As is most often the case, you’re missing nothing at all!

Yeah Amanda. Where the hell does it say that? Don’t tell me you’re just pulling lies out of your ass like Rush Limbaugh and stating them as fact, because you’re taking advantage of your ignorant listeners again are you?

What am I missing?

Nothing. Carpenter is an idiot, and I’ll leave it at that. She lives in her own fantasy land devoid from reality.

What am I missing?

I doubt if you’re missing anything Jane. Amanda on the other hand is missing – well where to begin? Let’s just say she’s missing a lot of clues and leave it at that.

But we do try to provide clues for the clueless.

What am I missing?

The willingness to bought, perhaps?

I wonder if Amanda agrees with Rush Limbaugh that a Banana Republic is when a president, such as President Obama, decides to open up the records of previous presidents for their citizens to view? Huh. I wonder. Something tells me she does agree with him and believes a democracy is a closed & secretive government.

nice post jane, I think this bit is important to querry as well;

would give labor a leg-up over employers

I would like her to go on record saying that’s a bad thing.

These people are all dolts. Darrell Issa is on my tv talking stoopid again.

Your friend Amanda is a short-bus type, Jane.

She gets her talking points pre-digested. Asking her to read the bill is way above her IQ.

What we on the left are missing is many in the citizenry, are either functionally illiterate (I myself thank God for spell check) or think news is a 15 second sound bite. The Rethugs continue on point whether it’s a non existent CBO report or stonewalling Obama’s piddly ass effort to jump start the economy, by relying on our baser and cheaper instincts reference above.

Digg this post right here!

And why haven’t you been asked to discuss animal bloopers, Jane?

Damn librul media.

Her shirt reminds me of a Bee. When I was a kid, there was a children’s tv show which used the line Do be a DoBEE and don’t be a Don’tBEE.
She’s a Don’tBEE.
And, people like her creep me out.

Digg is fixed.
neurophius got it.

I genuinely like Amanda, I don’t think she’s an idiot.

I actually have had a good exchange with James Antle III where I’ve learned a lot about how the conservatives are viewing the bill. I told him I’d add a link to my post the other day where he followed up, so I’m off to do that right now…

http://firedoglake.com/2009/01…..antle-iii/

Thanks, Lurk

What am I missing?

Another GOP meme spoon fed to the MSM who are to lazy to fact check?
Another Young innocent Girl seduced buy dreams of wealth into trading her Professional Reputation in for a chance to be the Next GOP Conservative Top Model News Bunny!
What are you missing a desperate cry for help just how many drugs make a person Paranoid and Delusional how many mental conditions cause this?
When you see things that are not there then you are Corrupt, Crazy or on Drugs.
Maybe you can arrange an intervention before she ends up like Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.

OMG, was that Romper Room? You’re right. Amanda’s in Bumbleebee mode, which if you stop to think about it, is a quite apt metaphor.

Jane said, What am I missing?”

Jane, apparently what you are missing is your Wingnut Talking Points Handbook.

I dugged it.
Even if she’s not an idiot, she’s still a Don’tBee.
I’ve been trying to learn why conservatives think the way they do too. Still working on it.

Didn’t Amanda Carpenter say on Bloggingheads that Social Security is “un-American”?

Total tool.

yup, that’s corporate media for ya;

REPORT: GOP Lawmakers Outnumber Democratic Lawmakers 2 To 1 In Stimulus Debate On Cable News»

That’s the Show! Great memory, Barbara. Clearly, you’re not on drugs.
(btw, I was on that show. Once. My dad worked for one of the advertisers.)

I like to think that Townhall’s gain is Hooters loss.

We know that Daily Show viewers know more about issues than Fox News viewers but I wonder if after GOPers like Amanda get a hold of a story do 22%er Fox News viewers actually know less about a subject once the GOP media starts covering the subject?
I really need to get a job doing research for Dems.

Clearly, you’re not on drugs.

Well, not a lot of ‘em, anyway.

Dugg.

Thanks Jane.

Ha Ha. Not the memory erasing kind, anyway.
I thought that show was local. Was it national or were you in Los Angeles?
Engineer Bill
Sheriff John
Sorry to go adolescent. It’s not my fault. Somebody else started it. :)

I think what she’s trying to do here is hew a close line with:

…wiping out requirements for a secret ballot election to organize workplaces…

The idea here (I suspect) is that since the “secret” ballots are presently the only way to organize, they are “required” and that any change would be “wiping out” this “requirement.” The rest of it is just packing peanut words to deliver this payload.

– MarkusQ

Now where are the Dems on the bobblehead shows refuting little Amanda’s assertions, hmmmm? Why do we keep coming back to the “effective spokesperson” meme? We can’t rely on the corporate fogeys like Reid or Pelosi, we’ve got to get some of the younger progressive Dems on the air. Some folks with fire in their belly and aren’t afraid to speak passionately about stuff they, and we, support.

I think there were local versions, possibly nationwide. I’ve been a Twin Cities denizen since the day I was hatched.

AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

I am worried aboutchu, Sister Jane, I wonder if you can’t save your precious energy and wit for adversaries that are truly worth the effort and leave the Fox wingnut bimbos to twist slowly in the breeze of Rush Limbaugh’s stale breath. Serously, any engagement you have with these cretins only legitimizes the pathetic creatures and unless you are set up on national television where you ken do some serious vivisectioning, jest let ‘em stumble around tryin’ ta pronounce the name of arab newsoutlets.

What do ya hear on the scheduling of the EFCA in congress …are we lookin at June-July?

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, AND DON’T USE A BULLET WHEN A FLY SWATTER WILL WORK!!

This is paydirt, SD. How now?

Aloha Ya’ll! I’ve finally some downtime during the daytime and access to the Net… A rarity indeed these days…! ;-)

What you’re missing Jane is that she’s a know-nothing, lying skunk. And she get’s paid for it.
How do I get that job? Oh, yeah, I’m not a graduate of the Barbizon School of Modeling and Journalism. Also, I like facts, and I have a soul. Those are definitely impedements to getting a job in the traditional media.

Research the Authoritarian Personality, Short Term Thinking, Games Theory try thinking about why some people choose the lose/lose scenario.
Greed is what they care about most they think emotionally about what they want heedless of the cost to others or long term about themselves. Then they logically rationalize their desires. Which explains 9/11, the bank crisis etc none of their models ever show Black Swans.
Black Swans good Book. Look at Sociopaths without emotional empathy, look at alkies, junkies and gambling addicts they share similar rationalizing processes.
Short School Bus is a good phrase they hate Elites but are desperate to pretend to be one and Self Made Men, and Common Men.
(Darth in the VP debate with Joe Lieberman claimed to be self made but he got picked as CEO of Hal on a fishing trip)
Without government contracts that Darth’s connections brought in Hal would be nothing.
There is nothing self made about a company that got fat off government access.

They value conformity it makes them feel safe

that Social Security is “un-American”?

The GOP still can’t get over FDR so will Amanda refuse SS on principal then?

Hey, bro!!! Nice ta see ya.

Citizen SouthernDragon:

I’m with you Brother Dragonman, but it’s gunna take a little while for the power centers on various issues ta sort themselves out and for folks like Reid and Pelosi ta embarrass themselves a few more times before Obama pulls the chain on ‘em.

We need Obama to sell the Stimulus to the American People the Lefty Blogs can’t do it alone!

Citizen CTuttle:

Yo Brother CT…what’s shakin’ big guy?

teeheeheeheeheeheeeeeee
JANE!
Gawd, I’m glad you’re on OUR SIDE!
I’d hate to have you goin’ up against me and us.

So here’s an idea. What would happen if you had a 1:1 chat with Amanda, off-camera, Jane?

Bingo…Obama’s gunna hafta talk right over the congressional leadership on this issue and get the unions ta put some serious pressure on the dinosauers in congress.

That was a small discussion this morning, however, I’m way out of my depth on how to get on the toob. Maybe the first step is for some of the progressives is to start holding press conferences on the steps of the Capitol or some shit. Mayhaps the so-called Progressive Caucus needs to get off its collective ass and start talking to the media.

But with a fact checker who had a switch rigged to go off everytime she lied?

And how long will it be before Dem “leadership” stomps on ‘em? Should I look at my calendar or my watch? *g*

Brother Norske, we don’t have time to wait for the fogeys to make fools of themselves any longer. The Young Turks need to step up to the plate and start swingin’.

The difference between an evolutionary and a revolutionary is that the latter takes full advantage of opportunities as they present themselves. Trotsky.

I want him to start talking soon. This Nonstop GOP lying has to be stopped. Amanda is not the only one heck she wasn’t even on my radar.
I think infotainment shows that are not news but pretend to be should be regulated like news shows.
And or taxed at 90% of their profits.

Nice to be taking a cool dip in the Lake…! I see not much has changed within this new session of congress, the Bluedogs/Pelosi and the DLC’ers/Reid are still as worthless as teats on a boar…! :-(

what i think amanda is referring to is this (as described in wikipedia):

The most widely publicized change to the National Labor Relations Act is a change to employer disputes over recognition of an individual or labor organization claiming to represent employees. Currently an employer can demand a secret ballot election even if a majority of employees has signed cards authorizing a representative to bargain on their behalf, also known as a card check election. Under the EFCA, an employer can only dispute the legitimacy of an employee representative if less than a majority of employees have signed authorization cards, or if illegal coercion is alleged.

in the 110th congress, the bill number i know about (maybe there are others?) is H.R.800. i think the bit of the bill in question is:

SEC. 2. STREAMLINING UNION CERTIFICATION.

(a) In General- Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).
`(7) The Board shall develop guidelines and procedures for the designation by employees of a bargaining representative in the manner described in paragraph (6). Such guidelines and procedures shall include–
`(A) model collective bargaining authorization language that may be used for purposes of making the designations described in paragraph (6); and
`(B) procedures to be used by the Board to establish the validity of signed authorizations designating bargaining representatives.’.

section 9(c) in the nlrb is (from jane’s link);

(c) [Hearings on questions affecting commerce; rules and regulations] (1) Whenever a petition shall have been filed, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Board–

(A) by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a substantial number of employees (i) wish to be represented for collective bargaining and that their employer declines to recognize their representative as the representative defined in section 9(a) [subsection (a) of this section], or (ii) assert that the individual or labor organization, which has been certified or is being currently recognized by their employer as the bargaining representative, is no longer a representative as defined in section 9(a) [subsection (a) of this section]; or

(B) by an employer, alleging that one or more individuals or labor organizations have presented to him a claim to be recognized as the representative defined in section 9(a) [subsection (a) of this section]; the Board shall investigate such petition and if it has reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation affecting commerce exists shall provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. Such hearing may be conducted by an officer or employee of the regional office, who shall not make any recommendations with respect thereto. If the Board finds upon the record of such hearing that such a question of representation exists, it shall direct an election by secret ballot and shall certify the results thereof.

(2) In determining whether or not a question of representation affecting commerce exists, the same regulations and rules of decision shall apply irrespective of the identity of the persons filing the petition or the kind of relief sought and in no case shall the Board deny a labor organization a place on the ballot by reason of an order with respect to such labor organization or its predecessor not issued in conformity with section 10(c) [section 160(c) of this title].

(3) No election shall be directed in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which, in the preceding twelve-month period, a valid election shall have been held. Employees engaged in an economic strike who are not entitled to reinstatement shall be eligible to vote under such regulations as the Board shall find are consistent with the purposes and provisions of this Act [subchapter] in any election conducted within twelve months after the commencement of the strike. In any election where none of the choices on the ballot receives a majority, a run-off shall be conducted, the ballot providing for a selection between the two choices receiving the largest and second largest number of valid votes cast in the election.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the waiving of hearings by stipulation for the purpose of a consent election in conformity with regulations and rules of decision of the Board.

(5) In determining whether a unit is appropriate for the purposes specified in subsection (b) [of this section] the extent to which the employees have organized shall not be controlling.

looks to me as if wikipedia has it right. so when amanda wrote (from jane’s post):

The bill, largely recognized as a “payback” to Big Labor for their work electing Democrats during the past two election cycles, would give labor a leg-up over employers by wiping out requirements for a secret ballot election to organize workplaces in favor of a public signature (called “card-check”)

i think what amanda is referring to is that the employers would no longer be able to force (and thereby delay certification of the union) a secret ballot if a majority of employees had signed authorizations although they would still be able to do so if a majority has not signed authorizations.

how am i doing?

That covers some of the conservatives. But, not all of them.

Working for a general contractor building houses from the ground up…! Fortunately, we’ve still got some construction going on over here…! ;-)

Ok which ones am I missing?

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. What’s the leadership gonna do, send ‘em a sternly worded letter? If the Dems want a bill passed they’ve got to get people out in front of the media who can convince people to send their Rethug congress critter emails and such to vote for stuff.

Fine.

Yeah. Deja vu all over again.

First person who pops onto my radar is Donna Edwards.

Who counts the secret ballots and how much are they paid?

Pretty good I wonder how the MSM and lobbyist would feel if they were limited to the top pay a union guy can get.
Personally I think a Union Electrician working on my shower should get paid more than Amanda or Rush.
But living is a priority for me:)

Works for me. We need to get folks in their districts to bombard them with emails, snail mail and phone calls to get out in front of a camera/mic.

Who else? Because it has come to me that I have been wasting a boatload of time trying to build a fire under my local peeps. Maybe a better strategy is to ID best possible spokespeeps, wherever they may be, and encourage and support them. (Climbs off little soapbox.)

howz about this.
how about if each of us “adopts” a rethug congress critter or 2 or 5?
we’ll “adopt” them and phone and write to them and “lobby” them when bills come up that they’re determined to disrail.
we call OUR senators, like we always do, but we ALSO call our adopted lost souls, keep their numbers and addy’s close at hand and keep on em.
hmmmmmmmm?
and EVERYONE should stay on Lyin’ joe. EVERYONE!!!

Anyone heard anything about Senator Webb and his idea to restrict CEO pay I think the Public would go nuts over that idea right about now:)

me too.

“Not a single Republican vote” on the stimulus plan. I know you know. But how do you think that plays to the folks on the sidelines….I think maybe they did forget Who Won. Wondering how it all looks to you?

What’s been the rise in the disparity rate between the white collar owners and the blue collar workers since the ’60s? Wasn’t it like $26:$1 in the ’60s and currently it’s $417:$1…? Or something along those lines…

I’m not in the mood to argue right now.

I think it suggests that the Republican legislators are not representing their constituents. If it’s true that GWB (and his policies, presumably) had only a 23% approval rating, and if one simplistically assumes that half of voters are Reps and half are Dems, and even if the entire 23% is attributed to Reps (duh!)– oh, crap, I’m digging myself a mathematical hole here. Anyone get where I’m trying to go with this? Anyone at all?

I’m having “if a train leaves Boston, traveling west at 100 mph, and another train leaves Portland, OR…..” anxiety.

i’m sorry i have no idea… all i did was just go and read some legislation text.

Just curious but yes I argue to prove ideas its the Socratic method.

It’s disturbing that the cherry-picked photo suggests the Pittsburgh Steelers (as opposed to say, the Cardinals), and Amanda looks a lot like Neil O’Donnell, Steeler quarterback when they last lost a Super Bowl. (Pittsburgh’s industry broke the union by picking up stakes and moving.)

Go Jane go!

Warner (QB for Cardinals) is awfully good, but I’m going to have to root for Pittsburgh (their backup QB Byron Leftwich went to my school).

“Romper Room”?