Obama Adm. Refuses Benefits to Victims of Hasan

[East of Eden]

According to Obamathink, this wasn't terror, it was 'workplace violence'. Question for debate: Does anyone want to defend this lunacy?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood ... N41Qm80WSo

[East of Eden]

From Post 42:

No due to health reasons, son served in 101st Airborne, two cousins were Marine and Naval officers, and my uncle is a retired Navy captain, veteran of WWII-Vietnam, and former commanding officer of NAS Barbers Point, Hawaii. They agree with me on this issue.

Discounting any challenge to the referenced folks serving, I challenge you to offer some means by which we can confirm they agree with you on this issue.

1st challenge.

2nd challenge.

I can assure you my relatives don't care about this forum, this thread, or your endless ridiculous challenges. If you think I'm going to bother my ailing 90-year old uncle over this, it ain't going to happen.

Should I challenge Wyvern to prove he was really in the military? If you think I'm making it up, don't read my posts.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 51:

I can assure you my relatives don't care about this forum, this thread, or your endless ridiculous challenges.

I don't doubt many a Christian considers it "ridiculous" to have their claims challenged, but find it most "ridiculous" that such a condition should occur on a debate site.

I'll take this to be your admittance that you can't show your challenged claims have any basis in truth.

If you think I'm going to bother my ailing 90-year old uncle over this, it ain't going to happen.

I've come to expect that you won't "bother" to show your claims are truth.

It's one reason I so look forward to ya makin' 'em, so I can help the observer see that much of Christian, or politically 'right leaning' thinking is predicated on the -ahem- "ridiculous".

Should I challenge Wyvern to prove he was really in the military?

I'm not here to tell you who and who not to challenge.

I'm of the firm belief he is, owing to his proven ability to so thoroughly school us all on this issue.

If you think I'm making it up, don't read my posts.

I don't doubt many a Christian would prefer folks ignore them when they are incapable of showing they speak truth.

Be that as it may, I'll read what posts I deem I wanna read, thankyouverymuch.

And I'll challenge any and all claims I deem worthy of challenge, regardless of the discomfort it causes those who are incapable of showing they speak truth.

[East of Eden]

From Post 51:

I can assure you my relatives don't care about this forum, this thread, or your endless ridiculous challenges.

I don't doubt many a Christian considers it "ridiculous" to have their claims challenged, but find it most "ridiculous" that such a condition should occur on a debate site.

I'll take this to be your admittance that you can't show your challenged claims have any basis in truth.

If you think I'm going to bother my ailing 90-year old uncle over this, it ain't going to happen.

I've come to expect that you won't "bother" to show your claims are truth.

It's one reason I so look forward to ya makin' 'em, so I can help the observer see that much of Christian, or politically 'right leaning' thinking is predicated on the -ahem- "ridiculous".

Should I challenge Wyvern to prove he was really in the military?

I'm not here to tell you who and who not to challenge.

I'm of the firm belief he is, owing to his proven ability to so thoroughly school us all on this issue.

If you think I'm making it up, don't read my posts.

I don't doubt many a Christian would prefer folks ignore them when they are incapable of showing they speak truth.

Be that as it may, I'll read what posts I deem I wanna read, thankyouverymuch.

And I'll challenge any and all claims I deem worthy of challenge, regardless of the discomfort it causes those who are incapable of showing they speak truth.

Challenge away, your whole post here demonstrates why I and many others here don't take you seriously. If you think I'm in violation of anything, complain to the mods.

Hey Joey, prove your name is Joey.

/Sarcasm off

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 53:

Challenge away, your whole post here demonstrates why I and many others here don't take you seriously.

I've come to expect that many Christians I encounter will not take challenges to their claims "seriously", and don't it beat all, those challenges dare occur on a site dedicated to debating the very claims the Christian can't show are truth there when they utter 'em.

If you think I'm in violation of anything, complain to the mods.

I've come to expect that those who can't show they speak truth will readily call on rules and regulations and everything they need but the facts that show they do.

You said certain folks agreed.

You failed to show they do, to the point of indicating they can't.

Hey Joey, prove your name is Joey.

"Hey, you, you who I just called you by a name there, prove I wasn't a doofus for having done it!"

Are we to conclude East of Eden was given this name by a family he's pretty much admitted he can't show is there to give it to him?

Is this the state of the art in 'Christian debate'?

/Sarcasm off

Mine remains on, just in case folks mighta been confused about it.

It is my contention that East of Eden's previous contention that various members of his own family agreed with him is nothing more'n an appeal to numbers.

And then don't it beat all, when we ask him to confirm those numbers, as fallacious as all that is, he still can't set to it.

Is such a condition my fault?


Now, here's what tears it all. The man is an astute political analyst / commentator (if in error, but I'll poke you in the eye if you say he ain't just astute as heck). But what happened here? It's my contention the poster in question "felt the heat" (of possible error driven by Wyvern's sound argumentation) and chose to invoke the "them folks agree" 'defense'.

But don't it beat all, he couldn't show they do.

But yeah, since my birth certificate doesn't include JoeyKnothead, we should all be suspect about anything East of Eden fails to present in support of his claims.


'Cause of course, "East of Eden" is such a common name it can't possibly be he'd be using himself a sortanym of his own!

[micatala]

Where is the evidence that Obama had anything to do with this decision? From what I can see, this is entirely within the military and they are following their own guidelines.

And who is the Commander in Chief? Are you actually saying Obama has NO control over this?

Where is the evidence that Obama said anything to anyone about this? Do you have any or not? Why do you ignore the evidence that this was decided on through the usual military guidelines and procedures?


You should know full well that the President does not personally involve himself in every decision made within the government in general or the military in particular. That, in fact, should be completely obvious.

Why are we being subjected to yet another unwarranted smear on the President?

What is the motivation of the wounded soldiers protesting this crazy decision? Is there anything Obama has done you disagree with?

On the first question, I don't know. I certainly accept that some might be upset with the decision. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the decision at this point. I think those that are upset have a reasonable beef.

None of that has anything to do with your unwarranted smear.

Neither does my agreeing with or disagreeing with other things Obama has done. If your memory is failing you, I have already been on record on this forum disagreeing with some of Obama's decisions and actions, one of which was the contraception decision.





My question stands. Why the unwarranted smear on your part of Obama? Do you have any evidence at all he was involved in this decision or not?

[East of Eden]

Where is the evidence that Obama had anything to do with this decision? From what I can see, this is entirely within the military and they are following their own guidelines.

And who is the Commander in Chief? Are you actually saying Obama has NO control over this?

Where is the evidence that Obama said anything to anyone about this? Do you have any or not? Why do you ignore the evidence that this was decided on through the usual military guidelines and procedures?


You should know full well that the President does not personally involve himself in every decision made within the government in general or the military in particular. That, in fact, should be completely obvious.

Why are we being subjected to yet another unwarranted smear on the President?

What is the motivation of the wounded soldiers protesting this crazy decision? Is there anything Obama has done you disagree with?

On the first question, I don't know. I certainly accept that some might be upset with the decision. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the decision at this point. I think those that are upset have a reasonable beef.

None of that has anything to do with your unwarranted smear.

Neither does my agreeing with or disagreeing with other things Obama has done. If your memory is failing you, I have already been on record on this forum disagreeing with some of Obama's decisions and actions, one of which was the contraception decision.





My question stands. Why the unwarranted smear on your part of Obama? Do you have any evidence at all he was involved in this decision or not?

Funny how to the Obama fanboys any questioning of him is an 'unwarranted smear', and probably racist to boot. Are you taking the ridiculous position that Obama has no control over his administration?

[micatala]

Where is the evidence that Obama had anything to do with this decision? From what I can see, this is entirely within the military and they are following their own guidelines.

And who is the Commander in Chief? Are you actually saying Obama has NO control over this?

Where is the evidence that Obama said anything to anyone about this? Do you have any or not? Why do you ignore the evidence that this was decided on through the usual military guidelines and procedures?


You should know full well that the President does not personally involve himself in every decision made within the government in general or the military in particular. That, in fact, should be completely obvious.

Why are we being subjected to yet another unwarranted smear on the President?

What is the motivation of the wounded soldiers protesting this crazy decision? Is there anything Obama has done you disagree with?

On the first question, I don't know. I certainly accept that some might be upset with the decision. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the decision at this point. I think those that are upset have a reasonable beef.

None of that has anything to do with your unwarranted smear.

Neither does my agreeing with or disagreeing with other things Obama has done. If your memory is failing you, I have already been on record on this forum disagreeing with some of Obama's decisions and actions, one of which was the contraception decision.





My question stands. Why the unwarranted smear on your part of Obama? Do you have any evidence at all he was involved in this decision or not?

Funny how to the Obama fanboys any questioning of him is an 'unwarranted smear', and probably racist to boot. Are you taking the ridiculous position that Obama has no control over his administration?

You have attributed this decision to "Obamathink". You have said he is somehow responsible for it. You have implicitly accused him of being responsible for refusing benefits to the victims.



Do you have any evidence Obama was involved or not?


Ad hominem accusations about me being a fan of Obama are irrelevant. So are speculations about positions I might take on other questions.





You made the accusation. Back it up or retract. Do you have any evidence Obama had anything to do with the decision or not?

[East of Eden]

Where is the evidence that Obama had anything to do with this decision? From what I can see, this is entirely within the military and they are following their own guidelines.

And who is the Commander in Chief? Are you actually saying Obama has NO control over this?

Where is the evidence that Obama said anything to anyone about this? Do you have any or not? Why do you ignore the evidence that this was decided on through the usual military guidelines and procedures?


You should know full well that the President does not personally involve himself in every decision made within the government in general or the military in particular. That, in fact, should be completely obvious.

Why are we being subjected to yet another unwarranted smear on the President?

What is the motivation of the wounded soldiers protesting this crazy decision? Is there anything Obama has done you disagree with?

On the first question, I don't know. I certainly accept that some might be upset with the decision. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the decision at this point. I think those that are upset have a reasonable beef.

None of that has anything to do with your unwarranted smear.

Neither does my agreeing with or disagreeing with other things Obama has done. If your memory is failing you, I have already been on record on this forum disagreeing with some of Obama's decisions and actions, one of which was the contraception decision.





My question stands. Why the unwarranted smear on your part of Obama? Do you have any evidence at all he was involved in this decision or not?

Funny how to the Obama fanboys any questioning of him is an 'unwarranted smear', and probably racist to boot. Are you taking the ridiculous position that Obama has no control over his administration?

You have attributed this decision to "Obamathink". You have said he is somehow responsible for it. You have implicitly accused him of being responsible for refusing benefits to the victims.



Do you have any evidence Obama was involved or not?


Ad hominem accusations about me being a fan of Obama are irrelevant. So are speculations about positions I might take on other questions.





You made the accusation. Back it up or retract. Do you have any evidence Obama had anything to do with the decision or not?

Read the OP, I said the Obama administration, which Obama is responsible for, or are you going to dispute that? If he isn't repsonsible for his administration, who is, Bush? John Boehner? A person as far up as Sec. of Defense Robert Gates was said to be involved in this crazy decision. If Obama hasn't had any involvement, perhaps he can bestir himself from golf and Hawaiian vacations and do so.

[micatala]

Where is the evidence that Obama had anything to do with this decision? From what I can see, this is entirely within the military and they are following their own guidelines.

And who is the Commander in Chief? Are you actually saying Obama has NO control over this?

Where is the evidence that Obama said anything to anyone about this? Do you have any or not? Why do you ignore the evidence that this was decided on through the usual military guidelines and procedures?


You should know full well that the President does not personally involve himself in every decision made within the government in general or the military in particular. That, in fact, should be completely obvious.

Why are we being subjected to yet another unwarranted smear on the President?

What is the motivation of the wounded soldiers protesting this crazy decision? Is there anything Obama has done you disagree with?

On the first question, I don't know. I certainly accept that some might be upset with the decision. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the decision at this point. I think those that are upset have a reasonable beef.

None of that has anything to do with your unwarranted smear.

Neither does my agreeing with or disagreeing with other things Obama has done. If your memory is failing you, I have already been on record on this forum disagreeing with some of Obama's decisions and actions, one of which was the contraception decision.





My question stands. Why the unwarranted smear on your part of Obama? Do you have any evidence at all he was involved in this decision or not?

Funny how to the Obama fanboys any questioning of him is an 'unwarranted smear', and probably racist to boot. Are you taking the ridiculous position that Obama has no control over his administration?

You have attributed this decision to "Obamathink". You have said he is somehow responsible for it. You have implicitly accused him of being responsible for refusing benefits to the victims.



Do you have any evidence Obama was involved or not?


Ad hominem accusations about me being a fan of Obama are irrelevant. So are speculations about positions I might take on other questions.





You made the accusation. Back it up or retract. Do you have any evidence Obama had anything to do with the decision or not?

Read the OP, I said the Obama administration, which Obama is responsible for, or are you going to dispute that? If he isn't repsonsible for his administration, who is, Bush? John Boehner? A person as far up as Sec. of Defense Robert Gates was said to be involved in this crazy decision. If Obama hasn't had any involvement, perhaps he can bestir himself from golf and Hawaiian vacations and do so.

In other words, no you don't have any evidence for your smear, do you. Now you make an additional smear in an attempt to justify the first one.



Following your logic, we should accept as justified emotional tirades against "the Administration" because janitors at Mt. Rushmore didn't keep the bathrooms clean enough. After all, Obama is "responsible" for them too isn't he? It's all evidence of Obama's lack of respect for American history, and his secret hatred and jealousy of his predecessors in office.


When a TSA agent gropes someone inappropriately, following your logic, that's because of Obama's lax commitment to moral values or some such ridiculousness that we can attribute to "Obamathink."

It doesn't matter how far the chain you go, following your logic it all goes back to Obama, whether or not the office of the President typically has any involvement in the types of decisions in question or not. That is what your position amounts to.






Now we are treated to "weasel words" about how you didn't mean Obama himself, but just his Administration. Right. When you say "Obamathink" you are making a smear about what is in the President's head. You are implicitly accusing him personally of contemplating the decision with forethought and deliberation, or of some kind of nefarious mind control of his subordinates. To try to distance yourself now from your smear by vague allusions to "his Administration" and how he is ultimately somehow "responsible," because of this nebulous and yet insidiously pervasive "Obamathink," for every decision made by every bureaucrat across the country is nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention from the fact you made an insulting and entirely unsubstantiated accusation against the President.




Why didn't you stick with the facts and say who was directly responsible in the first place instead of dragging the President's name into it when you have no evidence at all he was involved. Why not say "the military" or "the Pentagon" or the "Secretary of the Army?"



You used Obama's name. If you don't think he was involved in the decision, or you have no evidence he was, why did you bring that up? If your going to hide behind weasel words now and try to say you mean "only his Administration," why didn't accurately state what the facts show in the first place? Why use a loaded term like "Obamathink" which strongly suggests that the decision resulted from some kind of brain-washing by the President of the entire governmental bureaucracy?



There is no other reasonable conclusion to draw than your position amounts to a smear, an attempt to blame Obama for a decision you disagree with, even though you have no evidence he had anything to do with it. The fact that you defend the original smear by disparaging references to his golf game or his vacation is even more evidence of that.

[East of Eden]

Where is the evidence that Obama had anything to do with this decision? From what I can see, this is entirely within the military and they are following their own guidelines.

And who is the Commander in Chief? Are you actually saying Obama has NO control over this?

Where is the evidence that Obama said anything to anyone about this? Do you have any or not? Why do you ignore the evidence that this was decided on through the usual military guidelines and procedures?


You should know full well that the President does not personally involve himself in every decision made within the government in general or the military in particular. That, in fact, should be completely obvious.

Why are we being subjected to yet another unwarranted smear on the President?

What is the motivation of the wounded soldiers protesting this crazy decision? Is there anything Obama has done you disagree with?

On the first question, I don't know. I certainly accept that some might be upset with the decision. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the decision at this point. I think those that are upset have a reasonable beef.

None of that has anything to do with your unwarranted smear.

Neither does my agreeing with or disagreeing with other things Obama has done. If your memory is failing you, I have already been on record on this forum disagreeing with some of Obama's decisions and actions, one of which was the contraception decision.





My question stands. Why the unwarranted smear on your part of Obama? Do you have any evidence at all he was involved in this decision or not?

Funny how to the Obama fanboys any questioning of him is an 'unwarranted smear', and probably racist to boot. Are you taking the ridiculous position that Obama has no control over his administration?

You have attributed this decision to "Obamathink". You have said he is somehow responsible for it. You have implicitly accused him of being responsible for refusing benefits to the victims.



Do you have any evidence Obama was involved or not?


Ad hominem accusations about me being a fan of Obama are irrelevant. So are speculations about positions I might take on other questions.





You made the accusation. Back it up or retract. Do you have any evidence Obama had anything to do with the decision or not?

Read the OP, I said the Obama administration, which Obama is responsible for, or are you going to dispute that? If he isn't repsonsible for his administration, who is, Bush? John Boehner? A person as far up as Sec. of Defense Robert Gates was said to be involved in this crazy decision. If Obama hasn't had any involvement, perhaps he can bestir himself from golf and Hawaiian vacations and do so.

In other words, no you don't have any evidence for your smear, do you. Now you make an additional smear in an attempt to justify the first one.



Following your logic, we should accept as justified emotional tirades against "the Administration" because janitors at Mt. Rushmore didn't keep the bathrooms clean enough. After all, Obama is "responsible" for them too isn't he? It's all evidence of Obama's lack of respect for American history, and his secret hatred and jealousy of his predecessors in office.


When a TSA agent gropes someone inappropriately, following your logic, that's because of Obama's lax commitment to moral values or some such ridiculousness that we can attribute to "Obamathink."

It doesn't matter how far the chain you go, following your logic it all goes back to Obama, whether or not the office of the President typically has any involvement in the types of decisions in question or not. That is what your position amounts to.






Now we are treated to "weasel words" about how you didn't mean Obama himself, but just his Administration. Right. When you say "Obamathink" you are making a smear about what is in the President's head. You are implicitly accusing him personally of contemplating the decision with forethought and deliberation, or of some kind of nefarious mind control of his subordinates. To try to distance yourself now from your smear by vague allusions to "his Administration" and how he is ultimately somehow "responsible," because of this nebulous and yet insidiously pervasive "Obamathink," for every decision made by every bureaucrat across the country is nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention from the fact you made an insulting and entirely unsubstantiated accusation against the President.




Why didn't you stick with the facts and say who was directly responsible in the first place instead of dragging the President's name into it when you have no evidence at all he was involved. Why not say "the military" or "the Pentagon" or the "Secretary of the Army?"



You used Obama's name. If you don't think he was involved in the decision, or you have no evidence he was, why did you bring that up? If your going to hide behind weasel words now and try to say you mean "only his Administration," why didn't accurately state what the facts show in the first place? Why use a loaded term like "Obamathink" which strongly suggests that the decision resulted from some kind of brain-washing by the President of the entire governmental bureaucracy?



There is no other reasonable conclusion to draw than your position amounts to a smear, an attempt to blame Obama for a decision you disagree with, even though you have no evidence he had anything to do with it. The fact that you defend the original smear by disparaging references to his golf game or his vacation is even more evidence of that.

Your position that Obama has nothing to do with his administration is ludicrous, and I already noted my OP said 'Obama Administration', it is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. His administration would I assume think like Obama, hence the term Obamathink. Or don't they? Who is being smeared is those brave soldiers wounded in this terror attack, who are being trivialized as a workplace violence incident by Obama and his apologists. By this silly reasoning the attacks on US soldiers by Afghan army traitors is also workplace violence. What you don't get, or won't admit to due to PC-think, is that both the Afghan traitors and Hasan are on the same side. And BTW, I have every right to reference his (and his wife's) excessive vacations and golf that I as a taxpayer are paying for. This is still a democracy, whether you like it or not.