Maybe if he had brought a coherent view, things might have turned out different.
No, but it excuses people from not doing so. After all, if Stringbean just wanted a debate about whether Obama should have gone, he could have started this in GD.
“Obama should have participated in the rally in Paris,” is coherent.
Agreed that there’s different standards between the Pit and the GD. But, there’s no reason you can’t both give a good reason why you think he’s wrong and also flame him. If he’s so clearly a moron, shouldn’t be hard to point out.
Here’s the problem, Stringbean doesn’t want and will not listen to any rational argument against his position.
He has no factual insight into the presidents schedule or the scope of issues he’s currently addressing and therefor is not qualified to make an informed decision regarding the decision not to attend. This should be trivially obvious but it doesn’t stop him from posting rants like the one in the OP.
Why? Because the facts are not important to him or he would have posted this in GQ where we could have discussed it rationally. Instead he posted it here because his intent is to simply manufacture another excuse reasserting his already formed and unchangeable opinions.
For many people, personal attacks are easier and require less energy than coherent rebuttals.
The French would not have wanted Obama to go there.
The first step would have been a subtle hint that he was thinking about it, and the French would have politely screamed “Are you out of your fucking mind!? We don’t already have security worries without you sending Target Number One for a visit?? You fucking nuts?!”
I think you nailed it.
Why do you guys have to make everything about yourselves?
Europe does not give a shit if Obama was there or not, get over it.
I dislike Obama as much as anyone. I don’t believe he should have attended this march. He’s the US President for goodness sake. It would have been a logistic and security nightmare.
…Have you met Stringbean before? Sometimes, when a person makes the thousandth awful, stupid, partisan glurge post that has no argument of merit and makes no sense on its face, you just don’t feel like indulging them any more.
Agree. POTUS flying overseas = major logistics that must be planned weeks, months in advance. These terror attacks came to a conclusion 2 days ago. Anyone who seriously makes the OP of this thread deserves to be treated as though his agenda is something other than what was stated, as no sane person could expect the POTUS to go on such an extremely short notice. It is this lying, sneaky underhanded shit that posters are responding to, and the OP knows this. People that post on this board are quite discerning. All you have to do is post something like this to see this discernment in action.
Q.E.D.
ETA : Sorry, BPC. My post was agreeing with Fuzzy Wuzzy. Well, I see it agrees with yours as well.
So the President is kind of like the metaphorical White Elephant?
It was a march through the streets. Not easy to include 30 black limos and a few hundred inconspicuous security guys carrying even more weapons #americanexceptionalism
Oh please, what would a poster called BOOM! know about security measures?
To get back to the OP, now that I come to think of it, weren’t all the world leaders who attended either Europeans or ‘close enough’ (Israel)? I’m pretty sure the existence of different continents on planet Earth (and the short timescale already noted) is enough to explain Obama’s absence.
Yeah. Twelve people died. It was sad that they died, but it would be honestly fucking weird if Obama flew over to say “sorry those people died.” He’s not their President. None of the people who died were American. It’d be utterly bizarre, like he was actually the President of the World, rather than the US.
Does he then have to do a whistletop tour of the rest of the world where people were killed by terrorism this week? There were quite a few.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada did not attend, but sent a representative from his cabinet instead.
CANADA!
My outrage burns like a minor scratch.
First of all, Stringbean, congratulations on being a Fox News teleprompter.
Second, think of all those heads of state that may face re-election someday. They don’t want to be seen with Obama any more than the Democrats did in our last election.
Not even Oakminister agrees with the OP, for Pete’s sake.
The only thing nailed here is that we’ve recognized that another Foxpinion was being pushed heavily, and that if the President had taken the action of going, there would be a Foxpinion condemning him for doing that when we have our own tragedies at home involving AMERICANS* (insert video of bald eagle and/or flag, with patriotic music in background), and Stringbean would have started a thread about it. As far as Fox, he and (it seems) you are concerned, the President is automatically wrong in whatever decisions he makes.