• First, you don’t know anything about my politics or whom I support..

    No, I don’t, and I didn’t think I implied that I did. If you got that from my comment, then once again I failed to put into words properly what I was trying to say.

    I replied to you just on the “Warren did more than talk” when I said “No she didn’t” but the rest of the comment wasn’t directed at you personally, so I apologize if that’s the way it read to you.

    But to your reply, I never said Warren could grind anything to a halt. She’s one Senator. But, she CAN use whatever power she has as Senator to do whatever she can to accomplish whatever she claims to want to accomplish.

    In this case, she made dire warnings about this bill, which included repealing the prohibition on banks using insured depositor money to gamble on. Dire warnings that I happen to agree with, but that’s not my point.

    If she really believed what she was saying, she had an obligation to do whatever was in her power to stop it. If you truly believed a bill would lead to a future financial meltdown like we had in 2008 are you saying you wouldn’t use everything in your power to stop it???

    I’m not saying she should be judged on whether or not she successfully stopped, but I am saying she should be judged on whether or not she TRIED to stop it. And she didn’t even use all of the available tools she had to TRY.

    So either she doesn’t believe what she was saying OR worse, she believed it but was too much of a coward to act on it. Either way makes her unfit for support. If you want to support her, or any other candidate based on what they say rather than what they do, be my guest. That makes you a member of the majority of people.

    But while I wasn’t directing it at you specifically in my previous comment, and am not here, I am going to repeat, it sure would be nice if “progressives” would start basing their support for candidates on what they DO and not what they SAY. And that doesn’t mean they have to be successful at what they do (although it is fair to compare how effective a candidate is regarding such things) but it does mean they have to actually try and follow up their rhetoric with consistent actions.

    Obama said giving immunity to the telecoms for the past warrantless wiretapping was wrong, and he said he was wiling to filibuster any bill that included that. Had he done that, even if he failed, he at least lived up to his rhetoric. But he didn’t even try, he not only didn’t filibuster the bill, he actually voted for the bill.

    Warren has been SAYING how wrong it is to give the banksters their wet dream of being able to gamble with insured depositor money so if they lose it, the government is on the hook instead of the banksters. And she’s right. Now all she had to DO to back that rhetoric was to filibuster it. It wouldn’t matter if her filibuster ultimately failed, she’s only one Senator and can’t make a filibuster successful herself. But by not trying she did the exact same thing Obama has done so many times. Talk a good talk, but not walk the walk.

  • No, she did NOT do more than talk, the bill passed tonight by a vote of 56-40, meaning she DID not filibuster it. Meaning it was all talk.

    Because if she truly believed what she said, then a temporary government shutdown is far, far preferable to another financial meltdown with the taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars, not to mention the recession that comes with it. So if she truly believed what she was saying, it should have been a no brainer to filibuster it.

    In fact, it would actually be worse if she really believed what she was saying and DIDN’T filibuster it, because intentionally allowing a bill to pass without such a fight that would result in such harm to everyone would make her a real monster.

    Instead of being a real monster, she’s just a lying, right winger who has learned how to talk like populist. If talking does it for you and others above, then by all means support her.

    For those who choose to judge people on what they DO and not what they SAY, she isn’t fit for support as dog catcher.

    Sure will be nice when “progressives” start supporting candidates based on what they DO, but I don’t see that day happening any time soon. As comment in this thread prove.

  • Yeah, I saw it, thanks.

    I do wish I could verbalize my thoughts better though. I think that’s why I so enjoy and like those writers here that do that effectively, and especially those that do it with some style. Like you.

  • If by “we” in “We’re not very good at bombing countries into peace and prosperity, then I would respond by saying duh, we’re not very good at much of anything except the most reprehensible crap one could ever think of.

    Killing, torturing, detaining, assaulting, raping, stealing, lying, and I could probably come up with a few more, now THOSE, hey, USA USA USA is number ONE BABY!!!!! Oh yeah!!!

    Exceptional aren’t we?

  • Soooooooooooo, let me get this straight.

    Forcing a feeding tube up a person’s ass to feed and/or hydrate them is heinous while forcing that same tube down his throat is okey dokey??? Is that the lesson from all of this since you know, under Bush they shoved the tube up their ass while under Obama they shove it straight down their throat.

    Lesser evilism is wonderful thing ain’t it.

    Where’s TBOGG to defend this??? Come one TBOOG, surely if Obama shoves a tube down someone’s throat against their will that’s almost the same as someone shoving a tube up their ass against their will or would you so eloquently argue that somehow shoving a tube down their throat against their will (after physically abusing them in the process of dragging them to the torture feeding chair is somehow okay while shoving it up their ass isn’t????

    Come on TBOGG and all you TBOGG dittoheads, here’s your chance to shine!!!!! Explain to all of us morons how fucking gentler and kinder shoving a tube down someone’s throat is so, sooooooo much better than shoving it up their ass. And then after you’re done, would please sit in the feeding chair and allow me the opportunity to demonstrate both so you can get a first hand experience as to how much better it is to be sexually assaulted orally than it is anally.

    Sick mother fucking country. This country deserves to burn down. Along with the sick, evil fucks that do AND defend this shit.

  • Another quote from that link in my post above:

    Senator Warren may be the Democratic presidential candidate in 2016; she may be the next president. Her supporters will refuse to recognize that, like President Obama before her, she doesn’t rise above the mundane political considerations to champion the cause of the people. She is a well-spoken politician who knows what she has to do to further her career. That includes dancing to the tunes her financers play, creating compelling vignettes for Youtube, and above all, doing nothing to annoy or displease the nation’s major power brokers. These are political realities, and anyone who looks for any candidate in the current culture to be something different, is naïve indeed.

    I just think we should judge them on what they DO, not what they SAY. What Senator Obama SAID was that he would filibuster any FISA bill that included immunity for the telecoms and what Senator Obama DID was to not only NOT filibuster the bill, but he actually voted FOR the bill.

    Warren is very, very good at SAYING the right things. If she doesn’t filibuster this bill though, she’s exactly like Obama by not DOING the right things.

    YMMV

  • There has been, of late, a lot of unwarranted excitement about the possible presidential candidacy of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

    She has become the darling of the liberal elite, mainly due to her very direct questioning of bank regulators.

    Such questioning is all well and good, but in the real world it’s results that matter. However, politics in the United States can hardly be considered ‘real world’. Catchy phrases (remember President George W. Bush and the ‘Axis of Evil’?) or soaring oratory, as demonstrated repeatedly by President Barack Obama, is enough to generate a fan base sufficient to be elected or reelected.

    If one based their opinions (which many obviously still do) on what people SAY rather than what they DO, then Obama is one of the greatest Presidents ever. Me, I look at what he’s DONE, and see his war on whistleblowers, his war on civil liberties with his weekly “kill meetings” and assassinations and signing the 2011 NDAA that ended habeas corpus in America and I could go on and on and on.

    The things Warren SAID in that video are great, and need saying. Now what is she going to DO? Because if she believes what she SAID, then what she should DO is filibuster the omnibus bill. Because a temporary government shutdown is much, much preferable to a repeat of the 2008 financial meltdown along with the government bailouts and ensuing Great Depression Recession.

    Now, will she DO something or is she just SAYING something??? Unfortunately, even if she’s just SAYING something, as that wonderful quote above says, that’s all one needs today to win elections and re-elections.

    I see a lot of our problems today, and see we have a lot of responsibility for them. Because if we’re stupid enough to support and vote for someone based on what they SAY rather than what they DO, then I think we deserve whatever we get when those we vote for DO the things they DO.

  • I apologize for not being clear. I do not think Jon was practicing the art of satire. I think he was entirely serious.

    But I read it as being serious in a good and positive way. He’s taking Obama at his word and pointing out to him that here is an opportunity to make good on your word. I was merely pointing out that I don’t think Jon has any more belief that Obama will live up to his word than you or I.

    It’s kind of like Bush always saying “We don’t torture” and we follow the law. If a whistle blower, like say John K, let it be known that we, did, in fact, torture, someone at the time could’ve framed that argument then and said “Okay W, you say we follow the law and don’t torture, here’s your opportunity to prove it by prosecuting the torturers instead of prosecuting the whistle blower.”

    But to my recollection, it was never verbally framed that way. In the “debate” in the media, it was just John being a whistleblower and being investigated.

    It would be nice if the media ran with the meme Jon is pushing above and collectively said “Ok Obama, you’re on record as favoring local democracy, especially for underrepresented minorities. Here’s your chance to prove it.”

    By framing it that way, it puts more of an emphasis on Obama’s own hypocrisy rather than this just being another “compromise” ironed out by the “two” parties.

    If I’m still not being clear, don’t worry, it’s my fault not yours. I have this problem often of not being able to verbalize (or type) what I’m trying to say. Sorry.

  • By “But you both fundamentally misunderstand the issues presented in this case and misrepresent Miranda.” I take it you mean Mason and Kozinsky?

    I would be interested to know where you believe Judge Kozinsky misunderstood the issues and misrepresented Miranda. Could you point it out in the ruling??? (The ruling can be found at the link in the first paragraph.)

  • Yeah, and the “defining moment” for me regarding the one and only TBOGG was when he even defended that shit.

    That tells one all one needs to know about the “principles” of “Democrats” because those “principles” are the exact same as the Republican “principles.”

    My guy can do anything and it’s okay, and anything teh other does is wrong, even if they do the exact same thing my guy did.

    There’s your “principles.” The ultimate ends justify the means. If there are terrorists in the world, then Obama should just press a button with no trial, jury, or judge and kill them. And if George W had done it, OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING FREEDOM IS GONE FASCISM IS HERE!.

  • I didn’t read the post as being about Obama’s “principles” which we all, even Jon I think, knows are non-existent.

    What I got out of the post was that the “Just Say Now” movement should frame the argument in these terms. By framing the argument in the terms of “Okay Obama, you claim to believe in democracy. etc. etc. etc. then here’s your chance to prove it” then when he does his usual and shows he has no principles, it will inform some more people out there about Obama specifically and the Democratic Party generally and how they aren’t what they claim to be. And the more people that get informed of that, the better.

    Because believe it or not, outside FDL there is a vast segment of the population that still “believes in” Obama and/or the Democratic Party. If this meme would get told throughout the country on every news station every day as “so is Obama going to stand up for his principles” then at worst it will inform many folks who need to be informed about his lack of them, and at best might actually put some pressure on him to do the right thing.

    But as it is, this meme will never see the light of day beyond FDL. And maybe, MAYBE one or two other websites.

  • Torture is unlawful and never justified, ever.

    Exactly. Thank you.

    It doesn’t matter if it “works.” It doesn’t matter if you or someone in Hollywood can dream up some fantasy “ticking bomb” scenario and it doesn’t matter if it works in that scenario.

    Torture is illegal. Period. End of story. No ifs. No ands. No buts. No mother fucking right wing “the ends justify the means” bullshit. Because the “ends justify the means” bullshit is exactly how you go from a society guided by the rule of law to being a society guided by the rule of people who get to determine when which means justify which means.

    I am so tired of hearing the “but it worked” shit on television and NOT A SINGLE GOD DAMN “JOURNALIST” would respond by saying “It’s still illegal even if it works.” Not ONE.

    Thank you Mason.

  • Oh, all kidding aside, this is a fine post Jon. I wish someone in the lamestream media would run with this meme too.

    But no, I would place the odds of the lamestream media framing the question like this at less than the odds of Obama passing the “test.”

  • LOL!!!

    Okay, assuming this is a “real test” is there anyone out there in the intertoobz that would like to place a wager on the outcome of this “test”?????

    Anyone???? Anywhere???

  • OldFatGuy commented on the blog post There is No Preparing for Health Care Calvinball

    2014-12-11 14:33:43View | Delete

    It would also be nice if Congressional and Executive pay could only be raised by the same percentage as the minimum wage was raised. Together these would result in some welcome changes.

    Of course then all of their spouses would probably suddenly be hired by rich corporations and paid so well the pols wouldn’t need to worry what their government pay was. And such a hiring would of course include family health insurance, with a gold/platinum plated Cadillac plan.

  • OldFatGuy commented on the blog post There is No Preparing for Health Care Calvinball

    2014-12-11 13:49:46View | Delete

    BTW, if there is anyone that wants to argue that the mandate isn’t a mandate because it’s not a penalty, it’s a tax credit, then please consider this.

    Taxpayer has the same income and withholdings every year claims the standard deduction. And every year he files his taxes he gets a refund of about $600.

    EXAMPLE A:

    Taxpayer provides proof at tax time that he has a bona fide health insurance plan and gets a tax credit of $600 making his refund $1,200 OR he doesn’t have insurance, and doesn’t get the credit, meaning his refund remains $600.

    This is a tax credit.

    EXAMPLE B:

    Taxpayer provides proof at tax time that he has a bona fide health insurance plan and keeps his refund at $600 OR he doesn’t have insurance and therefore loses his $600 refund and gets no refund.

    That’s a fucking penalty I don’t care how you spin the language trying to call it a tax. And that’s the way Obamacare works.

    Therefore, it’s not a “tax” it’s a fucking mandate with a fucking penalty.

  • OldFatGuy commented on the blog post There is No Preparing for Health Care Calvinball

    2014-12-11 13:37:33View | Delete

    Yep.

  • OldFatGuy commented on the blog post There is No Preparing for Health Care Calvinball

    2014-12-11 13:33:47View | Delete

    WTF???

    “The case is crap” despite the bill saying the subsidies apply to those purchasing plans on the, AND I QUOTE, “state exchanges.”

    Now there is no doubt the case is about politics, no doubt whatsoever. But to say it sucks, because of, you know, your particular politics, seems to be jumping the shark, or something.

    Has some hijacked the good Jon Walker name lately??? What is it with all of this defending of the same bill you so wonderfully tore to shreds at the time of it’s passing??? And, if I recall, even advocated against passing??? WTF???

    The bill sucks, it gets us NO CLOSER to real reform; it has NO COST CONTROL mechanisms; and it SHIFTS MORE COSTS to the patient. AND, it’s literally impossible to have single payer health care and Obamacare because they are mutually exclusive so the only possible way to get to single payer is to repeal Obamacare or have it ruled out of existence by the courts.

    And, even if it is a bad case, (which I may agree with technically), maybe this is literally a case of two wrongs making a right. Because the SCOTUS most definitely got the mandate case WRONG as there is simply no way possible having the government mandate commerce rather than regulate it meets any fair reading of the constitution.

  • OldFatGuy commented on the blog post Congress Plans to Overturn Democracy in D.C.

    2014-12-10 11:33:34View | Delete

    Update: 12/10/2014 About 10:00 AM

    As the political world was busy flipping through the pages of the graphic and headline-grabbing Senate Intelligence Committee report on Bush Era torture practices, Congress snuck in two measures to its must-pass spending bill — all without formal debate. The first was a rider that essentially overturns the District of Columbia’s ballot initiative legalizing marijuana, which passed by a more than 2-to-1 margin last month. (Remember, D.C. doesn’t even have elected House or Senate members.) The second measure Congress snuck into the spending the bill will be more galling to some, because it amounts to a pay raise for the two unpopular political parties: It raises the $32,400 maximum that donors could give the Democratic National Committee or Republican National Committee to a whopping $324,000 per year, gutting what’s left of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law.

  • OldFatGuy commented on the blog post Congress Plans to Overturn Democracy in D.C.

    2014-12-09 19:17:26View | Delete

    Republicans want to have government regulation of what you can and can’t put into your own body and Republicans are the party that believes any government regulation is too much.

    You’ve got to give them a certain amount of credit for preventing their own heads from exploding from the cognitive dissonance.

    Well no, actually you don’t have to give them credit for anything. They’re evil to the core, and lying and hypocrisy are actually some of their better traits.

    They aren’t fit to live in any civilized society with their complete lack of empathy for their fellow human beings and affirmative actions to harm and kill those fellow humans.

    That the “Democrats” are slightly better than that is of no consequence to me, since they too affirmative act to help the few at the expense of the many. We shouldn’t choose the lesser of two evils, we should demand our pol not be evil at all and make that demand by withholding our votes from both evil parties.

  • Load More