The Attack of the Fifty-Foot Elizabeth Warren
Wall Street barons are getting their inbreds all riled up and scared shitless over that Comminist wealth-redistributor who’s running for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. If you think the GOP is the party of job creation — and you keep getting lost in your one-room apartment — then we’ve got a sca-a-a-a-ary movie for you. Break out the popcorn and Raisinettes, sit back and get ready to start screaming. Ready?
Elizabeth Warren Throws Rocks!
OOOOOHHHHH!!!! When Obama’s fascist goons came for the Wall Street CEOs, I said nothing…then when they came for me…
Wall Street is scared to death of Elizabeth Warren. They’ve instructed their prostitutes in Congress to do whatever it takes to keep her out of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — never mind that she personally designed that agency for the purpose of preventing another 2008-style Wall Street meltdown. And Wall Street’s hookers followed their pimps’ orders right down to the letter.
Since Obama was planning to appoint Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during a Senate recess, the Senate responded by not taking any more recesses. Even during their six-week vacation last summer, technically they weren’t in recess. But YOU try taking a six-week vacation and then telling your boss, "Huh, no, I wasn't on vacation."
Another Wall Street prostitute, Patrick McHenry (R—Skank), was ordered to get up in Warren’s face during a hearing last May and call her a liar. Skanky did exactly as he was ordered.
Now that Elizabeth Warren is running for the Senate, Corporate America will spend whatever it takes — and stoop as low as they need to stoop — to make sure she’s defeated next year. Wall Street’s current prostitute, Scott Brown (R—Bimbo), is following his pimp’s orders just fine, thank you very much.
Hopefully Scott Brown’s infamous “Thank God” comment will be aired endlessly on every Massachusetts TV station between now and November 2012. In case you don’t know the background: Elizabeth Warren was recently asked how she supported herself during college. Referring to Scott Brown — handsome dimwitted Playgirl centerfold-cum-politician — she joked that “at least I kept my clothes on.” When Scott Brown heard about her comment, he replied “Thank God.”
Asshole.
Anyway, the 2012 Elizabeth Warren-Scott Brown campaign will probably be the mudslingingest most expensive campaign of the year, outside of the White House race. The GOP’s pitiful “Elizabeth Warren Throws Rocks” ad is just the beginning.
Labels: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Elizabeth Warren, Elizabeth Warren senate recess, Elizabeth Warren throws rocks, Patrick McHenry, Scott Brown, Scott Brown thank God
posted by Tom Harper @ 4:49 PM
22 Comments:
When I first saw this ad, I thought it was FOR her.
Not against her.
"was ordered [BY WHOM]to get up in Warren’s face during a hearing last May and call her a liar. Skanky did exactly as he was ordered."
If you can give me a name, maybe I can start hating Scott too.
I mean Mr. McHenry
Unless your just waxing quixotic.
Hey Tom, something weird happened with the last reply I sent. It showed as taking and even showed up here, but then just as fast disappeared. Maybe it went to some kind of moderation status, because it was so very concise :)
It was a good one too, with all kinds of documentation on Peter Haller/ Simonyi the VP of Goldman Sachs busted as the culprit in the whole, you are lying thing with McHenry.(Google him for your answer Jeanie) and how he screwed with Elizabeth Warren's appearance to make them look like big tough guys. Also included, was some pithyness about the uninformed among us being allowed to vote and how that is shameful. Something about us libs being well informed and how we, meaning me, don't like doing other people's research for them.
That and the fact that tying Warren To Harvard is not a bad thing in MA becaues they love them some Harvard there. She hasn't even gone through a primary yet and he's in attack mode. Must mean she has the old boy by the short and curlies already.
To counteract the video I just wasted time watching from Brown, here is a parody ad for her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lu61aU4N8mM
Finally, a true liberal-thinking person running for public office, who isn't pandering to corporate interests at the expense of We the People.
Finally...
Jess: I found your comment in my e-mail notification. I don't know why it got eaten. Here it is:
""was ordered [BY WHOM]to get up in Warren’s face during a hearing last May and call her a liar. Skanky did exactly as he was ordered."
Oh allow me great WHOCies, so that this troll does not have to waste brain cells trying to do some actual research for his or herself.
Ok here you go, a free lesson. Goldman Sachs VP Peter Haller who just happened to change his name to protect his guilty ass to Peter Simonyi. TPM had this in the way back machine of August. You really need to get to doing your own damn research, instead of counting on us informed libs to do it for you. The fact that you are so uninformed and still vote is shameful.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/18/298485/exclusive-goldman-sachs-vp-changed-his-name-now-advances-goldman-lobbying-interests-as-a-top-staffer-to-darrell-issa/
Email correspondence between Judicial watch and said committee he screwed EW on.
According to e-mail correspondence obtained from Judicial Watch, Haller oversaw the scheduling of the Warren testimony. According to Flavio Cumpiano, a congressional liaison for the CFPB, Haller reportedly changed the time of the hearing at the last minute, then misled Warren staffers by promising to end the testimony by 2:15 pm that day. In the emails, Haller denies ever agreeing to 2:15. But, Haller had been informed that Warren could not go beyond 2:15:
– Monday May 23 8:43pm: Haller writes to Flavio Cumpiano, a congressional liaison for the CFPB, the night before the hearing to make “an [sic] late change to 1:00.” At 11:00pm, Cumpiano responds to figure out a better time.
– Tuesday May 24 morning: After Haller and Cumpiano go back and forth with e-mails about which time would be best, a phone conversation occurs between Haller and Adewale Adeyemo, chief of staff to the CFBP implementation team, and a schedule is set. At 10:11am, Cumpiano e-mails Haller: “Hi Peter. I understand from Wally -copied here- that you both spoke and she’ll [Elizabeth Warren] testify from 1:15pm to 2:15pm. Thanks, Flavio.”
– Tuesday May 24 afternoon around 2:15pm: McHenry, with Haller sitting behind him, accuses Warren of trying to evading the committee by trying to leave at the agreed-upon time. When Warren noted that McHenry’s aides had agreed upon the schedule, McHenry elicited audible gasps in the room by declaring Warren a liar: “You’re making this up, Ms. Warren. This is not the case.”
– Tuesday May 24 2:32pm: As Warren leaves the hearing room, Haller fires off an e-mail to Cumpiano demanding that he “please confirm” that he did not “confirm the end time.” Later that afternoon, Cumpiano responds by reiterating that Haller had confirmed the 2:15pm end time, and had even told Adeyemo that he would inform McHenry of the schedule during the call.
http://www.slideshare.net/lee_fang/peter-haller-foia-full
Sorry it's so long Tom, but better to have more info for the willingly ignorant than less I always say.
Oh yeah nothing says I gotz nothing, like trying to tie her to Harvard, when people in MA love that 400 yr old institution of higher learning there. As long as he is sending it out thogh people will see she will fight for them and tables will turn."
____________________________
Thanks for the info Jess. I remember seeing that story on Think Progress. I wanted to do a post on it, but it was so detailed and convoluted, I decided to write about something else instead. But this information needs to be out there.
Apparently our new troll is only keeping a "blog" for the purpose of spamming people, so it is no surprise all she has is spam. Pathetic, really. Almost as pathetic as Pretty Boy, who can't even disguise the fact that he is a thief.
Jerry: I also thought the ad was complimentary to her.
Jeannie: See Jess's answer to your question.
JG: Not only that, but she has a good chance of getting elected since Scott Brown is such a joke.
JR: I haven't seen her comments anywhere else. I guess having a blog enables somebody to comment at blogs that don't allow anonymous comments, but I don't use that feature.
Jess-What is the lie about McHenry? I was just asking who was ordering him. I googled it and no one seems to know exactly whom is ordering him.
Thanks for the info Jess on the Dems crony company Goldman Sachs. So either McHenry forgot or it was a publicity stunt, which seems really stupid.
You think I am "keeping a blog"? It is so much easier to find one that I like and just make comments. Another blog I like is grouchyoldcripple. He embeds a lot of video and images.
So, as to Who Hijacked...
Being an engineer I like to diagram and quantify things first. It's usually more precise and concise and w/o hyperbole.
The diagram I find most helpful is a number line from 1-10 from Left to Right, from most government control to least government control.
On the Left at 1 we have dictators, authoritarians, tyrants and despots. On the right at 10 we have anarchists.
On this scale, where would you put yourselves and where would you put the founding fathers and the Constitution?
There are several quizzes like that that I've seen at different blogs. I've never taken one, but usually those tests measure at least two or more categories, not just one. That way, the tests separates the Biblethumping "social conservatives" from the Libertarians; since both of those groups spout the same "limited government" rhetoric but only one group means it.
For myself, I'd be close to ten for regulating personal behavior that doesn't affect anyone else. That's the same category where "limited government" social conservatives would be "1."
For government regulation of business and commerce, I'd be somewhere in the middle. There should be a balance between personal responsibility, "let the buyer beware" -- and the corporate anarchy that Republicans want, where large corporate monopolies can trample the rest of the population with no accountability whatsoever.
Wow, I agree with you pretty much. However, I think Libertarians would be at a 9. Tea Partiers 8. Center-Right (moderate conservatives 6-7. Center 5.
I think you are completely wrong about social conservatives. While most of you guys always talk about using Big Brother to control us in so many ways, social conservative don't. If you are thinking about abortion it is only because they (socons) are against killing innocent human life.
No, social conservatives don't necessarily talk about using the government to control everybody. They want to use the Bible to control everybody, but then they want to legislate their morality... so yeah, they do see Big Brother as a way to enforce their "moral values". Nothing moral about that in my book.
That rap on Elizabeth Warren and the tackier-than-B-movie video effects say more about the GOP and their bankster sugar daddies than about Warren. This would be funny if it wasn't so predictable and pathetic.
Snave- THose are the fairy tales you guys make up to make you feel good. Name 1 legislator that has tried that.
So on the one hand we have a guy (Haller/Simonyi) that quit a Dem crony company, Goldman Sachs that got $Ms from Obama, saving a lot of peoples' investments, I might add, went to work for an R and you think he is lobbying for Sachs?
On the other hand we have about 40 companies like Solyndra lobbying for government handouts, Solyndra alone got $500M, and no one cares.
Oh, and Solyndra went under.
Snave: That's exactly it. Conservatives don't talk about Big Brother; they just impose their Bible agenda quietly while they're shouting about "freedom" and "less government."
SW: You're right, the smear tactics against Elizabeth Warren reveal a lot about the biggest banks and their puppets in Congress.
Jeannie: OK, to name just one:
this post of mine from last week, where you commented. Lamar Smith trying to enforce American drug laws on American citizens in other countries.
But naming one is like naming one drop of water in the ocean. This country's history is one Puritan witch-hunting episode after another. The Salem witch trials, Prohibition, the war on drugs. It all comes down to "Those people are different. Squash them."
Post a Comment
<< Home