Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
What ever happened to Impeach the President & Repeal Obamacare?
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 2:24 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 3:22 AM
SHINYGOODGUY
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Yes, the banks are bigger and more powerful than ever before, the wealthier have a larger portion of the pie than ever before, jobs have continued to leave the USA as the nation de-industrializes, and our military is as busy as ever fucking up nations everywhere, but BY GOD GAYS HAVE THEIR RIGHT TO JOIN THE ARMY! Yeesh! -------------- You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 3:30 AM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Good post SSG
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 8:07 AM
SECOND
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Yes, the banks are bigger and more powerful than ever before, the wealthier have a larger portion of the pie than ever before, jobs have continued to leave the USA as the nation de-industrializes, and our military is as busy as ever fucking up nations everywhere, but BY GOD GAYS HAVE THEIR RIGHT TO JOIN THE ARMY! Yeesh!
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 10:41 AM
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 12:42 PM
Quote:"He has? Aside form giving speeches which express a preference for this or that, what has he done ? Devise a cabinet-level group of economic advisors, publicists, and lawyers to form and press forward with a plan of action on ... anything?"-SIGNY Precisely. He did just that. By the way, what exactly is "speeches which express a preference for this or that"? - SGG
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 1:05 PM
THGRRI
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 1:14 PM
Quote:Although at first a casual circle, the group became tightly organized after FDR's nomination. After the election, they were publicly christened the "Brain Trust," and became the central component of the New Deal. This exhibition will focus on the three key members of the Brain Trust—Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and Adolph Berle—and two of the New Deal cabinet members with whom they worked to bring about FDR's radical changes—Frances Perkins and Harry Hopkins.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 1:22 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: I wasn't clear. I didn't mean whether Obama had a Cabinet ... all modern Presidents do. I was wondering whether Obama had a Brain Trust ... Quote:Although at first a casual circle, the group became tightly organized after FDR's nomination. After the election, they were publicly christened the "Brain Trust," and became the central component of the New Deal. This exhibition will focus on the three key members of the Brain Trust—Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and Adolph Berle—and two of the New Deal cabinet members with whom they worked to bring about FDR's radical changes—Frances Perkins and Harry Hopkins. A group of close non-appointed advisors to help develop economic or social policies. I think the confusion came in when I said "Cabinet-level", when what I really meant was "close, top-level" advisors. -------------- You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 1:29 PM
Quote:I have to assume there was a lot of confusion on your part seeing how you had to ask someone else to find this shit for you.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 2:02 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: THUGR Quote:I have to assume there was a lot of confusion on your part seeing how you had to ask someone else to find this shit for you. It's up to the person making the argument to find their own supporting information, not someone else (me) to find it for them (you). My god, I just can't believe the idiocy that comes off your keyboard! You have a problem not only with basic reasoning and conversational skills, you also have problems handling the necessity of finding information to back up your statements! Apparently you've never been in a situation where you had to actually ... *gasp!* ... LOOK STUFF UP AND MAKE A CASE FOR YOUR POV. Get used to it, sonny. This is discussion board. If you can't discuss, don't blame me for your failings. -------------- You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
Quote: SIG So I guess my question is, what cabinet-level group(s) did Obama create, who was in them, what problem were they selected to address, and what was the outcome? I'm thinking specifically of FDR's "Brain Trust".
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 2:09 PM
Quote:I'll let others be the judge of what I post SIG.
Quote:You asked what Cabinet members Obama assigned to be in his brain trust.
Quote:Those asked to be advisors on particular topics like business or banking could be considered Obamas (sic) brain trust.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 2:11 PM
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 2:42 PM
Quote:But I will reiterate though that in 2008, when Obama was elected, the situation was different. Obama had HUGE support, and a fully-Democratic Congress. It was a historic election at a historic moment, when the possibilities were vast. If he had been able to make ONE CLEAN SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in American prospects (I'm thinking public option which had considerbale public support) he would have gained significant support for his administration and for left-of-center Democrats as well, but he completely squandered his opportunity by playing center and in the end lost the Democratic Congress as well.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 4:04 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Okay, scrolling up, I see many of you have said that the problems that I mentioned - wealth inequality, de-industrialization, control by the banking sector and the wealthy, the American oligarchy etc - are problems of longstanding. In general, I agree. While it seems to be well within the scope of the Presidency to cause much mischief -to start wars, snoop on everyone, feed the wealthy, coddle the banks and Wall Street, ravage the industrial sector, and impoverish the poor - the scope for doing good is much more limited. That's because, as I see it, the wealthy already have a tremendous amount of influence on politics in general and on our politicians specifically, so kowtowing to the wealthy is like rolling a boulder downhill. Doing otherwise is like pushing that same boulder uphill. The President as a single person can sometimes reverse years of inertia and set a course on a new path, but it takes intelligence, determination, and historic circumstances for that to happen. FDR was one such President, and JFK probably would have been another if he had lived. Obama COULD have been another. I will re-post what I just posted earlier Quote:But I will reiterate though that in 2008, when Obama was elected, the situation was different. Obama had HUGE support, and a fully-Democratic Congress. It was a historic election at a historic moment, when the possibilities were vast. If he had been able to make ONE CLEAN SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in American prospects (I'm thinking public option which had considerbale public support) he would have gained significant support for his administration and for left-of-center Democrats as well, but he completely squandered his opportunity by playing center and in the end lost the Democratic Congress as well. YES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT. Nobody us saying it would be easy. What Obama would have had to do was recognize that HIS term was not like Bill Clinton's term, and therefor Clinton-esque advice (find a middle ground between whatever opposing viewpoints were being expressed) was irrelevant to HIS situation. He would have needed to bring onboard very smart and very savvy advisors who could develop a plan and secure the funding and round up the votes in Congress. He would have had to make it WORK. It would have to be a significant difference to people in their daily lives, something along the lines of ... "I'm out of a job, my family's almost on the street, but at least we can get insulin/inhalers for my wife/child, even if we're living in our van." A bedrock for Americans. Something that the President could point to to get further support for further action. Now, if you're going to tell me that this was beyond Obama's capabilities ... that even the smartest, most determined President with the best advisors and sharp elbows that can be found couldn't possibly have done any better than he did, then maybe Obama shouldn't have made so many promises to begin with. AND WHY IS HE PUSHING FOR THE TPP AND THE TTIP? Obama knows how to go "balls-to-the-wall" when it's something benefiting the wealthy, heck, he's willing to roll right over the Democrats in Congress for these babies! -------------- You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 4:13 PM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Thursday, November 12, 2015 1:17 AM
Thursday, November 12, 2015 1:56 AM
6IXSTRINGJACK
Thursday, November 12, 2015 4:44 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: I wasn't clear. I didn't mean whether Obama had a Cabinet ... all modern Presidents do. I was wondering whether Obama had a Brain Trust ... Quote:Although at first a casual circle, the group became tightly organized after FDR's nomination. After the election, they were publicly christened the "Brain Trust," and became the central component of the New Deal. This exhibition will focus on the three key members of the Brain Trust—Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and Adolph Berle—and two of the New Deal cabinet members with whom they worked to bring about FDR's radical changes—Frances Perkins and Harry Hopkins. A group of close non-appointed advisors to help develop economic or social policies. I think the confusion came in when I said "Cabinet-level", when what I really meant was "close, top-level" advisors. BTW, most of Obama's Cabinet are underwhelming. Penny Pritzker, Chicago billionaire, was Obama's chief fundraiser and his national finance chair of President Obama's presidential campaign in 2008. Samantha Powers is neocon-in-Democratic-drag and a former Obama campaign aide. Some of his former Cabinet members were well-meaning but ineffective (Energy Scy Steven Chu, and EPA head Lisa Jackson). Just as an overall and not well-researched impression, it seems to me that Obama tends to appoint people that he likes, not necessarily those who are able to carry his agenda forward in the face of opposition. In the current political climate, the President needs to marshal his or her forces, recognizing that everyone needs to be able to pitch in and carry the ball. But I will reiterate though that in 2008, when Obama was elected, the situation was different. Obama had HUGE support, and a fully-Democratic Congress. It was a historic election at a historic moment, when the possibilities were vast. If he had been able to make ONE CLEAN SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in American prospects (I'm thinking public option) he would have gained significant support for his administration and for left-of-center Democrats as well, but he completely squandered his opportunity by playing center and in the end lost the Democratic Congress as well. -------------- You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
Thursday, November 12, 2015 5:28 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Just to make my point HERE about Obama being a serial, bulk Constitution-violator (not a person who made "mistakes") I see he got the judicial smackdown that he so richly deserves. Snowden vindicated http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60152 -------------- You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:07 AM
Quote:Snowden violated his contract
Quote:If he thought that what he did was right, why then did he run?
Quote:If the NSA violated the rights of Americans, then he would be a hero for having exposed the truth
Quote:-You think Obama personally told the NSA to spy on Americans?
Quote:-This has been going on for quite some time
Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:19 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY: I'm sure the president has a "Brain Trust," as you keep referring to FDR, but if he does I'm not aware of who they are.
Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:02 AM
Thursday, November 12, 2015 12:24 PM
Thursday, November 12, 2015 1:13 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: You have to go with the bill you can get passed. Everything else is just wishful thinking.
Thursday, November 12, 2015 1:28 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: You have to go with the bill you can get passed. Everything else is just wishful thinking. As President, you have to know why your particular version of a bill, not some half-ass bill written by ignoramuses, nincompoops, crooks and Republicans, should pass. And then you have to energetically explain it to Congress, over and over again, time after time, until even the dumbest understand. For example: if the USA needs 2 trillion for Fiscal Stimulus by infrastructure improvement, it cannot be purchased for 0.75 trillion, most of which was tax cuts.
Thursday, November 12, 2015 1:36 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: I agree with what you say two but in general congress does not pass bills that will get them kicked out of office. Neither does the Senate.
Thursday, November 12, 2015 2:00 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: I agree with what you say two but in general congress does not pass bills that will get them kicked out of office. Neither does the Senate. It does not work that way. Voting for the Iraq War should have ended hundreds of Congressional careers. It has not. $2 trillion is such a high number for Obama! Not really. The USA pissed away that much and has nothing positive to show for it: The Iraq war cost U.S. more than $2 trillion. Including benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest. www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314 The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
Thursday, November 12, 2015 2:52 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it. Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it.
Thursday, November 12, 2015 3:03 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it. Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it. Anecdotal my ass! The way a person's brain responds to a single disgusting image is enough to reliably predict whether he or she identifies politically as liberal or conservative. Voters don't think, they simply react. Your Congresswoman can vote any goddamn way she wants on Iraq or Fiscal Stimulus and it makes no difference come reelection time. Voters pay no attention to any substance. Their brains will never know how the Congresswoman voted. The only thing that registers will be voters' perceptions based on advertisements. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141029124502.htm
Thursday, November 12, 2015 3:10 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it. Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it. Anecdotal my ass! The way a person's brain responds to a single disgusting image is enough to reliably predict whether he or she identifies politically as liberal or conservative. Voters don't think, they simply react. Your Congresswoman can vote any goddamn way she wants on Iraq or Fiscal Stimulus and it makes no difference come reelection time. Voters pay no attention to any substance. Their brains will never know how the Congresswoman voted. The only thing that registers will be voters' perceptions based on advertisements. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141029124502.htm OK, I think my point is being expanded on. Plain and simple. Politicians are cowards for the most part. I say if they are taking a vote that is going to hurt them politically they will vote no. You apparently think they vote their conscious. Fine, we disagree.
Thursday, November 12, 2015 4:02 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it. Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it. Anecdotal my ass! The way a person's brain responds to a single disgusting image is enough to reliably predict whether he or she identifies politically as liberal or conservative. Voters don't think, they simply react. Your Congresswoman can vote any goddamn way she wants on Iraq or Fiscal Stimulus and it makes no difference come reelection time. Voters pay no attention to any substance. Their brains will never know how the Congresswoman voted. The only thing that registers will be voters' perceptions based on advertisements. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141029124502.htm OK, I think my point is being expanded on. Plain and simple. Politicians are cowards for the most part. I say if they are taking a vote that is going to hurt them politically they will vote no. You apparently think they vote their conscious. Fine, we disagree. I don't agree about the cowardliness. I forgot the obvious: your Congresswoman's brain probably works on the same general basis as voters' brains, unless your Congresswoman takes the time to think carefully and clearly. *But Congress makes most decisions based on, well, nothing more than feelings. And it's anecdotally evident from hundreds of crappy Congressional decisions* At least we are lucky that Congress can afford a staff that can draft laws even it the Congresswoman providing guidance is more than half crazed with mindless fears and uncertainty.
Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:18 PM
Quote:The way a person's brain responds to a single disgusting image is enough to reliably predict whether he or she identifies politically as liberal or conservative.
Quote:Voters don't think, they simply react.
Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:25 PM
Quote:If that were true, Lobbyists would be out of business.
Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:35 PM
Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:12 PM
Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:33 PM
Friday, November 13, 2015 1:15 AM
Quote:Yeah right 1kiki, Saudi Araba a long time ally. Can't help yourself can you backstabber.
Friday, November 13, 2015 1:26 AM
Quote:Given the fertile fields of [most of] the congressional minds, there is always something for lobbyists to do.
Friday, November 13, 2015 2:00 AM
Quote:Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it. Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it. -THUGR
Friday, November 13, 2015 5:56 AM
Friday, November 13, 2015 9:45 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Quote:Yeah right 1kiki, Saudi Araba a long time ally. Can't help yourself can you backstabber. I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you disputing that Saudi Arabia is a long-time ally? Because it is, and the facts show it. Or are you emphasizing that Saudi Arabia is a long-time ally? Because if you are, I think that's something we already know. And who is KIKI stabbing in the back? Is KIKI stabbing various USA administrations in the back because she is attacking their relationship with a brutal nation of terrorist-funders? In which case you've conceded that Saudi Arabia is, indeed, a long-term ally. Or are you somehow trying to say that KIKI is stabbing Saudi Arabia in the back, because they somehow don't deserve to be attacked? -------------- You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
Quote: Me in response to 1kiki I'm the moron, you expect me to buy into this shit you are posting. By your own admission your father was against Russian rule and forced to stay in exile. And you don't get that you are betraying him with all the propaganda you post here in favor of Russia. And by the way every country that assisted yours all theses years. Like United States President Ronald Regan and the Pope coming together to help free Poland from Russian rule. This is how you repay that? Nope 1kiki I'm not buying it. You want it both ways which is typical of you. You just can't tell the truth. It's over troll.
Friday, November 13, 2015 9:55 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Quote:Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it. Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it. -THUGR Horse-puckies! Does anyone remember the reaction to 9-11? I do. Where I work, we're a pretty dispassionate lot. Also, we were 2700 miles away from the scene, but in about 10 minutes we had pretty much reconstructed how a plane could be brought down with box cutters - how many hijackers, how empty the plane etc. But I was also at the time online with a bunch of mothers whose children were neurologically damaged in some way, these were mostly midwestern stay-at-home moms who were politically naive, and they were SHOCKED and TERRIFIED. The unfathomable had just happened, and they just wanted to go and hide in the closet, or the storm cellar, or under the bed. That must have been the mood of the nation, because people stopped shopping, avoiding malls and other large gatherings. BUSH had to tell people to go out and SHOP! Halloween was dismal, parents thought that children could be poisoned by a candy-giving terrorist. So if there is one word that described the mood of the nation it would be FRIGHTENED. It took many weeks of "Smoke 'em out, dead or alive" and "drain the swamp" to prod people into a different mood, and many MORE months of hearing about Saddam Hussein's (nonexistent) WMD and his involvement in 9-11 (Saddam and 9-11 are about as relate-able as Santa Claus and shrimp) to get people to focus on Iraq. But eventually, people dutifully went out and shopped, and dutifully invaded a nation that had fuck-all to do with 9-11. Under pressure of fear, people have been manipulated to make all kinds of stupid decisions. The idea that people were out for blood is nonsense. -------------- You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
Friday, November 13, 2015 10:04 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY: The banks and Wall Street captains of industry had a secret society of scoundrels and schemers that carefully kept the whole operation under wraps, with nary a slip of paper, that traded in the Trillions (with a capital T). A scheme so powerful as to involve the richest countries in the world; the unregulated (a GOP staple) exchange and transfer of monies based on junk assumptions and hedges. An insurance and banking scam that would make Bernie Madoff look like a choir boy.
Friday, November 13, 2015 10:39 AM
Quote:Yep and since you asked who 1kiki stabbed first in the back, if she is to be believed, first her father. Then all the countries that stepped up to the plate to help her and her family as well as help exile Russia from her homeland of Poland.
Friday, November 13, 2015 11:10 AM
Quote:Your imagination ran wild then as it always does SIG.
Quote:In my world
Quote:we were not in any kink of panic, instead we were in revenge mode
Quote:The fact that your agenda is to devalue what America is all about
Quote:to only post the negative
Quote: what you claim to be factual about that or any other event is suspect.
Friday, November 13, 2015 12:01 PM
Friday, November 13, 2015 8:07 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Democrats rode in on Obama's coattails because he promised to be different than the previous eight years.
Friday, November 13, 2015 10:57 PM
Saturday, November 14, 2015 7:18 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: There are more urgent events, but I have a question of my own - one that I've asked already: If Obama knew that change was impossible, why did he promise so much?
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL