Thread: People died, Obama lied

News report/blog laying out the facts and timeline.

Link
"September 12: As these homicides become clear, Obama says, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None." Obama then skips his daily intelligence briefing and jets to a Las Vegas fundraiser.

September 13: "The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declares. "We absolutely reject its content and message."

September 14: "The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announces.
That day, as the murdered Americans' remains reach Andrews Air Force Base, Clinton says: "We have seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with."

September 16: United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice calls the violence "a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video."

September 18: Obama tells comedian David Letterman that he rejects the "extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam." Obama adds that "extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya."

This is perhaps one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen a president do. Obama attacks and blames free speech, justifies al qaeda's attacks, apologizes to extremists, lies to the american people and tries to deflect blame and rage from al qaeda to americans.

Outside of politics, I like and respect you, a great deal gonzales56.


Sept 12, Obama says, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence.

(THIS MEANS, He does not want insult the religous beliefs of others, and there was no justification for the violence.)
(Please explain how this is wrong)

"Obama then skips his daily intelligence briefing and jets to a Las Vegas fundraiser."
(Why was it wrong for Obama, to skip that intelligence meeting?)
(It cost around $1 billion dollars to run for president, should he have cancelled the pre-planned fund raiser?)



Sept 13, (Please explain how this is wrong.)

Sept 14 and 16, (Please explain how this is wrong.)

Sept 18, Obama tells comedian David Letterman that he rejects the "extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam."

(So you think its o.k., to promote offensive videos about a religion, when some of its followers want to kill Americans?)
(So you are saying we should try to upset Muslims?)





Please explain how Obama did the following things, that you stated he did.

1.) Obama attacks and blames free speech
2.) Justifies al qaeda's attacks
3.) apologizes to extremists
4.) Lies to the american people and tries to deflect blame and rage from al qaeda to americans

The following are (actual) disgusting things, done by a US president,


G.W. Bush took $100 million dollars, from a group of coal power plant owners, for his election campaign. He then did these (same) coal power plant owners a political favor, and GW Bush abolished a law called "the new source rule."

This political favor done by GW Bush, caused 10,000's of American children to get sick from extra air pollution. These children got so sick, they could not even go outside to play (because they were unable to breath.)





G.W. Bush attacks Iraq, in the name of killing Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
While Saddam Hussein hated Al Qaeda, and Iraq's government had orders to kill Al Qaeda, before Sept 11 even happened.


1.) This insane, stupid, and retarded republican logic, killed 100,000 innocent Iraqi people.
2.) It killed 1,000's of US troops.
3.) Blinded, paralyzed, and dismembered 1,000's of US troops.
4.) And added over $1 trillion dollars to Americas national debt.

G.W. Bush lied, and said Saddam Hussein had something to do with Sept 11, and caused the above 1-4 horrible things to happen.

And G.W. Bush never even apologized. This is perhaps one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen a president do.

(And all of Dick Cheney's pals at Haliburton corp's, are in Iraq making billions of dollars, and billions of dollars have just disappeared. And Dick Cheneys pals at Haliburton in Iraq, are charging the US government $2500.00 for water wells that cost aprox. $350.00 to make.)



Now these things are disgusting. And making kids so sick that they cant even breath, is evil.

Rich CEO Mitt Romney pays 17% of his personal income in federal taxes, while Americans who make $75,000 a year pay 30%+ of their income in federal taxes. Romney says this is o.k. And Romney claims to respect the middle class.

Mitt Romney (lies) about Obama's spending and deficits.
GW Bush inherited surpluses from Bill Clinton, then GW Bush created $4 trillion dollar deficits, by tax cuts for the rich, and an Iraq war started with republican lies.
Obama is living in GW Bush's deficits, because of republican spending in Iraq, and most of Bush's tax cuts, kicked in while Obama was in office.
But Romney (lies), and says its Obamas fault deficits are so high.




I could list 1,000's of lies said by US republicans, lies about taxes, health care, deficits, debt, Iraq, democrats spending, Social Security, science, jobs, min. wage, ex.ex.ex.ex.


I apologize if I changed the subject of your thread, in my mind I used the ways of politics to justify it.


Have a great day/night (Mr.) Gonzales56, and take care of yourself,
Chad.

Originally Posted by chad

Outside of politics, I like and respect you, a great deal gonzales56.


Sept 12, Obama says, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence.

(THIS MEANS, He does not want insult the religous beliefs of others, and there was no justification for the violence.)
(Please explain how this is wrong)

The president should be defending people's right to free speech, not apologizing to terrorists. It is like blaming a rape victim for wearing skimpy clothes. What if somebody said, "Wearing those skimpy clothes is disgusting and disgraceful. We do not condone such horrible behavior. Oh, by the way, rape is wrong. Just not quite as bad as wearing those disgusting disgraceful skimpy clothes, which we condemn wholeheartedly."

"Obama then skips his daily intelligence briefing and jets to a Las Vegas fundraiser."
(Why was it wrong for Obama, to skip that intelligence meeting?)
(It cost around $1 billion dollars to run for president, should he have cancelled the pre-planned fund raiser?)

Uh, yes. It costs a lot to run the country too, and that's his job.

Sept 13, (Please explain how this is wrong.)
Sept 14 and 16, (Please explain how this is wrong.)

See above.

Sept 18, Obama tells comedian David Letterman that he rejects the "extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam."

(So you think its o.k., to promote offensive videos about a religion, when some of its followers want to kill Americans?)
(So you are saying we should try to upset Muslims?)

Obama lied by tying the attack on the consulate to the video. By that time it was well known that the attack was not associated with any protests about the video.

Please explain how Obama did the following things, that you stated he did.

1.) Obama attacks and blames free speech
2.) Justifies al qaeda's attacks
3.) apologizes to extremists
4.) Lies to the american people and tries to deflect blame and rage from al qaeda to americans

Yes, he attacked free speech. Yes, he apologized for Americans who were exercising their rights of free speech. If you cannot understand that, then you do not understand free speech.

Obama lied by tying the attack on the consulate to the video.

You do realize that Al Queada was openly praising the violent protest. It's entirely reasonable that the vid did in fact spur the local AQ affiliate in Libya towards the attack because it fits well into their general disagreement with the West about disrespect of their faith, Western influence in their region etc. The vid can't be parsed away from the broader reasons for why many Muslims in that region hate America. .Al-Qaida leader calls for holy war on US and Israel over anti-Islamic film | World news | guardian.co.uk


--

The president should be defending people's right to free speech,

I completely agree. Neither the White house or State Department defensed our most basic ideals about free speech--they showed moral cowardice. (something to remember for Hillery's 2016 bid for president).
--

Honestly Chad even if GWB was the devil incarnate you seem to think he was, it doesn't matter one whit. Using him as an example is tantamount to your kid telling you he vandalized the house next door because the bad kid down the street does it all the time.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

This is perhaps one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen a president do. Obama attacks and blames free speech, justifies al qaeda's attacks, apologizes to extremists, lies to the american people and tries to deflect blame and rage from al qaeda to americans.

Do you not think maybe you're being a bit harsh on him, after all he can't always say want he might have liked to say as it is his responsibility ensuring the safety of all americans and to some degree most of the western world. He can't send out a message that it's acceptable to make videos that put american lives at risk. If he is not free to do or say things that put americans in danger then why should anyone else be free to put american lives at risk. If you were in a bank that was being robbed and a man with a gun threatened to kill someone else if you kept on talking, sure it would be his fault if he kills someone, but would you really be blameless and merely exercising your right to free speech if you kept on talking knowing full well he might kill someone because he'd feel provoked by your talking?

The point is people know how certain extremists feel about their religion, and any perceived insult to it, they also now know what the reactions can be, they may not like it, and we may not agree with it, but people know. Knowing that if you take certain actions people could die should and does place a certain amount of responsibility on anybody. Is the President really asking that much by expecting people to act responsibly when other people's lives are at stake, has he not the right to expect that his own people behave to the highest standards?

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Originally Posted by gonzales56

This is perhaps one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen a president do. Obama attacks and blames free speech, justifies al qaeda's attacks, apologizes to extremists, lies to the american people and tries to deflect blame and rage from al qaeda to americans.

Do you not think maybe you're being a bit harsh on him, after all he can't always say want he might have liked to say as it is his responsibility ensuring the safety of all americans and to some degree most of the western world. He can't send out a message that it's acceptable to make videos that put american lives at risk. If he is not free to do or say things that put americans in danger then why should anyone else be free to put american lives at risk. If you were in a bank that was being robbed and a man with a gun threatened to kill someone else if you kept on talking, sure it would be his fault if he kills someone, but would you really be blameless and merely exercising your right to free speech if you kept on talking knowing full well he might kill someone because he'd feel provoked by your talking?

The point is people know how certain extremists feel about their religion, and any perceived insult to it, they also now know what the reactions can be, they may not like it, and we may not agree with it, but people know. Knowing that if you take certain actions people could die should and does place a certain amount of responsibility on anybody. Is the President really asking that much by expecting people to act responsibly when other people's lives are at stake, has he not the right to expect that his own people behave to the highest standards?

It is the presidents job to uphold the constitution and defend the lives and rights of the american people. The President should have not only defended the right of this american, and all americans, to make videos that religions may find disrespectful, Obama had and has a duty to do so.

Abortions are seen by many religious people of all faith/beliefs as evil and an attack on life. Homosexuality will also get you killed and religious extremist, al qaeda and extreme muslims as well, use abortion and homosexuality as an excuse to kill americans. I do not see this president apologizing for homosexuality and abortions. I do not see this president blaming homosexuality or abortions for the al qaeda attack on 9/11 2012. I have seen many reasons given by these extreme freaks for hating and attacking america, and you can bet your bottom dollar that this video is not one of them. It is the presidents job to protect americans and american rights.. It does not matter who is offended by it. It is not the presidents job to lie and claim this was done because a video offended some religious people and then start attacking the video / free speech.

Some of you have to be very careful here. Our next president might very well not agree with abortion or homosexuality, and when al qaeda attacks again, they can lie about it, say the attack was provoked and caused by the actions and words of americans who are homosexuals or carry out/support abortions. He can then send out his admin in force to spread that garbage and to attack these americans and their rights.

How about gambling?
How about women not covered up?
How about cussing?
How about sex without being married?


You see, it does not matter what we agree with or disagree with... We americans, traditionally, defend the rights of others, with our lifes if need be, and we surely do not attack, blame, accuse and/or attempt to make americans and the exercise of their rights the excuse or reason for americans being attacked and killed.

The truth of the matter is that Obama and his admin flat out lied anyways. It had nothing to do with this video, and even if it did, so what. This was also not a protest, it was an out right and full blown attack by al qaeda on america and americans. Obama tried to make the west and americans believe that this was not al qaeda, that it was a protest of a few people that had gone wrong. He then tried to say these few protesters attacked america and americans because an american made a videos that islam and muslims did not like, and then he, Obama, joined in attacking america and american rights..

It was and is sad and pathetic.

But surely if this is a free speech issue then why not free speech for all americans? Should not by that logic the president also have to defend every americans right to shout "fire" in a crowded sports stadium or to shout "bomb" on a plane? Both are irresponsible and put people's lives at risk, but both would just be people exercising their rights of free speech.

Chris,Your arguments sound a lot like those of your countryman, Neville Chamberlain. Definitely not like your other countryman, Winston Churchill. We know which one has been treated more kindly by history.Appeasement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

But surely if this is a free speech issue then why not free speech for all americans? Should not by that logic the president also have to defend every americans right to shout "fire" in a crowded sports stadium or to shout "bomb" on a plane? Both are irresponsible and put people's lives at risk, but both would just be people exercising their rights of free speech.

I think those examples aren't protected speech because they don't allow time for rebuttal and argument; not that they might lead to injury. In fact in the US we aren't supposed to forbid speech for what's called the hecklers veto.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

But surely if this is a free speech issue then why not free speech for all americans? Should not by that logic the president also have to defend every americans right to shout "fire" in a crowded sports stadium or to shout "bomb" on a plane? Both are irresponsible and put people's lives at risk, but both would just be people exercising their rights of free speech.

I think those examples aren't protected speech because they don't allow time for rebuttal and argument; not that they might lead to injury. In fact in the US we aren't supposed to forbid speech for what's called the hecklers veto.

You make an interesting point, but still can't see the logic though in blaming the President for not siding with idiots that had no regard for consequences over trying to calm the situation and save lives. Also how can anyone have proper rebuttal for something like a video that isn't in 'real time', it could have spread half way around the world before anyone could say a thing against it.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

But surely if this is a free speech issue then why not free speech for all americans? Should not by that logic the president also have to defend every americans right to shout "fire" in a crowded sports stadium or to shout "bomb" on a plane? Both are irresponsible and put people's lives at risk, but both would just be people exercising their rights of free speech.

They are two different things. Someone killing someone because they "offended" them with their words does not put the irresponsible party in the hands of the person speaking the words, it puts the irresponsibility and wrong doing in the hands of the murderer. Look, "offending" people with words is not dangerous to anyone, it is the people who will harm or kill people for them exercising their rights that are a danger. The speech, the right of free speech, should be defended vigorously, not attacked.

Again though, and by your standard, if a homosexual says or makes a video concerning his homosexuality, and people take offense to it and harm him or other homosexuals, then it would be the homosexuals fault and homosexuals should not be allowed to speak of or about homosexuality or homosexual things. In your mind, them speaking is irresponsible, is wrong, in your mind it leads to, is the cause of, violence. For me, this type of stance/belief is wrong, and I will always stand on the side of free speech and peoples rights.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

But surely if this is a free speech issue then why not free speech for all americans? Should not by that logic the president also have to defend every americans right to shout "fire" in a crowded sports stadium or to shout "bomb" on a plane? Both are irresponsible and put people's lives at risk, but both would just be people exercising their rights of free speech.

Those both amount to deliberate deception. Fraud is also illegal, as is verbal extortion (saying "I'll kill you if you don't give me your wallet")

What worries me is that some supreme court judge might extend this, and say that no amount of free speech would protect the right of a white American to walk into a theater full of black people and yell "Nigger!!!". Because that's not deception. It's merely offensive.

Is inflammatory speech endangered now?

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

But surely if this is a free speech issue then why not free speech for all americans? Should not by that logic the president also have to defend every americans right to shout "fire" in a crowded sports stadium or to shout "bomb" on a plane? Both are irresponsible and put people's lives at risk, but both would just be people exercising their rights of free speech.

Those both amount to deliberate deception. Fraud is also illegal, as is verbal extortion (saying "I'll kill you if you don't give me your wallet")

What worries me is that some supreme court judge might extend this, and say that no amount of free speech would protect the right of a white American to walk into a theater full of black people and yell "Nigger!!!". Because that's not deception. It's merely offensive.

Is inflammatory speech endangered now?

Right? If it offends someone then you have to shut your mouth. Good news for sickos though.. If they want to ban actions or shut up ideas, all they have to do is kill someone and the actions or ideas that offended them will be hunted down and attacked for being irresponsible and inciting violence.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Also how can anyone have proper rebuttal for something like a video that isn't in 'real time', it could have spread half way around the world before anyone could say a thing against it.

Quite easily. You make your own arguments or vid that show Mohammad didn't screw camels--or there's no evidence that he did. Rebuttal isn't the same as censorship.

--
The degree of offense of others doesn't matter under US laws wrt freespeech. If I produced a followup vid called the "MohammadSutra" which we are reasonable certain it would lead to more violence--as long as I'm not making direct incitations to violence (calling for burning down mosque etc), it would generally be considered protected speech. There are occasionally exceptions in US law that allow for authorities to stop something when violence is imminent, such as two armed groups facing and trading barbs in the city square are told to disperse--but the bar is quite high and legally treasonous for the authorities that the burden of demonstrating that violence was imminent and they had no other options other then to infringe on the free-speech of the two groups.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Right? If it offends someone then you have to shut your mouth. Good news for sickos though.. If they want to ban actions or shut up ideas, all they have to do is kill someone and the actions or ideas that offended them will be hunted down and attacked for being irresponsible and inciting violence.

That is actually quite a persuasive argument.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Right? If it offends someone then you have to shut your mouth. Good news for sickos though.. If they want to ban actions or shut up ideas, all they have to do is kill someone and the actions or ideas that offended them will be hunted down and attacked for being irresponsible and inciting violence.

That is actually quite a persuasive argument.

Appreciate it Chris.

Harold14370,



Sept 12, Obama says, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence.

Obama is not attacking free speech here, he is showing respect to the many muslims, who respect Americans.
Can you show evidence were Obama had plans to abolish free speech in America?
Can you show evidence were he tried to stop someones rights of free speech?


In reality it is you and your political party, that attack and want to abolish free speech in America.
What about the free speech rights, and Freedom of Assembly rights of the "occupy Wall street" groups?

Your political party violently attacked the "occupy Wall street groups" rights of free speech, and freedom of assembly.

Do you believe it followed the 1st amendment, to force the occupy Wall street group to stop, breakup, and go home?



I also saw a video recently, were a man was arrested by police, for saying the "1st Amendment" threw a megaphone in public. This man was arrested for saying the 1st amendment. Do you care that this man was arrested for this?

Your arguments are not about the first amendment, but rather attacking Obama.

If you truly cared about the 1st amendment, you would care about the 2 examples I listed above.



But I must admit that you, grant true and pure free speech in this forum.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Obama lied by tying the attack on the consulate to the video.

