I care.Man wants to become the next Commander in Chief.Needs to show a little more respect.It's a small gesture that means alot to many,many Americans.
2007-11-16 04:39:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
I can't believe you think this is desperate!
Desperate is Hillary repeating that same, tired, totally unverifiable story about the old lady saying "I was born before women could vote and I'm gonna live to see a woman become president"
This is a matter of RESPECT.
Now, as has been stated, some people don't put their hand over their heart when they hear the national anthem. This is true. Those people also might not rise when they hear it or they might be giggling during the entire song... but those people also aren't running for President. Those people have the luxury of being disrespectful.
This man is supposed to set a good example. For instance, right after 9/11 there was a memorial service. If you watch the tape of this solemn and serious event... you'll see Hillary Clinton having a sidebar conversation and giggling... and then last night you can see that she didn't shake hands with the other candidates... these reflect poorly on her sense of respect.
This IS an issue.
If Rudy Giuliani did it, you'd be all over him. Don't you stand for the Pledge or the Anthem? I take my hat off and hold it over my heart. Don't you?
Can you tell me why it's NOT an issue for a man who wishes to be a leader and an example to have so little respect for our flag and our anthem that he doesn't display homage due?
2007-11-16 13:05:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Bryan~ Unapologetic Conservative 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
When asked about it, Obama said:
"I was taught by my grandfather to put my hand on my heart with the pledge and with the Star Spangled Banner, you sing, so that's what I did. ... I've been pledging allegiance since I was 3. I lead the pledge when I open the United States Senate. It's on C-SPAN." {1}
In Sarah Vowell's book "The Partly Cloudy Patriot," she wrote a short essay entitled "Democracy and Things Like That." To summarize:
"In which we see Al Gore as a noble idealist, distorted by the media lens. Sarah and some high school students are rather upset when an inspirational comment from presidential candidate Gore is misquoted and taken out of context. This is a good lesson to learn about how politicians or anyone gets portrayed in the media. Interestingly, instead of taking this as a lesson on how to be more fair to people she disagrees with, she takes it as a reason to credit "fake but accurate" stories about people she likes. Because, sure, they misquoted him and put the line in a completely misleading context, but what if that picture is the correct one in a larger sense? I have never heard anyone actually try to justify that perspective; it still does not work, but someone meant it." {2}
In that same essay:
"Ashley tells me, 'I feel like some reporters are just saying what [the candidates] did wrong.' When I ask the sixteen-year-old what we lose when the press omits descriptions of how a candidate might actually make a good president, she answers, "I think we miss out on every reason to vote for them'" {3}
I think that says everything. The cons are that desperate, the libs are that desperate, and everyone is that desperate. There are a lot of non-issues that become issues. When Obama is asked about it, why can't his answer satisfy the media and the people? I don't think he's lying and I don't think he's unpatriotic, why does everyone else? I just got this email today and I was initially shocked, until I saw his reasoning. I might be a little more quickly to agree with him because of where my political lines fall, but I'd like to think I'd stick up for a Republican as well.
For example, so what if Giuliani answers his phone during press conferences or whatever? So what if he rooted for the Red Sox during the World Series? Will those two things REALLY affect how he would lead the country?? I don't agree with Giuliani's political faiths and I don't agree with his favorite sports team, but why is rooting for a different baseball team anything at all like leading a country? It's not. As consumers we have to be smarter than that and not let the media, be them liberal or conservative, tell us what issues we should be paying attention to.
Sorry this was so long, I hope people actually take the time to read it.
2007-11-16 13:08:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by Frosty 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
It was the National Anthem, and I could care less. He's not the first person I've seen without his hand over his heart during the National Anthem and he won't be the last.
2007-11-16 13:31:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
He's a jerk. He can't win the Democratic nomination and you love the guy for showing no respect when the national anthem plays. You would love him more if he burned a flag on the steps of the Lincoln memorial. Your level of admiration goes up by the amount of disdain someone shows for our country. The only result any of you want to see in Iraq is failure. It is what you wish for and what you propagate. It makes me sick. I couldn't stand to go through life that way. but then again I am just one of those silly patriotic individuals that still takes my hat off and puts it over my heart during the playing of the national anthem.
2007-11-16 12:42:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by One eyed pirate 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
It wasn't the pledge of allegiance..it was the national anthem...if you have ever been to a football game, you know that nobody puts their hand over their heart during the national anthem.
2007-11-16 12:34:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
When did it become necessary to put your hand over your heart during the National Anthem. Almost everybody I know doesn't.
2007-11-16 13:01:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by mrlebowski99 6
·
1⤊
3⤋
I don't care if he had his hand over his heart, and I don't care if he wears a flag lapel pin. He's shown us just how American he is by voting AGAINST the invasion of Iraq.
And yes, since the cons are using the fact that his hand wasn't on his heart during the national anthem, just shows you that's all they've got.
2007-11-16 12:34:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by katydid 7
·
1⤊
5⤋
Not to be overtly disrespectful, but September, today it appears that "liberalism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".
It excuses all behavior
2007-11-16 12:43:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Agreed. It seems that honesty among politicians causes major shock waves across the nation. How sad!
2007-11-16 12:41:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