Our President

[CycloWizard]

This event, rightfully or not, affected people across the country. It is a responsibility to address that.

I mean the constitution doesn't mention clearing brush. Were you as raged up about all the time (and that money spent for the flights! oh how it must reach into the thousands of dollars!) spent doing that?

Why is it a responsibility of the president to give an address for this event? If he gave a speech for every event which affects people across the country, he wouldn't have time to do anything else. "The stock market went up 8 points today. This was good news for some of you, but not so good for others..." Really? And why is this in any way comparable to what Bush did during his vacation? I was happy he was doing anything other than governing. Maybe Obama should have taken more notes.

 

[Red Dawn]

Why is it a responsibility of the president to give an address for this event? If he gave a speech for every event which affects people across the country, he wouldn't have time to do anything else. "The stock market went up 8 points today. This was good news for some of you, but not so good for others..." Really? And why is this in any way comparable to what Bush did during his vacation? I was happy he was doing anything other than governing. Maybe Obama should have taken more notes.

So what you are saying is that it doesn't matter what he does, you're going to criticize him.

 

[jackstar7]

Why is it a responsibility of the president to give an address for this event? If he gave a speech for every event which affects people across the country, he wouldn't have time to do anything else. "The stock market went up 8 points today. This was good news for some of you, but not so good for others..." Really? And why is this in any way comparable to what Bush did during his vacation? I was happy he was doing anything other than governing. Maybe Obama should have taken more notes.

You're talking about how the president should spend his time, so I think it is comparable to how other presidents spent time. Sorry you didn't see those as comparable... you were the one talking about what's a good use of his time and the money it costs to move him.

 

[Tab]

Cyclo, if you're going to hold this position, it's reasonable to ask you what the threshold is when it becomes reasonable for the President to personally react. Can you spell out the nature of an incident at its smallest level, and perhaps even what is on the other side of that line?

If you are to be arbiter of tragedy, I'd like to understand the scope and scale of what constitutes an actual tragedy that warrants the President to fly somewhere and offer comfort.

Even if it isn't in his job description, so what? A leader lending his support to a terrible event is obiviously a good thing.

And seriously, who the hell are you to say it's not a big deal that a few people died and the president should have stayed home, when, infact the vast majority of American certainly support and endorse his actions. If you don't support them, that's fine but going around saying that those that feel the opposite are morons and it's not a big deal just a few people that got shot is absolutely not productive.

 

[CycloWizard]

Cyclo, if you're going to hold this position, it's reasonable to ask you what the threshold is when it becomes reasonable for the President to personally react. Can you spell out the nature of an incident at its smallest level, and perhaps even what is on the other side of that line?

If you are to be arbiter of tragedy, I'd like to understand the scope and scale of what constitutes an actual tragedy that warrants the President to fly somewhere and offer comfort.

I'm only asking that the president do his job just like every other American. His job is pretty clearly spelled out in the Constitution, and I don't think it mentions anywhere that he is to render a speech every time a "tragedy" occurs. I think thousands of tragedies occur every year. Do you think the murder-suicide which happened in Arizona only days before this event was any less tragic? I didn't see Obama hopping on a plane for that one. Out of the dozens of shootings this year, this one is only notable because it involved a congressperson. Does the inclusion of a government official create a tragedy? I don't think so. It simply draws media attention to the event which would have otherwise gone unnoticed. This realization gives clear insight into Obama's motivation for everyone to see. What those motivations are I'll leave as an exercise because, if you can't see them for yourself, I can't explain them to you.

 

[CycloWizard]

So what you are saying is that it doesn't matter what he does, you're going to criticize him.

Only an idiot could read that into what I wrote. If he would do his job properly instead of spending his time on jackassery, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Or do you think federal laws are being enforced appropriately, all of our military strategies are working out well, and there are no diplomatic relations which could be improved?

 

[jackstar7]

Cyclo... can you explain what tragedies should get presidential attention and what shouldn't?

And if possible, as authority of these things, can you give examples as close to each other as possible, but on either side? Like is this shooting near the line? Or well below it?

I think that's something we could all learn from for future tragedies.


Also, are there exceptions that can be made if the president, just as a human being, is moved to grief, or to offer comfort to those who are mourning?

If you can just lay out the rules, I think that'd save us all a lot of time.

 

[Red Dawn]

Only an idiot could read that into what I wrote. If he would do his job properly instead of spending his time on jackassery, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Or do you think federal laws are being enforced appropriately, all of our military strategies are working out well, and there are no diplomatic relations which could be improved?

🙄

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Why is it a responsibility of the president to give an address for this event? If he gave a speech for every event which affects people across the country, he wouldn't have time to do anything else. "The stock market went up 8 points today. This was good news for some of you, but not so good for others..." Really? And why is this in any way comparable to what Bush did during his vacation? I was happy he was doing anything other than governing. Maybe Obama should have taken more notes.

Your level of contempt and intolerence clearly indicates that you are a terrorist and possibly even a mooselem

 

[CycloWizard]

You're talking about how the president should spend his time, so I think it is comparable to how other presidents spent time. Sorry you didn't see those as comparable... you were the one talking about what's a good use of his time and the money it costs to move him.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Simply because some other president did something wrong doesn't make it ok for Obama to do the same. Clinton spent his time diddling an intern. By your argument, that would also be a good use of Obama's time. My argument is that they should keep it in their pants (literally and figuratively) and do their damn jobs.

 

[Jaskalas]

...Is giving a fine speech right now. :thumbsup:

Our President, our duly elected leader, is rising to the occasion and adessing every one of us with dignity and quiet, inclusive, healing eloquence.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Unity... unless the state tries to stop the flood of illegals. Then it's an attack campaign on the state.

 

[jackstar7]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Simply because some other president did something wrong doesn't make it ok for Obama to do the same. Clinton spent his time diddling an intern. By your argument, that would also be a good use of Obama's time. My argument is that they should keep it in their pants (literally and figuratively) and do their damn jobs.

I don't have an argument. I just want to understand what the president is allowed to do under the rules of Cyclo, as authority of presidential responsibilities.

If all the things mentioned fall outside the scope, when does a tragedy reach the level that warrants presidential attention?

 

[CycloWizard]

Cyclo... can you explain what tragedies should get presidential attention and what shouldn't?

And if possible, as authority of these things, can you give examples as close to each other as possible, but on either side? Like is this shooting near the line? Or well below it?

I think that's something we could all learn from for future tragedies.


Also, are there exceptions that can be made if the president, just as a human being, is moved to grief, or to offer comfort to those who are mourning?

If you can just lay out the rules, I think that'd save us all a lot of time.

Did I stutter? What does this address have to do with his job? Nowhere in his job description does it mention dealing with tragedy - you've simply made that up. If he wants to pay out of his own pocket for grief counselors for himself or for the bereaved, by all means he should do so. Giving a speech accomplishes none of that. Read my previous response and address it instead of simply restating your previous post while ignoring my direct response.

 

[Tab]

do their damn jobs.

Leaders of state, reguardless if it's in their job description, since the dawn of civiliazation, nearly always appear and give their condolences for disasters or senseless acts of violence.

Is this wrong? Also, why do you keep ignore my posts and other members?

 

[CycloWizard]

I don't have an argument. I just want to understand what the president is allowed to do under the rules of Cyclo, as authority of presidential responsibilities.

If all the things mentioned fall outside the scope, when does a tragedy reach the level that warrants presidential attention?

It NEVER DOES - it's not his damn job. Why is that so hard to understand? The exception would be in a case where military/law enforcement/diplomatic action (you know, all those things he's supposed to spend his time on?) would result from the event.

 

[Carmen813]

I'm only asking that the president do his job just like every other American. His job is pretty clearly spelled out in the Constitution, and I don't think it mentions anywhere that he is to render a speech every time a "tragedy" occurs. I think thousands of tragedies occur every year. Do you think the murder-suicide which happened in Arizona only days before this event was any less tragic? I didn't see Obama hopping on a plane for that one. Out of the dozens of shootings this year, this one is only notable because it involved a congressperson. Does the inclusion of a government official create a tragedy? I don't think so. It simply draws media attention to the event which would have otherwise gone unnoticed. This realization gives clear insight into Obama's motivation for everyone to see. What those motivations are I'll leave as an exercise because, if you can't see them for yourself, I can't explain them to you.

I am utterly amazed you feel that he was unable to perform his job by flying to AZ. He was busy for what? 12 hours? For someone who is constantly screaming at other people to "think" you are doing a remarkably terrible job.

Start here:
What plane was he flying on?

You believe his act was political? You are damn right it was political. He is a politician, everything he does is political. If he hadn't gone he would have been criticized as not being "patriotic" enough or not giving "due diligence" to what the MAJORITY of people who he represents felt was an issue deserving national attention. It was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation...only the "damned if you don't" people was an incredibly small minority, as far as I can tell, consisting one a total of 1-3 people on this forum.

This is just like my cousin who bitched about Obama flying out to advocate for the Olympics coming to the U.S. You are so caught up in your own self-righteous outrage that you can't even come close to objective reason.

But please, keep on yammering about the Constitution and him not doing his job. You are making yourself look at best like a complete partisan hack, and at worst, an absolute fool. The nice thing about this new forum is that these posts never disappear.

 

[Tab]

IThe nice thing about this new forum is that these posts never disappear.

They do, after a year I believe.

 

[jackstar7]

It NEVER DOES - it's not his damn job. Why is that so hard to understand? The exception would be in a case where military/law enforcement/diplomatic action (you know, all those things he's supposed to spend his time on?) would result from the event.

You should get into politics. I think you'd do really well.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

These are obviously the daily talking points they heard on their way to work today.

No, I'm a free thinker. I don't waste my time listening to talk radio or watching MSM.

 

[Pens1566]

When you find yourself in the bottom of a hole that you've dug, deny any existence of the hole. Good strategy. A++ would read again.

 

[Linflas]

It NEVER DOES - it's not his damn job. Why is that so hard to understand? The exception would be in a case where military/law enforcement/diplomatic action (you know, all those things he's supposed to spend his time on?) would result from the event.

Actually it is his job, as President he is supposed to rise above party and be leader of the entire country, Republican, Democrat, Independent or any other faction you can think of. Presidents have always delivered addresses after tragic events, including one of the most memorable ones ever delivered which begins "Four scrore and seven years ago...". In case you think this is some kind of partisan hackery on my part there is very little Democrats or Obama do that I agree with but he is still President of the entire United States and entitled to deliver a speech anytime an event such as this occurs.

 

[nobodyknows]

Unity... unless the state tries to stop the flood of illegals. Then it's an attack campaign on the state.

But, but there are no politics involved in this "national tragedy".

It's a tragedy for sure. , Every death of an innocent is, no matter what the cause. Does it rise to the level of a "national" tragedy? Maybe, but not enough to have a prime time presidential speech. That's just partisian political posturing by the Dems.

 

[Red Dawn]

But, but there are no politics involved in this "national tragedy".

It's a tragedy for sure, every death of an innocent is no matter what the cause. Does it rise to the lewvel of a "national" tragedy? Maybe, but not enough to have a prime time presidential speech. That's just political posturing by the Dems.

Well at least according to you, Cyclehblowhard and some other partisan hacks

 

[CycloWizard]

I am utterly amazed you feel that he was unable to perform his job by flying to AZ. He was busy for what? 12 hours? For someone who is constantly screaming at other people to "think" you are doing a remarkably terrible job.

Start here:
What plane was he flying on?

You believe his act was political? You are damn right it was political. He is a politician, everything he does is political. If he hadn't gone he would have been criticized as not being "patriotic" enough or not giving "due diligence" to what the MAJORITY of people who he represents felt was an issue deserving national attention. It was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation...only the "damned if you don't" people was an incredibly small minority, as far as I can tell, consisting one a total of 1-3 people on this forum.

This is just like my cousin who bitched about Obama flying out to advocate for the Olympics coming to the U.S. You are so caught up in your own self-righteous outrage that you can't even come close to objective reason.

But please, keep on yammering about the Constitution and him not doing his job. You are making yourself look at best like a complete partisan hack, and at worst, an absolute fool. The nice thing about this new forum is that these posts never disappear.

Yes, silly me: I expect the president to do his job rather than spend his time pandering for votes. He wouldn't have to spend his time pandering if he was at all worried about doing what his constituency elected him to do. You think pandering is ok because he spent a few million flying out there on Air Force One with a Secret Service entourage and fighter escort. The better question is: when did this become the job description of the president? You think I'm a partisan simply because I'm calling out the stupidity of the current administration, but I'm just as willing to point out that Bush was at least as stupid as Obama. I have no political affiliation because I think members of both parties are idiots. You, on the other hand, are obviously an apologist who came in hear to support Obama's stupidity because you're infatuated with him.

 

[CycloWizard]

Well at least according to you, Cyclehblowhard and some other partisan hacks

Is that really the best you can do? Stay classy. :thumbsup: