Obama Adm. Refuses Benefits to Victims of Hasan

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #71

Post by East of Eden »

micatala wrote: 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

User avatar
Wyvern
Under Probation
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:50 pm

Post #72

Post by Wyvern »

East of Eden wrote:
Wyvern wrote:You are calling the secretary of the army and the commander of the base this happened at internet warriors?
As my retired Navy captain uncle says, every military officer above a certain rank is a politician. The wounded soldiers aren't.
Not surprisingly this reply does nothing to address the issue and the slurs you have cast against me or the aforementioned people yet again. I will ask again, are you calling the secretary of the army and the base commander internet warriors? More importantly why is it you continually have the need to launch unwarranted personal attacks on everyone you do not agree with?
As I already stated according to your logic every soldier that is raped would get a purple heart.
Never said that, you're fabricating again.
I'm simply pointing out what would happen if the criteria for a purple heart is changed as you seem to want.
Which is still no reason to make a stereotype which in turn creates a blind spot for anyone else that might want to commit such an act such as McVeigh.
The fact Muslims commit the majority of terror attacks is a fact, not a stereotype. It is just such PC blindness the thread is about.
Do they commit the majority of terrorist attacks in the US? Look at all the recent mass shootings, how many were perpetrated by muslims?
No this thread is not about Obama, that is what you are trying to turn it into.
It is about a crazy decision by the Obama administration. If you don't know what it is about, why participate?
And yet again in your zeal to vilify our president you forget this decision was not made or addressed by any political appointees. Or are you under the impression that every base commander of all the branches of the military is personally appointed by the president? How is this decision crazy? It follows the guidelines spelled out long before the current president took office and as such this was a bureaucratic decision not a political one as you are convinced.
This thread is about the attack made by Hasan and the injured soldiers wanting to receive a purple heart so they can receive enhanced benefits than they otherwise get. Your continued attempts to blame Obama for everything shows what your true intentions of this thread are.
Perhaps we should blame this decision on the Bush administration, like Obama does with the economy? You seem to think I am obsessed with Obama when this thread is about his administration, yet you bring up Bush out of the blue.

Lol I brought up Bush out of the blue :lol: You are the one that brought up the as you called it the excessive vacations of Obama, I simply and quickly found an article that contained the number of vacation days taken by the last five presidents. I am sorry if Bush happens to fall within that group and is by far the most egregious taker of vacations and overuser of presidential perks which of course blew your argument out of the water which is why you now make no mention of nor even admit you were wrong.

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #73

Post by East of Eden »

Wyvern wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Wyvern wrote:You are calling the secretary of the army and the commander of the base this happened at internet warriors?
As my retired Navy captain uncle says, every military officer above a certain rank is a politician. The wounded soldiers aren't.
Not surprisingly this reply does nothing to address the issue and the slurs you have cast against me or the aforementioned people yet again. I will ask again, are you calling the secretary of the army and the base commander internet warriors?
No they are a variation of a politician who do the will of the Commander in Chief, the internet warriors are on the internet.
I'm simply pointing out what would happen if the criteria for a purple heart is changed as you seem to want.
It doesn't need to change, there is nothing in the definition that would prevent the wounded soldiers from getting one. The president and military have leeway for this, every so often you hear of someone from decades ago now getting a medal, the idea is that a wrong was righted.
Do they commit the majority of terrorist attacks in the US?
Yes, here is a list of 50 Muslim US terror plots since 9/11, as of 4/12:

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... -terrorism
Look at all the recent mass shootings, how many were perpetrated by muslims?
Those were basically violent, suicidal crazy people often settling personal grievances, not someone doing harm to further an agenda such as the radical Islam that Hasan was a proponent of.
And yet again in your zeal to vilify our president you forget this decision was not made or addressed by any political appointees. Or are you under the impression that every base commander of all the branches of the military is personally appointed by the president? How is this decision crazy? It follows the guidelines spelled out long before the current president took office and as such this was a bureaucratic decision not a political one as you are convinced.
No it doesn't follow the guidelines, it is an ersatz opinion of them. Was Robert Gates appointed by Obama, or at least was allowed to continue to serve?

Lol I brought up Bush out of the blue :lol: You are the one that brought up the as you called it the excessive vacations of Obama, I simply and quickly found an article that contained the number of vacation days taken by the last five presidents. I am sorry if Bush happens to fall within that group and is by far the most egregious taker of vacations and overuser of presidential perks which of course blew your argument out of the water which is why you now make no mention of nor even admit you were wrong.
What Bush did doesn't invalidate my point that Mr. & Mrs. Obama take a lot of vacations and play a lot of golf. It's like saying that if one mass shooter killed 20, another one killed 25. So what? I think it is unseemly for the Obamas to be doing so in the midst of such a terrible economy that for the most part Bush didn't have.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/obama-lif ... nually/123

“The British spent $57.8 Million on its royal family last year. We Americans spent nearly $2 Billion housing, transporting, entertaining, staffing, our First Family and paying a hefty portion of the president’s campaign expenses,� Gray said.
"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

User avatar
Wyvern
Under Probation
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:50 pm

Post #74

Post by Wyvern »

No they are a variation of a politician who do the will of the Commander in Chief, the internet warriors are on the internet.
It's obvious you don't know what your uncle is talking about when he says after a certain point all officers are also politicians. Its like you don't think the military has its own internal and local politics. Ahh so the internet warrior thing was a slur directed at me then, I knew there was a personal insult directed at me in there somewhere.
I'm simply pointing out what would happen if the criteria for a purple heart is changed as you seem to want.
It doesn't need to change, there is nothing in the definition that would prevent the wounded soldiers from getting one. The president and military have leeway for this, every so often you hear of someone from decades ago now getting a medal, the idea is that a wrong was righted.
So are you saying they do not qualify for a purple heart as the guidelines stand right now but you simply think they should get one anyways?
Do they commit the majority of terrorist attacks in the US?
Yes, here is a list of 50 Muslim US terror plots since 9/11, as of 4/12:
You sure do like answering questions by not answering questions don't you.
Look at all the recent mass shootings, how many were perpetrated by muslims?
Those were basically violent, suicidal crazy people often settling personal grievances, not someone doing harm to further an agenda such as the radical Islam that Hasan was a proponent of.
So you consider it okay for crazy people to commit terrorist acts but political terrorism is a nono, gotcha.
And yet again in your zeal to vilify our president you forget this decision was not made or addressed by any political appointees. Or are you under the impression that every base commander of all the branches of the military is personally appointed by the president? How is this decision crazy? It follows the guidelines spelled out long before the current president took office and as such this was a bureaucratic decision not a political one as you are convinced.
No it doesn't follow the guidelines, it is an ersatz opinion of them. Was Robert Gates appointed by Obama, or at least was allowed to continue to serve?
What does Gates have to do with this issue? Just because in your need to vilify the president you refuse to see that this was a bureaucratic decision, look at the ridiculous lengths you go to in order to smear him.

Lol I brought up Bush out of the blue :lol: You are the one that brought up the as you called it the excessive vacations of Obama, I simply and quickly found an article that contained the number of vacation days taken by the last five presidents. I am sorry if Bush happens to fall within that group and is by far the most egregious taker of vacations and overuser of presidential perks which of course blew your argument out of the water which is why you now make no mention of nor even admit you were wrong.
What Bush did doesn't invalidate my point that Mr. & Mrs. Obama take a lot of vacations and play a lot of golf. It's like saying that if one mass shooter killed 20, another one killed 25. So what? I think it is unseemly for the Obamas to be doing so in the midst of such a terrible economy that for the most part Bush didn't have.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/obama-lif ... nually/123

“The British spent $57.8 Million on its royal family last year. We Americans spent nearly $2 Billion housing, transporting, entertaining, staffing, our First Family and paying a hefty portion of the president’s campaign expenses,� Gray said.
Of course what other presidents do makes a difference. If we don't compare one presidents behavior with others all you are doing is making an emotional plea. On the other hand if relative to other presidents Obama takes more vacation days then you actually have something to talk about. The worst thing you can say about Obama is that out of the democrat presidents of the last fifty years he has taken more vacation days but strangely he has still taken fewer vacations than any of the republican presidents. Wow you think its bad for Obama to take a vacation during a bad economy but I don't recall you ever saying anything about Bush being on vacation during Katrina, or after he started his wars or when the economy went belly up under his watch. As for your comparison between British royals and american presidents you may have noticed a few differences between the two, such as america is a little bit bigger which might mean transportation will cost more. Or that the royals are a figurehead position while the president is the head of our government more akin to the prime minister.

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #75

Post by East of Eden »

Wyvern wrote:
No they are a variation of a politician who do the will of the Commander in Chief, the internet warriors are on the internet.
It's obvious you don't know what your uncle is talking about when he says after a certain point all officers are also politicians. Its like you don't think the military has its own internal and local politics.
Right, you know better than me what someone you've never met really meant? I can assure you there is next to nothing he would agree with you on.
So are you saying they do not qualify for a purple heart as the guidelines stand right now but you simply think they should get one anyways?
I'm saying they do qualify, as the wounded soldiers are saying.
You sure do like answering questions by not answering questions don't you.
OK, you tell me what group has had more than 50 terror plots since 9/11.
So you consider it okay for crazy people to commit terrorist acts but political terrorism is a nono, gotcha.
There you go with your fabrications. Where did I say these shooters are OK? I was trying to once again explain the obvious to you, that these kooks are not terror.
What does Gates have to do with this issue?
Read your own posts, for pete's sake, you just asked who appointed by Obama knew of this.
Just because in your need to vilify the president you refuse to see that this was a bureaucratic decision, look at the ridiculous lengths you go to in order to smear him.
I guess the wounded soldiers are in on this 'smear', huh? Apparently all you've got is name-calling.
Of course what other presidents do makes a difference. If we don't compare one presidents behavior with others all you are doing is making an emotional plea. On the other hand if relative to other presidents Obama takes more vacation days then you actually have something to talk about. The worst thing you can say about Obama is that out of the democrat presidents of the last fifty years he has taken more vacation days but strangely he has still taken fewer vacations than any of the republican presidents. Wow you think its bad for Obama to take a vacation during a bad economy but I don't recall you ever saying anything about Bush being on vacation during Katrina,
Uh, Bush was supposed to know Katrina would hit before he planned his vacation? When it did, he cut his vacation short and returned to DC. It is crazy how the leftists attack Bush on Katrina, was hurricane Andrew and it's fallout Cllinton's fault? How about Sandy?
or after he started his wars
Actually, Bin Laden started the war on 9/11 and long before, were you against going into Afghanistan?
or when the economy went belly up under his watch.
Unfortunately it is still belly up under Obama's watch.
As for your comparison between British royals and american presidents you may have noticed a few differences between the two, such as america is a little bit bigger which might mean transportation will cost more.
The British Commonwealth is much bigger. The Royal Family regularly travels there.
Or that the royals are a figurehead position while the president is the head of our government more akin to the prime minister.
Do you think the UK spends $2,000,000,000 (or anywhere proportionally close) on David Cameron?
:confused2:
"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

User avatar
Wyvern
Under Probation
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:50 pm

Post #76

Post by Wyvern »

I'm saying they do qualify, as the wounded soldiers are saying.
Fantastic, now all you need to do is demonstrate how this incident qualifies for the awarding of a purple heart. Focus on doing that instead of your smears upon everyone that does not agree with you.

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #77

Post by East of Eden »

Wyvern wrote:
I'm saying they do qualify, as the wounded soldiers are saying.
Fantastic, now all you need to do is demonstrate how this incident qualifies for the awarding of a purple heart. Focus on doing that instead of your smears upon everyone that does not agree with you.
Already been done, maybe you should go back and read the thread.
"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

User avatar
Wyvern
Under Probation
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:50 pm

Post #78

Post by Wyvern »

East of Eden wrote:
Wyvern wrote:
I'm saying they do qualify, as the wounded soldiers are saying.
Fantastic, now all you need to do is demonstrate how this incident qualifies for the awarding of a purple heart. Focus on doing that instead of your smears upon everyone that does not agree with you.
Already been done, maybe you should go back and read the thread.
You saying so does not make it so. Simply go find the guidelines for the awarding of a purple heart and make a rational reasoned argument why it should be awarded instead of your emotional pleas. Basically all I have seen in this thread is you attacking anyone and everyone that disagrees with your position but not once have you actually made a point by point rational argument why the guidelines are wrong in this case.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 17612
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #79

Post by otseng »

East of Eden wrote:
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.

Your nonsense has got me dizzy at the moment, sorry.

Wow, the ridulous lengths you go to exeronate your guy is amazing.
:warning: Moderator Final Warning

Please avoid the personal attacks and uncivil comments. I had already left a general comment, please do not continue to disregard the moderator warnings and comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #80

Post by East of Eden »

"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

Post Reply