Should Obama show support by flying to Ft Hood, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 10:41 AM by The_Iron_Disciple

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Bored To Tears
He didn't show respect by attending the return of fallen soldiers. He attended for a photo op. That is why he asked family members if he could be photographed saluting a casket, thankfully only one family agreed.

Well that's one of the reasons he might not go -- because certain members of the public will surely interpret anything he does, from curing cancer to using a biodegradable water bottle, as a Stalinist plot. If he did insist (in Dover) that he not be photographed, you'd probably say that's because he was afraid to reveal his horns and hooves. Duh.

Good post !

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 10:44 AM by vor78

reply to post by whatukno

And you probably could've beaten McCain, too.

Look at the 1964 and 1972 elections...both won roughly 61-38% and by a larger overall vote differential (16 million votes) than the 2008 election (53-46; 9.5 million votes). The 1984 election was won by a 19% margin and 17 million votes, and in 1980, by almost 10% and 10 million votes. Bill Clinton beat Dole, for that matter, by 10% and 8 million votes.

The point is that in US electoral history, the margin of victory was fairly close and certainly not unusual and that political fortunes can change quickly in the US.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by vor78]

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 10:58 AM by whatukno

reply to post by vor78

The point is, does this have anything to do with this thread?

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 11:03 AM by vor78

reply to post by whatukno

Well, let me see. I was explaining to another poster that the reason for the political divide was due to the relative closeness of the election and the divided populace when you jumped in and went all apoplectic about my use of the 1988 election as an example.

All I did was provide more evidence to back up my assertion that this election was relatively close by recent historical standards.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by vor78]

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 11:12 AM by whatukno

reply to post by vor78

Well you got to explain that. C'mon, you got some space to write here, let us know where your going with your argument. This is how misconceptions are started.

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 11:21 AM by nixie_nox

reply to post by vor78

I actually consider that a pretty significant win considering he is the first black president, the size of the fields he was competing against. Despite claiming so, American's don't like change. So to elect a black president by 10 million votes is not bad. Escpecially with the blatant racism and xenophobia that runs through this country.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by nixie_nox]

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 11:23 AM by vor78

reply to post by whatukno

I'm not going anywhere with it. You're reaching for something that isn't there.

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 11:33 AM by vor78

reply to post by nixie_nox

I would tend to agree with that. However, I'm only looking at the empirical vote totals to compare to past elections here and I do not have data to actually back up *how much* of a role racism may have played in the last election. But certainly, it played some.

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 11:45 AM by whatukno

reply to post by vor78

If it isn't there what point were you trying to prove?

In fact what is the relevance of your argument in this thread?

The questions you asked and the poll numbers speak of something, what is it?

The question is, whether or not Obama should go to Texas to meet with the soldiers that were involved in this indecent. What does your argument have to do with that?

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 12:23 PM by vor78

reply to post by whatukno

Read page 3 again. It was not in direct response to the topic of this thread, but to another poster that asked a broad question and I gave my opinion on it.

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 12:44 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

when it was the olympics, even his big healthcare plan was put on hold to fly to europe with the wife to "campaign".

the biggest terrorist event to happen on american soil since 9-11 happens in texas, he doesn't go.

I bet if Ft. Hood was in France he would have been there in a heartbeat.

Given his complete inaction in afghanistan, i am not surprised. our soldiers fall very low on his priority list.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 01:06 PM by dodadoom

I guess if he wants to get lynched he can.....
or 'accidently' executed.....

ah, living in the land of greed, home of the 'fraid.

Gotta love the good ol' boy club for laughs.

And hate.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by dodadoom]

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 01:09 PM by whatukno

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Uh it was a mass shooting. These things happen in this country on an alarmingly regular basis. Why is it just because this guy is Muslim that this is somehow a terrorist action?

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 01:10 PM by whatukno

reply to post by vor78

I did and my question still remains. What's the point of your speculation?

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 01:32 PM by vor78

reply to post by whatukno

Forget it. I think you're arguing for the sake of an argument at this point. The original response to Woodwytch had nothing to do with you and I am not going to further attempt to justify myself to you. If you don't like that, you know where the ignore button is.

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 01:39 PM by whatukno

reply to post by vor78

Why should I ignore you? When you can explain your question. A part of debate is being able to defend your position. I don't care who you posed the question to. It's whether or not you can defend it that is important.

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 01:40 PM by vor78

reply to post by whatukno

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to defend. First, you attacked my example on the '88 election. Ok, fine. I provided more examples. Then, you asked how it related to the conversation. I explained that I was responding to another poster. Well, that didn't satisfy you, either so now, you're accusing me of some 'speculation', and I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. If I attempt to swing at that invisible target, you'll just twist it another way.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by vor78]

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 07:14 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Uh it was a mass shooting. These things happen in this country on an alarmingly regular basis. Why is it just because this guy is Muslim that this is somehow a terrorist action?

He shouted "Allah Akbar" while shooting US Soldiers.

Terrorism has that whole new meaning since 9-11, didn't you know?

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 07:33 PM by whatukno

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

As far as we really know he could have shouted "I am John Jacob Jingle Heimer Shmitz!" before opening fire. All we have is the second hand testimony of one person to that effect. As far as I know there is no audio or video recording of the events that went down in that place.

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 10:48 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

As far as we really know he could have shouted "I am John Jacob Jingle Heimer Shmitz!" before opening fire. All we have is the second hand testimony of one person to that effect. As far as I know there is no audio or video recording of the events that went down in that place.

I am unsure where you hail from. In the US, we require a burden of proof to pass a "reasonable doubt", not a "shadow of a doubt". The eyewitness testimony, until refuted, stands as adequate to draw a preliminary opinion from.