Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (730888)	8/5/2013 2:32:27 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574906

>What Obama is doing now is no different than what Obama did in his first term. You can claim that all of the campaigning and fundraising during that time was aimed toward his re-election, but (a) that's typical politics, which the "transformational figure" should not have succumbed to, and (b) he's STILL campaigning even after securing his re-election. Once again, I never called him a "transformational figure." He isn't one, and I did not for one minute expect him to be. He is not "campaigning." There's nothing to "campaign" for. He's selling his ideas to the American people. As I pointed out, Bush went out on a speaking tour to try to sell privatization of Social Security (until that crashed and burned). There was nothing wrong with the fact that he did that then (except for the subject matter), and there's nothing wrong with it now. >The "party of no" accusation isn't new; in fact, it was the same accusation leveled against the Democrats during the Bush era. But both Obama and the Republicans are taking it to a whole new level. It ain't Obama filibustering everything in sight. It ain't Obama voting to repeal something that won't be repealed 40 times. >I would believe that Obama is trying his best to accommodate Republicans if he actually demonstrated some leadership and resolve to get things done. Instead, he keeps complaining about factors beyond his control. What things do you want him to get done, exactly? You do realize that Obama and the Republicans have completely different goals. Once again, Italian vs. tire rims and anthrax. How do you compromise? The fact that the Republicans do not want the same things as the Democrats is not really under his control. >That link lists none of Obama's campaign speeches even after November 2012, when he went across the country trying to "campaign" his way out of budget negotiations. He's selling a vision to the American people. Even if you regard that as "campaigning," well, whatever. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. >One of the biggest excuses I saw out of you was the notion that if Obama made deals with individual Republicans, he'd expose himself to insults like the "Cornhusker Kickback." That's not an excuse. It's pointing out that he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. When he negotiates, he's the most corrupt President in the history of the United States. When he doesn't, he's a weak leader. There is no middle ground with you guys. Really. >Cause you know, Obama can't lead because those oh-so-nasty Republicans might call him names. Go cry me a river. There's no crying here. I'm pretty happy with the dude (relatively speaking). -Z