General Discussion

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts) Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:22 AM Dec 2012

Why oh why can't we see Obama's (the most transparent presindency EVAH - snort) proposal?

Why oh why are We The People reduced to reacting to leaks and obfuscation from Jay Carney (the President's spokesperson)?

It is fucking bullshit. We The People need to be part of this conversation.

29 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why oh why can't we see Obama's (the most transparent presindency EVAH - snort) proposal? (Original Post) Luminous Animal Dec 2012 OP

Why? Because you are insignificant. Indydem Dec 2012 #1

Because "we the people" don't matter worth a shit to our rulers in kath Dec 2012 #2

I would be satisfied if Nancy Pelosi took the lead in negotiations. DURHAM D Dec 2012 #3

Nancy (net worth $60 million) is "OK with it". (It being the reduction of SS benefits via chained HiPointDem Dec 2012 #5

She wouldn't be an improvement. In fact, she has expressed contempt for the "little people". Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #6

drivel DURHAM D Dec 2012 #8

Haha! Voted for Bush's wars. Voted to extend funding for all of Bush's wars Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #16

What is this rich thingie you and HiPoint are doing? DURHAM D Dec 2012 #19

Because nearly all Pelosi does is protect her class... and their status and wealth. Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #20

Many of them would have. They'd have been with the Dems NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #21

Yup!!! Plus a zillion. graham4anything Dec 2012 #27

She is watching her words and already sending a message that we have been sold out DURHAM D Dec 2012 #7

oh, for god's sake. she's more than a millionaire & has nothing to lose by saying "this is a shit HiPointDem Dec 2012 #9

It is obvious you are not really following this closely. DURHAM D Dec 2012 #12

Yes. I would much prefer she "embarrass Obama." JDPriestly Dec 2012 #14

Same here. DURHAM D Dec 2012 #18

YES. YES I WOULD PREFER OBAMA BE EMBARRASSED THAN OLD PEOPLE DIE. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #15

OMG WE CANNOT EMBARRASS THE PRESIDENT Skittles Dec 2012 #23

Who gives a shit if he is embarassed? Punkingal Dec 2012 #28

Oh that poor woman. Having to abandon her role as a leader of an independent branch of goverment Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #22

kr. It would be a good thing to start making ourselves part of this "conversation". Actually, it's HiPointDem Dec 2012 #4

For the same reason we were told there was no back door deal with big pharma cui bono Dec 2012 #10

So true. DURHAM D Dec 2012 #13

I am ashamed to say I fell for the lies newfie11 Dec 2012 #25

Please, it's for serious people only. jsr Dec 2012 #11

Axelrod: "When you get elected to the United States Senate...we’ll have that discussion." woo me with science Dec 2012 #17

There are 350 million people in the US. How do underthematrix Dec 2012 #24

But they choose to do what big money pays them to do newfie11 Dec 2012 #26

You obviously don't know how to play eleventeen dimensional chess. progressoid Dec 2012 #29

Indydem

(2,642 posts)

1. Why? Because you are insignificant.

Reply to Luminous Animal (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:24 AM

Dec 2012

Your vote has been cast. Your usefulness has expired.

kath

(10,565 posts)

2. Because "we the people" don't matter worth a shit to our rulers in

Reply to Indydem (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:29 AM

Dec 2012

our One-Party Corporate Rule government.

We've got government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation. (feel free to substitute "of the 1%, by the 1% and for the 1%" if you like that any better...)

(oops, meant this as a reply to the OP, not to you specifically Indydem. )

DURHAM D

(32,610 posts)

3. I would be satisfied if Nancy Pelosi took the lead in negotiations.

Reply to Luminous Animal (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:31 AM

Dec 2012

The President can stay in the family quarters and play with Bo instead of working hard to hand the House and Senate Dems a shit sandwich.

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)

5. Nancy (net worth $60 million) is "OK with it". (It being the reduction of SS benefits via chained

Reply to DURHAM D (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:32 AM

Dec 2012

CPI).

so i'm not sure why you think she'd be an improvement over obama.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)

6. She wouldn't be an improvement. In fact, she has expressed contempt for the "little people".

Reply to HiPointDem (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:35 AM

Dec 2012

She is a legacy politico that hasn't a clue.

DURHAM D

(32,610 posts)

8. drivel

Reply to Luminous Animal (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:39 AM

Dec 2012

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)

16. Haha! Voted for Bush's wars. Voted to extend funding for all of Bush's wars

Reply to DURHAM D (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:34 AM

Dec 2012

She is a rich out of touch ass.

DURHAM D

(32,610 posts)

19. What is this rich thingie you and HiPoint are doing?

Reply to Luminous Animal (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:39 AM

Dec 2012

Guess you hated FDR.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)

20. Because nearly all Pelosi does is protect her class... and their status and wealth.

Reply to DURHAM D (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:51 AM

Dec 2012

She has never once ever advocated for anything in regards to a sustainable social safety net on behalf of the poor and working poor class. Never once ever.

NYC Liberal

(20,136 posts)

21. Many of them would have. They'd have been with the Dems

Reply to DURHAM D (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:52 AM

Dec 2012

who were calling for FDR to be replaced in 1936 with a more liberal candidate.

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)

27. Yup!!! Plus a zillion.

Reply to NYC Liberal (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:10 AM

Dec 2012

DURHAM D

(32,610 posts)

7. She is watching her words and already sending a message that we have been sold out

Reply to HiPointDem (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:38 AM

Dec 2012

because she still has to sell Obama's shit sandwich to her House Dems. Once again Obama has boxed Reid and Pelosi in by playing give away.

Obama should just go play golf.

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)

9. oh, for god's sake. she's more than a millionaire & has nothing to lose by saying "this is a shit

Reply to DURHAM D (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:04 AM

Dec 2012

sandwich".

she doesn't have to 'send a message' by semaphore if she doesn't choose to.

consequently, she is not 'sending a message' that we've been sold out, she's signing on to the shit sandwich.

she is a fully-fledged member of the ruling class and doesn't give a shit about the people.

DURHAM D

(32,610 posts)

12. It is obvious you are not really following this closely.

Reply to HiPointDem (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:22 AM

Dec 2012

She has to convince the House Dems to vote for whatever Obama comes up with. Would you rather she allowed them to embarrass Obama? Maybe she should and then you will get it. Well on second thought no you wouldn't get it because I am sure you would then blame her instead for Obama's crap bill.

And what in the world does her personal wealth have to do with anything. Did you trash FDR for that reason? John Kennedy? Bobby Kennedy? Ted Kennedy? John Kerry? Perhaps it is women you have a problem with. yep

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

14. Yes. I would much prefer she "embarrass Obama."

Reply to DURHAM D (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:32 AM

Dec 2012

Obama deserves to be embarrassed if he agrees to mess with the cost of living increases for Social Security. Embarrassment is the least he should expect.

I think there will be massive demonstrations of older people. I for one will be out there if Obama goes through with this.

DURHAM D

(32,610 posts)

18. Same here.

Reply to JDPriestly (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:37 AM

Dec 2012

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)

15. YES. YES I WOULD PREFER OBAMA BE EMBARRASSED THAN OLD PEOPLE DIE.

Reply to DURHAM D (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:34 AM

Dec 2012

"Embarrassed". you should be ashamed to make such a comment.

Skittles

(153,169 posts)

23. OMG WE CANNOT EMBARRASS THE PRESIDENT

Reply to DURHAM D (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:09 AM

Dec 2012

and by the way, there is a growing feeling that the wealthy in America JUST DON'T FUCKING GET IT - they are so far removed from WE THE PEOPLE they may think they know, may even TRY to know, but the divide is now so huge they JUST DON'T GET IT.

Punkingal

(9,522 posts)

28. Who gives a shit if he is embarassed?

Reply to DURHAM D (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:12 AM

Dec 2012

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)

22. Oh that poor woman. Having to abandon her role as a leader of an independent branch of goverment

Reply to DURHAM D (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:59 AM

Dec 2012

because we all agree that we now support an imperial presidency.

Heaven forbid that the People's House, members of the THIRD BRAND OF GOVERNMENT actually step up and support the People against the King... er.., President.

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)

4. kr. It would be a good thing to start making ourselves part of this "conversation". Actually, it's

Reply to Luminous Animal (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:31 AM

Dec 2012

not a conversation at all at present. The masters of the universe lecture and send missives, but don't receive them.

They need to be forced to start listening.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)

10. For the same reason we were told there was no back door deal with big pharma

Reply to Luminous Animal (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:11 AM

Dec 2012

during the ACA talks.

DURHAM D

(32,610 posts)

13. So true.

Reply to cui bono (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:23 AM

Dec 2012

newfie11

(8,159 posts)

25. I am ashamed to say I fell for the lies

Reply to cui bono (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:55 AM

Dec 2012

I only hope now we can stop this madness. I don't know this country anymore. I can only wonder what Jefferson would say if he could see what we have become.

jsr

(7,712 posts)

11. Please, it's for serious people only.

Reply to Luminous Animal (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:13 AM

Dec 2012

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)

17. Axelrod: "When you get elected to the United States Senate...we’ll have that discussion."

Reply to Luminous Animal (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:36 AM

Dec 2012

Remember, the White House decreed that the people have no place in this conversation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021483594

The remark in question came during last week’s debate about fiscal issues on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” In an otherwise forgettable conversation, things became newsworthy when the conversation turned to Obama’s position on Social Security reforms...

“I’ll tell you what, when you get elected to the United States Senate and sit at that table, we’ll have that discussion,” (Axelrod) told the panel.

....

There are two disturbing problems with Axelrod’s statements. First and foremost is his suggestion that a Social Security policy debate should only be conducted between White House officials and U.S. senators—not between all government officials and the general public. It’s a fundamentally elitist idea that evokes notions of smoky back rooms and secret deals. Not only that, it both contradicts basic notions of civic engagement and confirms Americans’ fears about a government that wholly disregards the citizenry...