• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Geithner: White House Wanted Me to Lie on Sunday Shows

Paxaeon said:
`
Thank you for your flawed opinion. While it makes absolutely no sense to me, (I voted for Obama in 2008 but a third party in 2012) I personally believe both parties are corporately owned and once you strip off the fake veneer, they are both the same; Puppets to the corporate dollar.

You go right ahead pretending there is some ideological difference between when in fact both the Democrats and Republicans are beholden to the same deity: The god of Money.
Click to expand...

Though it might give your thinking a new spin, I think you might enjoy "Calculus of Consent" by Buchanan and Tullock. They describe how democracies function and why the help society be more efficient and create higher welfare. The book also indicates, where the pitfalls are and how they come about.
 
joG said:
Though it might give your thinking a new spin, I think you might enjoy "Calculus of Consent" by Buchanan and Tullock. They describe how democracies function and why the help society be more efficient and create higher welfare. The book also indicates, where the pitfalls are and how they come about.
Click to expand...
`
I'm already working on my summer list of books to read, thank you. FYI; I'm not into the pseudoscience of economics but I did manage to read this article recently: How much should you trust economists' predictions?
 
Paxaeon said:
`
Thank you for your flawed opinion. While it makes absolutely no sense to me, (I voted for Obama in 2008 but a third party in 2012) I personally believe both parties are corporately owned and once you strip off the fake veneer, they are both the same; Puppets to the corporate dollar.

You go right ahead pretending there is some ideological difference between when in fact both the Democrats and Republicans are beholden to the same deity: The god of Money.
Click to expand...

Here, I can type in larger font size than you.....(snicker) :roll: You go right on pretending that money doesn't equal power in your world either...make sure that cup you use to ask for spare change is empty first..;)
 
Sababa said:
and now for the deflection
Click to expand...

You are dishonest. Gloss over the lie to say "Oh well, Bush lied too"? So that makes lying OK? You are morally corrupt.
 
j-mac said:
Media Matters? :lamo Come on, if there ever was a source to laugh at out loud....:roll:
Click to expand...
`
Your reply brings up an unfortunately, common problem, with the right. You ask for empirical proof of faux news' lack of credibility but accept none of it because of confirmation bias. What evidence, by what source would you accept?
 
joG said:
Though it might give your thinking a new spin, I think you might enjoy "Calculus of Consent" by Buchanan and Tullock. They describe how democracies function and why the help society be more efficient and create higher welfare. The book also indicates, where the pitfalls are and how they come about.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a fairy tale. Everyone knows democracies function for the private interests, not public. Democracy isn't the problem, the people that are supposed to run the democracy are the problems. When corruption is involved, all good-will goes out the window for money and power. Thats why people go into politics, not to serve the people and do whats "right".
 
JRSaindo said:
Sounds like a fairy tale. Everyone knows democracies function for the private interests, not public. Democracy isn't the problem, the people that are supposed to run the democracy are the problems. When corruption is involved, all good-will goes out the window for money and power. Thats why people go into politics, not to serve the people and do whats "right".
Click to expand...

That is what democracies are about. How do you structure the thing, so that the individuals you grant power over you cannot misuse it.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
Your reply brings up an unfortunately, common problem, with the right. You ask for empirical proof of faux news' lack of credibility but accept none of it because of confirmation bias. What evidence, by what source would you accept?
Click to expand...

As far as I know, every study done on the media shows roughly the same content in hard news reporting. FNC overall, is no different than any other outlet.

Media matters on the other hand is a proven manipulator of content, and omitter of context. Not to mention a glove in hand arm of MSNBC.

You want to be associated with known liars? Who am I to stop you? Just know that rational people don't use that source.
 
Napoleon said:
I am amazed that anyone would ask that question. Enjoy.



The Iraq Liberation Act was not authorization for military action against Iraq. In fact, it specifically says that in Section 8. It authorized humanitarian assistance, funding of Saddam's political opposition, and provision of military training materials to rebel groups. You are trying to compare apples with oranges.



The majority of Democrats voted against it, but those who didn't were acting on bad information fed to them by the Bush Administration.
Click to expand...

You have no idea how the Oversight committees work and the information available to them, do you? Facts always get in the way of people like you who have an agenda and want badly to believe what the left tells you. The vote in the Senate was 76-23 so again you have no idea what you are talking about and the Senate was under Democrat Control. Wonder where Syria got the WMD"s, Hmmm
 
Paxaeon said:
`
Your reply brings up an unfortunately, common problem, with the right. You ask for empirical proof of faux news' lack of credibility but accept none of it because of confirmation bias. What evidence, by what source would you accept?
Click to expand...

Because there are dozens of opinions on Fox News if you want to make a point about their credibility it's best to name one of the opinion makers you find to be dishonest, point to the dishonesty, and then others can judge for themselves. Just repeating blanket statements about "Faux" news (which was stale a decade ago) certainly doesn't enhance your own own credibility
 
joG said:
That is what democracies are about. How do you structure the thing, so that the individuals you grant power over you cannot misuse it.
Click to expand...

The structure designed by the founding fathers was an excellent system but over the years the power has moved to Washington from the States, giving the people less power. Now Presidents and their appointed bureaucrats are ignoring laws, changing them on the go, using Executive privilege and so on to the point where the President can actually bypass Congress. The American electorate seemed to approve of these changes, and precedents, so their is little now that can be done. Once you give power away it is difficult to get it back.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/u...bama-bypass-congress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
Grant said:
The structure designed by the founding fathers was an excellent system but over the years the power has moved to Washington from the States, giving the people less power. Now Presidents and their appointed bureaucrats are ignoring laws, changing them on the go, using Executive privilege and so on to the point where the President can actually bypass Congress. The American electorate seemed to approve of these changes, and precedents, so their is little now that can be done. Once you give power away it is difficult to get it back.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/u...bama-bypass-congress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Click to expand...

If you have a Congress that is not up to withholding funds? Sure that is too little control.
 
US Conservative said:
Stop dancing. If you think Fox News is disreputable, and then cite it to make your claim (lazy, requiring no effort to actually discredit the data provided by ICE) what does that mean you believe?

You tell me-I will go with it once you have figured out your argument.
Click to expand...

I posted an opinion by Bush's former press secretary, Dana Perino. Because of her experience in the WH and talking to the press, I think she has a bit more credibility on the subject, than the average FoxNews host, don't you?
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
I posted an opinion by Bush's former press secretary, Dana Perino. Because of her experience in the WH and talking to the press, I think she has a bit more credibility on the subject, than the average FoxNews host, don't you?
Click to expand...

How quickly your opinion on this would change should mmfa be shown to have taken her out of context as they are known to do.
 
VanceMack said:
How much would you care to wager that if HRC is the democrat nominee you will PROUDLY vote for her?

Guess what her position was on Saddam and WMDs...both long BEFORE George Bush became president and after...
Click to expand...

Depends on how you define "proudly." I won't vote for her in the primary, and I don't have to know who the alternatives are. Didn't vote for her in the 2008 primary either. I'm not a big fan. I suspect I'd vote for her in the general as the least bad of bad options, but I wouldn't call that vote a 'proud' vote, just a necessary choosing between flawed alternatives.
 
JRSaindo said:
Sounds like a fairy tale. Everyone knows democracies function for the private interests, not public. Democracy isn't the problem, the people that are supposed to run the democracy are the problems. When corruption is involved, all good-will goes out the window for money and power. Thats why people go into politics, not to serve the people and do whats "right".
Click to expand...

But what happens when someone who does want to serve 'the people' runs? They'll either suck up to the people with money, or lose. And if by chance they win, and take on the big boys, they'll have a supertanker load of manure dumped on them in the next primary, then the general, and the person running against them committed to serving the big boys. Heck, right now the average House member spends roughly half of every working day raising money.

Seems to me the system, especially post Citizens United, almost guarantees we WILL get those who are more interested in power and serving powerful interests. But that's not a problem with the people who run except indirectly - it would be like blaming the problem of drugs on drug dealers. Well, can we have 'ethical' drug dealers?
 
JasperL said:
Depends on how you define "proudly." I won't vote for her in the primary, and I don't have to know who the alternatives are. Didn't vote for her in the 2008 primary either. I'm not a big fan. I suspect I'd vote for her in the general as the least bad of bad options, but I wouldn't call that vote a 'proud' vote, just a necessary choosing between flawed alternatives.
Click to expand...
I will bet cash money that if you are still on this site during the 2016 elections you will be touting her, defending her, and promoting her...and not just saying..."oh hell no...I think she blows but I'm going to vote for her anyway because she is the lesser of two evils."

Guaranteed.
 
VanceMack said:
I will bet cash money that if you are still on this site during the 2016 elections you will be touting her, defending her, and promoting her...and not just saying..."oh hell no...I think she blows but I'm going to vote for her anyway because she is the lesser of two evils."

Guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Believe what you want. And whether I'm defending or promoting her will have more to do with who she's running against on the GOP side than Hillary. She is far from my top democratic pick.

Besides, it's just as easy for me to assert you'll be defending and promoting whichever GOPer the big money boys select for you as candidate on that side. Or maybe you'll vote third party for a candidate who'll get 4% or something to make a statement, which I encourage, because it's as good as voting for democrats.
 
Moot said:
I posted an opinion by Bush's former press secretary, Dana Perino. Because of her experience in the WH and talking to the press, I think she has a bit more credibility on the subject, than the average FoxNews host, don't you?
Click to expand...

Actually, you posted an opinion by a conservative talk show on Fox news. If that is credible to you, just say so-and from here out we will know that Fox is an acceptable news source for you.
 
JasperL said:
Believe what you want. And whether I'm defending or promoting her will have more to do with who she's running against on the GOP side than Hillary. She is far from my top democratic pick.

Besides, it's just as easy for me to assert you'll be defending and promoting whichever GOPer the big money boys select for you as candidate on that side. Or maybe you'll vote third party for a candidate who'll get 4% or something to make a statement, which I encourage, because it's as good as voting for democrats.
Click to expand...
Make that bet then. If she is your parties nominee youwill be singing her praises, not sadly and disgustedly holding your nose while you vote for her.

I vote Libertarian or write in. Wouldn't vote for either party on a dare. Thats the kind of bull**** that has put us in this mess in the first place.
 
VanceMack said:
Make that bet then. If she is your parties nominee youwill be singing her praises, not sadly and disgustedly holding your nose while you vote for her.

I vote Libertarian or write in. Wouldn't vote for either party on a dare. Thats the kind of bull**** that has put us in this mess in the first place.
Click to expand...

Great! Like I said, LOVE it when conservatives vote for people with no chance of becoming President - it's like you staying home or a voting for democrats!

BTW, I'm not a fan of making bets with strangers, so I'll pass. Besides, who would we get to judge whether I'm "singing her praises" or not. You?
 
JasperL said:
Great! Like I said, LOVE it when conservatives vote for people with no chance of becoming President - it's like you staying home or a voting for democrats!

BTW, I'm not a fan of making bets with strangers, so I'll pass. Besides, who would we get to judge whether I'm "singing her praises" or not. You?
Click to expand...
Of course you love it. You look at the two parties and think yours is actually HELPING.
 
votemout said:
Geithner: White House Wanted Me to Lie on Sunday Shows | The Weekly Standard

Timothy Geithner, the former secretary of the Treasury Department, says the White House wanted him to lie in scheduled appearances on the Sunday TV talk shows. As Geithner writes in his new memoir:

“I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows, I objected when Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute. Pfeiffer said the line was a ‘dog whistle’ to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security.”

Of course, Geithner would not have been the only official from the White House to have misled the American people on the Sunday talk shows. Susan Rice famously came under fire for blaming a terrorist attack on a YouTube video in appearances on the shows.
Click to expand...

Well that explains why they are so big into supposed "dog whistles" on the right. Everything these people accuse conservatives of they do themselves.
 
votemout said:
Geithner: White House Wanted Me to Lie on Sunday Shows | The Weekly Standard

Timothy Geithner, the former secretary of the Treasury Department, says the White House wanted him to lie in scheduled appearances on the Sunday TV talk shows. As Geithner writes in his new memoir:

“I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows, I objected when Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute. Pfeiffer said the line was a ‘dog whistle’ to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security.”

Of course, Geithner would not have been the only official from the White House to have misled the American people on the Sunday talk shows. Susan Rice famously came under fire for blaming a terrorist attack on a YouTube video in appearances on the shows.




LOOKs like that is all the admin knows how to do is TELL BIG FAT LIES.
Click to expand...

Always nice how they save their honesty till after it matters, and till they can make money off it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom