 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Sawzaw Date: 26 Jun 12 - 07:59 AM Jimmy Carter Accuses U.S. of 'Widespread Abuse of Human Rights' ABC News A former U.S. president is accusing the current president of sanctioning the "widespread abuse of human rights" by authorizing drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists. Jimmy Carter, America's 39 th president, denounced the Obama administration for "clearly violating" 10 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, writing in a New York Times op-ed on Monday that the "United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights." "Instead of making the world safer, America's violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends," Carter wrote. While the total number of attacks from unmanned aircraft, or drones, and the resulting casualties are murky, the New America Foundation estimates that in Pakistan alone 265 drone strikes have been executed since January 2009 . Those strikes have killed at least 1,488 people, at least 1,343 of them considered militants, the foundation estimates based on news reports and other sources. In addition to the drone strikes, Carter criticized the current president for keeping the Guantanamo Bay detention center open, where prisoners "have been tortured by waterboarding more than 100 times or intimidated with semiautomatic weapons, power drills or threats to sexually assault their mothers." The former president blasted the government for allowing "unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications." He also condemned recent legislation that gives the president the power to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely, although a federal judge blocked the law from taking effect for any suspects not affiliated with the September 11 terrorist attacks. "This law violates the right to freedom of expression and to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, two other rights enshrined in the declaration," Carter said. While Carter never mentioned Obama by name, he called out "our government" and "the highest authorities in Washington," and urged "concerned citizens" to "persuade Washington to reverse course and regain moral leadership." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Richard Bridge Date: 26 Jun 12 - 11:44 AM And electing a Republican president would: - (a) increase a tendency towards totalitarianism? or (b) decrease such a tendency? Take a reality pill! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Amos Date: 26 Jun 12 - 12:06 PM Carter should be acutely aware that under the guidance of every President since Truman the CIA has uniformly overridden and setaside the moral, ethical and legal guidelines that once informed the Constitution of the United States. Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Kennedy. Carter was the only one who tried to steer the madness back toward the polestar of decency but he did not succeed. This is partly because the CIA has been riddled with screaming psychos ever since the days of Wild Bill Donovan. Under Bush, driven by the melodrama of the 9-11 attacks, the CIA grew into a monstrosity of human abuse, of which Abu Ghraib was the tip of the iceberg. Sawx, as usual, is being blinded by the light. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jun 12 - 12:44 PM Or the dark. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Jun 12 - 01:13 PM Well, I wasn't, and am still not a fan of Carter, either..but the FACT remains, for whatever reason, Democrats ARE distancing themselves from Obama...so much, I think there may be a good chance that he'll run with Hillary, instead of Joe Biden. it is widely reported that the two don't really like each other, but I think he's do it, just to get the women's vote...similar to pandering to the 'Latino' vote...I mean, Obama 'racial' and 'gender profiling'???....well, I guess to get a vote, why not?...but to enforce a law??...Nawww!! BTW, if the Democrats are so much for the unions, and are against 'free trade' states, and 'right to work' laws...how in the hell do they justify North American FREE TRADE Agreement, with Mexico???? Are you thinking that when an employer hires an illegal alien, that the worker joins a union????? That's what happens when you listen to politicians speaking out of both sides of their mouths! Nafta got Clinton elected the first time, when he was approached by Rockefeller, when he was, then Governor of Arkansas...it was for the '1%ers'....He also signed Glass-Steagal, for the '1%ers'...and Obama sent Immelt to China, for the '1%ers'..the multinational corporations...Now you want us to believe that you are against the '1%ers'...when your party has screwed this country catering to them????????????????....Now, those are FACTS..don't bother countering with unsupported talking points and accusations of Tea party this or that!...and I already know that the Republicans have been doing the same...TWO WRONGS don't make a 'right', nor excuse the behavior of the other!!!!!!........THOSE policies, and the war, have done more to fuck up this country, politically, financially, and cause divisions between Americans, both parties, who normally, are pretty good people. We need people to stand up, and represent themselves, if the parties won't, in lieu of 'special interests'...neither party is doing it! Oh, and another BTW..Chicago, 1968, Democratic Convention..who were the protesters protesting??..Why???..What side were YOU sympathetic with??...Why??? Some things never change...only the rationalizations!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 26 Jun 12 - 01:23 PM "Right to work" = Right to live poor... The per capita income in those states is 70% of non right-to-work states... Might of fact, you can trace the stagnation of the working class's wages to Reagan busting the Air Traffic Controllers union which signaled to every Boss Hog out there that it was not only open season on unions but that the government would help... Which it did and continues to do... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Jun 12 - 01:41 PM I think that Sawzaw needs two things explained to him. The first is singular vs plural. Jimmy Carter is only one Democrat. The second is the difference between "distancing and criticizing." Would anyone care to wager that Carter will not vote for Obama or support him on other issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Jun 12 - 01:43 PM And perhaps it should be explained to him that for loyal, patriotic, respectful Americans. It is "President Obama" and the President's name is not to be used as a curse word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Jun 12 - 02:58 PM Ooops!!! Would anyone care to wager that President Carter will not vote for President Obama |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Richard Bridge Date: 26 Jun 12 - 04:06 PM FFS - pause: breathe: construct grammatical sentences: examine the logical structures of what you say: breathe again: rewrite. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 26 Jun 12 - 04:08 PM I think it was Will Rogers who said, "I'm not a member of any particularly organized political party... I'm a Democrat..." Dems tend to have a larger tent and therefore, a lot more differences within the party... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,999 Date: 26 Jun 12 - 05:39 PM I would hope that Democrats feel enough love for their country to disagree with any leader who does stuff that is morally repugnant, and that includes when the leader is Obama. We know for sure that the Republicans have zero love for either their country or the notion of democracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,999 Date: 26 Jun 12 - 05:40 PM It would be refreshing to see something similar from Republican ex-presidents, but hell ain't froze over yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Jun 12 - 06:22 PM Bobert: ""Right to work" = Right to live poor... The per capita income in those states is 70% of non right-to-work states..." Are you addressing an issue??..or trying to pull another diversion, and not address the issue??? 'Free Trade' does the SAME thing to the unions...what are you missing, here?....Rockefeller/Clinton gave us that one....to benefit the '1%ers'. Here...try it again: "BTW, if the Democrats are so much for the unions, and are against 'free trade' states, and 'right to work' laws...how in the hell do they justify North American FREE TRADE Agreement, with Mexico???? Are you thinking that when an employer hires an illegal alien, that the worker joins a union????? That's what happens when you listen to politicians speaking out of both sides of their mouths! Nafta got Clinton elected the first time, when he was approached by Rockefeller, when he was, then Governor of Arkansas...it was for the '1%ers'....He also signed Glass-Steagal, for the '1%ers'...and Obama sent Immelt to China, for the '1%ers'..the multinational corporations...Now you want us to believe that you are against the '1%ers'...when your party has screwed this country catering to them????????????????....Now, those are FACTS..don't bother countering with unsupported talking points and accusations of Tea party this or that!...and I already know that the Republicans have been doing the same...TWO WRONGS don't make a 'right', nor excuse the behavior of the other!!!!!!........THOSE policies, and the war, have done more to fuck up this country, politically, financially, and cause divisions between Americans, both parties, who normally, are pretty good people. We need people to stand up, and represent themselves, if the parties won't, in lieu of 'special interests'...neither party is doing it! Oh, and another BTW..Chicago, 1968, Democratic Convention..who were the protesters protesting??..Why???..What side were YOU sympathetic with??...Why??? Some things never change...only the rationalizations!! ..... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Jun 12 - 06:32 PM "It would be refreshing to see something similar from Republican ex-presidents, but hell ain't froze over yet. " You have to cut the last GOP ex-President some slack for not criticizing the sitting GOP President. He'd be sniping at his son. I guess you have to give the most recent Ex some credit for not going after Obama. Well maybe not. It would just remind people how we got in this mess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST Date: 26 Jun 12 - 06:46 PM Altho Carter has risen in the publics esteem since (and because?) he left office I am not always impressed on his opinions, whether it's his bias against Isreal or Obama. So he won't influecne MY voie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,999 Date: 26 Jun 12 - 06:46 PM I was invited to go to the '68 Convention and protest/sing, but I refused to work on behalf of the Yippee group, and since they invited me I declined. The man I supported in that election year was Eugene McCarthy. Mary told me she liked the campaign song I wrote for her dad best of all. That alone made it worth writing. Until McCarthy showed in the primary elections for the Democratic Party that a peace candidate had a chance, he was alone. Indeed, Kilroy was there. (One of McCarthy's poems is today included in high school poetry texts: "Kilroy was here.") The title of the poem has itself an interesting history, likely unknown to most Americans. However, the boondoggles of the past have accumulated, and now the once best-hope country in this world is beginning to fall--if it hasn't already--into the hands of moneyed people, and what was once a proud and important Republic is fast turning into another tin-pot 'democracy' with little left but its weapons and bluster. I hope you Yanks know what you're doing. It sure doesn't look so to most of the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 26 Jun 12 - 07:16 PM Define "free trade", GfinS... Your words, please... This oughtta be fun... BTW, NAFTA wasn't on progressives... Liberals weren't for it at the time... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: kendall Date: 26 Jun 12 - 07:40 PM The unions have been bleeding members for years. Now, only 1 in 10 workers belongs to a union. I guess they want to go back to the dark ages when a laborer earned 5 cents an hour.And no benefits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 26 Jun 12 - 07:44 PM Or back a little further, Capt'n... Like before the Emancipation Proclamation... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,999 Date: 26 Jun 12 - 07:56 PM This liberal ain't for it now. Some is free trade and other stuff is protected. Whatever works for the moneyed class I suppose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 26 Jun 12 - 08:02 PM Free trade doesn't exist... Hasn't in my life time... Maybe for ever... It is a "slogan" that people use to get their way in rigging the system better for them... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Elmore Date: 26 Jun 12 - 09:29 PM 1-20-2017. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 26 Jun 12 - 09:33 PM Hillary... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,999 Date: 26 Jun 12 - 09:34 PM "The inauguration of the President of the United States takes place during the commencement of a new term of a President of the United States, which is every four years on January 20. Prior to the Twentieth Amendment, the date was March 4. The day a presidential inauguration occurs is known as "Inauguration Day". The only inauguration element mandated by the United States Constitution is that the President make an oath or affirmation before that person can "enter on the Execution" of the office of the presidency. However, over the years, various traditions have arisen that have expanded the inauguration from a simple oath-taking ceremony to a day-long event, including parades, speeches, and balls." I presume the balls spoken of in the last paragraph are those that once belonged to the American people? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Jun 12 - 11:37 PM Bobert: "BTW, NAFTA wasn't on progressives... Liberals weren't for it at the time.." well, Clinton rammed it through..they took a sneak vote when all the Republicans had already lest for Christmas break....and Clinton was representing himself as a 'liberal' at the time..Hillary is of the same ilk....shills for the same bankers you say you dislike...and the Bushes!..and that's a fact! If Obama runs with Hillary, to get the votes, it would be tantamount to a Obama/Bush ticket. when it comes to the really big stuff, the Clintons have pretty much always gone with the Bushes..both of them...including Mena, for Papa Bush!! These pecker-heads go WAY back, together. .................................................................. Here's a breaking flash for a Mudcat exclusive!: NOBODY HAS BROUGHT THIS UP, YET............... With all the scandal about 'Fast and Furious'...and all the 'noble intentions of a slick plan' to catch the cartels using the guns(so they say)....their 'excuse' is just as lame, and illegal!..Didn't anyone inform the AG Holder, that ENTRAPMENT is both illegal and could have gotten everything they got as a result, thrown out of court???...they can't even make up good lies!!! You heard it first...on Mudcat!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Jun 12 - 07:37 AM "Sawx, as usual, is being blinded by the light" I never said a word about my position Amos. Why are you blindly attacking me? Attack Carter for being wrong or right and explain why he is wrong or right. Or are you afraid to? Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) said he voted for GOP Sen. John McCain for president in 2008, not Barack Obama. The revelation by Taylor, an 11-term incumbent facing a tough reelection battle, is one of the most extreme examples yet of a Democrat distancing himself from his party's unpopular leaders. Taylor, who has been taking step after to step to highlight his independence from Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), told a reporter for The Sun Herald of South Mississippi about his secret ballot two years ago. "I did not vote for Obama. I voted for Sen. McCain," Taylor told reporter Maria Recio, she said in an interview with The Hill. "Better the devil you know." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 27 Jun 12 - 08:32 AM For the one millionth time, GfinS... Bill Clinton isn't a liberal... He's a Nixon-ite Republican... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: pdq Date: 27 Jun 12 - 08:57 AM The story about Rep. Gene Taylor is a bit old, since that years election saw him defeated by Steven McCarty Palazzo, the Republican candidate. Palazzo is a certified public accountant but served in the Marines during Desert Storm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 27 Jun 12 - 09:08 AM "that for loyal, patriotic, respectful Americans. It is "President Obama" and the President's name is not to be used as a curse word." This comment is offensive to those of us who complained about the comments on "Bush" and the use of HIS name here on Mudcat. If you want to define " loyal, patriotic, respectful Americans" you had best be willing to accept the same criticism given those on the conservative side when they were thought to be defining those terms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: John P Date: 27 Jun 12 - 09:44 AM It is possible to distance oneself from President Obama while still knowing that voting for Mitt Romney would make the things one doesn't like about Obama a hundred times worse. So . . . distancing myself from Obama while distancing myself a lot more from Romney. It doesn't really change any equations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST Date: 27 Jun 12 - 10:44 AM Bobert: "For the one millionth time, GfinS... Bill Clinton isn't a liberal... He's a Nixon-ite Republican... , GfinS... Bill Clinton isn't a liberal... He's a Nixon-ite Republican..." ..and Hillary??...Don't kid yourself, Bobs, THEY ARE ALL THE SAME!..for, "For the one millionth time,"....They are owned lock, stock and barrel..even before they are nominated! Obama went a "little astray" from the original intent, and now they are gang banging him from every side....it doesn't matter, though..he sucks, anyway! either you adhere to the Constitution or change it LEGALLY. He has done neither, as his predecessors. Borders, not rhetoric....freedom of religion, not rhetoric, habeas corpus laws, not rhetoric, a budget, not rhetoric, war powers to defend our country, not rhetoric, anti monopoly laws, not rhetoric, three distinct branches of government, freedom to assemble, not rhetoric, no spying on average American citizens, not rhetoric, due process of law, not rhetoric, not having people's wills and ideologies over run other people's rights, not rhetoric, , and a government where 'WE THE PEOPLE' are the government...not rhetoric!!...which is all you get from 'O-Blabbo', which by the way I was calling him during his primaries, and election..BEFORE there ever was a TEA PARTY!!!....so shove that rap up where I hope you take your head out of!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 27 Jun 12 - 10:45 AM The other one was me...forgot to sign in. You can delete the other one...or leave it up, it bears repeating.... Bobert: "For the one millionth time, GfinS... Bill Clinton isn't a liberal... He's a Nixon-ite Republican... , GfinS... Bill Clinton isn't a liberal... He's a Nixon-ite Republican..." ..and Hillary??...Don't kid yourself, Bobs, THEY ARE ALL THE SAME!..for, "For the one millionth time,"....They are owned lock, stock and barrel..even before they are nominated! Obama went a "little astray" from the original intent, and now they are gang banging him from every side....it doesn't matter, though..he sucks, anyway! either you adhere to the Constitution or change it LEGALLY. He has done neither, as his predecessors. Borders, not rhetoric....freedom of religion, not rhetoric, habeas corpus laws, not rhetoric, a budget, not rhetoric, war powers to defend our country, not rhetoric, anti monopoly laws, not rhetoric, three distinct branches of government, freedom to assemble, not rhetoric, no spying on average American citizens, not rhetoric, due process of law, not rhetoric, not having people's wills and ideologies over run other people's rights, not rhetoric, , and a government where 'WE THE PEOPLE' are the government...not rhetoric!!...which is all you get from 'O-Blabbo', which by the way I was calling him during his primaries, and election..BEFORE there ever was a TEA PARTY!!!....so shove that rap up where I hope you take your head out of!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 27 Jun 12 - 10:50 AM Hillary is worse than Slick Willie... BTW, why do you SCREAM so much... Do your think that SCREAMING turns lies into truth??? Hmmmmm??? You look like the guy who SCREAMED at my 90 year mom when she and her friends were run outta one of those "town meetings" in Venice, Fl. during the health care debates two summers ago... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Jun 12 - 12:08 PM "If you want to define " loyal, patriotic, respectful Americans" you had best be willing to accept the same criticism given those on the conservative side when they were thought to be defining those terms. " That would mean that you stalwart defenders of the American Constitution and the unexpressed thoughts of the founding fathers are debasing yourself to the level of mealy mouth relative morality espousing liberals. I do declare! What has the country come to? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Stringsinger Date: 27 Jun 12 - 01:04 PM No, it's the other way around. Obama is slowly becoming a Republican. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Greg F. Date: 27 Jun 12 - 01:36 PM This comment is offensive to those of us who complained about the comments on "Bush" and the use of HIS name here on Mudcat. And who are "us" - do you pretend to speak for folks other than yourself, or is this an example of the "Royal We" of King Bruce the First? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Charley Noble Date: 27 Jun 12 - 01:48 PM I still think I'd rather lobby Obama than Romney. I do wonder what lurks in the hearts of progressives that persuade some that the worse choice is better in the short run. There are billions of dollars already invested in persuading you to vote for Romney. I suppose one should have some respect for that kind of dedication. But, remember, even under capitalism not every investment gets a positive return. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 27 Jun 12 - 04:40 PM Greg F, At least I don't call anyone who is Black and a Democrat "a Dumb Ni--er." as you do. I am one of those who stated that the so-called liberals here should apply the same rules to themselves that they insist on applying to others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Jun 12 - 04:45 PM But Liberals don't claim to be more on patriotic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Jun 12 - 05:08 PM more patriotic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 27 Jun 12 - 05:24 PM If Greg F said that then I would bet the farm that beardedbruce has taken his words out of context... I have written similar things but in the context of what I have heard people say or the way some folks I know think of Obama... Taking statements out of context is ***dishonest***... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Jun 12 - 05:41 PM I don't think that Bruce is being dishonest. I am disturbed that whatever depths he thinks that "liberals" sink to, he feels the need to sink to the lowest level (in his opinion) that any "liberal" on this forum reaches and justify that same behavior on his "side." Two wrongs don't make a right. If Greg F jumped off a bridge, would that make it OK for Sawzaw to jump off a bridge? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Greg F. Date: 27 Jun 12 - 07:08 PM Don't pick on Bruce- he is a disturbed individual who refuses to seek professional help - more to be pitied than censured. SEE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 27 Jun 12 - 07:22 PM I want to go on record of saying that if Sawz jumps off a bridge then I ain't gonna follow him... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Charley Noble Date: 27 Jun 12 - 10:34 PM I think I'll distance myself from this thread... See you after November, maybe. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Jun 12 - 10:39 PM "Do your think that SCREAMING turns lies into truth???" Works for Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Jun 12 - 10:41 PM You admit that what Bobert says is true? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 27 Jun 12 - 10:43 PM I don't SCREAM much, Sawz... Well, at least since I found that CAPS meant SCREAMING... No so, the real SCREAMERS here who SCREAM all the time... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Jun 12 - 11:42 PM Some things Bobert says are true some are not. He uses the old college unix mainframe/terminal way of ********screaming********* with the ***** on each side of the screamed words. The more **** the louder the scream. I always tell him when I agree. I always state when I agree with Obama. It makes me feel good when I agree with someone. I think some people believe they have to take everything that certain people say as the truth and everything certain other people say as untrue. You have to study everything that is said to determine if it is true rather than using the source as the deciding factor. The dumbest asshole in the world might say something that is the truth on occasion and the smartest person in the world might say something that is untrue. People have to decide things independantly. Study logical fallacies. Read up on Tribal Politics. Being able to decide things on our own and not just following the rest of the heard is what makes us human. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Jun 12 - 11:57 PM In Indiana, Rep. Joe Donnelly is running a television ad in which he details his generally conservative stance on immigration while images of Obama and Pelosi are shown on screen. "That may not be what the Washington crowd wants, but I don't work for them," Donnelly says in the ad. "I work for you." Rep. Travis Childers, who represents a district in northern Mississippi where Obama won just 38 percent of the vote in 2008, takes a similar approach in his TV advertising -- promoting the fact that he has "voted against every big budget" since winning a special election two years ago. Even some Democratic candidates who are being heavily touted by the White House appear determined to keep the president at arm's length. Shortly after Obama played a lead role in helping Sen. Michael Bennet defeat former state House speaker Andrew Romanoff in a Democratic primary fight last Tuesday, Bennet was asked whether he would want the president to campaign with him this fall. "We'll have to see," Bennet told ABC's George Stephanopoulos -- a response well short of a ringing endorsement of Obama's political standing. One senior Democratic consultant suggested that the distance candidates are seeking to put between themselves and Obama is reflective of the ascendance of economic issues in voters' minds. "Barack Obama's economic policy of spending our way out of recession is seen as a failure at best and harmful at worst," |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,999 Date: 28 Jun 12 - 03:57 AM "reflective of the ascendance of economic issues in voters' minds." Voters believe what they are told to believe. The big issue now is not the economy, it is the crumbling of democracy. The economy is not broken. It has been purloined, and regardless of which side anyone is on, bullshit ain't gonna change that very clear, very simple fact. All the rest is smoke and mirrors. The USA cannot afford rich people, period! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Jun 12 - 08:19 AM "If Greg F said that then I would bet the farm that beardedbruce has taken his words out of context... You would lose. " Taking statements out of context is ***dishonest***... " I AGREE. And when you stop it, I will appreciate it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Sawzaw Date: 28 Jun 12 - 08:48 AM "Voters believe what they are told to believe." Some voters, not all. Some are able to think for themselves. Some people continually use a hypothetical logical fallacy to prove a point. "I want to go on record of saying that if Sawz jumps off a bridge" What are the chances of that actually happening? If Bobert slugs down some moonshine, fires up his Bong, and then bitches about people not following the rule of law then what? What are the chances of that actually happening? Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (Argumentum Ad Speculum): Trying to prove something in the real world by using imaginary examples, or asserting that, if hypothetically X occurs, Y would result. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 28 Jun 12 - 09:26 AM Brucie is 100% correct... We have a systemic problem with a dysfunctional government... It hasn't been too functional since Newt Gingrich brought all but declared war on Congress and Democrats back during the so-called "revolution" in the 90's which ended up with Bill Clinton being impeached... That was a low point but wait... It got lower... Much lower with the Supreme Court intervening in the 2000 election with it's decision in Bush v. Gore where the court held that Bush would be "harmed" if the recount were to continue... Yup, he would have been... He would have lost!!! Then came 9/11 and the government seemed to shake off its dysfunctionality until Obama was elected and then it was Mitch McConnell, John Beohner and Eric Cantor taking up where Gingrich left off... We are now even more dysfunctional than at any time in the 90s because the Republicans refuse to participate in governance... And they want to shift the blame to rather moderate to conservative policies of the Obama administration... Yes, our democracy is screwed... Republicans gleefully say, "Well, Dems have hads a majority and didn't do this or that (immigration)" but will not say it's because of their 300 plus filibusters and the tyranny of the Senate "super majority" rule that rewards the minority over the majority... Yes. as I have pointed our before, unless we fix the systemics then nothing else can or will be fixed... Oh sure... We'll muddle thru but... ...great nations don't remain great by muddling thru... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,999 Date: 28 Jun 12 - 10:34 AM "Obamacare upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court!" In the words of an old children's show host (before 5 second delays were in place), "There. That oughta hold the little fuckers." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jun 12 - 12:04 PM (shrug) Mussolini just won a small round over Hitler, that's all. And it was a squeaker. One vote made the difference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Jun 12 - 12:53 PM "(shrug) Mussolini just won a small round over Hitler, that's all. And it was a squeaker. One vote made the difference." Mussolini? Hitler? Been attending seminars at GSOSH (Gingrich School Of Shrill Hyperbole) have you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jun 12 - 02:19 PM Once again, Little Hawk counsels that you can't fight City Hall, so just lay down in the gutter and let them haul you away. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Sawzaw Date: 29 Jun 12 - 09:32 AM Bobert: Are you saying that the Senate Democrats did or did not have the super majority? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 29 Jun 12 - 01:42 PM I'm saying with the "Blue Dogs" that the Dems, at the very best, had a shaky and quite disconnected "super majority"... Ben Nelson, if you will recall, was as close to a Republican as one could find... Lieberman, who caucused with the Dems didn't win as a Dem but an Independent... So technically, they didn't and even with Lieberman they were still at least one, perhaps 2 Dems shy of a workable 'super majority"... Like Will Rogers once said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat..." 'Bout sums it up... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Jun 12 - 01:48 PM Lieberman, was and is far from a loyal Democrat. He was John McCain's first choice for VP. Didn't they campaign together? Sawzaw it is well and good to choose sides, but not so good to choose your own personal convenient version of reality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Jun 12 - 02:40 AM .....maybe they just have an over-due book from the library, and will be tied up GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Jul 12 - 12:32 AM I'm saying, Don, that you can't fight City Hall through those 2 political parties...no more than you could fight fascism by choosing between backing Hitler or Mussolini. No more than you could fight Communism by choosing between Lenin or Stalin. No more than you could fight crime by choosing between Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky. It's not a viable choice, because it isn't a real choice when they both represent the same essential interests. What you will get from either one of those 2 big political parties is more of the same you've been getting for a long time now. And that's not a viable choice. But you don't see any other political choice, do you? So you choose to have faith in one of them. Well, that's your choice. Not mine. I have no faith in either one of them. This doesn't mean that I lie down in the gutter and let anyone take me away, however, (what a dramatic notion!) it means that I continue living my life regardless of those 2 stupid political parties, just like other people do. It's not the ONLY thing in life worth livng for, you know. There ARE other things to live for than the crass political maneuvering and manipulation that passes for "democracy" nowadays in the USA. I haven't seen anyone coming to take me or you away yet, Don, and I don't think that your opinions or mine will prove to be the crucial tipping point in causing it to somehow happen. But if it did, it could just as well be the Democrats as the Republicans who made it happen. They have both enacted draconian legislation that points very strongly in that direction by abrogating your civil rights. Bush did with the Patriot Act. Obama did with the NDAA. And the NDAA is even more dangerous in that respect than the Patriot Act was. It's the next logical step along the same authoritarian line. It looks to me like nothing has really changed except the faces of the people at the top. That's why I don't believe in either one of those parties. They are walking down the same path. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Don Firth Date: 01 Jul 12 - 12:39 AM So, Little Hawk, your solution is. . . ? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,josepp Date: 01 Jul 12 - 01:26 AM With Little Hawk it won't matter how many political parties there are, they will all be working for the same interests and therefore no good can come of it. I look at it as two supervisors working for the same VP of a company. One supervisor is a prick who enjoys fucking his underlings over and one tries to shield his underlings from the wrath of the VP. One day, you screw up a project that you worked on very hard but one little slip fucked you. The VP has to be told about it. Which supervisor do you want going to the VP and pleading your case? The one who would get a hard-on feeding your ass to the dogs and watching you get fired or the one who tries to defend you by pointing out that that you had done an overall good job but the mistake could have happened to anybody? Both work for the same interests but that doesn't mean the outcomes are the same. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Ebbie Date: 01 Jul 12 - 02:37 AM Guest/Josepp, that's a good analogy. ****************** Back on June 27, 7:37 AM, Sawzaw reported that Democratic Rep. Taylor had voted for Republican John McCain over Democrat Barack Obama. Taylor is a very conservative (not that that's necessarily bad) Democrat and has voted for and urged many issues that most Democrats don't want; he has often been asked whether he would cross the aisle but he said that overall he thinks that the Democratic party serves the people better. As for voting for McCain over Obama, it might not be remiss to note that he is a white man living in Mississippi. Not to charge that he is racist- but most people are affected by their upbringing. I Also Found This "When it briefly looked like the House might have to decide the contested 2000 presidential election, he said then that he would vote for Republican Bush over Democratic nominee Al Gore to reflect the views of his constituents." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: akenaton Date: 01 Jul 12 - 05:27 AM Thats not an "analogy" Ebbie, thats a wet dream! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,josepp Date: 01 Jul 12 - 09:51 AM Well, it is an analogy and implicit in that analogy is that you too are working for those same interests. Like that computer that lets peruse the internet and log into Mudcat and post your comments? That computer comes to you courtesy of "special interests" and so does the internet. Like your car and your house? Unless you built your car out of parts you made yourself, it came to you courtesy of "special interests." Unless you went into the woods and built your own log cabin, you house comes to you courtesy of "special interests." They own the means of all production and there's nothing you can do about it. So we're all guilty of working for the special interests which meeans we're all untrustworthy and can't even trust ourselves. Or we admit that we're being ridiculously cynical and offering nothing of value other than lessons in how to be overly dramatic. So your choice is to accept it and stop acting like it's some heavy realization of a vast sinister conspiracy out to get you and get on with life or lay down and die. There can be no middle ground. You're ether living for something or you have no reason to be living. If the latter, then why are you still here bitching and whining? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: akenaton Date: 01 Jul 12 - 11:46 AM Hmmm.....Sorry to break it to you J, but it is a "vast sinister conspiracy". I realised that about age 16, and nothing I have seen between then and now has done anything to change that opinion. In fact, taking into consideration the wars, political manipulation and the exposure of the corrupt nature of our financial system inthe last few years, it should be crystal clear to everyone. Fortunately I have the physical skills to be self-sufficient, I can grow my own food, build my own home, I am self-employed, live where I was born and see no need to travel......Not everyone is as lucky. The system needs demolition and re-construction in a manner which is sustainable.....No one "needs" to accept a system which is so corrupt and inequitable, but no matter, we have allowed our freedoms and strengths to be diluted to the extent that the future is no longer under our control. I still find such acceptance and resignation depressing.....maybe thats why I "bitch and whine" so much?.....:0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 01 Jul 12 - 12:28 PM "Thats not an "analogy" Ebbie, thats a wet dream! " Either you do not know what a "wet dream" is or you and I have VERY different teenage years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,josepp Date: 01 Jul 12 - 12:53 PM ///Hmmm.....Sorry to break it to you J, but it is a "vast sinister conspiracy". I realised that about age 16, and nothing I have seen between then and now has done anything to change that opinion.//// Well, if you're thinking no differently now than you were when you were 16, maybe you should question your thinking. ////In fact, taking into consideration the wars, political manipulation and the exposure of the corrupt nature of our financial system inthe last few years, it should be crystal clear to everyone.//// You mean Iraq?? ANY president could have done that with the powers already vested in his office. No vast conspiracy needed. The only reason nothing like it happened before is because we never had a president so stupid and irresponsible before. ///Fortunately I have the physical skills to be self-sufficient, I can grow my own food, build my own home, I am self-employed, live where I was born and see no need to travel......Not everyone is as lucky.//// You can or you do? Do you grow your own food and did you build your own home? And what did you build it out of? ////The system needs demolition and re-construction in a manner which is sustainable.....No one "needs" to accept a system which is so corrupt and inequitable, but no matter, we have allowed our freedoms and strengths to be diluted to the extent that the future is no longer under our control.//// And all this conspiracy rhetoric you're spouting will just go away if we overthrow the current order, eh? Sorry, not buying it. We need conspiracy theories whether conspiracies exist or not. God forbid we should put the blame for our own shortcomings on ourselves. That's like the white supremacists who tell me that we need to ship all the blacks back to Africa and drive all the Mexicans back to Mexico and that will be the end of America's problems. Somehow I find that unconvincing. /////I still find such acceptance and resignation depressing.....maybe thats why I "bitch and whine" so much?.....:0)//// Well, I bitch and whine about the state of our culture and music and find it depressing and got no sympathy from anyone. So I'll give you the advice they gave me: Maybe you should seek treatment for your depression. Problem solved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: akenaton Date: 01 Jul 12 - 05:40 PM Oh indeed we are all part of the problem J....I wouldn't argue with that. We have become lazy, greedy, and afflicted by a sense of entitlement We have been persuaded that we have certain rights, just because we happen to be of the correct species....and these rights shall pertain no matter how we behave, or how lazy, greedy, obnoxious or self obsessed we become. To make a better society will take several generations and a complete change in what we find "of value" The political double act in Washington (Pubs and Dems)....and in London (Labour and Conservative), have no chance or wish to change anything, their job as good troupers, is to keep this show on the road (THAT'S an analogy) :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Ebbie Date: 01 Jul 12 - 06:47 PM Hate to break it to you, ake, but that is NOT an analogy. Metaphor, maybe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,999 Date: 01 Jul 12 - 06:57 PM Ake, it is neither an analogy NOR a metaphor (with apologies to both you and Ebbie): it's a statement of fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: akenaton Date: 01 Jul 12 - 07:16 PM Thank you Brucie....I bow to your superior knowledge, and sparkling wit.... :0) I'll be mailing you shortly old friend, I've been busy getting all my books up to date.....its been a nightmare, speak to you soon. hmmm..... sure looks like an allurgy tae me??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Jul 12 - 07:42 AM Gov. Jay Nixon against President Obama's health insurance mandate St. Louis, MO (KSDK) - Missouri Governor Jay Nixon voiced disapproval over President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act, saying the law was not good for the Show Me State, St. Louis Public Radio reported Tuesday. Speaking with reporters on Monday, Nixon, a Democrat, said the law requiring people to purchase health insurance was not something he supported. The report on St. Louis Public Radio did not quote Nixon saying specifically why he thinks the law is bad for Missouri. Voters in Missouri rejected the individual mandate with a 71% to 29% referendum vote last summer. Gov. Nixon faces re-election this fall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Jul 12 - 08:28 AM "the Senate "super majority" rule that rewards the minority over the majority.." ????? "Im saying with the "Blue Dogs" that the Dems, at the very best, had a shaky and quite disconnected "super majority" So Democrats had a super majority and were able to pass anything they wanted. You can use your IF Then hypothetical logical fallacies to try to prove otherwise but the actual truth about whether they could have passed a bill can not be known unless it was voted on. But they did not even try. Now you make lame excuses about why they did not act and try to blame it on Republicans. Even when more Democrats than Republicans voted for TARP, you want to blame it on Republicans. Even when more Republicans than Democrats voted against TARP you want to blame TARP on Republicans. Even it Obama voted for TARP and said it was a necessary thing to do, you want to blame TARP on Republicans. The Democratic party had a super majority from April of 2009 when Senator Arlen Specter decided to switch from a Republican to a Democrat until February 4, 2010 when Scott Brown was sworn in. Now do you want to dispute this fact with more whiney, false logic Bobert "facts"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 02 Jul 12 - 09:02 AM " Speaking with reporters on Monday, Nixon, a Democrat, said the law requiring people to purchase health insurance was not something he supported. The report on St. Louis Public Radio did not quote Nixon saying specifically why he thinks the law is bad for Missouri. Voters in Missouri rejected the individual mandate with a 71% to 29% referendum vote last summer. " WHAT??? You mean a Democratic REPRESENTING THE VIEWS OF HIS CONSTITUENTS, rather than telling them what would be best for them? What is our democracy coming to??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: pdq Date: 02 Jul 12 - 09:10 AM Obama Wins $350B Senate TARP Vote By JONATHAN KARL Jan. 15, 2009 In a decisive and hard-fought victory for President-elect Barack Obama, the Senate cleared the way today for Obama's incoming administration to spend the second $350 billion of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. A measure to block the funds was voted down 42 to 52 after an intense lobbying campaign by the Obama economic team and by Obama himself. Just hours before the vote, Obama economic adviser Larry Summers wrote a letter promising the Senate that the Obama administration would take specific steps to ensure the money is spent more responsibly and with more transparency than the Bush Administration spent the first $350 billion in TARP cash. Obama also telephoned several senators before the vote, offering his personal assurances that the money would be used for its intended purposes of freeing up the credit markets and addressing the foreclosure crisis. It was a tough sell. The bailout program has never been popular, and there has been widespread outrage in Congress over the way the Bush administration has spent the first $350 billion. Six Republicans voted to release the funds, including Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate. "I know that this is not a popular decision," Kyl said. "But I believe in the long run this program will help to keep our economy from collapsing. It will eventually help it to recover and that will benefit every Arizonan and every American." But the overwhelming majority of Republicans, and eight Democrats, voted to block the funds. "Americans intuitively know that what we're doing here is wrong," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.. "All of us know that we have to pay it back, our children, our grandchildren, for generations to come, with a lower standard of living and incredibly high taxes and a devalued currency." In a stark change from his position just three months ago, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who had suspended his presidential campaign to help pass the TARP program in the first place, also voted to block the funds. Obama's personal lobbying efforts were decisive for many Democrats. "I will vote for this and I will do it because of the assurances I got from the president-elect himself that it will be different, that he will use these funds judiciously," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. "I felt a little bit like after the last one, like Charlie Brown and Lucy," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. "You know she's always pulling the football from under Charlie Brown. Well, Lucy's 's not holding that ball any more. We have someone new holding that ball. Somebody named Barack Obama." To get a sense of how close Democrats expected the vote to be, they swore in Roland Burris, D-Ill., at 2 p.m., and Vice President-elect Sen. Joe Biden delayed making his Senate resignation effective until 5 p.m., shortly after the vote was scheduled to be taken. Earlier in the month, Democratic senators had vowed to block Burris from replacing Obama in the Senate because he was appointed by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich who is charged with corruption, including an allegation that he tried to "sell" Obama's seat to the highest bidder. To deny Obama the money, both the Senate and House would have had to reject the request. With Senate approval, the president-elect is assured of receiving the money available when he takes office next Tuesday. House Democrats Unveil $825 Billion Stimulus The vote on TARP is the first step in Obama's trillion dollar plan to revitalize the economy. His team unveiled an $825 billion stimulus plan today that is larger than what he had publicly suggested in recent weeks. It is a combination of tax breaks and public works spending. Senate Democrats are fashioning their own version of the rescue plan. While Republicans have been warm about Obama's mix of tax breaks, they did not like what they saw today. "Oh my God," exclaimed House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "There was no Republican input at all involved in what House Democrats outlined today," he said. "I just can't tell you how shocked I am at what we're seeing," Boehner said. "You know it's clear that they're moving on this path along the flawed notion that we can borrow and spend our way back to prosperity." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Jul 12 - 03:21 AM I wish both parties would distance themselves from the Federal Reserve!! Then we might possibly have a two party system.......as if we needed one! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,999 Date: 03 Jul 12 - 11:06 AM I think America's greatest enemies are ALEC, DHS, FEMA, ICE, CIA, Wall Street, Monsanto and Congress. Once a people trade a perceived form of security for their civil rights, they are doomed. It has been done by too many Americans. Hell, even state legislatures are beginning to stifle scientific research and results that disagree with what they want to hear. If the coming election is won by the Republicans, America is history. When a people get so dumbed down as to believe political garbage like Romney, Palin and Bachmann, what hope is there for tomorrow? I do not hate America. I do despise what it has become with the help of its media/television. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Jul 12 - 09:07 PM Democrat Kissell bucks party on votes, won't back Obama Charlotte Observer 8th District congressman also said he doesn't plan to endorse Obama for re-election and isn't sure he'll attend his party's national convention in Charlotte. The two Republican candidates who want to take on Democratic Rep. Larry Kissell have each gotten a boost. Richard Hudson Monday won the endorsement of former Arkansas governor and GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Last week, Scott Keadle got nearly $200,000 from the conservative Club for Growth, which so far has put more than $716,000 into his campaign. Keadle has also invested another $50,000 of his money. Jim Morrill Democratic U.S. Rep. Larry Kissell, whose rural North Carolina district has become even more Republican, is bucking his party again in two high-profile congressional votes. Last week, Kissell was one of 17 Democrats who voted with Republicans to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt of Congress. And next week, he plans to vote with them again to repeal President Barack Obama's health care law. "I've heard from hundreds and hundreds of people from my district about their opposition to the health care law," Kissell told the Observer Monday. "I voted against it originally and I will vote to repeal it. Kissell also said he doesn't plan to endorse Obama for re-election and isn't sure he'll attend his party's national convention in Charlotte. Kissell represents the 8th District, which runs from Mecklenburg County to Robeson County. Last year's redistricting added heavily Republican areas of Rowan, Davidson and Randolph counties while removing thousands of Democratic voters in Charlotte and Fayetteville. Redrawn districts have helped make him and Rep. Mike McIntyre of Robeson County – who also voted to find Holder in contempt – two of the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the country. Thursday's vote on Holder wasn't the first time Kissell had bucked his party since being elected in 2008. In 2009 he was one of 39 House Democrats who voted against the health care bill, which passed by just five votes. He also voted against a Democratic cap-and-trade bill designed to reduce global warming. One pro-health care group ran online ads with his picture and the word "Betrayal." These votes are sparking outrage, too. "It doesn't sit well with me at all; I will never support him again," said Ralph Bostic, former Democratic chairman in Kissell's home, Montgomery County. "… He needs to change his party …. That's the way he votes." But some Democrats say Kissell is doing what he needs to do in a conservative district. "Larry Kissell continues to win the support of both Democrats and Republicans because he has been an independent voice for North Carolina families focused on creating jobs and fighting Republicans' efforts to deeply cut Medicare," said Stephanie Formas, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. As a sign of support, the DCCC has reserved $1.1 million in TV advertising for Kissell, she said. That's almost as much as the $1.2 million the National Republican Congressional Committee has reserved to defeat him, said spokeswoman Andrea Bozek. "While Larry Kissell can try to have an epiphany and try to run away from the president, he has a clear record of voting with President Obama's job-destroying policies," she said. The Holder vote, the first time a sitting Cabinet member has ever been found in contempt, was prompted by the attorney general's refusal to respond to a subpoena to release emails and memos related to Operation Fast and Furious, a botched gun-running investigation. The president has invoked executive privilege to block the subpoena. Many angry House Democrats walked out during the vote. Kissell said he's not concerned about opinions of party leadership, and that his vote for contempt of Holder was about the need for transparency. "I hated that it came to that," he said. "We did not have answers …. We have a dead border guard. We have a program that didn't work. We have guns that are still missing. And we need answers." McIntyre, of Lumberton, is also running in a more Republican district. He said the vote on Holder was about getting to the bottom of the case, not party politics. "A law enforcement officer lost his life," he said. "His family and we all want answers as to what went wrong and how this tragedy happened." One group pressuring members of Congress to vote for contempt: the National Rifle Association. The gun-rights group had put lawmakers on notice that the vote would factor into the scorecard that determines its endorsements, and financial help. "We told members of Congress that we were going to score the contempt vote because we want the truth out," spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said Monday. Kissell, who has gotten $11,900 from the NRA's political action committee, said the group did not influence his decision. Some analysts say Kissell's votes against Holder and health care should help him with independents and even Republican voters. "Neither Larry Kissell nor Mike McIntyre will be the deciding vote on any of these votes," said David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report. "Republicans can pass whatever they want through the House. … What (Kissell) needs are Republican cross-over support. The only way you get that is by bucking your own party." On health care, Kissell explained why he plans to vote for repeal on July 11. "Constitutional or not, the health care bill cut Medicare and placed undue burdens on our small businesses," he said. Republicans Scott Keadle and Richard Hudson, who meet July 17 in an 8th District runoff, both point to a January vote where Kissell voted against repealing the health care law. "This law is not perfect," Kissell said at the time. "We have a choice: we can look backward and have the same fight all over again, or we can move forward determined to make things better and focus on our economy. I choose to look forward and work to make things better." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 04 Jul 12 - 09:39 PM Ahhhh, my congressman... He's a Repub in sheep's clothing... End of non story... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Jul 12 - 09:54 PM Our Congressman, Mike McIntyre, calls himself a Democrat too but he is as Republican as you are Sawz. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Jul 12 - 10:04 PM List of Democrats Skipping the Party's National Convention Continues to Grow ABC There may be some extra hotel space in Charlotte, N. C. come the beginning of September, as several Democratic elected officials have announced that they will not be attending the Democratic National Convention this year. Earlier today, Talking Points Memo reported that Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill will not be attending the convention, becoming the third Democratic senator, and eighth Democratic member of Congress, to opt out of the event. Late Tuesday she tweeted, " Whole lot of nothing over me campaigning w/Mo folks instead of going to convention w/party honchos. Bet POTUS agrees with my decision." Several of the elected officials who have decided to forgo the convention hail from places where Obama is unpopular; West Virginia's Democratic House Rep. Nick Rahall, Sen. Joe Manchin and its governor, Earl Ray Tomblin, have all announced they're not going. Obama's low popularity in the state is perhaps best exemplified by the strong performance of prison inmate Keith Russell Judd in the state's Democratic presidential primary. Other elected Democrats not going include Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah and Sen. Jon Tester of Montana. McCaskill is in the same boat as her colleagues from West Virginia, Utah and Montana, in the sense that she hails from a state where Obama is unpopular- a Gallup poll from Janury, 2012 put his approval rating in the state at just 39 percent- and she faces a tough re-election campaign this cycle. However, her decision to stay away is significant because she was an early endorser of Obama in 2008, and a big surrogate for his campaign. Obama narrowly lost Missouri in 2008– but by a margin of less than one percentage point– making it one of the closest states in the general election. "You can't underestimate the importance of Claire McCaskill to this campaign," senior Obama campaign adviser Anita Dunn said at the time. This cycle, ABC News rates the state as solidly Republican. Democrats are not alone, Republican elected officials have opted not to attend this year's GOP convention in Tampa Bay, Fla. as well. Recently, Montana Rep. and GOP Senate nominee Denny Rehberg announced he would not be attending. Rehberg has been distancing himself to some degree from the Republican congress, he recently ran an ad in which he criticized Paul Ryan's budget proposal. Party leaders skipping their party's conventions is not an entirely new phenomenon: Claire McCaskill has actually skipped her party's convention before, in 2004. In 2008 several GOP senators facing re-election including Susan Collins of Maine skipped out on the festivities in Minnesota. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Jul 12 - 12:17 AM Maybe they'd attend, if Obama gives them an Obamacare waiver!!!....or a bunch of our tax money!!..It's has always worked for the other Democrats!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Jul 12 - 01:21 AM Why not cut and paste the whole thing? Like the date? Jun 26, 2012 6:21pm List of Democrats Skipping the Party's National Convention Continues to Grow |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Jul 12 - 02:57 AM Scroll down a little further in the thread, and you'd see that I posted a very similar article....and then you nitpick him for the date??? Is the information correct ..or not?....Whether you like it or not, the info IS correct! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 05 Jul 12 - 08:36 AM DNC chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, has suggested that these folks stay home in their districts and campaign... It election strategy and not a slight... Nothing to see here, folks... Go home... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Jul 12 - 12:06 PM Almost a nice cover story.....Do you think you and her got dizzy trying to relay it to non-idiots? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Jul 12 - 12:26 PM "Continues to grow" describes an ongoing trend. Saying the same thing three weeks later is meaningless. It denotes scraping the bottom of the barrel for things to post. In short, Old news isn't news. You know, I remembered why I don't read your posts. The arrogance is tolerable. The intentional ignorance is not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Jul 12 - 02:34 PM Here's a typical Mudcat political discussion. Try and figure out which one is the Democrat and which one is the Republican. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Jul 12 - 02:42 PM Bugger off. No one is making you read it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Jul 12 - 02:43 PM Actually, from what I hear not only the Democrats distance themselves from Obama...everyone is. Michelle feeds him that stuff that gives him tremendous gas!! No need for a pipeline there!!...or fracking for natural gas!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Don Firth Date: 05 Jul 12 - 03:07 PM Look who's talking about being full of gas!!! The Goodyear blimp doesn't have that much gas! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Jul 12 - 03:22 PM Fracking full of gas! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Jul 12 - 03:59 PM Elvis and originality have left the room! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Jul 12 - 04:06 PM "Elvis and originality have left the room!" THAT'S original!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Jul 12 - 04:07 PM 99 +1 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 05 Jul 12 - 05:09 PM Good politics for House and Senate Dems to stay home in their districts... No need to give the Repubs any cheap shots about these folks having a merry time in a sluggish economy... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Jul 12 - 05:33 PM It could be worse. What if he had the Wall Street Journal demanding his economic policies? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Jul 12 - 05:29 PM Democratic convention dropouts: the growing band of Obama refuseniks The Guardian Some high-profile Democrats are citing tight races and the need for distance from Obama in skipping Charlotte convention. When Obama addressed the Democratic convention in Denver four years ago, it was one of the hottest tickets in the nation. Mitt Romney's campaign team has moved to capitalize on announcements by some Democratic members of Congress they intend to skip the party's high-profile September convention. When Barack Obama addressed the Democratic convention in Denver four years ago, it was one of the hottest tickets in the nation. But this year's convention is already shaping up as less of a draw. At least nine members of Congress, including one of Obama's earliest and most enthusiastic supporters, Claire McCaskill, have already announced they will not be attending. In addition to non-attendance by some politicians, the convention organizers are $27m short [oh bummer] of the $36m estimated cost of holding the event, prompting cancellations of planned events. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 06 Jul 12 - 05:45 PM Refuseniks is propaganda... They have been told to stay home and campaign... They are obey-niks... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Jul 12 - 06:00 PM No it's the other way around. Democrats are distancing themselves from democracy and Obama is distancing himself from Democrats. My favorite senator is neither a Dem or Repub. He's America's senator. Regrettably, he has the initials B.S. :) That's the opposite of what he does and who he is. There's also John Lewis of Georgia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Jul 12 - 06:23 PM Don't Senators Sanders and Lewis support The President? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Jul 12 - 06:24 PM Sorry, Rep Lewis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Jul 12 - 08:38 PM I think that they support some things that the president has done to a certain degree but not everything. Why should they? Supporting the good things such as insuring those who would not be otherwise insured should be commended but there are other factors. 1. Unnecessary violations of the Constitution. Ignoring "habeas corpus". 2. Invading countries not only with "unwinable" wars but immoral ones. 3. Kowtowing to oil companies who are despoiling US landscapes. 4. Going back on campaign promises. (How do you know a politician is lying? His mouth is moving.) 5. Taking single-payer off the table. 6. Making nice with the GOP who is out to hurt him. These are for-starters. Of course, Romney (RoboCorp) would be worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Bobert Date: 06 Jul 12 - 08:45 PM Send a few $$$s to Alan Grayson, ya'll... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jul 12 - 04:19 PM I know that some of you are slow to recognize obvious truths, that I've been telling you, but Stringsiger's list...: "1. Unnecessary violations of the Constitution. Ignoring "habeas corpus". 2. Invading countries not only with "unwinable" wars but immoral ones. 3. Kowtowing to oil companies who are despoiling US landscapes. 4. Going back on campaign promises. (How do you know a politician is lying? His mouth is moving.) 5. Taking single-payer off the table. 6. Making nice with the GOP who is out to hurt him." ....sounds more like Bush...but what the hell, does it matter? As long as there is a 'D' or 'R' after their name, you think there is a difference....In reality.."you all got fooled again!!" GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Sawzaw Date: 08 Jul 12 - 09:17 AM Chameleon Democrats: "Democrats keeping their distance from Mr. Obama are being encouraged, not shunned, by party leaders, who believe that each candidate needs to do what is necessary for his or her own political survival. But the tactic will take a toll on attendance at the party's convention in Charlotte. A growing number of Democrats in close races have announced that they won't attend." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST Date: 08 Jul 12 - 02:16 PM Still waiting for the in-depth analysis of the Affordable Health Care Act...let alone a viable alternative. Well, we knew that promise was pure deranged bluster anyhow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Jul 12 - 03:01 PM Well go look for it..I started the premise...but have to go..(snuck in a couple of minutes to post that) GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Sawzaw Date: 11 Jul 12 - 08:32 PM Obama promised to "end those tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas." Obama's record on outsourcing draws criticism from the left Washington Post Barack Obama promised voters four years ago that he would work to slow the outflow of American jobs to other countries, proposing to revamp a federal tax code that encourages companies to maintain overseas operations. Obama as president has continued to call for rewriting the rules that allow U.S. corporations to avoid paying taxes for a time on income generated overseas. But the broad tax changes have not happened. While White House officials say they have been waiting on Congress to act, Obama's critics, primarily on the political left, say he has repeatedly failed in other ways to protect American jobs from being moved overseas. They point to a range of actions they say he should have taken: confronting China, reining in unfettered trade and reworking a U.S. visa program that critics say ends up sending high-tech jobs abroad. The issue of overseas outsourcing has returned to the center of the presidential campaign, with Obama hammering the record of Mitt Romney's financial company. The debate intensified in recent weeks with Obama's campaign attacking his Republican rival after a Washington Post article reported that Romney's private-equity firm, Bain Capital, had invested in companies that specialized in helping other firms relocate work overseas. American jobs have been shifting to low-wage countries for years, and the trend has continued during Obama's presidency. From 2008 to 2010, U.S. trade with China alone cost about 450,000 American jobs because of the growth of Chinese exports, said Robert E. Scott, a pro-labor advocate at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. That figure was less than in previous years, but the decrease was probably tied to the U.S. economic slowdown, which crimped demand for imports. "I think he has walked away from the campaign commitments," said Scott, the institute's director of trade and manufacturing policy research. "He has done far too little to improve U.S. trade." According to a study by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, large American companies in 2010 barely added any workers in the United States, increasing their numbers by 0.1 percent, while they expanded their foreign workforce by 1.5 percent. That was business as usual — between 2004 and 2010, the bureau reported, foreign affiliates hired 2 million workers while 600,000 were added by the companies at home. White House defense White House officials say Obama has fought to slow the movement of jobs overseas, even when that meant confronting difficult political opponents and powerful global economic forces. "The president could not have been more emphatic about his vision for trying to eliminate the incentives for offshoring and increase incentives to create jobs here," said Brian Deese, deputy director of Obama's National Economic Council. "We have tried to use all the tools available to us to make creative administrative changes where we can to discourage offshoring." During his run for president in 2008, Obama promised to "end those tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas." It was a pledge he made repeatedly on the campaign trail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 Jul 12 - 12:20 AM Sawzaw: "During his run for president in 2008, Obama promised to "end those tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas." It was a pledge he made repeatedly on the campaign trail." He made lot's of 'promises', as far as keeping them, that's why, "Democrats distance themselves from Obama"...other than 60% of the American people disapprove of Obamacare ..and they now have to think about being re-elected! If the election of 2010 didn't teach them to listen to the American people, maybe this one will!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Jul 12 - 07:20 AM Elections have consequences. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: GUEST,999 Date: 12 Jul 12 - 08:55 AM Romney's new slogan: BELIEVE IN AMERICA. BANK IN THE CAYMANS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats distance themselves from Obama From: Greg F. Date: 12 Jul 12 - 10:24 AM I'm sure that TeaPublican stonewalling, obstruction, procedural tricks, and Mega-Corporate lobbying have absolutely NOTHING to do with the failure to "end those tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas" - or is he supposed to do this by Executive Order? |
