pdsimdars

I think the correct statement is "Shut the F*ck up, you brain dead moron." posted 07/14/2008 at 17:01:02

All those corporations are all for capitalism when they are stealing money from you when they get deregulated. And then, when they drive the bus over the cliff, they become socialists and want YOU to pay for their BAILOUT. That's the way it works. They want, and keep getting, HUGE amounts of corporate welfare, paid for by you and me. We are now starting to bail out this latest mortgage deregulation crisis. posted 07/14/2008 at 16:37:59

As has been state many times and I wish you people, apparently much more brilliant than the rest of us, could understand reason instead of holding on to talking points you seem to "believe" in.
The talking point I see repeated over and over again is that someone is DEMANDING that Obama CHANGE his position and move left. The point being that we are demanding something of Obama.
NO! Obama said he would not vote on FISA with immunity and he would filibuster any bill with that in it. This was from Oct 2007 and through Jan, 2008. Now, is this MY position that I am DEMANDING he MOVE to? No, it is HIS stated position. I took him at HIS word. But that appears to not mean anything to him, or apparently, to you either.
How can anyone with any kind of stable thought process, put any faith in what he is now stating about his positions?
This is not a bunch of wacko, out of the ballpark, left wing nuts -- this represents stable, rational thought, not fogged out by some brainwashed, dreamworld fantasy of hope with no standing in reality.
Sorry, you're not paying attention. You just like to call people names and think you know better than everyone else, when you are really only showing your complete misunderstanding of the issue. posted 07/14/2008 at 16:33:37

A little schmoop? The value of the blogs, HuffPost in particular. I don't spend much time elsewhere. No matter where you go TV, web, radio, I don't find people who think on issues like I do. I feel like maybe I got it wrong, because you are inundated with the spin and warp different interests want to push on the public. There are so many people out there who are so succeptable to this brainwashing. It seems to permeate everything.
Then you come in here and so many people express my same thinking on these subjects. You read all the talking points, all the push back, all the mis-information, but there are other voices, repeating my thoughts against those talking points and erroneous ideas. I am very much fortified to know that my brain is just fine, thank you. And that's it -- thank you! posted 07/14/2008 at 16:15:22

Another bullsh*tforbrains gets it wrong!
"he didn't do exactly what you wanted him to do" That's your bullsh*t, mister nobullshit. We didn't want him to do what WE wanted -- we wanted him to do what HE said HE wanted. Do you get the difference? He told us where he stood on it. Then he CHANGED where he stood once he got the nomination and then BLAMED us for not understanding what his position was. DUH! We only understood what HE TOLD US!
Don't be such a think head. posted 07/14/2008 at 16:03:12

I'd also like to see impeachment for the attorney general for refusing to enforce the congressional subpoenas. Take him down, now. posted 07/14/2008 at 15:39:58

"sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't"
That is a lie. It is not "WE" disagreeing. It is HE disagreeing with HIS earlier position.
Maybe you could say, WE agree with HIM on his EARLIER stated position and HE no longer agrees with HIMSELF on his earlier stated position. In that twisted sense that statement may be looked at as having some meaning, but otherwise is nonsense and misleading. . . posted 07/14/2008 at 15:39:44

Let's see, you think Obama would be the better one to fighti against the bill he voted for, at some time LATER, rather than NOT voting for it now. He'll be able to do the right thing later rather than now? What is wrong with doing the right thing now, instead of later? That is confusing to me. And if he worked to overturn a bill he voted on, wouldn't that be contradictory? Is he planning to change his mind on his position later? A pre-emptive flip-flop? This kind of logic is another demonstration of the failure of our educational system. It is nonsense. posted 07/14/2008 at 15:33:07

OK, I like what you had to say, but it is a "180" on what he promised. 360 means he came back to the starting point. 180 means he is OPPOSITE to where he was.
But I liked what you had to say. posted 07/14/2008 at 15:25:35

You and your silly comments. All your cutsie little one-liners with big spaces, trying to make them big powerful fundamental principles, like they might actually mean something.
Sorry, spacing doesn't give gravitas, doesn't make them anything but pompous.
So, why not try whole thoughts? Why not try addressing the issues? Or is that too hard? posted 07/14/2008 at 15:22:03

Who are you trying to bluff with that? You're no one to comment on the 'ilk' of that post. That's just funny.
It was a good, well thought out post, you pretender. posted 07/14/2008 at 15:13:14

Wow, does your spin and bias ever effect your vision. You got it completely wrong. Good luck. posted 07/14/2008 at 15:08:00

And you're clearly a (mentally) disabled Veteran. posted 07/14/2008 at 14:55:14

AMEN! They're the ones filing the suit to get that FISA bill thrown out as unconstitutional. Exactly right. Give your money to the people who are standing up for your rights. Unfortunately, that STOPPED being Obama. posted 07/14/2008 at 14:53:13

And that means . . . . ?
I should now accept it when anyone wants to mess with my rights? That what you learned from Bush? Let everyone take advantage of you?
Not me. I say it's got to stop. I make no excuses for anyone. posted 07/14/2008 at 14:53:08

That's how most of this rationalization goes. They can't actually defend Obama and FISA, they revert to the neo con fear game -- Ooooo, be afraid, be very afraid, the big bad McBoogeyMan is gonna get ya, unless you stop trying to stand up for the constitution, i.e. the country. Go along to get along and don't speak up, and wonder why your government doesn't work. DUH! posted 07/14/2008 at 14:43:59

I unsubscribed from their list and still get emails asking for donations. I told them before this FISA vote that I had stopped making donations until I saw how he voted.
And then, he threw us under the bus with a BIG FAT LIE. The lie has 2 parts. One, that WE had gotten his position wrong, and two, that we were trying to push him left.
That is NOT the case. In Oct. 2007 he said he would support a filibuster of any bill that contains immunity. In Jan 2008 he said he strongly opposed immunity for telecoms, FISA courts work, no one is above the law, etc . . . . . Those are his stated positions. I don't want to change his positions to the left, I want him to stand by his own stated positions. And then he had the audacity to blame us for not understanding what he said. Now, when he decides it is inconvenient to vote against FISA, he says WE are confused.
I read a lot of others on HuffPost who said they were stopping donations. We warned them. They ignored us and also those 22,000 on his own web site who asked him not to vote for FISA
He made the decision to go back on his word and also that he didn't need us, so he can do it on his own. And good luck with that. posted 07/14/2008 at 14:37:04

Whatever you think about motive, Hillary got this right and Barack got it wrong. And this was a deal breaker for me. I supported him STRONGLY and sent monthly donations, but
(1) he told us he would vote against immunity in February
(2) his oath of office is to protect and defend the constitution (not the status quo)
(3) experts in constitutional law have said this is a horrible thing for the 4th amendment
(4) either he didn't know what the bill really said or he failed to fulfill his oath.

Why would anyone with any personal integrity, allow this man to be the protector and defender of the constitution? If you would, you are making excuses. posted 07/09/2008 at 20:14:09

So much for "ready on day one."

This is day 2 and counting and he still hasn't formulated a response.

I wonder how long it would take he and his team to respond if some disaster really happened. posted 07/09/2008 at 16:26:35

So, UltraDork, it's all about 'appearance' to you? People with shallow minds like the one that wrote this (that would be you), should not embaras themselves by commenting on words by a real man of depth and integrity (that would be Dodd). I won't waste my time going into all the misstatements and lies contained in your dump, but go do a little studying (especially history) and come back when you're in a better frame of mind. posted 07/07/2008 at 13:06:00

This is NOT a Liberal issue -- this is an American issue.

Let's have Dodd and Feingold, in either combination, for President and Vice President. At least they have a grasp of the REAL issues and the INTEGRITY to stand up for it.

Thank you both. posted 07/07/2008 at 12:55:50

Is that the benchmark we want for our presidents - a popularity contest? I'd prefer to have history say they were the president who did the most to ensure the rights, freedoms and blessings of America the most. You know, the opposite of this administration who corrupted everything. posted 07/07/2008 at 17:48:52

Sorry, but it is the true progressives who pay attention to the message, who will take the truth wherever they find it.
It is the NeoCons who avoid the substance and go after the messenger, in an attempt to dismiss the message without dealing with it.
So rant all you want and call everyone all the names you want, but what you can't do is deny that Obama told us that he would NOT vote for FISA with immunity and now he is telling us that he WILL vote for FISA WITH immunity. That is breaking his word to us and changing his "principles" for political reasons and THAT is "politics as usual" and not something new.
Those are the facts. And I am hoping that we can push him to do the right thing as a leader, and find the right way without sacrificing our constitution and LEAD people to this path. Not follow the Republican script out of fear. posted 07/04/2008 at 22:32:19

You don't know what you're saying. There has been a FISA court for decades and it didn't expire. You are wrong. posted 07/04/2008 at 22:19:09

Look at your first line "don't understand politics at all". This line is talking about and defending POLITICS AS USUAL, right? That's what you mean by that. So, EXCUSE those of us who were told and ACTUALLY BELIEVED we were getting something else. Our bad. Shouldn't have believed him in the first place. posted 07/04/2008 at 20:49:40

Yea, blame the messengers, but don't talk about the issues. Poor Barack, he told us what he believed in the primary and is now telling us another and people are pointing it out. Enough with the blaming the messengers, tell me where you think they are wrong, get to the issue, defend his reversals. And then tell me about a new kind of politics. . . . . posted 07/04/2008 at 20:42:02

Wrong. He didn't say he was "against" immunity, he said he would NOT vote for a FISA bill with immunity in it. Those are 2 different things. And now he says he WILL vote for a FISA bill with immunity in it. You can't slur that smack-in-the-face lie.
And there are too many things they have already passed that they'll "work on later", but the later has never come. They're draining the constitution and the country dry, drop by drop. He told us he'd stand up and he didn't, stop lying to yourself. posted 07/04/2008 at 20:40:27

Wrong. He didn't say he was "against" immunity, he said he would NOT vote for a FISA bill with immunity in it. Those are 2 different things. And now he says he WILL vote for a FISA bill with immunity in it. You can't slur that smack-in-the-face lie.
And there are too many things they have already passed that they'll "work on later", but the later has never come. They're draining the constitution and the country dry, drop by drop. He told us he'd stand up and he didn't, stop lying to yourself. posted 07/04/2008 at 20:39:29

And you don't have an subscription to cancel anyway. Empty threat. posted 07/04/2008 at 20:30:58

In other words, we don't want the man who told us he was "new politics" to be doing the "business as usual" politics to get elected. Sounds about right.
Either you're new politics or you're not. We believed him and bought into the 'new politics' when that was who he told us. And now we see him following the "same old, same old" script, we are saying that was not what we bought into. Anything strange about that?
You go to the market and ask for a pound of shrimp and when you get home you see he gave you a pound of dirt. I don't think there's any mystery in your decision to go to a different market next time. So what's all the confusion with this? It's pretty straight forward. posted 07/04/2008 at 20:27:51

Don't be cute. He hadn't voted then either but he was telling us who he was and what he believed. That's what the primary is about, finding out about your candidate and what he believes so you know who you want to support. We took him at his word and voted for him on that basis.
And now he tells us that was a joke or something and that now he believes the opposite. And he just explained to us that he knows we are upset about him changing his position to the opposite position but that's what he now believes. That is deception at the least. posted 07/04/2008 at 16:55:30

Hey, guys, this isn't a referrendum on the NYT, it's about Obama. Whatever you think of the NYT, they got it mostly right. I'm only really upset with FISA mostly. That goes to the constitution and the rule of law and he did a 180 and went with the Republicans. Sorry if you want to play the blame game -- it's the bad NYT, the Obama haters, etc. yadda yadda yadda . . . . . it's about Obama, and he looked us in the eye in the primary and told us one thing, and now he says he believes the opposite. That is a lie, or at least deception. posted 07/04/2008 at 16:48:47

Hey, stop attacking people and the NYT and address the issue -- attacking the messenger is a Con tactic. research was talking about Obama breaking his promises about FISA, etc. Now, whether the NYT is the devil's press or whatever makes no difference because Obama did break his word on FISA and adopted the position of the Republicans which is the opposite of what he had said in the primary. Do all the name calling you want, it will not change the facts. posted 07/04/2008 at 16:42:24

I have seen you put this same post all over the place. Get it through your head, there is NO ONE who is asking him to "bend over backwards to please the far-left fringe". All anyone wants is for him to honor his word. He told us he wouldn't vote for any FISA bill with immunity in it, would filibuster if necessary, in the primary. Now he is voting for FISA bill with immunity in it.
I didn't ask him to state that as his position in the first place, that is what he said he believed back then and I agreed with it.
And how can you believe in someone who looks you in the face and says one thing and then, after you've given them the keys to your house, does the opposite? If you trust that person without question after that, then you're playing the fool. posted 07/04/2008 at 16:39:36

The important one was that he said he would not vote for a FISA bill that had immunity in it, he would filibuster if necessary.
Today, he'll vote for a FISA bill with immunity in it.
Looks like a change to me, not just a 'clarification of his long held principles'.
Get it? He tells you one thing and then abandons it to vote with the Republicans. How is that a change from the misery this "Democratic" congress has been? It isn't. And that's the problem. posted 07/04/2008 at 16:27:09

Wrong, you don't have an opinion like mine -- you're just on a blabbing speed rap and don't really know the issues. I have an informed opinion, that is night and day away from the spew coming out of you. Really! posted 07/05/2008 at 21:56:13

You're one talker, who doesn't really know what is at stake or what you're talking about. Are you paid by the word and who is paying you? Blah, blah, blah . . . . or is it drugs doing the speed rap? But you sure don't know what the fundamental issues are. posted 07/05/2008 at 21:53:55

This document is all that we have. Look at the way the most of the people in the world are treated by their governments. This constitution is what makes it different for us. As we watch the 'leaders' drain the life out of it drop by drop, you may see this outrage by many of us who understand what is happening as a 'temper tantrum'.
But quite frankly we don't understand your utter ignorance of what is happening and your apathy as unbelievable. We don't understand why you are so ignorant about the beating heart of what America means.
Like the little kiddies at the children's table, watching the adults get animated about something they don"t understand, and your biggest concern is that the jello is the wrong color. Grow up and learn a little bit about the constitution and how hard it was to get those rights and freedoms. How every small right was fought for and paid for with the blood of people willing to sacrifice their lives for it. And to you it's nothing to get upset about. But without it and all those people who died for it, you'd be working like a dog your whole miserable short life for a rich, powerful king who could have you snuffed out because you didn't let him sleep with your wife. Until you understand how important it is, why not stop your childish little rant at the grownups. You seem to be too uneducated to get it. posted 07/05/2008 at 19:40:25

Thank you, and you have stated it brilliantly.
People keep projecting a lot of their own nonsense onto this argument, but that's about it.
It's not about far left demands or far right or the big bad NYT, it's about a politician switching his previously stated position and going down a wrong path and saying, "Trust me on this." I don't think so. We've had it with that nonsense. posted 07/05/2008 at 17:23:36

Like I said, it isn't about far left on issues, it's about saying one thing at one time and then, a few months later, saying the opposite. That is not left or right anything, that is bait and switch. You're just making things up.
Get it? When you say he has to be a candidate for ALL, do you really want him to say one thing to one group and then the opposite to another group? Is that what you mean by ALL? Because if that's what you want, you have McCain who does that.
I just want a candidate who says what his position is and then STICKS WITH IT.
It isn't a particular POSITION I demand, whether far right, far left, or in the middle. What I demand is that when he STATES a position, he doesn't CHANGE that position when it is politically convenient for him to do so. Can't you see how that is completely different from the fantasy you are projecting onto this discussion?
It's about his CHANGE in position. posted 07/05/2008 at 17:18:25

Your contribution and work will only encourage bad behavior. I won't give any more time or money until he re-thinks his bait and switch. Your leaders will never change unless you demand it. And I hear too much sheepish acceptance here in the comments. You will never get anything different unless you demand it. What does belief, hope and faith have to do with it? You don't hope your leaders will do the right thing, you have to demand it. posted 07/05/2008 at 15:39:36

John Dean and Jonathan Turley have spoken about the new FISA bill. It guts the constitution. posted 07/05/2008 at 15:11:30

It is not about where his positions fit on the right - left scale. Generic comments like yours keep saying things like, "the far left wants him to be this or that". NO, they don"t!
When he states his position, when he says what he stands for during the primary, people base decisions on what he said. The problem is when he changes his position to the opposite once the primary is over. To desire to trust what he has told you, is that a far left demand? a far right demand? Or is it simple common sense? Many generic comments try to make it about the messenger -- the far leftists, the NYT. Isn"t this what right wingers do -- blame and attack the messenger rather than address the issue. This issues isn"t about left or right it is about bait and switch. Bait and switch isn"t right or left.
This is the problem we have with the current congress -- they tell us one thing do the opposite and then make excuses. One position then, a new one now -- how is that a new kind of politics, how is that anything you can believe in? How can you believe anything he says, now that you know he can think the opposite later?
They need more discrimination in making HuffPost Picks apparently, yours is a misguided snit. posted 07/05/2008 at 15:08:47

You're living in a slogan world. The problem we had was with politicians saying one thing, speaking to our issues and when they got into office, doing the opposite thing.
Obama said he would not pass a FISA bill that had immunity in it, even if he had to filibuster. Now that he is the nominee, he says he will vote for a FISA bill with immunity.
Now, if you see that as a change from what we have now, you are hallucinating. Maybe you like him more, maybe he spoke to your deeper hopes and dreams and insiprations -- but that doesn't matter any more, now that we know he will do the opposite thing when he feels a need to do so. That is not change at all, it is politics as usual. Wake up.
And it is no use doing the Republican name calling thing. I'm not a Clinton supporter or a Rebpulican or anything like that. I had been a passionate Obama supporter until he just showed me he would say one thing to me then, and then do the opposite thing when he wanted.
Better to just address the ISSUES people raise than try to diminish what they say by calling them names. That's a Con tactic. posted 07/04/2008 at 14:35:27

do more reading of the posts here. It is a big deal. A very big deal. posted 07/04/2008 at 14:29:34

No, a leader leads. He finds the right course and convinces others to follow this path. He doesn't go down a disastrous path just because "everyone else is doing it." That is not 'leadership' at all, it is cowardice, as in this current Democratic congress. Same old bait and switch; say one thing, do another and then make excuses. This is 'the new politics'? Not! posted 07/04/2008 at 14:19:02

Yea, good luck with that, it's worked so well for Gore, Kerry, Clinton and the cowards in congress. It's not a REAL middle they court, it's a fictitional middle created by the NeoCons to confuse the Democrats. As in, "MOST Americans feel . . . . . ." (fill in the blank with whatever is their current issue) posted 07/04/2008 at 14:12:49

I think that if Mr. Obama thinks he will find a more enegertic base and more grassroots donations from those who have been brainwashed into believing that FISA is our only protection against annihilation, well, he should definitely go there to fill those phone banks and coffers. Because his support will stop from those who knew better and expected more from him. My help and donations have stopped -- no work and no money unless he stands up for me and the constitution. That's just reality. posted 07/04/2008 at 12:57:39

Beautiful quote. That's why he was great, because those thoughts are universal and have stood the test of time because they are as relevant today as they were then. posted 07/03/2008 at 22:40:51

But really! The major rationalization is that we should have 'faith'. No! I'm done with faith in politicians. The founding fathers didn't want us to have faith in politicians. We had 'faith' that if we got a Democratically controlled congress things would change. They didn't. Why not? Because they promised us one thing, they convinced us that they understood our concerns and were right there with us. And then they got in power and betrayed us, they talked good, but ACTED with the Republicans.
HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT?
Get over your 'faith' and get real. He is behaving just like they did -- politics as usual, look you in the eye, talk to you heart to heart and then giving you all kinds of reasons he is betraying you and going with the opposition.
Sorry, the time of 'faith' is over and if you don't wake up and demand more, then you will get exactly the same as you got in 2006. posted 07/03/2008 at 22:38:37

Thank you! posted 07/03/2008 at 22:30:45

But don't you GET it? These aren't mean, grouchy people who hate Obama. There is a deep point here. He said he would NOT vote on a FISA bill with immunity in it. Now he will.

That means, what does it matter what he SAYS he will do? He is showing us RIGHT NOW, that we cannot trust him to do what he SAYS he will do. Wake up and listen to what you are being told right now by his actions. How can you base something in the future on what he is telling you now? If you do, you are living in a fantasy world you have made up, because the reality is that he has NOT done what he said he would do. posted 07/03/2008 at 22:26:16

You are exactly where I am on this. posted 07/03/2008 at 22:19:01

NO posted 07/03/2008 at 22:16:04

and (d) listens, gives a nod and pat on the head and ignores what he told them he would do.

Don't forget that one. When you start seeing him governing just like the current congress -- giving you lip service and lots of nice, caring excuses and then going right along with the republicans. Remember, you're rationalizing yourself into this kind of relationship right now. posted 07/03/2008 at 22:15:45

Let's see, I don't know how you define 'lie', but . . . .
When you say you will not vote for a FISA bill with immunity in it and you would filibuster if necessary to stop it.
And then, after you get the nomination, you say you will vote for a bill with immunity in it.
Well . . . . smells like a lie to me. I don't know what your 'belief' system is, but wake up to reality please. We've been lied to, and triangulated too much. posted 07/03/2008 at 22:14:41

Your 1st paragraph, translated -- Obama 'cares'. So do the Republicans. I don't want his love, I want him to do the right thing with our country. It's not the 'caring' it's the 'DOING' that matters.

2nd paragraph -- He's not a 'new kind of politics', HE'S JUST A REGULAR POLITICIAN who will do whatever it takes to win.

But didn't we think we were getting something other than 'politics as usual'? Aren't we SICK TO DEATH of 'politics as usual'? Then why are you making excuses to us here for 'politics as usual'? Haven't you LEARNED ANYTHING!!!! posted 07/03/2008 at 22:11:17

Amen to that! That's what the founding fathers advised -- trust and faith in your leaders instead of holding them to account!
Absolutely NOT!
What can you do with such sheep? The desire to be told what to do, what is good for you, and simply follow, isn't that a Republican trait? I think so. posted 07/03/2008 at 22:03:52

What are you talking about? He said he would NOT vote for a FISA bill with immunity in it. He said he would filibuster if necessary. And now he will vote for a FISA bill with immunity in it. I don't know from right, left or center moderate or whatever. What I do know is that is a lie. Which position was left-of-center moderate -- the first position he said or the new one? Sorry, it's not about left or center or any label. It is about an agreement, about something HE said and I believed him. And then he didn't do it. Sorry, that isn't right, left or center, that is a lie. posted 07/03/2008 at 22:00:15

Love you Barack, but this is political double talk. How is this any different from the way the current congress operates? Promise us one thing, show us you understand what is at stake, and then go right ahead and do the opposite, vote with the Republicans. Sorry, it is not acceptable. And I think if you don't want to stand up for your base, then go ahead and do it on your own. Get those big bucks donors to put up all the money, get them to organize and activate for you, let all those misguided 'advisors' get out and schlep for you. I'm done. I'm not 'believing' in any politician. You show me by your actions, that you can stand for something, then I'll give you all the 'belief' you have earned. That's the real world, I'm done with Disney fantasy world. It doesn't work so well. And the founding fathers said we should not trust our leaders but hold them accountable. You're a great talker, but I'm going with the founding fathers and the constitution on this one. Let me know if you change your mind or find another way out of this. I've heard many good suggestions. Take another path. posted 07/03/2008 at 21:54:14

You're the best, as usual. All it takes is a simple, non-hysterical statement of an issue to see the complete common sense and truth in it. posted 07/04/2008 at 13:21:47

No, you are a Conservative. How do I know this, because no one said you are not important. You made that up. That's what the Cons do. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH CENTER OR LEFT, it has to do with him saying one thing and then doing another. It's not about you. It's about him, what he says and then what he does. And that matters. The Democratic Congress says a lot of good things, but when the critical issues come up, they vote with the Republicans. I don't like people who tell me one thing and then do another.
If Barack said he was pro-life in the primary and you agreed with that, and then, in the general election, he said he was pro-choice. That IS a move to the center, but that is not the issue you'd have with it. The issue you'd have is that he said one thing in the primary and another in the general. posted 07/03/2008 at 19:26:38

Exactly right! And that is why we are so anguished by the current congress. They talk a good talk and say the right things, but then they go with the Republicans and don't stick with their base, right? The Democrats pontificate about what they believe. But they don't actually DO anything to move us in that direction. Isn't that what you hate about what this current congress has done? And now you want to make this SAME argument in favor of Obama and think you'll get something different, something better? That's crazy thinking. He says one thing but you "don't believe that's where his heart is."
Only when you abandon your world of 'belief' will you start to demand something better of your government. posted 07/03/2008 at 19:14:50

I was talking about the imagined scenario with the men in black coming to your door. Isn't that like a scene from 24 or something?
And the 'demanding' I am talking about isn't trying to get the current administration to change but to keep Barack honest. He said one thing back then and he changed it. And this isn't a small issue.
The biggest group on Obama's site now is one on FISA, asking him to re think his current position. I told them I'm not giving any more donations until I see what they do on FISA. I have heard a lot of people doing the same thing. I don't think it's good to 'trust' any politician do the right thing. I think we need to keep him honest at all times. I have heard MANY good tactics he could use here on the FISA so he could make points and still not abandon his previous statements about his position on FISA. posted 07/03/2008 at 18:50:19

Nicely done! posted 07/03/2008 at 15:03:01

You're getting distracted . . . . .
If he now does "business as usual" what makes you 'believe' he will do "change" when elected? Is this a wish upon a star? posted 07/03/2008 at 15:01:49

It's not about the WHERE -- middle, left, whatever -- it's about saying one thing and then doing another. No matter what you and your 'relationships' decide, you expect them not to change what you decided together and later do whatever they thought of on their own. Right? I think, in your open-minded, lightened-up state, you'd still have a problem with someone if you'd decided to go to the XYZ restaurant at 6 PM and then to see the movie "ABC" afterwards and they didn't show up because they decided later they weren't hungry and wanted to go see another movie instead, and left you hanging. Ya think? posted 07/03/2008 at 14:59:22

We are in tune. I did the same thing. No June contribution, no volunteering and I also took my name off their mailing list. posted 07/03/2008 at 14:47:25

"As annoying as it is sometimes, I fully understand that Obama has to do certain things . . . "
Do you see what you have just said? The rationalization you have just stated? Those "certain things" are what is known as "politics as usual". Those 2 mean the same thing. You're abandoning your belief in NOT doing "politics as usual". Changing your positions to fit the circumstance is the usual. And by accepting this, you accept he is not the politics of change. Same old, same old -- politics as usual, we all get it, this is what they do . . . . . acceptance, compliance, assurance of NO CHANGE, meaning you'll get the same disappointing results. Don't say I didn't warn you. posted 07/03/2008 at 14:44:41

Wait just a minute there, with all this "Obama will" nonsense. The TRUTH is, Obama might have SAID he would, but he has just proven to everyone who believed him, that what he says one time, he won't stick to later. That is what this whole discussion is about. Obama says one thing -- like not passing FISA with immunity, being willing to filibuster to stop it --- and then, later, when he's called upon to fulfill that promise -- well, not so fast . . . it appears not to have been what he really believes after all.
So, by what he has just shown you right to your face, how can you say, " Obama will . . . . " ? On what basis in reality? posted 07/03/2008 at 14:36:35

Oh, please, enough with this TV fantasy.
He said he would never pass a FISA bill with immunity in it. He said he would filibuster if needed.
Then he became the nominee and FISA with immunity is OK now.
Now, you can make up any gibberish you want, rationalize it any way you want. But you are not living in the real world and you will not get different results than we are getting right now with this President who so many gave 'the benefit of the doubt'. That doesn't work. Stop trusting your government to do the right thing and demand that they do the right thing. Demanding is the ONLY way 'the people' have ever wrenched anything from those in power. posted 07/03/2008 at 14:26:06

Most is OK, but there is one big, ugly problem at the heart of this response, that goes to the core of the rot in our country -- we, the people, are not meant to TRUST our leaders. The founders were very explicit about that. We are to question them at every step. That's why we have 3 co-equal branches, to keep watch on each other.
Aren't we right here, in this situation right now, BECAUSE so many people TRUSTED the administration to do the right thing?
No, we, the people, are not supposed to give our trust and blind faith to our leaders. Grow up and become a true American. posted 07/03/2008 at 13:16:15

The proper term for this article is:

NAILED IT!!!!

(again)

And I hope someone delivers this message to Barack. posted 07/03/2008 at 13:09:56

Our country was set up with a conscious decision that there should be a separation of church and state. Those are the rules that have made America great. There are other countries that don't do that, so no one is forced to live under our rules.
It doesn't mean you hate religion, I am VERY religious, but MIXING the 2 has NEVER worked in history. History does teach us lessons, don't forget them. posted 07/02/2008 at 13:42:48

This is empty logic. Here's where it leads -- he will be the president of all the American people -- so there are lots of gays -- he better give them money to do their work. There are also lots of Muslims and Jews and Hindus and that's only the religious groups. Think of all the other large factions in our country and every one of them believes in what they are doing. Since he'll be the President of everyone, by your logic, shouldn't he be giving all of them money?
No, he needs to be thinking for the country in terms of our constitution and not trying to fashion a message for special interests. Especially when they undercut the constitution -- like mixing government and religion, FISA, the 4th amendment and excusing criminal behavior. There are bigger issues for our country. posted 07/02/2008 at 13:37:37

I like your work, but NO, there is a conscious separation of Church and State in America. Various combinations of Church and State have been tried and have never worked. It has always proven to be a disaster. This does not mean, as you seem to suggest, that it is one or the other. The government should work on poverty and the Churches should do so as well. But, as a person of faith, our government has no business getting involved in Religion. I want the money they take from me to be used for the country as a whole and it does not need to be filtered through a Religious organization first.
This is one more of the mistakes and blunders Mr. Obama seems to be fumbling through recently. I hope he comes to his senses soon or he will loose all the enthusiasm from his base that has brought him to where he is.
Make no mistake, the storyline here is not a "move to the center'" that the Corporate Media is pushing. The stroyline here is the same as in the failed 'democratic' congress. It's the "talk the big talk and then move over to the Republican side". He is caving and cowering and abandoning us. The only difference is that he is doing it before the election and not after. posted 07/02/2008 at 13:23:19

Wes said nothing to dishonor McCave's service. And Obama agreed to the right wing framing of the issue AGAINST his own supporter. How weak and pathetic. He is operating just like the weak, ineffectual, fear based Democratic Congress.
We're all sick of this behavior. They pontificate on the issue and get it right, then the Republicans say "boo!" and they cave and vote with the Republicans. That's how they operate. And that is EXACTLY how Obama has been operating since he got the nomination.
Now, you can call names and type slogans, but this is the behavior he has been exhibiting. Sorry if I'm not the kind of person who goes in for rationalizing and making excuses for other's behavior. posted 07/01/2008 at 20:07:04

Yes, you can't solely appeal to your base. It means you LEAD by convincing others of the VALIDITY of YOUR arguments.
It does NOT mean by abandoning YOUR arguments and adopting THEIRS.
That is a BIG difference. LEADERS change the minds of others and LEAD them to the better path. posted 07/01/2008 at 14:41:33

Clinton would have lost. posted 07/01/2008 at 14:29:34

It isn't about liberal/conservative. It's about saying one thing and then doing another. posted 07/01/2008 at 14:27:35

The reason for all the frustration is that he is doing Democratic "business as usual". The same strategy underlying the failure of the current 'do nothing' congress. They pontificate, they state the issues correctly, the Republicans disagree, then the Democrats cave and vote with the Republicans.
Obama said he would not pass a FISA bill with immunity in it, he would filibuster if necessary . . . . but I guess that was then, 'heated' rhetoric. Cave and then vote they way the Republicans tell you.
Barack has one main area where he trails McCain. Up comes Gen. Clark, with real expertise in this area and undercuts McCain"s argument. The right wing mischaracterizes what he said, Obama accepts THEIR framing, and reacts out of fear to throw Clark overboard. The Republicans, wrong as they are, don't throw their heroes overboard when they are smeared by the left.
These are latest examples of the vaunted Obama 'judgment', reacting out of fear.
I have heard that for the Democrats to win they must have an energized base. The best way to energize your base isn't to throw cold water on them. If you listen to progressive radio, hear the hosts and callers, or read the blogs, the progressive base is definitely not happy. Let's stand up for progressive, Democratic values, and stop trying to fake the conservative, Republican values. We have the winning arguments. posted 07/01/2008 at 14:10:53

Sorry if you got the impression I was doubting you, I meant who were they talking about when they said progressive pundits were trashing Clark. I want to send them emails to call them out on it.
I mean, have you ever read about Clark. His bio is very similar to Obama's. And he is a TRUE hero, that is, he did actual HEROIC deeds, not just got shot down. posted 06/30/2008 at 19:31:17

And you have just proven yourself to be uninformed. I'd say to go look at their records and then make your comments based on their real records and not what the Corporate Media has tried to sell you. Learn, then think, before you speak. Are you Republican? posted 06/30/2008 at 14:56:16

Gen. Clark did not say that at all. He was responding to McCain's assumption that this kind of experience is a qualification for office. Get it? It was McCain who said it was a qualification, not Clark. Clark was pointing out that McCain doesn't qualify even under his own assumption (just like he didn't vote for his own Immigration Bill and doens't obey his own Campaign Finance Reform law).
Clark made no comment about what he thought were qualifications, but apparently he thinks Obama posesses those qualifications. I assume one of those qualificaitons is Obama's judgment. posted 06/30/2008 at 14:25:51

I think the idea is that maybe Obama is a little off message.
I always wonder why it is that the Republicans proudly stand up for their base, whereas the Democrats take their base for granted and throw them under the bus whenever it is politically convenient to do so.
That is the problem we are having with the current "Democratically" controlled congress? They talk one thing, and then when they think they've convinced you they're on your side, they go Right and vote Republican. I'm done with that pattern and will call anyone out who's going to talk one thing to my face and betray me when he feels pressure. posted 06/30/2008 at 13:56:40

Clinton's comment about Jackson's win was not right. So it is not an example of someone telling the truth and getting nailed for it. There is really no comparison in the two campaigns. Talk to someone who can inform you about how the elections were totally different. In other words . . . .the ONLY comparison Clinton was making was race. That's why it was so offensive and he should be man enough to accept it instead of pouting. posted 06/30/2008 at 13:46:44

Also, who are those so-called progressives who have talked against Gen. Clark? I want names. posted 06/30/2008 at 13:33:12

And here's the important question McCain should be asked, "What did you learn from Viet Nam?" posted 06/30/2008 at 13:31:22

Excuse me, but I don't want Reid and Pelosi running anything either. I say kick them out with the rest of the Republicans they represent. posted 06/27/2008 at 12:59:26

And just what is that "middle-ground" in gutting the 4th amendment? posted 06/27/2008 at 14:58:48

Like Barack said himself, our constitution and judicial system can handle terrorism just as they are, they don't need to be modified. Well, I guess that was BEFORE . . . . .
But, you have bought into the nonsense. Since you say this will 'protect us from the terrorists', why don't you explain how this bill does it any better than the old one.
It does nothing about that, all it does is excuse criminal behavior and weaken judicial oversight. It is my opinion that before you throw away our constitution, which means America itself, you should at least take the time to find out what you are talking about. posted 06/27/2008 at 14:53:56

That was also one of Greenwald's main points. It is children who believe in everything mommy and daddy tell them, not grown ups regarding their government. It is fantasy to believe in some secret plan they can't tell lus about, they know more than we do and are doing this or that for our good and we don't really need to question them or demand to know what they are doing, we can just trust them to do the right thing. Sound familiar?
Don't fall into that trap with anyone or you are just as much of a fool as you think the far right has been for following Bush over the cliff. posted 06/27/2008 at 14:35:22

NO, but they store them all in databases, phone calls and emails and everything and they can do datamining. They don't just get who called who, but the conversation. I don't know how they do it, but they do get the CONTENT too. posted 06/27/2008 at 14:30:19

Yes, I just read Greenwald's response to Olberman's response . . .. .all you have to do is to read it to know that he is simply right and Olbermann will have to show himself to be a 'bigger man' and admit he was wrong. Greenwald doesn't do any name calling or that nonsense, but puts up transcripts and hilights the words -- you can see exactly what was said on the shows. Plain and simple. posted 06/27/2008 at 14:25:22

Great!
I'll go see what he said.
And this interaction between them will tell us something about both their characters.
I'm a little fearful for KO. I like him. But he is wrong on this issue and if he doesn't admit it, but tries to bluster his way out of it . . . . .. . It won't be pretty.
Cause, I know he's wrong on this one. And I really like him but I won't let that blind me to the substance. posted 06/27/2008 at 14:09:18

There are so many like this poster who seem to be permanently brainwashed. How so? You seem to think this is about Olberman's character. You have been so brainwashed over these last 7 years that whenever anyone questions someone's position on an ISSUE, you are somehow attacking their CHARACTER. No, they are 2 different things.
When you say Bush should give veterans their benefits, you are not saying anything about Bush, you are not undercutting the troops, but saying he is mistaken about this policy.
Same here. Yes, Olberman is as close to God as we can get here on earth -- if that's how you want to see it, but that doesn't mean he is right on this issue. He is wrong. It would be better if you knew about the issue and could argue that, instead of simply "standing by your man:". posted 06/27/2008 at 14:03:52

So, why couldn't they just wait till after the election instead of risk the fight by allowing it to come up now?
This bill doesn't all any new power, it modifies judicial oversight and removes our right as citizens to sue and therefore find out what has been happening.
They failed to find out what Bush has been doing so we have to and now they want to prevent that. This is NOT a good thing and if they didn't want the fight they should have done some Congressional maneuvering to somehow make it impossible to take up till 2009. posted 06/27/2008 at 13:57:36

I think KO is the only show on TV where you get real, honest news. Having said that, it doesn't mean that every word out of his mouth is from God's lips.
Do you know about this bill? What it really says and does? And then, did you watch them on TV?
For me it is a "yes, yes, yes" (as much as I can understand what it does)
But if you know what Olbermann and Alter said, then I'd like you to explain what you're talking about.
Again, I don't care about Olbermann's sincerety. This is what the Bushies do, "Well, George REALLY BELIEVES in killing Iraqis as the best way . . . " Who cares. It is what makes sense that matters, not how sincere someone is.
What Olbermann and Alter said was that the government is currently breaking the law and we have to 'compromise' so we can re-define their illegal activity as legal now, 4th amendment be damned.
Don't care how sincere he is or Alter is or you are, or how much you love and respect him or whatever, what they said is wrong. That is not the way to stop illegal activity. You prosecute those breaking the law, you don't redefine the law to fit their actions. posted 06/27/2008 at 13:52:08

Still, the principle is, you are saying that a president can have a corporation break the law and that is OK.
Is that really the precedent we want to set?
What was Watergate about? Wasn't that a president asking people to perform illegal activities?
How can we have that go forward as somehow :"OK"?
Can't happen. posted 06/27/2008 at 13:43:07

I heard Olbermann and Alter and was shocked. They made sweeping generalizations. I want to know extcaly how this protects us from terrorists. What did the original FISA not have that has failed to protect us? They don't even want to make up a reason for a judge in order to justify their spying.
If Barack doesn't want the political heat during the campaign, he can postpone everything until after the election.
I have heard this new bill discussed both here and on progressive radio -- and my conclusion is that Pelosi and Obama are lying. AOlbermann and Alter are disappointing They are all trying to mislead and deceive us with their statements "this is protecting the constitution", "this protects from terrorists".
My favorite was when Alter talked about how the administration is currently breaking the law and we have to go with this 'compromise' to get us out of lawbreaking. Say WHAT? You are 'technically' correct, if you re-define their law breaking as legal now, I suppose you can make that statement. But that's like saying that all the murderers are no longer criminals if we now say murder is legal. That is not a solution at all, it's a gimmick, sleight of hand.
This is a big let down and diminishes my enthusiasm greatly. A big disappointment. Kieth was correct in this one thing, it's a kick in the teeth. posted 06/27/2008 at 13:39:22