AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
Gates, Crowley, and Obama
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tee



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4223
Location: Detroit Metro

PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LizE wrote:
To me, it looked like Obama did what he said he was going to do--acted as a facilitator for the two men so they could talk and hopefully reach some understanding. The photo seemed to capture that completely. But I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.

xina wrote:
What I see when I look at it are the two people who were at odds with each, now at ease with one another. Also, the striding ahead on Obama's part....his friend has help. [....] it doesn't help for 2 to grab each arm. When one person is helping the other goes ahead.

I saw the same thing both of you did in the photo, which is really a great one when you consider it was taken immediately following the "summit." If nothing else was accomplished, there appears at least to be a respect between the two--sometimes that's all you can ask for or expect when everything else fails.

As to the question of the learning on the job. I too agree with the both of you that every president has had to do this in one way or another. Eisenhower, who primarily had military experience before being elected to office, knew barely nothing of the administrative responsibilities of the job and it showed in many ways. Between the military and the presidency, he did have a short stint as president of Columbia University, but it may have been just a figure-head role--I don't know that for sure, though.

bbmedos wrote:
On the one hand we've been told how brillaint and studied he is over and over. On the other, we're told he's learning on the job and this was a knee-jerk reaction and he'll get better. Except, we're also told repeatedly this is a man not given to knee-jerk reactions and always knows exactly what he's saying.

No person is so intelligent that at times in their life they don't have a few knee-jerk responses. And to expect perfection all the time from anyone is futile as far as I'm concerned. Maybe there are a few people out there like that, but I think we call them saints. Laughing And even then, many of them were not perfect, but just trying all their life to be as good as they can. My husband is around police and has friends who are on forces from many different cities and townships. He said even they have differing viewpoints about this whole issue from what they've read. Some have said the officer should not have gone that far once they discovered the alleged intruder lived there. Regardless, I don't want to debate the differences in opinion, but just wanted to point out that maybe the police did jump the gun here after all--and maybe not. So the president could be right--or wrong. Clearly, he should not have spoken. But he did. Can't put the words back, so we have to go on and he did. It's good advice for all of us. Don't waste time on stuff that won't change anything--put your efforts where some good will come of it.

The one thing I will say is that I wish he did say the words, "I'm sorry" or "I apologize for speaking before the facts are all out." But he did speak out prematurely and now let's move on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
norcalgolfer



Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 38
Location: Ranch Cordova, CA

PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't see what Gates or Crowley have to do with the real issue here, which has not been addressed in any acceptable way whatsoever by Obama. Who really cares whether Gates and Crowley get along? Is Obama going to step in every time a prominent black man is arrested? The ENTIRE issue here is Obama, and him denigrating the police as well as supporting racism. This is just another of many examples of Obama's complete lack of integrity and utter arrogance.

Truly though, this issue is tiny compared the gratuitous lies Obama continues to tell. How can we trust someone when they have no problem lying about any little thing in order to garner a little more support? Andrew McCarthy's article on July 30 titled "Suborned in the U.S.A." which has since been picked up by many major news outlets (including NPR surprisingly:) points out many of the Obamalies that can be proven, and seeing those it is hard to believe they are the only ones. I don't understand how anyone can continue to support such a man as President for the simple reason that he lies often about seemingly small things.

Perhaps this should be a new thread, but I would love to see an Obama supporter try to defend his lies. I can't even imagine what I would say in order to defend the following Obama lie from his autobiography:

"Eventually a consulting house to multinational corporations agreed to hire me as a research assistant. Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal, checking the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages from across the globe. As far as I could tell I was the only black man in the company, a source of shame for me but a source of considerable pride for the companyís secretarial pool. They treated me like a son, those black ladies; they told me how they expected me to run the company one day. . . . The company promoted me to the position of financial writer. I had my own office, my own secretary, money in the bank. Sometimes, coming out of an interview with Japanese financiers or German bond traders, I would catch my reflection in the elevator doors ó see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand ó and for a split second I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal, before I remembered who it was that I had told myself I wanted to be and felt pangs of guilt for my lack of resolve. . . ."

A co-worker from that company who is also very much a supporter of Obama tells a somewhat different story:

"First, it wasnít a consulting house; it was a small company that published newsletters on international business. Like most newsletter publishers, it was a bit of a sweatshop. Iím sure we all wished that we were high-priced consultants to multinational corporations. But we also enjoyed coming in at ten, wearing jeans to work, flirting with our co-workers, partying when we stayed late, and bonding over the low salaries and heavy workload."

"Barack worked on one of the companyís reference publications. Each month customers got a new set of pages on business conditions in a particular country, punched to fit into a three-ring binder. Barackís job was to get copy from the country correspondents and edit it so that it fit into a standard outline. There was probably some research involved as well, since correspondents usually donít send exactly what you ask for, and you canít always decipher their copy. But essentially the job was copyediting."

"If Barack was promoted, his new job responsibilities were more of the same Ė rewriting other peopleís copy. As far as I know, he always had a small office, and the idea that he had a secretary is laughable. Only the company president had a secretary. Barack never left the office, never wore a tie, and had neither reason nor opportunity to interview Japanese financiers or German bond traders."

What possible justification is there for these Obamalies?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lee



Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 215

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But isn't this whole thing more an issue of a police officer who overreacted and a private citizen who overreacted? I mean, Gates didn't threaten the officer's safety, had no weapon, and did nothing wrong. Maybe as an African-American male of 60, he'd been hassled by cops in his past, was overtired from traveling, mad as hell he couldn't open his damn door and then the cops show up, blue lights blazing. I'd be mad too. But you can't be arrested in this country for yelling at a cop. And that's what he was arrested for - in his private home.

A police officer presumably has been trained to deal with people yelling at them as well as drunks, people high on drugs, and abusive domestic situations. I think Crowley just didn't like having his authority questioned. And Gates wasn't just cuffed and then uncuffed. He was cuffed, put in a police car in front of his neighbors, brought to the station, fingerprinted, photographed and put in a cell. Can anyone say this officer did not overreact? Was he racially motivated? Who knows - I don't and I don't see how people can say either way whether he was. But it's not out of the question, certainly.

And people who don't like President Obama are just like people who don't like President Bush, Clinton, Carter et al. They jump on _any_ reason to vilify them. Obama was defending an old friend. Yeah, he probably shouldn't have. But he's just human, and I understand why he did it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bbmedos



Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 274
Location: Western Kentucky, USA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lee wrote:
And people who don't like President Obama are just like people who don't like President Bush, Clinton, Carter et al. They jump on _any_ reason to vilify them. Obama was defending an old friend. Yeah, he probably shouldn't have. But he's just human, and I understand why he did it.


If you're talking about people on the extremes of beliefs and philosophies then you're probably right. They're going to find fault with whomever is in office that they don't like.

However, if you're using that as an excuse to discount anyone who questions the policies, actions and history of the person and administration currently in office, then I as an American citizen resent it. It is our right to question and get answers from our leaders. With the help of the press and not their hindrance.

Obama was the one who ran and won on a campaign of hope and change and transparency. Not Bush or anyone else. Whether I or anyone else voted for him or not is irrelevant. He's our President. Now it's time to put up or shut up and do what he said he was going to do.

Unless, of course, he has another agenda entirely.
_________________
Bev(BB)
http://bevsbooks.com/notes/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lee



Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 215

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I'm an American too, and I support everyone who exercises his or her 1st amendment rights, whether I agree with them or not. I wasn't saying that Obama should not be asked questions. But I thought this was a thread on the Gates/Crowley brouhaha. I am confused about what "answers" you are looking to get from Obama on this issue. What I am not confused about is how the Gates/Crowley issue is being used by some to demonstrate somehow Obama's lack of hope, change or transperency, which is what I was commenting on originally. They are 2 entirely different matters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bbmedos



Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 274
Location: Western Kentucky, USA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lee wrote:
Well, I'm an American too, and I support everyone who exercises his or her 1st amendment rights, whether I agree with them or not. I wasn't saying that Obama should not be asked questions. But I thought this was a thread on the Gates/Crowley brouhaha. I am confused about what "answers" you are looking to get from Obama on this issue. What I am not confused about is how the Gates/Crowley issue is being used by some to demonstrate somehow Obama's lack of hope, change or transperency, which is what I was commenting on originally. They are 2 entirely different matters.


Are they really? Considering that in the middle of a press conference discussing his health care bill, he has this sudden urge to have a "knee-jerk" reaction over a local police issue that essentially side-tracks the larger national discussion in the media for several weeks, are they really separate issues?

Or are they cause and effect?

And if you honestly believe that this is only about one single instance of wanting to get answer from him, then you are out of the loop.
_________________
Bev(BB)
http://bevsbooks.com/notes/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lee



Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 215

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="bbmedos And if you honestly believe that this is only about one single instance of wanting to get answer from him, then you are out of the loop.[/quote]

Well, I guess I _am_ out of the loop (and happily too), because I have no idea what you are talking about. I was trying to stay on the topic of Gates/Crowley, but I guess you have your own agenda. I'll graciously take my leave since this is turning out to be a monologue, not a dialogue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
xina



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 6635
Location: minneapolis

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Almost this whole thread is like beating your head against a wall...and almost as frustrating to read it. So I won't. Rolling Eyes It simply goes nowhere, but I suspect that is deliberate.
_________________
"As you wish"
~The Princess Bride
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Juliette



Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 150
Location: Philadelphia Burbs

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lee wrote:
Well, I guess I _am_ out of the loop (and happily too), because I have no idea what you are talking about. I was trying to stay on the topic of Gates/Crowley, but I guess you have your own agenda. I'll graciously take my leave since this is turning out to be a monologue, not a dialogue.


Lee, you know, the "LOOP", the secret plot to install a fake POTUS so he can destroy Christmas and kill seniors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bbmedos



Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 274
Location: Western Kentucky, USA

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Juliette wrote:
Lee wrote:
Well, I guess I _am_ out of the loop (and happily too), because I have no idea what you are talking about. I was trying to stay on the topic of Gates/Crowley, but I guess you have your own agenda. I'll graciously take my leave since this is turning out to be a monologue, not a dialogue.


Lee, you know, the "LOOP", the secret plot to install a fake POTUS so he can destroy Christmas and kill seniors.


And this is how you discuss things seriously? By making cracks and assumptions about what someone may or may not believe? Yeah, I think maybe you are out of the loop and want to stay that way. Prove me wrong.

Several of you talk about it being okay for Americans to ask questions but are you seeing the news reports of the town hall meetings where Americans are asking questions of their representatives and Obama and getting the runaround? Are you seeing the anger and disgust that's building? Are you seeing those same representatives saying almost the exact same things you just did, i.e. that the people showing up and daring to question them are basically crackpots and plants who don't actually want to have "real" discussions?

Who is it that really doesn't want to discuss things, exactly?

Because the anger that's coming has very little to do with any "fake POTUS" theory - it's related to a very here and now problem of another here and now bill that our dear leaders are trying to pass yet again and that most of America doesn't want.

Or is that building anger all part of a plot, too?

Cause funnily enough all this has been happening while the media has been happily chattering away about Gates-gate. That the President started with his own words.
_________________
Bev(BB)
http://bevsbooks.com/notes/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Juliette



Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 150
Location: Philadelphia Burbs

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lee wrote:
Well, I guess I _am_ out of the loop (and happily too), because I have no idea what you are talking about. I was trying to stay on the topic of Gates/Crowley, but I guess you have your own agenda. I'll graciously take my leave since this is turning out to be a monologue, not a dialogue.


bbmedos, do you always speak to others so condescendingly and act like such a know-it-all? Is a real discussion possible when you are so obviously partisan? This isn't Free Republic.

Do you want to take part in a respectful discourse or tell us how "out of the loop" we are? Prove me wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bbmedos



Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 274
Location: Western Kentucky, USA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Juliette wrote:
Lee wrote:
Well, I guess I _am_ out of the loop (and happily too), because I have no idea what you are talking about. I was trying to stay on the topic of Gates/Crowley, but I guess you have your own agenda. I'll graciously take my leave since this is turning out to be a monologue, not a dialogue.


bbmedos, do you always speak to others so condescendingly and act like such a know-it-all? Is a real discussion possible when you are so obviously partisan? This isn't Free Republic.

Do you want to take part in a respectful discourse or tell us how "out of the loop" we are? Prove me wrong.


Is it being condescending to dare to challenge your preconceptions when you call me a conspiracy theorist without any proof?

You can toss words around all you want but I've provided links, very little personal opinion and a lot of questions in my posts. Am I blunt in doing so? You bet because I don't believe in wasting words on this stuff. You may not agree with what's in the links or like the questions I ask, but that's not my problem. I believe in letting people make up their own minds.

Frankly, I'm not sure what would constitute "respectful discourse" in your minds or how you automatically come to the conclusion that I'm so partison when many of the sites I link to are left-leaning and yet even they are daring to question Obama and his policies at this point.

I find it very enlightening to listen to both sides but if you want to call that partison go right ahead.
_________________
Bev(BB)
http://bevsbooks.com/notes/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
norcalgolfer



Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 38
Location: Ranch Cordova, CA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Juliette wrote:
Lee wrote:
Well, I guess I _am_ out of the loop (and happily too), because I have no idea what you are talking about. I was trying to stay on the topic of Gates/Crowley, but I guess you have your own agenda. I'll graciously take my leave since this is turning out to be a monologue, not a dialogue.


bbmedos, do you always speak to others so condescendingly and act like such a know-it-all? Is a real discussion possible when you are so obviously partisan? This isn't Free Republic.

Do you want to take part in a respectful discourse or tell us how "out of the loop" we are? Prove me wrong.



Wow. If anyone arguing against Obama on this thread has been condescending it was me, definitely not bbmedos. And I don't mean to be condescending, I just passionately don't like what I am seeing from Obama.

bbmedos has provided multiple links, letting you get yourself in the loop rather than trying to convince you. Questions have been asked, and rather than answer you choose to insult the questioner. I believe this is because you can't admit a fault in your beloved Obama (sorry, couldn't pass up the "beloved" part, it seems too close to the truth).

Btw, it is okay to say "Well I admit the secrecy and lies are disturbing, but I still feel Obama will be a good President"

In order to be informed on a subject a person must investigate both the pros and the cons, and do so with a completely objective mind. After looking at all the pros and cons, it often still comes down to personal opinion. This is why we have issues under debate, and debate as well as information and diversity is what America was founded on. I can respect a persons argument when they are willing to concede points when they are made, even if they don't agree with my overall assessment.

However, when a person refuses to even address points that are valid, and instead merely crack jokes and make insults....well, it certainly makes it harder to respect the argument they are trying to make.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Juliette



Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 150
Location: Philadelphia Burbs

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

norcalgolfer wrote:
Juliette wrote:
Lee wrote:
Well, I guess I _am_ out of the loop (and happily too), because I have no idea what you are talking about. I was trying to stay on the topic of Gates/Crowley, but I guess you have your own agenda. I'll graciously take my leave since this is turning out to be a monologue, not a dialogue.


bbmedos, do you always speak to others so condescendingly and act like such a know-it-all? Is a real discussion possible when you are so obviously partisan? This isn't Free Republic.

Do you want to take part in a respectful discourse or tell us how "out of the loop" we are? Prove me wrong.



Wow. If anyone arguing against Obama on this thread has been condescending it was me, definitely not bbmedos. And I don't mean to be condescending, I just passionately don't like what I am seeing from Obama.

bbmedos has provided multiple links, letting you get yourself in the loop rather than trying to convince you. Questions have been asked, and rather than answer you choose to insult the questioner. I believe this is because you can't admit a fault in your beloved Obama (sorry, couldn't pass up the "beloved" part, it seems too close to the truth).

Btw, it is okay to say "Well I admit the secrecy and lies are disturbing, but I still feel Obama will be a good President"

In order to be informed on a subject a person must investigate both the pros and the cons, and do so with a completely objective mind. After looking at all the pros and cons, it often still comes down to personal opinion. This is why we have issues under debate, and debate as well as information and diversity is what America was founded on. I can respect a persons argument when they are willing to concede points when they are made, even if they don't agree with my overall assessment.

However, when a person refuses to even address points that are valid, and instead merely crack jokes and make insults....well, it certainly makes it harder to respect the argument they are trying to make.


norcalgolfer,

"In the loop" looks to me more like, "in the right wing loop" where the President has made countless mistakes, is a liar and has a secret agenda. It's very suspect when everything you and the other Republican in this thread say about the President is negative.

The links you refer to in this thread are right wing sites, with the worst possible spin. It sounds like Glen Beck or Hanutty propaganda. You post some nameless co-worker full of heresay, no source. It's pretty hard to take you guys seriously, or feel there's any room for discussion.

I don't get your "Obama is about secrecy and lies" meme, especially after 8 years of Bush Cheney. If you don't think they were pathologically dishonest, specifically about the war, than I suspect we won't see eye to eye on anything.

You do know this is primarily a board for discussing romance novels, not politics, right? I find it interesting that you've only posted in this section. What are you currently reading? You might want to branch out and enjoy the rest of the site.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bbmedos



Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 274
Location: Western Kentucky, USA

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wasn't going to respond to this thread again but it's simply too tempting and, well, downright irresponsible not to.

Juliette wrote:
"In the loop" looks to me more like, "in the right wing loop" where the President has made countless mistakes, is a liar and has a secret agenda. It's very suspect when everything you and the other Republican in this thread say about the President is negative.


To me, being "in the loop" simply means being aware of what's going on in the news above and beyond what the mainstream media might be willing and able to share, both due to their own political leanings or time constraints. And that goes both ways in terms of political leanings. I listen and read all over the place. Do you, Juliette?

So, the fact that you're again making assumptions about people's party affiliations when you have no clue what mine or anyone else's actually might be is quite telling. Just because someone doesn't agree with what the President is doing and is critical of him doesn't mean they're automatical a right-wing nutcase. I've even heard that negative comments about Obama's decisions and policies are cropping up on the Huffington's Post in recent days and I don't mean coming from the trolls. I mean coming from the dedicated, die-hard liberals. If that's happening there, you honestly might want to start looking around some more. That's what I mean by being "in the loop" quite frankly.

A lot of people, honest, hard-working American people are starting to question what's going on. You want more links? I can give you plenty but the question is will you be open to discussion or will you automatically put them down as being "right-wing" without even reading them?

Quote:
The links you refer to in this thread are right wing sites, with the worst possible spin. It sounds like Glen Beck or Hanutty propaganda. You post some nameless co-worker full of heresay, no source. It's pretty hard to take you guys seriously, or feel there's any room for discussion.


Again, since I'm probably the only one who did provide links, I would like to point out just how clearly this comment shows that you didn't click through and read them. Or how little actual research you've done on your own. And it doesn't take all that much. I could give you plenty of links that are on left-leaning sites but whether you'd even believe me or follow them if I did is doubtful. It sure sounds like you prefer to remain in your little realm of belief, spinning your own construct of who we are to make yourself comfortable in your own beliefts. Who exactly is the conspiracy theorist here?

Where are your links? All I've seen you do is attack us, not what we've actually said about Obama's actions or policies.

Quote:
You do know this is primarily a board for discussing romance novels, not politics, right? I find it interesting that you've only posted in this section. What are you currently reading? You might want to branch out and enjoy the rest of the site.


Well, as to this one, I've been around these boards for a lot of years and in the last several have found that I spend more time lurking than posting. When I realized that I was posting more in this political forum I actually asked myself why I was even coming here at all and what had changed in my habits. I finally figured out the answer and it's relatively simple.

Ebooks and erotic romances.

Since I've started reading more and more ebooks and more specifically erotic romances, there's just not as much for me to talk about with other readers here. That doesn't mean that I don't lurk and occasionally pop up in various discussions that catch my eye. But our interests in life do shift over the years and we adapt. Simple as that.

Doesn't mean that we still don't enjoy being around people who share our interests.
_________________
Bev(BB)
http://bevsbooks.com/notes/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group