What a kookie reply.
What does the Memorial say when Trumpybear lies about Senator from AZ?
I can see that you and Swalwell were taught how to draw analogies by the same drunken homeless person.
Pretty funny. In reality the Memorial has no business replying to any candidate unless they besmirch the memory of the USS Arizona. Drawing (or trying to) a parallel between the leaders reaction to an attack by a hostile power does not. I don't think it was a terribly good parallel for that matter, but it had nothing to do with the lives lost in that surprise attack. On 12-7 and 9-11 a lot of people died. In Nov. 2016 a lot of people cried.
I'm sorry, but who made you Grand High Arbiter of What People Can Express Opinions On? If the people at a WWII memorial want to comment on someone being disrespectful and flippant about WWII, who the **** are you to tell them the "have no business"? Or that they have to "earn" it somehow by ALSO commenting on whatever the **** YOU think they should think?
This is a message board where people express their opinions. You don't like it, too bad. There was nothing flippant comparing FDR response to the attack on 12-7 nor GWB's response on 9-11. It was critical and flippant of Trumps response to Russia's attack. Nothing disrespectful to the men and women who died those days.
Dear
BlindBoo and
Cecilie1200
I think you both make valid points.
I guess it's up to each person what seems flippant and disrespectful as a reference or taking something out of historic context where it seems to dismiss the original history.
I had someone explain to me that Kaepernick did not mean at all to disrespect "Veterans" by kneeling for the Anthem to protest the profiling and killing of Black citizens he felt were not being included in America's claims of Equal Justice for All. He was using that symbol and ritual to protest and publicize a totally different issue that had nothing to do with the honor paid to Veterans associated with oath of duty to country that the Flag and Anthem have come to represent.
People take offense at different things that appear to take the history for granted or dismiss it for making a political statement using that event.
We take this risk when making public statements using references like these. If someone expresses offense, maybe it should be common courtesy to apologize for unintended offense instead of arguing over who is being insensitive and who is regulating free speech. Why not just resolve both issues that are brought up, and not compete to make it mean one more than the other. Each person will see and focus on it differently, so why can't all people have their own way without inciting conflict with any other person's way of seeing it?
