U.S. Army Major General Harold Greene Laid to Rest

[bahodeme]

It is possible (though unlikely) that he was asked not to attend? This has happened to other Presidents in the past where the family felt his presence would upstage their loved one.

 

[sean miguel]

And I'd like to add that your remark about me thinking Obama "walks on water" is clever, untrue, but clever and logically consistent for people that constantly try to paint him as the anti-Christ. Instead of accusing me of thinking Obama walks on water you perhaps would do better for yourself to stop painting him red.

I think the anti-Christ claim wore off pretty quick. AC would be far more competent and at this point have higher poll numbers.

 

[xfire]

I think the anti-Christ claim wore off pretty quick. AC would be far more competent and at this point have higher poll numbers.

Well, that's a relief, and seeing how his numbers and competency eclipse his predecessor anyone making similar claims about Bush were just flat out wrong, too, innit.

 

[pool_hustler]

Interesting.
Up until today I had "heard" from a number of right wing "news" sources that no high ranking officials from the Obama administration had attended Greene's funeral.
As it turns out, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was at the funeral.
Man o man, the right wing misinformation machine never sleeps.

Even if Dear Leader had pulled himself away from the golf course to attend, he would have found a way to make the funeral about himself and not the deceased. It's what he does.

Seems to me you pretty much just confirmed what xfire stated in the post previous to yours; that no matter what he did his critics would have found some way to make it wrong.

 

[pool_hustler]

Interesting.
Up until today I had "heard" from a number of right wing "news" sources that no high ranking officials from the Obama administration had attended Greene's funeral.
As it turns out, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was at the funeral.
Man o man, the right wing misinformation machine never sleeps.

And then this stuff goes viral in the right wing blogosphere, which is notorious for not checking facts.

As just one for instance......

officialteapartyusa.com stated
"Need we remind you that there was no White House representation at the funeral of Major General Greene, the highest ranking officer murdered in Afghanistan?"

 

[xfire]

Even if Dear Leader had pulled himself away from the golf course

I would prefer if Obama stop playing golf, it gives his critics too easy a target. Having said that, I'm sure it bothers you more that Obama's golf handicap is higher than George W. Bush's IQ.

 

[bobjustbob]

Added security for the funeral of a two-star general that wouldn't have been required without the attendance of the president. The same people that whine about him being "wrong" are going to accuse him of being wrong regardless of what he does, it hardly makes me look paranoid to recognize and point out the truth.

Presidents visit schools, retirement homes, disaster areas, and sandwich shops. They get their photo ops and deliver messages. It's part of the President traveling. Security is added for these events and should never be a big deal to anyone, just add it to the bill to protect him. Those that cast him off as Satan are no better that those that make him the messiah. Just because you like someone doesn't make them infallible. But we always see the same reaction when Obama gets criticized, deflect it to Bush. I don't know if you've seen the papers lately but Bush hasn't been President for quite some time. At what point in Obama's presidency will you start to expect accountability? Just listen to yourself. Don't play golf because of the right may say. Don't go to the funeral because of what the right may say. Don't do anything that might be called a photo op. It's like mommy protecting her precious baby from the outside world. Cut the umbilical cord and let the man stand on his own.

 

[xfire]

Just because you like someone doesn't make them infallible.

And I've never claimed Obama was infallible, I wouldn't even say I like him necessarily, I get sick of the hyperbole spewing from the other side.

But we always see the same reaction when Obama gets criticized, deflect it to Bush.

I wonder why that is, perhaps it's because a lot of the shit Obama gets criticized for is the same sort of shit that Bush did without a word of criticism from the same motherfuckers. Hey, that's fair, but don't turn into a pussy when it gets thrown back at you. Taxes are a perfect example. The whole Tea Party bullshit movement began because of "Obama's reckless spending". Newsflash, motherfuckers, Bush had a dismal record for deficit spending and debt building, but not a peep from the same hacks that became the Tea Party. Most of the criticism of Obama is nothing but sour grapes, he handed the GOP their ass in two national elections, too bad, fucking suck it up and deal with it.

I don't know if you've seen the papers lately but Bush hasn't been President for quite some time. At what point in Obama's presidency will you start to expect accountability?

Bush still hasn't taken accountability for his presidency, so why are you holding Obama to a different standard, not that it matters, Obama's record is far better than that of his predecessor, but if you want, point out some things you would like to see Obama "held accountable" for, and we can discuss them.

Just listen to yourself. Don't play golf because of the right may say. Don't go to the funeral because of what the right may say. Don't do anything that might be called a photo op. It's like mommy protecting her precious baby from the outside world. Cut the umbilical cord and let the man stand on his own.

Obama has been standing on his own since his first inauguration, you expect people such as myself to just let the bullshit criticism go unchallenged? Fuck that. I don't respond to all of it because most of it so fucking ridiculous it doesn't merit a response, for instance, Dino and Ace saying Obama is gay. What the fuck is up with that? Or suggesting he's a weak pussy, there's lots of examples of that on the board, which is utterly idiotic, but hey, whatever, I don't respond to that shit. But, I will respond to some bullshit like this thread, then you want to defend Bush never making an appearance at Dover AFB, what the hell is that? Sounds like you're guilty of the same shit you're accusing me of, how about some intellectual honesty and some logical consistency instead of merely parroting far-right bullshit talking points to score some cheap points against Obama on an issue you don't really give a shit about, because I'm fairly certain you would have been bitching either way.

 

[pool_hustler]

But we always see the same reaction when Obama gets criticized, deflect it to Bush. I don't know if you've seen the papers lately but Bush hasn't been President for quite some time. At what point in Obama's presidency will you start to expect accountability?

In some cases that's true. However, most often it's a reaction to the legions of conservatives who actually seem to think Bush's accountability permanently expired on January 21, 2009. That of course is completely delusional. Obama didn't invade Iraq. Obama wasn't the president when the economy tanked in 2008. It's perfectly reasonable to expect accountability from Obama, while also bearing in mind the situation he inherited from the previous administration. That consideration is due every president, since they all inherit issues of varying gravity from their predecessor. And Obama's accountability for what he'll have created will not magically cease on Jan 21, 2017, anymore than Bush's did in 2009.

 

[bobjustbob]

I say that Obama should have been at the funeral and you agreed. But that motherly protection couldn't be held back. You accuse me of calling him a shitty president and looking for photo ops. Where did I say that in this thread? Then you go on to prove my point. 3 out of your 4 answers was Bush. Then rant on about deficit spending and holding Bush accountable and Bush at Dover, the Tea Party and paranoia of what the right might say. This is your typical deflection tactic. You do it all the time.

 

[xfire]

You accuse me of calling him a shitty president and looking for photo ops. Where did I say that in this thread? Then you go on to prove my point. 3 out of your 4 answers was Bush. Then rant on about deficit spending and holding Bush accountable and Bush at Dover, the Tea Party and paranoia of what the right might say. This is your typical deflection tactic. You do it all the time.

You don't have to say it to imply it, again, that's fair, but don't turn into a whiny pussy when it's thrown back at you. I hardly see how it's "motherly protection" to recognize and point out the truth, if you don't want Bush drug into the discussion stop shit talking Obama. It's perfectly valid to point out the hypocrisy and double standards that Obama critics employ, whining about it is their typical deflection tactic and they do it all the time. Perhaps you would prefer criticism of Obama to go unchallenged, but why can't you stand a little scrutiny of that criticism?

 

[bobjustbob]

In some cases that's true. However, most often it's a reaction to the legions of conservatives who actually seem to think Bush's accountability permanently expired on January 21, 2009. That of course is completely delusional. Obama didn't invade Iraq. Obama wasn't the president when the economy tanked in 2008. It's perfectly reasonable to expect accountability from Obama, while also bearing in mind the situation he inherited from the previous administration. That consideration is due every president, since they all inherit issues of varying gravity from their predecessor. And Obama's accountability for what he'll have created will not magically cease on Jan 21, 2017, anymore than Bush's did in 2009.

Nothing says it better than what you just stated. Obama had a ton of shit handed to him in the last few months of his first campaign. Shit that had to be dealt with immediately. Although Bush signed the extended unemployment bill, I'll give Obama credit. There had to be a conversation telling him not to leave him with that shit. I can't imaging what would have taken place after the first of the year had that not happened. Those bad mortgages were a dump too but people got to stay in their houses and that I give him credit for also.

The far left gave him shit for breaking his promise to immediately withdraw from Iraq. This was wrong of them. You don't get all of the detail about the war till you step in office. Eventually he did pull them out. He should have been more firm with the banks. They got their bail outs, paid them back and were making money. The stock market was coming back too but that wasn't enough. People needed jobs and businesses needed money to get them recovered. He should have put his foot up their asses for that.

 

[bobjustbob]

I don't have to say it to imply it. Scrutiny of the criticism. That smells like paranoia to me. Try sticking to the topics and see if you can respond to the criticisms. Deflection and changing the subject doesn't cut it.

 

[xfire]

I don't have to say it to imply it. Scrutiny of the criticism. That smells like paranoia to me. Try sticking to the topics and see if you can respond to the criticisms. Deflection and changing the subject doesn't cut it.

Smells like you're running for cover by calling me paranoid, surely you understand an inductive argument. You expect me to accept criticism without question? The motivations of the critics are always pure, is that your contention? I ignore a lot of the criticisms because they're loads of rubbish, I pointed that out in two separate posts above. "Deflecting and changing the subject" is relevant to the motivations of those being critical and perfectly appropriate within the body of a broader response, if you chose to zero in on one aspect of a response that's poor form on your part, if addressing a response in it's entirety is too much for you then instead of focusing on parts that you find easier to address, try to restrict your argument to those you find relevant to the subject. I assure you, I can go back to the posts you're whining about and extract plenty that you chose to skip over that directly addresses Obama skipping the funeral of Harold Greene, any tangents you decided to chase were your own doing, don't blame me for your lack of focus.

 

[bobjustbob]

I didn't chase your tangents, I called you out on them because you are so transparent. If Obama knocked over a glass of water you'd blame George bush. So if their was no Tea Party, needed security, George Bush, Fox News, Sean Hannity, or any critic of Obama, he would have attended the funeral according to you. I gave you credit for admitting that he should have been there but you took that criticism as personal. You are not the Commander-in-Chief, it wasn't directed at you. I didn't call him un-American, a shitty President, gay, or whatever other things those voices in your head are telling you. Totally irrelevant shit clogging up a conversation. I take back saying you were motherly to him. His mother let him grow up to become president and doesn't find the need to protect him or powder his balls like you do.

 

[xfire]

You don't like that I refuse to accept your blind criticism, and once more, that's fine, but don't be a whiny bitch about it. You're right, I do agree that Obama should have attended the funeral, but he didn't for whatever reason and I'm ok with that, which I addressed in post #15 on the first page, by the way thanks for providing an example of what I mentioned in post #34 about going back and extracting plenty that you chose to ignore.

You may not have called Obama un-American, or a shitty president, etc, but your criticism falls into the same camp as people that do, again, an argument by induction, typical Fox News trolling tactics. My initial post in this thread, post #5 hit the nail on the head, you might not like that, but oh well, that's not powdering the presidents balls, that's merely responding to unreasonable criticism, but I'm sure those of you on the far right will continue to unreasonably bust Obama's balls, it's worked so well for the conservative movement in the last two presidential elections, after all.

 

[bobjustbob]

See if I'm getting this right. We both agree that he should have been there. Your opinion stays out of the wing-nut category but mine gets lumped in. Isn't that a double standard?

 

[xfire]

See if I'm getting this right. We both agree that he should have been there. Your opinion stays out of the wing-nut category but mine gets lumped in. Isn't that a double standard?

No, it's not a double standard. My opinion- "Obama should have attended but he didn't and I'm ok with that." Your opinion- "Obama should have attended". You haven't clarified beyond that you think he should have attended, so here's your opportunity to do so; "Obama should have attended, and..."

 

[bobjustbob]

Obama should have attended because he is the Commander in Chief of one of his Generals was killed in battle.

 

[xfire]

Obama should have attended because he is the Commander in Chief of one of his Generals was killed in battle.

You're right, awesome. Now what?