patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

smaulgld says

Any one think it will amount to anything more than that?

Nope...

smaulgld says

Seems to me like pro wrestling without the wrestling.

but lots of Jello!

Comedy Central- without the jokes!

Unlike you clowns who live in a Liberal fantasy world light years away from the people who's life your ponderance effects. I'm in the thick of it.

The Latinos are NOT impressed with this big do nothing action of Obama.

I think if the GOP can come together after the first of the year, and handle and immigration bill as smoothly as they their campaigns that even saw several black and latino's elected to office. Which at this point, the Democrats would do wise to NOT underestimate their enemy.

I think the GOP hatred of Obama at this point, is greater than Gonzalez and Perez getting a full immigration pardon.
At this point, I could see the GOP actually crafting a tangible immigration reform bill, that makes Obama's empty suit proposition he crapped forth, seem like just that. A steaming toilet bowl of shit.

They would embrace Horhey(George) and Umberto just to send this guy to hell down the sewer of a failed presidency.

Be Careful what you ask for, you just might get it. If the republicans can placate the Latinos and become their champion after Obama's miserable half assed effort yet Again, at doing anything. Then they'll become the undisputed party of the American hispanics.

Call it Crazy says

smaulgld says

Comedy Central- without the jokes!

Wait, don't compare them to Comedy Central. We have posters here that state that's some serious journalism going on there. Stewart and Colbert are absolutely the source for accurate facts!

The Repubs and Dems are more like Beavis and Butthead...

... or Wayne and Garth..

Sorry I was using "Comedy Central" in its generic sense.

CaptainShuddup says

I think if the GOP can come together after the first of the year, and handle and immigration bill as smoothly as they their campaigns that even saw several black and latino's elected to office.

That is what they should do but won't because they haven't done in the past and Obama would just veto it

smaulgld says

That is what they should do but won't because they haven't done in the past and Obama would just veto it

I think the GOP are starting to embrace the furiners. They like them more than the left from Fruityville running amok on America.

The GOP can sit back and keep letting the Democrats misguide the Latino vote, or they step up and find a place for Latino brand of conservatism in the new GOP. Because one thing is for certain, the Latino community are no where near as Liberal as they found Obama's future of hope to be.

Obama says to GOP - Pass a Bill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdMxHA4cmIs&t=22m35s

GOP would rather line up to go on Hannity and Levin

sbh says

What else need they do in order to be re-elected?

Yep Dems do the same- lie about the "affordable" health care act to win support and votes, when they were really lining the insurance companies' pockets in order to create an unworkable expensive plan that requires you to input personal data into an insecure government data base that cost a billion dollars to create so you can get less coverage for more money.

Both sides are as corrupt as the day is long. But they each have their supporters who always respond by pointing out the misdeeds of the other side rather than getting their own houses in order.

smaulgld says

Yep Dems do the same- lie about the "affordable" health care act to win support and votes, when they were really lining the insurance companies' pockets in order to create an unworkable expensive plan that requires you to input personal data into an insecure government data base that cost a billion dollars to create so you can get less coverage for more money.

What's sad is aside from talking about it on Patnet, nobody even knows who Gruber is, or that he has 7 movies highlighting the best parts of Obamacare.

I have talked to several people and none of them have even heard about the scandal. In fact nobody I've asked has heard about it.

This is a PACs are good, because I guarantee you that people will have heard about him before the 2016 election season is over.

FWIW, I was quoting Gruber before I even knew who he was.

CaptainShuddup says

Because one thing is for certain, the Latino community are no where near as Liberal as they found Obama's future of hope to be.

Except for on the issues, where Latinos are MORE liberal than the general public.

CaptainShuddup says

smaulgld says

Yep Dems do the same- lie about the "affordable" health care act to win support and votes, when they were really lining the insurance companies' pockets in order to create an unworkable expensive plan that requires you to input personal data into an insecure government data base that cost a billion dollars to create so you can get less coverage for more money.

What's sad is aside from talking about it on Patnet, nobody even knows who Gruber is, or that he has 7 movies highlighting the best parts of Obamacare.

I have talked to several people and none of them have even heard about the scandal. In fact nobody I've asked has heard about it.

This is a PACs are good, because I guarantee you that people will have heard about him before the 2016 election season is over.

FWIW, I was quoting Gruber before I even knew who he was.

Thats because the media doesnt cover "republican" issues
Ie true stories that make Dems and Obama look bad

smaulgld says

Thats because the media doesnt cover "republican" issues

Ie true stories that make Dems and Obama look bad

We're just going to have to disagree on that one.

Stuff coming out of Fox which doesn't even pass the laugh test bounces for days or weeks around all major news outlets, under the disclaimer "House Republican Xxxxxx Yyyyyy is saying."

The right wing owns the media.

HydroCabron says

The right wing owns the media.

Once again you have to be fucking kidding or a mutt...

indigenous says

HydroCabron says

The right wing owns the media.

Once again you have to be fucking kidding or a mutt...

Cogently argued and well-supported.

You have addressed all points with evidence and counterarguments that are germane and insightful.

I concede the floor to you, sir!

HydroCabron says

Cogently argued and well-supported.

From the department of redundancy necessary only for the Libs.

Libs

ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, Public Television, NYT, LAT, Salon

Rs

Fox, a few radios stations

Libertarians

the internet

HydroCabron says

We're just going to have to disagree on that one.

Stuff coming out of Fox which doesn't even pass the laugh test bounces for days or weeks around all major news outlets, under the disclaimer "House Republican Xxxxxx Yyyyyy is saying."

The right wing owns the media.

We can disagree , but consider:

Republican have the edge in cable TV with Fox-which out ranks MSNBC and CNBC CNN

Democrats control the networks with NBC CBS and ABC

Democrats control print/internet with NY Times, Wash Post Huff post, politico, outranking Drudge, Washington Time, breitbart

Republicans control talk radio by a country mile with Levin, Limbaugh and everything else

Democrats control the "free" public media like PBS, public radio .

The issue is that most of the news outlets are not news outlets but propaganda arms for their sponsors and parties.

They chose the news, they edit the news they omit news.

smaulgld says

We can disagree , but consider:

Republican have the edge in cable TV with Fox-which out ranks MSNBC and CNBC CNN

Democrats control the networks with NBC CBS and ABC

Democrats control print/internet with NY Times, Wash Post Huff post, politico, outranking Drudge, Washington Time, breitbart

Republicans control talk radio by a country mile with Levin, Limbaugh and everything else

Democrats control the "free" public media like PBS, public radio .

The issue is that most of the news outlets are not news outlets but propaganda arms for their sponsors and parties.

They chose the news, they edit the news they omit news.

And the Libertarians?

indigenous says

Libs

ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, Public Television, NYT, LAT, Salon

All of whom support all libertarian wars whenever possible. All of whom are careful to balance the interests of the general public with those of the financial services industry (the truth must lie somewhere in between, after all). None of whom mention that Obama has saved the economy from conservatism (for a short while longer). None of whom mention how ludicrously low taxes are on the wealthy and how little we've gotten for it economically. All of whom aired the birther conspiracy theory. All of whom carried the IRS and Benghazi nonsense. All of whom say very little about the Obama/Bush NSA monstrosity.

What liberal media?

indigenous says

And the Libertarians?

"alternative media"

smaulgld says

"alternative media"

Sactly

HydroCabron says

All of whom support all libertarian wars whenever possible.

Mutt

HydroCabron says

All of whom support all libertarian wars whenever possible. All of whom are careful to balance the interests of the general public with those of the financial services industry (the truth must lie somewhere in between, after all). None of whom mention that Obama has saved the economy from conservatism (for a short while longer). None of whom mention how ludicrously low taxes are on the wealthy and how little we've gotten for it economically. All of whom aired the birther conspiracy theory. All of whom carried the IRS and Benghazi nonsense. All of whom say very little about the Obama/Bush NSA monstrosity.

What liberal media?

What libertarian wars?

You point is well taken and is similar to mine- the news outlets are first and foremost mouthpieces for their corporate interests-the only difference is that the Dems and Rep have different paymasters.

In war and banking they both overlap as both parties are now war and banking parties so their respective media represent that bias.

HydroCabron says

All of whom aired the birther conspiracy theory. All of whom carried the IRS and Benghazi nonsense.

How was the IRS issue "nonsense"?

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Which one of all the media outlets cited here have demanded the restoration of Glass-Steagall? A

That's the point both parties and all media outlets are banking/war outlets

smaulgld says

Democrats control the networks with NBC CBS and ABC

Democrats control print/internet with NY Times, Wash Post Huff post, politico,

I really have no idea why anyone would think that NBC, CBS, and ABC, as well as the NYT are liberal. Maybe because they won't uncritically spout Benghazi theories? Rest assured, they covered that anyway, under the he said/she said disclaimer.

The New York Times sucked up to Bush through the first 4 years of the Iraq War, only ditching Judith Miller when it became too embarrassing to watch any more.

In 2003, the only major figures on cable/air who said "wait a minute" on Iraq were on Comedy Central (Bill Maher & Jon Stewart) and Phil Donahue on MSNBC. Two out of three of them were fired quickly. Donahue was told that the chairman of MSNBC felt that any gloom about the war would create unnecessary controversy and hurt the bottom line.

Nothing has changed.

They say nothing about Gitmo, the NSA, or the improving economic/deficit numbers. They give print and air time to climate-change deniers (who have as much support in the scientific community as moon-landing hoax theorists).

I would do away with Glass steagal too but with the caveat- banks can do what they want and if they fail they fail. This would make banks compete and banks EXPLCITLY state what they are going to do with your deposits.

Banks that want to gamble with your deposits will need to pay a higher rate of interest

Eliminate FDIC and people will pay far more attention to which institutions they entrust their money.

Right now there are only four banks that do what they want and pay no interest

smaulgld says

That's the point both parties and all media outlets are banking/war outlets

Please do just one thing for me: can you not retreat into "both parties are just organs of the blah blah blah..." argument for just today? Just for today, please?

You see the media as liberal, which it isn't. You peddle standard right-wing memes here. It's alright for you to just be a right-wing conservative.

The constant retreat into "both sides are the same" when things get a little warm for you is really depressing.

CIC stopped doing it. You're way, way smarter than he is: can you oblige us, too?

HydroCabron says

I really have no idea why anyone would think that NBC, CBS, and ABC, as well as the NYT are liberal. Maybe because they won't uncritically spout Benghazi theories? Rest assured, they covered that anyway, under the he said/she said disclaimer.

Liberal in inclination but corporate fascist in reality esp when it comes to supporting wars, NSA, Gitmo etc.

The real old school liberal vs conservative views are not aired. Indeed old school liberals and Taft Republicans are anti war anti foreign entanglements, whereas today both parties are war machines under the neo con and new democrat banners

HydroCabron says

Please do just one thing for me: can you not retreat into "both parties are just organs of the blah blah blah..." argument for just today? Just for today, please?

That is my point of view and I'm not going to drop it

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Here's the test. Which one of all the media outlets cited here have demanded the restoration of Glass-Steagall?

Even though it would have made ZERO difference regarding the bailouts. Glass Steagall does not regulate OTC derivatives.

What might have made a difference is the way the banks have become centralized since the 80s. Of course this would mean looking at the Fed oversight of this and your favorite NON meme the CRA.

indigenous says

Glass Steagall does not regulate OTC derivatives.

No but I would imagine it would prohibit/limit banks exposure to such financial products if they take deposits from individuals

smaulgld says

How was the IRS issue "nonsense"?

A low-level employee in Cincinnati legitimately demanded extra documentation from some Tea Party (as well as some liberal) groups, as to why they should be considered tax-exempt public service organizations.

The groups were, after some extra hassle, granted the status. Sounds as if he did his job; at worst, he was overzealous. I think the IRS is not doing enough to audit and double-check: I don't like the IRS, but having a toothless IRS just leads to Greece, where everyone cheats while thinking everyone else but them should pay taxes.

There is even a viable argument that the Tea Party groups should not be considered tax-exempt.

indigenous says

the Fed

All roads lead to Rome in these arguments.

It used to be "the Jews" or "the Freemasons" so I guess this is progress.

smaulgld says

No but I would imagine it would prohibit/limit banks exposure to such financial products if they take deposits from individuals

Not sure, my understanding is that some of the banks owned the investment banks.

The overarching problem is the centralizing of the banks and of course the bailout.

HydroCabron says

indigenous says

the Fed

All roads lead to Rome in these arguments.

It used to be "the Jews" or "the Freemasons" so I guess this is progress.

yup ceptin it is not a trope, unless of course you suffer from extreme myopia.

Oh, waaah!

In 2009, a progressive non-profit organization filed an application with the IRS seeking 501(c)3 tax status. That's the the tax status which, among other things, allows charitable organizations to collect tax-deductible contributions.

The group, whose name has been withheld because of pending administrative processes with the IRS, went through a three-year process of repeated questions and requests for additional documentation. The organization racked up $25,000 in legal fees complying with the requests, paid to lawyers who were baffled by the degree of scrutiny.

After three years of back and forth, they finally got their tax-exempt status in 2013 - though it was revoked just two months later. Because accountants for the group didn't realize they had to file tax returns during the unusually lengthy waiting period.

The organization, in its name and application materials, is clearly and explicitly progressive. This organization's experience shows not only that groups on the left and right were scrutinized, but that the entire IRS tax-exempt office procedures suggest something more along the lines of a bad idea than a big scandal.

In May 2013, it was discovered that several IRS branches, working under the leadership of the main tax exemption bureau, had created a list of "lookout list" of words in the names and applications of groups applying for 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) status - words that would trigger those applications for closer scrutiny. The conservative National Review correctly reports that the "lookout list" included terms like "tea party" but also "progressive" and "Occupy."

This was undoubtedly a sloppy shorthand method to decide which tax-exempt applications to look at more closely, methods that led to many progressive and conservative groups being unfairly scrutinized as well as many other groups not even engaged in politics. And as Alex Seitz-Wald at Salon notes, apparently the only organizations who had their tax applications denied during the period in question were progressive ones.

If you believe this is a huge deal, I question your professed neutrality/objectivity. Put down the Fox/Newsmax KoolAid jug.

HydroCabron says

A low-level employee in Cincinnati

They went through a lot of obsfucation for the act of a low level employee!
I don't think there should be an IRS, or one with millions of pages of rules, deductions etc.

If there must be a national tax it should be flat rate with no ability to deduct ANYTHING. Whatever your bracket that is what you owe and you eliminate all the enforcement expense and targeting.

That would mean no tea party or any political or religious tax exempt groups- after all why should they are home owners or any one get preferential treatment- it means the government tacitly approves of such activities.

indigenous says

The overarching problem is the centralizing of the banks and of course the bailout.

Correct, if banks that don't take deposits want to trade derivatives as their primary profit source, that should be ok.

If banks that want to take deposits want to do the same that should be OK as long as they disclose it -the depositors would clearly require a higher rate of return for the risk.

A healthy market for "safe" banks would develop if this were the case.

HydroCabron says

This organization's experience shows not only that groups on the left and right were scrutinized, but that the entire IRS tax-exempt office procedures suggest something more along the lines of a bad idea than a big scandal.

Exactly-My point is that having a discretionary IRS follow up on bad ideas is a major fault in government. There should be no discretion