- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,661
- Reaction score
- 35,450
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Because you can’t “even imagine” does not mean it didn’t have an impact similar to 9/11 and that is why Disney and I are correct in stating it’s not important to you. You personalized, evaluated and judged the impact as less than 9/11, not us.
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.
Further, as you have posted, twice now, in great detail, the terrible physical destruction and far reaching effects of that day, you bolster my claim that bin Laden’s death is of national significance. The man who was most responsible for the horror of that day and ensuing changes in our American lives is dead. Though there was no video or pictures of his death, as the news hit our TV screens, we saw video and stills of towers coming down, the skeletal remains of the buildings, the first responders digging through smoking rubble and people holding signs with the names of their potentially dead loved ones. We were, as a nation, in that moment of terror and grief once again. I and mean, as a nation:
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.
The nationally televised Sunday Night Baseball game was still on ESPN and as people in crowd got messages on their phones and it was announced, the ballpark broke out in chants of USA! USA!
I cannot imagine that it didn’t have a great impact on us.
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".
This is a confusing statement. You know my point wasn’t about how liberals felt about Clinton, but then it is?
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.
The crux of these statements is that liberals are to blame for conservative’s failure to set aside their anger at President Obama’s legitimate election to the office to stand with him as Americans. That seems very childish of them.
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.
My house is very sound as Speaker Boehner’s refusal to bring a resolution to the floor to commend the troops for getting bin Laden reinforces it:
House Republicans say they have no plans to follow the Senate in passing a resolution honoring the military mission that killed Osama bin Laden.
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.
That is very petty especially when the house could have followed the example of the senate and congratulate Bush as well. It passed 97-0, so at least not all Republicans are willing to slight the military to avoid giving the president kudos and Democrats were fine with giving Bush the same. Were Nancy Pelosi were to try that, the screeching from the right that liberals hate the troops would be deafening.
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.