Obama Adm. Refuses Benefits to Victims of Hasan

[East of Eden]

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

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

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

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

There is no defense for you calling something you disagree with "lunacy".

We see yet again those on the right will, with a smug lack of self-awareness, insult anyone, or any notion with which they disagree.

I note the affected soldiers have insurance and various other forms of support, both governmental and civilian.

[East of Eden]

From the OP:

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

There is no defense for you calling something you disagree with "lunacy".

Stop making things up, Joey, I called a POLICY lunacy, not a person.

We see yet again those on the right will, with a smug lack of self-awareness, insult anyone, or any notion with which they disagree.

Your insults noted.

I note the affected soldiers have insurance and various other forms of support, both governmental and civilian.

I'm not going to restate it for you, read the link and see what they don't have but should.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 12:

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

There is no defense for you calling something you disagree with "lunacy".

Stop making things up, Joey, I called a POLICY lunacy, not a person.

That's rich, considering your presention here, and where you admitted you had no such site (beyond a 'maybe') here. It is my contention that what is on display here is nothing more'n projection.

That said, what part of me saying something have you confused with a someone?

We see yet again those on the right will, with a smug lack of self-awareness, insult anyone, or any notion with which they disagree.

Your insults noted.

I now contend we have a second example of projection, and that if we all remember our AA classes, that constitutes a pattern.

I note the affected soldiers have insurance and various other forms of support, both governmental and civilian.

I'm not going to restate it for you, read the link and see what they don't have but should.

"Should" is an easy argument to make, but considering so many on the right refuse to accept tax hikes to help pay for it, I propose they should recieve the best we can do for 'em, but understand the adamant refusal of the far right to accept tax hikes to help pay for some of this stuff.

Lest anyone think I'm some "librul", I am ex-military (I was a goofball, but I was there), my family is 3 generations deep, and just as many wide in the military. I support our troops as much as anyone, but the bottom line is, just 'cause those on the right call that which they disagree with lunacy, it'd be far "loonier" to further indebt this nation paying for stuff we can't afford.

I propose a solution...

Let's have all those on the right contribute to a fund for these soldiers, so as to insure no more debt, and let's see how much the right is willing to put their money where their mouths are.

[East of Eden]

From Post 12:

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

There is no defense for you calling something you disagree with "lunacy".

Stop making things up, Joey, I called a POLICY lunacy, not a person.

That's rich, considering your presention here, and where you admitted you had no such site (beyond a 'maybe') here. It is my contention that what is on display here is nothing more'n projection.

That said, what part of me saying something have you confused with a someone?

We see yet again those on the right will, with a smug lack of self-awareness, insult anyone, or any notion with which they disagree.

Your insults noted.

I now contend we have a second example of projection, and that if we all remember our AA classes, that constitutes a pattern.

I note the affected soldiers have insurance and various other forms of support, both governmental and civilian.

I'm not going to restate it for you, read the link and see what they don't have but should.

"Should" is an easy argument to make, but considering so many on the right refuse to accept tax hikes to help pay for it, I propose they should recieve the best we can do for 'em, but understand the adamant refusal of the far right to accept tax hikes to help pay for some of this stuff.

Lest anyone think I'm some "librul", I am ex-military (I was a goofball, but I was there),

Did you side with the top brass over your fellow soldiers back then, too?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 12:

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

There is no defense for you calling something you disagree with "lunacy".

Stop making things up, Joey, I called a POLICY lunacy, not a person.

That's rich, considering your presention here, and where you admitted you had no such site (beyond a 'maybe') here. It is my contention that what is on display here is nothing more'n projection.

That said, what part of me saying something have you confused with a someone?

We see yet again those on the right will, with a smug lack of self-awareness, insult anyone, or any notion with which they disagree.

Your insults noted.

I now contend we have a second example of projection, and that if we all remember our AA classes, that constitutes a pattern.

I note the affected soldiers have insurance and various other forms of support, both governmental and civilian.

I'm not going to restate it for you, read the link and see what they don't have but should.

"Should" is an easy argument to make, but considering so many on the right refuse to accept tax hikes to help pay for it, I propose they should recieve the best we can do for 'em, but understand the adamant refusal of the far right to accept tax hikes to help pay for some of this stuff.

Lest anyone think I'm some "librul", I am ex-military (I was a goofball, but I was there),

Did you side with the top brass over your fellow soldiers back then, too?

I propose such a question is merely a tactic of debate, and should be most reasonably considered as an empty response to my referenced post.

I'll leave it for the observer to consider whether I ever disagreed with the "top brass" over my "fellow soldiers", as if there were never the first, single solitary issue where I never disagreed with one or the other group of 'em.

>>>Edit in the following:

I notice the poster just couldn't find it in his heart to include the following from my referenced post...

...
my family is 3 generations deep, and just as many wide in the military. I support our troops as much as anyone, but the bottom line is, just 'cause those on the right call that which they disagree with lunacy, it'd be far "loonier" to further indebt this nation paying for stuff we can't afford.

I propose a solution...

Let's have all those on the right contribute to a fund for these soldiers, so as to insure no more debt, and let's see how much the right is willing to put their money where their mouths are.

Where one has no argument, snip the parts you don't like, and ask a question that is at best loosely related to the issue, and at worse, a cynical ploy to avoid any real debate.

[Mr.Badham]

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

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

Well, if it doesn't fit the milirary manual for awarding Purple Hear medals, then it doesn't. They want more support from the governement, right? And you support more support from the governement, correct?

The problem you have is Hasan's act DOES fulfill the definition on several counts:

"The manual states that the Purple Heart is awarded to service members who are killed or wounded "in action against an enemy of the United States; as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force; or as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States, provided the Secretary of the military department concerned recognizes the attack as an international terrorist attack."

As defined by U.S. law, a terrorist act must be "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents," and for it to be an international terrorist act, it must involve "citizens or the territory of more than one country." All of those killed and a majority of those wounded in the attack were either active duty or reserve military personnel."

Hasan was a self described enemy of the US, his act was premeditated and politically motivated violence and he had contact with foreign terrorists in planning it. Doesn't his shouting "Allah Akbar" while shooting give you a little tip? Before this crime ever happened this creep should have been given a dishonorable discharge, made to pay back his government provided education expense, and put on a terror watch list. There were Army personel who were alarmed at his jihadist statements but were afraid to report them because of political correctness, they assumed their careers would be harmed by speaking out.

Sometimes you really wonder whose side Obama is on. Can you imagine FDR catching a German violent clandestine agent in WWII and not calling him what he was?

You answered your own question, by your own definitions you have given it does not qualify as terrorism under the UCMJ and even under US law it does not qualify as international terrorism. Regardless of how he may have described himself in secret he was a member of the US army so unless you want to declare the US army as being enemies of the US your claim does not stand.

So he can declare himself part of the US army and that's that? I have a feeling he declared himself "something else", before he falsely declared himself part of the "US Army". I could declare myself part of the US Army right now, but it would't mean anything would it? Yes it calls into question alot of things. But so be it.

[Wyvern]

So he can declare himself part of the US army and that's that? I have a feeling he declared himself "something else", before he falsely declared himself part of the "US Army". I could declare myself part of the US Army right now, but it would't mean anything would it? Yes it calls into question alot of things. But so be it.

No Hasan did not declare himself part of the Army, he was a fully sworn in member of the army and if I remember correctly he attained the rank of major. You have obviously not understood what I wrote if this is what you came away with. You also have obviously never served in the military or you wouldn't say things like this in the first place. Please actually read the linked article for background information.

[East of Eden]

No, although the liberals wanted to call it a crime, Bush correctly saw it as terror, hence the War on Terror.

Terrorism is a crime if you did not know. We also have the war on drugs, does that mean having drugs is an act of war? Stop being silly.

Non sequiter of the month here.

I bolded for you the important part, yes Hasan is a domestic terrorist no different than McVeigh.

Agreed, but red herring noted.

The secretary of the army is not a political appointment so it makes no sense for you to continually blame Obama for it. If you think otherwise please explain.

Unbelievable, who in the world do you think appoints the secretary? Any responsible POTUS would fire him for this crazy ruling.

