Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Clinton at the convention

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 5, 2012, 11:12 p.m. EST by Lucky1 (-125) from Wray, CO
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Oh you left wing assholes need to watch this. Clinton is toeing the party line worshipping Obama. You must be so proud!

162 Comments

162 Comments


Read the Rules

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

While that is very true.... I must add

They both support foreign policy that kills civilians in foreign countries.

And they both support drug policies that contribute to the world's highest prison population for non-violent crimes. Policies that have even been called the New Jim Crow by civil rights activists.

And they both support spying on American citizens.

And they both accept huge contributions from Wall Street. And they both will put Wall Street in their administration.

And they both support a monetary policy that works for the 1%

Obama and Romney are the product of billions of dollars spent buying the elections and brainwashing people with propaganda.

The RNC and DNC are great examples of the money spent on these politricks.

Originally scheduled at the Bank of America stadium ladies and gentlemen.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

So you're saying there has been no innocent civilian death and you support the wars?

You're such an apologist always making excuses. What else should I expect from an Obama supporter. Democrats tell me "bombing 5 countries in the last 12 months does not make him a warmonger." It's as hilarious as when republicans try to tell me Romney is a fiscal conservative.

Do you support the drug war that imprisons nonviolent people that just want to use their freedom to inhale? Policies developed under Nixon? Policies that could have covered all the student loan debt in the USA?

I think you're just being as Facetious as your Obama campaign friends on this forum.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You don't even think bombing innocent civilians is a war crime.

What do you know?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Do you think drone strikes in non-battle zones that kill civilians are war crimes?

What if afterward they send a second drone in to bomb rescuers?

Because they do that.... and that's a war crime.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

What about the very real threat of a violent foreign policy inspiring hatred among citizens and groups in foreign countries toward our country?

"the drone attacks are WRONG. It's unconstitutional. It creates more enemies. We have to stop it."

Stop defending war crimes.

Obama brags about the predator drones... he is in favor of the drone strikes and he approves them. To suggest otherwise is ignorant of truth.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Food not bombs

Go read this post from Occupy WallSt - http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-collective-food-not-bombs-and-occupy/

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." Martin Luther King, Jr.

There are much better alternatives than bombs that kill civilians.

Stop making excuses for war crimes.

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

When he has his own kill list, he is at the top of the list of problems.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Drones are an effective measure in inspiring hatred because they continually kill innocent civilians.

I'm sure Boeing and Raytheon fully agree that drone strikes are awesome.

STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR WAR CRIMES

You only help the MIC when you do.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (24970) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Please write a full letter of drone war protest. Be detailed and keep in mind you are writing for a dual audience - The governments of the world and the People of the world.

Then either post it on my recent open letter post or use the links on it and send it out to government. I will tweet it if you only post it as I will also send it off to government if that is OK with you.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Dear Government,

The drone attacks are WRONG. It's unconstitutional. It creates more enemies. We have to stop it.

In recent months Pakistan has loudly protested each drone strike, calling them a ‘total contravention of international law’ which are a ‘violation of its territorial integrity and sovereignty... yet you continue to bomb their country. This also technically puts our nations at war.

I think it is only a matter of time before the international discussion on this makes it crystal clear that if the drone programs are not shut down, then what we are looking at is the potential of war of all against all, a pulverisation of national sovereignty and a rejection of the structure of international law. So, you know, there is the idea of war crimes becomes compelling only if nations respect the jurisdiction of a tribunal.

We have ventured into a world since 9/11 where international law is set aside and where the implements of war are becoming so ubiquitous that all the rules are being ignored and conflict zones are expanding. Where suspected terrorists – and we do not know what they are really suspected of doing, you know – they can be suspects now, and they can be executed. Or they can just be perceived to be a male of combat age and be executed.

When the Constitution was written the war-power was bifurcated in this way. Under article 1 the Congress founders wanted to restrain what they called ‘the dog of war’ by putting it into the hands of a legislator whose constituents would be affected by it, and would therefore have to face the people at some point. But what has happened is that in this post 9/11 world is that the declarations of war have basically vanished, replaced by an administration’s assertion of the power to declare a global war. And that has been buttressed, that was under the Bush administration, now under the Obama administration it is the derogation to the executive of the power to strike at any nation at any time for any reason. Expanding drone wars across Africa, across the Middle East, and I think ultimately risking blow-back.

We are at a war in Yemen now, you know. We do not need to go through an Orwellian exercise of semantics or the twisting of meaning here. We understand that we are at war in Yemen. In Yemen recently there has been a very steep escalation, not just in drone strikes but apparently covert air strikes, naval bombardments, and possibly ground forces.

You are looking here at an executive power that is unleashed. Our system of justice, according to the Constitution, is highly structured. There are broad areas of our constitution that have to do with people being investigated, arrested, charged, having a trial, and then if they are convicted being properly sentenced and incarcerated.

If someone shot a grocer and his defense was ‘it was a targeted killing’ he would be put on trial for his life. But we are told that these targeted killings are somehow to be considered apart from any legal system.

Well, when you have assassination programmes that lack any attempt to establish legal justification, then you have journeyed into moral depravity. International law means nothing, laws of war mean nothing. I am not assigning that condition to any one individual, but I am saying that the programme itself bespeaks an approach which depraves moral law, the constitution, and international law. That sets us into an endless cycle of violence.

There are innocent people being killed, that can not be disputed. In one of the first strikes that they publicised in the Wazaristan area, there was a little town Damadola where I think about 14 people were killed, I think in a strike in January 2006, I am just reciting this from memory. I believe they struck because one of the persons appeared to be the height of one of the individuals they were looking for. The criteria keeps changing and it keeps getting looser and looser.

Now, according to that recent story I think in the New York Times, all adult age males in Waziristan are now viewed as terrorists.

This is how I feel... but better said by Dennis Kucinich.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

War crimes must be determined by a Court! No?

Aren't these killings part of our war on terror?

End the war on terror! Stop the Drone bombings.

Protest against the fear mongering used to fuel the endless war on terror, and the civil rights violations begun 10 years ago.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Then GWB did nothing wrong either then? No court has found him guilty....

Stop defending war crimes!

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am not defending war crimes. Simply posed a question, that you refused to answer.

End the war on terror! Stop the Drone bombings.!

Protest against the fear mongering used to fuel the endless war on terror, and the civil rights violations begun 10 years ago.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I'm pointing out that the courts are as corrupt and complicit as the warmongers committing war crimes...

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I missed that. but I agree the American courts (maybe even the world courts, which is what I am talkin about) are corrupt like the 2 parties, but the thing is civilians always die in war, that is not the measure of a war crime.

Obviously, as always I only disagree with the extremist unproven statement that the Pres is a war criminal. Otherwise we agree.

End the war on terror! Stop the Drone bombings.

Protest against the fear mongering used to fuel the endless war on terror, and the civil rights violations begun 10 years ago.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

wars are usually based on lies and ulterior motives.

Bombing innocent civilians.... and then bombing their rescuers... is a war crime. Look it up. The past 2 administrations have done this in non-battle zones too.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

If you really are against this horrible situation, you must focus on the reasons, and issues that have created it! Your talkin about the symptoms. the underlining fear mongering is still being perpetrated by certain politicians.

Why do you ignore this foundational problem?

End the war on terror! Stop the Drone bombings.

Protest against the fear mongering used to fuel the endless war on terror, and the civil rights violations begun 10 years ago.

[-] 0 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

neither do Obama's

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

It is not about college degrees and federal money used to fund them. Every president since Kennedy has been funding education programs at a increasing rate each year. In the countries that are getting ahead it is not about the cost and quality of college. It is about the diversity of what is offered students learn.

In Germany, which has the lowest youth unemployment, sixty percent of high school graduates go to vocational and apprenticeship programs after graduation high school. You do not get paid to learn as an apprentice but you do not pay anything either. It is a win-win situation. The student/apprentice gets on the job training that you do not have to pay for. No loans and nothing to pay back. For example about two-thirds of his time is spent on the job at Lufthansa is split between workshops and classrooms, and actually working on real aircraft and engines supervised by an experienced full-time mechanic, a "training buddy."

We need to do something different. We need to look at what Germany and South Korea are doing.

[-] 3 points by ogoj11 (263) 2 years ago

Clinton/Obama, clearly business as usual. The man actually bragged about dismantling the safety net. Thousands dead in Obama's meaningless war. Bradley Manning in jail. Hundreds of US military bases around the world. And the rich still getting richer and the poor still getting poorer. Enormous prison state. 12 million hard working people facing racist deportation. None of this will change.

But don't worry, the dems big promise is that things won't get worse. Wow. What a dream.

Now listen to me, dear Occupy, I'm one of you,not a ruling class pol. The only way things will get better is if we stop listening to their rhetoric, stop voting, stop waving the flag, stop proposing to fix the broken this or that, but STICK TOGETHER, embrace the immigrants, extend and deepen out Civil Rights victories, live without sexism and homophobia, destroy sexism and homophobia, like we destroyed segregation. If this is how we live, not for a month or a year, but forever, we will scare the bejeezers out of them. They'll attack us, demonize us, but I swear it will generate more reform than all your 'realistic' lesser of evils voting.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (24970) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

One thing - Obama has not started a war. Bush started the wars which Obama inherited - lets keep to the facts.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Libya....

Obama supported the invasion of Afghanistan since day 1. He also increased the war and in 2010 Afghanistan had it's largest number of civilians deaths.

Yeah Bush is a piece of shit. But look at voting records and history. He's not the only piece of shit.

Still using Black Water organizations too.

Bombed 6 countries in one term. 5 in the last 12 months.

Stop making excuses for the wars.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 2 years ago

And lets keep the facts straight about Obama promising to end both wars during his first term along with Gitmo.

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

And the Rs ran the economy into the ground with debt
And the Rs wanted GM to go bankrupt
And ryan is the fastest liar in history
And willard the most prolific
You Rs do love your masters, dont you?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Actually the D's and R's helped run the economy to the ground. I can show you the voting records.

Ryan is a lying sack... no argument there.

I'd say Ryan is worse than Willard. He's Dick Cheney 2.0.

I'm not a republican. Why would you assume I am? Because I don't like a president committing war crimes and bombing 5 nations in 12 months? Because I don't support politicians funded by Goldman Sachs? Why?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (24970) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

RINO's love their masters - they are blind - something to do with greed I think.

[-] -1 points by conservatroll (161) 2 years ago

Yup....just like Nero except O played golf while Mustlim extremists have ignited the Middle East.

[-] -3 points by Lucky1 (-125) from Wray, CO 2 years ago

Forget it. OWS is faithful to Obama. But I personally agree with you.

[-] 2 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

OWS is faithful to obama ??? if that were case then there would be no need for OWS

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Well it doesnt help when I see Obama registers walking neighborhoods whose shirts say "We are the 99%"....

[-] -2 points by TomJerryAndPatsy (-37) 2 years ago

He's not talking about OWS in general but about this particular website which is controlled by Partisan Powers, a group of Obama lovers (zendog, shooz, DKAtoday, VQkag2, shadz66). Even the anarchists who run this site with tight censorship favoring Obama supporters have been bought out. They have become softer than melted butter and are being spread on Obama's toasts as we speak. He's eating them for breakfast.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

This campaign thread does not belong here

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

in the last 52 years. Dems have create 42 million jobs in 24 yrs.

Your repubs have created only 24 million jobs in 28 yrs.

Who is better?

Is that campaigning.?

[-] 2 points by Cocreator (306) 2 years ago

We have outgrown this cumbersome apparatus,We must take Charge,and bring Peoples Party to Life! Peoples Party Unite! Peoples Party was started in 1891, Huey Long Style for the People was the platform.. Peoples Court identifies traitors,banksters,complicit politicians,corporations involved in the biggest heist of all time.. Put the Mortgage Meltdown,Libor Rate Fixxx,Naked Shorting Stock Markets,Commodities leveraged 100 to one, and you van imagine, the scope and gravity of the present Illusion.We Are Talking Quadrillions here Folks..Hoarding all the Wealth Offshore, and playing like scarcity and Depravity is the norm, when we are actually surrounded in Abundance and prosperity, without Destroying our Environment.. We Seize the Assets of the Perpetraitors and Give it to the People..

[-] -2 points by Lucky1 (-125) from Wray, CO 2 years ago

Interesting. But seizing assets and giving them to (what) people means? But supporting third parties is something I agree with wholeheartedly!

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Suetorp (-104) 2 years ago

That doesn't tell much really. There are all kinds of factors in play, like what was the unemployment rate during the various terms. A deeper analysis would be required to pull something meaningful from these numbers.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Longer time spans tend to take care of various anomalous events and circumstances, so looking deeper to excuse conclusions that are obvious, is called wishful thinking. Deeper analysis is what is called for over short time spans and small sample sizes.

[-] 0 points by Suetorp (-104) 2 years ago

My point has nothing to do with the time span of analysis. My point was that there are many possible ways these numbers could have come about. Even if this tendency stretched for millions of years (hopefully, the duopoly won't last that long), it could still be the case that the democrats create more jobs because they also cut more, or for other reasons.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Your point is irrelevant, as well as, invalid. There are many ways that they didn't come about, and the way you describe is one of them.

Some things have been observed long enough and broadly enough to be obvious. This is one of those.

[-] 0 points by Suetorp (-104) 2 years ago

I like that counter-argument. Quick and concise, and you don't have to invest much thought at all. I imagined you saying this to your wife while you flicked your coat upon your shoulders and briskly walked out the house in search for a bar. Ah! If discussing issues was so easy! "You are wrong!" said the scholar as he walked away without providing reasons for his claims. "You are simply wrong."

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Didn't see any support for your argument that the Dems cut a lot of jobvs so they could replace them. The numbers are net for their terms, silly. Even if your ridiculous suggestion were true, and it isn't, (I remember since I was there) the numbers are the net numbers for their terms, Unless the Repubs were complicit by cutting the jobs for them just so the Dems could get them rehired, it would be smoothed out by the length of the terms. They didn't do that. Do the arithmetic.

[-] 0 points by Suetorp (-104) 2 years ago

Didn't see any support for your argument that the Dems cut a lot of jobvs so they could replace them.

That wasn't my argument. My argument was that the data which is provided is insufficient to effectuate a rigorous analysis of what's going on. Most likely, you're right, but this data alone does not show this. Are we talking about net jobs? The data doesn't say. What type of jobs? What counts as a job? Do one week odd jobs count? What if the government helps a person find 4 jobs in a year, each 3 months long, and then helps another person find 1 job for a year. Does that count as 5 newly created jobs? The data does not provide any information concerning that.

This might sound ridiculous and trivial for you, but it's not for serious researchers. It would have been nice to have a proper analysis of the situation.

Are you against rigorous science? Is that why your reply was originally "Your point is irrelevant, as well as invalid" without more specification?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Nope I'm a science guy. Just a little impatient with distortion of facts to suit agendas. There are plenty of places to apply rigorous science, especially where there is insufficient data. But when there is lots of data on huge sample sizes, in this case the whole population, and personal experience validates the obvious conclusions, being an old guy with not much time left I would say, just accept this one and get on to making the case for universal healthcare or some other issue which still murky.

I feel like the vulture who says, "Patience my ass, I am going to kill something."

[-] -1 points by Suetorp (-104) 2 years ago

How do you explain the drastic rise in unemployment duration during Obama's tenure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_average_duration_of_unemployment.png

How do you explain the unemployment rise during his tenure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Unemployment_1890-2011.gif

This seems rather odd since he's creating more jobs than the republicans. No?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

That's easy, The extended duration of high unemployent is a result of:

  • The worst economic crash (republican created) in 70 years. The great recession was larger than the last 4 recessions combined!

  • Congressional republicans constant obstruction of all Pres Obamas jobs programs, and republican watering down of the recovery program.

  • State Republicans firing of almost a million public sector workers in the middle of an unemployment crises.

This republican created economic crash was so massive no Pres could have resolved it all in 1 term!

So we are making some progress. Pres Obama has created a recovery, but traitorous republicans have weakened it because they cannot have a recovery with a dem in the oval office!

That the Pres HAS created any recovery in the face of the most massive republican 1% plutocrat resistance is a testament to Pres Obamas strength and ability!

[-] -1 points by Suetorp (-104) 2 years ago

So, then, you agree with my position above that simply stating job creation numbers is not enough to understand what the democrats or the republicans are doing for the economy.

If you haven't done so, please take a moment to read this entire thread before replying.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Read it fine. thanks for the advice! I think since this is a high unemployment, long duration crises, it is critical we inform people that republicans do not really care about job creation. The historic numbers reflect that and should be highlighted. It goes without saying that other issues should be analyzed.

Republicans support the Bain type vulture capitalism that profits when jobs are outsourced! Republican trumpet demonizatin, & firing public sector workers, Republicans have been busting unions for decades.

So the job creation numbers are the best way to illustrate these facts and it is right to highlight them.

[-] -1 points by Suetorp (-104) 2 years ago

You're not responding to my comment. I never said it wasn't right to highlight those job creation numbers, I said that alone they are not enough to understand what is really going on.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I will repeat for you

"It goes without saying that other issues should be analyzed."

So yes I did answer your question. Maybe you just missed it.

Peace.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

'Tr@shy' : I'm really in the mood for a bit of a 'ding-ding' now - especially as you came looking for me ( http://occupywallst.org/forum/if-we-taxed-everyone-99ers-and-1-ers-100-of-their-/#comment-827526 ), so any time you are ready - "I'll be you huckleberry" :-)

a bientot - j'espere ...

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Awwww !!! Is 'Down Voting' all you have left ?!! Quel dommage, n'est ce pas ?!

pauvre petit ...

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Cut more what? I think the numbers are net. And I think the sizable time span is a pretty good indicator because the challenges that each party must overcome within their timespan, you would think would offset itself over time.

[-] 0 points by Suetorp (-104) 2 years ago

Are the numbers net? This is what I mean, it's not precise. It simply says the number of jobs created. You are most likely right, but this data is lacking and wouldn't pass a rigorous exam. Are the jobs net, what kind of jobs long lasting or not, etc... If I base myself on only the information provided, for all I know perhaps the democrats created short term jobs over and over again thus getting beefier numbers.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I suppose that could happen, short term jobs v long term jobs. But the market fills short term jobs with temps and consultants which essentially are long term positions. I don't think the market creates short term positions. The only widespread example I can think of this is hiring seasonal help. Which is equal to all Pres.

And part of the system that is essentially equal to all Pres.too is the nature of the system that destroys and creates jobs at the same time. What I think is more interesting is the lag. One Pres. gain could be the result of policies of the Pres. before him. But again, you would think that over such a long time span, it would offset itself. It's mostly undeterminable. Not exacting. But an indicator. And because the number is so large, that tends to give credibility to the indicator. No?

I've got to believe it's a net number. The fact checkers will be all over it. Though I haven't checked it out myself. That would be a really obvious error otherwise. I don't think Clinton would put himself in that position for something that could so easily be disputed with simple data.

[-] -1 points by Suetorp (-104) 2 years ago

What I think is more interesting is the lag. One Pres. gain could be the result of policies of the Pres. before him.

Yes, this is indeed very interesting and blurs the analysis quite a bit.

I read a few articles which checked the numbers and stated they were correct.

Off topic, who are the good posters to watch for nowadays?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I've got nothing. But I just drop in on the fly. Maybe I'm missing stuff. Though there was an interesting post I caught last night that got banned.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-think-we-should-ban-the-following-user/#comment-826071

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Meaningful?

Over half a century, in 4 less years Dems created 18 million more jobs than repubs.

In the 12 years before Clintons term the repubs quadrupled the national debt, Clinton Balanced budget and created 4 budget surplus' in the 8 years after Clinton the repubs doubled the debt.

It's a bug deal.!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Suetorp (-104) 2 years ago

You're most likely right, but with only these figures it's still a guess. It certainly wouldn't be acceptable as a an argument for a serious economic research paper. You would have to look at unemployment rates and at job loss also. For example, if you cut 20,000 jobs and create 30,000, you really only created 10,000. It's also harder to create jobs when the unemployment rate is very low.

I'm sure if the numbers hold up there is a very clear explanation for it.

Sure, but without more data (not only job creation), the clear explanation could be many things.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Suetorp (-104) 2 years ago

It could be that the democrats are consistently cutting many jobs more than the republicans so they must create more to compensate. This is a logical guess using only your numbers.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Whenever I hear the name 'Bill Clinton' the first words that come to mind are Glass-Steagall.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Clinton gave REAL numbers
that the Rs ignore or a re too stupid to understand
but the truth can be hard to understand if you are a lemming

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

Why would MSNBC want to remain neutral in 2008 when they had an unknown in Obama versus someone who would have outdone her husband as president.

Only George Soros knows for sure.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

And only you care....

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

So I watched the 57 minute video, and Barack Obama seems like a George Soros minion, history repeating itself. Would explain Obama's foot shuffling on the home securitization fraud that is into the trillions of dollars.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Seems like it was the banks that caused that and they are still behind him, about 100 miles behind him. Busy bribing von Ryan's express

[-] 0 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

Which brings us back to the Clintons, they are both so over that aspect of politics they were the best choice in 2008, and this year as well.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Time to give it up. Bigger fish to fry.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

Your cryptic response did not explain much.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I thought it was straight forward. Neither are available for elective office any more. So thinking about that is not relevant or productive. We have major threats in our laps and more on the horizon. Better to focus of those.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

Hillary Clinton is, and I wouldn't mind Bill Clinton as VP either.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Ofcourse. Globalists love the Clintons

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

What is a globalist and why should we not like them?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

A)they are ruining the world B) take a look around

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

John Bircher!!!

No wonder you have nothing to say of relevance to the racism and bigotry in Florida.

You like it that way!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

No, she isn't.

[-] 0 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

Of course Hillary Clinton is available for the presidency. I'm still not sure about Barack Obama however.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

No, she isn't Not interested. Barack, not available. Not sure? SCOTUS

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

I'd like to see Hillary Clinton heading the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Elizabeth Warren is a better bet and possible. And she deserves it.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

Obama did not fight for her and he could have just appointed her during one of the congressional breaks, but did not.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 2 years ago

The way I see it is that Obama needs someone to tell him what he needs to do to grow the economy. So, lets vote Obama out and put Clinton back in to finish Obamas term.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

That is what the CBO says, 12 million if we do nothing OR if Romney is elected hmmmm.... But Obama's JOBS Bill has not been voted on in the House hmmmmm. Maybe somebody doesn't want more jobs, hmmmm....

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 2 years ago

The government does not do that great of a job at creating jobs, private industry does a better job. However, with so much consumer debt, the giant sucking sound (reference to Ross Perot), is the sound of banking policies sucking up main street's remaining wealth via the downgrading of credit as consumer debt rises.

[-] -1 points by conservatroll (161) 2 years ago

When a bull or a bucking bronc rider at a rodeo gets thrown from the saddle, out comes the rodeo clown to distract both the animal and the audience while the fallen rider is pulled to safety.

Bill Clinton's speech last night was something like that. After a disastrous day and an excruciatingly shrill, boring evening, Mr. Bill jumped into the arena to try and save the show, and no one can say he didn't do his level best. Even when you realized what he was saying was chock full of misstatements, half truths and a devious agenda of his own, you had to admire his showmanship, his delivery and his ability to play the Charlotte crowd like Jimi Hendrix mauling a stratocaster.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/mr_bill_who_you_gonna_believe_me_or_your_lying_eyes.html#ixzz25khQdgLC

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by conservatroll (161) 2 years ago

Ah, the American Jobs Act...from Wikipedia: Democrats

Many Democrats have balked at the bill, siding with the Republicans, especially those facing difficult re-elections in congressional districts where they are hesitant to support unpopular legislation.[49] A majority of the Democrats support individual components of the bill, but are unwilling to commit to the bill in its entirety, despite the White House's disapproval of the weak showing of support. Some Democrats from core Democratic districts oppose the American Jobs Act because it gives more tax breaks, thus contributing more to the federal deficit, which has given Obama more responsibility to sell the plan first to the American public, as he has done on a very prominent, nationwide speaking tour.[50][51][52]

Both moderate and progressive Democrats have expressed concerns about the bill. Joe Manchin, a more moderate-leaning Democrat, has openly voiced his opposition with the administration by arguing against the inclusion of too much spending, given by his remarks on September 29, "The ugly part of that act is $450 billion of spending, after we've spent, spent, spent." On the other side, progressive Democrat Peter DeFazio, a more progressive-leaning Democrat from Oregon, argued against the inclusion of nearly $250 billion of tax breaks, saying "Half of it is tax cuts, and quite frankly tax cuts don't work."[53][54] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jobs_Act

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by conservatroll (161) 2 years ago

Cutting tge budget if "Homeland Security" would be another way. How many towns need ninja cops and tanks and drones? $100 mil of taxpayer money to "protect" the 2 conventions. TSA not only abusing flyers, but expanding their roles in trains stations and our nations' highways. There's plenty of misspent money by .gov

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by conservatroll (161) 2 years ago

I'm willing to take my chances in return for the Liberty this country was founded on.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Forrester (13) 2 years ago

Maybe Clinton could strengthen the Financial Modernization Act

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

what's that?

[-] 0 points by Forrester (13) 2 years ago

It was what came into being, after the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act. No one wanted to be old fashioned except for a very few brave souls. I was my attempt at sarcasm

[-] 0 points by throaway (57) 2 years ago

Really. Now he's hitching his wagon to Slick WIllie's star! Do you think some of the undecideds will think a vote for O is a return to the CLinton years? You know, the guy he has snubbed for 3+ years? I just wonder what was in it for Willie cuz he sure don;t like or respect O. Probably laying the groundwork for Hillary '16.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

How is it out there in the weeds? Ryan says good things about Clinton, so Clinton reminds everybody about what has really been going on and you start worrying about 2016?

[-] 0 points by throaway (57) 2 years ago

I'm not worried about 2016...Slick Willie is.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

In your dreams.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by trashyharry (2894) from Waterville, NY 2 years ago

We need to load up all the Democrats and Republicans onto rockets and blast them into a trajectory which will land them on Mars,with all of our Best Wishes,and enough assault rifles and ammo so they can settle their differences once and for all.A Space Exploration Project which could save the world and money well spent IMHO.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Your love of violence to solve problems - you sure you are not an Rs ?

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1847) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

This is called advocating for the best man for the country, to benefit of the country. This isn't L or R "wing," it's American Wing! It may not be the best way to "win," but it is holding the welfare of the country in priority. Something the GOP has blatantly and continuously ignored!! Why would anyone Vote for a party that shits on the country to score political points?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"left wing assholes"? Are your positions so weak you must resort to insulting schoolyard bullying tactics of your candidate Romney?

the vast majority of OWS supporters are left wing. Are you not? Are you right wing.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I wonder if Clinton brought any of the good white stuff with him for the trip...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8681225708920427234

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

They are definitely some hookers in Charlotte who are going to have a very profitable week.

[-] 2 points by throaway (57) 2 years ago

LOL...I don;t think ole willie pays for it!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Profound

[-] 0 points by throaway (57) 2 years ago

He's still pretty slick. But if Obama wants to go FORWARD, why bring some 90's whore dog to the party?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by throaway (57) 2 years ago

Can't argue there...he almost made me think Obama was a good POTUS.! LOL

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by ElectoralReform (73) 2 years ago

By comparison of what the Rs could be, and by listening to Obamas slick speeches, its easy to get the impression he's been a good president. Good enough though....... hmmmm

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (24970) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

End the Electoral College.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

I agree that he has done everything within his power to do the right thing in every instance. I also agree with Clinton that no one could have done anything better in such a short time. And, frankly, based on what I have heard from the other side, if he does nothing at all he will do less harm than if the republicans win. Too bad politicians don't have to take an oath that says "do no harm."

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

If you make the number add up like Clinton, it is "slick," if you make up lies like Ryan, it is "principled" policy analysis. See Janesville.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

What date did Janesville plant cease manufacturing?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I believe it was December 2007. Yep:

However, as many media outlets have noted, GM announced plans to close the plant in June ’08 — long before Obama was even elected — and it ceased major operations in December of that year.

For proof, just ask one of the more prominent supporters of the Janesville plant shutdown — the George W. Bush Administration. After all, the closure was part of a broader GM restructuring initiative that the then-President supported. White House Press Secretary Dana Perino even praised it as evidence of GM “adapting well:”

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

"For proof, just ask one of the more prominent supporters of the Janesville plant"
But prominant lyan ryan, who lives in Janesville disagrees
who should we believe ??? I'll ask david & charlie & grover

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Impeccable sources, of a sort. Myth Romney could agree and disagree at the same time. Most lie out of sync with each other, he lies out of sync with himself.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 2 years ago

So how will things change if Obama is re-elected, the Republicans control the House and the Dems control the senate?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 2 years ago

Well, the way I see it - it will be the same ol same ol. I doubt if anything will change if Obama is re-elected.

Now, if the Repubs take the house and have the senate there may be changes but again it's going to have to be cooperation by all, not just a few.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by ElectoralReform (73) 2 years ago

Ummm.. Obama has increased the military spending in every department every year since coming in office. I reall really doubt that much will change between the election of the two, except that romney will tax the rich a little less and the middle class more.

He wouldn't pass ryans crazy budget, and he won't repeal obamacare, and they both agree on war, bank bailouts, drone strikes, ndaa, guantanamo bay, gay rights, etc... so... what's at stake in the election ..... everything, but none of it is being debated, except by Jill Stein! OWS needs ot get behind Jill Stein, or at least make it vocal that many members are looking to her as a serious expression of their interests. If you can garner support in key swing states, you can change the issues, change the debate, get concessions... It should be obvious, load, and vocal, and on s17 I hope its clear that OWS supports jill stein (or if any more libertarian folks out there, gary johnson agrees on most the important issues)

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

sounds like a plan

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

We don't need jobs - we need more lies and obstruction from the Rs.
we must keep master david & master charlie happy

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Lol. Why would a 'left wing asshole' waste time watching the DNC? I got a headache after about 5 minutes.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

thinking can do that - sorry we made you think

[-] 0 points by Lucky1 (-125) from Wray, CO 2 years ago

Good point.

[-] -2 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

OWS is now under investigation for being a front group of the Koch Brothers

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Yeah or the Tooth Fairy. I love your sources. Whereever do you get them?

[-] 0 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Wow, some serious people here. What happened to your sense of humor? What happened to all the fun rebels and non-conformists? That's who I liked hangin out with. Oh yeah, your just some old white guy

What have you become? Question some things some times as long as its the ones our consensus reality horde mentality accepts? Don't make fun of the fuhrer? Learn to have some fun sometimes, it will do you some good

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You wait until your time is short, and then you can lecture me. The Koch's aren't a laughing matter. If you didn't recognize the humor in my response, you might explain why? Maybe it's a NY state of mind?

[-] 0 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I don't get your joke.

My joke is a backhanded question over the motivations of OWS. We all joined OWS because it related itself to many progressive causes and gave a unified umbrella to them. Young people, liberals, independents, minorities, women, gay lesbian, anarchists, and rebels all joined together to unify their anger. This is % of the same group that had voted Obama in 2008.Now it seems that all that anger is being focused on Obama.

Hence the joke about it being a front group.

For the last two months OWS has been pushing a new agenda on the Obama demographic crowd it collected over the year. It is telling people not to vote or to vote for a third candidate. In a close 50/50 election, a percentage of the target group normally voting for Obama would not be giving Obama votes tilting the election to Romney's favor.

Hence the joke of OWS being a front group to the Koch Brothers.

Maybe you can explain your weird joke and we can call it a truce

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

OK, the Tooth fairy and Koch's having OWS as front group are equally implausible. My joke was a fashionista parody, "Dahling, whereever did you get it?" "Oh, it's just an old thing I picked up at Harrods." pokes a little fun at your NY, NY location. PAX

[-] -3 points by roboProg (-56) 2 years ago

If I was running for Pres, then ole "slick Willie" would be about my last choice for supporters. It is time for Obummer to close up shop and head back to Kenya

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Man how I wish your ignorant ass wasnt just an internet chat name....

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/its-not-about-race/

A thread just for you.............:)