muzik wrote:
What difference, at this point, does it make?

It's not like it's a surprise or anything. The DNC's bias was pretty obvious all along. As was the Republican establishment's—not that it made the slightest difference in that case.

I suppose one could argue that it matters more in a close race. And it will encourage the Sandersnistas to boycott her, possibly seeding a left-wing third (ok, fourth) party movement to turn some of that outrage into better ballot access and a broader political debate.

So I'm gonna go ahead and take it as good news.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
And mighty convenient for this to all come out a day before the DNC.

So, it was true all along...

I had a spine once.

 

Goodness Gracious.

 

 kurtster wrote: 
Yep. And that was when terrorists were still burning their lips on school bus tail pipes, trying to blow them up.

 OlderThanDirt wrote: 
Oh, well that gets the Cambridge Police Department off the hook, cuz that was way back when Obama was a student at Haaarvaaard.

 kurtster wrote: 
I don't rightly know. Servo was talking about "current events."

 OlderThanDirt wrote: 
Are the 95 House Democrats who voted no also terrorists ? 

Or are we talking about the Cambridge Police Department for giving Obama all those parking tickets ? 

 Servo wrote: 
Oh, of course you are. Sorry I asked.

 OlderThanDirt wrote: 
No, you're way off.  I'm talking about current events.  The hijacking of debt limit legislation, the hijacking of FAA funding...those things.

 Servo wrote: 
Do you mean that the President would never say that people who don't think like him are terrorists but would think it?

 cc_rider wrote: 
  Words that I knew the President would never use, but wish to death he had: "The US doesn't negotiate with terrorists."

 cc_rider wrote: 

The irony is they shot themselves in the foot. They were on the right path if they just weren't so stubborn about revenue adjustments for the wealthy they could have passed the 14 trillion long term deal hammered out by Boehner and the President. This would have actually had a substantial effect on the deficit and would have made the bond rating institutions as well as the business community feel much better and that after all is the most important aspect of this whole fiasco. The deal they actually ended up voting on did not mess with their precious taxes but in the end will not have near the effect on the deficit or economy that they propose to have been fighting for in the first place! What a joke!

 cc_rider wrote: 
Fifth Columnists, led by Rupert Murdoch.

 romeotuma wrote:
 
You are not alone, 'tuma. I shared that article yesterday on FB. The TP has used raw extortion (Mr. Krugman's words) to hold the U.S. economy hostage to a narrow interest. They are acting exactly like TERRORISTS. We, the American people, should never have negotiated with them.

She's awesome AND she has naturally curly hair!

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Tapped To Succeed Tim Kaine As DNC Chair

 kurtster wrote: 
Well, for starters, we could go after some of the laws and regulations that were written by the rich people for the rich people, and make income more equitable. Look at Wall St, do you think it is just that those traders made obscene amounts of money by bilking the average joe? (Who of course takes the blame for being too stupid to understand how the wool was pulled over their eyes.) We want a democracy, not a plutocracy (http://www.truth-out.org/bill-moyers-money-fights-hard-and-it-fights-dirty64766) or a corporatocracy. Our government has been taken over by these interests, and they are lining their pockets while the middle class, who is making them rich, is struggling ever harder to make ends meet for their families.

I am not a Communist, I don't believe it works, because people should be entitled to do the best they can, but that doesn't mean that we should hand it to certain people. A typical example is Congress, who have gotten rich off supporting the plutocratic ideal, and they get health insurance and all kinds of perks, because they gave it to themselves., while the rest of us do without.

You have a real hard-on for Soros, don't you?

 hippiechick wrote: 
I thought my proposal would address your wealth redistribution concerns if taken at face value.  What is wrong with my plan ?  I would think that you would totally agree with taking all income over a Million per year ?  Or do you want to lower the allowable amount, say like to $250K ?  I could sure live well on that amount, as long as there was no inflation and I was free to travel and spend it as I saw fit.

In fact, I would be willing to settle for only $200K per year and allowed to be forcably moved to Hawaii.  Howze that for being a team player ?  Leaving 50K on the table for all of the rest of you ?

I would be happy to see all of Soro's money taken away and made to live on $250K per year.  He's now an old man.  He had his fun.  Time to get out of the way and give it up.  He has enough money to cover a couple of states entire operating expenses for a year.  Even better, just give it all to California to help cover the expense of illegals.  That would cover that expense for about 3 years.  I think that would be a much better use of his money, myself.

So if you don't like my plan, how about yours ?