US Ambassador killed in Libya

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

"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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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

"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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

"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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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...

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

One would think he would have mentioned the film specifically.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

"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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

Interesting...

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

-spence