Jim, this is the fundamental problem with your thinking.

It didn't happen.

During the day on Tuesday the embassy in Cairo independently put out a statement condemning the video before any violence began.

That night, Romney issues an embargoed statement (to be released after the 9/11 truce ironically enough) attacking the administration with "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks,".

Before the Romeny's backwards statement was even issued to the press, the Whitehouse had already disavowed the embassy comment. The attack on Obama by Romney and the GOP is either grossly inept or worse an intentional manipulation of an event where Americans serving their country have died.

And on 9/11 of all days :fury:

How you can't see that as anything but shameful is beyond me.

-spence

I'm so sorry. We worked with SEALs a few times, you have to see those guys in person to appreciate how good they are. They are world-class warriors. I promise you he has been rewarded with a very special spot in what is a very special place. May God's love help the family through this time.

"It didn't happen."

Sure it did. I saw a stament that both expressed sympathy for the hurt feelings caused by the video, and also said that wasn't justification for the attack.

Spence, even if the attack never happened, Obama shouldn't be commenting on that video. If Obama doesn't like the anti-Islamic views in that video, why does he pal around with libs who say hateful things about Christianity? Like saying we've declared war on women?

"The attack on Obama by Romney"

I see. When Obama criticizes someone, that's OK. When we criticize him, it's an attack, is that right?

I don't want to keep you from your Kool Aid stand anymore.

Politics disgusts me lately.. All sides disgust me. Both parties would rather point fingers at eachother and kick the issues that need to be fixed down the road to the next guy and then blame everyone else for our problems. Just the notion that this event is being used to prove political points is disgusting.

Please show me where Obama expresses sympathy for those hurt by the video. If you saw it it should be easy to find.

Please provide a link where Obama is commenting on the video.

No, I'm saying that your criticism is based on a flawed understanding of the facts.

You do like facts right?

-spence

Btw the man who made the video was detained and questioned by police.Why?When did the right to free speech require detention and questioning?

Also Obama called the man reckless and irresponsible and such behaviour should be monitored and curtailed.He really did.

Because he's on probation after pleading no contest to federal identity theft charges. There appears to be a chance he's violated his parole.

Again, I'd like to see exactly what he said.

-spence

It's posts like this that really illustrate how bad a read people have on Obama.

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor:

Jim, you know it is the electoral college that matters. Polls don't mean much at this point. However, you are right about the accuracy of rasmussen and it's polls put Obama at about 310 electoral votes;safely 246, plus in the toss ups he is up in Ohio, Florida, Va, and tied in CO. He's not the one worried by the polls, as was implied in an earlier post.

I also read somewhere that he was involved in the rescue of Jessica Lynch as well

"You do like facts right?"

I do. Interesting that you, who deny that Michelle Obama said she wasn't proud of the US until Barack got the nomination, are now consumed with what's fact and what is not. Interesting.

"Please provide a link where Obama is commenting on the video."

Obama vows to 'bring justice' to killers in US Embassy attack in Libya | Fox News

"While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants," Obama said.

Good enough? There is Obama commenting on the video. OK? Satisfied?

I responded to your question directly. Perhaps you can respond to one of mine, and here it is...

If Obama is sincere in that he "rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others", why does Obama's PAC (run by Obama pal Bill Burton) take $1 million from Bill Maher, who bashes Christianity every night? Why does Obama surround himself with staffers and friends in the media who relentlessly bash Catholics? Why did the Democratic convention feature one fanatical feminist after another who lied about some war on women? That was clearly a direct response to the Catholic Church's request that they not have to abandon deeply held religious beliefs, for the sake of a liberal pet project. Isn't that a wee bit hypocritical, Spence?

Spence, when you deal with me, you would do well to keep in mind that everyhting I believe is based on facts and common sense. Unlike you, I'm not blindly devoted to one side.

this is comical....I guess the buck stops over there :uhuh:

let's see

unaffiliated "independent" mystery embassy statement-

“[B]The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.” So declared the Obama State Department in a statement issued on the website of its Egyptian embassy

Obama statement-

"While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants," Obama said.

this seems a bit backward to me, Obama has, and many of his most ardent supporters routinely denigrate the religious beliefs of others, it's practically a sport with many on the "intellectual left"....I don't recall any opposition or apologies.....

the second part of the statement is what should have been first.... senselessly murdering someone or burning buildings because someone on the other side of the planet offended your sensibilities would seem to be the logical object of your scorn...wouldn't it? I don't think the first and the second deserve equal treatment...not even close

Damn right.

(1) I have never heard Obama chastise his fellow liberals for bashing Christianity. These people hate Catholics, and they make no secret about it. But since Catholics have not been anointed with "victim" status by liberals, it is therefore acceptable to attack Catholics at every available moment. SInce Muslims have been anointed with "victim" status by the left, they are a protected species.

(2) as for Obama's statement...the only reference to the youtube video should have been a statement that Muslims, like everyone else, need to accept the unfortunate reality that there are jerks out there, and even jerks have the right to free speech.

I cannot wait to hear Spence's "response" to this...

and it doesn't appear as though the initial "independent" statement nor the reworded statement were very effective :)

It's called critical thought, they teach it in grade school.

He's not talking directly about the video here, he's talking in general terms about the senseless denigration of religion and violence. It's an indirect comment at best, prompted by the video but not direct judgement.

Maher is critical of all organized religions. His ire for Catholics is largely fueled by an organized tolerance of pedophilia. He's plenty harsh on fundamentalist Islam as well.

It would be intellectually dishonest to claim parity with the "Innocence of Muslims" move that started all this. It was intended only to insult, denigrate and provoke a negative response. From what I understand there isn't a single constructive element to it and even the actors were misled as to it's purpose.

Perhaps because you're so consumed with hate you don't see things clearly. You see a "liberal pet project" while others see preventative care to improve women's health.

-spence

I'm not aware of any issuance by the State Department using the words "feelings of Muslims".

What you have is a right wing media trying to manipulate an unfortunate situation through confusion for political gain. I'm not sure what's worse, those who knowingly manipulate or those who see it and knowingly pass it along.

Sad.

-spence

Cairo protesters scale U.S. Embassy wall, remove flag


After the protest, the U.S. Embassy issued this statement on its website:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims â?? as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of other

It's a matter of record that the statement was put out 6 hours before the attack by embassy staff alone. I've never read that it was reissued and would suspect the article you quote is in error as it is four days old.

The first actual Administration response by the State Department came later by Clinton:

I'm sure you'll be happy to see she has the elements in the right sequence.

-spence

See you see hatred in things like the health services bill. I see a policy that doesn't require members to violate their personal beliefs by taking advantage of contraceptives (which largely should reduce unwanted pregnancies, and the potential number of abortions, no?), but lets those who may work in a Catholic hospital/school who may not have the same fervent belief's in the churches stance on contraceptives.

"It's called critical thought, they teach it in grade school."

Spence, you denied something that irrefitably happened (Michelle Obama's statement). Denying that something happened, when it clearly did happen, is not 'critical thought'. I don;t know what it is exactly (ask a psychiatrist about that), but it's not 'critical thought'. I don't think they taught you in grade school to deny facts which don't serve your agenda.

"He's not talking directly about the video here, he's talking in general terms about the senseless denigration of religion and violence"

Seriously? That's your response? How could you possibly know that? How could you know what was in his mind?

Obama's statement came out the day the ambassador was killed, and at the time they were saying that the ambassador was killed because of the video. So it stands to reason that if Obama is connecting violence to religion-bashing, that's what he was talking about. Nice try.

"you're so consumed with hate "

I'm not consumed with hate. I just don't like it when people deny irrefutable facts to protect Obama. You do it all the time. I'm trying to keep it honest. because I repeatedly call out your 'critical thought', you dismiss it as hate.

"See you see hatred in things like the health services bill. "

No, the bill isn't hate...it's religious intolerance. The reaction to the Catholic Church's stance on the bill was what was hateful.

RIROCKHOUND, can you honestly say that, after the Catholic Church resisted paying for contraception, that liberals weren't bashing Catholicism? All this nonsense about a war on women? That's not hate-mongering and fear-mongering?

ROCKHOUND, liberals constantly refer to the 'war on women'. either (1) you believe that there is literally a war on women, or (2) liberals are misleading the public to cast Catholics in a negative light.

Which is it? You tell me, which is it?

As to the bill, you are wrong. The Catholic Church believes contraception is immoral. "Separation of church and state" has been interpreted to mean that the federal government not appear to either endorse nor reject the beliefs of any religion. Telling the Catholic Church thatthey must provide what they teach is immoral, can easily be construed as a rejection of Catholic cathechism. We;ll see how it plays out in court.

as to your over-simplified suggestion that increased availability of contraception will reduce abortions and unwanted pregnancies? That sounds very logical...but the facts don't support it. During the sexual revolution of the 1960's, those in favor of contraception availability used that same argument...that if birth control was available everywhere, we'd have fewer abortions and unwanted pregnancies. And what happened, was the exact opposite. we now have more abortions and unwanted pregnanices. Many sociologists say it's because liberals have created a public perception that sex is a casual thing. I don't know what caused it. All I know is that after contraception became widely available, we see more abortions, more infidelity, more STD's, more kids born out of wedlock. Not less, but more. Way more. Way, way more.

Try making that wrong.

That's liberalism, ROCKHOUND. Something that sounds like common sense, and makes a great bumper sticker, but blows up in your face when you implement it. What I will never understand (maybe you can explain it), is why folks continue to say things like "widespread availability of contraception results in fewer abortions", when we have 30 years of data tells us it just ain't so.

FYI - getting close to locking this thread down

This business of the federal government demanding that a third party pay for contraceptives befuddles me. If buying something as cheap as contraceptives should be povided for all women, not just very poor ones who government could provide with all the other stuff they get, then what else should not be provided by third parties? If contraceptives should be provided by insurance then cars and houses and clothing and college education . . . and . . . and . . . etc., which are much more expensive, should be provided by some form of insurance other than the insurance you provide for yourself by earning the money to buy them.

And tying contraception to health care is also befuddling. Every thing you do or buy can be tied to health care as much or more. The primary purpose of contraCEPTIVES is to prevent pregnancy. So, is pregnancy to be considered a disease? Some forms of contraception, condoms, can also prevent venereal diseases, but their main function was to prevent pregnancey, and they are cheap.

Contraceptives cover a range of products many of which have valid medicinal uses outside of prevention of pregnancy. This was one of the core arguments for their coverage.

-spence

Great...how long can they beat a dead horse...:rotf2:

The fact that she said some words is meaningless without an understanding of context. I bias my context by what she said around those words, you bias it through your preconceived idea of what you think she represents...

One would think he would have mentioned the film specifically.

I said it was indirect. Bush did the exact same thing you know, to make a general statements around tolerance and violence when that Danish cartoon ruckus lit up.

You're not really basing an argument on facts from what I can see.

It's not a fact that Michelle Obama didn't feel proud of her country until 2008, it's not a fact that Obama responded to the movie by sympathizing with rioters and it's not a fact that Obama hates the Catholic church.

-spence

I'm just trying to provide clarity to a confusing situation. People should be grateful I'm not charging my usual fee :pats:

-spence

yes, a disease, and also according to our president it can be a punishment, it can also be unwanted which may be slightly different than unplanned but won't likely end well for either the unwanted or unplanned and which sort of flies in the face of the whole "it's for the children", "I'm my brother's keeper" and "caring for the least among us" routine :) I guess you only count if you are lucky enough to be planned and wanted and can collect some kind of government benefit :uhuh:

you constantly move the goal posts(little Pats reference) and flip reality on it's head...that's not clarity..it's sophistry :uhuh:

I'll take that as a compliment, but please be more specific.

-spence

A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deception. It might be crafted to appear logical while actually representing a falsehood, or it might use obscure words and complicated sentence constructions in order to intimidate the opponent into agreement out of fear of feeling foolish. Other techniques include manipulating the opponent's prejudices and emotions to overcome their logical faculties.

I think we refer to it as "Spencism" around here :uhuh::)

you should take it as a compliment...you are world class in this arena.....

I'm certainly aware of what a sophism is, what I was asking for were examples in this thread where you believe it is evident.

-spence

"The fact that she said some words is meaningless without an understanding of context"

Before you started talking about 'context', you denied she said it.



"One would think he would have mentioned the film specifically"

One would think he would do a lot of things differently. The man made a career by voting 'present' in IL, now you're curious as to why he wasn't being specific...

"Bush did the exact same thing you know..."

Spence, you have now played every desperate card that exists. You denied that there was a statement about Islam and the violence. We showed you there was. You denied the state department said anything about 'hurt feelings', we showed you that you were wrong again. With your back against the wall, and no honest way to escape, you dredge up Bush.

Spence, I promise that it won't kill you to admit that you were wrong on the facts here. Almost everyhting you have said has been demonstrably false.

Sorry Spence, but I believe the investagative reporter who obtained his
information from the White House last week showing Obama has only attended %50
of the daily intelligence meetings and his last attended meeting was on 9/5 before 9/11.

How can you say he is putting the safety of the American people first when he READS the briefs %50 of the time?
Rediculous, he should be at every meeting and have probing questions in that meeting everyday.
Symantics or whatever, we are at war.

The time close to the 9/11 anniversary and right up to it has to be a time for extra vigliance yet he was not in attendance asking questions and staying on top of the situations.
Say what you want about Bush,and there is plenty to say, but his first order of business for the day was to attend the intelligence briefing. Kept our citizens safe in the duration of his term. Can't say that about Obama now.

Interesting...

You're missing pretty much everything I've posted. This post gives really good insight into how you process information.

-spence

pick a post...it's what you practice, picking a specific post would be enabling, another opportunity for you to argue what the meaning of "is" is, move the goal post, argue, insult, ignore reality...you are "smart"...anyone that disagrees with you is dumb...see your last post....it's an odd game...Obama is brilliant and if you don't get that you just aren't smart enough to understand how really brilliant he really is...YIKES

"It's posts like this that really illustrate how bad a read people have on Obama."-SPENCE

we have a pretty good read on Obama Spence...he's an historic disaster and it's getting worse and he's none of what you continue to pretend he either is or isn't :uhuh:

For those who don't know, Kirsten Powers is a regular on Foxnews, MSNBC, and CNN. She is a commited liberal, but unlike most liberal newsies, she's thoughtful, articlualte, respectful, never throws any bombs. She loves Obama. Here's an interesting piece she wrote...

President Obama, stop blaming the victim for Mideast violence | Fox News

No, the report doesn't say he reads the briefs 50% of the time, it says he only has them READ TO HIM 50% of the time.

You should read the Woodward book "Obama's Wars". It reveals that Obama is extremely engaged in the intelligence and security process, so much so that top military brass found the contrast with Bush to be noteworthy.

-spence

That wasn't sophistry.

The investigative report is clearly misleading, even Justplugit is coming to false conclusions.

-spence

maybe he should have joined the military.... because in Woodward's new book, "The Price of Politics" he kicks the crap out of your war hero for his lack of presidential leadership....maybe he just likes blowing things up:uhuh:

"Over the course of almost 450 pages, Woodward depicts Obama as an arrogant, aloof and hyperpartisan president who manages to either alienate or disappoint everybody he needs to help govern Washington."

sounds about right :uhuh: