• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On January - 8 - 2010
Categories: Vox Populi

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

135 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. jan4insight says:

    Well, folks, it’s time for me turn in -- I’m heading off to really fun art workshop in the morning (mixed media -- we get to play with paint, paper, glue, glitter, markers & more :) for the next 2 days) so I’d best get some shut-eye!

    Sleep tight, everyone.

  2. jan4insight says:

    News flash: HP has not one but two articles supporting Obama running now!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-benen/a-tale-of-two-responses_b_416507.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/after-the-underwear-bombe_b_412134.html

    I’m posting to see if I’m dreaming πŸ˜‰ And both stories are well worth reading, btw!

    • escribacat says:

      They’re already talking about Geithner’s replacement over there. Anyone else hear that Geithner got ousted or is that just in Huffyland?

  3. Kalima says:

    My 5 pence worth on people’s expectations of President Obama. It took Bush 8 years to destroy your country, give the President at least his 4 years to try to fix Bush’s sh@t pile.

    How does anyone really know the ins and outs of everything he has been trying to accomplish with the lawyers behind closed doors, the closing of those loopholes Bush opened during his 2 terms can’t be an easy thing to figure out. I have never seen so much negativity by people in his own party after only a year. Everyone expects change and this is what he is trying to do but his own words “It won’t be easy. I can’t do this alone” haunt me. As much as you expected from him, he expected from all of you. Some of his base have let him down especially on HCR, the bickering about saving lives has really been an eye opener, the armchair critics a pain in the arse. Let the man try to do his job.

    • escribacat says:

      I agree, Kalima. I voted for Hillary in the primary but grew to like Obama during the regular campaign. I was moved to tears when he was elected. Now I disagree with some of his policies and decisions but still think he’s the best thing that has happened to this country in a long time.

      I think a lot of people believed that our whole nation had suddenly changed when he was elected. Then everyone woke up and realized the country is the same. Big disappointment — and it must be his fault!

      • Khirad says:

        Whereas a lot of others “want their country back”.

        • escribacat says:

          How ironic is that?

          • Khirad says:

            I still want to know where it went. It seemed to disappear immediately on Jan 21. That was some David Copperfield, Mindfreak type thing. I wish he could withdraw troops and make them disappear that quickly, given his miraculous powers of ‘black’ magic.

      • Kalima says:

        I cried along with all of you, didn’t sleep a wink. When my hubby came back from work, we sat together hand in hand and watched the whole speech again.

        I have American friends of 30 years, I wept for them and their families, it felt good.

        Having disagreement with the President about certain policies is normal, jumping on his every move, every uttered word, is not.

      • KQuark says:

        I think a lot of people believed that our whole nation had suddenly changed when he was elected. Then everyone woke up and realized the country is the same. Big disappointment

    • KQuark says:

      Kalima in many ways you are the voice of reason.

      I was just thinking this has to be the most over analyzed president in history. Why because people expect so much. It really goes back almost 30 years in politics when the right started destroying this country. For only 2 of those years Democrats had the White House and the presidency. Now people are only going to give Obama only two years because he’s not progressive enough. C’mon that’s just ignorant thinking.

      Can you imagine if the public only gave FDR two years? Oh and remember it’s only one year because the second is an election year. It’s not like all the problems he faced were anywhere near fixed in 2 or 4 years for that matter. Liberal Dems were not happy at all with FDR and the limits on SS at the time.

      • Kalima says:

        K I’m just so very tired of the negativity, you expect it from the RW, your tiresome, irrational MSM and the so-called self professed pundits who make my hair stand on end but not this constant nitpicking from people who should know better or are supposed to know the inside view of Washington. It’s as if they all want him to fail and it makes my soul sick to the very core of me.

        I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, he is EVERYONE’S President, why is that so bloody hard to understand, do they want to cut him into small pieces so that everyone can have their share?

    • jan4insight says:

      Well said, Kalima! If this were HP I’d fan you πŸ˜‰

  4. jan4insight says:

    If I may repost something from AdLib up here, where y’all can see it:

    “What many of us think he should have done is use his mandate to slam through bold initiatives and if the Repubs in Congress whined, mow them down with moving public opinion against them or tossing out the filibuster.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I disagree, and this is where I part company with many of my fellow prog’s. I think it would have been an absolute disaster if he’d tried that. You think Repub obstructionism is bad now? It would have been impeachment time in 3,2,1 -- for real -- or worse! Also, I think the mandate is highly fragile -- that magic 60-vote thing in the Senate never was real, as we’ve seen thanks to quisling Joe LIEberman.

    It’s been painful watching Obama go through the bipartisan route, but I absolutely think it was necessary. It has shown the great middle of the spectrum what the deal is, and now and in the next year when the gloves start really coming off, he’ll have a much stronger basis for unilateral action because no one (except the most delusional wingers) can say he hasn’t tried to work with both parties.

    • AdLib says:

      Appreciate your POV on this but as you noted, I look at this a bit differently.

      The Repubs could not impeach, that’s a fact. The House must impeach and the Dems have a huge majority.

      How could the Repubs be any more obstructionist than they are? No is no, they could say it more times but they vote 100% against everything Obama proposes.

      The mandate Obama had was powerful, not fragile, he won by a bigger majority than any president in recent memory.

      And if the filibuster was killed with the nuclear option, the Dems would only need 51 votes in the Senate, they have more than that for a public option and many other bills.

      I do agree with you that he needed to try bipartisanship but he should have learned from his experience on the stimulus that it was part of the GOP campaign to try and deny him any success.

      Many of us saw it then and have been pained to see him hit the wall on this again and again.

      • KQuark says:

        Adlib the way it was explained to me by Lawrence O’Donnell it would not work. 90% of the HC bill would have to go through the filibuster process no matter what because the legislation has nothing to do with the budget. Even if you could get the 10% through budget reconciliation that included the public option funding program Lieberman and Nelson would block the other 90% knowing it would be used with the other 10% of the bill. The way Republicans used reconciliation for tax cuts was easy because it was all budget related.

        • Khirad says:

          I don’t want to sound like a total kiss ass, but I really like Lawrence O’Donnell’s take on these things. He’s one of the few who can make reasonable conjecture on what’s going on strategically behind-the-scenes, and cuts through all the talking points. I thought his take on what Reid did was especially refreshing, and he’s a sobering voice of reality. Not to say he’s without fault, I just trust his take on things more than most.

      • jan4insight says:

        Well, AdLib, I guess we can agree to disagree -- except we both agree it’s been painful!And I’m sure it’s been equally painful to the President.

        For myself, I’d also like to add that I don’t see Obama’s even temperament as any sign of weakness but rather incredible strength. (slightly o/t, I know but related).

    • KQuark says:

      I can only speak for myself and I’ve lived down South for 18 years and GA for almost 10. I have no choice at the polls. A Dem is not going to win in my area no matter how I vote. Every four years I actually get a chance to vote for a Dem who can win.

      I also think trying to move past partisanship is like trying to strive for world peace. Always a worthwhile goal no matter how impossible it is.

      Most of all I knew Obama was not a partisan mirror image of Bush. If I wanted that I would have voted differently in the primaries.

  5. KQuark says:

    Adlib and Cher if you support Obama why do you since you feel like he lied?

    • AdLib says:

      Huh? Who said he lied?

      • KQuark says:

        You said something to the effect that he misrepresented himself as being more progressive than he was. Now not keeping his campaign promises is par for the course for a pol but misrepresenting who you are is lying to me. Just like Bush lied when he said the infamous line “I’m a uniter not a divider”. That was a lie. But I still should not have presumed that much if you meant something else.

        Like I said to Khirad Obama was very coy on many issues like saying he would review Bush policies instead of saying he would reverse them. Even when he said no one is above the law that’s a very interpretive term and does not mean he’s going to prosecute. The issues like torture ending torture he expressly said and reversed.

        Above all Obama is the best political talent of our time which means he knows how to be all things to most people. I still think in the end people are underestimating his political skills and if all goes to plan he will get much of what he promised. Will it pass what progressives want all the time absolutely no but it will be progress.

    • nellie says:

      You know, I’m beginning to think that one of the reasons I’m not disappointed in Obama is because he was never progressive enough for me. I was hanging out w Green Party folks, and Obama was not our idea of the future. So I felt I was already compromising when I voted for him.

      Now I’m pleasantly surprised.

      Good question, K. I’m interested in the answers. But I’ll have to see them tomorrow. G nite all.

      • Khirad says:

        I’m inner Green, but pragmatically Democrat. I felt the same. I’m pleasantly surprised. I never got Obama fever. Sure, I got excited and volunteered and jumped up and down when he won, but I never set up expectations or illusions that he would do everything he said. He is, after all, but a politician and a human, with real circumstances to deal with. I am disappointed on a few things, but will be interested to see if he waits on DADT and DOMA until after midterms, or uses it to rev up the progressive base after HCR.

        G’night, Nellie.

        • escribacat says:

          Khirad, that is a perfect description: Inner green but pragmatically Democrat.

        • KQuark says:

          I just said last night for me the only promises he’s flat out not kept up with is ending DADT and DOMA.

          I also have no illusions that he was not a politician. He was purposely coy on many issues especially foreign policy and terrorism specifics. In fact he talked tough on terror like every mainstream pol does. He never said he would prosecute Bush and he always said he would just look into Bush procedures. Things like ending torture he was explicit and a timetable to leave Iraq he kept his word on.

      • KQuark says:

        Like I said in another post I’m a Democrat. I don’t know of any other viable progressive party. But I do know the only progressives that are part of running US government are in my party. As far as being progressive those are my political leanings on the issues.

    • Chernynkaya says:

      I still believe he is a good prez. i really do, even though he has disappointed me on financial reform and his hands-off approach to health care. Financial reform will be his downfall, if ther eis one, IMO. Afghanistan is something I am also unhappy about, but I do trust him even there.

      But the biggest reason I support him is that I basically trust him. Plus-- and this is huge-- I absolutely abhor the right. I am a yellow dog dem. I will always vote Dem.

      • KQuark says:

        I think he rides or dies on the economy and healthcare. I think most Americans have forgot about financial regulations. The most important part is because we are in such a deflationary period there are no bubbles to explode anymore.

        I don’t know if I could support him and definitely not trust him if I were you. Nellie and I saw a far different candidate. Obama’s vision is still progressive compared to the center but he’s ultra pragmatic in practice. Most of all he’s not a partisan by nature.

  6. AdLib says:

    I have been tough on Obama on some issues but I remain a strong supporter. Now may be a good time to review some of his key accomplishments (aside from the STimulus and HCR bills). Here is Politifact’s scorecard on campaign promises Obama has already kept:

    No. 15: Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners
    No. 16: Increase minority access to capital
    No. 33: Establish a credit card bill of rights
    No. 36: Expand loan programs for small businesses
    No. 40: Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch
    No. 58: Expand eligibility for State Children’s Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)
    No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq
    No. 132: No permanent bases in Iraq
    No. 134: Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
    No. 167: Make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti-terror efforts
    No. 174: Give a speech at a major Islamic forum in the first 100 days of his administration
    No. 239: Release presidential records
    No. 244: Provide affordable, high-quality child care
    No. 290: Push for enactment of Matthew Shepard Act, which expands hate crime law to include sexual orientation and other factors
    No. 411: Work to overturn Ledbetter vs. Goodyear
    No. 513: Reverse restrictions on stem cell research

    Check out their site to see many more on that list: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

    • KQuark says:

      My feeling is that he has not been as successful as I hoped on some things but more successful than people give him credit on other things.

      The bank bailouts as ugly as they were worked (at least to keep the system recovering) and now an 80%+ of the money is expected back. Geihtner’s much maligned public private bailout initiate cost a fraction of what the critics claimed it would cost or the even estimated.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/business/07tarp.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1260169317-voOsda9mxr93NTqFz8yMZQ

      The Treasury Department expects to recover all but $42 billion of the $370 billion it has lent to ailing companies since the financial crisis began last year, with the portion lent to banks actually showing a slight profit, according to a new Treasury report…
      …Instead, just $7 billion more in bailout money has gone out to banks since Mr. Obama became president, making a second loan authorization unnecessary. Meanwhile, banks have raised 16 times as much, $114 billion, in private capital, according to the Treasury.

      YES you heard it hear folks only $7 billion more TARP funds went to bank bailouts under Obama and Geithner’s plan worked.

      I know how the Fed stepped in as creditor of last resort but that’s what they should have done to avert the worse of the Great Depression.

    • KQuark says:

      Thanks Adlib I just asked that question.

    • Scheherazade says:

      I have a link to a similar list. :) but… I promised no more links tonight. πŸ˜‰ Hehe.

  7. BigDogMom says:

    Well kids I’m pooping out, I urge all of you to watch Bill Moyers’ Journal that aired tonight, this goes along with what we have been talking about O, the economy, Geithner and big banks…

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2010/01/complex_issues_public_outrage.html#comments

    Wish you all a good night and sweet dreams…

  8. Scheherazade says:

    One more thing and I’ll stop posting links. I promise! XD

    I’d like to recommend this to anyone who missed it tonight on PBS.

    David Corn and Kevin Drum on Bill Moyers Journal

    You can watch the video and read the transcript here.

    The subject is Wall Street’s close ties with Washington and other obstacles to financial reform. There’s even more reporting on the subject here too.

  9. Scheherazade says:

    OMG! Now here’s something noteworthy!

    Washington Times headline -- Geithner called to explain AIG bailout secrecy

    I believe Cher pointed out that a similar main was on HP this afternoon. What does that tell us? Hmmm?

    It really says something when a website that’s largely looked upon as progressive is reporting the same story that a right wing paper is.

    If I didn’t have such a sensitive gag reflex I’d compare the two articles. I’m sure David Brock would be very interested to find out if the two were basically identical!

  10. Scheherazade says:

    From tomorrow’s (today’s for those on the east coast) Washington Post:

    House panel wants Geithner to testify about New York Fed and AIG

    $10.00 says Scarianna is rubbing her hands together like Uriah Heep right now!

  11. Chernynkaya says:

    I want to ask those still here: does anyone besides me think Obama did present himself as at least somewhat Progressive? I am hearing now that he was always a centrist-- which he IS AND WAS-- but that’s not how he came across to me.

    • Khirad says:

      Yes, to make a distinction with Hillary, but most seem peeved that he’s not Kucinich. BTW, my favorite people are those who are both Kucinich and Ron Paul people. Confused souls…

      • Chernynkaya says:

        Are they really your favorites are are you being sarcastic?

        • Khirad says:

          They are p-r-e-c-i-o-u-s. Yes, heavy sarcasm -- thus the confused souls part. πŸ˜‰

          I should be more honest though, I have worse offender categories than them. The other day some guy told me that Ahmadinejad has done more for human rights in Iran than anyone else. I lost it. He is a known Israel-hater. I can’t stand those hypocrites the most right now… but, I digress…

          • AdLib says:

            Kucinich never had a prayer of winning but go down the list of his policies and you won’t stop nodding. Bernie Sanders is like that, Russ Feingold, a number of Dems but none of which could ever win the presidency.

            • Khirad says:

              No, exactly. I agree. But people are unreal about their canditatorial (is that a word?) viability. And worse yet, compare them to Ron Paul…

              I took one of those quizzes which matched me by policy with a candidate -- it put me with Kucinich. That didn’t mean I thought he had a prayer.

    • jan4insight says:

      Cher, I have pretty much always considered him a pragmatic progressive -- I don’t think for a minute he’s abandoned progressive ideals or even written off his base. Rather, I think he is very focused on stopping the immediate damage of the Bush years (we could have really gone over a cliff), and getting done what can be done given the massive entrenchment of corporate power that was made even worse under the last guy. I’m also not upset about his bipartisan efforts, as many liberals are. He had to go through this exercise to show for once and for all that the GNoP is a not cooperating, and I think he’s going to move on without them in the future.

      Since I would consider myself a pragmatic progressive as well, I have no problem with this. while there are specific things I disagree with, I think he has been amazing considering the unbelievable obstructionism of the G No P -- which I think even Obama underestimated at first. I and others are thinking that we will see more of the progressive and “tougher” side of Obama coming out in the light in the coming years, and I’m gonna be loving it :)

      • Chernynkaya says:

        Thanks Jan, So, if he doesn’t show a tougher side will you be disappointed? I think he needs to show that side too. At this point, I am still more content with Obama than I am dissatisfied, but if there were a viable progressive candidate, I’d vote for him/her over Obama. The main thing though-- and it’s a big one for me-- is we must prevent the Reptilians from ever regaining power.

        • jan4insight says:

          No, I don’t think I’ll be disappointed and I’m certainly not know -- first of all, I think he IS tough and he has shown it -- just not in a way that people are used to after years of Repub “make my day” bs.

          Many have made the analogy of Obama as the chess player when everyone else is playing checkers, and I think that’s absolutely right-on. (I’d add to that Jedi master and student of Sun Tzu, which I’ve read is one of his favorite sources.) I know he is very focused on long-term results, which often doesn’t play well in a world of instant gratification -- sad to say many progressives want instant gratification, hence much of HP’s ability to fuel prog disappointment πŸ˜›

          And you’re right we must absolutely work to ensure the Repug’s stay a minority that gets smaller by the day. All the more reason we must keep our criticism of the Pres focused, reasoned, and fact-based, and avoid the HP-style gratuitous sliming. Because allowing lib/prog apathy to take hold would just hand it all back to the Rethugs.

    • AdLib says:

      Obama clearly presented himself as a liberal and Progressive. The only exception was his stand on Afghanistan which he was very consistent about.

      That is why there is the disappointment factor, he has moderated his position on the banks, on government health insurance, on DADT, on a number of Bush Policies, there is a long list.

      Though, he is a good president as moderates go. There was a brief window for him to be something huge though in terms of change but he chose the moderate road instead.

      • nellie says:

        I didn’t see much difference between Obama and Mrs. Clinton — who is clearly a centrist. Their voting records were similar. In fact, if anything, Hillary’s was more liberal. Her stance on the environment was certainly more progressive. The true progressive candidates were Kucinich and Edwards.

        • Chernynkaya says:

          Nellie, that is a fact, but I am talking about perception and I believe he allowed himself to be perceived as a progressive. Maybe tomorrow I’ll find some examples, and if I can’t I’ll stand corrected.

          • nellie says:

            But how does someone allow themselves to be perceived in a certain way? I don’t understand that idea.

            I remember having so many arguments with people during the campaign who wanted Obama to be more liberal — he’s too centrist. And I would say, that’s who wins elections. But, more than that, it’s who he is. His voting record shows it. His life shows it, actually. You don’t make Law Review at Harvard by being left wing.

            • Chernynkaya says:

              By being deliberately vague and not correcting misconceptions to the degree one is able. I will try to find examples, as I am 99% sure, he presented himself as a progressive.

              You can argue about the law review but that is too esoteric for most voters to analyze. I am talking about the soaring rhetoric about change, and the little guy, and his understanding of the troubles of the poor.

            • nellie says:

              But the things you mention are centrist ideas. Progressive ideas are single payer health care, immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, nationalizing the banks. He wasn’t for any of those things.

          • Khirad says:

            Perhaps later, but who can forget the post partisan thing he tried -- this is not red state America or blue state America but the United States of America? Maybe he didn’t push back on projections put on him. It was more third party public image drive by MoveOn and such, and surrogates, perhaps?

        • Khirad says:

          Not on foreign policy IMO.

          • nellie says:

            I agree — on foreign policy, Hillary is pretty hawkish. But that’s the only area where she’s more conservative than O. Interesting that this is where he decided she would be most effective.

            • Khirad says:

              Yes it is interesting. I had mixed feelings on it. I believe she has the knowledge and the connections around the world to be effective, but she’s gone freelance on a few comments here and there. Still, I’ve been pleasantly surprised, though I could easily get lambasted for saying that. She’s not everything the purists would like, but is a more than capable foreign policy wonk.

            • nellie says:

              I like her as SOS, too. I think people are afraid of her — which is okay w me. I like the fact that we have someone who is so strong on women’s rights in that position right now. It’s very good timing.

      • KQuark says:

        What was his position on the banks before the election since he voted for TARP one?

      • BigDogMom says:

        This is what they were talking about tonight on Bill Moyer’s show…he has been too center, too moderate and too conciliatory…he need to make a statement and take a stand.

        The bills he presented, ie banking, started out a little watered down to get the ball rolling on getting the right on board, went to congress were it gets a little more watered down…then gets totally decimated in the senate…the bill has no teeth and absolutely no regulations to stop what caused the meltdown.

      • Chernynkaya says:

        Adlib, why do you think he has chosen to write off his base? Isn’t it political wisdom that you can’t win without your base? I know they are smarter than that so I am baffled by their lead ear.

        • AdLib says:

          I think Obama has over intellectualized his presidency and another factor is having the DLCers like Rahm pushing him away from the left.

          Obama seems to have believed that the country would get behind him more if he focused on bipartisanship and moderate policies.

          He may also have factored in that many were afraid of what he would do because he’s black so he may have thought proving how moderate he was would quell some of the racist fears.

          I think it was a mistaken calculation. What many of us think he should have done is use his mandate to slam through bold initiatives and if the Repubs in Congress whined, mow them down with moving public opinion against them or tossing out the filibuster.

          His trying to reassure the racist loons fell on deaf ears, they couldn’t care if he was liberal, moderate of conservative, they;ll hate him for devaluing their specialness by proving that a black person can be as good or better than a white person.

          • Chernynkaya says:

            Well said! Exactly! Earlier, there was a discussion about the racism on the left-- in the sense that we expected a black President to behave a certain way. I think that is true for many people. The irony is precisely what you articulated-- that because of being an AA, he wound up behaving MORE centrist. I have had the thought that his being African American was unfortunate in these ways.

            And I still maintain he is making a mistake. KQ feels that Democrats are his base, but I disagree-- the base is always the more extreme vis a vis the center. The center is the larger number, but not the base, in the same way Palin represents the R base. She can’t win the middle, no base can. But you can’t win without the bases either.

            • nellie says:

              omg — I’m sorry. I have to tell you guys, THERE ARE BLACK PEOPLE OUT THERE LIKE THIS MAN. A LOT OF THEM.

              He’s not pretending to be moderate. Really. He’s not.

              He’s willing to compromise some of his preferences to reach a broader goal. But don’t think that he’s a pent up progressive. He’s not.

        • KQuark says:

          Republicans have already proven you can’t win without the middle.

          • Chernynkaya says:

            True, nor without your base. The base is the group that volunteers and knocks on doors and gets out the vote. They are worth more than the percentages they represent.

            • KQuark says:

              The base of the Democratic Party are loyal Democrats. Progressives enter the game when they feel like it.

            • nellie says:

              Unfortunately, I think you’re right on that one. I was a Green Party chair just before 2008, and I reregistered as an independent so I could vote in the Dem primary. But the people I was around were definitely not hard core political strategists. They were idealists — who got angry when things didn’t go just their way.

    • BigDogMom says:

      No, I believe that at times he did present himself that way and when questioned did not say yes or deny it….played both sides to the middle as they say.

      • Chernynkaya says:

        That’s what i think too. But you know, during the campaign, whenever he said something centrist or even kind of Right-- like in Afghanistan or the DOMA-- I thought that was just to win the middle. I was wrong.

  12. Chernynkaya says:

    BDM-- I think it’s a great idea. But they better not screw up! That’s all the Israelis need.

  13. Chernynkaya says:

    Is anyone here?

  14. Khirad says:

    I’m here for my martini dammit! πŸ˜€

    • Chernynkaya says:

      I already made mine, Khirad. Here ya go, buddy!

    • AdLib says:

      Shaken, stirred or put through a full body scanner?

      • BigDogMom says:

        Read today that they are thinking of outsourcing airport security to an Iraeli Security Company, what do you guys think of that?

        • AdLib says:

          Excellent, who better?

          • BigDogMom says:

            Yes it would be good, only if they hire and train US employees…might be some backlash if not.

            I also have been noticing a lot more anti-semitism on post on certain blogs…didn’t think that still existed.

            • AdLib says:

              It is part and parcel of the racism of the angry ignorant white people, “Don’t you forget now, we still hate Jews too!”

            • Chernynkaya says:

              It’s disguised ad anti-Zionism in the Liberal community and there is legit criticism that is not anti semetic, but all the Fed stuff is.

            • Chernynkaya says:

              It’s a sad fact of the progressive community and the Ron Paul crowd. Alive and well-- especially since the financial crisis. Haven’t you heard that we Jews own the Fed?

            • Khirad says:

              ZOG!

            • BigDogMom says:

              Yes heard that one…it seems that the Zionist are at the root of this whole collapse per some posters.

              Large portion of the CEO’s and CFO’s of these banks and Wallstreet Funds are Wasps…people seem to overlook that…


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features