WhaTHellsgoingonhere
WhaTHellsgoingonhere's JournalI'll give AA props for a few things
AA doesn't have psychiatrists performing psych evals and prescribing meds. Today, tens of thousands of AAers are on psych meds. If a friend of a friend's cousin told you that she was at an AA meeting and someone said poo about medication, she can simply go to another meeting.
I'll give AA props for the following:
1. AA accepts everyone from all SES, don't need insurance or a significant bank - good luck getting help if you're poor and uninsured!
2. support group - for many, it's the first time they get to meet and talk to others with same (psych) issues; people discover they are not alone
3. program of action - people who don't take action won't fare well; most people don't want to make changes, so most people don't fare well
4. role models - people with long-time sobriety are role models for newcomers
5. you can find a meeting at all times worldwide when you need support - good luck replicating this with your treatment center...
get ready for the punchline:
YOUR TREATMENT CENTER WILL RECOMMEND AA 
Maybe many of you don't travel for work or travel alone, much. It's somewhere to go when you're feeling vulnerable, either because you're lonely or your coworkers are at a bar getting hammered.
You don't even know that HILLARY said that in December at a Goldman Sachs fundraiser???
DU was for change, not progressivism...
Once we got a progressive sounding candidate, we were unified. That was a mirage and short lived.
For those of us who were listening carefully (speaking for myself, pre-inauguration), we got steamed because we weren't getting progressivism. I'm sure many people here don't even know what they're talking about when they say, "I'm a progressive." David Sirota does a good job defining the progressive. And once you read description, you will understand why the progressive-minded folks among us are steamed.
"Let's be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America's social safety net are noble and critical. It's the other direction that's the problem. Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html
The Elizabeth Warren wing is the progressive wing: she's a liberal who wants to take on the current economic infrastructure.
The Obama/Clinton liberals aren't progressives: they support liberal ideas, but have no stomach for institutional change.
So, is it a surprise, or even a bad thing, that DU is having this ideological battle right now????
EDIT:
Below, I merely elaborate on the nature of the internal debate. I'm not going to start another thread because it should be part of the OP.
Q: Would you vote for Hillary if she is the nominee?
This could be asked another way.
Did you vote for Obama in 2012?
I have no way to prove this, but I would assume close to 100% of the Democratic DUers did as me: I voted for Obama in 2012.
Again, I have no way to prove this, but I would assume close to 100% of the Democratic DUers will do as me if Hillary is the nominee: I will vote for Hillary.
But that question is totally irrelevant.
That question is irrelevant to this thread and the heated debate that so many DUers are lamenting and don't understand. The debate isn't raging over the Democratic Nominee vs the Republican Nominee.
The debate is: Who do you support for the Democratic nomination?
Many of you are angry because you've put the cart in front of the horse: you've already decided that Hillary IS the Democratic nominee.
The, "Who would you vote for, Romney, Christie, Paul?" question is totally irrelevant. It's only being posed by Hillary backers who are furious that there are Democrats who reject her.
That's what's going on, here.
Yes, MSM, always seek the opinions of those who got everything WRONG
Cheney on Iraq
Rubinites on economy
Anti-Third Way, dude
We don't want Hillary Clinton!
Warren, Sanders, or Reich 
Obama = Clinton = Third Way 
I'm sure close to 100% of us voted for Obama in 2012 and, if Hillary wins the nomination, I suspect a shit ton more would vote for Hillary over Republican nominee than those who would not, possibly very close to 100%, as well.
Obama is taking the beating now while Hillary is in hiding, and that's a good thing for me. Criticizing Obama helps me make my case because Hillary is worse than Obama. It's been a very effective tactic for me as my FB friends are starting to see that The Third Way sucks ass. We never got the Hope and Change we all wanted. Hillary will follow the Obama blueprint: campaign left of center then govern right of center.
Our greatest obstacle, IMO, is we're up against the desire for the first woman. Well, I'm all for that, but she's the WRONG woman. Warren is the RIGHT woman.
So, as I see it, tagging Obama as a Third Way politician (which he is) goes a long way in our effort to reseed the Democratic candidates: between Warren, Sanders, Reich, and Clinton, Hillary is the #4 seed.
Others may, or likely have a different slant. But it's working for me. Not all of my FB friends follow as closely as I do, and I'm seeing a lot of people "Liking" Elizabeth Warren and much fewer pro-Hillary posts.
These are the people who flip-flopped on Gitmo, too, when...
Poll: Democrats Flip Flop on Gitmo to Support ObamaIn November 2009, after Obama vowed to close Guantanamo, 59 percent of Democrats approved of the decision, according to Pew.
Then in February 2012, a Washington Post/ABC News poll, cited by Pew, showed that roughly the same percentage of Democrats approved of keeping the institution open, at 61 percent.
- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/poll-democrats-flip-flop-gitmo-support-obama#sthash.5TeHlAdT.dpuf
These are the people who screamed bloody murder when Bush was in office but look the other way now that Obama is in office. I suppose the reasoning goes, "Well, if (certain policy) is wrong, it's OK because I trust Obama won't abuse it like Bush or McCain."
These people suck
Oil is our #3 export today
Of course this will happen. Oil independence and National Security are slogans not policy; policy is profit driven...because energy is privatized and corporations are the policy makers.
http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_exports.html
And, the Bill Gates Foundation is trying to dismantle public education...
"Waiting for Superman" was his charter school propaganda campaign. The entire movie was about Americans not being competitive with the ROW. If you read between the lines: Gates is rationalizing why he won't pay top dollar to American IT workers and engineers. By convincing America that we our education is wonting, he gets cheap labor from overseas. Take it a bit further, he and Apple are in a race to get their products into to schools. Tons of money to be made. Philanthropy, turned propaganda, turned profit motive. I wonder how many Bill Gates Centers there will be???? That Bill Gates, he's a swell guy.
Oh, and as for Bill Gates...
He's just another Carnegie and Rockefeller. No one gets that disgustingly rich without fucking people over both on their way and to remain on top (it's a contest). Each turned philanthropic. Douchebags often turn philanthropic. Why you show so much reverence for Bill Gates should be the title of your next thread: "Why do we glorify douchebags once they turn philanthropic?"
Philanthropists love to stick their name on everything.
Here's The Gates Center at, fittingly, Carnegie-Mellon University.
Here's what I wrote on my Facebook page
Put this 13 minute video on your bucket list.
This is the most important lesson you'll ever learn in your entire life.
This isn't about Dems vs. Republicans. This is about the super wealthy vs. you! I do have friends who make 10x the income I make, but even at that, they aren't part of this club, the super wealthy.
We live in an Orwellian society in which the wealthy have sold us the idea that the world is upside down. Specifically, contrary to what the rich and corporations are telling you, it is they who are the mega welfare queens.
Let the *self-identified* welfare queen and professor from UC Berkeley explain the whole thing in 13 minutes.
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Dec 22, 2005, 10:00 AMNumber of posts: 5,252