Obama is weak — Page 2

There was a Romney rally in Michigan (one of his "home states") that drew a crowd estimated to be......seventeen people. 17. As a reporter on the scene observed "the campaign has the stench of death upon it."

No, no, no, people. Don't take the bait. Examine the bait. Look at it.

"Obama is weak"

What the F&*!K does that mean, exactly?

Physically weak? You want him, personally, to go over and wrassle up some evil-doers? Of course not.

Mentally weak? Compared to Mittens? Puh-lease. Laughable on the surface. Even the biggest GOP hacks acknowledge that President Obama has a sharp intellect and a quick intelligence.

So--what the crap does it mean? It means NOTHING. It means that our President doesn't indulge in the kind of embarrassing buffoonery in which the GOP demagogues love to wallow.

George W Bush, all dressed up like the brave little soldier that he WASN'T. That kind of ghastly window dressing just makes the gullible sheep shiver with pride.

It would be funny if it wasn't so damned SAD.

---

Updated On: 9/15/12 at 05:51 PM

"He see's everything as a business opportunity"?

---

This is for the OP.

Obama is weak,huh? Well either you know nothing about Romney telling Detroit to go bankrupt or you are intentionally overlooking it,and that is dishonest and weak!

Mitt wrote an OP about how he would let Detroit go bankrupt. However, once Obama saved Detroit and it the risk he took turned out to pay off, then Mitt tried to take credit for it.

A weak coward who flip flops on EVERY ISSUE is no leader yet the OP seems to think Romney is the better choice. Um, yeah. This says about all I need to know about Mr.Colyer.

---

Its a FACT! Its also a FACT that Romney tried to take credit for it once it was a success.Obama saved jobs and the company saw a profit from that. Explain to me how that is bogus.

---

Updated On: 9/17/12 at 07:19 AM

Not that "dragged the companies through structured bankruptcy" is a loaded phrase or anything....

After hearing a lot about this subject (Mitt claiming he was the one who saved Detroit and knowing nothing except the headline of his editorial which sure didn't sound that way) I did some digging.

Mitt's divergence from the Obama plan seemed to be that he was dead set against any Washington "bailout" (another loaded word). He felt that a bailout would empower the automakers to continue their failed policies and that they would be unwilling to make any changes. And although he didn't come out and demand an end to unions it sure sounded like he thought that was a damned good idea.

At the time there was a reluctance to advance any capital to GM and Ford by any private firms. So Washington's involvement pretty much saved the day. Without some money to pay the bills would the US auto industry have survived?

Updated On: 9/17/12 at 01:15 PM

Un F###*&@ REAL. So, you don,t see him saving GM as one of his accomplishments? How petty. Considering what the outcome would be had he not stepped in.I suppose The Bin Laden raid was a failure because one of the choppers was destroyed.I'm sure those people who's job was saved in Detroit would disagree with you strongly.So the automakers had to go through bankruptcy. Look at the final outcome.How is this a bogus argument?

---

Updated On: 9/17/12 at 02:22 PM

Ford was asking for bail-out money but the situation was getting so dire in Congress, they pulled out believing they could survive. They even put out commercials patting themselves on the back for not being one of the Detroit Big 3 to get bailout money. However, they were also in on it though they still maintain they went with GM and Chrysler to Congress just as support. I think both Chrysler and GM got a lot less money than they asked for too.

But anyway, had both GM and Chrysler gone into bankruptcy the way Mitt Romney wanted, who was going to emerge as the debtor to help them re-finance in the middle of a recession?