PDA

View Full Version : No matter your politics.....doesn't it seem that......



WRL
08-14-2010, 10:43 AM
No matter your politics, doesn't it seem that Obama speaks "out of turn" a great deal more than any other recent Pres?

A couple of things come to mind.

First, the proposed Mosque. It is really his "business" to "approve/disapprove" this? Did he NEED to comment on it? Isn't this one of those cases where he should have said this is NYC or local issue?

What about the arrest of his "friend" when he was thought to be an intruder breaking into a house? Did he really need to say anything? This also was a local thing where eventually more facts came out and he looked like an idiot.

Or his travel overseas for the Olympics?

Are these really "Presidental" responsibilities? Or is he involving himself in stuff he should not be?

Just a thought.

WRL

Gerry Clinchy
08-14-2010, 10:49 AM
I tend to agree with you ... he's got plenty on his plate without having to get involved in these other things.

YardleyLabs
08-14-2010, 11:10 AM
No matter your politics, doesn't it seem that Obama speaks "out of turn" a great deal more than any other recent Pres?

A couple of things come to mind.

First, the proposed Mosque. It is really his "business" to "approve/disapprove" this? Did he NEED to comment on it? Isn't this one of those cases where he should have said this is NYC or local issue?

What about the arrest of his "friend" when he was thought to be an intruder breaking into a house? Did he really need to say anything? This also was a local thing where eventually more facts came out and he looked like an idiot.

Or his travel overseas for the Olympics?

Are these really "Presidental" responsibilities? Or is he involving himself in stuff he should not be?

Just a thought.

WRL
Lee,

I think there's some merit to what you say. From a purely political perspective, Obama tends to spread himself too thin. The situation with the mosque may be an exception. This was a purely local issue. It was resolved locally. The planning commission reviewed the proposal and reviewed the site and determined that there was no reason why the project should not proceed. That decision was supported by the NYC Mayor and the NY Governor. It became a national issue when Fox and the right wing blogdom decided that New York had violated it responsibilities to the nation as a whole to protect the sanctity of ground zero.

Their outrage was picked up by politicians from Kentucky, Ohio and other states around the country that felt personally insulted and threatened by a cultural center in Manhattan. Their outrage, in turn, grew into a worldwide image undermining all efforts to reach out to Muslim nations that are convinced that the U.S. is ultimately so biased against Muslims that it is a threat.

Obama recognizes, as did Bush before him, that it is vital to the interests of American that we not be seen as anti-Muslim. Islam is the second largest religion in the world, and we are dependent on resources that are controlled by predominantly Islamic governments. We cannot conquer the Islamic world and our leverage in dealing with them is declining every day as the power of China grows. The opposition to the mosque has clearly disintegrated into simple anti-Muslim bias in direct violation of our own Constitution and our own national ideals. Justifying such bias by comparing ourselves to Saudi Arabia is not exactly the standard of freedom we should be aspiring to.

M&K's Retrievers
08-14-2010, 11:13 AM
And miss an opportunity to grand stand? I'm afraid he can't resist.

depittydawg
08-14-2010, 12:19 PM
No matter your politics, doesn't it seem that Obama speaks "out of turn" a great deal more than any other recent Pres?

A couple of things come to mind.

First, the proposed Mosque. It is really his "business" to "approve/disapprove" this? Did he NEED to comment on it? Isn't this one of those cases where he should have said this is NYC or local issue?

What about the arrest of his "friend" when he was thought to be an intruder breaking into a house? Did he really need to say anything? This also was a local thing where eventually more facts came out and he looked like an idiot.

Or his travel overseas for the Olympics?

Are these really "Presidental" responsibilities? Or is he involving himself in stuff he should not be?

Just a thought.

WRL

I agree with this. Not only is it an absurd issue for the President of the United States to be involved with; to choose this issue, in the midst of an election year in which HIS political party is fighting for its life, is an incredible mistake. Once again, Obama has demonstrated his incompetence as the leader of the democratic party, let alone the nation.

road kill
08-14-2010, 01:00 PM
No matter your politics, doesn't it seem that Obama speaks "out of turn" a great deal more than any other recent Pres?

