I'd prefer not to talk about it. But I can tell you I had this friend, Ken, who was so hairy that when he was born, his mother thought he was a pair of earmuffs.
0 Replies
blatham
1
Sun 17 Jan, 2016 11:10 pm
And by the way, I have a new book coming out titled, "Finding Buried Treasures By Using My Decoding Discovery of the Book of Revelations"
0 Replies
bobsal u1553115
2
Mon 18 Jan, 2016 07:01 am
Video Emerges That Shows Hillary Blaming 2007 Housing Crisis On Homeowners
Hillary Clinton officially and unwittingly put yet another nail in the coffin of her presidential campaign years before it even began. It seems the high-and-mighty candidate put her foot in her mouth yet again, and this time there is no going back. An interview has been dug up from Hillary’s 2007 presidential campaign in which she actually blames Bush’s housing crisis on the homeowners who lost everything.
The very Republican statement was made at the NASDAQ headquarters on December 5, 2007 while Hillary was still the Senator of N.Y. The statement was made before the Great Recession had peaked, and before there was any talk of Wall Street reform. Hillary was a big supporter of capitalism then too, it seems, and she didn’t really seem to mind that people were losing their homes due to corrupt policies, until it went mainstream.
The ever-wrong (soon to be second-time loser) Bill wannabe was actually quoted as saying
‘Now these economic problems are certainly not all Wall Street’s fault – not by a long shot.’
WRONG. Those economics were very much the fault of Wall Street, and that is now an indisputable fact. Hillary then went on to ask her audience of financiers to fix the problem or she would have to “consider legislation.” I’m not sure what exactly they were supposed to be fixing, since moments before she took all the blame from Wall Street and placed it on the individual homeowners who had been swindled by huge corporations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
0 Replies
bobsal u1553115
1
Mon 18 Jan, 2016 07:03 am
0 Replies
bobsal u1553115
1
Mon 18 Jan, 2016 07:04 am
0 Replies
blatham
2
Mon 18 Jan, 2016 09:29 am
Things seem to be going along pretty much as normal.
Quote:
LONDON — In nearly a millennium of history, the Palace of Westminster has played host to kings and queens, endured Nazi bombing raids and showed the world how a people could govern themselves through representative democracy.
But it has never seen a day quite like the one expected Monday, when the building’s cold stone walls will echo with a parliamentary debate over whether to ban from Britain the leading Republican contender for president of the United
States.
Dunno what it is about Republican politicians. When the President normally visits London, he goes down the avenue in a motorcade with cheering throngs of Britons lining the streets. When Bush the Son went to London, they had to take him directly from the airport by helicopter to avoid a dangerous situation. What is our close ally from WWII and NATO trying to tell us?
The vast and growing gap between rich and poor has been laid bare in a new Oxfam report showing that the 62 richest billionaires own as much wealth as the poorer half of the world’s population.
Ted Cruz on Sunday swapped his tinge of Texas twang for an attempt at an upper-crust Boston accent as he asserted here in New England that former President John F. Kennedy would be a Republican today.
I'm actually not sure. But quite regardless, Cruz is just lying through his teeth again. He knows what he's saying is false and is quite unbothered by this.
The classic bit on this guy is the promo video he filmed with his mother, coaching her to say she prayed for Ted for hours everyday and mom rolled her eyes at the bullshit.
0 Replies
blatham
3
Mon 18 Jan, 2016 10:16 am
Good post by Paul Waldman on a topic we keep going over here.
Quote:
The essence of the divide is this: Clinton wants to make relatively modest changes to the Affordable Care Act to fix specific problems with the health-care system, while Sanders supports remaking the system by moving to a single-payer plan similar to what every other industrialized country uses. This issue is an almost perfect microcosm of their entire campaigns, and it was clearly displayed in the debate, with Clinton talking about the value of incremental change and the need to be pragmatic and realistic, while Sanders offered a sweeping vision of revolutionary change.
And here's Jon Chait, voicing my personal opinion...
Quote:
Suddenly, liberals who have used the nominating process to unilaterally vet Clinton, processing every development through its likely impact on her as the inevitable candidate, need to think anew. Do we support Sanders not just in his role as lovable Uncle Bernie, complaining about inequality, but as the actual Democratic nominee for president? My answer to that question is no.
My answer is no as well, not just because he might not get all his policies passed, (understatement) but also because I see him as being too one topic so to speak. He seems just as ideological in the other direction as does the right wing extremes. I don't think Presidents should base their foreign and domestic decisions just on ideological grounds but kind of take each issue as a case by case basis and apply plain logic to it.
By the way, when I was reading some history on William F Buckley the other day, I found that when he was in the CIA, his working partner was E Howard Hunt. I didn't know that. I had known that the National Review got start-up money from the CIA.
If you've forgotten what a scumbag Hunt was, read the section in the wikipedia piece below titled, "Watergate and Related Scandals" http://bit.ly/1RPrANn
He seems just as ideological in the other direction as does the right wing extremes.
In the present context of America's left, he is extreme. But that modern context reflects a long drift rightwards in the US that began in the early seventies. At that time, pretty much every university had a Marxist/Leninist group on campus. Socialist broadsheets were handed out regularly at train stations and on the street. Nixon started the EPA. Etc.
Though Sanders advocates a set of policies that are "socialist", he's not really all that far from many other nations in the world right now in Europe and elsewhere, all of which are mixed economies with generous social programs and with laws in place to fetter the zest for corporations who'd prefer to operate unfettered (much more profitable to pollute than have added-on systems to minimize of eliminate pollution).
So, that's how I see his "extremism". But on the other hand, right wing extremists now are advocating notions of governance which have no exemplars in the real world. At least none where citizens are both free and prosperous.
