Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, Obama ignored the evidence and created a false narrative design to cast hit administration in a better light than it deserved.
Terrorism seems to be an elusive thing to this crew. They can't seem to call a duck a duck much less identify the root causes of terrorism.
Terror and terrorism are synonymous in the context of describing a specific act.
You can't deny that 9/11 was terror.
We aren't arguing that point. The causes of the violence are at question.
There my have been protests elsewhere possibly worsened by rumors of a video, but the actions in Benghazi were not a simple protest. The violence in Benghazi showed our president is lying to us about the threat. That's it in a nut-shell.
Did you prove that the video wasn't a factor?
No.
Did you disprove that Obama called it an act of terror?
No.
So we have to prove a lie isn't a lie now?
Well, no proof seems to matter to you, even when you can print it out on your printer and read it for yourself.
Obama didn't call IT an act of terrorism, he was speaking in general terms, and let's face it, calling it terrorism does excuse the lie that it was because of a video. Obama and his administration admits they were wrong and just were using the best information available. This excuse was blown out of the water when they were forced by a court order to come up with the emails in question.
Your argument requires the premise that terrorism could not be caused by a video.
Prove that.
So we have to prove a lie isn't a lie now?
Well, no proof seems to matter to you, even when you can print it out on your printer and read it for yourself.
Obama didn't call IT an act of terrorism, he was speaking in general terms, and let's face it, calling it terrorism does excuse the lie that it was because of a video. Obama and his administration admits they were wrong and just were using the best information available. This excuse was blown out of the water when they were forced by a court order to come up with the emails in question.
Your argument requires the premise that terrorism could not be caused by a video.
Prove that.
I don't have to prove anything I never said. In this vase anobscure video wasn't the cause. It most likely wasn't even the cause of all of the other violence. You're literally ignorant of the causes because they weren't supplied to you by your fearless messiah, who according to him is blameless.
Your argument requires the premise that terrorism could not be caused by a video.
Prove that.
I don't have to prove anything I never said. In this vase anobscure video wasn't the cause. It most likely wasn't even the cause of all of the other violence. You're literally ignorant of the causes because they weren't supplied to you by your fearless messiah, who according to him is blameless.
You just said this:
calling it terrorism does excuse the lie that it was because of a video.
That presumes that a video could not cause terrorism.
Is that your position?
Hey Carbine!
Here's a brick wall. Argue with it:
So far in the almost 50 pages of this thread, I have seen nothing but abject liberal desperation in trying to deflect away from the topic. First it was Bush, then it morphed into his dealings with Saddam Hussein and WMD, then it was whether or not Obama said "act of terror" or not, then it went to Reagan, then it was BUSH AND REAGAN.
Sigh. I should find a liberal thread and do stuff like this. I wonder how it would be received?
So far in the almost 50 pages of this thread, I have seen nothing but abject liberal desperation in trying to deflect away from the topic. First it was Bush, then it morphed into his dealings with Saddam Hussein and WMD, then it was whether or not Obama said "act of terror" or not, then it went to Reagan, then it was BUSH AND REAGAN.
Sigh. I should find a liberal thread and do stuff like this. I wonder how it would be received?
Hey Carbine!
Here's a brick wall. Argue with it:
Why won't you state your position:
Was 9/11 an act of terror?
You realize that by refusing to confirm that fact you have left yourself in the ludicrous position of having to base your argument on the premise that 9/11 was NOT an act of terror?
Does ANYONE on this board agree with TK that 9/11 was not an act of terror?
PLEASE COME FORWARD. We need to see whether or not TK is the only person on this board who thinks 9/11 was not an act of terror.
9/11/01 has nothing to do with the original topic. So forgive me if I don't chomp at the bait.
9/11/01 has nothing to do with the original topic. So forgive me if I don't chomp at the bait.
Blame, Minimize, Deny, Obfuscate, Deflect. NY Carbonated is a Master.
If debating for him is refusing to admit the truth for partisan reasons? Then yeah. He's been doing this shit for years...all the way back to the glory days of the Hannity Boards.9/11/01 has nothing to do with the original topic. So forgive me if I don't chomp at the bait.
Blame, Minimize, Deny, Obfuscate, Deflect. NY Carbonated is a Master.
Master debater.
9/11/01 has nothing to do with the original topic. So forgive me if I don't chomp at the bait.
Blame, Minimize, Deny, Obfuscate, Deflect. NY Carbonated is a Master.
Master debater.
Those guys were just pissed at Bush.
They love Obama......
I think you can ties the ribbons on this thread...fold the tent as it were...Those guys were just pissed at Bush.
They love Obama......
Ya think?
