Post removed

[zappaman]

1. Maybe he was too busy starting a war in Syria?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

5. yep. that war where Russia and Syria admit Assad has chem weapons and start to destroy them

without a shot being fired.

[VanillaRhapsody]

102. I know I fell out laughing when I read this news too...

there sure has been alot of crow eating going on lately here at DU. I think they finally started serving Crow au vin at the DU cafeteria!

[reddread]

2. the damage isnt done, its ongoing

http://truth-out.org/news/item/19213-the-golden-dawn-murder-case-larry-summers-and-the-new-fascism

[Pretzel_Warrior]

3. the point is...a whole bunch of DU'ers wrong about Summers as a lock for Fed Chairman

so ahhh....yeah.

[reddread]

40. Penny for your thoughts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Pritzker

[Pretzel_Warrior]

42. what about her?

is she unqualified for the job she's in?

[jonsiee]

45. No

She is clearly the result of a wealthy person buying a political position.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

50. I, for one, am PISSED that JFK's daughter is the new U.S. ambassador to Japan

influence peddling!

I'll get back to you on Pritzker. Heading out at the moment.

[stevenleser]

75. Clearly. All of your supporting information is so compelling. nt

[Dragonfli]

78. As is your in depth report about Penny's hard work for the people that earned the position!

After reading all of your supporting facts, I must say, there really was no better choice for our party or the people for the position she so obviously earned and didn't purchase. Is this a preview of your next FOX segment?

[stevenleser]

97. Point out where I made that assertion. nt

[Dragonfli]

100. No I thought your post was simply deliciously ironic considering what you did post.

come on, you gotta admit it, refuting a position that posted no fact by posting no counter facts to support why you were even refuting it was funny as hell.

I just couldn't resist any more than you could.
It just made me laugh so hard I had to point it out!

[stevenleser]

101. Nope, the only person responsible for facts is the person making an assertion. nt

[Dragonfli]

111. He made an obvious observation of what appearances are, He may well have been right.

He may well have been wrong.

His judgement of what is observable is an opinion, if you think his opinion is incorrect, by all means, have at it Hoss. I can't refute his observational judgement based on anything I have seen or read and look forward to any factual refutation of his merely subjective opinion of what he has observed regarding a public matter.

Until then, (even after then really though facts could sway me to completely disregard a subjective opinion as wrong), he is most certainly entitled to his opinion that she appears to be what she appears to be. As you are entitled to your opinion that she really appears to be is: (what was your subjective opinion of appearances again?).

Appearances are what they are, and in this case are most vivid.
If you don't like appearances and people's opinions of those appearances, just stop with the funny ironic non fact rebuttals and do your thing with the facts and the arguments so we will all know why appearances are so deceiptive in this case.

I look forward to hearing it!
But, if it's on FOX I will likely not see it at all as I am a very different demographic than your viewers there and never watch the thing.

[stevenleser]

113. No, no and no. You've been on DU long enough to know better. We dont go on people's say so.

If you make an assertion that something was done for some nefarious purpose, back it up with at least a link. Just one. That person couldnt be bothered to do even that.

[Dragonfli]

131. Why do you go on "your say so" then? I get it, you can't refute the appearance of a political

appointment being pay back for previous generosity, even tho the appearance of such clearly exists.

So, you have nothing and revert to the "appearance of nepotism doesn't exist" (even tho it certainly does) "because you didn't tape the quid pro quo discussion, so so there!".

Having nothing to address the way this appointment looks to the public, you have no option but to to silence anyone that points out appearances and has opinions based on those appearances.

You may not know this, but appearances matter in politics, and the public often bases at least first opinions on appearances, often things are not what may appear to be obvious to people that don't know "the whole story", that is when you should do your job and explain to people "what the whole story is" and that it only looks that way superficially, or you will do nothing to dispel the negative political affect based on really bad optics that lend an unfortunate appearance.

Can you do your job now and finally explain (this is like pulling fucking teeth) how appearances can be deceiving and why in this case they truly are?

It should be easy for a journalist, it should be your first instinct in fact if you wish to help the PR battle and clear up unfortunate appearances with facts, so, why not even make one small feeble attempt at doing so rather than answer the public with your version of "it's not what you think it is, it only looks that way, JUST BECAUSE - SO SHUT UP!"

I won't really respond to any more evasions, lets see if you can explain some unfortunate optics for the public, so they, like the poster don't draw such unfortunate subjective conclusions from what they see. It should be something you want to do, it should not be like pulling teeth.

I await the clarity that will dispel once and for all the appearance of nepotism. So have at it,
then thank me after doing the work that will help in the optics (PR) battle when/if this comes up on your show.

You will be ready for it then.

[babylonsister]

55. Wow. You got all the talking points down. Got it! nt

[reddread]

64. from where, exactly?

I have a point of view. I lean towards REAL concern for the poor and the homeless.
which includes a lot of jobless people.
Tell me where that jibes with Pritzker's appointment or the TPP?
or just tell me where you get your talking points?
your inference is not only baseless, its chicken shit.

[babylonsister]

69. Obama can appoint whom he wants. Not

anything I can do about it. I also, unlike a lot of people, trust his instincts.

And I think this admin has real concern for the poor and homeless. May I never be so cynical as you, because you probably have no one to believe in, and that would suck.

Not chicken shit, tired of the bullshit.

[reddread]

79. what bullshit?

it isnt cynicism to point out the reality. cognitive dissonance might be a bitch,
but the facts remain as they are.
Im sure they have the same real concerns about the homeless as most people.
nobody wants to be on the menu.

[VanillaRhapsody]

103. Amen sister!

[VanillaRhapsody]

103. Amen sister!

[Mojorabbit]

115. How can you trust implicitly someone that you do not personally know?

I have never understood that. I always keep a certain distance and let the person's actions define them if I do not know them in person.

[cui bono]

118. Maybe they're Beliebers?

[cui bono]

59. Now you're making shit up.

Please provide evidence of people saying Summers was a "lock".

[reddread]

80. at least he isnt claiming the left blocked the appointment

or that the appointment was never possible.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

82. Are you new to DU?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023659522

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023670569

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023472227

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023594236

Seriously, I don't want to get karpal tunnel from all the cutting a pasting.

[cui bono]

85. Are you? Links are supposed to prove your point.

All of those links were to news stories, so there's no DU member claiming a "lock" on Summers in those links.

That aside, NONE of those links said Summers was a "lock" either, nor anything close to that. They all said Obama was leaning towards or considering Summers.

And that is exactly the right time to get up in arms about something, before the decision is made so that it can be changed. If we wait until it happens then it's too late.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

87. Read the comments...

During the months of July and August, there were thousands of hair-on-fire, Obama-is-selling-us-out posts per minute.

[Generic Other]

92. And Summers removed himself from consideration afgterwards

Kind of sounds like an example of listening to the base as unusual as that may seem. As for the hair-on-fire it was meant to light the fires under Obama's feet something he asked us to do. The screamers get attention, the polite get ignored. Unless you gots money! Then you just gets.

[VanillaRhapsody]

105. I remember it like it was yesterday Jeff

I love all the "Uh Uh's" and "No we di'int's" that always follow when they are time and time proven the worst Obama prognosticators!

[cui bono]

116. So are you saying you have links to these posts by DUers that said Summers was a "lock"?

Please provide them then. That's what's at issue here, in this subthread. Just waiting on proof of PW's assertion.

Please proceed.

[VanillaRhapsody]

119. Is that an "Uh Uh" or a "No we di'int"?

[cui bono]

122. You need to look above and follow the subthread.

You are agreeing with someone who is trying to argue PW's point that a bunch of DUers said Summers was a "lock".

I'm waiting for someone to provide the evidence. Thought it might be you, but you are confused by the subthread. That's fine. I can wait... I suspected I would be left waiting.

[VanillaRhapsody]

125. No actually I AM agreeing with them...

[cui bono]

128. Agreeing with who about what? That DUers said Summers was a "lock"?

If so, that's what I thought. So please show me links to prove that assertion.

[VanillaRhapsody]

132. smdh

[cui bono]

135. I don't know what smdh means.

But I take it you don't have links then. So until someone provides them, I will take it that PW's assertion and all the agreements to it thereafter are wrong.

[VanillaRhapsody]

137. pretend it never happened...pretend it never happened....pretend it never happened

Oh it helps when you do the Wayne and Garth Scooby Do ending.

[cui bono]

138. So you don't have links?

[Luminous Animal]

140. No links. Just lies.

[Luminous Animal]

139. Provide evidence that it happened. Provide evidence that it happened.

Provide evidence that it happened.

You can't.

[VanillaRhapsody]

141. don't need to...nothing would convince you...you would just twist it into something else entirely

but whatever gets you through the night....

[Luminous Animal]

143. Hahahaha!!!! It's the Fox News, "some people say", gambit

Nice! I love to see that on a Democratic discussion board.

Whatever gets YOU through the night. I prefer intellectual rigor.

[VanillaRhapsody]

147. I prefer intellectual honesty....

Actually I was thinking "Fox News" myself...but didn't want to be accused of "name calling"

Yeah I know that game too!

[Luminous Animal]

149. Really. Looking forward to seeing your intellectually honest responses to

those who have attempted to have a discussion with you.

"I know you are, but what am I," does not count.

[VanillaRhapsody]

153. I look forward to yours...

[Luminous Animal]

155. Point out where one is needed and I will provide.., Aw lawdy I will provi-i-i-de

Because, I am really and truly smarter than the average bear.

[VanillaRhapsody]

156. that's what they all say....

[Luminous Animal]

157. Yer cute.

[VanillaRhapsody]

159. I know....

[cui bono]

167. Intellectual honesty would be to provide links that back up an assertion you make or

decide to come in and defend.

It does not include posting things about Scooby Doo.

[cui bono]

114. Pretzel said there were tons of DUers saying Summers was a "lock"

That has not been proven. And that is what I'm wanting links to. So don't go getting carpel tunnel syndrome sending me on a wild goose chase.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

158. Here's just one. I can find more if I go back farther in history

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023471698


What is more....look at all the insults lobbed toward Obama in this thread. I highlight a few posts in that thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014553343#post1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014553343#post19
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014553343#post34
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014553343#post50

[cui bono]

168. That's it? That's more of a prediction than a statement saying Obama's pick is a "lock".

I appreciate you finally responding though, even though I really don't see how that makes this how ever many DUers you said stated that Summers was a "lock".

And honestly, if you think those are terrible "insults hurled at Obama" perhaps politics isn't a good past time for you. You and others are taking it too personally. Especially that first one where the poster merely said Summers is why they lost respect for Obama. The others were a bit more harsh but still all criticisms of him coddling Wall Street guys like Summers. He does do that. I wonder why someone criticizing him for that bothers you more than the fact that he actually appointed Summers before and considered him as Chair of the Fed.

And... None of those posts were personal attacks on Obama, they were criticizing him considering Summers and what that means in terms of where he stands and who he is representing. I don't see anything wrong with those posts and I don't see why you do so much that you felt the need to bring them up at this time when they had nothing to do with our discussion.

[cui bono]

117. Come on Pretzel... where's the proof to back up that assertion?

Let's see you provide links to back up your accusations.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

151. Oh for fuck's sake...

Do a fucking search of the site and find it yourself. Jesus H. Christ on a cracker, it's not that fucking hard. And the evidence is known to anybody who scrolled through endless "Obama is throwing us under the bus AGAIN" threads.

[cui bono]

152. Why? I didn't make the assertion. I don't have to try to prove it.

Why should I waste my time looking for something I'm sure does not exist.

You gave me four links that didn't prove what he asserted and I already went on that wild goose chase. So "Jesus H Christ on a cracker maybe it is that fucking hard". You failed at it.

Burden of proof is on PW or on you if you are going to continue to get involved.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

154. The burden of proof?

This isn't fucking courtroom. If you're too technologically challenged to find the information that's sitting right in front of you, might I suggest asking one of your Amish friends to assist?

[cali]

173. you really don't keep up, do you pretzel?

grab a clue: Summers withdrew his name under HUGE PRESSURE over a month ago.

duh. duh. and double duh.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Obama is also going to attack Syria

chain Social Security to CPI and attack Iran.

It's true...I read it somewhere in the interwebz.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

6. Oh, Iran is definitely on the table. That's why Obama called Iranian leader

to tell him "it is on, mothafucka!!"

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

8. Maybe he can chain Rafael Eduardo Cruz and John Boehner together with a CPI.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

14. Cruz. ack. just typing his name makes me ill.

[Fumesucker]

7. ~snort~

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023342196#post12

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. I just don't get why anyone would have problems with Yellen even if she were the lone

candidate being considered.

[Fumesucker]

10. Welcome to DU!

It's a diverse community, to say the least.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

12. that it is. these recent trolls this week are laughable

they get about 11 or 19 posts in and get tossed out before they can even get started. it shows even THEY know Obama and Dems are on the high ground and winning the political argument.

[Dragonfli]

93. Yes but you'll get better with time, you have already gotten the "create your own realty" thing

And your ambition sure reveals confidence, I mean publicly denying a very large collection of news items and debates about a recent event shows you aren't afraid of a little catapulting to get an inter-party disruption fight started!

Many never learn how to create an entirely personal reality with such faith, so I for one think you will make it a bit longer even if you ARE extremely new here.

So what if you are a bit laughable? Don't beat yourself up so much over it, K.

[dionysus]

108. you should hold up a mirror before you go calling people trolls, k ?

[Dragonfli]

120. I like what I see! I have not changed politically in over 40 years!

Back then conservatives didn't register as Democrats and lecture Dems while inciting flame wars (hell we didn't even have flame wars then, just arguments).

I am old fashioned and I cling to my "outdated" classic Dem ideals and don't like the new coke (or New Democrats™ pushing 20 year old stale Republican policies in a fresh circle D can)

But thank you for your concern, old fashioned and set in my ways or not I really do like what I see in the mirror!

[cui bono]

124. And I bet you didn't start a "discussion" just to ridicule "fellow" Dems either.

But the topic of the day is tattoos. Did you see any in that mirror?

[Dragonfli]

133. Only trolls do that sort of thing, sometimes I even point that out to em while feeding them.

A bad habit I know, feed a troll and it can follow you around for ages, leaving troll droppings all over the place.

I know it's best just too starve them but sometimes I just can't help it.

[HangOnKids]

165. Love IT!

A bit of hubris um? Love the transparency page too.

[Dragonfli]

172. I have a few hits on mine as well..., but my favorite one on the list you pointed out reagards

the apparently "progressive" view that all members of a Race should die. A real loving comment that shows a commitment to proper and openly declared race hatred for all of us to emulate, a reasonable racism well explained by the elucidation of "WASC" in another thread, I mean, don't we all love to hate (White Anglo Saxon Cultist) I mean, they all are aren't they? He also proves creds by showing a proper disrespect for Grayson (must be a Republican pol and probable WASC, I'll have to look into him)

Obviously all unfair hides.

[cui bono]

11. Who are you referring to when you say "suckers"?

Because Summers was obviously on the list and his name was leaked, and the uproar caused him to withdraw his name. Both of which Obama must have known about.

But you knew that.

Why are you trying to pick fights and open up past fights? You just can't contain yourself can you? I thought you were going to be a good boy from now on?

Since when is citizens voicing concern over something and possible affecting the decision at hand something to be ridiculed?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

13. I just love how Obama is juking more people than an NFL running back on Sundays

that is all. So.....after this recent spate of examples, just wishing people could see this guy is way smarter and way more in tune with what will make America work for regular folks than some will admit.

and to keep with the football analogy. Yes, I am spiking the football in the endzone and doing a dance. Cuz it is an awesome day today. TWEEEEEET!!! 15 yards! Unsportsmanlike conduct. Excessive celebration. muahahaaha.

[markpkessinger]

24. The President didn't "Juke" anybody . . .

. . . Summers withdrew his name from consideration.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

28. he could have named him right away. he didn't.

I knew and most people who aren't looking for excuses to go after Obama knew that he is playing a balancing game between the powers in banking/corporate America and his own agenda and choices.

He went ahead and put Summers out there because he was the banksters' choice. Once he allowed enough gravity to pull Summers down...that's all she wrote.

oh....and he "withdrew his name" kind of like executives "tender their resignation".

[NuclearDem]

52. Larry Summers shouldn't have been on the list in the goddamn first place.

I know you might have to do the unthinkable and credit activists and popular opinion in the removal of Summers from consideration, but that doesn't fit into the concept of nth dimensional chess very well does it?

[VanillaRhapsody]

106. "to spend more time with their family" is the usual excuse...

[Luminous Animal]

142. And, "we the people" help provide that gravity. We rose up and said, "No, no no."

What if we "suckers" hadn't?

[cui bono]

54. I don't know what juking is...

and I might just be glad about that.

I think you're wrong though.

But more to the point, do you want people to post threads like this when Obama does something bad, like drone strikes, or spying on Americans, or executing Americans without due justice... you get the picture. I mean we could bring up other stuff like how he's appointed Wall Street to his admin, or ex Monsanto CEOs to the EPA, but that's old news, right? Besides, he is waaaayyy smarter than us and there must have been a good "liberal" reason to get Wall Street right smack dab in the middle of the WH.

Oh, and those secret deals he was making with the insurance companies and denying them until he had to admit it even though his was going to be the most transparent admin in history, well, we should just not mention those, right? Oh, wait, that was chess too?

Well how about the fact that even if you are right, and he is waaayyy smarter than us, he is not a liberal, he's center at best, how about that? You're cheering on a president that puts forth, enacts and expands on policies that the Republicans came up with/like. Just because he isn't doing the bidding of the bat shit crazy TPers doesn't make him a great president. He's letting the pull to the extreme right land him in the middle. Of course a lot of us are not sure that's not exactly where he wants to be.

So while you are applauding, remember you are happy about a president who is continuing a lot of Bush policy, got Romney's health care legislation passed and put Wall Street further into Washington than anyone else.

Rah!

[Dragonfli]

67. Neither do I, I wonder if it is related to twerking? Do only younger bridge dwellers get it?

[nolabear]

63. Juking? Where I come from that means drinking, dancing and cattin' around!

Which admittedly would be awesome.

[Dragonfli]

68. I never held it against JFK, but that was before personal stuff unrelated to job performance

became more of a concern than the actual job performance to most voters.

A long time ago, the press wasn't so tabloid and ignored mistresses, sexuality of spouses and other nonsense when discussing policy. We knew stuff, but it was considered very bad form to go so off topic and personal (it should still be bad form now, but tabloid gossip trumps news these days so....)

[Luminous Animal]

145. IRL, juking people is what assholes do.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

148. Wow. You folks really don't know much about football

[Luminous Animal]

150. I do. Football is a game. Real life is not.

[Fumesucker]

164. You say that like it's a bad thing

[kentuck]

15. Of course!

He was gonna appoint Yellen all along. Everybody knows that.

[bahrbearian]

17. He had his fingers crossed when he threatened Syria and he never offered chained CPI.

[n2doc]

16. Good

I'm sure all the Dem Senators lined up opposing Summers had nothing to do with it....

[LittleBlue]

19. +1

/thread

[BumRushDaShow]

18. Here's the link

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: October 8, 2013


WASHINGTON — President Obama will nominate Janet L. Yellen as chairwoman of the Federal Reserve on Wednesday, administration officials said Tuesday night, ending an unusually public search to fill one of the most important economic policy-making jobs in the world.

Mr. Obama’s first choice for the job — Lawrence H. Summers, a former adviser to the president — dropped out of the running on Sept. 15 in the face of opposition from Democratic senators.

Ms. Yellen, 67, who has been the Fed’s vice chairwoman since 2010, would be the first woman to run the central bank. A native of Brooklyn, she was previously president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, a White House adviser, a Fed governor during the Clinton administration and a longtime professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Her four-year appointment as chairwoman must be confirmed by the Senate.

<snip>

Ms. Yellen, described by one former colleague as “a small lady with a large I.Q.,” forged an academic career at Berkeley as a member of the economics counterculture that attacked the dogma of efficient markets. She has long argued that markets benefit from regulation to prevent abuses and limit disruptions of economic growth.

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/business/obama-to-nominate-janet-l-yellen-as-fed-chairwoman.html?hp&_r=0

[freshwest]

160. For regulation and against laissez faire economics? Excellent pick!

Laissez-faire (or sometimes laisser-faire) is an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidies, with only enough regulations to protect property rights.

She's the anti-thesis to the Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman disaster capitalism and shock doctrine grifters.

Thanks, Obama!

[pscot]

20. Larry Summers was voted off the island

6 weeks ago.

[WilliamPitt]

21. Summers disqualified himself.

Trolling Fail.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

22. I just like to remind people of all the doom prophecies on here about Obama in the past few months

because it ain't turning out the way their fever dreams told them it would.

[markpkessinger]

26. Are you suggesting Summers WASN"T under very serious consideration by the President?

Seriously?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

30. yes.

[markpkessinger]

34. And what proof do you have of this?

I seem to recall the President mounting a very fierce defense of Summers in response to the uproar.

If you can manage, in your head, to spin that in the President "juking" everybody, all I can say is, can I have a hit o' that pipe of yours?

[PoliticAverse]

47. Of course you are. n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

48. BAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA!!! sucker.

[Dragonfli]

53. You weren't paying any attention then, you missed all the uproar from those "Dem Senator suckers"

you appear to be laughing at for forcing him to withdrawing his name, really you could not have been that far removed from all the news of what happened - therefore one almost must conclude you are trolling to start a fight with Democrats again like your guru Spamden taught you.

I am a bit surprised you started your flame trolling by calling Democratic Senators "suckers" however, that's some pretty transparent troll activity, I give you a 3 out of 10 as divisiveness troll today, try to up your score a bit.

Mr. Obama’s first choice for the job — Lawrence H. Summers, a former adviser to the president — dropped out of the running on Sept. 15 in the face of opposition from Democratic senators.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/business/obama-to-nominate-janet-l-yellen-as-fed-chairwoman.html?_r=0

No news sources under the bridge I take it?

[WilliamPitt]

60. Talk about suckers.

You know, reporters write stuff down and stuff. History exists.

Oh, never mind. Troll on.

Derpnado.

[cui bono]

83. Talk about suckers.

[morningfog]

175. Reality says otherwise.

[VanillaRhapsody]

107. Yes please continue....I just love to watch contortionists...don't you?

this is like a regular Cirq de Soleil quality performance@

[joshcryer]

90. After he was nominated though!

[Luminous Animal]

144. Indeed. Trolling fail.

[last1standing]

23. If your desire is to destroy the good will many have found toward Obama, you're doing a heckuva job.

Try to be a touch more smug while ignoring the fact that Obama wanted to nominate Summers, pushed for chained CPI and pressed for a unilateral war in Syria before being pressured to back down.

It's funny that I just posted a pro-Obama OP before reading this and now I'm remembering all the negative things about him again.

Good job.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

25. uh oh. I feel threatened

better go edit your post, then. Wouldn't want to be too happy with the job your Democratic president is doing.

And how, exactly, would reminding people of the good outcomes of various Obama efforts be destroying good will toward him? I get it. The spiteful people will hate Obama just to get to me.

[last1standing]

32. Spiteful is posting a smug OP like this one.

That's a whole lot of hate for your fellow Democrats you've built up, there. Too bad you can't muster that kind of blind hatred for the real problem - republicans.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

33. I don't hate my fellow Democrats. It's been heart warming to see us come together against a real foe

I am just saying "told you so". What's the big deal? take your medicine and move on.

[last1standing]

39. Obama bends to pressure from liberals so you want to gloat?

That's about as adult as a nasty child who taunts other children then runs home to mommy before they can beat him up.

I've tried to have rational conversations with you in the past but you've proved what you are. Say what you like, you're being ignored.

[VanillaRhapsody]

109. Because it screws up their narrative that they are the "better democrats" and "oh yeah Obama sucks!"

I think I remember a lot of "He is not even a real Democrat"

I think I even heard "more Republican than Ronald Reagan" once...

[Jamaal510]

171. I hear the Reagan part a lot,

particularly on progressive sites like this and Media Matters. People go on and on about Obama somehow being further to the right than Reagan was, and how Reagan would be a Democrat today. But last time I checked, neither Obama nor the rest of the Democratic Party have ran on the Southern Strategy, raised taxes on the poor, or tripled the debt while in office. Reagan was also strictly against the Black Panther Party, which is one of the main reasons why he backed some form of gun control at all. To top it off, Obama has been trying to END wars, while Reagan started one during his presidency.

I don't know about anyone else here, but it drives me nuts to see some self-described progressives wearing rose-colored glasses when it comes to Reagan. I wasn't born when he was president, and I only started following politics several years ago, but from what I've read about Reagan, he really comes across as one of America's most mean-spirited and regressive presidents ever.

[Atman]

27. Chained C3PO!

I have nothing more...I just liked the sound of it. There's a joke in there somewhere.

[Hekate]

77. Oh dear, now the robots are in harm's way. The horror, the horror!

[riqster]

89. That joke R 2 funny!

[MannyGoldstein]

29. They said that Obama wanted to win the war in Afghanistan.

But we lost the war.

Thus, it is proven, Obama always wanted to lose in Afghanistan.

QED

[Pretzel_Warrior]

31. by what measures have we lost in Afghanistan? Taliban and al Queda are wrecks

so......I guess you can do that with anything you want.

[MannyGoldstein]

35. Do me a favor... Don't read click on this link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/10364342/Afghanistan-awaits-its-fate-at-the-hands-of-the-Taliban.html

[Pretzel_Warrior]

38. and then there's this

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57605836/afghanistan-u.s-blocking-deal-on-future-security-pact/

[NuclearDem]

58. I don't know how you view Afghanistan as anything short of a disaster.

[Luminous Animal]

146. +1

[Logical]

36. Are you so clueless you don't realize the outrage stopped Obama from nominating him? LOL. nt

[PoliticAverse]

46. I think you are on to something. n/t

[Pretzel_Warrior]

49. Republicans were also against Summers. So..are you sure it was the liberals?

Based on the working theory that Obama is only doing the bidding of the 1%

[Logical]

61. LOL, you don't think through this stuff much do you? n-t

[Dragonfli]

73. I find that "fans" don't think at all about the stars they love, it's all about feeling.

Because it is all about feeling they get weird and extremely angry or sad when those they love face criticism, look at the "leave Brittany alone" guy for example, or the emotional exchanges on a Bieber board.

Not that there is anything wrong with viewing politics like a teen beat magazine and falling in love with your favorite characters in the mag, but it is a shallow emotional attachment that most of us that obsess over policy details and political realities that affect the real world in life or death ways have a hard time understanding at times.

You think about policies and politics, so fans that love a politician are understandably hard for you to understand as it is all emotion for them and facts not only don't matter, but are damn lies in their hearts if the facts make them or their idols cry.

I hope this helps you to understand this silliness and why discussing policies, facts and written recent history is a bit of a waste of time with such people.

[Logical]

84. Great points! n-t

[bahrbearian]

91. Makes sense now.

[VanillaRhapsody]

110. the "working theory"

I LOVE it!

[brentspeak]

121. Name the Republicans who were against Summers n/t

[99Forever]

37. Weak sauce trollbait.

Wadda surprise.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

41. this thread has brought forth an interesting cast of characters

I'll say that for it, anyway. And being the first on DU to announce Yellen decision.

[VanillaRhapsody]

112. I notice that the new meme is that no matter what Obama does right...

It's because of them....even though they predicted his utter failure! And never seem to consider him ANYTHING other than their "working theory" that he is A failure!

And then when he is proven to be anything BUT....somehow they take credit for it!

It is so amusing....they don't know that we are smart enough to figure out...that they just take the easiest choice...they don't have to take risks supporting the man....as those of us who do...we risk their gloating they were right (and BOY would they ever gloat)...and each and every time they are proven wrong and DEMAND that we not gloat that WE were right....because of course...it is "BECAUSE of them the President succeeded in spite of himself"!

[BelgianMadCow]

43. Here's a critical take of Yellen. She supported repeal of Glass-Steagall and chained CPI

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/09/why-you-should-not-be-enthusiastic-about-janet-yellen-as-fed-chairman.html

While it’s a relief to have Larry Summers out of the running for the Fed chairmanship, it’s also important not to labor under any delusions about Janet Yellen, the nominee presumptive. Larry Summers set a very low bar to beat.

The modern Fed has become a citadel for orthodox-thinking, meaning entirely mainstream economists. And even though the global financial crisis revealed mainstream economics to be intellectually bankrupt and worse, affirmatively destructive, it has lost no hold over policy. It’s hard to imagine that a keen empiricist and original thinker like Marriner Eccles, the Fed chairman from 1934 to 1948, would have a snowball’s chance in hell of being appointed to any important position at the present-day Fed.

Obama embraces and will continue to perpetuate the conservatism of our central bank. He reappointed Bernanke, who has continued the policies of the Greenspan Fed: aggressive market intervention with a permissive posture on regulation (Dan Tarullo is the moving force behind the push at the Fed for tougher oversight). The Bernanke put has proven to be the Greenspan put on steroids. And recall that the Bernanke reappointment was not a shoe-in. Bernanke got an unheard-of five holds in the Senate and was confirmed with the largest number of no votes in the history of the Fed. And even that result came only after Obama whipped for him personally.

Zach Carter at Huffington Post gives a bill of particulars on Yellen’s policy positions. The fact that she has been touted as being more dovish on interest rates right now and a better forecaster than Summers has directed attention away from the fact that her economic views are firmly neoliberal, meaning antagonistic to the interests of ordinary citizens. In addition, she has a history of being a “don’t rock the boat” type, which is safe from a career advancement standpoint and looked sound during the 1990s, when the great experiment in creating an appearance of prosperity via rising consumer leverage still has a way to run before it hit its inevitable limits.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

44. objective news source you got there.

[BelgianMadCow]

51. Dunno, I just consider the message. Is Huffington post suspect?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/janet-yellen-glass-steagall_n_3940730.html

[cui bono]

57. Naked Capitalism is an excellent source.

Unless you are cheering for a center/center-right POTUS who put Wall Street in the White House.

If you are cheering for the people on Main Street, it's one of the best.

[Blue_In_AK]

56. So what have you accomplished by this mocking post?

Just wondering...

[Capt. Obvious]

66. Picked up a few more ignores

[leftstreet]

76. Found an opportunity to call DUers 'suckers'

Probably looks for one every single day



Although members have helped him/her redefine the term 'sucker,' since Summers actually was Obama's pick but withdrew himself

[WorseBeforeBetter]

86. Someone has to carry Spandan/MichiganDem's torch.

Things were going just *too* well the past week or so... can't have that.

[Dragonfli]

95. I fully expect this poster to link to antileft articles from the same source to further divisiveness

while carrying said torch (just a hunch but one I'd bet a dollar on).

His posts replies don't really make a lot of sense, but he at least responds after taking a dump designed to fuel the disagreements here (that really should not be further fueled just to watch the flames burn). I guess they learn from each other after all.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

98. He'll post, and they'll be chewed up and spit out like the rest.

Maybe he didn't like that MrScorpio's "unity" OP has garnered nearly 700 recs -- gotta act up a little bit, the poor dear.

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. They "made him do it"

Take credit when they feel like they succeed, blame others when they fail, and Obama is always an evil bum. Remind you of anybody?

[SidDithers]

65. DU rec...

Obama didn't nominate Summers because the outrage on DU made him reconsider.

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

127. He got a letter from 6 Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee that made

him reconsider. Duh.

[Dragonfli]

134. Maybe they don't get CSPAN in Canada and he really knows nothing about what happened

And they don't get access to major US newspapers
And they don't have access to our news on tv
And he hadn't logged on to DU the entire time it was all happening so he didn't learn what was going on from here...

That is the only explanation and quite believable I think!

[Rex]

70. Obama wanted Summers in the beginning, got a lot of negative feedback

and changed his mind. I know that is shocking to some people here, that anyone could change their mind on a topic.

[adirondacker]

71. I'll suffer through the Humiliation...

Gladly when decisions like this are made. Although I have my doubts Yellen is all that liberal. But I'll hold passing judgement...

[Rex]

72. I'll take Yellen over Summers any day.

nt.

[adirondacker]

74. Yes. That's a given.

[MFrohike]

81. Nice

I do enjoy a good 11th dimensional chess OP. It's always good fun. The hero is always a prescient superman who knows everything before it happens, unless it happens to be something extremely detrimental, in which case it's someone else's fault. When it's asked why the hero didn't see a particular event on the horizon, that event is blamed on some other agency, without proof, and the question is averted. It's a hoot.

[rurallib]

88. Summers withdrew his name

[Hestia]

94. If you aren't congratulating Janet Yellen on her new nomination, then all of y'all are trolls

The back and forth are what trolls do. Why are y'all quibbling over Summers? This is Janet's thread, not his. I for one am very happy that she is nominated. Go Janet!

[Dragonfli]

99. This isn't a Janet's thread, but a disruption thread, read the title and OP again, it's clearly bait

Designed to elicit the bonfire the poster wanted so badly.

I do admit however that feeding the trolls just adds to the problem and in that respect I have been guilty - that point is well made and duly noted. The actual thread that is Janet's thread and the place to congratulate her is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251329410

[bahrbearian]

174. "but both sides do it"

[frylock]

96. good thing progressives didn't shut the fuck up as you wished we would..

you're welcome.

[Comrade Grumpy]

123. Trollish OP. Snarky, smarmy, spiteful, and stupid, to boot.

[Bluenorthwest]

126. . The OP seems to hold the democratic process in contempt.

My Democratic Senators actively opposed a Summers nomination for months, it was an actual subject of attention all summer long. That opposition is why he did not get nominated. The US Senate Banking Committee Democrats informed the WH they would not support such a nomination. This seems to anger the OP beyond reason. Perhaps the OP is a monarchist at heart.

[cui bono]

136. The OP also makes assertions he can't back up.

And is posting divisive threads simply to ridicule other DUers. So basically for him it's back to business as usual.

[HangOnKids]

166. Oh Good I Am Not The Only One

Thanks!

[freshwest]

129. Good nominee! Won't bother to read the ruckus if one starts.

[quinnox]

130. whatever!

[stillcool]

161. wow....just read through

the comments...what a collection of nasty, for the sake of nasty.

[Number23]

162. You mean the comments from this OP or the comments at the article in the OP?

Because the comments to this OP have got to be some of the dumbest ones I've ever seen here.

I'm torn between the "it was the 100+ members of DU's collective rage that made Summers withdraw" (and not the fury of Wall Street) and the "this OP is so mean it's making me hate the President all over again" in deciding which one is the most needlessly pointless and face-palm inducing in its foolishness. It's a tough call, to be sure.

[stillcool]

163. the comments to this post..

I think I feel bad for some ...it's like when someone farts in church and you feel embarrassed for them.

[morningfog]

176. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Ichingcarpenter]

169. Summers was on the shortlist

as was Yellen.

Summers had opposition in the Democratic Senate

He withdrew

End story



Sucker.

this thread title OP is juvenile and flameworthy even after 4 edits.

[Marr]

170. Summer withdrew his name.

He was widely understood to be on the short list. I don't understand what you're mocking.