You do realize that Al Queada was openly praising the violent protest. It's entirely reasonable that the vid did in fact spur the local AQ affiliate in Libya towards the attack because it fits well into their general disagreement with the West about disrespect of their faith, Western influence in their region etc. The vid can't be parsed away from the broader reasons for why many Muslims in that region hate America. .Al-Qaida leader calls for holy war on US and Israel over anti-Islamic film | World news | guardian.co.uk


--

The president should be defending people's right to free speech,

I completely agree. Neither the White house or State Department defensed our most basic ideals about free speech--they showed moral cowardice. (something to remember for Hillery's 2016 bid for president).
--

Honestly Chad even if GWB was the devil incarnate you seem to think he was, it doesn't matter one whit. Using him as an example is tantamount to your kid telling you he vandalized the house next door because the bad kid down the street does it all the time.

I already know what matters to you, and what doesn't matter one whit.

Originally Posted by chad

Harold14370, Sept 12, Obama says, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence.Obama is not attacking free speech here, he is showing respect to the many muslims, who respect Americans. Can you show evidence were Obama had plans to abolish free speech in America?Can you show evidence were he tried to stop someones rights of free speech?

If the president will not stand up for and protect the free speech rights of US citizens, they will be intimidated by threats from terrorists. That is how we will lose our freedom of speech.

In reality it is you and your political party, that attack and want to abolish free speech in America.What about the free speech rights, and Freedom of Assembly rights of the "occupy Wall street" groups?Your political party violently attacked the "occupy Wall street groups" rights of free speech, and freedom of assembly.Do you believe it followed the 1st amendment, to force the occupy Wall street group to stop, breakup, and go home?

We "violently" attacked? When did that happen? The Tea Party showed the right way to hold a political protest. The got the necessary parade permits. They paid fees for the extra security where required by law. They cleaned up after themselves. Not like OWS, who caused millions of dollars in damages, crapped on police cars, ruined businesses, violated municipal park ordinances, and so forth.

I also saw a video recently, were a man was arrested by police, for saying the "1st Amendment" threw a megaphone in public. This man was arrested for saying the 1st amendment. Do you care that this man was arrested for this?

Somehow, I think there is more to the story than you are letting on.

Lynx_Fox,

I have come to know of the great love and respect, that you have for the following things. Your family, friends, neighbors, ecosystems, science, laws, and life itself.

I just wish you cared about those things in Americas politics, but you dont.

Sorry if I was rude,
Chad.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by chad

Harold14370, Sept 12, Obama says, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence.Obama is not attacking free speech here, he is showing respect to the many muslims, who respect Americans. Can you show evidence were Obama had plans to abolish free speech in America?Can you show evidence were he tried to stop someones rights of free speech?

If the president will not stand up for and protect the free speech rights of US citizens, they will be intimidated by threats from terrorists. That is how we will lose our freedom of speech.

In reality it is you and your political party, that attack and want to abolish free speech in America.What about the free speech rights, and Freedom of Assembly rights of the "occupy Wall street" groups?Your political party violently attacked the "occupy Wall street groups" rights of free speech, and freedom of assembly.Do you believe it followed the 1st amendment, to force the occupy Wall street group to stop, breakup, and go home?

We "violently" attacked? When did that happen? The Tea Party showed the right way to hold a political protest. The got the necessary parade permits. They paid fees for the extra security where required by law. They cleaned up after themselves. Not like OWS, who caused millions of dollars in damages, crapped on police cars, ruined businesses, violated municipal park ordinances, and so forth.

I also saw a video recently, were a man was arrested by police, for saying the "1st Amendment" threw a megaphone in public. This man was arrested for saying the 1st amendment. Do you care that this man was arrested for this?

Somehow, I think there is more to the story than you are letting on.

So you are saying that Obama should tell Muslims, that he fully supports and agrees with the video, that insults Muslims?
Do you honestly think that those Muslims will understand our free speech laws?


When a president rejects all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, this does not cause freedom of speech laws to be lost.
Freedom of speech laws are lost when groups like "occupy Wall street", are forced to break up and go home by people like you.

You said above that since the "occupy Wall street group", did not clean up after themselves, they no longer deserve the rights of free speech.

You are actually telling me that you respect the first amendment, while you are attacking the "occupy Wall street groups" rights of free speech.



The crazy thing is, if the occupy Wall street group, was trying to lower billionaires taxes, Fox news and rush radio would never have told your crowd to hate them.

And you would not even be speaking of them.

Originally Posted by chad

Lynx_Fox,

I have come to know of the great love and respect, that you have for the following things. Your family, friends, neighbors, ecosystems, science, laws, and life itself.

I just wish you cared about those things in Americas politics, but you dont.

Sorry if I was rude,
Chad.

