5 ms·

Of course. You're not under the impression that Obama is more for the people than Bush was, are you? [1] [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/bank-ear

by danssig 15y ago

Of course. You're not under the impression that Obama is more for the people than Bush was, are you? [1] [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/bank-earnings-obama_n_1079482.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/bank-earnings-obama...

icebraining 15y ago
"For the people" is frankly a bullshit metric. Different presidents can and will act differently even if they're both on the same "for the people" level. Even with a completely cynical view, they'll at least have a different set of lobbyists who they're loyal to.
- danssig 15y ago
  But doesn't that make the initial "observation" nonsensical? What could be meant by "would this have gotten by in another administration" other than, "wow, we're so blessed to have these guys" yet it's just cherry picking (same as I did, but for the opposite point-of-view).
  - icebraining 15y ago
    We (well, you) may very well be "blessed" to have that administration in terms of the choice of the FCC commissioners. That GP was making an overreaching observation is an unfounded assumption.
  - va_coder 15y ago
    >>"wow, we're so blessed to have these guys" Don't put words in my mouth. I asked a simple question.
    - danssig 15y ago
      What could your question possibly mean? My claim is that it's meaningless. Maybe this could or could not have happened with another administration. But bad things that happened with this administration could or could not have happened with another.
brown9-2 15y ago
You know it is a ridiculous headline when the article refutes itself in the third paragraph: But the discrepancy is in large part due to the $24.75 billion loss within the securities industry during the financial crisis of 2008 -- the last year of Bush's Presidency -- followed by a gain of $49.53 billion during the country's first year under Obama.

5 ms·

Of course. You're not under the impression that Obama is more for the people than Bush was, are you? [1] [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/bank-ear

by danssig 15y ago

icebraining 15y ago
"For the people" is frankly a bullshit metric. Different presidents can and will act differently even if they're both on the same "for the people" level. Even with a completely cynical view, they'll at least have a different set of lobbyists who they're loyal to.
- danssig 15y ago
  But doesn't that make the initial "observation" nonsensical? What could be meant by "would this have gotten by in another administration" other than, "wow, we're so blessed to have these guys" yet it's just cherry picking (same as I did, but for the opposite point-of-view).
  - icebraining 15y ago
    We (well, you) may very well be "blessed" to have that administration in terms of the choice of the FCC commissioners. That GP was making an overreaching observation is an unfounded assumption.
  - va_coder 15y ago
    >>"wow, we're so blessed to have these guys" Don't put words in my mouth. I asked a simple question.
    - danssig 15y ago
      What could your question possibly mean? My claim is that it's meaningless. Maybe this could or could not have happened with another administration. But bad things that happened with this administration could or could not have happened with another.
brown9-2 15y ago
You know it is a ridiculous headline when the article refutes itself in the third paragraph: But the discrepancy is in large part due to the $24.75 billion loss within the securities industry during the financial crisis of 2008 -- the last year of Bush's Presidency -- followed by a gain of $49.53 billion during the country's first year under Obama.