CNBC reports

Jarod said:
She would represent change, she would be the first white woman to ever hold the post.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO.... wow what an accomplishment, her skin pigmentation was... gasp... white... truly an amazing accomplishment. Outstanding.

Somehow I doubt that is what Darla was referring to. For her sake I hope it is more than that.
 
Superfreak said:
you don't think Hillary Clinton is more of an insider than Bill Richardson? You are such a moronic hack.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who has spent most of a thread splitting the stupid hair, anyway, when it's meaningless.

I can't help but notice that you completely ignored what I wrote about exactly what Obama meant by "change," and my offer to post some text from his speeches on the subject. Not surprising, because you'd simply rather believe it means what you want it to believe.
 
Onceler said:
I'm not the one who has spent most of a thread splitting the stupid hair, anyway, when it's meaningless.

I can't help but notice that you completely ignored what I wrote about exactly what Obama meant by "change," and my offer to post some text from his speeches on the subject. Not surprising, because you'd simply rather believe it means what you want it to believe.
Click to expand...

I did read it and noticed that it had little to do with the topic. Because the point YOU keep ignoring is that he ran against Hillary as the insider, he proclaimed that he would help bring new leadership with new direction and then subsequently has appointed a bunch of Washington insiders and now Geithner for Sec Treasury.

Change does not just mean being nicer to Lieberman.
 
Onceler said:
I tend to agree with that. Obama didn't owe her anything, and the pick came as a surprise to most people; I think he's genuinely picking her because he thinks she'll be great.

Superfreak is in a teensy minority here. People on both sides have said it's an excellent pick; the only trepidation is what she brings to the table in terms of Bill, and in terms of wanting to run things more independently than a traditional pick might. But that's it; the idea that she's a "horrid" pick, or more of an insider than Richardson or anyone else on the short or long list, is absurd.
Click to expand...

I could never decide who had a more rabid case of CDS - SF or Chap. And I still can't say.
 
Darla said:
She's going to overthrow the government.
Click to expand...

Well then, let me get some popcorn as I surely do not want to miss that.

Seriously... since it is so 'easy' to predict... how about sharing your opinion on what it is that you think she will accomplish that is historic?
 
Dungheap said:
My view is that you need a finance guy at Treasury and you aren't going to find a qualified finance guy that is completely removed from the current debacle. I don't know enough about Geitner (or finance issues generally) to have a solid opinion on him one way or the other. It may very well be that Geitner wasn't the first choice (would you want to be responsible for cleaning up this mess?)

The real issue is who Obama listens to, Geitner at Treasury of Richardson at Commerce and whomever he appoints at Labor.
Click to expand...

Yeah I guess we'll see. It's the first pick that got me disheartened though. I was hoping for an actual progressive economic policy.
 
Superfreak said:
Well then, let me get some popcorn as I surely do not want to miss that.

Seriously... since it is so 'easy' to predict... how about sharing your opinion on what it is that you think she will accomplish that is historic?
Click to expand...

Oh she is going to make peace accords, it will be an historic tenure. This is a woman who has a full grasp of the world's problems, and the woman who entered the Senate a short time after the people in it tried to impeach her husband and had villified her into someting not even human! (well, you'd know). and within months, those same people were raving about her.

Just because you and Chap don't want to do her, doesn't change the fact that this woman obviously has a very magnetic and charming personality, and she is certainly a diplomat.
 
Superfreak said:
I did read it and noticed that it had little to do with the topic. Because the point YOU keep ignoring is that he ran against Hillary as the insider, he proclaimed that he would help bring new leadership with new direction and then subsequently has appointed a bunch of Washington insiders and now Geithner for Sec Treasury.

Change does not just mean being nicer to Lieberman.
Click to expand...

Had little to do with the topic? What the fuck are you talking about? We're talking about what he meant by CHANGE. I went back and actually read some speeches; the one that kicked off his campaign, one from the fall of last year, and the one from election night.

Your interpretation of it is creative at best. It's complete bullshit. It had nothing to do with not utilizing experienced people in his administration, and everything to do with tone, lobbyist influence, policy direction & being post-partisan.

You're really retarded. A complete idiot; just brain-dead beyond reason...
 
Superfreak said:
You didn't really think it would be someone like Krugman did you?
Click to expand...

No. I would have loved that, but I doubt he'd want to take it, and I know no one would have the balls to pick him anyway.

That's why when Corzine's name kept popping up, (he's an actual liberal btw) I thought, here's the best we can get, and it ain't bad. Let's take it.
 
Darla said:
Oh she is going to make peace accords, it will be an historic tenure. This is a woman who has a full grasp of the world's problems, and the woman who entered the Senate a short time after the people in it tried to impeach her husband and had villified her into someting not even human! (well, you'd know). and within months, those same people were raving about her.

Just because you and Chap don't want to do her, doesn't change the fact that this woman obviously has a very magnetic and charming personality, and she is certainly a diplomat.
Click to expand...

She has a magnetic personality all right, but hers has a negative charge.

Side note: The DID impeach her husband. He just wasn't found guilty in the Senate.
 
Onceler said:
Had little to do with the topic? What the fuck are you talking about? We're talking about what he meant by CHANGE. I went back and actually read some speeches; the one that kicked off his campaign, one from the fall of last year, and the one from election night.

Your interpretation of it is creative at best. It's complete bullshit. It had nothing to do with not utilizing experienced people in his administration, and everything to do with tone, lobbyist influence, policy direction & being post-partisan.

You're really retarded. A complete idiot; just brain-dead beyond reason...
Click to expand...

LOL. Just ignore him. He was never going to accept Hillary in any role, and it wouldnt' have mattered if she had been Governor of Arkansas for the past eight years, instead of the Senator from NY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top