Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
freshwest
freshwest's Journal
freshwest's Journal
March 5, 2015
President Obama Reacts to Netanyahu's Address to Congress
By Bloomberg Business - 2015-03-03
President Barack Obama talks about today's speech to a joint session of Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In his address, Netanyahu said an emerging U.S. agreement with Iran would backfire and ensure that the Islamic Republic would gain a nuclear arsenal.
Obama sees through the games.
Obama Cuts Through Iran and Netanyahu Like A Laser
President Obama Reacts to Netanyahu's Address to Congress
By Bloomberg Business - 2015-03-03
President Barack Obama talks about today's speech to a joint session of Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In his address, Netanyahu said an emerging U.S. agreement with Iran would backfire and ensure that the Islamic Republic would gain a nuclear arsenal.
Obama sees through the games.
March 5, 2015
Note the secret hand sign. The one the Reich wingers accuse Obama of using as a Muslin.
I'm sure Judge Scalia will support that position:
Note the secret hand sign. The one the Reich wingers accuse Obama of using as a Muslin.
March 4, 2015
~ redwitch
From the thread: I'm leaving DU...
http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=4869083&mesg_id=4869279
Cheap Trick was big at my health club years ago. Try this:
I have an atrocious singing voice. Loved to loop this and sing to it driving down the freeway, though.
Step away from the computer with your hands up!
I am outa here (she said for the brazilianth time today). My biggest accomplishment for today should not be "I can see the floor of my car again".~ redwitch
From the thread: I'm leaving DU...
http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=4869083&mesg_id=4869279
Cheap Trick was big at my health club years ago. Try this:
I have an atrocious singing voice. Loved to loop this and sing to it driving down the freeway, though.
March 4, 2015
It wasn't like the GOP was going to give up any type of procedure to get their way in the dismantling of the US government. They have that plan. The one Sanders and Reid and others revealed. They are 'playing for keeps.'
Well, not all of us. But some did and...
It wasn't like the GOP was going to give up any type of procedure to get their way in the dismantling of the US government. They have that plan. The one Sanders and Reid and others revealed. They are 'playing for keeps.'
March 4, 2015
The term has been compared to the No true Scotsman fallacy, in which a group destroys itself with internal debate over who among them is not actually loyal to the cause except for the simple fact that Republicans have a stated platform which they can reference in order to determine whether one is truly a RINO, where as there is no stated platform on what character qualities define a Scotsman...[1]
What we are forced to deal because of the GOP's numeral superiority of ELECTED, not EXPECTED officials, are these kind of Republicans:
Me-too Republicans
In the 1930s and 40s, Me-too Republicans described those who ran on a platform of agreeing with the Democratic Party, proclaiming only minor or moderating differences.[6][7] An example is two-time presidential candidate Thomas E. Dewey, who ran against the popular Franklin D. Roosevelt and his successor Harry Truman. Dewey did not oppose Roosevelt's New Deal programs altogether, but merely campaigned on the promise that Republicans would run them more efficiently and less corruptly.
From 1936 to 1976, the more centrist members of the Republican Party frequently won the national nomination with candidates such as Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, Thomas E. Dewey, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford. The mainstream of the Republican Party was generally supportive of the New Deal, and the right wing was the more marginalized faction. In the 1950s, conservatives such as Robert A. Taft and Barry Goldwater, who rallied against "me-too Republicans",[9] were considered outside of the mainstream of the then-centrist GOP; serious consideration was given to leaving the GOP and forming a new conservative party in coalition with the "states' rights" Democrats of the South.[10]
Nixonians, and Rockefeller Republicans[edit]
In the 1960s and 70s, conservatives sometimes called moderate Republicans "Nixonian". A more widely adopted term was "Rockefeller Republican". Neither expression was always considered pejorative...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_In_Name_Only
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boll_weevil_%28politics%29
We are being assailed with groups such as Libertarians who claim to be Me-Too Democrats, more liberal, more anti-war, more bad government, whatever, than rank and file Democrats. But they are not for anything on the platform of the Democratic Party, but teh Libertarian Party. They're corporatists and cannot be trusted.
The Admins actually set up a forum for them on Discussionist. They are here to disrupt, using the Segretti method daily with many posts:
They do not go into detail on solutions that would present their allegedly great ones to run as Democrats. In fact, many of their favorites hate Democrats. Because they don't want us to win. Our numerical electoral losses lead to maintainance of the status quo, and is overwhelmingly in favor of their party, not ours, whether it is the straight forward party, or a wing of the GOP. It's been a winning strategy since the Nixon era:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Segretti#Watergate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucker
Many have gone from internet forums, who are by any standard further to the left than the crop proclaiming to be such. Since these interloperas are not being honest with Democrats who they are communicating with, discussion is simply pointless. The labels and slogans are there, but not the underlying philosophy of good governance, and they exploit the desire of those who want goal by being totally negative against all government.
That is not a Democratic position. They are trolls whose intention is to drive all liberals and Democrats offline. Not to improve government, but destroy it and turn it over to theocrats and oligarchs. That's not to say that some good people aren't being taken in, but they are just listening to and reacting to billionaire owned, Libertarian guided media sources.
JHMO.
Do you support a 'No True Scotsman' group? Changing the labels, only:
Republican In Name Only (RINO) is a pejorative term used by conservative members of the Republican Party of the United States to describe Republicans whose political views or actions they consider insufficiently conservative. The acronym RINO, emerged for the term in the 1990s.The term has been compared to the No true Scotsman fallacy, in which a group destroys itself with internal debate over who among them is not actually loyal to the cause except for the simple fact that Republicans have a stated platform which they can reference in order to determine whether one is truly a RINO, where as there is no stated platform on what character qualities define a Scotsman...[1]
What we are forced to deal because of the GOP's numeral superiority of ELECTED, not EXPECTED officials, are these kind of Republicans:
Me-too Republicans
In the 1930s and 40s, Me-too Republicans described those who ran on a platform of agreeing with the Democratic Party, proclaiming only minor or moderating differences.[6][7] An example is two-time presidential candidate Thomas E. Dewey, who ran against the popular Franklin D. Roosevelt and his successor Harry Truman. Dewey did not oppose Roosevelt's New Deal programs altogether, but merely campaigned on the promise that Republicans would run them more efficiently and less corruptly.
Let me warn the nation, against the smooth evasion which says, "of course we believe all these things, we believe in social-security, we believe in work for the unemployed, we believe in saving homes—cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things. But we do not like the way the president's administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us."
~ Franklin D. Roosevelt (D), addressing a Democratic audience in New York, September 1936[8]
From 1936 to 1976, the more centrist members of the Republican Party frequently won the national nomination with candidates such as Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, Thomas E. Dewey, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford. The mainstream of the Republican Party was generally supportive of the New Deal, and the right wing was the more marginalized faction. In the 1950s, conservatives such as Robert A. Taft and Barry Goldwater, who rallied against "me-too Republicans",[9] were considered outside of the mainstream of the then-centrist GOP; serious consideration was given to leaving the GOP and forming a new conservative party in coalition with the "states' rights" Democrats of the South.[10]
Nixonians, and Rockefeller Republicans[edit]
In the 1960s and 70s, conservatives sometimes called moderate Republicans "Nixonian". A more widely adopted term was "Rockefeller Republican". Neither expression was always considered pejorative...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_In_Name_Only
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boll_weevil_%28politics%29
We are being assailed with groups such as Libertarians who claim to be Me-Too Democrats, more liberal, more anti-war, more bad government, whatever, than rank and file Democrats. But they are not for anything on the platform of the Democratic Party, but teh Libertarian Party. They're corporatists and cannot be trusted.
The Admins actually set up a forum for them on Discussionist. They are here to disrupt, using the Segretti method daily with many posts:
They do not go into detail on solutions that would present their allegedly great ones to run as Democrats. In fact, many of their favorites hate Democrats. Because they don't want us to win. Our numerical electoral losses lead to maintainance of the status quo, and is overwhelmingly in favor of their party, not ours, whether it is the straight forward party, or a wing of the GOP. It's been a winning strategy since the Nixon era:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Segretti#Watergate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucker
Many have gone from internet forums, who are by any standard further to the left than the crop proclaiming to be such. Since these interloperas are not being honest with Democrats who they are communicating with, discussion is simply pointless. The labels and slogans are there, but not the underlying philosophy of good governance, and they exploit the desire of those who want goal by being totally negative against all government.
That is not a Democratic position. They are trolls whose intention is to drive all liberals and Democrats offline. Not to improve government, but destroy it and turn it over to theocrats and oligarchs. That's not to say that some good people aren't being taken in, but they are just listening to and reacting to billionaire owned, Libertarian guided media sources.
JHMO.
March 3, 2015
And I have video of O'Donnell proudly saying to Greenwald he's not a progressive, either.
O'Donnell said then he's a Socialist, because 'progressives' are evil, doncha know. But now he's going with conservative billionaire owned MSNBC for the bucks!
This is just tossing anything that the GOP Koch Libertarian M$M thinks will stick - the outrage du jour - just using Segretti's method. It's been working for 40 years, why stop now?
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 10, 2010, 11:36 PMNumber of posts: 53,661
