I know, I posted it for contrast...but thanks for splainin it to me

 

Gotcha.

It's a matter of policy. From what I've read there is nothing that says it is to be lowered due to the death of an active military person.

 

Navy Yard/Fort Hood involved deaths to civilians.

 

So if that's the policy a)why are we upset that it wasn't done for this case and b)why did the POTUS go against policy?

 

If you are saying these Marines/Seaman should have it what do you say to the families of the almost 7,000 that have died serving in Iraq and Afghanistan? I've never once heard crying about the lack of half staff for those folks.

Were the 7000 killed in American soil by a terrorist act?

Flag was at half mast for Benghazi which was a terrorist act on American Soil as all embassy's are actually on that nations soil etc.

 

so again, this should have been done a week ago.

Were the 7000 killed in American soil by a terrorist act?

Flag was at half mast for Benghazi which was a terrorist act on American Soil as all embassy's are actually on that nations soil etc.

 

so again, this should have been done a week ago.

 

I don't know of any time the flag has been half staff for military personnel only.

 

The fact that it's on US soil should not be a factor. That would be a tough one to explain to the 7,000 families who lost loved ones in the desert.

I don't know of any time the flag has been half staff for military personnel only.

 

The fact that it's on US soil should not be a factor. That would be a tough one to explain to the 7,000 families who lost loved ones in the desert.

 

The ones over here are more important than the ones over there?

Let's just keep it at half-staff all of the time.

I don't know of any time the flag has been half staff for military personnel only.

 

The fact that it's on US soil should not be a factor. That would be a tough one to explain to the 7,000 families who lost loved ones in the desert.

The fact it was only military personnel Shouldn't matter either then now should it?

 

It was a domestic terroristic attack period and 5 innocent people, no matter if they were in the military or not shouldn't matter one bit.

 

Last I checked, Tennessee isn't a battleground.

 

So if you think that it should be the same for every military person who died AT WAR. The. Can you explain this then...

 

Obama has ordered the flag to be flown at half mast even when there were no military personnel killed such as CT or Boston etc. so could you explain why it wasn't flown half mast for every single American who has ever been murdered?

 

The 7000 servicemen you talk about, what about the millions who have been murdered?

The fact it was only military personnel Shouldn't matter either then now should it?

 

It was a domestic terroristic attack period and 5 innocent people, no matter if they were in the military or not shouldn't matter one bit.

 

Last I checked, Tennessee isn't a battleground.

 

So if you think that it should be the same for every military person who died AT WAR. The. Can you explain this then...

 

Obama has ordered the flag to be flown at half mast even when there were no military personnel killed such as CT or Boston etc. so could you explain why it wasn't flown half mast for every single American who has ever been murdered?

 

The 7000 servicemen you talk about, what about the millions who have been murdered?

 

1. You say it shouldn't matter but the history says it does and the code says it does. Again, you now have precedent for active military receiving this honor and now will have to answer to every family member of a fallen solider.

 

2. The flag would be at half staff every day if it was for everyone murdered.

 

You are ignoring precedence and the purpose of the concept per the Flag policy.

 

IMO the President made a mistake here.

 

You cannot let emotions drive decisions. He and others made the same mistake with the confederate flag issue. They tied it to a murder which, in reality, had nothing to do with a flag. They essentially trivialized the deaths and turned it into a political hot potato.

 

Nothing changed by the murders. Why use that incident? Emotions. Never good.

1. You say it shouldn't matter but the history says it does and the code says it does. Again, you now have precedent for active military receiving this honor and now will have to answer to every family member of a fallen solider.

 

2. The flag would be at half staff every day if it was for everyone murdered.

 

You are ignoring precedence and the purpose of the concept per the Flag policy.

 

IMO the President made a mistake here.

 

You cannot let emotions drive decisions. He and others made the same mistake with the confederate flag issue. They tied it to a murder which, in reality, had nothing to do with a flag. They essentially trivialized the deaths and turned it into a political hot potato.

 

Nothing changed by the murders. Why use that incident? Emotions. Never good.

I agree with you with the confederate flag. I don't however think it was a mistake to fly flags at half staff for the 4 marines and 1 sailor who died. I don't understand the whole "Flag shouldn't be flown at half mast for only military personnel". It makes no sense to me.

 

If you look at when the flag is flown at half mast the majority of the time it is flown to show respect for someone or a group of people that have served this nation in a key role or part of an incident that is part of national security and its defense.

 

Pearl Harbor

9/11

Police memorial

Firefighters memorial

Memorial day

Boston Marathon bombings

CT shootings

Abraham Lincoln

Patriot Day

just to name a few.

 

The TN incident sure fits right into several other incidents that the flag was flown at half mast. That is why I don't follow you in the military only thing.

 

you are correct though in one of Obama's biggest faults and something he has done since day 1 and that is he lets his emotions drive his decisions too often. Starting with the Boston Professor and beer summit, to Trayvon Martin, to Ferguson etc. we could

go on and on with every time he has done that and that is a bad tendency he has.

You are either being obstinate or you do not understand causality.

Not being obstinate at all, simply pointing out the argument you used is weak.

 

If you are correlating more guns being manufactured to the reason of more violent crimes then how do you explain the fact that there are stricter gun laws in many areas yet the violent crimes are among the highest in the country in some of those areas?

 

That at isnwhy I made the post about guns being an object not a person. The saying hilds true, Guns don't kill people, people

kill people.

Not being obstinate at all, simply pointing out the argument you used is weak.

 

If you are correlating more guns being manufactured to the reason of more violent crimes then how do you explain the fact that there are stricter gun laws in many areas yet the violent crimes are among the highest in the country in some of those areas?

 

That at isnwhy I made the post about guns being an object not a person. The saying hilds true, Guns don't kill people, people

kill people.

 

Not weak at all if you understand correlation vs causality. More guns being sold and more attacks on US military bases is a correlation - just like more attacks and President Obama's tenure. Neither, though, show causality. You have now shown one thing that shows causality.