Social Question

Cruiser's avatar

Whose behind should he kick first?

Asked by Cruiser (40401points) June 8th, 2010

President Obama has announced he is taking names and kicking some ass. The oil spill, the economy, the Middle East, Helen Thomas, the housing market, the jobs situation…whose ass should he kick first and why?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

23 Answers

ubersiren's avatar

I’d have to say putting them in order is a matter of urgency vs. what’s been going on the longest. BP fits both these criteria, so I say them first. Then war (because it’s life and death as well as a money sucker for our nation), then housing market (because it’s ruining people’s lives), then Helen (I put her last because, even though I love her, I don’t see this as a National matter).

partyparty's avatar

It MUST be the oil spill. There is so much wildlife out there being caused unnecessary pain and death. It breaks my heart seeing these vulnerable animals and birds. It’s disgraceful.

marinelife's avatar

Definitely the oil spill. It is still pouring out and until it is capped, the Gulf is on borrowed time.

syz's avatar

Don’t forget the House and Congress – practically all of them could use a good ass kicking.

cookieman's avatar

1. Oil Spill
2. Joblessness
3. Perez Hilton

and I would like Mrs. Fields given a cabinet post. “secretary of all that is delicious” perhaps.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

His own.
Instead of pointing fingers,he should take a good look at his own lack of response.
Instead of proclaiming his involvement from day one,this government should have actually been involved.Full-force of Government should have been brought to bear and our best minds to work this problem,sut all we get are interviews on “Dateline” which he demonized private industry.
Taking vacations,having State dinners,golfing with celebrities,and banning all off-shore shore drilling is not a response.Obama is attempting to score political points.Just as Rahm Emanuel stated,“Never let a crisis go to waste.“Finger pointing and Monday morning quarter-backing is not a Presidential response.

Cruiser's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille You just neatly summed up the whole reason I asked this question as I was stunned to hear those disingenuous words he spoke yesterday and thought “you have got to be kidding me!!” WTH!

Cruiser's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille To listen to this video clip http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/07/obama_seeking_ass_to_kick_over_oil_spill.html
and hear him “brag” how a month ago he was on the beach with the fisherman and saying how this was a “potential disaster” HS!!! Potential Disaster??? HELLO!! Where is this guys head at and how far up is it??

CMaz's avatar

1. Himself
2. The American People

Val123's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille It just kills me…one minute people are screaming about too much government involvement in business, the next they scream because they think the government should be MORE involved. The oil industry should have had tight government regulations from the start, and this might have been avoided.

ubersiren's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille Yes!

@Val123 I know what you mean. However, I think the reason people seem to be reacting that way is this. Some of us really and truly don’t want so much government involvement, but we do not have that choice. We are forced to have government in damn near every aspect of our lives. You can argue that we do have a choice in how we vote or whatever, but reality is that voting and writing reps only gets you so far… which is to say not at all. So, when they insist on having all this power over us, then continuously drop the ball, pass the blame, lie, or just seem to care, it’s like a giant slap in the face. It demonstrates that they want the power just for the power. They don’t really care about bringing change or improvement whatsoever.

Val123's avatar

@ubersiren I disagree to a certain extent (and I can feel the ground getting shaky beneath me!) There has to be some balance between private ownership and government involvement. An equal balance would, hopefully, put the checks on both sides who might be in it just for the power and the money (Big Pharmas comes to mind.) To much government involvement and you get stuck in miles of sticky red tape that is counter productive. Not enough, and there’s no one to watch over what the companies are really doing. BP is a good example of that, as are the auto industries that fell.

Anti government people seem so certain that the government’s sole purpose in life is to somehow destroy us. I feel the opposite is true. I think there are enough good people in government who truly have our best interests in mind to keep it all good.

ucme's avatar

Michelle’s. “That bitch like’s it rough” A direct quote from Joe Biden I believe. Lifted from his autobiography : Biden My Time. Honestly, cross my heart.

Seaofclouds's avatar

The oil spill should be first because of it affects so many things right now. The war should be second. Getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan will help the economy as well and that leads into fixing the economy/job market/and housing.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

Congress. All 535 of ‘em.

ubersiren's avatar

@Val123 I think it’s more that anti-government types have a lack of faith in the government rather than think they’re out for destruction; not all are conspiracy theorists. I think Obama (like so many before him) had good intentions, but the were unrealistic from the start. Also, being anti-government isn’t usually about what the gov’t can or can’t do. It’s what they should or shouldn’t do. Should they be able to say who we can marry? Should they be able say what we are allowed to put in our bodies?

Val123's avatar

@ubersiren In the first I assume you’re referring to gay marriage. That will change, eventually. Within this generation I’m sure.
Not sure what you’re referring to in the second…illegal drugs? Don’t know what you mean.

ubersiren's avatar

@Val123 Sure. Anything. What exactly should they have a say over? My answer is very little. I know I’m in the minority on this. If I want to snort coke, that should be my business. If I want to pump peanut butter into my veins, that’s my business. Driving under the influence of peanut butter is a different issue entirely. But simply possessing or consuming it should be untouchable. Same as beer.

I’m not looking to get into specifics, here. I’m referring to the big picture. The point is that anarchists and libertarians and all associated brands value the ability to make many decisions for themselves. They’re not so much fixated with whether the government can fulfill a promise, but more, whether they should make promises at all. Whether it be who we marry (interracial marriages used to be illegal), what we ingest (prohibition, marijuana now, any drug, narcotics, morning after pill, etc.) or a number of other victimless (debatable term) crimes. The only reason these are issues at all is because the government exists. Maybe it wouldn’t be a problem if they weren’t The Church’s butt monkey.

Val123's avatar

@ubersiren Well…I think the reason certain things are illegal is not so much because of what it does to the individual consuming them, but of the affect it can have on innocent people around them. Attempted murder is illegal, attempted suicide is not. Same diff.

CMaz's avatar

We the people did not want our land cluttered with the eyesore of oil rigs and refineries.

But, we sure wanted and needed the oil.

So we pushed them off shore and out of the country. Out of sight out of mind.

Val123's avatar

@ChazMaz Good point. We bitch when we do and we bitch when we don’t. And the government usually does a good job of giving us what we want…and then we bitch about THAT.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther