The Cult of Liberalism

Loading

Religions are largely kept together by the faith of the followers as opposed to proof. Whether it’s Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other religion, it’s not science or empirical evidence that keeps millions or billions of people believing, it’s faith. Indeed, religions are full of claims that our current scientific knowledge would say are impossible, but nonetheless, faith persists. Given horrific events that seem to fly in the face of what one would expect from a compassionate or just God, faith still persists. Believers believe, and they interpret events in their lives and the world in a way that comports with their religion. At the end of the day, religion is about faith, period.

By the above measure, liberalism is a religion. How else would it be possible that in the face of a history of demonstrable failure that there are those who continue to believe? Liberalism, in the form of outright Communism failed miserably everywhere from the Soviet Union to Cuba and a multitude of places in between. Yet the faith remains. Liberalism in the form of socialism has failed miserably across Europe as practically the entire continent is floundering in mounting debt, double digit unemployment and depressingly low growth rates. Yet the faith remains. Liberalism in the form of Democrat party policies have destroyed wide swaths of America’s landscape, from cities like Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia to black families that suffer from unprecedented rates of unemployment, unwed motherhood and tragically high rates of crime. Yet the faith remains.


Add willfully blind faith to presence of an anointed one among us and you get a cult. Which is exactly what liberalism and the virtual worship of Barack Obama has become:

Obamacare: Every day seems to bring new information that only adds to the understanding that Obamacare is a disaster of epic proportions. Yet faith remains.

Economic Growth: Barack Obama’s “recovery” has been the worst since the Great Depression and incomes have fallen over $4,000 per household since he took office. Yet the faith remains.

Welfare: Welfare has become so generous that in 35 states, it’s actually more profitable to sit at home and collect welfare benefits than it is to go out and find a job. In Hawaii the pretax wage equivalent of welfare benefits is $60,590 per year. In Washington DC it’s $50,820 while in Massachusetts it’s $50,540. Those are dollars that have to be paid for by taxes on those working. Yet the faith remains.

Race: In less than 50 years from the day Martin Luther King Jr. spoke on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial the United States elected a black man as president, twice! Yet race relations in the United States are worse than they have been in decades. Yet the faith remains.

On virtually every single empirically measurable measure, from education to economic growth as well as simple observable measures such as regulation and freedom, liberalism has been a failure in general and particularly so under Barack Obama. Yet, despite the fact that the consequences of this failure hurts the very people it’s supposed to help, the faith remains.  

While the 1st Amendment enshrines the notion of freedom of religion, today the United States is being governed by the cult of liberalism, which seems more like a religion than many of the mainstream religions in the world.

It demands subservience to its policies and is willing to use the police power of the state to impose them while nonbelieving infidels must be marginalized. Speak critically of the Messiah and you are a racist. Disagree with gay marriage you’re a homophobe. Suggest that its culture and unwed motherhood that are ravaging black families and again you’re a racist. Advocate for limited government or state’s rights and you’re an extremist. Promote school choice and you don’t care about children. Advocate for lower taxes and you’re greedy. Champion free markets and you’re a selfish capitalist. Question man made global warming and you’re anti-science. Disagree and you must be discredited and vilified.

Liberals often champion a wall of separation between church and state. This may be the one time they might actually be right about something. However it isn’t Christianity that the country needs to be saved from, it’s the secular religion of Liberalism with Barack Obama as its messiah.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
199 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Redteam: #142

The Government should create a medal for those injured in terrorists actions and award it for this kind of circumstance.

I like the idea, and suggest it be named the Fort Hood medal. The congress we have now probably won’t pass it. Maybe the next one will do something for them. I’m done, unless someone comments directly to me.

@Smorgasbord: Oops, I missed the question:

Same here, except you didn’t answer my question whether the soldier who charged the killer and was shot six times in doing so should receive any medals.

Sounds as if he did something very heroic and certainly should be decorated for it. Anyone, especially military persons are entitled to be awarded medals and awards for acts they perform. It sounds as if that one person was especially heroic.

@ilovebeeswarzone: #148

yes but I also heard that some VIETNAM VETERAN DID IT ALSO
SOME TIMES AGO,

I either didn’t know about it, or can’t remember it. I didn’t follow the war too much back then.

@Redteam: #150

And those were some of the milder things that traitor Kerry did at the time.

I don’t believe he did the other things he said he was told to do. While he was in Vietnam, his fellow soldiers said he kept telling them he was going to be the next John Kennedy. Everything he did was to set himself up for his political career. The war was hated by most people, justifiably, and he used it to get elected.

@Redteam:

And no, it was not ‘work place’ violence. It was the act of a US Army soldier committing an act of insanity/terrorism.

Why are we, as a nation, so quick to place the “insane” label on any act of pure evil? Is it to deny that evil, and evil people, exist? Hassan is not insane/crazy/looney/deranged or any of the other labels people want to slap on him. He IS a perfectly sane person who subscribes to a type of evil that you don’t seem to understand. Hassan was waging war (jihad) against the Great Satan and the members of the Great Satan’s army.

As to terrorism, as I have said before; terrorism is but a tactic, like any other tactic of war. It is a tactic designed to create fear in the enemy of jihadi warriors.

It was not an act of war against our military, it was an act of terrorism by a member of the US Military. He was tried as a US Army active duty person, as he should have been.

I never said he should not have been tried by a court martial. But you keep conflating terrorism with a civil crime. Again, terrorism is only a tactic of our enemies.

Do you also sponsor the Purple Heart for the civilians that were shot in the act, or just the military persons?

What kind of silly question is that? The Purple Heart, and all the benefits that go with it, are designed specifically for our military.

So what requirements do you have for designating any area of U.S. soil a battle field with this new kind of enemy?

Do you believe that there has ever been any battle fields in the U.S. other than those of the Civil War?

@Smorgasbord:

For awards regarding the “War Against Terrorists”, may I suggest a Pale Yellow Ribbon to signify a noble campaign against cowards.

For being injured, the Yellow Cross, the pale yellow ribbon with a cross of red.

For bravery against terrorism, pale yellow with bands of red, white and blue.

For supreme courageous acts against terrorism, large stars of red white and blue over a pale yellow field.

For paying the ultimate price in the fight against terrorism Only the ends are yellow, a large band of blue with white stars and a red heart in the center.

@Tom: I suppose you can probably break down election issues into three general categories (perhaps some political scientist has): long term issues, intermediate term issues, and short term issues. Long term issues would be those that have been around since the founding of the country and will never go away. I’d lump such issues as the national debt, individual rights, and states’ rights in that category. State’s rights has manifested itself in short and intermediate terms issues like taxes, tariffs, slavery, the draft, the civil rights movement, and social programs such as The New Deal, Great Society, Obamacare etc.

For intermediate term issues you’d have issues that lasted a long time, perhaps the better part of a century, but eventually stopped being an issue such as slavery and the Cold War. Short term issues would be those that last an election cycle or perhaps a few such as recessions, depressions, wars, and scandals. Then there are those that could go either way. The civil rights issue was prominent from ’48-’64 making it a short term issue. However, if you consider slavery, women’s suffrage, child labor, the 40 hour work week, and more recently gay rights you could argue that it is a long term issue. Some, such as GWOT/terrorism, are short term issues that will most likely become intermediate ones.

When you look at elections, they are usually decided by the short term issues with intermediate issues coming second and long term issues last. When was the last time the debt or state’s rights were a deciding issue? 1828 for the debt and 1860 for state’s rights? A major problem I see is that some of the solutions to the short term issues lead to intermediate or long term issues/problems because little long term thought was given. For example, when Social Security was implemented either no one looked at demographics or they ignored it and didn’t take into account that people were living longer and having less kids meaning eventually there was going to be an issue as to how to pay for it. At the local level, a place with a traffic congestion problem is “fixed” by expanding a two lane road into a four lane road without taking population migration patterns into consideration and soon the four lane road needs to become a six lane road. Individuals are the same which is why they base their vote on short term issues. For example as to how they think short term in their personal lives, they see something they want but can’t afford, they’ll buy it and worry about how to pay for it later. One of the reasons for the housing market collapse. The moral of the story- more long term thought.

@retire05:

Do you believe that there has ever been any battle fields in the U.S. other than those of the Civil War?

Yes, among others, Hawaii would certainly qualify during WWII and Texas and California during the Mexican War.

As to terrorism, as I have said before; terrorism is but a tactic, like any other tactic of war. It is a tactic designed to create fear in the enemy of jihadi warriors.

You seem to be answering your own question here. If terrorism is only a tactic, do you create a war against each and every ‘tactic’ or do you just create a war against the country/organization that is conducting it. Kinda like gun ownership, you target laws toward gun owners, not against guns.

He IS a perfectly sane person

I don’t believe any person that kills another person is ‘perfectly sane’. Even the coolest character killing someone has to have a screw that was not completely tightened up or has come loose. I would only argue the ‘degree’ of insanity. I don’t think degrees of insanity only apply to murderers, I even think that people that see something good in the present government in Washington has to have at least some degree of instability.

What kind of silly question is that? The Purple Heart, and all the benefits that go with it, are designed specifically for our military.

I don’t think it is a silly question at all. If you admit that it is “designed specifically for the military” then you should also admit that there are other specific requirements for awarding the medal and those requirements should be fulfilled also and those requirements do not include the set of circumstances that occurred at Ft Hood.

Retire, I’m not going to change my opinion that the Purple Heart Medal is an honor that is for persons that are wounded ‘under certain’ conditions. If those conditions weren’t fulfilled, they don’t get it. If the military wants to change the conditions under which it is awarded then they should do so, and all future recipients should meet those new/modified conditions. I would suggest that if it is to be awarded under conditions such as occurred at Ft Hood, then they should include it for any civilians that are wounded in the same acts. To award a medal to someone to make them feel good, when it is not earned is a denigration of the medal itself. Enough values in this country have been compromised for the sake of ‘feel good’, this is not a circumstance where we should continue that trend.

@Ditto: Ditto, I like your suggestions and support the medals you described.

@Redteam:

If terrorism is only a tactic, do you create a war against each and every ‘tactic’ or do you just create a war against the country/organization that is conducting it.

Again, you’re trying to compare apples to bridges. Every war is respite with tactics. They are but a means to an end. That whole “war against terrorism” is just so much poppycock to prevent saying what it really is; a war against Islamic fundamentalists.

And what country/organizations are we actually fighting, Redteam? Al Qaeda? Sure. But there are other groups. What nations are we at war with? None, that I know of. This is not your ordinary war, one nation using uniformed soldiers fighting another nation using uniformed soldiers.

I don’t believe any person that kills another person is ‘perfectly sane’.

Again, the only way I would be able to agree with that is to deny that there is actual evil in the world. Being crazy, and being evil, are not one and the same.

Retire, I’m not going to change my opinion that the Purple Heart Medal is an honor that is for persons that are wounded ‘under certain’ conditions.

I believe you’re the one who first brought up the Purple Heart. Correct me if I’m wrong. But the fact is that those soldiers at Fort Hood were under enemy attack. They died, and were wounded, by that enemy. They deserve to at least have this Administration classify it as a “terrorist” attack so that they would have access to extended benefits I believe they deserve.

This nation gave Medals of Honor to soldiers who committed genocide against Native Americans. We now deny those killed by a radical jihadist anything close to such an honor. How screwed up is that?

@retire05:

I believe you’re the one who first brought up the Purple Heart. Correct me if I’m wrong. But the fact is that those soldiers at Fort Hood were under enemy attack. They died, and were wounded, by that enemy.

I might have been the one that mentioned it first in the discourse between you and I but only because someone on the thread mentioned that they thought the persons wounded at Ft Hood were entitled to it. I have no problem with them being entitled to whatever benefits they are entitled to. I don’t think we need to have special ‘classes’ of persons in the US that are entitled to special benefits that others in the same situation are not entitled to.

Again, the only way I would be able to agree with that is to deny that there is actual evil in the world. Being crazy, and being evil, are not one and the same.

I’m not sure, myself that evil and crazy are the same thing. I don’t think you can be evil without having a brain malfunction or one that is not acting ‘normally’. I do think persons can be insane without being evil, but not the other way around. I think most diagnosis of evil acts and evil persons would reveal a brain that is not 100% as it should be. One example I can think of is that almost without exception, mass murderers mistreated/killed animals when they were young, graduating to people later in life. Almost all normal persons are not cruel to animals.

Again, you’re trying to compare apples to bridges. Every war is respite with tactics. They are but a means to an end. That whole “war against terrorism” is just so much poppycock to prevent saying what it really is; a war against Islamic fundamentalists.

I partially agree and partially disagree. You’ve heard the saying, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. ? Islamic fundalmentalism doesn’t kill people, people kill people. You can’t claim to need to eliminate all Islamic fundalmentalists to eliminate acts of terror, only the persons that are likely to commit acts of terror. Hopefully that is apples to apples.

This nation gave Medals of Honor to soldiers who committed genocide against Native Americans

Now that’s a little apples to bridges. Are you saying that just because the Congressional Medal of Honor was given incorrectly that the Purple Heart should also be given in cases where it really isn’t applicable? Nope, injudicious awarding of medals is wrong, whether it makes you ‘feel good’ or not. Save them for the persons that qualify according to the rules as they exist, or change the rules, but don’t ‘violate’ the rules.
Some good exchanges, I enjoy it.

retire05
make good points,
this debate is leaning between the law of medals definition which is one track one direction,
but we know the human factor does never enter those requirement or very seldom do,
what was the difference between the last recipient of that purple medal and the recipient demanding that medal at FORT-HOOD FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SHOT OR WOUNDED ,
BY A TERRORIST MUSLIM HATER WHO WAS TAUGHT TO BECOME A PSYCHATRIST
AND USED IT TO INDOCTRINATE THE PTSD PATIENTS UNDER HIS CARE AT THE HOSPITAL
AND WHO DEPEND ON HIM TO KNOW WHAT TO ADVISE THEM AND HAD THE POWER TOTAL TO SUBSCRIBE THE MEDICATION FOR THEIR BETTERNESS WHICH HE HAD ONLY THE INTENT TO KILL THEM

@Redteam:

I

might have been the one that mentioned it first in the discourse between you and I but only because someone on the thread mentioned that they thought the persons wounded at Ft Hood were entitled to it.

Deal with what I say, Redteam, not what someone else said that you seem to be directing toward me.

I have no problem with them being entitled to whatever benefits they are entitled to.

So what are the Fort Hood victims entitled to, Redteam? The Administration refuses to label what happened an act of terrorism, consequently, those victims of Hassan still living are denied benefits that would be allotted to them otherwise.

I don’t think we need to have special ‘classes’ of persons in the US that are entitled to special benefits that others in the same situation are not entitled to.

It’s a little late for that, don’t you think? How much do you think the survivors of 9-11 got? What extra benefits did the first responders get for their part in the attack? How much do you think families of those slaughtered that day got as surviving family members?

President Bush was quick to call 9-11 what it was; an act of terrorism by those who had declared war against the United States and its people. How is what happened any different than what happened in New York City? It seems to make a difference to you because it was one man, not 19.

I do think persons can be insane without being evil, but not the other way around.

Is it safe to assume you are not a spiritual person, someone who understands light from dark, good from evil? You are applying your standard of “sane” to those who you think are insane. Just because you think what evil people do can only be because they are not “sane” doesn’t make you correct, or every John Wayne Gacy and every other serial killer would be declared insane in court.

. Are you saying that just because the Congressional Medal of Honor was given incorrectly that the Purple Heart should also be given in cases where it really isn’t applicable?

I’m not talking about the Purple Heart, never have been although you brought it up. I’m talking about taking care of soldiers who were murdered, and wounded, on what our enemy declared was his battle field. And until you can prove to me that what happened that day at Fort Hood was not an act of war, as the man who did the shooting declared it was, you are turning your back on those who deserve better.

While you may think that we are not at war with Islam, a major portion of the Muslim population thinks it is at war with us. And our nation failed those soldiers.

Internal Documents Reveal How the FBI Blew Fort Hood

It’s pretty sad when a publication as far left as Mother Jones writes about how our intel let those soldiers down by intel not doing its job.

DoD spokesman Lt. Col. Tom Crosson would not comment further on the case but issued this statement Friday:

“The Department of Defense is committed to the integrity of the ongoing court martial proceedings of Major Nidal Hasan and for that reason will not at this time further characterize the incident. Major Hassan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder, and 32 counts of attempted murder. As with all pending Uniform Code of Military Justice matters, the accused is innocent until proven guilty.”

Manning, who survived six bullets during Hasan’s rampage, says it’s a disgrace for the military to call the tragedy workplace violence. A civil lawsuit filed last November seeking damages on behalf of 83 Fort Hood survivors and victims’ families alleges the government has treated them in a manner “substantially inferior to the treatment given other terror casualties.”

In the case of Manning, the lawsuit alleges that “because his injuries have been deemed workplace violence-related, he has lost approximately $40,000 in compensation, as well as significant retirement benefits.”

See, Redteam, Cossen didn’t say it isn’t that the soldiers at Fort Hood were not eligible for extra benefits, and the Purple Heart, but that the DoD, under the direction of morons not only at DoD, but in the Oval Office, who didn’t want to taint the prosecution of a Muslim. Now, if you believe that, I have some ocean front property to sell you that is located in Amarillo.

Or do you somehow think that awarding those victims the same thing that any battle field soldier would get, would prevent Hassan from getting a fair trial, which is more than he deserved?

1. The Secretary of a military department, or the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy, shall, in the name of the President of the United States, award the Purple Heart, with suitable ribbons and appurtenances, to any member of an armed force under the jurisdiction of that department and any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with an armed force of that department, has been, or may hereafter be, wounded—
(a) in any action against an enemy of the United States;
(b) in any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the armed forces of the United States are or have been engaged;
(c) while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party;
(d) as the result of an act of any such enemy or opposing armed force; or
(e) as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force.

@retire05:

So what are the Fort Hood victims entitled to, Redteam? The Administration refuses to label what happened an act of terrorism, consequently, those victims of Hassan still living are denied benefits that would be allotted to them otherwise.

I’m not aware of special benefits for victims of acts of terrorism. Where can I find a list of them?

Deal with what I say, Redteam, not what someone else said that you seem to be directing toward me.

You lost me here. What did I direct toward you that someone else said?

It’s a little late for that, don’t you think? How much do you think the survivors of 9-11 got? What extra benefits did the first responders get for their part in the attack? How much do you think families of those slaughtered that day got as surviving family members?

I’m not in favor of ‘victim status’. For anyone. If someone creates a violent act toward another, that person is responsible, not me or my taxes. Just because it has been done incorrectly in the past is no reason to continue foolishness.

Is it safe to assume you are not a spiritual person, someone who understands light from dark, good from evil? You are applying your standard of “sane” to those who you think are insane. Just because you think what evil people do can only be because they are not “sane” doesn’t make you correct, or every John Wayne Gacy and every other serial killer would be declared insane in court.

I don’t know if I’m a spiritual person by your definition. I certainly know light and dark and right and wrong and good and evil. I’m not a psychiatrist so I don’t qualify to judge persons mental state. I don’t think insane persons are criminals. I think ‘evil persons’ have a problem in their brain, insanity or not.

I’m not talking about the Purple Heart, never have been although you brought it up. I’m talking about taking care of soldiers who were murdered, and wounded, on what our enemy declared was his battle field.

Are you saying they didn’t put those injured persons in the hospital and care for them? I hadn’t heard that. Did they stop paying them because they are disabled? Did they get their life insurance payments? What benefits did they ‘not get’? Seriously I hadn’t heard that they were mistreating those persons.

While you may think that we are not at war with Islam, a major portion of the Muslim population thinks it is at war with us. And our nation failed those soldiers.

I don’t think it’s possible to wage a war against Islam. Anymore than a war can be waged on guns. It’s people that kill people, not their religion or their guns. I notice that you said the Muslim Population thinks they are at war, not Islam itself. That fairly well agrees with what I said.

It’s pretty sad when a publication as far left as Mother Jones writes about how our intel let those soldiers down by intel not doing its job.

I’ve never read Mother Jones, so don’t know what they write.

It seems as if I’m not in the loop on what benefits the military persons wounded/killed at Fort Hood have had taken away or deprived of. Where would you recommend I get specific info on that?

retire05
yes it was you who started on that your 65 comment
from Richard Weller asking you are you okay?
and you said no because of those FORT-HOOD SOLDIERS BEING REFUSE THEIR PURPLE HEART
AND BENEFITS,
BYE

@retire05: Retire, in 65 you said to RW:

How you feeling? Feeling good about this current administration that refuses to give the Fort Hood victims the same rights that any other soldier wounded on the battle field would get? Or do you agree with the Administration that the Fort Hood massacre was just “workplace violence?”

Then in 119 I said to you:

I didn’t see what RW had said, but it seems as if you are referring to the Purple Heart Medal, if so, then this may be one case where I disagree with you. That medal is for someone wounded on the battlefield in a war.

Then in 122, you said to me:

So what you are saying is that unless a soldier is killed, or wounded, on a foreign battle field, they don’t deserve the Purple Heart?

Then in 127 I said to you:

Exactly, except the word “foreign” is not necessary. For example, John Kerry got one of his ‘Purple Hearts’ for a scratch, or something, not related to combat actions. He was not entitled to a Purple Heart medal for that. I have no problems with the military coming up with a medal to be awarded to persons wounded by activities not in a declared war, but the Purple Heart is not that medal.

Then in 137, I said to you:

If you would, read the ‘requirements for awarding the Purple Heart Medal and tell me which provision you think the medal should be awarded under.

then in 149, I said to you, in response to a question you asked that did not contain the words ‘Purple Heart Medal’ :

No, I would not. And no, it was not ‘work place’ violence. It was the act of a US Army soldier committing an act of insanity/terrorism. It was not an act of war against our military, it was an act of terrorism by a member of the US Military. He was tried as a US Army active duty person, as he should have been.
Do you also sponsor the Purple Heart for the civilians that were shot in the act, or just the military persons?

Then in 156, you quoted me:

Do you also sponsor the Purple Heart for the civilians that were shot in the act, or just the military persons?

And you responded:

What kind of silly question is that? The Purple Heart, and all the benefits that go with it, are designed specifically for our military.

in 159 I quoted you:

What kind of silly question is that? The Purple Heart, and all the benefits that go with it, are designed specifically for our military.

and I responded:

I don’t think it is a silly question at all. If you admit that it is “designed specifically for the military” then you should also admit that there are other specific requirements for awarding the medal and those requirements should be fulfilled also and those requirements do not include the set of circumstances that occurred at Ft Hood.

Then in 161, you said:

I believe you’re the one who first brought up the Purple Heart. Correct me if I’m wrong. But the fact is that those soldiers at Fort Hood were under enemy attack. They died, and were wounded, by that enemy. They deserve to at least have this Administration classify it as a “terrorist” attack so that they would have access to extended benefits I believe they deserve.

This nation gave Medals of Honor to soldiers who committed genocide against Native Americans. We now deny those killed by a radical jihadist anything close to such an honor. How screwed up is that?

and more recents comments were made. It seems that you brought up what the persons at Ft Hood were entitled to and I asked/assumed that you were talking about the medal. In 122, it seems as if you are including the Purple Heart Medal in the things you think the wounded at Ft Hood were entitled to. If you did not intend that, then I stand corrected on that matter.

There were a few comments during that time by others that referred to the medal but were not germane to our discussion.

@retire05: Retire, thanks for your response in 165. I see nothing in your quote that would entitle anyone at Ft Hood to receive the Purple Heart Medal.
You said:

I have some ocean front property to sell you that is located in Amarillo.

I hope you got it for a fair price, although I’m not sure I would have bought it there, certainly not sight unseen.
This one bothers me:

A civil lawsuit filed last November seeking damages on behalf of 83 Fort Hood survivors and victims’ families

Are all survivors entitled to something? By definition, I’m a survivor as I certainly wasn’t killed there. Should I be included in the lawsuit? This seems to be a case of, just because I was there when someone was injured or killed, I’m entitled to something also. I don’t agree with that. But, if you want to ‘give them something’ to make them ‘feel good’, please have them include a check to me, It would sure make me feel good.
I hope you see the humor in me pointing out the ridiculousness of ‘survivors’ claiming benefits.
That would be akin to me, having a house that sustained no damage when Katrina went through, being entitled to a new house just because my neighbors house got destroyed and replaced. A real ‘feel good’.

@Redteam:

: Retire, in 65 you said to RW:

How you feeling? Feeling good about this current administration that refuses to give the Fort Hood victims the same rights that any other soldier wounded on the battle field would get? Or do you agree with the Administration that the Fort Hood massacre was just “workplace violence

See, no mention from me about the Purple Heart. End of story. I did not bring it up. So why are you dogging me about that?

A civil lawsuit filed last November seeking damages on behalf of 83 Fort Hood survivors and victims’ families

Are all survivors entitled to something? By definition, I’m a survivor as I certainly wasn’t killed there. Should I be included in the lawsuit? This seems to be a case of, just because I was there when someone was injured or killed, I’m entitled to something also. I don’t agree with that. But, if you want to ‘give them something’ to make them ‘feel good’, please have them include a check to me, It would sure make me feel good.

What low opinion you seem to have about those affected by the Fort Hood jihadist. You seem to think that the only reason they want recognition is just to make themselves feel good. How low do you intend to go?

“83 survivors and victim’s families”

Hassan fatally shot 13 and wounded over 30 more. If you account for the 30+ wounded, that only leaves approx. 50 wifes, husbands and children of the 13 murdered for an average of about 3 per each one fatally shot. How dare they sue the U.S. government for failure to do what the government should have done to rid the U.S. Army of someone who was clearly a jihadist in the making. I know, I know, they are just suing to make themselves feel good, right? Never mind their loved ones are DEAD. If those who were “affected” due to being in close proximity, that law suit number would be over 50,000 due to the size of the personnel, and families, at Fort Hood, instead of 83.

I hope you see the humor in me pointing out the ridiculousness of ‘survivors’ claiming benefits.
That would be akin to me, having a house that sustained no damage when Katrina went through, being entitled to a new house just because my neighbors house got destroyed and replaced.

Really? So losing your husband to a jihadist’s bullet is like your neighbors losing their house while yours is still standing? Please, explain that thought process because in my world, it does not compute. Wives lost husbands, husbands lost wives and children lost a parent and you think it would be like you being affect by the loss of your neighbor’s house? Convoluted and irrational.

@retire05: Retire, the point of the comment I wrote above was to show you that I was the one that brought up the Purple Heart medal. But I also pointed out where you said they are entitled to the medal (that was in 122).
I think you have misunderstood the lawsuit was for “83 survivors and victim’s families” The way I read that, the 83 survivors are in addition to victims families. As I said, I’m a survivor of Ft Hood. I am not in favor of ‘survivors’ getting anything, unless I’m getting my share.
I’ll say again, the survivors were additional to the victims families.

Really? So losing your husband to a jihadist’s bullet is like your neighbors losing their house while yours is still standing?

You asked:

How low do you intend to go?

You can leave the personal comments out. As you well know, we agree on probably over 90% of the things discussed on this site, I see no reason to take a discussion to what my personal ‘intentions’ are any more so than your’s. I just don’t care about persons claiming victim status when none exists. That would be like me having to give someone money because my ancestors happened to buy some of the slaves that were sold by their relatives in Africa. I have quite a few relatives that were not killed at Ft Hood, where do they sign up for a check?

Redteam
well, money shouldn’t be a problem for the MILITARY,
BUT THEY ARE, also on the VETERANS WOUNDED AND KEPT WAITING
ON A BACK LOG 5 PLUS YEARS, WHY IS THAT?
HOW ABOUT THE ONE ON WAR ZONE STRUGGLING TO HAVE A LATE NIGHT MEAL BECAUSE IT’S BEEN CUT, OR NEEDING MEDICATION WHICH HAS BEEN CUT OUT AND SUPPLY NOW BY DONERS,
PAY THEM WELL AND NO CHEAP CUT ON WHAT AND NEED, THEY ARE A PRIORITY TO
THIS NATION,
TAKE IT OUT ANYWHERE ELSE BUT GIVE THEM WHAT THEY ARE ENTITLE,
TO KEEP THEM HAPPY AND MORE, BECAUSE SOME HAVE A SHORTER LIVES THAN ANYONE IN GOVERNMENT SITTING ON THEIR ASS AND MAKING LIVES OF THE WARRIORS DIFFICULT
THEY GO AS FAR AS CUTTING ON THE CHRISTIANITY NEED OF WARRIORS, AND CUTTING ON
SPACE WHERE THEY AT THE HOSPITAL WANT TO GATHER BECAUSE THEY ARE WOUNDED WARRIORS AND CANNOT GO FURTHER,
PAY THEM WELL INSTEAD OF VACATIONING IN FOREIGN PLACE AND
SPENDING THE PEOPLE’S MONEY,
WHEN YOU NEED THEM THEY ARE THERE FOR AMERICA THEY NEVER SAY NO, THEY OBEY,
PAY THEM WELL ABOVE THE NORM BECAUSE THEY GO ABOVE THE NORM TO SECURE
THE CIVILIAN’S OF THIS NATION, AND
NEVER BE STINGY WITH MEDALS THEY ASK FOR, MEDALS THEY HAVE BEEN KILLED FOR,
EVEN IF IT BRING BENEFITS, THEY DESERVE IT AND MUST BE THE NATION’S PRIORITY,
THAT IS WHAT THE NATION REQUIRE, SO GIVE THEM THE BEST,
THEY EARN IT A CENTIFOLD,

@ilovebeeswarzone:

Re-read post #65. You will not find those two words “Purple Heart” anywhere.

@Redteam:

I think you have misunderstood the lawsuit was for “83 survivors and victim’s families” The way I read that, the 83 survivors are in addition to victims families.

“survivors and victim’s families” One group, Redteam.

Not, 83 survivors plus victim’s families. Take your debate about the wording of the article up with the author, not me. The law suit involves 83 people made up of survivors and victim’s families. If you want information on the law suit, I suggest you call the offices of Sen. John Cornyn, or Representatives John Carter or Roger Williams.

As I said, I’m a survivor of Ft Hood. I am not in favor of ‘survivors’ getting anything, unless I’m getting my share.

You survived Fort Hood? Kind of a play on words, isn’t it? When did someone shoot at you with the intent of killing you while you were stationed at Fort Hood. As to your share; seems you would deny someone who was wounded unless you, who were not wounded, gets the same benefits. The old “If I don’t get something for free nobody should” mantra. The Fort Hood shooting survivors/families are not asking for anything for free. They already paid the price for what ever they get in blood and lives.

I have quite a few relatives that were not killed at Ft Hood, where do they sign up for a check?

Did they take a bullet, or lose a father, mother, husband or wife? If they did, they should be part of the 83.

Tell us, Redteam, do you consider the acts of 19 on September 11, 2001 an act of war?

retire05
yes you are right, I READ IT AND REPORT IT BACK IN MY OWN WORDS,
BECAUSE IT MEANT THE SAME TO MY MIND,
I should have copied the exact comment, sorry for that,
bye

@Ditto: #157
The awards sound good to me. Send the ideas to your federal politicians.

@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, I have served in the Navy and I know what they go through. When I enlisted, I knew what was expected of me and of the government. Both of us lived up to our obligations. I was not shortchanged in any way and I certainly never had to go hungry. I have read about some of the deals on meals in a war zone and I certainly think they were wrong in some of the changes they made and I don’t think military personnel should be at ‘the back of the line’ when fulfilling obligations. We can credit our current president for his luxurious vacations, at the expense of money for the military.

@retire05:

You survived Fort Hood?

As of today, I’m still alive so yes, I was not killed at Ft Hood.

The law suit involves 83 people made up of survivors and victim’s families

As I said, I have no problems with victims families getting what they are entitled to. For that matter,,I also have no problem with ‘survivors’ getting what they are entitled to, which is ‘nothing’ that I am aware of.

As to your share; seems you would deny someone who was wounded unless you, who were not wounded, gets the same benefits. The old “If I don’t get something for free nobody should” mantra. The Fort Hood shooting survivors/families are not asking for anything for free. They already paid the price for what ever they get in blood and lives.

:You’re clearly trying to reverse your position. Where did I say that anyone that is entitled to benefits be denied those benefits? All I said is, if you’re doling out to survivors, count me in, I survived it. Fill me in on what price the ‘survivors’ of Ft Hood have paid. You seem to be trying to classify ‘survivors’ and ‘victims families’ as being one and the same. It is clearly not.

Did they take a bullet, or lose a father, mother, husband or wife? If they did, they should be part of the 83.

You are clearly trying to put the ‘survivors’ in the same class as the family of victims or survivors. How would you define “survivor of Ft Hood”? I would define it as anyone that is still living after the Ft Hood incident.

Tell us, Redteam, do you consider the acts of 19 on September 11, 2001 an act of war?

No. It was an act of terrorism. Apparently the US congress agrees with me, they didn’t declare war as a result of it. Though if it had been a ‘nation’ that did it, I think they should have.
Do you think it was an ‘act of war’? If so, why didn’t the US declare war on ‘someone’?

@Redteam:

As of today, I’m still alive so yes, I was not killed at Ft Hood.

Well, it’s good to know that you “survived” your training there. At least we know that you are not a ghost.

Fill me in on what price the ‘survivors’ of Ft Hood have paid.

Are you serious, Redteam? Or just trying to be facetious? What price? Severe, life altering wounds; loss of fathers, husbands, wives and mothers. What price did you pay while at Fort Hood? A little heat exhaustion?

You seem to be trying to classify ‘survivors’ and ‘victims families’ as being one and the same. It is clearly not.

