General Discussion

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)

27. You left out the Democrats who single handedly, without much help from the Republicans, voted to

Mon Jul 29, 2013, 02:58 PM

Jul 2013

pay Wall St Criminals' obscene gambling debts with our money, despite the overwhelming stated will of the people. Why did they do that? Why wasn't it OUR party that finally began the process of investigating these crimes. We wouldn't expect Republicans to it, but we sure didn't elect Democrats to bail out Wall St. Criminals and War Criminals. Yet here we are, with not a single investigation of some of the worst crimes in living memory.

And you forgot the deregulation of Wall St signed by a Democrat that opened the door to all this theivery.

We won't get anywhere if we keep our fingers in our ears, our closed and our mouths shut about the role played by members of our Party.

If you care so much about the 'thievery' I don't get the protection of all of those involved and directly or indirectly responsible. Facts are facts, some of them unpleasant, but hiding them doesn't make them go away.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

121 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Glenn Greenwald POPPED Tim Geithner in the chops, way before it was cool. [View all] Octafish Jul 2013 OP

So, now ALL of Greenwald's episodic writings are fair game railsback Jul 2013 #1

And another contentless comment on the journalist rather than on the content of the OP. sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #4

Tax payers are being forced to PAY to hear Greenwald say what he's always been saying for free. railsback Jul 2013 #9

Tax payers were forced to pay for the gambling debts of the Wall St crooks and so far, not one of sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #12

Tax payers are also forced to pay the salaries of people like Boehner and King railsback Jul 2013 #20

You left out the Democrats who single handedly, without much help from the Republicans, voted to sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #27

As the current laws are written, you wouldn't be able to convict any of them railsback Jul 2013 #30

get room you two,. at it again in this thread,. . Civilization2 Jul 2013 #64

Oh, I see, the 'victim' card again railsback Jul 2013 #74

Most of the miscreants could be put away if there was only the will to do it. Enthusiast Jul 2013 #65

In a fantasy world, true. railsback Jul 2013 #72

In a world where the President has surrounded himself by Enthusiast Jul 2013 #105

Right on! Enthusiast Jul 2013 #63

Do you ever post anything but snark? Do you qualify as "politically liberal"??? nm rhett o rick Jul 2013 #17

If its 'snark' to point out blatant hypocrisy and cherry picking railsback Jul 2013 #23

No, it's truthful to point out blatant hypocrisy and cherry picking which I just did in this thread. sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #28

Right... railsback Jul 2013 #32

You haven't been keeping up. YOU all made it about Greenwald, so all we are doing is cooperating now sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #33

LoL, now its OUR fault that Greenwald is the focus railsback Jul 2013 #35

Exactly right usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jul 2013 #85

So, let me get this straight.. railsback Jul 2013 #114

Who do you think you're fooling with that? Marr Jul 2013 #111

'Apologists'. LOL! railsback Jul 2013 #113

Blah, blah, blah. /nt Marr Jul 2013 #115

Thank you, Mr. Murdoch railsback Jul 2013 #116

If all you've got is snark, I guess that's all you post. nm rhett o rick Jul 2013 #34

Seems the last people to see hypocrisy railsback Jul 2013 #36

Every post by that one seems to be substance-free. Even that poster's initial post in this thread xocet Jul 2013 #70

Your not cherry picking? Katashi_itto Jul 2013 #107

Greenwald called for Cheney and the rest of the war criminals to be prosecuted. Did you? Octafish Jul 2013 #39

Greenwald defended Citizens United railsback Jul 2013 #62

Nobody's perfect. From what I read, he wanted to protect individual rights. Octafish Jul 2013 #77

i hear he's on the cover o the next issue of Tiger Beat! dionysus Jul 2013 #2

I hear he's going to be on the Pulitzer Prize list for Journalist of the year. sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #16

but how far down the list will he be? Pretzel_Warrior Jul 2013 #24

That's possible, but that is more likely to go to someone like Bradley Manning, Assange or Snowden. sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #29

I hear what you are saying. I guess I have to gather my thoughts for another post Pretzel_Warrior Jul 2013 #38

You guys are looking more and more desperate with your sad ad hominem comments. nm rhett o rick Jul 2013 #18

what, i'm simply using the exact same catchphrases you guys have used. oh wait... dionysus Jul 2013 #58

He deserves more than that just for this article on Washington immunizing lawbreaking Telecoms. Octafish Jul 2013 #44

I bet lots of people will be putting that picture on their bedroom walls!!!!! DevonRex Jul 2013 #61

While people were marching in the streets against the Patriot Act and the Iraq War.... Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #3

I love it when one of the six talking points outlined by Greenwald himself, arrive in every thread sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #6

We can bring up old information about Greenwald supposedly popping Tim Geithner in the chops Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #11

Yes, we can bring up facts. Are you saying this did not happen? sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #14

I didn't say it didn't happen. Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #48

Okay. Yes, it was admirable that Greenwald, as a private citizen no one had ever heard of, sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #59

I'm not using his honesty against him Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #69

Not getting your point at all. You are using his words admitting to his error in judgement re sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #78

I'm really not getting you either Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #81

Well you could post the words you claim are 'hypocritical'. We only disagree if there are words sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #82

It's OK to disagree on an anonymous message board Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #84

Of course it is. But when you post something that no one seems to understand, and you can't sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #89

I don't really understand your point either. Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #91

Greenwald wants people to believe he's a truth teller. Avalux Jul 2013 #22

Just for accuracy, when was he 'busy supporting Bushco'? sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #31

I don't care about elected Democrats. This conversation is about Greenwald. Avalux Jul 2013 #42

Wow, well that says it all, for sure. A private citizen V elected officials with the power to send sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #50

This message was self-deleted by its author Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #68

Ever made a mistake? Ever been big enough to admit that? HangOnKids Jul 2013 #73

The NSa apologists have to get their stories straight. Some say that Greenwald lies at every breath, rhett o rick Jul 2013 #79

And so was Ms. Clinton. Is that all you got? I smell desperation. nm rhett o rick Jul 2013 #19

It was wrong for Clinton to support Bush and it was wrong for Greenwald. Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #52

I agree. Are you willing to forgive Ms. Clinton and support her bid for the presidency? nm rhett o rick Jul 2013 #55

No. n/t Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #66

So who are you interested in for President? nm rhett o rick Jul 2013 #92

It's too early for me to think about that. The next Prez won't be sworn in until 2017. n/t Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #112

And so were most Democrats burnodo Jul 2013 #47

It was wrong for Dems to support Bush and it was wrong for Greenwald. Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #53

well try to hold Dems accountable first burnodo Jul 2013 #56

I have gone after Dems for their support of Bush Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #67

When Greenwald found out Bush & Cheney lied, he called for their prosecution. Did you? Octafish Jul 2013 #54

Indeed I did Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #71

That's great! I wish you'd put it in a DU2 journal. Octafish Jul 2013 #76

Somebody needed to pop Jughead Geithner in the chops. Fuddnik Jul 2013 #5

Elizabeth Warren did it too, it was a thing of beauty to watch. sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #8

She may not be under the bus yet, but "The Group" avoid posts about her like the plague. rhett o rick Jul 2013 #37

Who is "the group" Avalux Jul 2013 #43

Well it's a kinder label than others use. And I have a hunch you know what I mean. nm rhett o rick Jul 2013 #46

DUers also tried. Octafish Jul 2013 #87

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Avalux Jul 2013 #7

Well if you would all stop talking about him, he wouldn't appear to be 'so adored' as you call sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #10

Sorry I've annoyed you. Avalux Jul 2013 #25

No need to apologize, you haven't annoyed me in the least. I love this stuff unlike many other DUers sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #41

Then we've been working together for a long time. Avalux Jul 2013 #45

Oh, I don't share your pessism. I see plenty of critical thinking around the Left forums these days, sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #57

why do you not consider him to be a journalist? frylock Jul 2013 #15

Journalists uncover and report facts without interjecting their own opinion. Avalux Jul 2013 #26

I can agree what your definition of a real journalist is, but could you provide one as an example?nt adirondacker Jul 2013 #49

Non-existent entities. Idealist claptrap. JackRiddler Jul 2013 #110

Good question above. Who do you like as a journalist? Judith Miller? nm rhett o rick Jul 2013 #21

Wrong. Here's his report on Cheney's efforts to cover-up treason and hope for another 9-11. Octafish Jul 2013 #60

All part of The Grand Bargain ... GeorgeGist Jul 2013 #13

Raw Deal for the 21st Century: Welfare for the Wealthy Octafish Jul 2013 #95

du rec. xchrom Jul 2013 #40

Derivatives are like a calculus: confusing and designed to leave someone else holding the tab. Octafish Jul 2013 #96

Yeah, it is so funny watching all these 'late bloomers' showing up Rex Jul 2013 #51

One Dude got the ziggy, just today. Octafish Jul 2013 #97

Lol, what an interesting 'series of events'. The 'caffeine fiend' was an obvious troll, although I sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #101

They don't have any way out. Rex Jul 2013 #102

GG performs two valuable services. Jakes Progress Jul 2013 #75

So true Jakes Progress. He exposes what needed to be exposed. sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #80

+1 nashville_brook Jul 2013 #94

I just tried to recommend your post and realized it was my thread. Octafish Jul 2013 #98

K&R + a link to Bankster USA (The Center for Media and Democracy) bobthedrummer Jul 2013 #83

Goll-ee! That deserves its own thread, bobthedrummer! Octafish Jul 2013 #86

And WHO doesn't remember your weekly posts felix_numinous Jul 2013 #88

Go FAT CAT! Agony Jul 2013 #93

Did S&G reveal anything that was illegal or abusive? randome Jul 2013 #90

Are you channeling John Roberts? Octafish Jul 2013 #99

^ Wilms Jul 2013 #100

He was last on the wagon, if you look at the dates. BlueToTheBone Jul 2013 #103

At least he got on the wagon. Most writers avoided the subject. Octafish Jul 2013 #108

So, they hate Greenwald for quoting other colomnists? intaglio Jul 2013 #104

Please tell: Where else did you see any of the conflicts-of-interest and criminality even mentioned? Octafish Jul 2013 #109

Well since you ask, intaglio Jul 2013 #118

So, you don't have even one example? Octafish Jul 2013 #119

Why should I bother? intaglio Jul 2013 #120

It's a criticism you made. Octafish Jul 2013 #121

"It's not just Snowden and illegal NSA spying, Big Money hates Greenwald" Progressive dog Jul 2013 #106

K&R woo me with science Jul 2013 #117