Geithner Wants Broader Powers To Seize Non-Banks

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Bailouts, Business, Money, Regulations, The World, Transparency, Wall Street

And after the AIG mess, I say we give it to him. How we allowed one company to take down the entire system still feels unreal to me. How on earth could we allow that to go down? Crazy, crazy, crazy.

But it did happen and we are suffering massive fallout as a result, so we have to make absolutely sure we’re protected. And, like it or not, the only way to do that is give the government more power.

From Bloomberg…

The authority would allow the Treasury, in collaboration with the Federal Reserve, regulators and the president, to step in and more easily combat problems at systemically important institutions on the verge of failure, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. AIG has received $182.5 billion in government bailout funds, according to the Government Accountability Office.

“We must ensure that our country never faces this situation again,” Geithner is expected to say according to excerpts of his testimony obtained by Bloomberg News. “To achieve that goal the administration and Congress have to work together to enact comprehensive regulatory reform and eliminate gaps in supervision.”

The expanded powers, which require Congressional approval, could help monitor risk and detect problems across an array of financial-services firms to prevent shocks to the global economy such as the one caused by the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in September. [...]

It would also ensure proper accountability when taxpayer funds are provided to institutions in extreme circumstances, like AIG, which is now 80 percent owned by the government. The authority would provide the government with various tools including the ability to break contracts on executive compensation commitments, like those at the center of the furor over the insurance-giant’s $165 million in bonuses.

More transparency and more accountability.

What’s not to like about this?

And remember, since global commerce is so tied to our banking system, we have a responsibility not only to our taxpayers, but also the rest of the world. Because don’t kid yourself by thinking that China’s public calls to consider replacing our currency in the reserve basket didn’t come as a direct result of letting firms like AIG overleverage themselves to the point of insolvency.


This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 24th, 2009 and is filed under Bailouts, Business, Money, Regulations, The World, Transparency, Wall Street. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

44 Responses to “Geithner Wants Broader Powers To Seize Non-Banks”

  1. SD3 Says:

    …like it or not, the only way to do that is give the government more power.

    Justin, why is a government takeover the only answer the Left has to any problem? How can anyone possibly think that government will run healthcare, financial institutions and auto manufacturing any better than they run the postal service or the DMV?

    Why not let failures fail, instead of propping them up for more failure down the road? Let them go bankrupt instead of bankrupting the American people.

  2. Smooth Jazz Says:

    GOP plan to save the economy
    ________________________

    Step 1: Geithner says please give me the resources I need to fix the economy.

    Step 2: GOP says no, look at how you screwed up the AIG bonus situation.

    Step 3: Geithner says please give me the resources I need to prevent future AIG bonus situations.

    Step 4: GOP says no, don’t try to expand the powers of the government. Just focus on fixing the economy.

    Step 5: See step 1

  3. SD3 Says:

    DNC plan to save the economy

    Step 1: print money to “rescue” failures, criminals and idiots
    Step 2: watch bailout after bailout after bailout fail miserably
    Step 3: see step 1

  4. Smooth Jazz Says:

    I appreciate your imitation of me, but next time you might want to try to use facts in your copy-paste. A joke is more funny when it’s based on the truth.

  5. SD3 Says:

    It’s not supposed to be a joke, SJ.

    It happens to be a rather accurate description of exactly what congress is doing on a monthly basis.

  6. Smooth Jazz Says:

    No, you were attempting a joke, which is why you basically copied what I wrote. It’s not funny because it’s not based on reality.

  7. Trescml Says:

    We need to think long and hard about how something like this would be done. Unlikely banks we don’t have criteria set up on when to take over a insurance giant some congressperson’s favorite donor’s company. Would there be a FDIC like company set up to take payments from companies so the taxpayer wouldn’t be on the hook each time? (unlikely). I understand the desire to take over companies like AIG and how it would likely be more efficient than what we are doing now. It needs to be thought through very careful to avoid the type of mistakes already made in the financial mess.

  8. Jim S Says:

    It has been pointed out that AIG is no longer an insurance company. It is a rather small insurance company merged with a hedge fund that is much larger than the insurance company.

  9. M Lyster Says:

    Good idea. Government ruins everything it touches. A bunch of serially reelected idiots (on both sides of the aisle), many of whom have NEVER held a private sector job (paging Joe Biden; Mr Biden to the red courtesy telephone), are going to determine which companies to save and which not—while accepting donations for reelection from them at the same time.

    I think it’s an excellent idea. And then, when those of us with actual talent, who used to be well paid for it decide to call it a day: hey, get your congressman to treat your cancer. Or design a building. Or fly you across the country. Or GIVE YOU A JOB.
    Knuckleheads. Obama and his willing 53% deserve each other.
    M Lyster MD

  10. hawks96 Says:

    What’s not to like? Where should I start? The man who knew about the AIG bonuses over a year ago when he structured the AIG bailot, the man who said that he didn’t know how to operate TurboTax now wants to have the authority to take over businesses that he deems as failing? What standard does he plan on using? And, if he can’t use a basic tax program, how is he going to know when it’s appropriate to intervene?

  11. SD3 Says:

    No, you were attempting a joke, which is why you basically copied what I wrote. It’s not funny because it’s not based on reality.

    *pssst!* (SJ, your GED is showing.)

    I copied what you wrote precisely because it was an accurate depiction of the republican position. And I happen to agree with it. The republican party is the party of “no” (that’s a good thing right now).

    And my bastardization of your comment is equally accurate. Democrats are repeatedly bailing out failures, expecting that somehow, sooner or later it will finally work (it won’t).

    The best part is Bernanke buying 300 billion of our nation’s own debt (is that cyclical enough for you, SJ?), because there’s no market left for long-term T-bills. You see, China understands that were not going to last another 30 years, so there’s no point in throwing good money after bad.

  12. ladyhawk Says:

    “How we allowed one company to take down the entire system still feels unreal to me. How on earth could we allow that to go down? Crazy, crazy, crazy. ”

    We didn’t allow it, and no government would have been able to prevent it. In a free society, financial institutions must compete for money. So AIG hired the best and the brightest, who came up with novel creative ways to – legally – make money. The highly competent bosses at AIG couldn’t see this coming, so there is no way any government overseer would have. It is up to the institution to ensure that the smart kids don’t burn down the building. This particular train wreck will never happen again, even without any government attention – the financial folks have learned their lesson. In the vast scheme of things, it’s a small price to pay for the freedom and prosperity that makes the poorest American better off than most of the rest of the world.

  13. Smooth Jazz Says:

    *pssst!* (SJ, your GED is showing.)

    Sorry, I don’t have a GED, that’s your dream. The high school I graduated from was one of the best in NYC. Afterwards, I went on and got a Bachelor of Arts in history. Looks like your special ed is showing, retard.


    I copied what you wrote precisely because it was an accurate depiction of the republican position. And I happen to agree with it. The republican party is the party of “no” (that’s a good thing right now).

    And my bastardization of your comment is equally accurate. Democrats are repeatedly bailing out failures, expecting that somehow, sooner or later it will finally work (it won’t).

    You didn’t copy the substance of what I wrote, but the structure. Partly because you don’t have the intelligence to produce anything original and also because it was your attempt to be humorous. Something that you failed at because your comments were so obviously written by a Republican hack.

    At the heart of your bastardization is just partisan propaganda. You omit how Bush was the one who proposed TARP, most of the Senate Republicans voted for it, and 1/3 of the House Republicans for it. You also omit how the Republicans created this mess in the first place. Your blind hate for the Democrats is only matched by your ignorance and dishonesty.

    The best part is Bernanke buying 300 billion of our nation’s own debt (is that cyclical enough for you, SJ?), because there’s no market left for long-term T-bills. You see, China understands that were not going to last another 30 years, so there’s no point in throwing good money after bad.

    You expect foreign countries to finance our counter-cyclical spending? Utterly foolish. Did the Chinese finance FDR’s New Deal? Did they finance LBJ’s Great Society programs? So why would they underwrite our economic programs this time either. You obviously don’t understand logic. In any case, since you think the country will not last for 30 years, why not move to a different country? That’ll allow us to save a few thousand on welfare payments.

  14. Fred Says:

    ” How can anyone possibly think that government will run healthcare, financial institutions and auto manufacturing any better than they run the postal service or the DMV?”

    When’s the last time you sent a letter or package through the US Mail and it wasn’t delivered exactly on time? For less than the price of a pack of gum, you can send a letter from New York to California in a few days. Hopw do you beat that? And What’s exactly wrong the DMV? in new York, it’s been modernized and coputerized – I think my last trip there was under 30 minutes…

  15. Frank D. Banta Says:

    Any rational person can understand that derivatives are a bad idea: they dilute ownership to eliminate accountabilty. Overleverage is a bad idea. Enabling the creation of financial instruments wherein the originator has absolutely no responsibility or accountability is a bad idea. Enabling these instruments without credible oversight is insanity.

    These events transpired because they enabled tremendous revenue streams, moved all liabilities to the government (via Fanny, Freddie and ultimately AIG who insured that they buyer couldn’t lose money on the deal and was bailed-out); and generated tremendous political donations to the key decision-makers.

    Why no one is enroute to jail over this is yet another travesty of justice. Someone signed every one of these instruments, and should be held accountable for their decisions.

  16. Frank D. Banta Says:

    Congress is responsible for operation of the Congressional Dining Room. It lost $2 Million last year. Congress has stolen every penny taken from workers over the past 60 years in payroll withholding, and replaced it with a Ponzi scheme. Can anyone point to anything positive that the government can do more effectively than the private sector? The federal government is gross incompetence personified.

    Please read the Constitution of the United States, the contract establishing and defining the authorities and responsibilities of the federal government. The federal government has no authorities other than those specifically delineated in the COTUS.

    Please explain where the federal government gets the authority to do any of the follies that they are currently engaged in perpetrating.

  17. Frank D. Banta Says:

    There is no authorization in the Constitution of the United States for the federal government to engage in any of the follies that they now pursue.

    The federal government has no authorities not specifically delineated in the COTUS.

    The federal government has demonstrated complete incompetence in virtually every activity in which they have engaged: every penny taken from Citizens over the past 60 years in payroll withholding has been stolen by Congress and replaced with a Ponzi scheme.

    So, if gross incompetence, and clear illegality, are not sufficient justifications as to why the government should not be given any further responsibilities, we have abdicated our sacred responsibilities as Citizens.

  18. Dawn Says:

    Is this post a joke?

  19. Dawn Says:

    Smooth Jazz, think for yourself. Don’t be such a sheep.

  20. kranky kritter Says:

    I am reluctant to give “seizure powers” to one person or a single agency.

    What needs to be examined is the nature of the “too big to fail” company. Surely this notion relates closely to the intent of the monopoly laws we already have.

    While we seldom see companies that reach anything close to pure monopoly status, any number of industries devolve to oligopoly status where a small handful of entities dominate to the virtual exclusion of the competitors needed to keep a market vital and functioning in the best interests of consumers.

  21. Smooth Jazz Says:

    Smooth Jazz, think for yourself. Don’t be such a sheep.

    Dawn,

    Your post shows no thought, just idiocy and the very sheepishness that you advise against. You’re probably just a sock puppet for SD3 anyway. I truly wonder if there is some right wing troll who owns multiple accounts on this blog.

  22. SD3 Says:

    Sorry, I don’t have a GED, that’s your dream. The high school I graduated from was one of the best in NYC.

    Ha! Ha1 Ha! Ha! Ha! New York City, huh? I’m floored.

    You’re so precious, SJ! The thing I love most about liberals, is how absolutely obsessed they are with convincing everyone else how intelligent they are. “Hillary Cinton! Why, she’s the most intelligent person in the world!”

    Christ, you people make me piss my pants sometimes! I swear.

    You expect foreign countries to finance our counter-cyclical spending? Utterly foolish. Did the Chinese finance FDR’s New Deal?

    No, dumbass, countries like Great Britain, France & the Netherlands did. That’s how they went broke surviving WWII, genius.

    You know SJ, you’re the kind of sheep I’m going to enjoy watching self-destruct when the worthlessness of your job, your savings & your degree in “communications” finally comes crashing down around your echo-chamber ears.

    Good luck, SJ. Because you’re really going to need it.

  23. SD3 Says:

    I am reluctant to give “seizure powers” to one person or a single agency.

    Go with that feeling, Krispy! It’s genuinely valid!

    Anyone who thing GOVERNMENT should decide which businesses are “too big to fail” is a freebasing crack addict.

  24. Smooth Jazz Says:

    Ha! Ha1 Ha! Ha! Ha! New York City, huh? I’m floored.

    You’re so precious, SJ! The thing I love most about liberals, is how absolutely obsessed they are with convincing everyone else how intelligent they are. “Hillary Cinton! Why, she’s the most intelligent person in the world!”

    Christ, you people make me piss my pants sometimes! I swear.

    Your stupidity is astounding. You have no idea how many Ivy League graduates come out of New York City. The best schools in NYC are the best in the country. Your ignorance is amazing.

    As for your riff about liberals, again another stupid comment, since I am not trying to impress anyone. You were the one who started the taunts about people’s education. So how am I trying to impress you, if you started the topic about people’s personal education? You’re too stupid to even understand your own insults.

    No, dumbass, countries like Great Britain, France & the Netherlands did. That’s how they went broke surviving WWII, genius.

    You’re an idiot. FDR financed the New Deal by printing money. We didn’t get the money from Europe. You’re saying that during WWII Europe was impoverished by loaning money to us? They were impoverished in WW2 because their countries were destroyed by WW2 you stupid asshole!


    You know SJ, you’re the kind of sheep I’m going to enjoy watching self-destruct when the worthlessness of your job, your savings & your degree in “communications” finally comes crashing down around your echo-chamber ears.

    Good luck, SJ. Because you’re really going to need it.

    You are literally retarded. I’d be surprised if you were not on disability welfare. If you’re not, you could not have the intelligence to do anything more than sweep a floor or be a greeter at Walmart.

  25. jake1492 Says:

    The basic problem with the financial institution conundrum is corruption…. being defined as deliberate activity designed to unfairly advantage or disadvantage parties to the arrangement which are contrary to the intended purpose of the arrangement.

    In a “private capital only” solution (eg. give the money to the banks in some form)….. corruption takes the form of gaming the system to the disproportionate advantage of the bank executives, employees, and shareholders and the politicians supporting the model and the disadvantage of the taxpayer and the economy.

    In the “public capital” solution (eg. letting the banks go down and filling the void with a government banking alternative)….. corruption takes the form of self-interested action on the part of the government bureaucracy to the disproportionate advantage of employees of the bureaucracy and the politicians supporting the model and the disadvantage of the taxpayer and the economy.

    In each case the drivers for the corruption are well known, even if the exact ways the players try to exploit the situation cannot always be completely predicted (but many of which are well known). Any such system….. to be successful…. has to adequately acknowledge the reality of the self-interested behaviour of the players, and deal with it. Each system can work, with a good approach….. there are many examples of each working well in the past….. and presently.

    Those republicans who won’t acknowledge the positive examples of government intervention or the corruption failures of the market are not being realistic and are not being part of the solution.

    Those democrats who refuse to understand the vital role that non-corrupt self-interested business activity can play in broadly distributed wealth creation and who refuse to acknowledge the debilitating effects of a corrupt bureaucracy are also not being realistic and are not part of the solution.

    There has been an incredible event of corruption within the financial services companies. No amount of validating that corruption by unfairly rewarding it will fix this problem. Those who took big risks that failed need to pay the price. Going forward from here, it is in the best interest of society as a whole to proceed on a system which is well grounded, scrupulously anti-corrupt, and based above all else on the idea that wealth creation comes from creating stuff of value…. whether that is hard goods, quality of life, services, or some other form of real value that doesn’t neatly fit into one of those categories.

    The fact that the “financial services” “sector” of the economy became the largest part of the economy while the goods and services producing part of the economy has been withering away tells us that we are looking at things unrealistically. We created a system where a large swath of the public is engaged in producing the valuable stuff of life while a very small wealthy elite has been scheming to find ways to hoard the financial proceeds of that activity almost entirely for themselves. Some would say that is just business as usual, but that is not true. It is an all too common form of corruption, but it’s not business.

    I have no quarrel whatsover with genuinely productive business people devising ways to…… be productive…. and make a lot of other people be productive…. and be hugely rewarded for it. In fact, it is the magic that creates wealth for everyone.

    But I do have a problem with corruption…. where those pretending to be productive business, and those masquerading as wealth creators…. are mostly just using their pre-existing finincial power to rig the system to have everything their way.

    Our problem is corruption. The government needs to attack the corruption, and harness the power of real entrepreneurship and honest business to get the country on the right track again.

    Make the banks and other financial services companies take their honest losses. If that means having to temporarily nationalize them…. with the necessary attention to potentially debillitating beauraucratic corruption (if left unattended)….. then do it, but put us on a solid footing….. get us out from under these self-serving “masters of the universe” so we can make an honest buck….. and keep it.

  26. jake1492 Says:

    Note to the moderator:

    How is it possible that approving comments like (but not limited to) the one that starts as follows be within the posting goals you’ve stated on your website?

    “Smooth Jazz Says:

    March 26th, 2009 at 12:36 am
    Ha! Ha1 Ha! Ha! Ha! New York City, huh? I’m floored………”

    It’s mostly just a string of insults. Why allow it?
    Jake

  27. Justin Gardner Says:

    @jake1492

    I can’t really follow all threads and read every comment, so unless I notice something really offensive I don’t get involved. Also, once somebody has a comment approved, most of their comments usually get through unmoderated (unless it has a black-listed word, url, etc.)

    However, I do agree that Smooth Jazz needs to lose the insults.

    So Smooth Jazz, please lose the insults. They only hurt your credibility here.

  28. Smooth Jazz Says:

    @jake It’s foolish of you to list me QUOTING someone using insults as me saying the insult myself.

    @Justin I’ll lose the insults when others lose the insults. I’ll just stop posting here. I think that your credibility is poor since you only criticize my insults but not SD3′s. If you want to actually be fair about choosing whose insults to criticize then I will consider posting here again.

  29. Justin Gardner Says:

    @SJ, I have criticized him before, but as I mentioned I can’t read everything.

    But seriously, who do you think you are? I’ve had this site for 4 years, posted thousands of stories and moderated thousands more comments. And you breeze in here a couple weeks ago, start insulting people and you’re criticizing my credibility?

    Good times.

  30. Justin Gardner Says:

    And SJ, by the way, SD3 doesn’t have any credibility here. But I’m always hesitant to boot people from commenting because I don’t like to be the thought police. However, I have emailed him personally and told him to knock it off. He hasn’t. And eventually, if this keeps up, I will kick him off. But when somebody’s new, like you, I tell them to shape up.

    Basically, nobody’s forcing you to insult people. You can still be the better person. So do that instead of throwing around insults. Pretty easy.

  31. Smooth Jazz Says:

    Who do I think I am? No one special. Much like yourself. Can you admit that, or does owning a blog for 4 years make you special, in your opinion? You felt free to comment on my credibility and I returned the favor. So I guess you feel that you are some kind of prima donna or something. If you are going to comment on others credibility, then you don’t complain when they return the favor.

    In any case, I don’t need to shape up, and turning the other cheek isn’t being the “better person.” Someone insults you, you can insult them back. The fact that you are both doing insults doesn’t make you both the same, no moreso than the US and Al Qaeda are both the same since they both fight each other.

  32. Smooth Jazz Says:

    By the way, Justin, when people insult me, I return the favor. If you don’t want that on this site, then I won’t post here, but that is how I will always do things. I will not change that.

  33. Justin Gardner Says:

    SJ, I said insults HURT your credibility here, I didn’t say you didn’t have credibility. Big difference there. However, let’s face it, you are new and you’re still building your credibility here. And your commentary has been excellent up until now, which is why I was surprised that you sunk to his level.

    And you can think I’m a prima donna if you like, but I moderate the conversations because I own the site. Given that, I’m asking you to lose the insults. It shouldn’t be too hard to do. If you won’t, I respect that, but you have to respect the spirit of the site. I don’t know why people think they can come on a site and say anything they want and not be questioned. It doesn’t work that way.

    However, I do have to thank you for one thing. I’ve reread a bunch of SD3′s commentary and I’m going to ban him. Because he’s way out of line and has been from nearly the very beginning. Don’t know if that’ll influence whether or not you stick around, but even if you leave I’ll see that as a silver lining.

  34. Smooth Jazz Says:

    Thank you for the compliment. I do like sites like the spirit behind this site, which is why I post here and not on other blogs. Although most of the posters here seem to be either Democrats or Ron Paul supporters, and not so much of moderate conservatives (as far as I can tell), I do like at least the notion that you are not going to get bombed and strafed if you do not tow the _________ (insert ideology or party) line.

    That being said, I just will not turn the other cheek as someone says “your GED is showing” and stuff like that. (For the record I’m a college graduate, so that comment was merely said to annoy me). I will generally not make the first insult, but I always do return fire when fired upon. Insults are highly common on blogs. Most of the time they take a subtler form than SD3′s ham-fisted insults. However, I would posit two things:

    (1) Insults are aggravating

    (2) If you resort to insults, then people are allowed to insult you

    (3) If you aggravate others for no good reason, then you deserve to be aggravated.

    I don’t just go SD3 on people when I feel like it. I go SD3 on people when they go SD3 on me.

    With that being said, I think you can see that I’m not the leftie version of SD3, so I’ll just go back to reading and commenting on the blog as before.

    Regards,
    SJ

  35. Smooth Jazz Says:

    By the way Justin. I re-read your comment and noticed this part:

    I don’t know why people think they can come on a site and say anything they want and not be questioned. It doesn’t work that way.

    I missed that the first time around. I challenge you to show me where I have ever said or implied that I say anything I want and that I expect not to be questioned. I never did and it’s very dishonest to make that accusation.

  36. Justin Gardner Says:

    By “anything” I meant violating the rules and then going after me for asking you to abide by them. But that was more of a general lament than some craven accusation. Please don’t take it the wrong way.

  37. Smooth Jazz Says:

    Well honestly, your management of the rules on this site was so poor, you really have to take responsibility for that before criticizing others. You have indicated that you have known about SD3′s rule breaking for a long time and did not stop him after a prolonged period of rule breaking. You should expect that if no one enforces the law, people will take the law into their own hands, as they should. It was also very lazy the way that you completely took my comments out of the context of replying to someone who initiated insults. Lastly, its was hypocritical for you to dish out a lot of criticism, but then take offense when criticism is sent your way.

  38. Justin Gardner Says:

    SJ, respectfully, you really need to stop throwing out words like “poor”, “lazy” and “hypocritical.” It’s fair you have criticisms, but you’re out of line when you use words like that. I spend a TON of time writing content and moderating this site. But, as mentioned, I can’t read everything. Also you’re new and you broke the rules. And so, when somebody else highlighted that fact, I reminded you of what they were. I was fully aware of the context of your comments and they were inappropriate.

    Also, call it poor management if you want, but I’ve cautioned SD3 before and when I talked to you I was considering what I was going to do with him since telling him to stop in a comment (and even emailing him personally) wasn’t working. Also, he had never broken the rules to the extreme that he did to provoke your reaction. So yes, I told you to cool it without telling him to. But that’s because the next step for him was the nuclear option.

    Listen, let’s make this easy. If you think I’m such a bad editor, then it probably doesn’t make sense for you to comment here anymore. However, if you can appreciate how much work it takes to keep a site like this running, then maybe you can simply enjoy having discussions with other folks here and offer constructive criticisms instead. The choice is yours. But what I don’t want to do is have conversations with you questioning the quality of my editorial. Because we’ll both grow tired of those talks extremely quickly.

    Sound good?

  39. Smooth Jazz Says:

    SJ, respectfully, you really need to stop throwing out words like “poor”, “lazy” and “hypocritical.” It’s fair you have criticisms, but you’re out of line when you use words like that.

    I decline. I stand by my word choice. You have thrown phrases around to describe me “stooping” to SD3′s level and “say anything they want and not be questioned.” If those phrases are fair game, then so is “poor”, “lazy” and “hypocritical.” It’s your site and you can make the rules. You can setup the rules so that your distortions and insults are acceptable but distortions and insults that describe you are unacceptable. Let’s just be clear that this is what you are doing though, and of course I will play no part in a site that is governed with such double standards.

    Also you’re new and you broke the rules. And so, when somebody else highlighted that fact, I reminded you of what they were. I was fully aware of the context of your comments and they were inappropriate.

    Somebody else did not highlight any facts. Somebody else misquoted me, saying that something SD3 said was something I said. An example of someone else’s laziness and misrepresenting what someone says when they disagree with you.

    As for what you deem inappropriate, you are wrong. I was insulted and responded in kind with insults. That is entirely appropriate. What is inappropriate is for you to setup a site that says that insults are not OK, but then selectively allow for insults to take place and then blame people for not absorbing insults. That is a failure of integrity and a lack of common sense.

    Listen, let’s make this easy. If you think I’m such a bad editor, then it probably doesn’t make sense for you to comment here anymore. However, if you can appreciate how much work it takes to keep a site like this running, then maybe you can simply enjoy having discussions with other folks here and offer constructive criticisms instead. The choice is yours. But what I don’t want to do is have conversations with you questioning the quality of my editorial. Because we’ll both grow tired of those talks extremely quickly.

    Sound good?

    Aside from the false and arrogant dichotomy you present here, I agree with you. The fact that maintaining a site requires work does not imply that it is right for you to demand that your visitors absorb insults from other members, nor does it make it wrong for your visitors to react in kind to other visitors who are rude.

    As for me not posting here anymore, that’s pretty much the way that I was leaning towards these past few days anyway. Once we’re done on this thread, I won’t be back.

  40. Justin Gardner Says:

    Yes, I’m saying you have to absorb insults and be the better person. Eventually the insulters will be banned or shunned off the site. It’s happened before and it’ll happen again. If you think I’m presenting a bad or dishonest system, that’s fine, but that’s how things are here.

    Regardless, I wish you well and I hope you find a place where you’ll feel welcome.

  41. Smooth Jazz Says:

    Too bad this is not written anywhere that was accessible to new posters.

    Also, absorbing insults does not make you the better person. Standing up for yourself does.

    * Poof *

    Gone.

  42. TerenceC Says:

    Good riddance

  43. Justin Gardner Says:

    TerenceC, you know she’ll be back. I mean, how many times have we seen this? They always come back because they go somewhere else and it’s not nearly as interesting.

  44. TerenceC Says:

    I didn’t know it was a “she” – invite her back. “Baby, I’m sorry”

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: