HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » 99th_Monkey » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 104 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Current location: Potlandia
Member since: Fri Sep 28, 2007, 03:39 PM
Number of posts: 19,326

Journal Archives

Where are the fucking NUMBERS/PERCENTAGES? .. on races "too close to call"???????

This is maddening. It's not like the M$M don't have numbers/percentages, they do
and are fucking hiding them behind non-stop yammering, just saying "those races are
too close to call"..

and they have the audacity to call themselves "journalists".

D.W. Shultz Joins Predatory Lenders' attacking Eliz. Warren & her Consumer Protection Bureau.

A sad foreshadowing of what's in-store for we 'the little people' under a Hillary Clinton Administration?

WASHINGTON -- Payday lenders have been gunning for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since the day President Barack Obama tapped Elizabeth Warren to set up the new agency. They've had plenty of help from congressional Republicans -- longtime recipients of campaign contributions from the payday loan industry. As the CFPB has moved closer to adopting new rules to shield families from predatory lending, the GOP has assailed the agency from every conceivable angle -- going after it's budget, attempting to tie its hands with new layers of red tape, fomenting conspiracy theories about rogue regulators illegally shutting down businesses and launching direct attacks on payday loan rules themselves.

To date, the GOP blitz has resulted in a few close shaves for the young agency, but no actual defeats. But the industry has cultivated a powerful new ally in recent weeks: DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla) .. is co-sponsoring a new bill that would gut the CFPB's forthcoming payday loan regulations. She's also attempting to gin up Democratic support for the legislation on Capitol Hill, according to a memo obtained by The Huffington Post.

The DNC chair isn't the first Democrat to defend payday lenders. A handful of House Financial Services Committee members consistently join the GOP's payday loan boosterism. But support from such backbenchers has been politically impotent. Wasserman Schultz, by contrast, is the nominal head of the Democratic Party. Her support undercuts efforts by liberals in Congress to draw contrasts with Republicans on economic issues.

The misleadingly titled Consumer Protection and Choice Act would delay the CFPB's payday lending rules by two years, and nullify its rules in any state with a payday lending law like the one adopted in Florida.


Two Simple Questions RE: Clintons, the DLC/3rd Way and Social Security.

A) Is there any denying the Clintons deep involvement and long-time identification with DLC/3rd Way?

Democratic Leadership Council
The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation] founded in 1985 that, upon its formation, argued the United States Democratic Party should shift away from the leftward turn it took in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The DLC hailed President Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of Third Way politicians and as a DLC success story.

The DLC's affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call themselves New Democrats. This term is also used by other groups who have similar views on where the party should go in the future, like NDN and Third Way.

On February 7, 2011, Politico reported that the DLC would dissolve, and would do so as early as the following week.[4] On July 5 of that year, DLC founder Al From announced in a statement on the organization's website that the historical records of the DLC have been purchased by the Clinton Foundation.

New Democrats - Origins
After the landslide electoral losses to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, a group of prominent Democrats began to believe their party was out of touch and in need of a radical shift in economic policy and ideas of governance.[1][2] The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was founded in 1985 by Al From and a group of like-minded politicians and strategists. They advocated a political "Third Way" ...

The first-wave of New Democrats, from the 1980s to 1990s, were very similar to Southern and Western Blue Dog Democrats. Al From, the founder of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and its leader until 2009, had been a staffer for Willis Long, a Democratic representative from Louisiana. Among the presidents of the DLC were Al Gore, senator from Tennessee, and Bill Clinton, governor of Arkansas. The first-wave New Democrats sought the votes of white working-class Reagan Democrats.[9]

In the 1990s, the New Democrat movement shifted away from the South and West and moved to the Northeast. In the 1992 United States presidential election, Bill Clinton was elected president.[9]

The second-wave of New Democrats, from 1990s to president, came into existence after the 1994 election. After 1994, the Democrats were much more dominated by urban areas, minorities and white social liberals. The New Democrats shifted from the South to Wall Street.
[/div class="excerpt"]

The Third Way
In the United States, "Third Way" adherents embrace fiscal conservatism to a greater extent than traditional social liberals, and advocate some replacement of welfare with workfare, and sometimes have a stronger preference for market solutions to traditional problems (as in pollution markets), while rejecting pure laissez-faire economics and other libertarian positions. The Third Way style of governing was firmly adopted and partly redefined during the administration of President Bill Clinton. The term "Third Way" was introduced by political scientist Stephen Skowronek.[40][41][42] "Third Way" presidents 'undermine the opposition by borrowing policies from it in an effort to seize the middle and with it to achieve political dominance. Examples of this are: Nixon’s economic policies, which were a continuation of Johnson's "Great Society", and later Clinton’s welfare reform.

Clinton, Blair, Prodi, Gerhard Schröder and other leading Third Way adherents organized conferences to promote the Third Way philosophy in 1997 at Chequers in England. The Third Way think tank and the Democratic Leadership Council are adherents of Third Way politics.

B) Is there any question that DLC/3rd Way has a record of wanting to weaken SS, if not do away with SS?

Third Way desperate in its quest to cut Social Security
Third Way is reaching the point of desperation in its quest to cut Social Security and protect its Wall Street, K Street lobbyist, and GOP donors from paying their fair share. As Third Way has become more and more marginalized, its public outpourings have become more and more extreme and, quite frankly, head-scratching.

In a 2011 Politico column, "Progressives: Wise Up," Third Way's president and vice president for policy lectured advocates for Social Security to stop fighting a Grand Bargain that would have cut Social Security's modest benefits - cuts that are opposed by 93.8 percent of Americans.

In 2013, the duo took to the Wall Street Journal where they attacked Senator Elizabeth Warren for proposing to expand Social Security as a solution to the nation's looming retirement income crisis. This time, they lectured not just progressives; they warned the entire Democratic Party not to "follow Sen. Warren...over the populist cliff." Since Senator Warren was standing with the 90 percent of Democrats (and 73 percent of Republicans) who want to increase Social Security benefits, it was no surprise that Third Way admitted that they represented, "no people," beholden only to their wealthy paymasters.

Wall Street Uses the Third Way to Lead Its Assault on Social Security
Third Way, lobbyists for and from Wall Street who are leading the effort to enrich Wall Street by privatizing Social Security, was created by Wall Street to fool some of the people all of the time. I have written previously to expose their fictional claims to be a moderate or liberal Democratic group.

Eric Laursen documented Wall Street’s effort to become even wealthier by privatizing Social Security in articles and his recent book ("The People’s Pension: The Struggle to Defend Social Security Since Reagan" (AK Press)).

I showed that Third Way makes itself useful by providing a faux “liberal” or “moderate” “Democratic” quote machine that can be used to discredit Democrats and Democratic policies such as the safety net. I gave examples of how Third Way gave aid and comfort to the effort to defeat Elizabeth Warren and the effort to unravel the safety net. Third Way continues to prove that you can fool some of the people all of the time.

The National Journal ran an article on November 8, 2012 entitled “Left Divided over ‘Grand Bargain.’”

I know the world-weary journalist pose is to huff that the catfood commission will go nowhere, that the recommendations released today are politically impossible, and that it’s not worth getting worked up about. Indeed, any proposal that both Grover Norquist and Paul Krugman can take time beating about the face and mouth doesn’t appear to have a constituency.

But there is a constituency for this, and it begins and ends with Third Way, who wastes no time in telling the world that they can only be real manly men if they support cutting Social Security and health care for the poor, the elderly and veterans:

"With huge deficits projected for decades to come, it’s now time to put up or shut up, in short to lead or leave. This is the first real leadership test for both parties in a divided capitol: will they embrace the Fiscal Commission recommendations, or cop out and pick the plan apart?

No plan will be perfect, but without a serious, long-term commitment to balance the budget, we’re going to stifle economic growth for decades and ultimately have to make draconian cuts in spending. Only by acting aggressively now do we avoid a budget doomsday. President Obama, Democrats, and the new House Republican majority all campaigned on a pledge to get the deficit under control and reform entitlements.

The moment of truth is here. The Commission report is the only game in town – and if this wasn’t just a campaign slogan, the parties must come together and demand a vote on the Commission’s recommendations."

Link to "8 Weirdest Conspiracy Theory Websites On The Planet"

If you're going to go all CT, you may as well go for the gusto. I haven't checked these
out yet, so cannot necessarily recommend them either way, but hey .. gotta keep an
open mind, right?

8 Weirdest Conspiracy Theory Websites On The Planet
Anyone that knows me well knows that I love a good conspiracy theory. However, my view on most theories is that 99% of the ones you find on the Internet are absolute, total bunk produced by people that should be seeking out counseling rather than distributing their delusional ramblings across the Internet.

My real interest comes from the 1% – those fascinating stories backed up with solid documentation, conclusive evidence, and enough proof to make even the most hard-nosed skeptic sit up and take notice.

That’s one reason I loved Saikat’s article last week on 5 great websites for skeptics, covering such great hoax-busting, fact-checking websites as MythBusters and the Skeptic’s Dictionary. I was a little bit put off by the fast that my buddy Saikat failed to mention my humble site Top Secret Writers – but then again, it is still a very small site and has a long way to go before making any “top 5″ lists.

Then, Saikat’s list got me thinking. Isn’t it crazy how few skeptic, fact-checking sites there are out there, yet there is such an abundance of crazy, poorly-researched conspiracy theory garbage websites ? I know that in my travels I’ve come across them often enough, and have blacklisted a fair number of them as online homes for people that are completely out in la-la land.

I’ve decided to share a few of my top selections of the weirdest conspiracy theory sites out there, with users or bloggers that do a terrible job fact-checking their loony-theories against reality. I offer these so that if you are also interested in those 1% of true stories out there, you can blacklist these sites from your travels and research as well.

We knew this was coming, and ouch Yes it hurts, but buck-up Bernistas ..

better days are ahead for us, and it's a long way to Philadelphia ...

Don't let the Hillarian gloating get you down.

Does Hillary Still Belong to The Family aka The Fellowship? Worse than Goldwater.

The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power

Did you know that the National Prayer Breakfast is sponsored by a shadowy cabal of elite Christian fundamentalists? Jeff Sharlet's new book, "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power," offers a rare glimpse of this remarkable network, which is known variously as the Family, the Fellowship and the International Foundation.

The Family was founded 70 years ago by Abraham Vereide, a Norwegian immigrant evangelist based in Seattle. In 1935, Vereide said, God appeared to him in a vision and revealed where Christianity had gone wrong: preoccupation with the poor, the weak and the suffering.

The down-and-out were in no position to bring about the Kingdom of God, Vereide realized. ...(God's) new plan was to target men who were already powerful and turn them to God -- and wouldn't you know it, God hated unions, too. ...The Family does not publish membership lists, and its members are sworn to secrecy, so a full accounting is impossible.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has been involved with the Family since 1993 when, as first lady, she joined a White House prayer circle for political wives. Clinton has also sought spiritual counseling from the current head of the Family, Doug Coe. Sharlet argues that Clinton's longtime association with the Family has helped her forge working relationships with powerful religious conservatives such as Family member and anti-abortion crusader Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas. ...

The Family also runs a house on C Street in Washington, D.C. The C Street Center has housed a number of federal legislators, including Sen. John Ensign of Nevada. Residents allege that the center is just a cheap place to live, but as an Ivanwald brother, Sharlet saw firsthand that the center is a religious community. As far as the IRS is concerned, the C Street Center is a church.

Hillary's Nasty Pastorate

The Family's most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer
Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes
on behind the scenes -- knitting together international networks of rightwing
leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, The Family
reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that
exemplary leader, Adolph Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole
bestiary of murderous thugs.
As Sharlet reported in Harper's in 2003:

During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government
and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's
postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with
Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American
leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred
thousand "Communists" killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous
dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During
the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S.
government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova,
convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general
Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to
both the CIA and death squads before his own demise.

At the heart of the Family's American branch is a collection of powerful
rightwing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese,
John Ashcroft, James Inhofe, and Rick Santorum. They get to use the Family's
spacious estate on the Potomac, the Cedars, which is maintained by young men in
Family group homes and where meals are served by the Family's young women's
group. And, at the Family's frequent prayer gatherings, they get powerful jolts
of spiritual refreshment, tailored to the already-powerful.

Clinton fell in with the Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group
composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When
she ascended to the senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's
"most elite cell," the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his
downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been
a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, the Family's
publicity-averse leader, that he is "a unique presence in Washington: a
genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or
faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

Furthermore, the Family takes credit for some of Clinton's rightward
legislative tendencies,
including her support for a law guaranteeing "religious
freedom" in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth
control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.

Even Hillary's Apology Was Untrue

Even Her Apology Was Untrue
By Mass Southpaw * Friday Feb 26, 2016 * Kos

Because the pundits and fawning media wouldn’t do it, a courageous young activist named Ashley Williams had to pay $500 to ask Hillary to answer for her super-predator “bring them to heel” remarks.

As she apologized yesterday for her poor choice of words, Hillary Clinton said, “My life’s work has been about lifting up children and young people who’ve been let down by the system or by society.”

That’s not true. So let’s look at the children and young people she didn’t lift up.

* She didn’t lift up the children of U.S. families who lost one million jobs because of NAFTA, and the children of families in Mexico who also suffered job loss and lower incomes. “Although unpopular with unions,” she wrote, “Expanding trade opportunities was an important [Clinton] administration goal.”

* She didn’t lift up the children who suffered from extreme poverty, which doubled after welfare reform and tripled in single-mother households.

* She didn’t lift up the children in union families whose backs she did not have when she is said to have never spoken up in support of labor unions while on the board of Wal-Mart.

* She didn’t lift up the children of gay parents who were listening in 2004 when she said, "I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.”

* She didn’t lift up the children whose families fell apart because for-profit prisons do better when more people go to prison. (Despite what’s been said, her campaign continues to benefit from the industry.)

* She didn’t lift up the countless numbers of children killed in the illegal and immoral Iraq War, a war she had to know (we all knew!) was based on lies, was in contravention of international law, and would take place in a country whose population was 50% children.

* She didn’t lift up children in families who are among the 10 million refugees and 250,000 dead because she worked to block a ceasefire in Syria because she cared more about isolating Iran than creating peace.

* She didn’t lift up the children in China who will suffer because her message to China was that human rights issues shouldn’t get in the way of business.

MORE: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/26/1491271/--Bring-Them-to-Heel-is-also-the-Clinton-Doctrine-for-Foreign-Affairs

Establishment (D) Economists Whip-Up NYTimes' Manufactured "Consensus" Dissing Bernie's Policies

Economists and the Illusion of Consensus
By Michael Corcoran * Thursday, 25 February 2016 * Truthout

In a matter of a few days, The New York Times and a handful of liberal economists, most of them with close ties to the Democratic Party establishment, created an imaginary left-wing consensus against the most transformative Keynesian reforms in Bernie Sanders' economic agenda. Many economists and experts have since attempted to counter this manufactured consensus, but the mainstream media have largely ignored these efforts. As this false narrative turns into conventional wisdom, prospects for much-needed and substantive changes to our economy - universal health care, access to higher education, a dignified standard of living for all - continue to dwindle.

