= new reply since forum marked as read
If Bill Clinton doesn't get a pass for signing welfare reform, then neither shall Obama for signing this bill.
calm down Bea, there's no point in having the same argument over and over.
are you getting the snowstorm? I have something new for you;
It's very original.
Thank you, sweets.
BTW, I don't start these fights. But, if they are going to attack my gal, then I'm going to defend her.
BTW, the day sucked. First wet snow and then ice rain. I managed to skid and slide to work (on public transportation, I wouldn't have driven anywhere). The brakes of the light rail I was on froze and smoke started to come out from underneath the train. The engineer was able to make them work again, but there was a strong smell of metal and electric burn. All that just to attend a meeting that most took from home. After the meeting, I skidded right back home. I need the car on Friday, so I cleaned it last night and cleaned it again today. I got soaked through my clothes and boots both times. We'll see how much snow is still around the car by Friday.
I'M SICK OF WINTER!!!!
Emphasis on small.
We are a small number, but we are fierce. Attack "our gal" and we strike right back.
Go after either one and I become like the rabid raccoon.
Christie, et al...........
Where is Obama bragging about cuts to food stamps?
"Obama has agreed to sign the farm bill - period the end. Clinton shouldn't have agreed to the welfare reform bill without job training in it and Obama shouldn't sign the Farm Bill which cuts food stamps. Both are corporatist DLC types, very very similar in policies except Clinton had a spine at times."
Yeah, that's a comment that should be taken seriously.
"No, my links are proof."
...this (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024447216#post150) is not proof.
"And if he's smarter than Conyers, Ryan and Boehner combined, he must hold back his brilliance quite often."
Conyers is a Republican? Evidently, the President is since he was able to avoid get Republicans to reject their own goal.
"That was not one of my links. "
...is someone impersonating you at comment 150?
Yikes!
"My Reply 150 linked to an interview Obama gave the Washington. You linked to this thread. I never linked to this thread. "
...I linked to your "reply 150."
"I'm embarrassed that I engaged like that with someone who is that caught up in OADS"
You should be.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024441624#post56
Much more so than an empty mind.
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/03/23/voting-patterns-of-americas-whites-from-the-masses-to-the-elites/
What does this say about America’s elites? If you define elites as high-income non-Hispanic whites, the elites vote strongly Republican. If you define elites as college-educated high-income whites, they vote moderately Republican.
There is no plausible way based on these data in which elites can be considered a Democratic voting bloc. To create a group of strongly Democratic-leaning elite whites using these graphs, you would need to consider only postgraduates (no simple college grads included, even if they have achieved social and financial success), and you have to go down to the below-$75,000 level of family income, which hardly seems like the American elites to me.
The patterns are consistent for all three of the past presidential elections. (The differences in the higher-income low-education category should not be taken seriously, as the estimates are based on small samples, as can be seen from the large standard errors for those subgroups.)
in another thread you absolutely claimed that Obama bears NO responsibility whatsoever if he signs it and that it's all on Congress.
ah, prosense style devotion. touching, touching stuff.
"in another thread you absolutely claimed that Obama bears NO responsibility whatsoever if he signs it and that it's all on Congress."
...got a link to where I said "Obama bears NO responsibility whatsoever if he signs it"?
I'll wait.
"Bull. No one knows what is veto proof and what is not until a veto is made."
...you don't know what you're talking about.
Secondly, thanks for reminding me that Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall.
"People made that same claim about Gramm, Leach, Blilely, but it turned out that Clinton had been urging Democrats to vote for it."
"Maybe you assumed you were posting to a Clintonbot? If so, your insight need tuning. "
...I don't care if you're a "Clintonbot" or not. You're wrong.
What about the other states that may not have anyone advocating for the poor?
which caused funding to drop by nearly 30 percent (from 1996 through 2001), versus the stimulus, which increased funding.
Granted that participation went from 30 million to 46 million from 2008 to now. The stimulus increase the allocation and the benefits.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/snapsummary.htm
No Clinton apologists, please.
I don't think one has to agree with everything someone might say to agree with parts or a majority of it.
It's just such a common pattern of yours that you put everything through a filter of How Obama Is Involved.
For example, if Bernie Sanders blasts something Obama says or does, you either ignore or disparage it. If he says something supportive of the President, you post and cite it.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but that is the general pattern with you (or the collective you, I'm never sure). Issues only seem to exist in the Obama framework.
I guess your point is that only you are allowed to agree or disagree with someone? I mean, I can disagree with Sanders, and if I can't I'll refrain from comment.
On the other hand, if someone posts something positive about Obama, the same people who claim they agree with him when he's right and disagree with him when he's wrong do one of three things: 1) "ignore" it (I know I post a lot of stuff that gets ignored). 2) "disparage" it or 3) attempt to throw the person under the bus (that happened to Krugman, recently)
Even more hilarious: "Issues only seem to exist in the Obama framework."
You mean like blaming him for inequality and poverty? Or giving Congress a pass until it's time for Obama to sign a bill?
Look around, nearly every post about the issues is in "the Obama framework."
It reminds me of the "I'm not responsible for Obama like the people who wanted to vote for him because he lied to me or I only held my nose and voted for him."
"This will be a riot to watch as Bill and Barack battle for the next three years over who has the most-uttly-spotless record. "
Welfare reform vs. the stimulus?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024447629
Clearly, this is good news for Hillary.
Things are not that easy, right? Issues tend to be a lot more complex than people assume they are.
It had been said earlier on that she was going to sign it.
...but what is needed here is some perspective. Take air-conditioning for example:
by NPR Staff
June 25, 2011 4:17 PM
The amount the U.S. military spends annually on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan: $20.2 billion, according to a former Pentagon official.
That's more than NASA's budget. It's more than BP has paid so far for damage from the Gulf oil spill. It's what the G-8 has pledged to help foster new democracies in Egypt and Tunisia.
"When you consider the cost to deliver the fuel to some of the most isolated places in the world — escorting, command and control, medevac support — when you throw all that infrastructure in, we're talking over $20 billion," Steven Anderson tells weekends on All Things Considered guest host Rachel Martin. He's a retired brigadier general who served as chief logistician for Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq. He's now in the private sector, selling technologies branded as energy-efficient to the Defense Department.
More
- Losing $8 billion over ten years? It seems that what the Dept. of Human Services could use here are some poppy fields.......
K&R
Here we are fighting over the scraps when we could EASILY afford everything we need if we would get out of the war business.
FUCCCCKKKKKK!!!!!!!!
