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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (143757)	6/17/2014 2:35:14 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Recommended By gamesmistress pcstel Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

>> But to answer your question, there is factual information to support the claim that Obama, in part, is responsible for the recovery. He was instrumental in saving the auto industry in this country.........an industry that directly employs hundreds of thousands and many more indirectly. You and I have had this discussion before. And Obama did NOTHING to contribute to "saving" the auto industry, and as I have previously explained to you, his actions guaranteed that GM would end up BACK in Chapter 11. If you knew anything about the Chapter 11 process, you know that GM was coming out the other side, no matter what. As I pointed out, correctly, at the time, the only purpose served by Obama was illegally, corruptly give the unions a larger stake in the organization. >> He could have gone after Bush/Cheney for war crimes as many in his party demanded. He did not. That's weak, even for you. What an absurd remark. Bush/Cheney are no more guilty of "war crimes" than you are. And Obama knew that, as well. That's an "accomplishment"? >> He could have pressed criminal charges against the heads of banks as many in his party demanded. Instead, he chose to exact fines......billions and billions of dollars in fines.......at a time when the federal gov't desperately needed the revenue. This is simply not factual. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that any banking crimes were committed, other than the couple of people who were prosecuted. You can't just go to trial with no evidence. That's not the way it works. I've been involved in criminal prosecutions against individuals accused of financial crimes. They are exceptionally difficult to prove, almost impossible to win. And in this case, there was no credible indication that any law was violated. I'll make this simple: Provide me with what you believe is evidence of a financial crime. This was a just a BS post if I've ever seen one. EVEN IF IT HAD BEEN FACTUAL, ANY PRESIDENT FOR WHOM THOSE ARE THE ONLY NOTABLE ACCOMPLISHMENTS IS AN ABJECT FAILURE. You guys are laughable. You've had more than five years to come up with AT LEAST ONE FACTUAL, IMPORTANT SUCCESS. And you cannot even do that.