--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Did anyone else notice the thing that Judy > > ...uh...failed to mention while blaming the > > Treasury and blasting Politico for "repre- > > hensible reporting?" > > > > Hint: It was her OWN "rephrehensible report- > > ing" only a few hours earlier. See below. > > Notice the difference in *language* > between the two paragraphs describing > the same Firedoglake article? In the > first (most recent), "Treasury" is > the Bad Guy. But interestingly, in > the earlier introduction to the same > link, it's not "Treasury" at all; it's > "the White House" and "the administration." > > Mar 19, 1:35 am Spanish time: > > > The point is that Dodd *opposed the loophole*, > > > spoke out against it, argued with the > > > administration about it, but was ultimately > > > forced by Treasury to put it in or get no > > > limitations on executive compensation at all. > > Mar 18, 9:08 pm and 10:51 pm Spanish time: > > > Actually it was the White House that insisted on > > > the provision that excluded AIG; Dodd opposed it. > > > The administration is dishonestly trying to pin > > > it on Dodd, and the right-wingers are happily > > > helping out.
> Methinks someone is still carrying a > torch for Hillary and determined to find > any way possible to demonize the (spit) > man who "done her wrong." That's been consistent and obvious ever since some time before and after Hillary lost. The comical poor loser fringe Hillarizoid maintains a seething bitter grudge and it permeates her relentless predictable ever-nasty continuous anti-Obama and anti-Obama supporter invective. > Me, I don't give a shit about "Whodunnit?" > in this case. In this case there seems to > be little question that AIG's lawyers > *would* have sued the U.S. government > if the bill had forced it to abrograte its > contracts with its hideously incapable > employees. It was a monumental fuckup > caused by pond scum (corporate lawyers). > > It's just that IMO the public "blame game" > is the work of petty, vindictive children, > whether it comes from the right or the > supposed left. BillyG and Willytex and > others were using this situation to smear > Obama and the White House, for their petty, > vindictive reasons; Judy was using this > *same* situation to smear Obama and the > White House, for *her* own petty, vindic- > tive reasons. What's the difference? > > Me, I'm just using the situation to *point > out* those petty, vindictive actions, and > remind people that sometimes the self- > styled "voice of integrity" on this forum > has none. Why is there such a difference > in the language in the first quotes (which > were posted twice) and the second? Could > it possibly be an attempt at "spin" to > "affix blame" where *she* wanted it affixed? >
