ltstanfo's big blunder

[FluffyMcDeath]

Today Whyzzat user ltstanfo used the tragic shooting of 40 US citizens, 12 fatally, to make a tawdry political point. Instead of creating a thread referencing the tragedy at Fort Hood, he used the title Obama's Big Blunder and instead of earnest expression of grief and comfort he launched on a shallow diatribe about someone else's less than adequate (in some pundits opinion) response to the same incident.

Meanwhile, FluffyMcDeath childishly reveled in using the following animated gif ->

 

[redrumloa]

Today Whyzzat user ltstanfo used the tragic shooting of 40 US citizens, 12 fatally, to make a tawdry political point. Instead of creating a thread referencing the tragedy at Fort Hood, he used the title Obama's Big Blunder and instead of earnest expression of grief and comfort he launched on a shallow diatribe about someone else's less than adequate (in some pundits opinion) response to the same incident.

Meanwhile, FluffyMcDeath childishly reveled in using the following animated gif ->

I see where you are going with this so nice try, but no cigar. While I would prefer ltstanfo to be in office over Obama, it ain't so. ltstanfo isn't elected to anything and isn't addressing anyone in a monologue.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I see where you are going with this so nice try, but no cigar.

Big box of Cubans, actually. Lee not being president doesn't make it not petty to use people's deaths for cheap shot (that misses).

Imagine that the President shows up to your house and you notice his fly is open so you point and say "ha ha, your fly is open!" At that point a secret service man points out that your fly is also open, and your tackle is hanging out and it's wearing a tiny "Village People" cowboy costume and it's swaying to the tune of "YMCA".

"Yes, but I'm not the President" is not a sufficient retort.

 

[ltstanfo]

I see where you are going with this so nice try, but no cigar.

Big box of Cubans, actually. Lee not being president doesn't make it not petty to use people's deaths for cheap shot (that misses).

Imagine that the President shows up to your house and you notice his fly is open so you point and say "ha ha, your fly is open!" At that point a secret service man points out that your fly is also open, and your tackle is hanging out and it's wearing a tiny "Village People" cowboy costume and it's swaying to the tune of "YMCA".

"Yes, but I'm not the President" is not a sufficient retort.

Wow! :shock:

Now whose going off on a diatribe... When did you become such a "flesh fashionista"? :roflmao:

Yep, Jim's right... you got nothing. But thanks for trying. :mrgreen:

Finally, to your point. You may find my comments petty but there are plenty who appear to agree. My point was that as President, Commander in Chief and top civil servant, he had a duty to respond (IMO) to the incident on Federal property by a Federal employee. But if you feel it was ok for him to make the issue a "back seat" news item then that is your opinion (not that you are any more an expert than I). :wink:

There, feel better now? We've both had our "rants".

As for (in your opinion) taking a "cheap shot", I'm pretty sure I didn't miss or you wouldn't be responding.

If it helps, let me add one of my favorites of the moment... how's that "hope and change" working out for you? (noting that as a Canadian, what Obama does or does not do has little direct effect on you).

Finally to Redrumloa, thank you for the kind words but I would not want that job. Never mind that, I'm not qualified to be president (at least what I feel are qualifications)... never been in the military, never been governor of a state or served more than a single term as senator / representative. But thanks just the same.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Now whose going off on a diatribe...

but mine was satirical. Yours was just bitter and abusive, and borrowed. Mine repudiated a fallacious argument with wit and yours (sorry, the one you borrowed) was simple ad hominem and made unfounded speculations about a person's motivations.

Yep, Jim's right... you got nothing. But thanks for trying.

I am not responsible for your inability to see the point. I merely drew attention to it though you are welcome to miss it completely as I would have expected. However, I don't really know why you are defending this guys bad idea so vociferously.

Finally, to your point. You may find my comments petty but there are plenty who appear to agree.

That is an important consideration for those who live and die by the polls and so must pander to the dumb masses. It does not make a stupid position less stupid. It does not make wrong into right. There are still a lot of people who think it was right to attack Iraq because Saddam did 911 and had nuclear weapons. It's millions of people - but they are all wrong.

My point was that as President, Commander in Chief and top civil servant, he had a duty to respond (IMO) to the incident on Federal property by a Federal employee.

Yes, in your opinion - but not in fact. The presidents duties where once carefully laid out and I know that there has been mission creep but talking to the nation when some small number of soldiers are killed is not one of them. There is a public expectation it seems because the public are unsure of their own emotional responses and want a big daddy or Uncle Sam to tell them that it's OK to be sad - there there - let all the sad out on Uncle Sam's shoulder - but there is no duty. There is a photo-op - a cheap emotional ploy - sure, but not a duty.

But if you feel it was ok for him to make the issue a "back seat" news item then that is your opinion

But my opinion on the matter is irrelevant because he did not make it a back seat issue. He spoke for a considerable time on the matter. You object that he spoke first to the people who were in the room with him before he spoke to you. Would it have been more appropriate to speak first to you and then to address his remarks to his hosts? How would that have looked to you? More sensitive?

Obama had not been sitting watching the same TV build up as you. He did not get the introduction to his speech that you did. you came in from the news feeds of shocked personnel and police units and uniformed military people trying to hold back tears and all of the other TV devices they use to make you care about people you don't know and really couldn't care less about if you didn't get the news (because if you cared about people then you will simply be overwhelmed if you try to care about all the people who are unfairly slaughtered every day and many of whom are slaughter by your tax dollars). If the news hadn't reported it would have been no skin of your nose whatsoever. Heck, it was a whole weekend ago. Have you been haunted by this for the last few days? When the TVs not on do you even remember it happened? You are being emotionally manipulated but that's a whole other issue - the President has no duty to speak to this but he did nonetheless and you criticize him because he talked to the people he was with before he talked to the people on the other side of the TV screens who had been bombarded by drama in technicolor with spinning graphics and edits so that YOU had been lead to have an unreasonable expectation and an unreasonable feeling of personal involvement.

As for (in your opinion) taking a "cheap shot", I'm pretty sure I didn't miss or you wouldn't be responding.

Does not compute. Shooting at someone and missing is still a felony. You can't expect the police to let you be just because you didn't manage to nail the guy you were aiming at.

The reason I respond and continue to respond and at length and in outrage is that I cannot believe that YOU would be so dumb to say what you said - though I do understand why you must vigorously as if you had been in the right.

Never mind that, I'm not qualified to be president (at least what I feel are qualifications)... never been in the military, never been governor of a state or served more than a single term as senator / representative.

That's the dumbest list of qualifications I've heard of for the Presidency. Did you get that from the Constitution or something? No.
You want a guy who has been brought up through all the levels of the corruption system and found to be loyal to the ruling classes and pretty much guaranteed not to rock the boat?

Qualifications for Presidency should begin with principles, honesty, loyalty to the Constitution and being of the people.

but if you think medals and ribbons and never pissing off rich people are better qualifications, then at least you always get what you deserve.

Now, stop being petty, stop letting propagandists lead you by the emotions and become a bit more discerning. While this tawdry titillation is being waved in your face something important is happening.

 

[ltstanfo]

Now, stop being petty, stop letting propagandists lead you by the emotions and become a bit more discerning. While this tawdry titillation is being waved in your face something important is happening.

Move over Jim, you're not in the hot seat anymore.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Thanks for that lecture and verbal "ruler smack" (as in Catholic nuns smacking a student with a ruler) Fluffy. No, really... thanks. I'm glad to see that I finally know who the emotion, thought and "discerning" police are. From now on I'll be sure to run every thought I have by you for approval since you seem to be, or want to be, the person telling me what to do.

In all seriousness, I do appreciate your trying to convey your viewpoint to me and your hope that I might see the "error of my ways" but we don't always agree and for reasons that perhaps you cannot see or understand. While I respect your viewpoints I must disagree with them as (has been pointed out in an unrelated topic) you do not live here / were not born and raised here and therefore I don't think you can realize the diversity of opinions here from the far left (where I tend to place you) to the far right (where many tend to place me).

As an example, I cannot understand your apparent disdain for the military (or "assets" as you previously called them). I grew up in the military environment (army brat to an officer), nearly became one of them (ASVAB scores were high enough that the Navy offered me a "nuclear navy job") and have worked for them as a contractor all of my professional career. While I would certainly not consider everything they do "noble", I much prefer aspects of their lifestyle over what I see in much of (American) society today. I do believe that someone should "come up through the ranks" although there clearly can be exceptions. As for ribbons, they don't make the individual, experience does (something we're both gaining now), so I'll let that bit of your rant go.

I also don't understand your apparent disdain for "rich people". Are there bad "rich people"? Sure, Madoff comes to mind and he got what he deserved. There are plenty of other examples but I have nothing against anyone trying to make more of themselves and make $$ in the process, as long as they don't break the law. Should we all live in a proverbial "socialist utopia" (that has never existed) where everyone makes the same wage, lives the same and therefore is the same? I know my example is an unrealistic extreme but that is my point. There will always be people who have more and have less. Who am I to say "more" is to much? Oh wait... what is your definition of "to much" so I know what to think and respond from now on? Why do you always apparently equate "rich people" with class warfare? It can be but isn't always.

Since much of my life has revolved around the military, I tend to associate with them more than others might (such as yourself apparently). Do you have the same apparent disregard for the Canadian military?

I do not regard the leader of the armed forces speaking on the Fort Hood incident as a tragedy or a cheap photo op. I also do not regard the nation looking to him for comments as "permission to feel sad". People do have an expectation that their leader will address such issues. Just because it isn't spelled out in paragrah X or section Y of the constitution doesn't mean he (or she) cannot do such. It also does not make it wrong. I do have concerns when it appears that his priorities are elsewhere but we have both made our opinions known.

Even though we clearly disagree on this matter and I cannot see either side changing (regardless of who thinks they are right or wrong) this is why I am glad this forum is here, to see other people's viewpoints.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[Glaucus]

@Fluffy,
Although I agree with most of what you said, isn't it the duty of the leader to lead?

@Ltstanfo,
Fluffy's post was, like he said, satirical, where as yours was a political hatchet job. Fluffy is the Jon Stewart of the thread where you are the Rush Limbaugh. You ignored the death of a dozen or so of your fellow soldiers and instead focused on what is really the least significant part of this entire story. Fluffy is simply pointing out that there's a much bigger story here. Did Obama flub this? Maybe, maybe not; in the grand scheme of things it's so unimportant I haven't bothered to look into it. And your comparison to Bush doesn't jive with me either because his initial reaction to receiving the news of the towers being hit was equally unimportant (to me at least). His reaction would not have changed the outcome. How Bush reacted after wards was far more important (and I can guarantee you that if anyone did bring up Bush's reaction, that wasn't the first thing they talked about after the towers fell). Both events are extraordinary and I doubt we could ever get a real consensus on how one should react. If anything, we should all be happy that Obama didn't use the event to push some political agenda, like some other president once did...

 

[ltstanfo]

@Ltstanfo,
Fluffy's post was, like he said, satirical, where as yours was a political hatchet job. Fluffy is the Jon Stewart of the thread where you are the Rush Limbaugh. You ignored the death of a dozen or so of your fellow soldiers and instead focused on what is really the least significant part of this entire story. Fluffy is simply pointing out that there's a much bigger story here. Did Obama flub this? Maybe, maybe not; in the grand scheme of things it's so unimportant I haven't bothered to look into it. And your comparison to Bush doesn't jive with me either because his initial reaction to receiving the news of the towers being hit was equally unimportant (to me at least). His reaction would not have changed the outcome. How Bush reacted after wards was far more important (and I can guarantee you that if anyone did bring up Bush's reaction, that wasn't the first thing they talked about after the towers fell). Both events are extraordinary and I doubt we could ever get a real consensus on how one should react. If anything, we should all be happy that Obama didn't use the event to push some political agenda, like some other president once did...

Thanks for your thoughts Mike. While I still do not necessarily agree with what you and Fluffy are trying to point out, at least your response is something I can understand. As for the comparison of Fluffy to John Stuart, perhaps, but unlike John, I didn't find Fluffy funny (in this instance). If I am being compared to Rush Limbaugh, then I take that as a compliment... although I know that isn't how it was intended. :wink:

In any event, thanks again and this is a case where I will agree to disagree.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[Glaucus]

In any event, thanks again and this is a case where I will agree to disagree.

Oh that's such a cop out! You conservatives just LOVE to "agree to disagree" just because it drives us liberal types up the friggin wall. You rob us of our deep rooted desire to argue over the same old things until we FINALLY convince you that you're wrong. It's the equivalent of preventing conservatives of glorifying the past or going to war! You're so not fair!

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

@Fluffy,
Although I agree with most of what you said, isn't it the duty of the leader to lead?

I'd say that it is a quality of a leader or the definition of a leader to lead.
However, the President is not a leader, it is not his job. He is the officer responsible for executing the will of the Congress (and, in theory, the people). In times of emergency he is also responsible for securing the nation.

Making speeches (perhaps to influence the people) is an abuse of the office. He is a public servant. His duty is to make sure that the things the people want to get done, as decided by the people's representatives, get done.

And importantly, even though he is Commander in Chief he is a civilian and as a civilian he outranks anyone in the army (just as any civilian does). It is utterly illegal for the armed forces ever to be used against the citizenry.

Presidents are always pushing this envelope and have managed, over the years, to push quite far - but the powers that the presidency has acquired are not duties. They are simply powers selfishly acquired for selfish reasons.

 

[redrumloa]

Oh that's such a cop out! You conservatives just LOVE to "agree to disagree" just because it drives us liberal types up the friggin wall. You rob us of our deep rooted desire to argue over the same old things until we FINALLY convince you that you're wrong. It's the equivalent of preventing conservatives of glorifying the past or going to war! You're so not fair!

Would you rather Lee be more like me? Arguing with you guys until you are yelling at your monitor in anger?

 

[ltstanfo]

In any event, thanks again and this is a case where I will agree to disagree.

Oh that's such a cop out! You conservatives just LOVE to "agree to disagree" just because it drives us liberal types up the friggin wall. You rob us of our deep rooted desire to argue over the same old things until we FINALLY convince you that you're wrong. It's the equivalent of preventing conservatives of glorifying the past or going to war! You're so not fair!

Nice one Mike! :mrgreen:

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[Glaucus]

@Fluffy,
Although I agree with most of what you said, isn't it the duty of the leader to lead?

I'd say that it is a quality of a leader or the definition of a leader to lead.
However, the President is not a leader, it is not his job. He is the officer responsible for executing the will of the Congress (and, in theory, the people). In times of emergency he is also responsible for securing the nation.

Making speeches (perhaps to influence the people) is an abuse of the office. He is a public servant. His duty is to make sure that the things the people want to get done, as decided by the people's representatives, get done.

And importantly, even though he is Commander in Chief he is a civilian and as a civilian he outranks anyone in the army (just as any civilian does). It is utterly illegal for the armed forces ever to be used against the citizenry.

Presidents are always pushing this envelope and have managed, over the years, to push quite far - but the powers that the presidency has acquired are not duties. They are simply powers selfishly acquired for selfish reasons.

Well, there's no question there have been abuses of power. And perhaps I was wrong with my use of the word Duty, as that implies "constitutional duties", ie his job. You're right, it's not his job. However, as a human being anyone is allowed to give an opinion on a subject and there's nothing about doing that that is an abuse of power. The fact that people wish to listen to him is not his fault. Fact is, that's what people want and to be honest, I'd prefer that any elected official speak his mind. The alternative would mean a complete lack of connection between the government and the people. So it's not a duty, but I still think it's a requirement set by the voters themselves as they expect the president (or senator or congressman or PM or MLA or MP) to say something meaningful. In that sense I have no argument with Ltstanfo, but of course I do disagree with him that it's an issue significant enough to eclipse the real tragedy of the event.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

[...] we don't always agree and for reasons that perhaps you cannot see or understand.

Oh, I think I do. It's not that we disagree. It's that we are talking about different things. I'll get back to that a bit further down.

As an example, I cannot understand your apparent disdain for the military (or "assets" as you previously called them).

That would be like saying that I have disdain for savings, investments and property because they are assets. In saying what I said I made reference to what Henry Kissinger said about military men and he IS a person who has made use of those assets from time to time and his approach to the military is quite pragmatic. Soldiers die, not men of importance, but they die so that, if played well, the game brings more wealth and power to the men who ARE the men of importance. To make a few million bucks at the cost of a few ordinary lives, people you don't even know and really can't care much for? It's a no brainer.

I grew up in the military environment (army brat to an officer), nearly became one of them (ASVAB scores were high enough that the Navy offered me a "nuclear navy job") and have worked for them as a contractor all of my professional career.

And, hence, you are not talking about the military from the viewpoint of the people that own it and use it to get things done. You are talking about your personal relationships with people who happen to be in the military. Similarly if you worked in a coal mining town you would relate to the miners that you knew as individual people - but the mine owner, perhaps living in another part of the world, see the miners as assets who have associated costs and productivity. They will put out noble statements and make the appearance of caring because they will get better work out of the workforce, engender more loyalty, etc. but at the first whiff of reduced demand they will lay people off, slash health care, renege on pensions and give themselves bonuses. The miners may not understand that, but they should.

Soldiers are the same.

I do believe that someone should "come up through the ranks" although there clearly can be exceptions.

I agree, if the position that they are seeking is a senior military position, but not for a civilian position, like the President.

I also don't understand your apparent disdain for "rich people". Are there bad "rich people"?

You don't get rich by being nice. You get rich by making sure that you always get a bit more than your fair share. You might think that having a million dollars is rich but that's just upper middle class. The rich have assets a hundred thousand times as much - more than they could spend. And what do they do with it? Use it to make more money. At this level of the game nice guys have been weeded out. Mostly it's not that they're being "evil" per se, but they are trying to out do each other. The little people are collateral damage. When two fat guys have an eating competition, many pies will die.

Why do you always apparently equate "rich people" with class warfare? It can be but isn't always.

For it to be warfare the poor would have to realize that they should be fighting back. It's more sort of class massacre.

Do you have the same apparent disregard for the Canadian military?

Is it disregard to want the people who sign up to defend the country with trust and courage not have the trust broken and courage wasted on campaigns to curry favour with allies or to hold ground that is not ours? If they offer their lives to defend the country then our leaders should only be allowed to call on them to defend the country - that means to directly repel an enemy at our shores.

 

[Glaucus]

Is it disregard to want the people who sign up to defend the country with trust and courage not have the trust broken and courage wasted on campaigns to curry favour with allies or to hold ground that is not ours? If they offer their lives to defend the country then our leaders should only be allowed to call on them to defend the country - that means to directly repel an enemy at our shores.

Here you've made an assumption as to why Canadians join the Canadian Armed Forces. If you look at the Canadian recruitment videos the first two locations flashed on the screen are Gulf of Oman and Afghanistan. I'm not sure how anyone's trust is being broken here, I think the Canadian military recruiters are being quite honest of what you can expect with a career in the Canadian military. I think you're probably thinking more of the US Army recruitment videos which seem to portray the military more like some kind of Olympic sport or a video game. The Americans are clearly betrayed here, but I'd argue that Canadians should know exactly what they're getting themselves into.