Obviously there's some history here, but based on this post, I agree in the main with Finity. Let's be fair, we don't know the cop's motivation, and the Secret Service may have shown up regardless. I think both actions should be reprimanded. In the interest of truth and fairness, we shouldn't assume anything more than we know.
I do take exception to a subtle tactic used by Finity. It's one thing to attack a president and assume the worst motivations for everything he does, even using those assumptions as a premise to an argument - ie, "Bush lied." Referring to Obama as a liberal or a socialist (communist and socialist might as well be the same thing to me, but I don't use the other label as now it's come to mean nothing more than "bad person") is not a kind of derangement. When I say it, I mean it precisely. Obama is undeniably liberal (in the modern American sense). He had the most liberal voting record in the Senate (measured by liberal and conservative groups) and his stated beliefs are liberal. Slightly deeper digging reveals much evidence that his core beliefs are socialist. His primary political associations early on have been heavily socialist. The bill he just signed is the largest move towards socialism we've had in sixty years.
This is a tactic of the left, to equate legitimate criticism with the deranged and unsubstantiated criticism of Bush.
Let me go on the record about Bush. I disagreed with very many of his policies. I agreed with him on Iraq and about recognizing the threat from our enemies. I also think he is a fundamentally good person who's words match his actions. I can already identify a significant gap between Obama's words and actions.
?
