I have not ignored that you mentioned the Administration. I have pointed out you referred to this vague notion of "Obamathink." You have also explicitly in the thread said "Obama" and not "the Administration." Part of my response is because you have refused to be specific. In particular, you have refused to point to any actual behavior by Obama that has anything to do with this. You have refused to specify what you mean by Obama being responsible for this situation. I have asked for clarification, including providing other examples of actions by those that Obama might be considered "responsible for" and you have not addressed those. I am not the one who is ignoring things here.
Another untruth, you have ignored that Obama could change this policy if he wanted to. If it makes you feel any better, feel free to refer to someone in Reagan's administration as having Reaganthink.
If you feel I have implied Obama has nothing to do with this, that is your own fault for not providing any direct evidence he did have anything to do with it. My questioning you for evidence to support your own assertions does not equate to denying the possibility.
Can you be honest enough to admit this act was done by the Obama administration, and that administration answers to Obama? If not, I'm done here.
So, yes, you have made a false assertion about what I have said. Please document that I said what you said I said or retract.
Your nonsense has got me dizzy at the moment, sorry.
Well, pardon me for asking, but I see no evidence that you know who is or is not to be considered part of Obama's Administration.
Does Robert Gates count?
If a janitor at Mr. Rushmore doesn't clean the bathrooms adequately, is Obama responsible for that or not?
Wow, the ridulous lengths you go to exeronate your guy is amazing. Can we get back to the OP now rather than your red herrings?
How about a TSA employee groping an airline traveler?
Here is another. How about General Petraeus' marital infidelity? Is "Obamathink" responsible for that or not?
Here's one for you, if the Secretary of the Treasury wants to give himself a $10,000,000 raise, does Obama have any say in it?
If you want me to buy into your accusation you have to show me that Obama was directly involved in the decision, or that Presidents in general involve themselves in such decisions. I have challenged you to provide such evidence and you have done nothing but issue a blanket "Obama is responsible for his Administration" statement, without specifying who you include in this group.
As my source from Kagan shows, in reality, President's have limited control over many parts of the government. I would certainly accept that have more say over, control if you will, their cabinet members. However, even here, cabinet members are expected to exercise a good deal of autonomy. I doubt Obama goes over every single decision made by Hillary Clinton or any of his other direct reports. If you differ, provide some evidence that this is the case.
Right now all you have provided are a whole lot of assumptions larded on with slanted and vague rhetoric like "Obama think." You have ignored or dismissed evidence that decisions like this are typically dealt with at a much lower level. Your desire that the President get involved and do something is not evidence that he has refused to become involved or is to blame for the original decision within the military.
I'm not sure what all that is supposed to say, that Obama is either not capable of intervening or doesn't know about it like we do?
I'll certainly accept that. However, the point stands that Presidents typically do not get involved in such decisions. Niether does the Secretary of Defense of even the Secretaries of individual branches of the armed services. I can accept that you and the soldiers making the request would like a response from the higher echelons. Making such a request is certainly not unreasonable, and I never implied it was.
What IS unreasonable is insulting the President or his Administration with inflammatory rhetoric like "Obamathink" and "lunacy" and suggesting this was a deliberate "refusal" on Obama's part to disrespect the soldiers involved or somehow show sympathy for Hasan. Such insinuations are entirely unwarranted and uncalled for.
We disagree. Crazy is exactly the word to describe a planned terror attack by a radical Muslim who had contact with foreign terrorists and shouted 'Allah Akbar', a workplace violence incident.
Agreed. However, that does not automatically mean an exception to the usual policy should be made. It does not justify insulting and inflammatory rhetoric like "lunacy."
We disagree. And note I am referring to a policy, not a person.
Feel free to clarify if you think I have distorted your position. I have been asking very specifically for clarification to no end to this point. It is certainly true you have been assuming a number of things without evicence, and it is undeniably true you have used loaded and slanted rhetoric. What else would anyone make of "Obamathink?"
And why is that a terrible term? It means someone who agrees with the Obama worldview. As I said before, I have Reaganthink. Feel better now?
Well, yes, you mention the Administration in the OP. You also mention "Obamathink."
Yes, in reference to his administration, which was appointed by Obama and serves at his sufferance.
Following that logic, it makes no difference if we fire Obama or the janitor for the janitor not cleaning the bathrooms.
Whatever 'logic' you're using isn't mine.
You are missing the point. You made the "assumption" that everyone in the Administration thinks like Obama. It turns out you are wrong, and now you seem not to get the point of the example. I will note Obama and Biden apparently disagreed on the contraception issue. Again, this shows your assumption is wrong.
No, your nitpicking is, someone who agrees with Obama 95% of the time can be described as substantially agreeing with him. Let me know if you know of any two people who agree on everything. Let me make it simple for you, who could best be described as having 'Obamathink' or whatever more delicate term you want to use, Biden or Newt Gingrich? And Hegal hasn't been confirmed, and may not be.
WHere is this mysterious "Obamathink" you put in the very first post of the thread? Do you have any evidence for his existence other than your own assumptions?
See above. Your whole obsession with that term is a red herring, perhaps the OP is too embarrasing for hard-core Obama fans.
The question is irrelevant. The fact is he has. That fact would seem to suggest your assumptions about "Obamathink" have as much validity as assumptions about unicorns.
So people who substantially agree with Obama don't exist, like unicorns? Why do I waste my time here with your word games?
Shifting the goalposts. The fact that Obama potentially could do something unusual, perhaps even unprecedented as far as I know, and has not yet done so is not evidence he has done anything to smear the soldiers or that he has played any role in the decisions that have been made to date.
Do you have any evidence Obama has played any direct role in this situation or not? Do you have any evidence of "Obamathink" or that, whatever it is, it is responsible for this situation?
Oh, I get it, even Obama doesn't have Obamathink, LOL. Quit dodging and answer me if Obama is in charge of his own administration.
I read the OP and the entire article. I saw no instance of Obama referring to workplace violence.
The first instance of that phrase did not specify who said it. Later in the article we have:
"The references to "workplace violence" in the video apparently refer to Department of Defense memos in which officials recommend the Department take steps to address workplace violence in response to the 2009 attack. In the Defense Department's final review of recommendations issued by an independent panel following the attack, published in August 2010, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates highlighted workplace violence as an area in which the Defense Department would "strengthen its policies, programs and procedures."
With respect to the Hasan incident, it is unnamed officials who classified it as such. I accept Gates seems to accept the classification made by his subordinates.
Thank you, who appointed Gates and has the power to fire him?
The phrase, however, seems not to have originated with members of Obama's Administration, and certainly not Obama. It is an internal military decision.
You're funny, do you think it started with the Bush administration, would he have used that term?
Where is the evidence "Obamathink" is responsible for this? Even if you want to make a huge stretch and assign responsibility for this situation directly to Gates, he was Secretary before Obama came into office. Did Obama somehow hypnotize Gates with his "Obamathink" before he was even a candidate for President? Were all the other military officials, most who presumably were not appointed by Obama and pre-dated his Administration probably for years somehow infected by this yet indiscernible and undefined "Obamathink?"
It is a safe bet that those who could be fired by the boss do the boss' will.
I again have to ask, why didn't you just state the facts and make a sensible assingment of responsibility to those actually involved in the process?
Maybe we should have an investigation and find out who is responsible for this dumb policy.
An opinion internally held is one thing. Making a claim on the forum is another. I again call for a retraction. I made no statements on either of these and if you do not have evidence to support your opinion, it should be retracted.
What are you talking about now?
I only object to false or unsubstantiated accusations, or unjustified inflammatory rhetoric.
Which to you it seems they all are. That's the running joke here, you act like you're some kind of centrist, when you're really about as unbiased as Barney Frank. I have a bias too, but at least I admit it.
I note here you point to Obama's conduct. I have asked again and again for ANY evidence that there has been ANY conduct at all by Obama on this matter. You haven't, even by your own admission, questioned Obama's conduct because you haven't shown he has engaged in any action at all in this matter. As you yourself say when I object, it is Obama's Adminstration, or are you still not clear on that?
My whole point is not to defend Obama's conduct. I have yet to see any evidence of conduct on Obama's part. My objection is that you are accusing Obama of conduct that is not in evidence.
For the umpteenth time, read the OP title before you make any more false statements.
Calling something obvious is an easy dodge to avoid having to admit you have no evidence. If it was really obvious it should not be so hard to actually provide some evidence.
No offense, but presenting evidence doesn't do much good with you.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE