Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Liberties endangered

June 15, 2013

Where is all the hue and cry from liberal Democrats about all the billing and maiming with knives? Will they try to only allow a knife with blades or take away all the knives? I suppose they think......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(46)

CMReeder

Jun-16-13 7:18 AM

I see Bobbie is still scumming along.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Jun-16-13 2:50 AM

MrShaman - 10:24 AM

"That's what Porky Limbaugh said, huh??"

Sham's usual drivel followed by factual info from Youtube!!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Jun-15-13 7:13 PM

For all the fathers out there, I want to wish you a wonderful Father's Day.

I am sure that there are a variety of ways in which you like to celebrate, maybe it is going out to eat, going in to eat, spending time with children, taking a nap, going fishing, watching a baseball game, playing in the poison ivy, taking a nice drive, dueling on the S/G LTE's or maybe you have to work. Whatever it may be that you are doing on Sunday, I wish that you enjoy your entire day.

Wives, give them a little room and quiet is probably better, not always!!

For those that aren't fathers yet, maybe you will take time and change that tomorrow.

Signing off!

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-15-13 3:31 PM

And I stated my position based on the sacred texts of Harry Potter. I'm sorry you aren't more Potterful so you could understand.

See how silly you sound?

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jun-15-13 3:05 PM

Hayes,

I clarified my position, which is Biblical in my earlier post. I'm sorry that you do not have the spiritual ability to discern my commentary.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-15-13 3:02 PM

" this person..who came from nowhere into the spotlight"

Oh yeah, came from nowhere. A political activist, then a State Senator, then an amazing convention speech, then a US Senator, then President.

There is nothing "sudden" or unlikely about the Presidents trajectory.

Might I remind you that the ONLY elected office the guy you supported EVER held in his life, was one term as Gov of MA. A state he list by over 20 points because he's so des***** in the only state he ever held office in.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-15-13 2:57 PM

" My God, who is Sovereign, provides for free will, along with His Sovereign will. Regardless of how Obama became president this term, my God did not pick him"

Then why did you say before the election that your deity would select the winner.

And isn't your whole answer something. When someone dies, christians run around professing "the lord called him home." When there's a terrorist attack, or a natural disaster, its because "the lord is punishing us." In hard times "the lord will provide." But when you lose an election for that you said your deity was going to decide, all of a sudden he/she has a hands off policy?

Well theres nothing crazy about that is there?

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jun-15-13 2:15 PM

For further clarification, as opposed to twisting a truth,

"established" and "hand picked" are two different thoughts. Yours is one and God's is another.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jun-15-13 1:57 PM

My God, who is Sovereign, provides for free will, along with His Sovereign will. Regardless of how Obama became president this term, my God did not pick him, but allowed it to happen. Because you are not saved, you won't understand that concept, but perhaps you will quit asking the same question over and over again.

It is that simple for us as believers. That does not mean we like it, it just means He has allowed it, because....."There is no authority (NONE) under heaven that God has not established."

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jun-15-13 1:53 PM

From day one, and the announcement of Hussein Obama came from under the rock of politics, nothing has been explained/justified/within Constitutional limits/or otherwise been TRANSPARENT about this person..who came from nowhere into the spotlight of the media's insatiable appetite for sensationalism. This individual filled that cup til running over and he's done it with lies, deceit and blood on his hands.

Hayes, this comment is for you. It will never be addressed again by my part, but you've pinned the question so frequently to this forum and because I believe it to be germane to this topic, I'll answer your question. cont.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-15-13 12:53 PM

" there's no reason the administration could not have changed the classification of this incident."

And they still may. The President is a smart guy, but maybe he, like me, has a hard time wrapping his mind around why what was in the shooters head would effect the benefits the victims get.

Either way, it sounds like bad policy to me, and it should be changed to favor not this this set of set of soldiers, but all soldiers injured while "in the job" as it were. Wether it be a training accident, terrorist attack, or some whack job shooting at a recruiting station, they should all get the best imaginable care on Uncle Sam's tab.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GysgtUSMC

Jun-15-13 12:43 PM

CHayes: To me it really doesn't matter what you call it. The military personnel wounded in the Ft Hood attack should be taken care of. They shouldn't receive less care than someone who's back or neck was broken in a training accident, and they were left paralyzed.

To this I agree. But the fact of the matter is, the Secretary of Defense knows the regulations and in view of all the evidence uncovered about this incident and all the ties to jihad extremists, there's no reason the administration could not have changed the classification of this incident.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-15-13 12:32 PM

And do I need to mention that this week it was revealed that nobody was told to "stand down", and in fact what happened, was a handful of special forces operators were told to stay in Tripoli, because there was a medic with them, and wounded Americans were on route by air. Had they left Tripoli, the planes would have passed in the air.

What's strange to me, is that there simply doesn't seem to be a far out conspiracy theory the right won't bite on. If they feel it impugns the President in any way its on. You should try and understand that a group of people that ALWAYS behave like this, can be made to look stupid, REALLY easily. There's your next conspiracy theory.

0 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-15-13 12:22 PM

And while we're at it, who really cares that an hours and even days after the attack, that the White House didn't know EXACTLY who attacked the mission or EXACTLY why? Unless you're into some sort of crazy conspiracy theory, why would that be a problem?

Maybe because the President is a "secret muslim" that's trying to cover for his muslim brothers? Or is it Luke Relene says, that he "orchestrated the attack"? Six of one, half dozen of another.

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-15-13 12:04 PM

The quote that you posted Ritty seems to indicate that the President isn't "pushing" any idea other than they didn't know exactly what happened yet, or who carried out the attack or why definitively.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-15-13 11:59 AM

" Further, if Obama believed and stated it was an act of terror, why push the "spontaneous reaction to an offensive video" lie for the next two weeks?"

Maybe because it wasn't a lie? Ever hear of a guy named Zawahiri? The head of al Qaeda. In a video released shortly before the attack, he named the video in question as a new reason to attack Americans, among other things.

And forgive me for pointing out that:

'Well it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.'"

doesn't really sound like "pushing an idea" to me. Again, did you actually read that quote before posting it? It seems to contradict everything you're saying.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-15-13 11:52 AM

" Combat related injuries versus non combat related injuries are treated much differently regarding benefits."

Yeah, and that's what I'm saying I don't really understand. Its my guess that the military doesn't want to call them "combat related injuries" because they don't want to open up the door to a bunch of people yelling "what about me", and I'm ok with that. What I'm not ok with is the victims of the attack not getting the care they deserve.

To me it really doesn't matter what you call it. The military personnel wounded in the Ft Hood attack should be taken care of. They shouldn't receive less care than someone who's back or neck was broken in a training accident, and they were left paralyzed.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Jun-15-13 11:22 AM

Wouldn't he have corrected Steve Kroft and said that he in fact HAD called it terrorism and then used the word again? Nope, instead he did not correct Kroft, and gave an evasive answer not knowing who did it rather than what word should be used to describe the attack, like Kroft asked.

Further, if Obama believed and stated it was an act of terror, why push the "spontaneous reaction to an offensive video" lie for the next two weeks?

Conveniently, CBS omitted this part of the interview until the night before the election, even after Candy Crowley defended Obama (wrongly and falsely) in the debate.

Lies are necessarily required to defend a liar and the koolaid crowd doesn't skip a beat.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GysgtUSMC

Jun-15-13 11:19 AM

Combat related injuries versus non combat related injuries are treated much differently regarding benefits. Especially if you are no longer active duty or forced out because of the injury. These soldiers were all preparing to deploy to war before this "terrorist" mowed them down to prevent them from deploying. What is the difference in that or attacking a vessel that is transporting troops over to war? In my personal opinion there is no difference and the reason the defense secretary is hesitant to label it as such is to protect this scum bag's rights during his court martial, which he has successfully delayed for four years while drawing full medical pay and benefits to include better medical benefits than his victims. He is a terrorist and an enemy combatant and they should have thrown the scum in Gitmo to rot.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-15-13 11:08 AM

Hi Gysgt. I guess I'm not clear on why soldiers, on a military base could be shot by a coworker, and the coworkers motivation would have any influence on the benefits they receive.

If after what happened, they can't return to work, it certainly shouldn't be treated the same as if say they injured their back while playing fribee on vacation, on a beach in Cancun.

Perhaps the problem isn't so much with one or two people, but the way the military handles service related injuries.

I know about 10 years ago there was a controversy when the Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee tried to reclassify vets as being only people that served overseas in a forward area. Pretty sure that failed. This sounds like more of the same.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-15-13 10:57 AM

" Obama: 'Well it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.'" — 9/12/12"

And when the President said the words "what group was involved", did you think he was talking about a bowling team? A knitting circle? A bacon cooking club?

Tell the truth, did you read that quote before you posted it?

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Jun-15-13 10:42 AM

"'No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation...' President Obama 10:43AM 9/12/12 (the day after the attack)" —chayes

"Steve Kroft: 'Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack. Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?'

Obama: 'Well it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.'" — 9/12/12 (the night after the attack)

Liars: The more, the merrier.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GysgtUSMC

Jun-15-13 10:37 AM

From the AP: "Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day, said his injuries prevented him from continuing to serve. But he won't receive the same benefits as those severely wounded on the battlefield because an Army medical evaluation board didn't deem his injuries to be combat-related, he said."

They do not want to classify it as a terrorist attack in fear it may cause unjust influence during this terrorist's court martial.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GysgtUSMC

Jun-15-13 10:29 AM

Chases: Did the President call it "workplace violence", or is that how the military classified it? I ask this, because just a couple weeks ago, the President mentioned the attack, and said the perpetrator was "inspired by violent jihad".

From the AP: While several government reports have described the rampage as an act of terrorism, soldiers and their relatives say the only way Fort Hood victims and their families will get the same benefits as troops killed or injured in combat is if the defense secretary specifically designates the shooting a "terrorist attack."

I would think that the President would have some authority over his Defense Secretary.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jun-15-13 10:24 AM

"IOW, Obama is directly responsible for gas prices, but he had nothing to do with giving the orders that got bin Laden shot twice in the face..." - CHayes

*

That's what Porky Limbaugh said, huh??

*

See:

CIA Chief Panetta: Obama Made 'Gutsy' Decision on Bin Laden Raid (YouTube)

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 46 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web