assume this includes the fact that the media hollered "unelectable" over and over and over and over until it came true.

What if they had given Kucinich the same treatment they gave to Carter, or Clinton, or Obama - cover of Magazines and juicy anti-Corporate-Machine quotes in the headlines of the newspapers?

Americans don't like being subservient to corporate powers, and would gladly vote for anyone who opposes that power. Obama was elected (twice) by the "swing voters" for "seeming" to oppose it at least a bit more than the "other guy."

Kucinich certainly "Could Be" elected president if the Transnational-Corporate-owned media supported him. It is THAT which "isn't going to happen," so let us be very clear on the real "why" involved, in this analysis.

[Drunken Irishman]

205. He'd still lose.

[HumansAndResources]

209. Neither of us can Prove This Either Way ...

... by reconstructing history, but I hope we get the chance to test this in the future.

[Drunken Irishman]

212. I think we both have a pretty good idea...

Kucinich has some out-there positions. It's why Ron Paul will never sniff the presidency. Hell, just look at how far George McGovern got in the 70s and he was probably to the right of Kucinich on a whole host of issues.

[malokvale77]

165. And you would be right

[ProSense]

80. You really

"Look at the recs."

...can't tell much from "recs"

This thread got 100 recs (http://www.democraticunderground.com/100251866) and this one got 150 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/100219446), and then there was this (http://www.democraticunderground.com/100256245).


Obama won by a landslide.

BBI




(On edit: Oh, and welcome to DU)

[treestar]

90. +1

Plus I hate the personal lapdog attitude. Say and do what I want like a puppet, forget the other 307 million people. Only I matter. I despise that crap.

[malokvale77]

185. Who are the lapdogs here?

I really want to know.

[Enthusiast]

38. The K and the R.

Well said, cali!

[reformist2]

48. I'll believe him when he appoints Elizabeth Warren to head up a National Reconstruction Agency.

[truth2power]

55. K & R. More...

I'll believe you when you stop murdering other people's children with drones.

I'll believe you when you stop blabbering about transparency while trying to hide the U.S. Govt's war crimes.

[Arctic Dave]

58. Don't be a hater.

[quinnox]

68. +1000

will have to steal that.

[City Lights]

60. Well said!

[WillyT]

61. K & R !!!

[ProSense]

73. Clearly,

the President should stop giving speeches.

Issa: ‘ZERO #jobs Have Been Created From Obama’s Speeches’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023331792

[Howler]

83. Kick and recommend

Kick and recommend

[blue neen]

84. Well,

maybe I'll believe you when you stop using FireDogLake talking points.

Until then? Not so much.

[malokvale77]

167. FireDogLake is a link from DU

Inform the Admins. Put a stop to it now!

[great white snark]

96. The speech wasn't for people still needing to approve of him.

If it hasn't happened in six years, despite your hundreds of complaints, maybe he just can't give you what you need.

Just continue to sit things out and leave the hard work to us.

[DeSwiss]

206. Hard work!?!?!

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- Yeah capitulating to the Republicans is a really hot, tough, sweaty, and a thankless job! And all you get is an upper class income, perks and benefits for life and a lobbyists job making millions when you retire. If you retire. You don't have to anymore because the bribery can be made out in the open now.

You weak-kneed, ''sissy-Democrats'' demanding your rights and fairness and shit, needn't bother yourselves with the details of governance. Apparently you don't have the guts for making political-sausages. So just vote like we tell you and then go sit down and STFU!

Yeah tough.

Fucking tough.

Bullshit!

[MotherPetrie]

132. K&R. Ditto, plus l'm adding when he takes Chained CPI off the table.

[forestpath]

159. +1000 But I'm not holding my breath.

[polichick]

133. I can't help thinking that the president...

ANY president, is no longer the one in charge of most of these decisions - which is really scary and depressing, but seems about right at this point. It's as if Eisenhower's warnings have finally fully actualized.

[liberal N proud]

139. I guess DU has become a place to criticize Democrats now and not support them?

[malokvale77]

157. I guess you don't understand democracy.

We support government "of the People, by the People , for the People". It's not that hard.

[liberal N proud]

160. From the DU Terms of Service

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

I don't see how asking about the rules indicates that I don't understand democracy.

It's not that hard!

[malokvale77]

177. Mea Culpa

I didn't realize Democrats had moved so far from democracy.

[Throckmorton]

179. Who Knew that the TOS forbid speaking ill of democrats?

I guess I'm a left wing fringe element all by myself.

[malokvale77]

180. Not a an element by yourself.

Last edited Wed Jul 24, 2013, 08:37 PM - Edit history (1)

All my years voting the democratic ticket, and now I am not welcome.

I haven't changed, Democrats have changed.

I fight for the poor and the beleaguered. That is no longer in the Democratic platform. Sad, to say the least.

[matthews]

141. Agree, agree, agree. But I want rock solid confirmed by a

Notary proof first.

[malokvale77]

146. Well cali...

I've asked several posters on here, real questions, on some of these issues. I've got either snark or non answers. One or two have been informative.

Keep up the pressure.

PS: glad to see you mentioned the working poor. In another thread I thought you were being dismissive of us. We do vote, and on many issues.

Thanks for all you do.

[99th_Monkey]

162. I almost didn't read your OP, but glad I did

I wrongly assumed from the title that it was more fluff and flowers about how
we need to stand-by our "Democratic POTUS", right or wrong.

Once I read it, I was going "spot on!"

[JohnnyRingo]

192. The president saved my pension

As a GM retiree I was a month away from losing everything when he bucked the Republican establishment and bailed the company. There was no plan B for me.

Obama had my back then, now I have his. Your petty complaints mean nothing to me.

[questionseverything]

193. i supported the admin bailing out gm

but having every phone,text,private message,video chat recorded in case they decide they want to look at it somewhr down the road is not something a FREE people can stomach

is that something you consider a petty complaint?

[JohnnyRingo]

213. Tell Issa.

Last edited Thu Jul 25, 2013, 03:25 AM - Edit history (2)

He's been trying to get his hands on the communications between the administration and the UAW for five years. He and his Senate counterpart, Dan Burton, want to reverse the decision by GM to fund union pensions, but have been met with refusals since the beginning.

During the Clinton years, Republicans bombarded the White House with demands for documents and conversations to back up their crazy conspiracies. It was amazing Clinton got anything done at all, including a lot of conservative legislation that would have today's DUers up in what are now familiar arms. NAFTA? Welfare Reform?

When Bush followed in office, Nancy Pelosi demanded the documents concerning Dick Cheney's energy policy. She was met with a polite "fuck you" from the East Wing. Now, in a precedented manner of governance, we see Obama doing the same. Welcome to the 21st century.

Speaking of the 21st century, I could go on about how evil cell phones, OnStar, and online computers are and how they compromise our security, but I'd sound a bit Unabomber-ish. Besides, it seems the people who cry loud enough about their violation of privacy can't live without a subscription to such devices. Here's a tip I learned way back in the '70s: "Don't sell drugs over the phone, the feds might be listening".

Yes, I think expecting total privacy while demanding lightning fast 4G convenience is a petty complaint. People should know better.

On edit:
Issa demands documents (From today's local)
http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/590675/Wed--6-09pm--Oversight-leaders-demand-Delphi-pension-docs--consider-subpoena.html?nav=5192

I'm even more glad Obama's in the White House today.

[questionseverything]

232. wyden doesnt agree about the petty complaint thing

'Secret Laws'

According to Wyden, the post-9/11 PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendments Act have done more than facilitate a level of domestic surveillance. If allowed to expand, unchecked, he argued, they could turn "the idea of a telescreen monitoring your every move...from dystopia to reality."

The Senator says that the Acts created, for the first time in our nation's history, a secret system of laws. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Courts, operating in secret and relying only upon the one-sided, non-adversarial secret presentations by government lawyers, issue decisions that only the government is permitted to see.

Wyden stated:

The reliance of government on a secret body of law has real consequences. Most Americans don't expect to know the details about ongoing, sensitive military and intelligence activities, but, as voters, they absolutely have a right and a need to know what their government believes it is permitted to do. Because, that is what Americans need to be able to ratify or reject decisions that elected officials make on their behalf.

It is a fundamental principle of American democracy that laws should not be public only when it is convenient for government officials to make them public…If Americans aren't able to learn how their government interprets and executes the law, then we will have eliminated the fundamental bulwark of our democracy.

Without public laws, and public court rulings interpreting those laws, it is impossible to have informed public debate. And when the American people are in the dark, they can't make fully informed decisions about who should represent them, or protest policies that they disagreed with.


http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10152

[JohnnyRingo]

234. I understand your point, and I like Ron Wyden...

..but to walk naked out into your front yard, then complain that the neighbors are peeping toms is an unreasonable accusation. Two hundred years ago when neighbors lived five miles down the road, this was not an issue, but it's different now.

Using devices that broadcast an unencrypted signal into the public domain and expecting total privacy- from the govt or public- is also unrealistic. If anyone wants complete privacy they have to get off the grid, and I don't see those who complain about compromised security willing to do that. Instead, we double down with OnStar, iPhones, online communications, and expect 18th century laws to somehow adapt to rapidly developing technology.

Forty years ago these same people could be complaining that the State Patrol is eavesdropping on their CB radio channel to catch them speeding. I have no illusions that my wireless phone calls, my emails, or this post are one bit secure, nor should you.

It's perhaps silly that people at once demand (and pay good money for) devices that electronically track their every move, and indeed post such activities online via social media, then try to use the 5th amendment as a shield when they suddenly realize it can be used against them.

[questionseverything]

238. ty for your civil and reasonable response

but if i understand you to say that the gov't has the right to collect the content of every phone call,from cradle to grave and store it incase "they' need it...then i will politely have to disagree...and i believe the 4th backs me up

[JohnnyRingo]

239. Oops... I meant the 4th in my reference as well.

What we'll have to disagree on is the difference between what the govt should do and what the reality is.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, no one in their right mind would conduct illegal activities like drug dealing on a phone or the internet and expect anything but a lengthy sentence, and it's been that way all my long life. Even during the advent of the cell phone, then Mayor Guilianni used "roving wire taps" to put the NY mob families away (warrants were purposely vague and general when they were used at all). Instead of filing civil lawsuits, they learned and adapted.

Once again, I think the only difference between you and I is that I know all electronic communication is and has always been unsecured, and that it will never be otherwise. Not here or in any other country on Earth.

Thank you for not pouncing on my constitutional slip. LOL.

[questionseverything]

240. the difference between what the govt should do and what the reality is.

the constitution is still the law of the land ,correct?

there has been no amendment to the 4th that i know of

i honestly believe the current admin wants to do the right thing but the MIC is so powerful ,he NEEDS we the people to throw a fit (to give him cover) to roll back the current illegal,secret activity

funny that you mentioned the mobsters in NY..... wasnt that when we learn cell phones could be used as mics even when peops were not on the phone?..most peops do not realize that

/////////////////////
Thank you for not pouncing on my constitutional slip. LOL.( i knew what you meant and since i type and spell for crap i am not gonna start a contest about small errors)

btw i proudly drive gm vehicles!!

[JohnnyRingo]

241. That's when I personally learned cell phones were microphones.

...Actually, I learned it some years later. The NYPD and the AG kept it pretty hush for as long as they could, referring to it only vaguely as a roving wire tap without elaborating.

Now I understand top corporations won't even allow a cell phone inside a board meeting. I doubt Republicans allow them at big donor fundraisers anymore either. LOL

On edit, I must concede to you that if headway is made against the govt"s gleaning of electronic communications, that would be a positive step. Specific search warrants should be mandatory, no matter who's in the White House. I'm just not confident to see that in the scant years I have left.

[questionseverything]

242. smiles..so we agree

Specific search warrants should be mandatory, no matter who's in the White House. I'm just not confident to see that in the scant years I have left.

////////////////

i am not confident either but to fight for the right thing for the right reason is it's own reward

[Number23]

200. Great post. Glad it worked out for you.

[ProSense]

207. Nice.

Thanks for sharing a success story.

[dusty trails]

194. cali ?

I agree with you 110 %
I voted for Obama twice.
I've been favoring Hillary in 2016.
But wouldn't that just be more of the same old same old ?

I really wish we had a viable 3rd choice, other than the two major parties.

[blkmusclmachine]

195. I stopped believing BHO some time ago.

Deeds, not just words.

[DeSwiss]

201. Fucking-A.

- K&R

[bigtree]

204. money matters originate in Congress. The president is almost incidental to that process

. . . except for his veto, which isn't a zero-sum option. Republican House . . . never mind, you're really just feeding your obsession to be the most cynical poster in the room.

I really hate dirt-dumb rants like this.

[cali]

217. oph no he's not. he makes requests. take a look at the Defense Bill

passed yesterday evening in the House.

I really despise dumbfuck claims that the President really doesn't have any power when it comes to to "money matters".

Not only are the dirtshit stupid- they're duplicitous as hell.

[bigtree]

222. funny how none of the crap you listed is related to one another

. . . except in your grandstanding mind.

Typical to fall back on the 'duplicitous' crap. If you've heard it more than once you should get a clue. Not surprising to see that fall victim to this look-at-me illogic of yours, as well.

Tell us, please, just how much 'power' the President has had to pass his own budget. Tell us, please, just what percentage of his budget suggestions have become law.

I get it, objectivity isn't your bag. That's often where the truth lies, tho . . . not in self-serving, misinforming rants.

[tiredtoo]

210. Good thread

Glad to see we have varying opinions here. I agree with Cali's basic premise. However if somehow Obama was the Democratic candidate in 2016, i would support him again.
He is further right than i had hoped for but consider the alternative.

And one more thing here. There will be a rally in Lansing, Mi. Wednesday July 31 trying to get the repugs to implement the affordable health care act.
Look for me I'll be the old guy toting an oxygen tank on his back. I will be looking for you.

[Hubert Flottz]

216. We picked the lesser of two weasels...

The only choice we were offered.

[MrMickeysMom]

220. cali... RECOMMENDED...

I'm beginning to see evidence, based on number of recs, that a LOT of Democratics who wish, as Howard Dean did, that our fortune was to HAVE someone from the Democratic WING of the party...

I was warned in 08 about that, and like many who had that same hope, we see the number HERE AT DU who join you in that wish.

Meanwhile, you have people like ProSense, who can't take their blinders off. The hope WE ALL had remains their rally for telling you and others (coincidentally with high numbers of recommendations) that we must NEVER had had that hope.

Bollocks!

Oh... and, "K&R"

[diabeticman]

225. I was just going to post that very question of the working poor. Great post.