Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Obama's non chalant attitude

kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 1:35:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I was reading an article on MSNBC earlier, and the article stated how the GOP is attacking the Obama White House for being lax with it's response to the Xmas Day foiled terror attack. I think that as the POTUS he should be more straightforward in addressing the public on matters such as this. I saw a picture of him playing golf right after his statement was released days after the incident.

I feel that Homeland Secretary should have issued a statement, but it is ultimately up to the POTUS to address the Nation as a whole.

It does seem to me that he has a hands off policy. Obama defended himself by saying he usually doesn't like commenting on things until he "knows" what he is talking about. Taking from the Bush administration, since when does your press release have to be based on gathered information? They went off half cocked regularly.

your thoughts
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 1:41:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 1:35:34 PM, kelly224 wrote:
your thoughts

Why must the man not be allowed to play golf after he addressed what occurred? No one died, his security forces took the man into custody, and the authorities tightened up security for everywhere else. Must it be that he has to fly back, personally get out into the field and direct every person involved?

Obama did his job; he talked to the press after the incident, talked to his cabinet/advisers and they went into action, aka. their job. Obama hasn't done anything wrong. People are criticizing him for the sake of having something to say; had he become involved, they'd most likely accuse him of not trusting in his staff/emergency services/anyone, and that he wouldn't let them do their jobs, and that his over-interest and direction is a sign of fascism.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 1:42:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 1:35:34 PM, kelly224 wrote:
[...] I think that as the POTUS he should be more straightforward in addressing the public on matters such as this. [...]

your thoughts

President of the United States

straightforward

You're pretty funny.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 1:50:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 1:41:37 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/29/2009 1:35:34 PM, kelly224 wrote:
your thoughts

Why must the man not be allowed to play golf after he addressed what occurred? No one died, his security forces took the man into custody, and the authorities tightened up security for everywhere else. Must it be that he has to fly back, personally get out into the field and direct every person involved?

Obama did his job; he talked to the press after the incident, talked to his cabinet/advisers and they went into action, aka. their job. Obama hasn't done anything wrong. People are criticizing him for the sake of having something to say; had he become involved, they'd most likely accuse him of not trusting in his staff/emergency services/anyone, and that he wouldn't let them do their jobs, and that his over-interest and direction is a sign of fascism.

No one was saying fly back, the issue was affirming the American people. We all know that the GOP was going to over play ANYTHING that can undermine him.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 1:51:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 1:42:58 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 12/29/2009 1:35:34 PM, kelly224 wrote:
[...] I think that as the POTUS he should be more straightforward in addressing the public on matters such as this. [...]

your thoughts

President of the United States

straightforward

You're pretty funny.

thanks.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 1:53:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 1:50:50 PM, kelly224 wrote:
No one was saying fly back, the issue was affirming the American people. We all know that the GOP was going to over play ANYTHING that can undermine him.

What didn't he affirm? What didn't he do to show that his administration took it seriously? Is it just because he played golf that this is over?

Honestly. There wasn't much more Obama could do. It was a failed terrorist attack. It was handled, and the responses were crisp. What the Hell is the issue!?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 2:02:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 1:53:22 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/29/2009 1:50:50 PM, kelly224 wrote:
No one was saying fly back, the issue was affirming the American people. We all know that the GOP was going to over play ANYTHING that can undermine him.

What didn't he affirm? What didn't he do to show that his administration took it seriously? Is it just because he played golf that this is over?

Honestly. There wasn't much more Obama could do. It was a failed terrorist attack. It was handled, and the responses were crisp. What the Hell is the issue!?

Ditto. It's not like Obama could say anything anyways, it's not like it was his administration's policies, or really, even the USFG's policies that stopped whatshisfacemr.terroristfromyemenandnigria from bombing 253.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 2:06:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 2:02:35 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Ditto. It's not like Obama could say anything anyways, it's not like it was his administration's policies, or really, even the USFG's policies that stopped whatshisfacemr.terroristfromyemenandnigria from bombing 253.

No, that would be his own (or whoever made the bomb) ineptness and what I believe was either a Dutch passenger or a Dutch air marshal.

But, uh.. the DHS restricted other flights! Thats, something......
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 2:07:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 1:53:22 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/29/2009 1:50:50 PM, kelly224 wrote:
No one was saying fly back, the issue was affirming the American people. We all know that the GOP was going to over play ANYTHING that can undermine him.

What didn't he affirm? What didn't he do to show that his administration took it seriously? Is it just because he played golf that this is over?

Honestly. There wasn't much more Obama could do. It was a failed terrorist attack. It was handled, and the responses were crisp. What the Hell is the issue!?

If it was Bush, than we would have skewed him.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 2:09:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 2:07:27 PM, kelly224 wrote:
If it was Bush, than we would have skewed him.

But, you're already skewing Obama. So to say, "if it was Bush, we would have given him hell," is blatantly hypocritical when you're already attacking Obama on it, the same way you would have attacked Bush.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 2:14:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 2:09:40 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/29/2009 2:07:27 PM, kelly224 wrote:
If it was Bush, than we would have skewed him.

But, you're already skewing Obama. So to say, "if it was Bush, we would have given him hell," is blatantly hypocritical when you're already attacking Obama on it, the same way you would have attacked Bush.

Because he isn't exempt, that's why...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 2:19:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 2:14:09 PM, kelly224 wrote:
Because he isn't exempt, that's why...

So.. why is this topic even existent?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 2:22:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 2:06:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/29/2009 2:02:35 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Ditto. It's not like Obama could say anything anyways, it's not like it was his administration's policies, or really, even the USFG's policies that stopped whatshisfacemr.terroristfromyemenandnigria from bombing 253.

No, that would be his own (or whoever made the bomb) ineptness and what I believe was either a Dutch passenger or a Dutch air marshal.

But, uh.. the DHS restricted other flights! Thats, something......

Which stopped how many terrorists? Oh hm that's a problem isn't it?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 2:24:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 2:22:49 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Which stopped how many terrorists? Oh hm that's a problem isn't it?

No, but it p*ssed off some commuters. See, it did something.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 10:42:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It was a failed attack, if someone had died you may have had a point.

Heck, Bush was reading a childrens story when the towers were burning.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2009 7:09:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 10:42:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It was a failed attack, if someone had died you may have had a point.

Heck, Bush was reading a childrens story when the towers were burning.

Ha!
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2009 10:55:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 2:19:07 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/29/2009 2:14:09 PM, kelly224 wrote:
Because he isn't exempt, that's why...

So.. why is this topic even existent?

because I wanted to hear people's opinion. I actually don't think he did anything wrong. Just testing the waters.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2009 8:43:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/30/2009 10:55:32 AM, kelly224 wrote:
At 12/29/2009 2:19:07 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/29/2009 2:14:09 PM, kelly224 wrote:
Because he isn't exempt, that's why...

So.. why is this topic even existent?

because I wanted to hear people's opinion. I actually don't think he did anything wrong. Just testing the waters.

Trolling in other words?

You seemed to start of as a decent member, what went wrong?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2010 10:33:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Obama took three days to respond. I think he should have made a brief statement a soon as it was clear it was a terrorist attack, which was within a day. However, I think a longer response is perhaps excusable as being cautious. What is inexcusable is Obama's failure to acknowledge it as an act of terrorism. It was the "alleged" guy who might be a "violent extremist" -- no terrorism. Obama also allowed the terrorist to lawyer up and not be subject to any questions. That's inexcusable.