Wake up folks: nobody with power gives a fuck about you.

[MannyGoldstein]

This might get me tossed off of DU, but it has to be said: both parties work for the 1%. The 99% are speed bumps and rubes.

Democrats working to deregulate banks, cut Social Security, and offshore our industries? Not my Democrats. Not Democrats by any historical measure.

I call bullshit on those that call for timidity and triangulation. We've done that for 18 years - and here we are. Do you like where we are? I don't. I think it sucks, and it needs to stop.

When L.B.J. was told that the Civil Rights Act would be folly to attempt with an obstructionist Congress, did he run off and whine about realism? Fuck no. He said “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?”, and he got out there and he fought. And he won. For the 99%.

That's what people in our corner do: they get out there and fight. Bare knuckles, teeth bared.

News flash: anyone who says that they're compromising away your life in the name of realism and moderation is not your friend. Don't be their friend, either.

[NNN0LHI]

1. Dems are the same as Republicans. Dems are the same as Republicans. Squawk

[Zalatix]

4. The true Left would be wise to realize this and push for Leftist Democratic candidates.

[SidDithers]

21. "true left"...

are those the ones that take sugar on their porridge, or the ones that don't?

Sid

[meti57b]

28. No true lefty would put sugar on their porridge.

[sabrina 1]

91. That is a question a true leftie would never have to ask!

[Dragonfli]

139. We need to follow your advice, I agree with you, Your Guy leads by example

An example that is very PRAGMATIC.

This is the way it should be here (just as it is in your ideal):

http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmlw2011/W410142.HTM

Overview of Bill C-13

Micro-Targeting Election Promises

Part 1 -- contains many of the promises the Harper government made as part of its micro-targeting strategy used to entice specific people in particular ridings to vote for it, so as to win a majority. These include income tax measures that are supposedly aimed at helping families with children or who are caring for a dependant. Examples include the Children's Arts Tax Credit, the Volunteer Firefighter Tax Credit, changes to the medical expense tax credit for families caring for a loved one and changes to the Child Tax Benefit. These measures were used during the election to cover up the demand of the people for governments to do their duty to provide people's right to health care, education and housing with a guarantee, and instead use the tax system to push the notion that families, not the society, are responsible for the well-being of individuals.

Pay-the-Rich Schemes

Part 1 -- includes various schemes to pay the rich:

- "extend to the end of 2013 the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investment in machinery and equipment in the manufacturing and processing sector;"
- "expand eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation and conservation equipment;"
- "extend eligibility for the mineral exploration tax credit by one year to flow-through share agreements entered into before March 31, 2012;"
- " expand the eligibility rules for qualifying environmental trusts;"
- "amend the deduction rates for intangible capital costs in the oil sands sector;"
- "introduce rules to limit tax deferral opportunities for corporations with significant interests in partnerships;"

Pension and Employment Law

Part 1 -- hidden amongst the changes to income tax law pointed out above, are changes to the pension system, in particular measures dealing with shifting underfunded pension funds to Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) when employers declare bankruptcy. It also introduces "anti-avoidance rules" for RRSPs and registered retirement income funds; and rules to limit tax deferral opportunities for individual pension plans.

Part 11 -- amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act to "extend in certain circumstances the period during which wages earned by individuals but not paid to them by their employers who are bankrupt or subject to receivership may be the subject of a payment under that Act."

Part 12 -- amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to "repeal certain provisions that provide for mandatory retirement. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to repeal a provision that denies employees the right to severance pay for involuntary termination if they are entitled to a pension. Finally, it amends the Conflict of Interest Act."

Part 14 -- provides for the retroactive coming into force of section 9 of the Nordion and Theratronics Divestiture Authorization Act "in order to ensure the validity of pension regulations made under that section."

Part 15 -- amends the Canada Pension Plan to include amounts received by an employee under an employer-funded disability plan in contributory salary and wages.

Part 19 -- amends the Special Retirement Arrangements Act to "permit the reservation of pension contributions from any benefit that is or becomes payable to a person. It also deems certain provisions of An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to pensions and to enact the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act to have come into force on December 14 or 15, 1994, as the case may be."

Part 8 -- amends Part IV of the Employment Insurance Act to provide a temporary measure to refund a portion of employer premiums for small business. An employer whose premiums were $10,000 or less in 2010 will be refunded the increase in 2011 premiums over those paid in 2010, to a maximum of $1,000.

Part 17 -- amends the Department of Veterans Affairs Act to include a definition of dependant and to provide express regulation-making authority for the provision of certain benefits in non-institutional locations.

Part 22 -- amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to change the residency requirements of certain commissioners.

Foreign Investment and Establishment of One National Securities Regulator

Part 10 -- amends the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act so that funding for the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office may be fixed through an appropriation act.

International Trade Relations

Part 2 - amends the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006 in light of a ruling against Canada based on a U.S. Trade Representative Challenge in January under International Trade Law relating to Canada's softwood lumber industry.

Parts 3 and 4 -- amend Canada's tariff regime. The legislation contains 411 pages of specific technical changes to the tarriff regime on a country-by-country and item-by-item basis.

Election Law

Part 18 -- amends the Canada Elections Act to phase out quarterly allowances to registered parties.

Judicial Appointments

Part 13 -- amends the Judges Act to permit the appointment of two additional judges to the Nunavut Court of Justice.

Education

Parts 5, 6 and 7 -- relate to changes to the national system of student loans that facilitate students going further into debt in order to pay for post-secondary education. The legislation also includes providing more powers to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to forgive certain portions of student loans for various medical professionals if they work in a "under-served rural or remote community."

Federal Control Over Provincial and Municipal Jurisdictions

Part 1 -- includes measures to align the tax treatment to investments made under the Agri-Québec program with that of investments under AgriInvest.

Part 9 -- provides for payments to be made to provinces, territories, municipalities, First Nations and other entities for municipal infrastructure improvements.

Part 21 -- amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to clarify the legislative framework pertaining to payments under tax agreements entered into with provinces under Part III.1 of that Act.


I am glad you are taking this act on the road here, we need the sanity that only you and Harper can provide !
Luckily, the Third Way Democrats will help- to bring the cleansing air of neo-liberalism to the US in a VERY similar manner.

[SidDithers]

146. ...

Sid

[Dragonfli]

147. ...

He understands the correct relationship between corporation and state

[SidDithers]

151. ...

Sid

[Dragonfli]

183. .

[HiPointDem]

263. You're good. Dithers got nothing.

[rhett o rick]

306. I notice that you ask questions a lot instead of giving your take. nm

[SidDithers]

311. You're right...

My take is that no true member of the true left would be caught dead with sugar on their porridge.

Sid

[Dragonfli]

331. You say this as an active member of the left in the US Democratic party I assume

Even tho most people that know you

know you are a canadian neo-liberal enamored of Harper.

Please, we have enough American rightie sock puppets here without having to deal wit Canadian experts, who's party would be right of center even here.

Harper? please... He is no Canadian version of a Democrat.

[SidDithers]

336. ...

Sid

[Dragonfli]

337. .

[rhett o rick]

338. And how the hell would you know? nm

[Zalatix]

2. They do give a fuck about the 99%. They see the 99% as a pestilence.

It's a purge. It's a purge. You all need to understand that this is a purge. It's not being done with troops or cattle cars; it's being done quietly, with Capitalism. The politics of deliberate deprivation is at the core of the modern day culling of the herd.

President Obama didn't call them social Darwinists just to be sensationalist. He knows that this is one big legalized mass extermination.

[tex-wyo-dem]

117. "culling the herd"...

Is an excellent way to put it.

Those who are culled = the poor

[Zalatix]

334. People don't seem to realize that this is a culling.

I mean, it's right there in front of everyone's faces.

We're even being told openly, to our faces, that 2030 is the estimated year when a big resource and population crash will kick off.

It won't be a crash for the rich, though.

[FarLeftFist]

3. No. At this point they're about as polar opposite on most issues as you could get.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. One belives in radical austerity, while the other

believes in even-more-radical austerity.

Which side hates Paul Krugman more, do you think?

[FarLeftFist]

10. Yes, both parties agree that the deficit needs to be addressed, but they break on HOW to address it.

One wants to collect ZERO tax revenue while making draconian cuts to the working class & social programs, the other wants to actually collect tax revenue to pay it down while cutting corporate subsidies & loopholes.

[Fumesucker]

18. It's not true that one side wants to collect zero tax revenue..

Haven't you heard that nice Mr Rand Paul talking about how the poor need to have some "skin in the game" by paying taxes?

ETA: Or is it that lovely Mr Paul Ryan? I'm starting to have trouble keeping the two separated...

[MannyGoldstein]

19. And neither one wants to do the *only* thing that's actually worked in the past

which is getting money in the hands of the 99%.

They either hate reality or they don't give a fuck about the 99%.

[FarLeftFist]

25. O Rly?

[progress2k12nbynd]

103. Frnkly it should have hit bottom and would have.

You're saying bumping along the bottom for 5 years has been preferable instead?

[FarLeftFist]

193. Nope. I'm saying helping homeowners is preferable instead.

[xiamiam]

199. quote is exactly what the hamp program did...nothing ..nothing was done to help until

spring 2012..nothing..the banks decided to actually work with homeowners THIS YEAR..via loan mods..THIS YEAR...and guess what?..we've hit bottom...could have saved a lot of heartache and destruction of the middle class if they had decided that when this all began...

[Tushon]

251. There was money to be made by waiting first

The banks knew if they waited, there was plenty of money to be made in the mean time.

[pnwmom]

15. I agree. There's a wide gulf between them now.

[OnyxCollie]

78. "most issues"

How 'bout torture?

Ah, but who cares about that? Those human beings enemy combatants are probably all terrorists anyway, so it's a good thing that Obama has decided to hold them indefinitely, even if there is no evidence to convict them of a crime.

They can spend the rest of their lives in Guantanamo or Bagram while the military special ops waterboards them with Obama's love.

Are you an apologist for torture?

Obama called on the former general chairman of the RNC to stop Spain's investigation of US torture crimes.

WikiLeaks: How U.S. tried to stop Spain's torture probe
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/25/105786/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html

MIAMI — It was three months into Barack Obama's presidency, and the administration -- under pressure to do something about alleged abuses in Bush-era interrogation policies -- turned to a Florida senator to deliver a sensitive message to Spain:

Don't indict former President George W. Bush's legal brain trust for alleged torture in the treatment of war on terror detainees, warned Mel Martinez on one of his frequent trips to Madrid. Doing so would chill U.S.-Spanish relations.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

6. (C) As reported in SEPTEL, Senator Mel Martinez, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, met Acting FM Angel Lossada during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 15. Martinez and the Charge underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship. The Senator also asked if the GOS had thoroughly considered the source of the material on which the allegations were based to ensure the charges were not based on misinformation or factually wrong statements. Lossada responded that the GOS recognized all of the complications presented by universal jurisdiction, but that the independence of the judiciary and the process must be respected. The GOS would use all appropriate legal tools in the matter. While it did not have much margin to operate, the GOS would advise Conde Pumpido that the official administration position was that the GOS was "not in accord with the National Court." Lossada reiterated to Martinez that the executive branch of government could not close any judicial investigation and urged that this case not affect the overall relationship, adding that our interests were much broader, and that the universal jurisdiction case should not be viewed as a reflection of the GOS position.

Judd Gregg, Obama's Republican nominee for Commerce secretary, didn't like the investigations either.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

4. (C) As reported in REF A, Senator Judd Gregg, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, raised the issue with Luis Felipe Fernandez de la Pena, Director General Policy Director for North America and Europe during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 13. Senator Gregg expressed his concern about the case. Fernandez de la Pena lamented this development, adding that judicial independence notwithstanding, the MFA disagreed with efforts to apply universal jurisdiction in such cases.

Why the aversion? To protect Bushco, of course!

US embassy cables: Spanish prosecutor weighs Guantánamo criminal case against US officials
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177

The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.

Eric Holder got the message.

Holder Says He Will Not Permit the Criminalization of Policy Differences
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1

As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.

"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."

CIA Exhales: 99 Out of 101 Torture Cases Dropped
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/cia-exhales-99-out-of-101-torture-cases-dropped/

This is how one of the darkest chapters in U.S. counterterrorism ends: with practically every instance of suspected CIA torture dodging criminal scrutiny. It’s one of the greatest gifts the Justice Department could have given the CIA as David Petraeus takes over the agency.

Over two years after Attorney General Eric Holder instructed a special prosecutor, John Durham, to “preliminar(ily) review” whether CIA interrogators unlawfully tortured detainees in their custody, Holder announced on Thursday afternoon that he’ll pursue criminal investigations in precisely two out of 101 cases of suspected detainee abuse. Some of them turned out not to have involved CIA officials after all. Both of the cases that move on to a criminal phase involved the “death in custody” of detainees, Holder said.

But just because there’s a further criminal inquiry doesn’t necessarily mean there will be any charges brought against CIA officials involved in those deaths. If Holder’s decision on Thursday doesn’t actually end the Justice Department’s review of torture in CIA facilities, it brings it awfully close, as outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta noted.

“On this, my last day as Director, I welcome the news that the broader inquiries are behind us,” Panetta wrote to the CIA staff on Thursday. “We are now finally about to close this chapter of our Agency’s history.”

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Part I

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler&quot or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Article 6

1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.
3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, to the representative of the State where he usually resides.
4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said State and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.

Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.

Article 8

1. The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offenses. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested state.
4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.

Article 9

1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
2. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1 of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.

[WiffenPoof]

132. Thank You, Thank You, Thank You....

All these people that say there is HUGE difference between the Dems and the Thugs don't know what a true Democrat is...they are among the "new" Dems...the Blue Dogs. Whatever happened to the guiding principles of our Party? Long gone, I fear.

Of course, there are differences...they're just different sides of the same damn coin.

There was a time when I was "just a Democrat." Now, I'm considered a far left extremist who believes in Socialism or some such crap.

We either stand for something or we are lost.

-P

[raouldukelives]

180. + 1000 nt

[FarLeftFist]

191. GITMO is open b/c of a 96-4 Senate vote. Next.

[Dragonfli]

208. Definately no Democrats at fault there, GOOD EXAMPLE to counter the point of weak Democrats

[OnyxCollie]

213. And that has nothing to do

with the Obama administration's refusal to cooperate with Spain's investigation of the torture committed by the Bush administration, or of the Obama administration's refusal to investigate torture on its own.

A pathetic attempt to confuse the issue, "FarLeft"Fist. Next.

BTW, did you choose that handle to show what a radical activist you are? A real political tiger, I'll bet.

[bvar22]

249. !!!

In my years at DU,
I have noticed that most people who choose Screen Names with words like "Radical", "Leftist", "Progressive", "Liberal", "Revolutionary",...
are usually FAR from it,
especially if they choose the Che avatar.

[Larry Ogg]

256. Their opposite on issues as long as it keeps the masses divided.

In the meantime, well the voters are fighting over weather it's better to be hung with a blue rope or a red rope, the corporately owned sycophant politicians in both party's are pretty much on the side of screwing the working class every which-way but Sunday.

[rhett o rick]

309. Then why is the admin spending more of MY resources going after marijuana dispensers than

wall street crooks? Why is the Democratic admin spending more resources going after foodstamp fraud?

Why has Pres Obama surrounded himself with corporatists?

[Brickbat]

5. K&R for the truth on a national scale.

Locally, I don't agree so much. But it's definitely what's happening in Washington.

[Poll_Blind]

6. These things are true, Manny. +1

PB

[xiamiam]

200. yes Manny and its a sad commentary that just by saying it you could be banned

Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Chris Hedges, Howard Zinn would also be banned from here probably..it was only a few years ago when we were marvelling how freepers could lockstep behind unjust policies..and loved bush and co which we could never understand how principle was shoved under the bus in favor of party..nothing surprises me any longer

[AnotherMcIntosh]

231. FDR would have also been banned. So would Truman. And others.

[FarLeftFist]

7. If they were even remotely similar we wouldn't have gridlock & obstruction.

[FailureToCommunicate]

11. +1!

[ellisonz]

12. +2

[uponit7771]

71. +1!

[Son of Gob]

90. +5

[Canuckistanian]

95. +100

Good point.

[OnyxCollie]

97. All the wrestlers in the WWE work for Vince Mcmahon.

Yet they constantly fight with each other before audiences. Strange...

[bigwillq]

107. ....

[FarLeftFist]

116. Wrestling isn't real.

[MannyGoldstein]

119. Precisely nt

[OnyxCollie]

121. Neither is

the Kabuki theater called "politics" that's being passed off to the mass public. But people still believe it anyways.

Why do you think that happens? Are people gullible, desperate, or paid to propagandize?

[FarLeftFist]

194. Officials are voted into office and held accountable. Wrestlers aren't.

[OnyxCollie]

220. Oh, but when we try to hold them accountable

we're told by the defenders of the status quo:

He doesn't have a magic wand
He's only had X amount of time in office
It's a "pet" issue
You want Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, Romney to win

And so on.

How are we even sure the vote is accurate? Democrats seem to be just fine with a highly partisan (Republican) corporation using secret, proprietary software to produce an unverifiable vote that, when irregularities occur, always benefits the Republicans. Why is that?

[Dragonfli]

233. When some try to hold them accountable they tell this lie "disgruntled non dems campaign openly

against the Dems..." as per post 202 right here in response to Manny's attempt.

Having read Manny's post, the most anyone can HONESTLY accuse him of is preferring strong Democrats like LBJ, a far cry from the lie implied by the drunken God of Whine.

His position may be described as paleo-Democratic, or anti corruption, but neither of those make that lie true, in fact, even a raging re-born again New Democrat, Third Way loving, Joe Liebermann preffering, neo-liberal such as myself, should be able to respect that point of view. (oh, in the last few days I got religion and only read the third way site and DU now)

Lies are considered double-plus good I suppose in service to the newest incarnation of the party.
I see the post and the bullies still stand un-hidden and un-molested.
A testament to the success of bullying and lies.

[crunch60]

258. Scott Walker was voted into office by the KOCH brothers $$$$. held accountable, not

yet.

[tkmorris]

136. Neither is politics

Don't you recognize a dog and pony show when you see one?

[piratefish08]

141. neither is DC

[tex-wyo-dem]

169. Neither is much of the political theatrics we see...

...some call it kabuki theatre.

[emulatorloo]

219. Tell that to women who have been raped with trans-vaginal probes

I doubt they will find your "kabuki theater" metaphor amusing.

[AynRandCollectedSS]

145. + a googolplex

I'm always looking for an excuse to use that number.

[rhett o rick]

310. Then why did we have gridlock and obstruction in 2008? Maybe that's what our corporate

overlords want.

America is burning and you are just playing your fiddle.

[uponit7771]

8. Adults understand there's RARELY a choice between good and better when it comes to people leading

...such a diverse populous.

adults

[ellisonz]

13. Complete nonsense. n/t

[cynatnite]

14. Thanks for the info, sunshine. n/t

[Number23]

122. +1 The recs for this are hilarious.

[dionysus]

203. i bet it's the who's who of fools...

[WillyT]

16. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - HUGE K & R !!!

[pnwmom]

17. Right, so we should just throw in the towel and let the tea baggers win.

Because there's no difference between the parties.

[SidDithers]

20. Oh look, another "not a dime's worth of difference" post...

Sid

[rug]

77. More like the difference between millionaires and billionaires.

[Zorra]

22. Yeah, but it is what it is...

...and I never want republicans to be what it is.

I totally get it what you are saying, and I've said the same things myself.

But it always comes down to this:

There's no way I'm ever going to not vote against every stinking republican I can when whoever I vote for has a chance of beating that republican.

I detest republicans, conservatives, fascists, nazis. Everything RW is bad for children and the planet. I have to try to keep them from power.

I'll work on constructive alternatives after the election.

[DevonRex]

27. I really like you.

Good head on your shoulders and all. It's like this: Stalin or Lenin. I'll take Lenin. Not perfect by any means but not bad, either. Workable. That other guy? Fucking crazy evil.

Heh. That's as close as I could get to your post without Godwining my own analogy.

[Zorra]

31. Aww, shucks. Thanks. And don't worry, I'm a netnostic. I don't believe in Godwin's Law.

[ProSense]

23. So

“both sides do it”?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002692194

[MannyGoldstein]

24. And why are Republicans getting ready to hold Americans hostage again?

Because it works.

[ProSense]

30. "Wake up folks: nobody with power gives a fuck about you."

So let Romney and the Republicans have the country?

And why are Republicans getting ready to hold Americans hostage again?

Because it works.

Are you saying that Republicans are "getting ready to hold Americans hostage again," that means Democrats are the problem?

What are you saying?

[MannyGoldstein]

36. Why did Lincoln fire his losing generals?

After all, wasn't it the Confederacy's fault that they were losing?

[ProSense]

38. Because

"Why did Lincoln fire his losing generals?"

...it wasn't 2012?

Why did FDR sellout blacks?

[MannyGoldstein]

40. At least FDR actually fought for stuff and turned the 99% economy around

This 99% depression will be going on for years and years.

Austerity! Austerity! We need more austerity!

18 fucking years of realism, and here we are. Marvelous!

[ProSense]

43. Except

"At least FDR actually fought for stuff and turned the 99% economy around"

...if you were black. Are you saying that blacks aren't in the 99%?

[MannyGoldstein]

44. Bullshit.

Blacks were helped mightily.

I trust that FDR did all he could - because he fought like a banshee.

[ProSense]

47. Well,

"Bullshit."

...bullshit back at you.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/04/1088674/-The-cold-truth-about-Obama-and-FDR


Should we talk about the internment?

[MannyGoldstein]

59. There were 30 lynchings in 1934, the first

full year of FDR's presidency. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html

And interestingly, lynchings dropped dramatically under FDR.

How many Americans will die this year because they've been made or kept homeless through failing to try to end this depression? 100 times 30, at least.

[ProSense]

69. Wait,

There were 30 lynchings in 1934, the first

full year of FDR's presidency. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html

And interestingly, lynchings dropped dramatically under FDR.

...you're trying to justify failing to pass anti-lynching legislation by citing lynching statistics?

Here are more current statistics and the effects of the health care law:

<...>

We still have over 30 million Americans who cannot see a doctor when they are sick. According to this Harvard study, adjusting for gender, race, smoking, weight, and just about everything else that you can think of, in any given year, the uninsured are 40% more likely to die than the insured are. That results in 44,789 additional deaths in America each year. All of which are avoidable.

This is more than twice the number of homicides in America.

It is more than ten times the number of deaths on 9/11. And it happens every year.

Do you think that we should solve this problem? I do.

And the Democratic Party does. Which is why we passed health care reform. And why we brought the wrath of lobbyists and their sewer money down on our heads in the last election – over $65 million by the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s “American Crossroads” alone.

I see one party taking on the special interests and enacting laws to keep Americans alive, and assure that you can see a doctor when you are sick. Like in every other industrialized country in the world.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/20/937697/-What-I-Didnt-Hear

[MannyGoldstein]

81. Wait,

no.

I'm comparing the size of the human tragedy. You brought up lynching; it was bad, but not nearly as bad as being cool with the 99% depression going on interminably.

Plus, we know that FDR fought like a motherfucker for what he could achieve, and he achieved a lot, and he failed sometimes too - so I have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Perfection can't be achieved, but we need to turn this thing around. And we turn it around by fighting as hard as we can, not by triangulating.

[ProSense]

83. Well,

"Plus, we know that FDR fought like a motherfucker for what he could achieve, and he achieved a lot, and he failed sometimes too - so I have to give him the benefit of the doubt."

...I know what that's like

CQ: Obama's Winning Streak On Hill Unprecedented
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122436116



16 million: number of Americans who become eligible for Medicaid under the health care law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

Obamacare will save Medicare $200 billion by 2016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002599800

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/barack-obamas-had-pretty-damn-good-presidency
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002530308

The reason the 111th Congress is considered one of the most productive ever is because they got things done. Add the policy achievements and it has been a damn good Presidency.

Obama 2012 because they "fought like a motherfucker for what he could achieve."

[MannyGoldstein]

115. Poverty, homelessness, and hunger are increasing

and you claim victory?

Wow.

[ProSense]

157. Who is

"Poverty, homelessness, and hunger are increasing and you claim victory?"

...is claiming "victory"?

You can distort, but the facts are the facts. There is a long way to go, but the efforts of this President are helping to prevent catastrophe.

Food Stamps Reduced The Poverty Rate By Nearly 8 Percent In 2009, As GOP Tries To Gut The Program

By Travis Waldron

Congressional Republicans have targeted the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), better known as food stamps, for budget cuts, and have attempted to paint it as a program rife with fraud and abuse that is on an unsustainable path. While their argument ignores a host of facts, including that food stamp fraud is at an all-time low, it also ignores the economic benefits that the program brings to millions of low-income families.

According to a new study from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, food stamps substantially reduced the poverty rate in 2009, the last year data is available, the New York Times reports:

The food stamp program…reduced the poverty rate by nearly 8 percent in 2009, the most recent year included in the study, a significant impact for a social program whose effects often go unnoticed by policy makers. [...]

The study, which examined nine years of data, tried to measure the program’s effects on people whose incomes remained below the poverty threshold. The program lifted the average poor person’s income up about six percent closer to the line over the length of the study, making poverty less severe. When the benefits were included in the income of families with children, the result was that children below the threshold moved about 11 percent closer to the line.

The USDA study aligns closely with a similar one released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which found that food stamps reduced the number of Americans living in extreme poverty in 2011 from 1.46 million to just over 800,000. SNAP’s effects on children are even bigger — the program cut the number living in extreme poverty by half, according to CBPP.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/10/461337/food-stamps-reduce-poverty/

The benefits increases via the stimulus expire next year.

<...>

The Recovery Act’s increase in SNAP benefits has eased hardship and boosted the economy. SNAP has not only expanded dramatically to meet rising need during the recession, but has also delivered more than $26 billion (between April 2009 and September 2011) in additional SNAP benefits under the Recovery Act. The Recovery Act provided a temporary, 13.6 percent boost in the maximum SNAP benefit beginning in federal fiscal year 2009. Congress enacted this provision as a fast and effective economic stimulus measure to help push against the rising tide of hardship for low-income Americans. The increase is phasing down and is scheduled to end entirely on October 31, 2013.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3239

Obama administration issues report on homelessness in 2011; awards $1.5 billion to local programs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100249786


http://www.feedthefuture.gov/

[JDPriestly]

110. Actually, FDR's federal works programs hired pretty much without discrimination

as I understand it.

[MannyGoldstein]

124. I believe you are correct nt

[FarLeftFist]

192. Nope. Didn't include Blacks or Women. How "progressive".

And lets not forget about internment camps for American citizens. YAY!

[Brickbat]

229. What didn't include blacks or women?

More than a quarter of a million black men were enrolled in black CCC companies alone. There were also American Indian CCC camps.

Eleanor Roosevelt agitated for work camps for women and worked with Frances Perkins (Dept. of Labor) on ideas. They were called, jocularly, She-She-She camps and had a much smaller range than the CCC. No more than 10,000 women, IIRC, were in such camps.

But of course many women were employed in WPA projects, as well as blacks and other minorities. Many people believed at the time that if there were two parents in a family, only one should be working so as not to put a strain on burgeoning child care services, but if the man were disabled or otherwise unable to work, there were opportunities for the woman to be the breadwinner.

In fact, regarding blacks specifically with the WPA, there was some outcry at the beginning of the program that blacks were underrepresented, but by 1939, the NAACP was quite pleased with the program, both with its effectiveness and its willingness to work with the black community.

So I'm not sure what you mean when you say "didn't include blacks or women" in regards to federal works programs under FDR.

[Dragonfli]

238. the FarRightFist often has a little trouble with facts, yet speaks with such authority

it kinda makes up for being completely wrong.

Besides, if we don't find fault with FDR we can't claim his approach is a waste of time while we follow the Friedman/Chicago school of economics over the Keynesian.

There are more important things at stake here than facts or truth you know.
We are trying to build a viable business party out of the ashes of a misguided, old and irrelevant party that actually valued labor and workers over capital and investors (we were so misguided back then).

Remember to vote
and to support your local blue dogs for office!

[sabrina 1]

300. You might want to retract that statement. It is false.

I was about to provide links, but someone else has corrected your statement.

As for the internment camps, they were a stain on FDR's otherwise progressive legacy, no one denies that.

Every administration has its stains some worse than others. Eg, the drone killings of innocents in other parts of the world, and the failure to prosecute Wall Street Bankers and War Criminals, will be part of this president's legacy.

However, he will have four more years to correct those policies. Although lives cannot be restored, ending those horrific policies would go a long way to mitigating the harm already done. Just as FDR's other major achievements, while not excusing internments, or diminishing the harm done, makes him one of the better presidents overall, so far. Unlike, eg, Bush, who had no major achievements that benefited human beings to mitigate the slaughter of so many human beings on his watch.

Interesting though, that you would highlight FDR's negative history, despite his major progressive achievements, while falsely accusing him of something that was not true.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

316. Watch this documentary and educate yourself.

Pay particular attention to Mr. Houston Pritchett of Detroit, Michigan.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/ccc/

Learn from those who came before you -- you don't have all the answers.

[abelenkpe]

101. Because they small blood in the water

Europe is looking pretty shaky right now and the GOP is hoping the economy will take a big dump similar to 2008 and that they can make gains in the elections from such distress. The republicans are eager to help this along by throwing more doubt and confusion into the economy with the debt ceiling circus.

Thing is I sincerely doubt that if there is another big economic downturn the reaction will not be the same. Do you think the gov would bailout banks again with taxpayer money? I think they'd be forced to nationalize the banks which they should have done before and which many economists have been calling for recently.

[Logical]

161. No use discussing it with her! n-t

[ProSense]

168. You're right.

"No use discussing it with her!"

There is the real world, and then there is the world of high-five spin!

Please rec to show your support for the people of France, England and Greece in
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002653179

Hollande in Retreat
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002673754

Some people just like to attack. They have no solutions. It's all about tearing down hope, even before anything gets done.

You know what's hilarious to watch: The same people who wanted to kill Wall Street reform before it passed now claiming to be upset because the bank lobbyist are trying to water it down.

Now that the bill is being implemented, they attack those who supported the massive regulatory package as being against regulation when these "kill the bill" advocates were the ones demanding that nothing was better than something.

The attacks start early.

Robert Kuttner

A Tale of Two Elections

<...>

The comparison with Obama is all too instructive. Like Obama, Hollande inherits an
economic crisis not of his own making, but one that will soon be his. Like Obama, he faces both an oligarchy of bankers and a fierce set of political opponents determined to block his program. In Obama's case, the obstructionists have been the Republicans in Congress; in Hollande's, they are the conservative leaders of other European Union nations. Like Obama, he will have great difficulty producing change at a grand enough scale. And absent something close to a miracle, disillusion will soon follow.

The slightly hopeful news is that several other leaders will welcome a counterpoint to Merkel. Recessions, after all, destroy conservative incumbents as well as progressive ones. At the EU level, a senior commissioner, Olli Rehn, is already talking of loosening the fiscal screws.

In the headline to this post, I was thinking of two elections -- 2008 in America and 2012 in France -- but actually there are three more worth noting.

In France, parliamentary elections come later, in mid-June. Hollande has to win a working majority in the Chamber of Deputies in order to appoint a Socialist prime minister and effectively govern. If conservatives win the parliamentary elections, or if the far right and far left make major gains so that Hollande ends up governing in coalition with Sarkozy's UMP party, he is stymied before he starts.

- more -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/a-tale-of-two-elections_b_1495256.html

[rhett o rick]

312. So you are happy with the current situation where JP Morgan loses $2b and the Pres pats

them on the head. Look who runs the Fed and the Treasury Dept. They arent working for the people.

[cliffordu]

26. Well.....

[zentrum]

29. I'm with ya. n/t

[cliffordu]

33. Better Believe It!

[ProSense]

32. Please

see this post:

The Chamber of Commerce: Brazen Liars (Alan Grayson)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125138128


Focus!

[Logical]

165. Wow, you unhappy with a Obama critic! What a shock!

[pscot]

34. That's not true, Manny. The President thinks about us

all the time. I read it right here on DU.

[ProSense]

37. Maybe if we

sit out the election that will teach the Republicans a lesson and scare Democrats. It worked well in 2010, remember?

No one in power cares so what does it matter?


Obama-Biden 2012!

Proudly!

[Logical]

162. Maybe if Obama was not so gullible we would fight harder!

[Dragonfli]

197. The Washington Generals do the best they can!!!

Stop laughing at them!! The are fighting hard for YOU.

[center][/center]

[AnotherMcIntosh]

84. Alright, LOL

[begin_within]

35. Expect to be roasted alive by the Democratic Party apologists here.

I agree with you totally... and at heart I think most members here would agree with you. But there's a huge contingent of "party liners" who will stomp all over any criticism of the Democratic Party. So brace yourself.

[dionysus]

55. gee, democrats on a site called DU. how odd.

[SidDithers]

65. ...

Sid

[bigtree]

195. huh?humm?wot?oh . . . yeah

[emulatorloo]

223. Well if Manny is gonna make up shit, he is gonna get pushback

"and at heart I think most members here would agree with you." I think you are confusing a minority viewpoint with a majority one.

Manny's OP is full of distortions and half truths. If what he said was actually based in fact, I would recommend his thread. But it is all about "Obama's Secret Plan", negative spin, etc.

Of course people are going to push back. That's the nature of a discussion forum.

[treestar]

227. Well gee. What party do you belong to?

[awoke_in_2003]

39. Do I like where we are?

Hell no. K&R

[pa28]

41. Well said Manny.

You and I will vote for Democrats straight down the line in November as we always do.

At the same time we have to recognize triangulation has been a failure. In my family Democratic politics was practically a religion and now I see that ideology and conviction has been replaced by the idea that we simply must vote for lesser of two evils.

When people say that the Democratic party does not stand for anything I really can't argue with them and maintain a straight face. Yeah. It's really tough for somebody who grew up with the idea Democrats stood for Social Security, organized labor, a social safety net and could not be moved from those values under any circumstance.

After 30 years of compromise we live in a time where the commons are being raided every day by banks, corporate monopolies and deregulation. Seriously, as a party we need to look in the mirror and realize that we have not fulfilled our role to balance out the extremist economic policies of the last 30 years. The third way our highly beholden leaders keep looking for will eventually lead our party to permanent minority status.

[dflprincess]

51. Also well said

and, like you & Manny, I will vote a straight DFL/Democratic ticket in the fall - but I'll throw up a little in my mouth while I do it. I don't like voting for Republicans and that includes the ones who put a "D" after their names.

[NS2012]

42. Human Psychology is involved of course.

Humanity  is evolving.  Looking back we can see that the rate of evolution is accelerating, but we're still caught up in some of our primitive ways.

Evolutionary progress for humans involves growing out of our primitive states of awareness and behavior into more enlightened and spiritual states of awareness and behavior.

Examples of primitive states of awareness and behavior can be found in the childlike tendencies of humans such as greed and selfishness.  The political problems we're facing are due to this fundamental aspect of human nature; we are children, or monkeys if you like.  Our problems can be traced all the way back to each and every instance of selfishness and greed performed by individuals every day.  Greed is one of the 7 deadly sins.  It corrupts.  And almost everyone is guilty of it.

Examples of enlightened and spiritual states of awareness and behavior include compassion, forgiveness and altruism.  These are qualities exhibited and encouraged by the leaders of almost every world religion.

The main ideological distinction between Republicans and Democrats relates to this point.  Democratic priorities include things like welfare, education, ecological responsibility, civil rights - all of which are more closely related to the elightened side of the scale than the primitive side.  The main Republican priority is the right of an individual to obtain and maintain wealth, with as little governmental regulation and taxation as possible - which is more closely related to the childlike, primitive side of the scale.

Take a look at the issue of Health Care Reform; Obama worked his ass off his first 2 years in office to create a better, more fair Health Care system, despite the political unpopularity of doing so.  Now insurance companies can't deny people coverage due to pre-existing conditions, poor people will have access to affordable health care, and people can remain covered under their parents policies until they're 26 - all of which are good, humane things.  Why do Republicans want it repealed?  Because it costs too much.  They don't want to sacrifice any of their personal wealth to help those less fortunate - which is selfish.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Obama ran on a public option. Then threw it in the trash.

Ever wonder why health insurance stocks are near an all-time high?

Obama's even trying to raise the eligibility age for Medicare by two years.

[NS2012]

50. Touche.

My intention was to highlight the fundamental ideological distinction between Republicans and Democrats as it relates to human evolution.

[ProSense]

53. Maybe

Ever wonder why health insurance stocks are near an all-time high?

Obama's even trying to raise the eligibility age for Medicare by two years.

...you could send that material to the CoC: http://www.democraticunderground.com/125138128

16 million: number of Americans who become eligible for Medicaid under the health care law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

Obamacare will save Medicare $200 billion by 2016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002599800

[dionysus]

58. still can't count to 60, huh?

[MannyGoldstein]

61. How many votes were needed to pass ObamaCare?

Count carefully, now.

[dionysus]

62. i'll just leave you to campaign against the dems to your little hearts content.

have at it sparky.

[MannyGoldstein]

63. Are you having trouble counting?

Or doing an Internet search?

[dionysus]

98. i'm having trouble taking your act seriously.

[MannyGoldstein]

114. You brought it up; so how many votes

were needed to pass ObamaCare?

[FarLeftFist]

89. Jesus H. Christ, you're arguing like a teabagger against Obama. DU is no place for Obama haters.

[OnyxCollie]

93. OCDS

Obama Criticism Derangement Syndrome.

[pa28]

105. He's arguing for Democratic party values. n/t

[OnyxCollie]

113. He's arguing for (d)emocratic values. nt

[emulatorloo]

215. He's distorting the facts. Dems and Republicans are the same? See Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin

under total Republican rule.

[Dragonfli]

188. "haters" and "bashers" and critics oh my, I for one think Obama is Christlike

He only advocates GOP bargains and policy because that is the smart thing to do, Democratic Ideas are for Greens and Socialists.

I am the first to admit to the perfection of our party in it's current form, I have learned to bow and kiss the ring of my betters, but, it is a little rude to call a paleo-Democrat a "teabagger" and "hater", kind of the posting equivalent to a teenager's attempt at discussion.

I miss adult words to go along with the adult party.
We are New Dems, we know the value of austerity and the best policies of the Chamber of Commerce, as the adults we should lead by example.

We are the sensible one's remember?

[Dragonfli]

201. For what?

Are you suggesting that supporting Third Way Democrats and squashing all criticism of them is a mental disease?

Or is it my wish to do so while using real words rather than teen speak that would appear unbalanced?


I can learn, watch,

"hater hater bashed a playa".
See? I can learn.

[chervilant]

160. sigh...

"...poor people will have access to affordable health care"???

Pray tell me, how will someone who has been un- or under-employed for the past four years, who must live rent-free with a friend, who must use food stamps for the first time EVER, afford health care?

[Beacool]

45. I agree.

LBJ was not the nicest guy, but he got things done. When he needed a Congress critter from his party to vote a certain way, he made sure that they understood the consequences of their actions if they didn't vote how he wanted them to vote. He had no qualms about using intimidation. He would angrily get in the person's face and tell him that they either voted his way or he would personally make sure that somebody ran against them when they were up for reelection and that he would personally fundraise for that person. People learned pretty fast not to tick off LBJ.

Clinton did it a different way. He used his Southern charm. He would massage their ego, invite them to the WH, inquire about their families and call them on their birthdays and other special occasions.

Obama does none of the above.

[ProSense]

49. Here's

"LBJ was not the nicest guy, but he got things done. "

...a little bit of history for you:

CQ: Obama's Winning Streak On Hill Unprecedented
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122436116




16 million: number of Americans who become eligible for Medicaid under the health care law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

Obamacare will save Medicare $200 billion by 2016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002599800

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/barack-obamas-had-pretty-damn-good-presidency
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002530308

The reason the 111th Congress is considered one of the most productive ever is because they got things done. Add the policy achievements and it has been a damn good Presidency.

[Beacool]

64. I know my history.

It was mainly Pelosi and Reid, but primarily Pelosi, who worked to get it passed. Obama only became actively involved the last 3 weeks before passage. The one in the LBJ role was Nancy, not Obama.

[ProSense]

72. So

"It was mainly Pelosi and Reid, but primarily Pelosi, who worked to get it passed. Obama only became actively involved the last 3 weeks before passage. The one in the LBJ role was Nancy, not Obama. "

...you agree that a lot was accomplished, but you don't want to credit Obama? Pelosi was LBJ?

OK, a lot got done and Obama signed it all, which still means Obama's Presidency has been extremely productive.

Have it your way.

[Beacool]

178. Of course he gets credit for signing the bill.

I'm just pointing out that he left most of the heavy lifting to Pelosi.

[dionysus]

75. and where have you been lately.. hmmm?

for you, madame...

[Beacool]

94. A new banky!!!!

A cute pink lady bug. I want!!!!!




Thank you, my friend.

[DevonRex]

48. So, what's your fucking point? Got a fucking solution?

[dionysus]

56. oh, he's just picking up the slack for BBI. someone has to break the DU TOS with damn near every

post, right?

[SidDithers]

68. Yup...

"To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high."

Sid

[Dragonfli]

189. Yep, your new target is in sight, you guys will cleanse the site of him promptly

It will take constant opposition, alerts, whinning to the Admins and redicule.

But I have faith in the scooby-doo club! you guys are good at getting paleo-Democrats banned.

You provide an important service to the status quo!

Thank you for your service

[SidDithers]

262. ...

Sid

[Dragonfli]

271. .

[bvar22]

253. ?

"Cleanse the World of all Hippies!!!"

[Dragonfli]

277. OOo I want to punch some hippies, can I? (I am newly converted to Third Way Ideology, HARD CORE)

I love punching hippies almost as much as I love free trade, it is just so much fun!!!

[just1voice]

108. I've got a really fucking easy solution: PROSECUTE WAR CRIMINALS

Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell conspired against the United States when they:

Lied to Congress about WMD.
Lied to everyone in a conspiracy to commit war.
Set up torture camps and tortured people.
Wiretapped 1000s of Americans.

There's a fucking solution that would show Americans that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

[duhneece]

173. That would be justice

That would be moral, ethical, and right.

[Blecht]

131. Recognizing the problem is the first step to finding a solution

I think that's a pretty clear point -- a huge fucking problem exists that nobody seems to want to acknowledge.

[Logical]

164. Maybe you typing "fucking" helps! LOL

[bubbalubagus]

176. lulz

you're right. s/he's implying it's easier to tear down than build up, by tearing down the OP with far less effort than she put into building her case. No irony detected. POST!

[baldguy]

52. That's exactly what the GOP wants you to believe.

"Democrats are just the same as Republicans. They don't work for you. They're all crooked and corrupt."

All the rhetoric is meant to discourage Democratic supporters from voting for Democrats. I've got news for you: When you stay home on election day because "They're all the same," Republican voters won't be staying home.

WAKE UP! yourself

[FSogol]

57. +1 n/t

[WillyT]

60. Most Modern Day Democrats Aren't The Same... They're Worse... They Have No Will To Fight...

Democrats of decades past knew how to fight the good fight...

Today there is a whole lot of "tail between the legs" Democrats...

Corruptnes or Cowardice... does it really matter?

[woo me with science]

209. Not tail between the legs. Complicit.

It does matter, because it speaks to the source of the problem, which is structural. Too many of them are purchased. We get an awful lot of deliberate theater today from corporate Democrats who wish to appear as though they support the 99 percent, but who are actually in the back pocket of the billionaires.

The whole debt ceiling charade was a great example.

This must be acknowledged, because until you acknowledge a problem, you can't fix it.

[Blecht]

76. Nothing like twisting the OP's words into something you want them to say

Nowhere does the OP say that "Democrats are the same as Republicans."

Nobody is trying to discourage Democratic supporters from voting for Democrats.

What we want are better Democrats.

Is that really so fucking hard to understand?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

128. x 2

[WiffenPoof]

133. Yep...

You hit it on the head. I really don't understand how "reasonable" people cannot understand your point. "We want better Democrats." What is so wrong with that???

-P

[baldguy]

138. Do you know how you get better Democrats?

By electing Democrats. You don't get better Democrats by allowing Republicans to win.

[OnyxCollie]

234. Tell that to Bill Halter and Ned Lamont

and any other progressive candidate ignored by the Democratic Powers that Be in favor of the pro-corporate candidates.

[Dragonfli]

242. In all fairness they are consistent and are less than enthusiastic re the Walker recall as well /nt

[Blecht]

313. Take your straw man somewhere else

Nobody I see here is advocating allowing Republicans to win.

[baldguy]

317. Saying Democratic politicians and Republican politicians are the same can only help Republicans.

It discourages supporters of the Democratic Party & advocates of Democratic principles, while it is largely ignored by supporters of the GOP. It's divisive when Democrats need unity - now more than ever.

Whenever someone promotes the idea that there's no difference between the two parties, Republicans smile.

[Blecht]

332. Done

You don't seem to know how to read or think. I am done with you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

190. OP says "both parties work for the 1%"

Not just a criticism of some Democrats. It's a criticism of the entire party. Saying it's the same as the Republican party.

Is that really so fucking hard to understand?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

235. If "both parties work for the 1%," and if I am a member of the Democratic Party, where's my pay?

Somehow, I don't think that Manny is criticising the entire party.

[muriel_volestrangler]

259. I suggest you put your concerns to Manny

since you seem to be saying that he's expressing himself badly.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

265. No thank you. You are saying that he's expressing himself badly. I am not. 208 recs and counting

[muriel_volestrangler]

274. So why did you find a problem with "both parties work for the 1%"?

That's what Manny said, and yet you think it's a problem, because you point out you're a part of the Democratic party and yet you get no pay. So you now realise that Manny was attacking you too - or he had expressed himself badly.

If you think Manny meant what he said, he's attacking you.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

282. Obviously, or it should be obvious, you are using Manning's phrase out of context to mean something

other than what he meant.

Taken in context, he is referring to some of the high officals and not to grass-roots Democrats. I think that most people would know that, and I think that you know that as well.

[Blecht]

314. Both working for the 1% = same?

Are you the same as the other employees where you work?

People can have the same boss and not be the same, you know. Or is that so fucking hard to understand?

[muriel_volestrangler]

333. The OP makes no attempt to point out any differences

It only says the parties do the same thing. It's possible that Manny does allow there is some difference, but he has not even tried to express that.

[Blecht]

339. He says they have done the same thing --

-- on certain issues, the ones that directly benefit the 1% at the expense of the rest of us. And he lists them. Where is he wrong?

He does not say they do the same thing on all issues.

I am not Manny. I don't know him. I was just going by what I read in is OP. The reason I have been responding is that I think what he wrote is accurate. You think his omission of further elaboration is important -- I don't.

You and I both know Democrats are not equal to Republicans.

Have you asked him directly if he thinks that Democrats = Republicans? That would probably be better than just assuming he does when his post makes no such claims.

[treestar]

230. Amen. Plus the idea they are all corrupt just leads to apathy

and hopelessness. Since we elect them, there's no better way.

[sabrina 1]

294. Again, why do we care about what the GOP wants??

What has that got to do with the problems facing this country? Is it your strategy for Democrats to remain quiet about everything because OMG, what will Republicans think?

I have never in my entire life seen a worse reason for NOT dealing with the huge issues facing this country today. I wish I knew who came up with that talking point because they deserve a medal for total failure whoever they are.

Why not address the issues that matter to the COUNTRY and ignore how the GOP thinks, reacts or whatever else they are doing? They are not worthy of that kind of respect. Sorry to see them get it here on a Democratic forum.

[baldguy]

335. Because the GOP spreads bullshit ideas like "Both parties are the same"

"Know your enemy."

The GOP has always been a minority party in this country. How do you think they keep winning? By STOPPING Democrats from voting, partly by spreading lies like those in the OP. The OPs only intent is to get people NOT to support Democrats. Do you think anyone in the GOP rank & file is listening to similar bullshit? Of course RW nutcases have been saying "Romney isn't a real conservative," or "Romney isn't a real Christian". All kinds of lies were told by GOP operatives against each other in the primaries. Do you think that's going to stop them from voting for him in November? OF COURSE IT WON'T!

The reason it's important to vote for Democrats always: If all you've got to represent you in your state Senate is an anti-union, anti-abortion, anti-gay Democrat, you have hold your nose and vote for him in the general election. Because if you don't, and the GOP gets control of your state Senate, then THEY get to re-draw your Congressional districts - and we get Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich running against each other. When that happens we all lose.

[dionysus]

54. keep trying manny. thank god you're here to pick up the slack.

[treestar]

228. You better believe it!

[Tarheel_Dem]

66. What utter 3rd party advocating, GOP assisting, vote suppressing fresh hell is this?

As to your first sentence? One can but hope.

[MrSlayer]

67. Agreed. The Republicans are wholly owned.

While the Democrats are mostly owned. If not for the 81 or so members of the progressive caucus and a handful of senators they would be the same party.

[MrScorpio]

70. You get the Democrats that you can get elected, where ever you can get them elected

The party is really a reflection of whoever gets them elected. Sure, it's convenient to blame the party for not owning up to whatever we envision it to be, but the fact is that it's an amalgam of all who support it whenever it gets any support.

If it's schizophrenic, that's because its supporters are all over the place and yet, not everywhere.

The biggest reason why is because not enough Americans are taking a deep and informed interest in politics and governance. We're supposed to represent the majority. Yet, most people just don't know what to think of Democrats at any given time. The general image is that we're the big labor, anti-war, lunatic fringe, dope smoker, gay, immigrant minority party.

Instead, our image should be that of the Default American Party.

That's why Republicans can get away with their crap, by defining themselves as the default position. America reverts backs to them after we take away some of the pain that the Republicans have inflicted.

The problem here is that you should be mad at both the Democrats and the Republicans for completely different reasons: The Republicans for being so greedy and evil and appealing to the very worst in the American soul, and against the Democrats for only seeking to woo support for themselves in small, isolated ways and just during election time.

They are not the same

[Zax2me]

73. The feeling is mutual.

[AynRandCollectedSS]

74. Follow the Money!

Five out of six of Mitt Romney's top campaign contributors are from Wall Street and big banks. Obama's top contributors are alternative energy companies, colleges and individual donors. If he's just a corporate shill, why aren't they backing him this time? If you follow the money, their differences are quite clear and it's intellectually lazy to claim otherwise.

[Quantess]

82. Welcome to DU, and I love your name!

Yes, it's foolish to suggest there is no difference.
I've never seen a candidate who was so pandering to destructive greed as Rmoney.

[AynRandCollectedSS]

140. Thanks!

And thanks again!

[OnyxCollie]

86. Bullshit.

Obama's top 10 campaign contributors for 2012 are Microsoft Corp ($304,690), DLA Piper ($302,527), University of California (243,486), Sidney Austin LLP ($234,611), Google Inc. ($191,719), Harvard University ($177,408), Comcast Corp (S164,862), Skadden, Arps et al ($145,809), Morgan & Morgan ($130,145), and Time Warner ($116,939).

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638

[AynRandCollectedSS]

142. How polite and subtle of you...

1. I was referring to the top six and 5/6 of Romney's being from big banks and Wall Street is telling.

2. I know they come from the employees and families of the organizations. I can read. Organizations' employees are generally invested in their place of work doing well and making money.

What's your point? Are you agreeing with the OP that the two parties are the same? If so, can gladly give you several more reasons why they aren't.

[OnyxCollie]

232. You wrote,

"Obama's top contributors are alternative energy companies, colleges and individual donors."

None of Obama's top contributors are alternative energy companies. You pulled that out of your ass. The University of California was the top contributor during the 2008 campaign, with Goldman Fucking Sachs right behind. Speaking of Goldman Sachs, how many of their employees are being investigated/prosecuted? I guess that was money well spent.

I have no interest in reading any more fabrications from you, but I can gladly give you several more reasons why your propaganda is no different than that of the Republicans.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

87. Follow the money is good advice.

Not one bankster in prison.

[AynRandCollectedSS]

143. And as much as I wish the banksters were rotting in prison...

...the fact that none are doesn't prove, or even suppose, that the parties are the same...because they're not.

Dodd-Frank has been passed and after the recent and massive JPMorgan fuck up, Volcker will be passed as well, probably with harsher language and restrictions than before the debacle. After we find out much they REALLY lost, I bet it will be a hell of a lot more than 2 billion.

President Obama is FOR these reforms. MittWitt Romney is AGAINST them.

Reform might not be happening as fast or exactly the way you'd like, but that doesn't mean that it's not happening.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

214. You're right. It will be more than $2 billion.

How much more? Just think of a bank robber telling a clerk to turn over the money, and the clerk asking, "How much." Then think of the bank robber saying, "How much do you got?"

The Glass-Steagall Act was passed in 1933 as a way to protect bank depositors from the additional risks associated with security transactions. It prohibited commercial banks from collaborating with full-service brokerage firms or participating in investment banking activities. It was dismantled in 1999. We are now paying for the dismantling of that act.

Your statement that President Obama is for certain Dodd-Frank reforms while Romney is against them (or "AGAINST them&quot is beside the point.

The banksters are first-class criminals. They have ruined entire countries. Think of Iceland, Ireland, and Greece.

Many of their criminal acts involve complex activities, but not all of them are. And the complexity of some of their activities does not mean that none of the complex transactions should be investigated. It also does not mean that none of the criminal activities are proveable. The hiring of people to sign false documents so that hundreds of thousands of homes could be illegally foreclosed upon without complying with the law's requirements is not a concept that is too complicated to understand or to prosecute.

Banksters have been given bail-outs and bonuses instead of being investigated. An exception is the recent announcement that the FBI will conduct some investigation of the $2 billion loss. The only ones who could overlook the need for investigations for all the criminal activities are those who are unaware of the lack of investigations or who don't have anything to lose.

[AynRandCollectedSS]

298. I see progress although, like you, I wish it were more pronounced...

Did you see the piece by Taibbi in Rolling Stone about the Goldman-Sachs "naked short selling" documents that their idiot lawyers accidentally released? It's unreal and I think they are going to get hammered for it. The curtain is closing on the greedy narcissists and their diabolical schemes. If I wasn't at least hopeful about that, I'd probably lose my mind. I remain cautiously optimistic.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

303. Yes. Although the official story is that a law firm "accidentally" released it, I'd like to believe

that a paralegal with a conscience (or an attorney with a conscience) did so.

Although there are those who can question whether an attorney can have a sufficient conscience to oppose the 1%, Robespierre was an attorney.

[sabrina 1]

296. And maybe if there had been prosecutions immediately after the Meltdown

or even after the bi-Partisan Senate Committee's findings which were recommended to the DOJ, (what happened to that btw) this corruption and these multi-billion dollar 'errors' would have been discovered through the legal process.

Until there are investigations and prosecutions for the massive crimes that have nearly destroyed this country, they will continue.

[jtuck004]

120. We can't follow the money. It has been flowing to the 1% for the past 20 years, and

they won't let us in the door.

IMHO, our goal should be to get it to follow the rest of us.

[AynRandCollectedSS]

144. :)

Can't argue there!

[caseymoz]

79. What's actually happening can't be described in so few words.

There's reason to fear that this country could fly off the rails now.

And if it does lose its stability, nothing is guaranteed.

Look for the Euro collapsing to make any decision about moderation and compromise moot.

[Blecht]

80. "both parties work for the 1%"

That is the problem right there.

How can we change that? Who the hell knows?

But I do know that the first step to changing it is for people to wake the fuck up and recognize the problem. A lot of people in this thread need to take off their blinders and see what has been going on in this country for the last 30 years.

[CountAllVotes]

85. You've just realized this?

[GliderGuider]

88. You think you got troubles? Up here in Canada we have 4 or 5 parties

And they all work for the 1%. The ex-socialist NDP and the Greens included.

It's not the parties that are the problem, it's the System. The corporations have bought everything they need to keep the good times rolling, including entire political systems.

[JamesJ]

92. Both parties work for the 1%?

It's more likely the 0.1%.

[chervilant]

153. Actually,

using the current World Population figure, it's 5.28 X 10^-6%.

[blue neen]

96. Lyndon Johnson was a great politician. He was able to get the Civil Rights act passed,

along with other "Great Society" bills that have helped this country immensely.

There was a reason Johnson did not run for re-election in 1968, and it started with something called the Gulf of Tonkin, where LBJ also unfortunately had the idea of "Well, what the hell's the presidency for?"

He was a Democrat by historical measure, who did wonderful things, but he also did terrible things.
Ultimately, he was a human being...that's realism.

I'll be just fine picking my own friends, but thanks anyhow. I see that you have yours onboard. I guess that's what friends are for, huh?

[BlueIris]

99. I learned that lesson in 2010.

Even the mighty fell that year. If they were ever really standing at all.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

100. We are in the USA

too much lobbying and corporate carrots for politicians.

[jannyk]

102. Huge K&R. Thanks Manny.

[just1voice]

104. As a woman in Greece said "we traded civility for corruption"

She said she felt like she had betrayed her children and their entire generation because "we traded civility for corruption".

So f-ing true.

[Rex]

106. Yep.

Known that for a longtime. It is all about power and money.

[woo me with science]

109. DU Rec for a rare cutting through the bullshit.

Failure to see the pattern by now, by those who actually follow politics, reflects either stupidity or complicity.

[ecstatic]

111. Will you be voting for Nader again?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

130. Why Nader? Is he still being true to traditional Democratic principles?

Don't we already have a candidate?

[tex-wyo-dem]

112. Big thumbsup, Manny!

Whenever I see one of the many, many posts on DU about being "pragmatic" and "realistic", it makes me want to throw up.

Being pragmatic with an opposition that is sane and willing to negotiate is fine, but what we are dealing with is a cabal of insane greedy narcissistic dangerous assholes who would just as well see you and your family dying in a sewer and say "that's sad...too bad, that's just their lot in life.". They could really give a shit about you and me. To them, we are "consumers" ripe for the picking to suck our pockets dry, nothing more.

We need real Democrats, strong Democrats who embrace real Democratic ideals and fight for the little guy/gal no matter what the opposition tries to throw in their face. Unfortuately what we have now, to a large extent, are players, small minds who feel "special" because they are rubbing elbows with high-power wealthy elite and who are there to ensure the power-brokers are protected.

It's time for us all to realize the system is corrupted to the very core.

[bluedigger]

118. You and I are not in The Club, Manny.

[DeSwiss]

123. K&R

[Poll_Blind]

125. Funny how posting leftie stuff here makes one fearful of banning.

I always thought that was an odd feature.

PB

[obxhead]

126. One of the most truthful and significant posts I've ever seen from you MG.

I agree 100%

[donheld]

129. If they toss you for this they can toss me too

[Dragonfli]

207. The Scooby gang likes to take them out one at a time.

It takes constant harassment, alerts, and whining to the admins so they like to focus laser like on the biggest critics first, the next biggest next....

Your time will come if you are

A) a critic (they especially hate criticism from the left, but will project that it comes from the right)
B) You are the next loudest critic in line.

Be patient, they will get to you unless you start offering praise of every Dem INCLUDING Baucus.
Critics are like scooby snacks to them, they spend all of their time taking bites out of them, they seldom offer the site anything else.

[Larry Ogg]

288. I had a post hidden a couple days ago...

The party hardliners, who act like sheep dogs and gatekeepers, were gaslighting the OP for criticizing Obama, pretty much like their doing in this thread. So I decided to throw a little truth at the bullies and got them all snarling and snapping.

Of course, they like to use the alert button as if it's the - I can dish it out but I can't take it button...

To make a long story short, and as luck would have it, I ended up with four of them on my jury, and the comments they gave me pretty much confirms what you’re post is saying.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Free republic is *that* way --------> Larry.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Too much.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Begone troll.

Now I could be crazy, but I like to think that I'm just on the outer fringes of the very dangerous left, but to them that doesn't matter, if you don't agree with them your a right winger, your the enemy, end of story.

Little do they know, when it comes to the psychology of the mind, they are as much a Right Wing Authoritarian as any hardcore I'm right your wrong republican.

That means that their blind to self hypocrites with their own little cliques and double standards, and if your not with them your against them.

And they would like nothing better then to turn Democratic Underground into their own little Authoritarian Underground.

[Dragonfli]

322. "when it comes to the psychology of the mind, they are as much a Right Wing Authoritarian as any

hardcore I'm right your wrong republican."

Exactly, not only that but they always find themselves defending right wing actual ideology in the form of third way compromise.

They don'y appear to know it but they defend mostly, 1990's Republican policy in full, I imagine they were not aware at the time where these policies were formulated, and by whom, or else they are yesterdays Republicans posting right wing ideas in the mistaken belief that they are actually Democratic, if that is the case, the are old Republicans newly joined to the party or they are very young and know not where these policies originated, in the end, I agree they are all follow the lead ape, authoritarians at the core.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

320. Now, now, I did learn from them that Harry Belafonte's...

only contribution to humanity was a "banana song," and that Christopher Hitchens, Chris Hedges, and Chris Hayes are one and the same. And in this thread alone, I learned that blacks and women were excluded from the CCC.

They post with such certitude -- that is what is so fucking hilarious. And sad, really.

[Dragonfli]

323. such certitude indeed, regardless of objective truth, /nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

327. They remind me of W's true believers.

There was no reasoning with them either.

[Dragonfli]

328. That is because they are psychologically the same, authoritarian followers of what they perceive

to be the top ape.

[Amster Dan]

134. durec

But not exactly news.

[Raine]

135. Agree nt

[Fumesucker]

137. Sorry Manny, I have to disagree..

If no one in power gave a fuck about the 99% then OWS would never have gotten the level of federal scrutiny it received and receives at this moment.

No Manny, there are powerful people who very much give a fuck about you, give a fuck that you remain ignorant, give a fuck that you blame other members of the 99% for a situation that those same powerful have engineered, give a fuck that you remain distracted by pointing the finger at others who may differ from you in some insignificant regard.

I've been watching a thread here on GD for the last couple of days that seems custom designed to drive a wedge between the relatively few poor white males who remain liberal and the rest of the liberal movement and I can't help but wonder at the motivation of those who post such things.

If liberals could persuade only half the poor white males who currently vote against their own economic self interest to vote for liberal candidates things could indeed change in this country but it's not going to happen by pushing their noses in their own inferiority.

[chervilant]

155. 'Willfully ignorant...'

Carlin said it best: "The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice."

Until and unless we get corporate money out of politics, we are going to witness this country CONTINUE to get f**ked by the Corporate Megalomaniacs who've usurped our media, our politics, and our global economy.

[cali]

148. I believe that my Senator and Rep care about people like me- if not me

and gee, I hate to break this to you, sweetie, but all democrats are not the same. Are there enough good ones? No, and here's another news flash for you: There never fucking have been. duh.

[Egalitarian Thug]

149. Same as it ever was. Check the sigline. K&R

[blkmusclmachine]

150. DC's stopped caring about pretending to care:

+1000

[Vidar]

152. Thank you for speaking the sad truth. K&R.

[SidDithers]

154. And this Thread perfectly demonstrates why we need Unrec...nt

Sid

[dionysus]

202. no, it means someone should enforce the Terms of Service for the site...

unrec wouldn't be bad either, though, if they're going to continue to let disgruntled non dems campaign openly against the Dems...

[stevenleser]

291. Yes, about as clear a TOS violation as there is. nt

[CanonRay]

156. Thanks for speaking the simple truth

Many people on this site need to wake up to it. K & R

[crunch60]

255. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism-- thanks Manny!

The phrase was used repeatedly during the Vietnam era, and this may be when it came into general currency. On October 15, 1969, in a speech at Columbia University, Mayor John Lindsay of New York City stated, "We cannot rest content with the charge from Washington that this peaceful protest is unpatriotic...The fact is that this dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

[chervilant]

158. Wow...

I find it fascinating, Manny, that you've said NOTHING about the 'parties being the same,' and look at all the squawking in response to your OP.

And, God FORBID you should point out a fundamental problem threatening our entire species without offering a solution! That one reeks of the propaganda promulgated by the corporatists bent on usurping our media, our politics and our global economy.

We the People WILL have to coalesce into a cohesive, effective whole to counter the Corporate Megalomaniacs who currently own and control better than 45% of this planet's resources--including HUMAN BEINGS. #Occupy gives me much hope.

[cali]

159. gad, that's such a bad argument, dear.

you are, of course, using an implied variation of the "truth hurts and that's why people are making negative comments" argument. Hackneyed and difficult to argue with as the person employing this cheapo tactic is wielding language as a weapon- any objection one raises to said person is responded to with "the comment that criticism is proof of their "argument". It's not, but hey we're talking about rhetorical tactics here, not real discussion.

[chervilant]

163. Gosh...

You've obviously missed the point of my sarcastic post. I am NOT offering an "...implied variation of the "truth hurts and that's why people are making negative comments" argument" and I am NOT impressed by your snarky post.

I find it disheartening that so many of us lack critical thinking skills, as is evident in the posts accusing Manny of saying the 'parties are the same.' That's NOT what he said.

Perhaps you need to reread the entire thread...

[Romulox]

171. And you, "dear", are engaging in Argument Ad Hominem. Why not stick to the subject, rather than

make a foray into the topic of rhetoric, hmmm?

[cali]

175. no, I'm not. the discussion of rhetoric is often appropriate here

and is was then. And I'd hardly call the use of "dear" an ad hom. If so, it's certainly a very mild one, and hardly the focus of my words in that post. And I have stuck to the subject- not that's the op is really anything but a broad generalized and oft seen meme here. I addressed it in another post.

but thanks, dear.

[Romulox]

177. Direct quote: "Hackneyed and difficult to argue with as the person employing this cheapo tactic"

And the use of "dear" absolutely meant as a condescension. Get real.

The invitation to discuss the actual topic at hand is still open!

[muriel_volestrangler]

196. Did you bother reading the OP? "both parties work for the 1%"

That's in the first sentence of the post body. How could you miss it?

[JoePhilly]

166. And I was so sure this OP was going to announce the start of the Progressive Prz 2016

group here on DU.

Guess not.

Instead its "bare knuckles, teeth bared" .. and "don't be their friend".

Sounds like a plan.

[mother earth]

167. Got that right, there is no more democracy, there is only oligarchy of the 1%. K&R

[JonLP24]

170. This thread is one example why

The 1% are never going to be afraid to push politicians. While liberals push other liberals to "get in line" whenever posts like yours come up, who are the politicians going to listen to?

[Romulox]

172. The Status Quo is the ONLY realistic system possible. Remember that, and you'll be fine.

I, for one, didn't become a "progressive" to rock the boat.

[Carolina]

174. K&R

I totally agree

[99Forever]

179. The only people in our corner....

...are us, the rest are for sale to the highest bidder. On the upside:

~~~"Freedom is just another word for nothin' left to lose"~~~

[ProSense]

182. Republicans are

bold: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002696142

No difference!

[99Forever]

184. Why would I..

.. follow your self-congratulating link and then read more of your ummmm... stuff. Quite frankly, when I see your handle on a post, I scroll on by. Please feel welcome to do the same with mine. Fair enough?

[ProSense]

185. Except

Why would I.... follow your self-congratulating link and then read more of your ummmm... stuff. Quite frankly, when I see your handle on a post, I scroll on by. Please feel welcome to do the same with mine. Fair enough?

...this time, right? Answer: No thanks.

Freedom is grand, ain't it?

[99Forever]

187. As overly verbose as you are...

..I'd think you could read and comprehend. I guess not. That's ok, I'll just go back to ignoring you.


Have a nice day.

[xiamiam]

206. except those who believe blindly..that is not us..thats what they turned us into..non thinkers

who are easily manipulated..

[Glaisne]

181. Welcome to America

Where the Democrats are Republicans and the Republicans are batshit insane.

What we need are a new T.R., F.D.R. and L.B.J.

[ProSense]

186. Yup,

"Welcome to America"

Where if you don't elect Democrats, you get "batshit insane."

Simple concept, and Republicans are counting on a lot of people to miss that point.

[sendero]

204. Of course this is correct..

... and only starry-eyed idealogues haven't figured it out yet.

On social issues, there is some differentiation, because the oligarchy doesn't give two shits about gay marriage or abortion either way.

On every thing that affects your pocketbook there is not a nickel's worth of difference, particularly between Obama, a centrist Republican masquerading as a Democrat and Romney, a centrist Republican masking as a conservative.

[woo me with science]

210. Economics, war, and the police state.

On these issues there is remarkable agreement. And you are right. The differences on the social and wedge issues are continually stoked and amplified in order to give the illusion of choice.

[randome]

205. Somebody needs a hug.

Or to take a good, long walk.

[xiamiam]

211. manny, actually most people know this now, maybe not on the new du, but out here in america

we know what you say is true..just take a walk on any street, talk to people in any social gathering....we know we're screwed and we know we're screwed by a system of govt that is hell bent on destroying everything most of us ever believed in...

[great white snark]

212. Get you "tossed off of DU?" Your divisive, unintelligent, overused and incorrect OP got 173 recs.

You rebel you.

[Fuddnik]

216. Fuckin' A Bubba!

Sadly, I think we're still in the foreplay process.

The real fucking is about to come.

[emulatorloo]

217. Ah yes, "Obama's Secret Plan"

[99Forever]

218. Since..

... you chose to put quotation marks around and snark attack words that didn't appear anywhere in the OP, just precisely is your point?

[emulatorloo]

236. That this OP is typical of Manny. He often tells us of Obama's Secret Plan to Destroy Social Securit

He "proves" it with word parsing, by presenting speculation as fact, and in the case of this OP, half-truths.

"Democrats working to deregulate banks, cut Social Security, and offshore our industries?"

Does he have specific Democrats he can point to? If so who are they? Is it a majority of Democrats as he implies? Or is it a handful.

Are there policies he can point to? If so will he give an honest description of the policies?

For example Manny misrepresented Obama's proposal to lower the corporate tax rate while closing loopholes.

The net result is that corporations would ACTUALLY HAVE TO PAY TAXES, rather than continuing to avoid paying taxes at all.

So this policy idea would actually result in more tax revenue coming from corporations.

Manny focused on the lower tax rate, and left out the loophole part.

This "proved" that Obama was a slave to the 1%, etc etc etc etc.

But it did nothing of the sort.

The other thing that Manny will do is throw out a claim that "Democrats want to cut" and act as if the Democratic Plan is exactly the same as the Republican plan.

He basically draws a false equivalency between Republican and Democratic policies by focusing on a couple of words.

He often claims the "Democrats/Obama want to cut Medicare." But he does not note that the democratic policies do not affect medicare recipients. They target provider side waste, inefficiency, overcharging, overhead.

However he takes the word "cut" and "medicare" and claims that Democrats and Republicans are all the same.

As you know, the Republican approach to cutting medicare means that they want to turn it into a voucher system. You get a coupon, with the coupon you can buy private insurance. They are essentially privatizing medicare.

Clearly not the same approach at all.

I personally like Manny a lot. I love his sense of humor and sometimes we have some good discussions. But I have read lots and lots of his original posts. And responded in lots of detail to them.

My post was addressed to Manny, and it is pretty much shorthand that I know he will understand.

Hope that helps.

[99Forever]

245. So..

.. in other words, you launched a strawman argument because you don't share his opinions.

I see.

[emulatorloo]

257. Actually no. Manny creates strawman Democrats

Manny's certainly entitled to his opinions. But he needs to back them up with facts.

[99Forever]

264. Oh my...

... are you final judge and arbitrator of who and what can be posted on this site?

[emulatorloo]

266. Well let's see. Find where I claimed Manny could not post his opinion here

He's free to post his opinion. Just as others are free to push back on his opinion. I stated that somewhere in the thread.

So lets not put words in my mouth.

A bit off topic, but I personally like Manny, love his wit, and enjoy sparring with him. He reminds me a lot of a real life good friend.

[99Forever]

276. Sorry..

... I don't do "fetch." You have some very different ways of having a "discussion" than I do. I leave the lame tricks like strawmen, to the Republicans. I guess I just have more respect for my friends intelligence than to treat them that way. To each their own.

[emulatorloo]

289. You put words in my mouth, I called you on it.

You can't back up your claim, so you change the subject.

That is the definition of a "lame trick"

[99Forever]

293. What fucking claim would that be?

I busted you using a strawman argument and YOU changed the subject. Project much?

Bye.

[emulatorloo]

297. You busted me on nothing. Stop bothering me now.

[99Forever]

304. Don't use logical falacies to make your point..

.. and won't have to "bother you."

[just1voice]

250. Read the news sometime, you might learn something

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-07/social-security-cuts-weighed-by-lawmakers-under-change-in-inflation-gauge.html

"President Barack Obama and lawmakers are considering cutting Social Security and increasing revenue by changing the way the government measures inflation.

...The idea, which was discussed both as part of a series of debt talks led by Vice President Joe Biden and by the Gang of Six, resurfaced yesterday during a meeting between Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and House Democrats, according to a congressional aide. Democrats pressed Geithner on the issue and he didn’t rule it out, according to the aide."

[MannyGoldstein]

307. Pick one. Let's get it on.

Social Security or corporate taxes - pick one and let's go toe to toe.

[Dragonfli]

326. You do realize Manny that they have nothing and so will ignore your challenge

to go head to head on their facts, their entire attempt to disparage you rests on their belief that they can do so without countering anything at all of substantive value, they can not argue an argument based on lies and vilification now can they?

[MannyGoldstein]

340. Your hypothesis seems correct.

Frustrating!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

241. You're right, of course. The snark attack words, with quote marks, don't appear anywhere in the OP.

[Dragonfli]

239. Simpson/Bowles was a very poorly kept secret.

The "grand bargain" also was leaked somehow.


Perhaps they should have classified all that.

[sulphurdunn]

221. If you want to know

what's going on and why, follow the money.

[Swede]

222. I wished Manny would stop with his rightwing enabling crapola.

[just1voice]

248. Telling the truth is NOT "rightwing enabling", it's the opposite

Insulting people who post their views IS extreme RW behavior which you just exhibited. I read another post that said the original poster is going to vote straight (D), as I will so, insult the sht out of that "crapola" all you want, it doesn't change the truth and just makes you look like an extreme RWer.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

252. Well said.

[Swede]

272. My opinion is: someone saying Dem=GOP=win for the GOP by voter suppression.

How is that "extreme rightwing"?

[Dragonfli]

273. You are in the wrong OP then, He never said Dem=GOP, you putting those words in his mouth

and trying to silence his criticism of the branch of the party that triangulates and largely agrees with the GOP is a "right wing style argument".

He also spoke of classic or paleo-Democrats and how they would fight, his expressed opinion is that he is behind the classic Dems, not the Republican wanna be Democrats that are in the "big tent".

Sure, as a far right, Lieberman loving New Dem, I would rather he take our side and kick those useless "for the people" Democrats out of the party in favor of a capital loving business first party that can get really good donations, but for now, old Dems that don't understand the value of free trade and bank deregulation (or that love that stupid SS welfare) are still allowed.

It sucks, but we still need their votes, we are not done replacing them with disenchanted moderate Republicans yet, soon, but not yet.

Have patience, we are getting there.

[stevenleser]

292. That is EXACTLY what Manny said. He said Dems and Repugs both work for the 1% that means

they are the same.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

305. Actually, he said "both parties work for the 1%."

In addition, in the context in which he said it, he was referring to the fact that some top-level persons who act in the name of the parties work for the 1%. He, of course, did not say and did not intend to say that grass-roots Democrats work for the 1%.

Given the context, saying that "both parties work for the 1%" is not the same as saying that "Dems and Repugs both work for the 1%."

Even if he had otherwise said that "Dems and Repugs both work for the 1%," the context would have clearly indicated that such statement would not have applied to grass-root Democrats.

What are "grass-root Democrats"? Those are persons who are registered as Democrats, value traditional Democratic values, and typically vote for those with the big (D) after their names no matter what. Manning did not intend to apply his statement to such Democrats.

[Dragonfli]

325. I admire how you patiently explain this to one willfully trying to misread the post

It is quixotic but very honorable, in truth, I doubt they are as dumb as they would have us believe and know exactly what you so patiently try to point out to them.

The ignorance is feigned my friend, they are misrepresenting the actual OP on purpose, not because they really don't understand what was written as you so generously assume of them.

[Dragonfli]

324. In your mind perhaps, feel free to rewrite the OP at will, I will still read the actual OP

no matter what words you put in his mouth for him.

[davidthegnome]

224. You're right, to an extent

It is still though, a choice between principles, between ideals. Do we want to take care of the less fortunate... encourage freedom and equal rights for everyone? Be they homosexual, black, latino, white, woman or man? If we do, then that's one of the many reasons that, regardless of the corruption and the weakness that is common in many of our dems, we have to keep pushing for them. It is a choice between a party that is flawed, somewhat corrupt and somewhat greedy.. and a party that seems to have sold it's very soul, even though they continuously claim that they are the "Righteous Christian" party.

We have a chance, to re-elect Obama and keep ourselves from the brink of absolute disaster. We have a chance to keep the balance of power in such a way that it does not heavily enough favor our political opponents that they could erase every bit of civil rights legislation, what is left of our safety net.

I still, would rather have what we have now than what we had during the height of the Bush Presidency.

I'm with you - we DO need to fight, we need to convince our elected officials that they also need to fight, to stand up with courage for what is just, what is true, what is compassionate. I think a number of them try, in their own way, to make a headway against a corrupt system, to do what good they can in a political climate that is beyond toxic. In time, this generation will pass and it will be a new era for us... and I think that we need to BE the change. Run for office ourselves, do what we can to help alter the political situation, even if it's just a very little bit.

Consider what a Romney Presidency would look like, what a Santorum Presidency would have looked like. These people are beyond dangerous, they are out of touch with reality, wealthy to such an extent that they have no clue how the poor or middle class works and lives. I'm not crazy about all of our dems, but most of them have some notion of what really goes on in the world.

[treestar]

225. I don't expect them to - I expect them to care about the country as a whole

Everyone wants others not to count, whether it be the rich, the poor, the right, the left, but everybody counts.

[Dragonfli]

243. I agree, "everybody counts", mostly they count how much you donate

and acquiesce accordingly.

[treestar]

244. That wouldn't really work though, would it?

Politicians need a majority vote to get elected, so they really can't just cater to the big donors - unless it is in areas where they are sure the public is not paying attention. And they'd have their opponents researching them too. So I don't see the need for hopeless cynicism on this - we the voters merely have to pay more attention. That is a choice we can make. We do have power - it's just that it's collective, and we don't all agree.

[Dragonfli]

246. That is what all the promises are for, the ones they tell to get elected and then do the opposite

They get votes with promises, the cash puts those promises in ads on TV everywhere you look.

The ones that pay for the ads get the actual policy tho, that is why we will not negotiate drug prices with big pharma even tho that was said to get elected, that is why there was no public option, but was said for the election, that is why they all get so much more liberal about a year on before an election (more conservative if Republican) and yet somehow the policy does not match the rhetoric.

It is known to work quite well, has been very effective for both parties and is what politics are now all about.

I won't begrudge you your positive outlook however, we all believe things that help our attitude and sanity, nothing at all wrong with that. Enjoy it while it lasts, if you keep paying attention until your hair is mostly grey you will no longer have that comfort and hope so I really don't want you to lose it before your time. I think people should try to be happy any way they can.
Part of growing up is learning such facts of life, it will happen in it's own time.

[crunch60]

270. Like Scott Walker, kissing his billionaire donor, Diane Hendricks, while he

utters those now famous words, "Divide and Conquer"

[AnotherMcIntosh]

226. 183 recs and counting. As long as DU3 has an ignore button, those who want orthodoxy instead of

truth can select that. Instead, there are those who will make an effort to keep others from speaking.

If they otherwise had truth and logic on their side, why wouldn't that be sufficient? If they have an ignore button, and they do, why don't they simply use it?

[emulatorloo]

237. If Manny's OP's could survive a fact check, I would recommend it.

He tends to draw false equivalencies between Republican and Democratic Policies.

For example, there is a ton of daylight between the Ryan Plan's approach to the safety net and the Democratic approach.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

240. You saw something that I didn't. I didn't see a reference to the Ryan Plan in Manny's OP.

Also, it is not my experience that he "tends to draw false equivalencies." If that's true, it should be easy to show that when it occurs. I'll look forward to your efforts to do so.

The reason why he has so many recs with the OP is that many people recognize that what he is saying is true.

If you want orthodoxy, please know that you are not going to get it from me.

[emulatorloo]

267. You are being a bit too literal minded.

As to Manny's rhetorical tactics over the last few years, I discussed them in a post above.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=696819

"If you want orthodoxy, please know that you are not going to get it from me."

Why would I want "orthodoxy"? I am a pretty far left liberal Democrat.

[Dragonfli]

278. Also, you have to squint a little, and cover your left eye, but it's in there I swear!!! /nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

281. Too literal minded? "Yes" if you mean understanding the words that were used

Also "yes" if you mean staying with the subject that was raised.

[crunch60]

247. I posted this on another thread a few days ago, I agree with you,

The Democrats are doing much fighting for the 99%, but we will vote for them because the complete takeover of the extreme right wing is a scary thought. I was in So. Africa at the beginning of the student uprising that ended Apartheid, if you want to see some bare knuckles, teeth bared... now there was a movement!

As George Carlin said, they want a bunch of obedient workers who don't question

their overlords, who are willing to work for no benefits, low pay and max hours. Soften up the population so they will accept almost anything, Every day they take a little more, and give a little less, until this is acceptable as the norm.

Get rid of the superfluous population, the poor, sick and elderly, as they do not serve the oligarchs in their quest for absolute power and financial gain.

OWS is our hope for the future, I hope they grow stronger every day despite the atrocities that many have endured .

[bvar22]

254. Traditional Democratic Party Values

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be [font size=3]established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.---FDR, Economic Bill of Rights, 1944

At one time, not so long ago, a vote FOR the Democrats
WAS a vote FOR the above VALUES.
Sadly, as the OP points out, that is no longer true.
I miss THAT Democratic Party.

DURec.


---bvar22
a loyal, Mainstream Center FDR/LBJ Working Class DEMOCRAT,
now relegated to the leftist, fringe edge of the New Democrat Centrist Party.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[jillan]

260. My ex is a die hard O'reilly watching, Limbaugh listening GOPER. This is the only thing we agreed

on.

We would argue and argue about politics.

But we both agreed that neither party gave a crap about us.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

268. Respectfully, your ex is wrong. While Repubs have uniform beliefs, the Democratic Party consists

of grass-roots Democrats, elected officals who genuinely care about this country and the way that it is going (think Dennis Kucinich), DINOs, and others. We have, as they say, a big tent.

It's not easy to easy to identify the different types within the Democratic Party. There are differences, but everyone in the Party claims to be a Democrat. This includes the grass-root Republican-wannabes who want to have orthodoxy and squelch speech that doesn't fit within their concept of what those in our Party should be allowed to say or think.

There's a world of difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican one.

[HiPointDem]

261. +1,000,000,000,000

[TBF]

275. Carlin's "the American Dream" and he's 100% correct

[Go Vols]

301. +1

[chervilant]

279. Well, Manny,

I have a renewed sense of gratitude for DU's ignore option: I cannot see a significant portion of the responses to your OP. Based on past experience, I've managed to avoid both the sycophants and the Blue Dogs.

Sad, isn't it, that people read "both parties work for the 1%" and angrily assert that you mean "both parties are the same." Where are their critical thinking skills?!?

The Democratic Party du jour is a pale parody of the Democratic Party of my youth. Though they ARE different from the Scorched-Earth Policy Republicans, they are STILL working for the 1%. We get tossed a bone every now and then, to keep us deluded into believing that the Corporate Megalomaniacs HAVEN'T usurped our media, our politics AND our global economy.

#Occupy, and the many DUers who've recced your OP give me much hope that the vast Hoi Polloi will prevail over the vile, relentless Corporate Megalomaniacs.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

284. Since this is now election season, I was hoping to get more bones thrown at us for a few months.

So far, the best that we've got is that there might be a FBI investigation re the $2 billion in recent losses. That's it.

[Exultant Democracy]

280. Then stand up with the 99.5% and join Wolf-PAC

www.wolf-pac.com fighting for a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics is the only way we will ever have a representative democracy again.

[Leontius]

283. The last time I said something like this

my post was deleted. Glad to see the message can survive this time.

[gateley]

285. You know, I'm usually quick to come to the defense of the Dems because of the

complete obstruction they've been up against, to realize that the POTUS can't do anything on his own without the support of Congress, but I just can't argue against the LBJ point. Plus, W and his cronies wiggled their way around everything, no problem.

Johnson lost the South for the Dems, but I don't think if Obama took drastic measures regarding the economy that the Dems would suffer.

I want him to fight, but I'm not holding my breath until after the election.

[Dont call me Shirley]

286. The Dems are systematically purging the Progessives from the party

Just like the Repugs purged the moderates

[Dragonfli]

330. yes, that has been going on sice at least clinton and his de-regulation, free trade, welfare killing

right wing triangulation's.

[KG]

287. werd up.

heh, the little dutch boys can't keep up with all the leaks in the dam.

[Skittles]

290. DAMN STRAIGHT, MANNY

yes INDEED

[Larry Ogg]

295. I totally agree with you Manny...

Unfortunately the 1% is not about to finance the political campaigns of someone who gives a fuck about the working class.

And it's a double whammy because much of the 99% can't see how the financial power of the 1%, gives them the ability to hand pick the candidates that most of the 99% is going to vote for.

Getting money out of politics will be the first step if there is ever a change for the better.

[DaveJ]

299. My great grandfather was considered a "Democrat leader"

He was also a businessman in the community, who owned the general store and the bar, so when the Depression hit, he "helped" the people in town by purchasing their property. It made him rich. I don't know what happened to them.

The Republican solution would have been to ignore those in trouble, and let them starve.

Only a subtle a difference I suppose.

[felix_numinous]

302. I think the power structure in this country

is not so simple. There are corporatists, military, secret government and very rich influential people, amongst others, who each have their realm of influence. IMHO, I believe we live in a time when all of these factions have ballooned in such wealth and influence--that our original government structure does not seem able to operate separately from these powerful people/institutions.

The two party system still exists, but just barely--Republican party has been completely infiltrated by each one of these rich powerful factions, and the Democratic party less so. But the RW has a stronghold on both parties, their program of disenfranchisement and police state policies are not letting up.

I think that what needs to happen is that government has to separate itself from the military, religious, corporate, secret government and other rich factions so it can operate closer to the original structure of balance of powers--to actually serve the People--but how can this possibly happen?

A frank dialogue HAS to happen about the REAL world we live in, we all know the REAL power structure is not working, who cares what they want to call it--there are too many rich influences in government, and they need to be separated from having more influence than the American people--or they cannot call it a democracy.

There are plenty of individual liberals and moderates like President Obama who definitely care about the American people. I believe that--and PLENTY of good people working in all aspects of government, military and corporations--but not enough.

[Brooklyn Dame]

308. HA!! Been saying that for ages!

Folks need to get it through their heads...

http://borderlessnewsandviews.com/2011/10/they-dont-care-about-us/

[Autumn]

315. I agree with you Manny

The Democratic party certainly has changed in my lifetime.

[mvd]

318. Democrats are still better, but neither party seems to..

be willing to change the structure of the system so that the 99% really start prospering. Things like not cutting SS/Medicare, jobs over the debt, forgiving a percentage of student loan debt for all, strengthening bankruptcy protections to put off foreclosures, nationalizing banks, etc. I am a Democrat, so I regret that I had to rec this. But our party needs to get back to its FDR roots.

[blue neen]

319. I'm sorry that your hard work is not being effective.

We're going to go the polls and vote to re-elect President Barack Obama and elect other Democrats.

I'm glad that your friends/posse came out in support of you...just like they did for BBI. His/her attempts didn't work either, even though it is all well coordinated.

If you truly wanted things to discuss matters of policy, you would state your posts in a different way...you'd rather use destructive criticism, because that is your true intent.

Good luck and God Bless.

[Dragonfli]

329. You really need to clarify that, on it's surface it came off as a "left handed compliment"

meant to disparage and disregard, but in a "polite way" God bless your little heart (see what I mean?)

[Poll_Blind]

321. To everyone who recced this thread:

It gets better. I hope.

PB

[invictus]

341. K&R