President Obama... I think you have other things to be concerned with!

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


What OTHER Questions has he tackled and accomplished ?



Op could have put the whole list out there, and it still a list that has absolutely no value, because this President CANT tackle anything, unless it fits his agenda!

Seriously, this President shouldn't talk about sports, and should buck the questions, like he did with Fast and Furious, and Syria......




posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


You missed the part where I acknowledged that a few posts up...



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Explanation: Good for you in bringing extra information to light!

But you clearly ignored where the OP'er got this information from ... which was a sporting website which only focused on its area of expertise!

How unsporting of you to bring up the OP'ers mod status on ATS!


Personal Disclosure: As for Omisions ... why did you only post what was asked and not what Obama's answer were to those deep issues questions?

Oops .. never mind ... pot calling kettle black I see!



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Indigo5
 


What OTHER Questions has he tackled and accomplished ?


I listed the other questions in detail on the last page...along with a link to the full interview and his answers?

And how does one "accomplished" .."questions"???

I mean..I get it..you are trying to bend the conversation to "accomplishments" so you can shout about how he hasn't accomplished anything, complete with emoticons etc. But if you have to torture the english language to drive the OP topic to where you want it...then you might be off topic.

The OP claim was that he was choosing to discuss football rather than important issues.

I showed that to be FALSE...He didn't choose the question...he ANSWERED it...amongst a dozen or so questions on "issues".
edit on 27-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Explanation: Good for you in bringing extra information to light!

But you clearly ignored where the OP'er got this information from ... which was a sporting website which only focused on its area of expertise!



Then it would seem odd that the OP would be suprised to find a comment regarding lowly "sports" on ESPN?

And are we not encouraged if not outright directed by ATS Mods to include full context and links in our OPs regarding topics, qoutes etc? Was linking to the actual interview to much to ask?



Personal Disclosure: As for Omisions ... why did you only post what was asked and not what Obama's answer were to those deep issues questions?

Oops .. never mind ... pot calling kettle black I see!


Because the questions proved the OP incorrect on the substance...while including the entire interview would have been several pages and excerpting articles in there entirity is not encouraged and I think actually against ATS T&C? Were you able to "click" through the link?
edit on 27-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
ATS TC clearly state mods are not the topic Obama is why anyone trying to make them one is:

Illegal contact 50 yard penalty.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
reply to post by Indigo5
 


You missed the part where I acknowledged that a few posts up...


Thanks for acknowledging it was a question he was answering.

Would you now acknowledge it was single question amid an interview that was otherwise entirely "issue" focused?

Isn't standard protocol for interviewers to throw in the standard fluff question in otherwise "heavy" interviews? Almost exclusively about sports?

Wouldn't it seem unfair to seize on that singular question and imply that it was offered? Rather than asked? And that there was no "issues" being contemplated, when the entire rest of the interview was exclusively about heavy issues?



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I stand by my other post..... I just wish he would've stuck to the "other issues"....
That's all.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The real questions here are about Obama's vision of the future of football.

Like everything else, he sees how it can be "changed" or improved somehow. Nothing in Obama's world can be exempt from his vision. When and where possible he will push for change.

Think of his views on the future of football as a metaphor for his views on a number of issues.

The Constitution?

Protecting the American people from Guns?

Violence in the movies and games?

Inciting violence through free speech?

Violence in football??

In the grand scheme I am sure changes in football are way down on the priority list, right now he's too busy with at least one of the above.




posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
ATS TC clearly state mods are not the topic Obama is why anyone trying to make them one is:

Illegal contact 50 yard penalty.


And yet you seem to be making it the topic? Apparently that miniscule offense is all you are capable of rebuffing...You can bait someone else.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ausername
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The real questions here are about Obama's vision of the future of football.



Hmmm. That wasn't the OP? Searching for a corner? Maybe start a new thread.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I stand by my other post..... I just wish he would've stuck to the "other issues"....
That's all.


I would rather have a Politician asked the obligatory "sports" question than other topics...

Mitt Romney: ‘I’m Kind of a Snooki Fan … Her Spark-Plug Personality Is Kind of Fun’



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
It's football for crying outloud one of the last "real men" sports.

Obama does have better things to do and if he is so concerned with violence stop droning people.


Yeah he does have more pressing issues like running this country in to the ground.


The NFL will be the NFFL when they're done tweaking it for safety. The National FLAG Football League



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
President Obama Worried About Football Safety


Obama tells The New Republic that football fans are going to have to wrestle with the fact that the game will probably change over time to try to reduce the violence.

The president says that some of those changes might make football, in his words, "a bit less exciting" but that it will be much better for players.



Source

Seriously, Mr President, football, really.... football.
Get your head in the game and lets "tackle" some real issues.


To those who keep defending these freedom-hating Traitor politicians, soon enough, they are going to BAN or make ILLEGAL something that YOU cherish and enjoy. Banning guns today, tomorrow it'll be something that you cherish. Eventually we are going to be living like prisoners with 24/7 surveillance. Let them remove NOT ONE MORE RIGHT of the People!!!



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ResistTreason

To those who keep defending these freedom-hating Traitor politicians, soon enough, they are going to BAN or make ILLEGAL something that YOU cherish and enjoy. Banning guns today, tomorrow it'll be something that you cherish.


No one is banning "guns"...and honestly I think folks get so caught up in partisan idealogy it warps and blinds them.



Have you ever fired a gun?

Yes, in fact, [...] we do skeet shooting all the time.






So much of the challenge that we have in our politics right now is that people feel as if the game here in Washington is completely detached from their day-to-day realities.

And that's not an unjustifiable view.




I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations.
And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake.

....
And if you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were ten, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family's traditions, you can see why you'd be pretty protective of that.

....
And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes.



Who Said that??? It's from the interview...

Who said this?


I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual a right to bear arms. This country has a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s been handed down from generation to generation.


Yep...that is from his speech on gun policy...

A little less Fox News and a little more listening to actual words in general.
edit on 27-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


You actually bring up a good point.

Obama is directing the narrative towards hunting.

Not home protection.
Not against a tyrannical government.

He shifts the narrative so that we focus on what he wants to talk about. He focuses in on sports injuries. And immediately wants to change the rules.

With guns, he says we can still hunt, but that was not the only reason to promote a 2nd Amendment.

It's all about controlling the narrative.
edit on 27-1-2013 by beezzer because: spelling



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5


Then it would seem odd that the OP would be suprised to find a comment regarding lowly "sports" on ESPN?



Yes, especially since ESPN gave Obama a full halftime live satellite interview with Chris Berman on the Monday Night Football on the eve of the November election. In that interview sports (the network's "lowly" stated purpose in the world) were scarcely touched. No, it was 10 minutes of ESPN, Berman, and presumably ESPN's parent corporation "Walt Disney" giving Obama a last minute, high profile, free stump speech.

Believe me, ESPN is no stranger to Obama (or the contents of his pockets, for that matter)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

I listed the other questions in detail on the last page...along with a link to the full interview and his answers?


Op took his "question" from ESPN. A site dedicated to sports. Not dedicated to the President. The President was asked a question, and answered it.



Originally posted by Indigo5
And how does one "accomplished" .."questions"???


How does a President not balance a Budget for Years? How does a President sidestep his responsibilities?

One "accomplishes" answering "questions", when someone brings up the question. This President has been asked MANY questions, some that need to be answered, and he has sidestepped many of them. What part of Him doing that, cant you understand? Football? Come on. Do you not believe he could have sidestepped it, as hes done with Fast and Furious, or Syria? I do. To bad he wasn't asked important issues, that really matter. The point I am making, would have stood out, like a sore thumb.



Originally posted by Indigo5
I mean..I get it..you are trying to bend the conversation to "accomplishments" so you can shout about how he hasn't accomplished anything, complete with emoticons etc. But if you have to torture the english language to drive the OP topic to where you want it...then you might be off topic.


No one is shouting. I see an ATS David Axelrod, playing the game of Moderator. That is what you were trying to accomplish, right?

Maybe you failed to read what this Forum is ALL about.....

This forum is dedicated to the discussion of the state of divisive politics in the US including political ideology, politicians, political figures, politics in the media, and speculation of conspiracy theories related to the divisive state. Participants should be aware that this forum is under close staff scrutiny. Because of the inherent distrust of government by conspiracy theorists, discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to be highly critical of the current administration.

Don't worry about me torturing the English Language either. I would like to talk about the many things Obama has done or has not done. I am sure you have an "excuse" for all of them though. That's what Obama's supporters do.


Originally posted by Indigo5
The OP claim was that he was choosing to discuss football rather than important issues.


Again. Obama could have stuck to what Presidents should be talking about. His Soapbox is the biggest in the World. When he talks, people listen. Even if one of the questions is about Football. Might I add, that his answer, didn't answer anything. Its like a waste of words.........



Originally posted by Indigo5
I showed that to be FALSE...


Still holding out that finger?






Originally posted by Indigo5
He didn't choose the question...he ANSWERED it


Will his "answer" change the way football is played? Will his "answer" save football players lives? Does his "answer" fix this Country? At least he answered it. Im 100% sure he couldn't answer any question revolving around Syria, Fast and Furious, Kill List, etc......... REAL ISSUES.


Originally posted by Indigo5
...amongst a dozen or so questions on "issues".


None of those "questions" had any real answers to them either !!!!

Par for the course.........

Example?

Praising Democrats, and Lambasting Republicans......


And I want to be very clear here that Democrats, we've got a lot of warts, and some of the bad habits here in Washington when it comes to lobbyists and money and access really goes to the political system generally. It's not unique to one party. But when it comes to certain positions on issues, when it comes to trying to do what's best for the country, when it comes to really trying to make decisions based on fact as opposed to ideology, when it comes to being willing to compromise, the Democrats, not just here in this White House, but I would say in Congress also, have shown themselves consistently to be willing to do tough things even when it's not convenient, because it's the right thing to do. And we haven't seen that same kind of attitude on the other side.


I can care less about Republicans, but its dishonest to say that Democrats have consistently done " tough things". Why wont they pass Obama's budget then?











edit on 27-1-2013 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Funny, right?

Here's something about "questions" Obama faces................


The White House is doing something with its local TV interviews that it could not easily get away with in encounters with the White House press corps, which President Obama has been studiously ignoring: choosing the topic about which President Obama and the reporter will talk.

In interviews with three local TV stations Monday, two from states critical to Obama’s reelection effort, Obama held forth on the possibility of “sequestration” if he and Congress fail to reach a budget deal, allowing him to make his favorite political point that Republicans are willing to cause grievous harm to the economy and jobs in order to protect the rich from tax increases.



The reporters were able to ask about other topics. But with their face time with the president limited to under ten minutes, and Obama well rehearsed to discuss at length his favored topic, there was little room for much else to come up.


White House Sets Ground Rules for Local Interviews


Cause this is the way Obama works, when it comes to real issues.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by elevatedone
 




I know of a budget he could work on, that for years hasn't been passed........


But, but....

I thought his budget proposal was pretty strait forward.






new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join