Skip to main content

View Diary: Citigroup gave Lew $940K ONLY if he got a high-level government position (313 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Frankly, it's a waste of time even... (7+ / 0-)

    ...attempting to have a rational discussion in the comments in a blog post with people that are in denial as deeply as you and a few others are, as is made self-evident by your (and their) previous comments. (It is both disingenuous and a truly feeble attempt at a "recovery" in your last comment, too!) Have a nice day!

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 11:30:18 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  thanks for your time, regardless. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, emelyn, Argyrios

      I think I said pretty much the same thing in each of my comments: the diarist has the facts wrong, and the revolving door is a really bad thing.

      If that makes me a waste of time, I'm not sure who you are hoping to convince, of anything.

      Cheers.

    •  Okay, I'll say it. (0+ / 0-)

      Because Obama.

      It's hard to not say the truth.

    •  Ah, more "rational discussion" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Essephreak

      You get a purely rational comment:

      No. It's a retention bonus. We'll give you the million dollars if you stay. We'll also make an exception if you get a high-level govt job. But it is not correct to say that he'll get that money ONLY if he leaves and goes to work for the govt.
      As I said upthread, none of that is to say that the revolving door between Wall Street and Treasury, etc., is not rife with corruption and a clear and present danger to out country.
      Where the commenter even makes a point to mention that he agrees that Wall Street to Treasury and back appointments are often problematic, but not necessarily in this case, and the response is:
      More bullshit and denial of greater truth...
      This is precisely why we can't have rational conversation on a lot of these economic diaries.

      If you don't oppose President Obama and everything he does and everyone he appoints, you're by definition peddling bullshit and denying the truth. You're incapable of rational conversation because you don't know the secret truth, and all communication is shut down.

      When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

      by PhillyJeff on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 12:57:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hell, I didn't even say it's not problematic (0+ / 0-)

        in this case. I don't know enough about Lew (and that's my own fault) to know whether he is a good appointee, and my inclination is to suspect anyone coming from Citibank.

        All I was saying was: I'm pretty sure the diarist mis-stated how that clause works; i.e. the clause itself is not problematic.

        And you saw where that got me.

        •  I was agreeing with you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Essephreak

          You made a pretty reasoned comment and you got called a bullshit peddler and a liar. Thought that was pretty clear.

          We're not as bad as Republicans or anything, but we have to be vigilant that we don't just believe whatever we read on the internet if it fits with our worldview.

          When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

          by PhillyJeff on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:24:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I know (0+ / 0-)

            You were agreeing with me, and appreciate the support. Was trying (obviously in a very clumsy way) to say that the response was even less rational than what you described. In any case, should have made very clear thanks for having my back.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site