Obama Distraction

[forumname]

This is what I mean. I listened to what you are saying, but I don't see it the same way. I honestly think that mentioning a politician's name and quoting something that he said which has nothing to do with politics, is not political at all. Your accusation of his potential political agenda behind that quote, is what made it political. If I say "President Obama had a hamburger and a salad for dinner, and then walked his dog", is that making any kind of statement regarding politics?

Rylant

What I was saying, is that I never said you INTENTIONALLY brought up politics. If you think mentioning it wasn't political, I can understand. I obviously feel the very existence of his quote to be inherently political.

[forumname]

Doulos, judging by the fact that you've asked me the same specific question about 11 times, I can only assume that you've read through my posts and feel you have a snappy comeback to my answer. Well congrats but I'm not going to play. You can draw a perfectly good answer to your question from what I've already said.

[doulos]

Doulos, judging by the fact that you've asked me the same specific question about 11 times, I can only assume that you've read through my posts and feel you have a snappy comeback to my answer. Well congrats but I'm not going to play. You can draw a perfectly good answer to your question from what I've already said.

I'm legitimately looking for an answer and trying to find common ground. I have no snappy answer. Just trying to slow down the pace of the discussion so I can parse out exactly where the issue is and then try and move the conversation forward from there.

So, it's clear that you did not find it okay for Obama (or any POTUS I would also assume, since you've made it clear that this is not an Obama issue) to comment on the death of Robin Williams. Fair enough.

Was it also not okay for him to comment on the death of Nelson Mandela? I honestly have no idea what your answer to that question would be because I am genuinely confused about the exact nature of your concerns. Is it that a President should never comment on the death of an individual if at that time they are also in the middle of a war?

Can we start there and then move forward in the discussion?

[MXHockey]

What's a POTUS?

[hockeymanG23]

What's a POTUS?

President of the United States

[MXHockey]

President of the United States

LOL, I know, I was just being sarcastic!

Cheers and rep to you for putting up with it.

[forumname]

I'm legitimately looking for an answer and trying to find common ground. I have no snappy answer. Just trying to slow down the pace of the discussion so I can parse out exactly where the issue is and then try and move the conversation forward from there.

Fair enough. I've already wasted a good portion of 2 days of my life arguing in this thread though, so at this point I would really rather just let it die than spark it back up again. Internet arguing is exhausting...

[MXHockey]

Fair enough. I've already wasted a good portion of 2 days of my life arguing in this thread though, so at this point I would really rather just let it die than spark it back up again. Internet arguing is exhausting...

More importantly, we should put together a thread and a poll to supply you with a more up to date username.

forumname is clever, but it's like an author writing a book and calling it 'Library Book".


Anyways, think about it. And by no means, is this meant to come across as a bash....rep to you....Cheers.

[hockeymanG23]

LOL, I know, I was just being sarcastic!

Cheers and rep to you for putting up with it.

seemed like it could be a legit question. I find acronyms to be head-scratchers from time to time myself!

[Loch]

seemed like it could be a legit question. I find acronyms to be head-scratchers from time to time myself!

That's why I joined COCOA (Coalition Opposed to Contrived and Outrageous Acronyms).

You should come out for our annual IDIOTS march (Intelligent, Decent Individuals Opposing Trivial Semantics).

[Rylant]

That's why I joined COCOA (Coalition Opposed to Contrived and Outrageous Acronyms).

You should come out for our annual IDIOTS march (Intelligent, Decent Individuals Opposing Trivial Semantics).

LOL... Clever.

Rylant

[PensInThree]

Out of curiosity, would you have rather he stay silent in this case? Is there any individual where you feel like it's appropriate for him to comment on on their death?

I have a lot of sympathy for where forumname is coming from. If you'll permit, I'll take a stab at this question.

I don't know if there's an answer to 'would you have rather he stayed silent'.

The issue is this: on the face of it, it's not inappropriate for Obama to say something publicly after the death of a public figure.

But, he doesn't always. What goes into those decisions? None of us know...

We can hypothesize that Obama comments when Obama feels so moved to do so. Personally, I think that's probably a bit naive. Minimally, I expect that this is only one one of the criteria for the Oval Office in deciding whether or not Obama's going to say something publicly.

On the other hand, do you think it's possible that public announcements such as these have a duplicitous element? That is, do you think the government (at times) picks and chooses interactions with the entertainment sphere in order to direct attention away from what might be unpopular government choices/decisions etc? That's the thrust of the initial comment (imo).

If you think the above is a possibility, (as I do) it's hard to know how to answer the question - should Obama say something or not. I think as an individual (man, father, etc), he, like most people, have the right to express sentiments such as those he expressed. However, he's not just an individual. He's the POTUS. With great power comes great responsibility...yada yada ya.

Does one's rights to express such things become compromised if you (or the government of which you are the figurehead / leader) regularly / occasionally use such expressions in a manipulative way? Tough call. There's at least an argument here I think that he shouldn't say such things. Variation of the old 'boy who cried wolf' story.

Cheers

[doulos]

That's fair enough.

At least if someone is willing to entertain the idea that he should never comment on deaths, then that has some logical consistency to it. Though we have to be open to the fact that any President is a human and not just a robot, so I'm not sure how realistic that is. Does he not comment on his wife's death? His mothers? Where to draw the line right? Somewhere in the middle is the truth I suppose.

[PensInThree]

To my mind, it's not a question of what he 'should do'. It's a question of how to interpret particular comments. IMO, how we interpret the hypothetical where someone very close to Obama dies isn't really much of an issue. It would (and should) be obvious to us that there's no ulterior motive - he'd be expressing difficult sentiments that he has to express because he's a public figure. - sentiments he would almost certainly prefer to keep private.

The Robin Williams case is interesting because it's borderline (Obama comments about some public deaths and not others). Why? Is the original hypothesis believable for this borderline case?

[Rylant]

For me, I think part of the problem is that the President has such a high standard set out, just as a human being, that anything else is considered unacceptable by a good portion of the people. The president almost HAD to be white (up until recently, anyway), married and male. Any flaw in character in the president, is something that is almost unforgivable. Take a person who watches too much porn, is fat, cheats on his wife, spanks his children, drinks too much, etc, and although these things are considered things you shouldn't do, they do tend to be very common and nobody would bat an eye if their neighbor did these things. Every normal person has their faults. However, if you found out that the president once kicked his dog, people would lose their mind. Nowadays, the president is not allowed to be a normal person.

Take president Clinton, for example. In my opinion, one of the greatest presidents of our era; He helped to fix the US economy after years of mismanagement, he maintained stable peace with Russia, he balanced the budget, he created thousands of jobs for the US people, he ended the reign of Slobodan Milosevic. Sadly, he will be remembered for being impeached by the House of Representatives because of the Monica Lewinsky / Paula Jones scandal. Nobody would think twice if that happened to Joe Schmoe...

Rylant