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.
[quote=burdell;12854801]As one might gather the OP did write "Notice on every single issue, obama consistently agitates against a target, whether it be CEOs, HC insurers, investors, doctors, media...the list is a long one of his partisan, divisive attacks that he thinks help bolster his rhetoric."
Hey,...if you don't like the opinion of the OP based upon the link, then refute it with a concise argument instead of writing off the thread because someone you dislike posted it. Or,..do as others do,...just ignore the thread and go on to something you feel conforms more to your agenda.
I've already stated my thoughts on the OP's topic. No deflection there.
fyi - I'm not the one who brought up GW.
I addressed the poster who brought George W into the conversation and who was trying to bring racism into the discussion. I spoke out against that.
Again, ... no deflection.
But, you see... when you want to say Obama needs someone to attack, and seem to forget the very recent past -- the fact that Republicans believed that being at war would somehow put Americans to work...
btw - How's that working out for ya?
It's obviously hard on you guys having someone in office who's not afraid to rub your noses in it....
Actually, I think Barack Obama is the least capable President i've witnessed when it comes to "rubbing noses in it." This guy has no testicular fortitude whatsoever. The day we witness Barack Obama rolling some heads will be a day for the record books. Pacifist "leadership" has a new figurehead in Barack Obama (and I use the term "leadership" very lightly).
Actually, I think Barack Obama is the least capable President i've witnessed when it comes to "rubbing noses in it." This guy has no testicular fortitude whatsoever. The day we witness Barack Obama rolling some heads will be a day for the record books. Pacifist "leadership" has a new figurehead in Barack Obama (and I use the term "leadership" very lightly).
[quote=zuendel;12853569]Thanks for the link, interesting read.
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]
Good post Zuendel. Must have been complete boredom to find this article. This rag is local for me but I have never read the author of this awful piece before.
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.
I'm saving that last line, so I can requote it after November.
I'm saving that last line, so I can requote it after November.
I actually never really understood the urge from both left- and right-wing political participants to claim absolute superiority on the field of political decisions because 'we won, you lost, get over it'.
On a practical level, the legitimacy of said behavior is of course there, because we live in democracies, and a majority in a vote decrees the general path to be taken.
But this shouldn't take away the 'losers' right to voice concern, or the 'winners' responsibility to listen to these concerns. After all, as I said, we live in democracies, and the optimal way to handle policy discussions is one of ongoing positive discourse and compromise.
(of course, this doesn't stipulate how a democracy should work, it's just my opinion and might be completely wrong - if you disagree, voice your objection, and while discussing pros and cons of the respective arguments, we might reach an agreable compromise. See, that wasn't so hard, was it...).
All the other stuff (Bush the Fascist! Obama the Socialist! We Won! You lost!) is just childish, and diverts our minds from the real problems we should try to tackle together.
Obama is no pacifist. He may not be inciting war with other countries but he's sure doing a good job of pitting Americans against Americans. He might be a foreign pacifist but not a domestic pacifist.
Doctors are evil, insurance companies are evil, CEO's are evil and now upper middle class (I refuse to call families making $250K rich) are evil and most of all, Republicans and conservatives are evil.
Sadly I don't think many Americans see this. He's not unifying American people, he's doing just the opposite. His administration is polarizing America.
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.
EVERY SINGLE criticism of obama is considered baseless, divisive and biased by you.
You never address the topic of the thread, you just come in to whine and complain about the topic of the thread.
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.
Kinda like the OP's article....
