What A Compassionate President

[blas87]

At least I have my answer. And I will agree that he is a million times better at overall presenting himself and speaking than Bush.

If he want to go back further, even people who liked Bill Clinton called him Slick Willy (although I guess that had more to do with his personal life than his job) and I'm sure before I was even old enough to watch the news or know what's going, there were special nicknames for every president. But it's like you've spanked Baby Jesus if you say "Nobama" or you dare say something negative about him. As if now it's a complete social taboo to speak ill of this president because he is the one who "changed" everything and "saved" us. Whatever.

[FArchivist]

But it's like you've spanked Baby Jesus if you say "Nobama" or you dare say something negative about him. As if now it's a complete social taboo to speak ill of this president because he is the one who "changed" everything and "saved" us. Whatever.

I think it's more because of the Birther crowd, who inveigled so much against Obama with the whole "He's a Muslin Socialist Nazi Communist who works for Bin Laden and IS THE ANTICHRIST!!!!!!!!eleventy-one!!!" frothing-at-the-mouth bit. When you get a small and vocal faction that is that loud and offensive, you generally get a counter-reaction. Personally, I blame Orly Taitz and Breitbart; they were the most offensive about it and people took lots of exception.

There have been similar backlashes like that engendered by the Birthers. The previous one in US history was due to the Catholic bashers during Kennedy's presidency. In the decades afterward, Kennnedy was idolized in response. It's only now that some 40-50 years have passed that we're able to re-examine and show that his presidency was only average at best.

[the_std]

If he want to go back further, even people who liked Bill Clinton called him Slick Willy (although I guess that had more to do with his personal life than his job) and I'm sure before I was even old enough to watch the news or know what's going, there were special nicknames for every president. But it's like you've spanked Baby Jesus if you say "Nobama" or you dare say something negative about him. As if now it's a complete social taboo to speak ill of this president because he is the one who "changed" everything and "saved" us. Whatever.

So the entirety of your argument here is that, because people have used immature names in the past, it's okay for you to use immature names in the present? As Gravekeeper pointed out, most people are likely to ignore you if you can't address someone by their proper name, no matter if that person is the current president (Nobama) or the previous incumbent (Dubya) or the one before him (Slick Willy), etcetera. You invalidate a large part of your argument by showing that you're willing to go to school-yard levels of name-calling rather than picking apart what it is you actually don't like about that person.

Silly names will get you attention from people who have already sunk to your level. Presenting reasoned arguments is far more likely to get you taken seriously.

[Gravekeeper]

And here I thought I had done some witty extremist sarcasm to prove a point. Guess the sarcasm was missed.

This is Fratching, you need to use a congressionally approved emoticon such as "=p". This place can be much more....rabid than CS. Its harder to tell. Especially if puppies are involved. =p

At least I can admit how I feel or what I wish and I don't feel shame or guilt and I don't really care if it shocks or upsets people. Oh shame, shame on me, that pitchfork toting conservative and her barbaric and uncivilized way of thinking. Shame shame.

Shame, guilt and political stance has nothing to do with universal compassion. I'm not speaking in terms of left and right. Its America that's polarized so badly between liberal and conservative. Not Canadialand where I am.

And while I understand that a lot of people are neutral and don't care for nicknames, in all honesty, it was sport for almost every American to poke fun at Bush. It's only fair to poke fun at Obama, without having to worry about everyone's jaw agape. I wonder what the real reason is. Is it because he's black that it's not as acceptable to poke fun at him, or is it because he doesn't come across as in-your-face stupid as Bush was?

Option B. Bush was practically a carictature of himself by the end of his term and tended to do or say something that invited ridicule at least once a month. Not politically either, but just personal gaffes. Obama on the other hand, has not invited personal ridicule, only political ridicule by those opposed to his policies. Yet the names being used for him are ridiculously childish and appeared almost the instant he took office before he even did anything.

Him being half black does play a part in it, even though no one will admit it ( and on the other side of the spectrum, some people are too fast to whip that card out. ). Which does make some of what has been said about him unacceptable yes, as some of it has been based on race.

America admittedly has a very very short political memory as well and many Americans don't pay enough attention to politics, only listen to one side of politics or don't even know how their own politics operate. They won't understand that most of the problems are in congress right now. Nor do they grasp that the economy isn't something that magically switches on and off. If things are bad, people will blame the person in charge, end of story. It doesn't matter if all of the problems occured before he even sat down at the desk. And by god whomever was in last is going to make sure to point the finger anywhere but themselves.

When you get a small and vocal faction that is that loud and offensive, you generally get a counter-reaction. Personally, I blame Orly Taitz and Breitbart; they were the most offensive about it and people took lots of exception.

That too. Not to mention when you're watching from the side lines like I am and not tunnel visioned on one news source because it agrees with you, it all looks like a ridiculous circus. I don't want to hear Nobama or Fartbongo or Chimpy or Bubble Boy or Slicky Willy whatever else in the middle of a political discussion. Though I'll admit Bush didn't help much by using similar nicknames for his own staff.

Silly names will get you attention from people who have already sunk to your level. Presenting reasoned arguments is far more likely to get you taken seriously.

This.

[Andara Bledin]

Pretty much everything Gravekeeper just said.

And I still think that everybody's focusing on the wrong side of this.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

I'll be honest, I understand how you can say it seems obvious they'd give Vick the starting position. But honestly, I may be the only one, but I don't think eh was worth being a starter in the old days. But maybe that's me.

As for his return to the sport, I'm glad for him. Obviously I'm not saying that torturing animals is alright if you become a better person for it. I don't think that's true, and if it is, that's a debate for another day. But I think that Vick DID become a better person as a result of what was pretty much a grand slap in the face. What he did was inexcusable, and I'm not trying to excuse it. But to me, that's in the past. I believe we should live in the present.

Of course he deserves to be punished for what he did. And he was. He was fired. He missed three years in the sport. He, you know, went to jail, and when he came out, he worked as a construction worker. What he did was wrong, but I don't think he needs more punishment.

After all, the point of the justice system (with the exception of life imprisonment) is to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated, and punish those who can't be. I think he's been rehabilitated. He honestly seems like a better man now than he was years ago. And he shouldn't continue to be punished. I think he's rehabilitated.

As for Obama congratulating the coach (and note, despite what people seem to think, the point wasn't that he was congratulating Vick, it was that he was congratulating the man who gave Vick a second chance) I don't think that's important. It seems to me that, unlike some presidents, Obama doesn't intend to be a larger than life figure. That's not a knock at our previous president, or any other president, current or future. There are some men who are best fit to be larger than life, symbols of strength and authority. There is nothing wrong with men like that. Some people use the office of president similarly to a monarchy. Not in that they make decrees and order people around, but rather that when they say something, they're basically declaring the official position of the United States of America.

But I don't think Obama is like that. I think he's just a guy. Which is good too. And I don't think he was saying "The United States of America is pleased that you gave Michael Vick a second chance." I think he was just saying that he, as a person who happens to hold elected office, that he was pleased. After all, it wasn't like he held a press conference and said "The coach who hired Vick back should be an exemplar to all Americans."

He just said that he was pleased that Vick got a second chance. I think someone said being President was like making love in a fishbowl. Everyone's watching and criticizing your technique.

Also, its kinda cramped, and you're constantly surrounded by confused fish.

Er... May have gotten carried away with that one.

But what I was saying was I don't think it was President Obama saying that its his position that it was a good move. I think its more that he wanted Vick to have a second chance all along, he would have been pleased that Vick got a second chance anyway.

The whole incident seems more like Obama basically writing fan mail.


As for the whole "An average joe wouldn't have been given such a second chance" I think that you're right. A famous athlete does have an advantage over the 'average joe' in this respect. But I think that's simply because famous athletes are famous. They can reach more people. If you found out someone was an ex-con, you probably would be upset, and for something especially heinous like this, you might think they're a terrible person. But, if you got to know them, and they turned out to be reformed, then you'd forgive them.

Vick wasn't welcomed back and congratulated for overcoming adversity. He was brought back, tenuously, as a back-up. He wasn't congratulated for overcoming adversity until we had reason to suspect he'd actually overcome it.

If we want to argue about whether or not athletes (or movie actors, or singers, etc.) deserve the fame and congratulations they've been given, that's fine. I don't think that athletes deserve to be household names and make millions of dollars, no matter how good they are at it. But they are, and they do. Its a hell of a fucked up double-standard, but there it is. We shouldn't hold something more against them than we would someone else, because that's just reversing the double-standard, and its even more fucked up than the original Think of it this way. We give them unnecessarily huge amounts of praise for something trivial very well, but at least its something. If we make things harder on them, then we're essentially PUNISHING them for doing something trivial very well, and that's even worse.

I don't understand why people are so angry over Vick. A man committed a crime, was sent to prison, served his time with good behavior, came out, and was (to the best of anyone's ability to gauge) reformed, and committed to improving himself. He returned to his old job, twice as good at it as when he left, and was successful. I don't see how that is a BAD thing at all. I can understand being angry about the crime, and thinking he doesn't deserve a second chance for what he did. But I don't understand being angry that he's been praised for taking that second chance and using it to improve himself.

My sister is dating a young man who was arrested for breaking and entering, as well as other charges. Whether he was guilty or not, I don't know. The official position of the State of Massachusetts, after his trial, was that he is guilty. I didn't like him at first, but I've seen a marked change in his behavior from before. He's served his time, he's on parole. Now, at least, he is respectful, honest, and basically a model citizen. He's dedicated to improving himself. He's found work, and is, evidently, a model employee as well.

He is, in other words, the average Joe who committed a crime. He has recovered. I see his story as essentially the same as Michael Vick's, with the exception that he isn't famous. It would be dishonest of me to forgive him, and not Michael Vick, because Vick had it easier.

Yes, he's famous. Yes, it was probably easier for him to do than it would be for you or me. But that doesn't mean, at least to me, that its any less of something to celebrate. We have to raise a culture of forgiveness in this country, and around the world. This is as good a place, and a time, to start as any. If we can teach people to forgive the famous ones, or at least give them a second chance, then we can foster that forgiveness and give it to those who aren't as famous.

And I'll add one thing, blas. If there's been any confusion, I did not intend to give you flack hating Obama. I am hardly his biggest fan myself. I can't think of the last time I voted for a Democrat for any national office.

But I will give you 'flack' for being disrespectful to him. And, to be fair, to the last president as well. Presidents, and other politicians, do not always deserve our admiration. Or our congratulations. But they deserve the basic respect we would give to anyone else who is doing their best to help their fellow man.

We're all in this together. In the US, and in the rest of the world, we're all in it together. If we don't give each-other respect, we make it harder on everyone. We must, as Ghandi said, be the change we want to see in the world. I want to be treated with respect and dignity, despite my sexuality, and personality flaws. Therefore, I treat everyone else with respect and dignity. If we want the average Joe to have a second shot, we have to give everyone a second shot.

But, I'll add, if we want to have better politicians, well... There's a reason its called public office.

Anyway, this post has meandered, and is nowhere near the position it started at. Its practically on a different continent. So I'll stop my vaguely-egalitarian soapboxing before I sound like I'm suffering from Jerusalem Syndrome, and finish by trying to sum up my points in bullet form.


1) Obama wasn't acting as President when he congratulated the Eagles coach, he was acting as himself.

2) Vick did what anyone else should do.

3) If we think anyone deserves forgiveness, we should show Vick forgiveness, and not hold it against him that he had it easier.

4) If we want to be given a second chance, we should be giving second-chances to others.

5) Politicians, and other celebrities, deserve our respect, not for what they do, but for what they are. That is, human beings.

6) My sister's boyfriend is a nice guy. Also, kinda hot. I'd do him. But, you know, he's straight.

[Hyena Dandy]

There have been similar backlashes like that engendered by the Birthers. The previous one in US history was due to the Catholic bashers during Kennedy's presidency. In the decades afterward, Kennnedy was idolized in response. It's only now that some 40-50 years have passed that we're able to re-examine and show that his presidency was only average at best.

Oh, and one last thing, that may be immature, but I think I have been intelligent enough today.

The Kennedy White House may not have been exceptionally successful, but I think we can all agree it was exceptionally sexy.

[blas87]

Don't be ashamed of being called immature.

Heck, if I haven't ruffled feathers in real life or haven't pissed off a few people on Fratch enough to call me barbaric or outdated or immature (or whatever else I've been called in the past years), then it really hasn't been a true day.

By the way, I do not have to respect the President. I don't have to respect anybody if I don't want to. Just wanted to clear that up.

The glorious thing about America is that it's perfectly ok to disrespect the President, to mock him, to disagree with him, to make Tshirts or bumper stickers and TV shows about him. Remember "That's My Bush" and "Lil Bush"? I wonder if there will ever be an Obama cartoon or TV show. I can't remember far enough back if people really made a bunch of paraphernelia (sp?) about Clinton, but that kind of stuff was a cash cow with Bush, and probably will be (if it already hasn't started yet) with Obama.

[Hyena Dandy]

Blas, I never said you had the legal duty to respect the president. But you do have a moral duty to respect him, as you would respect anyone else. The defense that Bush was being constantly mocked doesn't mean that doing that was GOOD. I'm as disgusted with 'Lil Bush as I am with people who refuse to use the President's real name.

There are some immature things you shouldn't be ashamed of. I play Pokemon, and I recently played Duck Duck Goose in the town center with a bunch of my friends, despite being twenty years old. But there are some things where being called immature should be a mark of shame. And when it comes to this, being unable to have a civil discussion of politics without name-calling, yes, that is something to be ashamed of.

[protege]

The glorious thing about America is that it's perfectly ok to disrespect the President, to mock him, to disagree with him, to make Tshirts or bumper stickers and TV shows about him. Remember "That's My Bush" and "Lil Bush"? I wonder if there will ever be an Obama cartoon or TV show.

Exactly! We live in a society where such things are perfectly OK. Not all countries are so lucky. Try that shit in Iran, and they'll hang you. BTW, the Bush stuff was going on long before he was elected. The media, and his detractors, had all sorts of names for him. These people, had no problem throwing those names around. But, if someone does the same thing to Obama, they get upset? Gotta love the double standards That's the problem I have with them--either that shit is OK, or it isn't.

[Greenday]

Blas, I never said you had the legal duty to respect the president. But you do have a moral duty to respect him, as you would respect anyone else.

If she feels the only people she has to respect are those who have earned respect, she doesn't have any moral duty whatsoever to respect him.

[blas87]

Thank you, Greenday. That's what I meant. You are far more eloquent and mature than I am.

And by that, I don't mean that no one deserves respect. If you want to have no respect for anyone, then you are in for some tough times in life in general. But in my opinion, no one deserves respect just because of who they are. Period.

I choose who I respect and I don't. There are people I have no respect for (my grandfather for instance) but I don't speak harshly to them or make fun of them or talk trash (other than vent about grandpa on here).

[the_std]

I don't think Gravekeeper or myself said anything about having to respect anybody, nor like anybody, nor even pretend to do any of those things. We're just pointing out that you're not going to be taken seriously by anyone except those who use the same language as you if you keep using infantile names to describe serious matters or people.

[Hyena Dandy]

Exactly! We live in a society where such things are perfectly OK. Not all countries are so lucky. Try that shit in Iran, and they'll hang you. BTW, the Bush stuff was going on long before he was elected. The media, and his detractors, had all sorts of names for him. These people, had no problem throwing those names around. But, if someone does the same thing to Obama, they get upset? Gotta love the double standards That's the problem I have with them--either that shit is OK, or it isn't.

And I was stating my position. Simply, it isn't. It wasn't for Bush. It isn't for Obama. And it won't be for whoever comes next.

[blas87]

I wasn't saying that you in particular said I have to respect anyone, std, and as far as I'm concerned, if you or Gravekeeper don't take me seriously or I come across as immature, why do you take the time to respond to things I post about? It's quite obvious neither of us are ever going to agree or change our opinions, so why not skim over instead of trying to tell me how I should be or how I should act to be taken seriously?