Obama Adm. Refuses Benefits to Victims of Hasan

East of Eden · Post by **East of Eden** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:13 pm

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

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

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:34 pm

East of Eden wrote:
Wyvern wrote:
Because the OP already answered that question.
No the OP claimed benefits were being denied without actually identifying what those benefits are, could you please identify specifically what benefits are being denied at this time?
Read the OP.
I have a number of times and short as it is nowhere do you identify what benefits are being denied, please do so now.

Then please make the argument instead of the mere claim you keep making.
You are the one alleging ABC and the victims are wrong, you demonstrate it.
You really need to be able to tell the difference between reporting a claim and making one. I am alleging no such thing, I am asking you the author of the OP to identify the benefits you claim are being denied.

Just because the president is commander in chief that does not mean he holds military rank as you are suggesting.
The president holds the highest military rank, according to Wikipedia.
You incorrectly identified Obama as a general in your continued attempts to smear him. He is commander in chief and if you are going to refer to his military status then use his military status.

Gays in the military is a policy decision while deciding who gets a medal is a bureaucratic process. Do you really think the president should get personally involved in every bureaucratic decision made by his administration if someone disagrees with the standard bureaucratic decision?
Yes. It says a lot that this embedded Jihadists trying to kill soldiers before they were deployed isn't considered worthy of Obama's attention.
Such a thing is pretty common in Afghanistan these days why doesn't the president get involved in those as well? For that matter why doesn't the president get involved in every single IRS audit as well since you think it is his job to stick his nose into everything even though every time he does you complain about it.

What is this narrative you are talking about, the only people that say anything remotely like the radical muslims like us are the far right wing nutjobs that also say he is a muslim himself. Forgive me for assuming you are not one of those people.
Off topic. Is there such a thing as a far left wing nutjob?
Stop going off topic then. I didn't bring up the subject, you keep doing it and then complain about it.

I am not aware of Arnold personally attacking anyone with a semiautomatic weapon at a base so not sure of the relevance of bringing that up.
He commanded enemy forces, duh.
Did Hasan command enemy forces then? I'm trying to understand why you brought this up.

What does this quote have to do with the OP? It states these emails were made AFTER the attack, is Hasan denying these people benefits?
You really need to improve your comprehension, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. ABC reported on the emails after the attack, which were exchanged with one of our most wanted terrorists before the attack.
No I know what they said but since this also has nothing to do with the OP I figured I'd have fun with it. Is Hasan denying these people benefits?

Yes we all know you are trying to smear the president you wrote the OP did you not? I asked did ABC blame the president.
By implication, yes. Please watch this video by the surviving victims, many of whose lives will never be the same:

Are they trying to smear Obama? Apparently to you he can do no wrong, and musn't be questioned.
Apparently you are incapable of doing anything but making an emotional appeal. Look at all the victims of the Sandyhook shootings, because of it do you think the president should make an executive order and simply get rid of all assault weapons?

East of Eden · Post by **East of Eden** » Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:35 pm

Wyvern wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Wyvern wrote:
Because the OP already answered that question.
No the OP claimed benefits were being denied without actually identifying what those benefits are, could you please identify specifically what benefits are being denied at this time?
Read the OP.
I have a number of times and short as it is nowhere do you identify what benefits are being denied, please do so now.

Then please make the argument instead of the mere claim you keep making.
You are the one alleging ABC and the victims are wrong, you demonstrate it.
You really need to be able to tell the difference between reporting a claim and making one. I am alleging no such thing, I am asking you the author of the OP to identify the benefits you claim are being denied.

Just because the president is commander in chief that does not mean he holds military rank as you are suggesting.
The president holds the highest military rank, according to Wikipedia.
You incorrectly identified Obama as a general in your continued attempts to smear him. He is commander in chief and if you are going to refer to his military status then use his military status.

Gays in the military is a policy decision while deciding who gets a medal is a bureaucratic process. Do you really think the president should get personally involved in every bureaucratic decision made by his administration if someone disagrees with the standard bureaucratic decision?
Yes. It says a lot that this embedded Jihadists trying to kill soldiers before they were deployed isn't considered worthy of Obama's attention.
Such a thing is pretty common in Afghanistan these days why doesn't the president get involved in those as well? For that matter why doesn't the president get involved in every single IRS audit as well since you think it is his job to stick his nose into everything even though every time he does you complain about it.

What is this narrative you are talking about, the only people that say anything remotely like the radical muslims like us are the far right wing nutjobs that also say he is a muslim himself. Forgive me for assuming you are not one of those people.
Off topic. Is there such a thing as a far left wing nutjob?
Stop going off topic then. I didn't bring up the subject, you keep doing it and then complain about it.

I am not aware of Arnold personally attacking anyone with a semiautomatic weapon at a base so not sure of the relevance of bringing that up.
He commanded enemy forces, duh.
Did Hasan command enemy forces then? I'm trying to understand why you brought this up.

What does this quote have to do with the OP? It states these emails were made AFTER the attack, is Hasan denying these people benefits?
You really need to improve your comprehension, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. ABC reported on the emails after the attack, which were exchanged with one of our most wanted terrorists before the attack.
No I know what they said but since this also has nothing to do with the OP I figured I'd have fun with it.
Looking silly on the internet is fun to you?

Apparently you are incapable of doing anything but making an emotional appeal.
Did you watch the video? Speaking of emotional appeal, it is a disgrace how Obama uses the Sandyhook families as props for his anti-2A agenda.

Look at all the victims of the Sandyhook shootings, because of it do you think the president should make an executive order and simply get rid of all assault weapons?
No, they are constitutionally protected. Obama needs to listen to this guy on guns:

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/nra-fin ... lion-noir/

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:01 pm

Looking silly on the internet is fun to you?

Absolutely, you should try having some fun once in a while too. Making yourself look ridiculous is the purest kind of fun there is, it isn't reliant on hurting someone else as is most other forms of humor.

Apparently you are incapable of doing anything but making an emotional appeal.
Did you watch the video? Speaking of emotional appeal, it is a disgrace how Obama uses the Sandyhook families as props for his anti-2A agenda.

I guess you missed my asking you to NOT make an emotional appeal and approach the issue from a rational standpoint. I guess you have missed how the Sandyhook families are actually doing a lot of antigun campaigning on their own, did you miss recently that Connecticut has passed new gun legislation?

Look at all the victims of the Sandyhook shootings, because of it do you think the president should make an executive order and simply get rid of all assault weapons?
No, they are constitutionally protected. Obama needs to listen to this guy on guns:

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/nra-fin ... lion-noir/

As you like to say we are in a state of war with islam and as I am sure you know during times of war the constitution can be suspended, the very first republican president famously did so.

How about you identify what the benefits are that you have claimed is being denied.

East of Eden · Post by **East of Eden** » Tue Apr 09, 2013 6:09 pm

Wyvern wrote:
Looking silly on the internet is fun to you?
Absolutely, you should try having some fun once in a while too. Making yourself look ridiculous is the purest kind of fun there is, it isn't reliant on hurting someone else as is most other forms of humor.

OK, for a minute there I thought you had misrepresented something.

I guess you missed my asking you to NOT make an emotional appeal and approach the issue from a rational standpoint. I guess you have missed how the Sandyhook families are actually doing a lot of antigun campaigning on their own, did you miss recently that Connecticut has passed new gun legislation?

Yes, I'm glad I don't live in CT, that doesn't change the fact Obama has used kids as props for his gun-grabbing photo ops.

As you like to say we are in a state of war with islam

No, with radical Islam.

and as I am sure you know during times of war the constitution can be suspended, the very first republican president famously did so.

Are we in a civil war?

How about you identify what the benefits are that you have claimed is being denied.

More documentation:

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012 ... st-attack/

"Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day, said his injuries prevented him from continuing to serve. But he wonâ€™t receive the same benefits as those severely wounded on the battlefield because an Army medical evaluation board didnâ€™t deem his injuries to be combat-related, he said.

An October 2011 letter on behalf of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was sent to U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, saying â€œthe department is dealing with the threat of violent Islamist extremism in the context of a broader threat of workplace violence.â€� [This is absurd. The broader threat is Islamic extremism]

But the National Counterterrorism Centerâ€™s 2009 Report on Terrorism called the Fort Hood shooting a â€œhigh fatality terrorist attack.â€� The shooting also was mentioned in the State Departmentâ€™s â€œCountry Reports on Terrorism 2009.â€�â€¦

Note the administration contradicts itself, earlier it had described this event as terror.

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:56 pm

I guess you missed my asking you to NOT make an emotional appeal and approach the issue from a rational standpoint. I guess you have missed how the Sandyhook families are actually doing a lot of antigun campaigning on their own, did you miss recently that Connecticut has passed new gun legislation?
Yes, I'm glad I don't live in CT, that doesn't change the fact Obama has used kids as props for his gun-grabbing photo ops.

Anti abortion people use pictures of aborted fetuses in their campaigns as well, it is a common tactic on every side so what's your complaint?

As you like to say we are in a state of war with islam
No, with radical Islam.

So you agree we are at war?

and as I am sure you know during times of war the constitution can be suspended, the very first republican president famously did so.
Are we in a civil war?

According to you we are at war any war allows the president to suspend the constitution and even declare martial law if he sees the need. If you want to be at a state of constant war then you have to realize the president can do these things and nothing in the constitution is guaranteed.

How about you identify what the benefits are that you have claimed is being denied.
More documentation:

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012 ... st-attack/

"Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day, said his injuries prevented him from continuing to serve. But he wonâ€™t receive the same benefits as those severely wounded on the battlefield because an Army medical evaluation board didnâ€™t deem his injuries to be combat-related, he said.

You are getting closer, you have identified one individuals injuries but fall short in that it yet again only says benefits will not be received. Surely it can't be this difficult to identify the benefits you say are being denied.

Note the administration contradicts itself, earlier it had described this event as terror.

Wouldn't it make sense then for the administration to first determine what category this attack falls into before decrying that something has happened because of this nondetermination?

East of Eden · Post by **East of Eden** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:23 pm

Wyvern wrote:

I guess you missed my asking you to NOT make an emotional appeal and approach the issue from a rational standpoint. I guess you have missed how the Sandyhook families are actually doing a lot of antigun campaigning on their own, did you miss recently that Connecticut has passed new gun legislation?
Yes, I'm glad I don't live in CT, that doesn't change the fact Obama has used kids as props for his gun-grabbing photo ops.
Anti abortion people use pictures of aborted fetuses in their campaigns as well, it is a common tactic on every side so what's your complaint?

Did Reagan or Bush? Nice how you change the discussion from the president to street protesters.

So you agree we are at war?

With radical Islam, or at least they have declared war on us.

According to you we are at war any war allows the president to suspend the constitution and even declare martial law if he sees the need. If you want to be at a state of constant war then you have to realize the president can do these things and nothing in the constitution is guaranteed.

Amazing, has Obama claimed he wants to restrict guns due to radical Islam? I'm getting dizzy watching you move the goalposts.

You are getting closer, you have identified one individuals injuries but fall short in that it yet again only says benefits will not be received.

Thank you for conceding my point.

Wouldn't it make sense then for the administration to first determine what category this attack falls into before decrying that something has happened because of this nondetermination?

They early stumbled onto the truth when they correctly called it terror, then backtracked, apparently the PC police got after them.

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:07 pm

Did Reagan or Bush? Nice how you change the discussion from the president to street protesters.

What does it matter who uses the tactic, everyone does it so complaining about one side only doing it is disingenuous.

So you agree we are at war?
With radical Islam, or at least they have declared war on us.

So do you agree we are at war then?

According to you we are at war any war allows the president to suspend the constitution and even declare martial law if he sees the need. If you want to be at a state of constant war then you have to realize the president can do these things and nothing in the constitution is guaranteed.
Amazing, has Obama claimed he wants to restrict guns due to radical Islam? I'm getting dizzy watching you move the goalposts.

Lol can't move goalposts without a goal. You simply stated we are at war and I am merely informing you of what the president during wartime is allowed to do. Obviously you are trying yet again to sidetrack the conversation.

You are getting closer, you have identified one individuals injuries but fall short in that it yet again only says benefits will not be received.
Thank you for conceding my point.

I have done no such thing which your quote mining has conveniently left out. I am still waiting for you to identify exactly what benefits you are claiming are being denied. Why is it so difficult to actually spell out what you claimed in the OP?

Wouldn't it make sense then for the administration to first determine what category this attack falls into before decrying that something has happened because of this nondetermination?
They early stumbled onto the truth when they correctly called it terror, then backtracked, apparently the PC police got after them.

Instead of complaining about how the administration is calling it why not center on what the army is calling it since that is all that actually matters in this issue.

East of Eden · Post by **East of Eden** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:32 pm

Here's an update, the Ft. Hood Killer says his defense will be that he was compelled to kill because deploying US troops posed an imminent danger to Taliban fighters. So how do you get 'workplace violence' out of that?

Perhaps his admission will jar the Obama administration into reality.

They can't execute this creep fast enough.

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:52 am

East of Eden wrote: Here's an update, the Ft. Hood Killer says his defense will be that he was compelled to kill because deploying US troops posed an imminent danger to Taliban fighters. So how do you get 'workplace violence' out of that? Perhaps his admission will jar the Obama administration into reality.

They can't execute this creep fast enough.

As I stated nearly two months ago instead of trying to villify the administration over this issue why not center your attention on what the Army is calling it? After all as you should be well aware of by this time this is purely an army matter and the administration is not taking part in it whatsoever.

I am also still waiting for you to identify the supposed benefits that you say is being denied to the victims of this shooting.

East of Eden · Post by **East of Eden** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 9:16 am

Wyvern wrote:
East of Eden wrote: Here's an update, the Ft. Hood Killer says his defense will be that he was compelled to kill because deploying US troops posed an imminent danger to Taliban fighters. So how do you get 'workplace violence' out of that? Perhaps his admission will jar the Obama administration into reality.

They can't execute this creep fast enough.
As I stated nearly two months ago instead of trying to villify the administration over this issue why not center your attention on what the Army is calling it? After all as you should be well aware of by this time this is purely an army matter and the administration is not taking part in it whatsoever.

Like when Obama forced gays on the military? Your arguments aren't any better now than they were two months ago.

I am also still waiting for you to identify the supposed benefits that you say is being denied to the victims of this shooting.

Sorry, this has already been answered many times. What do you think the vets are upset about?