- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,713
- Reaction score
- 35,493
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I've personalized nothing. Indeed, instead, I've acknowledged on an individual level that it could be a more important instances for people...but when looking at the nation and the population as a whole that it isn't AS important/impactful as 9/11.
Yes, it had a very very strong viewership. It also had 1/2 of the viewership of something like the Superbowl. So while yes, a lot of people watched his address, again I think you are grossly over exaggerating the magnitude.
And no, people didn't watch those things. They may've relived them in their mind...but they also relived them with 10 years worth of time since seeing them happen live. I am not discounting the fact that it was a major event. It was. However, 9/11 was a generational event of monumental magnitude. Winning a $1 million dollar lottery is a huge windfal and prize. It makes $100 you win at a local raffle look like chump changed. However, it is magnitudes less than the national budget.
The capture of Obama was like winning a million dollar lottery. 9/11 was our national debt.
Again, you're building a strawman. I'm not arguing that Bin Laden's capture didn't have a "great impact", I'm arguing that impact is nothing close to the impact 9/11 had on us. You seem to need to create this fake argument and apply it to me that I'm suggesting Bin Laden's impact is small compared to anything instead of what I'm actually arguing which is that its small when put up against the impact of 9/11 itself. I'd still say its a far bigger impact than many things, such as the capture of Saddam which I hardly think you'd believe me to say was of "no importance".
Your point was how the "country came together", however you were very one sided on this, talking only about what liberals did. I was pointing out there was another side to that in 2001, and that was how republicans acted as well.
My point was about how republicans felt about Clinton and Liberals felt about Bush, just like you're talking about how Liberals acted then towards Bush and how Republicans are acting towards Obama now.
No, the crux of these statements was to show that your one sided bashing of how conservatives are acting right now is nothing but partisanship, because both sides aren't acting like they did in 2001. Are liberals to blame for how conservativesare acting? Not at all. But its dishonest to complain only about the fact conservatives are acting different than 2001 and pissing and moaning about that while not saying a word to the fact liberals are doing the same thing.
Neither side is acting the same way that the other side did during 9/11.
One side acting stupidly doesn't mean your house is sound. That's idiotic on the part of the Speaker and I'd be interested to see his reasoning behind it. There's absolutely no reason not to pass a quick and simple resolution like that. I know the whole "more important things then meaningless resolution" notion, but really this is one of those cases I think it'd be understandable.
And you'd likely be sitting there defending Nancy's reasons and condemning the right for attacking the left, just like your one sided attacking of conservatives not acting the same as their counter part in 9/11, so excuse me if I think your indignation comes off hollow.
Are there Republicans acting dumb during this? Yes. Are there liberals acting dumb during this? Yes. If a few people acting dumb indicates the entire side, is either side acting like the other did during 9/11? No.
And you still didn't tell me the emotional, societal, econimcal, and practical impacts of Bin Laden's death on our lives like I did for 9/11. It shouldn't be hard to do since you suggest they're of equal importance and impact on the country.