• 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
disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...
Have we ever complained when any other president didn't go to grovel for the Olympics? Think now, have we?
 
I've never felt it was a president's role to pitch for a particular city. That's what Mayors are for.
 
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh BS.....yes....every President has been criticized for the types of things that you site....

However, the wacko right have been criticizing Obama for a wide range of silly and outright stupid things.....

- The whole birth certificate issue :doh

- His choice of Beer:doh

- Promoting the US in the Olympics :doh

- speaking to kids about the importance of education....I could go on and on and on.


Scrutinize? Absolutely. I think that is not only allowable...but your patriotic duty.

Come up with these petty BS feigned outrages? Ridiculous babble.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
However, the wacko right have been criticizing Obama for a wide range of silly and outright stupid things.....

- The whole birth certificate issue :doh

- His choice of Beer:doh

- Promoting the US in the Olympics :doh

- speaking to kids about the importance of education....I could go on and on and on.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I am not the whacko right, and he's losing my confidence at this point.
 
disneydude said:
Oh BS.....yes....every President has been criticized for the types of things that you site....

However, the wacko right have been criticizing Obama for a wide range of silly and outright stupid things.....

Scrutinize? Absolutely. I think that is not only allowable...but your patriotic duty.

Come up with these petty BS feigned outrages? Ridiculous babble.
Click to expand...


Yes, and we definitely know that nit picking on silly and outright stupid things for criticism is the perview of only the "wacko" right and only happens to Obama.

How Nuclear is pronounced.

Choking on a pretzel.

Finishing reading to the kids.

Working from the Ranch instead.

Planned / Knowingly purposefully allowed 9/11.

Planning to declare himself dictator with FEMA camps (thanks billo).

Indeed, I'm sure if we go back to Clinton, and to GHWB, and to Reagan we would in no way find people:

1. Complaining about something stupid like how one spells nuclear or what beer they're drinking

2. Creating some kind of idiotic conspiracy theory about them

3. Get upset with them due to some kind of public event, "vacation" location, change in venue, or minor political issue that became a focus for a short time.

Those things never could've happened for anyone but Obama. Dear Obama has so, soooooooo much more to worry about than any President. I mean, its just blatantly obvious.

:roll:
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is fair, from my understanding, General McCrystal(sp?) has recieved 25 minutes of total time from the president prior to the second meeting.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes, and we definitely know that nit picking on silly and outright stupid things for criticism is the perview of only the "wacko" right and only happens to Obama.

How Nuclear is pronounced.

Choking on a pretzel.

Finishing reading to the kids.

Working from the Ranch instead.

Planned / Knowingly purposefully allowed 9/11.

Planning to declare himself dictator with FEMA camps (thanks billo).

Indeed, I'm sure if we go back to Clinton, and to GHWB, and to Reagan we would in no way find people:

1. Complaining about something stupid like how one spells nuclear or what beer they're drinking

2. Creating some kind of idiotic conspiracy theory about them

3. Get upset with them due to some kind of public event, "vacation" location, change in venue, or minor political issue that became a focus for a short time.

Those things never could've happened for anyone but Obama. Dear Obama has so, soooooooo much more to worry about than any President. I mean, its just blatantly obvious.

:roll:
Click to expand...

When you consider than he's working toward becoming the worst president in history, he does have more to worry about than any other president.
 
LaMidRighter said:
This is fair, from my understanding, General McCrystal(sp?) has recieved 25 minutes of total time from the president prior to the second meeting.
Click to expand...
Oh, and I should mention that "time with the president" is all considerations, such as advisory, hearing out needs, etc. This includes the cabinet. Again, this is my understanding.
 
LaMidRighter said:
This is fair, from my understanding, General McCrystal(sp?) has recieved 25 minutes of total time from the president prior to the second meeting.
Click to expand...

Face to Face time, or time in general that McCrystal's reports, concerns, comments, etc were being given to Obama and vise versa?

If Obama has spent 25 total minutes in the 9 months in anything revolving around the General, that'd be the issue.

if Obama only met with McCrystal once for 25 minutes, but daily was having briefings from his Joint Chiefs of Staff concerning reports and comments sent back by McCrystal and was also passing forward his thoughts through them to the general, then I don't have as big of a deal. Would I prefer my President to be meeting with the General often? Sure. But more importantly I want them to be abreast of the situation. If they feel they can be that way through the Joint Chiefs briefings and that individual talks with the General isn't as helpful (perhaps he doesn't know the nuiances of the military and the General is not as good at getting those across, who knows), then so be it.

The problem is people seem to be trying to imply, rather UNFAIRLY imho, that since he only met with the General once for 25 minutes that somehow that's the extent of his interaction in any form or shape with what's going on in Afghanistan and command issues there.
 
Zyphlin said:
Face to Face time, or time in general that McCrystal's reports, concerns, comments, etc were being given to Obama and vise versa?

If Obama has spent 25 total minutes in the 9 months in anything revolving around the General, that'd be the issue.

if Obama only met with McCrystal once for 25 minutes, but daily was having briefings from his Joint Chiefs of Staff concerning reports and comments sent back by McCrystal and was also passing forward his thoughts through them to the general, then I don't have as big of a deal. Would I prefer my President to be meeting with the General often? Sure. But more importantly I want them to be abreast of the situation. If they feel they can be that way through the Joint Chiefs briefings and that individual talks with the General isn't as helpful (perhaps he doesn't know the nuiances of the military and the General is not as good at getting those across, who knows), then so be it.

The problem is people seem to be trying to imply, rather UNFAIRLY imho, that since he only met with the General once for 25 minutes that somehow that's the extent of his interaction in any form or shape with what's going on in Afghanistan and command issues there.
Click to expand...
I reposted my qualifier a second ago, sorry bout the confusion.
 
apdst said:
When you consider than he's working toward becoming the worst president in history, he does have more to worry about than any other president.
Click to expand...

Yay for wonderful hyperbole!

Ugg.

Serious, determining whether someone is becoming "the worst" president in history....DURING THEIR FREAKING ADMINISTRATION, let alone even a decade later....is incredibly foolhearty. So often things put forth into action by a President don't have their full ramifications show up until sometime in the future. Be it that it takes that long to go into effect, or if the slow but lengthy longevity of a positive looks far better than the initial small bonus it showed at first, or something that started off huge bombs off, etc. Its not something that can be honestly really judged right off. If you want to say "bad", sure go ahead. If you want to say he's the worst you've seen personally, sure. If you want to say you think he will be one of, eh, okay. But to unequiviocally state he's becoming THE WORST is just gross hyperbole based on nothing but hyper partisan biased views.

And even if we are....

This is a classic example of hyper partisanship attempting to just go after the guy in office. Because the only standard I can see you using to justify calling him the worst is the expansion of government, expansion of the welfare state, expansion of the federal debt, poor supreme court choice, and perhaps fear of removal of civil liberties. Going from the extreme right sided mindset of this, even Obama can't be listed as "the worst ever" under that criteria because he still pales in comparison to FDR at the majority of those things, on top of which FDR has history backing him as we can actually look at see the longevity his things have had on society and their effects which we won't be able to do for decades with Obama.

Just no.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Face to Face time, or time in general that McCrystal's reports, concerns, comments, etc were being given to Obama and vise versa?

If Obama has spent 25 total minutes in the 9 months in anything revolving around the General, that'd be the issue.

if Obama only met with McCrystal once for 25 minutes, but daily was having briefings from his Joint Chiefs of Staff concerning reports and comments sent back by McCrystal and was also passing forward his thoughts through them to the general, then I don't have as big of a deal. Would I prefer my President to be meeting with the General often? Sure. But more importantly I want them to be abreast of the situation. If they feel they can be that way through the Joint Chiefs briefings and that individual talks with the General isn't as helpful (perhaps he doesn't know the nuiances of the military and the General is not as good at getting those across, who knows), then so be it.

The problem is people seem to be trying to imply, rather UNFAIRLY imho, that since he only met with the General once for 25 minutes that somehow that's the extent of his interaction in any form or shape with what's going on in Afghanistan and command issues there.
Click to expand...


It's possible that someone in the chain of command felt like PBO wasn't giving the war it's due attention andI think that's the reason that McChrystal's troop request was leaked. It is quite obvious that the Afghaistan command isn't on the same page as the president. Just my opinion.
 
Zyphlin said:
Serious, determining whether someone is becoming "the worst" president in history....DURING THEIR FREAKING ADMINISTRATION, let alone even a decade later....is incredibly foolhearty.
Click to expand...

Not only that, it shows a serious lack of understanding of U.S. history. We've had far, far worse.
 
Why is Afghanistan war being the only example being used? There are far more things on Obama's plate than just that war. Using just the war and not showing all the other things on Obama's plate is an inaccurate representation of the things Obama is suppose to be doing. I already gave such a list once in this thread.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I intended the question(did I phrase it poorly again), it is meant the Olympic bid in relation to Afghanistan. Is it fair to complain about going to support the bid because he has not made the troop commitment to Afghanistan. It has gotten to where the last soldiers who died, Obama is being blamed for the deaths since he went to take part in the Olympic bid.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Why is Afghanistan war being the only example being used? There are far more things on Obama's plate than just that war. Using just the war and not showing all the other things on Obama's plate is an inaccurate representation of the things Obama is suppose to be doing. I already gave such a list once in this thread.
Click to expand...

Can you show where the Olympic bid took away from those?
 
Redress said:
Can you show where the Olympic bid took away from those?
Click to expand...

The very fact that he took time out to talk about it is time that he could have instead been talking about something more important.
 
.....I wonder where all these people were when Bush was on vacation and an American city was underwater. Oh that's right....
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
The very fact that he took time out to talk about it is time that he could have instead been talking about something more important.
Click to expand...

Like bringing thousands of tourists into the US spending money?
 
Zyphlin said:
Yay for wonderful hyperbole!

Ugg.

Serious, determining whether someone is becoming "the worst" president in history....DURING THEIR FREAKING ADMINISTRATION, let alone even a decade later....is incredibly foolhearty. So often things put forth into action by a President don't have their full ramifications show up until sometime in the future. Be it that it takes that long to go into effect, or if the slow but lengthy longevity of a positive looks far better than the initial small bonus it showed at first, or something that started off huge bombs off, etc. Its not something that can be honestly really judged right off. If you want to say "bad", sure go ahead. If you want to say he's the worst you've seen personally, sure. If you want to say you think he will be one of, eh, okay. But to unequiviocally state he's becoming THE WORST is just gross hyperbole based on nothing but hyper partisan biased views.

And even if we are....

This is a classic example of hyper partisanship attempting to just go after the guy in office. Because the only standard I can see you using to justify calling him the worst is the expansion of government, expansion of the welfare state, expansion of the federal debt, poor supreme court choice, and perhaps fear of removal of civil liberties. Going from the extreme right sided mindset of this, even Obama can't be listed as "the worst ever" under that criteria because he still pales in comparison to FDR at the majority of those things, on top of which FDR has history backing him as we can actually look at see the longevity his things have had on society and their effects which we won't be able to do for decades with Obama.

Just no.
Click to expand...


Did I say that PBO is the worst president in history? I didn't, did I?

What I did say, is that he's working on becoming the worst president in history. If the next three years go like the past 9 months, then he'll certainly win that claim to fame. It didn't take decades to figure out that Carter was a crappy president.
 
Hatuey said:
.....I wonder where all these people were when Bush was on vacation and an American city was underwater. Oh that's right....
Click to expand...

We were waiting and wondering when state and local officials were going to do their jobs and request the neccessary Federal assistance. Instead, the governer told the president that everything was a-ok, two hours after the 17th Street Canal levee failed.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The very fact that he took time out to talk about it is time that he could have instead been talking about something more important.
Click to expand...

And you think he would have accomplished something he did not if he had not gone?
 
Hatuey said:
.....I wonder where all these people were when Bush was on vacation and an American city was underwater. Oh that's right....
Click to expand...

What makes you think that Bush wasn't critisized for the Katrina response? Here's a couple right here...

bush_do_nothing.jpg


BushKatrinaCartoon-729587.jpg


BushKatrinaHomicide.jpg


U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain has criticized the leader of his own party, saying the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was "disgraceful."
Click to expand...

Link

I find it funny when people say such things as you did Hatuey when there is tons of evidence that Bush was critized also. Such statements make it try to look like no one ever critized Bush.
 
winston53660 said:
Like bringing thousands of tourists into the US spending money?
Click to expand...

Instead of replying to this directly I'll use another post that was said in a different thread...

Orius said:
Speaking as someone who is living in the city of the 2010 Olympics, the people of Chicago should be glad that they dodged a financial bullet like this. The Olympics are a banquet for the rich, usually at the expense of tax payers under the guise of 'infrastructure' projects, and it's the tax payers who shoulder the burden of the debt for years to come.

If you lookup the past 5-6 Olympic cities - and especially those for the summer olympics - they took decades to pay off their debt from the Olympics.
Click to expand...
 
Kal'Stang said:
What makes you think that Bush wasn't critisized for the Katrina response?
Click to expand...

The question would be whether it is the same people doing the criticizing. If the people who excused Bush from taking a record number of vacation days are the same one bitching about Obama going to the Olympics when he has not approved a troop request, then it shows a selective bias, and vice versa. If those who are defending Obama now complained then, it's selective bias.

However, the question is not is it fair considering last time, I was not posting here then, that time is past, and I am asking only about this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom