Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Geithner said he wouldn't press for prosecutions, not that they couldn't. I do always get a kick out of those who argue that the government is incompetent though especially out of those who would otherwise argue for the government control of more of our lives.
Nobody said they couldn't prosecute!!? I certainly didn't say that. There's a difference between couldn't prosecute and wouldn't prosecute!! They certainly could prosecute the bankers (they didn't have the confidence to win but technically they could try) What Geithner said is right in line with what the article said.
No one here is arguing that the government controls more of our lives. Stopping repeating passages from right-wing nut-job manifesto.
.
Why did you misrepresent my argument? I have not said that Clinton (nor Obama) is an expert on every area of their job! In fact, I explicitly said Clinton is not a scholar on all area of China (like history/culture).
Since you bring up Obama, yes he would be an expert on the geopolitical and the high-level operation of the military. He would know the purpose of each war, the end game, exit plan, the number of troops committed, the strategy being used, the personnel allocated, amount of money spend, secret operations, backroom deals, challenges, successes and what alternative strategy was proposed. In other words, he would know information that even scholar experts don't know.
Let me remind you what you said. Backpedaling already?
Quote:
By the very nature of the job she needs to be an expert in all foreign affairs.
Admit it, Hillary Clinton was not uniquely qualified to give those speeches. I have already shown that Huntsman, based on his experience in the region and background in trade, was much more qualified to give those speeches.
it wasn't just Obama's Treasury Secretary, Tax Cheat Timmy Geithner. Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder, as well, is responsible for the "too big to jail" treatment of the banksters and Wall Street grifters, such as they were/are:
Nobody said they couldn't prosecute!!? I certainly didn't say that. There's a difference between couldn't prosecute and wouldn't prosecute!! They certainly could prosecute the bankers (they didn't have the confidence to win but technically they could try) What Geithner said is right in line with what the article said.
No one here is arguing that the government controls more of our lives. Stopping repeating passages from right-wing nut-job manifesto.
.
What he said was that he would not because it would be bad for the economy which was total bull ****. Not prosecuting was bad for the economy.
Absolutely no one, outside of the banking community would have cared if Blankfein, Mozilo and Dimon had went to prison like they should have. It would have put some faith back into the markets.
Let me remind you what you said. Backpedaling already?
Admit it, Hillary Clinton was not uniquely qualified to give those speeches. I have already shown that Huntsman, based on his experience in the region and background in trade, was much more qualified to give those speeches.
Exactly!!! I said this:
By the very nature of the job she needs to be an expert in all foreign affairs.
You twisted to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1grin_g0
She is no more an expert on foreign affairs than Obama (Commander-in-chief) is an expert on military operations. They are both lifelong lawyers/politicians. By your own logic, Obama is an expert in every area of the military even though he never wore a uniform.
I have NEVER said "every area". Never.
Foreign Affairs is NOT "every area". Hillary certainly is an expert is foreign affairs but I have NEVER said she knows EVERYTHING there is to know about China, which is what you implied.
.
What he said was that he would not because it would be bad for the economy which was total bull ****. Not prosecuting was bad for the economy.
Absolutely no one, outside of the banking community would have cared if Blankfein, Mozilo and Dimon had went to prison like they should have. It would have put some faith back into the markets.
Why do you think prosecuting some bankers is good for the economy?
Whether or not we prosecute those guys is independent of the economic recovery we are having.
.
She sure will fight hard for the banks--people don't spend that kind of money on speeches unless they are expecting or promised something in return. On another note, I looked up Chelsea Clinton after her DNC speech and found she was paid $600K by NBC for being a "special correspondent" and also has a pretty high speaking fee.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
