I really like Elizabeth Warren (1 Viewer)

[HellToupee]

Soonerman, calling somebody a nut (Simon Johnson? Slapdash? Warren? Not sure) really doesn't cut it. If you disagree with the concerns stated about Citigroup and the decision to weaken Dodd-Frank, what is the nature of your disagreement? I really would like to hear the other side of this, not necessarily to challenge it, but because I can't find a good rebuttal to Warren's argument anywhere.

I'm talking about Fauxcahontas' conspiratorial tone. Replace Citigroup with the "Jewish moneyed interests" and you've got Wilma Jennings Bryan. Replace with the "Trilateralists" and you've got Joan Birch. I repeat, what a nut.

Elizabeth has an Indian name. It's probably not as cool as "Dances With Wolves" but maybe a popular girl's name like Salari, which means "Squirrel With The Nuts".

Or "Squats with Unions"

"Dances With Moonbats"

 

[Slapdash]

The derivative changes are specific to interest-rate swaps which are fairly simple. The regulators will need to make sure that they are used for hedging and not speculating though. The risk is in the speculation. There is value in allowing banks to hedge against loan losses. Congress didn't roll back regulation on the vast majority of derivatives or the more complex derivatives that led to the financial collapse.

This is false. Interest rate derivatives have never been required to be pushed out under 716. Nor did cleared CDS or FX swaps. What is being pushed out are the majority of over-the-counter derivatives that are used in trading books and market-making with customers. These have little to do with the traditional roles of commercial banks. OTC derivative exposures of non-bank financial companies like AIG, Lehman, and Goldman were at the heart of collapse. This further blurs the line between commercial and investment bank entities. It is bad enough that the government has allowed and encouraged (during the 08 crisis) investment banks to merge with/gain the protections of insured commercial banks.

Now, that isn't to say that an insured bank cannot experience severe losses "hedging" using cleared, plain-vanilla interest rate swaps.

 

[bagger]

The derivative changes are specific to interest-rate swaps which are fairly simple. The regulators will need to make sure that they are used for hedging and not speculating though. The risk is in the speculation. There is value in allowing banks to hedge against loan losses. Congress didn't roll back regulation on the vast majority of derivatives or the more complex derivatives that led to the financial collapse.

This is false. Interest rate derivatives have never been required to be pushed out under 716. Nor did cleared CDS or FX swaps. What is being pushed out are the majority of over-the-counter derivatives that are used in trading books and market-making with customers. These have little to do with the traditional roles of commercial banks. OTC derivative exposures of non-bank financial companies like AIG, Lehman, and Goldman were at the heart of collapse. This further blurs the line between commercial and investment bank entities. It is bad enough that the government has allowed and encouraged (during the 08 crisis) investment banks to merge with/gain the protections of insured commercial banks.

Now, that isn't to say that an insured bank cannot experience severe losses "hedging" using cleared, plain-vanilla interest rate swaps.

this is right.Lol at someone thinking this has anything to do with interest rate swaps.

Working in the banking industry this change has zero impact on what we do, as we are not involved in investment banking with derivatives like the Wall Street banks are.

 

[Slapdash]

The derivative changes are specific to interest-rate swaps which are fairly simple. The regulators will need to make sure that they are used for hedging and not speculating though. The risk is in the speculation. There is value in allowing banks to hedge against loan losses. Congress didn't roll back regulation on the vast majority of derivatives or the more complex derivatives that led to the financial collapse.

This is false. Interest rate derivatives have never been required to be pushed out under 716. Nor did cleared CDS or FX swaps. What is being pushed out are the majority of over-the-counter derivatives that are used in trading books and market-making with customers. These have little to do with the traditional roles of commercial banks. OTC derivative exposures of non-bank financial companies like AIG, Lehman, and Goldman were at the heart of collapse. This further blurs the line between commercial and investment bank entities. It is bad enough that the government has allowed and encouraged (during the 08 crisis) investment banks to merge with/gain the protections of insured commercial banks.

Now, that isn't to say that an insured bank cannot experience severe losses "hedging" using cleared, plain-vanilla interest rate swaps.

this is right.Lol at someone thinking this has anything to do with interest rate swaps.

Working in the banking industry this change has zero impact on what we do, as we are not involved in investment banking with derivatives like the Wall Street banks are.

Really only helpful to the large banks that hold significant investment banks, yeah. This provision was one of the few that cut against the the continued blending of the two types. Obviously, that has resulted in much higher profits. That is why Jamie Dimon was lobbying himself.

 

[jonessed]

The derivative changes are specific to interest-rate swaps which are fairly simple. The regulators will need to make sure that they are used for hedging and not speculating though. The risk is in the speculation. There is value in allowing banks to hedge against loan losses. Congress didn't roll back regulation on the vast majority of derivatives or the more complex derivatives that led to the financial collapse.

This is false. Interest rate derivatives have never been required to be pushed out under 716. Nor did cleared CDS or FX swaps. What is being pushed out are the majority of over-the-counter derivatives that are used in trading books and market-making with customers. These have little to do with the traditional roles of commercial banks. OTC derivative exposures of non-bank financial companies like AIG, Lehman, and Goldman were at the heart of collapse. This further blurs the line between commercial and investment bank entities. It is bad enough that the government has allowed and encouraged (during the 08 crisis) investment banks to merge with/gain the protections of insured commercial banks.

Now, that isn't to say that an insured bank cannot experience severe losses "hedging" using cleared, plain-vanilla interest rate swaps.

It is not false. Interest-rate derivatives were considered conforming only for specific industries.The Volcker rule still remains in effect and the structured finance type swaps that led to the housing meltdown still have to be separated.

I don't support the change, but it's not as big of a deal as some are making it. If it was, the President wouldn't sign it and it definitely would not have received the 57 House votes.

 

[cstu]

The derivative changes are specific to interest-rate swaps which are fairly simple. The regulators will need to make sure that they are used for hedging and not speculating though. The risk is in the speculation. There is value in allowing banks to hedge against loan losses. Congress didn't roll back regulation on the vast majority of derivatives or the more complex derivatives that led to the financial collapse.

This is false. Interest rate derivatives have never been required to be pushed out under 716. Nor did cleared CDS or FX swaps. What is being pushed out are the majority of over-the-counter derivatives that are used in trading books and market-making with customers. These have little to do with the traditional roles of commercial banks. OTC derivative exposures of non-bank financial companies like AIG, Lehman, and Goldman were at the heart of collapse. This further blurs the line between commercial and investment bank entities. It is bad enough that the government has allowed and encouraged (during the 08 crisis) investment banks to merge with/gain the protections of insured commercial banks.

Now, that isn't to say that an insured bank cannot experience severe losses "hedging" using cleared, plain-vanilla interest rate swaps.

The Volcker rule still remains in effect and the structured finance type swaps that led to the housing meltdown still have to be separated.

I don't support the change, but it's not as big of a deal as some are making it. If it was, the President wouldn't sign it and it definitely would not have received the 57 House votes.

"Oh, you gotta keep 'em separatid."

 

[saintfool]

Boston So Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic candidate for Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat in Massachusetts, is not an Indian — just a plagiarist.

The bloodlines aren’t “faint”; they’re nonexistent. You may still hear that her claim to be one-thirty-second Cherokee is merely “dubious”; in fact, it’s false.

Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color,” as the Fordham Law Review put it, is whiter than Ivory Snow.

Yet much of the media continues to look away from a scandal that would have driven any Republican from the race weeks ago.

When national Democrats handpicked her to unseat freshman Republican Scott Brown (who is, it should be noted, a white man), Warren’s credentials seemed impeccable; she claimed last fall to have provided the “intellectual foundations” of the Occupy movement.

Oops.

The 62-year-old “Okie” (as the Native American emeritus now describes herself) began checking the box, as they say, back in 1984 — and her academic career immediately took off. The newly minted minority catapulted from the University of Texas to the Ivy League, first Penn (where her name was boldfaced in faculty directories to indicate her minority status) and then Harvard.

If Warren hadn’t decided to run for the Senate, she’d still be an Indian. But three weeks ago, it got out that Harvard had been bragging about her as a “minority” hire as far back as 1996. This led the newspapers to ask the New England Historic Genealogical Society to trace her roots. A day or so later, their top researcher reported finding a 2006 family online newsletter, that mentioned an 1894 application for a marriage license in Oklahoma that supposedly listed her great-great-great grandmother as a Cherokee. Thus, the one-thirty-second claim.

The next day, Warren’s greatest cheerleader, The Boston Globe, breathlessly announced that “an 1894 document” had been “unearthed.” Maybe she could have brazened it out — but then Warren stumbled into her own personal Little Big Horn.

In a press release, she touted both the supposed 1894 document and an obscure 1984 Indian cookbook, “Pow Wow Chow” (edited by her late cousin), as proof of her tribal origins.

Then a Breitbart researcher, Michael Patrick Leahy, called Logan County in Oklahoma, where the document would have been filed. The county clerk told him that in 1894 there was no such thing as a marriage-license application — only a license, with no box to check off for race.

Cherokee spokesmen called for her to release her law-school job applications, but Warren stonewalled. Asked why she had claimed Indian heritage, she cited an old photograph of her “papaw,” her grandfather, who “had high cheekbones, like all the Indians do.”

As for claiming Native American status in minority law-school directories, she said she’d done it simply in hope of being “invited to a luncheon . . . with people like me.” Right.

Then the Breitbart blogger got a copy of “Pow Wow Chow,” supposedly a compilation of “special recipes passed down through the Five Tribes families.”

Five recipes came from “Elizabeth Warren — Cherokee.” At least two were plagiarized — lifted verbatim from The New York Times. They’d been developed by “60-minute gourmet” Pierre Franey as chef at Le Pavillon, the mid-century center of haute cuisine in Manhattan.

One of them — for cold crab omelet — Franey wrote in 1979, was a particular favorite of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and composer Cole Porter.

The French-recipe story broke Friday morning, and the mother of Occupy Wall Street was suddenly an international punchline:

* “Funny, she doesn’t look Siouxish.”

* What’s Liz Warren’s favorite kitchen utensil? The crockpot.

* Her favorite meal? Cooked goose or macaroni and Cochise.

Warren is trying to stop the hemorrhaging with a $1.6 million TV buy featuring a photo of her with President Obama. She now grants interviews only to in-the-tank media, like MSNBC.

Count on much of the press to stick by Warren as she trudges down her personal Trail of Tears. This weekend, a Times columnist dismissed her fraudulent ethnic claims as a “tragicomic . . . whim” more deserving of “sympathy than scorn.”

Presumably, that goes for the lifted Times recipes, too.

Howie Carr is a Boston Herald columnist.

no offense but no one cares (except you).

 

[HellToupee]

Boston So Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic candidate for Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat in Massachusetts, is not an Indian — just a plagiarist.

The bloodlines aren’t “faint”; they’re nonexistent. You may still hear that her claim to be one-thirty-second Cherokee is merely “dubious”; in fact, it’s false.

Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color,” as the Fordham Law Review put it, is whiter than Ivory Snow.

Yet much of the media continues to look away from a scandal that would have driven any Republican from the race weeks ago.

When national Democrats handpicked her to unseat freshman Republican Scott Brown (who is, it should be noted, a white man), Warren’s credentials seemed impeccable; she claimed last fall to have provided the “intellectual foundations” of the Occupy movement.

Oops.

The 62-year-old “Okie” (as the Native American emeritus now describes herself) began checking the box, as they say, back in 1984 — and her academic career immediately took off. The newly minted minority catapulted from the University of Texas to the Ivy League, first Penn (where her name was boldfaced in faculty directories to indicate her minority status) and then Harvard.

If Warren hadn’t decided to run for the Senate, she’d still be an Indian. But three weeks ago, it got out that Harvard had been bragging about her as a “minority” hire as far back as 1996. This led the newspapers to ask the New England Historic Genealogical Society to trace her roots. A day or so later, their top researcher reported finding a 2006 family online newsletter, that mentioned an 1894 application for a marriage license in Oklahoma that supposedly listed her great-great-great grandmother as a Cherokee. Thus, the one-thirty-second claim.

The next day, Warren’s greatest cheerleader, The Boston Globe, breathlessly announced that “an 1894 document” had been “unearthed.” Maybe she could have brazened it out — but then Warren stumbled into her own personal Little Big Horn.

In a press release, she touted both the supposed 1894 document and an obscure 1984 Indian cookbook, “Pow Wow Chow” (edited by her late cousin), as proof of her tribal origins.

Then a Breitbart researcher, Michael Patrick Leahy, called Logan County in Oklahoma, where the document would have been filed. The county clerk told him that in 1894 there was no such thing as a marriage-license application — only a license, with no box to check off for race.

Cherokee spokesmen called for her to release her law-school job applications, but Warren stonewalled. Asked why she had claimed Indian heritage, she cited an old photograph of her “papaw,” her grandfather, who “had high cheekbones, like all the Indians do.”

As for claiming Native American status in minority law-school directories, she said she’d done it simply in hope of being “invited to a luncheon . . . with people like me.” Right.

Then the Breitbart blogger got a copy of “Pow Wow Chow,” supposedly a compilation of “special recipes passed down through the Five Tribes families.”

Five recipes came from “Elizabeth Warren — Cherokee.” At least two were plagiarized — lifted verbatim from The New York Times. They’d been developed by “60-minute gourmet” Pierre Franey as chef at Le Pavillon, the mid-century center of haute cuisine in Manhattan.

One of them — for cold crab omelet — Franey wrote in 1979, was a particular favorite of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and composer Cole Porter.

The French-recipe story broke Friday morning, and the mother of Occupy Wall Street was suddenly an international punchline:

* “Funny, she doesn’t look Siouxish.”

* What’s Liz Warren’s favorite kitchen utensil? The crockpot.

* Her favorite meal? Cooked goose or macaroni and Cochise.

Warren is trying to stop the hemorrhaging with a $1.6 million TV buy featuring a photo of her with President Obama. She now grants interviews only to in-the-tank media, like MSNBC.

Count on much of the press to stick by Warren as she trudges down her personal Trail of Tears. This weekend, a Times columnist dismissed her fraudulent ethnic claims as a “tragicomic . . . whim” more deserving of “sympathy than scorn.”

Presumably, that goes for the lifted Times recipes, too.

Howie Carr is a Boston Herald columnist.

no offense but no one cares (except you).

No offense taken. I'm a big fan of character

 

[HellToupee]

Just after the Keystone vote failed in the senate yesterday, Elizabeth Warren was loudly interrupted by a Native American chant from the gallery.

You might think this was done by a snarky activist but according to Andrew Kirell of Mediaite, the chant was done by a genuine Native American:



Native American Chant Interrupts Senate as Keystone Vote Fails

Seconds after Sen. Elizabeth Warren announced that the “aye” votes approving Keystone XL project fell just short of the 60 vote threshold, a Native American chant broke out in the gallery, celebrating the Senate’s rejection of the controversial crude oil pipeline.
The man who began the chant reportedly came from the Lakota tribe:
Watch the video:

This incident points to a problem Elizabeth Warren is going to have if she ever runs for president.

It may have been a real Native American who interrupted her with a chant this time, but I wouldn’t put it past her critics to do the same thing in the future.

Her claims of Native American heritage are laughable.

They may have passed muster at Harvard and with liberal voters in Massachusetts, but they won’t pass the smell test on a national level.

If she runs, she will be mocked.

But in spite of her questionable Native heritage, Elizabeth Warren called the Senate police on Greg Grey Cloud who had tried to honor the legislators who voted against polluted water tables within Native and non-Native communities.

Grey Cloud had sang what’s called an “honor song” but Warren and police said it was a “flash mob.”

Instead, Gyasi Ross explained, it was “an earnest and honest expression of Indigenous love and appreciation for these politicians who decided to be leaders instead of politicians for one day.”

Grey Cloud sat down with Ross from Indian Country Today Media Network and Thing About Skins to explain what happened.


Gyasi Ross: So, um, seriously what the hell were you thinking?

Greg: Man bro, honestly?! I thought if these fools pass this bill, I’m going to belt out a wicked counting coup song calling the warriors song! Then it didn’t pass! Bro, I was overwhelmed with joy and relief! Goosebumps crawled up my arms and I thought to myself, SING! Sing you fool! Honor these leaders who stood up for the people!

Gyasi Ross: Be honest, were you just having a Flashdance moment—you know, “What a feeling…”?

Greg: Haha, I just stoop up, put my proud warrior face on and blasted one out! It WAS quite the feeling moment haha!

Gyasi Ross: You knew you were gonna be arrested, huh bro?

Greg: Haha I knew I would get into some kind of trouble. But check this, during a meeting the next day, a white lady came up to me and asked, “Did you have a hard time getting into the building and through the security?” I wanted to question her RUDE comment by asking “why is it because I’m Indian?!” But noooope! I just said “No not really, just your normal metal detector. But I DID have an easier time getting out.” Haha!

Gyasi Ross: Was it worth being arrested to honor these people and this moment?

Greg: Yes. For two reasons: One, because every leader that stands up for the people earns the right to be called a leader and have an honor song sung for them. Two, because now that I see that the people absolutely love and support what happened that evening, it fills my heart with love and pride knowing that I didn’t dishonor the people.

Thing About Skins: How alone did you feel when you started singing?

Gyasi Ross: Oh man bro, once I started singing I didn’t hear one word. I knew the entire building had stopped, for that brief moment everyone heard music! Everyone heard my people’s song! Whether they liked it or not, or if they respected it or not, they stood silently and listened. Then, I knew that I wasn’t alone!

Thing About Skins: Did you hope that somebody was going to pick you up and start singing with you?

Greg: I thought my big bro Aldo Seoane would come blasting in and join me, but no, he didn’t!

Gyasi Ross: Did you want to punch anybody because they DIDN’T sing with you?

Greg: When I was sitting in that jail cell I was thinking, “messed up! My brother Aldo Seoane knows that song too and he didn’t even help me out” yes, I thought about punching him. But then he bailed me out. AFTER I sat 5 hours in JAIL! Hahaha

Gyasi Ross: Is this a new thing, working for environmental justice?

Greg: I don’t think it’s a new thing at all. I also don’t think it’s all just environmental justice. Why our org Wica Agli originally got involved in the opposition in the first place is because the KXL pipeline would bring the man camps. So, we know that statistically native women are perpetrated against far more than any other ethnicity in this country. One of every 3 native women are sexually assaulted. Eighty-six percent of the perpetrators are non-native. And because of jurisdictional issues, 100% of the time we can’t do a damn thing about it! In the small town of Watford city, ND located in the Bakken Oil Fields, the estimated sexual assault is increased by 70%! Seventy percent! In our area TransCanada has proposed to station two man camps of 1,200 men per. That’s a total of 2,400 non-native men accessing our reservation and potentially matching Watford City’s sexual assaults. I’ll be dammed if I allow that to happen in our community!

Gyasi Ross: Why? Why do you do this so passionately and melodically? Why is it so important to you?

Greg: Because I try to be a good relative to everyone, not only to indigenous relatives but to the non-native friends and relatives of the Cowboy Indian Alliance! Also because its the right thing to do! It’s not just a Indian issue, we will all be affected by repercussions of the KXL pipeline.

 

[Reginald Cornsilks]

Boston So Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic candidate for Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat in Massachusetts, is not an Indian — just a plagiarist.

The bloodlines aren’t “faint”; they’re nonexistent. You may still hear that her claim to be one-thirty-second Cherokee is merely “dubious”; in fact, it’s false.

Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color,” as the Fordham Law Review put it, is whiter than Ivory Snow.

Yet much of the media continues to look away from a scandal that would have driven any Republican from the race weeks ago.

When national Democrats handpicked her to unseat freshman Republican Scott Brown (who is, it should be noted, a white man), Warren’s credentials seemed impeccable; she claimed last fall to have provided the “intellectual foundations” of the Occupy movement.

Oops.

The 62-year-old “Okie” (as the Native American emeritus now describes herself) began checking the box, as they say, back in 1984 — and her academic career immediately took off. The newly minted minority catapulted from the University of Texas to the Ivy League, first Penn (where her name was boldfaced in faculty directories to indicate her minority status) and then Harvard.

If Warren hadn’t decided to run for the Senate, she’d still be an Indian. But three weeks ago, it got out that Harvard had been bragging about her as a “minority” hire as far back as 1996. This led the newspapers to ask the New England Historic Genealogical Society to trace her roots. A day or so later, their top researcher reported finding a 2006 family online newsletter, that mentioned an 1894 application for a marriage license in Oklahoma that supposedly listed her great-great-great grandmother as a Cherokee. Thus, the one-thirty-second claim.

The next day, Warren’s greatest cheerleader, The Boston Globe, breathlessly announced that “an 1894 document” had been “unearthed.” Maybe she could have brazened it out — but then Warren stumbled into her own personal Little Big Horn.

In a press release, she touted both the supposed 1894 document and an obscure 1984 Indian cookbook, “Pow Wow Chow” (edited by her late cousin), as proof of her tribal origins.

Then a Breitbart researcher, Michael Patrick Leahy, called Logan County in Oklahoma, where the document would have been filed. The county clerk told him that in 1894 there was no such thing as a marriage-license application — only a license, with no box to check off for race.

Cherokee spokesmen called for her to release her law-school job applications, but Warren stonewalled. Asked why she had claimed Indian heritage, she cited an old photograph of her “papaw,” her grandfather, who “had high cheekbones, like all the Indians do.”

As for claiming Native American status in minority law-school directories, she said she’d done it simply in hope of being “invited to a luncheon . . . with people like me.” Right.

Then the Breitbart blogger got a copy of “Pow Wow Chow,” supposedly a compilation of “special recipes passed down through the Five Tribes families.”

Five recipes came from “Elizabeth Warren — Cherokee.” At least two were plagiarized — lifted verbatim from The New York Times. They’d been developed by “60-minute gourmet” Pierre Franey as chef at Le Pavillon, the mid-century center of haute cuisine in Manhattan.

One of them — for cold crab omelet — Franey wrote in 1979, was a particular favorite of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and composer Cole Porter.

The French-recipe story broke Friday morning, and the mother of Occupy Wall Street was suddenly an international punchline:

* “Funny, she doesn’t look Siouxish.”

* What’s Liz Warren’s favorite kitchen utensil? The crockpot.

* Her favorite meal? Cooked goose or macaroni and Cochise.

Warren is trying to stop the hemorrhaging with a $1.6 million TV buy featuring a photo of her with President Obama. She now grants interviews only to in-the-tank media, like MSNBC.

Count on much of the press to stick by Warren as she trudges down her personal Trail of Tears. This weekend, a Times columnist dismissed her fraudulent ethnic claims as a “tragicomic . . . whim” more deserving of “sympathy than scorn.”

Presumably, that goes for the lifted Times recipes, too.

Howie Carr is a Boston Herald columnist.

no offense but no one cares (except you).

I actually was living in Mass during her Senate election and cared as well. It's a pretty ####ty card to use for anyone. Scummy.

 

[D_House]

Does seem like an old issue (I believe discussed ad nauseum here already) and not relevant to the substantive discussion Slapdash and others are having. Plus ppl quoting that long text is annoying and makes this thread hard to read.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Does seem like an old issue (I believe discussed ad nauseum here already) and not relevant to the substantive discussion Slapdash and others are having. Plus ppl quoting that long text is annoying and makes this thread hard to read.

Perhaps, but I believe when he referenced it on the previous page, someone said it wasn't true. To that point, it was relevant.

 

[Widbil83]

This would be like Ted Cruz admitting to being so scared to go on the Hannity show he puked. Hillary will mop the floor with Liz in the debates.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has gotten an awful lot of mileage out of her popular appearances on "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart." But it was something of a revolting experience the first time she prepared to sit across from the sometimes caustic comedian.

She had such a bad case of nerves before the 2009 broadcast that Warren threw up. Twice.

"I was miserable. I had stage fright -- gut-wrenching, stomach-turning, bile-filled stage fright. And I was stuck in a gloomy little bathroom, about to go on The Daily Show," the Massachusetts Democrat recalls in her new book, A Fighting Chance, due out next week.

"I was having serious doubts about going through with this. I had talked to reporters and been interviewed plenty of times, but this was different. At any second, the whole interview could turn into a giant joke -- and what if the joke turned on the work I was trying to do?"

"For the zillionth time, I asked myself why on God's green earth I had agreed to sit down with Jon Stewart," Warren writes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/18/elizabeth-warren-jon-stewart_n_5170325.html

 

[Josie Maran]

This would be like Ted Cruz admitting to being so scared to go on the Hannity show he puked. Hillary will mop the floor with Liz in the debates.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has gotten an awful lot of mileage out of her popular appearances on "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart." But it was something of a revolting experience the first time she prepared to sit across from the sometimes caustic comedian.

She had such a bad case of nerves before the 2009 broadcast that Warren threw up. Twice.

"I was miserable. I had stage fright -- gut-wrenching, stomach-turning, bile-filled stage fright. And I was stuck in a gloomy little bathroom, about to go on The Daily Show," the Massachusetts Democrat recalls in her new book, A Fighting Chance, due out next week.

"I was having serious doubts about going through with this. I had talked to reporters and been interviewed plenty of times, but this was different. At any second, the whole interview could turn into a giant joke -- and what if the joke turned on the work I was trying to do?"

"For the zillionth time, I asked myself why on God's green earth I had agreed to sit down with Jon Stewart," Warren writes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/18/elizabeth-warren-jon-stewart_n_5170325.html

Who wouldn't want to puke if they had to go on Hannity's show?

 

[eoMMan]

Who is she? Pics?

 

[Glass Joe]

No politicians have character. She's no different than any of them. None of them have integrity.

 

[timschochet]

I really wish someone would be willing to discuss the issue at hand instead of all these digs into Warren's character. Who cares? Is she right or wrong about this. And, ESPECIALLY for those of you who think she's wrong, why?

 

[eoMMan]

I really wish someone would be willing to discuss the issue at hand instead of all these digs into Warren's character. Who cares? Is she right or wrong about this. And, ESPECIALLY for those of you who think she's wrong, why?

She's a woman?

 

[Soonerman]

I really wish someone would be willing to discuss the issue at hand instead of all these digs into Warren's character. Who cares? Is she right or wrong about this. And, ESPECIALLY for those of you who think she's wrong, why?

She may be right about this particular issue in isolation (although it's a close call). But it is small potatoes, and not worth the threat of shutting down the government. Plus, she is a conspiratorial nut, and a phony on the whole issue of corporate welfare and crony capitalism.

 

[jonessed]

I really wish someone would be willing to discuss the issue at hand instead of all these digs into Warren's character. Who cares? Is she right or wrong about this. And, ESPECIALLY for those of you who think she's wrong, why?

Google Bernanke or Volcker on it. Neither one of them supported 716 when it was originally written.

 

[timschochet]

I really wish someone would be willing to discuss the issue at hand instead of all these digs into Warren's character. Who cares? Is she right or wrong about this. And, ESPECIALLY for those of you who think she's wrong, why?

Google Bernanke or Volcker on it. Neither one of them supported 716 when it was originally written.

Thanks. I thought both you and Soonerman made some pretty good points as well.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

So I don't understand is she from a link of American Indians or not?

 

[jonessed]

So I don't understand is she from a link of American Indians or not?

She is not.

 

[saintfool]

So I don't understand is she from a link of American Indians or not?

She is not.

But she and her family were led to believe that they were based on a pretty credible source with a pretty credible story.

 

[GrandpaRox]

She is just a fraud and a liar. She needs a high hard one.

 

[Hilts]

So I don't understand is she from a link of American Indians or not?

She is not.

But she and her family were led to believe that they were based on a pretty credible source with a pretty credible story.

Yep. She was raised to believe she was part native American. As an adult, she continued to believe what she had been told as a child. Some folks did some digging and turns out there's no truth to it. Seems to me it's a non story (unless evidence emerges she knew she was a fraud and/or she continues to promote her ancestry). Cannot believe any serious criticisms of her will involve this line of attack.

 

[cstu]

I really wish someone would be willing to discuss the issue at hand instead of all these digs into Warren's character. Who cares? Is she right or wrong about this. And, ESPECIALLY for those of you who think she's wrong, why?

She may be right about this particular issue in isolation (although it's a close call). But it is small potatoes, and not worth the threat of shutting down the government. Plus, she is a conspiratorial nut, and a phony on the whole issue of corporate welfare and crony capitalism.

Again I ask - where has she threatened this?

How is she a phony on those issues?

 

[cstu]

I really wish someone would be willing to discuss the issue at hand instead of all these digs into Warren's character. Who cares? Is she right or wrong about this. And, ESPECIALLY for those of you who think she's wrong, why?

She's a woman?

And an uppity one at that.

 

[cstu]

They may have passed muster at Harvard and with liberal voters in Massachusetts, but they won’t pass the smell test on a national level.

If she runs, she will be mocked.

Yeah, so what? I remember 'Barry' getting mocked for a whole host of stupid things.

 

[cstu]

No politicians have character. She's no different than any of them. None of them have integrity.

She was a regular person until her mid-50's. Did she never have character or did she give it up when she decided to get into politics?

 

[SoBeDad]

No politicians have character. She's no different than any of them. None of them have integrity.

She was a regular person until her mid-50's. Did she never have character or did she give it up when she decided to get into politics?

Integrity is not the most important presidential quality - look at Jimmy Carter. I don't think Warren's integrity or Rubio's embellishment of his parents background - they didn't flee communist Cuba but left a few years earlier for economic reasons - will be factors in the end.

 

[cstu]

No politicians have character. She's no different than any of them. None of them have integrity.

She was a regular person until her mid-50's. Did she never have character or did she give it up when she decided to get into politics?

Integrity is not the most important presidential quality - look at Jimmy Carter. I don't think Warren's integrity or Rubio's embellishment of his parents background - they didn't flee communist Cuba but left a few years earlier for economic reasons - will be factors in the end.

I don't think she should be President, my contention is over the ridiculous right wing attacks on her. Same way I felt about attacks on Rubio from the left, but it was never as bad as what Warren is going through.

 

[Glass Joe]

No politicians have character. She's no different than any of them. None of them have integrity.

She was a regular person until her mid-50's. Did she never have character or did she give it up when she decided to get into politics?

Politics demands win at all costs type of behavior - back room deals, compromise for your party to win. It's not about integrity, it's about staying in power.

So - to answer your question, she has become successful employing these tactics. Just like all of them. No politician should ever be viewed through a morality lens. Theyd all fail.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Plus summers off.

 

[TPW]

So I don't understand is she from a link of American Indians or not?

She is not.

But she and her family were led to believe that they were based on a pretty credible source with a pretty credible story.

Yep. She was raised to believe she was part native American. As an adult, she continued to believe what she had been told as a child. Some folks did some digging and turns out there's no truth to it. Seems to me it's a non story (unless evidence emerges she knew she was a fraud and/or she continues to promote her ancestry). Cannot believe any serious criticisms of her will involve this line of attack.

Or so Lieawatha claims. The more likely explanation is that Fauxcahontas cynically used the favorite progressive narrative of white oppression to advance her career knowing full well that universities receive continuous intense pressure to diversify both faculty and student bodies with minorities.

 

[Josie Maran]

 

[HellToupee]

It will only help you if its professional grade , regular consumer stuff won't get it done .Its just not made well enough

 

[timschochet]

Like I said, this whole attack is stupid and irrelevant but... Fauxcohontas is pretty funny.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I really wish someone would be willing to discuss the issue at hand instead of all these digs into Warren's character. Who cares? Is she right or wrong about this. And, ESPECIALLY for those of you who think she's wrong, why?

Google Bernanke or Volcker on it. Neither one of them supported 716 when it was originally written.

Thanks. I thought both you and Soonerman made some pretty good points as well.

I assume you mean the idea that this "isn't worth shutting the government down". Or, did you find some other idea compelling?

 

[timschochet]

I really wish someone would be willing to discuss the issue at hand instead of all these digs into Warren's character. Who cares? Is she right or wrong about this. And, ESPECIALLY for those of you who think she's wrong, why?

Google Bernanke or Volcker on it. Neither one of them supported 716 when it was originally written.

Thanks. I thought both you and Soonerman made some pretty good points as well.

I assume you mean the idea that this "isn't worth shutting the government down". Or, did you find some other idea compelling?

Their argument, if I understand it correctly, is thT the changes to Dodd are slight, too slight to matter. I don't know if that's true, but it's worth exploring. I also liked Soonerman's conspiracy angle as well. Intuitively I felt like there was a but if that in The article Slspdash posted, but I couldn't put my finger on it.

 

[Soonerman]

I really wish someone would be willing to discuss the issue at hand instead of all these digs into Warren's character. Who cares? Is she right or wrong about this. And, ESPECIALLY for those of you who think she's wrong, why?

She may be right about this particular issue in isolation (although it's a close call). But it is small potatoes, and not worth the threat of shutting down the government. Plus, she is a conspiratorial nut, and a phony on the whole issue of corporate welfare and crony capitalism.

Again I ask - where has she threatened this?

How is she a phony on those issues?

Well, at least you accept that Wilma Jennings Bryan is a conspiratorial nut.

Shutting down the government? That is what would have happened if the left/right alliance that voted "no" on the budget would have prevailed.

Why is she a phony? She is not at all opposed to bailout/crony capitalism/corporate welfare America. A small piece of it here or there, yes. Way easier to list the things in this category she is opposed to instead of the things she favors.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I really wish someone would be willing to discuss the issue at hand instead of all these digs into Warren's character. Who cares? Is she right or wrong about this. And, ESPECIALLY for those of you who think she's wrong, why?

Google Bernanke or Volcker on it. Neither one of them supported 716 when it was originally written.

Thanks. I thought both you and Soonerman made some pretty good points as well.

I assume you mean the idea that this "isn't worth shutting the government down". Or, did you find some other idea compelling?

Their argument, if I understand it correctly, is thT the changes to Dodd are slight, too slight to matter. I don't know if that's true, but it's worth exploring. I also liked Soonerman's conspiracy angle as well. Intuitively I felt like there was a but if that in The article Slspdash posted, but I couldn't put my finger on it.

What?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Why is she a phony? She is not at all opposed to bailout/crony capitalism/corporate welfare America. A small piece of it here or there, yes. Way easier to list the things in this category she is opposed to instead of the things she favors.

Can you list the objectionable stuff she favors?

 

[Soonerman]

Why is she a phony? She is not at all opposed to bailout/crony capitalism/corporate welfare America. A small piece of it here or there, yes. Way easier to list the things in this category she is opposed to instead of the things she favors.

Can you list the objectionable stuff she favors?

All of it? What's the word limit on a post?

 

[timschochet]

I really wish someone would be willing to discuss the issue at hand instead of all these digs into Warren's character. Who cares? Is she right or wrong about this. And, ESPECIALLY for those of you who think she's wrong, why?

Google Bernanke or Volcker on it. Neither one of them supported 716 when it was originally written.

Thanks. I thought both you and Soonerman made some pretty good points as well.

I assume you mean the idea that this "isn't worth shutting the government down". Or, did you find some other idea compelling?

Their argument, if I understand it correctly, is thT the changes to Dodd are slight, too slight to matter. I don't know if that's true, but it's worth exploring. I also liked Soonerman's conspiracy angle as well. Intuitively I felt like there was a but if that in The article Slspdash posted, but I couldn't put my finger on it.

What?

Whenever big corporations like CItigroup are portrayed as evil I get the same sense that Soonerman does. To me it's no different from regarding big government as evil.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Why is she a phony? She is not at all opposed to bailout/crony capitalism/corporate welfare America. A small piece of it here or there, yes. Way easier to list the things in this category she is opposed to instead of the things she favors.

Can you list the objectionable stuff she favors?

All of it? What's the word limit on a post?

Just start with the most egregious.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I really wish someone would be willing to discuss the issue at hand instead of all these digs into Warren's character. Who cares? Is she right or wrong about this. And, ESPECIALLY for those of you who think she's wrong, why?

Google Bernanke or Volcker on it. Neither one of them supported 716 when it was originally written.

Thanks. I thought both you and Soonerman made some pretty good points as well.

I assume you mean the idea that this "isn't worth shutting the government down". Or, did you find some other idea compelling?

Their argument, if I understand it correctly, is thT the changes to Dodd are slight, too slight to matter. I don't know if that's true, but it's worth exploring. I also liked Soonerman's conspiracy angle as well. Intuitively I felt like there was a but if that in The article Slspdash posted, but I couldn't put my finger on it.

What?

Whenever big corporations like CItigroup are portrayed as evil I get the same sense that Soonerman does. To me it's no different from regarding big government as evil.

This is laughable!

ETA: And it is laughable because it is not a "point" at all. Just an admission to an internal bias that guides how you filter other data. Your instinct might very well be correct to discount Slapdash's links because of their "feel", but that opinion to the contrary isn't forming because someone made a good counter point. Calling Warren a "conspiratorial nut" might be true, but it should have no more bearing on the strength of her arguments here than her bloodline.

(And I'm not saying that this is necessarily wrong - we all do this.)

 

[Soonerman]

Why is she a phony? She is not at all opposed to bailout/crony capitalism/corporate welfare America. A small piece of it here or there, yes. Way easier to list the things in this category she is opposed to instead of the things she favors.

Can you list the objectionable stuff she favors?

All of it? What's the word limit on a post?

Just start with the most egregious.

So just to be clear, your argument is that Wilma has consistently opposed each and every bailout/tax break/business subsidy that has come along?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Why is she a phony? She is not at all opposed to bailout/crony capitalism/corporate welfare America. A small piece of it here or there, yes. Way easier to list the things in this category she is opposed to instead of the things she favors.

Can you list the objectionable stuff she favors?

All of it? What's the word limit on a post?

Just start with the most egregious.

So just to be clear, your argument is that Wilma has consistently opposed each and every bailout/tax break/business subsidy that has come along?

I haven't made an argument, I'm just asking you to flesh yours out.

 

[Soonerman]

Why is she a phony? She is not at all opposed to bailout/crony capitalism/corporate welfare America. A small piece of it here or there, yes. Way easier to list the things in this category she is opposed to instead of the things she favors.

Can you list the objectionable stuff she favors?

All of it? What's the word limit on a post?

Just start with the most egregious.

So just to be clear, your argument is that Wilma has consistently opposed each and every bailout/tax break/business subsidy that has come along?

I haven't made an argument, I'm just asking you to flesh yours out.

OK, EX-IM reauthorization is a pretty easy one. But seriously, just about any budget bill is chock full of this stuff.