Disqus - Latest Comments for 99PercentSure

Re: Nas Joins Color of Change to Deliver Petitions to Fox News

Jane — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:14:46 -0000

Nicely said mate

Re: Obama Needs to Tell Us the Truth about Blagojevich

99PercentSure — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:01:12 -0000

Or at least, as someone posted on Daily Kos, Brazen Blag and Raunchy Rahm had a conversation that went something like this:

RAHM EMANUEL: This is Rahm.

ROD BLAGOJEVICH: Hey Rahm, yeah it's Rod.

EMANUEL: Uh-huh. What's going on governor, I'm busy.

BLAGO: Well, it's about that Senate appointment...

EMANUEL: We already gave you the list of people we like.

BLAGO: Yeah, I been looking the list over. Interesting names. Good people. How's the transition going?

EMANUEL: It's going fine, governor. Are you calling to fucking tell me anything, or what, cause I--

BLAGO: No no, I'm just wondering if you have all your picks already made. I heard something about Dashle for HHS--

EMANUEL: I'm not gonna discuss ongoing deliberations, gov, you know that.

BLAGO: Hey you don't have to get curt with me, Rahm.

EMANUEL: This isn't me being curt, Gov, this is me being fucking busy. Now what did you call about?

BLAGO: I'm just feeling you out, seeing if Valerie [Jarret] still wants that Senate seat, just wondering what kind of priority that is for the President-Elect.

EMANUEL: Actually, it's not a priority. Valerie's had second thoughts about the job.

BLAGO: What, she doesn't want it anymore?

EMANUEL: She's having second thoughts. You want more details, you ask her.

BLAGO: She won't take my calls.

EMANUEL: Big fucking surprise.

BLAGO: What's that supposed to mean?

EMANUEL: Um, I don't know, what's it supposed to mean governor? A.) You're a fucking crook. B.) You're a fucking asshole. C.) All of the above.

BLAGO: I'm clean Rahm, you know this. You think that fucking Fitzgerald would being twiddling his fucking thumbs if he had shit to go on?

EMANUEL: I gotta go, Gov. You appoint who you want, we really don't give a shit.

Since Cuckoo Blag was already under wiretap investigation, Emmanuel didn't need to drop a dime; they had it all on tape, and Fitzgerald moved probably because he also heard on tape that Crazy Rod was proceeding with a nomination, and they didn't want that to happen.

As Fitzgerald's office announced after Pres-Elect Obama's presser today, Rahm can't publicly "come clean" because Fitzgerald's office has asked them not to. Besides, in all probability, this is still an ongoing investigation, and Fitzgerald already has the information he needs - on tape.

Really, I see this as much ado about nothing and a repug/traditional media generated scandal re the Obama Admin's involvement. After all, it makes perfect sense that Rahm probably submitted the senate seat recs, and spoke to Blag about the process. There's nothing unusual about this at all, and there's no reason to suspect that someone's covering up something in the Obama Admin.

Re: LA Times Puts the Blame For the Failure of The Auto Bailout Where It Belongs

99PercentSure — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:56:42 -0000

The US corporate structure AS A WHOLE is a mess - we've got thieves, scammers and con artists whose MBAs serve as licenses to rob and steal in the executive suites and boardrooms in nearly every entity - banking, investing, insurance, law, accounting, health care, retail, politics, real estate, IT, telecommunications, Congress, the White House (at least until January 20), etc. They are self-serving, greedy, tax-dodging folk of no integrity - few, if any, serve the public - only lining their pockets at the expense of the poor and the middle class.

Most every industry in the US is ruled with an iron fist from the top, with no consideration for the employees who work their tails off to assist the corporation in making big bucks. Yet employees are under attack at every level within their companies, whether they are blue or white collar. Were it not for collective bargaining through organized labor, we would be a third world country because private sector employers want million-dollar commitment for $10 per hour. Ergo, the rise of illegal immigrant employment. Companies do not want to pay people their fair value for the work performed, so we need unions..

While it is true that the auto manufacturing execs have managed their industry poorly, so have the banks and most other US industries, yet I don't read about or hear of any hues and cries for them to fail; in fact, our fatuous, stupid, complicit Congress critters bend over backwards to accommodate them.

The UAW has always made concessions in times of industry trouble, such that there are few concessions that they can make now, except to tear up the collective bargaining agreement..

Yes, i've said for months now that the purpose of the raking over the coals of the Three Blind Mice is to bust the union before the Employee Free Choice Act is enacted by the Obama Administration. As I see it, the Big 3 made one mistake - if they needed a mere pittance of a $25 or $30 billion bridge loan, they should have asked for at least a $100 billion, and they probably would have gotten some respect from those dildos in Congress, including the Dems.

These days, people speak of a trillion dollars as a mere drop in the bucket; Congress and the corporate devils don't even flinch when they say 'trillion.' They asked only for what they needed when they should have been asking for much more. Then they probably would have gotten respect, had they gone for broke.

What the repugs did to prevent GM and Chrysler from collapsing is abominable.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread

99PercentSure — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:16:39 -0000

My curmudgeon ex-Marine older brother who lives in Oregon has a son whose mother is white. Anyway, my nephew says that whenever he has to fill out one of those forms with race on it, he always chooses black AND white, never bi- or multi-racial.

Re: Monday Open Thread

99PercentSure — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:13:05 -0000

You've given me some encouragement, CPL, and I thank you and everyone else for it. There is, after all, the confirmation hearings to be had before she actually takes the post.

Interestingly, she said "If I'm confirmed." I'm not reading too much into that statement, but I found it interesting that she said that. True, he'll be her boss, but we all know that the Clintons have a mind of their own. Larry King just asked during his opening 'Whose foreign policy will she be promoting? Hers, Obama's or theirs?" That's what I'm talking about. It's all well and good for her to be under the authority of Obama but . . .

Thanks again all of you, including your post, Micheline. I'm still not sold on the nomination but it ain't my call obviously. I just think she would have been much better - and more palatable - as Secretary of Defense. But, as I said, it ain't my call and I ain't got no say in who he chooses.

Re: Monday Open Thread

CPL — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:03:24 -0000

We got the first sense of his war position when he gave that speech to AIPAC.

I called him out on this - that blog post was one of the examples Jack gave in his interview with the Washington Post on the unwillingness to hear criticism about Obama.

I honestly thought he had an Ace up his sleeve on this pick. This is probably the major screw-up besides refusing to drum Joe Lieberman out of the caucus that will come back to haunt Obama for the next four years, not to mention biting him in the ass.

But, as someone wiser than me pointed out on this board (Admiral Komack), Hillary now works for Obama. He's her BOSS. And if she puts a foot wrong, he has the authority to fire her ass, and maybe that's more appealing to Obama (having Hillary under his thumb and having to say "Yassir, Boss!") than allowing her ass in the Senate.

We will need popcorn and the alcoholic beverages of your choice. Pull up a ringside seat at C-Span for those confirmation hearings, because the GOP will be salivating to get into the ass of a Clinton. Doesn't matter that it's Hillary's ass they will be firing at, either.

Re: Monday Open Thread

Micheline — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:53:28 -0000

While I agree about the SOS pick, I think you are wrong in saying that Obama won't be different. He's placing more emphasis on diplomacy than the last two previous presidents. He also mentioned that fighting disease and poverty will also be part of his national security agenda. He picked these people as a way to co-opt the hawks while advancing a liberal agenda. By co-opting Gates, HRC, Jones the Republicans cannot paint him as an extremist.

Re: Monday Open Thread

99PercentSure — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:40:54 -0000

Good Morning,

I'm sorry, I don't like the SoS nomination, and I don't like the answer he gave about why he chose her. I suppose it was too much to hope that such a crucial position would illustrate 'change we can believe in' as opposed to the same old, same old in politics. The more things change, the more they stay the same. She has no business in that position; she doesn't have the foreign policy credentials other than the lies she told about dodging bullets.

Unfortunately, this just confirms my belief since he announced that there is no difference in Obama, Billy Jeff, and the hawkish HRClinton's policies. Being against the Iraq invasion was a political tool only used to distinguish himself from Clinton. Otherwise, they believe in and seek the same policies, something I commented on last year when I laid out the reasons that I supported Edwards as opposed to Clinton or Obama.

Just as Obama has failed to mention anything about the poor and the homeless thorughout his campaign and the election, his choice for SoS illustrates to me that it is the same old politics with only a change in appearance. The Clinton deal was done that night at Feinstein's house, thus demonstrating that back room deals are still the norm; they're just done before the convention in luxury homes somewhere in DC. The fact that they were at Feinstein's was a red flag that I may have mentioned here too.

Nothing's changed, y'all. He's just as hawkish (his stand on Afghanistan has never set well with me), he's more conservative (I posted this here during the summer), and he's as much a part of the establishment as Billy Jeff or Shrub or any of the others; his votes on FISA, and the bailout only magnify this..

Re: Clinton Gets the Nod for Secretary of State

99PercentSure — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:07:37 -0000

Recommended for "fat, pasty a**."

Hee.

Re: Thursday Open Thread

Admiral_Komack — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:17:34 -0000

Obama could have talked to her about anything else other than the SoS job.
Hillary's minions could be pushing Hillary, and Obama could be giving them enough rope to hang themselves.

Re: Thursday Open Thread

CraigHickman — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:59:00 -0000

Good afternoon, 99 Percent Sure.

I don't think Hillary IS the choice for Secretary of State.

Re: Al-Qaeda’s Most Epic Fail Ever

99PercentSure — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:50:50 -0000

Everytime there's a 'message' from them, I get upset with Shrub all over again. There should be nothing coming out of the OBL camp. The head and the tail should have been decimated by now.

Another great sign of the many failures - domestic and foreign - of the criminal administration led by Shrub and Darth.

Re: Thursday Open Thread

CPL — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:41:57 -0000

What's pissing me off is that Paulson's crying foul about bailing out the auto industry while taking payola himself.

Talk about hypocrites...

I've done my screaming in blog posts on this board, and that's why I'm screaming about another damned bailout that you and I will be paying for and while I'm unemployed, I can't even pay attention, let alone pay for another damned bailout.

Re: Thursday Open Thread

99PercentSure — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:57:00 -0000

Good Morning, Craig. Morning everyone, since I neglected to greet you all when I posted earlier.

Craig, maybe you can help me with this. Why is Clinton the choice for SoS? She has no diplomatic experience, she's a poor manager, blah blah blah. So why her? I just can't get behind this, and I don't get why Obama would want to saddle himself with all the Clinton drama and behind the scenes machinations.

Help me, because I'm looking cock-eyed at Obama for this cabinet choice.

Re: Thursday Open Thread

99PercentSure — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:43:23 -0000

The banking industry folk did the same thing and they got what is turning out to be a 2.7 trillion dollar bailout, not a loan.

While it was definitely insensitive for the automakers' 3 blind mice to roll up in separate jets, I'm amazed at the media scrutiny about this, and about all the people jumping on the bandwagon to criticize them, though not a peep was heard when the thieves in the banking and Wall Street temples did the same, making off with our money and our children's children's money, and they won't even tell us who got what billions.

After all, our economic crisis started with banking and credit and is part of the reason that the auto industry is suffering but we hear very little about the banking industry's excessively poor mismanagement, and scamming theft.

A $25 billion loan proportioned out based on the needs of the big 3 - Ford and Chrysler don't need nearly as much as GM - AND stringent rules placed on the automakers especially the CEOs and executive staff, up to and including getting rid of the 3 blind mice CEOS should be no brainer; the loan should be made with the instruction that they do some Chapter 11 restructuring, if necessary.

The flying in on jets to beg for money is really a non-issue, since that's the way ALL big corporate execs roll into Washington to beg for dough.

Re: Countdown to the Inauguration: 62 Days — Open Thread

99PercentSure — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:04:42 -0000

Hey Everybody!

Sasha is too cute.

I need some black love and an explanation, if possible, on why HRC for SoS. This just doesn't make any sense. First of all, she has no foreign diplomacy experience. Was this a deal he made with her during the 'secret' meeting at Feinstein's house after the primary? Why her of all the people from which to choose?

Al Giordano of The Field and I are on the same page. I can't get any coherency from the former strikers/HRC supporters who have apparently returned to Daily Kos to advocate for their girl, no matter what.

Why. her.? I just can't wrap my head around SoS HRC, and I'm not liking the choice one bit. Yeah, I already sent a missive to the Obama team via change.gov regarding this and the Lieberman 'reconciliation,' as well as the now-constant 'leaks.'

Re: This Is How You Do It

99PercentSure — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:58:47 -0000

With Begich's lead now growing in the Alaska senate race, the Dems get closer to 59 senators, once he is officially declared the winner. A moderate Republican or 2 will probably be swayed to vote with Democrats, so they obviously don't need Uncle Joe.

Leahy and another Dem senator have publicly called for kicking Uncle Joe off the caucus. Uncle Joe's calling Obama tells me that he sees the handwriting on the wall. Obama campaigned for him in 2006, and Uncle Joe turned around and kicked him in the teeth during the presidential campaign. I find it incredibly interesting that Obama resigned his seat, effective Sunday, Nov. 16, when the lame duck Congress session begins Monday, Nov. 17. Smooth move.

Re: Obama Will Post Weekly Address Via YouTube

99PercentSure — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:49:28 -0000

I've already received and completed a full job application for a non-career position after registering on change.gov immediately after the site was up.

I love the youtube weekly address and I absolutely love the way that the Obama team are using the web and text messages to continue to encourage grassroots participation while staying in touch with We the People.

Re: Sunday Open Thread

99PercentSure — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:01:03 -0000

He has been giving his marching papers by his crony corporatist friends to save their wealth, no matter the price to the taxpayers. He and Bush intend to leave the federal treasury totally bare.

IF WE LET THEM . . . . The urgency to ram this bill through is just like the urgency to invade Iraq. We must not allow them to rush into Paulson's 'idea' just to save their corporatist friends' multi-million dollar wealth.

Re: Sunday Open Thread

99PercentSure — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:52:52 -0000

Good job, Craig, but Obama's is a 7-point plan; he calls Paulson's bail-out an "idea."

The Senate Banking Committee is inviting comments from taxpayers; please send yours by clicking this link: http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuse.... Comments I sent today:

We can tell that this isn't for the American people because it doesn't directly address the root cause of the crisis - EXCESSIVE LEVERAGE AND LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN THE DERIVATIVES MARKET.

This plan is just an authoritarian corporatist power grab and crony giveaway; the last hurrah of a failed administration seeking to leave our cupboards totally bare while they live on their ill-gotten gains in the lap of luxury at the expense of the poor and middle class, such as it is.

You must not even consider this "plan" that Paulson and Bernanke, with Bush's wholehearted approval, seemingly thrown together at the last minute in a serious attempt to continue to dupe the people, and to leave our coffers totally bare, since they and their corporatist friends have already run a huge confidence game, with politicians on both sides of the aisles' total approval, robbing us blind.

NO! You must not grant complete authority to the Treasury Secretary without any checks and balances.

NO! We must not be rushed into a package that does nothing to alleviate the economic pain and strain on We the People. Paulson's proposal is written to protect his thieving cronies' personal wealth of hundreds of millions of dollars. We should not be rushed into accepting whatever Bush and Paulson throws out there, like we did during the Iraq invasion.

NO! Unless there are dramatic changes, there will be no upside participation in the financial companies for taxpayers, and the taxpayers will recapitalize the banks by paying premium prices for lousy assets.

I say most emphatically NO! I do not want a bailout of any kind for anyone.

There must be NO dictatorial power for Paulson or Bernanke.

NO! Taxpayers should not have to bail out banks making bad loans, nor banks doing good business, nor businesses like Berkshire and others that suddenly appeared on the list last Friday.

NO! Both the federal treasury and Paulson are systemic risks.

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

It is time for elected officials to step up and finally show some backbone and some loyalty to the people who elected you rather than to the administration and your corporatist buddies.

Dems' Bailout Wish List includes: Bankruptcy relief for homeowners; foreclosure relief; CEO Pay limits; and, more accountability.

Re: Saturday Open Thread

99PercentSure — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:05:11 -0000

The 18 to 35 and the Latino vote will make this election a landslide win for Obama, though he is winning a presidency that will be plagued by an immediate financial markets crash just days or weeks after November 4.

We must not allow Congress to give the Treasury Secretary absolute power in this farce of a bail-out. In fact, I've already contacted Schumer, Dodd, Pelosi, Boxer and Feinstein registering my vehement disagreement with the clause, as well as the bail-out.

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this, but Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has written an exceptional, simply-worded manifesto - it is socialistic but then so is the bail out:

(1) The people who can best afford to pay and the people who have benefited most from Bush's economic policies are the people who should provide the funds for the bailout. It would be immoral to ask the middle class, the people whose standard of living has declined under Bush, to pay for this bailout while the rich, once again, avoid their responsibilities. Further, if the government is going to save companies from bankruptcy, the taxpayers of this country should be rewarded for assuming the risk by sharing in the gains that result from this government bailout. Specifically, to pay for the bailout, which is estimated to cost up to $1 trillion, the government should:

a) Impose a five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers. That would raise more than $300 billion in revenue;

b) Ensure that assets purchased from banks are realistically discounted so companies are not rewarded for their risky behavior and taxpayers can recover the amount they paid for them; and

c) Require that taxpayers receive equity stakes in the bailed-out companies so that the assumption of risk is rewarded when companies’ stock goes up.

(2) There must be a major economic recovery package which puts Americans to work at decent wages. Among many other areas, we can create millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and moving our country from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. Further, we must protect working families from the difficult times they are experiencing. We must ensure that every child has health insurance and that every American has access to quality health and dental care, that families can send their children to college, that seniors are not allowed to go without heat in the winter, and that no American goes to bed hungry.

(3) Legislation must be passed which undoes the damage caused by excessive de-regulation. That means reinstalling the regulatory firewalls that were ripped down in 1999. That means re-regulating the energy markets so that we never again see the rampant speculation in oil that helped drive up prices. That means regulating or abolishing various financial instruments that have created the enormous shadow banking system that is at the heart of the collapse of AIG and the financial services meltdown.

(4) We must end the danger posed by companies that are "too big to fail," that is, companies whose failure would cause systemic harm to the U.S. economy. If a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. We need to determine which companies fall in this category and then break them up. Right now, for example, the Bank of America, the nation’s largest depository institution, has absorbed Countrywide, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, and Merrill Lynch, the nation’s largest brokerage house. We should not be trying to solve the current financial crisis by creating even larger, more powerful institutions. Their failure could cause even more harm to the entire economy.

Re: Friday Open Thread

99PercentSure — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:24:38 -0000

A portion of Obama's press conference on the economy held today:

"One last point - we did not arrive at this crisis by some accident in history. What led us to this point was years and years of a philosophy in Washington and on Wall Street that viewed even common sense regulation and oversight as unwise and unnecessary; that shredded consumer protections and loosened the rules of the road. CEOs and executives got reckless, lobbyists got what they wanted, and politicians in both parties looked the other way until it was too late. It is now the American people who've paid the price. The events of this week I believe have rendered a final verdict on that failed philosophy, and it will end if I am president of the United States. We have to build upon the ideas I've laid out over the last several years about how to modernize our financial regulatory system in this country, and that establishes common sense rules of the road for our financial system to help restore confidence throughtout the financial system."

Finally, given the gravity of this situation, and based on conversations I have had with both Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, I will refrain from presenting a more detailed blueprint about how an immediate plan might be structured until I can fully review the details of the plan proposed by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve. I think it's critical at this point that the markets and the public have confidence that the work will be unimpeded by partisan wrangling, and that leaders of both parties work in concert to solve the problem at hand."

Have a great birthday, carolinagirl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEvdL-GPjFk

Re: Thursday Open Thread

99PercentSure — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:42:34 -0000

Eh hee!

Re: AIG to Get Government Bailout

99PercentSure — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:39:43 -0000

But as Rob posted, everyone who has a retirement account is extremely likely to have at least some portion of it invested in an AIG mutual fund, annuity, pension, etc.

And we need to stop saying that "the Feds" loaned AIG the money; we are the Feds - we the taxpayers loaned AIG $85 billion that the treasury doesn't have, partly because we're spending $10 billion A MONTH in Iraq and also because we owe trillions of dollars to China for the loans we've gotten. It's called the socialization of risk, and it is a bad thing.

With Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac government takeover, Bear Stearns, and now the AIG "loan," though essentially it is a buy-out, a lot of taxpayer money is being thrown at the financial system, and it is throwing good money after bad because ultimately we cannot continue to absorb the losses.

As I told the Unemployment Insurance rep this morning when I tried to get them to move the date of my denial of benefits to next month, it's interesting that the Feds can decide to use taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street, and that the California state comptroller can decide to pay hourly-paid state workers their regular salaries rather than the federal minimum wage that the governator ordered, but no one at EDD can change my date of denial so that I won't be destitute or experience a catastrophic hardship financially for the next 6 weeks. Mine you, I am already receiving extended benefits and I only have 2 and a half more checks before that ends.

The world is a ghetto.

Re: Tuesday Open Thread

Justice58 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:02:50 -0000

lol