If You're Outraged Over Obama Remaining in Cuba After the Brussels Attacks...

[GMDino]

(File under: Two wrongs don't make a right.)
(File under: So much outrage these days.)
(File under: People have selective memories.)

http://thedailybanter.com/2016/03/if-youre-outraged-over-obama/

Quote:A particularly intolerable meme continues to play out in the news media and online: apparently U.S. history began on January 20, 2009 when Barack Obama was inaugurated. In case you were unaware, President Obama is evidently the first president to take vacations; he's the first president to play golf; he's the first president to be photographed without a suit or tie; and he's the first president to routinely use a teleprompter. If you believe any of that, then you're a moron who needs to refresh your memory about all things pre-2009. There you'll find that not only are Obama's vacations and so forth in line with most previous presidents, but in terms of overall time off, he's taken the fewest vacation days of any modern president other than Bill Clinton.


The latest round of outrage directed at the president has to do with his so-called "bad optics" -- allegedly inappropriate non-presidential behavior. In this latest case, Obama's crazy decision to remain in Cuba for his historic reopening of U.S./Cunban relations following the dual terrorist attacks in Brussels on Tuesday. A cursory check of AM talk radio, Fox News Channel and conservative Twitter reveals the usual double-standard and historical amnesia we've seen over and over again.

So, in the interest of history and the obvious inability of Republicans like Ted Cruz to actually do the research themselves, I decided to set the way-back machine to the beloved Ronald Reagan presidency. Here's a series of harrowing events from the 1980s, along with the comparatively AWESOMEoptics from Reagan, the now-sainted chief executive. The photographs are all from the specified dates.

EVENT, October 10, 1981 -- The funeral of assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
REAGAN OPTICS, October 10, 1981 -- Reagan went horseback riding at Camp David.


EVENT, August 29, 1983 -- Two Marines were killed and 14 wounded in Beirut.
REAGAN OPTICS, August 29, 1983 -- Reagan remained on vacation at Rancho Del Cielo, California.

EVENT, September 1, 1983 -- Reagan was still on vacation in California when the Soviets shot down Korean Airlines Flight 007.
REAGAN OPTICS, September 1, 1983 -- According to Fox News Channel's Chris Wallace, as well as contemporaneous accounts, Reagan planned to remain on vacation until he was photographed horseback riding and was convinced to return to the White House.

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]The Washington Post, 9/4/83 -- At this point, [Press Secretary Larry] Speakes was interrupted and asked if Reagan was going back to Washington. He ignored the question and read a statement on the Middle East. Asked again if Reagan was going back to Washington, Speakes answered, "There are no plans for the president to return to Washington earlier than anticipated."[/color]

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]FOX NEWS CHANNEL'S CHRIS WALLACE: I was covering Ronald Reagan at that time. He was in Santa Barbara at his ranch when that happened, and quite frankly he didn't want to leave. And his advisers realized how terrible this looked, and eventually persuaded him he had to fly back to Washington and had to give this speech to the nation, but it did take him four days.[/color]

EVENT, October 22, 1983 -- The administration began planning its military incursion into Grenada.
REAGAN OPTICS, October 22, 1983 -- Reagan remained on vacation at the Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia. Repeat: golf resort. Here are two strikingly presidential photos from Augusta -- the golf resort! First, Reagan in his jammies being briefed on the Grenada plans, then, later hitting the links. Where were the Republicans of 2016 to scold him?



President Reagan was still on vacation at the golf resort the next day when the Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed, killing 241 Marines.

EVENT, July 18, 1984 -- 21 people were killed and 19 wounded when a gunman entered a San Ysidro, California McDonald's and opened fire.
REAGAN OPTICS, July 21, 1984 -- On the day when many of the gun massacre victims were to be buried, Reagan went horseback riding at Camp David.

EVENT, April 2, 1986 -- Four Americans were killed in a terrorist attack at a TWA counter at the Athens Airport, Greece.
REAGAN OPTICS, April 4, 1986 -- Two days later, here's Reagan's uber-presidential optics, while on vacation (!!) at Rancho Del Cielo:



EVENT, September 5, 1986 -- The Pakistani military stormed the hijacked Pan Am Flight 73. 22 people were killed, including two Americans, and 150 were injured.
REAGAN OPTICS, September 6, 1986 -- Again, while on vacation at his California ranch, Reagan went horseback riding with the First Lady and was photographed with a "Just Say No" sign.


Presidential optics! Just say no.

[*PhilHos*]

To be fair, Democrats were the one to set the standard by which we are to judge sitting Presidents (no pun intended) with the criticism leveled at George W. Bush.

(Filed under: Democrats started it)

[GMDino]

(03-29-2016, 11:26 AM)PhilHos Wrote: To be fair, Democrats were the one to set the standard by which we are to judge sitting Presidents (no pun intended) with the criticism leveled at George W. Bush.

(Filed under: Democrats started it)

Back when it was considered treason for the "other" side to criticize a sitting President during war time?

(Filed under: Double standards.)

[*PhilHos*]

(03-29-2016, 11:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: Back when it was considered treason for the "other" side to criticize a sitting President during war time?

(Filed under: Double standards.)

No before that; back when they criticized a literally sitting President for not acting 7 minutes sooner.

(Filed under: Underfile)

 

[GMDino]

(03-29-2016, 11:30 AM)PhilHos Wrote: No before that; back when they criticized a literally sitting President for not acting 7 minutes sooner.

(Filed under: Underfile)

 

Yeah...he deserved that.

But he explained why he did it.  15 years later.

(Filed under: rewriting history)

[*PhilHos*]

(03-29-2016, 11:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah...he deserved that.

But he explained why he did it.  15 years later.

(Filed under: rewriting history)

So does Obama.

(Filed under: you got served, sucka!)

[GMDino]

(03-29-2016, 11:46 AM)PhilHos Wrote: So does Obama.

(Filed under: you got served, sucka!)

All seriousness aside I always felt like W. was in over his head...even when I voted for him in 2000.  I just did not want four more years of Clinton / Gore.

Those 7 minutes simple reinforced it to me and I don't think he will ever change my mind.

Seems like a nice guy.  Did some stuff I liked and supported.  Did some stuff I think are among the dumbest things ever done.

(Filed under: Meh.)

[*PhilHos*]

(03-29-2016, 12:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: All seriousness aside I always felt like W. was in over his head...even when I voted for him in 2000.  I just did not want four more years of Clinton / Gore.

Those 7 minutes simple reinforced it to me and I don't think he will ever change my mind.

Seems like a nice guy.  Did some stuff I liked and supported.  Did some stuff I think are among the dumbest things ever done.

(Filed under: Meh.)

Why would you say "all seriousness aside" right before getting all serious? Sounds like something Bush would say. 

[GMDino]

(03-29-2016, 12:16 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Why would you say "all seriousness aside" right before getting all serious? Sounds like something Bush would say. 

I stole that from Steve Allen.  I use it all the time.  About twice a year someone asks why.  You're right on schedule.  

Bush isn't that clever to think that up.  Or steal it.  

[*PhilHos*]

(03-29-2016, 12:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: I stole that from Steve Allen.  I use it all the time.  About twice a year someone asks why.  You're right on schedule.  

Bush isn't that clever to think that up.  Or steal it.  

True. Only Democrats steal. 

[GMDino]

(03-29-2016, 12:20 PM)PhilHos Wrote: True. Only Democrats steal. 

But only the best stuff.  

[*bfine32*]

I haven't seen much "outrage" about how Obama reacted (immediately following) to the Belgium bombing on here; but it's best to be safe, just in case.

WTS, I am upset with the standard line that is coming out from the Dems (Hillary mainly) that "We cannot let fear dictate our policy". WTF does she know about fear? She had to make up a story about dodging snipper fire.

Folks can hide behind quotes all day, but the problem is increasing in Europe with the influx of immigrants and for the current establishment (and those that want to take over its polocies) to suggest that we should not only reduce, but in fact, increase immigration from countries such a Syria is putting the safety of current Americans at risk.

Obama got egg on his face with his JV and other comments and now he and those that support him are going to try to prove him right regardless of the conciquence.

[BengalHawk62]

(03-29-2016, 11:26 AM)PhilHos Wrote: To be fair, Democrats were the one to set the standard by which we are to judge sitting Presidents (no pun intended) with the criticism leveled at George W. Bush.

(Filed under: Democrats started it)

Dick Cheney + Donald Rumsfeld + incompetent W = levels of criticism earned by the GOP

[Rotobeast]

(03-29-2016, 11:22 AM)GMDino Wrote: (File under: Two wrongs don't make a right.)
(File under: So much outrage these days.)
(File under: People have selective memories.)

http://thedailybanter.com/2016/03/if-youre-outraged-over-obama/

Suuuuure....... compare the strapping young buck to a jittery, spent rancher.

Typical liberal trickery ! 

[Benton]

I haven't seen the point of the issue. Ever.

What do we expect? The president to drop everything, fly across the globe into a terrorist attack, take over handling it from whatever governing body is there? When did we start holding president's up to the standard of Superman?

The absurdity of it is, the same people on both sides who complain about whatever the other side is doing would be bawling if an attack occurred here and some foreign leader came in and told our president what to do.

[fredtoast]

(03-29-2016, 12:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks can hide behind quotes all day, but the problem is increasing in Europe with the influx of immigrants 

And folks like you can dodge the fact that the person responsible for the Brussells attack was not an immigrant.

[*bfine32*]

(03-30-2016, 01:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And folks like you can dodge the fact that the person responsible for the Brussells attack was not an immigrant.

So most likely just a cowinkydink.

Even you have zero idea what was the impetus for the Brussels attacks and other terrorist activities going on in Europe. There is a very good chance that an influx of like-minded people have sparked action by those already located there.

You might want to contact Angela Merkle and share your knowledge of the situation as she is calling for a reduction in all Europena Nations.

[fredtoast]

(03-30-2016, 01:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You might want to contact Angela Merkle and share your knowledge of the situation as she is calling for a reduction in all Europena Nations.

I have always acknowledged that the massive influx of immigrants would cause problems for Europe, but that is much different from saying that Syrian refugees are terrorists.

[*bfine32*]

(03-30-2016, 02:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have always acknowledged that the massive influx of immigrants would cause problems for Europe, but that is much different from saying that Syrian refugees are terrorists..

Who the Hell said that. I simply said an increase in immigration, especially those from Syria could present a safety risk

So do you take the same stance with problems occuring in the US as you did Europe?

[fredtoast]

(03-30-2016, 02:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who the Hell said that. I simply said an increase in immigration, especially those from Syria could present a safety risk

So do you take the same stance with problems occuring in the US as you did Europe?

Here is a condensed version of my take on a very very complicated issue.

There has been an anti-Muslim undercurrent in European society for decades.  I have been aware of it (at least among the French) since the mid '80's.  The Muslim have been seen by some much like blacks in America.  A violent, criminal group that are a drain on society.  So I knew there would be big problems when small cash-strapped European countries were suddenly faced with hundreds of thousands of Muslims immigrants at the same time that Muslim extremists are declaring war on western culture.  Even the citizens who do not have anything against Muslims don't want the refugees because of the financial burden.  But the the right-wing, xenophobic extremists are spinning the theory that all the opposition against the immigrants is based on their "violent" religion and inature.

And that is much different than a country like the United States taking in 25.000 refugees.