>>You obviously didn't understand, you failed to address any of my concerns, just the usual personal insult and dodge.<<
Steve -
1, I absolutely did not insult you personally. My response was entirely about the content of your post.
2, You're right about one thing. I didn't really understand what points you were trying to make, other than the one that I did address. Your other points were not clear. But if it will make you feel better, let me see if I can find a way to respond.
Geithner had some back taxes to pay, and paid them only after he was nominated. OK, I can see how that might be something you don't want in a Treasury Secretary, but Wall Street was very happy with that appointment when it was made. And at this point it's silly to say he's "in complete control." He's one player of many.
Evidently, in your mind, Barney Frank has something to do with my wanting to pay for your house or not. That's not really clear to me. Sorry.
And then there was the bit about having to throw out everybody, including Obama's "stupid appointments," before things will get better. Right. Obama should immediately get rid of everybody he just hired? I fail to see how that will help the situation.
That was followed by the idea that we are rewarding people for failure by trying to prop up failing banks. Again, that's a moralistic argument. Since moralistic arguments are based on emotion rather than logic, I think my response was perfectly appropriate.
Please. If you want to have a rational discussion about politics, let's take this somewhere else. But I think you need to bring a better game than that.
- Allen |
