Spintested: 09/29/10

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

If Republicans take control of the House, nothing would get passed?

How do you figure that?

And if Democrats continue to control both Houses, do you think Obama's going to keep flip-flopping on his campaign promises, and say that the election was a referendum on his flip-flopping, and voters want him to do more of the same? Or do you think he's going to move to the left?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

And Bill Clinton is on board with Obama, so just goes to show how they all take voters to be id-jits.

How about weighing in on this?:

What do you think Obama is going to do after the election in just a few weeks if Republicans take control of one or both Houses of Congress?

Do you think he'll veto the legislation they pass (through reconciliation and every other means they can manage)? Do you think Obama will take to the bully pulpit, urge Americans to bury Republicans in email, phone calls, snail mail, and urge Democrats to block Republicans every way possible?

Or do you think that Obama's going to be making deal after deal with them, spinning what he can as somehow "Good for the People and Democrats", and/or, "I'm president of all the People, and the People in their infinite wisdom put Republicans in the majority, so I must honor their wishes and work with Republicans, and not try to obstruct their will"?

And if Democrats keep control of Congress? Do you think Obama's going to keep flip-flopping on his campaign promises, and say that the election was a referendum on his flip-flopping, and voters want him to do more of the same?

About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

No, you don't get it.

An overwhelming number of voters in Arkansas are registered Democrats.

It's not like Halter comes out of nowhere in Arkansas; he's the Lt. Governor. He's very popular.

About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

House Overwhelmingly Passes Trade Sanctions Bill Targeted At China

American Citizens Get Stuck With The Security Bill, While China and Russia Benefit from Afghanistan's Mineral Riches

Although the U.S. government has spent more than $940 billion on the conflict in Afghanistan since 2001, a treasure trove of mineral deposits, including vast quantities of industrial metals such as lithium, gold, cobalt, copper and iron, are likely to wind up going to Russia and China instead of American firms.

The New York Timesreported Monday that U.S. officials and American geologists have foundan estimated $1 trillion worth of mineral depositsthat have yet to be exploited in the country. The paper said a Pentagon report called Afghanistan potentially "the Saudi Arabia of lithium," a key component in batteries for cellphones, laptop computers and eventually, a plug-in fleet of electric cars.

But while the United States and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries are providing the bulk of the security for Afghanistan -- U.S. troop levels are set to rise to 100,000 by year's end -- the firms that are profiting from the resource boom are primarily Chinese, and to a lesser extent, Russian.

"China has an absolute advantage in Afghanistan as far as resource development goes," says James R. Yeager, a Tucson, Ariz., consultant who worked as an adviser to the Afghan Ministry of Mines.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/9E0IHt
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

What do you think Obama is going to do after the election in just a few weeks if Republicans take control of one or both Houses of Congress?

Do you think he'll veto the legislation they pass (through reconciliation and every other means they can manage)? Do you think Obama will take to the bully pulpit, urge Americans to bury Republicans in email, phone calls, snail mail, and urge Democrats to block Republicans every way possible?

Or do you think that Obama's going to be making deal after deal with them, spinning what he can as somehow "Good for the People and Democrats", and/or, "I'm president of all the People, and the People in their infinite wisdom put Republicans in the majority, so I must honor their wishes and work with Republicans, and not try to obstruct their will"?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

I am an old OLD liberal Democrat.

I have been voting the lesser of two ev!ls (DLC Democrats) since the DLC took over the Democratic Party in the late 1980s.

I have watched the DLC take the Democratic Party farther to the right each election cycle, promising change and reform, blaming the lack of it on voters for not electing enough Democrats liberals progressives, all the while the party leaders are bankrolling pro-corporate DINOs over true liberals and cooperating with Republicans in Congress. Never are the party leaders using the bully pulpit of their offices to educate or inform the American people as to the great traditions of liberal Democracy and how the People have prospered under liberal Democrats.

Currently, this DINO of a president has continued just about all of the Bush-Cheney policies and gone Bush-Cheney one better in several areas. Civil rights abuses that Bush & Cheney could only fantasize about, never dare try, Obama's doing.

How does any Democratic voter defend Obama after he asserts he has the right to k!ll any American citizen with no due process or oversight? And 'prevention detention'? And his claims of 'state secrets' to deny courts even look at his a$$a$$ination program?

If Obama didn't have a 'D' after his name, anyone looking at his actions would know that his most ardent supporters' belts don't go through all the loops for supporting what they claim to loathe about Republican. But the 'D' after Obama's name is a brand they believe and trust in (as did I), despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product) as what Bush & Cheney gave us. And worse.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

Welcome to my world online.

Keep in mind that many of those who are doing that are political operatives, paid to spread disinformation, provide any kind of narrative (desperate, and as off-the-wall as their accusations are) to sow doubt in the minds of people who your comments are resonating with. The truth has a 'ring' to it, and they're trying to throw a '#CLANG# to distract readers' attention.

Accusing you of being a Republican or a teabagger means you have them flummoxed. They have no argument, they've run out of excuses to explain Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress.

"When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff" - Dr. Ralf Rinkle
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

We've seen Obama bravely go to town hall meetings where there were Republicans with rifles.

====================================================

You come to believe this, how?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

Obama, Rahm Emanuel, the DLC, David Axelrod, David Plouffe, all have worked their @$$es off to prevent real progressives getting into office.

One example right off the bat is Blanche Lincoln.

The White House put their full weight & support behind Blanche Lincoln over the true progressive (& union-backed) candidate in the primary, Bill Halter.

This wasn't unlike when Obama made a deal with Arlen Specter and put the full weight and support of the Democratic machine behind Specter during the 2010 primary in Pennsylvania, trying to buy off (among other alternative candidates Democratic voters in PA might have wanted to vote to have representing them) Joe Sestak. Consider that -- Obama actively went about trying to prevent Democratic voters from choosing their preferred candidate for the US so that a DINO, Republican Arlen Specter, could retain the seat.

Lincoln is 40 points down behind the GOP candidate John Boozman.

Guess who could beat Boozman in Arkansas? Bill Halter. Because, like just about all Americans, Arkansans would prefer an authentic candidate, even if it's a progressive. We appreciate honesty.

But more progressives in Congress means real populist legislation getting passed into law. Real reform bills, that re-regulate banks and big business. Real stimulus bills, with jobs creation, green clean energy development, and more.

But that's not who or what Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats are about.

The rightwing attacking Obama and their refusal to work in "a bipartisan manner" should have pushed Obama to play hardball and move populist legislation through Congress quickly and decisively. To undo the Bush-Cheney abuses, especially with the tentative hold on a filibuster-proof majority Democrats were given in the 2008 election.

Instead, he let Republicans dictate the pace and shape a debate that was already done and voted on and won by Democrats in 2008.

If Republicans are so bad (and I think they are), why is Obama blocking all investigations and prosecutions into the Bush-Cheney administration? Perhaps if Bill Clinton hadn't done the same thing for the Reagan-Bush administration, we wouldn't have been saddled with Bush-Cheney at all.

When Obama came into power, the GOP wasn't on the ropes; it was down for the count. And Obama issued them a pardon. He expresses absolutely no remorse or plan to do anything differently.

Obama's not the Democrat that you think he is. He's not any kind of Democrat; he's a DINO.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Robert Gates Hints At Cuts For Military Pay And Benefits, Says Too Few Americans Bear The Burdens Of War

Robert Gates: 'We're Not Ever Leaving' Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Robert Gates Hints At Cuts For Military Pay And Benefits, Says Too Few Americans Bear The Burdens Of War

End privatization of military (mercenaries, Blackwater), bring back the draft, end the wars of choice (for the profit of the rich oily people).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

Obama, Rahm Emanuel, the DLC, David Axelrod, David Plouffe, all have worked their @$$es off to prevent real progressives getting into office.

One example right off the bat is Blanche Lincoln.

The White House put their full weight & support behind Blanche Lincoln over the true progressive (& union-backed) candidate in the primary, Bill Halter.

This wasn't unlike when Obama made a deal with Arlen Specter and put the full weight and support of the Democratic machine behind Specter during the 2010 primary in Pennsylvania, trying to buy off (among other alternative candidates Democratic voters in PA might have wanted to vote to have representing them) Joe Sestak. Consider that -- Obama actively went about trying to prevent Democratic voters from choosing their preferred candidate for the US so that a DINO, Republican Arlen Specter, could retain the seat.

Lincoln is 40 points down behind the GOP candidate John Boozman.

Guess who could beat Boozman in Arkansas? Bill Halter. Because, like just about all Americans, Arkansans would prefer an authentic candidate, even if it's a progressive. We appreciate honesty.

But more progressives in Congress means real populist legislation getting passed into law. Real reform bills, that re-regulate banks and big business. Real stimulus bills, with jobs creation, green clean energy development, and more.

But that's not who or what Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats are about.

The rightwing attacking Obama and their refusal to work in "a bipartisan manner" should have pushed Obama to play hardball and move populist legislation through Congress quickly and decisively. To undo the Bush-Cheney abuses, especially with the tentative hold on a filibuster-proof majority Democrats were given in the 2008 election.

Instead, he let Republicans dictate the pace and shape a debate that was already done and voted on and won by Democrats in 2008.

If Republicans are so bad (and I think they are), why is Obama blocking all investigations and prosecutions into the Bush-Cheney administration? Perhaps if Bill Clinton hadn't done the same thing for the Reagan-Bush administration, we wouldn't have been saddled with Bush-Cheney at all.

When Obama came into power, the GOP wasn't on the ropes; it was down for the count. And Obama issued them a pardon. He expresses absolutely no remorse or plan to do anything differently.

Obama's not the Democrat that you think he is. He's not any kind of Democrat; he's a DINO.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

Obama, Rahm Emanuel, the DLC, David Axelrod, David Plouffe, all have worked their @$$es off to prevent real progressives getting into office.

One example right off the bat is Blanche Lincoln.

The White House put their full weight & support behind Blanche Lincoln over the true progressive (& union-backed) candidate in the primary, Bill Halter.

This wasn't unlike when Obama made a deal with Arlen Specter and put the full weight and support of the Democratic machine behind Specter during the 2010 primary in Pennsylvania, trying to buy off (among other alternative candidates Democratic voters in PA might have wanted to vote to have representing them) Joe Sestak. Consider that -- Obama actively went about trying to prevent Democratic voters from choosing their preferred candidate for the US so that a DINO, Republican Arlen Specter, could retain the seat.

Lincoln is 40 points down behind the GOP candidate John Boozman.

Guess who could beat Boozman in Arkansas? Bill Halter. Because, like just about all Americans, Arkansans would prefer an authentic candidate, even if it's a progressive. We appreciate honesty.

But more progressives in Congress means real populist legislation getting passed into law. Real reform bills, that re-regulate banks and big business. Real stimulus bills, with jobs creation, green clean energy development, and more.

But that's not who or what Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats are about.

The rightwing attacking Obama and their refusal to work in "a bipartisan manner" should have pushed Obama to play hardball and move populist legislation through Congress quickly and decisively. To undo the Bush-Cheney abuses, especially with the tentative hold on a filibuster-proof majority Democrats were given in the 2008 election.

Instead, he let Republicans dictate the pace and shape a debate that was already done and voted on and won by Democrats in 2008.

If Republicans are so bad (and I think they are), why is Obama blocking all investigations and prosecutions into the Bush-Cheney administration? Perhaps if Bill Clinton hadn't done the same thing for the Reagan-Bush administration, we wouldn't have been saddled with Bush-Cheney at all.

When Obama came into power, the GOP wasn't on the ropes; it was down for the count. And Obama issued them a pardon. He expresses absolutely no remorse or plan to do anything differently.

Obama's not the Democrat that you think he is. He's not any kind of Democrat; he's a DINO.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

Tell the truth now; you have a learning disability, don't you?

Had you read the entire comment, you would have seen:

Obama's personal polling numbers remain high.

Those polled may not like what he or Democrats are doing, but like him personally. His total job approval on Rasmussen, for example, is 46 percent - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll .

The numbers state-by-state swing more broadly, with that number going up to 58 percent in NY, for example. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/25/latest-round-up-of-obama-poll-numbers-by-state/

That's still high, or high enough that the White House thinks their problem is just one of selling its policies. So the White House "stays the course" and sends him out to stump, make speeches. If Obama's personal numbers weren't good, he wouldn't be out stumping; that's another indication of his high personal numbers.

54 percent may disapprove of Obama's performance but they still like him.

Here's my question for you:

Do you share the low opinion of Obama that you think most Americans have of Obama?

About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Draws 26,000 For Madison Rally (VIDEO)

Bad analogy (you comparing yourself to Obama, and the relationship between the president and the citizens as one of a parent to a child), but it gives us an important insight into the mind of an 0bamabot: You l!e to your daughter to get medicine into her, and you believe that in a democracy, it's all right for a president to l!e to citizens to get their votes.

Fortunately, the American people aren't your children you aren't in any position of power over the American people.

Unfortunately for us, Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats may see their relationship with the American people as you do, in which case they're as lousy at parenting as you are, and worse at governing than Republicans.

This is a democracy, a democratic republic, not a parent-child relationship. American citizens have to make adult decisions about who will have power over their lives, who will represent them and their interests in government.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama told people that they had to stay involved after the election, that they couldn't just vote for him, go away for four years and expect that he would do what they had hoped. He said that there were powerful interests working against what the people wanted, and if We The People wanted Obama to do our bidding, we would have to MAKE HIM DO IT.

Obama's 'most ardent supporters' forget that those of us who criticize Obama are only doing what he warned us needed to be done. NOT to trust him.

Since the election (and even before, with his FISA vote), Obama's given us every reason to distrust and doubt him. He's been deceptive, breaking every campaign pledge and promise, conceding the positions of the left (getting nothing in return), and hobbling real Democrats at every turn while making Republicans and Blue Dogs stronger (and harder to beat in 2010 and 2012).

Obama's 'most ardent supporters' (like you) are the most immediate problem, as they help him screw them (& us) over. They keep his personal numbers high. That enables Obama to blow them (and all Democratic voters) off. Until they wake up to these facts, they are their own (& our) worst e n e m ies, and the reason we don't get what we all thought we were voting for when we voted Obama and Democrats into office as the majority power in our government.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Draws 26,000 For Madison Rally (VIDEO)

As long as Obama's personal approval ratings remain high (and they are remaining high, thanks to Obama's 'most ardent supporters' who defend everything he does and respond to facts critical of him & the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress with, "But Republicans/Teabaggers are worse"), Obama & Democrats are not going to do anything differently.

Those polled may not like what he or Democrats are doing, but like him personally. His total job approval on Rasmussen, for example, is 46 percent -http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_admi nistration/daily_pres idential_t racking_po ll .

The numbers state-by-state swing more broadly, with that number going up to 58 percent in NY, for example -http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/25/latest-round-up-of-obama-poll-numbers-by-state/ ).

That's still high, or high enough that the White House thinks their problem is just one of selling its policies. So the White House "stays the course" and sends Obama out to stump, to make speeches. If Obama's personal numbers weren't good, he wouldn't be out stumping; that's another indication of his high personal numbers.

The White House has gone to great lengths to distance Obama from his and Democrats' actions, as do all White House administrations (try to keep presidents removed from any negative consequences of presidential decisions).

It's always others in his administration who are responsible when something goes south or wrong, in which case it's that person who "leaves the administration" (fired, asked to resign). The president is always the "last man standing"; everyone else falls on their sword for the king.

Presidents do that, implement unpopular policies, for as long as they can get away with it, i.e., the president is not associated with the policies (which is what the high personal polling numbers mean).

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Draws 26,000 For Madison Rally (VIDEO)

For those who defend Obama by saying that when he was a candidate he said he would expand the war in Afghanistan:

When Candidate Obama talked about Afghanistan, it was in the context that Bush had erred in moving the war on Al Qaeda to Iraq, and that he, Obama, wanted to refocus US efforts to where Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were -- In Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan.

It was certainly clear that Al Qaeda was not synonymous with the Taliban, and that the AUMF did not include the Taliban.

It was also clear that Obama was speaking for that moment in time, during the campaign, and that should circumstances change, i.e., Al Qaeda was not any serious threat or Osama Bin Laden was k!lled or somewhere else, Obama wouldn't be expanding the offensive in Afghanistan.

Once Obama got into the White House, the assessment was crystal clear that there were fewer than 100 in Al Qaeda, they weren't capable of anything.

Candidate Obama also communicated clearly that he understood how the US's pursuit of empire and military aggression was a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda, and that if elected, all that was going to end.

What Obama is doing as president is not what Candidate Obama campaigned on.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Oil Commission Baffled By Lowball Estimates; Suspects They Slowed Response

There is no $20 billion restitution funding.

There's no contract, BP just put up $3 billion, and nothing is securitized.

BP is trying to blackmail the government, too, by saying that unless it's allowed to continue risky, dangerous drilling operations in sensitive deep waters, it won't pay anything.
About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Out Of Afghanistan 'Psychologically,' Woodward Says (VIDEO)

Everything you've said is true.

Congress, which works on behalf of transnational corporations and not the People of the US, does whatever it can to dilute, discourage, prevent citizens having any say in or control of the government and policy.

If Americans really want their country back, reinstating the draft is on the short list of 'Surest & Fastest Ways To Get Back The Democracy'.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Robert Gates: 'We're Not Ever Leaving' Afghanistan

For those who defend Obama by saying that when he was a candidate he said he would expand the war in Afghanistan:

When Candidate Obama talked about Afghanistan, it was in the context that Bush had erred in moving the war on Al Qaeda to Iraq, and that he, Obama, wanted to refocus US efforts to where Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were -- In Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan.

It was certainly clear that Al Qaeda was not synonymous with the Taliban, and that the AUMF did not include the Taliban.

It was also clear that Obama was speaking for that moment in time, during the campaign, and that should circumstances change, i.e., Al Qaeda was not any serious threat or Osama Bin Laden was k!lled or somewhere else, Obama wouldn't be expanding the offensive in Afghanistan.

Once Obama got into the White House, the assessment was crystal clear that there were fewer than 100 in Al Qaeda, they weren't capable of anything.

Candidate Obama also communicated clearly that he understood how the US's pursuit of empire and military aggression was a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda, and that if elected, all that was going to end.

What Obama is doing as president is not what Candidate Obama campaigned on.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Out Of Afghanistan 'Psychologically,' Woodward Says (VIDEO)

For those who defend Obama by saying that when he was a candidate he said he would expand the war in Afghanistan:

When Candidate Obama talked about Afghanistan, it was in the context that Bush had erred in moving the war on Al Qaeda to Iraq, and that he, Obama, wanted to refocus US efforts to where Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were -- In Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan.

It was certainly clear that Al Qaeda was not synonymous with the Taliban, and that the AUMF did not include the Taliban.

It was also clear that Obama was speaking for that moment in time, during the campaign, and that should circumstances change, i.e., Al Qaeda was not any serious threat or Osama Bin Laden was k!lled or somewhere else, Obama wouldn't be expanding the offensive in Afghanistan.

Once Obama got into the White House, the assessment was crystal clear that there were fewer than 100 in Al Qaeda, they weren't capable of anything.

Candidate Obama also communicated clearly that he understood how the US's pursuit of empire and military aggression was a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda, and that if elected, all that was going to end.

What Obama is doing as president is not what Candidate Obama campaigned on.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Out Of Afghanistan 'Psychologically,' Woodward Says (VIDEO)

For those who defend Obama by saying that when he was a candidate he said he would expand the war in Afghanistan:

When Candidate Obama talked about Afghanistan, it was in the context that Bush had erred in moving the war on Al Qaeda to Iraq, and that he, Obama, wanted to refocus US efforts to where Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were -- In Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan.

It was certainly clear that Al Qaeda was not synonymous with the Taliban, and that the AUMF did not include the Taliban.

It was also clear that Obama was speaking for that moment in time, during the campaign, and that should circumstances change, i.e., Al Qaeda was not any serious threat or Osama Bin Laden was k!lled or somewhere else, Obama wouldn't be expanding the offensive in Afghanistan.

Once Obama got into the White House, the assessment was crystal clear that there were fewer than 100 in Al Qaeda, they weren't capable of anything.

Candidate Obama also communicated clearly that he understood how the US's pursuit of empire and military aggression was a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda, and that if elected, all that was going to end.

What Obama is doing as president is not what Candidate Obama campaigned on.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Out Of Afghanistan 'Psychologically,' Woodward Says (VIDEO)

Not formally, it doesn't.

You and I can agree that members of Congress enjoyed non-responsibility, non-oversight of these wars during the Bush years because it gave them "plausible deniability", but it is somewhat murkier for them under Obama. They can only get away with saying, "But Obama inherited these wars, he didn't start them, and as such he has few, if any, choices (and that means we have even fewer choices but to 'support the troops') and must keep paying the bills" for so long. Until civil unrest at home demands they end it now, or we can't borrow anymore money to pay for the wars. The latter is unlikely to happen as we are providing the security for our bankers to do business in these countries. So as long as the wars continue, China, et al, will continue loaning us money (that our great-grandchildren will be paying off; in the short term, we will be losing our social safety nets, healthcare, and most everything else as federal, state and county budgets are slashed). All that is left is the former, and I don't see the People taking to the streets with pitchforks and torches, do you?
About Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Robert Gates: 'We're Not Ever Leaving' Afghanistan

Gates didn't do much in a way of providing the President any options other then a surge.
==================================================

It worked for both Bush and Obama in Iraq.

We're still there, it's still a full-on raging war but most Americans don't know that and believe "combat operations are over" and a few troops are there for show.

The way that Bush and Cheney and now Obama keep these wars going is by increment. The longer they get away with not bringing all of the troops home, the longer we remain occupying those countries, the more worn down the American people become in allowing it to continue. The goal is to wear down everyone, the Americans, the Iraqis, the Afghans, and the longer it goes on, the more self-fulfilling a prophecy it is.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Out Of Afghanistan 'Psychologically,' Woodward Says (VIDEO)

It's implied.

BillLoney, a paid political operative, invariably looks to excuse Obama's actions.

While rksnj67's comment may be taken in the sense of ironic, BillLoney's response to it wasn't meant to be critical of Obama or meant to be taken as negatively comparing him to Bush.

If I'm wrong, news is being made here today: BillLoney has turned on Obama.
About Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Out Of Afghanistan 'Psychologically,' Woodward Says (VIDEO)

Congress didn't authorize any war against the Taliban, or nation-building in either Afghanistan or Iraq, yet these wars continue. After taking a nation to war with Iraq based on l!es (not just about Iraq having WMD, but Bush got the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq from Congress based on his assurances that it was only to bolster his 'bullying Saddam Hussein'-strategy, & that he would go back to the UN for its authorization & come back to Congress before he did anything -- Bush did neither), no legal basis exists for the US military remaining in either of those countries.

All we've seen from Democrats in Congress is a whole lotta diffuse talk, but no action.

Obama & Democrats ran on putting the wars on the budget, with no more supplemental emergency spending bills to pay for these wars. Funding the wars through supplementals was how Bush & Cheney managed to avoid congressional oversight & public scrutiny.

After close to two years of controlling both Houses of Congress & the WhiteHouse, Democrats are continuing the funding of the wars through supplementals.

What's significant about this?:

When the funding of wars goes 'on budget', congressional committees & subcommittees then hold hearings & investigations into US policies, about US interests around the world, from which the UnitedState's overall foreign & military policies are derived. That's how civilian-control over the US military takes place: Through the citizens' chosen representatives choosing weapons systems & overseeing US military operations & installations, plans & policies, etc.

This doesn't happen with supplemental spending bills.

The nature of them is, "It's an emergency, we're running out of money, give us $80 billion now (that's the magic sum, invariably $80 billion) or you won't be 'supporting the troops'...We'll talk about it later".

"Later" doesn't happen.

The $80 billion ploy is so the American people think they're always talking about the same $80 billion.

I know, I know, "How is that possible that the average American wouldn't realize it's not the same $80 billion when it's year in& year out?" The average American is just barely keeping it all together as it is & fighting for his life(style).

Committees in both Houses of Congress have either never begun investigations into fraud and abuse, or dropped investigations (both on what happened during the Bush administration and afterwards), yet Congress is doing no oversight, & thieving criminal private contractors are still being awarded government contracts.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Out Of Afghanistan 'Psychologically,' Woodward Says (VIDEO)

So that makes it ok?
About Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Robert Gates: 'We're Not Ever Leaving' Afghanistan

And so now, if Obama doesn't get rid of Gates, will Obama's 'most ardent admirers' admit that Gates is speaking for Obama and that Obama is committed to the Bush-Cheney 'Long War'?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Joe Biden Defines Midterm Election Stakes: Democrats Vs. Tea Party

Joe Biden voted with Republicans against these amendments, and for a Bankruptcy Bill that makes it harder for Americans to ever get out of debt.

It was a bill that served Corporations, and not the People.
About Tax Day Tea Parties
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

I'm an old, OLD liberal Democrat.

Do you not know that, in addition to independent voters, Obama is losing the base of the Democratic Party? - http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/16/johan_galtung_on_the_wars_in>
"When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff" - Dr. Ralf Rinkle
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

Any pollster will confirm that the President numbers are very low.
====================================

Then you shouldn't have any problem producing them.

Obama's personal polling numbers remain high. Those polled may not like what he or Democrats are doing, but like him personally. His total job approval on Rasmussen, for example, is 46 percent - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll (the numbers state-by-state swing more broadly, with that number going up to 58 percent in NY, for example - http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/25/latest-round-up-of-obama-poll-numbers-by-state/ ). That's still high, or high enough that the White House thinks their problem is just one of selling its policies. So the White House "stays the course" and sends him out to stump, make speeches. If Obama's personal numbers weren't good, he wouldn't be out stumping; that's another indication of his high personal numbers.

The White House has gone to great lengths to shield Obama from his and Democrats' actions, as do all White House administrations (try to keep presidents removed from any negative repercussions of presidential decisions). It's always others in his administration who are responsible when something goes south or wrong, in which case it's that person who "leaves the administration". The president is always the "last man standing"; everyone else falls on their sword for the king.

Presidents do that, implement unpopular policies, for as long as they can get away with it, i.e., the president is not associated with the policies (which is what the high personal polling numbers mean).

If you can't offer citations to back up your claims, then pray tell us how you come by your opinions. Do you have any special training in politics, or experience working in government or on campaigns?
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

To make such a claim means that you have no problem whatsoever with Republicans and consider them your friends, and like the fact that Biden voted against the troops, the elderly, the caregivers for those with ill and disabled family members, those facing homelessness and more due to medical bankruptcy, and the informing of all Americans and arming them against predatory lenders.

It's Joe Biden's voting record with Republicans that defines him. For you to support that record defines you, too.

"When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff" - Dr. Ralf Rinkle
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

You're either an political operative paid to confuse readers by spreading disinformation or you're just an id-jit who has no capability of independent thought.

Or both.

But whatever it is, listing Joe Biden's voting record isn't a "rant", and I'm an old, OLD liberal Democrat.

"When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff" - Dr. Ralf Rinkle

About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Joe Biden Defines Midterm Election Stakes: Democrats Vs. Tea Party

Nobody expected "magic" from Obama.

We did expect honesty, transparency, and have been getting nothing but a snow job.

There can be no democracy, no solutions, no functioning government, without honest, without trust, when elected officials are Iying, cutting secret deals and then spinning them as something that they're not.

The fact that you are defending him just tells me that you're either ig.no.rant of the facts, or, you're as corrupt as he is. Because if you wanted what we all thought we were getting when we put Obama and Democrats into power, you would be joining those who are only doing what he told us we were going to have to do.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama told people that they had to stay involved after the election, that they couldn't just vote for him, go away for four years and expect that he would do what they had hoped. He said that there were powerful interests working against what the people wanted, and if We The People wanted Obama to do our bidding, we would have to MAKE HIM DO IT.

Obama's 'most ardent supporters' forget that those of us who criticize Obama are only doing what he warned us needed to be done. NOT to trust him.

Since the election (and even before, with his FISA vote), Obama's given us every reason to distrust and doubt him. He's been deceptive, breaking every campaign pledge and promise, conceding the positions of the left (getting nothing in return), and hobbling real Democrats at every turn while making Republicans and Blue Dogs stronger (and harder to beat in 2010 and 2012).

Obama's 'most ardent supporters' (like you) are the most immediate problem, as they help him screw them (& us) over. They keep his personal numbers high. That enables Obama to blow them (and all Democratic voters) off. Until they wake up to these facts, they are their own (& our) worst e n e m ies, and the reason we don't get what we all thought we were voting for when we voted Obama and Democrats into office as the majority power in our government.
About Tax Day Tea Parties
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Joe Biden Defines Midterm Election Stakes: Democrats Vs. Tea Party

This is actually funny coming from Joe Biden; I prefer that my enemies be easily identifiable on the other side and not standing next to me pretending to be a Democrat.

Joe Biden's been called a liberal really just because of his folksy manner. His voting record tells a different story. He's been voting with Republicans on landmark bills to screw the People for a long time.

One example of Biden's treachery is his record on the overall Bankruptcy bill five years ago. His yes vote was shocking enough, but when you look at the amendments that Democrats tried to put into the bill to try to soften the blow to the People of the bill that passed and how Biden voted on them, no informed Democratic voter could ever vote for Biden again, much less think him to be a liberal. Here are just some of the amendments on that bill that Biden voted against:'

To reject a provision that would ensure that no elderly people in enough financial trouble to seek bankruptcy protection would lose their homes.

Here's one amendment to the bill that Biden didn't vote on at all:

To preserve existing bankruptcy protections for individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled family members.
That was a simple effort to not strip away existing protections for people who are struggling to stay alive, housed, and fed while taking care of ill or disabled family members.

To provide protection for medical debt homeowners.
To exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from means testing.

Both amendments had the simple goal of consumer protection for individuals whose medical debts are the reason they're filing for bankruptcy.

