Skip to main content

View Diary: Lanny Breuer Resigns from Department of Justice, Joins Wall Street Law Firm (231 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  that seems more then slander (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moderatemajority

    considering you have absolutely no proof and only what (to me) looks rather close to a conspiracy theory.

    And never mind the actual facts that dispute this right?

    In the time that I have been given,
    I am what I am

    by duhban on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 10:08:24 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It a reasonable guess as to what goes on in (7+ / 0-)

      a person's mind. Surely you've noticed that Bill Clinton, for instance, has gone on to become worth some quarter-billion, since leaving office. Getting 20-minute speaking engagements for $100,000, and more, from Bankers after pushing deregulation, for instance.

      How many Politicians have gone on to fabulous wealth since leaving office? Many. Very many. Especially since the '90s.

      Now, if you don't want to believe that of the man, that's also plausible. In the end nobody has actual facts bearing on the matter except the precedents politicians provide us with.


      If Republicans said every 3rd person named "Smith" should hang, we'd bargain them to every 7th. Then we'll see apologia written praising this most pragmatic compromise. There's our losing formula.

      by Jim P on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 11:25:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no it's not reasonable (0+ / 0-)

        at best and most gracious it's a wild stab in the dark and at it's worst it's slander most vile.

        And yes Clinton has gotten paid to speak and he's also undertaken humanitarian missions not that I expect people to recognize that. Not at least in Obama's case, nope it's better to wildly speculate and slander the man all while being 'reasonable'

        In the time that I have been given,
        I am what I am

        by duhban on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 12:25:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  there's a difference between "unreasonable" (8+ / 0-)

          and "I don't like it." Politicians are politicians, and if there's one who doesn't have his/her and their families long-term interests in mind, that would be an exception. Else, how does the widespread revulsion at revolving door politicians come to be?

          As to Clinton: hey, Al Capone opened Chicago's first soup kitchens, and bought clothes for the poor from his own pocket. Still doesn't mean he wasn't Al Capone.

          Unless you can post your transcripts of your conversations with the President, when he shared with you his motivations, you'll just have to put up with the fact that some people think of him as they do the rest of the parade of politicians we've seen over the past 20 years.

          PS: My daughter was involved in the Haiti rescue, coordinating flights and such. Everybody hated "fucking Clinton" (and other politicians) who bumped doctors from flights so he could do his good works for the cameras.


          If Republicans said every 3rd person named "Smith" should hang, we'd bargain them to every 7th. Then we'll see apologia written praising this most pragmatic compromise. There's our losing formula.

          by Jim P on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 12:48:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

            first mad props to your daughter for doing what she did

            However seriously? Al Capone? Why not just go Goodwin and get it over for pete's sake. You want to wildly speculate? That's fine but unless you can post your transcripts of your conversations with the President when he shared with you his motivations you have absolutely nothing to back up your claims.

            Thus they are as I have previously said speculation that is or borders on slander.

            In the time that I have been given,
            I am what I am

            by duhban on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 04:22:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You have absoluetly no idea what (0+ / 0-)

          You are talking about. All you see is Obama being attacked and you respond without even capturing the essence of the diary which has all the "evidence" needed to show that there is no CT. It is a fact that some people have trouble processing how badly Obama has performed for the common people. He has done a wonderful job for the top 1%  that for certain.

           You are a personality led political groupie. These are transient politicians who put themselves first. Unfortunately we have to live with their droppings years after they are gone.

          Grow up

          “ Success has a great tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil of men. ” — Demosthenes

          by Dburn on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:20:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you are welcome to your opinion on the matter (0+ / 0-)

            just as I am welcome to not take said opinion seriously

            I explained my stance and frankly your insults are just amusing

            In the time that I have been given,
            I am what I am

            by duhban on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:25:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not sure if anyone has coined the term (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dburn

            But the "Obama Doctrine" seems to be dangling social issues in front of "the base" to distract from the neoconservative foreign policies and neoliberal economic policies that are being implemented across the board.

            For example, why don't people acknowledge more actively that Obamacare is horrible legislation?

            Dems had the House, Senate, and Presidency for two years in Obama's first term.

            What did they do with it? Passed medical-industrial-complex-written Affordable Care Act, and passed banker-written Dodd-Frank.

            THAT is what we get when we have only democrats in power.

            So i don't want to focus too much on Obama, i think it's a party-wide pathology.

            Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

            by aguadito on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:56:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I wasn't aware that Clinton's speaking engagements (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban

        were for bankers - most of the time, he speaks to big audiences: college classes, etc. etc. And a huge portion of his wealth is being put into humanitarian missions constantly.

        I don't agree with what he did regarding the GLB Act - but even had he vetoed it, the 90-8 margin should indicate that his veto would have been overriden.

        "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

        by Australian2 on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 04:35:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then we wouldn't be having this (0+ / 0-)

          conversation.

          Instead, he fought to get the bill passed and created what is now laughably called a "Veto Proof Majority" as if the opposition of a President would have had no impact.

          income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

          by JesseCW on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:22:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't suppose you have any proof of that? (0+ / 0-)

            I've looked around the internet, and while a lot of people blame Clinton for signing GLB, many people accuse him of pushing it without being able to name one thing he did to push it.

            As far as I'm aware - and this will remain the case unless I see convincing evidence otherwise - the repeal of Glass-Steagall was primarily pushed by Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX).

            "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

            by Australian2 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 01:07:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  "Conspiracy Theory" doesn't just mean "Shit (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rick Aucoin, dfarrah, BradyB, Dburn

      I don't want to hear".

      There is no conspiracy proposed here.

      Now, I find idle speculation about what politicians "really think" and "really feel" to generally be counterproductive, but that doesn't change what was said.

      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

      by JesseCW on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:19:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  if you seriously believe that (0+ / 0-)

        then obviously you are using a different definition of 'conspiracy theory' then is commonly used

        there's no evidence presented, nothing not even indirect evidence and yet this 'theory' is being passed off as something that has happened

        is it as bad as say the 'moon landing was faked' CT? No but it's still a conspiracy theory

        In the time that I have been given,
        I am what I am

        by duhban on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 04:11:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is no conspiracy asserted. The only (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JVolvo

          claim is that the President himself lies about his motivations and his goals.

          You think it's a claim of a one man conspiracy?

          income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

          by JesseCW on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:14:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  fair enough point on the semantics (0+ / 0-)

            but I think we both know that this about 'conspiracy theory' as slang but sure you win on pure semantics which since all you seem to care about it 'winning' while ignoring the actual substance you have fun with that

            In the time that I have been given,
            I am what I am

            by duhban on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:27:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's not "semantics". It's the plain meaning of (0+ / 0-)

              the word.

              There was no actual substance - just a fan defending their current fixation.

              income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

              by JesseCW on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 11:59:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site