Younger voters are far less convinced than their elders that the protests at U.S. embassies in the Middle East have been planned in advance. Female voters are not as sure of that as male voters are.I'm guessing that the more you like President Obama, the more you've been influenced by the administration's propaganda about the "Innocence of Muslims" video.
The government last week spent $70,000 in Pakistan to run a television ad featuring President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denouncing the video in hopes of limiting protests there.They don't have to run that ad in the United States, where the mainstream media carries their message free of charge. Here's what they showed in Pakistan:
What's that red flag with the pentagram behind her? It seems kind of Satanic. Is it this:
What's going on there? And, more importantly, should we fly into a rage and take to the streets?
पोस्ट्स
३०९ टिप्पण्या:
309 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Sixty-seven percent (67%) of military veterans agree that the protests mostly have been planned in advance
Regardless of whether you attended the NY School for Boys or the AQ Camp Number 2 training program, a dismounted attack against a walled compound is not something you do ad-hoc.
Good Armies at least run a sand table exercise to coordinate how the suppressing fire teams will control their fires and allow the assault teams to reach the wall at the breach point. Not to mention communications, logistics, rally point, chain of command, etc
The Best run rehearsals.
Haven't heard of any rioting in Morocco.
Probably should have had a Pakistani flag up there. Obviously they were improvising and must have been meeting with someone from the Kingdom of Morocco.
Likely voters are reassuringly informed on this issue.
To Clinton and Obama's credit: they are doing an apology tour across the Middle East because you can't ask Muslim leaders to be too far ahead of their people, and well, look where their people are.
Of course, they could just be doing this to save their own political hides, to keep their beliefs alive in not only a liberal internationalist doctrine but Obama's particular brand of it, which like everything with Obama requires a suspension of disbelief and trust in a pretty incompetent, almost narcissistic, politician.
I mean, he won a Nobel peace prize after all.
They're not coming clean because it's all still 'fluid' which means they're scrambling to save their vision, despite events. Nuland at State (I'm sure Samantha Power) and the sacrificial lamb Susan Rice are still on board.
Who says he doesn't like women? They're propping him up.
What is it with wingers and flag conspiracies?
What is it with wingers and flag conspiracies?
You should ask Debra or Kip.
should we fly into a rage and take to the streets?
I'm down. You down?
The Ambassador was abandoned to die so Al Qaeda would forget its war against America. Oops.
President Drone Killer got his goal too. That goal was revenge on the Clinton's.
Sadly, this still might be better than a McCain administration.
Of course, that remains to be seen, and the current team will never own up to what kind of fruit is borne after the Arab Spring, especially if that fruit is rotten.
It will be everyone else's fault.
Probably should have had a Pakistani flag up there. Obviously they were improvising and must have been meeting with someone from the Kingdom of Morocco.
I assumed it was a Pakistani flag.
Not sure about all of you, but personally I always keep a spare mortar in the back of my car for when I feel the urge to be spontaneous and protest a bit.
lol Crack
--Younger voters are far less convinced than their elders that the protests at U.S. embassies in the Middle East have been planned in advance. Female voters are not as sure of that as male voters are.--
Too busy listening to their vaginas.
Except when it's not. Read your own link.
The speech was at a Morrocan function,thus the Morrocan related flag.
Where can we apply for the government grants of $70,000 to critigue one movie?
Is Roger Ebert due millions of dollars, now that we have a precedent that film criticism is a critical function of government that we need to spend excessive amounts on?
I save my rage for when I go in to get a sausage/'roni and all they have up is Gardens.
I should add that there are many people just doing they're jobs, staying professional, and having to go along with the current leadership, despite their doubts.
I don't know what they're thinking, but I'd sure have my doubts.
Those numbers alone don't bode well for Commandante Zero.
PS Since the Hildabeast has been known to summon that other rumored lesbian, Eleanor Roosevelt, one may wonder if it's to keep away the vampires.
PPS OK, garage, who's the redskin?
The young are brain washed if they've ever had a brain. The women, well, into their sixties still vote for their "reproductive freedom" to kill the unborns and be given free condoms.
As the story of Bengazi seeps through the embargo that State, FBI and CIA try to place on the info, "No comment while there's an ongoing criminal investigation" BS, it is going to look more like the OBL raid in Pakistan than a demonstration against Youtube.
I predict:
1. The Ambassador's killing was the cover story.
2. The real story is that an elite team of AQ Special operators (such that they have them) went in along with the assault team.
3. Their target was the CIA files on assets and threats in Eastern Libya.
4. They got what they came for and Obama is cooperating in the cover story cover-up, because the truth is too terrible.
5. Around Libya, people friendly to us are going gto die.
Concern troll, thy name is chrisnavin.com.
It's a good time to be an old white dude - we just look smart by default now.
Come, seek me. You have questions. I have answers, but will you listen, or will you be blinded by your "tolerance"? There is much to learn, grasshoppers.
I assume Hillary pulled her hair back so tight to minimize her hair.
The alternative, wearing a scarf, would have been even more politically damaging in the US by visually emphasizing the Kowtow.
That's Elizabeth Warrens photo from the back cover of Pow Wow Chow.
It was a Morrocan function...Geez. I can't stand Zero and the Hildebeast but even I knew this. Other stuff does happen in the world, and Zero and the Hildebeast will be there to fuck it up more.
Althouse juxtaposing a satanic flag to an Islamic Kingdom(one that is nominally our friend)...Let's not forget the Satanic Verses from that great champion of free speech, Salman Rushdie, except only for him, not for bad movie producers.
@drill sgt,
I'm with you on everything you said.
The administration has to scramble to sink this story with the connivance of a willing US press (not so the foreign press).
If the truth of what a disaster the Libyan raid was starts to sink in to the electorate before the election, Obama's toast.
If I were Romney, I'd hammer the shit out of this topic in the debate dedicated to foreign affairs.
Drill Sgt., your scenario makes the most sense of any others.
So, I'm not on your "side?"
Got it. It may still be more important to stay professional if you work for the government, even with someone like Obama in charge.
PPS OK, garage, who's the redskin?
That is Chief Shitting Bull, of whom Garage is a direct descendant.
They both have the signature high cheekbones.
; )
The alternative, wearing a scarf, would have been even more politically damaging in the US by visually emphasizing the Kowtow.
And the hijab would have made it much harder to talk into the microphone.
So 23% of likely voters are criminally stupid?
They probably have a hard time with the mute button, too.
Althouse juxtaposing a satanic flag to an Islamic Kingdom(one that is nominally our friend)
A blonde moment, no doubt.
garage mahal said...
What is it with wingers and flag conspiracies?
I dunno. Ask your fellow libtard travelers:
When did the Gadsden Flag become a symbol of the hard Right / extremism?
I bought a Gadsden flag tshirt a few years ago. We learned about it in elementary school and I always thought it was just a cool-looking flag with a simple, honorable message: don't mess with me and I won't mess with you; respect. Not to mention it was a symbol of the revolution, which I think was a very cool time in history and political thought.
But now I'm sort of reluctant to wear it anymore. I keep hearing it mentioned along with teabaggers, town hall nutters, right-wing militias, etc.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=529292
PS Since the Hildabeast has been known to summon that other rumored lesbian, Eleanor Roosevelt, one may wonder if it's to keep away the vampires.
Maybe Hildabeast summoned only Eleanor's vagina to discuss stuff.
Actually, Tyrone, maybe these will work for you:
"Gosh, our side is so disorganized, why even vote at all this November 6th?"
"The job of the presidency is SO hard, but Obama's giving it his best."
"Moderate Muslims speak loud and clear: We don't love you America, but we're coming around."
They both have the signature high cheekbones.
And high pelvic crests.
That makes vagina mumbling so much easier.
Garage: The right wing is interested in flags and their importance. The left wing likes to burn them or make their own: Obama, black flag of anarchy and so on
What is coming out now is that there was no "street demonstrations" at all in Benghazi, and there is no evidence that that "al Qaeda" group even knew about the video. It was just a night-time "al Qaeda" attack planned for 9/11 and carried out with small arms, RPGs, and mortars.
It is not all that clear whether the demonstrations in Cairo was just created by a local speechifying "cleric," or was intentionally incited by the Moslem Brotherhood, or possibly Salafists out to embarrass the brotherhood, but since it was that successful and got played up big in Washington and across the West, everybody jumped on the bandwagon and promptly rustled up local demonstrations to show they to were "with it."
In a nutshell:
The attackers had knowledge of the ambassador's itinerary through informants, and used small-squad tactics very effectively to complete their mission, which was to kill him.
They inadvertently exposed the Obama administration's utter failure in that region.
The Drill SGT said...
The Best run rehearsals.
Are you suggesting that they may have run rehearsals for this operation, or are you suggesting that this was the rehearsal?
That's the flag of BeBopIsStan, where Jay-z and Beyonce boogie at the White House and give advice on foreign policy in the situation room. Maybe the Zero can send them on an apology tour through the area to make things right. I can just hear Jay-Z call them Mo-Es in a song. I'm sure that would sooth the savage ravings in that area.
You down?
I'm down. Who else is down?
The Moroccan flag? That was from the other apology they filmed at the same time, the one for the upcoming spontaneous riots scheduled in Morocco next week.
They don't have to run that ad in the United States, where the mainstream media carries their message free of charge.
In pro wrestling jargon, the fans who believe that the matches and storylines are real are called "marks." That could double as a term for people who believe what the American mainstream media reports about politics.
According to this NYT article, the Drill Sgt. has it right.
Hey, what if Hillary blamed everything on a vast right-wing conspiracy?
So the offical lie spun by a lazy and in the tank media - isn't working.
No one else is down? What's up?!
@Ignorance is Bliss said...
neither really. I don't think they are the best, or ran rehearsals.
I am guessing that they ran a sand table drill. They should have, and of course, they have spare sand in Libya
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Always good to have a professional opinion.
Since the Hildabeast has been known to summon that other rumored lesbian, Eleanor Roosevelt, one may wonder if it's to keep away the vampires.
I first came to Althouse to see what she was saying about the recalls&protests in Madison, but I stayed so I can see what other right-wingers have to say about current events.
Thanks for sharing...it is very insightful.
AllenS:"Hey, what if Hillary blamed everything on a vast right-wing conspiracy?
9/24/12 12:03 PM"
Snort.
Clearly, Obama is the devil and he killed Ambassador Stevens! And he's just trying to blame it on the Muhammad video! It's true that the administration has said the killing was the premeditated act of terrorists. But that's just a coverup for their true position, namely that the killing was a spontaneous reaction to the Muhammad video! Don't you people see? Don't you understand? The American people understand. They know that the killing was the premeditated act of terrorists, just as the administration said. They are not fooled by the administration's nefarious secret position, which is the opposite of its public position. That's why Romney is WINNING!
Garage: The right wing is interested in flags and their importance. The left wing likes to burn them or make their own: Obama, black flag of anarchy and so on
I don't know man, you sure right wingers here don't sympathize with the flag burners in the streets in Libya? Both groups both despise Obama.
Hey, we know what you guys are going through. Obama sucks!!"
The pentagram is, in the context of the Moroccan flag, the "Seal of Solomon" (by Islamic and probably pre-Islamic tradition), and linked (via assimilation of pre-Islamic belief) to Fatima, the Prophet's daughter.
Garage: "I don't know man, you sure right wingers here don't sympathize with the flag burners in the streets in Libya? Both groups both despise Obama."
Dude, you are pretty sick in the old head. Plus, all Muslims love Obama.
What's not clear to me is that Stevens didn't make a lot of these decisions himself. He went all over the place without proper security. He was a sitting duck.
He knew the Islamists were getting thick on the ground in Benghazi and points East. Libya was less dangerous than it was during Gadhafi's overthrow, but still a mess.
Our government is responsible of course, and there should be an investigation done by Congress, and not by this administration.
Why has Obama claimed the video is responsible for so long...denying so many facts on the ground?
Why was he so ready to toss the 1st amendment under the bus and let Google defend it?
I think it's because he believes, he genuinely believes, that he will "heal the divide," between the Muslim world and the West. Libya was his war (like the surge in Afghanistan), and it's stage one in the New Liberal World Order, hence the apology tour. This was all PR to protect that vision and get the Muslim world to banish its "extremists" and bring Muslims in to the raft of rights and "community of nations."
That is a few ticks leftward of perhaps all previous administrations.
Like domestic policy, perhaps Obama can't even see Westpoint at times from where he sits, nor many white males, nor conservatives, nor many other people and ideas traditions that make this country what it is.
If this approach fails, it will be everyone else's fault, the political opposition, the extremists, but never the ideas, and never Obama's, for they float in the ether, still shining.
AF said...
It's true that the administration has said the killing was the premeditated act of terrorists
Ten days after the event. Once they realized their bullshit hadn't convinced anyone.
Does anyone believe anything that comes out of these two peoples' mouths after last week? They should have included Bill, a liars trifecta.
Michael
I was just noting the commonality between the obvious hatred that both groups seem have toward Obama. The flag burning, the burning effigies of Obama, the chanting, the yelling and screaming and whatnot.
As Blackfoot once famously said "Those that lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."
Garage: The people in the streets in the ME and NA hate America which includes Obama and you and me. If you were to make any comparisons with US political parties and the people in the streets in Libya you would be closer to the mark if you chose Democrats.
Looks like the Affirmative Action President's lies aren't working so well anymore.
Off the re-education camps, comrade! That's what Inga the Obama Whore's thinking.
I think it's worth pointing out that recently in Benghazi - where Ambassador Christopher died - citizens stormed the militant's headquarters and forced them out of the city.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19680785
Up to 30,000 people also protested that militia. Yes, they were protesting against the militia itself.
This has direct bearing on part of the topic: What young voters believe. Too many of them are being overly simplistic and not paying attention to the details. Heavy weaponry was eventually deployed at the first "protest", indicating that the militia was indeed prepared for the event. But that's not the same as criticizing the Benghazi or Muslims themselves; that's merely stating a logical conclusion to draw from the details of the event.
It is not attacking Islam to criticize the radicals. People who propagate that line of thought are foolish. It's entirely reasonable to strongly suspect that the event was preplanned, and it's far from being an indictment of Islam itself. It's no more than pointing out that there are fanatics out there who hide behind their religion in order to commit murder. 30,000 people in Benghazi give support to the notion that there are others within the Muslim world who'd like nothing better than to see those radical murders be driven out.
---
As an aside: Whereas everything's going to hell in a handbasket in Egypt, I think it's reasonable to take heart in what Libya's citizens are doing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18895335.
There's a possibility that Salafist ursurpation of popular revolutions can fail in Libya (as opposed to the success they're achieving in Egypt). That would be welcome news indeed. The world has had enough Irans and Lebanons already.
"Ten days after the event. Once they realized their bullshit hadn't convinced anyone."
Actually, the administration said from the beginning that they suspected it was planned and began investigating it immediately. But feel free to make stuff up. http://www.npr.org/2012/09/13/161044872/u-s-probes-whether-libyan-attacks-were-planned
Garage:
The flag burning, the burning effigies of Obama, the chanting, the yelling and screaming and whatnot.
----Yeah, 12+ years of little bitches like you doing the same to effigies of Bush, burning American flags, chanting how he was a war criminal, yelling, screaming, and shitting on cars and raping women.
Hypocrite piece of shit liar, you are.
By the way, heard you're daughter's sick. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving man.
Like domestic policy, this means Obama is not just cut from the Clinton cloth, the Johnson Great Society cloth, the FDR New Deal cloth etc (to whom he compares himself constantly and pathetically), he may be even further left in some of his sympathies.
He's a community organizer, a redistributionist, in bed with the real, sometimes radical Lefties and Marxists hanging around from the 60's, rewarding the Flukes, the enviro-nuts (not conservationists), the unions, the old Civil Rights apparatus in a system of patronage.
Hyde Park liberal and political moderate tempered by Harvard Law don't quite cut it. Progressive might get closer, but of the 60's variety.
You're just not ready for Obama, America.
The flag burning, the burning effigies of Obama, the chanting, the yelling and screaming and whatnot.
This has never happened in the US.
No one despises Obama. We despise his miserable performance as President.
Not the same thing, although I can understand if you lack the brainpower to distinguish the difference.
Your side, on the other hand, loves both Obama and his miserable performance as President.
And does drum circles, effigies, puppets, chanting, burning of US flags, inability to disagree with someone's policies without loathing them, etc. So I can see where your constant projection of your attitudes/techniques to the other side would leave you confused.
Both the Obama camp and the right wing cling to falsehoods and suppression of investigation tactics.
1. The Obama camp tried to blame the Benghazi attack on the blasphemy film - ignoring the long planning, 9/11 anniversary, and local reports that it was a armed disciplined force hitting the US targets(not street rabble that had gone to protest and somehow 'gotten out of hand').
The coverup of course is the stonewalling all comment (until perhaps after the election) because it would jeopardize the ongoing civilian criminal investigation. By the FBI, which ordered the Marines and Navy to stay away from Banghazi as it was a FBI operation ordered by the White House. That took a week to arrive and reach "the crime scene".
2. The rightwingers jumped on the fact that the Ambassdors killing was not linked to the film to then blow off riots and attacks on American interests from Morocco over to Indonesia that clearly HAD sprung from the film.
Their coverup is to try and wrap themselves and the filmaker con artist in the 1st Amendment. And shout Freedom! 1st Amendment Rights! - to anyone that wants to know if the blasphemy film and present US policies jeopardize us. Our ability to promote American national security or have influence on matters of vital interest to America in 1/3rd of the globe.
Actually, the administration said from the beginning that they suspected it was planned and began investigating it immediately.
Nope. Your link doesn't say what you claim it says. It only says (that the admin said) they were "probing" whether the attack was planned; Carney says it's "too early to judge whether the Benghazi attack was planned."
But Susan Rice, days after the attacks, made the MSM rounds on behalf of the administration and asserted-- insisted-- they were spontaneous protests that got out of hand, not planned terrorist attacks. See, for example, videos and links here.
“This was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack,” she said on Fox News Sunday. “What happened initially was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. People with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons—which, unfortunately, are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya—and that then spun out of control.”
Great link AF. You've actually proved my point.
President Obama declared in a White House appearance that the U.S. would "work with the Libyan government to bring to justice" those who killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The attack on the Benghazi consulate was "a planned, coordinated, well-executed, military-style event," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said.
Note well, nothing from Obama about a well-planned terrorist attack. That had to come from Mike Rogers, a Republican. Instead we get this:
White House press secretary Jay Carney said it was too early to judge whether the Benghazi attack was planned.
It was impossible to judge what the rest of the world already knew.
I appreciate the help, AF, but for your own sake read the articles you link to before posting them.
The Obamites failed to show the strength needed initially, particularly in Egypt. Then failed to use military assets and CIA and Libyans to rapidly investigate this and take action - deferring to a plodding FBI civilian criminal investigation..
The right wing failed to understand that we are at war, and they cheer those like the Copt crook - who are giving the enemy propaganda ammunition to use against us.
The best logic they can come up with is its the right thing to do because it sure pisses the Muslims off.
Heh Tyrone, jinx!
"they cheer those like the Copt crook"
"The best logic they can come up with is its the right thing to do because it sure pisses the Muslims off."
This bears no resemblance to anything anyone here has said or argued (especially those of us arguing about the First Amendment).
Watch out for those strawmen, Cedarford.
A defense of Obama's vision that I heard recently:
Libya is Obama's war: Light footprint, help overthrow Gadhafi with our special forces and mostly our bombs, go with British and French support and all the nods to international institutions, get rid of the tyrant (but unlike Bush, don't invade). Follow Frenchman Bernhard Henri Levy! to freedom through revolution.
The result will attract Al Qaeda and affiliates, but the people ultimately are responsbile for themselves and their destiny. Let them sort it out, but encourage when you can.
Some Libyans actually riot to take back Benghazi from Ansar Al Sharia and other thugs. It's a baby step to freedom.
Is this a win for obama's foreign policy?
Is getting the Muslim world, by slow and steady degrees, to join international institutions however ineffectual, a better path than long occupation like AfPak or invasion and rebuilding like Iraq?
The problem may be that most Muslims, as most conservatives note, aren't 'ready' for the sacrifice and commitment to democratic institutions that representative government require. It's unreformed Islam itself...or it isn't. It's not our business, but if some are willing to kill us over here. Then we kill them first.
------------------
Americans, in turn, aren't ready for the light that Obama is bringing them. Facts about Stevens' death, security, 1st amendment rights etc. take a back seat to cultivating the garden of liberal international freedom and a raft of rights.
Cut to the chase:
Zero thinks the deaths of Stevens and the 2 former SEALs are a "bump in the road".
Israel's concerns about a nuclear Iran are "noise".
My dog Sherlock is better qualified to be POTUS.
@AF
You must be referring to the first paragraph in the article:
"The Obama administration, roiled by the first killing of a U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years, is investigating whether the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a planned terrorist strike to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and not a spontaneous mob enraged over an anti-Islam YouTube video."
However, that does not contradict what's commonly known and cited in the news: That the administration did indeed say that the attacks were spontaneous, and not premeditated. Those statements are on record (I am specifically referring to Rice's, Carney's, and Clinton's).
If the administration did believe from the beginning that the attacks were premeditated, then they did not reflect that in their statements to the public. So you are not correct in saying that the administration was actually saying this "from the beginning". On the contrary, they may have started an investigation along these lines in the beginning (although my understanding is that the investigation was merely to identify the perpetrators, not actually discover whether it was premeditated or not. I could be wrong, however), but they proceeded to characterize the attacks as spontaneous in the days following. Rice's and Carey's statements, for example, were in the news 3 days after the date of your linked article. Tyrone is still correct in saying that the administration only admitted that the attacks were not spontaneous well after they were pressured to.
Furthermore, we still need to see substantiation of the NPR/AP article's claim. None was provided within the article. On the contrary, the relevant quotes regarding premeditation come from congressional staff members (and Republicans to boot), not administration ones. In fact, the only administration spokesperson quoted provided a sentence that might contradict the claim ("White House press secretary Jay Carney said it was too early to judge whether the Benghazi attack was planned.
"I know that this is being investigated, and we're working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. I would not want to speculate on that at this time," he said.").
In the end, there was nothing incorrect or inaccurate about Tyrone's statement. Yours, however, is not in line with the evidence provided. They were not saying what you assert they said "from the beginning".
Whoops. Tyrone and Yashu beat me to the punch. Heh. :)
educther said:
"Zero thinks the deaths of Stevens and the 2 former SEALs are a "bump in the road".
Israel's concerns about a nuclear Iran are "noise"."
-----
Obama also thinks that principled objection to obamacare, redistribution of wealth and transfer payments to potential consituents, a smaller government that preserves economic and political liberty....
are just noise as well.
Tyrone and yashu: You'll note the immediate investigation, which obviously is based on suspicion and directly contradicts your suggestion that the White House's initial response was to attribute the attack to spontaneous protesters.
Ambassador Rice's statements were made several days later, after the initial investigation, and were based on the preliminary results of the investigation. The preliminary conclusion was that people with "extremist ties" -- ie terrorists -- were responsible but that they hadn't found any evidence of premeditation. So again, they are not saying the attacks were a spontaneous protests. They are saying they were an opportunistic terrorist attack.
23%? Srsly?
May our G-d forgive our idiots.
In the future, Obama's foreign policy will be known as the Gumby
diplomacy. "Oh, no!!!"
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it not spin.
@whoresoftheinternet
It's never wise to talk about someone's family on the internet. You really don't know quite who you are dealing with on the other end. Know what I mean?
Facts about Stevens' death, security, 1st amendment rights etc. take a back seat to cultivating the garden of liberal international freedom and a raft of rights.
Rather convoluted thinking there. Yes, facts matter and 1st amendment rights matter. What the fuck is a "garden of liberal international rights" and a "raft of rights?" How does stomping on the 1st amendment bring about a "raft of rights." Or, are you being facetious?
WhoresoftheInternet spewed,
"Garage:
The flag burning, the burning effigies of Obama, the chanting, the yelling and screaming and whatnot.
----Yeah, 12+ years of little bitches like you doing the same to effigies of Bush, burning American flags, chanting how he was a war criminal, yelling, screaming, and shitting on cars and raping women.
Hypocrite piece of shit liar, you are.
By the way, heard you're daughter's sick. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving man."
9/24/12 12:54 PM
Whore, what a pig fucker you are, that is when you're not fucking goats.
whores is a moby, garage, not a worthy opponent like yourself. I find his presence here most distasteful.
garage, "whoresoftheinternet" is a repulsive little troll.
chrisnavim wrote:
Obama also thinks that principled objection to obamacare, redistribution of wealth and transfer payments to potential consituents, a smaller government that preserves economic and political liberty....
are just noise as well.
<br.
Or.... racism.
Tyrone,
Whore IS NOT a Moby. I don't know if his website is still up, but it was a couple of months ago. It is a White Supremicist hate site.
Being facetious, but also trying to understand where the administration is coming from.
Here's a definition from Anne Marie Slaughter on liberal internationalism, which I suspect is acutally GROUNDING Obama:
‘The central liberal internationalist premise is the value of a rules-based international order that restrains powerful states and thereby reassures their enemies and allies alike and allows weaker states to have sufficient voice in the system that they will not choose to exit’
-----------------
Idea wise, this is why the administration's actions are to wait so long to admit it was a planned attack..why Clinton is doing a Muslim world apology tour..to have a couple of week long investigation...to trot out Nakoula and let Google handle the video...to cover its own ass.
These ideas were swept into power 3 1/2 years ago and they don't want to see them go.
We're just seeing their playbook not work so well in the game. It won't ever be their fault, because the playbook is the right one, and it wasn't given enough time.
The Muslim god now worshiped as "allah" was a small black stone Moon idol kept safely in a stone shed in Mecca. It is believed to be a meteorite found in the desert.
Moon symbolism are a major Muslim motif.
Tyrone and yashu: You'll note the immediate investigation, which obviously is based on suspicion and directly contradicts your suggestion that the White House's initial response was to attribute the attack to spontaneous protesters.
Ambassador Rice's statements were made several days later, after the initial investigation, and were based on the preliminary results of the investigation. The preliminary conclusion was that people with "extremist ties" -- ie terrorists -- were responsible but that they hadn't found any evidence of premeditation. So again, they are not saying the attacks were a spontaneous protests. They are saying they were an opportunistic terrorist attack.
On 16 Sep, Susan Rice represented the Obama Administration in saying the attacks in Libya were not premeditated.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.
“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”
“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.
So even if the administration was initially unsure if it was a premeditated attack or not, it lied to the public and said it definitely, absolutely, beyond a doubt was not premeditated.
Not knowing for sure is one kind of problem, and all your excuses for those difficulties are noted.
But deliberately lying to the US public about it is wrong. There are a few possible reasons to lie:
- not considering US citizens to be adult enough to handle the truth
- domestic political calculations
- more concern for Islamic concerns than US citizenry concerns
- not wanting public opinion to push Administration toward a reaction they didn't want to take (deliberate attempt to forestall Will of the People)
None of those possibilities look good for President Obama.
There may be other possibilities, and I'd like to hear them if anyone can think of any.
But I doubt they make President Obama look any better.
He needs to resign, immediately, for betraying the Ambassador to his death, for his lies and deceptions to the American people, and for trying to cover up the deaths that occurred as a direct result of his lack of responsibility and leadership (skipping daily intel briefings leading up to the attack, going to sleep after being notified of the attack, and knowing the Ambassador was missing, etc).
Spin that any way you want, AF
Garage mahal wrote:
I was just noting the commonality between the obvious hatred that both groups seem have toward Obama. The flag burning, the burning effigies of Obama, the chanting, the yelling and screaming and whatnot.
As Blackfoot once famously said "Those that lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."
Whoresoftheinterenet certainly overstated it (and needlessly brought your famly into it), but his point is fundamentally sound
. You want to talk about AMericans burning a president in effigy? All you have to do is go to any pictures of an anti war demonstration. Whoever was selling Bush dolls to burn in effigy is probably a rich man. So, are you and your side feeling the itch from all that lying down with dogs and getting up with fleas?
Looks like you're right, Allie. I want to be on record as one who finds him every bit as despicable as you do.
Frankly, this playbook may still work for a few downs or a series...but:
Are Americans at a higher risk in other places?
Could Stevens have been protected more and did the U.S. government fail its duty? (Stevens took a lot of risk on his own)
There is a rise of Islamism in the Middle-East, and it typically bends governments politically to the will of the people on the ground: Salafists and other unleashed furies in Egypt.
Were the minds of men in Egypt ready to accept the sacrifice necessary for representative government and democratic institutions?
If not, what risks do they pose and how do we deal with them diplomatically, militarily that we may not have had to deal with regarding the old SCAF and Mubarak?
