Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

I'll what you what does:  The fact that the OP started a thread blaming Mitt Romney for something that happened under Obama's watch as a direct result of the latter's incompetence. 

You and I live in very different worlds, luckily. 

That would be of course :

Bizzaro World! ( Wink if I could )

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

As usual the Republican candidate is busy shooting himself in the foot in a very inappropriate way. We really don't want this self serving guy as President.

 

A Good read on this subject.

 

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13831663-ex-ambassador-very-disappointed-in-unwise-romney-response

An apology from Romney will never wash now. This has to be the most outrageous thing anyone has ever said whilst running for president. 

Well it's just as well that he show his true colors now ( for all voters to see ) than after the election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Romney has made the exact same statements SINCE he knew about the deaths.

I frankly don't care.  He was absolutely right.  What's unpatriotic is apologizing in the manner "we" did.  It was pathetic, and dangerous.  Oh, and you've got to love this from Obama:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-12/romney-criticizing-obama-s-handling-of-protests-in-egypt.html

   Really, Mr. Obama?  Is that like the time when you said police "acted stupidly?"  Is that like the time (uh, yesterday) where you denied a meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu because your schedule was too busy?  That wasn't hasty?  I think it's time for you to criticize Mitt Romney's "lack of experience." 

The film had little to do with this. Until now, it was an obscure 15 minute piece of amateur hate-mongering garbage, unknown in the Arab world. The US corporate media's incredible irresponsibility in giving this movie such glaring publicity will undoubtedly ignite more violence - against American interests most likely. 

The attackers in this instance are alleged to be "al Qaeda in Libya" - the same group which fought alongside NATO and the US to depose Col. Gadhafi and his regime. Shortly after the rebel forces and NATO prevailed, al Qaeda flags were seen fluttering over government and other official buildings in Tripoli and Benghazi.

As we should all know by now, al Qaeda is a Western created entity, and is used accordingly re. whats politically useful at the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Yeah, not that the SDW's of this world will even notice though. Hopefully plenty of others will.

Yes, he's showing his true colors.  He's showing that's he's right and Obama is spectacularly, unbelievably incompetent and wrong. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Yeah, not that the SDW's of this world will even notice though. Hopefully plenty of others will.

 

Yes, he's showing his true colors.  He's showing that's he's right and Obama is spectacularly, unbelievably incompetent and wrong. 

What he's showing is he's a self serving asshole ( as if we didn't already know that ). I watched him and his wife on meet the press talk about how they understood the suffering of the common man ( even if they "  never had to suffer themselves " )

I was reminded of that viral video from Prometheus where the robot David understood many human emotions even though he didn't have them himself.!

http://youtu.be/tvXKN5Fz_OE

Jesus what horse shit! 

Another good read on the subject :

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13827378-first-thoughts-over-the-top?lite

Lets face it Romney's going to do have to wipe pretty hard to get this off of his shoes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

What he's showing is he's a self serving asshole ( as if we didn't already know that ).

He certainly is!

Candidates and Crisis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Painting Obama as unAmerican when a US embassy is under attack is shameful. 

Not at all. The statement released by the embassy was un-American and deserved to be slammed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

1.  Romney made his statements before he knew about the deaths.

 

2.  Romney is correct.  What we are seeing now is a direct result of the President's completely ineffective, incompetent and dangerous policy in the Middle East. He pushed out the friendly, stable, pseudo-dictator in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islamists.  Mubarak may have sucked, but he was known, kept stability and relatively friendly towards our interests.   Additionally, he led from behind in taking military action Libya before we really were sure who the rebels were.  And worst of all, our pathetic and weak response to these current attacks will only invite more. 

 

But hey, let's start a threat criticizing Mitt Romney for pointing out how Obama is getting people killed with his policies.  Yeah, that's the ticket. 

Romney has made the exact same statements SINCE he knew about the deaths.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Romney has made the exact same statements SINCE he knew about the deaths.

 

I frankly don't care.  He was absolutely right.  What's unpatriotic is apologizing in the manner "we" did.  It was pathetic, and dangerous.  

But you did defend the statement by saying it was made before he knew. And since I think you meant Gadaffi rather than Mubarak, don't forget that it was Gadaffi's declared intent to kill Americans, and that Mitt Romney supported the action in Libya:

and responded to Gadaffi's overthrow and death with the following statement:

Just FYI...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Painting Obama as unAmerican when a US embassy is under attack is shameful. 

Not at all. The statement released by the embassy was un-American and deserved to be slammed.

Just to be clear - the Embassy is under attack and the Embassy issues a statement to attempt to lower tensions, and that makes Obama anti-American.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Just to be clear - the Embassy is under attack and the Embassy issues a statement to attempt to lower tensions, and that makes Obama anti-American.

Romney rightfully attacked the pathetic and cowardly statement put out by the embassy. And embassy officials speak for the administration, and the administration is of course Obama. Those cowards who released that statement happen to work for Obama. The White House later disavowed the statement by the Cairo embassy in which they are apologizing for free speech. Romney was on point and quick to comment on the cowardly statement.

And they were cowardly idiots for releasing such an idiotic statement in the first place. You can't appease Islamofascists, because the embassy released that first apology before they were attacked! A whole lot of good that did them!

And after the idiots were attacked, they released a second statement, declaring that they stood by their first cowardly and un-American statement. If Obama doesn't wish to get blamed, then perhaps he should have hired better people to work for him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

And as the Obama administration said- "no one in Washington approved that statement before it was released and it doesn't reflect the views of the U.S. government."

Yes, I did point that out in my reply which is just above this one. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

That they would have been silent?  Either way - not a lie, because as stated - that is my guess what would have happened.

Why are you guessing?

There have been a number of anti-Christian films made in the last decade or so since AI's Great Blackout.

If Christians on this board have called for freedom of expression to be curtailed, or have been silent on the protection of that freedom, it should be easy to source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

Romney rightfully attacked the pathetic and cowardly statement put out by the embassy. And embassy officials speak for the administration, and the administration is of course Obama. Those cowards who released that statement happen to work for Obama. The White House later disavowed the statement by the Cairo embassy in which they are apologizing for free speech. Romney was on point and quick to comment on the cowardly statement.

To be fair to the embassy staff, they have to live in the midst of that chaos. And apparently, the Commander-in-Chief forgot that U.S. embassies need to be guarded by Americans with guns.

If you know you're not going to be protected by your government, you probably don't want to put out statements that will get you attacked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

 

And apparently, the Commander-in-Chief forgot that U.S. embassies need to be guarded by Americans with guns.

 

 

I can't say that I'm surprised by that, since that happens to be the same Commander-in-chief who regularly chooses to skip vital security briefings, according to articles that I've read.

People can claim that hindsight is 20/20, but seriously, no beefed up security in hostile, anti-US, Muslim countries on 9/11 of all days? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

That they would have been silent?  Either way - not a lie, because as stated - that is my guess what would have happened.

Why are you guessing?

 

There have been a number of anti-Christian films made in the last decade or so since AI's Great Blackout.

If Christians on this board have called for freedom of expression to be curtailed, or have been silent on the protection of that freedom, it should be easy to source.

No - you are still missing my point - or I'm making it really badly - quite possible. At the risk of laboring the issue, I'm not suggesting that anyone on this board, or anywhere else for that matter, has called for freedom of speech to be limited, I'm suggesting that they would not have leapt to the defense of an anti-Christian film with the same right to freedom of speech argument. Significant difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Just to be clear - the Embassy is under attack and the Embassy issues a statement to attempt to lower tensions, and that makes Obama anti-American.

Romney rightfully attacked the pathetic and cowardly statement put out by the embassy. And embassy officials speak for the administration, and the administration is of course Obama. Those cowards who released that statement happen to work for Obama. The White House later disavowed the statement by the Cairo embassy in which they are apologizing for free speech. Romney was on point and quick to comment on the cowardly statement.

 

And they were cowardly idiots for releasing such an idiotic statement in the first place. You can't appease Islamofascists, because the embassy released that first apology before they were attacked! A whole lot of good that did them!

 

And after the idiots were attacked, they released a second statement, declaring that they stood by their first cowardly and un-American statement. If Obama doesn't wish to get blamed, then perhaps he should have hired better people to work for him.

Appeasement and diplomacy are different animals. Their statement seemed reasonable to me in the situation that they found themselves in, especially since the film in question is hard to defend in any rational sense. No doubt you would have preferred Obama to have instructed them to issue a press release supporting the producers' rights to make the film and condemning the complete lack of a sense of humor on the part of the Muslims. I'm sure that would have worked out much better for them.

It's kind of funny - I really enjoy your anti-Android, anti-troll posts on the technical forums, maybe because the subject matter is less serious, but on real world issues your posts just seem to degenerate into non sequiturs and irrelevant conclusions.

Romney is more for Israel than Obama and he was right what he said about Obama defending the countries which started all this trouble instead of saying that he would have done things differently and stood up for the U.S.Obama is more perplexing more and more with his foreign policies.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

What he's showing is he's a self serving asshole ( as if we didn't already know that ). I watched him and his wife on meet the press talk about how they understood the suffering of the common man ( even if they "  never had to suffer themselves " )

 

I was reminded of that viral video from Prometheus where the robot David understood many human emotions even though he didn't have them himself.!

 

http://youtu.be/tvXKN5Fz_OE

 

Jesus what horse shit! 

A self-serving asshole.  Wow...you're really stepping up your debate skills.  By the way, I guess Obama being worth nearly $10 million isn't out of touch.  Got it.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Romney jumped in. He smelt votes and oh boy was that a cynical ploy to blame Obama and say he sympathised with the attackers. Painting Obama as unAmerican when a US embassy is under attack is shameful. The Tea Party has clearly gone to his head. 

Or perhaps Romney meant what he said.  He thought the statement was disgraceful (it was) and that the situation was the result of the President's policies and weak rhetoric (it was).  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Another good read on the subject :

 

 

 

 

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13827378-first-thoughts-over-the-top?lite

 

Lets face it Romney's going to do have to wipe pretty hard to get this off of his shoes.

Expect that any opinion from NBC News is not going to be taken seriously.  While not NBC in this example, these are the kinds of things that the media does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

He certainly is!

 

 

Candidates and Crisis

FLASHBACK: In 2008, candidate Obama used U.S. troop deaths for talking point

http://freebeacon.com/candidates-and-crisis/

 

The corrupt, liberal and in the pocket for Obama media is not at all concerned with asking a simple question to Obama like why in the hell an embassy in Libya did not have beefed up security on 9/11, and why has Obama been skipping his security briefs for a while now? 

In true liberal dishonest fashion, they intend to deflect away from the real story and instead, the big news story here is "let's get outraged at Romney's truthful statements!". Sneaky ass liberal reporters were even caught on open mic coordinating Egypt/Libya questions for Romney.

Obama is in Las Vegas right now, isn't he? If it were Bush, I bet you that the media would be slamming him all day for that. But as usual, the incompetent Obama gets a pass, because most of the media is up his butt.

Are those crickets I hear from the media and our Obamatron friends?  Yes, I think they are.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

Not at all. The statement released by the embassy was un-American and deserved to be slammed.

100% agreed.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

 

But you did defend the statement by saying it was made before he knew. And since I think you meant Gadaffi rather than Mubarak, don't forget that it was Gadaffi's declared intent to kill Americans, and that Mitt Romney supported the action in Libya:

 

 

 

and responded to Gadaffi's overthrow and death with the following statement:

 

 

 

Just FYI...

I meant Mubarak.  The same can apply to Libya though as the Romney statement is out of context.  The implication is that he would have done exactly what Obama did, which most unlikely.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Appeasement and diplomacy are different animals. Their statement seemed reasonable to me in the situation that they found themselves in, especially since the film in question is hard to defend in any rational sense. No doubt you would have preferred Obama to have instructed them to issue a press release supporting the producers' rights to make the film and condemning the complete lack of a sense of humor on the part of the Muslims. I'm sure that would have worked out much better for them.

 

It's kind of funny - I really enjoy your anti-Android, anti-troll posts on the technical forums, maybe because the subject matter is less serious, but on real world issues your posts just seem to degenerate into non sequiturs and irrelevant conclusions.

We don't need to defend anything, nor enflame anything.  We simply should have said "the US government had nothing to do with this film.  We do not limit free speech.  As for the protesters who are storming and attacking our embassy and consulate....go to hell."   We should then should have demanded an apology from the Egyptian and Libyan governments, as well as assurances.  We knew this was coming, and also should have demanded action to stop it.  

So let me see if I understand the reasoning of this thread....

Obama's policies and actions, which he swore would cause the world to respect us more, would lead to less hatred for the U.S. and that would cause all non-U.S. parties to see us in a much better light instead have people storming our embassies in several different countries and killing our personnel.

Pointing this out is wrong, a gaffe, proof of incompetence, or what have you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

So let me see if I understand the reasoning of this thread....

 

Obama's policies and actions, which he swore would cause the world to respect us more, would lead to less hatred for the U.S. and that would cause all non-U.S. parties to see us in a much better light instead have people storming our embassies in several different countries and killing our personnel.

 

Pointing this out is wrong, a gaffe, proof of incompetence, or what have you.

That seems to be the logic.  It's not surprising though...Hands has been 100% in the tank for Obama since early August.  It's funny, because I don't recall this starting until late summer.  He expressed liberal opinions and negative opinions about Romney, but not to this degree.  

By the way,  The Washington Examiner notes that Obama's comments yesterday echoed Carter's.   The pundits are claiming that 2012 is not 1980.  Until now, I was inclined to agree, or at least be somewhat neutral.  But, the similarities are actually quite striking.  We have a weak economy with high unemployment.  We have soaring fuel costs.  We have a tepid foreign policy and naive, unpopular President who thinks that world will be nice to us if we apologize and play nice.   We have a challenger who is preaching foreign policy and military strength for peace, as well as belief in the private economy. Even the polls are similar at this point.  I'm starting to think that this cycle may be almost exactly like 1980, actually.  

Video of obama using the deaths of 9 US soldiers to score political points and attack Bush and McCain in 2008.

Barack Obama Used Troop Deaths To Slam Bush And McCain in 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXNF4_09BOI&feature=player_embedded

Was any media outraged at Obama back then? Nope. Were there any dishonest concern trolls back then in the media questioning Obama? Nope.

And hasn't the media done a mighty fine job of reporting on US deaths in Afghanistan these past years under Obama's watch? Nope, the media and the left doesn't give a shit anymore, now that US service members are dying under Obama's watch. It's a total non issue to the media and to most Obama supporters now. They just don't give a shit.

More US soldiers have been killed and wounded during the community organizer's first term in office than in Bush's two terms! 

The media sets the narrative, and the narrative that most of the MSM has chosen is that they will do whatever it takes to cover for their guy.

I'm unable to edit my previous post, but I should add that I am referring to US deaths in Afghanistan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I meant Mubarak.  The same can apply to Libya though as the Romney statement is out of context.  The implication is that he would have done exactly what Obama did, which most unlikely.  

 

We don't need to defend anything, nor enflame anything.  We simply should have said "the US government had nothing to do with this film.  We do not limit free speech.  As for the protesters who are storming and attacking our embassy and consulate....go to hell."   We should then should have demanded an apology from the Egyptian and Libyan governments, as well as assurances.  We knew this was coming, and also should have demanded action to stop it.  

Fair enough - but why are you talking about Mubarak when this happened in Libya? And what do you mean by the Romney statement is out of context? He said what he said, and it was not ambiguous. It's hard to have a reasonable discussion if you simply dismiss, without explanation, anything that doesn't fit well with your position.

Obama:  Egypt Not an Ally.  Congress:  Yes, they are.  

Wait, I thought we were supposed to "careful" and "base our statements on facts" and not "shoot first and aim later."

?   

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

So let me see if I understand the reasoning of this thread....

 

Obama's policies and actions, which he swore would cause the world to respect us more, would lead to less hatred for the U.S. and that would cause all non-U.S. parties to see us in a much better light instead have people storming our embassies in several different countries and killing our personnel.

 

Pointing this out is wrong, a gaffe, proof of incompetence, or what have you.

No, it's unpatriotic. The Democrats have now discovered that patriotism should be used as a weapon, after complaining for years that the GOP shouldn't do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Obama:  Egypt Not an Ally.  Congress:  Yes, they are.  

 

 

Wait, I thought we were supposed to "careful" and "base our statements on facts" and not "shoot first and aim later."

 

?   

So American taxpayers give billions of dollars a year to countries that are not allies?

Should we ban or limit free speech and freedom of expression because of these recent events in Libya? Most Americans would emphatically and vehemently say no. I also say no.

The problem with dealing with social costs

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Should we ban or limit free speech and freedom of expression because of these recent events in Libya? Most Americans would emphatically and vehemently say no. I also say no.

 

The problem with dealing with social costs

That article is a reasonable assessment - perhaps until it (IMO) unreasonably conflates freedom of expression with climate change. The constitution does not grant an inalienable right to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Aside from that, in the case at hand, I have not seen anyone calling for a restriction on freedom of speech (expression). The argument (at least on this thread) seems to have been about whether or not the statement should have been issued by the US Embassy deprecating the message apparently portrayed in the film. But even an official announcement deprecating (or even condemning) a particular action or message is not the same as arguing for suppression of the right to express those views. In fact the right to condemn the views of others is as much a part of freedom of expression as the right of others to express those views in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Should we ban or limit free speech and freedom of expression because of these recent events in Libya? Most Americans would emphatically and vehemently say no. I also say no.

 

The problem with dealing with social costs

 

Absolutely not. I haven't seen the particular film in question, though I read that it's amateurish and has poor production values and I have no interest in watching trash.

I think that somebody should make a big budget "Life of Brian" type film about Mohammed. I would fully support that. More critical films need to be made about Islam, not less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

That article is a reasonable assessment - perhaps until it (IMO) unreasonably conflates freedom of expression with climate change. The constitution does not grant an inalienable right to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

 

Aside from that, in the case at hand, I have not seen anyone calling for a restriction on freedom of speech (expression). The argument (at least on this thread) seems to have been about whether or not the statement should have been issued by the US Embassy deprecating the message apparently portrayed in the film. But even an official announcement deprecating (or even condemning) a particular action or message is not the same as arguing for suppression of the right to express those views. In fact the right to condemn the views of others is as much a part of freedom of expression as the right of others to express those views in the first place.

Maybe you haven't seen it, but there have been quite a few people and terrorist loving liberals who hold the view that the filmmaker should be imprisoned, including one UPenn professor, coward and terrorist apologist named Anthea Butler, a truly disgusting human.

Also, the US govt has no right to ask private citizens to tone down their free speech, such as having the Pentagon asking the Florida pastor Terry Jones to stop supporting the film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

That article is a reasonable assessment - perhaps until it (IMO) unreasonably conflates freedom of expression with climate change. The constitution does not grant an inalienable right to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

 

Aside from that, in the case at hand, I have not seen anyone calling for a restriction on freedom of speech (expression). The argument (at least on this thread) seems to have been about whether or not the statement should have been issued by the US Embassy deprecating the message apparently portrayed in the film. But even an official announcement deprecating (or even condemning) a particular action or message is not the same as arguing for suppression of the right to express those views. In fact the right to condemn the views of others is as much a part of freedom of expression as the right of others to express those views in the first place.

You missed the point.

The point that blog post makes is that there is no one calling for the limitations on this particular freedom even though it clearly has had some large and serious negative externalities (i.e., "social costs"). Yet many of the same people (typically leftists) who will defend the freedom of expression no matter what are the first to advocate for the suppression of other freedoms because they create some kind of negative externality (i.e., "social costs") and argue that the government must limit some particular freedom because of these "social costs."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

 

I think that somebody should make a big budget "Life of Brian" type film about Mohammed. I would fully support that. More critical films need to be made about Islam, not less.

That could be very entertaining, and the reactions would expose the huge culture gap between the west, where heresy laws were ditched ages ago, and the Islamic world that still has them and uses them. It has always puzzled me what degree of insecurity it must take to make people so protective of their (presumably defenseless) god that they feel the need to persecute those who don't believe and kill those who might cause offense. I would not want to be a US Citizen living in an Islamic country if that were to happen though. Come to think of it, I wouldn't want to live in one anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

That article is a reasonable assessment - perhaps until it (IMO) unreasonably conflates freedom of expression with climate change. The constitution does not grant an inalienable right to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

 

Aside from that, in the case at hand, I have not seen anyone calling for a restriction on freedom of speech (expression). The argument (at least on this thread) seems to have been about whether or not the statement should have been issued by the US Embassy deprecating the message apparently portrayed in the film. But even an official announcement deprecating (or even condemning) a particular action or message is not the same as arguing for suppression of the right to express those views. In fact the right to condemn the views of others is as much a part of freedom of expression as the right of others to express those views in the first place.

 

You missed the point.

 

The point that blog post makes is that there is no one calling for the limitations on this particular freedom even though it clearly has had some large and serious negative externalities (i.e., "social costs"). Yet many of the same people (typically leftists) who will defend the freedom of expression no matter what are the first to advocate for the suppression of other freedoms because they create some kind of negative externality (i.e., "social costs") and argue that the government must limit some particular freedom because of these "social costs."

No, I didn't miss the point at all. Yes - the blog made that point, but you yourself asked the question should we ban or limit free speech because of these events. I assumed that was a rhetorical question and that you were making the argument that we shouldn't, and so I was making the point that no one is arguing that we should. Except the Muslim protestors of course, but they don't have a say in this.