A couple of things come to mind.

First, the proposed Mosque. It is really his "business" to "approve/disapprove" this? Did he NEED to comment on it? Isn't this one of those cases where he should have said this is NYC or local issue?

What about the arrest of his "friend" when he was thought to be an intruder breaking into a house? Did he really need to say anything? This also was a local thing where eventually more facts came out and he looked like an idiot.

Or his travel overseas for the Olympics?

Are these really "Presidental" responsibilities? Or is he involving himself in stuff he should not be?

Just a thought.

WRL

Perhaps, but to quote a "middle of the road independent";

"Sure, he's got style. But he also speaks intelligently, even if you don't agree with his content, you have to admit, he can articulate his ideas in a convincing manner. "

There ya go........:p




RK

subroc
08-14-2010, 01:42 PM
Lee,

I think there's some merit to what you say. From a purely political perspective, Obama tends to spread himself too thin. The situation with the mosque may be an exception. This was a purely local issue. It was resolved locally. The planning commission reviewed the proposal and reviewed the site and determined that there was no reason why the project should not proceed. That decision was supported by the NYC Mayor and the NY Governor. It became a national issue when Fox and the right wing blogdom decided that New York had violated it responsibilities to the nation as a whole to protect the sanctity of ground zero.

Their outrage was picked up by politicians from Kentucky, Ohio and other states around the country that felt personally insulted and threatened by a cultural center in Manhattan. Their outrage, in turn, grew into a worldwide image undermining all efforts to reach out to Muslim nations that are convinced that the U.S. is ultimately so biased against Muslims that it is a threat.

Obama recognizes, as did Bush before him, that it is vital to the interests of American that we not be seen as anti-Muslim. Islam is the second largest religion in the world, and we are dependent on resources that are controlled by predominantly Islamic governments. We cannot conquer the Islamic world and our leverage in dealing with them is declining every day as the power of China grows. The opposition to the mosque has clearly disintegrated into simple anti-Muslim bias in direct violation of our own Constitution and our own national ideals. Justifying such bias by comparing ourselves to Saudi Arabia is not exactly the standard of freedom we should be aspiring to.


http://images.politico.com/global/news/100814_reax_ap_328.jpg

YardleyLabs
08-14-2010, 03:41 PM
http://jeffgoodwin.com/churches.jpg
Fixed it for you.......
My guess is both are equally true. However, both churches and mosques are normally built because people are looking for places to worship in the manner of their choosing.

dnf777
08-14-2010, 04:03 PM
Perhaps, but to quote a "middle of the road independent";

"Sure, he's got style. But he also speaks intelligently, even if you don't agree with his content, you have to admit, he can articulate his ideas in a convincing manner. "

There ya go........:p

RK

Just because you can speak intelligently and convincingly, doesn't mean you always should.

Very odd to have a man in office who concerns himself with issues we care about, isn't it?

Franco
08-14-2010, 05:16 PM
Their outrage was picked up by politicians from Kentucky, Ohio and other states around the country that felt personally insulted and threatened by a cultural center in Manhattan. Their outrage, in turn, grew into a worldwide image undermining all efforts to reach out to Muslim nations that are convinced that the U.S. is ultimately so biased against Muslims that it is a threat.



I just feel so badly about upsetting Muslin Nations. How dare we, we the guilty, do just a thing? We might actually piss them off enough to blow themselves and everyone around them up!

Jeff, you are right we need to make a special apology to the Muslim world this time for upsetting them!

Next time in floods, or situations like the Yugoslavia when we saved thier asses (when we shouldn't have), earthquakes, tsunmanis or whatever disaster, we should do nothing!

I have no patients for terrorist and the organizatios that legitimize them. Like the very one we are discussing. We all know the money they will be getting to build is dirty!

I don't easily forget the Saudi's money and support for 911 or any of the other evils they have committed. And it will all be Saudi money for this insult of a mosque!

M&K's Retrievers
08-14-2010, 05:32 PM
Just because you can speak intelligently and convincingly, doesn't mean you always should.

Very odd to have a man in office who concerns himself with issues we care about, isn't it?

No, not at all. Are you implying that Bush didn't care about domestic matters or are you saying he didn't care about anything?

PM sent on another matter.

Joe S.
08-14-2010, 05:42 PM
No matter your politics, doesn't it seem that Obama speaks "out of turn" a great deal more than any other recent Pres?

A couple of things come to mind.

First, the proposed Mosque. It is really his "business" to "approve/disapprove" this? Did he NEED to comment on it? Isn't this one of those cases where he should have said this is NYC or local issue?

What about the arrest of his "friend" when he was thought to be an intruder breaking into a house? Did he really need to say anything? This also was a local thing where eventually more facts came out and he looked like an idiot.

Or his travel overseas for the Olympics?

Are these really "Presidental" responsibilities? Or is he involving himself in stuff he should not be?

Just a thought.

WRL

WRL...

Yes, sometimes, for some things, I'd just like to ask President Obama to not say anything.

I would think that if an American Team is participating on a world stage like the Olympics or World Cup then it is OK for the President of the USA to attend and talk to/rally the players. There is precedent for this. I think President Bush went to China for the Olympics in 2008 but am open for correction.

Athletic Supporter In Chief Regards,

Joe S.

WRL
08-14-2010, 06:23 PM
WRL...

Yes, sometimes, for some things, I'd just like to ask President Obama to not say anything.

I would think that if an American Team is participating on a world stage like the Olympics or World Cup then it is OK for the President of the USA to attend and talk to/rally the players. There is precedent for this. I think President Bush went to China for the Olympics in 2008 but am open for correction.

Athletic Supporter In Chief Regards,

Joe S.

That's correct. Attending is one thing. Going to plead your case for holding them in your country (or hometown) is another.

THAT"S NOT PRESIDENTIAL DUTIES.....

WRL

dnf777
08-14-2010, 06:47 PM
No, not at all. Are you implying that Bush didn't care about domestic matters or are you saying he didn't care about anything?

PM sent on another matter.

No, Bush didn't give a hoot about the things you and I worry about. I won't convince you of that, so I'm not going to try. Just stated my opinion about him, that's all.

Joe S.
08-14-2010, 06:48 PM
That's correct. Attending is one thing. Going to plead your case for holding them in your country (or hometown) is another.

THAT"S NOT PRESIDENTIAL DUTIES.....

WRL

I understand your perspective but hold a different point of view. What could be more Presidential than to lobby for a multi-billion dollar opportunity for your country to strut it's stuff on the world stage?

Of course, the down side is if you aren't successful then you look bad...I think had President Obama been successful, the view may be different, don't you?

Just A Thought Regards,

Joe S.

WRL
08-14-2010, 08:13 PM
I understand your perspective but hold a different point of view. What could be more Presidential than to lobby for a multi-billion dollar opportunity for your country to strut it's stuff on the world stage?

Of course, the down side is if you aren't successful then you look bad...I think had President Obama been successful, the view may be different, don't you?

Just A Thought Regards,

Joe S.

No I don't. Did you know most Olympics LOSE money? Who do you think PAYS for the venues? The tax payers.

WRL

Joe S.
08-15-2010, 07:10 AM
No I don't. Did you know most Olympics LOSE money? Who do you think PAYS for the venues? The tax payers.

WRL

Your concern is understandable.

I am not concerned with "most Olympics." I am concerned with those Olympics held in the USA. I think Atlanta and Salt Lake, the last two cities to host the games, both made money and it is reported that the LA Games in 1984 made some $200 million dollars.

The host city endures a lot, but also stands to gain a lot through infrastructure upgrades and future tourist revenue, in the US it seems.

I, too, wish there were things that were certain in life, other than death and taxes, but we both know that nothing is certain, most everything changes, and how we accept that uncertainty and change makes all the difference in our lives.

Field Trials As An Olympic Sport Regards,

Joe S.

Hew
08-15-2010, 07:11 AM
I think there's some merit to what you say. From a purely political perspective, Obama tends to spread himself too thin. The situation with the mosque may be an exception. This was a purely local issue. It was resolved locally. The planning commission reviewed the proposal and reviewed the site and determined that there was no reason why the project should not proceed. That decision was supported by the NYC Mayor and the NY Governor. It became a national issue when Fox and the right wing blogdom decided that New York had violated it responsibilities to the nation as a whole to protect the sanctity of ground zero.
The notion that Fox created (as opposed to reporting) an issue that 70% of Americans agree upon is rather laughable. But if you want to believe that, then you'll have to agree then that the remaining mainstream media that ignored the story represent just 3 out of every 10 Americans and abdicated their journalistic responsibility to the other 70%.

YardleyLabs
08-15-2010, 07:16 AM
The notion that Fox created (as opposed to reporting) an issue that 70% of Americans agree upon is rather laughable. But if you want to believe that, then you'll have to agree then that the remaining mainstream media that ignored the story represent just 3 out of every 10 Americans and abdicated their journalistic responsibility to the other 70%.
Created in the sense of taking something that was a purely bureaucratic function in New York City and promoting it as an advocate, not a reporter, to stimulate nationwide opposition. Obviously, without an eager audience, the story would have had no traction. However, Fox is clearly practicing "yellow" journalism in the worst traditions of Hearst and the yellow menace.

Uncle Bill
08-15-2010, 09:25 AM
Created in the sense of taking something that was a purely bureaucratic function in New York City and promoting it as an advocate, not a reporter, to stimulate nationwide opposition. Obviously, without an eager audience, the story would have had no traction. However, Fox is clearly practicing "yellow" journalism in the worst traditions of Hearst and the yellow menace.


HEAR! HEAR! Always happy to know I'm a member in good standing on the opposite side of everything Yardley!

UB

road kill
08-15-2010, 09:30 AM
HEAR! HEAR! Always happy to know I'm a member in good standing on the opposite side of everything Yardley!

UB


You have been missed!!

RK

BrianW
08-15-2010, 09:42 AM
. However, Fox is clearly practicing "yellow" journalism in the worst traditions of Hearst and the yellow menace.

Ironic that you would use a Democratic Congressman (1903-1907) who energetically supported the New Deal as an object of your scorn. ;-)

YardleyLabs
08-15-2010, 10:02 AM
Ironic that you would use a Democratic Congressman (1903-1907) who energetically supported the New Deal as an object of your scorn. ;-)
Actually, the other one that was just as bad was Pulitzer. Bigotry has never been limited by political party.

subroc
08-15-2010, 10:12 AM
Created in the sense of taking something that was a purely bureaucratic function in New York City and promoting it as an advocate, not a reporter, to stimulate nationwide opposition. Obviously, without an eager audience, the story would have had no traction. However, Fox is clearly practicing "yellow" journalism in the worst traditions of Hearst and the yellow menace.

is any advocacy by and in the media worthy of your scorn or only issues you disagree with?

WRL
08-15-2010, 10:21 AM
Your concern is understandable.

I am not concerned with "most Olympics." I am concerned with those Olympics held in the USA. I think Atlanta and Salt Lake, the last two cities to host the games, both made money and it is reported that the LA Games in 1984 made some $200 million dollars.

The host city endures a lot, but also stands to gain a lot through infrastructure upgrades and future tourist revenue, in the US it seems.

I, too, wish there were things that were certain in life, other than death and taxes, but we both know that nothing is certain, most everything changes, and how we accept that uncertainty and change makes all the difference in our lives.

Field Trials As An Olympic Sport Regards,

Joe S.

So you are telling me that the CITY/COUNTY/STATE of California in 1984 made a surplus of 200 million dollars? That's after paying for the venues? That would have been a remarkable achievement by politicians in California if I was to believe that.

I believe the numbers you are quoting are the MERCHANTS in the surrounding areas reporting gross revenues. However, the OLympics to my knowledge NEVER make enough to actually pay for the venues.

If you have some links siting that the amount of money brought in by ANY OLYMPICS paid for all the buildings/security etc AND still made money for the "taxpayers" I'd like to see that.

WRL