|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Aug 23, 2010 10:54:59 GMT -5
He could've kept silent...just because things are being "blown up" doesn't mean he has to say anything. That's why he doesn't "work alone" (ie sec of state, vp, senate, house, etc). If he wanted to say anything, he could've just said "This is an issue that constitutionally should be handled by the judicial branch." I think the Shirley incident was a little "closer to home" so to speak. Yes he could have kept silent, but I think it would have been at a larger political price than speaking out would have been. People want to hear what the president thinks about an issue that's gaining more and more steam nationally on a daily basis, especially since it deals with the aftermath of 9/11 (that we're still struggling with) and our relationship with Muslims post-9/11. Those are simply issues that you expect to see some sort of leadership coming from the president of the U.S. |
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Aug 23, 2010 12:11:18 GMT -5
He could've kept silent...just because things are being "blown up" doesn't mean he has to say anything. That's why he doesn't "work alone" (ie sec of state, vp, senate, house, etc). If he wanted to say anything, he could've just said "This is an issue that constitutionally should be handled by the judicial branch." I think the Shirley incident was a little "closer to home" so to speak. Yes he could have kept silent, but I think it would have been at a larger political price than speaking out would have been. People want to hear what the president thinks about an issue that's gaining more and more steam nationally on a daily basis, especially since it deals with the aftermath of 9/11 (that we're still struggling with) and our relationship with Muslims post-9/11. Those are simply issues that you expect to see some sort of leadership coming from the president of the U.S. And he did speak....now what? Just like in any part of leadership, I've learned that just because you CAN speak and ppl WANT you to speak, that doesn't mean you should. Him speaking didn't help... |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Aug 23, 2010 20:16:06 GMT -5
Yes he could have kept silent, but I think it would have been at a larger political price than speaking out would have been. People want to hear what the president thinks about an issue that's gaining more and more steam nationally on a daily basis, especially since it deals with the aftermath of 9/11 (that we're still struggling with) and our relationship with Muslims post-9/11. Those are simply issues that you expect to see some sort of leadership coming from the president of the U.S. And he did speak....now what? Just like in any part of leadership, I've learned that just because you CAN speak and ppl WANT you to speak, that doesn't mean you should. Him speaking didn't help... It was good that he spoke... Now, some truth are beginning to rise... It cause ppl to dig deep to find out what really happen and what was the relationship with Muslim country before 9/11. What the Gop doing as always, make a big issue out of nothing. Let look back at some history: Reagan: Taliban 'moral equivalent of America's founding fathers' Posted by Lori Price 22 Aug 2010[/center][/b][/color] Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan Posted by trodas 01 Aug 2007 'In 1982, Ronald Reagan dedicated the Space Shuttle Columbia to the resistance fighters [Taliban] in Afghanistan.' (Video) Taliban still have Reagan's Stingers --Estimate: Taliban have 50 Stingers 26 Sep 2001 One of the most dangerous weapons Western pilots could face in Afghanistan is an anti-aircraft missile provided by the United States during the Reagan presidency. Some 1,000 Stingers were supplied to the mujahideen from 1986 onwards after Ronald Reagan overcame CIA objections that they were too dangerous to be given to the rebels. MI6 used SAS troops to train the Afghans in the use of the missiles. It is not known how many Stingers were used in Afghanistan. Some of the 1,000 have turned up as far afield as Iran and Sri Lanka. Check this link: whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/04/20/remember-when-reagan-met-with-taliban-leaders-in-the-white-house/It strange nobody called Reagan a Muslim.... |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Aug 23, 2010 21:17:39 GMT -5
And he did speak....now what? Just like in any part of leadership, I've learned that just because you CAN speak and ppl WANT you to speak, that doesn't mean you should. Him speaking didn't help... I think that an issue that has ratcheted up, quite unnecessarily, to a national level that deals with the aftermath of 9/11, our relationship with American Muslims, and constitutional rights is something that the president SHOULD comment on. I've stated that this issue shouldn't have gotten as much play/press as it's getting, but that's not the president's fault. He defended the constitutional right of this group to build at the proposed site, and I think that's important coming from our commander-in-chief who has sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States. It's not about what he said "helping" or not--even if he said everything people like Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, etc. are saying about the issue, because that's not "helping" either, or him not saying anything at all--but it's about the principle of the matter. But as I stated, he would have literally been d**ned if he didn't say anything, just as he's being d**ned that he has said something. |
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Aug 24, 2010 6:49:19 GMT -5
And he did speak....now what? Just like in any part of leadership, I've learned that just because you CAN speak and ppl WANT you to speak, that doesn't mean you should. Him speaking didn't help... I think that an issue that has ratcheted up, quite unnecessarily, to a national level that deals with the aftermath of 9/11, our relationship with American Muslims, and constitutional rights is something that the president SHOULD comment on. I've stated that this issue shouldn't have gotten as much play/press as it's getting, but that's not the president's fault. He defended the constitutional right of this group to build at the proposed site, and I think that's important coming from our commander-in-chief who has sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States. It's not about what he said "helping" or not--even if he said everything people like Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, etc. are saying about the issue, because that's not "helping" either, or him not saying anything at all--but it's about the principle of the matter. But as I stated, he would have literally been d**ned if he didn't say anything, just as he's being d**ned that he has said something. I personally hate that quote....but, I'd still stand on if it would've been bad either way, stick to the more conservative side and say nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Aug 24, 2010 10:57:13 GMT -5
So do you believe Obama did some damage in what he did say?
|
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Aug 24, 2010 12:02:02 GMT -5
Everything Obama do is bad to some ppl.... It is strange that you Nikkol, never gave an opinion about what others are saying, which is going against the Constitution... Those leaders who are making such a big ideal out of this thing are doing the damage....
The truth about 9/11 will come out, because it more to it than what was given to us.... Let them keep screaming ... D i c k and Liz Cheney are very quiet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Aug 25, 2010 7:05:09 GMT -5
So do you believe Obama did some damage in what he did say? I think that it stirred up more than if he said nothing. If he said nothing, everyone could just speculate. And I think that speculation would've been better than him giving his "opinion" whether correct or not. (I said opinion because many don't see it as "fact"....esp depending on the way one hears what he says). Side Note (THIS IS IN GENERAL AND NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE): I will admit that based on his speaking pattern, (he pauses a lot), what he says can sometimes be taken differently. |
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Aug 25, 2010 7:12:35 GMT -5
Everything Obama do is bad to some ppl.... It is strange that you Nikkol, never gave an opinion about what others are saying, which is going against the Constitution... Those leaders who are making such a big ideal out of this thing are doing the damage.... The truth about 9/11 will come out, because it more to it than what was given to us.... Let them keep screaming ... thingy and Liz Cheney are very quiet. I didn't know my opinion was that important...or even that I HAD to give an opinion.....LOL. I enjoy discussions and sometimes, I may choose not to give my opinion.... :-) |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Aug 25, 2010 9:30:12 GMT -5
Everything Obama do is bad to some ppl.... It is strange that you Nikkol, never gave an opinion about what others are saying, which is going against the Constitution... Those leaders who are making such a big ideal out of this thing are doing the damage.... The truth about 9/11 will come out, because it more to it than what was given to us.... Let them keep screaming ... thingy and Liz Cheney are very quiet. I didn't know my opinion was that important...or even that I HAD to give an opinion.....LOL. I enjoy discussions and sometimes, I may choose not to give my opinion.... :-) Well.... you didn't mention the damage other are doing by making a big deal out of nothing... you only focus on what the President said or shouldn't have said... I've made the correction it should have been "D I C K & Liz Cheney" |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Aug 25, 2010 9:34:09 GMT -5
Why everytime I put D I C K, thingy comes out, LOL this is crazy LOL I had to put a space between each letter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Aug 25, 2010 12:09:21 GMT -5
I didn't know my opinion was that important...or even that I HAD to give an opinion.....LOL. I enjoy discussions and sometimes, I may choose not to give my opinion.... :-) Well.... you didn't mention the damage other are doing by making a big deal out of nothing... you only focus on what the President said or shouldn't have said... I've made the correction it should have been "D I C K & Liz Cheney" Actually, if you go back to the BEGINNING of this thread. The discussion was specifically about the thoughts of building the Mosque. Later on, you posted the story about what the president stated which changed the meaning of what the original intent of this was about. In other words, the reason why the focus is now on the president is because of one of your posts. :-) Also since the nickname for Richard is considered a curse word, we have filters to not allow for profanity. |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Aug 25, 2010 13:48:32 GMT -5
I think that it stirred up more than if he said nothing. If he said nothing, everyone could just speculate. And I think that speculation would've been better than him giving his "opinion" whether correct or not. (I said opinion because many don't see it as "fact"....esp depending on the way one hears what he says). Side Note (THIS IS IN GENERAL AND NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE): I will admit that based on his speaking pattern, (he pauses a lot), what he says can sometimes be taken differently.The president only defended this group's constitutional right to build at that location, provided that they are in compliance with the relevant laws. Anyone who has a problem with that probably needs to (re)take Civics 101. This lets you know that this issue is, in part, about freedom of religion, contrary to a lot of ultra-conservatives' contention that it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Aug 31, 2010 23:07:44 GMT -5
So now you've got at least two mosques or proposed sites of future mosques elsewhere in the country that have been vandalized, yet the Republicans are failing to cool down the out-of-control rhetoric mainly coming from their corner that's whipping up all of this hysteria over Islam. This is free propaganda for al-Qaeda and their ilk and could trigger more violence against the US. And then when it happens, President Obama will get blamed for failing to keep us safe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Sept 1, 2010 7:09:42 GMT -5
So now you've got at least two mosques or proposed sites of future mosques elsewhere in the country that have been vandalized, yet the Republicans are failing to cool down the out-of-control rhetoric mainly coming from their corner that's whipping up all of this hysteria over Islam. This is free propaganda for al-Qaeda and their ilk and could trigger more violence against the US. And then when it happens, President Obama will get blamed for failing to keep us safe. So now we're going to say that the Republicans are the cause of this "out-of-control" rhetoric? KRAZEE, come on now, that's just going too far..... At the same time presidents will always get blamed for whatever goes wrong....or get praise when something goes right. Either way, it's not really the presidents fault either way. (unless he places an executive order, of course) |
|