The internationalists will only say: These are baby steps to freedom, it's the right playbook.
Inga, a "website" doesn't by itself prove a troll isn't a moby.
I still reckon it's a moby; but you may be right-- who knows, who cares. Whatever species of troll it is, it's a hateful little troll. Denote him a troll and then ignore.
(Which is why, jr565, you shouldn't get anywhere near the flea-ridden troll.)
@Garage the Wonder Shit:
It's never wise to talk about someone's family on the internet. You really don't know quite who you are dealing with on the other end. Know what I mean?
Oh noes! A veiled threat from the hypocritical liar piece of shit Garage! I am so scared!
And note he still ignores the point I made about his hypocrisy.
And I merely express pleasure at your pain, bitch. What's the matter, lefty? Not used to anti-lefties using your tactics, bitch?
I hope a lot more random tragedy strikes you and your family. You, scumbag, deserve nothing but misery.
note: I am not directing or telling anyone to hurt garage. Just saying if I heard about it, it would make me smile.
@Cedarford,
I'm a right winger, and I understand we are at war, at least as much as you do.
I also realize that one of the things we are at war over, is freedom. Freedom of religion, freedom of association, Rule of Law, freedom of speech, freedom of expression...all are things we have that they don't want us to have. All are things that Muslims intend to eradicate once everyone is subject to the worldwide Caliphate.
So when you are in a war, you don't just pre-emptively surrender one of the things you are fighting with and for, do you?
You don't say, "Hm... they keep trying to shoot down our bombers. So if we just destroy all our bombers now on our home territory, maybe they won't try to shoot down our transport or fighter aircraft!"
So, no. We don't modify our commitment to free speech. If that makes the Muslims riot, that is just them self-identifying as enemy combatants. Saves us the trouble of having to pick them out of a crowd, right?
@Inga the Obama Whore:
what a pig fucker you are, that is when you're not fucking goats.
Put your fantasies away, Obama Whore. I'm not sleeping with you.
Yashu, have you taken a look at his website, I am betting no. If he is a Moby he has gone to great lengths to keep up a blog that spews white supremicist crap, for quite sometime.
I'm hoping Ms. Althouse will start deleting the 2 seconds of hate from whoresoftheinternet.
About the only positive thing I can say about it at all is at least it chose an appropriately despicable name for itself. Kinda like the picture on the label tells you what's inside.
Like I said Inga, I think the best response to a troll is to denote them a troll and then ignore.
@Inga the Obama Whore:
a blog that spews white supremicist crap, for quite sometime
---lol. Gotta love Obama Whores. Anything that criticizes black behavior=the Klan.
@Nathan Alexander:
I'm hoping Ms. Althouse will start deleting the 2 seconds of hate from whoresoftheintern
---Yes, don't like having your views challenged, eh boy?
Yashu, yes he is a TROLL, not a MOBY.
@yashu:
ignoring reality won't make it go away, Obama-lover.
Note how the Obama-worshipers have desperately tried, through polarizing me as a target, to ignore the reality:
garage is a hypocritical liar.
Much like the MSM ignoring the embassy murderers in favor of attacking Romney.
Seig Heil, Mein Obama!
You keep missing my point (and this is the last time I'll make it here): ignore. Don't feed it.
Garage lied about the left, and every lefty tries to make it about me.
lol.
history will show how weak you are, Obama-lovers.
NO Yashu, I'm not missing your point and I'm not doing as you say, I won't ignore his psycho. Ignoring does not always make them go away.
Sigh.
He needs to be outed, commenters here need to know what sort of beast they are dealing with, since this is a conservative site and he is a far right wing extremist. OWN him or reject him, some here on this blog have actually agreed with him.
Garage is a lying hypocrite.
Discuss, Obama-lovers
Yashu, sigh all you want.
Note now that Inga the Obama Whore is demanding I be SHAMED in the light of day for being a dick. I must be ARRESTED and frog marched and embarrassed and punished for daring to oppose her and her ideals.
She also had NO problem with the Feds ARRESTING a man for making a movie and SHAMING him.
Coincidence? I think not.
All opposition to the party must be rooted out and destroyed, comrades! 1st Amendment be damned!
Whore, you dumbass, it's not I that is trying to shut you up, keep spewing by all means, I'm loving it, you cute little right wing extremist hater you:)
But deliberately lying to the US public about it is wrong. There are a few possible reasons to lie:
Couldn't help but notice that none of the reasons you listed include "National Security." Why is that?
I ain't sayin' that this is the case in this case, but rather just askin' if you really beleive that Big Bro should always tell the truth, no matter what.
I also noticed that the ObamaAdmin said "Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present" and you interpreted that to mean "definitely, absolutely, beyond a doubt"
I ain't really got a question to ask about that, rather just an observation...
@Inga the Obama Whore:
Right, that's why you want me "exposed" and continuously ignore garage's blatant hypocrisy and enjoy people being arrested for making movies.
Because you DON'T want me to shut up.
Good argument, Obama Whore.
I also noticed that the ObamaAdmin said "Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present" and you interpreted that to mean "definitely, absolutely, beyond a doubt"
purple, Susan Rice could have qualified her remarks that way, but she didn't.
Drill SGT,
Yes, regarding planning and rehearsals--but you can be a Really Crappy Army and still overrun an undefended (and indefensible) consulate building, right?
And your prediction creeps me out.
Inga said...
Susan Rice could have qualified her remarks that way, but she didn't.
According to the link provided by NA (9/24/12 1:57 PM), she did qualify her remarks as such.
Do you have a source that discredits this report? I'm truly interested in learning more.
the ObamaAdmin said "Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present"
If that was actually the Obama administration's "best assessment" that doesn't speak well to the Obama administration's ability to assess.
Seriously, now -- they had information the attacks were coming. Then the attacks actually happened. If "huh, must have been a spontaneous, multi-nation reaction to a YouTube video nobody had ever heard of before" was really their "best assessment", they're morons.
"They lied" seems like a much more credible explanation than "they are dumber than three-quarters of the American public".
@PP,
Couldn't help but notice that none of the reasons you listed include "National Security." Why is that?
I ain't sayin' that this is the case in this case, but rather just askin' if you really beleive that Big Bro should always tell the truth, no matter what.
You'll have to explain how lying to the public about what happened is in the interests of national security.
In the US, the only govt things that are supposed to be kept from the public are involved with protecting the ways and means of intelligence collection, security of nuclear weapons, and the general right to anonymity to the govt (unless there is probable cause).
The govt is not supposed to "protect" us from the truth. The govt is the servant of the people, not the master.
If the people make stupid decisions, with the information, that is the right of the people.
It is telling that you think lying to the public for its own good is one possible function of the govt. Tyranny "for their own good" is never far from the mind of a Progressive, eh?
I also noticed that the ObamaAdmin said "Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present" and you interpreted that to mean "definitely, absolutely, beyond a doubt"
That was the implication. Regardless of whether you add weasel words, the purpose of the statement was to pin blame for the riots on the video, and to ensure no one blamed President Obama for his lack of leadership or willful disregard of the actual terrorist threat on the 11th anniversary of 9/11.
Weasel words were added for plausible deniability. But the intent was to leave the impression in low-information voters minds that there was no question the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the video, and not a pre-planned attack that reflected badly on Obama's preoccupation with his re-election campaign.
In fact, the weasel words merely increase the evidence that she was knowingly lying on behalf of a deliberately deceptive Obama Administration.
"They lied" seems like a much more credible explanation
So do you beleive that the President should always tell the truth, no matter what? Even if his generals are telling him not to?
I ain't sayin' that is the case in this case...just wondering where people stand on this.
PP,
I eagerly await your spin on how it is okay for Obama to lie to the public.
With-holding information to protect undercover agents or prevent enemies from accessing tools of security is one thing.
What possible scenario can you come up with where it is okay to flat-out lie to the American public, and it not be a breach of trust worth resigning over?
So do you beleive that the President should always tell the truth, no matter what? Even if his generals are telling him not to?
When have Generals told a President to lie?
What Generals were telling the President to lie in this case?
We are in the last few weeks of an election campaign.
Democracy is dependent on voters having information on the candidates, their actions, their decisions, in order to make the best decision as to who is most appropriate for the job.
In this setting, the Obama Administration lied to the public, attempting to obscure vital information on how President Obama has done his job as President.
He should resign immediately.
PurpleP. The president could hqve many legitimate reasons for telling an untruth. A good time to do this would not be when the truth is too evident to shove under the rug as was the case in Libya. Only the dumbest of the dumb believe an operation as was reported could be "spontaneous" and no amout of double talk can obscure that.
Integrity is not only how you act when no one is watching, but how you act when you have knowledge that might hurt your personal interests.
How did Obama respond?
He lied to try to hide his lack of responsibility and failure of leadership.
He should resign immediately.
PurpleP. The president could hqve many legitimate reasons for telling an untruth. A good time to do this would not be when the truth is too evident to shove under the rug as was the case in Libya. Only the dumbest of the dumb believe an operation as was reported could be "spontaneous" and no amout of double talk can obscure that.
So do you beleive that the President should always tell the truth, no matter what? Even if his generals are telling him not to?
I believe Obama lied about why our embassies were attacked.
I you want to change your argument from "they thought the embassies were attacked because of that movie" to "yes, he lied, but he lied for important strategic reasons" feel free to do so. After you have, I'll direct the appropriate level of mockery at that claim.
I ain't sayin' that is the case in this case...just wondering where people stand on this.
I don't think I'll deign to reply to off-topic questions today, thanks. :)
You'll have to explain how lying to the public about what happened is in the interests of national security
Nope...no need to go there at all if you beleive that "national security" isn't a reasonable excuse to for Uncle Sam to not tell the truth about something.
And based on the rest of your response, you make it very clear that the gov't shouldn't lie at all, unless it involves nuclear weapons and intel-collection. In all other matters you expect full and total disclosure from the Feds, no matter what the implications to national security.
Thanks for clearing that up...mucho appericated.
That was the implication.
You are really gonna plant a flag on your claim that saying "Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present" means "definitely, absolutely, beyond a doubt"?!
Really?!
*rolls eyes*
Looks like you're right, Allie. I want to be on record as one who finds him every bit as despicable as you do.
Same here. I made the mistake of clicking on its name the other night. I felt it best to ignore it rather than feed it.
However, I don't understand why Althouse would arbitrarily delete people for being off topic, yet leave this scum to pollute her "salon".
He needs to be outed, commenters here need to know what sort of beast they are dealing with, since this is a conservative site and he is a far right wing extremist.
Inga is all about CONTROL.
Of course they were lying, why sent out the UN ambassador to appear on all the talk shows? Why not someone actually from the White House or State? Isn't that the normal way these things are done?
They sent Ambassador Rice out to lie and to cover Barry's and Hillary's asses, they both knew about the attack within 90 minutes of the attack started, they went to bed without knowing the status of Stevens. Barry and Hillary got their 3:00 AM calls and failed to answer. Besides, Barry had to rest up for Vegas.
Anyone with an IQ above 80 and an internet connection knew why Stevens was in Benghazi,who he was meeting and what one of those people had to say about the situation.
Being facetious, but also trying to understand where the administration is coming from.
Thank, God. If you ever figure out where they're coming from, let us know.
Please note:
PP is demonstrating the typical lefty/progressive troll technique.
I'm sure the playbook (disseminated via one of the many incarnations of Journolist) is something like this:
1) never respond directly to the point
2) ask lots of hypothetical questions that are superficially similar to the topic at hand
3) Words almost always have multiple meanings; parse them in the best possible light for Obama/Democrats, the worst possible light for GOP/Republicans
4) never grant a single point; question every single thing a non-liberal says...if they answer one point effectively, don't acknowledge, but shift to the next question.
5) Question motivations of those who criticize Obama/Democrats.
6) Always provide an innocuous possible explanation of Obama's intent. Repeat it as if it were an already proven fact
7) Never underestimate the power of ridiculing a typo (never acknowledge bad grammar/vocab/spelling on your own part)
7) Overall, the goal of the progressive/liberal Althouse Troll is to undermine key supports on any topic that might hurt Obama in the election. Cast doubt. Cast aspersions. Nothing is ever truly known 100%, so use that inherent 0.0001% uncertainty against them. Their inherent honesty, integrity, and desire to argue in good faith can be turned against them, since you lack those 3 attributes almost completely.
And based on the rest of your response, you make it very clear that the gov't shouldn't lie at all, unless it involves nuclear weapons and intel-collection. In all other matters you expect full and total disclosure from the Feds, no matter what the implications to national security.
See?
He refuses to put his own opinion out for critique, but misrepresents mine by restating it in own words, in far more absolutist terms. I'm sure he will accuse me of lying or being a hypocrite if I ever deviate from how he characterizes my viewpoint.
Typical progressive troll.
There is no point and no national security interest served by pushing a lie that a is obviously false to anyone paying attention.
I don't know why they chose to lie. Incompetence maybe?
EMD, I'm all about putting the truth out there, investigate at your own leisure or don't, I don't really care.
He needs to be outed, commenters here need to know what sort of beast they are dealing with, since this is a conservative site and he is a far right wing extremist.
This is not a conservative site. Althouse is, by any sane definition of the term, a political moderate.
We have both left-wing and right-wing extremists here. Racists, communists, anti-Semites, anti-Christians... you name it. It is an uncensored internet forum, after all.
Well doh, an coordinated attack across multiple locations on Sep 11th? I'm shocked 23% think it was spontaneous. But those are the same 23% that think the GOP wants to kill them or something.
It seems everyone who gets involved with Obama is sooner or later caught up in his incompetence.
The American people, as well.
BULLSHIT, Revenant, it is a conservative site, what alternate reality do you live in? What is the percentage of posts with liberal or even independent views as compared to conservative oriented posts? What is the percentage of liberal commenters to conservative?
Allie - then invite all your librul friends to post on here and "balance" it out, you nitwit.
Allie sees only what she wants to see. If the forum isn't 90% librul, but only 89.999999% then it's a conservative site.
How whacked OUT you are!
Alex, most of my liberal friends think I'm nuts for coming here to comment. I don't want to say what they call this blog. I don't agree with them, I quite enjoy it. How many of you hang out at liberal sites? Very few I suspect.
Many conservative commenters here, unlike me, LIKE echo chambers.
I thought the first amendment guaranteed not only religious toleration but also freedom of speech. Sounds like the OBama government only wants one of these to be respected.
Alex is a Moby for both sides.
I thought the first amendment guaranteed not only religious toleration but also freedom of speech. Sounds like the OBama government only wants one of these to be respected.
I promised to stop moby-ing last month. I've kept that promise.
Shut up Allie-nitwit.
Alex is trying to squelch my freedom of speech, he is embracing his fascist side now.
Inga, we can get you a security detail when you visit Althouse.
The problem is, Obama's got your back.
You might be sacrificed for the greater good, or out of simple ass-covering for his incompetence.
Inga shreiked...
BULLSHIT, Revenant, it is a conservative site, what alternate reality do you live in? What is the percentage of posts with liberal or even independent views as compared to conservative oriented posts? What is the percentage of liberal commenters to conservative?
Liberals have equal opportunity to post here. What you want is equal outcomes...equal numbers of liberal and conservative posters.
OWN him or reject him, some here on this blog have actually agreed with him.
but doesn't that make you an anti-semite for agreeing with cedarford? of course not! Allie wakes up in a new pond every day.
Many conservative commenters here, unlike me, LIKE echo chambers.
Yes, I like the bigger vaginas...
BULLSHIT, Revenant, it is a conservative site, what alternate reality do you live in?
If you're far enough to the left, anything looks conservative.
What is the percentage of posts with liberal or even independent views as compared to conservative oriented posts?
At the moment the President is left-wing, so her comments on him come from his right. When Bush was President, they came from his left. Do the math. :)
What is the percentage of liberal commenters to conservative?
Not relevant. Both left-wingers and right-wingers are welcome here, and both have been quoted favorably by our hostess.
most of my liberal friends think I'm nuts for coming here to comment
They're half right.
Revenant, you can fool yourself some of the time, but you can't fool yourself (or anyone else) all of the time.
Revenant, you can fool yourself some of the time, but you can't fool yourself (or anyone else) all of the time.
Inga, you can make a fool of yourself most of the time, but you don't fool me any of the time. :)
Seriously, though, if you don't like it here you can always leave. It isn't like you contribute anything. We already have a few resident national-socialist types like Cedarford ready to advocate for censorship and conscription; we don't need you. :)
Nice meltdown there Nath. Your response is far more insightful than I think you intended it to be.
Sounds like you got a lot of things bothering you, so I'll be kind and address 'em all...
never respond directly to the point
Two points of your post were 1) It is never right for the WhiteHouse to lie & 2) That the ObamaAdmin said definitely, absolutely, beyond a doubt the attacks were not premeditated.
I responded directly to both those points.
You also said that you'd like to hear if anyone can think of any other possibilities for why the ObamaAdmin may have lied in the situation, and so I did exactly that.
What other point(s) do you wish to hear my feedback about?
ask lots of hypothetical questions that are superficially similar to the topic at hand
A lot? I asked one hypothetical question, and it was directly related to the topic at hand.
Your post, however, listed several hypothetical situations for why the President might lie about this..and you asked for suggestions of what other reasons may be.
Words almost always have multiple meanings; parse them in the best possible light for Obama/Democrats, the worst possible light for GOP/Republicans
Where did I say anything bad about GOP/Republicans?!
Obviously you're just rantin' for the sake of rantin'.
never grant a single point; question every single thing a non-liberal says...if they answer one point effectively, don't acknowledge, but shift to the next question.
I didn't question everything you said and I didn't shift to "the next question" at all. Rather I simply thanked you for your response on one of the points, then rolled my eyes at your response to the other, and left it at that.
What exactly is this "next question" that you think I shifted to?
Question motivations of those who criticize Obama/Democrats
Not only did I not criticize your motivations, I didn't even criticize your criticism of Obama.
Always provide an innocuous possible explanation of Obama's intent. Repeat it as if it were an already proven fact
*sigh*
When you asked for other possibilities of why the White House might lie, you really should have made it clear that you only wanted explanations that make Obama look bad.
Never underestimate the power of ridiculing a typo (never acknowledge bad grammar/vocab/spelling on your own part)
This one make the least sense of all. I've looked up&down this thread several times, and truly don't have any idea at all why you'd accuse me of this.
Does anybody else have any idea what Nath is talking about, or is he just throwing crap for the sake of throwing crap?
Overall, the goal of the progressive/liberal Althouse Troll is to undermine key supports on any topic that might hurt Obama in the election
This is also outlandish, given the number of times I've clearly said I don't support Obama and have no intentions what-so-ever of voting for him.
Sorry 'bout the lil' tangent everyone...please carry on.
Chickelit, I don't EXPECT this blog to be anything OTHER than what it is, I like it just the way it is. I am merely stating it IS a conservative blog. Why do you IMMEDIATLY say I want it to be equally liberal as conservative? Are you a mind reader now?
Inga: It is interesting that you bring up left leaning or progressive blogs. I read them but the comment sections are simply drivel. If you can point me to one that has interesting banter and thoughtful posts on the topics at hand I would appreciate it.
I think you can very easily see that the opinions on this blog are very varied, much more so than those on the lefty sites I have read: where for the most part the comments are simply snark and clever one liners. Lefties do not much debate within their own ranks which is the reason you spend time here.
Most conservatives have at one point been liberals and thus are well aware of what the arguments for progressivism are and where their many holes lie. It is rare to see a liberal who was once a conservative: they exist, but are rare.
Revenant, you didn't hear what I said at least TWICE, I said I like it here, I have no intention of leaving, why should I? I think this blog needs It's few liberals, wouldn't it be boring without us? As I said, y'all like echo chambers, I guess, or at least you do Rev.
If this really ain't a conservative blog, then does that mean these advertisers are being lied to?
Inga: It is interesting that you bring up left leaning or progressive blogs. I read them but the comment sections are simply drivel. If you can point me to one that has interesting banter and thoughtful posts on the topics at hand I would appreciate it.
Exactly. The left-wing and right-wing blogs are usually kept ideologically pure through censorship and selective banning. Althouse doesn't do that; you can encounter people with a wide range of views here.
Michael, I really don't read liberal blogs, I like the challenge of THIS blog, even the occasional right wing extremist once in a while, spices things up.
Inga: A further point on this blog versus those I have read on the left. Here we find ex military, bankers, small business owners,lawyers, sales people, doctors, printing press operators, academics, pizza delivery men, retirees, a very diverse group of people involved in the real world. I would very much doubt you can find this "normal" a cohort anywhere on the internets.
If this really ain't a conservative blog, then does that mean these advertisers are being lied to?
So you're saying advertisers should never lie to their customers? :)
Again, sigh, Rev. Yes that is why I like it here, but all of that doesn't change the fact it's a conservative blog with a twist, that twist is what makes it fun.
Purple P; Who is doing the lying to them? What would you characterize as being conservative about this blog if you did not venture into the comments section? I often see liberal causes being advertised on conservative blogs (more political than this blot), what then does that mean? Who might be lying to whom there? You are aware that many ads are generated by the sites you might have been viewing prior to the site you are on at a particular moment?
I am merely stating it IS a conservative blog
Inga;
Our hostess has many POVs- some liberal; some conservative. Sometimes she seems to have a broken political compass that spins in circles.
The fact that she attracts primarily conservative and independent commenters is a testament to the fact that they are more tolerant and receptive to a variety of political viewpoints than leftists. It is to your credit, and other lefty commenters, that you come here. Most lefties could not take it.
True enough Michael, but it's still a conservative blog:)
JL, shhhh, I have my conservative side locked in the closet.
Again, sigh, Rev. Yes that is why I like it here, but all of that doesn't change the fact it's a conservative blog with a twist, that twist is what makes it fun.
Repeating the same silly remark doesn't make you sound any less silly. And the idea that a pro-choice Obama voter qualifies as a conservative is mighty silly indeed. :)
@PP,
Nice meltdown there Nath. Your response is far more insightful than I think you intended it to be.
Nice. Go ahead and try to spin someone revealing your playbook as a "meltdown".
Which, itself, is play #7b
(typo, should have changed that one to #8), cast aspersions.
Please note: the govt should not lie to the citizens.
The govt is the employee/servant.
Withholding certain information is different. There are competitive advantages with other nations to be considered, and not everyone needs to know everything on demand.
But that is different than lying.
And to be clear: "lying" is only "deliberate deception". That excludes most of what liberal progressives consider lying, i.e., truths that hurt the liberal-progressive cause. Nor does it include things that are thought to be true, but later turn out to be mistaken.
So, PP, since you have me down as saying that the govt should not lie to its citizens, even when unnamed "generals" want it to, you are going on record that the US govt should lie to citizens?
What frequency is okay?
On what topics?
For what purposes?
So you're saying advertisers should never lie to their customers?
Heh. I see what you did there...
Oh the fuckever Revenant, hey did those aliens ever land on your roof?
Could you translate that to English? I don't speak Cuntonese.
Oh what the fuckever Revenant, hey did those aliens ever land on your roof?
Nice Revenant. Kiss my liberal ass.
Nope...no need to go there at all if you beleive that "national security" isn't a reasonable excuse to for Uncle Sam to not tell the truth about something.
Yes, there is a need for you to go there.
Explain how deliberate lies about the Libya attack serve national security.
Put up or shut up...if you don't explain your position, that's tacit admission you are not here in good faith.
if you don't explain your position, that's tacit admission you are not here in good faith.
You need him to admit that? You must be new here.
Inga the Obama Whore:
Alex is trying to squelch my freedom of speech, he is embracing his fascist side now.
----lol. Two points on Inga:
1. She admits that Obama's attempts to squelch freedom of speech were fascist and wrong.
2. She is a hypocritical slut. She's all for squelching freedom of speech when her One True Hero, Mein Obama, is embarrassed by it, but hates wthe idea of any leftist drivel playing by the same rules. In other words, lefties don't have to play be the rules.
What a lying skank.
---Alex, most of my liberal friends think I'm nuts for coming here to comment. I don't want to say what they call this blog. I don't agree with them, I quite enjoy it. How many of you hang out at liberal sites? Very few I suspect.
Many conservative commenters here, unlike me, LIKE echo chambers---
Why do we need to hang out at liberal sites? All we have to do is turn on the TV or pick up/log on a newspaper.
We won't even be able to escape Obamacare in TV shows.
Who is doing the lying to them?
The people selling ad space.
What would you characterize as being conservative about this blog if you did not venture into the comments section?
Her postings regarding the protests/recall movements were heavily skewed right-wing. Her commants in response to Obama fundraising emails also seem to be against rather than for him.
I often see liberal causes being advertised on conservative blogs (more political than this blot), what then does that mean?
I guess that means they either wanted to advertise on conservative blogs or there was a mistake/lie involved with their ad placement.
What do you think it means?
You are aware that many ads are generated by the sites you might have been viewing prior to the site you are on at a particular moment?
Yup, tho I'm not sure what that has to do with an advertising service saying they sell ads on "over 120 top conservative blogs", and then mention Althouse as once of those national voices.
If Althouse ain't really a conservative blog, then should they be allowed to profit by claiming she is?
~~~
And the idea that a pro-choice Obama voter qualifies as a conservative is mighty silly indeed.
She may not be conservative, but her blog sure is.
NTTAWWT, of course...
PP is a conservative?
Seeing Red, you don't, I didn't say I expected you to. I do however think y'all should appreciate us liberals for coming here in the first place and then having the guts to stay at this conservative echo chamber.
It's we liberals that drown out that echo a wee bit.
@Inga the Obama Whore:
. I do however think y'all should appreciate us liberals for coming here in the first place and then having the guts to stay at this conservative echo chamber.It's we liberals that drown out that echo a wee bit.
---LMAO. So Inga the Obama Whore, an amazingly transparent hypocrite, who hates freedom of speech if it hurts the left, dictates to us all that we should BOW DOWN AND WORSHIP her fascism, as she is a LIGHT BRINGER to all us IDIOT NON-LEFTISTS who dare question the Affirmative Action President, black dysfunction, and Mein Obama's destroying of freedom of speech.
I hope your daughter is defending the next damn embassy that's stormed---and told by Mein Obama that defending herself/loading her gun is "racist" and "an attack on religion" and has to stand there, defenseless while the hordes that Mein Obama created attack her.
Whore, I predict you will die a horrible death one day and deservedly so.
First you say Garage deserves a sick child, now for the second time you have said you wish my military daughter to be murdered by Islamist terrorists. The first time you said it it was deleted by Althouse or Meade, let's see if it gets deleted a second time.
you are going on record that the US govt should lie to citizens?
Sometimes, yes.
What frequency is okay?
As little as possible.
On what topics?
National Security & military operations.
For what purposes?
Overall good, safety of military personal.
how deliberate lies about the Libya attack serve national security.
I never said that was the reason, rather I was responding to your request to hear if anyone can think of any possibilities for why the White House might have lied about this.
However, having served in two different branches of the military I can think of a couple reasons why we'd want our enemy to think their fake-out was still fooling us.
Again, I ain't saying that this is what happened, rather am just responding to your request for other possibilities for why the C-in-C might lie to the public.
if you don't explain your position, that's tacit admission you are not here in good faith
Is that why you're not explaining why you accused me of ridiculing others for typos? And why you're not clarifying what you meant when you say I put things in the worst possible light for GOP/Republicans?
*rolls eyes*
I do however think y'all should appreciate us liberals for coming here in the first place and then having the guts to stay at this conservative echo chamber.
Because it really takes guts to anonymously repeat conventional political views on the Internet. Why, you run the risk of being criticized by people you neither know nor care about!
Allie-Inga, I am sorry people say these things to you. I want you to know that not everyone supports them.
@Inga the Obama Whore:
First you say Garage deserves a sick child
---Garage is a lying jackbooted fascistic hypocritical liar.
now for the second time you have said you wish my military daughter to be murdered by Islamist terrorists.
---Created, emboldened, and protected by your president, bitch.
The first time you said it it was deleted by Althouse or Meade, let's see if it gets deleted a second time.
---lol, typical woman response. All claims of feminism go out the window when your ass starts getting kicked: "Waa! Help me! Get rid of the mean man, he's winning!"
You're such apathetic wussy lying hypocritical liberal cunt. Get some balls, whore; stop hiding behind moderators to protect your lies and sickness from being dealt with as harshly as they deserve.
Inga, I like that name. I've been lurking for years, this blog has become right leaning, especially since the left's failure in the Wisconsin recall. I believe all the lefties are in counselling and not available to post. I've always found this blog slightly left of center over the years, but I think Barry's "chickens have come home to roost" and has finally pissed off even the moderates.
Well Revenant you do it, wash, rinse, repeat and not on a liberal blog, this conservative one.
Well thanks McTriumph.
I won't comment on your other sentences, because you gave me such a nice compliment;)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा