• 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!

Was President Obama's use of children in today's press conference appropriate?

Was Obama's use of children in today's press conference appropriate?

  • Yes, it was completely normal and appropriate.

    Votes: 13 24.1%

  • Yeah, it was ok, but I'd prefer that children were not involved like that.

    Votes: 4 7.4%

  • No, it was total emotional exploitation.

    Votes: 35 64.8%

  • I cannot decide.

    Votes: 2 3.7%
  • Total voters
    54
  • Poll closed .
This is one of my favorite songs ever. It's supposed to be serious but it's funny as hell.

 
Redress said:
Pointing out selective outrage and the complete triviality of this is not an appeal to tradition. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

"Politicians have been using children as long as there have been politicians"

Those are your words, Redress. That was the logic you used to bolster your claim that the issue of politicians using kids is unimportant. If that's not an appeal to tradition, then what is? You're saying the reason the action is OK is because the action has always been OK.

What is conservatism but an appeal to tradition?

I found it amusing that a patent liberal would have a knee jerk reaction to the story that was conservative.
 
Vapor said:
When I see kids at TEA Party rallies, I groan.
When I see kids at Occupy Wall Street rallies, I groan.
When I see kids being used as a median for any political message, I groan.

Leave the poor little bastards out of it.
Click to expand...
I hate when I see kids at rallies holding signs... kids in the 2 to 3 yr old range. These kids have no clue regarding anything the sign says. I especially hate it when the sign is worded specifically as if the kid had written it.


digsbe said:
It wasn't appropriate, but pretty much all politicians appeal to "but think of the children!" type stuff when they campaign for something. It plays on the emotions of the weak and makes partisans further cast their guys in some kind of sainthood light fueled by benevolence. No one should let themselves get played like that.
Click to expand...
Agreed.


Lachean said:
Its the "if we can save just one child" tripe that pisses me off. So many died so that we could be free, you do not betray that by giving up liberty for the hope of saving lives.

Its "live free or die", not "live at all costs."
Click to expand...
Agree with this, also. Just think of how many kids we can save if we ban vehicles... and swimming pools... and swing sets... and wrap them in bubble wrap. I mean, it's all about saving kids, right?
 
I don't care either way. It's been done in the past and nothing makes Obama's use of children any worse than Reagan's, Bush's, or Chavez's.
 
waas said:
I don't care either way. It's been done in the past and nothing makes Obama's use of children any worse than Reagan's, Bush's, or Chavez's.
Click to expand...

remind me what laws RWR and Bush signed that were designed to take away the rights of honest Americans while surrounded by children?
 
TurtleDude said:
remind me what laws RWR and Bush signed that were designed to take away the rights of honest Americans while surrounded by children?
Click to expand...

I don't care how much you disagree with his platform. The facts of the matter are that a very significant percentage of Americans support gun control measures and that this use of children is nothing new.
 
Peter Grimm said:
"Politicians have been using children as long as there have been politicians"

Those are your words, Redress. That was the logic you used to bolster your claim that the issue of politicians using kids is unimportant. If that's not an appeal to tradition, then what is? You're saying the reason the action is OK is because the action has always been OK.

What is conservatism but an appeal to tradition?

I found it amusing that a patent liberal would have a knee jerk reaction to the story that was conservative.
Click to expand...

No, those are my words that subtly suggested selective outrage. I then explained my feelings on the issue, which is that it is trivial.
 
X Factor said:
So you're selectively pointing out the selective out-rage of only the right? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Huh? Where are left wingers showing selective outrage in this thread? Admittedly I tend to not red liberal posts since they are either just stuff I agree with anyway, or painful. At least gun nut posts are painful but hilariously stupid, like claiming that it is somehow terrible to have kids who expressed an interest in the issue be present. Oh how they are so harmed. Right now gun nuts are the best thing that could happen to the democratic party, as we just stand aside and let them make us look good by comparison.
 
Redress said:
Huh? Where are left wingers showing selective outrage in this thread?
Click to expand...

Naw, left wingers would never do it in any thread, ever. Lol.

Admittedly I tend to not red liberal posts since they are either just stuff I agree with anyway, or painful. At least gun nut posts are painful but hilariously stupid, like claiming that it is somehow terrible to have kids who expressed an interest in the issue be present. Oh how they are so harmed. Right now gun nuts are the best thing that could happen to the democratic party, as we just stand aside and let them make us look good by comparison.
Click to expand...

Fine, but don't start hedging on what you mean by "gun nuts". I take that to mean pro gun rights people. You really have been selectively reading if you think all of the anti gun dip****s are making you look good. There was one thread the OP abandoned because he got caught in so many lies. Lol.
 
X Factor said:
Naw, left wingers would never do it in any thread, ever. Lol.
Click to expand...

Never claimed that. You should know better than to try that kind of straw man with me.



Fine, but don't start hedging on what you mean by "gun nuts". I take that to mean pro gun rights people. You really have been selectively reading if you think all of the anti gun dip****s are making you look good. There was one thread the OP abandoned because he got caught in so many lies. Lol.
Click to expand...

Gun nut: Some one irrational in their support of gun rights. If you are talking armed revolution, you might be a gun nut as one example. You can support gun rights and not be a gun nut.
 
Redress said:
Never claimed that. You should know better than to try that kind of straw man with me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my bad. Sorry about that.

Gun nut: Some one irrational in their support of gun rights. If you are talking armed revolution, you might be a gun nut as one example. You can support gun rights and not be a gun nut.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that many gun rights advocates are not making the Democratic party look good? How about the dishonest anti gun nuts (I'll totally give you examples if you want to see them). Do they make the Republicans look good? What if I feel I should get to keep the guns, including one particularly mean looking rifle, that I bought legally? What if I'm amazed that people who supposedly support the right to privacy and supposedly support the 4th amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure seem perfectly fine with the idea of entering someone's house and confiscating legally obtained property?
 
Redress said:
Never claimed that. You should know better than to try that kind of straw man with me.





Gun nut: Some one irrational in their support of gun rights. If you are talking armed revolution, you might be a gun nut as one example. You can support gun rights and not be a gun nut.
Click to expand...

I think that people who advocate for infringement of the 2nd are probably nutty.
 
X Factor said:
So are you saying that many gun rights advocates are not making the Democratic party look good? How about the dishonest anti gun nuts (I'll totally give you examples if you want to see them). Do they make the Republicans look good?
Click to expand...

Did not claim they are not any, but they are much quieter on the whole, nor are they threatening revolution.

What if I feel I should get to keep the guns, including one particularly mean looking rifle, that I bought legally? What if I'm amazed that people who supposedly support the right to privacy and supposedly support the 4th amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure seem perfectly fine with the idea of entering someone's house and confiscating legally obtained property?
Click to expand...

Can you show me where Obama or congress is threatening to take guns away? I just read the proposal Obama put forth, and it does not do this. Obama on curbing gun violence: 'Now is the time'. Notice the problem? Hyperbole is exceeding the facts in a big way.
 
20 young children were senslessly murdered by gunfire and those children are the REASON Obama is doing this. It is totally appropriate that they be front and center in this fight. Whether you know it or want to admit it, those children are the owners of the future we give them. They have every right to be involved in it too.
 
iguanaman said:
20 young children were senslessly murdered by gunfire and those children are the REASON Obama is doing this. It is totally appropriate that they be front and center in this fight. Whether you know it or want to admit it, those children are the owners of the future we give them. They have every right to be involved in it too.
Click to expand...

While I don't see that much sentimental value in this incident, you sure put a nice spin on it. :)
 
Redress said:
No, those are my words that subtly suggested selective outrage. I then explained my feelings on the issue, which is that it is trivial.
Click to expand...

I agree that there is selective outrage on this issue. I am also convinced that if the tables were turned, if it were a Republican using kids to garner the sympathy vote, Democrats would behave exactly the same way.

Selective outrage is a reality of partisan American politics. Neither side has a monopoly on sanctimonious bull****. It's the American way.
 
It wasn't that he used kids. It was that he used kids for a completely ignorant and self-serving discussion.

If he had kids up there that were making valid points or contributed to legitimate viewpoint, sure. Not when he's pandering.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I agree that there is selective outrage on this issue. I am also convinced that if the tables were turned, if it were a Republican using kids to garner the sympathy vote,
Click to expand...

The NRA used Obama's kids in an advertisement to gain support for their position.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I agree that there is selective outrage on this issue. I am also convinced that if the tables were turned, if it were a Republican using kids to garner the sympathy vote, Democrats would behave exactly the same way.

Selective outrage is a reality of partisan American politics. Neither side has a monopoly on sanctimonious bull****. It's the American way.
Click to expand...

And if democrats gave Obama a pass on this but condemned conservatives for doing it, it would be selective outrage. Me personally, I don't see any one harmed so don't care when any one does it. That is called consistency.
 
winston53660 said:
The NRA used Obama's kids in an advertisement to gain support for their position.
Click to expand...

Kinda sorta. The add failed on just about every level, factual and logical, but the referencing of kids in the add was not really inappropriate to my mind.
 
Redress said:
Kinda sorta. The add failed on just about every level, factual and logical, but the referencing of kids in the add was not really inappropriate to my mind.
Click to expand...

I think it was highly out of line. It was a blatant attack. IMHO they should have found some kids that support the 2nd and encouraged debate.
 
waas said:
While I don't see that much sentimental value in this incident, you sure put a nice spin on it. :)
Click to expand...

It maybe because I see this as genuine and not as a cynical "ploy". Obama has a picture in his study painted by a 7 year old girl killed that day, and when he says seeing it moves him to do something so she will not have died in vain, I believe him.
I would find that quite satisfying in any person but for a President it is phenomenal.
 
Redress said:
Did not claim they are not any, but they are much quieter on the whole, nor are they threatening revolution.
Click to expand...

How can you say they're quiter when you've already said you're less likely to read them. They're plenty loud to me. Where were you when some proponents of OWS were suggesting violence and armed revolution?


Can you show me where Obama or congress is threatening to take guns away? I just read the proposal Obama put forth, and it does not do this. Obama on curbing gun violence: 'Now is the time'. Notice the problem? Hyperbole is exceeding the facts in a big way.
Click to expand...

Number 2.
 
Redress said:
And if democrats gave Obama a pass on this but condemned conservatives for doing it, it would be selective outrage. Me personally, I don't see any one harmed so don't care when any one does it. That is called consistency.
Click to expand...

Consistency is a hallmark and prized conservative trait. I'm just saying.

Anyone who can be the same man every day was raised right. Kudos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom