Sorry, Mr. Moore, I Respectfully Disagree

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Yes, I am troubled and disenheartened by the seeming connections between Obama and Goldman Sachs. It looks as if they tried to buy him off.

But it also appers our president does not stay bought...if he ever was. He is investigating GS.

I don't see the democrat congress launching this investigation because they need/want Obama to further move our vision of America forward--in the face of stiff, bullying resistance--with what little time remains before mid-term elections and relentless RW propaganda narrow democrat.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

But it goes deeper than that Mr. Moore.

You yourself have rightfully questioned the legitimacy of the US electoral system. When we add mid-term election trends and relentless RW propaganda (yeah, I'm looking at you SCOTUS) to a questionable polling system that excludes minorities and others (yeah, I'm looking at you AZ) we must seriously consider that any call for investigation will fall not on deaf ears but into malicious hands come next January.

Consider what will happen if the GOP wins (steals?) back one or both houses in November.

By calling for an investigation to Obama's connections to GS you're asking me to choose between:

A) the chance Obama is corrupt and bought-off

--vs--

B) a vengeful and destructive-minded GOP will use such sentiments to push through maliciously motivated and trumped-up charges against America's most progressive--and first African-American--president.

I don't need an investigtion to make THAT choice.

I was just a wee lass at the time but I remember the harm those hateful souls unleashed on President Clinton. The party of bondage nightclubs and diddling underaged staffers impeached him with their moral preenings. Their hatred of Obama is far deeper. Sorry, but I don't trust them.

If you truly want justice let's make sure we can have justice for our president while we're at it and not throw him to some kangaroo court.

[gateley]

1. I've never thought it was really fair to 'read' contributions from a company's

employees as being a contribution from that company.

I've contributed to candidates before and like an idiot provided the name of my employer, but I would be good money that I was the only person in that company supporting that candidate.

Maybe there were just a lot of Obama supporters -- just the working people, not the honchos. I think the conclusion drawn from that info is skewed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. I think you're more than correct

But assuming the CEO personally walked the corridors shaking down his employees I still think Obama has not been bought off and the GOP would be the last ones to ever give Obama a fair investigation.

[gateley]

9. I don't think he's been bought off, either. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

2. There is no such thing as a "Democrat Congress."

We are the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. It is the Congress of the United States, not the Democratic Congress, Democrat Congress, or the Republican Congress. The Democratic Caucus has control of Congress right now, but it remain the Congress of the United States.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. It's rhetorical shorthand.

No, really. Totally true story.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. Use of "Democrat Congress" or "Democrat Party" perpetuates a falsehood perpetrated...

by the Republican Party. The effect of such rhetoric is to cause anyone on the left to ignore speaker, as a politically biased prevaricator. I am sure that you do not intend people here to do that. So, unless you are quoting some asshole right wing idiot, it is best to stick to correct terms.

[louis-t]

14. I ignored the rest of his post after reading

"Democrat Congress".

[LakeSamish706]

6. I was going to point that out as well! I hate that slure so much.. grrr

[grasswire]

4. America's most progressive president?

I'll forgive you for that, since you were a "wee child" ten years or so ago.

But come on...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. Please feel free...

...to rattle off the names of all the other presidents that have had the agenda Obama has set out.

I suppose a case could be made for FDR but to be honest I'm not that old.

[grasswire]

19. a word of wisdom for you

When you don't know what you're talking about because of your admitted youth and/or inexperience, it's best to either not make pronouncements that are false, or educate yourself before you try to prognosticate.

(To all: Do high schools not teach American Government or History anymore?)

[Raineyb]

56. No I don't think they do.

They've been cutting it since the 80's no doubt in order to produce an electorate that's ignorant of the process and will not see the government as something that is an extension of the people.

Mission accomplished.

[swilton]

57. +1,000

[Ozymanithrax]

28. Lyndon Johnson...Great Society...look it up...

I like Obama, but he is a centrist to center Left, like Bill Clinton. Like Clinton he set out to enact some form of health care, and he did it. Like Clinton, who was saddled with the monumental debt and the economic fall out of the Reagan and Bush administration, Obama was saddled with fixing the excesses of Bushinomics.

Obama is not a progressive, except in that progressives advocate change. (Please note, a right wing progressive, and there have been many since the 1880's, also want change. We just disagree on the nature of that change.)

I am not one of those people who believe he is a full blown corporatist. But on the great right left spectrum he is center left. Even that, however, has the possibility of moving the nation to the left a bit, and that is good.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. LBJ

Also shoved us deeper into Vietnam.

Obama is getting us out of Iraq and ending the US bullying ways around the world.

[Romulox]

37. Ummm....SURGE! into Afghanistan?

:hi:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. Would have happened regardless

And I'd like to point out if the GOP was in power we would be ramping up to attack Iran if we hadn't already.

Considering the cards Obama was dealt he's played his hand expertly.

[Romulox]

41. It was your clumsy invocation of LBJ that set you up.

Contrasts involve tow dissimilar things. :hi:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. Actually, I didn't invoke LBJ

Citiation involves accurate reference. :hi:

[Romulox]

44. You did. And you cited LBJ's escalation in Vietnam as reason he was less progressive than Obama.

It was a faux pas. You should let it go. :hi:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. To "invoke" means "to bring up"

It was Ozymanithrax that "invoked" LBJ (which is perfectly OK in a dialogue) I retorted that LBJ was not as great or progressive as Obama.

And a "faux pas" is a social indiscretion. Perhaps "simple mistake"--although misapplied--would have served you better.

[Romulox]

46. Also "to cite as an authority or support for a proposition"

Add the English language to the subjects you need to study further. Jeesh. :hi:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. When did I cite LBJ as an authority?

:shrug:

[Romulox]

51. You cited his war record as reason that Obama is the "most progressive" President

Seemingly oblivious to the President's escalation in Afghanistan, which provides a precise parallel to LBJ's Vietnam policy, not a contrast, as you intended.

It's not surprisingly that you'd like to argue over word choice when your blunder in citing LBJ's war record is evident. :hi:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. That is not an appeal to authority but historical fact

You're just making up terms to deflect from the fact you called Obama a criminal and called for his prosecution.

And Obama's war record is NOT what makes him progressive. His opposition to the AZ immigration racial-profiling bill, economic policy, green jobs etc. make him the most progressive president we've been fortunate enough to have.

Stop lying about what I say; if my thread bothers you so much feel free to leave it. No one is keeping you here but you.

As I stated: the surge would happen regardless. However, unlike Vietnam Obama will not be bankrupting the country to fight it. Nor will he be invading Iran as a stand-in for Cambodia and Laos. He will not be putting 500,000 troops in country of using the draft to fight the war. The national guard will not be killing peaceful protesters on their colledge campuses. The military will not be firebombing villages.

Of course you already called Obama a bribe-taking criminal. I suppose since war is the topic you probably want him hauled off to The Hague as well.

[Romulox]

54. Your characterization of the current President is mere opinion which you've attempted to bolster

with historical fact.

[Romulox]

47. And "faux pas" = ": blunder; especially : a social blunder"

Shall I define "blunder" or "especially" for you, too? :silly:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faux+pas

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. No.

You've aptly demonstrated the point.

As long as you're here to threadjack the conversation are there any other criminal offenses you wish level against the president?

[Romulox]

52. Take it up with merriam webster. Sheesh. nt

[virgogal]

8. Correction: President Obama is biracial NOT African American.

[babylonsister]

12. Obama's census choice: Simply African-American

While he is bi-racial, it seems the President most identifies with African-American, as is his right.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/04/obamas-census-choice-simply-african-american.html

Obama's census choice: Simply African-American
April 2, 2010 3:49 PM | 10 Comments


An individual's responses to census questions are confidential, but one of President Barack Obama's answers on the 10-question form adds another layer to the ongoing conversation over how America sees itself.

After media inquiries, the White House confirmed Friday that Obama checked only the racial box that says: "Black, African Am., or Negro," the Associated Press reported.

[virgogal]

15. I didn't realize he had done that. I find it quite sad----it's as if his

mother never existed.

[babylonsister]

18. So, had he checked 'white', it would indicate the same of his father.

The guy can't win. Maybe as I said he identifies more as a black man. It's up to him and I am quite sure he meant no disrespect to his mother.

[virgogal]

21. Couldn't he check both? I forget how it reads so I'm not sure,but

I have mixed race grandchildren and I'm sure my son-in-law said they checked both races.

[babylonsister]

23. I don't know-don't remember what the options were. nt

[MadBadger]

32. What a pathetic comment

[Moochy]

55. Are you saying he's ashamed of her? Thats absurd.

He chose to identify himself as African American when he was treated as one growing up. Lots of self-identified African-Americans have parents of different colors. He's certainly not pretending his mother did not exist.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Goldman needs to be

investigated, and it will be. They have committed crimes. You are defending criminals, and conflating them with the President of the United States, something you are doing, not Michael Moore.
The President needs no defense. You and your sort can not quote Moore, because he did not say what you are claiming he said. And it is Democratic.
In my view, this post denigrates the President, Moore, and the Democratic Party on the way to blowing smoke for Goldman.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. What are you talking about?

My entire post says Obama has NOT been bought off. How could I possibly be saying he is in any way a criminal?

I don't get it?

[jaxx]

20. You know how it goes on here.....your post was fine.

I told someone today, who brought up the GS employees giving money.....that the president got donations from the GS people and he's going after them.....which says President Obama is not for sale.

Don't let them get you down. ;-)

[mdmc]

13. So who has received the most ca$h from GS?

I think that the Wall Street Bailout was the worse thing our government has done since the PATRIOT act..

Did Obama rake in more cash then any other candidate from GS?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. You're implying that because PEOPLE contributed to Obama

Obama is guilty.

Part of a bribery/influence peddling case is quid pro quo. I fail to see any such case here and I sure as heck don't give the GOP credit to make a fair investigation.

[mdmc]

31. That was not my intention

I was trying to say that GS and corporate America are comfortable with Obama and said so with their own money..
As of now GS has not committed a crime either..

Not for nothin, but GS and their ilk own all of DC.. No one plays without their permission..

[walldude]

22. So what will it take?

It looks to me like you are basically telling the Democrats that they can do anything they want and you will still vote for them.

If they decided to drill offshore would that kill your vote?

If they decided to spend more money on Nuclear Power?

If they didn't pass any equal rights for gays laws?

If they expanded the Patriot Act?

What if they violated the Constitution? What if they set up CIA Death Squads that were allowed to assassinate American citizens without a trial without evidence, without giving citizens the ability to face their accusers? Would you stand against them then?

Oh wait... too late.

[fascisthunter]

25. .

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. That's not my point.

My point is:

If given a choice between --

A) accepting an underlying assumption that Barack H Obama is part of some quid-pro-quo bribery and influence peddling scheme

or

B) trusting the GOP to conduct a fair and impartial investigation of facts

--which would YOU choose?


If there is corruption or bad policy by all means pull it out root, stalk and branch but the operative word is "IF".

[annabanana]

24. k&r. . . . n/t

[miscsoc]

26. totally agree, we need to apply some realpolitik here

the fact is a bit of corruption is necessary to gain power in the current political system. i don't like the fact but there it is, and the left can't win the war if they refuse to acknowledge the brute facts of the terrain we are fighting on

if liberals on the basis of sentimental principle expose their own comparatively minor sins, and thereby provide a weak spot that the opposition can attack, they will hand the country over to people whose sins are much more numerous and major, and who would never even contemplate exposing themselves in a similar way. The Clinton thing, and the cheerful sexual misdeeds of many of the people involved in trying to use C's indiscretions to bring them down, should make this clear.

Basically if Obama has any dubious connections to GS i'd honestly prefer they were never exposed.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PoliSSHat]

29. I totally agree with your comments on elections getting stolen...

Because election results dont mean anything. Totally rigged!

[girl gone mad]

30. lol.

A minor civil suit that may result in a slap on the wrist makes up for the hundreds of billions that were shoveled into their coffers and the dozens upon dozens of links, including two big ones which have resulted in significantly weakened reform and an immediate return to the status quo.

Just how dumb do ya think we are?

[chill_wind]

33. Yet another OP claiming that Moore called for an investigation

into Obama for his GS connections, when I've read that what he was actually calling for or supporting was a criminal investigation of Gold Sachs itself for fraud (per the calls of 62 members of Congress that was linked to in a thread yesterday.)

Am I wrong about that? Can somebody PLEASE clear this up for the record.

[Lord Helmet]

34. You are absolutely correct.

It got conflated in GDP and carried over here.

[chill_wind]

35. Thank you!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. If this is indeed the case...

...I stand happily corrected.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

50. re: "He is investigating GS"

If you refer to the SEC that's a slander. I think enough of Obama to assume that the SEC remains independent.