Jack Lew and Obama's insulting hypocrisy

[Bonhomme Richard]

Jack Lew, Obama's most recent Chief of Staff, is up to be confirmed as Treasury Secretary. This we know.

What we didn't know until his confirmation hearing, however, is that Lew has had investments in offshore Cayman Islands bank accounts. And when he was the head of Citigroup, he took massive bonus at the expense of taxpayers.

So while Obama was busy hammering Romney for his offshore investments during the campaign, he knew all along that his Chief of Staff was guilty of the same thing. How ****ing stupid does he think we all are? It's almost insulting.

[southparkcpa]

Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard

Jack Lew, Obama's most recent Chief of Staff, is up to be confirmed as Treasury Secretary. This we know.

What we didn't know until his confirmation hearing, however, is that Lew has had investments in offshore Cayman Islands bank accounts. And when he was the head of Citigroup, he took massive bonus at the expense of taxpayers.

So while Obama was busy hammering Romney for his offshore investments during the campaign, he knew all along that his Chief of Staff was guilty of the same thing. How ****ing stupid does he think we all are? It's almost insulting.

Come on...its covered fairly heavily in the main stream media

[cr726]

I don't understand this choice at all. He sat over a section of Citi that help destroy the economy.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/100454907

[parafly]

Obama's cabinet has been littered with Wall Street bigwigs since the very beginning of his Presidency.

You can blame the media all you want, but they are only partially driving the conversation. Republicans are more interested in questioning citizenship and pushing a social agenda than discrediting the President on truly legitimate topics. It is a huge failure on their part, but let's be honest, as a party they have zero interest in criticizing status quo practices which involve their rich base.

[Bonhomme Richard]

Originally Posted by parafly

Obama's cabinet has been littered with Wall Street bigwigs since the very beginning of his Presidency.

You can blame the media all you want, but they are only partially driving the conversation. Republicans are more interested in questioning citizenship and pushing a social agenda than discrediting the President on truly legitimate topics. It is a huge failure on their part, but let's be honest, as a party they have zero interest in criticizing status quo practices which involve their rich base.

Let me get this straight -- you are blaming Obama's hypocritical campaign and terrible cabinet picks on Republicans?

Classic. That's all that needs to be said, really.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard

Let me get this straight -- you are blaming Obama's hypocritical campaign and terrible cabinet picks on Republicans?

Classic. That's all that needs to be said, really.

I implied no such thing. Obama's cabinet and campaign decisions are completely on him. Just pointing out that the Republicans failed miserably in bringing Obama's contradictions and poor choices to the public limelight.

[Demosthenes9]

Originally Posted by parafly

I implied no such thing. Obama's cabinet and campaign decisions are completely on him. Just pointing out that the Republicans failed miserably in bringing Obama's contradictions and poor choices to the public limelight.

That's a crock Parafly. If you followed "Conservative media", they've been all over these various stories. The problem is that the MSM ignores the stories or even worse, aides in hushing them up.

[DDNYjets]

This new cabinet is a joke.

[intelligentjetsfan]

This is a direct result of having a political system that has been ravaged by special interest money to the point where they own everything in Washington except the carpets. And when the candidates that they own get into office it's pay back time. It's wrong and the height of hypocrisy, both by the politicians, like Obama, who lie and the portion of supporters who defend them at all costs.

But what is equally hypocritical is to hear from conservatives who are outraged by the system now-which amazingly coincides with the other side being in office. My rhetorical question is where was the outrage from, say, 2001-2008 when the previous administration was running corporate cronies through Washington like a conga line in a cess pool of kick backs and thank yous (it always fascinated me to see former petroleum people getting jobs in the E.P.A.)?

It's hard to stomach hypocrisy and it comes in many forms; we want to defend individual liberties today yet forgot them yesterday(patriot act, Guantanamo prisons with American citizens). We want fiscal responsibility today (although we can't give away enough tax money to defense companies ) yet we spent
like drunken soldiers yesterday. We are against the political influence of unions today yet we support the NRA's ability to own politicians like pimps.

Wake me up when there is a legitimate third party as an alternative, one which is not completely bought and paid for by special interests.

[AlbanyJet]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Wake me up when there is a legitimate third party as an alternative, one which is not completely bought and paid for by special interests.

Very intelligent post.

And if there was ever a politician that was bought-and-sold it's Barack Obama. He was a pothead in high school and college so his grades sucked but he succeeded via affirmative action . He had little political/legislative experience before he was selected by his Wall Street handlers to run for President. this wayhe wouldn't give those Wall Street handlers any trouble when they told him what to do and what words to read off the telemprompter.

[quantum]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

This new cabinet is a joke.

as opposed to the old cabinet, which was a smaller joke?

[quantum]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

This is a direct result of having a political system that has been ravaged by special interest money to the point where they own everything in Washington except the carpets. And when the candidates that they own get into office it's pay back time. It's wrong and the height of hypocrisy, both by the politicians, like Obama, who lie and the portion of supporters who defend them at all costs.

But what is equally hypocritical is to hear from conservatives who are outraged by the system now-which amazingly coincides with the other side being in office. My rhetorical question is where was the outrage from, say, 2001-2008 when the previous administration was running corporate cronies through Washington like a conga line in a cess pool of kick backs and thank yous (it always fascinated me to see former petroleum people getting jobs in the E.P.A.)?

It's hard to stomach hypocrisy and it comes in many forms; we want to defend individual liberties today yet forgot them yesterday(patriot act, Guantanamo prisons with American citizens). We want fiscal responsibility today (although we can't give away enough tax money to defense companies ) yet we spent
like drunken soldiers yesterday. We are against the political influence of unions today yet we support the NRA's ability to own politicians like pimps.

Wake me up when there is a legitimate third party as an alternative, one which is not completely bought and paid for by special interests.

translation: when confronted by indefensible, irrefutable proof that "my guy" is a total piece of ****, I will rant that everyone does it, everyone sucks, and propose a scenario that will never happen.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by quantum

translation: when confronted by indefensible, irrefutable proof that "my guy" is a total piece of ****, I will rant that everyone does it, everyone sucks, and propose a scenario that will never happen.

I guess you must have missed the entire opening paragraph .

That is okay, as a teacher I have learned that we sometimes need to change how instruction is given to reach all learning levels. It also helps to frame it in a way that personalizes the message for greater comprehension. So here goes;

Quantum, Sean Hannity wants you to read the first paragraph so you can better understand those unpatriotic libs.

Or

Quantum, MSNBC does NOT want you to read the first paragraph.

[SafetyBlitz]

He's been in Wall Street's pocket since 08.

But why should that matter to Republicans? Free markets for free men, am-I-right?

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Demosthenes9

That's a crock Parafly. If you followed "Conservative media", they've been all over these various stories. The problem is that the MSM ignores the stories or even worse, aides in hushing them up.

Agree to disagree. I'm not absolving the media completely, but at the end of the day, Republicans pick the wrong battles. Are you seriously suggesting that the GOP doesn't have a voice or any influence over driving the mainstream narrative?

When they set their hearts on something (Benghazi), it gets covered. They just make the wrong decisions in choosing their political focus.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by parafly

Agree to disagree. I'm not absolving the media completely, but at the end of the day, Republicans pick the wrong battles. Are you seriously suggesting that the GOP doesn't have a voice or any influence over driving the mainstream narrative?

When they set their hearts on something (Benghazi), it gets covered. They just make the wrong decisions in choosing their political focus.

To a degree, you're right. But if you can't see the obstacles in front of them as far as communicating even reasonable arguments to America, your eyes are closed.

Don't have to look any further than the coverage of Marco Rubio taking a sip of water. How enraging and absurd. Clearly, he's inheriting the target on the back once reserved for Palin. I wasn't a fan of her by any means, but the way she was treated was disgusting.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

To a degree, you're right. But if you can't see the obstacles in front of them as far as communicating even reasonable arguments to America, your eyes are closed.

Don't have to look any further than the coverage of Marco Rubio taking a sip of water. How enraging and absurd. Clearly, he's inheriting the target on the back once reserved for Palin. I wasn't a fan of her by any means, but the way she was treated was disgusting.

Fair enough.

[JetPotato]

Bli

Originally Posted by parafly

Fair enough.

Another case in point: we've reached a point that virtually no one can put forth concepts of fiscal restraint without being shouted down with charges of racism, sexism or elitism.

[chiefst2000]

The last time we had a President that was completely unflappable and could not be influenced by big money Wall Street Types he ended up with his face carved in the side of a mountain. The great Teddy Roosevelt was that man.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

To a degree, you're right. But if you can't see the obstacles in front of them as far as communicating even reasonable arguments to America, your eyes are closed.

Don't have to look any further than the coverage of Marco Rubio taking a sip of water. How enraging and absurd. Clearly, he's inheriting the target on the back once reserved for Palin. I wasn't a fan of her by any means, but the way she was treated was disgusting.

Thank goodness for mr. Rubio that he has the full support of one of the most powerful media conglomerates in the world. Listening to murdoch's media you would have thought Marco's speech rivaled the Gettysburg address.

As for Sarah Palin save the sympathy tears; she was her own worst enemy when she could not answer simple questions such as where she gets the news.