Hey, there! Log in / Register
Is this backdrop really Boston?
By CopleyScott17 on Sat, 04/11/2015 - 11:14pm
Our illustrious senior senator Elizabeth Warren was interviewed live via satellite on "Real Time with Bill Maher, Friday, April 10th (great interview, by the way -- Clinton/Warren 2016!).
Anyway, I know these uplinks often happen in suburban studios with the Boston skyline added in the background, but I've never seen this one before. Was it really Boston?
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/04/bill-maher-fails-persuade-elizabeth-wa...
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Looks like the skyline shot
Looks like the skyline shot is of the Financial District, with the camera somewhere in Fort Point shooting over the Channel.
It's safe to say that Senator Warren probably didn't conduct the interview from the roof of the Children's Museum.
Yes
It's the view of the Financial District from Piers Park in East Boston, at night.
LoPresti Park
I think it looks more like the view from LoPresti, but I'm not usually near Piers Park in the evening.
Looks like it's from East Boston
http://www.pond5.com/photo/44106831/boston-skyline-night-east-boston-mas...
False flag!
Warren is leading the Commie plot to control studio background shots for the purpose of confusing viewers while pumping fluoride into our water sources to infect our precious bodily fluids.
OMFG
EW as Clinton's VP would be a freakin' awesome ticket. I would love to see them work this out. HC has the world-stage gravitas and EW has the "looking out for the common people" cred (but I don't see her carrying a national election at the top of the ticket). Together, unstoppable. All of a sudden, I'm feeling hopeful about 2016.
VPs tend to fade into obscurity...
If you want to take away someone's power, turn them into a VP. Their values are not relevant once the election is done. However, this would be an extremely strong move for Hillary, but less so for the senator from Massachusetts.
Not Always
Recent VP's have been able to make their mark: Al Gore in the first Clinton administration (especially in the first years) when he help ground the otherwise flighty president in political reality), and came back from the 2000 Supreme Court coup to influnce thinking re climate change and win the Nobel prize. Another, far worse example would be Dick Chaney. In the case of Senator Warren, she is undoubtedly smart enough to not agree to join a Clinton ticket without securing promises that her voice would be influential in the administration. If she and Hilary can work out a deal, it truly would be a golden ticket.
Or how about this
Let the VOTERS decide the VP in an election vote independent of the presidental candidate, instead of this "tag team" nonsense.
Yes, being VP is a great job
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nance_Garner
You're right - OMFG
Just for the wrong reason. I'm no huge Hillary fan - but I am sick and tired of partisan politics running amok when one party takes total control so I will probably vote for her v. any Republican - plus she has experience and is more pragmatic than our current prez - and that's coming from someone definitely right of center. You add Warren to the mix and there's no way I vote for that phony. Looking out for the common people? Really - two years into her term - look at her legislative record - one bill that passed the Senate and a couple of things drowning in committee (ignoring congratulations to the Red Sox and Pats)
Short of a scandal I'm inclined to vote for Hillary - unless of course she picks an unproven, freshman Senator that claims to be a person of the people in public and while doing nothing in the background other than things that cement her power base. She's a phony through and through.
I frankly don't understand the hostility to Warren
She's about the only Congressional voice seriously and aggressively talking about Wall Street abuses, middle-class woes like surging student debt, and increasing income inequality.
If you want to find a punching bag for lack of action on Capitol Hill to rein in the banking and financial services industries, you're going to blame a Democratic Senator like Warren? Please.
The Wall Street bagman she replaced, Senator Scotty Tags-Still-Attached Barn Coat, played a crucial role in watering down Dodd-Frank. In a Congress that is afraid to even talk about those issues, she's part of the solution, not the problem.
Talk is cheap
You have to do something to get something done and it seems all she does is raise money for other candidates to try and consolidate power. Her actions are not about the common man - they are about her.
She is a fraud and completely useless for Mass as a Senator - because nobody on the other side of the aisle will giver her the time of day. Like it or not - you need that ability to get things done. I don't disagree with all her positions - I literally wrote a book about abuses in the financial services industry which are rampant - but she spews populist BS for her own gain - not the people of Mass or the US. It's all about her, not us.
Cynical, dismissive, reflexive opposition is cheap, too.
Do you really think Warren is just in this fight for her own glory and to generically aid fellow Democrats with fundraising? You don't think her heart is really in this issue? I take a dim view of most politicians, but I'm not that cynical.
Who else do you see doing anything about these issues, even talking about them? Who among the GOP isn't actively fighting anything like these efforts?
Do you honestly believe there is zero value in keeping these issues in front of the public, educating voters about them, urging them to get involved?
Political leadership is not exclusively about legislating. If you're going to fight the kind of orchestrated hurricane of money that is arrayed against reform efforts, it seems to me that building grassroots support among the citizenry is a good place to start.
How are those 18% Visa rates working out for you?
In a word, Yes.
Last time I checked, despite the election of the World's Smartest Woman, Visa/Mastercard are still charging usurious rates, coupled with punitive fees. Pay day loans and Rent-a-Centers are still in business. College tuitions are still a Ponzi scheme of epic proportions and the next econo-bubble.
Good thing Scott Brown was kicked to the curb, otherwise the MIDDLE CLASS WOULD BE GETTING HAMMERED!
Yeah, she's been wicked effective there for us all.
Your enmity toward Warren seems weirdly emotional
and personal. In any event, you continue to ignore the fact that the GOP is uniformly lined up to oppose all efforts to combat the financial evils you cite, yet you're dumping on the lone voice who is actually speaking out on these issues because she hasn't gotten any legislation passed yet.
"She's taking the right stands, but I reject her because I don't think she's effective enough" is a deeply cynical position. What, you approve more strongly of GOP efforts to torpedo reform, because at least they aren't pretending to give a shit about the middle class?
Even if you don't believe Warren is sincere in her efforts, you still should be trumpeting the fact that she's on the right side of the issues.
You know what's cynical?
I called her constituent affairs functionary a year ago, to ask/talk about the affect of H1B legislation on the IT market. Shorthand version, 65,000 visas/year granted to companies like TATA, Cognizant, Deloitte, etc depress wages and murder working conditions for IT workers in Mass. it's essentially legal indentured servitude at 40% of a lving wage.
Her position? "The Senator supports COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM." What about wage depression? "The Senator supports COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM." What about indentured servitude? "The Senator supports COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM." What about the affect on American IT workers in Massachusetts? "The Senator supports COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM." What about huge profits being reaped from this program by corpo-pirates? "The Senator supports COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM."
Grow up. And if you want cynical, try calling your senior senator.
Nicely done!
Hopefully someday everyone will be judged by who answers their phone.
Yes
I think she's in it for her own glory. Everything I've seen points to that.
She says she's an advocate for the middle class and the people of Mass - yet curiously in two years she's done nothing but consolidate power, money and political clout. She's a shameless (but apparently talented) self-promoter. So far she's proved herself a horrible representative of the people.
She puts out these broad statements like fighting for the "hammered" middle class - and controlling banks - well use your "power" for good - and get some legislation passed, or at the very least introduced. THAT will get the conversation started and more publicity for the specifics of what she wants. My guess is she deliberately doesn't want any specifics out there or she would become a lot less popular. Again - she plays it for her advantage - not ours.
Again, that's deeply cynical in a
political environment where the right opposes all efforts at financial reform. If you really want to get angry at something, oppose the GOP for actively undermining reform efforts, not the lone voice on the left who is loudly speaking in favor of them. That is, if what you really care about are the actual reforms, and not just your suspicions of the motives of politicians like Warren.
How can it be cynical?
There are NO reform efforts for the GOP to oppose. She hasn't filed any reform legislation. What's cynical is to declare yourself a champion of the people and then do nothing.
If what she is proposing is so cut and dried favorable for the American people and she can expose them as frauds, why doesn't she file something and embarrass them into submission? She's sly like a fox - she walks loudly and carries no stick. She's actually a paper tiger with nothing more than a loud roar.
The cynicism is in calling out the reformer for being
ineffectual, instead of deriding the opponents of reform for nakedly siding with corporate interests against the middle class. Unless you're trying to suggest that the GOP would surely go along with reforms if only someone would propose them? Who do you think you're kidding here?
That's Illogical
She's not a reformer - she says "I'm for reforming (fill in a popular issue) - is not being a reformer. Being a reformer in Congress requires filing specific legislation.
She's a grandstander - not a reformer until further notice when we actually see her try to reform something.
Okay, I think I understand your calculus
Republicans: fight against every measure that might rein in Wall Street and help the middle class on issues like student loan debt.
Warren: advocate for measures that actually help the middle class and rein in Wall Street, but not yet make that real in terms of passed legislation.
Stevil: that liberal lady has only advocated for the middle class without getting actual legislation passed, so her rhetoric has no value. Plus, I don't trust her motives.
Got you, Stevil. Glad you're on the right side of the issues here.
Name me an issue
What issue am I on the wrong side of? That "she's a reformer". That she's a "champion of the people"?
No - the issue I'm on the side of is that she's a phony in everything she does and her liberal lapdogs drink the kool aid because she runs around saying things like "reform wall street" and "help the hammered middle class". Lovely thoughts, now tell me how you are going to do it with actual detailed legislation.
I can't be on the right or wrong side of her issues - because she hasn't filed any legislation. If you have "no brainer" legislation - file it. If it's that much of a "no brainer" it will have to be passed. She's not a fighter. She's a coward. Take a stand and maybe I'll even support her at least on some issues - but until she takes a stand on something by filing detailed legislation - she's not a champion. She's a poseur.
"She is a fraud and completely useless for Mass as a Senator"
Are you sure you're not talking about the loser she replaced? Or maybe you're talking about the two idiots who just announced for the GOP nod. Both first termers who haven't done shit but open their mouths in their own self interests since they joined the Senate.
And if she's useless, why does the GOP fear her so much?
It's not fear. It just
It's not fear. It just amazes many of us that her defenders are so rabid when all they can defend is her "talk".
It amazes me that people swoon when she says what they want to hear. And, that's all she has done! People talk about her and the presidency?? OMFG, Foreign policy? Diplomacy? Can you see her dealing with Assad? She can't even hold an unscripted event!
I find her popularity rather odd.
Who else does that remind you of?
I felt the exactly same way about someone about 8 years ago
Imagine that!
A politician who realizes both their strengths and their weaknesses and refuses to be in the same category as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul. A party so desperate to get back in the White House, they're literally throwing shit on a wall and seeing if it sticks. Warren won't run, she'll wait until the next cycle where the Dems have to defend ten seats to the GOP's twenty six and maybe then she'll get something past a GOP that has successfully neutralized anything she's tried to do in the Senate so far.
Anything she's tried to do?
Other than congratulating the sox and Pats on their championships and a student loan bill that they want to pay for with more taxes - exactly what has she tried to do?
Change the channel
Just because the Sox and the Pats are the only "news" you pay attention to, doesn't mean nothing else is happening.
Look at her record
The only things she has gotten done were resolutions congratulating them on their victories.
Plus she filed a bill on allowing student loans to be refinanced - which is well-intentioned, but has some serious and legitimate flaws.
The main point is - that's all she has even gotten through the senate in two years. Markey seems to be 2-3 times more productive than she is. At least he's trying.
Dudebro Nation
You know the ones. They elected Scott Brown, they still get all thick-voiced talking about him. He was their IDOL! A man of the people! Well, at least their people. He was a fratboy just like them, and so of course he's for real. Elizabeth Warren is an uppity woman who's hip to their stupid fratboy tricks, so of course they hate her guts, and of course there's no low too low for them to go to try and tear her down.
I can only hope this is an
I can only hope this is an attempt at humor. I don't know whether to be concerned on you (and others) continued facination with Scott Brown - whose been out of office for a couple years now or more concerned with now we cannot criticize women polticians because - they're women (you call Warren an uppity woman-your words)!
My God, it's going to be a painfully long road to 2016.
"you call Warren an uppity woman-your words"
Somebody needs to turn up the gain on their irony detector.
Scott Brown isn't an object of fascination: he's just a reliable source of humor, a coin-operated himbo who managed to hornswoggle Massachusetts voters for a moment, and only because his opponent was such an inept, unlikable candidate. New Hampshire voters weren't fooled by the jes'-like-you shuffle, praise Jeebus.
Where will he take his circus act next: Maine? Rhode Island? Vermont voters are too smart for him. I suspect his only hope of seeing elected office again is veep, becoming some GOP presidential candidate's Dan Quayle, the kind of dimbulb who can be counted on never to outshine his boss.
Funny, I was just going to say that about you
But Patricia, how can we miss him if he won't go away? Really, you need to keep up with current events if you're going to comment on them.
Is your reading comprehension really so rudimentary that you didn't grasp that I was referring to how the Brownophiles and other sexists label Warren (although practically none are honest enough to come out and say it)?
Please tell me you were joking, or maybe you should consider a lead abatement program or something.
No, and here's why
I share your high opinion of Elizabeth Warren; however, I believe she's where she's needed most right now. With a dysfunctional Congress ruled by kleptocrats and insane right wing nutjobs, your "freakin' awesome ticket" would be buried under an avalanche of toxic spew, just the way Obama has been (and we'd all get to learn how our country is just as goddamn backwards WRT sexism and misogyny as it is on racism). What we need now is good, smart, strong, ethical members of Congress. While Congress remains a cesspit, that's what we have to reform first -- electing an "awesome" President is a waste of time.
what is this, reddit's /r/boston?
Why are we getting a lot of random weird front-page stories?
A lot?
Which other random, weird front-page stories do you mean?
Granted, this isn't a typical UHub question involving the best place to get brunch on a Friday for a group of 10 or whatever, but I certainly encourage folks to ask questions.
Yup
Yup
That's International Disgrace, I mean, Place over her right shoulder
International House of Windows
n/t
could be from the hilton or
could be from the hilton or Hyatt at the airport. might be tough to light her that we'll without having any glare on the window though.
OK this is not off-topic
OK this is not off-topic because the post had the words "Bill" and "Maher" in it.
I cannot stand the man which is remarkable because I am a near knee-jerk lib. He's cynical, smug, and I've never heard him utter a single thing creative or visionary. That was before he said:
and this:
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2015/04/11/bill-maher-explains-z...
For the record I am not adverse to edgy humor, I love e.g. Louis C.K., Sarah Silverman, Bill Burr. I never need them to explain their jokes.
I wish the liberal intelligentsia including Warren had the fortitude to tell him to shove it.
agreed
Maher is an arrogant shit-stain. He's as funny as a toddler wandering through a minefield, and as culturally/politically/morally insightful as a sea cucumber. I'm very much looking forward to the day when HBO, buoyed by the far superior John Oliver, tells him to go piss up a rope and get off TV. He'll still have his fans and apologists in white-man dude-bros, but it will be a glorious day when he finds himself without the megaphone HBO provides him to spew his bullshit.
I don't always like Maher's humor, and in particular
find his Islamophobia troubling, but he gets smart people from both the right and the left on his show, talking much more intelligently on important issues than the typical news-channel shouting-heads shows, and challenges them more with facts than rhetoric. His first-on guests before the panel segment are usually terrific, too.
I also agree: John Oliver is the smartest, funniest, most effective liberal muckraker on TV today.
In defense of Bill Maher
I am a native Bostonian born and bred, still live here, but I agree with Maher. The context of what he was saying with the Marathon bombing is, when exactly does it stop being mourning a tragedy and start becoming wallowing? When does it stop being news and start becoming "disaster porn"?
Similarly, his previous show "Politically Incorrect" was thrown off of ABC after September 11, when he took issue with the terrorists who flew the planes being called "cowards". Again, I agree with him. When I was growing up, a "coward" was someone who, well, cowered. They hid in a corner sniveling with their arms around their heads and avoided all danger.
Dictionary.com defines coward:
A person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.
Excessively afraid of danger or pain.
Somewhere along the way, the word "coward" seems to have morphed to mean "any person who commits a particularly despicable, heinous crime". It seems to have become an all purpose insult when you want to say the worst thing you can about someone.The terrorists who flew the planes may be the most evil sons of bitches to ever exist, they may be jerks, they may deserves to rot in hell, but I'm not sure if they fit the dictionary definition of "coward" above. Maybe this is just semantics, but then semantics got him thrown off ABC.
I don't like Bill Maher
And it has nothing to do with his views on politics, religion, or social issues, which are opposite my views. My dislike comes from seeing him do standup back in the 90s. He came across as a smug, pompous asshole.
Trust me...
He is a smug pompous asshole. Not just the living definition of a limousine liberal, Maher is probably the first Playboy Mansion liberal. He's all for women's rights, as long as they're young, stacked and willing to take care of him in the Grotto.
As far as his politics, he's the left's version of former flame Ann Coulter. Say what you have to say to piss off the other side and make a nice living from it.
The building with the
The building with the yellowish top is 2 International Place.
Yuck
I come here for Boston news, without all the bull from the newspaper sites.
Is there really a need for whatever guest poster this is to put their view in? (Clinton/Warren 2016!) Disgusting really.
Since it's out there on this site now though - Democrats and Liberals have ruined this country. They are the reason Fergeson became national news, with no merit. We need a Republican, or maybe a Democrat with common sense (if one exists) to turn this country around from Obama's 8 years of government hand outs. Welfare, WIC and SSI should not even exist, let alone be a crutch that people rely on and collect for their dead relatives.
Can we just not have politics on this site instead of this non-sense? This is a news/local advice/attractions site and it does well at that, keep it that way.
For someone who deplores politics on this site, you sure just
dropped a steaming coil of them here. Sure, damn those liberals with their defense of real science in public policy, clear understanding of separation of church and state, and support for equal rights for huge swaths of American society that conservatives would like to keep in their second-class place. And those handouts to poor uninsured people that are reducing the deficit, slowing the growth in healthcare costs, and saving lives. Thanks, Obama!
The Boston Herald comments section is thataway.
Steaming coil,
says the guy who wrote "Wall Street bagman ..., Senator Scotty Tags-Still-Attached Barn Coat" in praising $350K/yr fake injun Okie wigwam-flipping prof. who's suddenly concerned about the middle class.
Hmm....
Let's see....Open Secrets...Scott Brown...ahh..here he is. Last campaign cycle...industries...
Scott Brown #2 Contributor Securities and Investments $3,370,618.00
Elizabeth Warren #6 Contributor Securities and Investment $604,250.00
Now, I may be just a dumb greaseball limo driver from Revere, but one of those two definitely fits the description of a bagman in my eyes.
And let me ask you this, who is educating people in one of the finest universities in the world and who is playing J. Fred Muggs on Fox and Friends?
a dumb greaseball limo driver
Yay! Awesome.
I'm not pretending not to engage in a political discussion.
Just pointing out that "anon" started by saying, "Tsk, tsk, politics!", then dropping a hilarious right-wing screed worthy of Howie Carr's dumbest followers ("Oh noes, the Eeeee Beeeee Teeessss!") in the next sentence.
And if you don't believe Scott Brown was Wall Street's butt boy, you weren't paying attention to his work in his mercifully-brief Senate term, including his initial pure opposition to Dodd-Frank, which he later supported only after killing the bank tax to fund more stringent regulation and stripping out the Volcker rule. He earned those millions that Wall Street gave him.
Either this is...
...the most brilliant parody of right-wing comment-board swill I've ever seen, or some of the funniest right-wing comment-board swill I've ever seen outside the Herald site. Either way, thanks for the laughs, Anon!
Really?
From what I can tell, a liberal runs this site and runs it well. In the spirit of the First Amendment, he allows free discussion of any issue and he even takes criticism well.
Now, over at the Herald,a paper owned by Republicans, any criticism or pointing out how ridiculously idiotic their columnists are, and it's bye bye from the site. See where I'm going with this....?
Thanks, everyone!
I learn something new every day. And more often than not, it's something I learn on UniversalHub.
Just for the record, I absolutely wasn't implying some nefarious plot or conspiracy. I don't hate Bill Maher, though I frequently agree with guests more than with him (including my favorite conservative, Josh Barro). I love Senator Warren, and I couldn't be prouder of my home state for electing her. And I seriously would love to see a Clinton/Warren ticket.
If anything, I was thinking more along the lines of a mistaken Chyron. Happy to find out it was just ignorance on my part, remedied by the great folks out here.
Thanks again!