Comrade Kennedy
-
Her response (especially at the end) was terrific. Kennedy looked, at least for the first 3 minutes, like an immature child asking those questions. "Have you resigned?" What a dumb question...repeated.
wrote on 19 Nov 2021, 18:48 last edited by@89th said in Comrade Kennedy:
Her response (especially at the end) was terrific. Kennedy looked, at least for the first 3 minutes, like an immature child asking those questions. "Have you resigned?" What a dumb question...repeated.
As somebody who has set across the table from Kennedy, he ain't dumb. When he asks a question, he has a reason.
-
wrote on 19 Nov 2021, 19:02 last edited by
@89th said in Comrade Kennedy:
Her response (especially at the end) was terrific. Kennedy looked, at least for the first 3 minutes, like an immature child asking those questions. "Have you resigned?" What a dumb question...repeated.
Damn... you're not even smart enough to figure THIS one out...
-
wrote on 19 Nov 2021, 19:11 last edited by Catseye3
Eh . . . Same snark, different day.
Next month some Republican will be up for something and the Dems will be all up in his grill about being a zygote in Moscow.
-
wrote on 20 Nov 2021, 03:25 last edited by
Have you read any of the papers he's talking about? You might find them enlightening...
-
@jolly Oh shit, who cares. 24 hours before these hearings 90% of Americans had never heard of OCC, and those who did didn't care.
wrote on 20 Nov 2021, 15:54 last edited by@catseye3 said in Comrade Kennedy:
24 hours before these hearings 90% of Americans had never heard of OCC, and those who did didn't care.
Like Pearl Harbor
-
wrote on 20 Nov 2021, 15:56 last edited by
@catseye3 said in Comrade Kennedy:
@jolly Oh shit, who cares. 24 hours before these hearings 90% of Americans had never heard of OCC, and those who did didn't care.
@catseye3 said in Comrade Kennedy:
@jolly Oh shit, who cares. 24 hours before these hearings 90% of Americans had never heard of OCC, and those who did didn't care.
Those of us with enough sense to understand the consequences of this care, that's who cares.
Your kind of ignorance is a big part of the reason this country is turning to shit.
-
wrote on 20 Nov 2021, 16:01 last edited by
Leftists will never know what it is to truly be alive; to truly care about others and society at large. Their life experience is that of an emotional robot. They are pawns in a game that others are playing. To be right leaning is to be alive, to experience that which leftists never could. It is very sad for them, but unfortunately they are uneducable and will not change. Just don't poke the robots. They become angry robots.
-
wrote on 20 Nov 2021, 16:32 last edited by
Fuck the Left.
-
wrote on 20 Nov 2021, 17:58 last edited by
@catseye3 said in Comrade Kennedy:
Oh shit, who cares. 24 hours before these hearings 90% of Americans had never heard of OCC, and those who did didn't care.
Because smaller fish make the policy that bigger fish sign into law. And even when handed a set of rules by Congress or by Executive order, people at this level actually can tweak policies to their own preferences.
-
wrote on 20 Nov 2021, 19:09 last edited by
@larry said in Comrade Kennedy:
Fuck the Left.
They're managing to do that to themselves.
The day of reckoning is coming.
-
wrote on 21 Nov 2021, 12:37 last edited by
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/a-red-scare-over-comrade-omarova-is-warranted-actually/
“The attacks on your nomination have been vicious and personal. We’ve just seen them. Sexism, racism, pages straight out of Joe McCarthy’s 1950s Red Scare tactics,” whined Senator Elizabeth Warren...
Now, it’s true that Kennedy didn’t engage in the kind of nuanced questioning Democrats deployed when spreading uncorroborated gang-rape charges against a Supreme Court nominee.
A number of people in the media have insinuated that Omarova was some kind of defector from the Soviet Union. It’s untrue. It was only by happenstance that she was stranded as an exchange student at University of Wisconsin–Madison — where at that time collectivist ideas were even more popular than at Moscow State University — when the USSR fell apart, at which time her Soviet citizenship ceased to exist. As my parents were defectors, and I have known many others, I can confidently say that people who risked something to escape communism are unlikely to start a sentence, as Omarova did, with, “Say what you will about old USSR . . .” Her nonsensical and pernicious defense of Soviet gender equality (the rest of the sentence is “. . . there was no gender pay gap there”) ignores the fact that American women lived vastly better lives by every conceivable economic and moral measure. Her comments on that issue alone should be disqualifying. Need it be said that if a Republican president’s nominee had tweeted “Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, the health care was amazing,” Democrats (hopefully all people) would have recoiled?
That’s fine. I’m happy Omarova prospered in a free, capitalistic system, becoming a Beth and Marc Goldberg professor at Cornell Law. And, of course, she’s free to hold any views she desires. She does not, however, have a God-given right to hold a powerful position in the bureaucracy, nor is she exempt from accountability for her words and ideas.
-
@catseye3 said in Comrade Kennedy:
Oh shit, who cares. 24 hours before these hearings 90% of Americans had never heard of OCC, and those who did didn't care.
Because smaller fish make the policy that bigger fish sign into law. And even when handed a set of rules by Congress or by Executive order, people at this level actually can tweak policies to their own preferences.
wrote on 21 Nov 2021, 14:03 last edited by@jolly said in Comrade Kennedy:
Because smaller fish make the policy that bigger fish sign into law.
That is actually true for many agencies. And the policies are not so much made as proposed, and the law gets made to legitimize the practice that often has been in force all along.
But hey, thanks for mansplaining!
-
wrote on 21 Nov 2021, 14:33 last edited by
Isn't this just more grandstanding nonsense?
Business as usual, IOW.
-
@jolly said in Comrade Kennedy:
Because smaller fish make the policy that bigger fish sign into law.
That is actually true for many agencies. And the policies are not so much made as proposed, and the law gets made to legitimize the practice that often has been in force all along.
But hey, thanks for mansplaining!
wrote on 21 Nov 2021, 15:39 last edited by@catseye3 said in Comrade Kennedy:
@jolly said in Comrade Kennedy:
Because smaller fish make the policy that bigger fish sign into law.
That is actually true for many agencies. And the policies are not so much made as proposed, and the law gets made to legitimize the practice that often has been in force all along.
But hey, thanks for mansplaining!
Somebody has to.
-
wrote on 24 Nov 2021, 22:23 last edited by
OK, just ignore the fact that she's a thief, after all why should we hold peoples' past behavior against them, right?
Focus on the fact that's she's scrubbing things from her resume, and refusing to turn things over to the Senate.
-
wrote on 25 Nov 2021, 00:13 last edited by
Yep, Kennedy's a dumbass...
-
wrote on 25 Nov 2021, 14:57 last edited by
https://www.axios.com/democrats-omarova-occ-5755a0e4-c6a5-4ca7-b6c7-87d18d5491f9.html
Five Democratic senators have told the White House they won't support Saule Omarova to head the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, effectively killing her nomination for the powerful bank-regulator position.
Why it matters: The defiant opposition from a broad coalition of senators reflects the real policy concerns they had with Omarova, a Cornell University law professor who's attracted controversy for her academic writings about hemming in big banks.
Their opposition also hints at a willingness of some Democratic senators to buck the White House on an important nomination, even if it hands Republicans a political — and symbolic — victory.
Republicans have attacked the Kazakh-born scholar in remarkably personal terms, and turned her nomination into a proxy battle over how banks should be regulated.
Driving the news: In phone call on Wednesday, Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), all members of the Senate Banking Committee, told Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) — the panel's chairman — of their opposition.They're joined in opposing her by Sens. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).
The five senators' offices either declined to comment or did not immediately respond to a request for comment. -
Isn't this just more grandstanding nonsense?
Business as usual, IOW.
wrote on 25 Nov 2021, 15:04 last edited by@doctor-phibes said in Comrade Kennedy:
Isn't this just more grandstanding nonsense?
Business as usual, IOW.
Well, it wasn't.
-
@jolly Oh shit, who cares. 24 hours before these hearings 90% of Americans had never heard of OCC, and those who did didn't care.
wrote on 25 Nov 2021, 15:05 last edited by@catseye3 said in Comrade Kennedy:
@jolly Oh shit, who cares. 24 hours before these hearings 90% of Americans had never heard of OCC, and those who did didn't care.
Well, apparently enough senators on both sides of aisle decided they cared.