Rather, I prefer not being spoon-fed information and accepting it without performing my due diligencePurdueBoilersMeanwhile you're still telling him things and expecting him to take it at face value. I do not accept a general government statement as 100% truthful. There is video proof of officials clearly stating it was not a terrorist attack, then stating it was a terrorist attack. There is evidence that they knew within hours. That is not accepting things at face value.
PurdueBoilers' forum posts
Jesus fvcking Christ! Will you guys get over Benghazi already?! You guys act as though over a thousand Americans got gun down and not casualty number you can count with one hand. Its starting to get sad....tocool340Hey thanks for the input! Almost forgot that this wasn't a forum where you can discuss topics other than video games such as politics.
[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Erick Ericson is a CNN contributor. I wouldn't say it is more liberal than conservative, but sure, it qualifies as a mainstream source. I did read through your CNN link. Can you point out what you mean by the lie evolving? I'm tired and I may not be following the track you're alluding to. My point is that you're making a pretty quick jump to a massive conspiracy. You've basically said that Obama deliberately let Americans die to help his reelection effort. Don't you think that MAYBE that's a little premature to settle on? Or, to put it another way, conservatives have cried wolf an awful lot over the last four years and been proven wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME. Why should even an open-minded individual think that THIS is the smoking gun that will finally prove that Obama is the evil, weak, whatever individual that we've been warned about?nocoolnamejimAt the beginning all Democratic sources say it was the video. Later on, Dems are basically on both sides of the fence. At the end, the Dems claimed it was a terrorist attack from the start (thereby proving the early lies) and try to prove that it was called that when it was not. The lie is true. Did Obama deliberately allow Americans to die? Maybe not and I apologize if I somehow asserted that that was 100% true, because it is not known at this point. A lie, by definition, is a DELIBERATE untruth. I look at the early statements and I see things like:
"We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault." Hillary Clintonand
"It's too early for us to make that judgment. I think -- I know that this is being investigated, and we're working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time." Jay CarneyBasically I see that in the early hours after the attack, information was unclear and the administration was trying to determine the truth. In other words, I don't see a lie. I see a "fog of war" where the explanation changed as more information came in. Nice job cherrypicking comments. Why are you deliberately not acknowledging FULL QUOTES from your leaders? "The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States." "We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent." "There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government, and it's one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It's been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against Western facilities including our embassies and consulates." Those are just a tiny sample of quotes from that article from OUR LEADERS. Leaders who don't just say whatever they want, but are instructed what to say. Your cherrypicking is unbelievable. You literally posted the only ambiguous quotes in the whole article. I trust you can see the quotes at the end that acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack.
[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Your video is a series of out of context/clipped quotes by a rightwing website. I'll go with the official Pentagon timeline until I have a legitimate source that gives me reason to suspect that it's wrong, or even has an incentive to lie.nocoolnamejimI appreciate you even watched it. Are they quotes without full context? Sure. But the clearly show how the lie evolved. Did you read the story from CNN? CNN is a source that is more liberal than conservative and even they acknowledge the lie. Erick Ericson is a CNN contributor. I wouldn't say it is more liberal than conservative, but sure, it qualifies as a mainstream source. I did read through your CNN link. Can you point out what you mean by the lie evolving? I'm tired and I may not be following the track you're alluding to. My point is that you're making a pretty quick jump to a massive conspiracy. You've basically said that Obama deliberately let Americans die to help his reelection effort. Don't you think that MAYBE that's a little premature to settle on? Or, to put it another way, conservatives have cried wolf an awful lot over the last four years and been proven wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME. Why should even an open-minded individual think that THIS is the smoking gun that will finally prove that Obama is the evil, weak, whatever individual that we've been warned about? At the beginning all Democratic sources say it was the video. Later on, Dems are basically on both sides of the fence. At the end, the Dems claimed it was a terrorist attack from the start (thereby proving the early lies) and try to prove that it was called that when it was not. The lie is true. Did Obama deliberately allow Americans to die? Maybe not and I apologize if I somehow asserted that that was 100% true, because it is not known at this point.
[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] *wry smile* Purdueboilers is actually giving me a newfound appreciation for you.nocoolnamejimI'm telling you that Obama may be completely innocent in the whole situation. I'm also telling you that "the lie" is fact at this point and even your party has accepted that. Not sure why you don't. All I ask you to watch the video/read the article. Your video is a series of out of context/clipped quotes by a rightwing website. I'll go with the official Pentagon timeline until I have a legitimate source that gives me reason to suspect that it's wrong, or even has an incentive to lie. I appreciate you even watched it. Are they quotes without full context? Sure. But the clearly show how the lie evolved. Did you read the story from CNN? CNN is a source that is more liberal than conservative and even they acknowledge the lie.
Now taking bets on two new members based on timing: timothyrolls and Purdueboilers Three prominent OT conservatives made "loser has to leave OT for good" bets on who would win the presidential election. Storm Marine reneged on his wager within a week. DevilMightCry and KC_Hokie are still missing. Have these two created new alts or are these genuinely new posters?nocoolnamejimI used to have another profile on here a few years ago. I "got in trouble" because of my views I suppose or a comment I made. Can you imagine that? Yeah, neither can I. Anyway, with the change in what is allowed, I don't think I would have been in trouble now.
Let's look at the first few posts in the archive of "thegatewaypundit.com" 1. "Swift Board Vets promise to regroup if Kerry is nominated as Secretary of Defense" 2. "Coulter: Democrats Decision to Turn US into Third World Nation Is Working Out As Planned" 3. "Senator Chambliss: What Susan Rice Said Was Exactly What President Obama Told Her to Say" I could go on. But basically your first source is a rightwing conspiracy blog. It applauds Ann Coulter as "right on" and agrees with Senator Chambliss as "Of course she was. And, it was all a lie But there was an election coming up." Seriously, have you absolutely no ability to understand the concept of a biased source? Why not trot out a Rush Limbaugh link while you're at it? nocoolnamejimBe nice to Senator Chambliss, afterall the guy's name is Saxby. *wry smile* Purdueboilers is actually giving me a newfound appreciation for you. I'm telling you that Obama may be completely innocent in the whole situation. I'm also telling you that "the lie" is fact at this point and even your party has accepted that. Not sure why you don't. All I ask you to watch the video/read the article.
[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Can you present your sourcing and back up your argument?nocoolnamejimNot sure about the website, but here's a nice video of the the timeline of the lie. Notice how it is definitely based upon a video, then actually a terrorist attack (after the election): http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/232704/ Also, here is another timeline of the lie, this time using quotes of from our fearless leaders: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/index.html Again, notice how it changes. I assure you, the lie is not even in question. It is now well-known that we were lied to. The question is, did Obama give orders to basically let the soldiers/ambassador die to protect the idea that he has "killed" terrorism. That is basically where we are at. And its not a matter of me being proven right or wrong, its a matter of us all finding out what our President decided to do. Let's look at the first few posts in the archive of "thegatewaypundit.com" 1. "Swift Board Vets promise to regroup if Kerry is nominated as Secretary of Defense" 2. "Coulter: Democrats Decision to Turn US into Third World Nation Is Working Out As Planned" 3. "Senator Chambliss: What Susan Rice Said Was Exactly What President Obama Told Her to Say" I could go on. But basically your first source is a rightwing conspiracy blog. It applauds Ann Coulter as "right on" and agrees with Senator Chambliss as "Of course she was. And, it was all a lie But there was an election coming up." Seriously, have you absolutely no ability to understand the concept of a biased source? Why not trot out a Rush Limbaugh link while you're at it? Unreal. Consider: I said I was not sure about the website, but LOOK AT THE VIDEO. Do you think those video clips were made up? LOL. And no response to the other link with DIRECT QUOTES DOCUMENTING THE LIE. You should run for office!
Log in to comment