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.
He just made sure that GM was responsible for taking more than $30 billion dollars from the American people - intead of just giving it to them to throw away -- business as usual.
Imagine that.
A POTUS who points out the wrongdoing of CEOs, HC insurers, banks, doctors, media and investors..... instead of continuing to look the other way and enable them to continue corrupt practices.
I'm getting pretty sick of hearing this argument, for a couple of reasons.
First, ten years after the fact, Democrats are STILL whining and claiming that Bush "stole" two elections.
Until those people "get over it," your "side" using the argument I quoted above is laughable.
Second, that statement is usually (including in this instance) used as a catch-all way of dismissing someone's argument, regardless of what that argument is. It doesn't matter what they're saying - if it's something you don't like that's being said about President Obama or any of his proposed policies, the response is the same: "Get over it."
It's been nearly fifteen months since the election. For the most part, people have accepted that Obama was elected fair and square. You have a few out there that talk of birth certificates or whatever, but they're really a very small fringe (despite what any Kos "poll" says).
The folks around the country aren't questioning Obama's legitimacy, nor are they whining about any "stolen" elections. They're questioning his decisions and the direction he wants to take this country. When people were protesting Bush's decisions, this was considered "patriotic." Is it not "patriotic" now? Or does "patriotism" under the Obama presidency now consist of quietly and unquestioningly paying whatever taxes the government demands (aka "Biden patriotism")?
The majority of voters voted for Obama knowing full well that his background was community organizer.
I don't get the premise for this thread at all.
You lost, get over it.
They knew he was a community organizer. They thought he got people to register and vote. They did NOT know what he did as a community organizer.
His past was pretty much ignored in the MSM. The passages in his books were not discussed by the MSM. It was all Hope and Change. The hope and chamnge was never discussed.
Now after a year in office some of his past is becoming relovent.
The president said, "like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning, so we can't be demonizing every bank out there."
I have, however, some problems understanding the stringency of the author's argument:
[quote]The president said, "like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning, so we can't be demonizing every bank out there."[\quote]
therefore:
[quote]That sounds suspiciously like someone who is still alienated, who thinks helping businesses would mark him as a "sellout." Obama doesn't want to lead. He wants to agitate[\quote] [LEFT]
It seems to me that the author is jumping to conclusions here. For me, there is no direct link between an unwillingness to demonize every bank (eg listen to some/even all of their demands), and an implied hesitation to helping businesses.
If I understand the article correctly, the author hinges his conclusion on the phrase 'like it or not'.
He implies that Obama doesn't want to help the banks because they are 'the Man'.
In my view (which might very well be wrong), Obama demonstrates the exact opposite of what the author is accusing him. The global economy got bent over a table by some of the bigger banks and insurance companies. But be that as it may, we can't operate a functioning economic system without these banks. We have a right to voice our displeasure about the bank's behavior, but we are forced to work with them, and we do. Thus, 'like it or not'.
I can't really make a judgement about Obamas general attitude, because for that I know too little about his personal inclinations and their effects on his policies.
But this article, while presenting an interesting point of view, just doesn't hold water in its argumentational structure. It seems to me that it tries to enforce an emotional talking point, and no sound analysis of the president's behavior.
[/LEFT]
When people were protesting Bush's decisions, this was considered "patriotic." Is it not "patriotic" now? Or does "patriotism" under the Obama presidency now consist of quietly and unquestioningly paying whatever taxes the government demands (aka "Biden patriotism")?
No, no, no. You have it ALL wrong. People who protested Bush and his policies were patriots, but people who protest Obama and his policies are just hateful, white supremacist, nazi-loving, gun-toting, evangelical Christian RACISTS. Oh, let's not forget astro-turfers.
This POTUS is the MOST polarizing president of my lifetime. So much for bipartisanship. He and his policies suck for america. No other way to put it.
Doesn't change the fact a number of posters here consistently post baseless, divisive, biased, agitating statments with Obama as the target.
Accusing him of the same and calling it wrong-doing is the very height of hypocrisy.
Burdell,....one might gather that a C-D poster did not write the article, but only linked it. Additionally, one might surmise that you want C-D posters to only link "smiley-faced" articles about our leader instead of articles that are not so flattering.
Try to refute the passages in the article without the personal comments about who linked the article,...or do you just want to whine about the "agitator-in-chief" being mistreated?
Feel free to link all the links you wish praising the vast accomplishment of this president, and the glorious direction he is taking this country. Be certain to include the spending habits that this leader has instilled, and the trillion dollar programs lying in the wings.
I have, however, some problems understanding the stringency of the author's argument:
Quote:
The president said, "like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning, so we can't be demonizing every bank out there."
therefore:
Quote:
That sounds suspiciously like someone who is still alienated, who thinks helping businesses would mark him as a "sellout." Obama doesn't want to lead. He wants to agitate.
It seems to me that the author is jumping to conclusions here. For me, there is no direct link between an unwillingness to demonize every bank (eg listen to some/even all of their demands), and an implied hesitation to helping businesses.
If I understand the article correctly, the author hinges his conclusion on the phrase 'like it or not'.
He implies that Obama doesn't want to help the banks because they are 'the Man'.
In my view (which might very well be wrong), Obama demonstrates the exact opposite of what the author is accusing him. The global economy got bent over a table by some of the bigger banks and insurance companies. But be that as it may, we can't operate a functioning economic system without these banks. We have a right to voice our displeasure about the bank's behavior, but we are forced to work with them, and we do. Thus, 'like it or not'.
I can't really make a judgement about Obamas general attitude, because for that I know too little about his personal inclinations and their effects on his policies. But this article, while presenting an interesting point of view, just doesn't hold water in its argumentational structure. It seems to me that it tries to enforce an emotional talking point, and no sound analysis of the president's behavior.
You always have to consider the source of what you're reading.
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.
who's the real agitator?...
