Does this blog contain factual information about Elizabeth Warren, yes or no. If yes, then there is your evidence. If no, then you believe it's impossible to put any information in a blog and all blogs are opinion and nothing else.
Incorrect. What I said was: You did not even link to what you are giving as evidence. You gave a link to a blog in which someone else has a link to whatever evidence you think you are purporting. You follow those links. Read all the material. Come back here with YOUR OPINION of the information you read. And, if you still believe you have evidence of Elizabeth Warren supporting corporate banking, then you can add the link SPECIFICALLY showing her supporting corporate banking. In other words, follow that blogs links to the end until you find the evidence.
The latter. I honestly don't know much about Warren, but the way politics are run these days corporate backing is gonna be a reality for a good minute.
I guess I have to spell it out for you since you can't be bothered to think at all. The blog gives us information about Elizabeth Warren including the fact that she supports the Ex-Im bank a bank which gives subsidies to corporations. This constitutes crony-capitalism. The bank also makes money. Warren claims to be against both banks and giving money to special interests crony- capitalism. By being for the Ex-Im bank, you are for crony-capitalism and big banks, therefore making Warren a hypocrite and full of shit. She's just another typical liberal that spouts out about how bad Wall Street is while supporting bail outs, subsidies and the like. She pretends to be a populist and for the people, yet really for corporations and lobbyists.
Oh dear, you really are confused. A loan is not a subsidy, and the credit extended by ex-im is for the benefit of small businesses, not large corporations. Yes, it has the word bank in its name. No, that word does not mean what you think it means. Oh, and by the way, you are also very confused generally about Warren's position on banking.
I'll just throw this out there. http://www.tennessean.com/story/opi...4/08/12/time-end-export-import-bank/13912491/
I fear you may be correct. But..., and I'm an optimist, so, it's not unusual, but I think if start with one person - one person strong enough to resist the lure of money, maybe we can begin to change things.
More evidence that you can't think for yourself. That op/ed piece provides no sources and deals with innuendo and completely misconstrues the origin.
B-b-but it supports his preconceived beliefs! Therefore It Must Be True™. This is gonna be another episode of "Shoot the Guy in the Canoe" (might want to explain that for Jenee's benefit; she wasn't here for it).
Warren is a fun one. Her West Wing narrative works on the brain dead Jenee' s out there, but the reality is all House Of Cards. Rails against Wall Street, but takes plenty of Wall Street money through the DSCC and other sources. Demagogues the cost of education, yet sat on a $350,000 endowed chair at Harvard. Praises Occupy while living in a mansion. It's gonna be fun to watch if she does run. This is Hillary's last shot, and Fauxcahantas is the new girl on the block. She has nowhere near the baggage that Clinton does, and that has to appeal to a certain segment of Democrats, especially if Hillary keeps floundering. I expect to see a coincidental takedown attempt made on Warren, by Clinton if Warren makes moves to run. Forget any of the Republican hopefuls, Hillary is probably more worried about Warren than anyone else right now. At least she should be, if she learned anything from her last campaign.
The source is a heritage foundation study. http://www.heritage.org/research/re...orate-welfare-on-the-backs-of-taxpayers#_ftn6 You want more? http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE93305B20130404?irpc=932 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/06/exportimport-bank-cronyism-threatens-american-jobs http://m.lacrossetribune.com/news/l...5076-a7f0-9236424587d2.html?mobile_touch=true Surprise surprise, Obama once thought the Ex-Im as corporate welfare. http://www.ibtimes.com/obama-slams-gop-blocking-bank-he-once-derided-fund-corporate-welfare-1646792 I really wish candidate Obama would have been President.
Are you a robot programmed to claim that people say the opposite of what they actually say? You do it all the time to pretty much everyone. It's like you've been preprogrammed with random responses to anything anyone says on the internet and the responses just get shuffled around. I think I finally figured it out, you are an internet response robot.
Your position against the Ex-Im Bank implies that you don't want small companies to have access to loans that can help them expand their business. Either that or you still don't understand the function of the Ex-Im Bank. Given your track record, I'm inclined to go with the latter.
I literally just linked articles that says the EX-Im bank is corporate welfare. Even candidate Obama believed this to be true. The bank does not help small businesses. Wait, are you saying Boeing and GE are small businesses? I wonder what my local barber thinks about that? Anyway, time to test my robot theory: Stop signs are red. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign If my theory is true, the you will respond:"Why do you believe stop signs are blue?"
No, subsidies are. Ok, so you're not a robot. Maybe a computer program then? Ooh, I got it, you are Siri. Siri, can you locate the nearest gas station for me?
As I understand it: The subsidies are for small business. The loans are for big corporations. The profits generated from those loans helps finance those small business subsidies. So again, why do you hate small business?
... so ... more insults "with zest", but no real argument. As for the brain deads out there ... well, say what you will, but the candidates I support are, as far as I can tell, attempting to help the people - all the people. Unlike the REAL brain dead people who still follow the ridiculous notion of trickle down economics and that the uber wealthy are job creators. Now there's some brain dead people ...
Yes. I want quite a bit more. I want you to demonstrate an ability to understand the data. You can throw up links till the end of time, but nobody will respect you until you demonstrate an awareness of what these links say and do not say. So far, you've convinced me that you don't like the word bank, but have no idea what it means. Do you know the history of banking, what are the variety of institutions labeled by the term, and how it is that banking can be a force for good or a force for bad? All the links you want to toss up on the screen will do nothing until you yourself can explain the underlying concepts on a level that goes beyond "banks bad."
This is a fun article, demonstrating the art of deception. Did you catch where it compared support of one thing with opposition to a completely different thing? Or did you note the way it used criticism of a program of the bank to imply opposition to the bank as a whole? No, I'm sure you didn't notice these deceptions, because you liked the headline. Read carefully, consider the logic of what is said, and check the underlying data against other sources. You are allowing them to manipulate you.
Heh. You know why Hillary kept running after it became obvious that she'd never get the nomination? Because it forced the Democrats to get organized in all the states which had yet to hold a primary. Those organizations were still intact when it came time for Obama to campaign against McCain. McCain, if you'll recall, managed to lock the nomination up much earlier than Obama did, so he didn't mobilize in as many states. When it came time for the Fall campaign, his people had nowhere near the organizational level of Obama and the Dems. Don't expect the Hillary and Warren thing (assuming Warren does run) to be over quickly, and don't buy the inevitable claims of "bad blood" between the two of them. They'll both campaign until the bitter end, in order to make sure that they're ready for November.
Fair points, but Hillary is the presumed nominee at this point, and not a good campaigner. Using that logic a contentious Republican race could benefit their nominee over a coasting Hillary.
The only thing Hillary hates more than someone other than her being in the White House, is if that someone is a Republican. She may not be that great at campaigning, but Bill and Obama are, and they like the idea of a Republican in the White House about as much as she does. None of which means that a Democrat is going to win in '16, just that its going to be one bloody, nasty, fight on all sides and the negative ads are already being written, I'm sure.
@Tuckerfan Hillary isn't running against Republicans though, she's running against the present day status quo. That means she's got to separate herself from Obama, which she started positioning to do once she stepped down at State. We saw inklings of it last week with some of her comments. Until a clear Republican foe comes into focus, she has no one to run against, and no case to make. The Republicans are not unified, guys like Perry and Paul have been sniping at each other for months now. We have different reads, and that's fine. Like sports, we're gonna get to see how it plays out.
