Send to Kindle
1 Like
For those of you who the hurricane didn't effect to badly, enjoy Zomney For President:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6TiXUF9xbTo
The press would have been foaming at the mouth if this was Bush. But, Barry gets another free pass in life.
Now ask yourself this: If George W. Bush were president, and the press didn't know what he did on the evening ofthe Benghazi attack, do you think there would be the same focus in the media? I think we know the answer.
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Is-there-a-Benghazi-media-coverup-3991624.php
1 Like
@ahandout You mean like the press was foaming at the mouth about Bush ignoring the 9/11 warnings or his WMDs lie that got us into Iraq? Seriously what planet do you Right Wingers live on?
Was Obama walking guns through Benghazi into Syria?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/22/the-real-reason-behind-benghazigate/
@ahandout No idiot he wasn't. If he wanted to move guns into Syria, Israel shares a border with Syria and has plenty of weapons to spare.
@mantisdragon91 @ahandout LOL. Sure Israel is going to run guns to Al-Qaeda in Syria. You are a true dufus.
@ahandout @mantisdragon91 And neither are we. Step away from the conspiracy sites and think for yourself for a change. Why would we provide guns to the people we are killing on an almost daily basis?
A year-long investigation by the Investigative Project on Terrorism(IPT) has found that scores of known radical Islamists made hundreds ofvisits to the Obama White House, meeting with top administrationofficials.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3777/a-red-carpet-for-radicals-at-the-white-house
1 Like
@ahandout Ah yes back to the hidden Muslim terrorist agent lie. And yet the only one who has aided and abetted Muslim terrorists has been Darrell Issa.
Hillary and Obama say that they denounce a film that had nothing to do with Benghazi, or Cairo. Never waste a "crisis."
1 Like
Except for the CIA report that indicates that the video was behind some of the attackers motivation. Anyways. Lets take the Army of rightwing pundits over our intelligence apparatus.
@ahandout @mantisdragon91 You idiot as late as the 26th the CIA considered it a spontaneous attack. Here is just one of may sources.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html
1 Like
The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.
“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
1 Like
Read the report that issa dropped - thanks him for outing civilian Libyan friendlies
3 Like
@ahandout Yes those dumb politicians trying to build goodwill for the US in countries that we would like to have as allies. Could you really be as dumb as you appear?
Who blamed the Video? Obama, Hillary and the UN Ambassador. What a co-incidence.
The “Istanbul Declaration” alerts the world about “implications(consequences) The dangerous rise of Islamophobia on peace and security.We emphasize the need to develop the UN, including the Council of HumanRights, a legally binding institutional instrument to promote respectfor all religions and cultural values and prevent intolerance,discrimination and incitement to hatred against any group or followersof a religion”. After the first meeting in Istanbul on 12 to 14December 2011, the OIC met the Obama administration in Washington topersuade the U.S. President to join the “Istanbul Process” and toimplement Resolution 16/18 of 2011.With the official approval of Hillary Clinton, the OIC marked a majordiplomatic coup. Now it is the European Union plans to host the nextmeeting of the “Istanbul Process”.
@ahandout @MrObvious You Right Wingers keep screaming that the Government is coming to take away your rights and yet can't provide even one example. Typical.
@MrObvious @ahandout No Mr 0. It will be done through our court system, with lawsuits and liberal court rulings. You know, just like how liberals do it now.
It is not yet clear how persuasive foreign law is considered to be
Anyway - feel free to panic when congress passes a legislation that any president signs into law. That matters.
@La_Randy @ahandout @MrObvious Read the last two paragrraphs:
went on to imply in dicta that trends in other countries’ understandings of “humanfreedom” can inform our own, though the anti-sodomy statute was struck down onseparate grounds.64
It is not yet clear how persuasive foreign law is considered to be, or whether theCourt’s decision in Lawrence and other recent cases evidences a growing practice oflooking to foreign jurisprudence to inform domestic decisions.65 Thus far, it does notappear that an American court has based its holding on a question of statutory orConstitutional interpretation solely on foreign law. Although foreign law and practicehave historically had a role in American jurisprudence and courts will likely continueto refer to it, where, when, and how significantly they will rely upon it is difficult topredict.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/2174.pdf
Like in Iran yes, but we're talking about sanctions. Are you implying that our sanctions against Iran is the same as legislation clamping down on your free speech rights?
How about you list any passed legislation signed into law by Obama. Any specific cases?
1 Like
@ahandout @MrObvious International law? When did it make a difference in the USA?
The International law regarding torture comes to mind. Who disregarded that?
1 Like
Again where is the LAW that you and I have to follow?
Come on, stop pretending that you don't get what I'm saying.
4 Like
Again - where is the AMERICAN CONGRESS legislation signed into law by Obama? You know - the only thing that counts in AMERICA.
Like say there's this law - local, state, federal that you and I have to follow. Not some shit in pants ass hair on fire apocalyptic hysteria that you trot out. But something you and I have to worry about.
This from 2009.
Just Say No To Blasphemy: U.S. Supports Egypt in Limiting Anti-Religious Speech
@MrObvious @ahandoutAs we all know liberals don't need LEGISLATION. They do and end aroundby getting a liberal judge or court to make law. It's been done manytimes.
Judge orders use of Islamic law in Tampa lawsuit over mosque leadership
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/article1158818.ece
@MrObvious @ahandoutAs we all know liberals don't need LEGISLATION. They do and end aroundby getting a liberal judge or court to make law. It's been done manytimes.
Pathetic - argue with facts instead of idiotic assumptions. Put up or shut up.
In an appeal of the judge's decision, Thanasides wrote, "The First Amendment restricts courts' authority to review, interpret and apply religious law because these actions interfere with a party's right to choose, free from state involvement, the religious dogma it will follow."
From your link; both parties decided to arbitrate using their own law. It has nothing to do with our laws nor effect one single American outside their religion.
My guess is that you now want our legal system to decide how a religion runs its affairs? My feeling is that you're going to use the straw man of the federal gov saying that Church run commons hospital covering the pill as some kind of false equivalence.
1 Like
Not that all righties 'fresh ideas' are reheated BS like tax cuts, more guns, less rights for ordinary folks and more rights to corporations and rich. It's like a fresh take on GOPs 1850.
2 Like
@ahandout Not a single link to provide evidence. Who would have guessed, an opinion piece with no proof.
1 Like
Uh oh!
This year’s text was a departure, in that it dropped the “defamation” language and included a paragraph that reaffirms “the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance.”The nod to freedom of expression won the resolution the support of the U.S. and other democracies, with the Obama administration and others hailing it as a breakthrough after years of acrimonious debate.
From handout's link. Heh!
You missed the rest there La La:
Nonetheless, the resolution adopted in New York on Monday doescontain elements that concern some free speech and religious freedomadvocates.It calls on states “to take effective measures to ensure that publicfunctionaries in the conduct of their public duties do not discriminateagainst an individual on the basis of religion or belief.”Governments also are expected to make “a strong effort to counterreligious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use ofreligion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and otherlaw enforcement investigative procedures.”“Effective measures” to counter cases of religious stereotyping andstigmatization include education, interfaith dialogue and “training ofgovernment officials.”And in the worst cases, those of “incitement to imminent violence”based on religion, the resolution calls on countries to implement“measures to criminalize” such behavior.
2 Like
> And in the worst cases, those of “incitement to imminent violence”based on religion, the resolution calls on countries to implement“measures to criminalize” such behavior.
We've had laws against inciting riot for some time, handy. Other countries, not so much.
1 Like
@ahandout @grape_crush Nothing in your link refers to laws that restrict freedom of religion. If it does point it out.
1 Like
Thanks for the shit in pants scare word like Sharia law, but where is the legislation? Put up or shut up.
@grape_crush We never had laws against insulting a religion because it "hurts the religious feelings" of others, and they might riot. Why would you support Sharia?
1 Like
Sanctions against say Iran has to do with us internationally together with our allies against someone.
laws here has to do with you and me. Tell me this is not lost on you?
Since you're yammering on about free speech laws and blasphemy stuff, where is the law, passed by our congress and signed into law by Obama that governs our free speech rights to be blasphemous or not?
@MrObvious @La_Randy So, UN resolutions, such as sanctions against Iran, don't mean anything. Is that your position, MR. O?
1 Like
That's why I keep asking him about actual American legislation but he seems very confused about what really counts as suppose to what doesn't.