Another amendment to the bill that Biden voted against:

To require enhanced disclosure to consumers regarding the consequences of making only minimum required payments in the repayment of credit card debt, and for other purposes.

That amendment was a Democratic attempt to balance the aggressive protections given by the bill to predatory lenders by simply requiring credit card companies to give people more prominent warnings about what will happen if they only pay the minimum required payments on those cards. This is a significant problem for many consumers, who do not understand that making the minimum allowed payments on credit cards actually increases their debts on those cards.

To protect service members and veterans from means testing in bankruptcy, to disallow certain claims by lenders charging usurious interest rates to servicemembers, and to allow servicemembers to exempt property based on the law of the State of their premilitary residence.

That amendment was a Democratic request to protect servicemen and women from bankruptcies by predatory lenders charging usurious interest rates, & to allow them the protections of their own state laws in potentially keeping their properties.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/3/6/63144/06015
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

Speaking of Joe Biden, I prefer that my enemies be easily identifiable on the other side and not standing next to me pretending to be a Democrat.

Joe Biden's been called a liberal really just because of his folksy manner. His voting record tells a different story. He's been voting with Republicans on landmark bills to screw the People for a long time.

One example of Biden's treachery is his record on the overall Bankruptcy bill five years ago. His yes vote was shocking enough, but when you look at the amendments that Democrats tried to put into the bill to try to soften the blow to the People of the bill that passed and how Biden voted on them, no informed Democratic voter could ever vote for Biden again, much less think him to be a liberal. Here are just some of the amendments on that bill that Biden voted against:'

To reject a provision that would ensure that no elderly people in enough financial trouble to seek bankruptcy protection would lose their homes.

Here's one amendment to the bill that Biden didn't vote on at all:

To preserve existing bankruptcy protections for individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled family members.
That was a simple effort to not strip away existing protections for people who are struggling to stay alive, housed, and fed while taking care of ill or disabled family members.

To provide protection for medical debt homeowners.
To exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from means testing.

Both amendments had the simple goal of consumer protection for individuals whose medical debts are the reason they're filing for bankruptcy.

Another amendment to the bill that Biden voted against:

To require enhanced disclosure to consumers regarding the consequences of making only minimum required payments in the repayment of credit card debt, and for other purposes.

That amendment was a Democratic attempt to balance the aggressive protections given by the bill to predatory lenders by simply requiring credit card companies to give people more prominent warnings about what will happen if they only pay the minimum required payments on those cards. This is a significant problem for many consumers, who do not understand that making the minimum allowed payments on credit cards actually increases their debts on those cards.

To protect service members and veterans from means testing in bankruptcy, to disallow certain claims by lenders charging usurious interest rates to servicemembers, and to allow servicemembers to exempt property based on the law of the State of their premilitary residence.

That amendment was a Democratic request to protect servicemen and women from bankruptcies by predatory lenders charging usurious interest rates, & to allow them the protections of their own state laws in potentially keeping their properties.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/3/6/63144/06015
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

Obama supporters assumed that Obama would be working to stabilize and improve economic conditions for the People (poor and middle classes), because that's generally what Democrats claim to stand for. By Obama's choices to run the US economy, he's shown that he's interested in stabilizing and improving economic conditions for those at the top. Obama's is a hodge-podge of policies -- Rhetoric for the People and tangible assets for the rich.

Remaining quiet about this only lets the robber barons continue their raid on the American middle class.

Obama's most ardent supporters are either paid political operatives or just too ig.no.rant to realize that what Obama is doing is NOT in their best interests. The ig.nor.ant Obama supporter comes to believe in Obama by process of elimination -- If Republicans are accusing him of being a socialist, then Obama must be doing something anti-Republican. He's not. Obama is DLC to the bone. A Republican in Democrats' clothing. And that is not good for the average ordinary working American. It's also not good for all other Americans, because it leads to instability of the whole culture.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

Bush and Cheney did what they wanted to do, ignored opposition, Democrats allowed it and didn't use their ability (once they got it in 2006) to stop what Bush/Cheney & Republicans were doing. Democrats lost plausible deniability then, once they got what they had been using as their excuse for doing nothing the entirety of the Bush-Cheney first 6 years.

Look around at Obama's 'most ardent supporters'. They're no better than Bushies. They keep his numbers high so that he can continue to govern in the best interests of the corporations and the very richest.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP