Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still

Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Sanity -> Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/18/2015 11:43:47 AM)
Or, Free Speech dodges another leftist attack quote: Appeals court sides with Google in anti-Muslim film case 20 minutes ago SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — YouTube should not have been forced to take down an anti-Muslim film that sparked violence in the Middle East and death threats to actors, a federal appeals court ruled Monday in a victory for free speech advocates. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal sided with Google, which owns YouTube, after free speech advocates urged the court to overturn a 2-1 decision by three of its judges. The three judges had ordered YouTube to take down the video... ...The film inspired rioting by those who considered it blasphemous to the Prophet Muhammad and President Barack Obama and other world leaders asked Google to take it down. Liars!

joether -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/18/2015 1:13:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Or, Free Speech dodges another leftist attack quote: Appeals court sides with Google in anti-Muslim film case 20 minutes ago SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — YouTube should not have been forced to take down an anti-Muslim film that sparked violence in the Middle East and death threats to actors, a federal appeals court ruled Monday in a victory for free speech advocates. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal sided with Google, which owns YouTube, after free speech advocates urged the court to overturn a 2-1 decision by three of its judges. The three judges had ordered YouTube to take down the video... ...The film inspired rioting by those who considered it blasphemous to the Prophet Muhammad and President Barack Obama and other world leaders asked Google to take it down. Liars! I like how you tailored the last sentence there to push your ideology. Last I checked President Obama is not a religious leader; therefore, can not consider something blasphemous. Let's look at the ORIGINAL WRITING... "The film sparked rioting by those who considered it blasphemous to the Prophet Muhammad. President Barack Obama and other world leaders asked Google to take it down." Notice there is not a "..."? This usually implies there is more information proceeding what is being quoted. According to the Yahoo article, that sentence has nothing proceeding it. In fact there are two sentences being quote. That why we have a period ( "." ) at the end of the first quoted sentence. Normally I'm not a Grammar Nazi here. But you left that period out on purpose. An dont have balls between your legs to admit it. Since a 'cut/paste' would have left the period in place. So you are a LIAR on three accounts. An why was it taken down Sanity? "...based upon a dubious and unprecedented theory of copyright..." Two correct uses of "..." in a quote. That there is information before and after what I am quoting. An its important not to take the quoted part of of context. The quote above was from the original three judge panel. So something very different from what your trying to insinuate. Maybe you should try...READING...the article minus the political bullshit slant. You just might understand things better.

BamaD -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/18/2015 1:19:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Or, Free Speech dodges another leftist attack quote: Appeals court sides with Google in anti-Muslim film case 20 minutes ago SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — YouTube should not have been forced to take down an anti-Muslim film that sparked violence in the Middle East and death threats to actors, a federal appeals court ruled Monday in a victory for free speech advocates. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal sided with Google, which owns YouTube, after free speech advocates urged the court to overturn a 2-1 decision by three of its judges. The three judges had ordered YouTube to take down the video... ...The film inspired rioting by those who considered it blasphemous to the Prophet Muhammad and President Barack Obama and other world leaders asked Google to take it down. Liars! I like how you tailored the last sentence there to push your ideology. Last I checked President Obama is not a religious leader; therefore, can not consider something blasphemous. Let's look at the ORIGINAL WRITING... "The film sparked rioting by those who considered it blasphemous to the Prophet Muhammad. President Barack Obama and other world leaders asked Google to take it down." Notice there is not a "..."? This usually implies there is more information proceeding what is being quoted. According to the Yahoo article, that sentence has nothing proceeding it. In fact there are two sentences being quote. That why we have a period ( "." ) at the end of the first quoted sentence. Normally I'm not a Grammar Nazi here. But you left that period out on purpose. An dont have balls between your legs to admit it. Since a 'cut/paste' would have left the period in place. So you are a LIAR on three accounts. An why was it taken down Sanity? "...based upon a dubious and unprecedented theory of copyright..." Two correct uses of "..." in a quote. That there is information before and after what I am quoting. An its important not to take the quoted part of of context. The quote above was from the original three judge panel. So something very different from what your trying to insinuate. Maybe you should try...READING...the article minus the political bullshit slant. You just might understand things better. World leader not equal religious leader.

joether -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/18/2015 1:35:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD World leader not equal religious leader. Some religious leaders have been world leaders in history. World leaders could behave like religious leaders in the world. To say that world leaders have to be religious leaders, is rather limiting. Stating world leaders have to have some religion to them is also rather limiting. Not all religious leaders are world leaders either.

BamaD -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/18/2015 2:03:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD World leader not equal religious leader. Some religious leaders have been world leaders in history. World leaders could behave like religious leaders in the world. To say that world leaders have to be religious leaders, is rather limiting. Stating world leaders have to have some religion to them is also rather limiting. Not all religious leaders are world leaders either. You are the one who equated him being call a world leader to him being called a religious leader. That big brain of yours must not be working today.

Sanity -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/18/2015 2:22:23 PM)
The lie is the point joether. The Benghazi attack wasnt ever started by a protest about a YouTube video, it was a planned terrorist attack from the very beginning. The video lie was Susan Rice, your government, your president, IS the leftist media, lying to you That Barack doesnt understand or doesnt care that the constitution that he swore to defend includes a clause protecting free speech is another thread That they found a way to remove the video and jail the artist, is another thread If you need another clue check the thread headline

joether -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/18/2015 3:29:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The lie is the point joether. The Benghazi attack wasnt ever started by a protest about a YouTube video, it was a planned terrorist attack from the very beginning. The video lie was Susan Rice, your government, your president, IS the leftist media, lying to you That Barack doesnt understand or doesnt care that the constitution that he swore to defend includes a clause protecting free speech is another thread That they found a way to remove the video and jail the artist, is another thread If you need another clue check the thread headline The problem you have Sanity is....YOU DONT HAVE ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE.... 'Conspiracy rantings' is all you have. Most of them have been debunked. A Republican study on the issue found that everything was in order as far as Benghazi is concern. Yes, it sucks. People died. But there was no wrong doing on anyone's part that could have prevented or mitigated the series of events that unfolded. President Obama understands the 1st amendment just as he understands the other twenty-six. He's a Constitutional Scholar! Maybe you should look up the guy's background sometime! I would bet money he could school your ass on US Constitutional law any day of the millennium! You lied three times in your OP. I took you to task for them. That you can not even form an ounce of defense on any of them speaks much on your credibility. An you cant even take responsibility for it! Here's a lie for you to 'chew on': Why did we not see one group of Republicans clawing over each other to attack President George W. Bush when seventeen 'Benghazi' attacks took place on his watch? Because we saw group after group after group of Republicans, claw, spit, attack, and rip apart to be the first to find evidence that the President or Hillary Clinton was 'in the wrong'. Yet, the history books didn't show one of these sort of events? Maybe it's because George W. Bush....WAS REPUBLICAN? An that Republicans....ARE....hypocrites!

HunterCA -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/18/2015 4:45:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The lie is the point joether. The Benghazi attack wasnt ever started by a protest about a YouTube video, it was a planned terrorist attack from the very beginning. The video lie was Susan Rice, your government, your president, IS the leftist media, lying to you That Barack doesnt understand or doesnt care that the constitution that he swore to defend includes a clause protecting free speech is another thread That they found a way to remove the video and jail the artist, is another thread If you need another clue check the thread headline The problem you have Sanity is....YOU DONT HAVE ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE.... 'Conspiracy rantings' is all you have. Most of them have been debunked. A Republican study on the issue found that everything was in order as far as Benghazi is concern. Yes, it sucks. People died. But there was no wrong doing on anyone's part that could have prevented or mitigated the series of events that unfolded. President Obama understands the 1st amendment just as he understands the other twenty-six. He's a Constitutional Scholar! Maybe you should look up the guy's background sometime! I would bet money he could school your ass on US Constitutional law any day of the millennium! You lied three times in your OP. I took you to task for them. That you can not even form an ounce of defense on any of them speaks much on your credibility. An you cant even take responsibility for it! Here's a lie for you to 'chew on': Why did we not see one group of Republicans clawing over each other to attack President George W. Bush when seventeen 'Benghazi' attacks took place on his watch? Because we saw group after group after group of Republicans, claw, spit, attack, and rip apart to be the first to find evidence that the President or Hillary Clinton was 'in the wrong'. Yet, the history books didn't show one of these sort of events? Maybe it's because George W. Bush....WAS REPUBLICAN? An that Republicans....ARE....hypocrites! Hum, you mean Obama is a constitutional scholar that said, in public, 25 times that it would be illigal for him to change illigal immigration by Presidential fiat and then did it anyway?

CreativeDominant -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/18/2015 5:58:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The lie is the point joether. The Benghazi attack wasnt ever started by a protest about a YouTube video, it was a planned terrorist attack from the very beginning. The video lie was Susan Rice, your government, your president, IS the leftist media, lying to you That Barack doesnt understand or doesnt care that the constitution that he swore to defend includes a clause protecting free speech is another thread That they found a way to remove the video and jail the artist, is another thread If you need another clue check the thread headline The problem you have Sanity is....YOU DONT HAVE ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE.... 'Conspiracy rantings' is all you have. Most of them have been debunked. A Republican study on the issue found that everything was in order as far as Benghazi is concern. Yes, it sucks. People died. But there was no wrong doing on anyone's part that could have prevented or mitigated the series of events that unfolded. President Obama understands the 1st amendment just as he understands the other twenty-six. He's a Constitutional Scholar! Maybe you should look up the guy's background sometime! I would bet money he could school your ass on US Constitutional law any day of the millennium! You lied three times in your OP. I took you to task for them. That you can not even form an ounce of defense on any of them speaks much on your credibility. An you cant even take responsibility for it! Here's a lie for you to 'chew on': Why did we not see one group of Republicans clawing over each other to attack President George W. Bush when seventeen 'Benghazi' attacks took place on his watch? Because we saw group after group after group of Republicans, claw, spit, attack, and rip apart to be the first to find evidence that the President or Hillary Clinton was 'in the wrong'. Yet, the history books didn't show one of these sort of events? Maybe it's because George W. Bush....WAS REPUBLICAN? An that Republicans....ARE....hypocrites! Hum, you mean Obama is a constitutional scholar that said, in public, 25 times that it would be illigal for him to change illigal immigration by Presidential fiat and then did it anyway? yeah...that's the guy.

BamaD -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/18/2015 6:06:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The lie is the point joether. The Benghazi attack wasnt ever started by a protest about a YouTube video, it was a planned terrorist attack from the very beginning. The video lie was Susan Rice, your government, your president, IS the leftist media, lying to you That Barack doesnt understand or doesnt care that the constitution that he swore to defend includes a clause protecting free speech is another thread That they found a way to remove the video and jail the artist, is another thread If you need another clue check the thread headline The problem you have Sanity is....YOU DONT HAVE ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE.... 'Conspiracy rantings' is all you have. Most of them have been debunked. A Republican study on the issue found that everything was in order as far as Benghazi is concern. Yes, it sucks. People died. But there was no wrong doing on anyone's part that could have prevented or mitigated the series of events that unfolded. President Obama understands the 1st amendment just as he understands the other twenty-six. He's a Constitutional Scholar! Maybe you should look up the guy's background sometime! I would bet money he could school your ass on US Constitutional law any day of the millennium! You lied three times in your OP. I took you to task for them. That you can not even form an ounce of defense on any of them speaks much on your credibility. An you cant even take responsibility for it! Here's a lie for you to 'chew on': Why did we not see one group of Republicans clawing over each other to attack President George W. Bush when seventeen 'Benghazi' attacks took place on his watch? Because we saw group after group after group of Republicans, claw, spit, attack, and rip apart to be the first to find evidence that the President or Hillary Clinton was 'in the wrong'. Yet, the history books didn't show one of these sort of events? Maybe it's because George W. Bush....WAS REPUBLICAN? An that Republicans....ARE....hypocrites! Because Bush never excused the attack with a bogus claim about a youtube video.

joether -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/18/2015 9:01:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD World leader not equal religious leader. Some religious leaders have been world leaders in history. World leaders could behave like religious leaders in the world. To say that world leaders have to be religious leaders, is rather limiting. Stating world leaders have to have some religion to them is also rather limiting. Not all religious leaders are world leaders either. You are the one who equated him being call a world leader to him being called a religious leader. That big brain of yours must not be working today. Major Dick Winter (deceased) one stated "we salute the rank, not the person wearing it" as a way of showing respect even if we dislike the individual. The President of the United States of America, is a world leader. Just because you dislike Mr. Obama, does not mean he is not a world leader. Does the man push religion like Mike Huckabee? Not even close. But he is a Christian. So he is a world leader with religion; but not a religious leader.

joether -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/18/2015 9:03:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Because Bush never excused the attack with a bogus claim about a youtube video. Yes skipped right over all seventeen episodes. All those Americans that died were of no real importance to the Republicans in Congress, right? But when a Democratic President has four dead on his watch... ...Well, Republicans have to claw over each other to be the first to attack him over it, right? That you can't acknowledge the this level of hypocrisy shows your intellectual dishonesty.

joether -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/18/2015 9:07:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Hum, you mean Obama is a constitutional scholar that said, in public, 25 times that it would be illigal for him to change illigal immigration by Presidential fiat and then did it anyway? Cite it.

bounty44 -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/19/2015 2:37:15 AM)
my goodness you might as well cite the weatherman saying it was going to rain. why would one have to? I trust you've been paying enough attention to your messiah over the years to know that what hunter said is true. on another hand, since your complicit leftist media rarely if ever points out anything bad about Obama, this might have only been a racist fox news story of course.

BamaD -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/19/2015 2:48:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD World leader not equal religious leader. Some religious leaders have been world leaders in history. World leaders could behave like religious leaders in the world. To say that world leaders have to be religious leaders, is rather limiting. Stating world leaders have to have some religion to them is also rather limiting. Not all religious leaders are world leaders either. You are the one who equated him being call a world leader to him being called a religious leader. That big brain of yours must not be working today. Major Dick Winter (deceased) one stated "we salute the rank, not the person wearing it" as a way of showing respect even if we dislike the individual. The President of the United States of America, is a world leader. Just because you dislike Mr. Obama, does not mean he is not a world leader. Does the man push religion like Mike Huckabee? Not even close. But he is a Christian. So he is a world leader with religion; but not a religious leader. I never said he wasn't a world leader, however leading from behind does abdicate leadership. Look over what was actually said, you complained about him being called a religious leader. I pointed out that he had been called a world leader which isn't the same thing. Now you claiming that I somehow attacked him which I didn't do. You seem to be responding to what you expect to be said, which, unfortunately, has nothing to do with what was actually said.

hot4bondage -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/19/2015 5:23:58 AM)
Thanks for the update, Sanity. I don't know if we'll ever get all the details sorted out over Benghazi, but this much is clear: Obama tried and failed to censor YouTube. He might be a Constitutional scholar, but he's no advocate.

Lucylastic -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/19/2015 6:20:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The lie is the point joether. The Benghazi attack wasnt ever started by a protest about a YouTube video, it was a planned terrorist attack from the very beginning. The video lie was Susan Rice, your government, your president, IS the leftist media, lying to you That Barack doesnt understand or doesnt care that the constitution that he swore to defend includes a clause protecting free speech is another thread That they found a way to remove the video and jail the artist, is another thread If you need another clue check the thread headline The problem you have Sanity is....YOU DONT HAVE ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE.... 'Conspiracy rantings' is all you have. Most of them have been debunked. A Republican study on the issue found that everything was in order as far as Benghazi is concern. Yes, it sucks. People died. But there was no wrong doing on anyone's part that could have prevented or mitigated the series of events that unfolded. President Obama understands the 1st amendment just as he understands the other twenty-six. He's a Constitutional Scholar! Maybe you should look up the guy's background sometime! I would bet money he could school your ass on US Constitutional law any day of the millennium! You lied three times in your OP. I took you to task for them. That you can not even form an ounce of defense on any of them speaks much on your credibility. An you cant even take responsibility for it! Here's a lie for you to 'chew on': Why did we not see one group of Republicans clawing over each other to attack President George W. Bush when seventeen 'Benghazi' attacks took place on his watch? Because we saw group after group after group of Republicans, claw, spit, attack, and rip apart to be the first to find evidence that the President or Hillary Clinton was 'in the wrong'. Yet, the history books didn't show one of these sort of events? Maybe it's because George W. Bush....WAS REPUBLICAN? An that Republicans....ARE....hypocrites! Hum, you mean Obama is a constitutional scholar that said, in public, 25 times that it would be illigal for him to change illigal immigration by Presidential fiat and then did it anyway? He was right wasnt he? Republicans dared him to do it, while they were in recess, then threatened to sue him, and its being held up in court, as "overstepping" his boundaries. Coming from republicans who shut down the government over a hissy fit, and STILL wont do anything about it, because NOW its too close to 16 to jeopardise their seats.. Revisionist history, the only history the RW is interested in.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/19/2015 6:40:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Hum, you mean Obama is a constitutional scholar that said, in public, 25 times that it would be illigal for him to change illigal immigration by Presidential fiat and then did it anyway? Cite it. Actually Joether...the number is closer to 22 times. http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/11/19/jon-karl-does-obama-think-hes-emperor-of-the-united-states-n1920606 As for the Benghazi thing, no one has ever stated that attacks didn't occur under Bush's watch...its just that Bush and his staff, including Condoleezza Rice, never tried to blame them on a YouTube video. They understood that there are indeed terrorists who...no matter how much we grovel to them and try to understand them...will still hate the West, especially as embodied by America. http://www.isthatbaloney.com/liberals-use-grossly-misleading-graphic-and-list-to-compare-benghazi-to-other-embassy-attacks-under-bush/

HunterCA -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/19/2015 9:49:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD World leader not equal religious leader. Some religious leaders have been world leaders in history. World leaders could behave like religious leaders in the world. To say that world leaders have to be religious leaders, is rather limiting. Stating world leaders have to have some religion to them is also rather limiting. Not all religious leaders are world leaders either. You are the one who equated him being call a world leader to him being called a religious leader. That big brain of yours must not be working today. Major Dick Winter (deceased) one stated "we salute the rank, not the person wearing it" as a way of showing respect even if we dislike the individual. The President of the United States of America, is a world leader. Just because you dislike Mr. Obama, does not mean he is not a world leader. Does the man push religion like Mike Huckabee? Not even close. But he is a Christian. So he is a world leader with religion; but not a religious leader. Actually, his old pastor who is a black liberation theologian said Obama came to him steeped in Muslim faith and he lead him away as a mentor. I more consider black liberation theology as a cult. And since Obama had to throw his church under the bus in 2007, I'm betting he's pretty adrift with religion.

HunterCA -> RE: Repeating the Benghazi Lie, Still (5/19/2015 9:50:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Hum, you mean Obama is a constitutional scholar that said, in public, 25 times that it would be illigal for him to change illigal immigration by Presidential fiat and then did it anyway? Cite it. Here's a link. https://www.google.com

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875