I shouldn't have read that.

Post #362,289 by mmoffitt 9/7/12 9:05:48 AM Reply	I shouldn't have read that. I watched Warren's speech and was on the threshold of voting for him. I purposefully did not watch his speech because I knew what would happen. And it did happen when I read what you'd posted: his stunning hypocrisy made me queasy. Does he ever say anything he actually believes? A couple of examples from your post: We believe that when a CEO pays his autoworkers enough to buy the cars that they build, the whole company does better. Um, two-tier wage scale, anyone? That was a condition of getting bailed out to the tune of several thousandths of the amount his administration gave banks without conditions attached. We believe that when a family can no longer be tricked into signing a mortgage they can't afford, that family's protected, but so is the value of other people's homes Â (cheers, applause) Â and so is the entire economy. The "entire economy" apparently does not apparently include the 15% unemployed, or the families in the 1 million homes that have been foreclosed upon this year. But, hey, Wall Street closed at a 4 year high, so all is well with his real constituency, right? If you can't afford health insurance ... Too frickin' bad, Sparky. I'm mandating that you buy it from a for profit entity linked to my very good friends in the Health Insurance, Big Pharma and Wall Street industries. Yeah, a real "man of the people." The more I hear him, the more likely I am to sit the charade out.
Post #362,294 by Another Scott 9/7/12 12:07:04 PM Reply	You're confusing his ideals with practical governing. Does he ever say anything he actually believes? He's about the most consistent politician I know of who says, year after year, the same things about what he believes. Does that mean all of the policies of the federal government follow those ideals? Of course not. He's not a Benevolent Dictator. He's the President. "A man's got to know his limitations." Obama does. He understands his role. On policy, he can only do what Congress gives him the money and the authority to do, what the Constitution says he can do, and what existing laws say he can do. For example: One of his first acts was to set in motion the closing of Guantanamo. Congress blocked that. He wanted civilian trials for al Qaeda people in NYC. Congress and Bloomberg blocked that. Etc. He's consistent about his ideals - amazingly so. He tells you where he would like to go with great clarity. But he can't get there without the votes in Congress. (You know the rest of my spiel that goes here...) Cheers, Scott.
Post #362,296 by mmoffitt 9/7/12 1:18:17 PM Reply	Nice flailing. Really, Scott, you're dangerously close to becoming an apologist. I know we differ on some key matters - most notably the USA PATRIOT Act, but he's not "a benevolent dictator" and stays within the confines of the US Constitution? Really? In the face of the fact that he, and he alone, can literally decide who gets assassinated by a killer drone, notwithstanding the target's US Citizenship status? Warren said (paraphrased) "We believe those responsible for the collapse should be held accountable." I concur with her. President Obama doesn't. Goldman Sachs investigation dropped ring any bells? Or don't you think the AG and, consequently, the DOJ answer to the President? He's among the most disingenuous individuals I have ever heard speak - and I was around for Breshnev and Nixon. Ever heard the expression, "Actions speak louder than words"? I know I'm in a state that's been written off (not unjustifiably, imo). But I also know that a vote against Romney here is valuable. And make no mistake, if I somehow manage to not hear the President speak again between now and November, I might feel compelled to cast my anti-Romney vote. If that happens, that's all it will be. I expect there to be very little in the way of real change arising out of this election no matter who wins.
Post #362,299 by Another Scott 9/7/12 1:54:49 PM Reply	I think we're beyond convincing, but... In the face of the fact that he, and he alone, can literally decide who gets assassinated by a killer drone, notwithstanding the target's US Citizenship status? It's a bit more complicated than that... https://ecf.dcd.usco...doc?2010cv1469-31 (83 page .PDF of the judge's ruling dismissing the case brought by his father). Or don't you think the AG and, consequently, the DOJ answer to the President? I believe their comments that they didn't think they had enough evidence for a criminal conviction on these issues in this case at this time. If they were in the banks' pockets, there wouldn't have been a DOJ investigation in the first place. They didn't have to do what Levin asked: http://www.reuters.c...BRE8781LA20120810 "The department and investigative agencies ultimately concluded that the burden of proof to bring a criminal case could not be met based on the law and facts as they exist at this time," the Justice Department said in a statement late on Thursday. Righteous indignation is righteous, but life is complicated... FWIW. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!