Anyone who thinks Democratic and Republican presidents are all the same

[Mr.Bill]

needs to consider how a few Supreme Court decisions would have gone today if Obama hadn't appointed the few most recent Justices.

[markiv]

1. your right-time for me to forget about all my economic interests

being crushed by the unified bi-partisan free trade agenda

time for me to care about your issues, while you dont give a hoot about mine

ever consider that the parties pass the football back and forth between each other, so that they can string everyone along on the social issues in supreme courts that are always 5-4?

the LAST thing the republicans ever wanted was to outlaw abortion!!!!!!

THEY'D LOSE THEIR MOST IMPORTANT CARD ON PEOPLE THEY DO NOTHING FOR

[Mr.Bill]

4. Sorry to hear your economic interests are not doing well.

Mine, mainly the stock market and 401K have done far better in recent decades when a Democratic president was in office.

[Armstead]

25. Glad you have investments...They've been enriched by exploitinbg workers and consunmers

Sorry but the bi-partisan corporate mentality that doesn't give a shit about anything but the bottom lline regardless of the social and environmental consequences is why the country is so fucked up for so many average people.

Investments are one of the crumbs they use to keep us hooked on their amoral behavior.

[DCBob]

5. I think most people would say their personal economic situation has improved significantly..

since the depths of the recession.

[markiv]

6. you're not looking at the big picture, like what CAUSED the great recession

clintons glass steigal removal, H-1b visas, MFN-China

the economy hasnt improved enough to run without MASSIVE monetary stilmulus and deficits, that has robbed conserrvative savers through inflation that far exceeds interest

and they're trying to pass a massive increase in 'guest workers' nd H-1b RIGHT NOW

BOTH parties have been hammering the middle and working classes with globalism for the last 20 years

[DCBob]

7. Bottom line: The great recession happened under Bush's watch.

The Bush admin was asleep at the wheel, ignoring the warning signs because all their buddies were making tons of money.

[markiv]

10. you're hopeless

you didnt rebut a specific thing i said, and answered with lame partisan bs

[DCBob]

11. I was going to say the same about you.

ciao.

[Armstead]

26. It was a bi-partisan recdession. I ony recall a few Democrats...

and Bernie Sanders trying to stave off the bad policies and terrible values that led to the crash.

The policies of Clinton helped to bring it about just as much -0- if not more -- than GW Bush.

Unfortunately, too many democrats continue to be enablers of the Corporate Pillage.

[markiv]

30. Bush Sr was the architect of globalism

(or more acurately corporate America drew up the plans on his watch)

but Clinton was the actual implementer of those plans

WTO, NAFTA, MFN-China, massive H-1b visa expansion - all on Clinton's watch

[DCBob]

31. There are alot folks to blame but the sitting POTUS should always get the bulk of it.

He gets the credit when things are good and gets the blame when things are not.

BTW, Here is a pretty good list from Times mag of those who share the blame..

The Times Blameworthy List

•Angelo Mozilo
•Phil Gramm
•Alan Greenspan
•Chris Cox
•American Consumers
•Hank Paulson
•Joe Cassano
•Ian McCarthy
•Frank Raines
•Kathleen Corbet
•Dick Fuld
•Marion and Herb Sandler
•Bill Clinton
•George W. Bush
•Stan O'Neal
•Wen Jiabao
•David Lereah
•John Devaney
•Bernie Madoff
•Lew Ranieri
•Burton Jablin
•Fred Goodwin
•Sandy Weill
•David Oddsson
•Jimmy Cayne

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1877351,00.html #ixzz2XRR5dNDZ

[Armstead]

33. I don't disagree

I'm not saying Bush did anything even remotely good.

But the regulatory policies of Clinton and the "centrist" Democrats -- and their pushing the "free trade" con job, set up the conditions that came crashing down in 2008.

[OilemFirchen]

16. That ^^^

is cribbed virtually verbatim from a Beckalecture.

[markiv]

18. it wasn't 'cribbed' from anyone

and i dont even know who you're talking about

it's TRUE, and could be written by anyone who knows what happened

[Armstead]

34. Hardly....Are you really that narrow minded?

Anyone who deviates even slightly from the party line is parroting Glen Beck?

Shirley you jest.

[blue neen]

20. Human rights are "your issue".

Too bad you don't give a hoot about realizing that.

[markiv]

21. nicely callously and condecendingly put

but only the human rights YOU care about, and to hell with the rest. The party is taking bribes ('campaign contributions' just like the republicans) from rich tech giants to bring back indentured servitude to make the ultru rich untra richer is the party's dirty little secret, and the message to people like me who've been sold out from people like you it SHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! GET OVER IT OR YOU WILL NOT HAVE MY APPROVAL

h-1b visas are being doubled THIS WEEK in the immigration bill

articles about tech people being replaced because they were the wrong race

"Did Pfizer Force Its Staff to Train Their H-1B Replacements?/

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/Did-Pfizer-Force-its-Staff-to-Train-Their-H1B-Replacements/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Kevin_Flanagan

Background[edit]Flanagan shot himself to death in the parking lot of Bank of America's Concord Technology Center after he and colleagues were laid off in April 2003.The lay-offs were due to the company's plan to replace many IT employees with foreign Indian H1B workers at lower pay. The company had informed the laid-off employees they would be required to train their replacements for the remainder of their tenure.[1]


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers

How H-1B Visas Are Screwing Tech Workers
A program meant to boost innovation instead fuels outsourcing.
—By Josh Harkinson
| Fri Feb. 22, 2013 4:01 AM PST448. Peter Bernik/ShutterstockA few years ago, the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer informed hundreds of tech workers at its Connecticut R&D facilities that they'd soon be laid off. Before getting their final paychecks, however, they'd need to train their replacements: guest workers from India who'd come to the United States on H-1B visas. "It's a very, very stressful work environment," one soon-to-be-axed worker told Connecticut's The Day newspaper. "I haven't been able to sleep in weeks."


article about H-1b only job ads (how is this different from posting 'white only' or 'straight only'?!?!?)
http://www.eweek.com/careers/company-posting-h1b-only-job-ads-fined-45k.html

(oh, and not being monitored by the NSA (4th amendment) is another 'human right'?_

[blue neen]

22. "Callous" would be the way you are talking to everyone in this thread.

"Condescending" would be your assumption that you know what I care about.

You missed the point. Human rights are everyone's issue.

Oh, and if you want people to read your talking points, you might back off on the snark.

[markiv]

35. well, the Senate voted to double H-1b visas since you wrote that

but that doesnt matter does it, because you tell me the supreme court is more important than my concerns

[blue neen]

36. Please show me where I said that.

Also, please show where you are discussing anything but your own issue.

Your attitude is not winning anyone over to your side, but maybe you don't really care.

[geek tragedy]

23. So you blame brown-skinned foreigners for ruining Murika. nt

[markiv]

24. more of the 'anyone who questions the party is a racist' narrative

be it NSA spying or wage suppression

'dont like it? maybe you're a racist'

nice, handy and cheap

[still_one]

2. I saw a post a few days ago saying Obama is to the right of Nixon, and ray gun was more socially

Left than Obama

Just inane statements like that

I suspect it is because they only consider one or two issues they disagree with him on, instead of taking the whole thing in context

[demwing]

3. Hey, a favor?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

8. ...or if he hadn't instructed his AG *NOT* to defend DOMA!!!!

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Want a good time? Can you stand seeing truth? Look up what DUers were saying when we

in the LGBT community were urging him to stop defending DOMA. Because they did not stop until 2011, and there was much pressure exerted toward that goal. Many, many DUers were very strident and aggressive about their agreement with the need to defend DOMA, lashed out at the activists trying to get them to stop defending it in many ways. Same people today are cheering that Obama stopped defending DOMA as if they had ALWAYS been against defending DOMA.
In short they defended DOMA in really harsh terms for 2 years, during which LGBT and strong allies exerted pressure upon them to stop, which many other DUers objected to. Some who were angry that we asked them to stop defending DOMA are now thrilled that they stopped defending DOMA.
No one likes all that racket in the kitchen, but everybody likes that pie.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. Good for you. You and the LGBT acted the way you

should. The president responded in kind. Are you ever going to give him some credit for that? Not to mention his appointment of two SCOTUS justices that went the right way.

Geez!!!!

[ConcernedCanuk]

9. since Kennedy, they are.

.
.
.

just puppets/figureheads imo.

CC

[Jeneral2885]

12. Mostly the same in foreign policy

Neoliberal drive no matter how big the economic crisis.

[Mr.Bill]

13. With all due respect for other people's opinions,

The thread is about who Obama has appointed to the Supreme Court and how it affected today's court decisions. It is not about trade agreements, the economy, foreign policy, etc.

How Obama being elected has affected these other things are valid discussions, but perhaps for another thread.

[DCBob]

17. Indeed. Obama's appointments to SCOTUS are having a major impact.

Never mind those who are attempting to deflect and minimize the importance.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. But that would weaken the narrative …

By drawing attention to the importance of Democrats, and our “oh so concerned for liberal causes” friends, voting for every Democrat … not 3rd party, not libertarian, not Green; but Democrats, on the ballot in 2014. DOMA, the ACA and a host of other initiatives would not have come about (and many others being stopped); but for, President Obama being President and Reid heading the Senate.

Imagine the path we’d be on if we had a Democrat as Speaker of the House, a super-majority in the Senate and President Obama in the Whitehouse. That would mean Democrats would be able to bring to a vote, and pass, just about any bill they wrote for and would be able to confirm every judicial vacancy, including any to the SCOTUS that might occur. IOWs, we’d have the FDR moment that so many DUers claim they want … while they promise never to vote Democratic again because Democrats aren’t passing FDR-like legislation.

[Armstead]

28. yeah right.....Unfortunately you'd have to subtract all those corporate centrist Democrats too

Why, for example, is Obama still pushing for noxious corporate-backed "free trade" scams.,

That is not a minor difference. Those agreements are the same crap we were conned into in the 90s and 00s BY Democrats which have hollowed out our economy and shifted civic power to corporate interests.

[markiv]

29. +1000 nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. Here's a thought ...

you run for office; or failing that, find the candidate that reflects what you want and elect him/her ... But I suspect you couldn't do the latter from this site.

[markiv]

27. 'It is not about trade agreements, the economy, foreign policy, etc'

translation

'i conceed that they are the same on trade agreements, the economy, foreign policy, etc', but my concern is supreme court, and you are obligated to vote for that difference, because that's what i care about, even if the things you care about they are the same. You are obligated to give them a pass on trade agreements, the economy, foreign policy, etc'

you needed a different title than 'Anyone who thinks Democratic and Republican presidents are all the same' for this thread, if you're going to eliminate 4/5th of the issues from discussion

to accept betrayal on so many issues (where they are the same as republicans) in 'exchange' for social issues, is basically enabling a virtual dictatorship on economic issues - and that's exactly the way the powers that be want it

[BlueDemKev]

32. Liberals would have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court today had Gore been president

The ONLY way we will ever gain a liberal majority on the Supreme Court is to make sure both the White House and the Senate stay in Democratic control. The elections of 2016 and 2020 will have an enormous impact on the Supreme Court as Kennedy, Scalia, and Breyer will most likely be retiring between 2017 and 2024.

I hope that Ginsburg, who is 80, retires now while Obama is still president to make sure that she is replaced by a young liberal justice. Breyer retiring before 2016 would be a good idea also.

Worst Case Scenario--If Ginsburg waits until after Obama leaves office and Republicans win in 2016 and 2020, Ginsburg and Breyer are replaced by righties...giving the conservatives a 7-2 majority on the Supreme Court.