Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » treestar Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
treestar's Journal
Posted by treestar in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sun Jan 24th 2010, 12:07 PM
I did not understand reconciliation in the Senate at all. Recently I learned a little more about it. This made me jaded for many a post intended to make me angry that they didn't use it. I can see it is limited. But am not sure yet how it applies and what it could cover or not.

Same with the filibuster. It is complex to me and I don't fully understand it and don't know enough history. Tentatively I am for abolishing it, because the Senate already weighs down the majority with its disproportionate representation. But then someone could point out something that the Rs would have gotten without it, and I don't recall all that much recent history on the subject.

I don't really understand the effects of NAFTA and GATT. Those terms get thrown around on DU as the root of all evil, but I refuse to jump on that bandwagon unless I understand it, but don't understand enough to argue with that either.

I've learned to have no opinion on any court decision until I've looked at it. The news reports and the posts are full of opinions that lack understanding and are designed to just try to get you to be upset on some surface thing that it imperfectly understood.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by treestar in Barack Obama Group
Wed Jan 20th 2010, 08:09 PM
but the Progressives never were, and Congress could see that.

The right also gets fired up and works hard even when down. The progressives, if DU really represented them, quit when they don't get everything they want.

IMO even if we somehow got single payer they'd be finding fault with it. They find fault with everything, so being "superior" is part of it.

They also don't consider consequences. All the wimp/toughness talk - if Obama really did what they supposedly advocate, it would not necessarily result in anything good. So he vetoed the bill with no public option because it had none - my thinking is the same exact posters would be talking about how cold hearted that was and the millions who could have been insured had he just compromised.

They seem to know so much better how to handle things, but that is only in their minds.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by treestar in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Tue Jan 19th 2010, 11:16 PM
The "change" could take many different forms for many different people.

to me a president is an office so high up that the change need only be in general philosophy - Obama's approach to foreign policy being opposite of Bush's is enough for me. Also his saying we would stay within our ideals, not try to create a unitary executive. That's a major change and a turnaround.

the rest I knew would be subject to the vagaries of Congress and just give him carte blanche to do the best he can. That is how I would view any Democratic president.

I might get pissier about my congresspersons or Senators. But I would probably still prefer a Dem over a Repuke even if Dem did not always agree with me or vote the way I wanted. No representative can perfectly represent every one of his/her constituents.

that's the way the system is and i see no reason to give up on it. It's the best of all possible systems and as an American I'm proud of it. It doesn't go through dramatic change because it is so stable - and it is stable because it works. The only time I worried about it was when 911 seemed to get people to have enough fear that they would be willing to make major concessions in the name of their safety. There seemed to be enough voters to think like this and the 2004 election was very depressing. But I knew this country would turn itself around and it did.

I wish we could get health reform, but now I see we can't. The repukes are still numerous and they are dangerous. giving up is not an option. They will come back and try to destroy our system as they did before.



Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by treestar in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Tue Jan 19th 2010, 03:27 PM
person on this, maybe someone else can add things.

They didn't get much of what they want.

Several that I know vote on only one thing: abortion. That's no closer to being a crime again than it was in 1973, yet they still keep voting only on that issue. I know some of them voted for McPuke for that only - they didn't care about the wars or any other thing.

They don't have prayer in the schools. Damned Libruls keep trying to make the government stop putting out Christian creches and the 10 Commandments. The SCOTUS rules it is OK to burn the flag.

There are still all those "unfair" anti-discrimination laws and special rights for various minorities.

There is still government involvement in social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare and all those horrid programs that take money from hard working Americans to give it to lazy people who could just go out and get a job.

There are too many illegal aliens here. Hollywood keeps making movies based on destroying the family. People persecute them for their Christianity.

You have to never talk to them to think they are getting near what they want.

And realizing how many of them there are, it's downright putting one's head in the sand to think one has the luxury of slamming Democrats and claiming they aren't doing enough. If they keep our heads above water, they are doing great.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by treestar in General Discussion: Presidency
Sun Jan 17th 2010, 11:48 AM
It would really be pretty repetitive:

OBAMA HAS SOLD US OUT!!

I feel betrayed.

They could do this so easy through reconciliation so it proves all they want is to serve the corporations!

Corporate whores!

Insurance company giveaway! Insurance company stocks soaring! This proves it is a corporate giveaway!

Obama doesn't care about us!

the Democrats never listen to us!!!

I am so disappointed!
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by treestar in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sat Jan 16th 2010, 01:49 PM
If you understand how it works, then you'd be resigned to the fact that the far left will generally get little of what it wants fast enough. You wouldn't be snarky or impatient and saying it'd be so simple if they'd just do such and such.

The progressives do get heard - I'm sick of that complaint, too. They get heard and that affects the debate, if no one wanted single payer at all and no bill were ever introduced on that score the whole country would be further to the right as it wouldn't be in question as anything that a member of Congress would introduce. And that committee is hearing about it.

The POTUS is going to start not with those bills but with bills that can make it out of committee, etc. That's only common sense.

You are not on the outside looking in - kucinich did introduce single payer and he's a Congressman. You're no worse off than a right winger who wants the government to stay completely out of healthcare. They don't complain about left out. They yell harder to get what they want.

So yelling about how single payer would be best would be far more likely to get some little progress to the left (if not single payer) and marching on the mall about it (and you have to do it louder to counteract the fact the M$M would not cover it, only the right) instead of complaining, calling the Dems corporate whores and the like, claiming better campaigning and different approaches would have worked. That's one thing i admire repukes for. You don't see them doing that and taking victim stance. They just keep on and on. If we could only do that, we would have single payer in our lifetimes.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by treestar in Barack Obama Group
Tue Jan 12th 2010, 09:24 AM
Defendant's lawyer argues that the search warrant was not based on probable cause, for example. The government, both state and federal, has lawyers that defend the police in that instance, argue that the warrant was based on probable cause. This doesn't mean the government and its lawyers are against the Fourth Amendment, which is sort of what the DUers argue and base their emotional reactions on.

Trouble is that legal issues get murky quickly. There can be arguments, and often they are dull and tedious. It's easier to look at it as black and white. The public generally does this. The media aids and abets it, trying to make more drama out of a case.

So whenever someone is making any claim based on a legal case, in the media, the best thing to do is find the case or the latest opinion on it. Often that puts all fears to rest.

The one about the Obama administration hating on gays because of denying some insurance to a gay partner in defiance of the Ninth Circuit - that case has barely started and some low level government person is doing exactly what anyone would do in that job - and yet this case is used to slam Obama on gay rights. It involves an actual employee of the Ninth Circuit, so that makes it complex, unusual in that it won't affect many people - only so many people work for the Ninth Circuit. It would be about legal issues like whether the Ninth Circuit can provide coverage other employees of the government don't get and have more to do with that than gay rights.

The one about John Yoo was more about whether you could sue opposing attorneys for their advice. If that ever became the law, every divorce would involve two lawsuits - no one is more hated than your ex spouse's lawyer. I hate what Yoo did, too, but it's a terrible precedent to sue lawyers because they gave someone else advice. It would clog up the courts. Yet Obama was slammed as evil because the government doesn't want to go along with that.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by treestar in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sat Dec 26th 2009, 09:14 PM
It so far appears to be ex parte. A low level administrator just following what they see to be the normal procedure.

This has a long way to go, so jumping on it to slam Obama is just looking for an excuse to jump.

http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/articlefiles/J...

http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/files/...
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by treestar in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sat Dec 26th 2009, 09:13 PM
It so far appears to be ex parte. A low level administrator just following what they see to be the normal procedure.

This has a long way to go, so jumping on it to slam Obama is just looking for an excuse to jump.

http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/articlefiles/J...

http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/files/...
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by treestar in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sat Dec 26th 2009, 07:14 PM
On DU, whatever the poster does is the most important job, and the poster should be protected from all competition, but if that prevents others from working, well too bad. If you work for an insurance company, your job should be immediately eliminated regardless of consequences. If you work for a corporation, your job should be eliminated because your employers are so evil trying to make money for stockholders. If you work on Wall STreet, you are doubly evil. You shouldn't be selling anything to those evil entities, either, nor should you be investing in any of them.

The entire economy should be shut down. And yet none of it should be moved to India or China or anywhere else, either. NAFTA screwed us all over so we are all unemployed.

This is DU, which at times can seem like a crazy fantasyland.

Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by treestar in Barack Obama Group
Mon Dec 21st 2009, 03:15 PM
play dead on every case - just give up the government's side of the case because Bushco was clearly wrong. But that's not necessarily the case very single time - there could be legal issues. The media never goes into that. If you read the case, you might see the legal issue.

Even the Bush Admin. got shot down when they made a twisted argument in favor of constitutionality of something indefensible - the Courts really did save us on that. The Obama admin's arguments for these things can likewise be shot down.

IMO they've just gone on with the DOJ and keep arguing the government side of every case, just like they would for any search warrant, self-incrimination, right-to-counsel case.

Defending Yoo, they were defending the idea of not suing an attorney for his opinion - that actually makes sense. Every divorce case would end and then secondary cases against the lawyers for instance. People getting divorced don't just hate their spouse, they loathe their spouse's lawyer, who got to ask them very uncomfortable questions. It would flood the courts to let people do that. Every single case could have additional sue-the-opposition's lawyer case. Everyone hates the opposition's lawyer. Better to not start it, even if it is Yoo.

The gay couple in the Ninth Circuit - that case hasn't even gone anywhere yet - some administrator denied the provision of benefits because he thinks he has to in order to follow the law.

And outrage on any legal case should be taken with a huge grain of salt. It's just being exploited for its apparent outrageousness because the government does what it always does.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by treestar in General Discussion: Presidency
Mon Dec 21st 2009, 08:57 AM
that it is a duty and a necessity to rip the President for all you're worth.

No one here is saying just follow the Pres. because he is Pres. They are at least citing some substance to defend his position. Or in my case most of the time, simply calling out bad logic.

The President did fail to get a public option. He admitted he should have been on it more, but he backed off because of the example under Clinton. He leaned too far the other way, and admitted it.

Campaigning, he did not appreciate the Senate he would wind up with. He is relatively young and in fact inexperienced (one term in the Senate, and that not complete). But he had other good qualities and IMO it is not enabling to think he is a good President and will improve with experience. I voted for him because of his brains and his slightly idealistic view of the rule of law (which contrasted with Bush) that led to his letting Congress function here. He doesn't believe in strong arm tactics but in letting the system work. He loves the system (the three branches). Very often, he goes on about how great this country and its ideals are.




Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by treestar in General Discussion: Presidency
Sun Dec 20th 2009, 04:17 PM
cadre of progressive bloggers who share Moyers’ half-developed vision – that corporate power must be stopped but who don’t offer a shred of suggestion or vision about what to replace it with – type their denouncements furiously on computer systems produced by Microsoft or Apple. (True, some nobly use Linux and free software, but nonetheless on components made by corporations in non-unionized sweatshops in developing world countries.) Their demands for anti-corporate purity from others are patently hypocritical from the get-go.

A case in point: Keith Olbermann – who of late has shared this born again anti-corporatism tendency - issues his ranted communiqués from the studios of General Electric-owned NBC. If we were to apply Olbermann's own yardstick honestly to him, we would ignore anything he says and simply report how GE stock rises or falls corresponding to each of Keith’s televised speeches. Ah, but that would make us as silly as the caricature of himself he has invented.

The unspoken truth is that college educated North Americans are not yet ready or prepared to live and work in a post-capitalist society. They have become weak and deformed around the corporate produced technologies and luxuries to which they have become accustomed and dependent. And so there is a vague call from these quarters for government to provide them these luxuries and technologies instead. Yet coming just two decades on the heels of the failed Soviet experiment one sees little evidence that those making the call have thought through how exactly state run health care, for example, would be operated much differently, qualitatively, than corporate run health care today.


Puts it very well.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by treestar in General Discussion: Presidency
Sun Dec 20th 2009, 02:08 PM
Everybody makes mistakes, but if I knew how to do things like this, I figure I'd probably have gotten the job of Congressperson or WH advisor.

Sorry but there's a point where some of this is just hard to just jump on the bandwagon with. I'd need to know a lot more about how it works. From what I do know, we are talking getting large numbers of people on board with things and that will be very complex. What I do in my own work makes me realize how complex that can be.

You may be right and they bungled everything, but there's no basis for me to just agree with that just because the bill isn't good enough. It may also be the best they can do in the situation, and there is just as much reason to believe that as to believe they bungled. In fact, they could have done a terrific job and gotten more than they might have out of Congress for all I know.

I'm just not ready to make pronouncements either way. But I do know this is our system, it is supposed to be difficult to pass a law, so there are checks and balances and nobody gets to be a dictator.

So I see the absolute raging desire to call them failures to be just that - a desire to read everything that way. Reminds me of my uncle who kept saying all the doctors were wrong. He wasn't a doctor, he just wanted them to be wrong so he could criticize them. Having a lack of knowledge about whether they really were doing things wrong, I did not automatically believe him.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Profile Information
treestar
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
30123 posts
Member since Sun Feb 26th 2006
Untitled 1
Blogroll
DU Journals
Other Blogs
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
Random Journal
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.