[FairfieldLife] Barry is Cun...Cun...CONFUSED (was: Judy was Wuh...Wuh...WRONG)
(Barry's been in Yurrup so long he's forgotten how to pronounce English, it seems, and thinks the word "wrong" begins with a "wuh" sound...) Barry is so obviously thrilled to have found what he thinks is an incriminating difference between two of my posts to feed his Gotta Get Judy jones that you almost gotta feel bad about having to set him straight. Nonetheless, I shall persevere: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 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." Bar, here in the good old U.S. of A. we 'Murcans use the terms "White House" and "administration" to refer to what we call the "Executive Branch" of the gummint (the other two being the Legislative Branch--Senate and House--and the Judicial Branch, the federal judiciary). Besides the president and vice president, the Executive Branch includes the various departments and the Cabinet, composed of the heads of those departments, known as Secretaries. One of those departments is the Treasury Department. Its head is Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, who is, of course, working very closely with President Obama on the financial crisis. If you were to read either Glenn Greenwald's or Jane Hamsher's posts to which I linked, you'd find that the terms "White House," "administration," and "Treasury" are used pretty much interchangeably to identify those who are responsible for the AIG bonus "carve-out" and who are now blaming Dodd for it. Barry's confusion on this point is amusing enough, but it gets even better: > 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." Poor Barry! > 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). Actually, Bar, AIG is currently 80 percent owned by the U.S. government (i.e., the taxpayers). If their bonuses are abrogated, the AIG executives who were to receive them might well attempt to sue AIG, but AIG itself ain't gonna be suing the U.S. government anytime soon. > 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, Actually (as Barry subsequently realized), BillyG didn't participate in the thread about AIG. Willytex was initially using the situation to smear *Dodd* on the basis of the administration's false accusations, but he's equally happy to smear the administration if he can, because they're all Democrats, y'see. 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? The difference, of course, is that Dodd is not guilty of what the White House is trying to smear him with. > 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. And who better to point the finger at petty, vindictive actions and complain about lack of integrity than Barry? 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? No, it's because Barry's hopelessly confused. The specific terminology was different between the quotes, but not the folks the terms referred to. For the record (as Barry would have realized if he'd been reading my posts with any attention, rather than simply looking for something to Get Judy with), I think the administration is generally doing a good job with the financial crisis. The AIG bonus mess was a slip-up, though, and trying to blame Dodd for it was a dirty trick for which the administration shouldn't get a pass. On the other hand, the furor over the bonuses is largely a matter of optics; they're a tiny fraction of the amount of money involved. The administration is trying to "adjust" those optics to mit
[FairfieldLife] Barry is Cun...Cun...CONFUSED (was: Judy was Wuh...Wuh...WRONG)
(Barry's been in Yurrup so long he's forgotten how to pronounce English, it seems, and thinks the word "wrong" begins with a "wuh" sound...) Barry is so obviously thrilled to have found what he thinks is an incriminating difference between two of my posts to feed his Gotta Get Judy jones that you almost gotta feel bad about having to set him straight. Nonetheless, I shall persevere: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 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." Bar, here in the good old U.S. of A. we 'Murcans use the terms "White House" and "administration" to refer to what we call the "Executive Branch" of the gummint (the other two being the Legislative Branch--Senate and House--and the Judicial Branch, the federal judiciary). Besides the president and vice president, the Executive Branch includes the various departments and the Cabinet, composed of the heads of those departments, known as Secretaries. One of those departments is the Treasury Department. Its head is Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, who is, of course, working very closely with President Obama on the financial crisis. If you were to read either Glenn Greenwald's or Jane Hamsher's posts to which I linked, you'd find that the terms "White House," "administration," and "Treasury" are used pretty much interchangeably to identify those who are responsible for the AIG bonus "carve-out" and who are now blaming Dodd for it. Barry's confusion on this point is amusing enough, but it gets even better: > 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." Poor Barry! > 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). Actually, Bar, AIG is currently 80 percent owned by the U.S. government (i.e., the taxpayers). If their bonuses are abrogated, the AIG executives who were to receive them might well attempt to sue AIG, but AIG itself ain't gonna be suing the U.S. government anytime soon. > 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, Actually (as Barry subsequently realized), BillyG didn't participate in the thread about AIG. Willytex was initially using the situation to smear *Dodd* on the basis of the administration's false accusations, but he's equally happy to smear the administration if he can, because they're all Democrats, y'see. 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? The difference, of course, is that Dodd is not guilty of what the White House is trying to smear him with. > 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. And who better to point the finger at petty, vindictive actions and complain about lack of integrity than Barry? 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? No, it's because Barry's hopelessly confused. The specific terminology was different between the quotes, but not the folks the terms referred to. For the record (as Barry would have realized if he'd been reading my posts with any attention, rather than simply looking for something to Get Judy with), I think the administration is generally doing a good job with the financial crisis. The AIG bonus mess was a slip-up, though, and trying to blame Dodd for it was a dirty trick for which the administration shouldn't get a pass. On the other hand, the furor over the bonuses is largely a matter of optics; they're a tiny fraction of the amount of money involved. The administration is trying to "adjust" those optics to mit