This development shows the power of the propaganda function of the mass media in the United States, which keeps parameters of debate limited on an extremely narrow spectrum. These parameters are largely shaped by the political parties, with the Democratic Party reflecting the liberal end of acceptable discourse in publications like The New York Times - thus far and no further. To go beyond this point will result in one being marginalized, ignored or mocked - treated as if they have taken "off from the planet," as Noam Chomsky once described the phenomenon. Given the narrative the mainstream media have pushed in recent weeks, it appears that proposals like single-payer health care and tuition-free college go well beyond these parameters. This is not all that surprising given the Democratic Party's financial relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and the financial services industry. ~snip~

Not a single economist who supports these plans (and many exist) was quoted in the story. Nor, for that matter, was Friedman, whose work was attacked by name. "The New York Times did not contact me [for the article]," Friedman told Truthout. "And they still haven't contacted me." The article also failed to mention that hundreds of economists have signed a letter expressing personal support for Sanders' economic agenda. Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich is among the signatories. Other signatories include Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Richard Wolff of Democracy at Work and the New School for Social Research, both of whom are more accurately reflective of "left-leaning economists," than ones cited by the Times.

The article ignored many other important facts. It made no mention of the many studies that have been done over the years that show single-payer on a national scale to not only be viable, but also to have great benefits. Some of these studies were even written by Ken Thorpe, who was one of the critics cited in the Times article and the author of a paper written in January that suggests Sanders is underestimating the cost and overstating the benefits.

MORE: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34978-the-dominant-media-left-leaning-economists-and-the-illusion-of-consensus

Marquette Law School poll: Sanders overtakes Clinton in Wisconsin

Sanders overtakes Clinton in Wisconsin: pollSanders overtakes Clinton in Wisconsin: poll
By Bradford Richardson * February 25, 2016, 01:53 pm * The Hill

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has overtaken primary rival Hillary Clinton to hold a slight edge in Wisconsin, according to a Marquette Law School poll released on Thursday.

The poll, which comes after a Democratic primary debate in Milwaukee this month, has Sanders narrowly leading Clinton by 44 percent to 43 percent, well inside the survey's margin of error. The Vermont trailed Clinton by a 9-point margin in Wisconsin, 50–41 percent, in November.

The poll also finds Sanders matching up better than Clinton against top Republicans in hypothetical general election races in the Badger State.

Sanders defeats GOP primary front-runner Donald Trump by 20 points, 54–34 percent, while Clinton only wins by 10 points, 47–37 percent.

He also defeats Ted Cruz by an 18-point margin, 53–35, while Clinton ties the Texas senator, 43–43.


Stunning New Reuters Poll: Bernie Leading Hillary Nationally by 6 %

WOOT! Berniementum Baby!! Sanders is in this to win.


Stunning New Reuters Poll Shows Bernie Sanders Leading Nationally by 6 %
by Tom Cahill * February 24, 2016 * U.S. Uncut

A new national poll from Reuters shows Bernie Sanders leading Hillary Clinton by 6 points among Democrats — his largest lead of the primary so far.

According to the 5-day rolling poll results released on February 23, Sanders has the support of 41.7 percent of voters who identify as Democrat compared to Clinton’s 35.5 percent. The poll sampled 998 voters from across the country who identify as Democrats or as independents who lean towards the Democratic party.

Reuters polls have showed Clinton and Sanders in a virtual dead heat since the beginning of February. Following the Iowa caucus, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed Clinton just two points ahead of Sanders in a national survey with a 5-point margin of error, meaning the poll was effectively a dead heat. A Quinnipiac national poll released on February 17 showed Sanders two points ahead of Clinton, which was also within the margin of error.

The Reuters poll released on January 23, however, showed Clinton was 5 points ahead with self-identifying Democrats. This effectively means an 11-point swing in Sanders’ favor over a one-month period. Sanders is gaining ground on Clinton at roughly the same pace Barack Obama did in 2008, according to RealClearPolitics polling averages. Between February 22 and February 24, 2008, Obama was up just 3 points on Clinton.

This poll comes at a critical time for the Sanders campaign, which is coming off of a 5-point loss in the Nevada caucus and is perceived as the underdog in Saturday’s South Carolina primary. Sanders faces another uphill contest as Super Tuesday looms ahead on March 1. The Vermont senator has been steadily gaining ground in crucial primary states like Georgia and Texas, which award approximately 20 percent of total delegates between the two of them.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 104 Next »