|
Post by jdredd on Feb 3, 2011 23:58:36 GMT -5
Once again, you've mistaken me for someone else. I was an early critic of the "teaba**er" slur. Well, if that is the case, then I stand corrected. Must be your negative obsession with the Tea Party that confused me with the rhetoric of JO, VOR and Bruce. Good for you for drawing a line, but somehow I can't help but think after your velocity of posts that I have read that the sentiment is the same. What I remember mostly saying (and I admit my memory sucks) is that I admired the Tea Party people for getting off their butts and marching, I just believe they are marching in the wrong direction, and I think they will be co-opted by the GOP. I have made fun of their headgear, though.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Feb 4, 2011 1:35:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 9, 2011 20:18:37 GMT -5
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/8/restive-democrats-warn-obama-deficit-talks/"Turmoil in Democratic ranks spread Friday over President Obama’s bid to reduce spending on Social Security and Medicare as part of intensifying deficit-reduction talks with congressional Republican leaders. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, met with Mr. Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. at the White House Friday morning. She declared later that House Democrats “would not reduce the deficit or subsidize tax cuts for the rich on the backs of America’s seniors.” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode island Democrat, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont independent and one of the Senate’s most liberal members, held a conference call with representatives of more than 300 liberal groups, including MoveOn.org, the National Organization for Women and labor unions opposed to any cuts in entitlement programs such as Social Security. “There’s been very little conversation between the White House and the Senate about this, and I think they’re making a grievous mistake if they think they can just present anything to us and assume that because we’re Democrats, we’ll go along with what the president has capitulated to,” Mr. Whitehouse said." I'm still trying to figure out what kind of looney negotiating tactic Barack is using ("$2 trillion in cuts? I'll give you $4 trillion! Take that!"). Makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by dj on Jul 10, 2011 2:35:58 GMT -5
I'm still trying to figure out what kind of looney negotiating tactic Barack is using ("$2 trillion in cuts? I'll give you $4 trillion! Take that!"). Makes no sense. [/color][/quote] Remember, that was an English paper saying that. In fact, today a report say's Boehner is pulling the demand back to $2 Trillion. I think they already have a deal worked out, they're all just trying to word the whole thing so both sides can go back to their constituencies and say they won.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jul 10, 2011 5:04:58 GMT -5
I'm still trying to figure out what kind of looney negotiating tactic Barack is using ("$2 trillion in cuts? I'll give you $4 trillion! Take that!"). Makes no sense. [/color][/quote] Remember, that was an English paper saying that. In fact, today a report say's Boehner is pulling the demand back to $2 Trillion. I think they already have a deal worked out, they're all just trying to word the whole thing so both sides can go back to their constituencies and say they won.[/quote] I seem to remember that the U.S. media was reporting that the target from Congress originally was $2 Trillion. They then reported that Obama called Congress's $2 Trillion and raised them $2 Trillion ($4 Trillion total). Obviously a political ploy to try to force in the tax increases. It was Obama, NOT Congress who came up with the $4 Trillion number. Congress gave it a try but could not reach an agreement that would reach $4 Trillion. So, Congress is looking at $2 Trillion (and maybe slightly more) of which an agreement might be made. An agreement might have already been at hand if Obama had not imposed his wishes of $4 Trillion.
|
|
|
Post by dj on Jul 10, 2011 21:58:31 GMT -5
Remember, that was an English paper saying that. In fact, today a report say's Boehner is pulling the demand back to $2 Trillion. I think they already have a deal worked out, they're all just trying to word the whole thing so both sides can go back to their constituencies and say they won. I seem to remember that the U.S. media was reporting that the target from Congress originally was $2 Trillion. They then reported that Obama called Congress's $2 Trillion and raised them $2 Trillion ($4 Trillion total). Obviously a political ploy to try to force in the tax increases. It was Obama, NOT Congress who came up with the $4 Trillion number. Congress gave it a try but could not reach an agreement that would reach $4 Trillion. So, Congress is looking at $2 Trillion (and maybe slightly more) of which an agreement might be made. An agreement might have already been at hand if Obama had not imposed his wishes of $4 Trillion. Well, what we're looking at is not Obama "raising" the cuts to $4 trillion, probably more like saying, hey we can get $2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years. We can ALSO get $2 trillion in tax increases over 10 years. Boehner obviously said no way to any tax increases, and simply pulled back to the $2 Trillion number. This is not that hard to figure out. Like I said my cynical self says they already have a deal and they are just giving us a good show. Hell, there's another week or to two to milk this thing before an actual vote has to take place.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 10, 2011 23:50:07 GMT -5
I seem to remember that the U.S. media was reporting that the target from Congress originally was $2 Trillion. They then reported that Obama called Congress's $2 Trillion and raised them $2 Trillion ($4 Trillion total). Obviously a political ploy to try to force in the tax increases. It was Obama, NOT Congress who came up with the $4 Trillion number. Congress gave it a try but could not reach an agreement that would reach $4 Trillion. So, Congress is looking at $2 Trillion (and maybe slightly more) of which an agreement might be made. An agreement might have already been at hand if Obama had not imposed his wishes of $4 Trillion. Well, what we're looking at is not Obama "raising" the cuts to $4 trillion, probably more like saying, hey we can get $2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years. We can ALSO get $2 trillion in tax increases over 10 years. Boehner obviously said no way to any tax increases, and simply pulled back to the $2 Trillion number. This is not that hard to figure out. Like I said my cynical self says they already have a deal and they are just giving us a good show. Hell, there's another week or to two to milk this thing before an actual vote has to take place. Easy for you to say! I was totally mystified. And I still think Obama will roll over and play dead, and we will get big cuts in Medicare, etc. while the wealthy will avoid sharing the pain with new taxes. I'm still looking for proof the guy is not a big phony who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 30, 2011 0:21:53 GMT -5
While Republican mayors could be expected to send in the cops to clear out the OWS since that is their solution to every social ill, I am disgusted that lib mayors have behaved exactly the same. So I am officially giving the Dem party the finger, and will support whatever candidate a third party on the left nominates for President.
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Nov 30, 2011 13:54:32 GMT -5
I don't get you, JD. Occupee-ers have become Occupoopers, shitting and peeing on private property, intimidating little people out of business, shoplifting, being violent and generally being shitheads, and YOU support this? All in the name of revenge against a system?
If it was only a sit-in, I could almost understand. But, people's lives are being ruined by these low life a$$holes. I know a woman that sold coffee from a cart that lost some serious income, limited as it was, during San Diego. Is that right in your mind???
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 30, 2011 16:27:34 GMT -5
I don't get you, JD. Occupee-ers have become Occupoopers, shitting and peeing on private property, intimidating little people out of business, shoplifting, being violent and generally being shitheads, and YOU support this? All in the name of revenge against a system? If it was only a sit-in, I could almost understand. But, people's lives are being ruined by these low life a$$holes. I know a woman that sold coffee from a cart that lost some serious income, limited as it was, during San Diego. Is that right in your mind??? Looks to me like the OWS is kind of a litmus test. Many people seem to obsess on the messiness, but to me that seems rather trivial. What is more interesting to me, as I've said before, is the reaction of the powers-that-be, and how the Democrat mayors have reacted the same as the Republican mayors. As for the OWS being "revenge" against the system, revenge to me means something like assassination or bombings. Camping out in a park doesn't seem like much "revenge". As I've also said before, I think it's more like theatre.
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Nov 30, 2011 17:49:36 GMT -5
OK, JD, I understand about the reaction interest. But, how can anyone say that the losses of people, often hard working lower middle class people, were trivial?
If you call this theater, I'd caution you to buy your ticket and go in wearing a full hazmat suit. The sticky stuff on the floor ain't old dried lemonade or Snickers bars.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 30, 2011 20:15:47 GMT -5
OK, JD, I understand about the reaction interest. But, how can anyone say that the losses of people, often hard working lower middle class people, were trivial? If you call this theater, I'd caution you to buy your ticket and go in wearing a full hazmat suit. The sticky stuff on the floor ain't old dried lemonade or Snickers bars. All I've heard is second-hand information on the "loss of people", and I have no idea if it was actual OWS people or people on the fringes who were the perps. As a reporter on the TV said a few weeks back, the OWS was "infiltrated" by the homeless, which I thought was an amusing choice of words. And although the hygiene situation disgusts a lot of us old folks, I have no idea how it plays with the youngins. Whether they persevere with this whole "occupy" thing is something only time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Nov 30, 2011 22:27:07 GMT -5
OK, JD, I understand about the reaction interest. But, how can anyone say that the losses of people, often hard working lower middle class people, were trivial? If you call this theater, I'd caution you to buy your ticket and go in wearing a full hazmat suit. The sticky stuff on the floor ain't old dried lemonade or Snickers bars. All I've heard is second-hand information on the "loss of people", and I have no idea if it was actual OWS people or people on the fringes who were the perps. As a reporter on the TV said a few weeks back, the OWS was "infiltrated" by the homeless, which I thought was an amusing choice of words. And although the hygiene situation disgusts a lot of us old folks, I have no idea how it plays with the youngins. Whether they persevere with this whole "occupy" thing is something only time will tell. That is a far reach to BLAME the homeless as infiltrating the movement. But they do probably have more intellegence! I have worked with the homeless and have even spent a few nights at a sidewalk hotel with them. While they may pee in the gutter or a bush, when it comes to deficating, they most often try to find a proper place to go. They know that it wouldn't take long to destroy the area they live if they don't. But you must not have seen the picture (I believe it was posted here) of the guy deficating on a police car. THAT guy definately was not a homeless person. No, the filth is generated by the occupier Pee Party.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Dec 1, 2011 1:47:59 GMT -5
All I've heard is second-hand information on the "loss of people", and I have no idea if it was actual OWS people or people on the fringes who were the perps. As a reporter on the TV said a few weeks back, the OWS was "infiltrated" by the homeless, which I thought was an amusing choice of words. And although the hygiene situation disgusts a lot of us old folks, I have no idea how it plays with the youngins. Whether they persevere with this whole "occupy" thing is something only time will tell. That is a far reach to BLAME the homeless as infiltrating the movement. But they do probably have more intellegence! I have worked with the homeless and have even spent a few nights at a sidewalk hotel with them. While they may pee in the gutter or a bush, when it comes to deficating, they most often try to find a proper place to go. They know that it wouldn't take long to destroy the area they live if they don't. But you must not have seen the picture (I believe it was posted here) of the guy deficating on a police car. THAT guy definately was not a homeless person. No, the filth is generated by the occupier Pee Party. I did see the photo of the "occupier" defecating on the cop car. Let's just say I am a little skeptical. To me, all this obsession with pee and poo reeks of "Kill the messenger", or in this case, smear the messenger. As I've said, the overreaction to the OWS's message makes me think they are hitting a nerve.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 13, 2015 16:31:55 GMT -5
www.politico.com/story/2015/06/barack-obama-capitol-hill-trade-deal-118927.html"The House on Friday dealt a staggering blow to President Barack Obama’s trade agenda, as Democrats turned en masse against the president just hours after he made a direct appeal to salvage a centerpiece of his second-term platform. Lawmakers easily defeated a measure to help workers displaced by free trade known as Trade Adjustment Assistance. The aid package needed to pass in order to enact companion legislation that would give Obama fast-track trade authority to complete the sweeping, 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. The vote on the TAA bill was 126-302." “Whatever the deal is with other countries,” Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said before the vote, breaking her longtime silence on the issue, “we want a better deal for America’s workers." The right wing mythology is that Obama is a Bill Ayers leftist, of course. But here he is siding with the GOP and the Chamber of Commerce crowd.
|
|