Please point out where I made such a statement.

You earlier said Hasan was a member of the military, so he couldn't be a terrorist.

No it doesn't, it counts as free speech. Are you under the impression that free speech only covers that which you agree with?

Wow, you really are clueless. Military personnel do not have freedom of speech as civilians do.

Umm The OP contains the term Obamathink but it does not mention the Obama administration actually, it would be nice if you could pay attention to your own statements.

And it would be nice if you could read the title of the thread where it says Obama Adm.

How is you using an obviously derogatory and inflammatory term supposed to mean simply his administration? You say you don't hate the man but this is the nicest manner you can think of to address him?

Pretty much. How do you respect someone who is ruining the country?

Maybe you can address why you insist on blaming our president for a bureaucratic decision,

Because he is responsible for his own cabinet.

unless you actually are so naive as to think the president micromanages every decision made by every department in the government.

Yes, Obama is too busy micromanaging our healthcare.

So possibly making a point or two for the presidents opposition is worth the lives of a few dozen service members is it? Your disrespect for our president and military is noted.

As is yours, you are so in the tank for Obama you side with him over the heroes wounded by Hasan. Do you think it was workplace violence?

Actually the question should be do you know more than what your article states? According to the information you presented at present this does not qualify for a purple heart simple as that.

Yes it does, and I trust the wounded victims over you.

Oh I get it now you are more interested in getting a point or two in your favor rather than actually listening to what is being said. You and Nero have a lot in common.

Nero?

[East of Eden]

From Post 12:

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

There is no defense for you calling something you disagree with "lunacy".

Stop making things up, Joey, I called a POLICY lunacy, not a person.

That's rich, considering your presention here, and where you admitted you had no such site (beyond a 'maybe') here. It is my contention that what is on display here is nothing more'n projection.

That said, what part of me saying something have you confused with a someone?

We see yet again those on the right will, with a smug lack of self-awareness, insult anyone, or any notion with which they disagree.

Your insults noted.

I now contend we have a second example of projection, and that if we all remember our AA classes, that constitutes a pattern.

I note the affected soldiers have insurance and various other forms of support, both governmental and civilian.

I'm not going to restate it for you, read the link and see what they don't have but should.

"Should" is an easy argument to make, but considering so many on the right refuse to accept tax hikes to help pay for it, I propose they should recieve the best we can do for 'em, but understand the adamant refusal of the far right to accept tax hikes to help pay for some of this stuff.

Lest anyone think I'm some "librul", I am ex-military (I was a goofball, but I was there),

Did you side with the top brass over your fellow soldiers back then, too?

I propose such a question is merely a tactic of debate, and should be most reasonably considered as an empty response to my referenced post.

I'll leave it for the observer to consider whether I ever disagreed with the "top brass" over my "fellow soldiers", as if there were never the first, single solitary issue where I never disagreed with one or the other group of 'em.

>>>Edit in the following:

I notice the poster just couldn't find it in his heart to include the following from my referenced post...

...
my family is 3 generations deep, and just as many wide in the military. I support our troops as much as anyone, but the bottom line is, just 'cause those on the right call that which they disagree with lunacy, it'd be far "loonier" to further indebt this nation paying for stuff we can't afford.

I propose a solution...

Let's have all those on the right contribute to a fund for these soldiers, so as to insure no more debt, and let's see how much the right is willing to put their money where their mouths are.

Where one has no argument, snip the parts you don't like, and ask a question that is at best loosely related to the issue, and at worse, a cynical ploy to avoid any real debate.

Unfortunately, real debate is too often missing from your posts. It had to be said, my friend.

[East of Eden]

So he can declare himself part of the US army and that's that? I have a feeling he declared himself "something else", before he falsely declared himself part of the "US Army". I could declare myself part of the US Army right now, but it would't mean anything would it? Yes it calls into question alot of things. But so be it.

No Hasan did not declare himself part of the Army, he was a fully sworn in member of the army and if I remember correctly he attained the rank of major.

And the Afgan 'army' members shooting our soldiers are no different from Hasan. Maybe you think that is 'workplace violence' too.