Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a difference between thinking it bad form for elected officials to politicize and quite another for the POTUS to lead by example (rather than politicizing). Do you really not understand the differentiation between the two? Seriously?
Are you listening to him now? He's doing what you asked so you should be happy now.
Are you listening to him now? He's doing what you asked so you should be happy now.
Do you really think he is that dense to say something now that could be considered NOT toning down the rhetoric at this memorial?
I mean the man would have to be dump as a box of rocks to say something that could be even considered inciting, hateful, or something like his previous comments about bringing a gun
Do you really think he is that dense to say something now that could be considered NOT toning down the rhetoric at this memorial?
I mean the man would have to be dump as a box of rocks to say something that could be even considered inciting, hateful, or something like his previous comments about bringing a gun
If you'd read the OP it clearly stated
Quote:
"Why doesn't he apologize to the American public for helping to set the example that vitriolic political rhetoric is acceptable and pledge to stop and encourage members of his own party, and Congress as a whole, to do the same?"
I'm just informing the poster that he is saying what she wanted him to say. I'm sorry if you have a problem with that.
Are you listening to him now? He's doing what you asked so you should be happy now.
No, I haven't found a radio station playing it yet.
Is he actually apologizing for his own rhetoric in the past and making a pledge to tone it down? Or is just just saying that we need to do so without taking any personal accountability?
No, I haven't found a radio station playing it yet.
Is he actually apologizing for his own rhetoric in the past and making a pledge to tone it down? Or is just just saying that we need to do so without taking any personal accountability?
Well this is politics so of course he didn't come out and say "I'm sorry" because that would have been admitting he did something wrong and that he perhaps believed that rhetoric had something to do with this shooting sooooo we knew that wasn't going to happen but he did say that this incident brought up a need for more civility in what they say and how they say it and moving forward they need to act more appropriately.
I think he handled it correctly; it addressed the issue without making it overly political and still honoring the lives lost and injured victims. Of course, that's just my opinion ~ I'm sure someone will come along shortly and say he said nothing at all. Guess I'm just an optimist.
Now we'll just have to see if he actually does it and if he does, if others will follow.
Why doesn't Obama acknowledge the incidiary and devisive rhetorics he's used in the past like:
"they cling to their religion and their guns"
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun"
"punish our enemies and reward our friends"
"they have to sit in the back on this"
Why doesn't he apologize to the American public for helping to set the example that vitriolic political rhetoric is acceptable and pledge to stop and encourage members of his own party, and Congress as a whole, to do the same?
Are national moments of silence and appearances at an AZ memorial enough? Or, do you think that Obama should accept his role in the escalation of vitriolic rhetoric, apologize for the bad example he set in so doing, and pledge to stop it while inviting other elected representatives to do the same?
1) He was referring to the FACT that the South and the Rust Belt have higher rates of religion and gun ownership as a means to cope with the FACT that they are highly depressed areas. This is not news. They do cling to guns and religion.
2) This is rhetoric. Not like Michele Bachmann or Sharon Angle actually advocating "second amendment remedies". This is a pastiche of his own words and the saying "you don't bring a knife to a gun fight". See 4 for a more detailed explanation on the party of No.
3) The right says this sort of thing all the time. This is a democracy, you punish your enemies by not electing them and reward your friends by electing them. At the time with AZ's ridiculous bill and Sharon Angle's comments of Latinos...not to mention Meg Whitman's statements concerning Latinos and her scandal with her housekeeper, he tried to drum up the Latino vote. Clearly, the right sent a message that they did not truly want the Latino vote. I think that this should have been slightly more subtle.
4) This goes back to the party of "Hell No." The republicans voted against health reform, financial reform, and student loan reform. Each time, major interests were funding against these reforms. These reforms, for the most part, have the American middle class in mind. The original public option was shot down by Republicans (citing that competition was bad, which is ironic for a party that states that competition is healthy in all markets). The provision to make it mandatory was originally a REPUBLICAN idea on the part of health insurance companies. They wanted a larger pool since the unhealthy would also be covered (no pre-existing condition clauses). Financial reform tightened regulation was vehemently opposed by Republicans. The derivatives market, which caused this crisis, was to be more regulated. More consumer protections, not to mention a wall to separate banking and speculative trading. This means that banks would be more accountable for what they do with YOUR money. Student loan reform slashed the middle man who did absolutely nothing, again something that was opposed by Republicans. A party that claims to be the party of the average Joe, should be more concerned about the average Joe. Special interests shouldn't play a role. If you kept the quotation in context and added more sentences, you would see that analogy had NOTHING incendiary.
These are less vitriolic than MANY figureheads on the right. What is ironic is that one of the biggest complaints about Obama was that he was too cool and too level headed. Now is he too passionate? Which is it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
