I never really read Jane Hamsher or firedog lake place, but I will say this

[The Straight Story]

I don't care if I like or dislike someone, whether or not they appear on a tv station I like or not, and I don't even care if they are 'self-promoting' (something which our politicians do a lot).

Do they speak the truth (or, do they agree with my overall belief system/ideals - as truth can be an ill used word at times - politics is like religion, so truth is subjective in some ways. Funny how we want to keep religion separate from government but not other belief systems...).

I have stayed out of these threads mainly because I don't even know who she is. But really - if you have issues with WHAT someone says - than can't you address those issues and why do you think they are wrong on said issues?

WHY attack the person, the station they are on, who might be friends with them, whatever?

If all you have is guilt by association, then what do you really have?

Won't even say I agree or disagree with her or what she says, but really, it is kind of lazy to attack someone by the company they keep.

[BlueCaliDem]

1. When the company is Norquist and the rabid-right teabaggers, it's justified. eom

[Jakes Progress]

3. Please read up on the difference

between right wing and left wing? It will help in arguments that display more logic than knee-jerk response.

[BlueCaliDem]

4. As if yours displays any more logic than any other kneejerker. Yeah, right.

Take your own advice because of late, you have no argument.

Oh, and spinning until you're dizzy doesn't change that fact.

[Jakes Progress]

7. Still unclear?

Get someone to read the stuff to you. Then you could actually argue a point or discuss an issue rather than just call names and make charges that have no relation to the post to which you are replying.

But then, go ahead and keep making my point for me.

[BlueCaliDem]

25. No, it's clear as day to me

that all you've got are patronizing, kneejerk responses and attack, attack, attack, because in all truth, you've got nothing to rebut me with.

I didn't call anybody names here, unless it were the names they, themselves, use.

You've made no point, but nice try at deflection.

But just in case that sentence of my original post wasn't clear to you? Here's what I mean in simpler terms and it is, absolutely, a proper response to the OP:

"Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas".

Get it now? No? Google it then.

[Jakes Progress]

39. Nice duck. You adroitly sidestepped the issue.

Right Wing = conservative, reactionary, usually selfish and nasty.

Left Wing = liberal, progressive, generally humanitarian.

The premise that because both people want the same thing that they are the same is simply simple-minded. I think that those saying these things are being dishonest because they know that rhetoric like yours is stupid. You do not believe the logic that would support what you wrote.

If you did then you must have the same politics as joe lieberman. He supports the bill. You support the bill. Under your laying-with-dogs meme, you have the same goals and beliefs as joe lieberman.

What happened here is that you got called on knowingly using false and simplistic arguments to rant on someone you don't like. You don't really seem to be stupid enough to believe what you wrote. It does appear that you thought you could get by with it without getting called out.

So don't go calling others dumb when you are just hacking out from being backed into the corner of illogic that you yourself built. You got caught. Fess up and learn to think before you post because others are.

Get it now? But then, you always got it. You just thought you could slip by with it. Google Chagrin and Shame.

[snagglepuss]

5. What utter crap. You don't complain that Obama bends over backward to

accomodate the RW of both parties and praises bi-partisanship but you get all bent out of shape when Hamsher follows his example. That is vile hypocrisy.

[inna]

11. except that she does NOT "follow his example".

Jane is a true progressive. All she did was simply CO-SIGN a frigging letter - SO WHAT?? Big Fucking deal. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7327349&mesg_id=7327560

[snagglepuss]

15. It was meant to be ironic. She gets slammed for working with one rightwinger

whereas Obama has been solely engaged in this kind of bi-partisanship since the getgo and nary a peep from Hamsher's detractors.


Let me be perfectly clear. I support Hamsher completely. She is exceptional.

[inna]

16. i'm with you.

:hi:

[aquart]

20. Yes, she is.

Damn few I'll light candles for in St. Patrick's, but I did for her.

[BlueCaliDem]

23. Apples to Oranges. Obama is PRESIDENT. Tell me what policy pol is Hamsher again?

If you can't see the fundamental difference between these two then your opinion that this traitor is "exceptional" holds zero credibility.

Watch for the woman to implode then crash and burn very, very soon.:rofl:

[snagglepuss]

30. That makes no sense whatsoever. Its ludicrous to suggest that only

presidents can reach across the aisle. You'll have to come up with something better than that. As for her crashing and burning, that is just another ludicrous notion. This brilliant move on her part is actually giving her cause the attention it deserves.

Go back to civics class because her efforts are anything but traitorous.

[BlueCaliDem]

34. It's not ludicrous since this is about POLICY right? What was Hammie elected to again?

She CAN'T reach across any aisle, sheesh!

Sorry, but your entire premise for defending this traitor to Progressive ideals is utterly ridiculous, and you, as a progressive, should have seen it the moment she joined hands and sang hymns with teabaggers and Bathtub Norquie. You DO know they're wholly against Progressives and progressive ideals, right? Hammie, a self-proclaimed Liberal, is what? Progressive or Regressive?

Her only cause, clearly, is self-aggrandizement. She has zero power, at least less than the lunatic RW fringe, aka teabaggers, do since she had to lower herself into the gutter in order to pal around with them just to get attention for her cause, which is herself.

When you lower yourself to that level, is it progressive or is it regressive?

Admire her? Never again.

[BlueCaliDem]

26. It IS a big effing deal. Ask any attorney how big a deal your signature is

and what it means if you don't understand it fully. I also suggest you don't go anywhere near a doc with pen in hand.

I'm getting real tired of Hamsher-sheeple. They claim she's a Progressive even as she pals around with REgressives.

Go figure.

[BlueCaliDem]

21. No, not crap, reality. Hamsher doesn't have to work with RWers. She CHOOSES to

President has to work in bi-partisanship with RWers in Congress, because he's fighting for policies that become law, otherwise nothing gets done.

He's the "New kid on the block". The Senate is a place where old ties are solidified and egos are bigger than Alaska, and they cross party lines. Ask President Clinton who tried to defy them.

You need to get yourself a reality check and know the difference between choosing to pal around with the teabaggers for misplaced Utopian ideology even if it's detrimental to this country, or having no choice in order to get things done to benefit it.

[snagglepuss]

32. Spare me. Obama chose to work with RWers right off the bat. He had

options other than simply rolling over.

[laughingliberal]

6. And when Bobb Barr and Dick Armey teamed up with the ACLU to oppose some of

Bush' policies? Were we then on the wrong side of the debate because we opposed the same policies? And was the ACLU then a right-wing, fascist organization because Barr and Armey were working with them?

[BlueCaliDem]

22. AhJeez. ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union. They defended Limpballs

against his arrest for his hillbilly heroine addiction, and they don't do it out of any preset Utopian ideology that just doesn't work in the REAL world. The ACLU fight for human, civil, individual rights. Hamsher fights for Hamdsher's rights.

Tell me you weren't being serious here?

[laughingliberal]

24. The ACLU does stand up for civil rights for everyone regardless of ideology

I'm not sure that asking for an investigation into a scheme to channel more money with no strings attached to Freddie and Fannie before the end of the year to avoid the need for Congressional approval constitutes a Utopian ideal. Guess the bar for Utopia has been lowered somewhat since my youth.

[BlueCaliDem]

31. Yeah, but my point is Hammie doesn't and she's NO ACLU

Once again, Congress is NOT the President's, or the American peoples', friend.

If Hamsher wants to fight the no-strings attached scheme, let her call and align herself with the ACLU, not turn to gRover Norqie and his band of lunatic teabaggers.

Having mutually agreed that the ACLU doesn't use ideology to try a case, there shouldn't be a problem for her and them to join hands and go after President Obama on this based on legal merit, right? Right?

Congress, by the way, has become a joke. They're the only power that can declare war, yet haven't done so since WWII. Still, how many wars have we been in since again?

And yet now you want and trust their approval to investigate Freddie and Fannie (two mega institutions consequently loathed by the righties and the GNo!P) because Congress has done so well keeping to their constitutional oaths so far, huh? LOL

[laughingliberal]

33. Anyone has a right to bring government wrong doing to the attention of the people

The press was always considered a watchdog on government but they are seriously compromised now by corporate control of the media. I am pissed about the new giveaway to Freddie and Fannie with no strings attached-the same conditions for bailout that Bush' guy, Paulson, had for handing off our money to the thieves who tanked the economy to begin with. I don't care if it's deputy dog bringing it to our attention, they are correct about the problem here. There are those in the progressive caucuses in Congress who do not approve of this continued transfer of wealth to the wealthy, They are, unfortunately, the representatives being marginalized by this corporate friendly White House. Most of the population on the right and the left are pissed off about the bailouts of the financial institutions. I'm not sure a strategy of looking the other way because the right agrees with us on this is beneficial.

Grover Norquist is a scumbag but I did not see us abandon our position on Bush' violation of FISA laws because he agreed with our position. This is nuts. The continued bailout of the financial institutions who got us in this mess is inexcusable and anyone who agrees with that is right on this issue even if they are wrong on every other issue.

[HipChick]

2. The Blackface incident - says that's she lazy enough herself

[snagglepuss]

8. You must be projecting, you seem unable to expend enough energy to write

a complete sentence.

[HipChick]

12. or perhaps I'm on a mobile device..

using blackface is this day and age is lazy and pathetic for a professional .not to mention RACIST!

[snagglepuss]

13. I suppose you have never done something dumb. Its ludicrious to

smear someone like Hamsher a racist for one dumb stunt.

[HughMoran]

14. apologist

Hmmm, it's fun to turn that one around - how many times I've been called one in the past few weeks.

[snagglepuss]

17. Wrong. Apologists refer to people who justify and defend

institutions or policies. Its not a catch-all word. Hamsher may have supporters but she certainly doesn't have apologists.

[HughMoran]

18. Oh, but she does

Said by a fellow DUer - "On the plus side, Grover has sturdy principles,..."

Uhmmm - ooooooooooook! :freak:

[snagglepuss]

19. I don't care what a DUer posts. Apologists are people like yourself who

justify institutions and policies. Hamsher is not an institution, she is an individual so people who defend her are supporters. The word apologist has a specific meaning and it doesn't apply to people who speak up in support of a private individual.

[KittyWampus]

27. she has linked herself directly and intentionally to Grover Norquist the central actor in Republican

malfeasance.

[HipChick]

38. Dumb stunt? In her profession..

she posted an extremely insensitive and offensive picture - what the hell did she think was going to happen?

[snagglepuss]

40. That was how many years ago? Why all the kerfuffle now, if what

she did back then was oh sooooo egregious?

[inna]

9. KR.

FYI, Jane simply CO-SIGNED a letter with Norquist, that's all. The ensuing witch hunt is absolutely absurd and ridiculous, and nothing short of disgusting IMO. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7327349&mesg_id=7327560

[KittyWampus]

29. The "witch-hunt" is Norquist's attempt to investigate something that's been investigated already

And you don't investigate something because "if he's done nothing wrong there's nothing to be afraid of".

[inna]

43. Actually, there IS abundant evidence of conflict of interest and potential malfeasance and coverup.

1) While on the board of Fannie and Freddie from 2000-2001, Emanuel was "aware, and supportive of" not just unsavory, but ILLEGAL practices, as reported by the Chicago Tribune ( http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,2144542,full.story , http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/03/rahm_emanuels_freddie_mac_prof.html ):

"On Emanuel’s watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass."

(The report by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the oversight board for Fannie/Freddie, “provided evidence that non-executive members of the Board were aware, and supportive of, management in this regard, including the use of derivatives to improperly manage the earnings of Freddie Mac.”)

The accounting scandal wasn't the only one that brewed during Emanuel's tenure.

During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.

The board was throttled for its acquiescence to the accounting manipulation in a 2003 report by Armando Falcon Jr., head of a federal oversight agency for Freddie Mac. The scandal forced Freddie Mac to restate $5 billion in earnings and pay $585 million in fines and legal settlements. It also foreshadowed even harder times at the firm.

2) The White House blocks any investigation into Emanuel's activities while on the board of Freddie Mac from 2000-2001

Rahm claims he just “doesn’t remember” what happened during that time, but the White House turned down the Tribune’s FOIA request for the board minutes and correspondence from the time Rahm was there. They claimed it was “commercial information,” even though at the time of the request Freddie was wholly owned by the federal government.


3) Amazingly, the White House eliminates ANY oversight of Fannie and Freddie and basically blocks any investigation into fraud in the financial crisis and the abuses in the credit markets!

What's stunning is that Obama's Department of Justice basically fired the Inspector General responsible for overseeing and investigating of wrongdoing or other abuses related to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (i.e., Fannie and Freddie)
( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/10/fannie-and-freddie-fire-t_n_353018.html ), and, amazingly, the administration failed to make a new appointment - despite multiple warnings that it's a critical gap in oversight - and left the agency (which is responsible for some $6 trillion in home mortgages) without ANY oversight ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/white-house-told-multiple_n_377437.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/11/freddie-and-fannie-oust-outside-supervisor.html )


4)And now, they announce (on Christmas eve no less) that the slush fund for Fannie and Freddie for picking up toxic mortgage is unlimited: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/24/AR2009122402367.html

Treasury uncaps credit line for Fannie, Freddie

The Obama administration pledged on Thursday to back beleaguered mortgage finance giant Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, no matter how big their losses may be in the next three years.

The administration waited until financial markets had closed on Christmas eve to make the announcement, thwarting chances for critics to have their voices heard.

Under a law put in place before the government seized the two mortgage agencies in September 2008, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had until the end of this year to increase the limit without asking Congress for approval.

The Treasury's announcement came just hours after the companies said their chief executives would be paid up to $6 million on an annualized basis for 2009.

[jgraz]

10. Thanks.

Even if I disagree with someone, playing guilt-by-association -- or worse, hitting them with bogus charges of racism -- turns my stomach.

[Ikonoklast]

28. "Bogus charge of racism"?

Nothing bogus about what she did.

Facts are a nasty thing, and the fact is she posted an extremely insensitive and offensive picture to a great many people on her website.


When emotions run high on an issue, the true inner feelings find a way out from behind the facade.

[jgraz]

35. Explain the circumstances of that picture.

What? You don't know them? You're just jumping on another apologist bandwagon?

I thought so.

[Ikonoklast]

36. You think again.

Hamsher has issued a typical Hollywood non-apology apology: “I sincerely apologize to anyone who was genuinely offended by the choice of images accompanying my blog post today on the Huffington Post. It’s also important to note that I do not, nor have I ever worked for Ned Lamont’s campaign. However, at their request, I removed the image earlier today.” So, she doesn’t think she’s actually done anything wrong here but, hey, if you’re offended–but only sincerely offended, not just somewhat offended–she’s sorry you’re so stupid as to be offended.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/joe_lieberman_blackfaced_jane_hamscher_redfaced/


Sorry, I forgot, she posted it on Huffnpuff, not her own crapfest site.

I stand before you, humbled.

And Jane is still a piece of work. She also lied about working for Lamont.

A twofer.

[jgraz]

37. I think again that you just googled it and you still have no clue what motivated the original post.

Quick, google again. Let me know if you need any help.

[nookiemonster]

41. OMG, it's Grover Fucking Norquist!!

The guy's a sonafabitch, and I fucking detest him. Just read some of the stupid shit that he's said.

I think that if she associates herself with this vermin, screw her. NO SALE.

:grr:

[Thickasabrick]

42. My favorite post on this subject so far....well done nt