Who determined that the NSA and TPP are the most important issues?

[ProSense]

Income inequality is killing the middle class. There appears to be agreement by those who deem the TPP as the most important issue that the last four Presidents fucked up the country. I can agree. So that's more than 30 years of fucking up the country, and the destruction goes back many more years than that.

Obama comes along, and is working to try to put the pieces back together but that's not good enough? People are trying to vilify those who support him in this endeavor? Screw that. Wall Street reform and the CFPB, Obamacare, environmental regulations and other policies being put in place by this administration don't appear to matter because someone deemed the NSA and TPP to be the most important issues?

The NSA was launched 60 years ago, and it has been a fucked up organization since then. Police state, you say? Blacks have been living in a police state (including racial profiling) for decades. Nothing has changed. The TPP, as horrible as it's being made out to be, isn't a fucking law yet.

I don't want the U.S. to lose another job to a flawed trade agreements, but you can't lose a job that isn't created.

I don't have to be the vocal advocate for the progressive issue anyone else ranks as the most important, but I support it.

So while the reforms for the NSA are finalized via Obama's proposals in combination with Congressional action, there are other fucking issues to deal with, like raising the minimum wage to help tens of millions of people afford a little more food...like ensuring that those who are being blocked from access to health care by Republican Governors can soon sign up for Medicaid. These efforts aren't negated because somone is against the TPP.

Republicans are attacking the safety net, a direct assault on the day-to-day existence of millions of Americans. Fighting back doesn't stop because the NSA is being debated.

While Republicans are launching these attacks on people's existence, why on earth should they be lauded for hypocritical posturing on any issue?

I don't have to be a Democrat, but I choose to be. I don't ever have to vote again, but I'm going to, and I'll be voting Democratic.

Fuck Republicans.

[YoungDemCA]

1. Is this a serious thread?

nt

[ProSense]

2. Yes, very serious. n/t

[YoungDemCA]

4. What happens with the TPP and the NSA are incredibly serious issues...

A shame that you don't seem to recognize that.

[ProSense]

6. Yes, they're serious

but I don't have to pretend that they're more important than any other issue.

You can. You can even genuinely believe that, but I don't have to.

[sabrina 1]

35. The American people have decided how important they are. That's how democracy works.

[ProSense]

54. The OP is how "democracy works." I am one of the American people. n/t

[baldguy]

131. Wrong. The corporate media has decided how important they are. No democracy was involved.

The same process that gave the world the "hero" Ed Snowden also produced the heroes Honey Boo Boo and Jersey Shore's Snooki. Propaganda is very effective in distracting the public from the issues that are really important.

[obxhead]

279. It's difficult if not impossible to bestow

endless praise on the POTUS when discussing these issues.

therefore they should be swept under the rug and ignored.

[treestar]

148. People can disagree

When you get older you will realize that not everyone who disagrees with you is joking.

[hfojvt]

180. I certainly agree about income inequality over NSA

The sad part though is that Obama has taken far to many steps to INCREASE income inequality.

But DU gets far less excited about that than they do about NSA.

[Egnever]

3. Nice rant :)

Thanks for doing what you do.

[ProSense]

11. Thanks. n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

5. Wall Street reform?

Who has this (Obama's) justice department brought charges against for the financial crisis again?

And on top of not getting charged with ANYTHING they have been given trillions in interest free taxpayer cashola. At the same time every working and unemployed person has suffered greatly.

[ProSense]

8. Please

"Wall Street reform?

Who has this (Obama's) justice department brought charges against for the financial crisis again?"

...spare me the cliche nonsense. What the hell does the package of regulations have to do with the prosecution of crimes committed before it was passed?

[YoungDemCA]

10. Do you deny that crimes took place on Wall Street?

If so, why?

If not, why haven't the criminals been brought to justice?

[ProSense]

13. What does that have to do with the point of the OP?

If you want to discuss crimes on Wall Street, start your own thread.

[YoungDemCA]

17. This adminstration's notable lack of prosecutions on Wall Street....

..or even attempts to go in that direction, certainly gives one pause.

He certainly doesn't have a problem with the War on Drugs, or ordering the killing of terrorists (or "suspected" terrorists).

I do note that Wall Street is a big source of campaign donations for the Democrats, including the President in his own campaigns. I note Larry Summers' connections to Wall Street, Third Way's extensive Wall Street background in its Board of Trustees, and their own connections to the President and his administration.

I think it has everything to do with the point of the OP. Don't play dumb.

[ProSense]

22. Has nothing to do with the point. Nothing. n/t

[BuelahWitch]

33. Yes it does because you listed it as one of the accomplishments

that people are supposedly ignoring. There was no "Wall Street reform." Never happened.

[ProSense]

42. No, I didn't friggin list prosecution of crimes as "one of the accomplishments".

Signing Wall Street reform into law and the rulemaking process has nothing to do with prosecuting crimes.

[JDPriestly]

62. The lack of prosecutions is important because it demonstrates that while Obama likes to talk

tough about economic inequality, he does not have the courage to call the 1% to court when they commit wrongs that result in or worsen the inequality. The Obama administration has not proved itself to be a credible fighter against economic inequality. The Obama administration's efforts to help people who were facing foreclosure stay in their homes was and is too little too late. Obama should not have signed off on the bail-out of the bankers without getting a better deal than he got for distressed homeowners.

[ProSense]

82. No, "prosecutions" are not "important" to the point I made. n/t

[JDPriestly]

115. The lack of prosecutions places in question Obama's sincerity on the economic inequality issue.

If we should be supporting Obama more on that issue in your estimation, then you have to persuade us that Obama's recent speech on it was more than just hot air.

[ProSense]

118. Again

"The lack of prosecutions places in question Obama's sincerity on the economic inequality issue."

...that has nothing to do with my point. That your opinion about prosecutions.


"If we should be supporting Obama more on that issue in your estimation, then you have to persuade us that Obama's recent speech on it was more than just hot air."

I made no such "estimation," and you can make up your own mind.

[cali]

129. bwahahahahaha. yikes. yikes. yikes.

[ProSense]

144. LOL!

Typical.

[Rex]

353. IKR!?!

Like watching the Titanic sink over and over again...

[JDPriestly]

280. Yes! They are.

With the exception of the jealous Republicans, people are happy with the good things that Obama has done like the ACA.

But his speech about the disparity in incomes, at least in my case, sounds like vapor, hot air.

That is because of the obvious disparity in the focus of his Justice Department in terms of choosing the targets for federal prosecutions.

Drug users, if caught, are zealously prosecuted for minor crimes that mostly hurt themselves. I personally do not oppose that.

But when obvious fraud is committed by mortgage companies or big banks or the members of the Wall Street elite, the perpetrators are fined but not prosecuted beyond that. So we have kids in their late teens and early twenties sitting in prison for drug offenses while millionaires who have committed fraud sit in their 21st century equivalents of palaces.

That's just one example of the "watch what I say, but not what I do" syndrome in the White House right now.

When the teachers and other public servants in Wisconsin protested the extreme right-wing economic injustice of the governor's policies, it took a long time for Obama to even offer comforting words to the protestors, and he never really took any measures to support the protestors' cause.

Then there was the Occupy movement. Small and harmless groups of people some of whom were battered and beaten, pepper-sprayed and humiliated at the call of Obama's Homeland Security urging local police to end the demonstrations. Was Obama deaf to the sincere and strong wish of the American people to do more to help families facing foreclosure and end the outrageous and excessive gambling on Wall Street.

And, of course, the excessive gambling on Wall Street continues. There are no repercussions for those who trade often and early and with their high-speed trading and other advantages fleece poor middle-class "investors" and working people's pension funds.

So, although Obama has accomplished things that we could be celebrating. We aren't because his economic policies have been detrimental to our lives. The job market has improved a bit, but it is mostly lower paying service jobs. Obama talks about bringing back manufacturing but is offering the TPP a trade bill that will, like the trade agreements before it, cost America many, many more jobs.

So, you see, what I am saying is very relevant to your question as to why Democrats are not as supportive of Obama's presidency as you might think we should be.

The economic injustice, the disparity of wealth has continued to grow apace during his presidency. And it looks like Hillary Clinton, another Wall Street protector who hasn't been out on America's Main Street for a long time, is being pushed on us.

[ProSense]

281. No, it's not and no amount of text is going to make it relevant to the point. n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

18. Because you can not successfully move forward

Without addressing the crimes of the past.

We must prosecute those that need prosecuted, both in the wall street financial crisis, Katrina debacle, Guantanamo bay, Torture, and the illegal Iraq invasion. Failure to do so just proves that, as a Nation, we do not really believe in justice. It just shows future criminal types that they will be able to get away with anything they desire to do, whether it be mass murder or fleecing of billions or trillions from the public coffers.

[ProSense]

21. Simplistic BS, and that still has nothing to do with my point. n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

24. It has everything to do with it.

Did you not read my post?

It does not matter at all what "regulations" are past if you never charge criminals with crimes.

[ProSense]

25. No, it doesn't, and maybe you should reread the OP. n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

30. Facepalm

Wall Street reform and the CFPB, Obamacare, environmental regulations and other policies being put in place by this administration don't appear to matter because someone deemed the NSA and TPP to be the most important issues?

Wall Street reform policies being put in place by this administration don't appear to matter because they DO NOT MEAN A F@ING THING IF YOU FAIL TO PROSECUTE THE CRIMINALS.

NOT because someone deemed the NSA and TPP to be the most important issues.

[ProSense]

34. Again,

Wall Street reform policies being put in place by this administration don't appear to matter because they DO NOT MEAN A F@ING THING IF YOU FAIL TO PROSECUTE THE CRIMINALS.

NOT because someone deemed the NSA and TPP to be the most important issues.

...what the hell does Wall Street reform have to do with prosecution of crimes prior to it being signed into law?

My statement and point have nothing to do with fucking crimes and prosecutions. You seem unable to understand that.

[PowerToThePeople]

36. Prosense

You seem unable to understand

I am done with this thread.

[JDPriestly]

66. There were plenty of legal grounds to prosecute some of the bankers based on old fashioned fraud

especially with regard to the government-insured loans, fraud against the government.

If mortgage brokers and bankers had a scheme in which they encouraged or used fraudulent means to get ordinary consumers to sign fraudulent loan documents that were underwritten by the government in any way, say an FHA or VA loan, that is a serious fraud issue. The people who signed fraudulent court affidavits -- another fraud against the government. And the companies that hired them to sign those affidavits? Fraud. That's my opinion. But unfortunately, no one brought those who organized the fraud to court. RICO anyone? I question why there were no prosecutions.

[ProSense]

69. Good grief with the proseuctions

"There were plenty of legal grounds to prosecute some of the bankers based on old fashioned fraud"

That has nothing to do with the OP point, but if you want prosecutions, here:

Former BofA Exec Indicted For Fraud
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002990749

Former Chief Investment Officer of Stanford Financial Group Pleads Guilty to Obstruction of Justice
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/2012/12-crm-785.html

Former Corporate Chairman of Consulting Firm and Board Director Rajat Gupta Found Guilty of Insider Trading in Manhattan Federal Court
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/NYS-120615.html

Hedge Fund Founder Raj Rajaratnam Sentenced in Manhattan Federal Court to 11 Years in Prison for Insider Trading Crimes
http://www.stopfraud.gov/news/news-10132011.html

CEO and Head Trader of Bankrupt Sentinel Management Indicted in Chicago in Alleged $500 Million Fraud Scheme Prior to Firm’s 2007 Collapse
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/ILN-120601.html

Yahoo! Executive and California Hedge Fund Portfolio Manager Plead Guilty in New York for Insider Trading
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/NYS-120521.html

Three Former Financial Services Executives Convicted for Roles in Conspiracies Involving Investment Contracts for the Proceeds of Municipal Bonds
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/2012/12-at-620.html

Former Chairman of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Sentenced to 30 Years in Prison and Ordered to Forfeit $38.5 Million
http://www.stopfraud.gov/news/news-06302011-2.html
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/2012/12-crm-342.html

Former Chief Financial Officer of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Pleads Guilty to Fraud Scheme
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/2012/12-crm-342.html

Seattle Investment Fund Founder Sentenced to 18 Years in Prison for Ponzi Scheme and Bankruptcy Fraud
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/WAW-120210.html

Former Hedge Fund Managing Director Sentenced to 20 Years for Defrauding 900 Investors in $294 Million Scheme
http://www.stopfraud.gov/iso/opa/stopfraud/ILN-111117.html

[Luminous Animal]

114. A heads up. There is a twitter hash tag...

#DUProsenseGoebbels

[ProSense]

116. Wow, that's some stupid shit. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

117. Kerrraaaazzzzeeee!

[bettyellen]

125. Someone did a phony alert on this- pretending you're calling the OP a Nazi!!

What a shitty thing to do! Wow- I'm alerting on that piece of shit alert!!

[baldguy]

133. When you're losing an argument on the internet, go for the Godwin.

That's exactly what the poster is doing.

[baldguy]

132. You've got the wrong Nazi

Goering is the one who said how easy it was for TPTB to distract the people from the important issues of the day.

[Fumesucker]

142. Goebbels was the Reich minister of propaganda n/t

[baldguy]

250. And Goering made the relevant comment.

[sabrina 1]

40. The package of regulations didn't deal with the most important cause of the corruption.

And no accountability, worse, rewards for such crimes, guarantees they will happen again. Hey, if I were a crook and got rewarded for it, I might do it again also.

[ProSense]

47. OK, you don't think it goes far enough. What does that have to do with the point?

"The package of regulations didn't deal with the most important cause of the corruption."

I mean, does the fact that you think more needs to be done, negate that something was done?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024158305

Does the fact that you think it doesn't go far enough mean that the NSA and TPP should be the most important issues?

What does your comment have to do with my point?

[sabrina 1]

65. You are ignoring one very important thing that has so angered the American people wise politicians

should NOT be ignoring it. No one was held accountable!! Crimes were committed, we are not stupid and we were told 'they were immoral, but not criminal'.

They DO think we are stupid and that is insulting to the people. People LOST THEIR HOMES, I have a friend who lost hers. They have acknowledged that loss to be illegal and offered her $800! When she and hundreds of others refused to cash that insulting check, they went back and decided they better offer more. So they sent her a check for $3000 dollars. She has refused that insulting offer also.

You seem more concerned about politicians than about actual people who suffered greatly from those crimes. They have ACKNOWLEDGED the crimes and offered a pittance to the victims, while bailing out the perpetrators with trillions. If you think that people are happy with the ''package' that still makes it possible for these crooks to do it all over again, you are not paying attention.

And that is just one person. Multiply it by millions and you might begin to understand why this 'package' of regulations, which they perpetrators were allowed to water down, means very little to the people who were the actual victims of their crimes. It's call 'injustice'.

[ProSense]

75. What do crimes have to do with the point of the OP?

"You are ignoring one very important thing that has so angered the American people wise politicians should NOT be ignoring it. No one was held accountable!! Crimes were committed, we are not stupid and we were told 'they were immoral, but not criminal'. "

I'm doing no such thing. You're making a point completely unrelated to the OP, which is fine, just acknowledge that.

Remember Glass-Steagall? It was repealed. "Crimes were committed," and many of them were crimes before repeal of Glass-Steagall.

I've discussed this many times before. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002990749#post4

I'll repost the full comment here...

Not only does the chart you posted shows that prosecutions started dropping after the repeal of Glass-Steagall, it also shows prosecutions, not convictions. It's also not conclusive because it doesn't state what specifically it includes and appears to be related to bank fraud. Here's the reference:

This category can refer to crimes committed both within and against banks. Defendants include bank executives who mislead regulators, mortgage brokers who falsify loan documents, and consumers who write bad checks. (Here are some recent cases of bank fraud prosecutions.)

Goldman Sachs is not a bank. Still, even if it is bank fraud, it does offer more evidence of Bush's "abysmal" record, as these prosecutions dropped significantly during his Presidency.

The following is from the Financial Institution Fraud and Failure Reports for each fiscal year.



http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fiff_00-01




http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fiff-2002

(b): Types of Subjects Convicted in FIF Cases During FY 2007*
SUBJECT TYPE NUMBER OF SUBJECTS
Legal Alien 8
Illegal Alien 20
All Other Subjects 1,038
Bank Officer 88
Bank Employee 179
International or National Union Officer 1
President 1
Business Manager 2
Office Manager 2
Financial Secretary 1
Federal Employee - GS 12 & Below 1
State - All Others 1
Local Law Enforcement Officer 1
City Councilman 1
Possible Terrorist Member or Sympathizer 1
Company or Corporation 7
Local - All Others 2
Total 1,354

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fiff_06-07/fiff_06-07



http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fiff_06-07/fiff_06-07

Given yhe above charts and the break out for 2007, it appears that most of the convictions were not bank executives. In fact, the majority were bank "outsiders," likely meaning more bad-check writers and document falsifiers.

Also, bank fraud is separate from corporate fraud, mortgage fraud, and securities and commodities fraud.

The following is from the Financial Crimes Report to the Public for each fiscal year:
(Note: The 2005 report does not break out securities and commodities fraud. The 2010-2011 report is the only one that breaks out financial institution fraud. All reports show corporate fraud and mortgage fraud.)

Through Fiscal Year 2005, cases pursued by the FBI resulted in 497 indictments and 317 convictions of corporate criminals. Numerous cases are pending plea agreements and trials. From July 1, 2002 through March 31, 2005, accomplishments regarding Corporate Fraud cases were as follows: $2.2 billion in Restitutions, $34.6 million in Recoveries, $79.1 million in Fines, and $27.9 million in Seizures. As Corporate Fraud statistical accomplishments were not provided before July 1, 2002, the following statistical accomplishments are reflective of this time frame through Second Quarter, Fiscal Year 2005.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2005/fcs_2005#CORPORATE

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2005/fcs_2005#MORTGAGE

_________

During FY 2006, the FBI investigated 490 Corporate Fraud cases resulting in 171 indictments and 124 convictions of corporate criminals. Numerous cases are pending plea agreements and trials. The following notable statistical accomplishments are reflective in FY 2006 for Corporate Fraud: $1.2 billion in Restitutions, $41.5 million in Recoveries, $14.2 million in Fines, and $62.6 million in Seizures. The chart below is reflective of the number of pending cases from FY 2002 through FY 2006.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2006

During FY 2006, the FBI investigated 1165 cases of Securities and Commodities fraud and recorded 302 indictments and 164 convictions. Many of these Securities Fraud cases are pending plea agreements or trials. The following notable statistical accomplishments are reflective in FY 2006 for Securities and Commodities Fraud: $1.9 billion in Restitutions, $20.6 million in Recoveries, $80.7 million in Fines, and $62.7 million in Seizures. The chart below is reflective of the number of pending cases from FY 2002 through FY 2006.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2006/financial-crimes-report-to-the-public-fiscal-year-2006#Securities

Through FY 2006, 818 cases investigated by the FBI resulted in 263 indictments and 204 convictions of Mortgage Fraud criminals. The following notable statistical accomplishments are reflective in FY 2006 for Mortgage Fraud: $388.9 million in Restitutions, $1.4 million in Recoveries, and $231 million in Fines. The chart below is reflective of the number of pending cases from FY 2003 through FY 2006.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2006/financial-crimes-report-to-the-public-fiscal-year-2006#Mortgage

___________

Through FY 2007, cases pursued by the FBI resulted in 183 indictments and 173 convictions of corporate criminals. Numerous cases are pending plea agreements and trials. During Fiscal Year 2007, the FBI secured $12.6 billion in restitution orders and $38.6 million in fines from corporate criminals. The chart below reflects corporate fraud pending cases from Fiscal Year 2003 through Fiscal Year 2007 as follows: Fiscal Year 2003 - 279 cases; Fiscal Year 2004 - 332; Fiscal Year 2005 - 423; Fiscal Year 2006 - 486; and Fiscal Year 2008 - 529 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2007/fcr_2007#corporate

As of the end of Fiscal Year 2007, the FBI was investigating 1,217 cases of securities and commodities fraud and had already recorded 320 indictments and 289 convictions. Additional notable accomplishments in Fiscal Year 2007 include: $1.7 billion in restitution orders; $24 million in recoveries; and $202.7 million in fines. The chart below reflects securities and commodities fraud pending cases from Fiscal Year 2003 through Fiscal Year 2007 as follows: Fiscal Year 2003 - 937 cases; Fiscal Year 2004 - 987cases; Fiscal Year 2005 - 1,139 cases; Fiscal Year 2006 - 1,165 cases; and Fiscal Year 2007 - 1,217 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2007/fcr_2007#securities

Through Fiscal Year 2007, 1,204 cases resulted in 321 indictments and 260 convictions of mortgage fraud criminals. The following notable statistical accomplishments are reflective in Fiscal Year 2007 for mortgage fraud: $595.9 million in restitutions, $21.8 million in recoveries, and $1.7 in fines. The chart below reflects mortgage fraud pending cases from Fiscal Year 2003 through Fiscal Year 2007 as follows: Fiscal Year 2003 - 436 cases; Fiscal Year 2004 - 534 cases; Fiscal Year 2005 - 721 cases; Fiscal Year 2006 - 818 cases; and Fiscal Year 2007 - 1,204 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2007/fcr_2007#mortgage

______________

Through FY 2008, cases pursued by the FBI resulted in 158 indictments and 132 convictions of corporate criminals. Numerous cases are pending plea agreements and trials. During FY 2008, the FBI secured $8.1 billion in restitution orders and $199 million in fines from corporate criminals. The chart below reflects corporate fraud pending cases from FY 2004 through FY 2008 as follows: FY 2004—332 cases; FY 2005—423; FY 2006—486; FY 2007—529; and FY 2008—545 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2008/financial-crimes-report-to-the-public#corporate

As of the end of FY 2008, the FBI was investigating 1,210 cases of securities and commodities fraud and had already recorded 357 indictments and 296 convictions. Additional notable accomplishments in FY 2008 include: $3.1 billion in restitution orders; $43.6 million in recoveries; $151.4 million in fines and $84.2 million in seizures. The chart below reflects securities and commodities fraud pending cases from FY 2004 through FY 2008 as follows: FY 2004—987cases; FY 2005—1,139 cases; FY 2006—1,165 cases; FY 2007—1,217 cases and FY 2008—1,210 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2008/financial-crimes-report-to-the-public#securities

Through FY 2008, 1,644 cases resulted in 560 indictments and 338 convictions of mortgage fraud criminals. The following notable statistical accomplishments are reflective in FY 2008 for mortgage fraud: $1.1 billion in restitutions, $3.3 million in recoveries, $3.1 million in fines, and 68 seizures valued at $476.7 million. The chart below reflects mortgage fraud pending cases from FY 2004 through FY 2008 as follows: FY 2004—534 cases; FY 2005—721 cases; FY 2006—818 cases; FY 2007—1,204 cases; and FY 2008—1,644 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2008/financial-crimes-report-to-the-public#mortgage

____________

Through FY 2009, cases pursued by the FBI resulted in 153 indictments/informations and 156 convictions of corporate criminals. Numerous cases are pending plea agreements and trials. During FY 2009, the FBI secured $6.1 billion in restitution orders and $5.4 million in fines from corporate criminals. The chart below reflects corporate fraud pending cases from FY 2005 through FY 2009 as follows: FY 2005— 423 cases; FY 2006—486 cases; FY 2007—529 cases; FY 2008—545 cases; and FY 2009—592 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2009/financial-crimes-report-2009

As of the end of FY 2009, the FBI was investigating 1,510 cases of securities and commodities fraud and had already recorded 412 indictments/informations and 306 convictions. Additional notable accomplishments in FY 2009 include: $8.1 billion in restitution orders; $63.4 million in recoveries; $12.8 million in fines; and $126 million in seizures. The chart below reflects securities and commodities fraud pending cases from FY 2005 through FY 2009 as follows: FY 2005—1,139 cases; FY 2006—1,165 cases; FY 2007—1,217 cases; FY 2008—1,210 cases; and FY 2009— 1,510 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2009/financial-crimes-report-2009#securities

Through FY 2009, 2,794 cases resulted in 822 indictments and 494 convictions of mortgage fraud criminals. The following notable statistical accomplishments are reflective in FY 2009 for mortgage fraud: $2.5 billion in restitutions, $7.5 million in recoveries, and $58.4 million in fines; 128 seizures valued at $5.06 million and 226 criminal indicted assets valued at $510.1 million. The chart below reflects mortgage fraud pending cases from FY 2005 through FY 2009 as follows: FY 2005—721 cases; FY 2006—818 cases; FY 2007—1,204 cases; FY 2008—1,644 cases; and FY 2009—2,794 cases.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2009/financial-crimes-report-2009#mortgage

_____________

During FY 2011, cases pursued by the FBI resulted in 242 indictments/informations and 241 convictions of corporate criminals. Numerous cases are pending plea agreements and trials. During FY 2011, the FBI secured $2.4 billion in restitution orders and $16.1 million in fines from corporate criminals. The chart below reflects corporate fraud pending cases from FY 2007 through FY 2011.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011#Corporate

As of the end of FY 2011, the FBI was investigating 1,846 cases of securities and commodities fraud and had recorded 520 indictments/informations and 394 convictions against this criminal threat. Additional notable accomplishments in FY 2011 include: $8.8 billion in restitution orders; $36 million in recoveries; $113 million in fines; and $751 million in forfeitures. The chart below reflects securities and commodities fraud pending cases from FY 2007 through FY 2011.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011#Securities

During FY 2011, cases pursued by the FBI resulted in 521 informations and indictments, and 429 convictions of FIF criminals. The following are notable statistical accomplishments in FY 2011 for FIF: $1.38 billion in restitutions; $116.3 million in fines; and seizures valued at $15.7 million. The chart below reflects pending FIF cases from FY 2007 through FY 2011.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011#Financial-ins

Through FY 2011, FBI investigations resulted in 1,223 informations and indictments and 1,082 convictions of mortgage fraud criminals. The following notable statistical accomplishments are reflective in FY 2011 for mortgage fraud: $1.38 billion in restitutions; $116.3 million in fines; seizures valued at $15.7 million; and $7.33 million in forfeitures.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011#Mortgage

Pending cases are important because they can still result in convictions.


President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force STRIKES AGAIN! $200 Million Fraud
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002844790

[JDPriestly]

56. Mortgage companies and banks committed fraud but the individuals who actually committed the

fraud have not been called into criminal court. That is the failure of the Obama administration.

In the S&L crisis, lots of bankers were called to answer for their fraud. The Wall Street debacle was caused by fraud and deception and by cheating at the stock market. Almost no prosecutions, much less convictions.

But the Obama administration let the bankers and the Wall Street crowd go unembarrassed and without prosecution. If a teenager gets caught putting graffiti on a wall, he goes to court.

That is one of the reasons that most of us are not too excited by Obama's vague comments about economic inequality. He doesn't walk the walk when he has the chance to correct some fundamental causes of the inequality -- like the injustice in our justice system.

[ProSense]

64. There is still

"Mortgage companies and banks committed fraud but the individuals who actually committed the fraud have not been called into criminal court."

...progress being made.

Sen. Warren Praises New CFPB Mortgage Rules that Make Families, Economy Safer

Jan 7, 2014

Video of Senator Warren’s Remarks Available Here

Text of Senator Warren’s Remarks Available Here

WASHINGTON, DC – In remarks delivered on the floor of the Senate this afternoon, United States Senator Elizabeth Warren applauded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) new mortgage rules, which will go into effect on Friday, January 10.

Under the new rules, a lender must determine that a borrower has the ability to repay a mortgage before issuing the loan. The rules will also prohibit brokers from being paid by lenders to steer customers into higher-cost loans and strengthen the mortgage market by improving mortgage servicing practices.

"Thanks to the consumer agency's new rules, families will be safer, pension funds and other investors will be safer, and our whole economy will be safer," Senator Warren said in her remarks. "And the rules will reshape the mortgage market for the better. They will give people a better chance to buy homes and a better chance to keep those homes, and they will force mortgage lenders and servicers to compete by offering better rates and customer service, not by tricking and trapping people. These rules will help markets work better, and they will reduce the risk that the economy will crash again."

Senator Warren highlighted the success the CFPB already has had helping consumers, including returning more than $3 billion to consumers who were cheated and resolving tens of thousands of complaints against financial institutions. The new mortgage rules will affect millions of families who own or plan to purchase a home.

"The consumer bureau's new mortgage rules show once again that government can fix problems," said Senator Warren. "Sure, we have to work hard, we have to fight against those who benefit from the broken system, and we have to stick with it even when the odds are against us. But when we do those things, real change is possible in this country. We're seeing that up close this week."

For more information about the new mortgage rules, a fact sheet is available at the CFPB's website here.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=309

[YoungDemCA]

9. They're too busy with more important things....

Like prosecuting the War on Drugs, for example, much more aggressively than the previous administration ever did.

[flying rabbit]

7. So why does he support the TPP?

[ProSense]

12. What does that have to do with my point? n/t

[flying rabbit]

143. To save time I would direct you to the subthread that begins with post 31

That is pretty much where I would have gone with the discussion. Since we can assume your responses would have been roughly the same, we can forgo actually taking the time to have the same argument. Its a win-win really.

[Bonobo]

14. TPP is unrelated to the plight of the middle class income disparity?

Wow.

[ProSense]

15. Did I say that? No, I fucking didn't. n/t

[Bonobo]

28. Good to see we agree. nt

[ucrdem]

16. Bingo. One month before ACA goes live we get Eddie, Glenn, and Senator KY

and suddenly it's all about 'saving the 4th,' 24/7, week after week, on every network including NPR. Shameless and transparent.

[JDPriestly]

70. Because the Fourth Amendment is a precious right. It is a matter of safeguarding the Constitution.

And everything else is secondary to safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed us in the Constitution. Of all people in government, Obama should understand that.

Safeguarding our fundamental rights, the rights guaranteed in our Constitution is important because all the other positive changes that Obama espouses cannot occur unless Americans can rely on those rights.

[ucrdem]

81. The many, many millions buying smartphones and going online don't seem terribly worried

about their precious right to privacy. Drop by any BestBuy if you think I'm kidding. And I seriously doubt if anyone but the Koch brothers and their clients and allies would have put the NSA at the top of their concern list before the rat pack hit pay dirt last May -- not coincidentally I might add.

[Hissyspit]

119. "their precious right to privacy"

And, that right there, folks, is all you need to read.

[neverforget]

165. It's all cool until a Republican wins the Presidency and then

it's horrible abuse. Until then, nothing to see here move along.

[stevil]

19. Single Issue advocates....

Try to make it look seem there is no progress. There is no single front line. If we could all work together we could achieve so much more. I'm in agreement with you.

[YoungDemCA]

20. Dismsising a whole slew of great progressive activists as "single issue advocates"?

Wow. What a time we live in, to be a Democrat!

[ucrdem]

26. Like Julian Assange, the RW Libertarian? And Snowden, the Rand Paul acolyte?

And Glenn Grenwald, the former Republican turned Libertarian? Yeah those are real progressives.

[sabrina 1]

44. What you are doing is dismissing the millions of Democrats who opposed these policies from the

beginning, when Bush first put them into effect. Keep doing that and see if they will continue to tolerate these attacks on their integrity. Before Assange, before Paul, before Greenwald, the people you are attacking were out their OPPOSING these policies. I hope you are not doing any GOTV for democrats with this kind of garbage. Dems are pissed off enough without hearing these false statements against them. Rahm Emmanuel did more to harm to this president with the same kind of disrespect and disregard for those who elected this president, than ANY Republican, Libertarian or Australian could possibly have done. See if you can figure out why that is.

[ucrdem]

63. Sabrina... Snowden, Glenn and Randy do not represent millions of Democrats.

And the Obama NSA is not the Bushler NSA. How many times have I and others explained that here? Serious NSA reform was underway long before those jackals came along. From the first days of the Obama administration in fact.

[sabrina 1]

76. This NSA is populated with Bush appointees and loyalists. Why? Why were they not all fired?

You can 'explain' all you want, this NSA is conducing a massive spying program on the American people and they don't like it now anymore than they did when Bush was in the WH. Is that hard for you to accept??

Clapper is a Bush appointee. He lied to Congress. Why is a Bush appointee of an organization that was already caught violating the Constitution still in that position? We elected DEMOCRATS to get rid of Bush Republicans.

Greenwald is a Journalist and did not create these problems. In fact I remember him going after Bush over these issues and he was a HERO to some of the same people now calling him a 'jackal'. This IS NOT about politics, it is about this country. How many times do people have to explain that to you?

It's five years since the 'first days of Obama's administration'. What reforms? How about on the first DAY, firing all Bush loyalists from those organizations? What if Obama had not been reelected, you are saying for an entire term while Dems had the Senate and for the first two years, the House, they could not make reforms? That would mean he had left office without making them, wouldn't it?

Why is Clapper still in that position? Alexander? Gates? Comey? Hagel? Did we vote for these Republicans?? Maybe that is the problems?? So many Republicans in this administration. Don't Democrats know that you cannot trust Republicans? Are there no Democrats who can handle these positions of power?

Please, just stop trying to diminish the problems. I want to know from now on before I even consider supporting any presidential candidate WHO will be in their cabinet. Where are the Progressive Dems in this administration?

[ucrdem]

93. McChrystal and Petraeus were also Bush holdovers Obama reappointed.

Then they were fired. So I imagine he is either satisfied with the performance of his NSA appointees' duties or hasn't found any statutory or ethical violations that would merit disciplinary action. Snowden and Greenwald certainly didn't expose any although they hoodwinked a healthy cohort of suckers into thinking they have. Go figure.

[sabrina 1]

130. 'Snowden and Greenwald didn't expose any' I guess that's why Obama was surprised by what he learned

about 'how far the NSA had gone, especially their spying on Merkel'. so we are told by a spokesperson. And that must be why 'reforms were needed'.

Republicans, Petraeaus and McCrystal, Gates too. And they 'performed' exactly the way anyone with an ounce of perception would have expected. I can't imagine being 'pleased' or 'satisfied' with such people. But then I'm a Democrat, I believe Democrats are far more trustworthy and capable than Republicans.

[ucrdem]

135. "any statutory or ethical violations that would merit disciplinary action," and no,

they didn't. Spying on foreign governments is what the NSA is tasked with ("signals intelligence&quot and I doubt that either Obama or Merkel was very surprised to learn that the NSA collects Merkel's cell phone data. I also seriously doubt that she conducts sensitive communications over a cell phone.

[sabrina 1]

138. So we were lied to again when we were told that Obama was surprised when he heard they had spied

on allied leaders' personal phones? Is that what you are saying?

No wonder no one believes a word they hear. How stupid of me, I actually believed them.

I wonder if Germany is spying on Obama's personal phone? Listening in when he calls his wife, his children. Guess we shouldn't worry about it because what I'm hearing is that it's all okay, and hey if they''re listening to us talking to our loved ones, I'm all for equality, let them spy on EVERYONE.

As Bush said, that document is quaint, just a piece of paper. He was telling the truth and to think, I thought he was crazy!!

One thing I'm beginning to respect about Bush, he never lied about his personal beliefs regarding our 'freedoms'. I kind of prefer that to the phony pretense of 'caring'.

'I swear to defend and protect the US Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic'.

Bit late for that now, isn't it? What a joke, and they make it look so serious and sincere. I wonder why they still go through the motions??

[ucrdem]

140. You didn't give a link, date, name, quote, or title so all I can surmise

is that you've mixed up things you've read here there and everywhere into a tangle the NSA's biggest computers would be hard put to sort out.

[Hissyspit]

120. Same old bullshit, hunh?

Greenwald has said he is not a Libertaerian, but you just keep repeating it.

Totally dishonest.

[neverforget]

23. Who stopped fighting back?

"Fighting back doesn't stop because the NSA is being debated." Where did that come from?

[ProSense]

29. Well,

"Fighting back doesn't stop because the NSA is being debated." Where did that come from?

...it comes from every response to a policy that injects the NSA and the TPP, when, for example, someone say increasing the minimum wage is irrelevant because of the TPP.

Bogus nonsense.

[neverforget]

32. Lol okay. How you get to there from that is

interesting.

You do realize that people can be passionate about more than 1 issue at a time? We're pretty intelligent on this board.

[Egnever]

48. ..

We're pretty intelligent on this board

That's debatable at times.

[JDPriestly]

72. Personally, I think that economic inequality is the biggest issue of our time.

I have posted on that many, many times and not gotten much support for my posts. And Obama has only recently begun to talk about economic inequality. I was talking about it here on DU long before Obama decided it was an important issue.

Sometimes we on DU are way ahead of the President's agenda.

[NuclearDem]

98. Because lip service about the minimum wage while pushing the TPP

is fucking contradictory. You're either on the side of the corporate power grab that is TPP, or you're on the side of the people with the minimum wage.

You can't be both.

[ProSense]

101. What

"Because lip service about the minimum wage while pushing the TPP is fucking contradictory. "

...fucking "lip service"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024346133

Also, what the hell does pushing a minimum wage increase have to do with the TPP?

I mean, your comment is basically implying that the minimum wage shouldn't be push because people are debating the TPP.

Ridiculous.

[Armstead]

31. "Free Trade" has done so much to screw up the economy since the 1990's. That it IS a core issue

The core economic issues cannot be isolated into neat little boxes.

TPP affects all of the issues you mentioned in a very bad way....and so many more.

TPP and its older siblings are job killers. They are union busters. They are weakening the bargaining power of all workers.

THAT is a core economic issue from which so many others flow.

If Obama has his way, we're going to get another version of NAFTA and all the other so-called "free trade" agreements shoved down our throats. And that will continue do -- among other things -- shaft the middle and working class. And help to further shut out the poor from entering the working class.

Want to raise the minimum wage, for example? Fine. Big Bidness will just use that as another excuse to offshore more jobs.

We already have made this mistake, and we know the awful results. So why is Obama so intent on repeating the same damn thing, which is so contrary to his lofty rhetoric?

[ProSense]

37. Again,

"Free Trade" has done so much to screw up the economy since the 1990's. That it IS a core issue

The core economic issues cannot be isolated into neat little boxes.

TPP affects all of the issues you mentioned in a very bad way....and so many more.

TPP and its older siblings are job killers. They are union busters. They are weakening the bargaining power of all workers.

THAT is a core economic issue from which so many others flow.

...the TPP isn't a fucking law yet. You are refuting my point that it has nothing to do with pushing a minimum wage increase or expanding access to health care by pointing out what free trade has done "since the 1990's" and extrapolating to the TPP. It isn't a law yet.

You illustrated my point perfectly.

[bobduca]

41. "You illustrated my point perfectly."

get a grip. seriously.

[Puglover]

159. God no kidding. nt

[Armstead]

43. TPP is a continuation of previous "free trade policies" whose results are already known.

And we're trying to prevent it from becoming law.

WTF are people supposed to do? Silently wait until bad policy becomes established before pointing out its problems?

And -- I repeat -- we already KNOW what these agreements do. That is not hypothetical. It is established reality. TPP would build on that and make things even worse.

Now if you think NAFTA and other similar trade deals that have already been passed have been good for the United States and its working population, you are entitled to your opinion, and are welcome to defend them on that basis.

But if you don't believe they have helped the working class, then you are simply doing mental gymnastics to try to defend an indefensible atrocity of a law.

[ProSense]

52. "And we're trying to prevent it from becoming law."

Well, good for you. Does that mean it's the most important issue?

"WTF are people supposed to do? Silently wait until bad policy becomes established before pointing out its problems? "

From the OP: I don't have to be the vocal advocate for the progressive issue anyone else ranks as the most important, but I support it.

Knock yourself out, and whatever you do, don't give up.

[Armstead]

60. You are doing your usual nitpicking

Perhaps it is not THE most important issue. Perhaps there is no single Most Important Issue.

If you want to waste your time haggling over a meaningless ranking system of the the Really Most Important Issue, be my guest.

That does not diminish its importance. TPP is incredibly important. And disparaging those who believe that it is important doesn't doesn't advance whatever oblique point you are trying to make.

[ProSense]

67. "Perhaps it is not THE most important issue."

Well, I'll remember that the next time the issue come up.

"That does not diminish its importance. TPP is incredibly important. And disparaging those who believe that it is important doesn't doesn't advance whatever oblique point you are trying to make. "

Nor does focusing on another issue "diminish" the importance others place on the TPP. See, that's the funny thing, some have no problem "disparaging" those who focus on other issues, but when it's pointed out, the projection starts.

[Armstead]

77. As far as I'm concerned you (anyone) can focus on any damn issue they want

You want to post a strong post advocating for the minimum wage? Great. Have at it.

Even though people often engage in disagreements here, I don't think very many people spend much energy worrying or criticizing the priorities of others.

Your criticism of those who are opposing the TPP and the NSA issues is kind of a non-issue.

[ProSense]

83. That's

"As far as I'm concerned you (anyone) can focus on any damn issue they want"


...good to know.

"Your criticism of those who are opposing the TPP and the NSA issues is kind of a non-issue.

There was no "criticism of those who are opposing the TPP and the NSA." My criticism is of those who can't accept that these aren't the most important issues to everyone.

[Armstead]

92. I dion't see much of that going on, but feel free to fret about it if you want

[ProSense]

95. It happens a lot. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

167. So this is whining about how others rank the importance of issues? Why should it matter

to you what others see as important? Why should you give a shit at all about the metrics, this is not a competition or a matter of Neilson ratings.
Plus you are just silly if you think the TPP is not part of a discussion of income inequality. Silly or intentionally dishonest.
'Oh no, others don't think my issue is the most important, and they have their own priorities! Must make OP to criticize them for not being me!!!!!!!!'

[ProSense]

170. No, it's not.

So this is whining about how others rank the importance of issues? Why should it matter

to you what others see as important? Why should you give a shit at all about the metrics, this is not a competition or a matter of Neilson ratings.
Plus you are just silly if you think the TPP is not part of a discussion of income inequality. Silly or intentionally dishonest.
'Oh no, others don't think my issue is the most important, and they have their own priorities! Must make OP to criticize them for not being me!!!!!!!!'

You completely missed the point, and what you characterize as "silly or intentionally dishonest" is your own flawed interpretation.

[think]

71. Big Ed had seven Democratic congress members come on his show today

to talk about the TTP and express serious concerns about the classified trade agreement that corporations want fast tracked.

Maybe discussing TTP might be important BEFORE it is rubber stamped into law.

[sabrina 1]

55. It will be if people ignore it. Which is the answer to your question. Why is it so important now?

Because if we all shut up and just wait and see, it will be passed and then all those issues you are concerned about won't stand a chance.

Why eg, doesn't the president and the Dems propose to end subsidies for Corporations that take jobs out of the country?

I could go with that and talk about it endlessly, support him passionately, make calls, send emails, sign petitions whatever it takes.

That would take away some of the incentive to send away the jobs of the working class.

And why don't the Dems propose raising taxes on the top percentile until they are paying their fair share, even higher if they take jobs out of the country?

THAT would get people talking and acting.

But what we are seeing is a push to pass a trade agreement without anything in place to prevent the moving of jobs out of the country UNLESS we are willing to work for the same amount as third world workers.

Why don't the Dems propose that any US Corporation that uses foreign labor must abide by US labor laws?? That would get people on board to help get it passed.

But if you think people are going to just 'wait and see' silently while their jobs get sold out by a law that was written by Corporations, some even foreign, for Corporations, you are going to be very disappointed.

[truedelphi]

134. Great post, so thanks Sabrina 1. n/t

[ProSense]

145. No,

"It will be if people ignore it. Which is the answer to your question. Why is it so important now? Because if we all shut up and just wait and see, it will be passed and then all those issues you are concerned about won't stand a chance."

...that wasn't my question, and who the hell is asking you to "shut up"?

[JDPriestly]

74. But Obama is sponsoring TPP. That's why we don't totally believe his sincerity about dealing

with economic inequality.

[ProSense]

79. So? That's on you...what you choose to believe. n/t

[polichick]

292. It's about things not adding up - but of course, you know that.

[OrwellwasRight]

294. "TPP isn't a fucking law yet"?????

First of all, nice language. Do your arguments become stronger when you use foul language or do you just not have very good arguments.

So we should wait until its law to fight it?

Like if there was a law reduce the minimum wage or to outlaw all abortions or to reinstate Jim Crow or any one of 1000 proposals to undo progress in this country you'd sit on the sidelines "because it isn't fucking law yet"? Do you know how LITTLE sense that makes? Honestly, think about it.

Second, if as you say inequality is the most important issue in this country, then the TPP is part of that the TPP will exacerbate inequality. Do you understand how US free trade agreements work?

1) They incentivize outsourcing by giving US-based corporations extraordinary investor rights and privileges to challenge laws in the country of investment (which in the case of the TPP means Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam). The companies can use the investor-to-state dispute settlement system to challenge laws they do not like in private, unaccountable, undemocratic arbitration tribunals. Developing countries in particular are susceptible to threats of cases and so often capitulate in order to keep the corporation happy and the jobs the foreign corporations bring. This system has been used to challenge and win against developing countries, including a $2 billion judgment against Ecuador when Ecuador simply exercised its rights under a contract with Occidental petroleum. The panel said the contract provision was unfair to Oxy. Really, like Oxy couldn't fend for itself in contract negotiations? Read more about ISDS here: http://www.tni.org/briefing/profiting-injustice HOW does this exacerbate inequality? By providing an additional incentive to close factories here and offshore jobs to Vietnam, Malaysia, etc.

2) By putting US workers in competition with workers in countries where they cannot exercise their rights to form a union and collectively bargain. By signing the TPP, the largest ever free trade agreement for the US, which will cover 40% of world trade, US workers will be put in direct competition with workers in Vietnam, who have no labor rights at all--Vietnam practices child labor and forced labor, and arrests workers who advocate on behalf of free labor unions. Collectively, these actions keep wages in Vietnam extremely low. This expansion of the labor market to the TPP region puts US workers in direct competition with workers in Vietnam, where annual GDP per capita is less than $2,000 and in Malaysia, where GDP per capita is less than $10,000. This puts a downward pressure on US wages, exacerbating inequality. For more on who US FTAs have suppressed wages, go here: http://www.epi.org/publication/ib244/ and here http://www.epi.org/publication/trade_policy_and_the_american_worker/.

3) The TPP will place constrictions on future policies in the US, including industrial development policies, the provision of public services, and financial services regulations. This boxing in of policy responses empowers corporations and increases corporate influence over the economy. The effect of this deregulatory, pro-corporate, neoliberal trade and tax policy since 1980 has already caused an extreme increase in income inequality, and doing more of the same in the TPP will exacerbate inequality.

So if addressing inequality is yours, or the President's or anyone's concern, then that person must, by definition, care about the TPP.

[ProSense]

297. Well,

"TPP isn't a fucking law yet"?????

First of all, nice language. Do your arguments become stronger when you use foul language or do you just not have very good arguments.

...it isn't a fucking law yt.

"So we should wait until its law to fight it?"

Where did I say that?

[OrwellwasRight]

300. Yes. See post #37

where you say:

"my point that it {meaning TPP} has nothing to do with pushing a minimum wage increase"

They are intimately related my friend. They both are part of the fight on poverty and inequality. You minimize the interrelation between the two.

Your initial post implies that it should be ignored because income inequality is more important, and basically insults people that are activists on the issue. And then you spend the entire thread pretending that you never meant to insult TPP activists or to minimize its importance. You are a shit stirrer who loves to make implications and then feign shock and surprise when others challenge you. Why else would you say it isn't a law yet except to minimize its importance? There really is no other reason to say such a thing.

Physician, heal thyself.

[ProSense]

302. Where does

where you say:

"my point that it {meaning TPP} has nothing to do with pushing a minimum wage increase"

They are intimately related my friend. They both are part of the fight on poverty and inequality. You minimize the interrelation between the two.

...it say "wait until its law to fight it"? No, pushing for a minimum wage increase now has absolutely nothing to do with the TPP debate.

Nothing: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024354098

"Your initial post implies that it should be ignored because income inequality is more important, and basically insults people that are activists on the issue. "

No, the post implies no such thing. And that last point is nonsense.

[OrwellwasRight]

310. Yes, that is what it implies.

Read the title of the post. I can't find one reply that doesn't read it as an insult to those concerned about the TPP and the NSA.
You know exactly what you implied in the OP and then you act all "who me"?

It's not an effective debate tactic.

You've convinced no one on this thread that either you are right or that you did not mean to insult those who care about the TPP or the NSA. We get the point that you don't. So spend your time doing whatever it is you do, and we'll spend our time fighting against inequality and for democracy.

Later.

[ProSense]

312. No, it doesn't.

"You know exactly what you implied in the OP and then you act all 'who me'?"

Yes, I know exactly what I said, but you apparently believe your spin is what I "implied."

[OrwellwasRight]

314. Zzzzzzzzzz

As I said, no one's convinced by your protests.

[pampango]

136. Tax cuts for the rich, corporate deregulation, 'right-to-work laws', slashing the safety net

have screwed up our society since long before the 1990's.

Lots of countries have more 'free trade' than we do yet have strong middle classes and unions and very fair distributions of income, so how does 'free trade' screw up the economy?

[treestar]

149. How does the TPP affect any one of those things?

The economy was fine until the housing crisis. Please describe how NAFTA caused that.

[TheKentuckian]

189. You thought the Bush economy was fine? JAYSUS! No wonder folks are world's apart on economics

We start out with such different perspectives and therefore goals that there is no real possibility of common ground.

A lost decade with wealth being funnled to the top while opportunities diminish for the masses is fine. Ever growing inequality, fine. Wages shrinking, fine. Social Security surplus plundered and used as an excuse to right checks that nobody was calling for, fine. Trillions squandered in bullshit military adventures, fine. Cost of education skyrocketing, fine. Losing jobs for years, fine.

Going from terrible to abysmal does not make terrible "fine", you lived in a different world where two fucking Bush recession were just groovy.

[treestar]

190. Please explain exactly how NAFTA caused it all

That's the issue I have. Nobody really can trace it to free trade. And the only solution is some type of isolationism.

[laundry_queen]

191. What can't be traced to free trade?

Be specific. This should be good.

[treestar]

203. No, it's those who claim NAFTA caused consequences

Who need to back that up. People yell NAFTA and TPP like the right yells Benghazi. We are expected to just accept the conclusions. Since they are economic issues, most people really don't know what the hell they are talking about. NAFTA could be bad or good or indifferent (probably all, depending on what) but its detractors cannot explain it. All they can do is blow up that they are actually being asked to support their position.

[Armstead]

205. NAFTA included provisionbs that made it eassier and more attractive to remove econoimic sovergnty

Underlying the bureaucratic goibbleydegook language, it basically crated a system where individual nations in NA surrender the ability to set their own standards and -- yes quotas-- for the production of goods and services.

The problem with all of these "trade" policies is that they actually have very little to do with trade. It is simply forcing g participating nations into a political, economic, social straightjackets based on the most rapacious corporate values -- rather than civic or social ones -- if they want to participate in export and import markets.

It is pushing the global economy down to the worse levels, rather than raising all boars.

It also made "protectionism" a dirty word. But the root of that word is "protect," as in protecting a nation's domestic economy.

That is a shit state of affairs that is steadily ruining the US economy for many reasons. It is also undermining our civil and social fabric.

And they are not doing anything to protect workers and other members of societies in other countries either because of the values the standards are based on.

[treestar]

207. Where have we been unable to set standards for our goods and services?

Why would there be any quotas on products?

And how have the Mexicans and Canadians been forbidden to set standards for their goods and services?

What standards?

[OrwellwasRight]

307. Try reading the services, financial serv and ag chapters of NAFTA, the WTO, or

or any subsequent agreement.

They specifically limit the kind of regulations that a country can enact. Several US standards have been challenged under the agreements. Cases in point. COOL (country of origin labeling) for meat: has been challenged at the WTO twice, and the US has lost twice. the US is now on its third rewrite of the labeling rules and hopes that this time the rules will stand. Note that the rules do not affect trade--they do not impose a tariff or block a product from coming in. They only require labeling. Shrimp-Turtle: the Us had a standard for imported shrimp: that it couldn't be caught using trawlers, which kill endangered turtles. The US lost as this was an unfair trade restriction. Dolphin-Tuna: The US has had to rewrite its dolphin safe tuna labeling regs at least three times, and hopes its current reg stands. Clove cigarettes: Henry Waxman's tobacco control act banned the sale of clove cigarettes. This provision was struck down by the WTO and the US is not enforcing it.

Pay attention. Trade agreements affect your daily life.

[laundry_queen]

206. Nice deflection

You didn't answer my question: What exactly is it NAFTA 'caused'. Higher unemployment? Crappy economy? income inequality? I'd like you to narrow it down so I can refute it. Or you can deflect, which leads me to believe it is you that doesn't understand economic issues.

[treestar]

209. NAFTA has been accused of causing all sorts of ills

The TPP panic is about all the ills it will cause. I admit I don't understand economic issues. It's the NAFTA detractors who try to pretend they do. If they really did, they could explain how it worked - point to the clause in NAFTA and show by statistics and direct correlation the harm it did. They never do that. We are asked to swallow the conclusions whole and then just told we don't understand. But why are we to blindly follow those who state that? I thought blind following was bad?

[laundry_queen]

242. Well, I understand economic issues

and unless all my textbooks and profs are wrong, NAFTA was a net loss for Americans. There are statistics that show NAFTA directly cost 6-700,000 jobs in the US.

Here's the thing with free trade. It's touted by economists as great because it's supposed to give the countries with the most efficiency in certain areas the job of producing or servicing the rest of the world in an efficient manner. For instance, if country A produces apples and oranges, and country B produces oranges and mangos...if country A concentrates on apples, then country B can concentrate on oranges, and another country that is great at growing mangoes can concentrate on that. Because of a scale economy, productions costs plummet, more oranges, apples and mangoes are produced and they are therefore cheaper. The premise is that people will then save money on their apple, orange and mango purchases and then use that money elsewhere to boost the economy. It's also assumed that the assets from the orange industry in country A will eventually be diverted to the apple industry or they will find another commodity to concentrate on that country A will also be more efficient at producing.

This model doesn't take into consideration that corporations often don't 'pass it on' when they save money on production - they hoard it for their shareholders. It used to be that it was more beneficial for corporations to reinvest their profits in their companies due to tax rates. Not anymore...shareholders prefer to pocket profits. When corporations don't pass it on, people are still paying the same for the commodities, but now they have a net loss of jobs, because no new jobs were created with the money saved on production.

This is what happened with NAFTA. The premise was that we would move manufacturing to Mexico, where there was cheap labor, and the money that we saved on the products would then be reinvested into other industries in the US that the US could provide more efficiently (in one of my texts I think the example was the banking industry, lol) and those industries would make up for the jobs lost in manufacturing. Well, we all know that didn't happen. Companies kept the profits for themselves, and the people who lost their good manufacturing jobs flooded low-paying service jobs just trying to put food on the table. They were then required to buy the cheaper stuff from Mexico, because they no longer could afford American made. This made even more American companies, with lost sales, move manufacturing to Mexico, which resulted in even fewer manufacturing jobs. It's a downward spiral. THEN, with cheap transportations costs, companies figured out that Asia was even cheaper, and now Mexico is in dire straights with abandoned factories everywhere - jobs gone overseas for that extra .5% profit margin to go in shareholder's pockets.

The TPP will make this overseas outsourcing even easier and cheaper. We didn't touch much on the TPP in class because there isn't much information out there but the basic statement from all profs was, "this is going to mean bad things for North America". It's another grab by the 1% to boost their incomes.

Oh, and another way this all hurts the economy: the companies that are able to shift their production overseas first have a huge price advantage and often put any competition out of business. This results in monopolies and a distinct lack of competition. Theoretically, all capitalism eventually leads to monopoly. This is why regulations are needed. Free trade and lack of regulations allows companies to consolidate and produce on a massive scale so that no start up can even hope to compete. Some say this is incentive for innovation. I disagree - when people are so busy trying to make ends meet, they don't have time for start ups and innovation. Especially when they are tied to companies for their health care.

Anyway, I don't know if you were being genuine in wanting to understand or not, but I thought I'd put this out there anyway. It's a bit disjointed as I'm being harassed by a 6 year old, LOL.

[treestar]

262. How would the TPP make outsourcing even easier?

Where would the jobs go? Which countries would get them?

Why did Clinton and now Obama think these things would help not hurt? Are they just evil tools of the corporations?

Also, even the shareholders have to do something with that money. From reading the above, it seems once the money goes to the shareholders, it stops dead and goes no further. The middle class invests in the stock market too, so we can't say that only the rich benefit.

[laundry_queen]

268. The percentage of middle class people that benefit enough from the stock market to make a difference

is small, really small. Mostly they benefit in the forms of pensions, which, as we know, are disappearing anyway. Very few people have enough invested in stock markets to truly benefit from these free trade deals - it hurts them because as they lose jobs, they can no longer afford to invest. Only half of the middle class owns any stock at all, and that half includes people who stick $25 a month in an index fund. It's never anything that they will be able to live off of. Plus, they don't do as well as rich people because they stick to low fee investment services, which usually means lower quality, less informed financial planners.

And yes, shareholders don't have to do anything with the money. They can hoard it. Rich people have a tendency to not spend money once they get to a certain point, making more money doesn't make them spend anymore. It DOES stop dead after a certain point of richness.

The TPP bleeds jobs by allowing foreign investors to take over domestic companies, which makes it not only easier to outsource, but also means the profits go overseas. Also, the deal will make it easier for foreign companies to bid on domestic contracts.

Which countries would get them? Really? Poor countries that pay shitty wages like Vietnam.

Are Clinton and Obama evil tools? No. I don't think it's a secret that Obama is no economic guru though. And there are tons of money spent on lobbying these free trade agreements. So much that it's basically buying votes. Not sure they had a choice. We have to get the money out of politics because this little facet of it is only going to get worse.

[treestar]

274. Everyone I know in the middle class has 401ks etc.

Maybe I live in the upper middle class. I need stats on that.

Shareholders reinvest in the stock market. Very few rich people are going to actually hoard. They know money makes money.

How the TPP would work only against us though? Foreign investors can take over our companies, but wouldn't American ones take over industries in the other countries? And isn't the point of something like the TPP to require a country like Vietnam to raise its standards so we aren't at a disadvantage? I am not such a cynic that I automatically believe that our negotiators are really trying to screw us all over. Lobbying goes on with everything. I'm not that cynical about that either, in that the Unions likely lobby too, and organization do lobby for the progressive side on many issues.

[SMC22307]

271. 1) To countries offering the lowest wages and most lax environmental regulations...

hell, even Homer Simpson understands that.

2) Because Clinton is a DLC New Democrat, and New Democrats embrace trade agreements, welfare reform, charter schools, and some Social Security privatization, while rejecting single-payer healthcare. New Democrats also supported Bush's disastrous Iraq War. How's that multi-trillion dollar mistake working out? If I'm not mistaken, the DLC received money from the Bradley Foundation and Koch Industries. Why would a supposedly Democratic organization accept money from right wingers? Obama, and Hillary for that matter, are cut from the same New Democrat cloth, only now they're taking marching orders from Third Way offices at 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW.

3) Pensions are a thing of the past, so many workers' retirements are now invested in the crapshoot known as the stock market. Which is all fine and dandy until Enron. WorldCom. Bubble collapses. The DJIA plummeting 54% in 17 months (between 2007's high and 2009's low). Many of those middle class who "benefited" have delayed retirement, if they can retire at all. And the working poor will NEVER retire. Yeah, life is good.

We needed "revolution" after George W. Instead, we got Captain Bipartisanship. What a colossally wasted opportunity...

[treestar]

276. That would happen anyway

So wouldn't our negotiators be taking that into account. If the TPP is zillions of pages long like NAFTA was, it's making a bunch of rules and we have a say in those, too.

Some of the other parties to the TPP are countries like New Zealand and Australia. I don't see their labor undercutting us. They have First World economies. China is not party to it and the jobs bleed off there, so how does the TPP do it?

[ronnie624]

366. The overall results of NAFTA on the working class are negative in both the US and Mexico.

Don't think American workers will be spared the worst of the effects of these free trade agreements. In the long run, the whole point of them, is to transfer more and more of the capital resources from the working class, to the elite class of human society, in the form of lower wages and the elimination of labor regulations on a global level, and also through the elimination of social services and environmental regulation by the signatory governments. All in all, free trade agreements represent the continuation of the overall trend of concentrating more of the worlds resources into fewer hands for the sake of profit, to the detriment of the biosphere and working class people. And wherever the money goes, so goes the political capital, and thus our ability to resist these agreements.

[treestar]

381. How do we know that?

What clause in NAFTA can be shown to statistically lead there? Is the elite class really intent on having it all? I see they have most, but what would they do with all? While I can let the very rich be as long as I have enough, it would seem more likely they could just enjoy their riches and not worry about making sure a majority is miserable and likely to be so much so as to attack them.

And how do we know we are eliminating our regulations and not demanding more of the other countries to the TPP, such as Vietnam, etc. I don't see that we need assume our leaders aren't completely evil or that their interest do not coincide with ours in the least.

[ronnie624]

398. Your post suggests

that you're unaware of the history of the working class struggle for social justice. It's as if there was never a labor movement in your own country. How very odd for someone who presumably identifies with the principles of equality and democracy.

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Job Loss, Lower Wages and Higher Drug Prices

The TPP would even elevate individual foreign firms to equal status with sovereign nations, empowering them to privately enforce new rights and privileges, provided by the pact, by dragging governments to foreign tribunals to demand taxpayer compensation over policies that they claim undermine their expected future profits.

We only know about the TPP’s threats thanks to leaks – the public is not allowed to see the draft TPP text. Even members of Congress, after being denied the text for years, are now only provided limited access. Meanwhile, more than 600 official corporate “trade advisors” have special access. The TPP has been under negotiation for five years, and the Obama administration wants to sign the deal by early 2014. Opposition to the TPP is growing at home and in many of the other countries involved.

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=3129

More Power to Corporations to Attack Nations

A major goal of U.S. multinational corporations for the TPP is to impose on more countries a set of extreme foreign investor privileges and rights and their private enforcement through the notorious “investor-state” system. This system elevates individual corporations and investors to equal standing with each TPP signatory country's government- and above all of us citizens.

Under this regime, foreign investors can skirt domestic courts and laws, and sue governments directly before tribunals of three private sector lawyers operating under World Bank and UN rules to demand taxpayer compensation for any domestic law that investors believe will diminish their "expected future profits." Over $3 billion has been paid to foreign investors under U.S. trade and investment pacts, while over $14 billion in claims are pending under such deals, primarily targeting environmental, energy, and public health policies.

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=5411&frcrld=1

DELAURO: FOOD SAFETY CRITICAL ISSUE IN UPCOMING TRADE TALKS

As the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) recent report on the safety of imported food emphasizes, the increasing globalization of America’s food supply is posing difficult challenges to both our regulatory system and public health. In 1994, the year Congress voted for United States membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), half of the seafood consumed by Americans was imported. Today that figure is 84 percent.

Yet, our regulatory capacity has not kept up with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently concluding in a report that the FDA currently has only limited oversight, a reliance on the review of paper and not actual production facilities, and an “ineffectively implemented” sampling program that looks for only 16 drugs, compared to other countries that look for up to 57 drug residues. According to the GAO, FDA tests only 0.1 percent of all imported seafood products for only a few drug residues. Simultaneously, the food-safety related provisions of past U.S. trade agreements have imposed constraints on signatory countries’ domestic food safety standards and import protocols.

Accordingly, a TPP FTA has the potential to undermine the broadly supported public health goal that the food Americans consume must be safe. The FDA, for example, has already issued 25 import alerts for Vietnam this year with Vietnamese seafood detained for misbranding, E. coli and more. Seafood imports from Vietnam are plagued by unusually high levels of antibiotic residues, microbial contamination, and other serious food safety concerns confirmed by FDA laboratory testing. Between 2003 and 2006, more than one-fifth of all veterinary drug residues that FDA identified in imported seafood were in imports from Vietnam even as less than 4 percent of all imported seafood in the time period was shipped from that country.

http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=406:-delauro-food-safety-critical-issue-in-upcoming-trade-talks&catid=7:2011-press-releases&Itemid=23

[treestar]

402. uncalled for conclusions about me

Designed to avoid showing a causal connection between these treaties and whatever ills you are claiming they cause.

[ronnie624]

403. I said it was "as if".

I know you are aware of the fact that the elite class of human society has never voluntarily granted social justice to the working class; that headway has always been the result of a long, hard struggle, with the elites fighting tooth and nail, every step of the way. I think you know on some level, that they would reverse it all, if they could.

I also know you have posted on threads where the information has been posted that demonstrates a causal link between the NAFTA treaty and the damage done to Mexico's corn industry and subsistence farming, the increase in pollution resulting from unregulated factories, and the huge influx of Mexican immigrants making the dangerous trek to the US, desperate for work to support their families, because NAFTA cost Mexico more jobs than it created. I don't feel like I need to waste my time posting it again

[OrwellwasRight]

305. The only solution is some type of isolationism?

Are you kidding? So there are two choices -- trade based on the neoliberal, pro-corporate model or not trade at all? Talk about your black and white thinking. Saying that those who oppose more NAFTA model agreements oppose "trade" is a bogus and intellectually dishonest straw man. MANY have put forward a better model of trade. But no Administration, Republican or Democratic, has tried to achieve it. The corporations don't have to write the trade rules. Why do you assume that is the only choice? Lame.

[TheKentuckian]

395. You said the economy was fine, I did not say that NAFTA was the sole cause

of all financial woes nor the seminal moment of all such problems.

I do maintain that these "free trade" agreements are fuel to the fire and increasingly transfer democratic sovereignty to multinational corporations to and for the advantage of these entities. I further expose the viewpoint that on the whole, the net impact is both the loss of jobs and devaluing of wages for the jobs that remain.

No thanks to leading framing and eagerly awaiting anything like a reasonable explanation of how the economy was fine proud to the crash.

[moondust]

38. Opposition to TPP needs to be mobilized now.

Before fast track is passed and the thing gets rammed through without public input or debate.

[think]

39. Some dude even gave a boring speech about the NSA today.

The nerve!

[Armstead]

50. This is the most sadly amusing post I've seen all day

[think]

51. Yup......

[bobduca]

58. Thankfully MIRT'd before he could start any flames

[Egnever]

73. Wow welcome to DU

Again I guess but still

[JDPriestly]

46. The TPP is a big obstacle to better wages for working people and for lifting up the middle class.

That is why it is the big issue.

If Obama wants to help the middle class recover and create jobs, why is he promoting the TPP? The TPP will cost us jobs and further harm our ballooning trade deficit. Obama should have stopped the negotiations on the agreement before they started.

And NSA is a big issue because of the development of the internet and the almost complete control of our lives that the NSA's use of the data from the internet and our other electronic communications could give it.

We all support a higher minimum wage and protection for the safety net, but we have to get beyond the Republican Congress to get them.

I live in a strongly Democratic district. Not much I can do to get Republicans out of Congress.

The Democratic Party has to do it, and in order to do it, they need to really represent working people. Sponsoring TPP is not the way to let working people know you are on their side.

[ProSense]

53. Potentially,

"The TPP is a big obstacle to better wages for working people and for lifting up the middle class. That is why it is the big issue."

...and not until it becomes law. It has nothing to do with pushing to increase the minimum wage or focusing on creating jobs now.

[rhett o rick]

49. The most important issue is free and fair voting. If the corps control our votes, all other issues

are moot. The Admin has done little to fix this.

Unconstitutional domestic spying is high on thelist. The admin has fostered this.

Income inequality is also high that's why the TPP is so important. It will negatively affect income equality. The admin and Penny Pritzker favor the TPP.

Fuck Republicans, fuck conservatives.

[ProSense]

88. Even on this

"The most important issue is free and fair voting. If the corps control our votes, all other issues"

...issue there has been progress: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022933401

Why Today is a Big Day for Voting Rights

By Faith Barksdale, Legal Assistant, ACLU & Eunice Hyon Min Rho, ACLU

Today marks the opening of the health insurance exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act. An estimated seven million uninsured Americans are expected to apply for coverage during this first round of open enrollment; the Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2016, 25 million Americans will register for health insurance through the exchanges. In addition to expanding access to affordable healthcare, the opening of the health exchanges also has the opportunity to dramatically expand access to the ballot.

You see, one-third of uninsured Americans are also not registered to vote. And under the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)—also called the "motor voter law"—agencies that provide public assistance, like the new health insurance exchanges, must also provide voter registration services. Because of this law, both the Department of Health and Human Services and the White House have acknowledged that the health insurance exchanges operated by, or in partnership with the federal government must offer voter registration services.

This important law also applies to the 14 states that are operating their own exchanges independent of the federal government. Among these states, California, New York, Vermont, Maryland and Rhode Island have all acknowledged their obligation under the NVRA to provide voter registration services through the health insurance exchanges. With over 10 million uninsured Americans living in these five states, this is a tremendous opportunity to expand ballot access. Unfortunately, nine states—Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon and Washington—have yet to officially announce plans to comply with the NVRA. We will continue to press ahead and urge more states to comply with federal law so that all Americans can have an opportunity to exercise the most fundamental right in our democracy.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/why-today-big-day-voting-rights

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023784202

[rhett o rick]

246. Wow that's a lot of schutf and links. But none will matter if our votes go thru

electronic black boxes that cant be verified. Voting alone isnt adequate. Free, fair and accurate voting and vote counting is what is important.

[ProSense]

252. If none of it mattered

"Wow that's a lot of schutf and links. But none will matter if our votes go thru

electronic black boxes that cant be verified. Voting alone isnt adequate. Free, fair and accurate voting and vote counting is what is important. "

...we'd lose every election. I mean, getting people registered to vote counts. That matters even before they're able to cast a vote.

[rhett o rick]

265. My point is you can register millions and fix gerrymandering

make voting easier, etc. but if the PowerToBe control the electric vote counting then we lose every election. I am not suggesting that we stop election reforms but we must recognize that the highest priority is to get away from electronic vote counting.

[Demo_Chris]

57. Answer: anyone who is even a casual student of history. nt

[kelly1mm]

59. How about you let each DUer decide for themselves what the most important issues

are. For some it may be TPP. Others may be concerned about abortion. Still others guns (both pro and con).

Some DUers WILL NOT vote for ANYONE who supports the TPP. Some will not support ANYONE who voted for the Iraq war. To each their own.

[bobduca]

61. The President did, by giving a speech today about the window dressing you are calling reform

[Katashi_itto]

68. You decided NSA was important. Not long ago, you were posting almost Hourly Anti-Snowden,

Pro NSA, Screeds. Now suddenly as if by magic, Republicans and wealth inequality are important. Like suddenly they are doing something different than six months ago...Now your telling us whats important.

This is a very very funny thread

[ProSense]

78. No, I didn't. I can post about a number of things often and in a timely manner.

Criticizing Snowden is easy, it's not the most important issue.

"Pro NSA, Screeds. Now suddenly as if by magic, Republicans and wealth inequality are important. Like suddenly they are doing something different than six months ago...Now your telling us whats important. "

I posted no "pro NSA screeds." No need to make shit up.

[Katashi_itto]

84. Lol! Revise history much?

[bobduca]

85. "often and in a timely manner" n/t

[ProSense]

86. My point stands. n/t

[Katashi_itto]

96. So does mine

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023469856

As just one of many examples

[ProSense]

97. Posting a statement published in WaPo is an "NSA screed"?

Ludicrous.

[Katashi_itto]

99. True, not screed this particular one. Just Pro NSA propaganda

[ProSense]

102. Thanks for acknowledging that the point was false. n/t

[Katashi_itto]

106. That one particular post. You sometimes posted screeds. But it was mostly Pro NSA propaganda

like that.

[ProSense]

108. Nonsense. n/t

[Katashi_itto]

122. Lol!!

[Marr]

231. I've come to believe that when that account posts the word "nonsense"...

it's a marker to the other employees who use that login not to continue in that line of debate.

lol

[Hissyspit]

123. "I can post about a number of things often and in a timely manner."

So can other people. When you do it, it's "not the most important issue." When others do it, they've decided it's the most important issue for everyone?

[ProSense]

146. "So can other people."

When you do it, it's "not the most important issue." When others do it, they've decided it's the most important issue for everyone?

Who said that? That has nothing to do with my point. When someone argues that there is no point to job creation or raising the minimum wage because the TPP is being debated, that person is indicating that the TPP debate is more important. It happens, often.

[muriel_volestrangler]

141. Do an advanced search for the threads you started between June 6 and July 3 in GD

put your name as post author, forum GD, post type of 'thread titles', and June 6th 2013 and July 3rd 2013 as start and end dates. You will get about 250 results (extend the end date by a day, and it says "only the first 250 results are returned&quot , and you find the overwhelming majority of the threads you started are about the NSA.

It's completely absurd for you to start a thread asking "Who determined that the NSA and TPP are the most important issues?" when you started more NSA threads than any other DUer.

[ProSense]

160. Ridiculous

"Do an advanced search for the threads you started between June 6 and July 3 in GD

put your name as post author, forum GD, post type of 'thread titles', and June 6th 2013 and July 3rd 2013 as start and end dates. You will get about 250 results (extend the end date by a day, and it says "only the first 250 results are returned&quot , and you find the overwhelming majority of the threads you started are about the NSA.

It's completely absurd for you to start a thread asking "Who determined that the NSA and TPP are the most important issues?" when you started more NSA threads than any other DUer."

Too bad you wasted time to come to a bogus conclusion. Volume doesn't equal "most important."

[muriel_volestrangler]

161. So are you saying we shouldn't pay any attention to your threads, because you babble

about unimportant stuff? That instead there is some undisclosed way to determine what you think is 'important', that we should have known about anyway?

What does equal 'most important'? What was it that got you to start this thread - what made you think that other people think that the NSA is one of the 'most important' issues, other than talking about it constantly, as you do?

[ProSense]

162. What the hell are you talking about? Suggestion

"So are you saying we shouldn't pay any attention to your threads, because you babble about unimportant stuff? That instead there is some undisclosed way to determine what you think is 'important', that we should have known about anyway?"

What does equal 'most important'? What was it that got you to start this thread - what made you think that other people think that the NSA is one of the 'most important' issues, other than talking about it constantly, as you do?"

...try employing some logic. I bolded a couple of clues for you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

163. You say 'Volume doesn't equal "most important."'; so I ask you what does equal "most important"

I'm already 'using logic'. You gave an opinion about what you think is not an identity. I asked you what you think the identity is. I inferred that you are saying that since the huge volume of your posts does not indicate importance, then they are about unimportant stuff.

You have managed to put my points to you in bold. Well done. Now maybe you can give an answer to my question.

[ProSense]

164. Good grief

You say 'Volume doesn't equal "most important."'; so I ask you what does equal "most important"

I'm already 'using logic'. You gave an opinion about what you think is not an identity. I asked you what you think the identity is. I inferred that you are saying that since the huge volume of your posts does not indicate importance, then they are about unimportant stuff.

...speaking of "babbling," are you seriously unaware of the difference between "unimportant stuff" and the "most important" issue?

I'm sure you're capable of deciding for yourself which is the most important issue. I'm also certain that you realize that not everyone is going to agree with you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

166. You still aren't saying how we're meant to know what you think is important

You say we shouldn't pay attention to what you write about the most, because "volume doesn't mean 'most important'". That's why I said you regard the majority of your posts as 'unimportant stuff' - you told us that yourself. But you haven't told us how we were expected to know what you thought was important, when you spent months wittering on about Snowden and the NSA, day after day.

After 7 months, you now expect us to believe you don't think the NSA is an important story, despite the hundreds of threads you've started on the subject. If we believe you about that, then tell us how we should have realised that, during that 7 months.

I'm sure you're capable of deciding for yourself which is the most important issue. I'm also certain that you realize that not everyone is going to agree with you.

In that case, why start a thread, moaning about "who determined that the NSA and TPP are the most important issues?" If you think we're all capable of deciding what are the most important issues, and not everyone should agree, then why waste everyone's time with a thread about it? Is this just another example of you starting a thread about an unimportant issue?

[ProSense]

168. You're

You still aren't saying how we're meant to know what you think is important

You say we shouldn't pay attention to what you write about the most, because "volume doesn't mean 'most important'". That's why I said you regard the majority of your posts as 'unimportant stuff' - you told us that yourself. But you haven't told us how we were expected to know what you thought was important, when you spent months wittering on about Snowden and the NSA, day after day.

After 7 months, you now expect us to believe you don't think the NSA is an important story, despite the hundreds of threads you've started on the subject. If we believe you about that, then tell us how we should have realised that, during that 7 months.

...having a discussion with yourself. I said nothing of the sort, and I don't care what you "believe."

[muriel_volestrangler]

169. So you can't justify starting about 5 NSA threads per day for a month, and then complaining

that someone else decided the NSA was the most important issue. You'll just say you don't care. You want to pretend your past doesn't exist.

[ProSense]

171. What the hell does "starting" threads about the NSA have to do with my point?

I started a thread about Rand Paul, does that mean he's the "most important" issue?

[muriel_volestrangler]

177. No, it's when you start 150 of them in a month, a clear majority of the threads you started

that it means, to an observer, that it is the issue you think is most important. And it seems very odd that you then want to know who decided the NSA is the most important issue; with an objective measure, we can say that you have decided this yourself.

[ProSense]

181. Well,

"No, it's when you start 150 of them in a month, a clear majority of the threads you started that it means, to an observer, that it is the issue you think is most important. "

..."an observer" would be absolutely wrong. I mean, you seem to want to force your bogus conclusion to define what you believe is the most important issue to me.

Silliness.

[LondonReign2]

172. Your verbal gymnastics are energetic

but not very effective.

1) Complain that others have unfairly deemed the NSA one of the two most important issues
2) Start more threads on the NSA than anyone else
3) Get busted for starting more threads than anyone else
4) Claim your massive number fo posts on the subject doesn't mean it was important

Hilarious

[ProSense]

174. LOL!

Your verbal gymnastics are energetic

but not very effective.

1) Complain that others have unfairly deemed the NSA one of the two most important issues
2) Start more threads on the NSA than anyone else
3) Get busted for starting more threads than anyone else
4) Claim your massive number fo posts on the subject doesn't mean it was important

Hilarious

What's "hilarious" is that you completely missed the point, but you don't realize it.

It's like comprehension fail with this list.

[LondonReign2]

179. I know, right?

Because we all start hundreds of threads on a topic and then complain that others are making the issue too important.

BTW, you forgot your Smiley of Desperately Losing the Argument

[ProSense]

182. Again,

"Because we all start hundreds of threads on a topic and then complain that others are making the issue too important.

BTW, you forgot your Smiley of Desperately Losing the Argument."

...I made no such silly claim, and your snark doesn't hide the fact that you apparently don't understand the point.

[LondonReign2]

183. Au contraire

Your OP wonders who determined thr NSA (and TPP) are the most important issues.
You have started literally hundreds of threads on the topic
When confronted with this inconvenient fact you try to claim that doesn't mean you deem the topic important

Tripped by your own logic and too stubborn to EVER admit it

[ProSense]

184. Here's the deal

Your OP wonders who determined thr NSA (and TPP) are the most important issues.
You have started literally hundreds of threads on the topic
When confronted with this inconvenient fact you try to claim that doesn't mean you deem the topic important

Tripped by your own logic and too stubborn to EVER admit it

I didn't start "hundreds" of threads. In fact, over the last month, I've posted hundreds of comments on health care. Do you want to assert that I believe that's the most important issue?

The "OP wonders who determined thr NSA (and TPP) are the most important issues." Yes, and the content of the OP explains the relevance. It has nothing to do with volume, the number of posts, or what anyone else wants to believe.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

413. Then every last one of us missed the point.

When the entire rest of the planet is wrong, and you're the only one who is right, it's time to get that calibration checked.

[ProSense]

414. Not true, but I can see why you'd want to believe that.

"When the entire rest of the planet is wrong, and you're the only one who is right, it's time to get that calibration checked."

Remember when the earth was flat? LOL!

[Autumn]

249. I do have to say, Prosense has always been on top of the NSA. Way back to 2006

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

[ProSense]

293. Yes,

"I do have to say, Prosense has always been on top of the NSA. Way back to 2006"

...I have, and I understand the issues. For example, this quote, "Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal," is about illegal warrantless wiretapping, and that was what Bush was accuse of.

The program was in fact a wide range of covert surveillance activities authorized by President Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. At that time, White House officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, had become convinced that FISA court procedures were too cumbersome and time-consuming to permit U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to quickly identify possible Qaeda terrorists inside the country. (Cheney's chief counsel, David Addington, referred to the FISA court in one meeting as that "obnoxious court," according to former assistant attorney general Jack Goldsmith.) Under a series of secret orders, Bush authorized the NSA for the first time to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails between the United States and a foreign country without any court review. The code name for the NSA collection activities—unknown to all but a tiny number of officials at the White House and in the U.S. intelligence community—was "Stellar Wind."

http://web.archive.org/web/20081216011008/http://www.newsweek.com/id/174601/output/print

Note, this is inside the US and bypassing the FISA court.

Republicans fought to make that legal, and succeeded in doing so before Democrats were able to force an expiration of the law.

From a post last year:

There have been a number of media reports using the same Obama quote to basically claim that he once called out Bush, but then embraced the policy. They are intentionally conflating a quote about the PAA with his position on the 2008 FISA amendments, which he voted for. They are not the same thing. The PAA was a Republican effort to absolve Bush.

While the article mentions that Obama voted against the Protect America Act (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309), there is no mention of the fact that the Act expired in early 2008.

Senator Mitch McConnell introduced the act on August 1, 2007, during the 110th United States Congress. On August 3, it was passed in the Senate with an amendment, 60–28 (record vote number 309).[12] On August 4, it passed the House of Representatives 227-183 (roll number 836).[12] On August 5, it was signed by President Bush, becoming Public Law No. 110-055. On February 17, 2008, it expired due to sunset provision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#Legislative_history

The amendments to FISA made by the Act expire 180 days after enactment, except that any order in effect on the date of enactment remains in effect until the date of expiration of such order and such orders can be reauthorized by the FISA Court.”[38] The Act expired on February 17, 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Protect_America_Act_of_2007

Here's Bush's statement at the time: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080214-4.html


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724

[whatchamacallit]

216. Nailed it!

[Marr]

229. +1

[Cha]

80. Our Planet is ultimately the most important issue..

without a healthy environment we won't have this other shit to talk about.

Greenwald says the NSA is the most important because it's his bread and butter. And, fucking don't let anyone say anything real about Edward Snowden or he will jump down your throat.

thanks for your OP, PS

[Egnever]

87. Agreed the planet is the most important issue.

[Cha]

91. ..

[ProSense]

94. Today, Nebraska filed a lawsuit

The first lawsuit against Obama’s new coal limits just got filed
http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-first-lawsuit-against-obamas-new-coal-limits-just-got-filed/

[Cha]

105. President Obama keeps trying to help our Environment without a

stich of help from ReCons and from those dems whose job depends on siding with Pollution.

thanks ProSense!

[Egalitarian Thug]

89. As long as it's up here. Just, wow...

[ProSense]

90. Lame. n/t

[Maedhros]

100. Who decided? Well, apparently, a whole bunch of people.

So many, in fact, that the President felt compelled to go on national television and give a speech.

It takes a helluva lot of people caring about something strongly to take a President off-message and make him do damage control.

[ProSense]

104. He gives a lot of speeches

"So many, in fact, that the President felt compelled to go on national television and give a speech. "

...on a lot of important issues.

Obama's inequality speech: telling the progressive story of American history
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/05/1260417/-Obama-s-inequality-speech-telling-the-progressive-story-of-American-history

[truedelphi]

137. Here in Calif., those of us in the know understand that

Back during the tale end of Summer 2010, Gov Schwartzenegger went to The President with hat in hand, and asked for a goddamn 20 billion dollar loan, and the President had Geithner tell all 37 million of us that that loan would add to the deficit.

Yet military spending that was in the form of aid to foreign nations ended up being over 55 billions of dollars during the same time period.

So then Californians, buoyed by Schwartzennegger (R) and Mark Leno (Democrat) who had put together a piece of state legislation that stated the police must not indict or penalize any Californian caught with six ounces of weed or less, we Californians embraced the HB 420 and really started in with marijuana. And people also began growing the dope needed for medical marijuana clinics. And running dispensaries.

All this was so successful that by 2012, we were hearing that some 125 millions of dollars was ending up in state coffers as tax on the product. The "grow the needed weed" program was becoming a success! People were staffing the dispensaries, were growing th product, were acting as couriers for the product, and of course as it was a local effort, all of this trickled outwards so that cafes, and car lots an furniture stores, and more saw some economic salvation come about.

So what happens then? Naturally, rather than let us restore the economy ourselves, Obama had the goon squads led by Eric Holder shut down dispensaries, and arrest dispensary owners. (No money for economic measure, but for prison, plenty of moulah!) Over 8,000 well paying jobs at dispensaries have been lost.

[ProSense]

152. And Jerry Brown created a surplus. n/t

[truedelphi]

267. Do you know how he created that surplus? By cutting social programs, by cutting

back on schools. One of the cuts involves over a billion dollars of cuts to programs that offer payments by the state to the counties, with regards to reimbursing medical bills of the poor and the disabled. Yeah Jerry!

And he refused to stand up to the Biggest Union in the State, that of the Prison Guards. So although the local county had a 15 to 16 million dollar budget back in 2009, the school district only has a 9 to 10 million dollar budget this past year.

Meanwhile we were just awarded 22 millions of dollars for the remodeling of a one hundred cell prison here in the County.

[MannyGoldstein]

103. Why do we shoot spies, but only imprison uniformed enemy?

Because people hate sneaks. We hate them because we understand how much more damage can be done by those who try to fool us while attacking.

What do the NSA and the TPP have in common? Sneakiness.

In the NSA's case, they are a vast, all-enveloping army of sneaks. Most of us are shocked by how intrusive they've become under cloak of secrecy - far more intrusive than the Stasi. We are told that, unlike the Stasi, the NSA is OK because they are, and always will be, controlled by good people who'll do the right thing. Some people are still concerned. Germany was run by really good people at various times before 1929. Then came 1929.

In the case of the TPP, everything about it is a closely-guarded secret (other than to corporate "advisors", of course). IIRC, the White House even refused to let members of Congress see any info, until threatened with a law suit. Now members of Congress can see it, but with wild restrictions. A sneak attack on working Americans - Pearl Harbor for the 99%.

There are other problems out there, perhaps worse than the NSA and TPP, but who can tell? Because the NSA and the TPP are secret. So they freak people out. If they're so great, then lift the curtains.

[ProSense]

107. What

"What do the NSA and the TPP have in common? Sneakiness. "

...does your opinion on the "sneakiness" of the NSA and the TPP have to do with my point?

[MannyGoldstein]

110. Sneakiness magnifies these things in the minds of many.

Including me.

[ProSense]

111. Fine, that's on you. n/t

[MisterP]

109. you don't think the TPP will impact inequality and the middle class? why do I hear "Aegukka"?

[ProSense]

112. Nothing in my comments imply that, and I can help with your hearing. n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

113. The most important issues? Really?

Climate change, resource scarcity, and the need to transition to a sustainable economic model. Everything else is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Ghost Dog]

251. ^^ This ^^

[davidthegnome]

124. The middle class is dying, yes.

For the working poor, it's even worse.

I'm all for raising the minimum wage and helping people who are blocked by republican governors (people like ME) get health insurance.

I'm not praising republicans, I don't really think I've seen any of that here today. I see a lot of anger and frustration directed at our democrats who are doing things that we know are wrong - or who are not doing a damn about things they know are wrong, even when they have the power to do so.

There's a whole lot of shit going on that is making - and will likely continue to make things worse for a whole lot of us. The TPP, this NSA disaster, they're just two fractions of the whole, I will not say that they are the most important issues facing us, but they ARE important. Do you want drones flying over your house? Do you want every one of your phone conversations recorded for future listening? We need to limit (to severely limit) the power that the government has to oppress it's people. This isn't just for current safety, but a precaution in the event that a future government that is even worse should come to power. If the last few decades have shown us anything... one thing they should be clearly spelling out for us is that when government power can be abused, it almost inevitably WILL be. I don't trust this government with drones, with my private data - and neither should you. We aren't criminals, we aren't terrorists nor even suspected terrorists - they have NO RIGHT to our personal, private information. None. Period.

The TPP hasn't passed yet, this is true - but it is, I would say, a valid issue over which the Obama administration deserves some criticism. Time to start telling us what the hell it's for, what it's about, to bring it out in the open. Lobbyists should not be running our government and writing our legislation. What makes me, personally, the most angry about this issue, is that it's all being done so damn quietly - by a man who promised us greater transparency.

I'm angry about plenty of things - and some of that anger is directed at the President and his administration. My true fear though, is that there is some higher power, some force or group within government or the MIC that makes all of this irrelevant - that basically gives marching orders to the President and all of the high ranking public officials. To me, it is the only real explanation for how badly everything is screwed up right now.

The president has made some positive changes, I'll grant that. I'll grant that he's made an effort to make a difference in a good way - and succeeded. I just expected so much more, hoped, for so much more. I think almost all of us did, at least at first. When it comes right down to it, some times we all need to be reminded that the President really is primarily a figurehead, too much of what happens is outside of his control - and I fear that even the good he has accomplished has been primarily whatever the corporate and/or military puppet masters allowed him to.

I'm paranoid, yes - but I have every right and reason to be.

[Ghost Dog]

248. some force or group within government or the MIC that ... gives marching orders

from the shadows behind the curtain. Yes.

There must be a hand on a powerful lever somewhere.

[Deep13]

126. Well, it's killing the working class, which is about 60 or 70% of the country.

The middle class is actually a pretty small group.

[SoapBox]

127. Bravo.

You SO said how I feel.

[cali]

128. gad. the everlasting gob stopper defense of Obama no matter what.

[ProSense]

150. Another

"gad. the everlasting gob stopper defense of Obama no matter what."

...self-righteous and simplistic comment that complete misses the point because mentioning Obama in any positive light apparently burns some people to the core.

"Yes, I find this mentality disturbing and pathetic."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347963

[giftedgirl77]

192. I agree with you completely...

It's decisive & does nothing by start shit on DU.

[great white snark]

139. On DU you know the names and they're good at milking the same issues.

Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2014, 11:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Add drones and you've got the three everlasting gobstoppers of outrage.

[think]

156. There is only ONE Democrat on record supporting the TPP. Max Baucus

Seven Democratic congress members took the time to go on the Ed Show yesterday and state their opposition to the TPP being fast tracked and classified.

Does that sound like a few DUers milking it?

[treestar]

147. The NSA is a tempest in a teapot

They are mining the data of telephone companies where they need to? So what. The rank exaggeration in this issue is astounding.

The TPP is an attempt to regulate trade. How it can be the end of the world as we know it is impossible to describe. Pure ODS, using something no one understands. Blaming everything that goes wrong on NAFTA or the TPP is easy to do. Look how many people here are intimidated into jumping on this bandwagon without really understanding. The TPP will cause all kinds of horrible things! We have to accept that by itself, and any demands to describe HOW that will happen are greater with accusations of being a corporatist.

[Romulox]

151. On another message board, we called what the OP is doing a "Clown Dance"...

The thing is, a Clown Dance is distracting, even as everyone recognizes how ridiculous it is. In fact, the ridiculousness of the whole thing is really the point...

[ProSense]

153. Freerepublic? n/t

[Romulox]

154. The only "ex" freeper we have here on DU agrees with you 98% of the time. Ooops!

[ProSense]

155. The operative being "ex," huh?

Oops!

[Romulox]

157. No. The operative word is "freeper". Rightwing bullshit with a (D) after it remains rightwing

bullshit.

[ProSense]

158. Obviously, you're an expert

Say hi to the the folks on the other site.

[MineralMan]

188. ...

[bobduca]

195. Nailed it. HEY EVERYBODY LOOK AT THIS POSITIVE THREAD NOT THOSE OTHER ONES

[truedelphi]

269. + My household. n/t

[polichick]

291. If ridiculousness is the point, what's the purpose?

[Bluenorthwest]

173. 151 House Dems Telling President They Will Not Support Outdated Fast Track for TPP

We write to express our serious concern with the ongoing negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement (FTA), a potential agreement of tremendous consequence for our country. Specifically, we remain deeply troubled by the continued lack of adequate congressional consultation in many areas of the proposed pact that deeply implicates Congress’ constitutional and domestic policy authorities.

For some time, members of Congress have urged your administration to engage in broader and deeper consultations with members of the full range of committees of Congress whose jurisdiction touches on the numerous issues being negotiated. Many have raised concerns relating to reports about the agreement’s proposed content.
http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1455:delauro-miller-lead-151-house-dems-telling-president-they-will-not-support-outdated-fast-track-for-trans-pacific-partnership&Itemid=21

And my Senator, Ron Wyden, Democrat
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced legislation late Wednesday to protest the Obama administration's refusal to share information about controversial trade negotiations with the senator.

The administration's blockade against Wyden, who chairs a subcommittee on international trade, conflicts with its prior statements to the press, and raises concerns that President Barack Obama's administration is selectively icing out critics of the administration's trade strategy.

Wyden said that his office was locked out of information about a trade pact in the works known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The deal, which involves eight other Pacific nations, includes broad details on government contracting terms that would ban "Buy American" preferences for U.S. manufacturers, and intellectual property standards that would increase prescription drug prices abroad. Those positions have drawn criticism from American labor unions, domestic manufacturers and international public health advocates.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/trans-pacific-partnership-ron-wyden_n_1540984.html

[ProSense]

176. ?

WTH? LOL!

[Bluenorthwest]

185. Incoherent and nonresponsive as usual

nt

[ProSense]

187. Maybe you can explain what the hell a letter to the President has to do with the OP?

Posting that letter in response to the OP is "incoherent."

[bobduca]

194. Maybe if we shout the answers at you they will get through to you?

YOUR OP ASKED WHO DETERMINED THAT THE NSA AND TPP ARE MOST IMPORTANT.

THE LETTER IS FROM POLITICIANS WHO CONSIDER IT A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.

[ProSense]

196. No,

"Maybe if we shout the answers at you they will get through to you?

YOUR OP ASKED WHO DETERMINED THAT THE NSA AND TPP ARE MOST IMPORTANT.

THE LETTER IS FROM POLITICIANS WHO CONSIDER IT A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE."

...don't "shout," especially when you make no sense. It only draws more attention to an embarrassing comment.

[bobduca]

197. so you deny asking who determined that these issues are most important/

you deny that the letter includes politicians who consider those issues important?

Also quit fucking pretending that you dont get it. Nobody buys your clown dance act.

I prefer your night shift. Those people are more entertaining.

[ProSense]

198. LOL!

"so you deny asking who determined that these issues are most important/

you deny that the letter includes politicians who consider those issues important?

Also quit fucking pretending that you dont get it. Nobody buys your clown dance act. "

Stupid, clueless comments laced with lame insults. Maybe you should go back to shouting.

[ProSense]

200. Clearly you don't, but you think you do.

"Quit pretending you dont fucking get it."

How on earth can you make such a demand when you don't understand the OP?

You're throwing a tantrum that amounts to: I get it! I get it! "Quit pretending you dont fucking get" what it is I "get."

Problem is your comprehension of the point is completely off the mark.

[bobduca]

201. No clearly you need to think that or you wouldnt seem so condescending in every post

you ever make on this site. Your inability to discuss anything honestly here is legendary, and everything you post is dripping with condescension.

I get it, you are smart and all of us who disagree with your rabid froth are dumb dummies.

Thanks for clarifying!

[ProSense]

202. That's called

"No clearly you need to think that or you wouldnt seem so condescending in every post"

..projecting: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post194

[bobduca]

204. hey now we're into pro-sense response bingo

I'm holding out for Mr Roffle Waffles myself and i get a BINGO down the middle.

That blue link to the OP also set me up for a BINGO going across the bottom!

Cmon G-33!

[ProSense]

208. Do you ever post anything that makes sense? n/t

[bobduca]

210. my posts make plenty of sense

that's why you always need the last word, hon.

[ProSense]

212. LOL!

"my posts make plenty of sense that's why you always need the last word, hon. "

...ergo!

[bobduca]

213. QED

[Rex]

218. See what a waste of time that was?

I agree with your last reply to me and I think we see the Den Leader in action.

[bobduca]

226. yep

i ignore all those who rec'd that thread but never ignore the den leader.

[Ghost Dog]

254. .

[ProSense]

365. Obviously, it wasn't

[BelgianMadCow]

175. While I can respect your position,

your framing is outdated.

[ProSense]

178. My "framing is outdated"?

WTH does that mean?

[hollowdweller]

186. I don't think any one person determined it but...

I think to the news media an issue where something has been kept secret and there are continuing somewhat embarrassing revelations is a huge draw re: the NSA stuff.

The TPP I don't think it's got the priority of the NSA stuff.

But with those issues you got liberals who don't like gov't spying. You got libertarians who don't like spying. You got republicans who would not object to either had their party done it but who see an opportunity to get democrats bitching about democrats and then they can point to it and use it to try to say to the undecided voters "see even democrats don't like it. Vote for us"

To me the TPP is worse because it speaks more to your inequality thing. I think we need to renegotiate all of our trade agreements and be more protectionistic even if we get some inflation with it.

I totally agree that inequality and economic populism is the issue that will win for the dems and is the issue that may bring down or is bringing down the country.

But how often do dems choose a winning issue. Obama pivoted to it in the last election and it helped him win but will they dems do anything when the rubber meets the road with so much money against it? Hard to say.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

193. I went ahead and decided that our surveillance state is pretty goddamned important.

Thanks for checking.

[DireStrike]

211. Ok, TPP has nothing to do with income inequality.

Fuck useless third way triangulators.

[ProSense]

214. Wow, you offered your own theory and agreed with it

"Fuck useless third way triangulators."

I see where the confusion comes in.

[DireStrike]

239. I am looking for a job

Preferably one I can do from my desk. Do you know anyone who is hiring?

[ProSense]

240. Wait,

"I am looking for a job

Preferably one I can do from my desk. Do you know anyone who is hiring?"

...is this more confusion or did you respond to the wrong comment?

[whatchamacallit]

215. LET THE SPIN BEGIN!

Unreal

[ProSense]

217. Couldn't come up with anything better?

Nose picking, eww!

[whatchamacallit]

219. Didn't need to

You do such a great job of destroying your own credibility with OPs like this.

[ProSense]

222. Really?

"You do such a great job of destroying your own credibility with OPs like this."

I take it you didn't agree with my opinion, but why do you think I give a shit about what you think of my "credibility"?

[whatchamacallit]

228. Well you spend every waking hour posting in this forum

You must either be seeking validation or spreading propaganda. You tell me. It's obvious your OP is more about providing a talking point fig leaf for the president than your interest in issue priorities.

[ProSense]

232. Wow,

"Well you spend every waking hour posting in this forum

You must either be seeking validation or spreading propaganda. "

...how do you know how I spend my time? Also, that's an interesting theory because, you know, those are clearly the only two reasons people spend time here.

Ludicrous.

[Octafish]

336. DU Oxygen... rough estimate is 1 in 10 active posts...like owning the yellow and green properties...

...everyone ends up stopping on them to get past Go. As of 11:30 EST 19 Jan 2014:

[Rex]

220. I like how this thread did not go any way, shape or form as attended.

As we can see, trying to control the debate causes one to lose all self control!

[whatchamacallit]

223. Yep

[Rex]

224. We can dance if we want to!

[ProSense]

225. "This thread" went exactly the way it was anticipated, including

responses like yours.

I mean, how could anyone not predict the reaction to this opinion?

[Rex]

227. Nope went to shit and you cannot admit to it, it would cause you to admit to fault.

Something impossible with you and a few here. No, I was talking about some of your replies to others...priceless moments you went out of control with anger...funny stuff like reply #116!

You really let your self down with this OP and your replies.

[ProSense]

234. No it went to debate.

"Nope went to shit and you cannot admit to it, it would cause you to admit to fault."

"Shit" is every nonsensical comment, and not all of them are, but those that are were expected.

"No, I was talking about some of your replies to others...priceless moments you went out of control with anger...funny stuff like reply #116! "

LOL! See the OP, and you think calling out "stupid shit" (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post116) is "out of control with anger"?

Anyone that obsessed (see the comment I responded to), if it is in fact real, would seriously need therapy.

[Rex]

260. Like I said, you lack the ability to find fault in yourself

HEY not a unique or rare trait I will admit. Your OP failed on a grand scale, but you already know that. You cannot control the debate on DU...sorry but nice try.

[ProSense]

261. Oh brother

"Your OP failed on a grand scale, but you already know that."

I stated my opinion. It's still my opinion. If it makes you feel better that the "OP failed on a grand scale," knock yourself out.

My opinion stands.

"You cannot control the debate on DU...sorry but nice try."

And you think stating one's opinion is trying to "control the debate on DU"?

That's a fairly warped view.

[Union Scribe]

286. Debate? You're just angrily snarling at everyone. nt

[ProSense]

304. Maybe that's

"You're just angrily snarling at everyone."

...it seems that way to you because you're adding nothing to the debate: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post283

[Rex]

349. Let him pretend in his fantasy world that this thread went like he wanted it to.

Some people are never, ever wrong about anything.

[Vashta Nerada]

221. I think they are very important issues.

I value my privacy and I am concerned with the devastation that will be caused by the TPP.

[ProSense]

230. Good for you. What

"I think they are very important issues."

...I don't understand is why people can't distinguish between "unimportant" through to "most important"?

Again, if either the NSA and TPP are the most important issue to you fine, but I take issue with anyone who says it's irrelevant to propose creating jobs or increasing the minimum wage while the TPP is being debated.

[Vashta Nerada]

233. The NSA spying is one of the most important issues to me.

I value my constitutional rights and the NSA violates those rights. Every Democrat should be against the NSA spying.

I'm not sure what your game is here, but I'm not falling for it.

[ProSense]

236. That's fine. You seem

"I'm not sure what your game is here, but I'm not falling for it."

...threatened by opinion. You know, it doesn't prevent you from having your own.

[Marr]

235. I suppose you could ask your supervisor.

Here's a snapshot of the original posts from the account labeled "Prosense", from a relatively narrow timeframe... back in July, I believe. So I assume the committee meeting happened just before that.

OP Beyond his Moscow airport limbo, indignities await Edward Snowden ProSense Yesterday General Discussion
OP Greenwald To Appear At Town Hall For N.J. Senate Candidate Rush Holt ProSense Yesterday General Discussion
OP When It Comes To Extraditions, Russia Often Cooperates ProSense Saturday General Discussion
OP Glenn Greenwald To Testify Before Congress ProSense Friday General Discussion
OP ERIC HOLDER TO RUSSIA: We Will Not Torture Or Seek The Death Penalty For Edward Snowden ProSense Friday General Discussion
OP Senate pushes sanctions on nations aiding Snowden ProSense Thursday General Discussion
OP Bolivia forgives European countries for air space incident ProSense Wednesday General Discussion
OP Updated: Fugitive Snowden to stay for now at Moscow airport: Russian lawyer ProSense Wednesday General Discussion
OP Attitudes Shift Against Snowden; Fewer than Half Say NSA is Unjustified ProSense Wednesday General Discussion
OP Senator Slams Domestic Spying: ‘Secret Law Has No Place In America’ ProSense Tuesday General Discussion
OP Snowden plans to settle and work in Russia – lawyer to RT ProSense Tuesday General Discussion
OP Leaker Snowden hopes to be able to leave airport by Wednesday: lawyer ProSense Jul 22 General Discussion
OP Pew poll: Many Venezuelans want better relations with the U.S. ProSense Jul 20 General Discussion
OP Biden calls Brazil's Rousseff over NSA spying tensions ProSense Jul 19 General Discussion
OP U.S. court renews surveillance program exposed by Snowden ProSense Jul 19 General Discussion
OP Two U.S. senators suggest moving G20 from Russia over Snowden ProSense Jul 19 General Discussion
OP Kerry talked to Venezuela about Snowden: US ProSense Jul 19 General Discussion
OP Oath Keepers Heart Edward Snowden! ProSense Jul 19 General Discussion
OP Russia says knows of no plan for Snowden to seek citizenship ProSense Jul 19 General Discussion
OP Snowden has no crediblity, and deserves no thanks. ProSense Jul 18 General Discussion
OP Guardian Journalist to Write Book on Surveillance ProSense Jul 17 General Discussion
OP What did Jimmy Carter mean by this ProSense Jul 17 General Discussion
OP Sen. Tester Calls On Snowden To Return To America To ‘Face The Music’ ProSense Jul 17 General Discussion
OP "PHOTO: Application for temporary asylum in Russia written by #NSA leaker Edward #Snowden" (WTF?) ProSense Jul 16 General Discussion
OP Edward Snowden Declares Himself Torture-Proof ProSense Jul 16 General Discussion
OP Fugitive Edward Snowden applies for asylum in Russia ProSense Jul 16 General Discussion
OP Carl Bernstein: Greenwald 'out of line' (updated) ProSense Jul 15 General Discussion
OP Greenwald: Snowden Docs Contain NSA 'Blueprint' ProSense Jul 14 General Discussion
OP N.S.A. Leaks Stir Plans in Russia to Control Net ProSense Jul 14 General Discussion
OP Greenwald tries to do damage control ProSense Jul 13 General Discussion
OP Snowden documents could be 'worst nightmare' for U.S.: journalist ProSense Jul 13 General Discussion
OP Russia 'has not received' Snowden asylum bid ProSense Jul 13 General Discussion
OP Carney responds to question about Snowden meeting with human rights groups. ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP Obama Spoke With Putin On Snowden, ‘Cooperation On Counter-Terrorism’ ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP Greenwald: Snowden asylum 'unlikely' to stop me from publishing leaks ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP If Snowden's case as a whistleblower is so strong, why is he afraid to face the consequences? ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP How the Snowden Affair Became a Freak Show ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP Edward Snowden caught in asylum catch-22 ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP Updated: US ambassador to Russia disputes claim sent message to Snowden ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP Russia says Snowden could stay if he stops harming US ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP "Big news is that #Snowden is applying for political asylum in Russia" (updated) ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP Purported E-Mail From Snowden Asks for Meeting With Rights Groups ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP The ACLU's own text contradicts its case for Snowden's asylum bid. ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP Brazil May Seek to Speak With Snowden as Spy Allegations Spread ProSense Jul 10 General Discussion
OP Which Other Countries Are ‘In Bed’ With The NSA? ProSense Jul 10 General Discussion
OP Brazil lawmaker: US spying won't hurt relations ProSense Jul 10 General Discussion
OP Snowden: I never gave any information to Chinese or Russian governments ProSense Jul 10 General Discussion
OP Fugitive Snowden likely Venezuela bound, says U.S. journalist (Greenwald) ProSense Jul 9 General Discussion
OP Wikileaks: Snowden Has Not Formally Accepted Asylum Anywhere Yet ProSense Jul 9 General Discussion
OP North Korea uses Snowden in propaganda video ProSense Jul 9 General Discussion
OP Snowden Mentioned ‘Direct Access’ In Interview With The Guardian ProSense Jul 8 General Discussion
OP Irony ProSense Jul 8 General Discussion
OP Here's what the Snowden videos did ProSense Jul 8 General Discussion
OP Glenn Greenwald: Edward Snowden "Satisfied" by Global Outrage over U.S. Surveillance Operations ProSense Jul 8 General Discussion
OP Snowden affair clouds U.S. attempts to press China to curb cyber theft ProSense Jul 8 General Discussion
OP Snowden Anticipated Being Accused Of Violating Espionage Act ProSense Jul 8 General Discussion
OP Josh Marshall: Kinda Curious What That Means (Ellsberg's claim) ProSense Jul 8 General Discussion
OP Der Spiegel: Do private companies help the NSA? Snowden: Yes. But it's hard to prove that. ProSense Jul 7 General Discussion
OP Snowden: Other nations use NSA surveillance info ProSense Jul 7 General Discussion
OP Snowden isn't a whistleblower because...the law. ProSense Jul 6 General Discussion
OP Glenn Greenwald: Edward Snowden Confirmed WikiLeaks Statement Was Written By Him ProSense Jul 6 General Discussion
OP A big "FU" to the United States by other countries? ProSense Jul 6 General Discussion
OP More on Venezuela's offer (Is everyone sure this isn't rhetoric?) ProSense Jul 5 General Discussion
OP Will Venezuela follow through on Snowden offer? ProSense Jul 5 General Discussion
OP White House: no comment on Venezuela's asylum offer to Snowden ProSense Jul 5 General Discussion
OP Icelandic Lawmaker Claims Snowden Expressed ‘Gratitude’ For Citizenship Vote ProSense Jul 5 General Discussion
OP Wikileaks: Snowden Has Requested Asylum From Six More Countries ProSense Jul 5 General Discussion
OP Who started the rumor about Snowden being on President Morales' plane? ProSense Jul 5 General Discussion
OP South American leftist leaders rally to Bolivia's side in Snowden saga ProSense Jul 4 General Discussion
OP Snowden’s asylum request rejected (Norway) ProSense Jul 4 General Discussion
OP What Kind Of Coward Is Edward Snowden? ProSense Jul 4 General Discussion
OP Obama, Merkel agree to talks on U.S. spying ProSense Jul 4 General Discussion
OP Russia shows growing impatience over Snowden's airport stay ProSense Jul 4 General Discussion
OP Updated: France, Italy reject Snowden asylum request ProSense Jul 4 General Discussion
OP The hyperbole is getting thick. ProSense Jul 3 General Discussion
OP Why Won’t Anyone Take Edward Snowden? ProSense Jul 3 General Discussion
OP Wikileaks Spokesman: U.S. ‘Obviously’ Responsible For ‘Outrageous’ Incident With Bolivian President’ ProSense Jul 3 General Discussion
OP Audio purportedly from inside the cockpit of Bolivian President Evo Morales’s flight ProSense Jul 3 General Discussion
OP Wikileaks Spokesman Insists Snowden Statement Is Genuine ProSense Jul 3 General Discussion
OP The Guardian: Snowden Is A Whistleblower, Not A Spy ProSense Jul 3 General Discussion
OP Why are countries still cooperating with the United States on Snowden? ProSense Jul 3 General Discussion
OP Why didn't Bolivia's President give Snowden a lift? ProSense Jul 2 General Discussion
OP Bolivia: Presidential plane forced to land after false rumors of Snowden onboard ProSense Jul 2 General Discussion
OP There Are 12 Million Stateless People Around The World, But Edward Snowden Isn’t One Of Them ProSense Jul 2 General Discussion
OP Updated: India, Brazil reject Snowden’s asylum request; Snowden withdraws request to Russia ProSense Jul 2 General Discussion
OP Rafael Correa: we helped Snowden by mistake ProSense Jul 1 General Discussion
OP Josh Marshall: "Snowden’s pretty screwed." ProSense Jul 1 General Discussion
OP Report: Edward Snowden Breaks Silence (updated) ProSense Jul 1 General Discussion
OP Who should Edward Snowden be compared to? ProSense Jun 30 General Discussion
OP Assange stands by Edward Snowden as Ecuador's Correa reprimands consul ProSense Jun 30 General Discussion
OP With Julian Assange Taking the Spotlight, Edward Snowden's Future Looks Grim ProSense Jun 30 General Discussion
OP Ecuadoran President Correa Gives VP Biden An Earful ProSense Jun 29 General Discussion
OP Am I missing something about the latest revelations regarding the EU? ProSense Jun 29 General Discussion
OP Analysis: Snowden's options appear to narrow in bid to evade U.S. arrest ProSense Jun 28 General Discussion
OP Jimmy Carter on Snowden: "He's obviously violated the laws of America, for which he's responsible." ProSense Jun 28 General Discussion
OP Ecuador cools on Edward Snowden asylum as Assange frustration grows ProSense Jun 28 General Discussion
OP Ecuador has no plans to halt commerce ties over Snowden: Correa ProSense Jun 27 General Discussion
OP Exclusive: Documents Illuminate Ecuador’s Spying Practices ProSense Jun 27 General Discussion
OP The Errors of Edward Snowden and His Global Hypocrisy Tour ProSense Jun 27 General Discussion
OP Ecuador Says Snowden Asylum Document Unauthorized ProSense Jun 27 General Discussion
OP Ecuador denies giving Snowden a travel document: report ProSense Jun 26 General Discussion
OP Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon says his legal team won’t represent NSA leaker Edward Snowden ProSense Jun 26 General Discussion
OP Russia spies may be chatting with "tasty morsel" Snowden ProSense Jun 25 General Discussion
OP Putin Says Dealing With Snowden Issue ‘Like Shearing A Pig’ ProSense Jun 25 General Discussion
OP Edward Snowden never crossed border into Russia, says foreign minister ProSense Jun 25 General Discussion
OP Op-Ed In Chinese Communist Party Newspaper Blasts Washington Over Snowden, Hacking ProSense Jun 25 General Discussion
OP Hayes Challenges Greenwald: Snowden Undermines Defenders If He Goes To Nations That Hate Free Press ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP Greenwald: I Didn’t Even Know Snowden’s Name Until He Was In Hong Kong ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP Snowden plans more leaks...will let foreign press decide if leaks endanger Americans ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP Snowden’s Attorney: ‘He Never Anticipated This Would Be Such A Big Matter’ ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP The problem with defending Snowden. ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP Snowden is one issue and NSA oversight is another. ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP Julian Assange Won’t Say When Wikileaks Began Working With Ed Snowden ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP Report: Kremlin Says Russia Didn’t Know Snowden Was Coming To Moscow ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP Why Ecuador? ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP Which word best describes Snowden ProSense Jun 23 General Discussion
OP China Said to Have Made Call to Let Leaker Depart ProSense Jun 23 General Discussion
OP Maybe Hong Kong is simply relieved to be rid of Snowden ProSense Jun 23 General Discussion
OP Schumer: ‘Putin Always Seems Eager To Put A Finger In the Eye Of The U.S.’ ProSense Jun 23 General Discussion
OP Sen. Paul To Snowden: Don’t ‘Cozy Up’ To Russian Government ProSense Jun 23 General Discussion
OP Greenwald Thinks Snowden’s Final Destination Is Still ‘Up In The Air’ ProSense Jun 23 General Discussion
OP NYT: Snowden "staying in an apartment... controlled by the Hong Kong government’s security branch" ProSense Jun 22 General Discussion
OP The ACLU message isn't going to help Snowden. ProSense Jun 22 General Discussion
OP Snowden spy row grows as US is accused of hacking China ProSense Jun 22 General Discussion
OP Snowden is going to be prosecuted. ProSense Jun 22 General Discussion
OP Greenwald: Snowden Charges Show Obama’s ‘Vindictive Mentality’... ProSense Jun 22 General Discussion
OP Is it OK to criticize Edward Snowden? ProSense Jun 21 General Discussion
OP NYT: Documents Detail N.S.A. Surveillance Rules ProSense Jun 20 General Discussion
OP Analysis: Why Edward Snowden isn't a whistle-blower, legally speaking ProSense Jun 18 General Discussion
OP What if Snowden didn't have authorized access? ProSense Jun 18 General Discussion
OP Greenwald is accusing President Obama of making "false" claims, but hasn't backed up his claims ProSense Jun 18 General Discussion
OP Where is the additional information Snowden says he's going to release? ProSense Jun 18 General Discussion
OP Iceland received informal approach over Snowden seeking asylum ProSense Jun 18 General Discussion
OP Excerpt: Obama talks NSA in Charlie Rose interview. ProSense Jun 18 General Discussion
OP Pew poll: Public Split over Impact of NSA Leak, But Most Want Snowden Prosecuted ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP NSA veteran: "So he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor." ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP Glenn Greenwald Justifies Snowden’s Fear He Will Be Killed: U.S. ‘Targeted’ Americans In The Past ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP NYT editor's blog: Snowden’s Questionable New Turn ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP Edward Snowden Says More Info About "Direct Access" Is In the Works ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP Snowden: Obama Should Call For Special Committee To Review NSA Programs ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP Snowden: I Didn’t Reveal Any Operations Against ‘Legitimate’ Military Targets ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP Snowden basically admits the "direct access" claim was bullshit. ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP "the biggest intelligence leak in NSA history is answering your questions " ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP Fleeing the country to avoid prosecution makes Snowden a coward. ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP Edward Snowden To Participate In Online Q&A Today ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP Edward Snowden 'not a Chinese spy' - Beijing ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP DNI denies NSA analysts can tap calls without a warrant ProSense Jun 16 General Discussion
OP Jerrold Nadler Does Not Think the NSA Can Listen to U.S. Phone Calls ProSense Jun 16 General Discussion
OP Schieffer Destroys Snowden: ‘I Don’t Remember Martin Luther King Jr. Or Rosa Parks Hiding In China’ ProSense Jun 16 General Discussion
OP Hong Kong rallies in the rain for Edward Snowden ProSense Jun 15 General Discussion
OP Snowden’s Leaks on China Could Affect Its Role in His Fate ProSense Jun 14 General Discussion
OP While working for spies, Snowden was secretly prolific online ProSense Jun 14 General Discussion
OP Kevin Drum: ProSense Jun 14 General Discussion
OP Greenwald: Edward Snowden's worst fear has not been realised – thankfully (cites polls) ProSense Jun 14 General Discussion
OP Snowden Is Using 'Specific' Evidence of the U.S. Hacking China to Stay Out of Jail ProSense Jun 14 General Discussion
OP Snowden Is Not Welcome In The U.K. ProSense Jun 14 General Discussion
OP Leaker's Ties to China Probed ProSense Jun 13 General Discussion
OP Guardian "walked back the 'direct access' claim made in Greenwald’s original article" ProSense Jun 13 General Discussion
OP Report: Snowden Stored Documents On Thumb Drive ProSense Jun 13 General Discussion
OP Poll: Majority Says Snowden Did A Good Thing, But He Should Be Prosecuted ProSense Jun 13 General Discussion
OP Finding the right balance between security and liberty ProSense Jun 13 General Discussion
OP NSA Director Says Leaker’s Wiretapping Ability Claims Are ‘False’ ProSense Jun 13 General Discussion
OP Report: Feds Hunted For Snowden Before He Went Public ProSense Jun 13 General Discussion
OP Guardian issues statement in reply to Rep. Peter King ProSense Jun 12 General Discussion
OP Glenn Greenwald to Pete King: Bring it on ProSense Jun 12 General Discussion
OP Josh Marshall: Curious ProSense Jun 12 General Discussion
OP Greenwald: “We Did Not Want To Just Go And Arbitrarily Disclose Things’ ProSense Jun 12 General Discussion
OP ...Showed Hong Kong Newspaper Documents Revealing US Hacking Attacks On China (updated 2x) ProSense Jun 12 General Discussion
OP Edward Snowden Reportedly Gives Interview To Chinese News Outlet ProSense Jun 12 General Discussion
OP NYT editorial: Surveillance: Snowden Doesn’t Rise to Traitor ProSense Jun 11 General Discussion
OP Eugene Robinson: Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks show we need a debate ProSense Jun 11 General Discussion
OP Bush broke the law. President Obama followed it. ProSense Jun 11 General Discussion
OP AP Editor: Do Not Describe Edward Snowden As A 'Whistleblower' ProSense Jun 10 General Discussion
OP A Very Real Issue (private contractors) ProSense Jun 10 General Discussion
OP "Most significant" leak in history, and likely one of the dumbest. ProSense Jun 10 General Discussion
OP Glenn Greenwald: I Know Where Snowden Is ‘Generally’ ProSense Jun 10 General Discussion
OP Snowden Helped Guardian Reporter With Secure Communication System ProSense Jun 10 General Discussion
OP Ron Paul: ‘We Should Be Thankful’ For Edward Snowden ProSense Jun 10 General Discussion
OP The "biggest leak in US political history" ProSense Jun 10 General Discussion
OP DOJ: No Comment On Snowden ProSense Jun 9 General Discussion
OP What happens if you don't take the loyalty oath to Edward Snowden? ProSense Jun 9 General Discussion
OP What’s the Deal with Hong Kong? ProSense Jun 9 General Discussion
OP Josh Marshall on Edward Snowden ProSense Jun 9 General Discussion

[ProSense]

237. Yikes!

You collected that? Why?

Is that proof that Snowden is the most important issue?

I posted this one yesterday: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347724#post5

[MineralMan]

238. What are you implying, Marr?

What supervisor?

[whatchamacallit]

243. Marr please edit

"supervisor" out. I'd love to see this post stand as a testament to the OP's epic fail.

[ProSense]

245. I don't know

"I'd love to see this post stand as a testimonial to the OP's epic fail."

...posting about Snowden was well worth it. I had a lot of fun with those posts, and it's still enjoyable:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347724#post5

[whatchamacallit]

247. Yes, excoriating the guy responsible for the reforms you now praise

musta been a lot of fun

[ProSense]

253. Lots of fun, but evidently you're upset because

not everyone agrees he's "responsible"?

Lots of fun.

[whatchamacallit]

255. Sad

truly.

[ProSense]

256. Sorry to hear that.

I'm not "sad."

[whatchamacallit]

257. Well since you seem to know everything

who is responsible?

[ProSense]

258. I didn't claim to "know everything." n/t

[whatchamacallit]

259. Can't say I expected an answer

Let's call it a day, your dance only goes in circles. Adieu.

[demmiblue]

244. Wow.

[polichick]

296. Valid suggestion in light of the posting pattern.

[ProSense]

320. It seems idiotic to me. I mean,

speaking of "posting pattern," more nastiness: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post298

[polichick]

321. Is it "nasty" if it's true? As you know...

there is a lot of propaganda on the internet - and plenty of paid shills.

[ProSense]

322. It's nasty because

"Is it 'nasty' if it's true? As you know...there is a lot of propaganda on the internet - and plenty of paid shills."

...you wouldn't want anyone accusing you of this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post298

Would you? I mean, how would anyone know that it it isn't "true" about you or the poster making the nasty accusation?

It also violates DU rules.

[polichick]

323. Could be true about anyone - but the payer would...

want more consistent posting about relevant talking points than normally occurs.

[ProSense]

324. Yes,

"Could be true about anyone - but the payer would..."

...including you or the poster making the accusation. Still, it's interesting that you seem to support a nasty personal attack that clearly violoates DU rules.

[polichick]

325. Look (as BO always says), I enjoy your posts - but the truth is...

you post tons of administration talking points. Of course, posters are going to wonder.

If you don't want them to wonder, post fewer talking points/links.

In the case of the post you reference, it seems to be more about responses to your op than the op itself - and more of an observation than a nasty attack. I wouldn't worry about it.

[ProSense]

326. Oh,

Look (as BO always says), I enjoy your posts - but the truth is...

you post tons of administration talking points. Of course, posters are going to wonder.

If you don't want them to wonder, post fewer talking points/links.

In the case of the post you reference, it seems to be more about responses to your op than the op itself - and more of an observation than a nasty attack. I wouldn't worry about it.

...look the "truth" comes out. You weren't simply supporting the other poster's nasty attacks. Apparently, you're directing the nasty accusations at me.

I'll post whatever the hell I want to post. If you want to believe they're "talking points," that's on you.

Personal attacks are still against DU rules.

I have to laugh at the "post fewer talking points/links."

You can't be friggin serious with that. LOL!

[polichick]

327. Looks like I hit a nerve.

[ProSense]

328. LOL! Ooh

"Looks like I hit a nerve."

...look, proof your baseless personal attack is "truth."

You're going to have to get used to more "talking points/links." I'm sure that comment means my posts "hit a nerve."

[polichick]

329. I'm not complaining about "nasty attacks" - your talking points don't upset me...

As I said, I actually enjoy them.

Just pointing out why posters might get ideas.

Perhaps you'll keep thinking their/our ideas are "nasty attacks" - whatever works I guess.

[ProSense]

330. I see,

"As I said, I actually enjoy them.

Just pointing out why posters might get ideas. "

...you were just pointing out stupidity...

"Perhaps you'll keep thinking their/our ideas are "nasty attacks" - whatever works I guess. "

...and agreeing with it.

[polichick]

331. I agree that you consider both their and my observations to be...

"nasty attacks" - again, whatever works for you.

[ProSense]

332. Do you

". I agree that you consider both their and my observations to be... "nasty attacks" - again, whatever works for you."

...consider this a "nasty" attack: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post298

Yes or no?

[polichick]

334. Answered in #325 (regarding #298):

"In the case of the post you reference, it seems to be more about responses to your op than the op itself - and more of an observation than a nasty attack. I wouldn't worry about it."

[ProSense]

341. That's .

Answered in #325 (regarding #298):

"In the case of the post you reference, it seems to be more about responses to your op than the op itself - and more of an observation than a nasty attack. I wouldn't worry about it."

...not an answer. It's a cop out.

Do you consider this a "nasty" attack: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post298

Yes or no?

Don't be afraid to answer.

[polichick]

342. Answered already - no, obviously. Why would I be afraid?

[ProSense]

345. Good, you support nasty attacks that are against DU rule.

This whole who-is-the-paid-shill witch hunt is disruptive nonsense.

It betrays an utter lack of creativity on the part of the people making the accusation. They are so convinced that they are right that they cannot imagine someone else might hold a different point of view in good faith. Either that or they are incapable of advocating for their own point of view on the merits.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12592697#post1

Sound like you?

[polichick]

346. Just because you call something a "nasty attack" doesn't make it one.

[ProSense]

352. Do you disagree

"Just because you call something a 'nasty attack' doesn't make it one."

...with Skinner's point? Do you disagree with the DU rules?

[polichick]

355. I disagree with you that it was a "nasty attack"...

The owners of a board can have any rules they want, whether I agree with them or not.

If it was my board, I wouldn't want there to be paid shills or "sock puppets" - and wouldn't mind if people expressed their doubts about a poster/entity.

I say what I think and also try to stay within the rules. If the owners of this board have a problem with me, I assume they'll toss me off.

[ProSense]

356. You

If it was my board, I wouldn't want there to be paid shills or "sock puppets" - and wouldn't mind if people expressed their doubts about a poster/entity.

...are angry at straw men. You are pissed that people don't agree with you so therefore, you have to label them "paid shills" or "sock puppets."

By your logic, anyone can come along and call you a "paid" shill or "sock puppet."

I mean, maybe the purpose here is to discredit anyone who doesn't support your views or anti-Obama views.

How does anyone know that's not the "truth"?

[polichick]

357. I don't feel "angry" or "pissed." Just calling it like I see it.

[ProSense]

358. What do you see? Can you point to and provide actual evidence of what you "see"?

No, you can't. You're inventing bogeymen because you want to discredit those who disagree with you.

[polichick]

360. You seem to be projecting. If you're interested in what I see...

read my responses - it's all very clear.

[ProSense]

362. That doesn't make sense. You're the one accusing people of being "paid shills/sock puppets"

because you dislike their opinions.

[polichick]

363. Where did I do that?

[ProSense]

367. You know, it's becoming clear that you're deliberately not making sense.

At least, I hope it's deliberate.

[polichick]

368. Can't find the quote?

[ProSense]

369. Well,

"Can't find the quote?"

...I didn't expect you to try to deny your previous comments.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post325
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post334
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post342
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post346
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post355
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post357

[polichick]

371. You'll have to do better than that. In #362 you said...

"You're the one accusing people of being "paid shills/sock puppets" because you dislike their opinions."

There is no such quote and you know it.

[ProSense]

373. Hey, I'm "just calling it like I see it."

I gave you the links to your own comments (actual evidence), but of course you're now trying to deny what you said.

I suspect it's because you know that accusing people of being "paid shills/sock puppets" is a despicable and indefensible act.

[polichick]

374. I don't deny anything I said - I deny there's a quote that backs up your reading...

of what I said. Again, projection.

[ProSense]

377. You're

"I don't deny anything I said - I deny there's a quote that backs up your reading..."

...denying that you accuse people of being paid shills. Again, I suspect that's because you know that accusing people of being "paid shills/sock puppets" is a despicable and indefensible act. You did, of course agree with this (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post298), implying that it's not "nasty" if it's "true."

Is it "nasty" if it's true? As you know...there is a lot of propaganda on the internet - and plenty of paid shills.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post321

Do you believe this (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post298) is "true"?

I know you don't believe that's a nasty attack because you said so: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post342

Do you believe it's "true"?

[polichick]

379. I stand by every post I made. Problem is they don't add up...

to your assertion in #362. You seem to be projecting your own feelings.

[ProSense]

380. Let me

"I stand by every post I made. Problem is they don't add up... to your assertion in #362. You seem to be projecting your own feelings."

...repeat that your claim about "projecting" doesn't make sense. Now, you're apparently afraid to answer the question I asked.

Do you believe this (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post298) is "true"?

I know you don't believe that's a nasty attack because you said so: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post342

Do you believe it's "true"?

[polichick]

382. Hint: In #362 you asserted that I am accusing people of

being paid shills/sock puppets because I dislike their opinions.

First, I haven't accused anyone.

Second, nowhere have I mentioned disliking opinions. (To the contrary, imo posters are questionable when they post endless talking points - right wing, left wing, whatever. Canned responses.)

That's why I suggest that perhaps you are projecting YOUR feelings.

[ProSense]

384. Why

"Hint: In #362 you asserted that I am accusing people of being paid shills/sock puppets because I dislike their opinions. "

...are you afraid to answer the question:

Do you believe this (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post298) is "true"?

I know you don't believe that's a nasty attack because you said so: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post342

Do you believe it's "true"?

[polichick]

385. Are you afraid to own up to your projection? A simple apology will do.

[ProSense]

387. Yup,

"Are you afraid to own up to your projection? A simple apology will do."

...you're afraid afraid to answer the question:

Do you believe this (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post298) is "true"?

I know you don't believe that's a nasty attack because you said so: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024350866#post342

Do you believe it's "true"?

[polichick]

388. Nice apology!

[Bobbie Jo]

333. Must be a gang mentality thing

Safety in numbers phenomena, etc....

People think it's perfectly okay to launch personal attacks if the gang has their back.

Bold and cowardly at the same time.

Pathetically cowardly, really.

[polichick]

335. To me it looks like #298 was trying to call out "the gang."

[Bobbie Jo]

337. Uhuh

Except, the gang's all here.

