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

[Wyvern]

Oh yes, I am sure that the commander and chief has the time/energy and desire to micormanage every little thing that the Defense department does. Right , Uh huh.

Not when you go on a vacation a month.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mor ... 11998.html

So is it your contention that if the president had not taken eleven days off since the new year he in fact would be able and willing to micromanage every little thing that the government does and somehow given your opinion of the man that this would be a good thing?

It should also be noted that the article you provided is misleading in that it is talking about the presidents family as a whole not the president himself. I don't understand how getting the kids and wife out of the house would somehow prevent the president from conducting business.

That says a lot when the Ft. Hood massacre by a jihadist is viewed as a minor, insignificant issue. As far as his daughters, I think it inapproriate for them and a dozen of their friends to go on a lavish vacation at a time like this on our dime, with no accountability. We have every right to question this, they work for us, not the other way around.

The presidents children do not work for us and it is highly inappropriate to try to make them an issue as the republicans have been doing for some time now. Complain about the president himself all you like but leave the children out of it please, it has always been SOP in politics to keep the children of the president out of the picture. Like it or not but while in office the presidents family are required to be under secret service protection, even if he wanted the president could not order them to stop even if he wanted to do so.

There is accountability here, every dime spent is accounted for, every minute of the day where they go and what they do is accounted for. It's spring break and because of who they are and their ages most of the usual spring break locations are off limits, but again I have to ask what does this have to do with the OP?

Why is it inappropriate for the current president and his family to go on vacation now? Considering that after new years he has had exactly two days off, how many days off have you had in that same period of time? Please remember that the president doesn't get weekends off so include every day you have not gone to work for any reason. As I have said before in this thread Obama has taken more vacations than any democratic president in the last fifty years but he has taken fewer than any republican president in the same time period.

[East of Eden]

Oh yes, I am sure that the commander and chief has the time/energy and desire to micormanage every little thing that the Defense department does. Right , Uh huh.

Not when you go on a vacation a month.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mor ... 11998.html

So is it your contention that if the president had not taken eleven days off since the new year he in fact would be able and willing to micromanage every little thing that the government does and somehow given your opinion of the man that this would be a good thing?

It should also be noted that the article you provided is misleading in that it is talking about the presidents family as a whole not the president himself. I don't understand how getting the kids and wife out of the house would somehow prevent the president from conducting business.

That says a lot when the Ft. Hood massacre by a jihadist is viewed as a minor, insignificant issue. As far as his daughters, I think it inapproriate for them and a dozen of their friends to go on a lavish vacation at a time like this on our dime, with no accountability. We have every right to question this, they work for us, not the other way around.

The presidents children do not work for us and it is highly inappropriate to try to make them an issue as the republicans have been doing for some time now.

The children's dozen friends who vacationed at taxpayer expense don't work for us either. Do you think that appropriate?

Complain about the president himself all you like but leave the children out of it please, it has always been SOP in politics to keep the children of the president out of the picture. Like it or not but while in office the presidents family are required to be under secret service protection, even if he wanted the president could not order them to stop even if he wanted to do so.

Nobody is complaining about Secret Services protection for the FAMILY.

There is accountability here, every dime spent is accounted for, every minute of the day where they go and what they do is accounted for.

According to some, there has been no accountabilityof the girls vacation, in violation of the law. What sequester?

It's spring break and because of who they are and their ages most of the usual spring break locations are off limits, but again I have to ask what does this have to do with the OP?

Why is it inappropriate for the current president and his family to go on vacation now? Considering that after new years he has had exactly two days off, how many days off have you had in that same period of time? Please remember that the president doesn't get weekends off so include every day you have not gone to work for any reason. As I have said before in this thread Obama has taken more vacations than any democratic president in the last fifty years but he has taken fewer than any republican president in the same time period.

I knew other presidents would come up sooner or later. Reagan and Bush most often went to their homes rather than $2,000 a night rooms, and didn't have articles like this written about them by the foreign press (leave it to them to tell the truth):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1W7Ak8Sc3

Note information was by disgusted White House personel.

Can we get back to the OP now?

[micatala]

Can we get back to the OP now?

Yes let's.

Perhaps you could also have a talk with the person who drove it off topic in the first place by bringing up the President's vacations, whoever that was.

[East of Eden]

Can we get back to the OP now?

Yes let's.

Perhaps you could also have a talk with the person who drove it off topic in the first place by bringing up the President's vacations, whoever that was.

It was brought up in response to the claim Obama doesn't have time to address this. Maybe a few less rounds of golf and he would have time to seriously address a massacre of US troops at the hands of an embedded jihadist. I think he agrees with this policy, and is a proponent of the wrong view that this is a law enforcement matter, and not part of radical Islam's global war on us.

[Wyvern]

I think he agrees with this policy, and is a proponent of the wrong view that this is a law enforcement matter, and not part of radical Islam's global war on us.

Well I think considering Obama has never served in the military that he probably has very little opinion on the matter which is why the army is handling it through its bureaucracy. I have asked this before but instead of emotional pleas could you provide an argument based on the actual current criteria for the purple heart as to why this medal should be given in this case? It should also be restated that the title of this thread is not true, no benefits are being refused at all if you think they are please identify what benefits are being withheld.

[micatala]

Can we get back to the OP now?

Yes let's.

Perhaps you could also have a talk with the person who drove it off topic in the first place by bringing up the President's vacations, whoever that was.

It was brought up in response to the claim Obama doesn't have time to address this. Maybe a few less rounds of golf and he would have time to seriously address a massacre of US troops at the hands of an embedded jihadist. I think he agrees with this policy, and is a proponent of the wrong view that this is a law enforcement matter, and not part of radical Islam's global war on us.

Thank you for admitting you were the one who brought up the irrelevant issue, driving the thread off topic.

You are welcome to your unfounded and biased speculations. I am done addressing those.

[East of Eden]

Can we get back to the OP now?

Yes let's.

Perhaps you could also have a talk with the person who drove it off topic in the first place by bringing up the President's vacations, whoever that was.

It was brought up in response to the claim Obama doesn't have time to address this. Maybe a few less rounds of golf and he would have time to seriously address a massacre of US troops at the hands of an embedded jihadist. I think he agrees with this policy, and is a proponent of the wrong view that this is a law enforcement matter, and not part of radical Islam's global war on us.

Thank you for admitting you were the one who brought up the irrelevant issue, driving the thread off topic.

Never said that, it was relevant to a comment that was made.

You are welcome to your unfounded and biased speculations. I am done addressing those.

Suit yourself, and I reject your latest smears against me, but am not surprised.

[East of Eden]

I think he agrees with this policy, and is a proponent of the wrong view that this is a law enforcement matter, and not part of radical Islam's global war on us.

Well I think considering Obama has never served in the military

Agreed, just as he never even ran a popsicle stand and had no economic background, with predictable bad results.

that he probably has very little opinion on the matter which is why the army is handling it through its bureaucracy. I have asked this before but instead of emotional pleas could you provide an argument based on the actual current criteria for the purple heart as to why this medal should be given in this case?

Even if this area is debatable a real leader would make an exception to this exception sorry episode. Obama had not problem intervening in the military to overturn 'actual current criteria' when it came to gays in the military.

It should also be restated that the title of this thread is not true, no benefits are being refused at all if you think they are please identify what benefits are being withheld.

Read the OP:

"Survivors of the Fort Hood massacre released a new video this week calling on the government to classify the November 2009 shooting as a terrorist attack rather than "workplace violence," a change that would make them eligible for specific combat-related benefits."

[Wyvern]

I think he agrees with this policy, and is a proponent of the wrong view that this is a law enforcement matter, and not part of radical Islam's global war on us.

Well I think considering Obama has never served in the military

Agreed, just as he never even ran a popsicle stand and had no economic background, with predictable bad results.

Bad results? You do remember that coming into office he was saddled with the poorest economic conditions since the great depression don't you? Since then there has been a steady if slow decline in the unemployment rate and the stock market is at record highs again. There are signs that both the housing and auto markets are starting to rebound from the recent low points, so what bad results are you talking about?

that he probably has very little opinion on the matter which is why the army is handling it through its bureaucracy. I have asked this before but instead of emotional pleas could you provide an argument based on the actual current criteria for the purple heart as to why this medal should be given in this case?

Even if this area is debatable a real leader would make an exception to this exception sorry episode. Obama had not problem intervening in the military to overturn 'actual current criteria' when it came to gays in the military.

Does this mean you admit according to army criteria this incident does not qualify for the purple heart? The president doesn't intervene in this because it would set a bad precedent.

It should also be restated that the title of this thread is not true, no benefits are being refused at all if you think they are please identify what benefits are being withheld.

Read the OP:

"Survivors of the Fort Hood massacre released a new video this week calling on the government to classify the November 2009 shooting as a terrorist attack rather than "workplace violence," a change that would make them eligible for specific combat-related benefits."

Please state what these specific combat related benefits are being denied them.

[East of Eden]

I think he agrees with this policy, and is a proponent of the wrong view that this is a law enforcement matter, and not part of radical Islam's global war on us.

Well I think considering Obama has never served in the military

Agreed, just as he never even ran a popsicle stand and had no economic background, with predictable bad results.

Bad results? You do remember that coming into office he was saddled with the poorest economic conditions since the great depression don't you?

I know that't the Democratic Party line, but Reagan inherited an economy at least as bad, and he fixed it. Bush inherited the dotcom meltdown, and he didn't whine about that.

Since then there has been a steady if slow decline in the unemployment rate and the stock market is at record highs again.

Only due to the fed recklessly spending money we don't have, i.e. quantitative easing. You really think there is any solidity to this economy?

There are signs that both the housing and auto markets are starting to rebound from the recent low points, so what bad results are you talking about?

Did you miss the Friday jobs report? Even the Washington Post called it a disaster.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... r-but-why/

The only reason unemployment went down is because more people stopped looking for work. The job participation rate is now the lowest since 1979 under Carter. There are now three people looking for work for every available job. Obama is shaping up to be Jimmy Carter II.

I have no idea why so many blacks voted for Obama, even the NAACP says they are worse off under Obama.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... der-obama/

Does this mean you admit according to army criteria this incident does not qualify for the purple heart?

No.

The president doesn't intervene in this because it would set a bad precedent.

Why, so the next time a Muslim soldier comes down with Sudden Jihad Syndrome the victims get a Purple Heart?

Please state what these specific combat related benefits are being denied them.

I don't know, do you think the victims made this up?