So Obama appointed a fox & weasel to head the committee

on henhouse security

--but of course he has no responsibility for their conclusion that the lock on the gate should be placed near the ground and designed to be predator-friendly.

Rather than freaking out now, let's see where this goes.

My guess is nowhere.

rather than stamping our feet like children.

Hey, I think most of those proposals are horrible, but rather than saying, "no way." I'd rather provide a rational explanation for why each of them will not work (or what the consequences would be).

:evilgrin:

I mean it's not like he decided to appoint a committee to look at this issue?
And it's not like he decided who to put in charge of the committee.

Like everything else he's just the poor, put-upon victim of circumstances far beyond his control.

And besides...."PRESIDENT PALIN!!!! PRESIDENT PALIN!!!!!!!"

You forgot the "sarcasm" thing-ee but knowing you from other posts, I guess it's safe to gigle along with you!

:thumbsup:

"It has always seemed to me that, in dealing with foreign countries, we do not give ourselves a chance of success unless we try to understand their mentality, which is not always the same as our own, and it really is astonishing to contemplate how the identically same facts are regarded from two different angles." - Neville Chamberlain

One story is based on fear. It says there are all these terrible people out there out to get us . . . and we have to batten down the hatches and stop change coming. There's another story to tell that says we have very real threats but the only way to solve them is . . . reaching out to people, encouraging greater understanding." - Barack Obama

. . . let's just make it up and attack him right now for the worst that we can imagine. That seems fair. I mean it's not as if presidents have ever completely rejected or ignored recommendations of panels they've commissioned . . . have they?

Speaker Pelosi condemned the report as 'unacceptable and she is prepared to sidestep the commission's recommendations (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/pelosi-stacked-deficit-co_n_752586.html) if the final report contains the harmful cuts advertised. Speaker Pelosi is the key to the passage of any deficit reform and it appears the report as it is will be DOA in the House.

The worst that can be said at this point is that the President's choices to head the commission were dogs. Whatever comes next from the WH, however, is more than likely to follow whatever the Speaker is willing to accept.

But, you go on and promote the worst you can imagine . . .

People with *long* records of supporting cuts to SS & other social programs. The supposed *labor* rep, andy stern, supports *investing SS money in the stock market*.

All of the hullabaloo is just that, hullabaloo. Congress won't pass the cuts and I don't believe the President will endorse any of the objectionable proposals.

And, look at you criticizing my calling the two chairmen 'dogs' as if there's some internet honor in using the most objectionable name to describe them. That's as silly as pretending the President has accepted the recommendations and hyperventilating about that pretense.

You're delusional if you think that.

. . . 'delusion' is thinking that they will.

You gonna lay any money on that? The Gulf is still slicked, and HRC is never going to be fixed.

I don't doubt for a second that these "measures" can and will be passed "for our own good."

Folks here act as if they've never seen a DOA commission report before.

And why we're getting all of these trial balloons about what we're willing to tolerate.

. . . and, in doing so, discredited his right-wing argument.

grassroots organizing against the wingnuts in Congress

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's just pathetic. And you really do appear to want to be taken seriously.

start thinking like a community organizer

Yeah, Obama appointed a commission. As far as I can tell, it's deadlocked. The two conservative chairs, Bowles (D for the Bankers) and Simpson (R for the Bloodbath) went public with their own recommendations:
the Bankers want retirement age raised and the Bloodsbaths want a bull-in-a-china store demantling of more or less everything

This could be a frackin goldmine for grassroots organizing on certain issues, because it provides a window into the mindset of certain ruling elites, and provides all manner of useful one-line soundbites

Let Obama speak for himself

But, what the hell, what do they know about trying to survive under the diktats of wealthy politicians?

Rahm Emanuel - Obama promised while camapigning to END NAFTA, but apparently forgot that pledge by the end of Nov 2008. He somehow ends up choosing the man most resposnible for the legalese inside the NAFTA contracts and legal agreements as his Chief of Staff.

Geithner as the Secretary of the Treasury.

Velsick as the Head of the Agriculture Department (Why not have a Big Agro, Monsanto owned Monsanto clone sitting at the ehad of that post?)

Mike Taylor, the Monsanto Favorite of all time, heads up the FDA as Obama's appointee.

And this is just the short list.

unless he endorses it. He're responsible for appointing them. The fact is he also responsible for appointing four other members of the commission. None of the other four endorsed the proposal released by Bowles and Simpson.

"Tough decisions need to be made, and we need to make drastic cuts in order to save these 'entitlement' programs"

Will you then say this was never his intention? Because it's looking like HRC all over again.

I'm sure they consider HCR a success because it preserved the private system of for - profit thievery. Make no mistake, this 'entitlement' debate was formulated in some corporate think tank and the commission and their suggestions are designed to move us toward a goal of privatizing social security. I know who the weasel is but I won't say it.

No matter what he does, to them it is the right decision.
No matter how much it contradicts what they believe in or what he has previously said, to them it is the right decision.
No matter how many tenets of even the most broadest definition of liberal democratic thinking it betrays, to them it is the right decision.

They've decided that the only threshold for their support is that these things not be done by someone with an R after their name. That is the only thing that to them makes these decisions the right ones rather than the wrong ones.