What A Compassionate President

[the_std]

Honestly, why not? I get no anger or frustration from responding to you, I take no negative emotion from our debates. I simply wish to see if I can, through reason and presentation of my arguments, convince you of my side, as is the entire point of debate. I've not yet succeeded, but I'm not willing to write it off so long as you keep presenting your opinions as the fodder for debate.

[Gravekeeper]

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?

Because this is a debate which you are taking part in and while I may think name calling a president is silly and undermines your position, I still respect you and think you're a reasonable person. Hence I offered my opinion. I'm not trying to change your opinion on Obama or any such thing. I'm just saying if you're going to take part in a debate, it would help your position to be taken under more consideration if you dropped the name calling.

It seems more reasonable then "Well just ignore me, talking to me is pointless anyway.".

[blas87]

I haven't personal issue with you two, either. I just figure it's a debate, that's your side, this is my side.

Sometimes I post here and learn something new in the process. Never hurts to learn. However, I don't post here to learn something that will change the way I think or believe things. That's not my purpose.

So while having a different opinion is certainly your right and your right to post about it, sometimes I feel it's just wasted words with trying to engrain in into a person. I get the hint at times people (not pointing fingers at you guys) want to change me and my views is all, and I don't like that, so I naturally get a little defensive, if not a tad hostile.

[Hyena Dandy]

Well, others might, but I don't expect you to like Obama. I don't like him myself.

[Andara Bledin]

Exactly! We live in a society where such things are perfectly OK.

No. We live in a society where such things are allowed.

Whether or not they're OK, is obviously up for debate.

I'm with Gravekeeper. Resorting to name-calling is like resorting to swearing. It undermines your whole position, no matter how reasonable it might otherwise be.

^-.-^

[guywithashovel]

I have a question to all of you complaining about how it was okay to tear into Bush but not okay to do the same thing to Obama.

Have you completely forgotten the Bush years?

Seriously. Have you?

People were called unpatriotic for not supporting his wars or merely disagreeing with the way wars were waged. In even worse case scenarios, people were called terrorists if they didn't like something about the war on terror. I'm talking about the whole "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorist" idea of the right wing.

[KnitShoni]

I have a question to all of you complaining about how it was okay to tear into Bush but not okay to do the same thing to Obama.

Have you completely forgotten the Bush years?

Seriously. Have you?

People were called unpatriotic for not supporting his wars or merely disagreeing with the way wars were waged. In even worse case scenarios, people were called terrorists if they didn't like something about the war on terror. I'm talking about the whole "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorist" idea of the right wing.

Thank you. It goes back to what GK mentioned about the political attention span of a lot of Americans.

[protege]

Have you completely forgotten the Bush years?

Seriously. Have you?

Nope. I didn't forget what went on. But, considering that those events really didn't affect me all that much...

Still, it doesn't justify the constant name-calling, cartoons, etc. that were produced during his term in office. The point is, why is that sort of thing OK, but as soon as someone starts on Obama, they get branded a racist, or worst? It's actually pretty rare to hear *anything* bad about Obama. Even criticism is kept to a minimal level in the media. Why is that?

[AdminAssistant]

Even criticism is kept to a minimal level in the media. Why is that?

Um, have you watched CNN lately? Even though it leans a *bit* left, they've been ripping Obama a new one since the mid-terms.

[protege]

Um, have you watched CNN lately? Even though it leans a *bit* left, they've been ripping Obama a new one since the mid-terms.

They're starting to, but most newspapers are annoyingly polite about any Obama mistakes.

[guywithashovel]

Nope. I didn't forget what went on. But, considering that those events really didn't affect me all that much...

Still, it doesn't justify the constant name-calling, cartoons, etc. that were produced during his term in office. The point is, why is that sort of thing OK, but as soon as someone starts on Obama, they get branded a racist, or worst? It's actually pretty rare to hear *anything* bad about Obama. Even criticism is kept to a minimal level in the media. Why is that?

Actually, it wasn't okay back then to do that stuff to Bush, not until his last few years when his ratings got really low. It probably all boils down to people being okay with people tearing into a president they don't like, but against people ripping a president they do like. Many die hard Republicans castigate Obama mercilessly, but act like Ronald Reagan was the second coming of Christ.

It makes me think of a question. Is being called racist better or worse than being called a terrorist, a terrorist sympathizer, or unpatriotic?

[blas87]

Um, I wasn't even born when Reagan was president.

[Andara Bledin]

Nope. I didn't forget what went on. But, considering that those events really didn't affect me all that much...

They did. You may not understand how, but the entire world is feeling the effects of the most recent Bush administration.

^-.-^

[ZedOmega]

...er... is it safe to step into this?

Now, I respect Obama. I'm neutral when it comes to liking him (I don't flat-out hate him, but I'm giving him a chance), but I respect him. But him thanking the Eagles' owner for letting Vick play again may just be political suicide for him. Vick is one of those people who I saw on the news and wanted some degree of serious, debilitating pain delivered onto him, but unfortunately for the rest of us, he had the money to buy his way out of trouble. The fact that Obama thanked the owner of the Eagles for even letting him play is just asking for trouble, I think; I can already think of how groups like PETA are reacting to this.

As far as how someone's speech patterns affect their argument, I'm the absolute last person who needs to say anything about this, but here goes: opinions are opinions. However the debater chooses to phrase their opinions is honestly irrelevant compared to what that opinion is. I'll admit that there's some opinions in general that I think should just be kept inside, like arguments focusing on someone's race instead of their actions, but as long as the meat of the argument is perfectly thought out, what difference does it really make if the garnish looks a little off?

And yes, this is coming from the guy who gave his only other political commentary a healthy dose of the word 'fuck'.

[Mytical]

Where in the heck to start...if there is a place to start. I think a lot of people give the president either too much credit, or too much blame. While I have used generalized counters before when somebody bashes on Obama like..

"You realize that the 'golden parachute' everybody hates Obama for was first started, debated, and talked about under Bush right?" I am neither a fan of Obama..or Bush. Or Clinton, etc. I think Obama is INEFFECTUAL, but then again..I also think that the deck was stacked against him when he got into office. An already crumbling economy was just ONE of the problems he faced.

People pretty much had already made up their minds six months in, and nothing Obama could have done would have changed it.

Thing is, that the president (either of them) can't do much without the senate and house. Neither Bush nor Obama. People are acting like it was SOLELY these two, when the President is not much more then a figure head. Guess it is handy to have a scapegoat. *shrugs*