• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is This a Fair Complaint

Is the argument presented in the OP fair?

  • Total voters
    45
Redress

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,958
Reaction score
60,492
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Since Obama went in support of Chicago as an Olympic city, the complaints have been coming fast and furious that Obama has improper priorities. The claim is that since Obama has not authorized more troops for Afghanistan as General McChrystal has requested, and has went to Copenhagen to support the Olympic bid, his priorities are misplaced. Is this a far argument?
 
It's a fair complaint ... in the minds of unthinking partisan hacks. The rest of us understand the President can do more than one thing at a time and all President's spend some time on relatively unimportant things like Olympic bids.
 
Olympics are frivolous compared to Afghanistan. Its like the mayor of your city trying to get a skate board park built when there are more serious issues to deal with that demand that mayor's time now.
 
What does everyone think Obama did with the 20+ hours on the plane between Thursday and Friday? Do you honestly think Afghanistan was never brought up?
 
Redress said:
Since Obama went in support of Chicago as an Olympic city, the complaints have been coming fast and furious that Obama has improper priorities. The claim is that since Obama has not authorized more troops for Afghanistan as General McChrystal has requested, and has went to Copenhagen to support the Olympic bid, his priorities are misplaced. Is this a far argument?
Click to expand...

It is a fair complaint. Now saying that it is a fair complaint doesn't necessarily make the comment 100% true, or to say that some people do not make the complaint completely on a partisan basis. They surely can. What it means IMO is that there is recourse for the complaint. What is Obama doing? Well we've had more talks and speeches than days in office. He's been on a late night TV show, he's gone to Copenhagen on behalf of Chicago, etc. I think there is plenty of evidence which could suggest that Obama doesn't quite have his priorities straight.

Fair complaints can be debated. An unfair complaint would be Obama is one of those dudes from V and totally is out for global enslavement of the human race. But questioning his job performance, attitude, and displayed priorities can very well be fair. Could be motivated by hyperpartisanship as well, so you have to wade through some crap to make sure.
 
Since the complaint is inconsistent and selective it is unfair.

To be fair with the criticism would necessitate complaining about Obama wasting time taking a dump, sleeping, screwing Michelle, helping his daughters with their homework, and absolutely anything and everything that is not directly related to Afghanistan and the situation there.

Soldiers are dying and he dares sleep? the audacity!
 
Gibberish said:
What does everyone think Obama did with the 20+ hours on the plane between Thursday and Friday? Do you honestly think Afghanistan was never brought up?
Click to expand...

I dunno. Was it? Doesn't seem to me that it takes alot of debate about what to do when the guy you put in charge to run the show tells you what should be done. McChrystal was placed in command of the ATO because obviously someone trusted his ability and his judgement. That being the case, it's time to stop second guessing the guy they put in command and do what he asks.

So, yes, it's fair to say that PBO has his priorities all screwed up.
 
marduc said:
Since the complaint is inconsistent and selective it is unfair.

To be fair with the criticism would necessitate complaining about Obama wasting time taking a dump, sleeping, screwing Michelle, helping his daughters with their homework, and absolutely anything and everything that is not directly related to Afghanistan and the situation there.

Soldiers are dying and he dares sleep? the audacity!
Click to expand...

This, however, is an example of unfair critique. It's critique of a critique and based in hyperbole and spin.
 
The people who are barking the loudest about this are the ones who didn't utter a single word when GWB was in office. Clearly nothing more than the typical "I hate Obama" BS they they've been spewing because they have nothing of substance to fight with.

You can bet that if Obama hadn't gone...these same folk would be barking about why Obama doesn't support America enough to travel for the Olympic vote while other the other countries leaders did.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
I dunno. Was it? Doesn't seem to me that it takes alot of debate about what to do when the guy you put in charge to run the show tells you what should be done. McChrystal was placed in command of the ATO because obviously someone trusted his ability and his judgement. That being the case, it's time to stop second guessing the guy they put in command and do what he asks.

So, yes, it's fair to say that PBO has his priorities all screwed up.
Click to expand...

So your thought is that if Obama didn't fly to Denmark he would have made a decision on Afghanistan by now? Like all Generals, McChrystal offer's his expert opinion, along the Joint Chiefs, to the President to make a decision.
 
Ikari said:
This, however, is an example of unfair critique. It's critique of a critique and based in hyperbole and spin.
Click to expand...

exactly.

A bit of exaggeration to underscore how ridiculous the original critique was, which also an unfair critique based on hyperbole and spin.
 
Last edited:
It is a fair complaint considering all of the things that are going on that should be holding the President's attention and going to an IOC meeting to make a bid for a particular city to get the Olympics is not normally done by a President. The President did not need to be there, other people were perfectly capable of making the case for why Chicago should host those Olympics, including the First Lady. Prioritizing is important for a President.

Some important questions to ask to determine if this should have been up there in importance are
-would he have gone if one of the other cities in the US were up for it,
-did he have other reasons for going (besides site-seeing, spending time with wife, shaking hands),
-without him there, would the chances of Chicago hosting have been any lower,
-and did he accomplish anything while he was there, especially related to more important issues here in the US.
I would not begrudge any President time-off, but this was deemed an official visit, so I would expect more to come from it than a failed bid to host the Olympics, especially considering how often we have been able to host them in the past.
 
marduc said:
exactly.

A bit of exaggeration to underscore how ridiculous the original critique was, which also an unfair critique based on hyperbole and spin.
Click to expand...

Not really. One can honestly make the claim that Obama doesn't have his priorities straight. The Copenhagen thing is just one step in that critique. While the critique can be made from unfair sources, the critique itself can be posed honestly.
 
Nothing but mindless criticism brought to you by the same folk who brought you the outrage over Obama speaking to school kids about the importance of education.
 
disneydude said:
You can bet that if Obama hadn't gone...these same folk would be barking about why Obama doesn't support America enough to travel for the Olympic vote while other the other countries leaders did.
Click to expand...

Was any other President critized for not going to bid for a US city in the Olympics? No? Then why would you suggest that this would be said of Obama? The only reason that it is being talked about now is because he did go. I doubt very seriously that it would have even been brought up otherwise.

In my mind Obama going was plain stupid. He has far more on his plate to be dealing with than a chance for some stupid games to come to the US. Like the economy, health care, job rates, illegal immigration, crime rates in the US, Afghanistan, Iraq, N. Korea, Israel, Iran, space program (IMO the space program is very important for the future of humans), education, and no doubt other things which just don't pop up in ones head like the above did with me.

Were all these things talked about in detail on that 20 hr flight or the hours spent at the meeting? If so fine, I won't begrudge him going. But I seriously doubt that all of them were...especially while sitting at a desk talking about why he thinks Chicago should be picked and listening to others voice why they want their city picked.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Was any other President critized for not going to bid for a US city in the Olympics? No? Then why would you suggest that this would be said of Obama? The only reason that it is being talked about now is because he did go. I doubt very seriously that it would have even been brought up otherwise.

In my mind Obama going was plain stupid. He has far more on his plate to be dealing with than a chance for some stupid games to come to the US. Like the economy, health care, job rates, illegal immigration, crime rates in the US, Afghanistan, Iraq, N. Korea, Israel, Iran, space program (IMO the space program is very important for the future of humans), education, and no doubt other things which just don't pop up in ones head like the above did with me.

Were all these things talked about in detail on that 20 hr flight or the hours spent at the meeting? If so fine, I won't begrudge him going. But I seriously doubt that all of them were...especially while sitting at a desk talking about why he thinks Chicago should be picked and listening to others voice why they want their city picked.
Click to expand...

Obama is constantly criticized by the wacko fringe for things that other Presidents haven't. What makes you think this would be any different?

Hell....don't you remember, they even criticized him for the beer that he chose.

These whiners will cry out of both sides of their mouth either way....its actually quite comical watching them. They are too predictable.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Since Obama went in support of Chicago as an Olympic city, the complaints have been coming fast and furious that Obama has improper priorities. The claim is that since Obama has not authorized more troops for Afghanistan as General McChrystal has requested, and has went to Copenhagen to support the Olympic bid, his priorities are misplaced. Is this a far argument?
Click to expand...
it's a ridiculous argument. most of us are able to work on more than one project at a time.
 
disneydude said:
Obama is constantly criticized by the wacko fringe for things that other Presidents haven't.
Click to expand...
That is complete and utter bull****. Obama is being criticized for:
1) Spending - Every President since FDR has taken flak from at least one side for spending.
2) Handling Afghanistan, Reagan, G.W. Bush, and now Obama have all had issues with that country, as did Carter.
3) Grandstanding- Clinton took flak for appearing on talk shows during his campaign, the famous saxaphone joke is still priceless, Obama is STILL campaigning, THAT is what he is getting **** for, any other claim would be very disingenuous.
4) Healthcare - one side doesn't want federal encroachment, the other does, so every president for at least the last 30 years has heard non-stop bitching over that one.
5) Arrogance - both sides have claimed that against the other's president since FDR.
6) Federal/SCOTUS appointments - Bork, Thomas, Sotomayor, etc. have all come across partisan scrutiny.

If you can't see that Obama is actually getting much better treatment than the left gave G.W. Bush and Reagan you are blind, and this "poor Obama" schtick is nothing more than whining from the left, don't want your candidate scrutinized? Too damn bad, this is politics.
 
I"m one of those who has been rather critical, frankly. I voted for Obama. Getting the Olympics for Chicago is definitely not on my list of priorities that I wanted him to work on.

Furthermore, sending the president ANYWHERE overseas is an expensive proposition for the U.S. Taxpayers. Did the Chicago bid committee pick up the tab?
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
I"m one of those who has been rather critical, frankly. I voted for Obama. Getting the Olympics for Chicago is definitely not on my list of priorities that I wanted him to work on.
Click to expand...
The IOC got more of the president's time than our generals in Afghanistan, I'd say it's fair to state that there are some priority problems.
 
Every major American city has the necessary infrastructure to handle a bid of this type on their own. Most have highly paid image consultants who help the city position itself for travel and tourism, as well. In contrast, Spain is about the size of Texas. A president of Spain is akin to a governor in real terms of population represented and GDP.

This is a job that can generally be handled adequately by locals. And, Chicago has plenty of local celebrities that are well-known on an international level that could have been tapped for this work. Further, this is a perfect role for a First Lady, not necessarily the chief executive.

It really is a matter of priorities, for me at least. We are a nation at war on two fronts. We are in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression. More Americans are out of work than have been at any point in the last 60 years. Our healthcare reform issues are not even close to being resolved.

If Obama doesn't see work for himself in the states that outranks traveling to Denmark in terms of importance, I could probably identify some for him.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that this is the FAIREST criticism I've see leveled at him so far, because it hits on the real priorities of what a President should be doing with his time/energy/budget.
 
Last edited:
Its a fair complaint, that can be made in unfair ways.

Ikari does a good job of showing it as a fair one. Focusing singularly on the Olympics is unfair, as would be trying to equate the olympics to being the exact same thing as say, appearing on the tonight show. HOWEVER, it IS fair to roll it all up into an over arching argument that in general Obama's ACTIONS seems more concerned with his public image and essentially campaigning rather than actually dealing with many of the serious issues in this country. It would even be fair to simply assert that even if its not REALLY messing with his priorities, the perception it gives off is likely bad (as it was hardly hardcore righties that were complaining about his talk show appearances, etc).

Does that mean its a correct and infallable argument?

Absolutely not?

Does it mean that it can't be taken to extremes, interjected with idiotic hyperbole, and be laced with hypocracy?

Absolutely not as well.

The argument itself is a fair one in a general sense, but how one presents it and the scope of which they push it would have the potential to edit such.

Just like the notion, which I found idiotic, that Bush should be chastised and belittled constantly for his time in Crawford for the past 8 years was something NUMEROUS liberals here and elsewhere considered a legitimate and worth while reason to bash him was in and of itself a "fair" complaint. However, many of the arguments for said complaint was unfair due to peoples inability to use reason and logic, avoid gross hyperbole, and have some common sense.
 
LaMidRighter said:
The IOC got more of the president's time than our generals in Afghanistan, I'd say it's fair to state that there are some priority problems.
Click to expand...

I'd also think its fair to state that when you have Joint Cheifs of Staff who are likely communicating with said President and with said general on a regular basis are communicating. This has probably been going on for 9 months now.

Meanwhile I'm pretty sure the IOC was a one day affair where it would benefit diplomatically for the President himself to show up rather than send a cabinet member.

You didn't state "face to face" conversation, you said his time. Unless you're contesting that the reports, statements, or views of said General or of the President never passed between them through intermediaries like the Joint Cheifs of Staff (who are hardly impotent peons), you're just wrong about the "president's time".

One does not need to meet face to face with a person to be able to give them direction, to hear reports from them, etc.
 
I'd have added a few more choices, to allow for finer degree. The charge is obviously fair, but as stated it is incomplete.

Perhaps if Obama had some history of demonstrated leadership, as opposed to his interpretation of the presidency as a sales position, such diversions would be seen as trivial. As it is the appear substantial became they occur in a career largely composed of effluvia.
 
Psychoclown said:
It's a fair complaint ... in the minds of unthinking partisan hacks. The rest of us understand the President can do more than one thing at a time and all President's spend some time on relatively unimportant things like Olympic bids.
Click to expand...
And "health care" reform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom