• 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

The Weekly Substandard writes a hit piece on the Obama Administration? Stunned I tell you!

Kristol needs some attention does he?

The next time Kristol is right about something will be the first. Guy is a total garden tool.

Do you know you're following the directions of Saul Alinsky by damning the messenger rather than debating the message or do you just follow this course through habit?
 
Do you know you're following the directions of Saul Alinsky by damning the messenger rather than debating the message or do you just follow this course through habit?

Alinsky! Everybody drink!
 
You're referring to WMD assertions as 'one lie?' LMAO. All that 'one lie' did was justify a war that will cost trillions, kill a few thousand troops, injure 100s of thousands of others, and result in 100s of thousands of deaths of Iraqis and others in the ME.

Jasper, whatever lie to which votemout referred couldn't possibly have anything to do with the Iraq war. Not if you listen to this...what all these democrats had to say BEFORE the war...and eagerly supported by congressional resolution to go into Iraq after Saddam Hussein. Right?

Of course, AFTER the fact...they DENIED, denied, denied supporting it. Please watch...

 
Jasper, whatever lie to which votemout referred couldn't possibly have anything to do with the Iraq war. Not if you listen to this...what all these democrats had to say BEFORE the war...and eagerly supported by congressional resolution to go into Iraq after Saddam Hussein. Right?

Of course, AFTER the fact...they DENIED, denied, denied supporting it. Please watch...



Look lets just admit they work together and only try to divide the voters
 
I'm not the one who said the WH told him to lie. He is.

And Geithner is a butt kisser of the plutocrats now selling a book. If he's claiming now, or then, that at that point in history SS was a 'contributor to the deficit' he's taking an elitist view of the issue that disregards the trillions then sitting in the SS 'trust fund' - that's the amount SS had REDUCED the debt those guys kissing bankers' and the CEO class rear ends are now so worried about.
 
Believe me when i say the most elite you do not know their names.

I agree with that - Geithner and guys like him are just taking orders.

What amazes me about Geithner is he was President of the NY Fed from 2003-2009, and he was the watchdog assigned to some of the world's largest banks as the biggest global debt bubble of all time inflated then burst. And for that massive professional failure, putting the entire world financial system at risk, which was at its core his ONLY job to prevent, he was rewarded with Sec. of the Treasury. The only way a guy fails upward like that is if he's a dependable puppet.

If we didn't have a system corrupt at its core, and controlled by the guys he was tasked to oversee, he'd have retired in disgrace and be an economics instructor in some backwater college somewhere. It's depressing anyone cares what this fool has to say about anything.
 
Seems like this is pretty innocuous, all things considered. Silly way to play Gotcha.

Please tell me you are just saying that, and deep down you really rather have honest government.
 
Please tell me you are just saying that, and deep down you really rather have honest government.

Anyone who thinks we're told the truth, or ever will be told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from our government is living in wonderland.

Would I rather our government was always truthful? No, not really. I've got enough to worry about.
 
Anyone who thinks we're told the truth, or ever will be told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from our government is living in wonderland.

Would I rather our government was always truthful? No, not really. I've got enough to worry about.

In the words of Jack, "You can't handle the truth!". I can. I would like to hear it, always. Even if I look fat in a dress. :)
 
How many of the Democrats with posts on that page voted for the invasion of Iraq?

Thats what happens when you don't tell Congress that the primary source of your "intelligence" is a known pathological liar making drunk phone calls to a German embassy and whom your allies have told you is a raving lunatic. How many of the Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, would have voted for the war had they known that the source was the looney tune codenamed "Curveball"?
 
Last edited:
Look lets just admit they work together and only try to divide the voters

If "they" means Republicans and Democrats, there is NOTHING to disagree with BEFORE the war began. After the war started is when the lies began on the part of the honorable, uh dishonorable democrats in that video.
 
And Geithner is a butt kisser of the plutocrats now selling a book. If he's claiming now, or then, that at that point in history SS was a 'contributor to the deficit' he's taking an elitist view of the issue that disregards the trillions then sitting in the SS 'trust fund' - that's the amount SS had REDUCED the debt those guys kissing bankers' and the CEO class rear ends are now so worried about.

Attack the messenger again, huh? He certainly wasn't a 'butt kisser' while he towed the party line.
 
If "they" means Republicans and Democrats, there is NOTHING to disagree with BEFORE the war began. After the war started is when the lies began on the part of the honorable, uh dishonorable democrats in that video.

The Democrats lie and support liars. They seldom were, since the time of slavery, an honorable political party.
 
The Weekly Standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative[2][3][4][5][6] opinion magazine[7] published 48 times per year. Its founding publisher, News Corporation, debuted the title September 18, 1995. Currently edited by founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes, the Standard has been described as a "redoubt of neoconservatism" and as "the neo-con bible".[8][9] Since it was founded in 1995, the Weekly Standard has never been profitable, and has remained in business through subsidies from conservative benefactors such as former owner Rupert Murdoch.[10] Many of the magazine's articles are written by members of conservative think tanks located in Washington, D.C.: the American Enterprise Institute, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and the Hudson Institute. Some individuals who have written for the magazine include Elliott Abrams, Peter Berkowitz, John R. Bolton, Ellen Bork, Christopher Hitchens, Roger Kimball, Harvey Mansfield, Joe Queenan, David Brooks and John Yoo.

Lol. I chuckled.
 
So Geithner released a 500 page book and this paragraph is what neocons found to take home from it.

Not his vociferously strong defense of the bailout. Not his stated admiration for the way the President handled the crisis and made the extremely unpopular, but correct, decisions. Not the part were Geithner explains how the desire to balance the budget came far too early and cost the economy 1% growth per year.

Not, you know, what the book was actually about. This ****ing paragraph. And you know, the sad part is I expect no more from such a rudderless and ideologically bankrupt movement grasping for straws to rally the base.

I can see the tea party chain emails flying, never mind that there is no there there. We always knew this guy was a liar. Deceiver. Always knew there was something about him not to like.
 
Geithner...what an economic loser.

This macroeconomic ignoramus was flapping around saying everything was fine while the markets were collapsing (according to the Fed minutes at the time).

And then they made this ding dong head of the Treasury.

That should tell you all you need to know about the Obama administration.

And the fact that G.W. Bush was the idiot that put Bernanke in charge of the Fed should tell you all you need to know about the G.W.Bush administration (that and the housing bubble he helped create).

In other words...neither has/had a clue how to run an economy.
 
Thats what happens when you don't tell Congress that the primary source of your "intelligence" is a known pathological liar making drunk phone calls to a German embassy and whom your allies have told you is a raving lunatic. How many of the Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, would have voted for the war had they known that the source was the looney tune codenamed "Curveball"?

And this is what happens when civics isn't taught in school. Democrats had access to the same information that Bush had and were on the oversight committees with access to classified information. Bush wasn't in office when Democrats helped pass the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 and when many Democrats made quotes about Saddam Husseins WMD. You have way too much invested in that hate Bush propaganda and narrative promoted by the left.
 
You're referring to WMD assertions as 'one lie?' LMAO. All that 'one lie' did was justify a war that will cost trillions, kill a few thousand troops, injure 100s of thousands of others, and result in 100s of thousands of deaths of Iraqis and others in the ME.
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...
 
Cough, cough, mission accomplished, cough, cough, WMD, cough, cough...
When did World War 2 end? Would you say the end of World War 2 was when the opponents we were fighting were defeated or when our troops were no longer on the ground?
 
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...

The same as her husband's position and that of many other Democrats who conveniently forgot all of the comments they had made when Clinton was President.
 
Back
Top Bottom