Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Why don't we just be clear: some want the flag lowered to indicate they feel one way about guns while other do not want the flag lowered because they do not feel that way.

 Seaward wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:
I was caling him "some army dude" to make a point that I don't belive that his military record has any bearing on his death when his death is not related to his work.

So I take it you also oppose state funerals for former presidents?

No more than I would be opposed to, using my example again, the flag being lowerd to half mast whenever a medal of honor recipient dies, if laws were passed to do this.

What I am apposed to is the use of Chris Kyles death to make a political point and the attempt to use his service record to try and say that his death is somehow more tragic than those who die every day without such a record, even though they may die in combat or as a direct result of millatry life, when the actual reason is his fame and how that can be exploited.

 Manchu wrote:
Why don't we just be clear: some want the flag lowered to indicate they feel one way about guns while other do not want the flag lowered because they do not feel that way.

And some just want them lowered because Obama did not lower them

 d-usa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Why don't we just be clear: some want the flag lowered to indicate they feel one way about guns while other do not want the flag lowered because they do not feel that way.

And some just want them lowered because Obama did not lower them

I want flags lowered so that they're closer to shorter people. Why does Obama hate the Vertically Challenged?

Steve steveson wrote:
No more than I would be opposed to, using my example again, the flag being lowerd to half mast whenever a medal of honor recipient dies, if laws were passed to do this.

What I am apposed to is the use of Chris Kyles death to make a political point and the attempt to use his service record to try and say that his death is somehow more tragic than those who die every day without such a record, even though they may die in combat or as a direct result of millatry life, when the actual reason is his fame and how that can be exploited.

Yes. Everyone's made that point. I've acknowledged it several times, and continued to explain why that isn't the reason I support it. Nevertheless, as ever, we go round and round because people decide it's more cathartic to argue against a different position than my own.

Ok, Can someone explain this "Chris Kyle" to me?
I understand that he is a decorated war vet. But what makes his death different from the deaths of others?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, Can someone explain this "Chris Kyle" to me?
I understand that he is a decorated war vet. But what makes his death different from the deaths of others?

He was a NAVY Seal sniper that wrote a book, American Sniper, that was killed recently while he was working to help soldiers dealing with PTSD at a clinic.

Ok, But why does Sarah Palin want a flag thrown at half staff for him?

 Seaward wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:
No more than I would be opposed to, using my example again, the flag being lowerd to half mast whenever a medal of honor recipient dies, if laws were passed to do this.

What I am apposed to is the use of Chris Kyles death to make a political point and the attempt to use his service record to try and say that his death is somehow more tragic than those who die every day without such a record, even though they may die in combat or as a direct result of millatry life, when the actual reason is his fame and how that can be exploited.

Yes. Everyone's made that point. I've acknowledged it several times, and continued to explain why that isn't the reason I support it. Nevertheless, as ever, we go round and round because people decide it's more cathartic to argue against a different position than my own.

No, I continue to state my argument against it because you are willfully missing my point, and are asking questions that I have answerd. As I said I am against one person being singled out for an honor in excess of what others have recevied, especaly when it is for purely political points scoring. You either think that he should receive addional honors above and beyond others, for reasons you have not stated, or you agree with me but have decided I dissagree with you for some reason.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, But why does Sarah Palin want a flag thrown at half staff for him?

A) she hasn't been in the news lately.
B) He told Obama to feth off.

I think with Palin we can probably all agree that B applies.

Steve steveson wrote:
No, I continue to state my argument against it because you are willfully missing my point, and are asking questions that I have answerd. As I said I am against one person being singled out for an honor in excess of what others have recevied, especaly when it is for purely political points scoring. You either think that he should receive addional honors above and beyond others, for reasons you have not stated, or you agree with me but have decided I dissagree with you for some reason.

I'd suggest going back and reading the thread again. I've said multiple times that anyone who put in as much as he did should receive the same.

I still don't see any problem with making political decisions for political reasons.

Edited by Mannahnin


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently I'm not allowed to share an opinion.

Just in case you're wondering, only positive things can be said about Chris Kyle on this forum.

Your first post in the thread more than adequately served to share your opinion. Your last post was nothing but badmouthing the dead, was offensive and clearly served no purpose but flamebaiting.

It was replying to another forum member in regards to why Sarah Palin holds Mr. Kyle in such high esteem. I guess you didn't like what I had to say.

Apparently I'm not allowed to share an opinion.

Just in case you're wondering, only positive things can be said about Chris Kyle on this forum.

I have explained Dakka's policy on how members are permitted to talk about the recently-dead, in threads discussing recently-dead people.

You are perfectly free and able to communicate your opinions about Sarah Palin without insulting a dead man. You were already permitted to say negative things about Chris Kyle in your FIRST post in this thread without being sanctioned. It was when you made a second post insulting him that it became clear that you were flamebaiting. Knock it off.

 Crablezworth wrote:
It was replying to another forum member in regards to why Sarah Palin holds Mr. Kyle in such high esteem. I guess you didn't like what I had to say.

I'm gonna set up my lawn chair here and watch you dig that hole you're standing in deeper.

/popcorn

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, But why does Sarah Palin want a flag thrown at half staff for him?

Because Sarah Palin has a special place in her heart for patriots who like her are published authors and are equally as awesome. And she seems to be missing her job at fox news.

 d-usa wrote:
Has my political bitterness just caused me to see everything worse than it is?

Getting back to this question, I would say yes. There is a basic confusion here between the value of remembering a person's life for the sake of that person -- which is what his family and friends will do -- and the symbolic value of a person's life. It's like people saying a statue of so-and-so (for example, MLK Jr.) should be taken down or not put up because of X biographical datum (he cheated on his wife). When the government puts up a statute of someone, we're commemorating the political dimension of that person's life. I would hope it's obvious that a statue of MLK Jr. is not commemorating infidelity. But that's what some people want to argue -- I'd say disingenuously.

So Sarah Palin wants the flags at half mast for this guy because she wants to commemorate his political views regarding President Obama and, more specifically, gun control. I think the objection is that his public service as a soldier, i.e., what would normally be commemorated by government action, is not what Palin wants to commemorate; rather, she wants to commemorate his private political views. So the thrust seems to be that this guy's private political views are more important than other people's because he was a successful soldier.

That doesn't strike me as a worse motive than wanting to commemorate MLK's political views. He wasn't a government official. But we spend government money building statues and schools and bridges, etc, in his honor. The main difference, I think, is that I agree with and find value in MLK's political views. I don't find a lot of value in Chris Kyle's views, even to the extent that I agree with them, maybe because I don't like all the rest of the political baggage that goes along with them.

So, in summary, I think you are seeing things as worse than they are. What Palin is doing isn't especially insidious. If you liked what Chris Kyle stood for and the stuff associated with that a little better then you probably wouldn't object to Palin's actions at all.

Flying a flag for this man would be appropriate for local (county/city) goverment, but not on a national level. While I love Palin's ability to cheerlead for those who feel pushed out of the two-party system, I don't think she's doing anything helpful by trying to make this an issue.

Here is something we can all agree to:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/name-us-naval-vessel-honor-us-navy-seal-chris-kyle-uss-chris-kyle/0zr2VlcB