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.
Let me show you how this works NYCarbineer
He uses the term "act of terror" in the Rose Garden.
Now...lets switch up the scenario....
Rice is on the talk shows saying it was a terrorist attack.
Carney continually points to "a terrorist" attack.
Obama goes in front of the UN and talks about how these terorist attacks need to come to an end.
ANd then the truth comes out that it was not a terrorist attack, but instead a protest against a video that turned violent.
And his political opponenets rant and rave about how he labelled it wrong.
What would he have been able to say?
"I never said it was a terroist attack...I called it an act of terror...and when you have a mob go violent and start killing Americans, it is an act of terror."
Do you not see how politicians cover their tracks?
So you're effectively admitting that Obama would be attacked by the Right no matter which way this Benghazi incident had gone.
Absolutely.
As would have Bush by the left.
Thats a given.
It is up to us, the electorate to weed thriough the bullcrap and find the freaking truth.
Sadly, there are folks like you that ignore it if it is one of "your" guys.
I was on the fence with Iraq....but I believed in the intel...... When Hillary claimed the intel was cherry picked, I was pissed. Wrote to her (she was my senator) and Schumer and my district congressman insisting on answers as to how our president was allowed to cherry pick intel and get thousandss of Americans killed.
Of course, nothing ever came of the claims....BUT I WANTED ANSWERS IF IT WERE TRUE.
You? Proof means nothing when it is a democrat.
Much ado about nothing. Anyone surprised? PC is the quintessential partisan hack, if she had college level writing skills (or chose not to write for the conservative dumbies alone) one might suspect she was in the employ of the Brother's Koch.
As it stands now, PC ought to read about the boy who cried wolf. She and the rest of the echo chamber need to remember the more they whine and accuse, the less impact they have on reasonable, intelligent and normal people. Benghazi is one more Red Herring used to excuse the inability of the Republican Party to govern and the desperate need for their hard held beliefs to be sustained even when they have had a record of failure.
Hey....look who's back!!
I heard you got a brain transplant and the brain rejected you!
Can we make the same deal as before?
Either you find an error in the OP....
...or admit your ancestors came here in search of bananas!
'Cmon....
It'll be fun.
Notice how prescient I was? Such suggests my brain is fine, most find it sagacious. I wrote that your writing style was directed to conservative dummies and look who thanked you for your petty ad hominem response? Another new conservative dolt.
True. Now can we spend our resources drilling into that a little further to find out WHICH terrorists?
Or are too many people just too concerned with trying to make political opponents look bad?
Well we should have done that, but instead of calling them terrorists, we said it was a spontaneous demostration caused by a video and then arrested the guy who made the video.......understand now comrade?
Ah ... yet another "acts of terrorism" doesn't mean "act of terrorism" argument ...
Good luck with that one. When it falls flat on its face, you can always fall back on calling someone names.
So you're effectively admitting that Obama would be attacked by the Right no matter which way this Benghazi incident had gone.
Absolutely.
As would have Bush by the left.
Thats a given.
It is up to us, the electorate to weed thriough the bullcrap and find the freaking truth.
Sadly, there are folks like you that ignore it if it is one of "your" guys.
I was on the fence with Iraq....but I believed in the intel...... When Hillary claimed the intel was cherry picked, I was pissed. Wrote to her (she was my senator) and Schumer and my district congressman insisting on answers as to how our president was allowed to cherry pick intel and get thousandss of Americans killed.
Of course, nothing ever came of the claims....BUT I WANTED ANSWERS IF IT WERE TRUE.
You? Proof means nothing when it is a democrat.
How many congressional hearings on the Pat Tilman lies? The Jessica Lynch lies? The WMD lies for that matter?
Did we hold as many hearings on these all added together as we have already held on Benghazi?
And you still don't have your smoking gun yet? Move on.
Well we should have done that, but instead of calling them terrorists, we said it was a spontaneous demostration caused by a video and then arrested the guy who made the video.......understand now comrade?
Ah ... yet another "acts of terrorism" doesn't mean "act of terrorism" argument ...
Good luck with that one. When it falls flat on its face, you can always fall back on calling someone names.
he never said act of terrorism...he said act of terror.
It was an act of terror.....that was for sure. Question was, was it committed by terrorists as defined by todays political talk.
But act of terror? Yes, it most certianly was....as is a drunk dirver on a crowded city street....
I am surpised that one as common as you are on this sight is unable to discerne between "an act of terror" and "a terrorist attack".
Well we should have done that, but instead of calling them terrorists, we said it was a spontaneous demostration caused by a video and then arrested the guy who made the video.......understand now comrade?
Ah ... yet another "acts of terrorism" doesn't mean "act of terrorism" argument ...
Good luck with that one. When it falls flat on its face, you can always fall back on calling someone names.
he never said act of terrorism...he said act of terror.
It was an act of terror.....that was for sure. Question was, was it committed by terrorists as defined by todays political talk.
But act of terror? Yes, it most certianly was....as is a drunk dirver on a crowded city street....
I am surpised that one as common as you are on this sight is unable to discerne between "an act of terror" and "a terrorist attack".[/QUOTE
this is not the satire thread.
Absolutely.
As would have Bush by the left.
Thats a given.
It is up to us, the electorate to weed thriough the bullcrap and find the freaking truth.
Sadly, there are folks like you that ignore it if it is one of "your" guys.
I was on the fence with Iraq....but I believed in the intel...... When Hillary claimed the intel was cherry picked, I was pissed. Wrote to her (she was my senator) and Schumer and my district congressman insisting on answers as to how our president was allowed to cherry pick intel and get thousandss of Americans killed.
Of course, nothing ever came of the claims....BUT I WANTED ANSWERS IF IT WERE TRUE.
You? Proof means nothing when it is a democrat.
How many congressional hearings on the Pat Tilman lies? The Jessica Lynch lies? The WMD lies for that matter?
Did we hold as many hearings on these all added together as we have already held on Benghazi?
And you still don't have your smoking gun yet? Move on.
So you are satisfied with "no answers".
Good for you.
I likw answers.
Ah ... yet another "acts of terrorism" doesn't mean "act of terrorism" argument ...
Good luck with that one. When it falls flat on its face, you can always fall back on calling someone names.
he never said act of terrorism...he said act of terror.
It was an act of terror.....that was for sure. Question was, was it committed by terrorists as defined by todays political talk.
But act of terror? Yes, it most certianly was....as is a drunk dirver on a crowded city street....
I am surpised that one as common as you are on this sight is unable to discerne between "an act of terror" and "a terrorist attack".
And I'm not surprised that one as common as you on these boards chooses talking points over reality. It IS a choice you know.
LOL......sorry s0n......the BS strategy of semantics distraction is ummmm..........fAiLing this time!!!
And I must admit.......Im fucking giddy!!!!
FACTCHECKER in the Washington Post FTMFW!!!!
Obama?s claim he called Benghazi an ?act of terrorism? - The Washington Post
The Washington Post 'factchecker' is a guy named Glen Kessler. What special authority or qualifications make him an unimpeachable source of the truth? His column is essentially a blog.
Here's his answer:
" The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word."
The Obama-Romney clash over Libya - The Washington Post
Of course, that hardly compares to your credentials as "Obama Boot-Licker."
Here's his answer:The Washington Post 'factchecker' is a guy named Glen Kessler. What special authority or qualifications make him an unimpeachable source of the truth? His column is essentially a blog.
" The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word."
The Obama-Romney clash over Libya - The Washington Post
Of course, that hardly compares to your credentials as "Obama Boot-Licker."
1. Can you name any relevant examples of 'acts of terror' that cannot with reasonable accuracy also be described as 'acts of terrorism'.
2. Can you name any relevant examples of 'acts of terrorism' that cannot with reasonable accuracy also be described as 'acts of terror'?
3. Referencing my other post about Bush and Hamas, can you tell us why Bush CHOSE to call those Hamas attacks on Israel an 'act of terror' instead of an 'act of terrorism'?
Ah ... yet another "acts of terrorism" doesn't mean "act of terrorism" argument ...
Good luck with that one. When it falls flat on its face, you can always fall back on calling someone names.
he never said act of terrorism...he said act of terror.
It was an act of terror.....that was for sure. Question was, was it committed by terrorists as defined by todays political talk.
But act of terror? Yes, it most certianly was....as is a drunk dirver on a crowded city street....
I am surpised that one as common as you are on this sight is unable to discerne between "an act of terror" and "a terrorist attack".[/QUOTE
this is not the satire thread.
Are you aware that the president in his Rose Garden remarks was also referring to 9/11/2001 as an act of terror?
Do you honestly think the President was thus trying to obfuscate the issue as to whether or not 9/11 was a terrorist attack?
I ask because that is what you have to believe if you believe that the President in the rose garden was using the 'acts of terror' phrase with some sort of intentional nuanced semantic tactic.
Who here can tell us exactly who carried out the Benghazi attacks?
Terrorists?
The greatest treachery of the election cycle was committed by Candy Crowley during the debate. She not only certified an answer by Obama...i.e., that he had claimed Benghazi was a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden speech....
....but she was dead wrong.
I leave it to each to decide if you lied or was merely mistaken.
The point is....Obama knew....he lied.
1."(CNN) -- Conservative critics have launched an attack on CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley, who moderated Tuesday's second presidential debate, after she corrected former Gov. Mitt Romney's claim that President Barack Obama did not refer to the consulate attack in Benghazi as an "act of terror."
a. Obama said in the debate that on September 12, he called the attack in Libya that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, an "act of terror." Romney, however, disputed the claim, and said the president had not called it an "act of terror" for 14 days. Crowley correctly stated that Obama had used the term "act of terror" during remarks at The White House the day after the attack. Romney was mistaken.
b. Crowley correctly stated that Obama had used the term "act of terror" during remarks at The White House the day after the attack. Romney was mistaken."
The truth about what Candy Crowley said - CNN.com
2. Notice the subtle change from 'the Benghazi attack was an act of terror....'
to the more general 'No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,..." which is what he actually said. Full Transcript of Obama's Rose Garden Speech After Sept. 11 Benghazi Attack - October 16 12 10:31 EDT - ForexTV.com
a. And- this generalization was after he said this:
"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None."
An obvious reference to the pretend-provenance of the attack: the video.
There is no other way these four sentences make sense.
3. Gregory Hicks (C), Foreign Service Officer and former Deputy Chief of Mission/Charge dAffairs in Libya, spoke to Hillary Clinton the night of the attack...and made clear that there was no video-protest.
Dems Circle Wagons Around Hillary As Benghazi Whistleblowers Signal 2016 Attacks - Forbes
a. Hillary to father of slain: We'll make sure that the person who made that film was arrested. Ibid.
4. Further, he went on to speak at the UN, continuing the charade,...
"During his address to the United Nations today in New York City, President Obama again blamed violent Islamic riots in the Middle East on a video....six times."
Obama to UN: "Crude and Disgusting Video Sparked Outrage" - Katie Pavlich
a. Attack....September 11th......Rose Garden....September 12.....UN speech September 25
...Obama continues with the lie to this day.
5. Need more?
Ok: if Obama actually believed that the attack was related to the video.....
"Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference"
Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference - ABC News
....why was it necessary to remove terrorist references???
So....let's review.
a. The video has nothing to do with the Benghazi attack
b. The Obama White House knew this immediately
c. They had an opportunity to save those Americans....and chose, instead, to insure re-election...they told reinforcements to stand down.
d. Hillary looked him in the eye and lied to the father of a victim
e. Obama lied at the debate; he was abetted by Candy Crowley
f. The Obama White House made sure that 'terror attack' was not in the report.
g. To this day, he is lying about involvement in the cover-up
Now....if this has no importance.....why should the charges against Nixon have any?
Once you acknowledge that yes the President did in fact call Benghazi an act of terror in his rose garden remarks, and denounce your out-of-context edited misrepresentation of the president's remarks, once you take the baby step of acknowledging an irrefutable fact, then we can proceed to your other points. You need to show some integrity in debating.Your rebuttal is to repeat what you originally said, again out of context? Good one.
I've proven beyond any doubt that he specifically referred to Benghazi as an act of terror in his rose garden remarks.
That you wish to deny the proven has absolutely no effect on what's been proven. The Holocaust deniers haven't made the Holocaust disappear, nor will your denials make the proof I've provided disappear. It's too bad the term Mongoloid Idiot fell into disuse. You could have had a title.
You moron.....those are direct quotes: FactCheck and WaPo. And.... from the OP AGAIN: "And- this generalization was after he said this: "Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None."
An obvious reference to the pretend-provenance of the attack: the video.
There is no other way these four sentences make sense."
Did I miss your answer to the question...are you a liar or stupid?
Waiting.
Modeling yourself after a Holocaust Denier, or for that matter a Birther, is neither in the letter nor the spirit of integrity. Hey you never know, you might win the second half of your argument. You'd be batting .500 then.
Some are inoperable, and they dig harshly for the rest of your pain-filled life.
He told Crowley that he called it terrorism in the Rose Garden, he didnt.....he randomly though out an act of terror or some such shit, but never called BenGhazi a terrorist act.
Remember they were still making you guys believe it was a spontaneous demonstration about a video....and some one here STILL believe that story and i'll mock them about it, as long as I post on here, anyone who bought that is a fucking tard
What is the difference between an act of terror and a terrorist attack, in the context of this discussion.
Name some acts of terror that were not terrorist attacks.
Explain how the killings in Benghazi were a terrorist attack, but not an act of terror.
Newtown connecticut was an act of terror but not a terrorist attack.
Driving drunk on a crowded road is an act of terror, but not a terrorist attack.
Benghazi was an act of terror as well......conducted by terrorists.....thus a terrorist attack.
In todays "lingo", we all know the difference between a terrorist and one who commits an act of terror.
Once you acknowledge that yes the President did in fact call Benghazi an act of terror in his rose garden remarks, and denounce your out-of-context edited misrepresentation of the president's remarks, once you take the baby step of acknowledging an irrefutable fact, then we can proceed to your other points. You need to show some integrity in debating.You moron.....those are direct quotes: FactCheck and WaPo. And.... from the OP AGAIN: "And- this generalization was after he said this: "Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None."
An obvious reference to the pretend-provenance of the attack: the video.
There is no other way these four sentences make sense."
Did I miss your answer to the question...are you a liar or stupid?
Waiting.
Modeling yourself after a Holocaust Denier, or for that matter a Birther, is neither in the letter nor the spirit of integrity. Hey you never know, you might win the second half of your argument. You'd be batting .500 then.
Don't you ever mention the term 'mongoloid idiot' again. You may have no idea what the North Koreans did in the fifties, but I do, because my father was injured by one of them, and to put it mildly, they don't play nice. Those who escaped S Korea and other areas in the vicinity of the NK nutters may well one day be all that's left of the genocidal rage the NKoreans insist on inflicting on their neighbors rather than getting along with them, an item, which if they practiced would probably make them a very wealthy nation. Unfortunately, they can't seem to channel their angst into positive means, and wind up cutting off their own nose to spite their own face.
Some people have seen things you wouldn't know unless the bullet you were hit with left a shrapnel digger in 15 different places on your body if one of them didn't outright kill you.
Ethnic smears are not acceptable, nycarbineer. Get used to it or you are going to pay a price for it.
The WaPo article I read this morning gave Barack Obama four pinnochios. That's a polite way of saying he lied his butt off.Your rebuttal is to repeat what you originally said, again out of context? Good one.
I've proven beyond any doubt that he specifically referred to Benghazi as an act of terror in his rose garden remarks.
That you wish to deny the proven has absolutely no effect on what's been proven. The Holocaust deniers haven't made the Holocaust disappear,
nor will your denials make the proof I've provided disappear.
It's too bad the term Mongoloid Idiot fell into disuse. You could have had a title.
You moron.....those are direct quotes: FactCheck and WaPo.
And.... from the OP
AGAIN:
"And- this generalization was after he said this:
"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None."
An obvious reference to the pretend-provenance of the attack: the video.
There is no other way these four sentences make sense."
Did I miss your answer to the question...are you a liar or stupid?
Waiting.
Once you acknowledge that yes the President did in fact call Benghazi an act of terror in his rose garden remarks, and denounce your out-of-context edited misrepresentation of the president's remarks,
once you take the baby step of acknowledging an irrefutable fact,
then we can proceed to your other points. You need to show some integrity in debating.
Modeling yourself after a Holocaust Denier, or for that matter a Birther, is neither in the letter nor the spirit of
integrity.
Hey you never know, you might win the second half of your argument. You'd be batting .500 then.