Actually chad if you looked over at the other similar thread you'd see I at least in part agree with you. I don't think the president lied at all. I do however think he missed an excellent opportunity to use his eloquence to advocate and explain to a world audience what free speech means both in abstract terms linked to common values shared by most free peoples, and in practical terms, such as allowing the very protest to go on so long as they don't turn violent. With the right word crafting, something Obama has no equal, he should have connected opposition to free speech in the new Libya to the oppressive tactics that Qaddafi used. Instead the treatment was a confuse set of mushy messages from the White house and State department which provided fodder for criticism and did nothing to uphold free speech anywhere.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by chad

Harold14370, Sept 12, Obama says, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence.Obama is not attacking free speech here, he is showing respect to the many muslims, who respect Americans. Can you show evidence were Obama had plans to abolish free speech in America?Can you show evidence were he tried to stop someones rights of free speech?

If the president will not stand up for and protect the free speech rights of US citizens, they will be intimidated by threats from terrorists. That is how we will lose our freedom of speech.

In reality it is you and your political party, that attack and want to abolish free speech in America.What about the free speech rights, and Freedom of Assembly rights of the "occupy Wall street" groups?Your political party violently attacked the "occupy Wall street groups" rights of free speech, and freedom of assembly.Do you believe it followed the 1st amendment, to force the occupy Wall street group to stop, breakup, and go home?

We "violently" attacked? When did that happen? The Tea Party showed the right way to hold a political protest. The got the necessary parade permits. They paid fees for the extra security where required by law. They cleaned up after themselves. Not like OWS, who caused millions of dollars in damages, crapped on police cars, ruined businesses, violated municipal park ordinances, and so forth.

I also saw a video recently, were a man was arrested by police, for saying the "1st Amendment" threw a megaphone in public. This man was arrested for saying the 1st amendment. Do you care that this man was arrested for this?

Somehow, I think there is more to the story than you are letting on.

Or let me say this, if the "occupy Wall street groups" were trying to lower billionaires taxes, Fox news and Rush radio would have told your crowd something like this, "these people are American hero's, who leave their homes, and live in tents to make America great, these are hero's people, and we need to let these hero's protest."

And then you would be o.k. with them.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by chad

Lynx_Fox,

I have come to know of the great love and respect, that you have for the following things. Your family, friends, neighbors, ecosystems, science, laws, and life itself.

I just wish you cared about those things in Americas politics, but you dont.

Sorry if I was rude,
Chad.

Actually chad if you looked over at the other similar thread you'd see I at least in part agree with you. I don't think the president lied at all. I do however think he missed an excellent opportunity to use his eloquence to advocate and explain to a world audience what free speech means both in abstract terms linked to common values shared by most free peoples, and in practical terms, such as allowing the very protest to go on so long as they don't turn violent. With the right word crafting, something Obama has no equal, he should have connected opposition to free speech in the new Libya to the oppressive tactics that Qaddafi used. Instead the treatment was a confuse set of mushy messages from the White house and State department which provided fodder for criticism and did nothing to uphold free speech anywhere.

I dont think that the terrorists that did the attacks, care about free speech laws. These terrorist groups oppress the people that they live around, in fact theres a good chance those terrorists are against free speech laws. They force people to pray, they are against freedom.

I just dont think its a good time to give terrorists lessons in free speech laws, but rather we should get rid of those oppressive terrorists groups. And I think these present attacks on Obama are trivial and childlike, and they lack substance to justify all this attention.


As I said several times before, I assume things about you that are not true. I think that your direct involvement in the 1st Iraq war, and some of your beliefs that are conservative cause me to do this. And I think my anti-republican emotions cloud my judgements of your actions. I never actually intend to say incorrect things about you.

Chad.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by chad

Harold14370, Sept 12, Obama says, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence.Obama is not attacking free speech here, he is showing respect to the many muslims, who respect Americans. Can you show evidence were Obama had plans to abolish free speech in America?Can you show evidence were he tried to stop someones rights of free speech?

If the president will not stand up for and protect the free speech rights of US citizens, they will be intimidated by threats from terrorists. That is how we will lose our freedom of speech.

In reality it is you and your political party, that attack and want to abolish free speech in America.What about the free speech rights, and Freedom of Assembly rights of the "occupy Wall street" groups?Your political party violently attacked the "occupy Wall street groups" rights of free speech, and freedom of assembly.Do you believe it followed the 1st amendment, to force the occupy Wall street group to stop, breakup, and go home?

We "violently" attacked? When did that happen? The Tea Party showed the right way to hold a political protest. The got the necessary parade permits. They paid fees for the extra security where required by law. They cleaned up after themselves. Not like OWS, who caused millions of dollars in damages, crapped on police cars, ruined businesses, violated municipal park ordinances, and so forth.

I also saw a video recently, were a man was arrested by police, for saying the "1st Amendment" threw a megaphone in public. This man was arrested for saying the 1st amendment. Do you care that this man was arrested for this?

Somehow, I think there is more to the story than you are letting on.

Harold14370,

I like you a lot as a person, hell I (like) you more than 99% of liberals.

I also greatly appreciate the free speech you give me in this forum.

Have a great day/night,
Chad.

I dont think that the terrorists that did the attacks, care about free speech laws.

I completely agree. But all terrorist organizations draw active support and more importantly passive support from the populations they reside in. People to fund them, people that house them, people that mislead authorities trying to find them and most often people that simply look the other way as terrorist do their activities. It is that latter group of fence sitters where the opportunity lies--they are the ones who's minds can be most changed even if in minor ways such as holding a sign that proclaims terror is not the will of Allah (there were some of these...not covered in the anti-Muslim american media), or in the mind set of the recent revolutions, "violence is not acceptable," or perhaps most influential of all, moderate clerics which condemn the actions.

On the other hand if you fail to defend the values of liberty, as the president failed to do--you are little better than that fence sitter. To paraphase Edmund Burke's quote, "evil thrives when good people do nothing." There' are probably Islamic philosophers who've said similar things: Al-Hashimi and Ibn Rushd come close in their writings. Most Muslims are more connected to the past than Americans and those connections feed their perceptions about current events--harkening back to moderate views of Islam's Golden Age when they led the world in math and culture and had some of the most religiously diverse cities on Earth would resonate.

Harold,

Perhaps you are correct about there being a bit more, to the arrest for saying the 1st amendment, but perhaps not????

But it was Rev. Billy, he can sometimes be like a comedian. (perhaps he was following a police officer?)

Heres a youtube link of him getting arrested, the first few seconds shows the arrest.

Reverend Billy arrested by NYPD for reciting First Amendment - YouTube



I am sorry if I wasted any ones time with this, but perhaps it shows a great violation of the 1st amendment?
Or maybe not?

Originally Posted by chad

Harold,

Perhaps you are correct about there being a bit more, to the arrest for saying the 1st amendment, but perhaps not????

But it was Rev. Billy, he can sometimes be like a comedian. (perhaps he was following a police officer?)

Heres a youtube link of him getting arrested, the first few seconds shows the arrest.

Reverend Billy arrested by NYPD for reciting First Amendment - YouTube



I am sorry if I wasted any ones time with this, but perhaps it shows a great violation of the 1st amendment?

It seems that Reverend Billy was shouting at a group of cops with his megaphone. The cops moved away several times and Billy followed them, shouting with his megaphone.

This is the left's idea of freedom of speech. Make a pain in the ass of yourself and try to get yourself arrested and filmed on youtube.

Once again, take a cue from the Tea Party. Use your free speech rights to work for change, legally within the system. That's what the first amendment is about.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by chad

Harold,

Perhaps you are correct about there being a bit more, to the arrest for saying the 1st amendment, but perhaps not????

But it was Rev. Billy, he can sometimes be like a comedian. (perhaps he was following a police officer?)

Heres a youtube link of him getting arrested, the first few seconds shows the arrest.

Reverend Billy arrested by NYPD for reciting First Amendment - YouTube



I am sorry if I wasted any ones time with this, but perhaps it shows a great violation of the 1st amendment?

It seems that Reverend Billy was shouting at a group of cops with his megaphone. The cops moved away several times and Billy followed them, shouting with his megaphone.

This is the left's idea of freedom of speech. Make a pain in the ass of yourself and try to get yourself arrested and filmed on youtube.

Once again, take a cue from the Tea Party. Use your free speech rights to work for change, legally within the system. That's what the first amendment is about.

The Tea party is not free in any way.

Tea party members think and protest what the Koch brothers, and other billionaires command them too. If the Koch brothers want the Tea Party to protest a certain event, all they do is call their think tanks, then the think tanks send the Tea party, to the location desired by the Koch brothers.

Example,

Since the Koch brothers make billions of dollars in oil related business, they are against any laws fighting global warming. As you know the Koch brothers lie and say "global warming is not happening", so they can continue to make money in the oil business.

There was a oil company event called "the hot air tour", and the Koch brothers sent the Tea Party to the event. The oil companies rented out a field and set up a tent, and then oil company publicity workers started giving the Tea party members speeches. The oil company workers told them "global warming is a bunch of hot air, global warming is not even happening ex.ex.ex."


The tea party also gets moved to other corporate tours, like health insurance company tours. The health insurance corporations do not like democrat health insurance laws, because these laws decrease their profits. So the insurance corps. send the Tea party to their tours. The insurance corp. brings their bus to the front of the White house. Then a insurance company worker gives the Tea Party a speech about health care, they say "this health care bill is communism ex.ex.ex."



Were will the Koch brothers send the Tea party next? I dont know, but you can bet it will be an event, that makes republican corporations more money.

Chad, I think you're making that all up. Where is the evidence that links the Tea Party to the Koch brothers?

Even if true, something that's likely considering David Koch was once a national libertarian leadership, so what? David Koch is one of the best philanthropist in the world, with hundred of millions of dollars going to organization like Smithsonian Institute, PBS, John Hopkins research and for gay rights campaigns (doesn't sound very tea party does it?) etc. anyhow....

-

Chad please resist the urge to turn every subject into a wide open debate about the merits of whole sale party politics. This thread should be quite focused on how the administration handled the latest middle East problems, and our foreign polity toward that region, how the US projects it's values, and perhaps both sides attempts to turn the mess into a political football. Jimmie Cricket...it's wide enough already without talking bout the Koch brothers.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Chad, I think you're making that all up. Where is the evidence that links the Tea Party to the Koch brothers?

The following Australian made documentary, shows everything I said.


The Billionaires' Tea Party (Full Length Documentary) - YouTube



Since I doubt you will watch the documentary,

(23:30-25:30) time in the video, shows one of Green Peace's chairmen explaining a bit of what I said, it also shows footage of the "hot air tour" I spoke of, with Tea Party members serving the event.

(11:10-13:00) time in the video, explains a bit how the Tea Party is manipulated and created by corporations, it also shows the Tea Party members with the insurance corporations bus outside the White House, cheering for the insurance company's speaker.

I could not find the part that shows how the Koch brothers, control were the Tea Party members protest. But if you were to watch the whole documentary, you would see that the Koch brothers, other billionaires, and large corporations control the Tea Party.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Even if true, something that's likely considering David Koch was once a national libertarian leadership, so what? David Koch is one of the best philanthropist in the world, with hundred of millions of dollars going to organization like Smithsonian Institute, PBS, John Hopkins research and for gay rights campaigns (doesn't sound very tea party does it?) etc. anyhow....

-

Chad please resist the urge to turn every subject into a wide open debate about the merits of whole sale party politics. This thread should be quite focused on how the administration handled the latest middle East problems, and our foreign polity toward that region, how the US projects it's values, and perhaps both sides attempts to turn the mess into a political football. Jimmie Cricket...it's wide enough already without talking bout the Koch brothers.

Philanthropist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

philanthropist- is one who makes an active effort to promote human welfare.


The Koch brothers give money to organizations to stop welfare, the Koch brothers are (anti-philanthropists.)

They want to abolish welfare itself.

They also want to abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, public schools, the FDA, and the EPA.

The above actions do not promote human welfare, these actions destroy human welfare.


I will stop talking about the Koch brothers in this thread, sorry.

Originally Posted by chad

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Even if true, something that's likely considering David Koch was once a national libertarian leadership, so what? David Koch is one of the best philanthropist in the world, with hundred of millions of dollars going to organization like Smithsonian Institute, PBS, John Hopkins research and for gay rights campaigns (doesn't sound very tea party does it?) etc. anyhow....

-

Chad please resist the urge to turn every subject into a wide open debate about the merits of whole sale party politics. This thread should be quite focused on how the administration handled the latest middle East problems, and our foreign polity toward that region, how the US projects it's values, and perhaps both sides attempts to turn the mess into a political football. Jimmie Cricket...it's wide enough already without talking bout the Koch brothers.

Philanthropist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

philanthropist- is one who makes an active effort to promote human welfare.


The Koch brothers give money to organizations to stop welfare, the Koch brothers are (anti-philanthropists.)

They want to abolish welfare itself.

They also want to abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, public schools, the FDA, and the EPA.

The above actions do not promote human welfare, these actions destroy human welfare.


I will stop talking about the Koch brothers in this thread, sorry.

Chad, none of these things have anything at all to do with what Obama and his admin tried to do and what they are now trying to do in order to cover it up and/or put it off.

gonzales56,

Looking back I now agree, with what you just said above.

I believe my first post here was within the subject matter of this thread. But most of my posts after that were political attacks. In my mind I used the ways of politics, to justify my changing the subject.

I apologize, and I have learned a big lesson here. I will try my best to never do this to you again gonzales56.

Thank you for the lesson I got here, I truly see things very differently at this moment.

I hope you have a great day/night,
Chad.