Elizabeth Warren is on the faculty of the SAME UNIVERSITY

[MannyGoldstein]

as Larry Summers. And in the SAME SCHOOL as Alan Dershowitz, who defends a CONVICTED SEX-CRIMINAL who pals around with Bill Clinton.

Also, many bankers live in the SAME CITY AS WARREN! RIGHT IN THE SAME CITY! And there are BANKS IN THAT CITY! I've SEEN 'EM MYSELF!

¡¡¡ELIZABETH WARREN and BANKS!!!

Proof positive that Warren is NO DIFFERENT than Hillary when it comes to working for working families.

So c'mon folks... LET'S ALL PULL TOGETHER FOR HILLARY!!!



Regards,

This-will-be-an-entertaining-election-cycle Manny

[L0oniX]

1. Hillary will win. She sucks up to the oligarchy better than candidate B.

[calimary]

36. Hey, I'd MUCH rather have her picking the next Supreme Court nominees.

MUCH rather have that - than ANY of those even remotely associated with the GOP lineup - past, present, OR future.

[aspirant]

40. She can pick

but a repub senate must confirm. I'm sure if they retain the Senate they will play nice.

[NBachers]

53. Hillary has stood up strong against more right-wing abuse in her life than you would in 10 lifetimes

[L0oniX]

59. You are right. I don't have millions. I'm not in the oligarchy club.

[merrily]

74. Cool. One I haven't read 2042 times before yet. Thanks!

[djean111]

2. Well, twbaeec-Manny, even though all of that is truly true - I have learned to Not Let the

Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good!!!!!!!
So Warren is still Good!
Also - bwah!

[merrily]

75. "I love Big Brother." Winston Smith, 1984 (merrily 2015)

[elleng]

3. PERFECTO!

Thanks, Manny.

[Fumesucker]

4. The sheer tenacious single mindedness of some people is awe inspiring

I'm way too scattered to ever stick to any particular agenda for more than a few hours or days at best.

ADD is me.

[RiverLover]

5. Must be the fumes.

(couldn't resist!)

[Fumesucker]

8. It's one of those "chicken or the egg" things

[catnhatnh]

6. I like how if you post anything positive about Warren

or that you would like her to run, certain posters shit all over it and then run to a "protected group" to trumpet their choice while reminding you you may NOT post anything they perceive as denigrating their candidate. Truly cowardly.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Why so glum, chum?

Sure it's pathetic, but the comedy is epic.

[catnhatnh]

17. Well, Meta is dead,

and I so seldom get out...

[merrily]

83. FFS, SHE'S NOT RUNNING. Have a little respect for wishes, for crissakes.

[catnhatnh]

105. FFS-that's why they call it a "draft" movement...

...And a bunch of people of a certain age on this board will remember when being the subject of one could change a mild mannered college drop out into a fierce jungle fighter (or a corpse) at the behest of their country.

It doesn't therefore strike me as too onerous to ask a women I very much like so far to serve 4 years with servants and private jets...

[merrily]

107. Well you got me there!

I hope you knew my previous post to you was parodying posts I've seen on this board. I was not cursing you out!

[catnhatnh]

108. FFS...

Didn't you see my invisible wink?

[merrily]

109. I see it now!

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. Guilt by association doesn't give me cheap thrills in the back seat of my car.

It doesn't matter whether they are associated with Hillary or Elizabeth.

[F4lconF16]

22. I disagree.

Who a person is close associates (note: close) makes a huge difference. Would you say that if Hillary (or Warren, for that matter) was best friends with one of the Koch bros? How about Bush, or Cheney? Associations matter because those who you're close to do affect your decisions, much as we may pretend otherwise.

Edit: no disrespect intended with the "Hilary" misspelling, I have a new phone and the keyboard is weird.

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. Guilt by association is a well know method of character assassination.

It was attempted with Obama with Jeremiah Wright and others. Republicans attempted to use Guilt by Association with Clinton's association Saul Alinsky and then there was the successful assassination of Kerry's character with Winter Soldier.

Guilt by association is also a well used logical fallacy.

So, as I said, it doesn't give me cheap thrills in the back seat of my car.

How did she vote? There are many I agree with and some I don't. What are her policies she runs on. (I can't speak to that yet.)

[aspirant]

33. Doesn't Guilt by association

give birth to Innocence by association.

Where or who maintains political innocence? Maybe the G.I. bill

[Agnosticsherbet]

58. A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy

[merrily]

78. Sorry, but with whom you choose to associate is relevant. It is not proof, but it is something to

consider. If all my friends are convicted bank robbers, feel free to make some assumptions and maybe hide the silver when I visit. However, if only 2 or 3 are, just proceed with caution.

Logical fallacy or no, humans have had such thoughts probably since before they started drawing on cave walls and because they learned from experience.

[Agnosticsherbet]

111. If it is not proof, then it is opinion, and opinon isn't fact.

Humans do a lo of things that are not right.

Guilt by association, by any other name is still wrong.

Talk about policy rather than insinuate guilt because you don't like a group of people she knows.

[F4lconF16]

52. It can be, but it shouldn't be dismissed, imo.

HRC has very, very, very close ties with the banks and with the corporate sphere. They should not be discounted entirely, particularly in context of her past policy advocacy.

[merrily]

76. You know what she ran on in 2008 and you know she will try to seem more populist this time--but,

as the WSJ article said, without seeming to attack the wealthy.

IMO, far more significant than whatever campaign rhetoric her many campaign advisors come up with to run on is her life to date.

[Agnosticsherbet]

112. The WSJ is now a propaganda mouthpiece for FOX News. Try a source that isn't a Right Wing BS.

[L0oniX]

60. ...but weasels will rip your flesh.

[MannyGoldstein]

70. Haven't listened to that one in a while

Coincidentally, I fired up Apostrophe in the car this morning, inspired by it being a hundred degrees below zero and the frozen wind beginning to blow and all here in Boston.

Will try to remember WRMF for tomorrow.

Pancakes. Must have pancakes for breakfast tomorrow. Mmm...

[L0oniX]

72. Only an old hippy would know about that album.

[dissentient]

9. Seriously, the Hillary hard core supporters need to unclench. I'm a Hillary fan, but it is getting

ridiculous. Some of the zealous Hillary supporters are acting like idiots, as if people can't post any information remotely critical of Hillary's record, or positive threads about Warren. It is almost to the point where they are threatening duers with being banned if they do so, and its complete bullshit.

I read the DU rules, and nowhere does it say that you can't promote alternative candidates to Hillary, and it also doesn't say you can't post threads critical of Hillary.

I like Hillary, but there is nothing set in stone saying she deserves to be handed the Democratic nomination. This is a free country, and anyone who is a Democrat can run for president. Sheesh.

Amen.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Better Believe It!!!

Doesn't your sock have a drawer it belongs in?

Is that you, Hannah?



etc.

[dissentient]

15. LOL. Yep, I probably made some enemies list with my rant. Oh well.

I happen to think it is a good thing for a primary to be contested, and I don't think it would be productive for a candidate, even Hillary, to be handed the nomination without opposition.

It's important for the process to allow for vigorous debate, and discuss things such as where the party should be headed. If that makes some hard core supporters unhappy, well, boo hoo. Tough cookies.

That is how it is done in a free country. This isn't North Korea.

[merrily]

79. Maybe, but you probably made some friends among Hillary's critics, too.

And, as long as you support Hillary for POTUS, they won't come after you too badly. They'll probably even forgive you for making perfect sense.

[sabrina 1]

38. Lol, don't forget, 'so do you still support Awlaki'?

And I have to ask, because there's a rumor going around, you know, 'did you give YOURSELF all those hearts?'

[MannyGoldstein]

39. I read that you have all those hearts because

you're a paid disruptor or some such thing.

Is that true Hannah?

[sabrina 1]

43. Stop, you're making me laugh out load and people are trying to watch TV here ...

You better believe it!!

[MannyGoldstein]

46. The people at Rand Paul HQ?

[sabrina 1]

48. Did you have to say that in public??

And I'm a Putin lover too! Lol!

Hey, did you know that Glenn Greenwald is being attacked by Little Green Footballs, you know, the old Right Wing racist site that helped bring down Dan Rather?

I saw it on DU tonight!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026213946

Yet another 'guilt by association' coming from one of the foremost Right Wing bloggers (yes, I know, he 'broke' with the rabid right a few years ago, but leopards don't change their spots. He may have coined the phrase 'moonbats' but if he didn't he sure used it a lot.

Where are our censors when you need them? Little Green Footballs?? Now a source on DU?

[merrily]

80. Today Show. Pattinson, promoting his latest film, right after Stewart was photographed

kissing her director. (For the pop culture clueless, Pattinson and Stewart were living together at the time and supposedly the swoon couple of Hollywood. Think a younger Bogey and Bacall, but without the age difference.)

Today show interviewer: And, now, because it's already all over media, I just have to ask, how are things with you and Kristen Stewart? (Classic framing when a journalist pries into something sensational that has nothing to do with the purpose of the interview.)

Pattinson: Do you really have to ask? Why is that, actually? Don't they give you lunch or something if you don't ask?



(not exact words, but the gist)

And my thought was: good for him. It's about time someone called out that, "I just have to ask" bs.

[merrily]

97. P.S. As one of my former bosses used to say, "When all else fails, tell the truth."

"Why no. I would never buy myself hearts because, any more and I would have non room for the text of my posts. These hearts come from members of DU's left, to whom I am a goddess. But since you felt so comfortable asking me, I know you won't mind my asking you: why have you earned so few?"

rim shot

[TDale313]

14. Abso-fuckin-lutely

[davidpdx]

44. The rare voice of reason

Thanks for that!

[winter is coming]

64. I don't think they realize their behavior is only alienating people who are already disinclined

to vote for Hillary. Or perhaps they do.

[merrily]

81. Bet on it. No one is that clueless.

[merrily]

77. +1 The threat of banning has always been there. It just has not been stated overtly.

DU's left wing is aware of alert stalking, which can get posts hidden (and keep one off a jury for a while and maybe result in suspensions and banning). For months now, there have also been repeated requests that you declare whether or not you will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. Mind you, as of today, she has not even announced yet. And saying no would violate TOS.

So, verbalizing the threat where we can see it is not big news.

[wildbilln864]

12. Hillary

[Ramses]

13. In all truth, I actually dont think much of Warren

Her words are good right now, but her background gives me pause. I much prefer Sander's to be honest.

[cascadiance]

16. Yep, and I went to school where Timothy Geitner went to high school...

... and I went to high school where Scott Ritter went (who also got in trouble with the law for other events after he took is job as weapons inspector too seriously), was a high school neighbor to Chris Chocola who until recently was the head of Club for Growth, and went to college where Colleen Rowley went to school, who made too much trouble in complaining about what the FBI did after the 9/11 attacks, and I could go on... Guess I shouldn't be trusted either!

If you get too belligerent though, my high school class mate Mitch Pileggi will take on his role as Skinner again and sick the X Files after you!

[ybbor]

18. I like Elizabeth Warren and banks.

Banks on curves on the highway, on ski runs, the "Outer" variety in NC.

Those are the good banks.

Elizabeth is just good period.

I would love either a Sanders/Warren or Warren/Sanders ticket, personally.

Oh, what am I saying Billary 2016!

[Spirochete]

42. I like Elizabeth Banks...

[merrily]

84. Thank God you finally back came to your senses.

Smell, taste, sight, sound and touch were pining during your absence.

[ybbor]

106. When I came out of my stupor...

I had drool running down my cheek and shirt.

It was way bad!

Whew, that was pretty close, too.

Clarity is so underrated.

Kill, crush , destroy. 😲

[HereSince1628]

19. There is NOTHING spurious about CORRELATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You nailed that one Manny!

[joshcryer]

20. What legislation has Warren produced?

Other than the CPFB which is the only veto-able agency (by other agencies) in the entire government. Tough fight she put up there to keep it from being veto-able.

What major accomplishments has Warren achieved? I remember when she was trying to help the Clintons with bankruptcy reform. But she fell quite short of substantive reform there.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Besides changing the conversation in Washington?

And keeping Larry "Toonces" Summers from having another turn at us? And keeping yet another rich banker out of Treasury? And elevating banker/Obama malfeasance to the point where the bankers are taking on water?

Who would you say has accomplished more positive in the last 6 years?

[PragmaticLiberal]

26. "Who would you say has accomplished more positive in the last 6 years?"

Honestly,....President Obama.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. That might be true

I'd have to think about it.

But even so, he's the President and she's a Senator with two years of tenure.

[PragmaticLiberal]

34. Fair enough.

[sabrina 1]

41. Isn't it weird how some people think that the job of a member of Congress is to PASS LAWS.

I thought it was to REPRESENT THE PEOPLE! As Warren, in her short time in the Senate has done more effectively than all those 'law passers' put together.

'An over-lawed society is a failed society'.

The smear campaign against Warren has begun. Same old smears, remember Kucinich, they attacked him on his record of passing laws also. They were wrong as it turned out, his record was quite good actually, about average for a member of Congress.

I don't want my Rep passing laws just for the sake of passing laws.

In fact I want my Rep to get a whole lot of laws rescinded.

Like the Drug Laws.

Like the Patriot Act.

Like Citizens United.

And I want them to STOP laws from passing, like the TPP eg.

Where did this idea that getting laws, even BAD laws passed, is the sole role of a member of Congress?

Not to mention how short a time Warren had been in the Senate. What is it, a few months??

How may laws did Hillary get passed?

More important, what did the VOTE FOR when legislation came up?

And so far, I am very impressed by Warren.

Hillary, after her Iraq War vote, the most important vote a member of Congress can cast, she failed miserably and voted for Bush's disastrous war.

[merrily]

85. If she'd passed 14,432 laws during her first week as Senator, it would not have mattered.

There would just have been a different question.

BTW, how many dogs has her liberal ass rescued from burning buildings lately? Third Way corporatist Cory Booker did it.

[joshcryer]

95. Actually, all she has to do is sponsor liberal legislation.

That's as low as bar as you can come up with.

Yet she fails to do so.

[merrily]

96. Sabrina already addressed that, and so much better. I did, too. Put away your shibboleths..

They're not impressing anyone, probably not even you.

PS, we are perfectly clear now, aren't we, that, if you post me, I just might reply, right? And, as always, you are able to avoid my replies by not posting to me. It's totally up to you and always has been. So, take some responsibility for your own conduct from here on out, k?

[joshcryer]

98. Why hasn't she sponsored the the Climate Protection act?

Why hasn't she sponsored the Follow the Money Act?

Why hasn't she sponsored the Ending Secret Law Act?

Do you know why? Because a liberal would sponsor these laws and Warren is more of a centrist populist. Co-sponsering is quite literally the easiest thing you can do as a Senator. It's simply signing on to the law. She could probably have one of her pages do it for her if she doesn't fill like lifting a pen.

I'd address sabrina 1's comments but we have an agreement not to reply to one another. That doesn't stop her from dropping in one of my subthreads and leaving remarks, of course, but I don't do that to her.

If you think sabrina 1 actually said something substantive on the issue of Warren's demagoguery then please, by all means, quote it here, and I'll be happy to respond. Not that you'd put any effort into a discussion because you've addressed literally nothing here. Just drive by insults.

As far as Warren I think she's a great senator, but actions speak louder than words, and if she can't simply co-sponsor liberal legislation, I can call her on it.

[merrily]

99. If want to fling poo, own it. If you really want to know why, call her office and inquire.

I'd address sabrina 1's comments but we have an agreement not to reply to one another. That doesn't stop her from dropping in one of my subthreads and leaving remarks, of course, but I don't do that to her.

Yeah, doing something like going on a thread Sabrina started and posting one nasty bs thing after another about her to Wyldwolf and others might be an ugly thing to do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211673

[joshcryer]

100. I have, I've never got an answer.

She has not addressed why she won't co-sponsor. The number doesn't tell you, they just take your comments into advisement, as is typical with politicians. There's never an answer.

Yeah, doing something like going on a thread Sabrina started and posting one nasty bs thing after another about her to Wyldwolf and others might be an ugly thing to do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211673

You linked your own thread. Are you sabrina 1? Because that wouldn't surprise me.

I'll note you haven't contributed anything substantive still. Just personality arguments.

[merrily]

102. If you called, you have the number or know where to get it. Call again.

You linked your own thread.

It was totally obvious from what I wrote why I linked my own thread. Sorry if you missed it.

Are you sabrina 1? Because that wouldn't surprise me.

Then you have less than zero insight. Our posting and writing styles are very different. Besides, why the hell would you try to smear Sabrina because of something I posted to you? That's just low.

I'll note you haven't contributed anything substantive still. Just personality arguments

Sow, reap. You haven't contributed much substance either, just flinging a lot nonsense with which you are trying to smear Warren. It doesn't even hang to together from one of your posts to the next.

[joshcryer]

104. 617-565-3170

Give it a call, you won't get an answer about why Warren doesn't co-sponsor anything. It's your typical congressional phone line with the whole canned BS. Good luck even reaching a human being.

You linked supposedly where I responded in a subthread. Not my deal.

You and sabrina 1 have the same compulsion to reply repeatedly to anyone who replies, and get into circular arguments. There's no substantive difference in writing styles because you don't actually talk about what we're talking about. It's all this whole circular personality debate stuff. Read my other comments in the above threads. I'm not making anything personal.

Sow, reap. You haven't contributed much substance either, just flinging a lot nonsense with which you are trying to smear Warren.

At least you admit you've added nothing here. Anyone can read my posts (not to you, who makes things personal off the bat) and see I'm providing clear and concise substance to what I'm saying.

[joshcryer]

54. She praised the Yellen pick.

The bankers aren't taking on water. She didn't even introduce legislation to force companies to provide readable Living Wills, instead she chastised the Fed for not being able to qualify them due to their enormous nature and lack of resources. She didn't even offer legislation to provide more resources. She has offered no legislation to break up the banks.

It's actually insulting. Warren went on that banking committee and grilled everyone who had no oversight to do bumpkins except for the SEC which is frequently overruled by crony Bush judges. And she comes from that world, she knows the crap they have to deal with.

Talk is cheap. Offer up the legislative fixes and dare the Republicans to vote on it. After all, isn't that quite literally been the biggest criticism of Obama for so long? That he's not doing enough? Well, he never said he was a populist, but Warren claims that and people believe it, so, let's see some action!

[MannyGoldstein]

63. Bupkes.

Or באָבקעס, in the original Yiddish. That's the word you're looking for. "Bumpkins" means something different.

(My mom always said I have a Yiddishe kop, despite what *you* might say.)

In any case, Sen. Warren called the Fed out for blowing off its own rules, and reminded the Fed that if they can't understand the banks because they're big, they can break them up. They have that power, I'm not sure why you think we should throw more resources on something with a simple solution. The Fed just needs to do its job.

[joshcryer]

66. The thing is the Fed is terrified of doing it.

Because of the absolute complexities involved in it.

It's going to happen eventually but it may be done by the banks themselves.

The banks' value will go up 5%-20%

[MannyGoldstein]

67. Have they said they want to do it but are terrified by the complexities?

Do you have a link?

[joshcryer]

68. Nah, just no consensus.

Some Fed people want to do it but when the Keynesian is against it (not ruling it out) you know they know it will be a PITA.

On my phone just google Fischer fed break up banks.

The funniest thing about "breaking up the banks" is that Wall St is salivating for the prospect. But doesn't it sound awfully populist?

In reality nationalizing the banks would be the populist thing to do.

[MannyGoldstein]

69. Now Mr. Cryer...

Did you just switch from "want to but terrified" to "one Fed Governor wants to break up the banks" with "terror" left in the ditch?

Oh, and you could at least acknowledge my point about "bupkes". An RNC intern gave up part of his evening to check that for me.

[joshcryer]

71. I think it's terrifying.

You're talking about restructuring over 2000 subsidiaries in a way where they mesh properly and set up maybe a few dozen new banking conglomerates to oversee them. Also, some of them will invariably fail (because they're toxic assets or something like that which are being propped up by the other subsidiaries), people will lose jobs, assets will need to be liquidated.

Throw in "complex" with "uncertain outcome" and the government just doesn't like to do that. I think that's why the bailout was a blank check. "Let us have a blank check and we'll prop up whoever needs to be propped up." The right thing to do would've been to set up an agency to do the restructuring and give it forever oversight over all the failed banks, rather than giving banks free money to buy up smaller banks that were having problems. But that's too close to nationalizing.

I think Fischer's idea of strengthening the FSOC is probably the best workable approach, midway between nationalizing. Breaking up the banks is going to happen eventually, the current system is unsustainable. Legislation can go a long way.

But I'll note Warren has offered bubkes in the way of actual legislation to fix the problems. Warren passes the problem down to the administrators and policy wonks when she can write up some legislation to fix it rather easily to break up the banks. And she knows that they aren't going to be able to address the problem, because she's from that world, and it takes a lot of people doing a lot of work to get the problem resolved. They have to have the initiative (either a Fed crazy enough to face the terror, which Yellen certainly isn't, or legislation ordering it), and Warren, through all her bluster, isn't giving that initiative to them.

I stand corrected on bubkes, but for what it's worth, I say bumpkins, which I now know I've been saying wrong forever.

[merrily]

89. My thought exactly but, spoiler alert, he smoothes it over in the next post, without

ever acknowledging his story keeps changing. Or saying why Warren is to blame for not nationalizing the banks, as any true populist would.

Just keeps throwing spaghetti against that wall, hoping something will stick.

All these are marks of a truly, um, skillful poster.

[joshcryer]

93. Warren isn't doing anything but demagoguery.

She knows damn well the Feds aren't going to break up the banks. The Savings and Loan crisis is the level of complexity you're looking at. No one wants to go through that again. It's arguably worse given how the bailout led to more monopolization and receipt confusion.

BTW, Carter caused the S&L crisis, but he never gets flack for it.

[MannyGoldstein]

101. S&L crisis: many people broke the law, they went to jail

Things got fixed.

It was terrifying, but for the rich people who broke the law.

[joshcryer]

103. They got fixed?

Absolute denial of history there, Manny, and you know it. Over a thousand banks failed after FIRREA, oh, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to take on more responsibility (ie, more crap to deal with), which incidentally is how the mortgage crisis happened leading to the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

By design. Democrats wanted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to help poor people get out of renting and into owning homes (there's a huge, 20%+ advantage to paying for a mortgage vs renting). The Republicans saw that if they could sink Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they would be in a better position. A combination of lax regulation and FM&FM mortgages led to their collapse. The Democrats made a fatal mistake.

The S&L "fix" was a fucking disaster.

[MannyGoldstein]

113. Let me start with an apology.

Your spelling "bupkes" as "bubkes" had me intrigued. No doubt, you read the Yiddish I'd copied and pasted into my post, which clearly contains two bets, making "bubkes" the correct translation into our own alphabet. However, a little more research (by me or by an RNC intern, take your pick) found that the Yiddish I'd pasted was incorrect, according to http://www.yiddishdictionaryonline.com/ it should be:

באָפּקעס

i.e., with a pe instead of that second bet.

But it gets even weirder: http://www.yiddishdictionaryonline.com/ recognizes either "bubkes" or "bopke" as correct, but not "bupkes"!

Strange. Now I'm starting to wonder how written Yiddish came to be. As I'm sure you know, it's basically a German-ish dialect but written with Hebrew letters, and since the letter-sounds are somewhat different between alphabets, it's probably a translation-back-and-forth-causes-strange-stuff error.

So, sorry for the confusion over the Yiddish.

In any case, the S&L crisis was solved for that period of time, and Justice was at least partially served. Until we wipe out greed from human DNA, these problems will keep coming up, time and time again.

Also, can you let me know if the intern did a good job? He's heading off to get his PhD in Faith-Based Economics at the University of Chicago, and his boss is looking for feedback for his final review.

[joshcryer]

114. Would you classify the S&L crisis as terrifying?

I would.

[merrily]

88. I feel sad that Warren made the Fed too terrified to do its job and then failed to pass laws to

compensate for the Fed's not doing its job. Is there no depth to which this woman has not sunk yet?

[merrily]

87. I needed that like a lup in the kop.

An expression used by someone I worked with once. Another of her frequent comments "With my mazel, if I do (insert almost any activity here) (insert catastrophic, if not cataclysmic, consequences here).

[merrily]

86. Never do bumpkins. You might pick up ticks.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bupkiss

ETA: Sorry. I posted before I saw Manny beat me to it and did it better.

[aspirant]

35. She produces

heart-felt transfusions of democracy

[joshcryer]

55. Yeah, she's really cranking out the legislation.

She's a real firebrand, making sure everyone knows where everyone stands on important issues. She won't even cosponser half of the liberal legislation, she voted against the medical device tax. It seems like she's just another politician to me.

[sabrina 1]

73. Sssshhhh! The Kucinich smear is being applied to Warren here, do not interrupt! Remember

when they tried to claim that Kucinich was 'inneffective' because he had not passed dozens of laws?

Same old garbage. Kucinich actually had a very average record in that regard.

Where he excelled, which they do not want to talk about, was in his VOTES and SPONSORSHIPS of Legislation.

Same thing with Warren. We are going to have be armed with data to fend off the anti-populists which should not be too difficult, they tend to use the same old tactics over and over again.

Btw, she had her amendment voted down by enough DEMS to help the Republicans defeat it.

That's another thing the anti-populists won't mention, how so often DEMS, Third Way Dems, stop people like Kucinich and Warren from getting good legislation passed.

[Rex]

21. Banks never hurt or killed anyone.

Same as guns or war. Why won't people love banks again? Love your banks people, they might not have a high return rate...but they are entities too. Entities that need love and hugs daily to help with loan approvals and double reverse mortgages.

Oh this was about Warren and HRC...sorry, carry on governor.

[Andy823]

23. A question for you Manny

If Hillary actually gets the nomination, will you voter for her?

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Likely. nt

[merrily]

90. LOL!

[still_one]

28. oh boy, another anti-Hillary thread

[Bobbie Jo]

29. Except

This one is just weird.

[840high]

31. I like weird.

[davidpdx]

45. It's Manny....

of course it's going to be weird (that was meant as a compliment)

[Bobbie Jo]

47. Sure, weird can be a good thing

as long as it's actually funny or clever.

Otherwise, it's just weird in a cringeworthy sort of way.

[MannyGoldstein]

49. Am I - more or less -

Andy Kaufman's evil (and dim-witted) twin in that regard?

[Bobbie Jo]

50. Oh heavens no

Andy Kaufman was a freaking genius.

[emulatorloo]

56. Kaufman was brilliant, and is much missed

[merrily]

92. As Red Sox fans of Manny's home state might say: It's just Manny being Manny."

Something a member of the Red Sox management team said in response to a question about then Soxer, Manny Rodriguez, who gave new meaning to the phrase "way out in left field."

[merrily]

91. Actually....it's not Hillary he's mocking.

Last edited Fri Feb 13, 2015, 06:22 AM - Edit history (1)

[NYC Liberal]

32. Well, Warren does support Hillary, thinks she's terrific.

[zeemike]

37. I like to think of it as the "rhymes with p that stands for pool" logic.

And it is used for the same reason as the Music Man used it.

[merrily]

94. brilliant.

[TimeToEvolve]

51. Bernie Sanders for 2016

who's with me?

[randome]

57. I just gave you a heart, Manny.

The genius of this is that you won't know which of your hearts is real and which is the 'pity' heart. Cheers!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[MannyGoldstein]

61. That's pretty cruel. nt

[merrily]

82. Yet, a huge compliment, if you think about it.

Though I doubt the part about giving you a star.

[TBF]

62. We'll need humor to get through it

so I'm glad you're here.

[hifiguy]

65. Well played, Manny.

Well played indeed!

[fredamae]

110. Warren is also a Member

of, what I believe-to be the most corrupt congress in history ...It doesn't mean she's not fighting the good fight.

Associations are not nearly as important as what you do with your time while there, imo.