President Obama page 4 (locked)

I am glad he got the money back AFTER everyone in the public went BERSERK about it… They specifically blocked legislation that would keep it from happening, everyone got mad at them, they got i think 90% back. Bravo Obama

I see… I see… So, where is this ESP superpower that Obama should have so that he can magically know of things like this before they happen?

Edit;; Ok, so tell me what my next post will be, what time it will be on, and the color of my socks while I’m typing it.

Its called common sense. You start to lose it when you fill your mind with elitism and greatness.

I want the names of those CEOs!

Names!

We shall post them all over the web!

Spread them like AIDS in Africa

and in the next hour , Justice would be served

I am glad he got the money back AFTER everyone in the public went BERSERK about it… They specifically blocked legislation that would keep it from happening, everyone got mad at them, they got i think 90% back. Bravo Obama

Raging at bankers is a dangerous road to tread. The fact that there is very little he can do legally to avoid paying them, it just highlights his impotence.

Obama has several options to regain the money, but none of them would be good. If he attempted to use his executive power to break the contracts, he could get tied up in legal knots, plus it doesn’t look good as it shakes confidence in the rule of law. Alternatively he could recoup the money by witholding an equivalent amount from the next tranche of bail out cash. However that would be extremely foolish, as the bonuses would remain in the pockets of the bankers, AIG would get less, but would indicate the government was initially, prepared to give them more than was nescessary.

The course he has chosen, complaining, but not actually doing anything about it will weaken his position in congress who might put up more opposition to further money bills.

What he should have done is explain why bail outs and the honouring of contracts are nescessary evils in this time of crisis.

Originally posted by pacaholic:

Its called common sense. You start to lose it when you fill your mind with elitism and greatness.

Too bad. You didn’t guess it perfectly, so I guess you don’t have common sense and are filled with elitism and think you are great. Oh, wow, that’s right!

Originally posted by Ferretferret:

Originally posted by pacaholic:

Its called common sense. You start to lose it when you fill your mind with elitism and greatness.

Too bad. You didn’t guess it perfectly, so I guess you don’t have common sense and are filled with elitism and think you are great. Oh, wow, that’s right!

Obama will always have his kool-aid drinkers. see above

Originally posted by pacaholic:

Originally posted by Ferretferret:

Originally posted by pacaholic:

Its called common sense. You start to lose it when you fill your mind with elitism and greatness.

Too bad. You didn’t guess it perfectly, so I guess you don’t have common sense and are filled with elitism and think you are great. Oh, wow, that’s right!

Obama will always have his kool-aid drinkers. see above

I’m guessing you drank George Bush’s kool-aid? Chill out, pacaholic, if Obama turns out to be as bad in retrospect of 8 whole years, you might have a point, but it’s really too soon to tell.

Being as I didn’t get into politics until recently, my opinion on George Bush 8 years ago is not relevant. And even though my opinion of Bush still has no relevancy to my argument of Obama being a joke, I will say that I disagreed with many things Bush did in his last years.

Anyways, it’s not to soon to point out a president whose lack of experience is showing off, whose “savor”-istic qualities regarding discrimination have been shown to be anything but existent, whose staff contains people of questionable character and morality much like his connections in the past with terrorist (Ayers) and his rise through the Chicago Illinois political system, which has always been known for its corruption, whose promises have been clearly and either deliberately or ignorantly broken, and whose policies have been shown not to work.

Anyways, it’s not to soon to point out a president whose lack of experience is showing off

This is not specific. Make a convincing argument for this.

whose “savor”-istic qualities regarding discrimination have been shown to be anything but existent

From one comment that slipped out his mouth? I would have to say, he has been a great force so far in human equality and rights, most specifically in giving the Git’mo prisoners a fair trial.

whose staff contains people of questionable character

Dick Cheney? Alberto Gonzales? Karl Rove? Scooter Libby?

morality much like his connections in the past with terrorist

Ayers has nothing to do with Obama, at least not the terrorist activities. Please tell me how a superficial relationship between Obama and Ayers, in a time when Ayers was no longer an outspoken radical, has anything to do with Obama’s morality.

his rise through the Chicago Illinois political system, which has always been known for its corruption

“All generalizations are dangerous, including this one.” – Mark Twain

whose promises have been clearly and either deliberately or ignorantly broken

I actually admire that Obama has stayed as true to his promises as he has thus far. All politicians do this. Obviously, this is the first administration you’ve paid attention to.

whose policies have been shown not to work.

Shown to not work? It’s only been 2 months, and I hardly call that long enough.

morality much like his connections in the past with terrorist

Did you vote for McCain? If so, I’ll laugh.

whose promises have been clearly and either deliberately or ignorantly broken

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Dick Cheney? Alberto Gonzales? Karl Rove? Scooter Libby?

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Originally posted by Carados:

morality much like his connections in the past with terrorist

Did you vote for McCain? If so, I’ll laugh.

whose promises have been clearly and either deliberately or ignorantly broken

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

So I’m assuming a 19-3 scorecard is pretty decent thus far in his administration?

Originally posted by Iggyshark:

Dick Cheney? Alberto Gonzales? Karl Rove? Scooter Libby?

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

I was merely pointing out that a cabinet scandal may have nothing to do with the actual president.

So I’m assuming a 19-3 scorecard is pretty decent thus far in his administration?

In the first few months, a 1-3 scorecard is pretty good.

Just for a future reference for everybody.

If you say → Bush sucked
Then I say → Obama does this.
Then U say → So did Bush

You are simply saying that what Obama does is like Bush, whom you DID NOT LIKE! So I wouldn’t justify what Obama is doing like that… So i guess Iggy and I agree here :)

Next, I have no idea what that politifact is, and i dont have the time to look at everything. However, compromises and stalled promises CAN BE just the same as broken, i would have to look at it more in depth. With that in mind, he could just as easily be 19-12. Im also curious why anyone would say a 1-3 scorecard is “pretty good.” Not to mention that each promise does not hold the same weight, so in reality, 19-12 could be horrible or it could be fantastic.

Generalizations have little credibility if any if they are isolated. However, that does not mean they are completely useless.

You are simply saying that what Obama does is like Bush, whom you DID NOT LIKE! So I wouldn’t justify what Obama is doing like that…

No, since you say that Obama is a horrible, horrible president (and in the case that I referenced the Bush administration, that he is especially horrible because of scandals in cabinet), I referenced cases in which other administrations in which there were similar scandals, which did not directly relate to the character of the president (I would hardly say that Gonzales’ scandal transferred to Bush’s character.) To be honest, I did make a flawed point, but this topic is “President Obama”, not “President Obama’s Cabinet.”

However, compromises and stalled promises CAN BE just the same as broken, i would have to look at it more in depth. With that in mind, he could just as easily be 19-12.

However, compromises and stalled promises CAN BE just the same as promises kept, I would have to look at it more in depth. With that in mind, he could just as easily be 28-3.

Generalizations have little credibility if any if they are isolated. However, that does not mean they are completely useless.

Yes, but you are making a case against Obama’s character using the city of his political origin.

So i guess Iggy and I agree here :)

No, not at all. I merely pointed out that just because Bush had a similar staffing issue that it didn’t validate Obama’s issue. You’ve taken it to in a completely different direction that I don’t argee with.

Im also curious why anyone would say a 1-3 scorecard is “pretty good.”

Because politicians always make ridiculous promises to get people to vote for them, then when they actually get into power they realise they can’t actually do half of them. Obama is pretty good in this respect.

As for Obama and Bush being the same, they have their similarities, but so do all politicians. Seeing as many of Obama’s aims revolve around reversing or stopping what Bush began, I’d consider them to be quite different.

However, compromises and stalled promises CAN BE just the same as broken,

No they’re not, what are you on about? Stalled means that it has begun but could swing either way. Compromise is neither, it is changing it to fit both sides. Therefore the most promises he could actually break assuming he doesn’t start anything new is 6. A compromise is not a broken promise.

Generalizations have little credibility if any if they are isolated. However, that does not mean they are completely useless.

Generalisations are only any good if they are correct. So far yours aren’t. For example, look at stem cell research: Obama and Bush are completely different in this regard, so that’s your similarity generalisation blown out of the water.

Originally posted by Iggyshark:

So i guess Iggy and I agree here :)

No, not at all. I merely pointed out that just because Bush had a similar staffing issue that it didn’t validate Obama’s issue. You’ve taken it to in a completely different direction that I don’t argee with.

That’s my point…

That’s my point…

Your point was that I don’t agree with your different point so you said that we agreed? What?

Him not agreeing with you is him agreeing with you?

Originally posted by Ferretferret:

Him not agreeing with you is him agreeing with you?

Paradoxical!

Last four posts = headache…

Sithdoughnut, i dont know what to say… mxmm, u are right about the promises. My point was that that statistic doesnt mean anything in particular unless you really study it. So i guess you are agreeing with me…

Originally posted by Iggyshark:

So i guess Iggy and I agree here :)

No, not at all. I merely pointed out that just because Bush had a similar staffing issue that it didn’t validate Obama’s issue. You’ve taken it to in a completely different direction that I don’t argee with.

That is my point though…