MannyGoldstein
MannyGoldstein's JournalBerlin: US is "possible suspect" in new Merkel incident
German authorities announced today that they have asked the US Ambassador in Berlin to return to "answer some questions", just days after he was summoned to discuss the arrest of a German intelligence officer accused of spying for the US.
"Very late last night, a guard noticed a small bag in flames by the front door of Chancellor Merkel's residence. The guard used his foot to extinguish the flames, and found his foot covered with a fetid, dark substance - it appears to be some sort of animal excreta, perhaps from a dog. We are sincerely hoping, for the sake of what's left of our relationship with Washington, that forensic analysis does not indicate it is from a Portuguese Water Dog"
The American Ambassador was not directly available for comment, but a spokesman reported that "Hey, you know, things happen, it's a rough world out there. Maybe some people, I have no idea who, got a little irritated about all of the German whining about US spying. Maybe a little less whining, and Chancelor Merkel wouldn't have these problems, who knows?"
When asked about the incident at today's press briefing, Press Secretary Josh Earnest stated "Of course, it would be inappropriate to discuss this mucky situation at this time. Certainly, Germany is a very close ally, and the President has made it clear to CIA Director Brennan that the war actually ended 69 years ago, and we didn't even waterboard them then, so don't even think about it."
Measuring the average American's economic well-being using stock prices
Is like measuring a person's health by the size of their doctor's bank account.
Just as docs usually make more when their patients do worse (more procedures are needed), the stock market usually does better when corporate earnings are boosted by squeezing the 99%. As is happening today.
It's just nuts. Amazing how people can be so buffaloed by numbers.
Why is it so important to blame Nader for the 2000 election?
Seems like 90+% of DUers (at least in this poll) don't primarily blame Nader:
Gore not becoming President: whose fault?
Why does a small group of folks find it so critical to attack Nader for this disaster?
Just thinking a nice thought
A couple of years ago, the conversation was something like this:
Republicans: "We need super-duper austerity! Cut everything!"
Democrats: "Well, that's a very serious proposal that we'll consider, and no doubt we need lots of austerity. But how about just super austerity, banker bailouts and free trade? And cutting - not slashing - Social Security?"
Competent Economists: "We need the opposite of austerity, you scheisskopfs!!!"
It's now more like:
Republicans: "We need super-duper austerity! Cut everything!"
Democrats: "You suck, except for that Christie fellow, we like the cut of his jib. Of course the bankers need more bailouts, but we'll start reducing them. And of course we still need more free trade."
Elizabeth Warren et al: "Put bankers who break the law in jail. No more bull#%^* free trade agreements, or cutting Social Security. Attacking the 99% must stop."
Hillary: "No need to hate on bankers, Liz."
The conversation has shifted. This is good.
Our country is still a disaster from thirty years of lies, corruption, and stupidity. But every recovery needs to begin with a change in direction, and I think we have that.
Now if we can just replace one of the Inquisition crowd at SCOTUS with a person who's cool owitj math, science, and facts...
Gore not becoming President: whose fault?
Who do *you* think is most responsible for Gore not becoming President on 1/20/2001?
On keeping our powder dry (Republican SCOTUS nominations)
To be clear: the direct fault for today's outrageous SCOTUS announcements lie with the five "justices" who committed the acts. The second layer of culpability lies with the Republicans who nominated the scoundrels.
But we expect the enemy to be the enemy. That's not an excuse for the destruction they wreack - it's simply a fact.
The decisions handed down today should remind us as to why there's such an urgent need to reconstitute our own party, to move from Third Way quislings to FDR Democrats. Some of these "justices", particularly Roberts and Alito, were nominated primarily because it was clear they would vote exactly the way they've voted: this was clear to many elected Democrats - even Hillary Clinton - who sounded the alarm, but to deaf ears. Democrats could have stopped these ideologues by filibuster, but chose to "keep their powder dry".
"Keep it dry for what?", we must ask.
And here we are.
If we're to win this thing, it starts by putting the proper leadership in place. We need fighters, not triangulators, nor collaborators, nor wimps.
"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."
- Winston Churchill
Elizabeth Warren: how Conservatives could make her the next US President
See post at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025166507
Elizabeth Warren: how Conservatives could make her the next US President
The bipartisan power-@#$%ing of the 99% by the wealthy and their paid help in the White House and Congress will be the defining political issue in coming years.
The statistic: 88%. That's how many young conservatives agree with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on one of her main talking points. Though Warren may be seen as a darling of the left, it could actually be America's conservative voters that propel her political career.
A new Pew survey groups together Americans based on political opinions and reveals that many conservatives come down on on the more populist side of things. Two groups, "young outsiders" and "steadfast conservatives," tended to agree that our economic system is unfair and that large companies have too much power. This has been an idea Warren has consistentyl been championing for several years now.
Eighty-eight percent of young outsiders, a more libertarian-leaning group mainly in their 20s and 30s, agreed that too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few companies, while an equally surprising 69% agreed that the economic system unfairly favors the powerful. Steadfast conservatives were more reserved on the former measure, with 48% believing it's unfair (compared to 47% who find it fair), but in line on the second — 71% think too few companies have too much power.
Who's more honest: Snowden/Greenwald or the federal government?
Which of these do you most agree with?
Profile Information
Name: Manny GoldsteinGender: Male
Hometown: Greater Boston
Home country: USA
Current location: Remulak, as far as I can tell
Member since: Tue Aug 30, 2005, 09:44 AM
Number of posts: 34,589
