Rupublican hubris spinning machine in 3-2-1 and the republican's have become experts at it.

Aristotle defined hubris as "shaming the victim, not because anything happened to you or might happen to you, but merely for your own gratification. Hubris is not the requital of past injuries"that's revenge. As for the pleasure in hubris, its cause is this: men think that by ill-treating others they make their own superiority the greater."

I was able to stream this (again through CNN) and it was pretty good, although I have to admit - While I was listening to Al Franken, I kept expecting him to say, "She's good enough, she's smart enough - and doggone it, people like her".  I guess he has a larger mountain to climb than I originally thought.
------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/10/AR2009071002358.html

interesting,...this coupled with the ability to generate sperm scientifically really has the men on the ropes, I would say.  I guess corporations are being pragmatic by layingoff the men - deep down, they know who the boulder movers are.  Feminism is on the rise, booyah!

Evan Bayh, where ARE YOU ??
Working for the Helth insurance Industry ?
Collecting contributions from the Special Interests ??


'...The companies “biggest concern” is that the United States might adopt “a broader program like our Medicare program” which “could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies.”...'

Can't have THAT, can we ??
reduce the profits of these big companies ??
NO ! NO !!
NEVER ! NEVER ! NEVER !!



From Think Progress:

'....Former Top Insurance Exec Blows The Whistle On Health Insurance Companies’ Plot Against Reform

In an interview with PBS’ Bill Moyers on Friday, former health insurance executive Wendell Potter revealed that health insurance companies had developed a concerted strategy to discredit Michael Moore’s movie SiCKO:

BILL MOYERS: And there was a political strategy. “Position Sicko as a threat to Democrats’ larger agenda.” What does that mean?

WENDELL POTTER: That means that part of the effort to discredit this film was to use lobbyists and their own staff to go onto Capitol Hill and say, “Look, you don’t want to believe this movie. You don’t want to talk about it. You don’t want to endorse it. And if you do, we can make things tough for you.”

BILL MOYERS: How?

WENDELL POTTER: By running ads, commercials in your home district when you’re running for reelection, not contributing to your campaigns again, or contributing to your competitor.

Potter, the former head of Corporate Communications at CIGNA, said he thought Moore “hit the nail on the head with his movie,” which advocated that the government-run systems of other western democracies produce better health care outcomes. The health insurance companies “don’t want you to think that it was a documentary that had some truth,” Potter said.

The companies “biggest concern” is that the United States might adopt “a broader program like our Medicare program” which “could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies.” He added that “we shouldn’t fear government involvement in our health care system. That there is an appropriate role for government, and it’s been proven in the countries that were in that movie.” Watch it:

See part 1 of the interview here.

Potter said he was driven to speak out when “it became really clear to me that the industry is resorting to the same tactics they’ve used over the years, and particularly back in the early ’90s, when they were leading the effort to kill the Clinton plan.”

UpdateMichael Moore’s newest documentary, “Capitalism: A Love Story," is set for an October release. "It will be the perfect date movie. It's got it all -- lust, passion, romance, and 14,000 jobs being eliminated every day. It's a forbidden love, one that dare not speak its name. Heck, let's just say it: It's capitalism," he said...'


Watch out for 'Back Stabbing' Evan Bayh
Is there someone who can run against that clown in the next Primary ??

But we want justices like clarence the cross eyed justice who is out there all by himself making up new laws and ridding the nation of rights.

Expect them to dig in on that point tomorrow in questioning to start 9:30 am ET. Judiciary Ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) already previewed that he would take his shots.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
A racist...I am not surprised. The republicans are all about fiction and stupidity and he leads the ranks pointy hat and all.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

To Answer Jonathan:


The modern Democrats and Republicans propagate the same problem, they just do it with different means, and then convince us to argue or who's method for sinking the ship is better.

I would like to see a constitutional amendment passed that doesn't allow a budget to go through congress if it isn't balanced.
Jonathan, Flint, MI

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jonathan, I m not really sure how old you are and I mean no disrespect in saying so because age does not necessitate wisdom; However I did post a bit of history that I lived and know to well, just as some others out here will agree to, but balanced budgets wont mean a hill of a beans unless we deviate from “proven” errors of this nation’s economic fixes.

Intake of cash to off set expenditures is a given need and result’s to no debate from me. My history lesson actually points out failures of the party to deliver on their solid claims of “tax cuts” only, after all, that was their answer to this economic crisis we are experiencing. Don’t forget the mortgage crisis.

I have a saying,” You can’t put a band-aid on a gaping hole that requires sutures”.  This best describes the Republican Parties brand of politics. Supply- sided economics don’t work.

Trickle down economics don’t work. What works are fixes…not patches. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush failed at fixing the economy to the point that would sustain such losses that we’ve experienced. I have the remainder of my history lesson to post and you will better understand what I am addressing.

'...The companies “biggest concern” is that the United States might adopt “a broader program like our Medicare program” which “could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies.”...'

MSierra, SF (Sent Monday, July 13, 2009 3:27 PM)
-----------------------------------------------------

Health insurance fat-cats ~ 1  American citizens ~ 0

MSierra...I'm going to do everything I can to inform liberal minded people in my state that evan bayh does not represent our party.

He doesn't even appear moderate anymore...

Blue dogs have to go.

She learned well from Obama how to talk out of both sides of her mouth.  

As an attorney who works for a State Appellate Court, yes, appellate courts are where policy is made, to the extent one is talking about setting precedent lower courts are bound to follow.

You talk a good game but you know damn well the Democrats have just as many skeletons in their closets. POLITICIANS are POLITICIANS no matter what party. They are only going to do what is best for THEM as an individual. You can stop painting the Republicans with a broad brush because your beloved Democrats are just as ruthless.
IntheMiddle, TX
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

I speak truth to fact. Look around...you have ensign, Sanford, Cheney, Palin quiting as Governor and reeds blowing in the wind. You know damn well if Democrats would be the slightest involved in scandels and BS...you people would be roasting them right now.

Look what you did to Judge Sotomayor...you people have ZERO credibility. Just wait when I hand you Bush's ass...coming soon...

She has shown in her past not to be unbiased. Obama dropped the ball with her nomination. I would have thought he would have been more selective for the Supreme Court.

It sounds like she gave the Repubs on the committee some genuine red-meat to chew on.  Nonetheless, I wouldn't term this a major misstep by any means (though they'll try to spin it as such).  Haven't been able to watch, but have been reading and it seems pretty run of the mill for now.  As long as this stays the case, she's in.

BTW.  Did anyone happen to notice scrappy-doo's (you know who I mean) response to me in the "First Thoughs" entry?  I guess he/she doesn't like being ignored.

Also, I'm noticing more and more rightie-cowards impersonating posters as well.  And they say WE'RE the ones who are fearful.

http://jawillie.blog.com

Bad choice of words, Sonia. Terms like "fidelity" only confuse the Republiklan.

Funny thing:  Sotomayor was appropriate enough for the Federal Circuit (and the GOP) when appointed by George H.W. Bush, but not now that she has been nominated by Obama to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Also, from the comments of Sessions and Graham, you would think they have forgotten completely when Samuel Alito, that darling political-hack-turned Supreme Court Justice, made similar comments referencing his own education, socialization and background in defense of his own internal compass and how he applies this in deciding "extra judidicial" factors when rendering an opinion.

Judges are human beings;
Human beings are creatures of emotion and experience;
Judges cannot but impart emotion and experience at times - especially when faced with cases of first impression, or when deciding divisive issues affecting diverse classes and in the face of divergent political agendas.

Sotomayor will be confirmed.

The most interesting fact gleaned from today's hearing:  Sotomayor has actual prosecutorial experince - she actually PRACTICED law before ascending to the bench.

Not so with other recent nominees.

Give me a street lawyer in touch with the people over a meritorious political hack, anyday.

Tactless Mitch.  That will really win those women and minorities votes.

To MSierra, SF: You are spot on the money regarding your comments about Bayh. I know of no one in Indiana who will run against him (and win).  Our Governor, Mitch Daniels (R) is likely to wait until Senator Lugar decides to retire.  

I am hopeful President Obama will deal with Sen Bayh.

It is easier to conceptualize Bayh as a Republican.

Does MSierra ever have an original thought instead of copy-and-paste from the usual Bluffington Post and DailyKooks sites?  Quit wasting space!

Sonia Sotomayor's statement was mostly biographical and relatively short. But she said her judicial philosophy is "fidelity to law. The task of a judge is not to make the law -- it is to apply the law."


-----------------

She quietly added: "Except for Affirmitive Action cases."

What did you expect from the Repukes?  They care about PARTY FIRST country second!  The current lot of Repukes are the Anti to American!

Sotomayors story sure changes when she's under oath.

McConnell, Inhof & Sessions should be ashamed of themselves, rarely have I seen such blatant kneejerkism (yeah yeah a made up word, so sue me)from our oh so genteel Senators. Hell's Bell's Inhof didn't even have to common courtesy to meet Sotomayor when she was doing the rounds of the Senate on a broken ankle.

Ranks right up there with my own Senator Jim DeMented comparing the current Government to that of pre WW2 Germany & the National Socialists.

I hate to tell her this but the Court's role is to interpret the law.  It is the Executive's role to apply the law and Congress's to create the law.  She got it wrong twice but yet she claims to follow the Constitution.  This must be where being a wise Latina comes in handy.  She can't even accurately describe the role of the court so how can she possibly be the right person to be a Justice.  If you put all her comments together the Court should just be the end all be all masters of the universe.  Maybe she should be in a He-Man movie and leave the judgeship to others.

We need Palin in that chair instead of Sotomayor.

(wait for applause)

Hey, quit throwing things at me.

Look what you did to Judge Sotomayor...you people have ZERO credibility. Just wait when I hand you Bush's ass...coming soon...

Anita, Birmingham, Alabama



So where are the jobs?

Some things in life are stupid to fight.  Like your dependence on air or this Nomination...

From before.

I mis-typed my Hamilton quote.

"I never expect to see a perfect work from imperfect men."  I'm sorry.

First I would like to take some credit.  I think I accidentally caused no joe,no bo,nj and Anita to at least nominally agree on something.  That something being balanced budget amendments being impractical.  Of course I disagree with both of them on principle.  But still I'm going to enjoy my tiny bit of unintended diplomacy...ok I'm done.

Anita,

I'm 26 first off.  I read the mini history lesson, and I very familiar with Reaganomics.  Being a recovering Republican like myself I used to tout the virtues of the "Great Conservative Hero" at large.  I have sinced found myself seeing the unreasonable side of what Reagan and his followers preach.  His economics like his political positions suffer from flaws of execution.  I don't think you would disagree with me there.  

I personally ascribe to the Austrian Theory of the Business cycle (look into Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek for more info), and think our country should deal only in economic realities and not put off deficits for future generations.  This is something that Reagan and Obama are and will be guilty of.  

Mass spending has caused our dollar to lose over 90 percent of its value since the Wilson admin and the establishment of Fed.

The problem with both Anita's (or rather Obama's) and No Bo's assertion that the Government needs the freedom to spend into a deficit is hampered by the simple fact that we have a very powerful (and corrupt) central bank.   This bank is in charge of printing the money which is based on nothing, it's fiat money.  

You could compare it to States Rights (and yes I realize they are two completely different issues) prior to the civil rights acts many states asserted their rights through very stupid and racist laws.  The federal government had to step because they aboused their powers.  The difference here is there is no one really watching the federal government.  The Constitution must be relied upon to check the government.  

Of course due to an Amendment for a balanced budget being impractical they run a deficit and the Fed prints the money to cover it.  This devalues your and my savings (at about 2%-4% per annum, and even Bernanke admitted it was an indirect tax).  The worst part is it's not for any other reason than some percieved party agenda that is always changing.  For Bush it was War and corporate entitlements.  For Obama it will be social welfare, and exanpsive government control over the populace.

No Jo No Bo points out the potential failures of such a system, but I would say we would be less likely to pursue foreign wars, and expand the federal nanny state because we are legally bound to not overspend.  As a result safety net programs could be properly funded and run or better yet be left to the states.

Anita points out that Tax Cuts don't work, but in a system where your money didn't devalue every year they would be more than the eventual zero sum gain they have been in the past, and the economic theory behind cutting taxes would actually have time to work.

Pat Huntington NY
In the instance that you stated it is still wrong because the court should be nowhere involved in policy making of any kind.  The legal policy is supposedly already made and the court only decides if it is enforcible or not in so much as it is constitutional or unconstitutional.  That is suppose to be their role anyway.  With people like the Court we have currently and the nominee, they think the Court makes the policy through adjustments to Legislative policy making.  This is wrong and should be corrected.  The Legislature makes the law.  If it is incorrect or unconstitutional it should be struck down and corrected and reissued by Congress not corrected by the Court.  

Does MSierra ever have an original thought instead of copy-and-paste from the usual Bluffington Post and DailyKooks sites?  Quit wasting space!
Who Reads that Crap? (Sent Monday, July 13, 2009 4:09 PM)

I read what Sierra posts. It saves me the trouble of going to the other websites and reading it. I rather appreciate being better infomred. Thanks Sierra, SF. Keep up the good work.

Oh, and, Sierra I saw the King Tut the last time it was at the DeYoung. I hear it is better this time. Will go in Feb.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):