Really? You want to criticize the president because he went to all these Peoples' Balls but missed the Veterans' Ball? It would have been nice if he had fit it in, but he's quite obviously a popular guy with only 24 hours in the day.
why doesn't he just wear a sign proclaiming, "i hate the military"?
no statement he could have made, could have been worse, and there's no way it could have been an oversight...even if it were, it speaks volumes about his value set
i'm surprised this is only surfacing on these blogs now, this has been common knowledge since monday, hereabouts
Yes, Dan. I want to criticize that this so-called man of intelligence and insight was more concerned with visiting pretenders than with real people, people who've risked far more than rappers, actors and other entertainers. Do you realize the significance of someone receiving the Medal of Honor? Amongst all the possible options for this self-serving psuedo-servant of the people, he honors the least worthy with his limited time. Shame on him, and shame on you for pretending this is a petty thing.
Pretenders? He went to places with real people, real Americans. Regular people who don't normally get to take part in this sort of thing. I think it was really great that he specifically held a Neighborhood Ball with free or accessibly priced tickets so regular people could go.
It would have been nice to go to the veterans ball, too, but yes, if you choose to rant on this nothing, then you will come across as petty and small-minded. Your call, bros.
The "least worthy?" Who would that be? The poor black folk and white trash?
I'm sorry, but it looks like your country has left you fellas behind. Feel free to rant to each other about this "slight."
Ok. Ok. All you rightwingnuts with your underwear all knotted up... here's the scoop. You won't accept it however, but I offer it anyway:
Craig Roberts, Media Relations Manager for the America Legion stated:
"The new President’s absence was understandable considering the unprecedented logistical challenges presented by the vastly increased number of visitors to this inauguration and the necessary attendant security measures. The American Legion, as an organization, does not feel offended or “snubbed.”
"The most likely reason that President Obama did not go to the "Salute to Heroes" inaugural ball is because it was held in the Renaissance Hotel which consists of 16 floors. There was an event called the "Illinois Party - Presidential Event" held at the Renaissance the night before that the then-President-elect did not attend either (I have a call in to the President's press office asking for confirmation of this information which was given to me by one of my sources for this story). Given the amount of time and resources it would have taken to clear a 16 floor hotel as well as protect it while President Obama was inside, I can only guess that he was advised by his Presidential Protection Detail not to attend either inaugural ball because of the building and the inherent problems in securing and then protecting it. The sheer number of people crowding the streets and staying in the hotel surely presented a formidable screening problem as well. But, there's your story... it's not as sexy as "Barack Obama Hates The Military" but it is the truth as best I can tell after talking to the organization responsible for hosting the event and doing some research and educated guesswork about why a security team wouldn't want to protect a principal in the Renaissance with more than 2 million extra people in Washington D.C."
Not cutting it at all. For Marty, I would say to you that those who put on the ball are more than free to excuse the president for his oversight. That's THEIR call, but not in any way HIS call. HIS call was low and insulting, whether they forgive him the affront or not. Despite what Dan's narrow and insipid perspective is, he's the freakin' president and can decide whether mere logistics is sufficient to trade an appearance with those who've risked the most, the the ball with the most celebrities. Dan's bullshit response supposes that I have indicated Barry should rate the regular people at the bottom of the priority list. That's a shameful assumption based on his personal hatreds. But I suggest, as does the article, that if there is any that should be attended and any forsaken, the MOH ball should have been given more priority than star gazing by this alleged man of the people. What a crock that you suckers will forgive him everything.
Please tell me you are doing parody here. Obama doesn't go to an inaugural ball, the folks who hosted the ball are understanding about it, and yet you are all upset about his absence.
Excuse me if I don't pass you a hankie.
This is what is has come down to. This is beneath pettiness.
Um, Marshall - the reason the people who put the ball on excused him was they recognized his reasons were legitimate. You're getting huffy . . . why?
Say I throw a party (I wouldn't cause I'm not that kind of person). I send out invitations to all sorts of people. A distant acquaintance whom I barely know not only doesn't come, but doesn't even respond to my invitation. The people at the party barely notice the absence. I don't remark on it at the time. Then, a few days later, when discussing the party as a whole, someone who was not an invitee, was not at the party, and even accepted my explanation that I wasn't offended at this bare acquaintance's non-attendance gets all upset over it. I would sit around and wonder - does this person have a life?
"This is what is has come down to. This is beneath pettiness..."
geoffrey, are you seriously telling me you don't understand the type of message barky sent out, by snubbing this function, and partying hearty at all the others?
it was unbelievably insensitive and inappropriate, especially given the level of support he actually received from the military community
oh, but, geoffrey, i disagree, and i predict, you'll soon see just how relevant "bitters" like me will become...
enjoy your honeymoon, though!
now, and i'll address this question, to anyone who hasn't been totally pussified into a complete eunuch
do you understand that part of the "the one's" job description, includes that of commander and chief?
do you realize that this president operates at a severe deficit, in terms of how he is viewed by significant numbers of military personnel, and their commanding officers?
do you think perhaps all measures to counteract (and certainly not add) to these negative impressions, might be well-advised, and beneficial to the nation's citizenry as a whole?
or, do you regard the military as just this nasty, unfortunate part of being forced to remain a citizen of this country, the crevice tool on that old canister vac, whose bag and filters you never bother to service?
perhaps, they are there, as props for the media industrial complex, so you can cry over the conditions at walter reade for four whole days, only to disappear as quickly as the patients do, from the national consciousness, so you can claim to be a "real patriot", while essentially having done nothing to help the situation?
i don't think all liberals, progressives, leftists, etc., think that way, and i'm tired of entire political movements in this country being tarred with the "surrender monkey" brush, just because of a few, so bent on worshiping an idol instead of demanding our leaders' best, speak irresponsibly and childishly on adult themes you find inconvenient to address responsibly
respectfully, curb the snark, your pez dispenser is officially "on duty", anything that now transpires is on "his watch", none of this is hypothetical, you chose not just your "team", but to go against most republicans, "conservatives", neocons, a large number of independents, and a budding "democrats against obama" movement
if your stance is blanket anti-military as well, then man up to it, own it, and speak to it, but don't try to pretend this gaffe doesn't resonate with the military community itself, the blogs are chock full of it today, not just marshall
Re, " resonate with the military community itself, the blogs are chock full of it today, not just marshall..."
Let 'em blog away. Let 'em also remember who their damn commander-in-chief is, and buck up and shut up. President Obama IS the military, the head of it anyway.
”Let 'em also remember who their damn commander-in-chief is, and buck up and shut up.”
This is exactly what they did! They excused their C in C, said they understood, just like the good soldiers they are. They attempted to put a good face on the oh-so-obvious snub, remain respectful, while assuaging the disappointment of the rank and file. What else would you expect of men and women who consistently put their country before themselves?
I think the C in C could learn much from those he commands.
"Hey, I'm not the one who referred to his fellow citizens as "least worthy" and "pretenders.""
No, Dan. You didn't. But Obama did when he looked at the list of balls hoping for his attendance and found Medal of Honor awardees as least worthy of his efforts to attend. Get it now?
Dude, I'm always here for ya to help when you again miss the point, as you have done once again. You probably throw like a girl. Read the comment above to Dan. It should help you figure it out.
"Um, Marshall - the reason the people who put the ball on excused him was they recognized his reasons were legitimate."
"Um"? Are you taking your cues from Obama's extemporaneous speaking style? I acknowledged the hosts excused him. I acknowledge their right to do so. I maintain such is irrelevant to his own shallow reasonings for the slight. He's the freakin' president. "Logistics" is a lame excuse for a president to choose Hollywood over Medal of Honor awardees.
"I would sit around and wonder - does this person have a life?"
I would too if I missed the point so badly. Your analogy does not illustrate the dynamic of the situation at all. A better one would be as follows.
Geoffrey hosts a party. He invites a guy for whom he served and that service was of great risk to good old Geoffrey, of a type that few others ever take. The guy he served is invited to another party attended by shills who never made the sacrifices of Geoffrey made and are merely as opportunistic as the guy Geoffrey is trying to invite. The guy chooses the shills over Geoffrey, and Geoffrey, God bless him, forgives the guy and accepts his lame excuses for choosing the shallow alternatives over him. Good for Geoffrey. But the guy is still an asshole for treating Geoffrey like a chump. Geoffrey's free to be a chump if he likes, but the guy doesn't get a pass for treating people that way, particularly those who have risked to the level that Geoffrey has.
You guys can forgive Barry for being an asshole. The people who hosted the MOE ball can forgive Barry for being an asshole. Neither means that Barry isn't an asshole for deciding these Best of the Best aren't worthy of the effort more than Kanye West. It should have been Kanye who was stood up. People of class and honor see that easily.
"geoffrey, are you seriously telling me you don't understand the type of message barky sent out,"
No Hash, he's not telling you that, because he DOESN'T understand the point. He rarely does, the poor soul. That's why I'm here. To help him get the point.
"What a crock that you suckers will forgive him everything."
I have nothing to forgive. Obama could have "snubbed" all the balls...every last one of them.
I. Don't. Care.
Personally I think those kinds of events are much ado about nothing.
His time could have been better spent taking off his shoes and sitting in front of a big screen TV watching The Sound of Music and eating popcorn with his kids.
Sweet Crying Jesus on the cross, you people are so sad.
Hash - the enlisted personnel, as a whole, erupted when Obama was inaugurated. Every time some conservative says that a Democrat isn't liked by the military, I have to wonder - which military is that? The military that has been ground down by being over-stretched, underarmed, underfunded, and unprotected after they have done their service by Republicans in both the Congress and the Executive Branch?
This whole discussion is silly. Petty. Pointless.
Most of all, it is meaningless.
Seriously, I understand what you are all saying - he didn't go to an inaugural ball honoring those who have won the Congressional Medal of Honor.
I'm sitting here, scratching my head, thinking of something more clever than "So what?" to use as a response, and frankly, I'm stumped.
"the enlisted personnel, as a whole, erupted when Obama was inaugurated. Every time some conservative says that a Democrat isn't liked by the military, I have to wonder - which military is that? The military that has been ground down by being over-stretched, underarmed, underfunded, and unprotected after they have done their service by Republicans in both the Congress and the Executive Branch?"
Amen and Amen.
And then there are the two words no soldier ever wants to hear--STOP LOSS.
Added to all that... when our troops finally do come home they have to fight a VA system that is underfunded and undermanned making it impossible for many to get the care they deserve.
"Obama could have "snubbed" all the balls...every last one of them."
But he didn't, did he? So again, objective observers line up all the balls which he attended and wonder how in the name of all that's holy did he choose to snub the MOH winners and not the Hollywood people? No one's saying this is the end of the freakin' world here. We're saying that the choice should have been a no-brainer for the no-brain in chief, that a man of honor doesn't dismiss men who's honor deserve more attention.
"Most of all, it is meaningless.'
Only to those incapable or unwilling to acknowledge the obvious. Again, Geoffrey, I'm here for ya.
"when our troops finally do come home they have to fight a VA system that is underfunded and undermanned making it impossible for many to get the care they deserve"
I seriously and sincerely don't know---anything in the stimulus package for this? I wouldn't use that argument until you find out. Otherwise he's no better than the guy you all hated on that score.
"...the enlisted personnel, as a whole, erupted when Obama was inaugurated..."
geoffrey?? a PORTION, a significant number of personnel, "erupted", largely because it meant an end to the bush regime, some because they'd bought into barky's bait-and-switch mirage...
the independents, non-partisans, moderates, and apoliticals had no more of a voice than their civilian counterparts do, they were too busy working, to agitate and undermine...
then you have the neocon partisans, some of whom saw danger, others of whom saw opportunity...
are you aware, that there are substantial numbers of our volunteer armed services, who have no intention of re-upping, and certainly will find ways of subverting goals and military initiatives, under an obama presidency? i have HEARD a few of them say, they have no allegiance to an obama administration
i'll leave it to your discretion to determine, the true patriotism of such folks, as well as whether or not their true allegiance was to the us of a, or other, murkier entities in the first place...
"The military that has been ground down by being over-stretched, underarmed, underfunded, and unprotected after they have done their service by Republicans in both the Congress and the Executive Branch?..."
i 100% agree! and they cannot care about the men and women they send to slaughter, when they will not even let you see their coffins on the teevee...
but, if you wouldn't voluntarily give them your money to spend foolishly, why would you allow your tongue to furnish them with the very propaganda they've set you up to spout, and reinforce their own covert agendas with??
"This whole discussion is silly. Petty. Pointless.
Most of all, it is meaningless."
not at all, because, if it were, you'd have ignored it entirely
you fully understand the importance of symbolism in american politics, you simply believe your boy has "scored a point" against an establishment you've come to despise, without fully understanding, he is a part of it
in politics, perceptions are important, you understand it as well as your political adversaries, you're simply trying to distance yourself from it now, since you see the battle itself as essentially won, and over, and don't want to address the very real issues these perceptions bring light to...
"Seriously, I understand what you are all saying - he didn't go to an inaugural ball honoring those who have won the Congressional Medal of Honor.
I'm sitting here, scratching my head, thinking of something more clever than "So what?" to use as a response, and frankly, I'm stumped.
So, without further ado - So what?"
mainly, because, not only did he not have the discernment and wisdom to put in at least a fifteen-minute token appearance (no pun intended), but because he made such a point to attend the other, fluffier events, with full fanfare, covered extensively by a media that won't do jack, without his posse's express approval
you are attempting to paint it as a minor oversight, when such is simply not possible, and was meant as a clear message, that you seem to concur with, but cannot justify
and that message, to the military, is, essentially, "**** off, y'all are DISMISSED!"
that's the sum total of what we, as a nation, are left to digest, and contend with
Just because you claim there is something important about all this doesn't make it so.
I'm with Marty. He could have skipped them all. He could have gone only to the Satanic balls, where they ate hor's doeurves made from ground up fetuses taken from Planned parenthood clinics. They could have gone only to the Black Panther Ball. It makes no difference. None of it. They are parties. Like Marty said, should have gone back to the residence at the White House, kissed his kids goodnight, and watched a movie with his wife, falling asleep before the TV, like any good American male.
You are looking for something to be offended about, and it's easy enough to do, because you guys wear your feelings on your sleeves at all times. You're like teenagers, waiting for someone to come along and hurt you in the hope that you'll have reason to feel persecuted and misunderstood.
Again, Marshall, I understand what it is you are saying here. I simply refuse to see anything significant here. And just because you keep saying it is - without any support whatsoever - does not mean I have to bow to your superior wisdom and think, You know what, he's got something there.
The Obama's probably skipped hundreds of inaugural parties, equally deserving his attention. You ascribe superior importance to this one because . . . it's about the military? I'm guessing you served, what, Green Berets, perhaps, or Marine Corps? Or perhaps a Navy pilot or perhaps military intelligence.
Oh, that's right, that was my father and my mother's brothers who did all those things, and more besides, some of which they still can't talk about because it's still classified.
Right after you calm yourself down from being all upset about President Obama snubbing all those heroes, you might want to consider a point I tried to make that either skidded past you or you deliberately ignored: if the people who held this party aren't upset, why the hell do you care? Unless you are a CMH holder yourself, in which case I wonder why you weren't there.
Hash, I engage in all sorts of meaningless endeavors, on the internet and otherwise. The meaninglessness I was talking about was that of yours, and Marshall's, and others, getting their panties in a bunch because the Obamas didn't go to a party.
"Personally I think those kinds of events are much ado about nothing.
His time could have been better spent taking off his shoes and sitting in front of a big screen TV watching The Sound of Music and eating popcorn with his kids..."
oh, marty, hallelujah, you're singing my life with your words, LOL!
that would have actually been representative of true progressivism. and a true message, to get back to what's important, and what has real value and worth
unfortunately, it was not to be, "the one", and particularly ME-chelle, have a powerful need to be indulged in every manner of pomp and circumstance, in order to validate their station, and to not be "denied", what was so freely offered, those before them
we're living in a world we never made, time to face the facts that, rather than "hopey-changey", it's just another string of piggies, that want their shot at the trough
"Added to all that... when our troops finally do come home they have to fight a VA system that is underfunded and undermanned making it impossible for many to get the care they deserve.
And they wonder why suicides are on the rise..."
i don't wonder, not at all
don't forget, i'm old enough to have seen this all before, it's simply that, this time, it is worse
the same thing is happening to our 9/11 first responders, but it's not reported on or sufficiently discussed, because it makes us uncomfortable about what it says about us as americans, and where our national priorities lie
"Right after you calm yourself down from being all upset about President Obama snubbing all those heroes, you might want to consider a point I tried to make that either skidded past you or you deliberately ignored: if the people who held this party aren't upset, why the hell do you care?"
what makes you think they aren't?
what makes you think most of them even KNOW about it?
what makes you think they feel at liberty to speak on it?
"Hash, I engage in all sorts of meaningless endeavors, on the internet and otherwise. The meaninglessness I was talking about was that of yours, and Marshall's, and others, getting their panties in a bunch because the Obamas didn't go to a party..."
oh, i don't think you really regard any of it as meaningless, i just think it's advantageous for you to appear, in the eyes of your peer group, as ironic as possible, when dealing with subjects that might actually cast a specific opinion of yours in a hypocritical light
again, perceptions matter
when the opinion of any member of the service can be manipulated to a politically manufactured point of view, that member can be made either an asset, or a liability, to any team, in the heat of battle
when an unqualified, inexperienced man is elevated to commander and chief, and HE starts to cast such aspersions, on his first day in office, there's a moral imperative to question these actions, whether it fits into your narrative, or not
MOH recipients can't do anything for Obama so he'll just ignore them. I mean the guy lets his family live in shacks, do you think he is going to honor heroes of wars he thinks was crimes against humanity.
All he had to do was show up, that's too much to ask just like giving his half brother a few hundred every now and the to get him out of a house we wouldn't even put our lawn mowers in. Obama spends more than that on suits.
I don't even know you people but if I found out that a tiny fraction of my income could get you out of poverty then I would give it. I also would have went to the ball. When I was in the service I waited 2 hours to see a medal of honor recipient.
To sum up my rambling, Obama will use anyone he needs for his own career and ignore everyone else or just throw them out when he's done with them (Jeremiah Wright who??)
Dan and Geoffrey will never see anything wrong with snubbing the military.
I'll go over this again and I want Geoffrey to read slowly and sound out the words.
First of all, there are issues brought up that are irrelevant to the point of this post. They include, but are not limited to:
Stop loss Veteran's benefits What Bush did What the Repubicans did Geoffrey's inferior wisdom
OK, pay attention:
It doesn't matter what you think of Inaugural Balls or how many there were.
It doesn't matter if the host of the snubbed balls forgave the oversight.
What matters is that Obama had before him a list of balls to attend, each hosted and attended by different groups of people. Those groups naturally should have prioritized by nature of who they are, which balls an honorable man would perceive as worthy of his attendance. On one end of the spectrum you have things like MOH Ball, CIC Ball, Neighborhood Ball, etc., and on the other end the Hollywood elite and other Obama suck...supporters. Even if only between the CIC and the MOH Balls, I would think that the criteria for awarding the Congressional Medal of Honor is such that even the military personel at the CIC Ball would clearly understand if Barry snubbed them instead.
But to snub either in favor of a Hollywood party? And you Obama suckers are really going to stand there and declare it says nothing about the man's character or smarts in his choice? You would NEVER have given Bush such a pass, and no, I don't believe you'd consider this issue so lightly if it were Bush.
As to that, no, I do not consider this issue to be of great importance. But as it has come to light, it gives us a better sense of the man.
AS to having been forgiven by the hosts of the MOH Ball, that shows the charater of the hosts. But Barry still committed the snub and he's a jerk for having done so.
How despicable that BHO skipped the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball! Of course, this figures, though, as BHO and wife are so supportive of community activism:
Obama and his wife's first stop was at the Neighborhood Ball.
Also of interest to me about this posting is that not a single word about his appeared in our local post-Inauguration coverage here in the D.C. area.
"Not offended means there is nothing to forgive because there is no slight."
You guys are pretty stupid. It means nothing of the kind. That's like saying that because the punch didn't hurt that one wasn't assaulted. I can take the punch, I can insist that I was hurt and that I take no offense by the action, but I was still assaulted. That doesn't go away. Barry snubbed the MOH winners.
This isn't a big deal. On that point I readily agree. But it does speak to his character. That you can't see it speaks to yours.
Thanks for your input, Jim. But I would have you remember one or two things:
First, what "has credibility" with you is not a goal for me. Sorry to break that to ya.
Secondly, since I didn't vote for the him shows I have a far greater sense of the man than do you. Like most people of Illinois, I didn't know a damn thing about him until he began to run for the US Senate and we were told to see him as something special by the Democratic Party. It was at that point that I began to find out about him, something 99% of those who voted for him never did and likely haven't yet done, and through doing so found that he is unworthy of both my vote and the accolades with which suckers like yourself have showered him.
Neither is true. I am not petty, and pettiness isn't character. Not good character anyway. Why you'd say something so stupid is beyond me.
But I was prepared to let the matter stand as having pointed out yet another example of the cut of Barry's jib, until his sheep stopped by to defend his snub of the MOH winners. But truly, at this point, it's not so much about Barry as it is about his goofy supporters who can't see the obvious. Hell, I'd rather be petty!
you're ALL missing it, which is that you guys are totally poles apart, politically, in the first place!
this is the INTERNET!
none of us have any reason to be in agreement over this in the first place...this is natural and normal
you guys, collectively, represent very far-left and far-right perspectives, whether you realize that, or agree to it, or not
face it, how many of you would break bread with one another, even allow one another in each other's living rooms, in real life? be honest!
we're not half as original as we think we are....we're just reprising arch and meathead, on "all in the family"!
so let's not be pussies about it all, with the fake indignation and the outrage...there wouldn't be fifty-one comments, if there wasn't merits to either side...
"It was at that point that I began to find out about him, something 99% of those who voted for him never did and likely haven't yet done, and through doing so found that he is unworthy of both my vote and the accolades with which suckers like yourself have showered him..."
were you, as an illinois native, aware of barky's association with black supremacists like wright, pfleger, moss, and meeks, prior to it all becoming common knowledge?
as a member of the ucc, was there widespread awareness within the denomination, as to the nature of trinity, in chicago? or, did this come as a complete surprise?
As a resident of Illinois, and a long-time admirer of Black Theology, Obama's relationship with a church that embodied those teachings in its ministry and outreach would only have strengthened my conviction that this is the right guy for right now.
Unlike you, hashfanatic, I see nothing wrong with it.
Oh, and, I might just break bread with Marshall or anyone else here. See, in the real world, I don't check a person's politics before I sit down with him or her, because it really doesn't matter all that much to me. Here, we're having an argument - I'll grant you that much - and no, we'll not see eye to eye on the matter in question.
So what? (I keep coming back to that little two-word phrase, don't I?)
"As a resident of Illinois, and a long-time admirer of Black Theology, Obama's relationship with a church that embodied those teachings in its ministry and outreach would only have strengthened my conviction that this is the right guy for right now.."
well, i've heard other obots with similar views
if it mattered, i'd say the reasons for this would be interesting, from a sociological or even psychological point of view
let us know how that all works out for you
"Unlike you, hashfanatic, I see nothing wrong with it..."
i'm not surprised, although i'm not entirely sure if you actually believe that, or if you're trying to be deliberately provocative
"Oh, and, I might just break bread with Marshall or anyone else here..."
well, that's mighty white of you, no?
"See, in the real world, I don't check a person's politics before I sit down with him or her, because it really doesn't matter all that much to me..."
bullshit, we all do, whether we admit to it or not
we check each other out, we watch each other's responses, we key into different trigger mechanisms, we identify points of potential agreement or dissent, and we select our company, based on all of the above, but not necessarily contingent upon "like-mindedness", or shared values, rather to achieve current or future, common or personal goals and objectives
"Here, we're having an argument - I'll grant you that much - and no, we'll not see eye to eye on the matter in question..."
as men have, over the ages, nothing new to see here
"So what? (I keep coming back to that little two-word phrase, don't I?)..."
yeah, but you're the one who claims to have more than a passing infatuation with black supremacist culture, the writings and ravings of wright, etc., and claim to proud to hold the ghetto subculture that spawned them, in high esteem
it would seem pretty obvious that, your political choice has been shaped more by the barkster's color than any legitimate issue or particular position statement that concern americans, whether it's real, or simply a defiant posture you've adopted, as "revenge", for eight long years of bush
so, to me it's only natural that your next step will be to adopt the stone jungle morals, attitudes, and expressions of a thug culture that currently holds your favor..."so what" would seem a fitting rejoinder, however weak
it's not so surprising...as i've mentioned, i've heard many obots take up the same defensive postures, and express similar sentiments
"And what did you find out about him that is fact and not from a chain email?..."
why? is that where you get your news, and official information?
after all, i haven't seen any of the righties on this thread, forward us to the pez dispenser's own campaign website, for critical thinking and spontaneous information, on an issue of open debate, LOL!
It is likely that what I found out made it's way to all the same places you mean to hold out as suspect. Bias does not imply untruth.
But I looked at his record (such as it is) as a state senator in Illinois, I looked at how he got elected, I learned of his associations and I learned of his positions.
Long time admirer of Cone's Black Liberation Theology? In what way, like a comic book? Wow. That's way too out there, even for you. I gotta let that one pass for now.
I have a lot of friends that are liberals. My pastor is a liberal and he and I get on famously. None of these libs agree with me politically and I do my best to help them understand why they are so wrong. Believe me, it ain't easy. Why? Because they're libs and I'm not a licensed mental health professional. But they're still my friends and I love them like I love all my friends.
Even the biggest horse's ass lib that comes here I consider a friend of a kind. I would have no problem meeting with any who post here and with whom I routinely debate (though at first at a neutral location with lots of people around). In fact, I think it would be a gas.
And let me correct one other point: Though my opponents ARE meatheads, as evidenced by their liberal leanings, Bunker is a liberal construct and not anywhere near an accurate representation of what a conservative is.
I find it interesting that because Obama doesn't show his face at a ball meant to honor a few good men and maybe a woman or two(?)that he is now a jackass sleazeball who worships Alla and born who the hell knows where.
Yet....GW Bush ordered a pre-emptive war by lying to congress, which constitutes high crime and misdeamenor, subverted the constitution, suspended habeas corpus, illegally spied on me and you, had no regard for the rule of law, issued signing statements giving to himself legislative powers that belong to congress alone......And then let's see...extraordinary rendition and torture.
Have I missed anything? I probably have. There was so much abuse of power I can't keep up with it all.
And you guys get upset over a no show at a party in a building that has logistical and security problems?
"I find it interesting that because Obama doesn't show..."
Whoa! Sure, Barry's a jackass sleaseball, but who mentioned anything about Allah or his place of birth? Was it Hash? I don't always read every word he posts when he posts a really long one. Not until I have to.
"Yet....GW Bush ordered a pre-emptive war by lying to congress,"
No he didn't.
"which constitutes high crime and misdeamenor"
Maybe only if it happened, which it didn't.
"subverted the constitution,"
No he didn't.
"suspended habeas corpus"
For non-citizens who were shooting at our troops. Sorta like what they did when they captured Nazi and Japanese soldiers during WWII.
"illegally spied on me and you,"
No he didn't.
"issued signing statements giving to himself legislative powers that belong to congress alone"
He's not close to the first prez to use signing statements. Which ones concern you?
"extraordinary rendition and torture."
Boohoo. Violent murderers get a taste of their own medicine. You know what would have prevented that? Not being violent murderers. Easy. But really, until someone describes something that resembles torture, I remain unmoved by such claims, particularly as they involve people who hack off heads of bound prisoners, send their kids to blow themselves up, teach their kids that some people are only good for annihilation, and engage in real torture and evil.
"Have I missed anything?"
Yeah. The boat. The invasion was a good thing. Bush did what should have been done back in the 70s, and definitely the 90s. Coulda done it better, but that's hindsight and he took his best shot.
"There was so much abuse of power I can't keep up with it all."
It's hard to keep up with that which never happened.
"And you guys get upset over a no show at a party in a building that has logistical and security problems?"
No. I recognize the snub Barry made regarding the MOH winners so that he could party with Hollywood half-wits.
Apropos of Marshall Art's latest comment, and his insistence that (a) I never provide links to support the things I say; and (b) the US has not, does not, and will never torture, I thought I would provide a link to an interview with a military prosecutor who says, among other things, that the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay prison has really screwed up the ability to actually prosecute any of the prisoners there for anything.
From British author and journalist Andy Worthington, comes the following details: "On January 13, in a declaration submitted to a Washington D.C. District Court in the case of Guantánamo prisoner Mohamed Jawad, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, a former prosecutor in the Military Commission trial system, delivered perhaps the most blistering attack on the US military’s detention program by a former member of the Pentagon’s team to date.
Speaking of the man he was once tasked to prosecute, Vandeveld said prisoner Mohamed Jawad’s continued detention is “something beyond a travesty,” and urged that Jawad be released given a “lack of any credible evidence.”
Some of this information was revealed in September 2008, after Vandeveld (who has served in Bosnia, Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan in the years since the 9/11 attacks, and has received several military awards) resigned as a prosecutor, complaining that “potentially exculpatory evidence” had “not been provided” to Jawad’s defense team, and that his accidental discovery of information relating to Jawad’s abuse helped convert him from a “true believer to someone who felt truly deceived.”
However, other information has never before been revealed in public, and Vandeveld’s declaration, in a habeas corpus review triggered by a Supreme Court ruling last June, constitutes the most sustained criticism of the Bush administration’s flagship trial system for terror suspects since Col. Morris Davis, the Commissions’ former chief prosecutor, resigned in October 2007. Davis explained that he had done so because of the politicization of the trial system, attempts to endorse the use of evidence obtained through torture, and the refusal of Pentagon chief counsel William J. Haynes II to accept that any planned trials could end in acquittals."
Of course, he's probably lying, right? And, I bet he's one of the rare liberals in the military, too.
Geoffrey, torture has been re-defined to the point where college phrat initiation would be grievous crimes against humanity. The reason for that was to stir up the useful idiots into a frenzy. You're basically a tool that is easy used.
If no one else will say it then I will. "Black [liberation] Theology" is a joke.
None of that is relevant to the post. What is reverent is the fact that Obama probably didn't attend the MOH Ball because he didn't sell the network rights to that ball and was not contractually obligated to be there. To say it another way, Pay to Play A fine Illinois tradition.
"None of that is relevant to this post". True enough. Except, of course, Marshall took it upon himself to criticize Marty for calling out the various crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush Administration, claiming that no such things existed. He has, in the past, claimed that the US never tortured anyone.
I took it upon myself to provide one little bit of evidence to the contrary.
As for "phrat" hazing being torture, I went to Alfred University, the site of the first nationally publicized hazing death, a young man who died of alcohol poisoning while pledging the fraternity Klan Alpine. So, yeah, sometimes fraternity hazing can, indeed, be torture.
It would be nice if you knew something of which you were talking about before you opened your mouth.
As for Black Liberation theology being a joke, I would like to know which books concerning it - J. Deotis Roberts, James Cone, Josiah Young, among other authors - you have read. If you can name more than one and give a substantive criticism on the text in question, I will take your view seriously. Otherwise, not so much.
"Even the biggest horse's ass lib that comes here I consider a friend of a kind. I would have no problem meeting with any who post here and with whom I routinely debate (though at first at a neutral location with lots of people around). In fact, I think it would be a gas..."
we'll see how you feel, in six months
then, if you wanna have an open-air picnic with the ones who worship the parents of the children are selling crack in our schools...well, hell, i'll even send over some chicken and grape soda, LOL!
i may be a christian, just not that good of a one...
familiarity breeds contempt, IMHO
and you couldn't be more wrong about Bunker...he was actually an excellent representation of an inner-city white "conservative", of the TIME...trust me, i grew up in that world, just a somewhat crappier part of town, LOL...
the word "conservative" is thrown around way too lightly, too big of a net...things were much different, back then...the republicans had better representatives than now, not the hunters, jindals, thompsons, steeles...even my old nemesis of mind, ronnie, would be shocked and appalled at the "conservatives" of today...
the most unrealistic character on aitf was gloria, sally struthers was horribly miscast, and jean stapleton played the lovable edith a little too ditzy
on the other hand, mike evans as lionel and vincent gardenia as frank next door aced it every time...:)
Thanks for the link. Now that wasn't so hard, was it? What is hard is trying to show how it supports your case.
I watched the video from the chick's inteview with the former prosecutor. Beginning with this, I find that the dude offered little but accusations, most of which I find of little concern. What we're dealing with at Gitmo might indeed be less than organized, but, considering that so many have been released, to say that there might be a few who have yet to be means nothing. The case the dude uses as an example, about the kid accused of tossing a grenade at US troops, leaves many questions. One of the first things that came to mind was if this particular prosecutor was dealing with the reality of the situation. He sounded as if he had a hard time with a situation that doesn't match Matlock or Perry Mason. I could be wrong, but I don't think the standards are the same for trying people in those situations, trials that shouldn't even be taking place, in my opinion. He speaks of abuse, without describing any of what he calls abuse. Basically, the only charge he can really make is that they aren't as organized as they should be. There is also an assumption that what he thinks is evidence that would exonerate the kid, when that doesn't mean it is so.
As to the Worthington bit, (I read the one from the link at Video Cafe) it is rife with curious comments and phrases such as what follows:
"...his masters--in the Pentagon and in the office of the Vice President--who have no interest in extablishing a fair or just process at Buantanamo
referring to Aussie PM John Howard as "one of the few stout allies" which would be more credible if the total number of allies was provided. There are still more than most people realize.
"ferociously biased Vice President"
Saying that Col. Davis laid out his case "with admirable clarity"
And mentioned, but didn't delve into Davis resigning after being placed in the chain of command under someone with whom he had problems.
(emphasis above was mine)
These little pieces suggest quite a bias in the author Worthington that I don't believe Geoffrey would tolerate if displayed in pieces critical of those he supports. In addition, it also speaks of torture without defining it, it speaksof Davis insisting he won't use evidence obtained by torture, without defining it, and speaks of another, I believe a guy named Haynes in a negative light for his refusal to outlaw enhanced interrogation techniques without defining or describing them.
What we are left with is a lot of hooey because the process lacks perfection. Is that a bad thing? Of course. But as many have been released from Gitmo after having been through the process, it seems a bit much to suggest something Satanic and worthy of closing down just because gitches still occur. Rather than calling the admin and military sons of Satan, far better would be to tighten things up and continue on.
Take note, Geoffrey. Just as I insist I do, I read the links, commented it's worthiness, and explained why I feel as I do. So the big question is, "why should I take the word of Davis, (or Worthington or the guy in the video) over the Bush people?
"He has, in the past, claimed that the US never tortured anyone."
I have in the past claimed that no one has provided evidence of torture, but only techniques they wish to classify as torture that I find to be not so torturous. Thus, no torture has been done. Not as policy or mandate.
"I took it upon myself to provide one little bit of evidence to the contrary."
Yet, no torture was described that I saw in your "evidence".
"So, yeah, sometimes fraternity hazing can, indeed, be torture."
If you're into using alarmist rhetoric to describe hazing to which the victim willingly sujected himself. Generally, real torture victims do not volunteer.
I've read some of Cone. To say it's a joke is to be kind.
besides being illegal and morally wrong, it doesn't even yield anything that is constructive"
Many people say this as if it's true, without actually having first hand knoweldge. Personally, I don't buy it and I doubt torture is used for fishing expeditions. That is, the interrogators already know the subject has the info they seek, so they'd have a good idea of what is a lie and what is not when the subject talks. More importantly, however, this would mean, if true, that waterboarding isn't torture, but a valid interrogation tool, since it yielded actionable info from Kalid Sheik Mohammed.
"it also endangers the lives of our agents and operatives,"
In what way?
"besides, i'd rather be killed by some random bomb blast, then saved by torture"
Feel free to die anytime you like. I'm for saving my fellow Americans and other innocent civilians by whatever means necessary. So the first opportunity that some scumbag takes hostages or tries to, I expect you to offer yourself to free others.
"that's how convinced i am, that most of the varied "terror" threats we hear of, are simply invented to keep us in a spirit of fear"
Like the one that people like you think Bush ignored before 9/11?
"i'm not interested in living in a spirit of fear,"
Good for you, you brave boy. Accepting reality and preparing for it is not living in fear, but is being practical, sensical and what we do simply by having a military and a police force. It's called "being responsible".
1) False statements do not a lie make. I've been through this with Geoffrey as he attempted to prove that Bush lied. Just as then, your link fails to support this charge. Bush responsibly acted on intel available. To look back and say that intel was not accurate, so therefor Bush lied, is to have one's tin-foil hat strapped on too tightly. Others, many others, saw the same intel, some were other countries seeing similar stuff. All this link shows is that, as we already know, the intel was imperfect and in accurate. In addition, such intel provided only some of the incentive for invasion, but not all of it. Invading was a great idea who's time had come. Without having done so, events would have made the false intel prophetic.
2) The Fourth Amendment speaks to "unreasonable" search and seisure. But it does not define "unreasonable". I insist and support the notion that the type of foe we faced made Bush's actions far from unreasonable. It made them mandatory for a president to secure the safety of his people. God bless him.
3) So you're saying we betrayed the Nazi and Japanese prisoners during WWII? Bush's suspension of habeus, or rather his belief that it didn't extend to the scumbags we were fighting, was far more narrow a suspension than was Lincoln's or FDR's regarding the Japanese internment people. I would feel betrayed if he DIDN'T take extra steps in dealing with these most heinous savages.
4) First of all, damn you for making me watch Olberman for 11 minutes. It was unnecessary since Tice said nothing. And considering the nasty nature of the media towards Bush, and the willingness of some members to expose strategies of the admin's war on terror, extra suspicion of that group of people is justified. But until Tice explains the manner in which the media was watched, one can't determine if there's any real problem. As far as the overall surveilance, it is my understanding that criteria would bring about more scrutiny, but worthless info, such as what toppings on the pizza you're ordering, would be jettisoned as useless. There is no reason to suspect the Bush admin had any malevolent intent in any of their anti-terror activities and strategies. So to say they were spying on you and me is ludicrous.
5) All signing statements accomplish the same goal of leaving open a door for special circumstances. In the war on terror, I'm totally fine with the possibility that if a particular scenario warrants it, absolutely any interrogation technique is good to go. There is a goofy implication by Bush haters that anyone would torture a prisoner when it isn't required or appropriate.
It seems to me that even the most hardened leftist should be able to agree that the preservation of innocent human life isn't the highest priority of jihadist terrorists.
They strap bombs to their own children, to walk into crowds of civilians and kill other people's children.
To say that terrorists are using whatever means necessary to preserve innocent life is as repulsive as to say that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," when jihadists aren't fighting for freedom, they're fighting to eliminate most freedoms.
Indeed. To insist that terrorists are attempting to preserve innocent life would mean that any innocent lives amongst their people are threatened, which they are not except by themselves. They have never been under assault, but have instead been targets of retaliation that would otherwise have been unnecessary had the terrorists not begun terrorizing.
"They have never been under assault, but have instead been targets of retaliation that would otherwise have been unnecessary had the terrorists not begun terrorizing..."
of course they have, you have simply allowed yourself to be manipulated and programmed by the true terrorists, and, as a result, confused them with the truly terrorized
and, there are many of us who understand that, you will NEVER allow reality to penetrate your consciousness, it's psychologically not even possible, at this point
that's what happens, when your masters lose the moral high ground, and you never bothered to make a contingency plan
All intelligence is imperfect and often inaccurate. The fact is, the Bush administration conveyed a certainty when they knew there was conflicting or even opposing evidence: "It's been confirmed", "We know", "We've learned". These statements themselves are lies.
The faulty intelligence tale is a lie. The intelligence wasn't so much faulty as the administration chose to ignore the part of the intelligence they didn't like.
The imperfect intel is what confirmed their suspicions and provided them with what they "knew" and "learned". Give it a rest. I'm beginning to feel that I DO want the loons to bring Bush to trial just to give them a very public opportunity to expose themselves for the pathetic buffoons they are.
You too, need to give it a rest about the cause of Middle East unrest. Jew hatred isn't welcome here anymore than Bush hatred and is viewed with the same level of sadness and boredom.
now, now, marshall playing the antisemite card where none exists will work no more successfully than geoffrey's periodic references to racism, which are equally groundless
besides, you, marshall, have had every bit of access to accurate information that i have had, you are the one who chose jihadist pie-in-the-sky terror storms as your very discredited basis of judgement
All intelligence is imperfect and often inaccurate. The fact is, the Bush administration conveyed a certainty when they knew there was conflicting or even opposing evidence: "It's been confirmed", "We know", "We've learned". These statements themselves are lies.
"The faulty intelligence tale is a lie. The intelligence wasn't so much faulty as the administration chose to ignore the part of the intelligence they didn't like..."
that doesn't matter to them, jim, because their goals are not the same, the "terror" they claim to fight is only a tactic, in the first place
for them, it has ALWAYS been about writing the script ("a new pearl harbor", etc.) and then moving heaven and earth to MAKE reality coincide with their narrative, so it all seems plausible enough, to a sufficiently large number of people
each "attack" always results in a "response" (and it is always one side that seems to "respond", or "retaliate"), and each time is in reality, a drill of sorts, in order to gauge what the american citizenry, and the world, will tolerate, and the gravity of the next course of action to follow
they will NEVER change, and barky's departure from the ostensible script is far from any "new order" of his own design, it's just a different spin on the same old playbook...
As we have discussed, my info comes from those who know the enemy best, former members. Your info is by those who do not listen to the enemy, but focus on isolated episodes by which they tarnish entire groups. My info does not dispute abuses occur, while your side argues they are policy. YOU believe crap and ignore reality. Why would someone who didn't have some negative attitude about the real victims, the Israelis? As long as you continue to come to this blog and spew your one-sided and distorted view of Middle Eastern affairs, I will label you as your comments warrant.
"As we have discussed, my info comes from those who know the enemy best, former members..."
yeah, LMAO?? like, WHO?
steyn, malky, krauthammer, glick?
paid shills like yon, and ardolino?
please
"Why would someone who didn't have some negative attitude about the real victims, the Israelis?"
you mean the bloodthirsty murderers that will NEVER stop grabbing land and picking fights with their neighbors? awww...
that's another prime example of you calling current world events that are completely out of your realm of understanding, as you would have them to be, and not as they are
and a textbook example, of how america repeatedly builds up today's "friend", to be tomorrow's enemy
you'll see! yes, in your lifetime, you'll see it all for what it is
in the interim, i'll continue to do my best, to reduce human suffering, despite your efforts to hide behind the biggest kid in the lunchroom line
Nice to know you don't pay attention to what's been printed here and elsewhere time and time again. Walid Shoebat is a name I've mentioned on more than one occasion. He expresses the mindset, strategies and policies of the Palestinian people and their leaders openly and with urgency. Another voice is the son of the founder of Hamas, who echoes the same sentiments of Shoebat. These are but two, there are more that you obviously ignore in your Jew-hatred. I've also offered MEMRI as a source to find out exactly what the Islamic radicals preach and tell each other in their own language in order to see how it differs from what they tell the rest of the non-Islamic world.
People who really understand history, both Biblical and secular, know who has the true claim to the area of contention. YOU, in your hatred for all things Jewish, ignore history and preach the same lies of the real haters, murderers and land grabbers.
I support Israel against those who would see them annihilated, the same people you support. Yeah, I know, you say you have no dog in this race. You're a liar. You are anti-Israel and you are contemptable in your denials. Leave that shit at the door. It's not welcome in here.
marshall, when you continually denounce me as a "jew-hater" (an lgf term if i ever heard one), "anti-israel", or any other of your stock diversions, you are lying, and furthermore attempting to tar me with a particular brush that is just taken for granted as "evil" by those in your specific ideological group of the day, this does not make it true, and i do not receive it
it's hysterically funny that you employ the same weak tactics that obots that falsely venerate blacks for being black, use against you, ROFLMAO!
speaking out in criticism of jews is not anti-semitism, expressing anger and frustration at solely jewish war crimes, acts of aggression, and uncivilized foreign policy is NOT anti-semitism or "jew-hating" either, whether you choose to view it as such, or not
and the only "dog" i have in the race, is the fact that my tax dollars are being used, to maintain sovereign peoples, including many, many christians, in concentration camps, and systematically liquidated
you disapprove of abortion, you protest the concept of your tax dollars being used in furtherance of what you see as an extermination of innocents, and whether or not i agree with the passion that you view the subject, does not in anyway mean you should not speak your mind about it
if you could come to an acceptance of the fact that other americans view issues very differently than you do, and those opinions are no less worthy than yours, without bashing them, calling them immature names, or raging in offense over every single, possible point of agreement, it would facilitate dialogue, between everyone
if you have an unusual amount of anger or frustration in life, for whatever reason, you are misdirecting these emotions at me without any rational provocation, and i do not accept it, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand
Thirdly, you can deny all you want, but as I said, I base my beliefs about you on the comments you post here and elsewhere and the choice of terms you use to describe the Israelis and their policies. No one else comes here talking about "bloodthirsty murderers that will NEVER stop grabbing land and picking fights with their neighbors" and other inflamatory crap when referring to the Israelis. So your offense taken by my righteous accusations toward your anti-semetism can be relieved by stifling your anti-semetic rantings.
Finally, I have no problem with our sending aid to allies who's very existence is constantly threatened by their neighbors and a group of Arabs who have no true claim to the land they insist is occupied by those who actually belong there.
So if any of the above troubles you in the least, you are more than welcome to take your lunacy elsewhere. You know, you had me fooled for a while there. You've posted some comments recently that indicated you may have returned from successful psychological treatments. So sad to find that was just an anomaly and that you're still goofy as all get out.
He attended the ball honoring the Medal of Honor recipients...ya know, if he went to all the balls, we'd be hearing from you about what a party boy he is and how he was glad-handing and living it up while the rest of us are suffering.
If he made it to all the millitary balls, we'd be hearing about how hes partying on the graves of our poor soldiers.
Seems to me that the conservatives were all up in arms that there was any partying going on at all...it cost too much money when people are suffering (although they had to do all sorts of cheats and such to artificially inflate the number to get it significantly above what Bush spent)
But somehow now it's bad that he didn't go to ALL of the millitary balls. I dont envy this guy. Whatever he does, you'll hate it.
"He attended the ball honoring the Medal of Honor recipients..."
I gonna assume you mistyped since he obviously didn't attend that ball as the link plainly states.
"Whatever he does, you'll hate it."
No, that would make us liberal Democrats, who would've chided Bush for breaking wind if he didn't lift the proper cheek off the chair. WE, on the other hand, disagree with policy proposals and decisions based on the merits of those proposals and decisions, such as ignoring the best of the best in favor of partying with celebrities.
Frankly, I have no problem with celebrations highlighting such important events as presidential inaugurations. I think it's an appropriate outpouring of emotion and honor for the president. The form in which that outpouring takes is a different matter and very subjective, as is this very topic. I'm not surprised that libs see no problem with Obungle's choice as they have a hard time with such priorities in the first place. But do any of you libs have any idea what MOH winners did to be considered for that award? Are you gonna then insist that to snub them is no big deal? If so, you have no honor either, and you and Barry aren't worthy of even being in the presence of such people as those who have earned by their selflessness such lofty recognition as the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Hash, Some of these comments are too long to hold my attention, especially since I have read the same old, same old from the libs at so many sites so many times. However, that one liner of yours where you called the Israelis land grabbers is totally off the wall. God promised much more land than they now occupy and God does not go back on His Word. Wait and see if what His Word says does not come true. mom2
92 comments:
Really? You want to criticize the president because he went to all these Peoples' Balls but missed the Veterans' Ball? It would have been nice if he had fit it in, but he's quite obviously a popular guy with only 24 hours in the day.
Let's not be petty.
dan, it's NOT a petty thing
why doesn't he just wear a sign proclaiming, "i hate the military"?
no statement he could have made, could have been worse, and there's no way it could have been an oversight...even if it were, it speaks volumes about his value set
i'm surprised this is only surfacing on these blogs now, this has been common knowledge since monday, hereabouts
Yes, Dan. I want to criticize that this so-called man of intelligence and insight was more concerned with visiting pretenders than with real people, people who've risked far more than rappers, actors and other entertainers. Do you realize the significance of someone receiving the Medal of Honor? Amongst all the possible options for this self-serving psuedo-servant of the people, he honors the least worthy with his limited time. Shame on him, and shame on you for pretending this is a petty thing.
Pretenders? He went to places with real people, real Americans. Regular people who don't normally get to take part in this sort of thing. I think it was really great that he specifically held a Neighborhood Ball with free or accessibly priced tickets so regular people could go.
It would have been nice to go to the veterans ball, too, but yes, if you choose to rant on this nothing, then you will come across as petty and small-minded. Your call, bros.
The "least worthy?" Who would that be? The poor black folk and white trash?
I'm sorry, but it looks like your country has left you fellas behind. Feel free to rant to each other about this "slight."
Ok. Ok. All you rightwingnuts with your underwear all knotted up... here's the scoop. You won't accept it however, but I offer it anyway:
Craig Roberts, Media Relations Manager for the America Legion stated:
"The new President’s absence was understandable considering the unprecedented logistical challenges presented by the vastly increased number of visitors to this inauguration and the necessary attendant security measures. The American Legion, as an organization, does not feel offended or “snubbed.”
LOGISTICAL CHALLENGES AND SECURITY MEASURES.
From the Newsvine:
"The most likely reason that President Obama did not go to the "Salute to Heroes" inaugural ball is because it was held in the Renaissance Hotel which consists of 16 floors. There was an event called the "Illinois Party - Presidential Event" held at the Renaissance the night before that the then-President-elect did not attend either (I have a call in to the President's press office asking for confirmation of this information which was given to me by one of my sources for this story). Given the amount of time and resources it would have taken to clear a 16 floor hotel as well as protect it while President Obama was inside, I can only guess that he was advised by his Presidential Protection Detail not to attend either inaugural ball because of the building and the inherent problems in securing and then protecting it. The sheer number of people crowding the streets and staying in the hotel surely presented a formidable screening problem as well. But, there's your story... it's not as sexy as "Barack Obama Hates The Military" but it is the truth as best I can tell after talking to the organization responsible for hosting the event and doing some research and educated guesswork about why a security team wouldn't want to protect a principal in the Renaissance with more than 2 million extra people in Washington D.C."
Looks like there are some medal of honor recipients here:
President, first lady outshine entertainment stars at the military’s inaugural celebration
Sorry guys and gals,
Not cutting it at all. For Marty, I would say to you that those who put on the ball are more than free to excuse the president for his oversight. That's THEIR call, but not in any way HIS call. HIS call was low and insulting, whether they forgive him the affront or not. Despite what Dan's narrow and insipid perspective is, he's the freakin' president and can decide whether mere logistics is sufficient to trade an appearance with those who've risked the most, the the ball with the most celebrities. Dan's bullshit response supposes that I have indicated Barry should rate the regular people at the bottom of the priority list. That's a shameful assumption based on his personal hatreds. But I suggest, as does the article, that if there is any that should be attended and any forsaken, the MOH ball should have been given more priority than star gazing by this alleged man of the people. What a crock that you suckers will forgive him everything.
Dan's bullshit response supposes that I have indicated Barry should rate the regular people at the bottom of the priority list.
Hey, I'm not the one who referred to his fellow citizens as "least worthy" and "pretenders."
Oh. My. Sweet. Lord.
Please tell me you are doing parody here. Obama doesn't go to an inaugural ball, the folks who hosted the ball are understanding about it, and yet you are all upset about his absence.
Excuse me if I don't pass you a hankie.
This is what is has come down to. This is beneath pettiness.
Um, Marshall - the reason the people who put the ball on excused him was they recognized his reasons were legitimate. You're getting huffy . . . why?
Say I throw a party (I wouldn't cause I'm not that kind of person). I send out invitations to all sorts of people. A distant acquaintance whom I barely know not only doesn't come, but doesn't even respond to my invitation. The people at the party barely notice the absence. I don't remark on it at the time. Then, a few days later, when discussing the party as a whole, someone who was not an invitee, was not at the party, and even accepted my explanation that I wasn't offended at this bare acquaintance's non-attendance gets all upset over it. I would sit around and wonder - does this person have a life?
I'll just say it:
Stupid pettiness in adults is child abuse and those folk should not be allowed to adopt!!
"This is what is has come down to. This is beneath pettiness..."
geoffrey, are you seriously telling me you don't understand the type of message barky sent out, by snubbing this function, and partying hearty at all the others?
it was unbelievably insensitive and inappropriate, especially given the level of support he actually received from the military community
Hash, I am seriously saying that I couldn't care less which inaugural events Barack Obama attended.
That you and some others do just demonstrate not just how small you all are, but how irrelevant.
oh, but, geoffrey, i disagree, and i predict, you'll soon see just how relevant "bitters" like me will become...
enjoy your honeymoon, though!
now, and i'll address this question, to anyone who hasn't been totally pussified into a complete eunuch
do you understand that part of the "the one's" job description, includes that of commander and chief?
do you realize that this president operates at a severe deficit, in terms of how he is viewed by significant numbers of military personnel, and their commanding officers?
do you think perhaps all measures to counteract (and certainly not add) to these negative impressions, might be well-advised, and beneficial to the nation's citizenry as a whole?
or, do you regard the military as just this nasty, unfortunate part of being forced to remain a citizen of this country, the crevice tool on that old canister vac, whose bag and filters you never bother to service?
perhaps, they are there, as props for the media industrial complex, so you can cry over the conditions at walter reade for four whole days, only to disappear as quickly as the patients do, from the national consciousness, so you can claim to be a "real patriot", while essentially having done nothing to help the situation?
i don't think all liberals, progressives, leftists, etc., think that way, and i'm tired of entire political movements in this country being tarred with the "surrender monkey" brush, just because of a few, so bent on worshiping an idol instead of demanding our leaders' best, speak irresponsibly and childishly on adult themes you find inconvenient to address responsibly
respectfully, curb the snark, your pez dispenser is officially "on duty", anything that now transpires is on "his watch", none of this is hypothetical, you chose not just your "team", but to go against most republicans, "conservatives", neocons, a large number of independents, and a budding "democrats against obama" movement
if your stance is blanket anti-military as well, then man up to it, own it, and speak to it, but don't try to pretend this gaffe doesn't resonate with the military community itself, the blogs are chock full of it today, not just marshall
Re, " resonate with the military community itself, the blogs are chock full of it today, not just marshall..."
Let 'em blog away. Let 'em also remember who their damn commander-in-chief is, and buck up and shut up. President Obama IS the military, the head of it anyway.
”Let 'em also remember who their damn commander-in-chief is, and buck up and shut up.”
This is exactly what they did! They excused their C in C, said they understood, just like the good soldiers they are. They attempted to put a good face on the oh-so-obvious snub, remain respectful, while assuaging the disappointment of the rank and file. What else would you expect of men and women who consistently put their country before themselves?
I think the C in C could learn much from those he commands.
"Hey, I'm not the one who referred to his fellow citizens as "least worthy" and "pretenders.""
No, Dan. You didn't. But Obama did when he looked at the list of balls hoping for his attendance and found Medal of Honor awardees as least worthy of his efforts to attend. Get it now?
Geoffrey,
"Please tell me you are doing parody here."
Dude, I'm always here for ya to help when you again miss the point, as you have done once again. You probably throw like a girl. Read the comment above to Dan. It should help you figure it out.
"Um, Marshall - the reason the people who put the ball on excused him was they recognized his reasons were legitimate."
"Um"? Are you taking your cues from Obama's extemporaneous speaking style? I acknowledged the hosts excused him. I acknowledge their right to do so. I maintain such is irrelevant to his own shallow reasonings for the slight. He's the freakin' president. "Logistics" is a lame excuse for a president to choose Hollywood over Medal of Honor awardees.
"I would sit around and wonder - does this person have a life?"
I would too if I missed the point so badly. Your analogy does not illustrate the dynamic of the situation at all. A better one would be as follows.
Geoffrey hosts a party. He invites a guy for whom he served and that service was of great risk to good old Geoffrey, of a type that few others ever take. The guy he served is invited to another party attended by shills who never made the sacrifices of Geoffrey made and are merely as opportunistic as the guy Geoffrey is trying to invite. The guy chooses the shills over Geoffrey, and Geoffrey, God bless him, forgives the guy and accepts his lame excuses for choosing the shallow alternatives over him. Good for Geoffrey. But the guy is still an asshole for treating Geoffrey like a chump. Geoffrey's free to be a chump if he likes, but the guy doesn't get a pass for treating people that way, particularly those who have risked to the level that Geoffrey has.
You guys can forgive Barry for being an asshole. The people who hosted the MOE ball can forgive Barry for being an asshole. Neither means that Barry isn't an asshole for deciding these Best of the Best aren't worthy of the effort more than Kanye West. It should have been Kanye who was stood up. People of class and honor see that easily.
Dan,
"Stupid pettiness in adults is child abuse and those folk should not be allowed to adopt!!"
That fits so well with all the other goofy things you say. Way to stay in character!
"Let 'em also remember who their damn commander-in-chief is, and buck up and shut up..."
ER, the presidency, one wins
but the respect given a commander in chief, each president must EARN
and "this one" hasn't, not by a long shot...as i mentioned earlier, he seems to go out of his way, to show them his contempt
Hash,
"geoffrey, are you seriously telling me you don't understand the type of message barky sent out,"
No Hash, he's not telling you that, because he DOESN'T understand the point. He rarely does, the poor soul. That's why I'm here. To help him get the point.
"I think the C in C could learn much from those he commands."
Amen. Let's all pray he does.
"What a crock that you suckers will forgive him everything."
I have nothing to forgive. Obama could have "snubbed" all the balls...every last one of them.
I. Don't. Care.
Personally I think those kinds of events are much ado about nothing.
His time could have been better spent taking off his shoes and sitting in front of a big screen TV watching The Sound of Music and eating popcorn with his kids.
There is no point to miss here.
Sweet Crying Jesus on the cross, you people are so sad.
Hash - the enlisted personnel, as a whole, erupted when Obama was inaugurated. Every time some conservative says that a Democrat isn't liked by the military, I have to wonder - which military is that? The military that has been ground down by being over-stretched, underarmed, underfunded, and unprotected after they have done their service by Republicans in both the Congress and the Executive Branch?
This whole discussion is silly. Petty. Pointless.
Most of all, it is meaningless.
Seriously, I understand what you are all saying - he didn't go to an inaugural ball honoring those who have won the Congressional Medal of Honor.
I'm sitting here, scratching my head, thinking of something more clever than "So what?" to use as a response, and frankly, I'm stumped.
So, without further ado - So what?
"the enlisted personnel, as a whole, erupted when Obama was inaugurated. Every time some conservative says that a Democrat isn't liked by the military, I have to wonder - which military is that? The military that has been ground down by being over-stretched, underarmed, underfunded, and unprotected after they have done their service by Republicans in both the Congress and the Executive Branch?"
Amen and Amen.
And then there are the two words no soldier ever wants to hear--STOP LOSS.
Added to all that... when our troops finally do come home they have to fight a VA system that is underfunded and undermanned making it impossible for many to get the care they deserve.
And they wonder why suicides are on the rise.
That would be the difference between being ACTUALLY supportive of the military and being conservatively "supportive" of the military...
"Obama could have "snubbed" all the balls...every last one of them."
But he didn't, did he? So again, objective observers line up all the balls which he attended and wonder how in the name of all that's holy did he choose to snub the MOH winners and not the Hollywood people? No one's saying this is the end of the freakin' world here. We're saying that the choice should have been a no-brainer for the no-brain in chief, that a man of honor doesn't dismiss men who's honor deserve more attention.
"Most of all, it is meaningless.'
Only to those incapable or unwilling to acknowledge the obvious. Again, Geoffrey, I'm here for ya.
"when our troops finally do come home they have to fight a VA system that is underfunded and undermanned making it impossible for many to get the care they deserve"
I seriously and sincerely don't know---anything in the stimulus package for this? I wouldn't use that argument until you find out. Otherwise he's no better than the guy you all hated on that score.
Here is the Obama Whitehouse page of plans for veterans:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/veterans/
Saying a lot of the right things. We'll have to see if he delivers, but at least he's at the right starting place, it would seem.
"...the enlisted personnel, as a whole, erupted when Obama was inaugurated..."
geoffrey?? a PORTION, a significant number of personnel, "erupted", largely because it meant an end to the bush regime, some because they'd bought into barky's bait-and-switch mirage...
the independents, non-partisans, moderates, and apoliticals had no more of a voice than their civilian counterparts do, they were too busy working, to agitate and undermine...
then you have the neocon partisans, some of whom saw danger, others of whom saw opportunity...
are you aware, that there are substantial numbers of our volunteer armed services, who have no intention of re-upping, and certainly will find ways of subverting goals and military initiatives, under an obama presidency? i have HEARD a few of them say, they have no allegiance to an obama administration
i'll leave it to your discretion to determine, the true patriotism of such folks, as well as whether or not their true allegiance was to the us of a, or other, murkier entities in the first place...
"The military that has been ground down by being over-stretched, underarmed, underfunded, and unprotected after they have done their service by Republicans in both the Congress and the Executive Branch?..."
i 100% agree! and they cannot care about the men and women they send to slaughter, when they will not even let you see their coffins on the teevee...
but, if you wouldn't voluntarily give them your money to spend foolishly, why would you allow your tongue to furnish them with the very propaganda they've set you up to spout, and reinforce their own covert agendas with??
"This whole discussion is silly. Petty. Pointless.
Most of all, it is meaningless."
not at all, because, if it were, you'd have ignored it entirely
you fully understand the importance of symbolism in american politics, you simply believe your boy has "scored a point" against an establishment you've come to despise, without fully understanding, he is a part of it
in politics, perceptions are important, you understand it as well as your political adversaries, you're simply trying to distance yourself from it now, since you see the battle itself as essentially won, and over, and don't want to address the very real issues these perceptions bring light to...
"Seriously, I understand what you are all saying - he didn't go to an inaugural ball honoring those who have won the Congressional Medal of Honor.
I'm sitting here, scratching my head, thinking of something more clever than "So what?" to use as a response, and frankly, I'm stumped.
So, without further ado - So what?"
mainly, because, not only did he not have the discernment and wisdom to put in at least a fifteen-minute token appearance (no pun intended), but because he made such a point to attend the other, fluffier events, with full fanfare, covered extensively by a media that won't do jack, without his posse's express approval
you are attempting to paint it as a minor oversight, when such is simply not possible, and was meant as a clear message, that you seem to concur with, but cannot justify
and that message, to the military, is, essentially, "**** off, y'all are DISMISSED!"
that's the sum total of what we, as a nation, are left to digest, and contend with
Just because you claim there is something important about all this doesn't make it so.
I'm with Marty. He could have skipped them all. He could have gone only to the Satanic balls, where they ate hor's doeurves made from ground up fetuses taken from Planned parenthood clinics. They could have gone only to the Black Panther Ball. It makes no difference. None of it. They are parties. Like Marty said, should have gone back to the residence at the White House, kissed his kids goodnight, and watched a movie with his wife, falling asleep before the TV, like any good American male.
You are looking for something to be offended about, and it's easy enough to do, because you guys wear your feelings on your sleeves at all times. You're like teenagers, waiting for someone to come along and hurt you in the hope that you'll have reason to feel persecuted and misunderstood.
Again, Marshall, I understand what it is you are saying here. I simply refuse to see anything significant here. And just because you keep saying it is - without any support whatsoever - does not mean I have to bow to your superior wisdom and think, You know what, he's got something there.
The Obama's probably skipped hundreds of inaugural parties, equally deserving his attention. You ascribe superior importance to this one because . . . it's about the military? I'm guessing you served, what, Green Berets, perhaps, or Marine Corps? Or perhaps a Navy pilot or perhaps military intelligence.
Oh, that's right, that was my father and my mother's brothers who did all those things, and more besides, some of which they still can't talk about because it's still classified.
Right after you calm yourself down from being all upset about President Obama snubbing all those heroes, you might want to consider a point I tried to make that either skidded past you or you deliberately ignored: if the people who held this party aren't upset, why the hell do you care? Unless you are a CMH holder yourself, in which case I wonder why you weren't there.
Hash, I engage in all sorts of meaningless endeavors, on the internet and otherwise. The meaninglessness I was talking about was that of yours, and Marshall's, and others, getting their panties in a bunch because the Obamas didn't go to a party.
Grow up, people.
"Personally I think those kinds of events are much ado about nothing.
His time could have been better spent taking off his shoes and sitting in front of a big screen TV watching The Sound of Music and eating popcorn with his kids..."
oh, marty, hallelujah, you're singing my life with your words, LOL!
that would have actually been representative of true progressivism. and a true message, to get back to what's important, and what has real value and worth
unfortunately, it was not to be, "the one", and particularly ME-chelle, have a powerful need to be indulged in every manner of pomp and circumstance, in order to validate their station, and to not be "denied", what was so freely offered, those before them
we're living in a world we never made, time to face the facts that, rather than "hopey-changey", it's just another string of piggies, that want their shot at the trough
"Added to all that... when our troops finally do come home they have to fight a VA system that is underfunded and undermanned making it impossible for many to get the care they deserve.
And they wonder why suicides are on the rise..."
i don't wonder, not at all
don't forget, i'm old enough to have seen this all before, it's simply that, this time, it is worse
the same thing is happening to our 9/11 first responders, but it's not reported on or sufficiently discussed, because it makes us uncomfortable about what it says about us as americans, and where our national priorities lie
"That would be the difference between being ACTUALLY supportive of the military and being conservatively "supportive" of the military..."
and, then there is a third alternative, that you, dan, conveniently forget to mention
reasons for which might well be out of a sense of self-preservation on your part
if i hated bush and the neocons more than i cared about my country, that third way would be perhaps understandable, if not necessarily desirable...
"Right after you calm yourself down from being all upset about President Obama snubbing all those heroes, you might want to consider a point I tried to make that either skidded past you or you deliberately ignored: if the people who held this party aren't upset, why the hell do you care?"
what makes you think they aren't?
what makes you think most of them even KNOW about it?
what makes you think they feel at liberty to speak on it?
"Hash, I engage in all sorts of meaningless endeavors, on the internet and otherwise. The meaninglessness I was talking about was that of yours, and Marshall's, and others, getting their panties in a bunch because the Obamas didn't go to a party..."
oh, i don't think you really regard any of it as meaningless, i just think it's advantageous for you to appear, in the eyes of your peer group, as ironic as possible, when dealing with subjects that might actually cast a specific opinion of yours in a hypocritical light
again, perceptions matter
when the opinion of any member of the service can be manipulated to a politically manufactured point of view, that member can be made either an asset, or a liability, to any team, in the heat of battle
when an unqualified, inexperienced man is elevated to commander and chief, and HE starts to cast such aspersions, on his first day in office, there's a moral imperative to question these actions, whether it fits into your narrative, or not
A moral imperative, casting aspersions . . .
The guy skipped a party.
Get over it.
Now, Feodor, that's an insult to that icon of our childhood. Please don't degrade Bozo that way.
MOH recipients can't do anything for Obama so he'll just ignore them. I mean the guy lets his family live in shacks, do you think he is going to honor heroes of wars he thinks was crimes against humanity.
All he had to do was show up, that's too much to ask just like giving his half brother a few hundred every now and the to get him out of a house we wouldn't even put our lawn mowers in. Obama spends more than that on suits.
I don't even know you people but if I found out that a tiny fraction of my income could get you out of poverty then I would give it. I also would have went to the ball. When I was in the service I waited 2 hours to see a medal of honor recipient.
To sum up my rambling, Obama will use anyone he needs for his own career and ignore everyone else or just throw them out when he's done with them (Jeremiah Wright who??)
Dan and Geoffrey will never see anything wrong with snubbing the military.
thank you, edwin
"Dan and Geoffrey will never see anything wrong with snubbing the military..."
oh, i don't think it's just a snub, see my "dismissed" message above, LOL!
typical, and just another one of the endless hypocrises, that caused this lifelong democratic voter, to vote with my feet last year...
I'll go over this again and I want Geoffrey to read slowly and sound out the words.
First of all, there are issues brought up that are irrelevant to the point of this post. They include, but are not limited to:
Stop loss
Veteran's benefits
What Bush did
What the Repubicans did
Geoffrey's inferior wisdom
OK, pay attention:
It doesn't matter what you think of Inaugural Balls or how many there were.
It doesn't matter if the host of the snubbed balls forgave the oversight.
What matters is that Obama had before him a list of balls to attend, each hosted and attended by different groups of people. Those groups naturally should have prioritized by nature of who they are, which balls an honorable man would perceive as worthy of his attendance. On one end of the spectrum you have things like MOH Ball, CIC Ball, Neighborhood Ball, etc., and on the other end the Hollywood elite and other Obama suck...supporters. Even if only between the CIC and the MOH Balls, I would think that the criteria for awarding the Congressional Medal of Honor is such that even the military personel at the CIC Ball would clearly understand if Barry snubbed them instead.
But to snub either in favor of a Hollywood party? And you Obama suckers are really going to stand there and declare it says nothing about the man's character or smarts in his choice? You would NEVER have given Bush such a pass, and no, I don't believe you'd consider this issue so lightly if it were Bush.
As to that, no, I do not consider this issue to be of great importance. But as it has come to light, it gives us a better sense of the man.
AS to having been forgiven by the hosts of the MOH Ball, that shows the charater of the hosts. But Barry still committed the snub and he's a jerk for having done so.
How despicable that BHO skipped the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball! Of course, this figures, though, as BHO and wife are so supportive of community activism:
Obama and his wife's first stop was at the Neighborhood Ball.
Also of interest to me about this posting is that not a single word about his appeared in our local post-Inauguration coverage here in the D.C. area.
The voices in their heads must echo a whole lot . . .
"Not offended means there is nothing to forgive because there is no slight."
You guys are pretty stupid. It means nothing of the kind. That's like saying that because the punch didn't hurt that one wasn't assaulted. I can take the punch, I can insist that I was hurt and that I take no offense by the action, but I was still assaulted. That doesn't go away. Barry snubbed the MOH winners.
This isn't a big deal. On that point I readily agree. But it does speak to his character. That you can't see it speaks to yours.
it gives us a better sense of the man
And therein lies the joke. You have no "sense" of the man. You've hated him and everything about him (real or made up) since you first heard of him.
I could really give a rat's ass what your "sense" of the man is. It has no credibility with me.
Thanks for your input, Jim. But I would have you remember one or two things:
First, what "has credibility" with you is not a goal for me. Sorry to break that to ya.
Secondly, since I didn't vote for the him shows I have a far greater sense of the man than do you. Like most people of Illinois, I didn't know a damn thing about him until he began to run for the US Senate and we were told to see him as something special by the Democratic Party. It was at that point that I began to find out about him, something 99% of those who voted for him never did and likely haven't yet done, and through doing so found that he is unworthy of both my vote and the accolades with which suckers like yourself have showered him.
Feodor,
"You're just petty. And that's character."
Neither is true. I am not petty, and pettiness isn't character. Not good character anyway. Why you'd say something so stupid is beyond me.
But I was prepared to let the matter stand as having pointed out yet another example of the cut of Barry's jib, until his sheep stopped by to defend his snub of the MOH winners. But truly, at this point, it's not so much about Barry as it is about his goofy supporters who can't see the obvious. Hell, I'd rather be petty!
you're ALL missing it, which is that you guys are totally poles apart, politically, in the first place!
this is the INTERNET!
none of us have any reason to be in agreement over this in the first place...this is natural and normal
you guys, collectively, represent very far-left and far-right perspectives, whether you realize that, or agree to it, or not
face it, how many of you would break bread with one another, even allow one another in each other's living rooms, in real life? be honest!
we're not half as original as we think we are....we're just reprising arch and meathead, on "all in the family"!
so let's not be pussies about it all, with the fake indignation and the outrage...there wouldn't be fifty-one comments, if there wasn't merits to either side...
"It was at that point that I began to find out about him, something 99% of those who voted for him never did and likely haven't yet done, and through doing so found that he is unworthy of both my vote and the accolades with which suckers like yourself have showered him..."
were you, as an illinois native, aware of barky's association with black supremacists like wright, pfleger, moss, and meeks, prior to it all becoming common knowledge?
as a member of the ucc, was there widespread awareness within the denomination, as to the nature of trinity, in chicago? or, did this come as a complete surprise?
As a resident of Illinois, and a long-time admirer of Black Theology, Obama's relationship with a church that embodied those teachings in its ministry and outreach would only have strengthened my conviction that this is the right guy for right now.
Unlike you, hashfanatic, I see nothing wrong with it.
Oh, and, I might just break bread with Marshall or anyone else here. See, in the real world, I don't check a person's politics before I sit down with him or her, because it really doesn't matter all that much to me. Here, we're having an argument - I'll grant you that much - and no, we'll not see eye to eye on the matter in question.
So what? (I keep coming back to that little two-word phrase, don't I?)
I began to find out about him
And what did you find out about him that is fact and not from a chain email?
"As a resident of Illinois, and a long-time admirer of Black Theology, Obama's relationship with a church that embodied those teachings in its ministry and outreach would only have strengthened my conviction that this is the right guy for right now.."
well, i've heard other obots with similar views
if it mattered, i'd say the reasons for this would be interesting, from a sociological or even psychological point of view
let us know how that all works out for you
"Unlike you, hashfanatic, I see nothing wrong with it..."
i'm not surprised, although i'm not entirely sure if you actually believe that, or if you're trying to be deliberately provocative
"Oh, and, I might just break bread with Marshall or anyone else here..."
well, that's mighty white of you, no?
"See, in the real world, I don't check a person's politics before I sit down with him or her, because it really doesn't matter all that much to me..."
bullshit, we all do, whether we admit to it or not
we check each other out, we watch each other's responses, we key into different trigger mechanisms, we identify points of potential agreement or dissent, and we select our company, based on all of the above, but not necessarily contingent upon "like-mindedness", or shared values, rather to achieve current or future, common or personal goals and objectives
"Here, we're having an argument - I'll grant you that much - and no, we'll not see eye to eye on the matter in question..."
as men have, over the ages, nothing new to see here
"So what? (I keep coming back to that little two-word phrase, don't I?)..."
yeah, but you're the one who claims to have more than a passing infatuation with black supremacist culture, the writings and ravings of wright, etc., and claim to proud to hold the ghetto subculture that spawned them, in high esteem
it would seem pretty obvious that, your political choice has been shaped more by the barkster's color than any legitimate issue or particular position statement that concern americans, whether it's real, or simply a defiant posture you've adopted, as "revenge", for eight long years of bush
so, to me it's only natural that your next step will be to adopt the stone jungle morals, attitudes, and expressions of a thug culture that currently holds your favor..."so what" would seem a fitting rejoinder, however weak
it's not so surprising...as i've mentioned, i've heard many obots take up the same defensive postures, and express similar sentiments
in time, you may think differently
"And what did you find out about him that is fact and not from a chain email?..."
why? is that where you get your news, and official information?
after all, i haven't seen any of the righties on this thread, forward us to the pez dispenser's own campaign website, for critical thinking and spontaneous information, on an issue of open debate, LOL!
There were 48 Medal of Honor recipients in attendance, who were undoubtedly disappointed by the Commander-in-Chief's failure to show.
I doubt disappointment was the emotion they were experiencing.
"Let's not be petty"
Petty? Your statement speaks volumes.
Jim,
It is likely that what I found out made it's way to all the same places you mean to hold out as suspect. Bias does not imply untruth.
But I looked at his record (such as it is) as a state senator in Illinois, I looked at how he got elected, I learned of his associations and I learned of his positions.
Geoffrey,
Long time admirer of Cone's Black Liberation Theology? In what way, like a comic book? Wow. That's way too out there, even for you. I gotta let that one pass for now.
Look, this just proves the guy is a total sleaze ball muslim and probably an illegal alien besides.
Hash,
I have a lot of friends that are liberals. My pastor is a liberal and he and I get on famously. None of these libs agree with me politically and I do my best to help them understand why they are so wrong. Believe me, it ain't easy. Why? Because they're libs and I'm not a licensed mental health professional. But they're still my friends and I love them like I love all my friends.
Even the biggest horse's ass lib that comes here I consider a friend of a kind. I would have no problem meeting with any who post here and with whom I routinely debate (though at first at a neutral location with lots of people around). In fact, I think it would be a gas.
And let me correct one other point: Though my opponents ARE meatheads, as evidenced by their liberal leanings, Bunker is a liberal construct and not anywhere near an accurate representation of what a conservative is.
I find it interesting that because Obama doesn't show his face at a ball meant to honor a few good men and maybe a woman or two(?)that he is now a jackass sleazeball who worships Alla and born who the hell knows where.
Yet....GW Bush ordered a pre-emptive war by lying to congress, which constitutes high crime and misdeamenor, subverted the constitution, suspended habeas corpus, illegally spied on me and you, had no regard for the rule of law, issued signing statements giving to himself legislative powers that belong to congress alone......And then let's see...extraordinary rendition and torture.
Have I missed anything? I probably have. There was so much abuse of power I can't keep up with it all.
And you guys get upset over a no show at a party in a building that has logistical and security problems?
Sheesh.
Marty,
Are you trying out tin-foil hats for yourself?
"I find it interesting that because Obama doesn't show..."
Whoa! Sure, Barry's a jackass sleaseball, but who mentioned anything about Allah or his place of birth? Was it Hash? I don't always read every word he posts when he posts a really long one. Not until I have to.
"Yet....GW Bush ordered a pre-emptive war by lying to congress,"
No he didn't.
"which constitutes high crime and misdeamenor"
Maybe only if it happened, which it didn't.
"subverted the constitution,"
No he didn't.
"suspended habeas corpus"
For non-citizens who were shooting at our troops. Sorta like what they did when they captured Nazi and Japanese soldiers during WWII.
"illegally spied on me and you,"
No he didn't.
"issued signing statements giving to himself legislative powers that belong to congress alone"
He's not close to the first prez to use signing statements. Which ones concern you?
"extraordinary rendition and torture."
Boohoo. Violent murderers get a taste of their own medicine. You know what would have prevented that? Not being violent murderers. Easy. But really, until someone describes something that resembles torture, I remain unmoved by such claims, particularly as they involve people who hack off heads of bound prisoners, send their kids to blow themselves up, teach their kids that some people are only good for annihilation, and engage in real torture and evil.
"Have I missed anything?"
Yeah. The boat. The invasion was a good thing. Bush did what should have been done back in the 70s, and definitely the 90s. Coulda done it better, but that's hindsight and he took his best shot.
"There was so much abuse of power I can't keep up with it all."
It's hard to keep up with that which never happened.
"And you guys get upset over a no show at a party in a building that has logistical and security problems?"
No. I recognize the snub Barry made regarding the MOH winners so that he could party with Hollywood half-wits.
Sheesh indeed.
Apropos of Marshall Art's latest comment, and his insistence that (a) I never provide links to support the things I say; and (b) the US has not, does not, and will never torture, I thought I would provide a link to an interview with a military prosecutor who says, among other things, that the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay prison has really screwed up the ability to actually prosecute any of the prisoners there for anything.
From British author and journalist Andy Worthington, comes the following details:
"On January 13, in a declaration submitted to a Washington D.C. District Court in the case of Guantánamo prisoner Mohamed Jawad, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, a former prosecutor in the Military Commission trial system, delivered perhaps the most blistering attack on the US military’s detention program by a former member of the Pentagon’s team to date.
Speaking of the man he was once tasked to prosecute, Vandeveld said prisoner Mohamed Jawad’s continued detention is “something beyond a travesty,” and urged that Jawad be released given a “lack of any credible evidence.”
Some of this information was revealed in September 2008, after Vandeveld (who has served in Bosnia, Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan in the years since the 9/11 attacks, and has received several military awards) resigned as a prosecutor, complaining that “potentially exculpatory evidence” had “not been provided” to Jawad’s defense team, and that his accidental discovery of information relating to Jawad’s abuse helped convert him from a “true believer to someone who felt truly deceived.”
However, other information has never before been revealed in public, and Vandeveld’s declaration, in a habeas corpus review triggered by a Supreme Court ruling last June, constitutes the most sustained criticism of the Bush administration’s flagship trial system for terror suspects since Col. Morris Davis, the Commissions’ former chief prosecutor, resigned in October 2007. Davis explained that he had done so because of the politicization of the trial system, attempts to endorse the use of evidence obtained through torture, and the refusal of Pentagon chief counsel William J. Haynes II to accept that any planned trials could end in acquittals."
Of course, he's probably lying, right? And, I bet he's one of the rare liberals in the military, too.
Geoffrey, torture has been re-defined to the point where college phrat initiation would be grievous crimes against humanity. The reason for that was to stir up the useful idiots into a frenzy. You're basically a tool that is easy used.
If no one else will say it then I will. "Black [liberation] Theology" is a joke.
None of that is relevant to the post. What is reverent is the fact that Obama probably didn't attend the MOH Ball because he didn't sell the network rights to that ball and was not contractually obligated to be there. To say it another way, Pay to Play A fine Illinois tradition.
"None of that is relevant to this post". True enough. Except, of course, Marshall took it upon himself to criticize Marty for calling out the various crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush Administration, claiming that no such things existed. He has, in the past, claimed that the US never tortured anyone.
I took it upon myself to provide one little bit of evidence to the contrary.
As for "phrat" hazing being torture, I went to Alfred University, the site of the first nationally publicized hazing death, a young man who died of alcohol poisoning while pledging the fraternity Klan Alpine. So, yeah, sometimes fraternity hazing can, indeed, be torture.
It would be nice if you knew something of which you were talking about before you opened your mouth.
As for Black Liberation theology being a joke, I would like to know which books concerning it - J. Deotis Roberts, James Cone, Josiah Young, among other authors - you have read. If you can name more than one and give a substantive criticism on the text in question, I will take your view seriously. Otherwise, not so much.
"Even the biggest horse's ass lib that comes here I consider a friend of a kind. I would have no problem meeting with any who post here and with whom I routinely debate (though at first at a neutral location with lots of people around). In fact, I think it would be a gas..."
we'll see how you feel, in six months
then, if you wanna have an open-air picnic with the ones who worship the parents of the children are selling crack in our schools...well, hell, i'll even send over some chicken and grape soda, LOL!
i may be a christian, just not that good of a one...
familiarity breeds contempt, IMHO
and you couldn't be more wrong about Bunker...he was actually an excellent representation of an inner-city white "conservative", of the TIME...trust me, i grew up in that world, just a somewhat crappier part of town, LOL...
the word "conservative" is thrown around way too lightly, too big of a net...things were much different, back then...the republicans had better representatives than now, not the hunters, jindals, thompsons, steeles...even my old nemesis of mind, ronnie, would be shocked and appalled at the "conservatives" of today...
the most unrealistic character on aitf was gloria, sally struthers was horribly miscast, and jean stapleton played the lovable edith a little too ditzy
on the other hand, mike evans as lionel and vincent gardenia as frank next door aced it every time...:)
here's the thing about torture...
besides being illegal and morally wrong, it doesn't even yield anything that is constructive
the torturee simply lies, to get the torture to stop, and our operatives have to run all over town, chasing bs
it also endangers the lives of our agents and operatives, although the neocons consider them totally expendable, i.e. plame
besides, i'd rather be killed by some random bomb blast, then saved by torture
that's how convinced i am, that most of the varied "terror" threats we hear of, are simply invented to keep us in a spirit of fear
i'm not interested in living in a spirit of fear, i have too much to do, being one of those "bitters", clinging to God, guns, and all
"Sure, Barry's a jackass sleaseball, but who mentioned anything about Allah or his place of birth?"
Anonymous
Yet....GW Bush ordered a pre-emptive war by lying to congress,
"No he didn't."
Yes he did
subverted the constitution,
"No he didn't."
I think he did with a little help from the democrats.
suspended habeas corpus
"For non-citizens who were shooting at our troops. Sorta like what they did when they captured Nazi and Japanese soldiers during WWII."
You think it's find and dandy. I think it is a betrayal.
illegally spied on me and you,
"No he didn't."
Yes he did.
issued signing statements giving to himself legislative powers that belong to congress alone
"He's not close to the first prez to use signing statements. Which ones concern you?"
This one.
Geoffrey,
Thanks for the link. Now that wasn't so hard, was it? What is hard is trying to show how it supports your case.
I watched the video from the chick's inteview with the former prosecutor. Beginning with this, I find that the dude offered little but accusations, most of which I find of little concern. What we're dealing with at Gitmo might indeed be less than organized, but, considering that so many have been released, to say that there might be a few who have yet to be means nothing. The case the dude uses as an example, about the kid accused of tossing a grenade at US troops, leaves many questions. One of the first things that came to mind was if this particular prosecutor was dealing with the reality of the situation. He sounded as if he had a hard time with a situation that doesn't match Matlock or Perry Mason. I could be wrong, but I don't think the standards are the same for trying people in those situations, trials that shouldn't even be taking place, in my opinion. He speaks of abuse, without describing any of what he calls abuse. Basically, the only charge he can really make is that they aren't as organized as they should be. There is also an assumption that what he thinks is evidence that would exonerate the kid, when that doesn't mean it is so.
As to the Worthington bit, (I read the one from the link at Video Cafe) it is rife with curious comments and phrases such as what follows:
"...his masters--in the Pentagon and in the office of the Vice President--who have no interest in extablishing a fair or just process at Buantanamo
referring to Aussie PM John Howard as "one of the few stout allies" which would be more credible if the total number of allies was provided. There are still more than most people realize.
"ferociously biased Vice President"
Saying that Col. Davis laid out his case "with admirable clarity"
And mentioned, but didn't delve into Davis resigning after being placed in the chain of command under someone with whom he had problems.
(emphasis above was mine)
These little pieces suggest quite a bias in the author Worthington that I don't believe Geoffrey would tolerate if displayed in pieces critical of those he supports. In addition, it also speaks of torture without defining it, it speaksof Davis insisting he won't use evidence obtained by torture, without defining it, and speaks of another, I believe a guy named Haynes in a negative light for his refusal to outlaw enhanced interrogation techniques without defining or describing them.
What we are left with is a lot of hooey because the process lacks perfection. Is that a bad thing? Of course. But as many have been released from Gitmo after having been through the process, it seems a bit much to suggest something Satanic and worthy of closing down just because gitches still occur. Rather than calling the admin and military sons of Satan, far better would be to tighten things up and continue on.
Take note, Geoffrey. Just as I insist I do, I read the links, commented it's worthiness, and explained why I feel as I do. So the big question is, "why should I take the word of Davis, (or Worthington or the guy in the video) over the Bush people?
More for Geoffrey.
"He has, in the past, claimed that the US never tortured anyone."
I have in the past claimed that no one has provided evidence of torture, but only techniques they wish to classify as torture that I find to be not so torturous. Thus, no torture has been done. Not as policy or mandate.
"I took it upon myself to provide one little bit of evidence to the contrary."
Yet, no torture was described that I saw in your "evidence".
"So, yeah, sometimes fraternity hazing can, indeed, be torture."
If you're into using alarmist rhetoric to describe hazing to which the victim willingly sujected himself. Generally, real torture victims do not volunteer.
I've read some of Cone. To say it's a joke is to be kind.
"here's the thing about torture...
besides being illegal and morally wrong, it doesn't even yield anything that is constructive"
Many people say this as if it's true, without actually having first hand knoweldge. Personally, I don't buy it and I doubt torture is used for fishing expeditions. That is, the interrogators already know the subject has the info they seek, so they'd have a good idea of what is a lie and what is not when the subject talks. More importantly, however, this would mean, if true, that waterboarding isn't torture, but a valid interrogation tool, since it yielded actionable info from Kalid Sheik Mohammed.
"it also endangers the lives of our agents and operatives,"
In what way?
"besides, i'd rather be killed by some random bomb blast, then saved by torture"
Feel free to die anytime you like. I'm for saving my fellow Americans and other innocent civilians by whatever means necessary. So the first opportunity that some scumbag takes hostages or tries to, I expect you to offer yourself to free others.
"that's how convinced i am, that most of the varied "terror" threats we hear of, are simply invented to keep us in a spirit of fear"
Like the one that people like you think Bush ignored before 9/11?
"i'm not interested in living in a spirit of fear,"
Good for you, you brave boy. Accepting reality and preparing for it is not living in fear, but is being practical, sensical and what we do simply by having a military and a police force. It's called "being responsible".
Marty,
Responses to your links, one by one:
1) False statements do not a lie make. I've been through this with Geoffrey as he attempted to prove that Bush lied. Just as then, your link fails to support this charge. Bush responsibly acted on intel available. To look back and say that intel was not accurate, so therefor Bush lied, is to have one's tin-foil hat strapped on too tightly. Others, many others, saw the same intel, some were other countries seeing similar stuff. All this link shows is that, as we already know, the intel was imperfect and in accurate. In addition, such intel provided only some of the incentive for invasion, but not all of it. Invading was a great idea who's time had come. Without having done so, events would have made the false intel prophetic.
2) The Fourth Amendment speaks to "unreasonable" search and seisure. But it does not define "unreasonable". I insist and support the notion that the type of foe we faced made Bush's actions far from unreasonable. It made them mandatory for a president to secure the safety of his people. God bless him.
3) So you're saying we betrayed the Nazi and Japanese prisoners during WWII? Bush's suspension of habeus, or rather his belief that it didn't extend to the scumbags we were fighting, was far more narrow a suspension than was Lincoln's or FDR's regarding the Japanese internment people. I would feel betrayed if he DIDN'T take extra steps in dealing with these most heinous savages.
4) First of all, damn you for making me watch Olberman for 11 minutes. It was unnecessary since Tice said nothing. And considering the nasty nature of the media towards Bush, and the willingness of some members to expose strategies of the admin's war on terror, extra suspicion of that group of people is justified. But until Tice explains the manner in which the media was watched, one can't determine if there's any real problem. As far as the overall surveilance, it is my understanding that criteria would bring about more scrutiny, but worthless info, such as what toppings on the pizza you're ordering, would be jettisoned as useless. There is no reason to suspect the Bush admin had any malevolent intent in any of their anti-terror activities and strategies. So to say they were spying on you and me is ludicrous.
5) All signing statements accomplish the same goal of leaving open a door for special circumstances. In the war on terror, I'm totally fine with the possibility that if a particular scenario warrants it, absolutely any interrogation technique is good to go. There is a goofy implication by Bush haters that anyone would torture a prisoner when it isn't required or appropriate.
Marshall said:
I'm for saving my fellow Americans and other innocent civilians by whatever means necessary.
This is, of course, the terrorists' argument, too.
It seems to me that even the most hardened leftist should be able to agree that the preservation of innocent human life isn't the highest priority of jihadist terrorists.
They strap bombs to their own children, to walk into crowds of civilians and kill other people's children.
To say that terrorists are using whatever means necessary to preserve innocent life is as repulsive as to say that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," when jihadists aren't fighting for freedom, they're fighting to eliminate most freedoms.
Indeed. To insist that terrorists are attempting to preserve innocent life would mean that any innocent lives amongst their people are threatened, which they are not except by themselves. They have never been under assault, but have instead been targets of retaliation that would otherwise have been unnecessary had the terrorists not begun terrorizing.
"They have never been under assault, but have instead been targets of retaliation that would otherwise have been unnecessary had the terrorists not begun terrorizing..."
of course they have, you have simply allowed yourself to be manipulated and programmed by the true terrorists, and, as a result, confused them with the truly terrorized
and, there are many of us who understand that, you will NEVER allow reality to penetrate your consciousness, it's psychologically not even possible, at this point
that's what happens, when your masters lose the moral high ground, and you never bothered to make a contingency plan
the intel was imperfect and in accurate
All intelligence is imperfect and often inaccurate. The fact is, the Bush administration conveyed a certainty when they knew there was conflicting or even opposing evidence: "It's been confirmed", "We know", "We've learned". These statements themselves are lies.
The faulty intelligence tale is a lie. The intelligence wasn't so much faulty as the administration chose to ignore the part of the intelligence they didn't like.
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy,
The imperfect intel is what confirmed their suspicions and provided them with what they "knew" and "learned". Give it a rest. I'm beginning to feel that I DO want the loons to bring Bush to trial just to give them a very public opportunity to expose themselves for the pathetic buffoons they are.
Hash,
You too, need to give it a rest about the cause of Middle East unrest. Jew hatred isn't welcome here anymore than Bush hatred and is viewed with the same level of sadness and boredom.
now, now, marshall playing the antisemite card where none exists will work no more successfully than geoffrey's periodic references to racism, which are equally groundless
besides, you, marshall, have had every bit of access to accurate information that i have had, you are the one who chose jihadist pie-in-the-sky terror storms as your very discredited basis of judgement
All intelligence is imperfect and often inaccurate. The fact is, the Bush administration conveyed a certainty when they knew there was conflicting or even opposing evidence: "It's been confirmed", "We know", "We've learned". These statements themselves are lies.
"The faulty intelligence tale is a lie. The intelligence wasn't so much faulty as the administration chose to ignore the part of the intelligence they didn't like..."
that doesn't matter to them, jim, because their goals are not the same, the "terror" they claim to fight is only a tactic, in the first place
for them, it has ALWAYS been about writing the script ("a new pearl harbor", etc.) and then moving heaven and earth to MAKE reality coincide with their narrative, so it all seems plausible enough, to a sufficiently large number of people
each "attack" always results in a "response" (and it is always one side that seems to "respond", or "retaliate"), and each time is in reality, a drill of sorts, in order to gauge what the american citizenry, and the world, will tolerate, and the gravity of the next course of action to follow
they will NEVER change, and barky's departure from the ostensible script is far from any "new order" of his own design, it's just a different spin on the same old playbook...
Hash,
As we have discussed, my info comes from those who know the enemy best, former members. Your info is by those who do not listen to the enemy, but focus on isolated episodes by which they tarnish entire groups. My info does not dispute abuses occur, while your side argues they are policy. YOU believe crap and ignore reality. Why would someone who didn't have some negative attitude about the real victims, the Israelis? As long as you continue to come to this blog and spew your one-sided and distorted view of Middle Eastern affairs, I will label you as your comments warrant.
"As we have discussed, my info comes from those who know the enemy best, former members..."
yeah, LMAO?? like, WHO?
steyn, malky, krauthammer, glick?
paid shills like yon, and ardolino?
please
"Why would someone who didn't have some negative attitude about the real victims, the Israelis?"
you mean the bloodthirsty murderers that will NEVER stop grabbing land and picking fights with their neighbors? awww...
that's another prime example of you calling current world events that are completely out of your realm of understanding, as you would have them to be, and not as they are
and a textbook example, of how america repeatedly builds up today's "friend", to be tomorrow's enemy
you'll see! yes, in your lifetime, you'll see it all for what it is
in the interim, i'll continue to do my best, to reduce human suffering, despite your efforts to hide behind the biggest kid in the lunchroom line
Hash-smoker,
"like, WHO?"
Nice to know you don't pay attention to what's been printed here and elsewhere time and time again. Walid Shoebat is a name I've mentioned on more than one occasion. He expresses the mindset, strategies and policies of the Palestinian people and their leaders openly and with urgency. Another voice is the son of the founder of Hamas, who echoes the same sentiments of Shoebat. These are but two, there are more that you obviously ignore in your Jew-hatred. I've also offered MEMRI as a source to find out exactly what the Islamic radicals preach and tell each other in their own language in order to see how it differs from what they tell the rest of the non-Islamic world.
People who really understand history, both Biblical and secular, know who has the true claim to the area of contention. YOU, in your hatred for all things Jewish, ignore history and preach the same lies of the real haters, murderers and land grabbers.
I support Israel against those who would see them annihilated, the same people you support. Yeah, I know, you say you have no dog in this race. You're a liar. You are anti-Israel and you are contemptable in your denials. Leave that shit at the door. It's not welcome in here.
marshall, when you continually denounce me as a "jew-hater" (an lgf term if i ever heard one), "anti-israel", or any other of your stock diversions, you are lying, and furthermore attempting to tar me with a particular brush that is just taken for granted as "evil" by those in your specific ideological group of the day, this does not make it true, and i do not receive it
it's hysterically funny that you employ the same weak tactics that obots that falsely venerate blacks for being black, use against you, ROFLMAO!
speaking out in criticism of jews is not anti-semitism, expressing anger and frustration at solely jewish war crimes, acts of aggression, and uncivilized foreign policy is NOT anti-semitism or "jew-hating" either, whether you choose to view it as such, or not
and the only "dog" i have in the race, is the fact that my tax dollars are being used, to maintain sovereign peoples, including many, many christians, in concentration camps, and systematically liquidated
you disapprove of abortion, you protest the concept of your tax dollars being used in furtherance of what you see as an extermination of innocents, and whether or not i agree with the passion that you view the subject, does not in anyway mean you should not speak your mind about it
if you could come to an acceptance of the fact that other americans view issues very differently than you do, and those opinions are no less worthy than yours, without bashing them, calling them immature names, or raging in offense over every single, possible point of agreement, it would facilitate dialogue, between everyone
if you have an unusual amount of anger or frustration in life, for whatever reason, you are misdirecting these emotions at me without any rational provocation, and i do not accept it, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand
First of all, I determine the topic at hand.
Secondly, it wasn't me who brought up Israel.
Thirdly, you can deny all you want, but as I said, I base my beliefs about you on the comments you post here and elsewhere and the choice of terms you use to describe the Israelis and their policies. No one else comes here talking about "bloodthirsty murderers that will NEVER stop grabbing land and picking fights with their neighbors" and other inflamatory crap when referring to the Israelis. So your offense taken by my righteous accusations toward your anti-semetism can be relieved by stifling your anti-semetic rantings.
Finally, I have no problem with our sending aid to allies who's very existence is constantly threatened by their neighbors and a group of Arabs who have no true claim to the land they insist is occupied by those who actually belong there.
So if any of the above troubles you in the least, you are more than welcome to take your lunacy elsewhere. You know, you had me fooled for a while there. You've posted some comments recently that indicated you may have returned from successful psychological treatments. So sad to find that was just an anomaly and that you're still goofy as all get out.
He attended the ball honoring the Medal of Honor recipients...ya know, if he went to all the balls, we'd be hearing from you about what a party boy he is and how he was glad-handing and living it up while the rest of us are suffering.
If he made it to all the millitary balls, we'd be hearing about how hes partying on the graves of our poor soldiers.
Seems to me that the conservatives were all up in arms that there was any partying going on at all...it cost too much money when people are suffering (although they had to do all sorts of cheats and such to artificially inflate the number to get it significantly above what Bush spent)
But somehow now it's bad that he didn't go to ALL of the millitary balls. I dont envy this guy. Whatever he does, you'll hate it.
Teresa,
"He attended the ball honoring the Medal of Honor recipients..."
I gonna assume you mistyped since he obviously didn't attend that ball as the link plainly states.
"Whatever he does, you'll hate it."
No, that would make us liberal Democrats, who would've chided Bush for breaking wind if he didn't lift the proper cheek off the chair. WE, on the other hand, disagree with policy proposals and decisions based on the merits of those proposals and decisions, such as ignoring the best of the best in favor of partying with celebrities.
Frankly, I have no problem with celebrations highlighting such important events as presidential inaugurations. I think it's an appropriate outpouring of emotion and honor for the president. The form in which that outpouring takes is a different matter and very subjective, as is this very topic. I'm not surprised that libs see no problem with Obungle's choice as they have a hard time with such priorities in the first place. But do any of you libs have any idea what MOH winners did to be considered for that award? Are you gonna then insist that to snub them is no big deal? If so, you have no honor either, and you and Barry aren't worthy of even being in the presence of such people as those who have earned by their selflessness such lofty recognition as the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Hash, Some of these comments are too long to hold my attention, especially since I have read the same old, same old from the libs at so many sites so many times. However, that one liner of yours where you called the Israelis land grabbers is totally off the wall. God promised much more land than they now occupy and God does not go back on His Word. Wait and see if what His Word says does not come true. mom2
oh, i am, mom2, watching very carefully
my tax dollars and my own true doctrine of faith, have bought me that right and privilege
i, personally, don't think, we will have long to wait...
so, why allow it all to divide us?
glad to see you, btw
Post a Comment