Archive for nominee

Senate Republicans Want to Destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Elizabeth Warren Created

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

blocked i can haz unblock

Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash at Truthout, via my pal Mark Karlin:

Count the ways that the GOP in Congress is still trying to destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). There are so many that you would need a calculator.

Start with the holding up through a -- you got it – yet another "threatened" filibuster of the appointment of Richard Cordray as official head of the agency.  Currently, he is only in the position as a recess appointment.  This limits his power, term and implementation of the full consumer protection law that was enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank legislation, which the Republicans loathe, as weak as it is. [...]

Reid, in what now is a tired toothless threat, says that he may end the non-filibuster/filibuster by reducing a closure vote to merely needing a majority and not 60 votes. [...]

Meanwhile, the consumers are already benefiting from the CFPB, even if in its weakened stake, and from regulation of financial legislation in the Dodd-Frank law [...]So until Cordray ... is confirmed by the Senate, the right of consumers to be protected from predatory financial institutions and banks hangs by a thread. All because 43 GOP Senators -- who represent roughly only about a third of the US population because they are mostly from states with relatively small numbers of voters -- have signed a letter opposing not just Cordray (remember Obama dumped Elizabeth Warren who designed the agency due to GOP opposition), but any Obama nominee to head the agency [...]

A "take no prisoners" Republican caucus is defying two-thirds of the US population, a majority by anyone's standards, by merely scaring Harry Reid for the umpteenth time with a filibuster that never occurs because Reid won't call their bluff. [...]

Why the Democrats don't take the ball and ram it to the goal post may be more a testament to the power of corporate and financial institutions over Congress than to Reid's craven capitulation.

Please read the entire post here.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Welcome to my world: "#WhyRepublicansNeedToGo -- Whoever created this ignorant hashtag is on food stamps."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

chart militia groups southern poverty law center

Every now and then on Twitter, I get a notification of an impending "Twitter bomb." That means that at a specified time, as many people as possible organize to tweet a certain hashtag (#) so that a message will be sent out in large numbers, simultaneously, get a lot of attention, and hopefully trend.

Last night I got word that #WhyRepublicansNeedToGo would be the hashtag du jour. I decided to jump in for the heck of it and posted a couple of tweets like (if I remember correctly): "#WhyRepublicansNeedToGo Two words: Eric Cantor. Two more: Paul Ryan" and "#WhyRepublicansNeedToGo Gay rights, civil rights, women's rights, voting rights, and that's just for starters."

I mentioned nothing about Rand Paul (who delivered the ninth longest filibuster in U.S. history), other than to retweet breaking news updates. I didn't say whether I agreed or disagreed with him or with the speaking filibuster or with his efforts to block John Brennan's confirmation. I offered no opinion one way or the other.

However, had anyone bothered to ask, which nobody did, I would have said that I support a speaking filibuster (and oppose incessant GOP obstruction), I am not thrilled with Brennan, I am against the use of drones to target Americans, I am for major oversight of the use of drones by any president, I am for due process, getting a fair trial in a U.S. (civilian) court of law, and against assassinating Americans and denying them the option to give themselves up.

That said, I got an onslaught of trolls, all of them Rand Paul devotees, sending inane, nasty, baiting, and/or stupid tweets last night shortly after Twitter Bomb Thirty.

I'm sharing a few of them with you because 1) I've been meaning to do expose you to some of the extreme comments I get for awhile now to show you what many of us deal with on a daily basis, and 2) to point out the mentality of most of the tweets I get from Republicans and Libertarians. They always initiate these direct "conversations," I never do.

What concerns me is not so much the infantile nature of the tweets, because that's easy enough to ignore, but that so many people (or perhaps bots, accounts created solely for this purpose) have such hostility, anger, misinformation, ignorance, and feel the necessity to repeatedly direct it at those with whom they disagree. Even after I inform trolls that they are being blocked, they continue to obliviously tweet me as if I can see their tweets (there are ways to see them, which is how I know they do this).

Their irrationality and rage infects nearly every tweet.

Republicans, be careful what and whom you rile up, incite, and embrace. As the Southern Poverty Law Center is warning, this is fast becoming another Oklahoma City bombing waiting to happen:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Below are a few samples of what I was bombarded with last night. Notably, a recurring theme is that, after they enter my stream with intentionally provocative tweets and/or misinformation and I choose to block, they default to phony outrage. They get huffy and whiny over being deprived of their First Amendment rights, which of course, pertain to government censorship, not Twitter's option to block tweets:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Welcome to my world:

@CreepySteveEnt (Bio: "game dev hobbyist"):

Keep drinking the blue Kool-aid. If this was a Democrat in 2006, your panties would have been wet.

if you were a dude, I'd have replaced that last part about with "jerking off." Not everything that references sex is sexist

but, I guess its easier to just yell "sexist" than try to understand why people think you are an idiot.

Not every mention of skin color is racist. Not every reference to vaginas is sexist. Get over yourself

 u r fucking braindamaged. "You'd be jerking off about a Democrat doing the same in 2006" wouldn't be called sexist

But, because I was referencing a girl... Completely different. Typical liberal victim syndrome.

People don't say mean things 2 u because of ur sex. They say mean things 2 u because you have your head up ur ass.

 @GOPMommy:

I didn't know that I lacked rights as a woman. Are you referring to little women in the womb? (I remember commenting about how developed the fetus must be if she's referring to it as a little woman)

Another liberal that hates free speech if it means having a different opinion: @GottaLaff who blocks people she's too ignorant to debate.

@JustinYoung30 (who apparently thinks teachers are worthy of disdain):

@GottaLaff no shit you're not a republican. That's your problem. I'm gonna guess you're a teacher or leaching the system 

@goodolick (3 followers, and please note the spelling of "you're" from the account who called me stupid.):

@GottaLaff your a special kind of stupid aren't you?

@ItsTheGrumpyCat ::

#WhyRepublicansNeedToGo Whoever created this ignorant hashtag is on food stamps. 

@KicheMalko (Bio: hard and raw with no regard for the law): 

@GottaLaff "civil rights" like letting illegal immigrants live have welfare and food stamps? "voting rights" like let illegals vote?

@GottaLaff i dont know how im being rude but i think you need to be a little more educated on something called the constitution (I believe I reminded Malko that civil rights are indeed constitutional and that nobody has ever suggested that anyone should be allowed to vote illegally.)

What is the cause of all their anger? Why do they feel so afraid? Is it our African American president? Is it that whites are becoming a minority? Is it that they have an unhealthy reliance on firearms and solving problems with violence, so they feel common sense gun safety measures are a threat? Is it the "civil war" within their own party that makes them uneasy? They're feeling powerless, so they have to dominate in inappropriate and dangerous ways?

Whatever it is, it is not good for this country, and they need to start listening more, agree to disagree, grow up, read and become aware of facts instead of relying solely on sources like Fox for their talking points, educate themselves, research, become more willing to hear opposing views, try using some civility, empathize, and realize we're all in this together.

troll

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

SNL VIDEO: The Hagel confirmation hearing we didn't see. The "fellating a donkey" mention might be why we didn't.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

snl fred armisen bernie sanders hagel confirmation committee

Saturday Night Live goes all out and skewers Senate Republicans in an unaired spoof of the grilling Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel got during his confirmation hearings on CSPAN. It was cut from the show at the last minute, but thanks to the Internets, we get to see an SNL Moment of Utterly Inane, and Not Yet Ready for Prime or Late Night Time Hilarity.

We see the GOP bickering, grandstanding, and falling all over themselves to compete over who loves Israel the mostest of all.

Before you know it, they go skidding into full-on SNLvision as John McCain demands to know whether or not Hagel would go on national television and-- wait for it-- "fellate a donkey if the survival of Israel were at stake."

Yes he says that.

but wait there's more

The Republicans then try to outdo each other to prove they would all have oral sex with a donkey-- or maybe a mule, since donkeys might be castrated-- if it meant a secure Israel.

Of course, Lindsey Graham says he'd "do it in a second, but then I grew up on a farm, so..."

And yes, tea bagging made its way into the sketch.

But you haven't lived until you've seen Fred Armisen stifling a laugh while doing his hilarious impression of Senator Bernie Sanders.

snl fred armisen bernie sanders

You're welcome.

Huge h/t: Taegan

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

"Republicans tellingly showed zero interest in... the 19,000 sexual assaults of military servicewomen that occur each year."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

chart rape military assault women

Today's L.A. Times letter to the editor, because our voices matter:

Re "Hagel hearing reopens Senate wounds," Feb. 1

By grandstanding their grievances with former Sen. Chuck Hagel for leaving the fold to serve in President Obama's administration as secretary of Defense, the neoconservative Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee rubbed salt in their own self-inflicted wounds. What a shameful spectacle of badgering, interrupting and berating a decorated war veteran with a stellar record of public service.

While wasting the day on cherry-picked policy positions that don't even pertain to what a Defense secretary does, Republicans tellingly showed zero interest in the one that does: the 19,000 sexual assaults of military servicewomen that occur each year. Kudos to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) for questioning Hagel about this "invisible war," to which he promptly and correctly pledged no tolerance.

Wendy Blais

North Hills

rape women military assault

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

1992 VIDEO: John Kerry (approved by committee for Sec. of State) appears on TV show "Cheers"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

john kerry on cheers 1992

Thanks to BuzzFeed for catching this clip of John Kerry on an old episode of Cheers. It's from 1992 in which the characters Norm (George Wendt) and Cliff (John Ratzenberger) mistake Kerry for a local TV anchorman.

Today John Kerry’s nomination was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a unanimous voice vote. The full Senate will be voting a little later on his nomination.

Cheers!

cheers

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe opposes Republican nominee Chuck Hagel because he's... Republican.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

going in circlesVia

In an interview with WABC's Aaron Klein, Republican Senator James Inhofe voiced his opposition to Chuck Hagel as President Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense. Why is he so against a fellow Republican? Well, duh! Because Hagel's a fellow Republican.

If that's not typical GOP "logic" I don't know what is.

Via BuzzFeed:

"I like Chuck Hagel ..." Inhofe said. "But philosophically he is right along with Obama and I can see Obama saying, 'Well here is a conservative Republican former senator who agrees with me on all this so this is bipartisan.' Well I don't want that label of bipartisanship to follow on all of his policy toward North Korea, Syria, Iran and even Egypt. So I am very much concerned about giving him that added impetus to do the things that I think are destroying America."

So bipartisanship-- Obama wanting to work with a Republican, nominating a Republican to a position of power-- would destroy America. Got it.

Who's on first with title

 

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO: Sen. Bob Corker wonders about Chuck Hagel's "overall temperament... numbers of staffers coming forth now"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

temper temper anger

Via ABC.

Has anyone else ever heard anything about Chuck Hagel's temperament before today? This is the first I've gotten wind of the issue, and from the way George Stephanopoulos responded, he was surprised, too. But on “This Week,” GOP Sen. Bob Corker, ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, seemed to think we should be concerned about it:

"... Just his overall temperament and is he suited to run a department or a big agency or a big entity like the Pentagon."

"I think there are numbers of staffers who are coming forth now just talking about the way he has dealt with them. I have, certainly questions, about a lot of things.”

However, despite the alleged complaints from staffers, Corker doesn't necessarily feel this could disqualify Chuck Hagel.

He went on to say:

“I begin all of these confirmation processes with an open mind.  I did have a good relationship with him.  I had a good conversation with him this week.  But I think this is one where people are going to be listening to what he has to say, me in particular … especially some of the positions he’s taken generally speaking about our nuclear posture.”

Has Bob Corker ever wondered aloud about fellow Senator John McCain's "temperament"? Just asking.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare