Pages

 

Recent Pages by Destro (Destro):
Louis C.K. explains environmentalism to Christians Obama thanks Putin for help in Boston FBI investigated older Boston terrorist 2 years ago at the request of a foreign govt Captured terrorist will not be Mirandized (He will not be advised of his rights) Dedicated to Boston: The Mighty Mighty Bosstones - The Impression That I Get

Jump to bottom

27 comments

1 sauceruney  Sat, Sep 15, 2012 7:08:49pm

Birther, can you spare a dime?

2 Buck  Sat, Sep 15, 2012 7:46:09pm

Yep, no way the President could be making huge mistakes, and the opposition in a free and democratic society is pointing it out.

Can't have that. must be wingnuts and birthers and racists.... oh my!

3 Destro  Sat, Sep 15, 2012 7:58:25pm

re: #2 Buck

I have criticized the US foreign policy also, but Romney said Obama sympathized with Islamist attackers. In other words, using the Obama is a Kenyan Muslim brotherhood anti-colonialist Mau-Mau America and white people hater meme of the right.

That was Romney going for his last ditch crazy base appeal.

4 Buck  Sat, Sep 15, 2012 8:45:30pm

We might disagree, but a lot of people think the press release that started with "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims..." sure sounds like sympathy with the attackers.

The press release was supposed to be here [Link: egypt.usembassy.gov...]

but it has been deleted. What is the expression? Flushed down the memory hole?

It actually has nothing to do with "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim". They are very clear that it has to do with misguided foreign policy decisions.

5 Buck  Sat, Sep 15, 2012 8:46:47pm

This isn't last ditch time at all. There are still going to be four debates.

6 andres  Sat, Sep 15, 2012 9:41:42pm

re: #4 Buck

We might disagree, but a lot of people think the press release that started with "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims..." sure sounds like sympathy with the attackers.

The press release was supposed to be here [Link: egypt.usembassy.gov...]

but it has been deleted. What is the expression? Flushed down the memory hole?

It actually has nothing to do with "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim". They are very clear that it has to do with misguided foreign policy decisions.

I know facts don't mean sh!t to you, but what you are saying is completely false.

Mitt Romney claims the Obama administration issued an “apology for American values” after U.S. embassies were attacked. Not true. Romney refers to a statement issued before mobs attacked either in Egypt or Libya, and faults U.S. diplomats for failing to condemn actions that hadn’t yet happened.

Furthermore, the word “sorry” or “apologize” doesn’t appear in the statement. Under the headline, “U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement,” the embassy in Cairo said, “Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy.”

7 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Sep 15, 2012 10:08:47pm

re: #4 Buck

We might disagree, but a lot of people think the press release that started with "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims..." sure sounds like sympathy with the attackers.

The press release was supposed to be here [Link: egypt.usembassy.gov...]

but it has been deleted. What is the expression? Flushed down the memory hole?

It actually has nothing to do with "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim". They are very clear that it has to do with misguided foreign policy decisions.

That was sent out in the hours before the attack, no? Does it dawn on your that the embassy was trying to defuse the situation before something happened?

8 thecommodore  Sat, Sep 15, 2012 10:27:20pm

Last ditch? More like first ditch.

9 Tigger2005  Sat, Sep 15, 2012 11:09:56pm

re: #5 Buck

This isn't last ditch time at all. There are still going to be four debates.

Structured debates don't offer much opportunity to rile up the base.

10 Buck  Sat, Sep 15, 2012 11:44:20pm
I know facts don'I mean sh!t to you, but what you are saying is completely false.

You and your link are concentrated on the word apology. I am talking about being sympathetic.

The words I used was sympathy with the attackers.

Now who seems to think facts are shit? You attacked a sentence you wanted me to have said, not the one I actually said.

11 Buck  Sat, Sep 15, 2012 11:47:19pm
That was sent out in the hours before the attack, no? Does it dawn on your that the embassy was trying to defuse the situation before something happened?

Ok but is it not fair to criticize that as a bad choice/decision?

12 simoom  Sun, Sep 16, 2012 1:46:05am

re: #11 Buck

Ok but is it not fair to criticize that as a bad choice/decision?

Sure, that's your right. Just as it's fine for others to criticize Romney & the RNC for on 9/11, engaging in the soulless politicization of a terrorist attack on our foreign diplomats, and through some pretzel-twisted logic that makes not an iota of sense, actually accusing the commander in chief of sympathizing with the killers. Keep in mind, this was within hours of the murders, and he was aware that at least one diplomat had been killed. He later doubled down after the full scale of the loss of life was known.

13 andres  Sun, Sep 16, 2012 6:20:25am

re: #10 Buck

You and your link are concentrated on the word apology. I am talking about being sympathetic.

The words I used was sympathy with the attackers.

Now who seems to think facts are shit? You attacked a sentence you wanted me to have said, not the one I actually said.

Let's see who's attacking a sentence the other wanted to say that didn't actually said?

re: #4 Buck

You said:

We might disagree, but a lot of people think the press release that started with "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims..." sure sounds like sympathy with the attackers.

From Reality:

Contrary to multiple reports from Fox News, the U.S. embassy in Cairo — not the State Department in Washington — put out the statement on Sept. 11 several hours before a mob of protesters breached the wall of the embassy, took down an American flag and replaced it with a black flag.

At 6:11 a.m. Eastern time (around noon Cairo time), the U.S. embassy in Cairo tweeted: “U.S. Embassy condemns religious incitement,” with a link to its full statement. (The tweet was later deleted and the link to the statement was taken down.) A senior administration official who spoke to reporters on a conference call confirmed that the statement was released at about noon Cairo time, which would have been at about 6 a.m. EST. That places the release of the statement several hours before the protest. [ed. emphasis mine]

So, there is no sympathy for the attackers The statement was written and sent several hours before the attacks.

Who is misrepresenting what the other is saying? You are, Buck.

You said:

The press release was supposed to be here [Link: egypt.usembassy.gov...]

but it has been deleted. What is the expression? Flushed down the memory hole?

From Reality:

At 11:04 p.m. ABC’s Jake Tapper reported, “An administration official tells ABC News that ‘no one in Washington approved that statement before it was released and it doesn’t reflect the views of the U.S. government.’ ” [ed. emphasis mine]

So the Embassy in Cairo attempts to diffuse a situation, and posts an unapproved statement on their official website. Under any circumstances in the real world, the normal procedure would be to take down the unapproved statement from the official website, regardless of who the official website is. And this is wrong for you why?

Again, who is misrepresenting what the other is saying? You are, Buck.

14 andres  Sun, Sep 16, 2012 6:24:33am

re: #13 andres
Continuing from above...

You said:

It actually has nothing to do with "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim". They are very clear that it has to do with misguided foreign policy decisions.

Yet again, from Reality:

We looked into the Obama speeches that Romney cited as evidence and concluded that nowhere did we see that the president “apologized” for America. In some speeches, Obama was drawing a distinction between his policies and those of his predecessor, George W. Bush. In other instances, Obama appeared to be employing a bit of diplomacy, criticizing past actions of both the U.S. and the host nation, and calling for the two sides to move forward.

This PoS talking point is part of the larger Obama hates America meme that the conservatives and the Republican Party has been pushing since 2008, of which the Obama is a Kenyan Muslim is the cornerstone.

To resume: you are, as always, parroting whatever talking points the Republican Party is regardless of the reality of the situation.

And to answer the answer your statement: It is you who is latching to a sentence and misrepresenting what other people said (and what reality is). And it is you go gives a shit about facts.

15 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Sep 16, 2012 6:47:15am

re: #14 andres

The thing is that Obama's "move forward" part hasn't happened. Too many people in the Arab world hate us and the forces of Radical Islam are stronger than Obama thought. He tried a plan that did not work, and its within the bounds of normal political discourse for Republicans to attack him over that.

16 Destro  Sun, Sep 16, 2012 7:34:40am

re: #15 Dark_Falcon

This has nothing to do with policy critique, this has to do with Romney saying Obama sympathized with Islamists.

17 Tigger2005  Sun, Sep 16, 2012 7:49:35am

re: #15 Dark_Falcon

The thing is that Obama's "move forward" part hasn't happened. Too many people in the Arab world hate us and the forces of Radical Islam are stronger than Obama thought. He tried a plan that did not work, and its within the bounds of normal political discourse for Republicans to attack him over that.

How do you define "did not work"? No more terror attacks on American embassies or interests, ever, anywhere? Do you really think that is a realistic goal? Even if it was, do you really think ANY President could accomplish it in less than four years? Do you really think Obama promised any such thing, for that matter?

The best we can hope for for some time to come is fewer and fewer terror attacks. It's pretty clear Obama has accomplished that.

18 Tigger2005  Sun, Sep 16, 2012 7:52:05am

re: #15 Dark_Falcon

The thing is that Obama's "move forward" part hasn't happened. Too many people in the Arab world hate us and the forces of Radical Islam are stronger than Obama thought. He tried a plan that did not work, and its within the bounds of normal political discourse for Republicans to attack him over that.

And in any case, that's not what Romney attacked Obama over at all, and you know it.

19 andres  Sun, Sep 16, 2012 8:03:10am

re: #15 Dark_Falcon

The thing is that Obama's "move forward" part hasn't happened. Too many people in the Arab world hate us and the forces of Radical Islam are stronger than Obama thought. He tried a plan that did not work, and its within the bounds of normal political discourse for Republicans to attack him over that.

Let's see what Romney actually said on national TV:

I also believe the administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt, instead of condemning their actions. It’s never too early for the United States government to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values.

No where in that statement, nor on his other statements related to the attacks on Libya's and Egypt's embassies, is Romney referring to Obama's overall foreign policy. It's referring to a specific action, on which the White House did the responsible thing, which is to wait for more information before taking a course of action. So I'll call your statement BS.

I'll also call you on moving the goalpost: you are deviating from the topic at hand because Buck's (BS) talking points isn't going anywhere anymore. By deviating from Romney's deplorable statements to the course of action taken by the State Department and the White House, you are taking the eyes off the actual point: Romney's statements aren't based in any sort of actual reality, and he said them to appease the extremists on his party.

20 Buck  Sun, Sep 16, 2012 12:05:22pm

re: #13 andres

You can't change what I said by repeating what you say.

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims..."

You can try and distance the President from what the Administrations Embassy set out, but it will not work. I mean the Obama Administration is trying to make what Bain did years after Romney left as Romney's responsibility.

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims..."

Trying to change that to saying no one was apologizing is fine, but that is not what I was saying.

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims..."

Why put that out at all? It was a YouTube video that at that time had less than 5,000 hits. It clearly was not put out by the Whitehouse. It was a You Tube video. For goodness sake, there are thousands of videos that offend Jews, Muslims, Christians and atheists. No press release about that. Why was this one special.

They put that out because they were warned that people were gathering and heading towards the embassy.

Instead of talking about how the Egyptian government has a responsibility to protect the embassy, they released a statement that sounds like sympathy with the attackers (or the people who were gathering and later attacked if you prefer).

Those are the facts. You can keep repeating the fact check that has no bearing on what I am talking about, but it will not change anything.

It is chilling to read here that the official opposition of the President cannot criticize the administration without being attacked for it.

A serious misunderstanding about what makes a strong democracy.

21 Buck  Sun, Sep 16, 2012 12:16:27pm

re: #19 andres

I also believe the administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt, instead of condemning their actions. It’s never too early for the United States government to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values.

No where in that statement, nor on his other statements related to the attacks on Libya's and Egypt's embassies, is Romney referring to Obama's overall foreign policy.

You simply have a different definition of "related to foreign policy". You like to be 100% literal when it benefits your argument, and allow for figurative language when you want to make excuses for the administration.

Press releases from American Embassies are directly related to foreign policy. If there is no policy in place to make sure that a Press Release from an American Embassy, and therefore by extension the State Department is official, then that is a more serious issue. That would definitely land on the Presidents desk. Diplomacy by people who have no official responsibility? That doesn't scare you?

The only reason we know about it is the political opposition doing their job. That is how democracy works.

22 andres  Sun, Sep 16, 2012 12:31:28pm

re: #20 Buck

re: #21 Buck

Bullsh!t. It is you who is twisting yourself in knots to change reality to fit your narrow view.

23 Buck  Sun, Sep 16, 2012 12:38:11pm

re: #22 andres

re: #21 Buck

Bullsh!t. It is you who is twisting yourself in knots to change reality to fit your narrow view.

Well we definitely have a different opinion. I think it is you that has a narrow view, and seem to be too accepting of excuses from the administration.

However it is you AND a majority of the mainstream press, so you have lots of company.

24 andres  Sun, Sep 16, 2012 1:39:05pm

re: #23 Buck

Well we definitely have a different opinion. I think it is you that has a narrow view, and seem to be too accepting of excuses from the administration.

However it is you AND a majority of the mainstream press, so you have lots of company.

You are entitled to your own opinion, not to your own facts.

Fact 1: There was never an apology nor sympathy to the rioters.

Fact 2: The Cairo Embassy acted on accord to what they believed was best to defuse a dangerous situation.

Fact 3: The Cairo Embassy, in order to try to defuse the situation as quickly as possible, broke protocol and didn't get their communication vetted.

Fact 4: All of Cairo Embassy's actions occurred before the protests turned violent.

Now, to answer your absurdities:
re: #20 Buck

You can try and distance the President from what the Administrations Embassy set out, but it will not work. I mean the Obama Administration is trying to make what Bain did years after Romney left as Romney's responsibility.

You're comparing the actions taken and overseen by their CEO that had, on the very least, weeks of cold consideration, to a situation that devolved into real violence in a matter of hours that resulted in 4 deaths? You really think both situations are comparable?

Trying to change that to saying no one was apologizing is fine, but that is not what I was saying.

You clearly stated that they were sympathizing with the attackers on #4. It can't be, because they fucking posted this ours before the attack.

Why put that out at all? It was a YouTube video that at that time had less than 5,000 hits. It clearly was not put out by the Whitehouse. It was a You Tube video. For goodness sake, there are thousands of videos that offend Jews, Muslims, Christians and atheists. No press release about that. Why was this one special.

They put that out because they were warned that people were gathering and heading towards the embassy.

I don't know. Maybe because the assessment of their situation was that their lives were in danger?

Instead of talking about how the Egyptian government has a responsibility to protect the embassy, they released a statement that sounds like sympathy with the attackers (or the people who were gathering and later attacked if you prefer).

Go fuck yourself. By God, if someone invents a time machine, I'll put you inside the Libyan Embassy on that day, just to see how you would react.

Those are the facts. You can keep repeating the fact check that has no bearing on what I am talking about, but it will not change anything.

You're dovetailing the facts to fit your twisted narrative.

It is chilling to read here that the official opposition of the President cannot criticize the administration without being attacked for it.

One thing is to criticize the President on his actions. Another completely different is to willfully misrepresenting, twisting, dovetailing, and inventing facts to fit an invented narrative, when there are 4 Americans dead, and details are as sketchy as they were on the day of the attack.

A serious misunderstanding about what makes a strong democracy.

The first misunderstanding is that, for a democracy to remain strong, it has to be based on reality. Which the current President opposition willfully ignores.

25 andres  Sun, Sep 16, 2012 1:45:33pm

re: #21 Buck

You simply have a different definition of "related to foreign policy". You like to be 100% literal when it benefits your argument, and allow for figurative language when you want to make excuses for the administration.

Press releases from American Embassies are directly related to foreign policy. If there is no policy in place to make sure that a Press Release from an American Embassy, and therefore by extension the State Department is official, then that is a more serious issue. That would definitely land on the Presidents desk. Diplomacy by people who have no official responsibility? That doesn't scare you?

The only reason we know about it is the political opposition doing their job. That is how democracy works.

Yet again you are sketching the truth so much, it's breaking. Of course press releases by American Embassies are related to foreign policy. But that isn't what I said. I said, and I quote myself, "No where in that statement, nor on his other statements related to the attacks on Libya's and Egypt's embassies, is Romney referring to Obama's overall foreign policy." If you want to be more literal about it, the obvious unwritten part is that Romney is referring to Obama's handling of the current situation, not his overall foreign policy, as Dark_Falcon said.

Try some reading comprehension sometime. I heard it's useful.

26 Buck  Sun, Sep 16, 2012 3:27:51pm

re: #24 andres

Fact 1: There was never an apology nor sympathy to the rioters.

Fact 2: The Cairo Embassy acted on accord to what they believed was best to defuse a dangerous situation.

Fact 3: The Cairo Embassy, in order to try to defuse the situation as quickly as possible, broke protocol and didn't get their communication vetted.

Fact 4: All of Cairo Embassy's actions occurred before the protests turned violent.

These are not facts, they are at best the interpretation from the administration about what happened.

You seem to continue to apply the word fact very liberally.

I have not changed my opinion about what happened from my first post even a little. You keep accusing me of twisting, and yet I am standing on what I said right at the start. Never changing, and certainly not twisting.

I said at the start that "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims..." sure sounds like sympathy with the attackers.

You like to say that they were not attackers yet. However you seem to think that the Embassy person who released the statement might have been frightened. So the distinction that the attacks had not started is moot. Who was that official? Do you know for sure that they were in Egypt?

Bottom line: Is it proper for the legal and loyal opposition to the President to criticize that press release and say that it sounds like sympathy with the attackers? Doesn't matter if the President wrote it personally. Is that the role of the opposition? I say yes. That was my position in #2 and is my position now.

27 palomino  Sun, Sep 16, 2012 5:59:00pm

How many Muslim terrorists does the military have to kill under the Obama administration before the right stops accusing him of sympathizing with the very people he's ordering killed at an unprecedented rate?

This is bizarro land. Obama, even after the killing of bin Laden, aggressive moves in Afghanistan and Libya, etc. is still seen as a terrorist sympathizer pussy by many on the right. If he's made foreign policy mistakes, that's one thing...although that alone simply makes him like EVERY other president we've ever had. But the notion that he sympathizes with Islamic extremists isn't backed up by facts. Instead of looking at one statement put out by the embassy in Egypt, how about assessing his record as a whole? Ask al-Qaeda's leaders if Obama has a soft spot for Muslim terrorists.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh