Printable View
Obama should have known better to talk about ANYTHING where there's reporters. All they need is to hear, and BOOM it is front page news. He probably knew it would have leaked out anyways. And that should tell you something.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLKGSXR
And if he was being himself, it speaks volumes to what type of character he has. Not saying he is bad or anything, but there are much bigger persons out their that deserve a tongue lashing from him.
Tongue lashing? He gave him one sentence. Quit being a drama queen about it, it's sad. He's the president yes, he's also a human being, he's not barred from simply having opinions on non political matters. He didn't have a press conference about the VMA incident he had a one sentence blurb on an off the record interview. Criticizing him for that is little more than petty.
pot.....kettle... pot...kettle...
obama is a piece of shit and so is kanye west. The only difference is kanye is not turuning his back on the poor people like obama. Instead kanye is just making awful tracks.
When he says things like this it just makes me love him more. I hate politicians who are afraid to step on peoples toes. You should stand for something.
Hey, you know what? Fuck you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Instrumental
The only person being a drama queen is you, bitching about what I type, worry about your own goddamn self. Being critical of him, IN THIS ONE INCIDENT does NOT make me whatever you want me to be, so if you don't agree with what I say, then tough shit.
This is a message board. As such discussion is encouraged, and as such simply disagreeing with your post isn't being a drama queen. If you don't want people to comment on your opinions then perhaps you shouldn't post them on a message board in which the very purpose is to comment on what others say. A drama queen is one who makes a big deal out of nothing and tries to make issues out of something that really isn't important at all. You've reacted so vitriolically to what I said through various vulgarities and uncivil commentary, and have made a big deal about a person making a short comment on an already fairly unimportant incident. This makes you a drama queen because you have a disproportionate response (read: a big reaction) to what is an almost completely innocuous situation. Instead of making any sort of argument against my claim that the president speaking of it wasn't out of line you opted for a needlessly incensed and uncivil post, so I'm inclined to believe you don't have a logical argument to put forth either. There are many legitimate things to criticize Obama on; this is not one of them.
I just love Obama
1. There's a difference between disagreeing with a poster in a civil manner and throwing ad hominems at that person when you disagree with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Instrumental
2. You know it's funny you say I am getting all riled up after I said f you but it's ok to call me a drama queen and called what I say is petty. If you wanted to be "civil" then you could have left the ad hominems OUT of the post. So don't sit up in here and say your post wasn't anywhere near hostile. You through the first punch. Pot calling the kettle black.
3. I don't need to make an argument to you since I have already stated my position of the matter further pages back.
4. The reason why you reacted like that originally because you ASSUMED that I thought Obama gave Kanye a 'tongue lashing", which wasn't even the case. Look back at the post. I have said there are MUCH bigger people that deserve a tongue lashing, and I did NOT say that he gave Kanye, himself, a "tongue lashing".
You clearly don't know what an ad hominem is either. Simply insulting a person is not an ad hominem, an ad hominem is when a person claims an individual's argument is wrong just because of an insult they've labeled them with. Read this since you need to: http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html And for your own sake I wouldn't recommend using words you do not understand.
You are getting riled up, evident from your vulgar responses substituted for legitimate arguments, hyperbolic comments and illogically criticizing me for simply responding to a post you made (which as I said, this being a message board, responding to posts is what you're supposed to do). Unlike you I've been able to rationally explain why what Obama said shouldn't be an issue and also why complaints about him speaking on the issue are petty. You on the otherhand have not done so. You've stated your position but now that it's been challenged, you can offer little more than a "Fuck You", "tough shit" and "worry about your own goddamn self". Real intelligent discourse I do say. On top of that, my very argument is that people who are criticizing Obama for having a few words on the issue are being petty and trying to stir up drama so no, those comments could not be left out.
The fact that you stated your position earlier is irrelevant to the fact that you haven't explained why the position you stated is reasonable. That's how arguments work you see, you state your position and then when someone challenges it, you back it up with reasoning. This is now the second post in which your post lacks argument against what I said further reassuring me that I was right in guessing you do not have a logical argument to put forth. You're trying to digress by complaining about other things.
The fourth statement though, that makes me chuckle. No, I didn't assume that you thought Obama gave him a tongue lashing, that's what your post very much implied and now you're backtracking because even you know it's ridiculous. If you didn't mean it, one: You would have called me out on it in your previous post and two: Without thinking that what Obama said was a "tongue lashing" the statement holds absolutely no relevance to the situation let alone as a reasoning as to why Obama should have ignored it. But let's say I believe you and you genuinely didn't think it was a tongue lashing, you're still just trying to banter semantics to digress from the point that Obama insulting the guy isn't a big deal. Again, still waiting on the argument as to why it is.