Obama directly responsible for Oregon shooting

Oh, that's right ... you can't :ack-1:

Did ya even look at the link in the opening post? It's not like this hasn't happened before....Obama was made aware of the Tsarnaev Brothers, did nothing, and allowed the Boston Marathon terrorist attack to happen.
 
Oh, that's right ... you can't :ack-1:

Did ya even look at the link in the opening post? It's not like this hasn't happened before....Obama was made aware of the Tsarnaev Brothers, did nothing, and allowed the Boston Marathon terrorist attack to happen.
The OP is claiming the Oregon shooter was on a list that Obama ignored; and as evidence, could find no source beyond the discredited one he linked.

Be sure to let the forum know if that changes.
 
[The OP is claiming the Oregon shooter was on a list that Obama ignored; and as evidence, could find no source beyond the discredited one he linked..

Who discredited it? YOU?
 
[The OP is claiming the Oregon shooter was on a list that Obama ignored; and as evidence, could find no source beyond the discredited one he linked..

Who discredited it? YOU?
No, they discredited themselves claiming to be a news agency based in Europe when they're actually based in Panama.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="Faun, post: 12487657, member: 33829
No, they discredited themselves claiming to be a news agency based in Europe when they're actually based in Panama.[/QUOTE]

Ah so YOU DID discredit themselves based on GEOGRAPHY! Got it - thanks.
 
No, they discredited themselves claiming to be a news agency based in Europe when they're actually based in Panama.

Ah so YOU DID discredit themselves based on GEOGRAPHY! Got it - thanks.
No, they discredited themselves by doing that. I merely brought it to the forum's attention.
 
Last edited:
No, they discredited themselves by doing that. I merely brought it to the forum's attention.

Did THEY say 'we are discredited because of a matter of geography' or, as you pointed out, did YOU do that?

You do know that a media can be based out of one location and have several satellite locations and that the important thing about a story is NOT were there media is from but the actual facts of the story, right?
 
No, they discredited themselves by doing that. I merely brought it to the forum's attention.

Did THEY say 'we are discredited because of a matter of geography' or, as you pointed out, did YOU do that?

You do know that a media can be based out of one location and have several satellite locations and that the important thing about a story is NOT were there media is from but the actual facts of the story, right?
That's not a "satellite location," it's their website. :ack-1:
 
prove it false
Why would I waste my time proving you nuts wrong when you're incapable of proving yourself right??

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

You brain-dead cons are a hoot!

But no worries. It's obviously not true since you can't prove it. :thup:


DHS and NSA had the guy on a list of possible terrorists in the USA and did nothing. Thats what this is about, idiot.
did they? according to whom?

Uhm, the DHS & NSA??

:confused:
as reported by whom?

Uhm, the DHS & NSA??
 
That's not a "satellite location," it's their website. :ack-1:


SO?! Who gives a damn where their web site is located? The location of their web site has nothing to do regarding if it is a valid, factual story.
 
That's not a "satellite location," it's their website. :ack-1:


SO?! Who gives a damn where their web site is located? The location of their web site has nothing to do regarding if it is a valid, factual story.
If it's a factual story, then how come no one has been able to confirm it with a real news source?

That should have been your first clue.

The story even cites it's source, fsb.ru. Only no such story can be found there either.

That was your second clue.

The website lying about where they're based was your third.

How many more clues do you need before you realize this story appears to be bullshit?
 
If it's a factual story, then how come no one has been able to confirm it with a real news source?
You have a lot of solid clues and speculation but no definitive proof that it is false.

Personally I don't care....just pointing out that opinion, speculation, and 'clues' does not make anything 'false'. Probably is....
 
If it's a factual story, then how come no one has been able to confirm it with a real news source?
You have a lot of solid clues and speculation but no definitive proof that it is false.

Personally I don't care....just pointing out that opinion, speculation, and 'clues' does not make anything 'false'. Probably is....
Well if something can't be proven, it's reasonable to conclude it's not true. Especially when the source is highly suspect itself.
 
Well if something can't be proven, it's reasonable to conclude it's not true. Especially when the source is highly suspect itself.

Yes it is REASONABLE to conclude...but not necessarily factual.
 
Well if something can't be proven, it's reasonable to conclude it's not true. Especially when the source is highly suspect itself.

Yes it is REASONABLE to conclude...but not necessarily factual.
Well then when someone confirms it, I can accept it. Until then, I will continue making fun of the OP for swallowing any bit of anti-Obama nonsense he can find, no matter how distasteful the source is. :thup:
 
They're balls deep on the 'prove any batshit I post wrong' mode. Its the last bastion of any conspiracy theorist. They've already conceded the argument being unable to back their bullshit.

The part I found so interesting.....was how eager they were to swallow that nonsense whole without fact checking any of it. It never even occurred to them to question anything. With the drivel of a White Supremacist Skinhead owned website sounding perfectly natural to them.

Which speaks volumes.
 
They're balls deep on the 'prove any batshit I post wrong' mode. Its the last bastion of any conspiracy theorist. They've already conceded the argument being unable to back their bullshit.

The part I found so interesting.....was how eager they were to swallow that nonsense whole without fact checking any of it. It never even occurred to them to question anything. With the drivel of a White Supremacist Skinhead owned website sounding perfectly natural to them.

Which speaks volumes.


nothing needs to be proven leftard. obama's comments and those on the Left making moral equivalency arguments comparing atrocities of Muslims TODAY to Christians of today are well-documented.

go cry
 
Last week, the president made headlines by comparing historic Christianity with modern radical Islam. Cautioning Christians, he warned:
Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. . . . So it is not unique to one group or one religion.
The indignation over these remarks was prompt. Even HBO personality Bill Maher – an ardent secularist who has described himself as an atheist – affirmed the president’s error. He noted that to make such a criticism of Christianity requires going back to ancient centuries long ago, while the problem of radical Islam is a very real one right now.
 
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal agreed, declaring: “The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today.”
He added:
It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast. Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam, the assassination of journalists, the beheading and burning alive of captives. We will be happy to keep an eye out for runaway Christians, but it would be nice if he would face the reality of the situation today
 
you are the same morons who compare the Tea Party to the Taliban, and you have the gall to not want to ackowledge that this kind of demagoguery may not have contributed to nutjobs walking about asking people if they are Christians and killing them if they say they are?

isnt this a maniacs idea of avenging the "crimes" of Christians you compare to ISIS and the Taliban??
 

Forum List

Back
Top