January 13, 201115 yr I would say that the attempted assassination of a congresswoman doing her job and the death of a federal judge is worthy of a presidential eulogy. I really wish we could all be less partisan about this. On your first point, agreed. Perhaps in the mind of some, a successful assassination would have been worthy. On your second point, agreed once again. All I can add is good luck.
January 13, 201115 yr I would say that the attempted assassination of a congresswoman doing her job and the death of a federal judge is worthy of a presidential eulogy. I really wish we could all be less partisan about this. Mr. Obama did a good job apparently in a tough setting. And he did stay above the fray of the whole "whose fault" issue.
January 13, 201115 yr The extreme left specifically cited Ms. Gillfords as someone to be dealt with. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568 As for today, I am still trying figure out why this rose to the level of a Presidential eulogy. This was not an attack on our military by an Islamic terrorist as in Ft. Hood. It was not the loss a Space Shuttle crew. It was not 9/11. It was an act of senseless violence by an unstable individual. This just does not seem to rise to a level worthy of Presidential focus at this level. So do you figure that LBJ had nothing to say at the assassinations of MLK or RFK? I'm pretty sure that even Nixon spoke out concerning George Wallace's shooting in the '72 campaign. Didn't JFK address the nation concerning the 3 Civil Rights workers in Mississippi? :walk:
January 13, 201115 yr I think our culture has been progressively torn from the spiritual foundations and morals upon which it was founded. I think there are plenty of places one could attribute blame. We are innundated with images of unspeakable violence and an increasing indifference for the sanctity of life. Our so called leaders appear to have forgotten how to genuinely lead, and seem more preoccupied with power and personal gain. To put it very simply, there is plenty of blame to go around. It serves no purpose whatsoever to inflame passions by pointing fingers at others one may disagree with, without evidence at all, only to do what you say you're against others doing. (I speak not of you personally, but those in office and the media. ) I hear where you are coming from. However is this anything new? We have been down this road before. From 1963 to 1968, deranged people were responsible for extreme violence in the midst of political rancor. Disputes were settled with the assassinations of Medger Evers (NAACP President), John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy. (I didn't mention Malcom X but that was inward Religous/political dispute) Even though it happened in my lifetime, these events were almost 50 years ago. From 1865 to 1901 (36 years) this country settled presidential hatred three times with assassin's bullets. Attempts were made on Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and Truman in the first 50 years of the 20th century. I guess my point is that, historically speaking, this is nothing new. We just haven't experienced it that much since 1981 (Reagan).
January 13, 201115 yr Mr. Obama did a good job apparently in a tough setting. And he did stay above the fray of the whole "whose fault" issue. Agreed. And for what it's worth, I was a bit put off by the "rally" atmosphere. I watched the President's speech on MSNBC early this morning and had a hard time getting used to the cheers and standing Os. Then I switched over to Fox News and saw all the stuff that went on before the President's speech, which put the entire program in more context.
January 13, 201115 yr I would say that the attempted assassination of a congresswoman doing her job and the death of a federal judge is worthy of a presidential eulogy. I really wish we could all be less partisan about this. I agree. It was worthy and was appropriate.
January 13, 201115 yr Agreed. And for what it's worth, I was a bit put off by the "rally" atmosphere. I watched the President's speech on MSNBC early this morning and had a hard time getting used to the cheers and standing Os. Then I switched over to Fox News and saw all the stuff that went on before the President's speech, which put the entire program in more context. 1) I agree about the cheers and the more of a politial rally type of atmosphere. 2) and I had to sit down to type this next sentence. Are you saying that the Fox view of the speech put Obama in a better light than the MSNBC presentation of the speech?:D:D:p:p:p
January 13, 201115 yr 1) I agree about the cheers and the more of a politial rally type of atmosphere. 2) and I had to sit down to type this next sentence. Are you saying that the Fox view of the speech put Obama in a better light than the MSNBC presentation of the speech?:D:D:p:p:p That would be a red-letter day. :lol: No, when I turned on MSNBC at the top of the hour (I think it was 2:00 AM), they simply replayed President Obama's portion of the program. When I went over to Fox News (I think at 3:00 AM), they showed all of the preliminary portion of the program - the Indian professor and his blessing, the University President, the Governor, the Homeland Security Director, two students (one was Daniel Hernandez), etc. That "made sense" of the rally-like atmosphere of the President's speech. Had I seen the two programs in reverse order, I wouldn't have been surprised at the standing ovations, etc. during the President's portion of the program.
January 13, 201115 yr That would be a red-letter day. :lol: No, when I turned on MSNBC at the top of the hour (I think it was 2:00 AM), they simply replayed President Obama's portion of the program. When I went over to Fox News (I think at 3:00 AM), they showed all of the preliminary portion of the program - the Indian professor and his blessing, the University President, the Governor, the Homeland Security Director, two students (one was Daniel Hernandez), etc. That "made sense" of the rally-like atmosphere of the President's speech. Had I seen the two programs in reverse order, I wouldn't have been surprised at the standing ovations, etc. during the President's portion of the program. When do you sleep? :lol::lol:
January 13, 201115 yr I guess my point is that, historically speaking, this is nothing new. We just haven't experienced it that much since 1981 (Reagan).Very true and the media and talking heads really seem to have no clue how to handle it. I don't recall all the finger pointing when Reagan was shot unless I've just forgotten about it.
January 13, 201115 yr It was a sarcastic summation of the dismissive post of most on here about the topic. I was frustrated that people on this thread were seemingly not coming to the conclusion of your second post I quoted which I'm in 100% agreement with.I'm sorry, I'm just not buying that. I read through the first page again, it looked like you were flat out pointing fingers at the right. If not, you can certainly see why I and others feel like you were.
January 13, 201115 yr Author Update - TUCSON, Ariz. — U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has passed a "major milestone" on her recovery from a gunshot wound to the head, doctors said Thursday. The Arizona congresswoman has been sitting up, dangling her legs on the edge of the hospital bed and moving her limbs in response to commands. That's after she spontaneously opened her eyes during visits with her colleagues Wednesday night. She is able to lift both of her legs on command and is yawning and starting to rub her eyes, doctors said. Giffords remains critical and four patients are in fair condition. One patient was being discharged Thursday. "Everybody is making fantastic progress forward," Rhee said. Giffords' neurosurgeon, Dr. Michael Lemole, said after five days of pushing for caution, "We're wise to acknowledge miracles." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018273/ns/health-health_care
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.