You seem to want to apply new meaning to “survivor” in order not to look too silly. By your definition, anyone in the general locality of the State of New York, the State of Penn. and Washington, D.C. were “survivors” of 9-11-2001. The survivors of Fort Hood were those directly impacted by the gun of Nidal Hassan, not those in the general area. Stop with the absurdity.

You are clearly trying to put the ‘survivors’ in the same class as the family of victims or survivors. How would you define “survivor of Ft Hood”? I would define it as anyone that is still living after the Ft Hood incident.

I guess that would include those who were in Boise, Idaho at the time. Or maybe everyone in San Antonio or Houston. Again, you’re taking absurdity to a new level.

Tell us, Redteam, do you consider the acts of 19 on September 11, 2001 an act of war?

No. It was an act of terrorism.

So you subscribe to the Bill Clinton method of thinking? That would make the London bombings nothing more than an act of terror since it wasn’t carried out by everyone in the Nazi military. Time for you to accept that we are no longer engaged with an enemy that sticks to your definition of what constitutes an act of war. Terrorism is a tactic used in an act of war. Pearl Harbor; act of terrorism. Got it.

Apparently the US congress agrees with me, they didn’t declare war as a result of it. Though if it had been a ‘nation’ that did it, I think they should have.

You’re getting warm. We have no specific nation to declare war upon since we are not fighting nations, but a religious cult that wants to impose its beliefs upon the rest of the world in any way it can. i.e. we are fighting Islam, and all the spewing about “religion of peace” crap is just that, crap.

Do you think Nidal Hassan is an enemy of the United States? How about Hasan Akbar? Is he an enemy of the United States? What about the American born Germans that fought for Hitler, were they enemies of the United States?

You need to modernize your thinking, Redteam. And stop with the silliness about the definition of “survivor.”

Redteam
you where there,I’m also glad that you survived,
my question is there where some at FORT HOOD WHO HAD MADE COMMENT ON THE HASSAN PROFILE, NOT BEING ONE OF THEM,
GEEZ THEY WHERE RIGHT ON THE BUTTON,
even that person in the hospital came here to express humbly his thoughts,
[I cry every time I relate that encounter] he was using his PTSD condition to maybe being guilty
of thinking the psychiatrist was teaching the other and him something he and the other
could not understand, without naming HASSAN,
I TOLD HIM WITHOUT KNOWING WHO TO REPORT TO THE HOSPITAL LEADER,
WHICH BECAME CLEARED UP AFTER his PSYCHIATRIST WHICH WAS SAID TO BE HASSAN KILLED AND WOUNDE SO MANY, A NURSE MENTIONED HE WAS TRYING
TO CONVERT THE SICK SOLDIERS, THAT’S WHEN I FIGURED THE TWO TOGETHER,
DID YOU EVER SHARE THE FEELING THAT HE WAS A MUSLIM LIKE OTHER THOUGHT,
BUT THE COMMAND SURELY MUST HAVE HAD A WORD OF IT,
IT SEEMS THAT THEY TOOK IT AS LIGHT ENOUGH TO NOT REACT,
LIKE QUESTION HIM SERIOUSLY AND THOROUGHLY, SO TO PROTECT THE SICK SOLDIERS UNDER HIS PSYCHIATRIST SO IMPORTANT POSITION, AND PROTECT THE OTHER SOLDIERS WHO WHERE AT THE END SHOT DEAD OR WOUNDED,
I would think they in COMMAND know their HUGE mistakes for letting it go
as unimportant, MOVE ALONG NOTING THERE HEARSAY,
DID YOU PERCEIVE SUCH A GUTS FEELING AS OTHER ?
BYE

@retire05:

What price? Severe, life altering wounds; loss of fathers, husbands, wives and mothers.

I would classify those as ‘victims’ of Ft Hood, those most of them are also survivors.

Let me make it clear, I’ve never said I was anywhere near Ft Hood. I live in Louisiana and presume that’s where I was when I survived the shootings there.
By definition, if you were not killed at Ft Hood, then you are a survivor, makes no difference ‘where’ you were.

You seem to want to apply new meaning to “survivor” in order not to look too silly. By your definition, anyone in the general locality of the State of New York, the State of Penn. and Washington, D.C. were “survivors” of 9-11-2001

As it so happens, I was in Australia on 9/11/01 and was not killed in that act of terrorism, therefore, I survived it.

I guess that would include those who were in Boise, Idaho at the time. Or maybe everyone in San Antonio or Houston.

It certainly would. Give me your definition of ‘survivor of Ft Hood”. Are you saying they actually had to be on Ft Hood to survive it, did you have to be in the vicinity of the shooting to survive it? Did you have to be ‘shot at’ to survive it? Did it have to be Hassan that shot at you for you to survive it? My definition of it is: If you were not killed at Ft Hood, then you survived it.

Pearl Harbor; act of terrorism. Got it.

No, it was an act of war. It was the military forces striking a military installation of another country.

That would make the London bombings nothing more than an act of terror since it wasn’t carried out by everyone in the Nazi military.

I believe the London bombings were courtesy of the Luftwaffe and V1 and V2 rockets fired by the German military, if that is not the case, please direct me to a source for better info.

we are fighting Islam,

Then we are fighting a lost cause, there are millions of persons of the Islamic faith and until we decide that it is them that are opposed to us and not the religion of Islam, then we don’t even know who or where to strike.

You need to modernize your thinking, Redteam. And stop with the silliness about the definition of “survivor.”

you mean you definition of survivor is different than mine. My definition is simple: someone who survives. Since I was not killed on 9/11 or at Ft Hood, then I’m a survivor.

Do you think Nidal Hassan is an enemy of the United States?

No. I do believe he is an enemy of any ‘persons’ that don’t share his religious beliefs and that would certainly include some citizens of the US.

@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees,

you where there,I’m also glad that you survived,
my question is there where some at FORT HOOD WHO HAD MADE COMMENT ON THE HASSAN PROFILE, NOT BEING ONE OF THEM,

No, I have never been to Ft Hood. I can’t comment on the Hassan profile, only what has been said publicly by him or about him. Seems as if he was a nut and acting in the name of his religion, decided to kill some people that he believed to be enemies of his religion. The military Court martial found him guilty, that’s good enough for me.

Redteam
okay, I mis-understood somewhere,
bye

@Redteam:

Are you trying to be a jerk? You are using “survivor” in a way that it is not generally applied.

sur·vive (sr-vv)
v. sur·vived, sur·viv·ing, sur·vives

v.intr.
1. To remain alive or in existence.

2. To carry on despite hardships or trauma; persevere: families that were surviving in tents after the flood.

3. To remain functional or usable: I dropped the radio, but it survived.

v.tr.
1. To live longer than; outlive: She survived her husband by five years.

2. To live, persist, or remain usable through: plants that can survive frosts; a clock that survived a fall.

3. To cope with (a trauma or setback); persevere after: survived child abuse.

Since you are not even sure where you were when the Fort Hood shooting took place, I fail to see how you were affected in any way. As a matter of fact, your life was not impacted, in any measurable manner, by that shooting. But those that were there, and survived, in the true meaning of the word, were.

No, it was an act of war. It was the military forces striking a military installation of another country.

Nidal Hassan, a “Soldier of Allah,” attacked his enemy, soldiers of a military installation. Are you saying because he is an American he can’t be an enemy to his own nation?

No. I do believe he is an enemy of any ‘persons’ that don’t share his religious beliefs and that would certainly include some citizens of the US.

And which citizens of the U.S. does Hassan not want to kill?

@retire05: Very good Retire, which one of those definitions do you think prove that I did not survive Ft Hood? Perhaps: “1. To remain alive or in existence.” Yep, I’m still alive, I survived. Or perhaps: ” To carry on despite hardships or trauma; ” Yep, I’m still carrying on.
If there is one of those definitions that fit ‘survivor’ that doesn’t fit me, please tell me which one.

Nidal Hassan, a “Soldier of Allah,”

Seriously, a soldier of a mythical figure? Should the US declare war on Allah?

And which citizens of the U.S. does Hassan not want to kill?

I’m not privy to his inner thoughts, but I’d guess that “any ‘persons’ that share his religious beliefs” would be the most likely candidates that he doesn’t want to kill.

@Redteam:

And which citizens of the U.S. does Hassan not want to kill?

I’m not privy to his inner thoughts, but I’d guess that “any ‘persons’ that share his religious beliefs” would be the most likely candidates that he doesn’t want to kill.

And if those who “share his religious beliefs” are Americans, more Americans will die at the hands of those you do not want to admit are actually waging war against us. And then what will you say, Redteam? That those who are murdered on American soil by American jihadists do not deserve any more consideration for what ever we can do for them as a nation?

I’ve spent too much effort already trying to explain to you why those Fort Hood victims deserve all we can give them, and then some, and you have done nothing but parse words. Perhaps at some point in your life you will start to feel some empathy for those that have endured much while you lounge around in Gator Land.

@retire05: Retire:

That those who are murdered on American soil by American jihadists do not deserve any more consideration for what ever we can do for them as a nation?

” That those who are murdered ” “do not deserve any more consideration”
Point out where I said anything resembling that. Anyone that is murdered is entitled to whatever they are entitled to, I’ve not advocated anything different. My problem is that you seem to think there are some benefits that those who ‘survived’ Fort Hood (which includes everyone alive today) is entitled to some benefits that you don’t want to say what is included. Just what do you include in “Fort Hood survivors” ? Did they have to be on the Fort that day? that week? ever? Did they have to be shot at? by whom? Is everyone in Texas(that is alive) a survivor of Fort Hood and are entitled to ‘special benefits’?
There must be a reason that you can’t answer those questions.

@Redteam:

Just what do you include in “Fort Hood survivors” ? Did they have to be on the Fort that day? that week? ever? Did they have to be shot at? by whom? Is everyone in Texas(that is alive) a survivor of Fort Hood and are entitled to ‘special benefits’?
There must be a reason that you can’t answer those questions.

I said in post #170:

Hassan fatally shot 13 and wounded over 30 more. If you account for the 30+ wounded, that only leaves approx. 50 wifes, husbands and children of the 13 murdered for an average of about 3 per each one fatally shot. How dare they sue the U.S. government for failure to do what the government should have done to rid the U.S. Army of someone who was clearly a jihadist in the making. I know, I know, they are just suing to make themselves feel good, right? Never mind their loved ones are DEAD. If those who were “affected” due to being in close proximity, that law suit number would be over 50,000 due to the size of the personnel, and families, at Fort Hood, instead of 83.

I have answered your questions. But all you seem to want to do is play word games, and poke sticks.

We’re finished here. Go play your silly games with someone else.

@retire05:

I have answered your questions. But all you seem to want to do is play word games, and poke sticks.

I think what’s bothering you is that you can’t answer the question I asked and get the result you wish for. When you ‘defined’ survivor, it clearly included both yourself and me (as neither of us were killed/shot at Fort Hood) but for some reason, you want it to mean something that it doesn’t mean. Someone that was at Fort Hood where the shooting actually took place, but was not wounded and had no relative wounded still might be just as ‘damaged’ as someone who was injured physically. They may well have been traumatized. Then you get to someone that would normally have been there that day, but had missed work that day, so was not a target, they surely must be traumatized by the fact that they only missed being shot at because they missed work that day.
Sorry I’ve gotten you so upset over this. As I say, we almost always agree on the subjects here, but apparently not on the concept that someone is entitled to something ‘just to make them feel good’.

@Redteam:

I think what’s bothering you is that you can’t answer the question I asked and get the result you wish for. When you ‘defined’ survivor, it clearly included both yourself and me

Your reading comprehension skills should not be my problem, nor are they.

The “survivors” that I spoke of clearly indicated those who were shot, and lived, and the families of those that were shot and killed.

But then, I guess when it comes to victim’s rights, such as those sought by any family member of someone who was murdered, you are of the impression that the only reason they seek those rights just to make themselves “feel good.”

Then you get to someone that would normally have been there that day, but had missed work that day, so was not a target, they surely must be traumatized by the fact that they only missed being shot at because they missed work that day.

Hypotheticals. Not interested in them.

Sorry I’ve gotten you so upset over this

Don’t flatter yourself that you have that power with your word games.

As I say, we almost always agree on the subjects here, but apparently not on the concept that someone is entitled to something ‘just to make them feel good’.

There is a big difference between doing something just to make yourself “feel good” and doing something because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for our government to take total care of those who were put into harm’s way that day in Killeen because of the failure of our own government to stop it when it could have. Political correctness will only prove a method to get more and more Americans killed.

Stop with the silliness and examples of your neighbor’s house; definitions of “survivor” and other absurdities.

As I said; we are through here. Feel free to take the last word. I’m sure your ego demands it.

@retire05:

It is the right thing to do for our government to take total care of those who were put into harm’s way that day in Killeen because of the failure of our own government to stop it when it could have

I have asked several times how the government ‘should have taken total care of those who were put in harm’s way’ that day? You don’t seem to be able to answer that question. Notice that I am talking of those that were not injured nor had a family member injured, just ‘regular’ survivors. Please enumerate just one benefit that someone that was a survivor at Fort Hood, that did not receive an injury or had a family member injured, was entitled to. It would/should be the same as what I’m entitled to, as a ‘survivor’.

Stop with the silliness and examples of your neighbor’s house; definitions of “survivor” and other absurdities.

Though you listed the definitions of survivor, you don’t seem to believe those definitions.

As I said; we are through here. Feel free to take the last word. I’m sure your ego demands it.

Ego? what does that have to do with right or wrong? You seem to want to give survivors ‘some kind of benefit’, which you don’t seem to be able to enumerate, but you seem to want to exclude me when I’m clearly a ‘survivor’ also. It’s only a matter of right or wrong, not ‘ego’.

@Redteam:

As a true “southerner”, (born in Georgia and have lived in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia and Florida) I take offense to your list of “confederate states” . West Virginia damn sure is not one. (as you well know, they formed the state to separate from the south and remain union) Though there were 13 stars on the Battle Flag, there are only 11 Southern states, the ones you listed that are not, is, Kentucky, W. Virginia, Oklahoma. Please use the correct list in the future.

As a “true southerner” myself, (born in Tennessee, lived in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and currently reside in Georgia) I pointed out that Kentucky remained neutral in the war of northern aggression and West Virginia seceded from Virginia because of the war. From my original post:

I’d like to point out that Kentucky remained neutral during the CW and West Virginia seceded from Virginia because of the CW. I have no idea why those two states are in the group.

Maybe you should read the entire post before you go off half-cocked.

retire05
yesterday I HEARD ON FOX, THAT SOME senators decided to call the HASSAN killing , a terrorist attack AND THEY ARE WORKING TO MAKE IT SO UNDER LEGITIMATED ACTION,
THAT IS A GOOD NEWS,
BYE

@Aqua: Aqua, I wasn’t half cocked, I was fully cocked. I wasn’t out to prove you wrong about anything, just clearing up the full picture of something you left dangling here is the full quote from #76

There are 14 States that are considered the Confederate South.
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
I’d like to point out that Kentucky remained neutral during the CW and West Virginia seceded from Virginia because of the CW. I have no idea why those two states are in the group.
Anyway, five of those States voted for Eisenhower in 1952, including Florida and Texas. In 1956, that number rose to seven…..clearly half of the Confederate South voted republican. In 1960, four of the States voted for Nixon over Kennedy and two of the States (Alabama and Mississippi) voted for Harry Byrd.
1964 saw Goldwater receive five of the Southern States.
Nixon didn’t sweep the south in 1968; he got seven of the Southern States, Humphrey got Texas and West Virginia, and George Wallace got the remaining five.
In 1972, all of the Confederate South voted for Nixon; but so did every other State in the Union except Massachusetts.

What I was pointing out is you said there were ” 14 States that are considered the Confederate South.” but then pointed out that ” I’d like to point out that Kentucky remained neutral during the CW and West Virginia seceded from Virginia because of the CW. I have no idea why those two states are in the group.” but you didn’t mention why Oklahoma was included.
My entire point was just that there were only 11 confederate states and that is all that is considered ‘confederate south’ even tho most folks think there were 13 because of the battle flag stars. West Virginia is the one that baffles me, how can anyone consider that a ‘Confederate’ state when it is the one that was created specifically to avoid being one. Harry Byrd is often referred to as ‘a southern senator’. Oh My.

@ilovebeeswarzone, there were two bills introduced a month ago – HR 3049 in the house that designates both the Ft Hood shooting and the Little Rock, AK shooting as acts of terror, enabling benefits and awarding of the Purple Heart to the victims. The Senate bill, S 1433, was introduced one day earlier and only addressed the status of the Little Rock attack.

Back on Sept 17th, 2001 then Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announced all military personnel of the Sept 11th attacks would be awarded Purple Hearts, and civilian Defense personnel would be awarded the civilian equivalent, the Defense of Freedom medal. This was for all locations.. the twin towers, on the planes and at the Pentagon. This debate about Ft. Hood is not without precedent.

On the devil’s advocate side, why only Sept 11th, 2001, Little Rock and Ft. Hood should be named? What about military personnel, or civilian Defense personnel, killed or wounded at the Boston Marathon? And while we’re at it, what about the OK bombing? Should victims of terrorism only get this award and benefits if the terrorist source is Islamist? Should it be retroactive? Should it also not include any (heaven forbid but likely) future attacks?

I don’t have an opinion on this, and it’s up to the military to change their own guidelines. But I do find it somewhat unfairly selective to only single out some acts of terror, and not others. In the case of the Sept 11th, 2001 attacks, the scale of that event was so large as to be hard to ignore. But then just using sheer numbers as a foundation is a hard way to determine the value of life. Where would that dividing line be?

Hard to say if either of these bills has a chance at passage and enactment. GovTrack doesn’t rate the probability high, but who knows. But there is an argument to be made for it, as well as an argument against… especially just picking and choosing some events, and ignoring others – or future – events.

@Aqua & @Redteam:

It’s possible that the some of the “educated” Northern folk who were looking at the civil rights issue and how the states “flipped” from blue to red, don’t (or didn’t for those who are now deceased) want to consider any state as “neutral”, and decided that as Kentucky wasn’t “with the Union” it surly must have been against it. The inclusion of West Virginia as a Confederate state could be due to similar such ignorance, simply because Virginia was a Confederate state.

MATAHARLEY
YES BUT I THINK at their speed the BOSTON ATTACK IS TOO NEW TO BE IN THEIR FILES,
ANOTHER THING ABOUT HASSAN, I READ IT WAS OBAMA WHO DECLARE THE MASSACRE
A WORK DAY EVENT, NO ONE ON THE SIDE OF THE SOLDIERS MADE THAT WORK DAY EVENT, THEY DID NOT INTICE OR INCITE HIM SO TO EXASPERATE THE KILLER,
A WORK PLACE EVENT NEED TWO OR MORE OPPONANTS,
HASSAN WAS ALONE IN HIS QUEST TO KILL AND HE SHOWED HIS ALLEGIANCE WITH HIS ACTIONS, SO THAT STATEMENT WAS WRONG, AND i’M GLAD IF IT PASS IT WILL BE RIGHT,
YES YOU’RE RIGHT ABOUT THE OTHER ALSO, i HOPE THEY DON’T HAVE TO BEG TO GET WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY THEIRS,
BYE

@Ditto:

It’s possible that the some of the “educated” Northern folk who were looking at the civil rights issue and how the states “flipped” from blue to red, don’t (or didn’t for those who are now deceased) want to consider any state as “neutral”, and decided that as Kentucky wasn’t “with the Union” it surly must have been against it. The inclusion of West Virginia as a Confederate state could be due to similar such ignorance, simply because Virginia was a Confederate state.

It’s from a book by Sean Trende, The Lost Majority. There as always been this myth about the Solid South and the Southern Strategy. Because of the way the States have voted, they included Kentucky, West Virginia, and Oklahoma in “The Confederate South.” Anyone that has studied the Civil War knows West Virginia remained in the Union, Kentucky actually asked for federal troops for assistance after General Polk attacked.
Oklahoma was not admitted to the Union until 1907. Texas used to be a lot bigger, but lost the panhandle of Oklahoma and parts of Colorado due to their secession.

@Aqua:

Texas used to be a lot bigger, but lost the panhandle of Oklahoma and parts of Colorado due to their secession.

Really? Texas seceded in 1845? Who knew?