Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
#2 Goldman Sachs.
#5 JP Morgan Chase.
#7 Citigroup
Fair enough - note that your list was from 2008, while mine was from 2012. In the 4 years in between, Obama lost ALL major support from the banks... I see that as a good thing - they decided that he wasn't the puppet they were looking for and put most of their effort into funding Romney.
Again, don't get me wrong - Obama will still do nothing about the banks... but at least he's not completely their sock puppet, like those on the far right.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand: much like the banking mess, the VA mess has been going on for years and years. To blame it on Obama is to ignore decades of bungling that happened long before he was in office. Those guilty should be held accountable, but it is not the president's job to run the VA's daily, low-level operations.
Most of the things people want them to be prosecuted for - and I mean, the major stuff that caused the 2008 financial Crisis - was either legalized beforehand (and I mean under GWB *and* Bill Clinton), or was caused by the Fed's refusal to act (during the Lehman Brothers collapse, which cause the actual financial panic).
Wrong. Almost every single one of them ran afoul of Sarbanes/Oxley. Sarbanes/Oxley made it a crime for a CEO to sign off on a fraudulent report even if he was unaware it was fraudulent. To just pick on the low hanging fruit, Countrywide's books were as fraudulent as they come. Moxilo is sitting on a beach somewhere with his stolen millions.
Fair enough - note that your list was from 2008, while mine was from 2012. In the 4 years in between, Obama lost ALL major support from the banks... I see that as a good thing - they decided that he wasn't the puppet they were looking for and put most of their effort into funding Romney.
Again, don't get me wrong - Obama will still do nothing about the banks... but at least he's not completely their sock puppet, like those on the far right.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand: much like the banking mess, the VA mess has been going on for years and years. To blame it on Obama is to ignore decades of bungling that happened long before he was in office. Those guilty should be held accountable, but it is not the president's job to run the VA's daily, low-level operations.
To blame it all on Obama would be wrong. To blame his inept handling of the problem since he has been in office falls squarely in his lap.
The Democrats have been acting more aggressive lately on here I've noticed. They've been trying to downplay everything, taking cheap pot shots, and trying to shift the focus elsewhere. Guess the fire is getting too close now and the only thing left to do is to do is scramble desperately for any scapegoat you can find.
It wont be long before every Tea Partier with a relative on Medicare, Tricare and Medicaid for seniors blames the death of a relative on Obama. How about if someone is on Obamacare and they die and they are Democrat but their relatives are Republican then do you still blame Obama. Bottom line is if 3.5 million people die how many can Republicans blame on Obama.
I see you are attacking the elderly again ...give it a rest dude you will be old before you know thats if someone doesn't pound you into the ground first.
I think they're either mocking you or are being sarcastic. Or both.
Just because you create a scenario that people mock, doesn't make it a legitimate scenario.
I know they're mocking my thread, that's fine. They can laugh it off as much as they want, it's still not going to change the fact that the Obama administration has been involved in more scandals than any other President in our history, and it's all getting too big to brush under the rug. If this was a Republican President I'm sure they would be crying foul instead of laughing about it.
Also my scenario is legitimate. If it wasn't the FBI would not be investigating it. Just because you laugh at something doesn't make it false.
Last edited by West Coast Republican; 06-18-2014 at 08:15 PM..
So why do all the Obama deflectors seem to be more concerned about protecting their savior, than applauding the investigation? Let's take the Obama rhetoric, from both sides, off the table and ask; Is it a good thing for the FBI to be opening an investigation?
I believe there should be some VA administrators brought up on negligent manslaughter charges.
Would anyone else agree with this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
To blame it all on Obama would be wrong. To blame his inept handling of the problem since he has been in office falls squarely in his lap.
I think conservatives should stop connecting Obama to every single thing. It dilutes the strong issues, which rest on his shoulders, with weaker issues that he may or may not have had anything to do with.
If and when a connection is made, through any of a number of scandals which are being investigated, then you'll have the ammunition to back it up. At this point the right are firing blanks, and the left are feeding on it.
Fact: Even Nixon was re-elected and remained in office for more than two years after Watergate first surfaced.
I know they're mocking my thread, that's fine. They can laugh it off as much as they want, it's still not going to change the fact that the Obama administration has been involved in more scandals than any other President in our history, and it's all getting too big to brush under the rug. If this was a Republican President I'm sure they would be crying foul instead of laughing about it.
Also my scenario is legitimate. If it wasn't the FBI would be investigating it. Just because you laugh at something doesn't make it false.
If you believe what you say, so be it. I'm not a huge Obama fan myself, but I know where a little hiccup ends and a misrepresentation of the truth begins.
Obama isn't perfect, but crying wolf at every turn doesn't help. Do you not believe impeaching a sitting president won't bring on intense scrutiny of the party pursuing the impeachment? It'll be a PR nightmare no matter how much you think it is justified.
If you believe what you say, so be it. I'm not a huge Obama fan myself, but I know where a little hiccup ends and a misrepresentation of the truth begins.
Obama isn't perfect, but crying wolf at every turn doesn't help. Do you not believe impeaching a sitting president won't bring on intense scrutiny of the party pursuing the impeachment? It'll be a PR nightmare no matter how much you think it is justified.
Actually when Obama first came into office I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I said ''Give him a chance'', I say this about all first time Presidents even if I don't vote for them. But this administration has been involved on so many scandals that I can't understandwhy ghe's still President and why some people still defend him or choose to try and laugh it all off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
