So. Obama's Chief of Staff -- Change?

Anon

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Rahm was director of Freddie Mac during scandal.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6201900&page=1

"President-elect Barack Obama's newly appointed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, served on the board of directors of the federal mortgage firm Freddie Mac at a time when scandal was brewing at the troubled agency and the board failed to spot "red flags," according to government reports reviewed by ABCNews.com.

According to a complaint later filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Freddie Mac, known formally as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002.

Emanuel was not named in the SEC complaint (click here to read) but the entire board was later accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) (click here to read) of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention."

You are unbelievable. You copy and paste PART OF THE STORY and your pasting stops just before these lines. Is your theory that people won't actually look at the story themselves?
In a statement to ABCNews.com, a spokesperson said Emanuel served on the board for "13 months-a relatively short period of time."

The spokesperson said that while on the board, Emanuel "believed that Freddie Mac needed to address concerns raised by Congressional critics."

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Emanuel was not named in the SEC complaint (click here to read) but the entire board was later accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) (click here to read) of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention."

So what you're saying is Rahm got appointed to this board of corrupt directors somehow and then immediately became a whistle blower?

He sure fooled them I guess.

Anon

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Emanuel was not named in the SEC complaint (click here to read) but the entire board was later accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) (click here to read) of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention."

So what you're saying is Rahm got appointed to this board of corrupt directors somehow and then immediately became a whistle blower?

He sure fooled them I guess.

Are you fucking thick??? Tha'ts not what i'm saying and you know it. I'm so sick of your shit over the last week or so and i am done with you. You can't reason with you. You post half truths, go out of your way to make things appear what they are not, then when you are called out on it, you turn it around onto the person who is questioning you.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Pj_Gurl wrote:

Are you fucking thick??? Tha'ts not what i'm saying and you know it. I'm so sick of your shit over the last week or so and i am done with you. You can't reason with you. You post half truths, go out of your way to make things appear what they are not, then when you are called out on it, you turn it around onto the person who is questioning you.

Then what are you saying exactly?

I'm saying there are bigger interests at work then who the president happens to be at the time. The more people begin to realise, it the better.

pjalive21

tybird wrote:

Change does not equal a bunch of retreads from the Clinton years or the Kerry campaign. :(

the dust settles and the Hollywood glimglam is gone and now everyone is going to see what the rest of of saw from the beginning

its too late, to "change" your vote...what a shame, shame on all of you for buying into this rockstar

sweetpotato

NoK wrote:

Roland, Driftin and Mr Brian to name a few.

criticizing those clowns makes life worth living on the ol' MT. with their constant flaming, they practically BEG for it.

sweetpotato

Pj_Gurl wrote:

Are you fucking thick??? Tha'ts not what i'm saying and you know it. I'm so sick of your shit over the last week or so and i am done with you. You can't reason with you. You post half truths, go out of your way to make things appear what they are not, then when you are called out on it, you turn it around onto the person who is questioning you.

yep, that's what makes the IGNORE function a gift from the heavens. i recommend using it liberally.

kenny olav

It's things like this that make me wish I had voted for the Naked Dancing Llama instead of Obama.

NoK

sweetpotato wrote:

yep, that's what makes the IGNORE function a gift from the heavens. i recommend using it liberally.

But if you do your "critiquable" material would be savaged. Tough choice!

Anon

sweetpotato wrote:

criticizing those clowns makes life worth living on the ol' MT. with their constant flaming, they practically BEG for it.

Actually, i just wanna step in and say that noK, posted that to me, and we sorted it out and i think it's better to leave that one alone. I'm not sure if you saw my reply to him or not, but he was right in a couple of things he said.

Commy

I can't believe Obama wouldn't follow the standard line when it comes to things like Israel, capitalism, defense spending...anyone expecting fundamental change from Obama has to be deluded. But his policies may have a very significant impact on many lives around the world. He's a smart guy, a 180 from Bush. again, small changes in policy can mean life or death around the world, when your talking about the world's superpower.

NoK

Commy wrote:

small changes in policy can mean life or death around the world, when your talking about the world's superpower.

So the death of 500,000 people is better than death of 1,000,000?

Commy

NoK wrote:

So the death of 500,000 people is better than death of 1,000,000?

relatively, absolutely.

NoK

Commy wrote:

relatively, absolutely.

Ok lets make this a little more complicated..

what if under Bush out of the 1,000,000 dead 250,000 were Palestinians while 750,000 were Iraqis.. then under Obama out of the 500,000 dead 450,000 were Palestinians and 50,000 were Iraqis.. would it still be relatively better?


Edit: I say this because Obama appointed Zionists who back Israel based on principle. Then his comment about Jerusalem to be the undivided capital of Israel means every Palestinian in East Jerusalem who refuses Israeli citizenship would be evicted or killed for this to be viable.

Commy

NoK wrote:

Ok lets make this a little more complicated..

what if under Bush out of the 1,000,000 dead 250,000 were Palestinians while 750,000 were Iraqis.. then under Obama out of the 500,000 dead 450,000 were Palestinians and 50,000 were Iraqis.. would it still be relatively better?


Edit: I say this because Obama appointed Zionists who back Israel based on principle. Then his comment about Jerusalem to be the undivided capital of Israel means every Palestinian in East Jerusalem who refuses Israeli citizenship would be evicted or killed for this to be viable.

I just don't see how it can get any worse for the Arab population in the West Bank or Jerusalem-aside from the 78' invasion when over 20,000 were killed...US support is about as good as it gets for Israelis. Its not like Obama has changed course to a more pro-Israel approach as I don't think that is even possible.

NoK

Commy wrote:

I just don't see how it can get any worse for the Arab population in the West Bank or Jerusalem-aside from the 78' invasion when over 20,000 were killed...US support is about as good as it gets for Israelis. Its not like Obama has changed course to a more pro-Israel approach as I don't think that is even possible.

I see where you are coming from.. we don't really disagree much other than the fact that I think it could definitely get worse for the Palestinians if Obama supports the total annexation of Jerusalem.

MonsterOfTheMidway

Rahm is my congressman. He took ballet growing up. He rocks.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MonsterOfTheMidway wrote:

Rahm is my congressman. He took ballet growing up. He rocks.

Picturing him in a tutu isn't doing it for me.

All I see is US bombs going off raining down all over in Iran when I look at him.

Kann

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Picturing him in a tutu isn't doing it for me.

All I see is US bombs going off raining down all over in Iran when I look at him.

I think that this choice for chief of staff is shitty, a bad idea with a wrong message written all over it. But (and this is a real question) do you honestly think the US will (or even can) - like under W - wage a unilateral war without the consent of their historical allies? Agreeing with UN decisions and getting a coaltion with his european allies would be a welcomed change and I just wondered if Obama was up for that one.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Kann wrote:

I think that this choice for chief of staff is shitty, a bad idea with a wrong message written all over it. But (and this is a real question) do you honestly think the US will (or even can) - like under W - wage a unilateral war without the consent of their historical allies? Agreeing with UN decisions and getting a coaltion with his european allies would be a welcomed change and I just wondered if Obama was up for that one.

Absolutely yes unless Iran stops all nuclear ambitions, and Osama (who is already dead btw) gives himself up out of the blue.

...and those two things are a 100% bandaid solution to the problem, and address little to nothing (if anything..in fact they address nothing) in the long run.

It's a big joke really.