President Obama snubs Medal of Honor recipients

[VerbumReale]

For 56 years (and nine presidents) various veterans groups, including the American Legion and Paralyzed Veterans of America, have sponsored an inaugural ball as a way of welcoming the new president, and giving him a chance to express his gratitude toward the Medal of Honor recipients. Though not one of the "official" balls, for 56 years every president has made sure to attend. That ended this week when our new president, the voice of hope, the man who is going to bring change we cand believe in snubbed our veterans.

Apparently it was more important to him to party with Kanye West at the MTV ball.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-s...or-recipients/

[HumanityisSaved]

not surprised, very dissappointed but not surprised.

[YankeeGomer]

Well...you know, it IS change....not a good one though

[Aussie3rddayfan]

This “change” appears to have set the tone for the rest of his administration. To forgo a tradition of greeting the veterans who’ve received the highest honor in order to attend galas featuring Hollywood elites was just a bit too much to bear.

Absurd. People's ridiculous and prejudicial comments will never cease to amaze me.

[VerbumReale]

Originally Posted by Aussie3rddayfan

Absurd. People's ridiculous and prejudicial comments will never cease to amaze me.

What's prejudicial?? Within 2 days he has snubbed an inaugural ball for Medal of honor recipients that, since it's inception, no president has ever missed. All they are doing is questioning the tone such actions set. And indeed what was one of his first acts??? To close Gitmo, without giving any indication as to where the current detainees are going to go, and without any serious advisement with military officials.

What amazes me is how for eight years we have had to listen to the media criticize every one of W's actions and yet as soon as someone dare to call into question something that the almighty Obama does then they are being prejudicial.

[HumanityisSaved]

Originally Posted by VerbumReale

What's prejudicial?? Within 2 days he has snubbed an inaugural ball for Medal of honor recipients that, since it's inception, no president has ever missed. All they are doing is questioning the tone such actions set. And indeed what was one of his first acts??? To close Gitmo, without giving any indication as to where the current detainees are going to go, and without any serious advisement with military officials.

What amazes me is how for eight years we have had to listen to the media criticize every one of W's actions and yet as soon as someone dare to call into question something that the almighty Obama does then they are being prejudicial.

AMEN! I loathe the double standard. When President George Walker Bush left office on inauguration day some chanted hateful things at him. When it was reported on the media said for Bush supporters who objected to the rude crass behavior to "stop whining".

Now President Barrack Hussein Obama is already raising eyebrows and the media is already covering up for him.

[Aussie3rddayfan]

Originally Posted by VerbumReale

What's prejudicial?? Within 2 days he has snubbed an inaugural ball for Medal of honor recipients that, since it's inception, no president has ever missed. All they are doing is questioning the tone such actions set. And indeed what was one of his first acts??? To close Gitmo, without giving any indication as to where the current detainees are going to go, and without any serious advisement with military officials.

What amazes me is how for eight years we have had to listen to the media criticize every one of W's actions and yet as soon as someone dare to call into question something that the almighty Obama does then they are being prejudicial.

Apparently one bad choice in the writers mind has now coloured everything Obama could possibly do for the next four years. Read the comment again:

This “change” appears to have set the tone for the rest of his administration.

He's been in office four days and already the author has concluded doom and gloom. Turn it up. People will whinge about anything these days.

[VerbumReale]

Originally Posted by Aussie3rddayfan

Apparently one bad choice in the writers mind has now coloured everything Obama could possibly do for the next four years. Read the comment again:



He's been in office four days and already the author has concluded doom and gloom. Turn it up. People will whinge about anything these days.

Oh I think you are the one who needs to read more rather than referencing one sentence out of context. Here is the sentence in it's full context.


The new president’s perceived “slights” against the military have made veterans and military members quite sensitive to how President Obama treats them. From calling for a pullout from Iraq during the campaign to forgoing a visit to injured GWOT vets in Germany, we have kept an eye on his every move and decision with regards to our nation’s finest. This “change” appears to have set the tone for the rest of his administration. To forgo a tradition of greeting the veterans who’ve received the highest honor in order to attend galas featuring Hollywood elites was just a bit too much to bear.

Even in his inaugural address to the nation, he mentioned the sacrifices of veterans of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, but failed to mention (or deliberately ignored) the veterans of our current sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. That gives more credence to the feeling that he just no longer cares about the sacrifices being made on behalf of our country and the service that so many Americans have made over the years.


Clearly this was not a prejudical statement. Clearly there is valid concern being expressed. It is a concern based not on an isolated incident, as you so glibly suggest, but on an already established pattern. But even still, the author is not assuming anything. The author says "it appears.." It doesn't say, "will definitely" it says "..it appears." With no established precedent such a comment might have been jumping to conclusions, but in it's full context we see it is warranted, but still not assuming anything.

But mark my words. I stand by my assertion. For at least the next four years, anyone who dares to criticize "the one" will be labeled divisive and treasonous by the same liberals who daily raked former Pres. Bush over the coals for the last eight years.

[phil_ur_friend]

Originally Posted by VerbumReale

But mark my words. I stand by my assertion. For at least the next four years, anyone who dares to criticize "the one" will be labeled divisive and treasonous by the same liberals who daily raked former Pres. Bush over the coals for the last eight years.

I believe that as a true statement.

Unfortunately, this will probably be the case...

Phil, your friend

[Aussie3rddayfan]

Originally Posted by VerbumReale

Oh I think you are the one who needs to read more rather than referencing one sentence out of context. Here is the sentence in it's full context.


The new president’s perceived “slights” against the military have made veterans and military members quite sensitive to how President Obama treats them. From calling for a pullout from Iraq during the campaign to forgoing a visit to injured GWOT vets in Germany, we have kept an eye on his every move and decision with regards to our nation’s finest. This “change” appears to have set the tone for the rest of his administration. To forgo a tradition of greeting the veterans who’ve received the highest honor in order to attend galas featuring Hollywood elites was just a bit too much to bear.

Even in his inaugural address to the nation, he mentioned the sacrifices of veterans of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, but failed to mention (or deliberately ignored) the veterans of our current sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. That gives more credence to the feeling that he just no longer cares about the sacrifices being made on behalf of our country and the service that so many Americans have made over the years.


Clearly this was not a prejudical statement. Clearly there is valid concern being expressed. It is a concern based not on an isolated incident, as you so glibly suggest, but on an already established pattern. But even still, the author is not assuming anything. The author says "it appears.." It doesn't say, "will definitely" it says "..it appears." With no established precedent such a comment might have been jumping to conclusions, but in it's full context we see it is warranted, but still not assuming anything.

There could be many reasons that President Obama did not make these visits. The comments above are made are from less than a handful of incidents, and, to me at least, it seems that these people see little hope things will change. That strikes me as a jumping the gun a bit.

But mark my words. I stand by my assertion. For at least the next four years, anyone who dares to criticize "the one" will be labeled divisive and treasonous by the same liberals who daily raked former Pres. Bush over the coals for the last eight years.

It is natural for people to be drawn to someone like Obama at a time like this. America's economy is in dire straights and everyone is glad Bush is gone. America needs someone who can unite them at the moment. He is the right person at the right time. Some might see him as "the one" but there will most certainly be plenty of critics ready to throw darts at Obama's optimistic balloon if things start going wrong. A similar thing is happening in Auz right now. Many, many people couldn't see John Howard and the Liberal party get booted out fast enough. And so they naturally gravitated towards Kevin-O-Seven Rudd. Now the honeymoon's over; and the criticism is starting to fly left, right and centre. I imagine it will be much the same in the US...

[Sam!]

Originally Posted by VerbumReale

But mark my words. I stand by my assertion. For at least the next four years, anyone who dares to criticize "the one" will be labeled divisive and treasonous by the same liberals who daily raked former Pres. Bush over the coals for the last eight years.

Probably true. BUT, liberals who criticized George W. Bush were labeled "divisive" and "treasonous" by conservatives who raked Clinton over the coals for eight years.

[VerbumReale]

Originally Posted by Aussie3rddayfan

It is natural for people to be drawn to someone like Obama at a time like this. America's economy is in dire straights and everyone is glad Bush is gone. America needs someone who can unite them at the moment. He is the right person at the right time. Some might see him as "the one" but there will most certainly be plenty of critics ready to throw darts at Obama's optimistic balloon if things start going wrong. A similar thing is happening in Auz right now. Many, many people couldn't see John Howard and the Liberal party get booted out fast enough. And so they naturally gravitated towards Kevin-O-Seven Rudd. Now the honeymoon's over; and the criticism is starting to fly left, right and centre. I imagine it will be much the same in the US...

Well, not all Americans are blaming all of our problems on former Pres Bush. Some of us are honest enough to admit that we all had a hand in this. And how do we know Pres Obama is the right person at the right time?? We know hardly anything about him. We know he is a talented and charismatic speaker (providing the teleprompter is working). We know he was the only pres candidate ever endorsed by NARAL. And we know had a lot of catchy slogans like "Change we can believe in." We know he was rated the most liberal senator in the US senate. But in terms of what kind of change he wants to bring, we know very little.

When you refer to anyone who dares to ask questions about Pres Obama as "trying to throw darts at Obama's optimistic baloon" you just prove my point. And this is not about defending Bush. I recognize the mistakes of the previous administration, but again like I said, we all had a hand in this. But what's done is done, I don't see the point in continuing to condemn a man who is no longer in office.

This is about how it troubles me that so many people are willing to see the solution to all our problems in a man who offers little more than optimistic rhetoric and catchy slogans. If he does well, I willl praise him. And I pray for him regularly. But the thing is, some of us were looking for more than optimism. Some of us were looking for real solutions, and that just wasn't coming from frankly either of the two candidates from the major political parties. Which is why I didn't vote for either one of them.

[VerbumReale]

Originally Posted by Sam!

Probably true. BUT, liberals who criticized George W. Bush were labeled "divisive" and "treasonous" by conservatives who raked Clinton over the coals for eight years.

True enough, but the proportion of liberals to conservatives in the media is vastly in favor of the liberals. And with most of the conservatives you pretty much know what you're going to get. I don't think Sean Hannity has ever tried to come across as anything but conservative. On the other hand, with the liberal bias it comes not only from the left-wing lunatics like Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow. But you have a clear left-leaning bias in supposed objective journalists like Tom Brokaw who publically wept during the inauguration coverage. Now you will probably say, well that was about the historical significance of the first African-American president. And I am sure that was a part of it. But call me crazy, I have a hard time believing he would have wept if the first African-American president had been JC Watts or Michael Steele.

And there are many other examples of this. I mean Anne Curry practically had venom in her eyes when she interiewed Rick Warren and asked him about his support of prop 8. And of course, Chris Matthews' infamout tingly feeling up his leg every time he sees Pres Obama.

What you're saying is right. I just don't think the parallel is proportionate.

[Sam!]

"But mark my words. I stand by my assertion. For at least the next four years, anyone who dares to criticize "the one" will be labeled divisive and treasonous by the same liberals who daily raked former Pres. Bush over the coals for the last eight years."

"What you're saying is right. I just don't think the parallel is proportionate."

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. If I'm understanding you right, you don't approve of the way that conservatives will be attacked for disagreeing with the president. Either the act is wrong, or it isn't, but it isn't any different than the last 16 years.

If Republicans are unhappy with media coverage, here is an idea: change it! Stop watching. Stop reading it. Produce your own, superior, content.

"I mean Anne Curry practically had venom in her eyes when she interiewed Rick Warren and asked him about his support of prop 8."
You ever seen a conservative ask a liberal about abortion? You think there's no venom in those eyes? You think the borderline hatred doesn't bleed through? That is, if you can find a conservative to talk to a liberal.

"And of course, Chris Matthews' infamout tingly feeling up his leg every time he sees Pres Obama." Right. Conservative media don't get excited around conservative politicians.

[VerbumReale]

Originally Posted by Sam!

"But mark my words. I stand by my assertion. For at least the next four years, anyone who dares to criticize "the one" will be labeled divisive and treasonous by the same liberals who daily raked former Pres. Bush over the coals for the last eight years."

"What you're saying is right. I just don't think the parallel is proportionate."

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. If I'm understanding you right, you don't approve of the way that conservatives will be attacked for disagreeing with the president. Either the act is wrong, or it isn't, but it isn't any different than the last 16 years.

If Republicans are unhappy with media coverage, here is an idea: change it! Stop watching. Stop reading it. Produce your own, superior, content.

"I mean Anne Curry practically had venom in her eyes when she interiewed Rick Warren and asked him about his support of prop 8."
You ever seen a conservative ask a liberal about abortion? You think there's no venom in those eyes? You think the borderline hatred doesn't bleed through? That is, if you can find a conservative to talk to a liberal.

"And of course, Chris Matthews' infamout tingly feeling up his leg every time he sees Pres Obama." Right. Conservative media don't get excited around conservative politicians.

You're missing my point completely. And frankly I really don't understand why you are getting so upset, because I essentially agree with you. All I am saying is that when you stray from the fringes (fox news on the right and MessNBC on the left) and go to what is theoretically be more truly "objective" jornalism you are more likely to find a left-leaning bias, even if it is subtle.

Of course there is going to be venom in the eyes of a conservative asking a liberal about abortion. With Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh I would expect nothing else. They are conservatives and they are not ahamed to tell anyone. On the flipside if Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow or Randi Rhodes were interviewing a conservative about prop 8, I would expect venom in their eyes because they are liberals and they are very open about that and that is what you expect them to be.

But they are not so much journalists as they are commentators, and you expect them to have biases. Do their biases often leas to double-standards?? Yeah of course. But I tend to give them (whether liberal or conservative) some leeway with that because with them you expect subjective bias. They are more like the tv equivalent of reading a column as opposed to reading the front page of newspaper.

But Anne Curry is supposed to be part of the mainstream objective media. She is not expected to have either a liberal or conservative bias. She is simply expected to report the facts, ask the tough questions during an interview but refraining from showing a clear emotional bias. And she failed miserably at that when she interviewed Rick Warren.

Look, of course it is not nearly as over the top in the mainstream but it is there. Most of the time it's fine. Most of the time I can stomach it. But, among what is supposed to be the mainstream objective media there is liberal bias, even if it is sometimes subtle. Although I thnk sometimes it's not so subtle.

You say if Republicans are unhappy with the media; change it or don't watch it. First of all I am not a Republican. Second, I agree. And why do you assume that I don't do something or stop watching when iI see it? I mean I'll be honest for the most part I either just live with it, because frankly I have more important things to worry about, or I change the channel. But if there is something that really bugs me then I might send an e-mail or something, which probably doesn't even get read. But it's something.

But regardless. Does the fact that my #1 priority in life isn't doing away with the liberal bias that I see in the media, mean that I shoudn't be able to point it out or even complain about it?? I don't think so, and I am sorry if you disagree. Of course, just as I don't have to watch biased media coverage, you don't have to read my posts.