DescentBB

I guess we know now.

so, because Obama was (clearly) referring to Jihadist types as 'those who slander....", why would you have a problem?
As the link itself asks, hear the whole thing(better still, I'm sure you can find a written transcript out there). Context, please!

That was from one of his speeches where he blamed a video for causing a spontaneous attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. It is full of lies and hypocrisy, layer upon layer, that would anger muslims much more than the video. His attempt to pander to them like they are as easily led as his domestic political constituents is but one of those layers.
Another layer, here was the man reminding the world to lament the death of Muslims who are targeted in the worlds conflicts while forces under his command fly deadly drones around the globe bombing them!

The attack had nothing to do with the stupid video from months earlier that no one on the streets in Libya was talking about. It was because of the real mission of the American efforts in Benghazi, taking their weapons and shipping them to Syrian jihadis and rebels....another country he was meddling in simultaneously with theirs.

So for him to stand there and tell them that water isn't wet and for his political sycophants here try to prop up that charade as some kind of enlightened articulation of the moral high ground that he and America stand upon is offensive.

Where does he stand? On a pile of cow feces that he is peddling...as usual.
Where does he stand? Naively blowing smoke up the worlds butt oblivious to the fact that he isn't fooling anyone.

And again...

this picture comes to mind a lot around here:

...the same goes for complaining about a President with nothing to back you up, but cherry picked, out of context quotes. Also, Will, whining about
Bengazi yet again is still WHINING. Pretty freaking lame, both of you.

callmeslick wrote:. Also, Will, whining about
Bengazi yet again is still WHINING. Pretty freaking lame, both of you.

Nothing I said is untrue.
What he and his team did during that whole chain of events worthy of criticism. Just because you are willing to look the other way to protect them doesn't mean it didn't really happen or that it isnt a bad thing. It only means you sold out for their sake.
He and Hillary have spun their way out of that debacle only because of the help of wilful stooges in pop culture and news media and so now you are just behaving as a 'wannabe stooge'. And THAT is what is truly lame.

I think I remember Krom saying something about permabanning the next person who complains about benghazi...

Oh how I would like to do that, but then I'd have to ban just about everyone in this forum.

Who and/or what would it serve? No one or cause worthy of such a tactic.

Krom wrote:Oh how I would like to do that, but then I'd have to ban just about everyone in this forum.

just the people who bring it up over and over and over and over and over and over again.

callmeslick wrote:...the same goes for complaining about a President with nothing to back you up, but cherry picked, out of context quotes.

And just what was the context?

Eric Holder, top U.S. officials no-shows at Paris unity rally

The U.S. attorney general, in Paris for a terrorism summit with French President Francois Hollande, did not join world leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for the march and rally that drew a million people days after 12 were shot at satirical paper Charlie Hebdo. Others such as Obama and Vice President Biden were also not in attendance.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2073821

Not even a token appearance by the US attorney general WHILE HE WAS IN FRANCE anyway.

Obama, to which symbolism is everything, is sending a message it seems.

so predictable: every far-right 'news site' is going rabid over this non-story. And, on both of my web forums, the expected suspects trumpet the non-story. Good doggie, you do just what your masters ask you to do.

callmeslick wrote:so predictable: every far-right 'news site' is going rabid over this non-story. And, on both of my web forums, the expected suspects trumpet the non-story. Good doggie, you do just what your masters ask you to do.

I guess it's only a non-story if it shows slick's side in a bad light.

what bad light? Seriously, you think the French wanted the hassle of a US Presidential visit, on top of their security? Get real, and find something new to whine about.

Barack Obama is a political dwarf in comparison with Vladimir Putin

sigma wrote:Barack Obama is a political dwarf in comparison with Vladimir Putin

HA HA HA HA HA HA!

OMG, wow. Sigma, you can come up with some one liners even when you don't want to!

That statement is so loaded, it'd get cavity searched and summarily executed at an airport.

callmeslick wrote:Seriously, you think the French wanted the hassle of a US Presidential visit, on top of their security?

No, they just wanted to do security for 7 world leaders and decided one more was too much.

our President requires likely three times the security than those other world leaders combined. Get real. There is a reason NO MAJOR PAPER has made an issue of this. It's a non-issue. As usual with the Obama-whine contingent.

There were over 40 world leaders or representatives there. Your stance that the President would require more is bull★■◆●. And appears like cowardice on his part to the world. And please explain why they didnt send Holder who was already there on a conference on terrorism.

and ironically the first world leader to visit the white house after 9-11 was the president of France.

once again, how come NO MAJOR OUTLET is making this an issue, beyond the right-wing American sources? Think, CUDA, think......

edit- from the Hill:The Obama administration was criticized on social media Sunday for the lack of high-ranking U.S. officials at the unity rally in Paris, where more than 40 world leaders marched in commemoration of the lives lost to terrorism last week.


doesn't that highlighted part make you think yet, CUDA? Is France having a problem? No. Are other nations critical? No. Did China's President show up? No. Was our ambassador at the rally? Yes. This is the sort of counter-productive whining that Flabby Chick rightly cited as paralyzing US action on, well, anything.

you do whats right, because it's right.

the President failed to do that. you fail to see it or admit it.

plus it would help if you new what you were talking about. that is unless CNN, MSNBC, ABC aren't a major news outlet



http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/tv/obama ... vp-AA83lWo

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... -the-note/

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/no-senior-wh ... nity-rally


notice. no mention of FOX so you cant blame the right on this

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

slick is in full blown denial mode with regard to criticism of the leadership of his ideology.

Funny, Obama never was concerned with how his travel/security affected others before. And if this was him suddenly caring how his attendance might affect others he managed to get that wrong too in spite of his intentions.

Will Robinson wrote:slick is in full blown denial mode with regard to criticism of the leadership of his ideology.

Funny, Obama never was concerned with how his travel/security affected others before. And if this was him suddenly caring how his attendance might affect others he managed to get that wrong too in spite of his intentions.

HAH. Seems slick's own administration just admitted it was a 'mistake' not to join the other leaders in the show of support for freedom of speech:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/12/politics/ ... index.html

ThunderBunny wrote:
Obama, to which symbolism is everything, is sending a message it seems.

yeah. the message could be "the guy was probably friggin busy at the time"

and tb, I just read a little bit of what the article you linked to said. It actually backs slick up with stuff like "had the circumstances been a little different.", "onerous and significant" and the fact they needed more than 36 hours of planning.

READ NEXT TIME!

Ferno wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:
Obama, to which symbolism is everything, is sending a message it seems.

yeah. the message could be "the guy was probably friggin busy at the time"

and tb, I just read a little bit of what the article you linked to said. It actually backs slick up with stuff like "had the circumstances been a little different.", "onerous and significant" and the fact they needed more than 36 hours of planning.

READ NEXT TIME!

"onerous and significant" my dog's rear end... I know the article states the administration's position- but they 'admitted it was a mistake' not to attend.

Joe Biden could have shown up quite easily EVEN if the president couldn't.

and so you're using it as a justification for more whining.

Obama had a important golf game that he needed to attend.

then, you knew this sort of drivel was coming.....traitor:
http://www.epictimes.com/2015/01/congre ... ign=buffer

another way to not appear at the rally.......edit them out!
http://www.mediaite.com/online/ultra-or ... bdo-march/

callmeslick wrote:another way to not appear at the rally.......edit them out!
[url][http://www.mediaite.com/online/ultra-or ... march//url]

Religious intolerance strikes again. At least radical Jews haven't beheaded anyone yet.

ThunderBunny wrote:

callmeslick wrote:another way to not appear at the rally.......edit them out!
[url][http://www.mediaite.com/online/ultra-or ... march//url]

Religious intolerance strikes again. At least radical Jews haven't beheaded anyone yet.

nah, they just throw folks into prison for decades with no trial, and deny whole populations water. Good people.

woodchip wrote:Obama had a important golf game that he needed to attend.

"Now watch this drive."