Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama with His Foot in the Air
And they concern two big issues: health care and the economy.
He's backsliding on both.
On health care, he was pressed by reporters who followed up on each others' questions-a good, new journalistic skill that evidently fell from the sky after Bush left office.
What they were pressing him on was whether his public option for health care was non-negotiable.
After hedging, he basically said no. "We have not drawn lines in the sand," he said, "other than that reform has to control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don't have health insurance or are underinsured."
What a concession! A public plan is the best way to provide that relief, and 72 percent of the public says it wants a public option. But Obama seems prepared to sell them down the river.
On the economy, when asked directly whether he thinks we "need a second stimulus package" since unemployment is likely to top 10 percent soon, he said, nonchalantly, "Well, not yet."
What's he waiting for?
The rate to hit 10.5 percent? 11 percent? 12 percent?
He even said when he was drawing up the first stimulus plan that "nobody understood what the depths of this recession were going to look like."
Well, that's not true. A lot of good, progressive economists did, like Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Dean Baker. They predicted unemployment above 10 percent. That's why they pushed for a stimulus that was twice as big as the one Obama settled for.
It's disingenuous for Obama to hide behind the Condoleezza Rice construct that "nobody" could have imagined what then happened.
And it's deeply troubling to see Obama acting so timorously on the major issues that he himself has identified.
I keep waiting for him to go to the mat on something, to put his foot down, and say, I'm not going to stand for higher unemployment so we must pass another stimulus bill, or I'm not going to sign a health care reform bill that doesn't have a public option.
But never puts his foot down. It's always in the air.
- Posted in
98 Comments so far
Show AllWe are witnessing the decision-making mode of a community organizer, forever seeking to build concensus. Unfortunately, because of the temper of the times, we don't have the luxury of this kind of management. We need a strong, decisive LEADER who isn't afraid to stand up to the opposition, is secure in his convictions and is prepared to assume full responsibility for his actions. I don't see that we have that in Obama. He appears, more and more, to be a patsy for Bill Clinton and his former administration; the very ones who set us up for this economic catastrophe and who still seek to profit from the debris falling all around us, be it the financiers of Wall Street, the stimulus package, health care, ad nauseum.
Where is the elusive Progressive Democrat we thought we were getting in the wake of the last election? All I see is the short end of ths stick.
No, what you are seeing is the quisling selected by the corporate PTB to stage manage the collapse.
He's not supposed to *DO* anything... he's supposed to *look good* doing nothing...
Walk in peace.
Glad to see that I am not alone in my belief that Obama is just the patsy for the "elite". He sold his soul to become President and now he does whatever he is told.
"He sold his soul to become President "
He sold his soul long before that; otherwise he would have never gotten the chance to run.
'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.' - Pete Townsend
"He sold his soul long before that; otherwise he would have never gotten the chance to run. "
Paul and Kucinich didn't sell their souls out and they had the same opportunities to run, win or lose.
And look what the MSM did to Dennis K and Paul; The Duopoly did not support them (even though they are D and R party members). Yet they raised only a tiny amount of money (and money is what buys the election) compared to the Obama money machine. They were largely blocked from media coverage. It was a fix from the beginning
Kucinich was eventually blocked but he did run for president. Paul was never blocked from running. The media will no doubt block such heroes from their coverage. This is where we the people need to stand up and vote with our hearts and minds on the issues and stop relying on the media on anything. Just because they raise the least amount of money doesn't mean they cannot be elected. It is only when people choose not to judge the candidates on the issues with an open heart and mind but instead rely on money, "personality", and party affiliation that we get the kind of crappy leadership in the end.
duplicate, sorry
In theory you are right; sadly, unless we overhaul the corrupt sham of a democratic process, the big-money candidate wins. A corrupt system is not capable of producing a non-corrupt outcome and we have seen this decade after decade...
Sioux Rose
JENNIFER: You seem to have more time than most to read or comment. It's been shown that the more money a candidate raises, the greater his odds of winning an election. How do you suppose the public would learn about positions of principled persons such as Kucinich if he doesn't have air time, and can't raise the money to extort it? I say "extort" because the airwaves belong to the people, and had not Clinton signed them away in an FCC ruling that never bothered to negotiate an iota of public air time for candidates in the handover, the result is what belongs to the people must be purchased by would-be candidates. And guess who tends to pick up THAT tab? The friendly lobbyists who expects a quid pro quo relationship with the candidate he finances. So let's not do this "the people choose" nonsense when the people are not given a chance to know squat; and the vast majority are currently stressed over how to pay bills, what the failing quality of education is doing to their children, and/or how to cover medical costs given it's the insurance companies, not anything remotely akin to caregiving calling the shots. I suppose because you are single, you are not showing much understanding of the time constraints on the average American working parent's schedule. The media has invested heavily in making sure such persons remain painfully under-informed, heck, with the genetic modification of "food," they're being fed illusions on ALL levels. This does not make for either a healthy, nor informed body politic.
S. Rose: thanks, you articulated this better than I did.
Sioux Rose
SOCIALIST: Thank you, although I am unsure of the posting you have responded to.
Hi Sioux. Please don't mistake me as someone who is unsympathetic and blames people over the pols for everything. I understand how seductive money can be and that's why I keep suggesting that we not allow it to tempt us. Since I don't watch the television as much as most people do and since I now work from home and don't have to commute 3-4 hours a day unlike before, I have no trouble reading more and discussing since I still believe that's the only way out of getting angry with the political dysfunctionality.
You mentioned the fact that more families are stressed over stressed over paying their bills, unable to help their kids who are being subject to shoddy education, facing bankruptcies usually due to medical expenses for which the insurance companies were supposed to cover for all the money they received, and the likes. Here's where I say that we need to vote on the issues as they affect our lives. I should have discussed that we need to find ways to get these people to look at those issues and pay attention to candidates who will better relate to such issues such as Nader, Mckinney, Kucinich, or even Ron Paul to some degree rather than fall hook, line, and sinker for "personality" clowns who mean nothing to their lives and will do nothing to help struggling families resolve the issues such as the ones you mentioned. As for the media, when I turn it on and see the sleaze, I feel like turning it off or switching to the Weather channel before my blood pressure goes up. You are absolutely correct about the way the media and the big agri giants have successfully ruined the public mindset.
I sincerely apologize if I sound ignorant but trust me, I am not. I am well aware of the plight and sadness. However, I fear that continuing to look through all this sadness will only keep me depressed. I have also been inspired by a lot of what Moondoggy has written time and again. He reminds me of the way famous people in history like Nader, Gandhi, Lincoln, etc ... influenced my way of thinking in life. The media will do everything they can to keep their victory going but we the enlightened cannot afford to stay privatized. We've got to find ways to convince our families, friends, etc ... off the corrupt media. Reading through the books, articles, and even comments and analysis is what I think will help me and others on this site break out of minority status someday.
P.S.:
Maybe you are correct that my being a single is a major handicap in my failing to fully see the constraints families face. Now that I think about it, when I first got used to living the city life, going on the metro alone or even trying to shop alone without going with the family or friends, it all felt uncomfortable. I admit that I even got jealous that all my friends even got to get married and thought that they'd have more time to have fun together. I mean, how easy is it to see people my age having showing off their kissing or even playing with their kids making us singles feel left out in society? I especially hated Valentine's Day year after year although this year I mellowed down on it despite God punishing me with a bad date. I guess I got too jealous and angry in life when I was not only pressured and teased by my friends and even my own family into getting married while at the same time finding no success in meeting up with a date let alone a good one no matter how nice I tried to be. It didn't matter that I was well educated post-graduate or that I was even working. It was "either do what I do or else" type men that I met for the few times I did try my luck. That's where I further sharpened my no-conceding thinking because I felt that God had punished me for being nice. I have gotten over much of the jealousy and anger over time but maybe some of it still lingers especially after a few bad experiences. I am not as frustrated as I used to be but I admit that I have a long ways to go but won't give up. People can tell me to see a psychologist or psychiatrist but they're nothing but money and putting people on records and I'm not a total psycho.
Whoa Jennifer, you writing too much here. Sioux Rose ain't mad at you personally so go easy on yourself. She was just not sure that you understood what families go through since you're single. Sorry to get off topic but I'm sorry to hear that you had to go through all that pain and suffering in life but you're not alone. At least you avoided getting into a bad marriage and believe me, that's worse than never getting married. I don't think I can help you on dating because I didn't date anyone until I turned 30 and even then since my wife was Indian American, we had quite a different romance. We haven't had a divorce or gotten close to breaking up in my 12 years that she and I have been married. We may not have children yet but I'm sure we'll get to it somewhere, who knows. Listen. We all suffer in life, married or single. While my life as a single would have been much more stressful than if I had been married, when my wife and I have so much to take care of, getting informed well ain't always easy. Like you and Ms. Rose, I don't watch the stupid TV but I don't get mad if my friends do it. I may shake my head but nothing else. I voted for Obama on the last minute when I should have had the same courage you and most on this site had to vote for Nader or Mckinney but I admit that I screwed up and I discussed this with Ms. Rose and others. I see that a lot of folks on this site love the way you share your personal moments as they relate to what's discussed here but I think you're letting your emotions go a bit too far. You're smart, courageous, and you gotta a life ahead of you no matter the odds. We're not gonna pull 150 million people off the tubes in one night. Strategies need to be worked out. You are correct to point out that despite the endless supply of money that goes towards funding the current corrupt media, the media can be defeated by the power of us all. Also, if I were you, I would take some time away from the blogs a little more often especially if you are young and/or single. Your mind will be at ease a little more. Good luck.
Jennifer,
Maxpayne makes some good points. You needn't beat up on yourself. You are highly principled like many who post here. Highly principled individuals get riled easily about societal abuse. But as long as you aren't the cause of that abuse, you should not get depressed. Remember that depression is agression turned inward. Just ask yourself if you are doing your part to make the world a better place. If the answer is yes then it doesn't matter if we are losing the fight. You are doing the right thing for all of us. You aren't superwoman and you can't wring all the sleeping people's necks and yell at them that they are ruining it for all of us. You are limited to 80 to 100 years of doing the best you can, PERIOD. The voices out there telling you to do this or that are to be listened to, thought about, and accepted or rejected as you decide. Peer pressure can be tyrannical. Keep being your own person and be compassionate with yourself; not just with others.
Jennifer - from what I read of your comments -- you are FINE JUST THE WAY YOU ARE!!
here's a little joke for everyone..concerning beating ourselves up too much for not being "like the others":
<<<<<<<<<<
a little boy was overheard praying intently in church....he was talking to GOD...and said:
'GOD -- i know i've been a bad boy , GOD,.........but ............DON'T WORRY GOD -- i'm FINE just the way I AM"!!!
hehehe.
Sioux Rose
JENNIFER: No need to get touchy, but others came to your defense, so that's fine. As Max related, I was merely pointing out that a single person might not recognize what it's like to be married with children. Much of my life I was a single Mom and I was lucky if I could sit in front of the TV to catch my breath for an hour before going to sleep. More often than not I was busy writing something I hoped to sell to cover the bills and roof over our heads. Many of us in this forum either work from home, are retired, on a hiatus, or even handicapped (Goddess bless them). We have to remember that our privilege of time and the opportunity to educate ourselves is not necessarily one that others in our society experience. There was a time when the news really meant that, and banks were a safe place to keep one's savings, and the value of a home rose a modest few percentage points a year, and one parent could work and cover the mortgage. As you know, the sell-outs to Mammon and Mars have corrupted values, and torn into the very fabric of life for so many.
Being single is fine if you enjoy your own company and honor how you spend your time. Eventually you'll find someone to resonate with, and it could happen quite unexpectedly. I once attended an astrology seminar which used the position of Venus in the natal chart to suggest how we'd run into romance, or how LOVE would find us. In my case it was very true. Venus is in the 3rd house which connotes everyday life events, errands, communications, and roadways. I met my husband during a bus strike in Puerto Rico. I lived in Old San Juan on Calle Luna (25 years later my first born daughter lived on the parallel street, Called Sol. Luna = moon and Sol = sun) and used to walk to the touristy section to swim at the beach and get exercise. I hardly looked my best venturing the 1.5 mile hike back to my apartment (thanks to no buses) when the hub cap popped off his VW bus, and in the midst of ONCOMING traffic he dashed out to get it! Witnessing this crazy scene I had some strong thoughts about how Latins drive rolling around my head. He saw me looking at him, and got in his van and drove up on the sidewalk to block me. It helped greatly that he looked like Omar Shariff. And that's how that dance (of 9 years duration) began.
If someone has Venus in the 6th house which rules medical offices, they could fall for their dentist, or meet someone in a waiting room. A friend of mine cracked up when a year after a bad blind date, who should turn out to be her new gynecologist? Life is funny, and I think the Gods really intend for us all to laugh more... but the news we take in daily IS quite serious. I'm glad I believe in reincarnation because it would be impossible to bear witness to the magnitude of destruction to so many lives if this was their first and only shot at "it." Sweet dreams...
Great note.
We could add taking care of aging parents to that list of responsibilities & worry.
Bills & family top the list, lately.
And "looking good" is what he is doing so well as he engages in "reaching across the isle," and seeking concensus. As Hillary so aptly put it during the primaries, "At the end of the day, he gives a good speech." The unbridled greed unleased by Bill Clinton and his cronies is insatiable. They will persist, with a duly compliant President, until there are no more crumbs on the table.
I could not agree with you more. By blowing a lot of hot air and talking out of both sides of his mouth, he is doing a yeoman's job of "looking good and doing nothing." And the media pundits can't lap it up fast enough.
Give Obama a break - he's just protecting his supporters against their opponents.
His supporters are Corporations.
His opponents are the people who got him elected.
The way Bush is going after Obama in his $200 000 speeches, and the way the right wing talking head (Rush et al.) are going after him, I would make a fair guess that Obama will not live to see the end of his first term.
Sooner or later, some low-rent neanderthal 'patriot' is going to take it into his head to give Obama a Israeli style 'Rabin job' and blow him away in public.
Or at least, that's what the MSM version of the story will be...
And a thought just occurred... which company has been contracted to do maintenance on Air Force 1? Does the name Sen. Paul Wellstone ring any bells?
Walk in peace.
Not that I would ever be invited for any reason, but there is no way in hell that I would ever get on that airplane with Obama onboard.
Sioux Rose
GALEN: Exactly! By the way, when I read Klein's book ("Shock Doctrine") I saw the emerging parallels. Your vision is quite crisp from the northern realm.
Exactly right. I also confirmed where our country was headed for with Chomsky's "Failed State". Our problem isn't about awareness (at least for progressives). Our challenge is to thrive with thrift while we keep waking up the sleepers.
Sioux Rose
AGG: I like that, "thrive with thrift." How about "Thrift thrivers, sign up here!" (T shirt?) And/or "Simplicity IS elegance."
Obama is waiting to see what the depths of the recession will look like...
He can see it for real in California, where there is a permanent floating tent city with 10 000 permanent residents, where they are dismissing thousands of teachers, police, fire fighters and civil servants. Where they are closing state parks, schools and hospitals. Where entire families in economic danger are being thrown off welfare, student loans ended, and furloughed state employees still show up at their cubicles to show that they are hyper-dedicated and wish to survive the coming draconian layoffs, while their non-furloughed co-workers are being paid with government IOUs and scrip.
He can see it in the (still) displaced thousands of economic refugees from New Orleans. He can see it in Detroit and Flint, Michigan, which both have more than a passing resemblance to downtown Baghdad. He can see it in the communities that are pulling up the physical connections for utilities to developments that have been abandoned by those fleeing their mortgages.
How much more evidence does he have to wait for?
Unless, of course, this was the plan all along...
Walk in peace.
I think Obama's foot has been sunk squarely up our...
At least with Bush, you weren't certain he knew what was going on. That degree of uncertainty is no longer possible so we can face the light at the end of the tunnel. Which of course is the train bearing down on us. Hopefully we can get a ticket at the station.
Both parties are corrupted. Both parties serve the same master. That is why it doesn't matter which of the two parties are at the helm of the ship.
The question is if there are enough Americans who see the truth and are willing to stand up to the corruption. Are people willing to start a real Progressive party with people who already hold power like Bernie Sanders and others who are Progressive Democrats who would switch to this new party. I would hope that we the people if we were organized in a grass roots effort could change the direction of this country.
Too many of your fellow Americans are too wrapped up in finding out who the next 'American Idle' will be, or the continuing soap opera of Jon and Kate (plus 8 divorce lawyers), or which talentless Hollywood starlet or pop tart will reveal more skin than she intended over the internet.
They can't be bothered to take an interest in the PTB who are about to bend them over the hood of their over-financed car and rape them for every remaining right and freedom.
To start a movement to wrest power out of the hands of the elite would, at this point in your society, lead to a the Government, using it's self granted powers of wiretapping and e-mail interception and public surveillance to 'disappear' anyone who was standing up for the society and their fellow man. And with Obama signing a measure to abduct and indefinitely detain without charge or trial *anyone* deemed a 'threat' you can bet that is exactly what will happen.
Welcome to Chile under Gen. Augusto Pinochet circa 9/11/1972. Except it's the 'Good Old USA (TM)' under corporate chosen puppets.
But thats exactly how Milton Freidman and the Chicago Boys intended it...
Sioux Rose
GALEN: I fear exactly this outcome. The latest poll suggesting that 50% have learned to accept torture as a normal tool of state, added to the numbers that are armed, added to those who believe in End Times and think it's "God's Will" to kill "other," sets a considerable percentage of the population on a collision course with what should function as a consensual reality founded upon ideals and the principles that "birthed" this nation.
When persons in this forum relate that people they know have never heard of single payer, or still think Saddam was behind 911, or confuse things Obama has stated with the actual agendas being implemented, the TRUTH deficit itself becomes chilling. And thanks to the MSM being bought up by the voices that intended to manufacture a dark form of consent, those who speak truth are now seen as suspicious characters, or cast as "the crazies." The public expression of such views is rarer and rarer. In this type of cultural nexus the capacity to get the truth out there is complicated by the equally troubling fact that many can NO LONGER DISCERN it! Now that is Orwell combined with Bernays combined with Pavlov on Steroids! M.A.D has resurrected to become the motto of the land. Perhaps not yet in our genes, but certainly in a whole lot of jeans!
As usual, you get right to the crux of the matter. Thanks again for your insight. It's been a while since I've thought about Pavlov and his experiments. But you know, that Pavlovian conditioned reflex thing cuts both ways. We KNOW what pushes the elite buttons. With severe frugality we are pushing them. We can be poor and happy a lot longer than the elite can. Keep pushing. Pavlov can work for us too.
Sioux Rose
AGG: I appreciate your posts, as well. I've been giving this matter a good deal of thought lately, what the net result of so much false media is going to mean when persons will have to find ways to become more self-sufficient. Others will have to learn to work together, likely with persons who are not of their same religion, race, or ethnicity. What then will be the result of so much violence pumped into the national psyche, almost in parallel with the false worth pumped into real estate, or the false calories (items devoid of real nutrition) pumped into food? So many aspects of modern existence are outright lies, and the leaders are riding them like kids on sleds after a big snow job. Under normal conditions truth serves as the wake-up call, the bell that summons those asleep into an awakened state. However, just as Monsanto has spread its Frankenseeds around to MOLEST and meld with the genuine articles so that perhaps never again shall the twain be parted; lies have been married to truths and half-truths in such a pervasive way, and radiated 24/7 across innumerable air waves/channels. And so for far too many there no longer exists a way to part the waters and separate fact from fiction. This deliberate climate of a thousand deceptions makes recovery all the more difficult, and for some I would say, virtually impossible. This understanding makes me grieve, for the Truth that would set them free has in a sense been disabled. And so many lives have been spiraling in a sea of manufactured illusion when the need for a great and massive awakening is before us all.
Poignant. Sad but so true.
Actually, it goes farther back than 1972. Consider the stereotyping of cultural or /and racial groups as a prelude to demonizing them (lazy Irish, Savage Indians, Immoral Negroes, Shifty ______ (fill in the blanks). This was done by Spain, England and our European ancestors in the U.S. in order to justify constant abuse of the people they enslaved overtly or covertly. It's an old PR trick. Those "Southern Belles" who complained about the smell of dead negroes on the docKs in Virginia so the ship captains would cart the dead slave bodies somewhere less offensive to delicate white noses would never dream that the technique of ignoring basic needs and rights while calling for "responsibility" would be applied to them. Now it's no longer about race or ethnic group. Now it's about money. If you aren't rich you must be lazy, shiftless and irresponsible, RIGHT?
What about the WARS, Mr. Rothschild?!? Unless these idiotic, wasteful wars are brought to an end, the country's economy is not going to recover, and anyone who wants national health care can kiss it good-bye!
Thank you Paul. Sometimes, it astonishes me that very few progressive/liberal writers connect the economy with war. As I see it, wars especially uncalled for ones benefit the already well to do while further trashing the lives of the lower and middle class. Just today, Obama signed another war spending bill shamelessly and yet he complains about the costs of single payer. Even if single payer were to pass, the pols in Washington could easily invent excuses to defund single payer and basically void it with their reckless war spending. Yesterday, I was attacked for supporting Ron Paul. He may be a Libertarian but when one looks at two faces of the neocon party, even the Libertarians can look good in pale comparison even if I have issues with some of their ideas on the economy.
The neocons will never take us back to the days of Charles Dickens or Carnegie/Frick. The libertarians will.
In two posts as of this writing, pioagape has declared that the Clinton administration is solely responsible for our current economic crisis and nascent depression. pioagape is obviously one of the trolls whose mission is to rewrite recent history.
While Bill Clinton and his advisors doubtlessly share some of the responsibility for allowing the dismantling of the Roosevelt-era barriers to financial mischief, the bulk of the blame rests squarely on the republicans who wrote and pushed the legislation to remove the barriers created in the Glass-Steagall Act. The primary culprit is Phil Gramm.
q
Right-on, quickstepper.
There are as many disguised trolls here as there are weirdos at the "Star Wars" bar scene --- and in fact, some have the same names.
There are perhaps more right-trolls than left-trolls --- and there is no doubt that the proto-fascist right neo-cons have been more damaging than the neo-libs so far (although Obama is trying to even the score for the second stringers).
All of which simply reinforces the correctness of Ralph Nader's prescient and enduring warning about the results one can expect if you continue to "vote for the least worst"!
A pox on both their castles.
Only a democratic socialist revolution will wash away the stains, sins, sorrows and crimes of EMPIRE --- by either phony party name in this 'Vichy' charade of democracy!!
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
PS. as the old Fram TV ads for oil filters used to say, "You can pay now or later".
And that later is getting closer every day.
It is pretty clear that you don't have a frigging clue about how our system works. We have a system of checks and balances to power. The presidency is one of those checks and the tool against tyranny is called veto power. The Gramm Leach Bill (refer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act) which authorized de-regulation of banks. The Bill was signed into Law by none other than Bill Clinton who is just as culpable because he agreed with the frigging Bill, otherwise he would have vetoed it. Don't try to pass off your apologetic tripe, lad, as that dog won't hunt. Culpability is shared by anyone who passed it into law and Clinton held sway over the final say.
It's pretty clear that you cannot read very well. Nowhere in my post did I try to exculpate Clinton.
The power of the veto is just the executive branch's check. Each branch has its own against the other two.
Because the President is the governmental figure whose position lends itself most readily to tyrannical abuse, it would be the checks held by the Legislative and Judicial branches that prevent such tyranny.
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that Bill Clinton spent the last two years of his term under relentless harassment by Congressional republicans (I guess that you've also forgotten that idiotic impeachment and trial).
Please notice whose name is on the Gramm-Leach-Billey act, lad.
q
Your sign on name tells me a lot. Ever consider changing it to quick-obfuscation?
This is what you said just in case you forgot:
"While Bill Clinton and his advisor's doubtlessly share some of the responsibility for allowing the dismantling of the Roosevelt-era barriers to financial mischief, the bulk of the blame rests squarely on the republicans who wrote and pushed the legislation to remove the barriers created in the Glass-Steagall Act. The primary culprit is Phil Gramm."
Nothing i said invalidates my context. Bill Clinton signed the Bill into law.
Your rebuttal is filled with as many obfuscations as your first. Poor Bill Clinton a victim to his own sexual addictions. Let me get my violin and play a sad song. As I also corrected the Bill you were pushing off inaccurately, the switch and bait hardly applies to me.
It is pretty clear you represent the domesticated and emasculated wing of the Democrap Party, offering nothing more than excuses, obfuscations, and one rationalization after another. Ever consider joining a male empowerment workshop? It is not necessary to go through life using one mental crutch after another. Real empowerment is only a step away, son.
No doubt your 'true believer' tripe will be warmly received by the rest of the sheeple on the status quo newswire.
It's generally been my experience that the poster who first resorts to childish insults has lost the debate.
Also, I refuted your "arguments." I did not rebut them.
Please list one obfuscation from my response.
And by the way, I'm not a Democrat. I just believe in keeping the record straight and placing all if the blame on Clinton for the financial meltdown is a lie.
After all, the craze for deregulation began under Reagan.
q
As for my user ID, I'm a ballroom dancer.
As for who carries the most blame, those who wrote the bill or the one who signed it - as Truman said, "The buck stops here" and Clinton signed a bill that would not have survived a veto. 44 Democrats had voted against it. It was his responsibility to take a stand and he didn't. He went with the Republicans.
We can't place all the blame on Clinton, he was just one more enabler. The Republicans were in power for 32 out of 40 years (if you don't consider Clinton a Republican - which I do), and spent that time burrowing away at financial regulatory laws. If Clinton hadn't signed it the next president would have. You know, Shrub.
The point is the larger picture. We have a two-headed single corporate party ruling America. If we argue back and forth between Democrats and Republicans, we are just buying into their game. Ralph had it right when he said there is no difference. Sure, some cosmetics. The Republicans elect right wing freaks to the Supreme Court, Democrats elect moderates. Progressives don't exist for either of them where it counts, like in the Treasury.
I was impressed that the Court ruled 9 to 1 against strip searching a middle school girl down to inside her underwear. It would be Clarence Thomas who didn't have a problem with that.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Very nice mediation. I see the argument stopped.
Thank you hamster, but it appears not entirely. Someone always has to have the last word.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
"It's generally been my experience that the poster who first resorts to childish insults has lost the debate."
The difference between a disempowered life, and walking one's talk, is that authentic empowerment does not see the world through a lens of "winning and losing." Until you reach that stage in your psychological development, the attributes I named are fair game.
"Also, I refuted your "arguments." I did not rebut them."
If you look in any unabridged dictionary you will find that the word "refutation" and "rebuttal" are synonyms. Precisely the point I was making about your obfuscations. (And please don't ask me to tell you how Websters defines the word synonym, unless of course, you need your hand held for that too?)
"Please list one obfuscation from my response."
Read my last two responses.
"And by the way, I'm not a Democrat. I just believe in keeping the record straight and placing all if the blame on Clinton for the financial meltdown is a lie."
I never called you a Democrat; I was indicating that your apologetic "represented the Democratic Wing." Nor did I place "all the blame on Clinton." I said Clinton was a check against the Bill which deregulated the industry. Since Clinton did in fact sign the Bill into law, and the law created our current financial melt down, Gramm's Bill was bad legislation. By signing it, Clinton is culpable for what it produced just like everyone who wrote or voted for the Bill. No amount of twisting rhetoric will change that fact - thus an obfuscation. Try reading my words and not your flawed presuppositions about my words.
Furthermore, you introduced the subject of Clinton's Impeachment, not me. Clinton is an untreated sexual addict just like Bush is a dry drunk. Both men have the emotional maturity of a twenty nine year old; any addiction expert can tell you that addictive personality disorder emotionally freezes the personality at the age it was originally invoked. By all accounts, both Bush and Clinton exhibited these characteristics in their late twenties. Thus, we had back to back presidents with the emotionally maturity of a twenty nine year old.
The comment about your sign on name was my being ironical about your post. Or put differently, it was a metaphor for your world view.
Keep dancing, it really is amusing!
Oh, before you get hysterical about that dancing remark, it is just another metaphor. (Do you need me to tell you the meaning of that word too?)
"The Bill was signed into Law by none other than Bill Clinton who is just as culpable because he agreed with the frigging Bill, otherwise he would have vetoed it."
Like most of of the comments about Bill Clinton seen here, this is bullsh*t.
The Clinton Administration fought repeal of Glass-Steagall. Clinton signed the bill because it had a veto-proof majority.
So maybe it did appear to have a veto proof majority. Maybe it didn't. We'll never know now, will we?