They're always here, and you know it.

[polichick]

338. Nice try.

[Bobbie Jo]

339. Right

It's all good.

Let 'er fly... oh brave one!

[polichick]

340. What are you talking about?

[Bobbie Jo]

343. Seriously?

You responded to this for some odd reason...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4356942

You tell me.

[polichick]

344. My response made sense. You could try that.

[Bobbie Jo]

348. Uhuh.

What on earth are you talking about...who me??

Save it. Now you're looking a little silly.

[polichick]

350. Still not making sense - what are you suggesting? Put it in words...

with more meaning than "uhuh."

[Bobbie Jo]

351. I did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4356942
You caught it the first time just fine.

Thugs travel in packs for a reason.

[polichick]

354. And I said that #298 seemed to be calling out "the gangs"...

After that your responses made no sense.

[Bobbie Jo]

359. Playing dumb

I know, I know...it just makes no sense.


Sorry to interrupt a perfectly good pile on, carry on.......

[polichick]

361. It might help if you actually said anything or asked anything...

Your posts are just a bunch of hemming and hawing.

[Bobbie Jo]

370. No, dear....

You understand just fine.

What "makes no sense" is continuing to argue with someone who is simply incapable of owning up to their own behavior.

Bottom line....the gang has your back, and you know it. You can be as insulting and nasty as you like without consequence, and you will be rewarded with a big ole pat on the back by your fellow self-righteous crew who encourages this behavior.

I find the behavior exceedingly cowardly, so I said so in my first post upthread.

Get it now? I thought you did.

[polichick]

372. Finally, enough words to say what you mean...

Sorry, no gang here. I commented on a post that seemed to be calling out gang activity.

[Bobbie Jo]

376. To the bitter end....

brilliant.

Nope. No gang here. Carry on, oh brave and worthy soldier.

[polichick]

378. Where's my "gang?" Perhaps you are projecting your gang...

I'll refrain from all the silliness you engage in - that's for posters who have nothing else.

[Bobbie Jo]

383. Yeah

You're pretty much done here, alright.

Projection? People tend to pull this throw away term out of their ass when they're in a corner. Guess you told me.

This thread stands as exhibits A - Z. Looking for your gang? Really?

[polichick]

386. Still can't come up with that awful gang?

[Bobbie Jo]

389. .

yeah.

To the bitter end, baby.

[polichick]

390. Silliness doesn't get you off the hook. Gang names please.

[Bobbie Jo]

393. Obtuse to the bitter end.

Just dangle on your own hook there.

[polichick]

394. I'm not the one dangling. You make an accusation - back it up...

What gang?

[OrwellwasRight]

309. Great post!

[valerief]

241. The 1% decide EVERYTHING. nt

[NuclearDem]

263. Unbelievable.

You have an ENORMOUS amount of gall.

You routinely shit on journalists and activists critical of some of the administration's policies and work damned hard to find any sort of dirt or connection to the right, and without skipping a beat turn around and defend the administration's repackaging of neoliberal right-wing bullshit.

And when the administration finally responds to the pressure put on by those people and proposes even the most modest of reforms and changes, you then pretend you were on that side all along. There's nothing wrong with the NSA!--until the administration suggests reforms to it. If you oppose the drone program, you're tied to Rand Paul!--until the administration starts reviewing the program. Republican economics destroyed the country!--but let's go ahead with the same Enterprise Zones and trade deals they have a history of proposing themselves.

Good God, just give it a rest. This is so fucking despicable.

[ProSense]

264. Oh,

"You have an ENORMOUS amount of gall.

You routinely shit on journalists and activists critical of some of the administration's policies and work damned hard to find any sort of dirt or connection to the right, and without skipping a beat turn around and defend the administration's repackaging of neoliberal right-wing bullshit. "

...pardon me for having an opinion or as you call it "gall."

"Good God, just give it a rest. This is so fucking despicable."

No, I will continue to state my opinion and I don't really give a rat's ass about your authoritarian demands or what you find "fucking despicable."

[NuclearDem]

266. No, you have an extremely high level of gall

to dare tell anyone what they're allowed to make an issue out of, considering how many times the people you've shit on have been so right and you've been so damned wrong.

Have an opinion all you fucking want, but you are absolutely NO position to tell anyone else what they are or are not allowed to make an issue out of.

Give it a fucking rest.

[ProSense]

270. Actually,

"No, you have an extremely high level of gall to dare tell anyone what they're allowed to make an issue out of, considering how many times the people you've shit on have been so right and you've been so damned wrong. "

... that comment represents a serious comprehension problem. What have I been so "damned wrong" about?

Snowden is stuck in Russia. His allies are begging for clemency. Senators Paul and Sanders believe he broke the law. That's what you call bipartisanship.

"Give it a fucking rest. "

Ever consider working for the NSA?

BTW, no, I will not.

[Rex]

272. This thread went just splendidly donchaknow!

[ProSense]

275. You can't seem to get enough of it. n/t

[Rex]

347. Yeah I know, I should stop posting in this epic failure.

But it is funny to watch you pretend to be outraged and then do the exact same thing that supposedly outraged you. Priceless.

[SMC22307]

273. Meh. 29 DUers agree with her.

How much of an impact is she really having?

[Marr]

298. You know what's really funny?

I think about 10 of that 29 are sock puppets, and a percentage of the remainder are paid propagandists, just barking and clapping for each other like seals.

[ProSense]

316. Wow,

"I think about 10 of that 29 are sock puppets, and a percentage of the remainder are paid propagandists, just barking and clapping for each other like seals."

...I don't think I've ever seen a comment directly attacking dozens of DUers.

Nasty.

[SMC22307]

397. Hmm, I hadn't thought of that.

I do know a couple on that list like to bitch about how irrelevant DU is, yet here they are... day after day, well into thousands of posts.

[Puglover]

313. None.

At. All.

[ProSense]

317. Yup, little ole irrelevant me. n/t

[Puglover]

319. I do envy you however

Really. How you post pretty much at all hours is amazing.

Pro I could be out in my garden weeding at midnight if I had 1/2 your stamina. Seriously. I only wish.

[polichick]

277. "Obama comes along, and is working to try to put the pieces back together"

Is he? That's not so obvious when you look at his corporate personnel choices, push for TPP, willingness - even eagerness - to put SS on table, use of drones, NSA issues, etc., etc.

You really can't blame people for questioning his true intentions.

[ProSense]

282. It's

"Obama comes along, and is working to try to put the pieces back together"

Is he? That's not so obvious when you look at his corporate personnel choices, push for TPP, willingness - even eagerness - to put SS on table, use of drones, NSA issues, etc., etc.

...obvious to me. Elizabeth Warren:

<...>

When I worked to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I pushed hard for steps that would increase transparency in the marketplace. The crisis began one lousy mortgage at a time, and there is a lot we must do to make sure there are never again so many lousy mortgages .

CFPB made some important steps in the right direction, and I think we’re a lot safer than we were .

There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong bill—the strongest in three generations. I didn’t have a chance to vote for it because I wasn’t yet in the Senate, but if I could have, I would have voted for it twice.

Even so, the law is not perfect. And so it’s important to ask: Where are we now, five years after the crisis hit and three years after Dodd-Frank?

<...>

Powerful interests will fight to hang on to every benefit and subsidy they now enjoy. Even after exploiting consumers, larding their books with excessive risk, and making bad bets that brought down the economy and forced taxpayer bailouts, the big Wall Street banks are not chastened .

They have fought to delay and hamstring the implementation of financial reform, and they will continue to fight every inch of the way .

That’s the battlefield. That’s what we’re up against. But David beat Goliath with the establishment of CFPB and, just a few months ago, with the confirmation of Rich Cordray .

David beat Goliath with the passage of Dodd-Frank. We did that together – Americans for Financial Reform, the Roosevelt Institute, and so many of you in this room. I am confident David can beat Goliath on Too Big to Fail. We just have to pick up the slingshot again .

Thank you .

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf

Elizabeth Warren: Cordray Vote ‘A Historic Day For Working Families’

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took to Twitter on Tuesday in praise of the Senate's vote to advance Richard Cordray's nomination to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, calling it a "historic day for working families."

Elizabeth Warren ✔ @elizabethforma

I couldn't be more pleased that Rich Cordray will finally get the vote that he deserves. This is a historic day for working families!
1:11 PM - 16 Jul 2013

47 Retweets 26 favorites

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-cordray-vote-historic-day-for-working

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau gets busy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023372682

SEC Will Require Companies To Report CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratios
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023694931

Regulators Finalize Stricter Volcker Rule - Reuters/HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024158305

NLRB to Prosecute Wal-Mart For Violating Workers’ Rights (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024053560

Ally Bank To Pay $98 Million For Charging Higher Interest To Non-White Borrowers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024208931

U.S. orders mortgage servicer Ocwen to help borrowers with $2 billion

By Emily Stephenson

(Reuters) - U.S. officials on Thursday ordered the largest nonbank mortgage servicer to provide $2 billion in help to underwater borrowers to resolve allegations of misconduct that led to thousands of people losing their homes.

Ocwen Financial Corp must reduce loan balances for struggling homeowners and refund $125 million to foreclosed borrowers under an agreement with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and officials from 49 states and the District of Columbia.

Ocwen failed to account for borrowers' payments, gave false reasons for denying loan modifications and robo-signed legal documents, the consumer bureau said.

In many cases, after Ocwen began servicing loans, it did not respect trial modifications that had already been agreed to by the lenders, consumer bureau Director Richard Cordray said.

- more -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/19/us-financial-regulation-ocwen-idUSBRE9BI0ZT20131219

[polichick]

285. And yet Elizabeth Warren wasn't made head of the bureau...

she founded - Pres. Obama didn't even fight for her.

A lot of his decisions are questionable - like it or not.

I really wish he had filled his admin. with public servants instead of corporate tools - I really wish he wasn't pushing for the TPP or putting SS on the table or continuing the mic's adventures with drones and spying. But it is what it is - and not to question is absurd.

[ProSense]

287. She

"she founded - Pres. Obama didn't even fight for her. "

...founded it because the President supported her, signed the bill into law creating the agency and appointed her to set it up.

[polichick]

288. And yet, as I said, she wasn't made head of it...

Why didn't he fight for her?

Just one of many, many questions people should ask.

Anyone watching can see that Campaign Obama and Governing Obama are two different people.

imo he is either not really in charge or he is one of them.

Because he's so likeable, I sort of hope it's the first.

[ProSense]

289. Here:

"Why didn't he fight for her?"

[polichick]

290. The clip says Geithner and Obama fought for the agency...

Too bad they didn't fight for HER. At least it freed her up to run for the Senate.

Geithner is an example of Obama's choice of corporate insiders instead of public servants.

[msanthrope]

391. The Hatch Act would have been violated. Can't you imagine the Issa hearing? nt

[DCBob]

278. OCPD... Obsessive–compulsive political disorder

They need therapy.

[Puglover]

318. I don't know what "they" need.

But I sure would like 1/2 of this posters energy. She/he has been posting for almost 24 hours straight.

Hell, I could be in my garden weeding all night Bob.

[Union Scribe]

283. Ah, weekend prosense

Doesn't bother with links, just tells us to shut up and be grateful.

[ProSense]

284. It seems

"Ah, weekend prosense

Doesn't bother with links, just tells us to shut up and be grateful."

...to me that you're dealing with some issues. What does "weekend prosense" mean? Who is "us"? Why do expect me to tell you to "shut up"?

[djean111]

295. Can't make the TPP smell like anything but shit, so try to marginalize and minimize it.

That's not gonna fly.
Anyway, who gets to decide what issues are important? All of us. Not you, not me.
I pretty much decide which issues I am interested in. For instance, I don't click on Snowden bashing threads, because bashing Snowden is totally pointless.
TPP does not look to be good for income inequality - unless, of course, we ALL are going to make third-world wages.

[ProSense]

299. Wait

"Can't make the TPP smell like anything but shit, so try to marginalize and minimize it."

...who on earth is trying to make it "smell like anything but shit"? Also, I don't have that much power. All I have is an opinion.

"For instance, I don't click on Snowden bashing threads, because bashing Snowden is totally pointless."

Threads praising Snowden are "pointless.' I've seen that sentiment expressed about calling out Duck Dynasty and even Christie.

I guess, to each his/her own, huh?

[djean111]

301. Exactly!!!!! To each his own!

So - why question which topics or issues are popular?
That doesn't work for Boehner; it doesn't work for anyone else.
Or were you not expecting an answer to your question? Was it rhetorical?

[ProSense]

303. That

"So - why question which topics or issues are popular? "

...wasn't the point. The OP has nothing to do with which issues are "popular."

[djean111]

306. Pardon me - more IMPORTANT is what I meant.

Not sure, really how you determined that people are (erroneously) considering NSA and TPP are the most important.
Counting OP titles?
Anyway, people do tend to get a bit more intensely interested in things that make them feel threatened. Human Nature.
It is a false assumption that, with policies, the good ones somehow outweigh the bad ones or make the bad ones more palatable.
Like Hey! Look how many wedding parties did NOT get hit by drones! Quit yer bitchin!
Or, oh my! Gay people can be treated as actual citizens now, so why complain that the TPP puts Investor States in charge!

[ProSense]

308. No, it's

"Not sure, really how you determined that people are (erroneously) considering NSA and TPP are the most important.
Counting OP titles?"

...based on experience. I take issue with anyone who says it's irrelevant to propose creating jobs or increasing the minimum wage while the TPP is being debated.

Should Congress skip extending unemployment benefits because the TPP is being debated?

[djean111]

311. Goodness, can't imagine thinking that at all!

I do think, or fear, that the TPP may make the minimum wage here irrelevant, though.
And what if an Investor State considers paying unemployment taxes as harmful to their profits?

In any event, I was rather hoping that everyone in Washington is multitasking.
And wish the TPP was really being debated, by Congress, out in the open.
We are just having opinions on it. Oh, and yeah, opinions on the TPP are most likely going to affect future voting. So there's that. Plus people saying it is irrelevant to propose creating jobs or increasing the minimum wage have no actual effect on whether those things get proposed or acted upon.

[ProSense]

315. Good comment. Here

are a couple of posts on wages.

Senator Sanders: Welfare for Walmart?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024354098

It’s Time to Update Overtime
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024351972

[Pretzel_Warrior]

364. Right on! Tired of the fratricide going on with Dems

The GOP successfully moved this country to the right and destroyed unions i.e. middle class by exhibiting party unity and discipline. Did they get everything the far right wing wanted? No, but the have implemented much of their agenda. In recent years, Dem leaders have been more unified and are getting more accomplished for progressive values. We need to keep fighting REPUBLICANS--not each other.

[Rex]

375. Funny your OP here shows you doing just what you proclaim to hate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024355549

but carry on!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

392. That's not even remotely true

If Warren or Sanders somehow ended up Dem nominee, I would throw my support to them 100%. And if either were elected and didn't do everything I wanted, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and listen to them as to what is going on.

Commenting on how supposed supporters of Warren and Sanders are far more negative toward Obama than they themselves are was merely an observation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

396. I deem them, and the drone wars, the most important issues.

And, I always vote.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[grahamhgreen]

399. Ending the costly trade agreements (&TPP) is essential to income equality.

[friendly_iconoclast]

400. Some poster by the name of ProSense did, back in 2006:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't

Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 09:53 AM by ProSense
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

Now, of course, the party line is "We have always been at war with Eastasia..."

[Electric Monk]

404. Awesome find. You win this thread, which is now an epic fail.

I'm copy-pasting the OP here for archival purposes, in case they self-delete.

ProSense (109,662 posts)

Who determined that the NSA and TPP are the most important issues? [View all]

Income inequality is killing the middle class. There appears to be agreement by those who deem the TPP as the most important issue that the last four Presidents fucked up the country. I can agree. So that's more than 30 years of fucking up the country, and the destruction goes back many more years than that.

Obama comes along, and is working to try to put the pieces back together but that's not good enough? People are trying to vilify those who support him in this endeavor? Screw that. Wall Street reform and the CFPB, Obamacare, environmental regulations and other policies being put in place by this administration don't appear to matter because someone deemed the NSA and TPP to be the most important issues?

The NSA was launched 60 years ago, and it has been a fucked up organization since then. Police state, you say? Blacks have been living in a police state (including racial profiling) for decades. Nothing has changed. The TPP, as horrible as it's being made out to be, isn't a fucking law yet.

I don't want the U.S. to lose another job to a flawed trade agreements, but you can't lose a job that isn't created.

I don't have to be the vocal advocate for the progressive issue anyone else ranks as the most important, but I support it.

So while the reforms for the NSA are finalized via Obama's proposals in combination with Congressional action, there are other fucking issues to deal with, like raising the minimum wage to help tens of millions of people afford a little more food...like ensuring that those who are being blocked from access to health care by Republican Governors can soon sign up for Medicaid. These efforts aren't negated because somone is against the TPP.

Republicans are attacking the safety net, a direct assault on the day-to-day existence of millions of Americans. Fighting back doesn't stop because the NSA is being debated.

While Republicans are launching these attacks on people's existence, why on earth should they be lauded for hypocritical posturing on any issue?

I don't have to be a Democrat, but I choose to be. I don't ever have to vote again, but I'm going to, and I'll be voting Democratic.

Fuck Republicans.

[neverforget]

405. I just can't get enough of that post.

Thanks for finding that!

[friendly_iconoclast]

407. BTW, there's more than one Squealer on this thread

There's another who was also impassionately opposed to certain illegal
maneuvers done by the Bush/Cheney crew, but became just as vocally
supportive of these same things when they were retargeted in directions they
liked:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3031131#3032492

Now check out this one from a few years later. Note especially the subthread
following reply #2

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x431371

[neverforget]

408. The cognitive dissonance is staggering!

Thanks for the links. Bookmarking for the future.

[ProSense]

410. I sure you can't. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

411. Looks like *someone* wishes there really was a Memory Hole...

[ProSense]

412. Try reading comprehension, it's a good cure for BS mind reading. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

415. Why so grumpy?- after all, the chocolate ration just got increased!

[ProSense]

416. LOL!

When bullshit gotcha attempts fail, pretend to be clever.

[ProSense]

409. When I

Some poster by the name of ProSense did, back in 2006:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't

Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 09:53 AM by ProSense
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

Now, of course, the party line is "We have always been at war with Eastasia..."

...said here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024353639#post151) that this past comment
has been posted several times as an attempted "gotcha" to create the impression of a change in opinion, I was referencing posts like yours (well, I'm not sure why you posted this here).

The desperate way in which that comment is repeatedly posted is beyond hilarious. It's as it's just posting validates the bullshit intent behind posting it.

I mean, WTF does posting that have to do with the OP?

[madrchsod]

401. agree.....

[ProSense]

406. Here's

a perfect example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024365935