• 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
Kal'Stang said:
Time lost is time lost. Doesn't matter how many hours you work you will still not get those hours back.

Obama doesn't go for bid: 4 hours of time spent. 4 important items taken care of.

Works on education for one hour, then moves onto health care for one hour, then moves onto crime for one hour, then moves onto space program for one hour.

Obama goes for bid: 4 hours of time spent. 3 important items things taken care of.

Obama works on bid for one hour, then moves onto education for one hour, then moves onto health care for one hour, then moves onto crime for one hour.
Click to expand...

This would only be fair if Obama worked by the hour. He does not, he works by what needs to be done. Now what evidence do you have that something did not get done?
 
Zyphlin said:
At the same time, could not the first lady host the championship team? Perhaps the Vice President? Perhaps the state Governor? I do understand you said you don't like it, but yet it also seems like you won't complain about that "official action" as much as the Olympic one...where as with the Olympic one you could arguably say its actually a BIGGER moral boost as not only does it give us a chance to improve our world wide image, brings money into our economy, show the world America's glory, and host a massive traditional event rather than just inviting one cities team in to have a dinner cause they won a sports game.

Shouldn't there be even GREATER indignation for inviting say, the Pittsburgh Steelers to the white house for dinner than trying to win the Olympics Games to the U.S.?
Click to expand...

Yes the First Lady could do so, as well as the Vice President could. And since you bring it up I think you're right in this respect. I would rather have the Vice President or First Lady take care of those Champions than have the President do it.

As for your second paragraph I'm not sure if there would be or not. The Steelers is a local team and because of that may hold more popularity than the Olympics. On the other hand the Olympics is suppose to bring "prestige" to the city/country that hosts it. So to others that may be more important. In the end I don't really know.

Thanks to you I am now of the opinion that the President should stay out of such things period and leave them to those that don't have the things that he does on their plate.
 
Redress said:
This would only be fair if Obama worked by the hour. He does not, he works by what needs to be done. Now what evidence do you have that something did not get done?
Click to expand...

As does everyone else that works on a salary. Yet if they spent their time doing something that isn't as important as something else that they could be doing then they would get yelled at by their boss.

For example a section of track on a railroad needs replaced or the next train to go over it will be trying to drive on the highway vs a section of track that needs replaced but can still be ok for 50 trains to go over it. What would happen to the person that's suppose to replace that first track but instead replaced the second track?

Just because you are on Salary hours does not mean that the less important things should be done ahead of the important things.

And yes I do think that it is fair. No matter what there are only so many hours in a day. Once those hours are wasted they are wasted. Gone. They cannot be gotten back just because you work some hours that you normally would not have worked.
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did you criticize Bush for his response to Katrina?
 
Hatuey said:
Did you criticize Bush for his response to Katrina?
Click to expand...
I put the blame where it belonged, mayor Ray Nagin and then Gov. Kathleen Blanco primarily, and THEN federal, I did it that way because. A) I'm from Louisiana and was here when the storm hit just east of Morgan City Louisana. B) Saw the entire fallout and not just what some pundit wanted to show or present. C) Know the particulars of response protocol since my dad was nationa guard and worked other storms that devestated other communities the national media will never know/care about and Katrina was the absolute worst response by any mayor/governer tandem of any time.
- I am glad you brought this up though, because after the flooding in Georgia and another disaster that doesn't immediately come to mind, there was a conspicuous absence from Obama, not even a phone call. At least Bush and prior presidents declared disaster areas or visited/made a call.
 
Hatuey said:
Did you criticize Bush for his response to Katrina?
Click to expand...

At first yes. And then I learned how those type of situations are suppose to work. Once I learned that I placed the blame where it belonged in the order that it belonged. Bush ended up along the bottom of the list.
 
If Obama hadn't gone (& Rio won) anti-Obama forces would be complaining that he was Un-American & wasn't doing enough to create jobs here.
 
Devil505 said:
If Obama hadn't gone (& Rio won) anti-Obama forces would be complaining that he was Un-American & wasn't doing enough to create jobs here.
Click to expand...

Yeah I keep hearing that. But I have yet to see any proof that such a thing has ever happened to any President. Maybe if I saw some it might make me inclined to agree. As it stands it's a false statement since there is no way to prove that it would have happened.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yeah I keep hearing that. But I have yet to see any proof that such a thing has ever happened to any President. Maybe if I saw some it might make me inclined to agree. As it stands it's a false statement since there is no way to prove that it would have happened.
Click to expand...

It's obviously just opinion. As you say...there is no way to prove it one way of the other.
I also don't see where past history would be much help here as I can never remember such visceral hatred (from some) of a fairly new President as we see now, & I'm 62 years old & have seen allot.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
It's obviously just opinion. As you say...there is no way to prove it one way of the other.
I also don't see where past history would be much help here as I can never remember such visceral hatred (from some) of a fairly new President as we see now, & I'm 62 years old & have seen allot.
Click to expand...

While it might not be much help it is still some help. If there is no evidence at all for such a statement to be made then the statement can only be construed as a lie based on political partisanship. It's used to try to discredit and take peoples eyes away from any real objections. Sorry but that's the only way that I can describe it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
While it might not be much help it is still some help. If there is no evidence at all for such a statement to be made then the statement can only be construed as a lie based on political partisanship. It's used to try to discredit and take peoples eyes away from any real objections. Sorry but that's the only way that I can describe it.
Click to expand...

An opinion can be wrong or right but it is not a lie.


A lie:
(n.) A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
If Obama hadn't gone (& Rio won) anti-Obama forces would be complaining that he was Un-American & wasn't doing enough to create jobs here.
Click to expand...
There are fringe elements in any ideology that would criticize a president for anything either way, my take is that Obama had no business lobbying for the Olympics because he is the president of the U.S. there are plenty of other successful Americans who could have done that, even Michelle Obama could have done so as the first lady without scrutiny from fair minded right leaners, I would not be giving them grief if she used the figurehead position for such, but as is I think the presidency was cheapened a little by that and other lobbying.
 
Devil505 said:
If Obama hadn't gone (& Rio won) anti-Obama forces would be complaining that he was Un-American & wasn't doing enough to create jobs here.
Click to expand...

I don't think we really give a **** either way. Especially, since every city that hosts the olympics winds up millions of dollars in debt. Actaully, I'm glad Chicago didn't get the games, because we would have to have another bailout for a city that is already needing bailing out. I'm frustrated that PBO wasted his time with the crap.
 
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...
The Dems did it for 8 years.
 
Devil505 said:
If Obama hadn't gone (& Rio won) anti-Obama forces would be complaining that he was Un-American & wasn't doing enough to create jobs here.
Click to expand...

No we would'nt....it isnt the Presidents job to lobby for the olympics.
 
Strucky said:
No we would'nt....it isnt the Presidents job to lobby for the olympics.
Click to expand...

& why is that? (because you say so?) There were many other world leaders there, lobbying for their country too.
 
Devil505 said:
& why is that? (because you say so?) There were many other world leaders there, lobbying for their country too.
Click to expand...

Screw the other leaders....they have nothing better to do....Officials from the city of Chicago should've been the ones lobbying.
 
Devil505 said:
An opinion can be wrong or right but it is not a lie.


A lie:
(n.) A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Click to expand...

Normally you would be correct. But in this case it's being spouted so often that it has in itself become a statement. Not by any individual..but by a group.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Normally you would be correct. But in this case it's being spouted so often that it has in itself become a statement. Not by any individual..but by a group.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty obvious the right wing anti-Obama group will attack him no matter what action he takes or doesn't take. They always paint him into a "No win" corner.
ie:
Cheering when we don't get the Olympics because they think it's Obama's failure & not a loss or the U.S & jeering him when he wins the Nobel peace Prize?....Our President.......Is somehow bad for winning the Nobel Peace prize?
Don't you think it's obvious to most Americans that this anti-Obama hysteria is just that.....Hysteria & not good for our country?
Wouldn't it be smarter & less obviously partisan to pick & choose their fights with him rather than being against EVERYTHING he does?
I do.
(I I hated GW Bush but wasn't against everything he did....not everything)
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
I think it's pretty obvious the right wing anti-Obama group will attack him no matter what action he takes or doesn't take. They always paint him into a "No win" corner.
ie:
Cheering when we don't get the Olympics because they think it's Obama's failure & not a loss or the U.S & jeering him when he wins the Nobel peace Prize?....Our President.......Is somehow bad for winning the Nobel Peace prize?
Don't you think it's obvious to most Americans that this anti-Obama hysteria is just that.....Hysteria & not good for our country?
Wouldn't it be smarter & less obviously partisan to pick & choose their fights with him rather than being against EVERYTHING he does?
I do.
(I I hated GW Bush but wasn't against everything he did....not everything)
Click to expand...

Umm I'm going to look around for a thread here about that NPP that Obama got and going to post something which I would like you to answer. If I can't find it i'll start one in the general political fora.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Umm I'm going to look around for a thread here about that NPP that Obama got and going to post something which I would like you to answer. If I can't find it i'll start one in the general political fora.
Click to expand...

....Gotcha....

But if it's something saying the NPP is not good, that's really not my point. You (general you) can attack each individual action, non-action or decision that Obama makes & sound credible.... on that one issue. But if you are against EVERYTHING he says, does or decides, then your motives are highly suspect & most probably strictly partisan.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
....Gotcha....

But if it's something saying the NPP is not good, that's really not my point. You (general you) can attack each individual action, non-action or decision that Obama makes & sound credible.... on that one issue. But if you are against EVERYTHING he says, does or decides, then your motives are highly suspect & most probably strictly partisan.
Click to expand...


I have begun to have a hard time taking any of the conservative criticisms of Obama seriously (reported on the news, not any individual poster). They have shot off their mouths and made posters about every damn thing. They're just not credible anymore. And it's not good either, because some criticisms are warranted, but it's like listening for a whisper in a roar. They criticized him for not wearing a jacket in his office FFS. And wasting money on Wed night cocktail mixers in the winter. They freaking criticized him for every damn thing, with equal venom and indignation.
 
Last edited:
Strucky said:
Screw the other leaders....they have nothing better to do....Officials from the city of Chicago should've been the ones lobbying.
Click to expand...

We, as a nation must distance ourselves from this "screwing others" business and become civilized.
Chicago should have been campaigning for a Brazilian city, either Sao Paulo or The River of January as the next Olympics site...
And if they have time for this nonsense, then we probably have too many "officials", so lets lay them off rather than the working man.
 
jackalope said:
I have begun to have a hard time taking any of the conservative criticisms of Obama seriously (reported on the news, not any individual poster). They have shot off their mouths and made posters about every damn thing. They're just not credible anymore. And it's not good either, because some criticisms are warranted, but it's like listening for a whisper in a roar. They criticized him for not wearing a jacket in his office FFS. And wasting money on Wed night cocktail mixers in the winter. They freaking criticized him for every damn thing, with equal venom and indignation.
Click to expand...

Have I previously written that I am 100% disgusted with the behavior of the conservatives, that,IMO, they have no credibility, that if they are against something, anything, it must be good for our people and/or our nation.
 
Devil505 said:
....Gotcha....

But if it's something saying the NPP is not good, that's really not my point. You (general you) can attack each individual action, non-action or decision that Obama makes & sound credible.... on that one issue. But if you are against EVERYTHING he says, does or decides, then your motives are highly suspect & most probably strictly partisan.
Click to expand...

I go policy by policy. And there's very few of them that I agree with.

The thing about me is that I think that all parties should be disbanded. This is one country with one people. I believe that the views of the people should be represented by everyone in Congress/Senate. Not just by a persons party. This party system, I believe, is what has led us to the point where people now vote for the lesser of two evils.

This is why I label myself as an Independent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom