Fire Timothy Geithner

elprincipe

elprincipe

CAGiversary!
Feedback
60 (100%)
Bad enough we have a Treasury secretary who cheated on his taxes and was utterly incompetent as head of the New York Fed, but more details:

http://www.openleft.com/diary/16834...from-sec-thus-i-repeat-geithner-must-be-fired

Now, if that sweetheart deal wasn't bad enough, we find out yesterday from Bloomberg News that the New York Fed instructed AIG executives to withhold information from the SEC about those sweetheart deals so as to prevent the public from finding out about them
Click to expand...

Come on, Obama, this guy needs to go.
 
This dude's dirty. The Van Jones firing was a sacrificial lamb that wasn't a genuine scandal. Only people who don't truly understand politics and belligerent assholes who want America to suffer so they can feel good about themselves that Democrats are dumb were those who thought Jones had problems.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I will begin holding my breath now.[/QUOTE]

images
 
Geithner's head should roll.

There are about an even half dozen who should be axed before him but you know take what you can get at this point.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Geithner's head should roll.

There are about an even half dozen who should be axed before him but you know take what you can get at this point.[/QUOTE]
Summers can fuck right off too.
 
I'm trying to figure out where the debate should come from. Did you expect all of us left wingers to come out and defend Geithner to the death?

fuck it. Faux News is the devil and Republicans would rather watch babies starve in the desert than to let their parents paint houses and clean up after spoiled kids.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I'm trying to figure out where the debate should come from. Did you expect all of us left wingers to come out and defend Geithner to the death?[/QUOTE]

Now, now. We're not Republicans.
 
This is very amusing. I can only imagine the news coverage if this were to happen under a Republican administration. The newspapers and Communist News Network and PMSNBC wouldn't relent until they got a resignation and an apology from the president saying he made a mistake. Then they could blame the latest unemployment numbers, Dow losses, and the number of new homeless people in California on him as well.
 
^ That's a good point. The Bush Administration was known for admitting lots of mistakes and tons of people stepping down the moment a scandal was revealed. Like going to war under false pretenses. The news media were relentless in pointing that out.

Oh, wait. Sorry. That was bizarro world.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^ That's a good point. The Bush Administration was known for admitting lots of mistakes and tons of people stepping down the moment a scandal was revealed. Like going to war under false pretenses. The news media were relentless in pointing that out.

Oh, wait. Sorry. That was bizarro world.[/QUOTE]


Gee, Myke, this is new for you isn't it? Excusing a Democrat moral failure by comparing it to Republican ones? It's like a Harry Reid moment in perpetuity.

Oh, wait. No, no it's not new for you.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']It was funny when democrats were complaining about job growth being too small in the first six years of bush.[/QUOTE]

What good is job growth that turns into mass layoffs?
 
[quote name='depascal22']What good is job growth that turns into mass layoffs?[/QUOTE]

I'm sure the democrats could see into the future.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Gee, Myke, this is new for you isn't it? Excusing a Democrat moral failure by comparing it to Republican ones? It's like a Harry Reid moment in perpetuity.

Oh, wait. No, no it's not new for you.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's much more fair when not put in the context of the failures/lies of the Bush administration.

Who needs things to compare to anyway.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Gee, Myke, this is new for you isn't it? Excusing a Democrat moral failure by comparing it to Republican ones? It's like a Harry Reid moment in perpetuity.

Oh, wait. No, no it's not new for you.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I think Tim Geithner's a fine, upstanding citizen who's being unnecessarily slandered. If only I had said something in this thread about how I think he's dirty and agree with the premise of the OP.

My response to your post wasn't about Geithner - hell, your first post wasn't about Geithner. It was the same kind of comparison that you're slandering me for making - a comparison that existed because it was made by me to point out the absurdity of your claim.

You're so blinded to the world you live in that you really think the media took the Bush Administration to the proverbial woodshed for their lies, misdeeds, and misgivings? You're either taking the piss or your a blithering idiot.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']It was funny when democrats were complaining about job growth being too small in the first six years of bush.[/QUOTE]
Now you've done it. Any minute now , UncleBob is going to thunder in here and scream about you making this about Bush.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
... you really think the media took the Bush Administration to the proverbial woodshed for their lies, misdeeds, and misgivings? ...[/QUOTE]

Yes. Yes they did. While I'll agree they fully exploited the war for their own ratings, they did everything they could to propagate the "rush to war" sentiment beforehand and cater to the "No blood for Oil" crowd afterward.

Your response that Geithner was dirty, while noble, neglected to mention any responsibility of Obama for appointing him in the first place. Had it been a Republican administration appointee, your response surely would have included the contempt and culpability of the upward chain of command.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Now you've done it. Any minute now , UncleBob is going to thunder in here and scream about you making this about Bush.[/QUOTE]

Check one post before the one you quoted...

[quote name='bmulligan']Yes. Yes they did. While I'll agree they fully exploited the war for their own ratings, they did everything they could to propagate the "rush to war" sentiment beforehand and cater to the "No blood for Oil" crowd afterward.[/QUOTE]

Don't forget - there are still those who will speak out and say they'd like to see Bush on trial for war crimes and such...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Yes. Yes they did. While I'll agree they fully exploited the war for their own ratings, they did everything they could to propagate the "rush to war" sentiment beforehand and cater to the "No blood for Oil" crowd afterward. [/QUOTE]

Were you watching the news during the invasion?

Not one media outlet called out Colin Powell's testimony in front of the U.N.

Not one ever said that we should just double our force size in Afghanistan.

Those of us that actually watched the war coverage saw CNN, Faux News, and EVERY major news outlet rush to find the nearest generals they could find and put them on for major air time.

Why did they do that? So they could give our noble military air time during this most noble invasion of all time. So they could tell us how well the troops were doing. So the American public could hear first hand from former soldiers how tough this was. There was never a mention how we rushed to war.

It wasn't until the insurgency was well underway that some media outlets dared to say we screwed up. Of course, those fools at Faux News ate that shit up and acted like CNN and MSNBC commentators were traitors to this country. But hey, those left wing commie news guys are all traitors anyway right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top